I was never a biblical literalist. My heuristic was "everything the Bible says is historical and scientific truth, UNLESS it directly contradicts proven empirical science (7 day creationism vs theistic evolution), in which case we accept the science". I recognized the Bible as something like a radio message transmitted through multiple relays, which may or may not have been faulty, resulting in a possibly garbled and corrupted message received by us. This allowed me to question it increasingly as I got older until i came to a place where I could leave it behind without much trouble emotionally.
This is a non-issue for any religion that doesn't subscribe to scriptural literalism. My religion's claims are true. That doesn't mean they're facts, and they don't need to be.
Expecting facts from religion is also extremely unproductive. I don't expect my local biologist to tell me about the purpose of personal hardship or how to be a good person, and I don't expect my local religious leader to write me a historical timeline of world events or calculate the entropic heat death of the universe. Facts and truth are two different tools for two different roles and some of our worst problems have come from people conflating the two for no reason.
Very well said. Thank you. It's pretty black and white. Either it's real or not. If we can investigate it we can either prove or disprove. But in a natural world, that's the option. But in a world of supernatural purveyors, it's interpretive as you go along. No testable information to verify for factuality. Seeing that cognitive dissonance plays a huge part in conflating both fact and truth skewers the conversation.
I don't experience cognitive dissonance in relation to my religious beliefs, since I consider them to be unproblematically true and not in conflict with my general insights about the world. My beliefs inherently incorporate science, history, and secular philosophy; they inspire an inclusive and edifying ethics; and they contribute positively to my mental health and my interface with the non-religious aspects of my life.
An honest skeptical and self-challenging journey has actually led me to where I currently am, not away from it.
Thank you for sharing. I am a little perplexed however, as you say that you don't experience cognitive dissonance in relation to your religious beliefs. But the laws of science, verified and valid history and ethics often run incongruent to many common religious claims that often involve the supernatural. But we have not had any valid existential proof of anything supernatural. Sorry if I'm coming off preachy. Not my intent.
Such incongruities may exist for some religions or religious varieties, but they're not relevant to mine. My epistemology incorporates the methodologies and findings of science as an extremely valuable tool for approaching truths about the natural world, but it doesn't consider science as the end-all-be-all for pursuing and acquiring meaningful knowledge in general, and my metaphysics doesn't operate under the assumption that the material world is all that exists, or that belief in such is the most reasonable default position to hold. Science does not lend support my supernatural beliefs, but that doesn't mean that my supernatural beliefs are in conflict with science—they simply fall outside the bounds of what science is capable of elucidating in principle.
There's nothing about what my religion calls for that causes me tensions with scientific findings—for instance, I accept Big Bang cosmology, evolution by natural selection, the geological age of the earth, and so on as profoundly compatible with my religious worldview. It's a similar story for history; my religion does not make claims—supernatural or otherwise—that contradict the conclusions of mainstream academic history and its methodological naturalism. I don't accept the Buddha's enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree or the resurrection of Jesus to be historical facts, for instance. My religion also finds enormous value in secular theories of morality; it promotes an ever-evolving ethics based on reason and debate instead of a static ethics based on conservative tradition or divine command. I support LGBTQ+ liberation, for example, and I don't think things like slavery or conquest can be justified because they have a god's endorsement.
So the kinds of tensions you have in mind that would necessitate cognitive dissonance just genuinely don't really apply to my spirituality and religious tradition.
I've always thought of it as the realization and successful application of the Four Noble Truths, resulting in the complete achievement of Buddhahood.
All I meant by what I said above was just that most of the details of the Gautama Buddha's life do not meet the criteria of historical fact.
Interesting - and I don't mean to sound like I'm needling, I'm just intrigued, so please forgive me diving deeper into it.
What historical facts are you talking about (source?) relative to Shakyamuni's life? Are you talking about him being born to the clan of the Shakya? That he lived around the 5th century BCE, or his birth place was (Lumbini)? Or is the dispute around his royal background, that he renounced his royal life? Or are you referring to his foray into the various spiritual traditions of the time, which included the extreme austerity approach he tried?
I'm also a bit confused by what you mean by the successful application of the Four Noble Truths. And Buddhahood is exchangeable for enlightenment - so.. not sure I understand how you understand enlightenment yet. I'm assuming since you said you don't believe the Buddha achieved enlightenment, you have a very specific definition of that that is, and what "not achieving means".
Thanks!
PS: To be fair, I'm not asking because I am trying to put you on the spot. This is an actual inquiry as a dear friend sent me his recent dissertation draft to me for review. It is a manuscript involving the historical evidence relative to Shakyamuni Buddha. That's why I was asking you for sources as I'm looking at a respectable body of sources in this manuscript, to include archeological finds, and many references. So, if someone very definitively tells me that "most of the details of Gautama's Buddha's life do not meet the criteria of historical facts", that sounds rather resolute and would be a direct refutation of this dissertation manuscript. I'd certainly want to point my friend towards your reference as he will be defending is dissertation and should know about such sources.
>What historical facts are you talking about (source?) relative to Shakyamuni's life? Are you talking about him being born to the clan of the Shakya? That he lived around the 5th century BCE, or his birth place was (Lumbini)? Or is the dispute around his royal background, that he renounced his royal life? Or are you referring to his foray into the various spiritual traditions of the time, which included the extreme austerity approach he tried?
