• In total there are 37 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 36 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

brother bob wrote:Science is not about change and revision - science maybe wrong, but it is not about change and revision. Maybe your body doesn't need oxygen, blood, food or sleep. NOW science has claimed that the universe was getting smaller, dying, or now it is a bubble bath full of bubbles with each bubble being a universe. So Science must observe a property and observe its workings, i.e. the tide - it comes in and out every day by the power of the moon. It has never changed. Not sure what science you guys are talking about.
You don't read so good, or don't care. Even after your misquote was pointed out, you still went with it.
So you are going with Buddhism as being a valid spiritual system? That there is no God's, but we become one upon death and life, life and death, death and life and so on?

How does something become anything from NOTHING?

boy, you guys have lots of faith.
Are you responding to someone? Doesn't look like you bothered reading here either. We were talking about criticisms of Buddhism, as in the article linked to called "Kill the Buddha"
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

geo wrote: a naturalistic worldview, including this naturalistic Buddhism, can in principle, give people a sense that their lives have meaning. Give them moral orientation. Give them consolation in times of sorrow. Give them equanimity as they encounter the turbulence of life. Now, whether that means that you could call this naturalistic version of Buddhism religious depends ultimately on how you are going to define religion.
Hi Geo, thanks very much for sharing this material from Robert Wright. It picks up on some topics that have been much on my mind, especially the relationship between faith and order within natural philosophy. The assertions in the quote above are highly controversial, regarding meaning, morality, consolation and equanimity. Traditionally, people consider nature to be unfeeling and impersonal – as Yeats put it in The Second Coming ‘pitiless as the sun’. The reason for the invention of personal Gods is precisely to assert that a supreme principle of the universe cares about you personally, and has loving and gracious intentions for humanity. This beautiful myth of a personal God within the Abrahamic faiths is rejected by the logical enlightenment of Buddhism and Taoism, although of course those eastern religions also have their mythological traditions about divine entities.

However, I think Wright is correct that we can and must find these ethical values - meaning, morality, consolation and equanimity – within a natural philosophy. The logical point from Buddhism is that these values are necessary for human life, but the versions of them within unnatural philosophy are by definition unnatural, and therefore traditional superstitions about a consoling and comforting God are open to serious doubt regarding their imaginary status. Replacing the supernatural tradition with a rational transcendental imagination in which the consoling power of nature is real as a basis for religion, and yet is not personalised as a supreme entity, is a decisive achievement of the wisdom of the Buddha.

