And the same goes for Chrisitianity.
oh, I agree. I don’t think his thesis as a whole works at all. I just think it is fair to say that humans do fear death, that statement says there is a possibility of eternal life, and that given the second point, that statement will offer hope of not dying.
And even experiences and pragmatic results.
My argument;
- All humans strive to live, thus to avoid death.
- To avoid death, all humans are imputed with the fear of death subconsciously.
- The subconscious fear of death generate indirect existential pains.
- The assurance of God of the Christian in John 3:16 i.e. guarantee eternal life and effectively remove the indirect existential pains.
- Therefore John 3:16 is linked with the subconscious fear of death.
Sure, I agree. There are rampant problems: he presents his evaluation of his having been rational as if this is added evidence, he appeals to authority (often Kant, if not himself), he makes mind reading claims, he does not know the religions he talks about except primarily via books, he oversimplifies, he has a strong agenda and does not seem to realize how this can lead to bias…and so on.
As mentioned I am guided by arguments with are soundly justified with empirical evidences.
All human actions are dominated by the unconscious mind [say 90% relatively] with the conscious mind [10%].
While we may not have a great grasp of the unconscious mind, the human database on the unconscious mind to date is sufficient for us to infer, which I had inferred the subconscious fear of death is a critical factor that drive the majority of humans to religions.
There are tons and tons of research scientists has done with the unconscious mind.
Note Pavlov with dogs,
simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html
This knowledge has been used to learn and improve human behaviors
courses.lumenlearning.com/bound … ditioning/
Buddhism is essentially existential psychology that deal with the existential pains arising from the subconscious fear of death [ultimate root cause] is which so evident with the principles and sutras of the various Buddhist schools.
Actually the equation with Buddhism re the subconscious fear of death is so easy, i.e.
anatman = no self, thus no self to die, thus the subconscious fear of death is unwarranted.
The question is how can the Buddhist practitioner condition himself to such an equation.
This why the Noble Eightfold Path is used to do the conditioning via a complicated set of mindfulness exercises.
Superiority and inferiority is objective based on the consequences of morality from each of the religion.
Just compared the number of people killed that is directly commanded from its authorized religious texts the command of its God.
In this criteria, as evident, surely we can state objectively Buddhism, Christianity and others are more superior to Islam where its God exhort Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under very vague threats.
In term of numbers killed, by believers of pacifist religions, there are less violence and number of people killed by Buddhists than Christians. Therefore it is objectively true, Buddhism is more superior than Christianity.
We can compare the doctrines and practices advocated by each religion to compare their ranking objectively.
No, but science is fundamental and it is complimented with Philosophy, with its tools of logic, morality, ethics, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.
It is not my peace mission.
If you are a progressive human being in alignment with evolution, you will naturally gravitate toward the highest morality.
DNA-RNA wise, All humans are embedded with [like a faculty of intellect, reason] a faculty of morality and ethics.
One can infer this trend toward the highest morality from actions, experiences, behaviors of the average and peak performers among human all over the world from the time human first emerge to the present. [Evidence available, I won’t go into it].
For those who are not inclined to peace [lack moral compass] then humanity will strive to trigger and activate the natural endowed faculty of morality within them in a fool proof approach. Perhaps using principles of Pavlov conditions and other effective methods.
This will not happen at present but very feasible in the future when humanity has achieved the goals of the Human Connectome Project,
humanconnectomeproject.org/
in mapping all the neural connectivity of the human brain.
In this case, the conditioning can be directed at specific areas of the brain instead trial and error, hit and miss black-box methods.
So in the meantime we have no choice but to leave those who do not have an inclination towards peace [highest good] to themselves and hope they will change for the better or worse and rely on legislation if they resort to evil.
Yes Buddhism-proper, i.e. that which is alignment with the core principles of Buddhism.
The fact is Buddhism-proper was too advance for the majority of people during Gautama’s time and even now.
This is why Buddhism as practiced then has to be compromised to allow the lay-people to follow at least the basic with the hope they will advance in time.
That the majority of Buddhists everywhere are making offerings, praying with candles and joss-sticks to a statue of Buddha was never recommended by the Buddha. The creeping in of the idea of rebirth literally into other realms is not Buddhism-proper.
Those who are experts in Buddhism would recognized what they have to recommend to the lay-Buddhist are actually bastardized and corrupted Buddhism, but they don’t mind because what they recommended is optimal to the current spiritual state of the lay-Buddhists.
Problem with the above is, the advancement Buddhism-proper was very slow until recently with the internet and spread of Buddhism in the English West.
I would not have been able to cover the full range of Buddhism if not for the English translations of the various sutras from the various schools which is now easily available in the internet and in the many books.
I am optimistic Buddhism-proper will progress speedily from now on and morphed into a generic spiritual practice which its principles will dominate but no one then will call it Buddhism.
Yes, there is Christianity-proper like the one I proposed that is driven by a contract [covenant] centered upon John 3:16 and influenced by the subconscious fear of death.
Fanman was a Christian and he would have not viewed Christianity from this angle.
I have never insisted the subconscious fear of death is the ONLY reason that drives a person to Christianity.
I have stated it is the utmost critical reason that generate into many sub-reasons.
There are other reasons why a person convert into Christianity, e.g. to marry his spouse, political reasons, social reasons. etc.
There are those who are born into a Christian family.
However when the person have any ‘spiritual’ impulse toward his religion, that is due to the trigger of the subconscious fear of death. This is where to social Christian turn to be a born-again to reactivate his personal contract with Jesus/God.
Obviously because it is the subconscious fear of death, he will not feel it directly but will be triggered by indirectly reasons such as feeling a loss of meaning of life, anxious, feeling empty, feeling loss, various anxieties, Angst, stressed and various negative feelings, but the person felt immediately relief to such sufferings upon accepting Jesus/God and establishing a person relationship with Jesus/God with an emphasis of a hope of eternal life in paradise.