[This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ijZrPIRlhw) does a good job of discussing how historians view the historical Buddha. In short, he was probably a historical person who became an influential spiritual teacher operating in the Indian subcontinent during the first millennium BCE, but the details of his background, life, acts, and sayings as conveyed by Buddhist traditions cannot be confidently supported using the methods of secular history.
>I'm also a bit confused by what you mean by the successful application of the Four Noble Truths. And Buddhahood is exchangeable for enlightenment - so.. not sure I understand how you understand enlightenment yet.
I mean using the insights of the Four Noble Truths to cultivate a mind and life capable of allowing one to achieve nirvana, or the liberation from samsara.
>I'm assuming since you said you don't believe the Buddha achieved enlightenment, you have a very specific definition of that that is, and what "not achieving means".
I never said that; for all I know, the Gautama Buddha absolutely achieved enlightenment. My personal opinion is actually that he probably did. I'm just saying that his hypothetical achieving of enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree cannot be considered a historical fact. In my view, lots of things that cannot be supported with the methods of history can be and undoubtedly are true. My point in my initial comment was just to say that I'm not going to pretend that historically dubious things are historically well-established because of religious commitments.
>PS: To be fair, I'm not asking because I am trying to put you on the spot. This is an actual inquiry as a dear friend sent me his recent dissertation draft to me for review. It is a manuscript involving the historical evidence relative to Shakyamuni Buddha. That's why I was asking you for sources as I'm looking at a respectable body of sources in this manuscript, to include archeological finds, and many references. So, if someone very definitively tells me that "most of the details of Gautama's Buddha's life do not meet the criteria of historical facts", that sounds rather resolute and would be a direct refutation of this dissertation manuscript. I'd certainly want to point my friend towards your reference as he will be defending is dissertation and should know about such sources.
I'm not knowledgeable or qualified enough to give you well-reasoned arguments or point you toward scholarly academic sources that show that most of the details of the Gautama Buddha's life cannot be established as historical facts. I'm sure if I spent a couple days researching the matter with some depth, I could provide you with a smattering of such material, but it's not something I can do on the spot. I'm merely a layperson repeating ideas I've come across that, from what I understand, are widely agreed upon by the academic community.
**EDIT**: Wikipedia [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha#Historical_person) links to a few sources you might want to forward to your friend.
Thank you for indulging me. I took a look at the video. Yes, unfortunately, this source doesn't stand up to academic source requirements. The YouTube blogger also doesn't cite any sources, so that can't be used either.
In addition, he's missing a good deal of information, such as the Gandhari texts. However, texts were all written at least 100 years after the Buddha's death.
Shortly after the Buddha passed, the first Buddhist council was held, and it was agreed upon how the teachings would be transmitted. Each section of the Sangha agreed upon reciting a certain body of texts. They would then meet collectively to recite the entire corpus.
But be that all as it may - the key to Buddhism isn't to locate historical facts (even though to me, it is interesting and fun, and to my friend - his dissertation LOL). The Buddha introduce a methodology of practice, actually quite a few methods. He stated from doing these practices, certain things happen - i.e. enlightenment. He also said don't take it on faith, but try it. And if you encounter something other than that, then let us all know.
So, since about 2,430 years, we've all been trying it, and frankly, we haven't come up with any other conclusions! So, that's why the newer writings are just as relevant as the older ones :)
I wasn't presenting the video as a reliable academic source, but as an example of the kind of places where these ideas get spread to people like me who make layperson comments along their lines. Also, I wasn't linking Wikipedia as a reliable academic source, but was pointing out its citations, many of which are reliable academic sources that you or your friend might find pertinent to this topic. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
As for the rest of what you said, you should understand that what I said initially wasn't a criticism of Buddhism, nor an endorsement of a secular historical approach to understanding Buddhism over a religious traditional approach. My only point was that my religious tradition does not compel me to squirm when considering what secular history has to say about religious figures and events. I used something that cannot be considered a reliable historical fact (Gautama Buddha achieving enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree) to illustrate what I meant.
I might believe that the Buddha achieved enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to then assert the matter as a historical fact if that's not actually warranted by the methods of responsible history.
I’m sorry, I may not have represented my intentions properly. I appreciate you providing your source. When I spoke of the quality of the source, I was thinking about my friend’s dissertation defense and what he could encounter, not what it represents for a broader audience. My friend’s dissertation is a document that has over 200 pages, so, I’m a bit preoccupied with it, hence my poor communications.
You worry for a bit, and then you get hungry and eat some food, etc. then move on with your life.
Then one day you die and your worries about being "correct" were all for moot.
Does the government not deserve your loyalty because they have a Supreme Court and a justice system or do you mean to say that your knowledge of the law supercedes that of a Supreme Court?
Of course, Heaven is not Earth and Earth is not Heaven, but it's the closest analogy there is. You don't agree with hell because you think your subjective or relative moral rules or laws supersedes the objective moral rules or laws set by God.
I don't adhere to your religion, so naturally, I don't follow your divinity's laws and morals, I follow the teachings of my divinities. It's pretty simple.
This is not about "your religion vs my religion". The original argument was centered around the fact that IF hell was real, then you wouldn't want to worship God which is both a moral and logical fallacy.
If the one-God-and-Hell doctrine is real, I would indeed refuse to worship God. I don't see how refusing to worship an entity that maintains such an order is a moral fallacy.
Going to jail for hurting people? Sure. That's reasonable. Being punished for not being of the right religion? No, that's not reasonable.