I think that this Buddhist vision of the nature of religion is entirely compatible with Darwinian evolution, in the sense that our planet is uniquely fitted for us to evolve here, and so contains resources and attributes that are able to provide comfort and meaning for human life, in physical, emotional and spiritual terms. From Wright’s agenda of understanding the evolution of God, the present task is to see how God can evolve to be understood as purely natural, as properties of the world which provide purpose for human life within a rational evolutionary philosophy.
geo wrote: One of the broadest definitions I've seen comes from William James, the great American psychologist who said that the kind of animating essence of religion is the belief that there is an unseen order. And that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.
James is magnificent, and this concept of order is among the deepest of necessary truths. The universe is ordered by the laws of physics, which in fact are omnipotent, omnipresent, consistent, true, beautiful, rational, eternal and infinite, attributes traditionally assigned to God. What we cannot simply say is that the order of the universe is good, although a complex argument can be mounted to defend that idea. Does the universe care if we live or die? An anthropic argument can maintain that human language is where the laws of physics are represented in symbolic form, and that this evolutionary leap provides the basis for human distinctness as being made in the image of God. We are part of the universe and we care if we live or die, so to that extent the universe does care, although that is a slippery claim, although it can be developed in terms of James’ point that our supreme good consists in aligning to cosmic order.
On the point of order, the unseen order of the laws of physics is manifest primarily in the part of the universe that provides the main determinant context for our evolution. I maintain that this part is the solar system, given that the solar system is analogous in size to a dime on a football field, with the closest star in the grandstand. The solar system does indeed have a sublime unseen order, a harmony of the spheres, a cosmic musical identity, which physics has barely begun to comprehend. My work on the Fourier Transform spectral analysis of the wave function of the solar system centre of mass is designed to quantify this music of nature, in terms of what James defines as the hidden order of nature. My mixing of philosophy and science in this way has not as yet obtained traction, although Wright’s idea from James about how this topic is the animating essence of religion opens a path to a conversation about the real relation between faith and reason through their common interest in the unseen order of nature. If reason can define and explain natural order in a way that structures the common interests of human life, it provides a path to answering the old questions posed by religious faith.
geo wrote:
Now, Buddhism does in a sense, say that there is an unseen order that we should adjust ourselves to. Now it's not talking about a kind of cosmic plan. The unseen order that is referred to, is the truth about the way things work. The truth about the structure of reality, the truth about human beings, even the truth about yourself.
The assertion here that Buddhism is not discussing a cosmic plan requires further investigation. “Cosmic plan” is used here by Wright to incorporate elements of supernatural tradition in terms of a personal entity, as distinguished from “the way things work”. My own view is that the cosmos has an inherent direction like a river. You cannot say a river plans to empty its water into the sea, and yet you can say that going with the flow provides an easier path. Once we have a better understanding of the way things work, we can begin to define that understanding as a cosmic plan, in terms of James’ theory of attunement.
geo wrote: According to Buddhism, these truths often go unseen because the human mind contains certain built-in distortions, illusions. We don't see the world clearly. And Buddhism certainly does assert that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves to this normally hidden truth. And in fact Buddhism lays a path for the harmonious adjustment and it lays out what it considers to be the truth about reality. It tells us what we need to do to bring our lives in line with that reality.
This is the Buddha’s vision of the four noble truths, suffering, attachment, liberation and enlightenment. There is a strong alignment between this Buddhist vision of religion and the deep identity of Christianity. Christianity in fact evolved from Buddhism through the export of the Indian monastic Theraputta movement to establish the Therapeut school in Alexandria where Saint Mark wrote his Gospel. The metaphysical identity here rests in the common concepts of love, grace and fall. Delusion is caused by the fall from grace into corruption, for both Buddhism and Christianity, although each explains the detail of that story differently. Christianity, in its clash between eastern truth and western evil, pits the clash of grace and corruption far more starkly than Buddhism, posing a clash between God and Satan in the passion story of the cross and victory of Christ. By contrast Buddhism seeks wisdom through personal peace, seeing the delusion of the world as unconquerable. Integrating these stories suggests that in our evil world, to live as the Buddha means to suffer the cross of Christ, not to escape into divine contemplation.
geo wrote: And, the claim, the Buddhist claim is, that we can thereby relieve our suffering, even end our suffering. And in the process, align ourselves with moral truth. At least that's the claim. That is the Buddhist claim. Is it true? Is the Buddhist diagnosis of the human predicament, why there is suffering true? And the prescription for the human predicament powerful and effective? Well that's largely what this course is about.
Buddhism provides a coherent rational foundation for thinking about philosophy and religion, through the concept of an unseen rational order of the universe as the profound object of enlightenment. Suffering is caused by false belief, and is overcome by true knowledge. Enlightenment is grounded in the logic and evidence of the modern scientific method, integrated with philosophical analysis of the real meaning of deep ideas of the good, the true and the beautiful.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

Bob, I see the problem now. You don't understand what science is. And that makes sense because you graduated from a Bible college as opposed to a real university that teaches this stuff.

You're mistaking "science" for the "laws of physics."

Science is a process and that process is forever changing and evolving. The findings of science are forever changing and improving because that's the nature of the scientific process.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
brother bob wrote:Maybe your body doesn't need oxygen, blood, food or sleep.
Someone please step in here and help me. I haven't had my morning coffee yet. For some odd reason you're misunderstanding the fact that science adjusts to new information. You're reading it as if we're saying "how the natural world operates is subject to change all willy willy."
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

Here's a passage from Robert Wright's third lecture entitled "The First Two Noble Truths". What's interesting here, I think, is the attitude towards Buddhist scriptures. Wright is capable of objectivity towards the Buddhist scriptures because he's not enamored of any mystical or supernatural qualities. He examines the text as a scholar, as it pertains to reality and in the context of modern psychology. It doesn't really matter to Wright whether the Buddha was an actual person or not (although certainly he probably was). Some people may very well believe the Buddhist really said these things, and really did meditate under a Bodhi tree, but as a matter of scholarship, it doesn't matter.

