Originally Posted by
Dodo25
[/COLOR]
Ok, but what is admissible evidence? Visions? meditations experiences that can only claim to be subjective? Feelings? They are evidence for me on a personal basis, but I can't see a scientist or someone whose perspective is more scientific admitting it has any validity.
And this is a scientific claim. You, or Buddhists, are arguing dualism. There have been convincing papers and books against this position, for it faces lots of internal inconsistencies. It's a scientific claim that requires evidence.
[...]
This is a complex point and refers to the Buddhist conception of reality. It may not be the simplistic dualism I mentioned, but related to reality. To fully answer I would need to look a bit deeper at the teachings, but I may not be able to respond with sufficient knowledge about this.
Believe in something precisely because they have no proof? That makes no sense to me. Since human imagination is the thing that comes up with such concepts, it is of course possible to think of something that 'can't be proven'. If I wanted to believe in something without evidence, I would obviously choose something that is hard or impossible to prove. For example, I wouldn't pick homeopathy, because in double blind studies, one can easily conclude whether homeopathy does equal or better (or worse?) than a normal placebo. Hence no positive evidence automatically serves as negative evidence. It is no accident that religious memes have properties that make them 'avoid detection'.
[...]
No - I said they were Buddhists but did not believe in reincarnation. It is perfectly possible to hold this position and keep an open mind on the matter until it becomes clearer. i think it demonstrates sincerity. The Buddha's instructions were to test the teachings.
I disagree. I'm curious as to why people believe things. And even if personal experience can't count as objective evidence, there is at least something that needs to be explained. For instance, if Buddhist meditation indeed produces some feeling of trance, which may even have a limited beneficial effect on stress level, blood pressure or other things, then there is an interesting neurological aspect behind it which is worth being investigated.
As above - my own proofs are based on my very subjective experience that while they may be interesting, provide nothing like proof. I understand this, and I would never expect anyone to base their belief in something on my own experience.
This actually makes some sense. It would be evidence, albeit weak evidence. You'd have to be sure though that the premises aren't flawed to begin with. And also, you can't jump from 'good ethics' to 'true metaphyiscs'.
As I said there's an element of faith involved in such thinking, but the practice sets out very clear methods and aims for the meditator. for example decreasing ones own tendency to anger. If the method works - then perhaps the other methods work too - such as investigating one's own lifetimes. This practice isn't done much as it does take time, and the focus of buddhism is to solve the problems we are faced with now rather than the past.
Indeed, or practioners of Scientology or even Pastafarianism. The problem with claims that are unsupported by evidence is that you have absolutely no objective reason to favor one over the other. All kinds of religions have believers that claim to have had experiences that proved the veracity of their religion to them. They can't all be right, can they?