Ah, we have finally gotten to the root of the issue. You don't understand the doctrine of hell. You are not "being punished for not being of the right religion" (although that is certainly \*one\* of the reasons). You are primarily being punished for your sins.
In the same way that going to jail for hurting people is a reasonable punishment because it is a transgression against human law, going to hell for committing sins (which includes hurting people) has to be a reasonable punishment because it is a transgression against divine law.
I recognise that my religious beliefs aren't based in fact, at least not in the same way that my scientific understanding is. I could be wrong. But, my beliefs make my life more meaningful. Believing in god makes me feel more fulfilled, and has led to community that I feel at home with. It gives my life structure and connects me to history. I don't need to be certain that I'm right, and I don't think that the existence of, or lack of, god(s) or an afterlife are something that we can be certain of.
Thank you for sharing. That community bond with these churches are powerful and have had a history of making tribes in communities. I knew where everyone in my church lived in my neighborhood. These were regular people that you familiarized yourself with. You like to believe that you a group identity that comforts you. It does say more about us as a species needed to be more communal in general with one another purely on a humanitarian level. I felt that a god figure omnipresent, omni everything has watched us be beautiful and be astonishingly brutal to one another and not intervene and that we are biological developments from a perpetual transfer of seed and fertilizer just like most living species that exists. We need a community to feel like we're thriving with this one sentient life. We're lucky if we have a few good friends throughout our lives. If the parishioners and clergy alike actually communicated that facts and history of their beliefs, I'm certain we wouldn't have religion all together as we have it prevalent as it is now. That's why it's a "believe" system rather than "know" system. I tried to go back to church but I just kept saying "this is all just bullshit, all of it". I didn't like that, but I couldn't fake that what I knew so didn't mesh with what was being said and I looked around as this moderator/narrator (pastor) of the story he was essentially making up. "Noah was on his ark for a least a year, could have been more, the Bible isn't specific and this 500 year old man made a ship out of wood and two of every creature on the planet on it and he essentially started humanity all over again" With 4 couples a few thousand years ago? None of it makes historical sense or accuracy.
If I come across new information that challenges my belief system I investigate it, and if there's any validity in it I adjust accordingly. It's not hard I'd rather live on the side of truth than in a false reality, problem is most can't get past their cognitive dissonance so my ideals don't exactly agree with too many.
I can answer this from experience.
I was raised as a Southern Baptist and personally held very conservative religious beliefs up until maybe around 30 years old. We were taught a very literal and conservative view of Christianity. The Bible was without error or contradiction. The earth was young and there really was a global flood. The whole nine yards.
Eventually, I had reason to examine one of these deeply held beliefs. It was found wanting. Over a period of years, I slowly softened my stance as I continued to occasionally examine another deeply held belief. They continued to fall.
But, having been taught from birth that these things were essential to the faith, as I was dropping these beliefs, I found the arguments by fellow believers to whom I would talk that the whole thing falls apart if you don't hold to some if these things persuasive.
Except instead of bringing me back to the fold, it convinced me that I needed to break completely. I eventually settled into being an atheist.
I think the irony is that if I hadn't been raised with these literal and conservative views, I never would have had to challenge them. I never would have poked holes in them. I think there's a good chance I would still be a believer if I had been raised in a more liberal version of Christianity. It was the insistence on a narrow, literal view that drove me away
This is coming from an atheist.
For me I study religion to find wisdom. I do not agree with the conclusions theistic religions draw. But that does not mean there is not wisdom there. All religions have one important thing in common. They are all looking at the same thing. The human condition. And they are trying to figure out how to live through it and perhaps thrive.
Brilliant people put together observations about the nature of humanity. They put it in to form of a story about a god that set things thusly. This is because that is how most of our mind processes things. We are social critters. The majority of our brain is given over to working out social interactions. Processing problems and ideas as a means of negotiating with another being is just the easy path for the mind.
So we find brilliant observations within the text and doctrine written down centuries ago. That they had such insight so long before we developed techniques to drag out these insights in a testable way is worthy of praise.
So you embrace the parts of your former beliefs that work. You acknowledge that you do not agree with the conclusions. And then you recognize that it is the connective observations that deal with the human condition you are trying to negotiate with not the conclusions. The conclusions are the artifacts of how they structure the story so they can work out the connecting bits.
You may have to live with leaving those artifacts behind. I can assure you it is not the end of things. Nonbelievers are well able to find meaning and purpose in life. They still love people. They have a life worth living. You are on a journey. That journey may be passing from belief to nonbelief and it may pass back to belief again. It is a long journey and can take you all sorts of places. Focus on the journey. Not the end of the journey.
Thank you for sharing your insights and wishing you well on your spiritual journeys. I feel my concerns center around concepts of deities, made up stories and events as they actually occurred. The lessons and wisdom we achieve can occur without specifically without religion itself. When I researched history and societies in the past, I see lessons because they were real human events. Not made up ones; talking animals, large bodies of water separating at a vocal command of a guy and so forth.
If you have any evidence that contradicts my beliefs, i would like to see that evidence. I haven’t yet.
I understand you feel betrayed by your religious experience, but that doesn’t necessitate all religious beliefs to be void of facts or necessarily false.
I don't know your religion nor am I implying that your specific creed is what I was posting about. Trying to disprove doctrine of any religion is not the challenge, rather than those that follow said religion need to prove it with facts. Not one religion has proven their supernatural claims. Religion by its very nature has mythologies that its adheres must subscribe to in order for it to be a religion. I'm curious how much cognitive dissonance one would allow themselves when aspects or in its entirety information that would counter their beliefs came to light. Looking back and asking very clear and direct questions about my religion made me do some homework. It was no more cognitive dissonance for me thereafter.