Note the contrast, if a person suffer from physical pain say, prick by a thorn, then removing the thorn will bring immediate relief. If a person has a mental suffering due to loss of his assets by theft, the recovery of his assets will bring immediate relief.
In the case of mental sufferings exuded indirectly from the subconscious fear of death, the person suffering the mental pains do not have a clue where it is coming from. But the surrender and acceptance of Jesus/God would bring immediate relief to such existential pains. Since the root is from the subconscious fear of death, the person will not be conscious of it, thus linked to the most like conscious causes, e.g. wanting to have a relationship with God.
Note this analogy.
When a person want to have relationship with the opposite sex, s/he will give all sort of reason s/he is conscious and can think of, e.g. legalize sex, marriage, babies, a partner for mutual help, etc.
But the ultimate root cause, is the drive to preserve the human species, i.e. in general [there are exception] the person is driven to a relationship by nature so that they can f… so that they will produce the next generation to ensure the preservation of the human species.
Humans are able to bypass this intent, but the inherent drive to preserve the human species is always there.
As for the above analogy, humans are not conscious of the ultimate inherent drive planted in the unconscious for many of their conscious actions.
Thus the majority of humans are not aware whatever conscious actions they take towards their religion, the ultimate driver is due to the unconscious fear of death.
The unconscious fear of death as I have argued is driven by the will-to-live which will ensure the preservation of the species.
The test is the element of the subconscious fear of death is active internally when the Christian feel the assurance of eternal life in paradise.
There are Christians who are Christian by name only who do not give a damn with the promise of eternal life in paradise as in John 3:16, e.g. the social Christian, a person born into a Christian family, they could not care less if they commit whatever sins, then their subconscious fear of death would not be active. In this case, the are not Christian-proper but rather pseudo-Christians.
But I believe the majority of Christians would at the least keep the promise of eternal life by Jesus/God via John 3:16 as a “joker card” where they can draw upon it wherever the need arises. In this case, they are still driven by the subconscious fear of death at the minimum so they qualify as Christian-proper.
KT,
That’s right.
Exactly.
You are merely making generalized statements without basis.
I would suggest you take every bit of my arguments and counter them.
So far you have not given me any convincing counter.
If so which one?
On the other hand if you have the ultimate root cause, the penultimate or pre-penultimate causes of the drive towards religion, present your arguments.
The general striving in any field of knowledge is always seeking its ultimate root cause, if not, the penultimate or pre-penultimate.
Note Physics’ search for the ultimate particle and the philosophical quest for the ultimate essence or substance.
Philosophically the absolute ultimate is impossible but by striving towards the ultimate, new knowledge will be discovered.
KT,
Best if you don’t answer, but I wonder why he is like this? In his response to you he said you were generalising? This is clearly not a generalization, but an observation, it is based specifically upon what he’s stated. I would call this objective, and I think you are right.
Double post sorry.
Best if you don’t answer, but I wonder why he is like this? In his response to you he said you were generalising? This is clearly not a generalization, but an observation, it is based specifically upon what he’s stated. I would call this objective, and I think you are right.[/q, of course it was a set of generalizations. I used to get more specific with Prismatic, but found it frustrating and ultimately fruitless. IOW I would go into specific points AND keep after him on specific points. My sense was that I was dealing with a primarily closed mind, unless a new idea helped him refine his position or strengthened it. I also felt like he did not fully understand solid argumentation. Now my approach is mostly via third parties, occasionally directly interacting, but then not expecting that anything will every be conceded, so I do not pursue points. And yes, occasionally in relation to third parties I make general comments, intended as general comments. Third parties, such as yourself, are free to judge for themselves of course, as you have.
You suggest it’s best not to answer the issue of why is he like this. But I think the answer is one that has nothing to do with Prismatic in particular - though there would be that answer also. We all do this. We all avoid cognitive dissonance. We all compete rather than explore when our ideas are important to us or our sense of ourselves as smart or penetrating or wholly rational seems at stake. We all have biases and stakes in out positions and at some points, at least, will refuse to acknowledge a criticism due to emotional slippery slope fears. If I admit this, then perhaps the whole edifice will fall. And youth and inexperience can play a role. Also poor introspective abilities. If you don’t notice the full range of things a criticism raises in you, you don’t know why you are reacting the way you do.
Some people do this more often than others.
Prismatic,
It doesn’t seem that you did, my apologies. How did you obtain your perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?
Not belief?
This is a diagnosis.
IMV, these examples are too far removed from the many effects of religious belief to be analogous.
I agree there are Christians who are only Christians by name, but I don’t understand how you inferred the rest of what you stated here. I don’t see how you can assess the state of someone’s subconscious, when the person is theoretical?
Que?
KT,
Maybe my radar is off? Your points don’t seem like generalising to me. You “generalise” good man 
.
It should be called Prismatic-Buddhism and Prismatic-Christianity because the word ‘proper’ suggests an orthodoxy which your versions do not have.
“Weightages” are clearly subjective and arbitrary, which is why they are not used in a philosophy argument.
Thanks. I meant it was generalizing in the sense of I could cited a specific appeal to authority of his, for example, or a bunch. I could have given specific examples of each general claim about his posting habits. Or I could have responded to a specific post and cited examples there. Of course, I have responded to specific posts and Phyllo has and you have, all of us making specific points.
and not the irony of saying that a former Christian’s views should be dismissed. Utterly odd. Here we have someone who has experienced the conscious and official beliefs in situ and then has rejected them. For example leaving Christianity should have brought up a huge fear of death. I would bet that if anything it brought up social fears and a fear of Hell.