I wonder if the Christian true believers can understand this concept of scholarly objectivity, at least as it pertains to Buddhism. What happens when they turn to their own sacred beliefs? It seems that a switch turns, generating a construct of rationalizations and special circumstances to allow their cherished beliefs to continue to exist. They cannot view their own Holy text in an objective way.
Robert Wright wrote:So here's a question. Which recording artist sang the most Buddhist song in the history of popular music? Now obviously, there's no officially correct answer to that question. But if you want to know someone that I think should at least be in the running for that title, that is, believe it or not, this guy. That's right. Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones, who famously sang the lyric, I can't get no satisfaction. Now if you've read much Buddhist scripture, you probably don't recall running into that phrase and that's because I don't think it's there. But it does capture a lot of the spirit of what is called The First Noble Truth. And that's what we're going to talk about in this segment of lecture one, along with the Second Noble Truth. Together, they constitute the Buddha's diagnosis of the human predicament. Then later we'll be talking about the Third and Fourth Noble Truths, which embody the Buddha's prescription, his cure for what ails us. These, these Four Noble Truths are foundational to Buddhist thought. The Buddha delivered them in a famous sermon at Deer Park shortly after attaining enlightenment, which in turn happened after he had meditated under a Bodhi tree for a very long time. Now, I should stop here and admit that we don't really know whether what I just said is true. We don't know if the Buddha delivered that sermon, or what he said at it. If he did, we don't know whether he sat under a Bodhi tree. So far as we know, the story of the Buddha, and what he said, was not written down for a very long time after he lived. So, whenever you hear me say the Buddha said this, the Buddha thought that, strictly speaking what I mean is according to Buddhist scripture, the Buddha said this, the Buddha thought that. What we do know is that the Buddha's teachings were being promulgated, well more than two millennia ago, centuries before the time of Jesus, who of course is another foundational religious figure whose sayings we can't really pin down with confidence. Of course, as a matter of faith people may believe that any given foundational religious figure said various things, and that's fine with me. But as a matter of historical scholarship, we just can't be sure.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
geo wrote: a naturalistic worldview, including this naturalistic Buddhism, can in principle, give people a sense that their lives have meaning. . . .
Hey, Robert, thanks for your comments. I'm still reading and processing them. In the future if you don't mind, make it clear that you're quoting Robert Wright , and not me.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

Hi Geo - I made it clear in the first sentence of my comments where I called the quoted comment "this material from Robert Wright." In terms of netiquette, I would say the fact that you brought this here means it is a reasonable shorthand in this case to use "geo wrote" (instead of "Robert Wright wrote") to identify where readers can find the quoted text in the opening post of the thread, and that the content makes it fully clear that the words are from Wright. If anyone thinks I am quoting you they are not bothering to read it properly. I doubt it will cause any confusion given the subject matter, but thanks for noting the point and sorry for unclarity. As well, you did say "I did do some minor editing and added punctuation to clarify his conversational wording."
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

DB Roy wrote:What do we mean by "actually exists"? If you took that trip, you'd understand why that's a meaningless phrase. It lies beyond what our minds can process in the everyday world. Yes, she exists but, no, she does not exist. That's the best I can do. But when you're there, your mind, your consciousness, works in a totally different way. Limitations, contradictions--those are for this world. There's none of that there--no need for it.
It occurs to me as I read this response that there are aspects of human experience that are cut off from the language centers of the brain. And this is why it's so difficult to articulate some of our emotional experiences.

I would argue that whatever DB Roy "saw" under the influence of psychotropic drugs was a hallucination and that some religious experiences tap into the same kind of experience. Not only is this kind of experience difficult to describe, in words, but it also distorts the brain's ability to distinguish between what is objectively real and subjectively meaningful. The purple gown is real in the sense that a dream is real and clearly it was a powerful emotional experience for DB Roy. But if we start believing that purple gown existed in the real world, we are confusing our subjective experiences with objective reality.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Hi Geo - I made it clear in the first sentence of my comments where I called the quoted comment "this material from Robert Wright." In terms of netiquette, I would say the fact that you brought this here means it is a reasonable shorthand in this case to use "geo wrote" (instead of "Robert Wright wrote") to identify where readers can find the quoted text in the opening post of the thread, and that the content makes it fully clear that the words are from Wright. If anyone thinks I am quoting you they are not bothering to read it properly. I doubt it will cause any confusion given the subject matter, but thanks for noting the point and sorry for unclarity. As well, you did say "I did do some minor editing and added punctuation to clarify his conversational wording."
In the end, it's irrelevant, Robert. Thanks for your post.

I really like William James' concept of "unseen order" and the idea that we must try to harmoniously adjusting ourselves to that unseen order. Such pithy wording.

It will be interesting to see how Guy Harrison will discuss these kinds of reality distortions in his book. Because our brains, as Wright says, here, have been selected to survive and procreate, not necessarily to see the world as it really is.
-Geo
Question everything
brother bob
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm
8
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

Chris as usual you don't know what you are talking about. No wonder you have problem with me English or other threads.

Christ "quote"You're mistaking "science" for the "laws of physics.

Science is a process and that process is forever changing and evolving. The findings of science are forever changing and improving because that's the nature of the scientific process."




Physics


Physics is the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand h…




en.wikipedia.org

.Subdiscipline of: Natural science


You are dead wrong. Kind of a habitual lack of proper grammatical evaluation of what is presented. Bingo

SCIENCE does NOT change. SCIENCE has been wrong based on lack of evaluation. Like the universe.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Robert Wright: Naturalistic Buddhism as religion

Unread post

Bob, are you a member of Landover Baptist Church by chance?
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”