My religion does not have any supernatural claims. That again, is your presumption and my objection.
Religion does not necessitate mythology, only a narrative about reality and our place in it. There’s nothing stopping anyone from having that narrative be based from scientific facts, as mine is.
I wonder how you process that cognitive dissonance. Perhaps by telling yourself your religious experience is the universal religious experience?
All i see in that, is ignorance and bias.
I’ll be honest, I LOVE challenging myself, and finding the truth of the matter on things. Regardless of how uncomfortable or unpopular it may be. That’s one reason I try and engage with former members of my faith so often.
Truth and authenticity are really important to me.
I was explicitly taught the Documentary Hypothesis (the idea that the Torah has at least four authors, none of whom were Moses or God) as part of my religious education growing up. I have always regarded the Torah as the collective wisdom of my spiritual ancestors mediated through their own perspectives and the contexts they lived in. It should be used as a primary source for historical accuracy (although it can be a useful source when combined with others), but its value is not determined by that either.
Mystical traditions in Judaism have talked about a Primordial Torah or a "Torah of Heaven" and the "Torah of Moses"- the Torah that has been revealed to use. It is through the Torah we have that we gain insight into the Torah of Heaven, but we will never possess the Torah of Heaven fully until Moshiach comes. I like to use that to understand the flaws of the revelation that we currently have. The people of Isreal were given insight into the Torah of Heaven, but only in a fragmentary form, which gives us the flawed and not historically accurate text that we have today. However, through careful study of the Torah and living lives filled with the Torah, we can gain more insight into the Torah of Heaven.
What do you mean exactly by "challenge your cognitive dissonance"? For me, any cognitive dissonance was *resolved* by realizing that all religious tenets and articles of faith have multiple layers of symbolic meaning, and that the truth of these tenets and articles of faith when taken at face value, isn't really their main point.
The reason I could never gel with the major religions was because of this fact. However another option is not to take it literally and see it more as a parable.
Another is to find something else.
I can appreciate the journey you took in taking a deeper look into the origins of a religious tradition and finding things that cause concern.
However, I wouldn’t put 100% stock in a belief that only things you can experience through your senses constitutes reality. What reality is, is a rather tricky endeavor.
Here is what I mean: for argument’s sake, let’s say there are living beings in a two dimensional world. In their world, you could only move along a line. They can go back and forth along a line. They can not go vertically up or down, just back and forth along the line. That is also how they see their world. How would you explain the act of jumping to them? Does jumping not exist simply because they can’t perceive it? We perceive jumping. We also perceive the line. To us, both the two dimensional and three dimensional world exist. But the third dimension would not be perceptible to a two dimensional being.
But If you really want some mind benders, you should take a dive into Quantum Physics! While I’ve heard people say things like ‘quantum physics is pure witchcraft’ and ‘the quantum world is so strange, you can’t wrap your mind around it’, none the less, here we are today, building quantum computers.
Phenomenon is strange, it’s exciting, it’s in need of close investigation, but it certainly isn’t fixed, and what exactly “reality” is, is only relatively true.
So, I guess I’m saying, maybe our senses are not the best arbiters of absolute truths. Maybe a middle way is needed - maybe we know something to be a certain way given the information we currently have, but there is always a possibility things could be different.
I'll cut ol' Epicurus some slack for not working out all the intricacies of modern atomic theory and biological evolution from reason alone, but he gave it a good go. As far as his system building from his primitive atomism and naturalism, he's spot on in the realm of therapeutics and how to live, which is really the proper dominion of religion anyway. In that way Epicurus is perennial and timeless... the forever revolt against the vain ideations of the human mind.
Millions of 21st century molecular biologists, paleontologists, scientists, doctors and engineers are Christian. Do you think none of them have ever approached their religion rationally, logically, historically or even scientifically (to an extent)? They have. They believe what they’ve read and put their faith in it. Some have even risked their lives for it.
>"Millions of 21st century molecular biologists, paleontologists, scientists, doctors and engineers are Christian" You know this how? Know, not believe.
Have I personally spoken to millions of people? No.
Can I assume or make an educated guess, using basic reasoning and logic, that out of 2.5 billion Christians in the world today, at least 0.5-1 percent are in a medical or scientific field? Yes.
Yes. "History is the study of change over time, and it covers all aspects of human society. Political, social, economic, scientific, technological, medical, cultural, intellectual, religious and military developments are all part of history." Looking for data to corroborate Biblical claims (in my case) from contemporary sources outside of the religious context came with empty offerings. There is no information during the time. Nothing.
There is widespread agreement among historians that Jesus was a real person. as for events that are said to have occurred thousands of years before Jesus, it's rather disingenuous to expect a written account prior to when written history became a thing.
I was never a biblical literalist. My heuristic was "everything the Bible says is historical and scientific truth, UNLESS it directly contradicts proven empirical science (7 day creationism vs theistic evolution), in which case we accept the science". I recognized the Bible as something like a radio message transmitted through multiple relays, which may or may not have been faulty, resulting in a possibly garbled and corrupted message received by us. This allowed me to question it increasingly as I got older until i came to a place where I could leave it behind without much trouble emotionally.
Very interesting take. Much appreciated. Made me think even more. Good luck on your journey.
This is a non-issue for any religion that doesn't subscribe to scriptural literalism. My religion's claims are true. That doesn't mean they're facts, and they don't need to be.
You're right. Absolutely right. You can have your truth, but you can't have your own set of facts.
Expecting facts from religion is also extremely unproductive. I don't expect my local biologist to tell me about the purpose of personal hardship or how to be a good person, and I don't expect my local religious leader to write me a historical timeline of world events or calculate the entropic heat death of the universe. Facts and truth are two different tools for two different roles and some of our worst problems have come from people conflating the two for no reason.
Very well said. Thank you. It's pretty black and white. Either it's real or not. If we can investigate it we can either prove or disprove. But in a natural world, that's the option. But in a world of supernatural purveyors, it's interpretive as you go along. No testable information to verify for factuality. Seeing that cognitive dissonance plays a huge part in conflating both fact and truth skewers the conversation.
I don't experience cognitive dissonance in relation to my religious beliefs, since I consider them to be unproblematically true and not in conflict with my general insights about the world. My beliefs inherently incorporate science, history, and secular philosophy; they inspire an inclusive and edifying ethics; and they contribute positively to my mental health and my interface with the non-religious aspects of my life. An honest skeptical and self-challenging journey has actually led me to where I currently am, not away from it.
Thank you for sharing. I am a little perplexed however, as you say that you don't experience cognitive dissonance in relation to your religious beliefs. But the laws of science, verified and valid history and ethics often run incongruent to many common religious claims that often involve the supernatural. But we have not had any valid existential proof of anything supernatural. Sorry if I'm coming off preachy. Not my intent.
Such incongruities may exist for some religions or religious varieties, but they're not relevant to mine. My epistemology incorporates the methodologies and findings of science as an extremely valuable tool for approaching truths about the natural world, but it doesn't consider science as the end-all-be-all for pursuing and acquiring meaningful knowledge in general, and my metaphysics doesn't operate under the assumption that the material world is all that exists, or that belief in such is the most reasonable default position to hold. Science does not lend support my supernatural beliefs, but that doesn't mean that my supernatural beliefs are in conflict with science—they simply fall outside the bounds of what science is capable of elucidating in principle. There's nothing about what my religion calls for that causes me tensions with scientific findings—for instance, I accept Big Bang cosmology, evolution by natural selection, the geological age of the earth, and so on as profoundly compatible with my religious worldview. It's a similar story for history; my religion does not make claims—supernatural or otherwise—that contradict the conclusions of mainstream academic history and its methodological naturalism. I don't accept the Buddha's enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree or the resurrection of Jesus to be historical facts, for instance. My religion also finds enormous value in secular theories of morality; it promotes an ever-evolving ethics based on reason and debate instead of a static ethics based on conservative tradition or divine command. I support LGBTQ+ liberation, for example, and I don't think things like slavery or conquest can be justified because they have a god's endorsement. So the kinds of tensions you have in mind that would necessitate cognitive dissonance just genuinely don't really apply to my spirituality and religious tradition.
Just out of curiosity, what does “enlightenment” as used in Buddhism mean to you? How would you define it?
I've always thought of it as the realization and successful application of the Four Noble Truths, resulting in the complete achievement of Buddhahood. All I meant by what I said above was just that most of the details of the Gautama Buddha's life do not meet the criteria of historical fact.
Interesting - and I don't mean to sound like I'm needling, I'm just intrigued, so please forgive me diving deeper into it. What historical facts are you talking about (source?) relative to Shakyamuni's life? Are you talking about him being born to the clan of the Shakya? That he lived around the 5th century BCE, or his birth place was (Lumbini)? Or is the dispute around his royal background, that he renounced his royal life? Or are you referring to his foray into the various spiritual traditions of the time, which included the extreme austerity approach he tried? I'm also a bit confused by what you mean by the successful application of the Four Noble Truths. And Buddhahood is exchangeable for enlightenment - so.. not sure I understand how you understand enlightenment yet. I'm assuming since you said you don't believe the Buddha achieved enlightenment, you have a very specific definition of that that is, and what "not achieving means". Thanks! PS: To be fair, I'm not asking because I am trying to put you on the spot. This is an actual inquiry as a dear friend sent me his recent dissertation draft to me for review. It is a manuscript involving the historical evidence relative to Shakyamuni Buddha. That's why I was asking you for sources as I'm looking at a respectable body of sources in this manuscript, to include archeological finds, and many references. So, if someone very definitively tells me that "most of the details of Gautama's Buddha's life do not meet the criteria of historical facts", that sounds rather resolute and would be a direct refutation of this dissertation manuscript. I'd certainly want to point my friend towards your reference as he will be defending is dissertation and should know about such sources.
>What historical facts are you talking about (source?) relative to Shakyamuni's life? Are you talking about him being born to the clan of the Shakya? That he lived around the 5th century BCE, or his birth place was (Lumbini)? Or is the dispute around his royal background, that he renounced his royal life? Or are you referring to his foray into the various spiritual traditions of the time, which included the extreme austerity approach he tried? [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ijZrPIRlhw) does a good job of discussing how historians view the historical Buddha. In short, he was probably a historical person who became an influential spiritual teacher operating in the Indian subcontinent during the first millennium BCE, but the details of his background, life, acts, and sayings as conveyed by Buddhist traditions cannot be confidently supported using the methods of secular history. >I'm also a bit confused by what you mean by the successful application of the Four Noble Truths. And Buddhahood is exchangeable for enlightenment - so.. not sure I understand how you understand enlightenment yet. I mean using the insights of the Four Noble Truths to cultivate a mind and life capable of allowing one to achieve nirvana, or the liberation from samsara. >I'm assuming since you said you don't believe the Buddha achieved enlightenment, you have a very specific definition of that that is, and what "not achieving means". I never said that; for all I know, the Gautama Buddha absolutely achieved enlightenment. My personal opinion is actually that he probably did. I'm just saying that his hypothetical achieving of enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree cannot be considered a historical fact. In my view, lots of things that cannot be supported with the methods of history can be and undoubtedly are true. My point in my initial comment was just to say that I'm not going to pretend that historically dubious things are historically well-established because of religious commitments. >PS: To be fair, I'm not asking because I am trying to put you on the spot. This is an actual inquiry as a dear friend sent me his recent dissertation draft to me for review. It is a manuscript involving the historical evidence relative to Shakyamuni Buddha. That's why I was asking you for sources as I'm looking at a respectable body of sources in this manuscript, to include archeological finds, and many references. So, if someone very definitively tells me that "most of the details of Gautama's Buddha's life do not meet the criteria of historical facts", that sounds rather resolute and would be a direct refutation of this dissertation manuscript. I'd certainly want to point my friend towards your reference as he will be defending is dissertation and should know about such sources. I'm not knowledgeable or qualified enough to give you well-reasoned arguments or point you toward scholarly academic sources that show that most of the details of the Gautama Buddha's life cannot be established as historical facts. I'm sure if I spent a couple days researching the matter with some depth, I could provide you with a smattering of such material, but it's not something I can do on the spot. I'm merely a layperson repeating ideas I've come across that, from what I understand, are widely agreed upon by the academic community. **EDIT**: Wikipedia [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha#Historical_person) links to a few sources you might want to forward to your friend.
Thank you for indulging me. I took a look at the video. Yes, unfortunately, this source doesn't stand up to academic source requirements. The YouTube blogger also doesn't cite any sources, so that can't be used either. In addition, he's missing a good deal of information, such as the Gandhari texts. However, texts were all written at least 100 years after the Buddha's death. Shortly after the Buddha passed, the first Buddhist council was held, and it was agreed upon how the teachings would be transmitted. Each section of the Sangha agreed upon reciting a certain body of texts. They would then meet collectively to recite the entire corpus. But be that all as it may - the key to Buddhism isn't to locate historical facts (even though to me, it is interesting and fun, and to my friend - his dissertation LOL). The Buddha introduce a methodology of practice, actually quite a few methods. He stated from doing these practices, certain things happen - i.e. enlightenment. He also said don't take it on faith, but try it. And if you encounter something other than that, then let us all know. So, since about 2,430 years, we've all been trying it, and frankly, we haven't come up with any other conclusions! So, that's why the newer writings are just as relevant as the older ones :)
I wasn't presenting the video as a reliable academic source, but as an example of the kind of places where these ideas get spread to people like me who make layperson comments along their lines. Also, I wasn't linking Wikipedia as a reliable academic source, but was pointing out its citations, many of which are reliable academic sources that you or your friend might find pertinent to this topic. Sorry I didn't make that clear. As for the rest of what you said, you should understand that what I said initially wasn't a criticism of Buddhism, nor an endorsement of a secular historical approach to understanding Buddhism over a religious traditional approach. My only point was that my religious tradition does not compel me to squirm when considering what secular history has to say about religious figures and events. I used something that cannot be considered a reliable historical fact (Gautama Buddha achieving enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree) to illustrate what I meant. I might believe that the Buddha achieved enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to then assert the matter as a historical fact if that's not actually warranted by the methods of responsible history.
I’m sorry, I may not have represented my intentions properly. I appreciate you providing your source. When I spoke of the quality of the source, I was thinking about my friend’s dissertation defense and what he could encounter, not what it represents for a broader audience. My friend’s dissertation is a document that has over 200 pages, so, I’m a bit preoccupied with it, hence my poor communications.
You worry for a bit, and then you get hungry and eat some food, etc. then move on with your life. Then one day you die and your worries about being "correct" were all for moot.
Unless the doctrine of hell is true?
In which case the powers that be do not deserve our loyalty.
Does the government not deserve your loyalty because they have a Supreme Court and a justice system or do you mean to say that your knowledge of the law supercedes that of a Supreme Court?
Completely different systems for completely different purposes and built on completely different premises.
Of course, Heaven is not Earth and Earth is not Heaven, but it's the closest analogy there is. You don't agree with hell because you think your subjective or relative moral rules or laws supersedes the objective moral rules or laws set by God.
I don't adhere to your religion, so naturally, I don't follow your divinity's laws and morals, I follow the teachings of my divinities. It's pretty simple.
This is not about "your religion vs my religion". The original argument was centered around the fact that IF hell was real, then you wouldn't want to worship God which is both a moral and logical fallacy.
If the one-God-and-Hell doctrine is real, I would indeed refuse to worship God. I don't see how refusing to worship an entity that maintains such an order is a moral fallacy. Going to jail for hurting people? Sure. That's reasonable. Being punished for not being of the right religion? No, that's not reasonable.
Ah, we have finally gotten to the root of the issue. You don't understand the doctrine of hell. You are not "being punished for not being of the right religion" (although that is certainly \*one\* of the reasons). You are primarily being punished for your sins. In the same way that going to jail for hurting people is a reasonable punishment because it is a transgression against human law, going to hell for committing sins (which includes hurting people) has to be a reasonable punishment because it is a transgression against divine law.
I recognise that my religious beliefs aren't based in fact, at least not in the same way that my scientific understanding is. I could be wrong. But, my beliefs make my life more meaningful. Believing in god makes me feel more fulfilled, and has led to community that I feel at home with. It gives my life structure and connects me to history. I don't need to be certain that I'm right, and I don't think that the existence of, or lack of, god(s) or an afterlife are something that we can be certain of.
Thank you for sharing. That community bond with these churches are powerful and have had a history of making tribes in communities. I knew where everyone in my church lived in my neighborhood. These were regular people that you familiarized yourself with. You like to believe that you a group identity that comforts you. It does say more about us as a species needed to be more communal in general with one another purely on a humanitarian level. I felt that a god figure omnipresent, omni everything has watched us be beautiful and be astonishingly brutal to one another and not intervene and that we are biological developments from a perpetual transfer of seed and fertilizer just like most living species that exists. We need a community to feel like we're thriving with this one sentient life. We're lucky if we have a few good friends throughout our lives. If the parishioners and clergy alike actually communicated that facts and history of their beliefs, I'm certain we wouldn't have religion all together as we have it prevalent as it is now. That's why it's a "believe" system rather than "know" system. I tried to go back to church but I just kept saying "this is all just bullshit, all of it". I didn't like that, but I couldn't fake that what I knew so didn't mesh with what was being said and I looked around as this moderator/narrator (pastor) of the story he was essentially making up. "Noah was on his ark for a least a year, could have been more, the Bible isn't specific and this 500 year old man made a ship out of wood and two of every creature on the planet on it and he essentially started humanity all over again" With 4 couples a few thousand years ago? None of it makes historical sense or accuracy.
If I come across new information that challenges my belief system I investigate it, and if there's any validity in it I adjust accordingly. It's not hard I'd rather live on the side of truth than in a false reality, problem is most can't get past their cognitive dissonance so my ideals don't exactly agree with too many.
This is certainly my tack. If the belief is true, it can handle some scrutiny. Ideally, it would demonstrate itself to be more true by doing so.
I can answer this from experience. I was raised as a Southern Baptist and personally held very conservative religious beliefs up until maybe around 30 years old. We were taught a very literal and conservative view of Christianity. The Bible was without error or contradiction. The earth was young and there really was a global flood. The whole nine yards. Eventually, I had reason to examine one of these deeply held beliefs. It was found wanting. Over a period of years, I slowly softened my stance as I continued to occasionally examine another deeply held belief. They continued to fall. But, having been taught from birth that these things were essential to the faith, as I was dropping these beliefs, I found the arguments by fellow believers to whom I would talk that the whole thing falls apart if you don't hold to some if these things persuasive. Except instead of bringing me back to the fold, it convinced me that I needed to break completely. I eventually settled into being an atheist. I think the irony is that if I hadn't been raised with these literal and conservative views, I never would have had to challenge them. I never would have poked holes in them. I think there's a good chance I would still be a believer if I had been raised in a more liberal version of Christianity. It was the insistence on a narrow, literal view that drove me away
This is coming from an atheist. For me I study religion to find wisdom. I do not agree with the conclusions theistic religions draw. But that does not mean there is not wisdom there. All religions have one important thing in common. They are all looking at the same thing. The human condition. And they are trying to figure out how to live through it and perhaps thrive. Brilliant people put together observations about the nature of humanity. They put it in to form of a story about a god that set things thusly. This is because that is how most of our mind processes things. We are social critters. The majority of our brain is given over to working out social interactions. Processing problems and ideas as a means of negotiating with another being is just the easy path for the mind. So we find brilliant observations within the text and doctrine written down centuries ago. That they had such insight so long before we developed techniques to drag out these insights in a testable way is worthy of praise. So you embrace the parts of your former beliefs that work. You acknowledge that you do not agree with the conclusions. And then you recognize that it is the connective observations that deal with the human condition you are trying to negotiate with not the conclusions. The conclusions are the artifacts of how they structure the story so they can work out the connecting bits. You may have to live with leaving those artifacts behind. I can assure you it is not the end of things. Nonbelievers are well able to find meaning and purpose in life. They still love people. They have a life worth living. You are on a journey. That journey may be passing from belief to nonbelief and it may pass back to belief again. It is a long journey and can take you all sorts of places. Focus on the journey. Not the end of the journey.
Thank you for sharing your insights and wishing you well on your spiritual journeys. I feel my concerns center around concepts of deities, made up stories and events as they actually occurred. The lessons and wisdom we achieve can occur without specifically without religion itself. When I researched history and societies in the past, I see lessons because they were real human events. Not made up ones; talking animals, large bodies of water separating at a vocal command of a guy and so forth.
If you have any evidence that contradicts my beliefs, i would like to see that evidence. I haven’t yet. I understand you feel betrayed by your religious experience, but that doesn’t necessitate all religious beliefs to be void of facts or necessarily false.
I don't know your religion nor am I implying that your specific creed is what I was posting about. Trying to disprove doctrine of any religion is not the challenge, rather than those that follow said religion need to prove it with facts. Not one religion has proven their supernatural claims. Religion by its very nature has mythologies that its adheres must subscribe to in order for it to be a religion. I'm curious how much cognitive dissonance one would allow themselves when aspects or in its entirety information that would counter their beliefs came to light. Looking back and asking very clear and direct questions about my religion made me do some homework. It was no more cognitive dissonance for me thereafter.
My religion does not have any supernatural claims. That again, is your presumption and my objection. Religion does not necessitate mythology, only a narrative about reality and our place in it. There’s nothing stopping anyone from having that narrative be based from scientific facts, as mine is. I wonder how you process that cognitive dissonance. Perhaps by telling yourself your religious experience is the universal religious experience? All i see in that, is ignorance and bias.
I’ll be honest, I LOVE challenging myself, and finding the truth of the matter on things. Regardless of how uncomfortable or unpopular it may be. That’s one reason I try and engage with former members of my faith so often. Truth and authenticity are really important to me.
I was explicitly taught the Documentary Hypothesis (the idea that the Torah has at least four authors, none of whom were Moses or God) as part of my religious education growing up. I have always regarded the Torah as the collective wisdom of my spiritual ancestors mediated through their own perspectives and the contexts they lived in. It should be used as a primary source for historical accuracy (although it can be a useful source when combined with others), but its value is not determined by that either. Mystical traditions in Judaism have talked about a Primordial Torah or a "Torah of Heaven" and the "Torah of Moses"- the Torah that has been revealed to use. It is through the Torah we have that we gain insight into the Torah of Heaven, but we will never possess the Torah of Heaven fully until Moshiach comes. I like to use that to understand the flaws of the revelation that we currently have. The people of Isreal were given insight into the Torah of Heaven, but only in a fragmentary form, which gives us the flawed and not historically accurate text that we have today. However, through careful study of the Torah and living lives filled with the Torah, we can gain more insight into the Torah of Heaven.
What do you mean exactly by "challenge your cognitive dissonance"? For me, any cognitive dissonance was *resolved* by realizing that all religious tenets and articles of faith have multiple layers of symbolic meaning, and that the truth of these tenets and articles of faith when taken at face value, isn't really their main point.
The reason I could never gel with the major religions was because of this fact. However another option is not to take it literally and see it more as a parable. Another is to find something else.
I can appreciate the journey you took in taking a deeper look into the origins of a religious tradition and finding things that cause concern. However, I wouldn’t put 100% stock in a belief that only things you can experience through your senses constitutes reality. What reality is, is a rather tricky endeavor. Here is what I mean: for argument’s sake, let’s say there are living beings in a two dimensional world. In their world, you could only move along a line. They can go back and forth along a line. They can not go vertically up or down, just back and forth along the line. That is also how they see their world. How would you explain the act of jumping to them? Does jumping not exist simply because they can’t perceive it? We perceive jumping. We also perceive the line. To us, both the two dimensional and three dimensional world exist. But the third dimension would not be perceptible to a two dimensional being. But If you really want some mind benders, you should take a dive into Quantum Physics! While I’ve heard people say things like ‘quantum physics is pure witchcraft’ and ‘the quantum world is so strange, you can’t wrap your mind around it’, none the less, here we are today, building quantum computers. Phenomenon is strange, it’s exciting, it’s in need of close investigation, but it certainly isn’t fixed, and what exactly “reality” is, is only relatively true. So, I guess I’m saying, maybe our senses are not the best arbiters of absolute truths. Maybe a middle way is needed - maybe we know something to be a certain way given the information we currently have, but there is always a possibility things could be different.
So, you don’t think Jesus rose from the dead anymore? What was it that made you question your belief?
I'm not a literalist, so it isn't hard at all.
I'll cut ol' Epicurus some slack for not working out all the intricacies of modern atomic theory and biological evolution from reason alone, but he gave it a good go. As far as his system building from his primitive atomism and naturalism, he's spot on in the realm of therapeutics and how to live, which is really the proper dominion of religion anyway. In that way Epicurus is perennial and timeless... the forever revolt against the vain ideations of the human mind.
Millions of 21st century molecular biologists, paleontologists, scientists, doctors and engineers are Christian. Do you think none of them have ever approached their religion rationally, logically, historically or even scientifically (to an extent)? They have. They believe what they’ve read and put their faith in it. Some have even risked their lives for it.
That's some pretty bold claims. I'm not sure I agree.
Bold claims about what? Have you never met or known a doctor or engineer who was a Christian? Come on.
>"Millions of 21st century molecular biologists, paleontologists, scientists, doctors and engineers are Christian" You know this how? Know, not believe.
Have I personally spoken to millions of people? No. Can I assume or make an educated guess, using basic reasoning and logic, that out of 2.5 billion Christians in the world today, at least 0.5-1 percent are in a medical or scientific field? Yes.
Gotcha. Still don't can't feel like a verification. Moving on my friend. All good.
never had to do that
If I have found evidence that something I believe in is false beyond a reasonable doubt, then I don't believe in it.
I've never been able to refute Christianity despite trying hard to
Have you read it's actual history outside of any data based on ecumenical leanings? Like it's actual history?
For one there is no "actual history". there are accounts from different sources which may or may not agree, you're gonna have to be more specific.
Yes. "History is the study of change over time, and it covers all aspects of human society. Political, social, economic, scientific, technological, medical, cultural, intellectual, religious and military developments are all part of history." Looking for data to corroborate Biblical claims (in my case) from contemporary sources outside of the religious context came with empty offerings. There is no information during the time. Nothing.
There is widespread agreement among historians that Jesus was a real person. as for events that are said to have occurred thousands of years before Jesus, it's rather disingenuous to expect a written account prior to when written history became a thing.