BMaker11 said:
It may be a topical difference, but the post I responded to was from a chain of comments in which you asserted that it doesn't matter how much more good a concept does over any other ideas if the other ideas are "true" (true in quotes because of the metaphyisical "truth value" I see your post pertaining to). You went on to say that the idea of karma in illogical and unlikely, and that Christianity/God/Jesus, what have you, is more logical and more likely. So I responded at the source, in that why is Jesus so logical and likely, when there are other gods, which you don't believe in, than can easily fill his shoes. You've asserted that Jesus is "truth", but there is no more reason to believe in him than there is to believe is Brahma. It may seem off topic to you, but until you can show me how the way of Jesus is more logical and more likely than Brahma (and all the other gods), then your proposition of Christianity being logical can be as easily dismissed as you dismissed karmic forces |
Good post, you are good at communicating.
I addressed a couple of separate things in my first post and it stuck through the whole thread of argumentation.
1. Mainly I wanted to adress that I think the thread maker's question is irrelevant, or should I say unnecessary, overrated or clichéd and something I personally am tired of. The question if a certain philosophy is more "useful" or "good" than the other is not so interesting. Because to me, that question, while there's aspects of it that are sometimes worth to discuss, is not the main thing when I try to relate to a philosophy or religion. Time and time again we hear "Christianity is destructive to mankind because of the Crusades and whatnot" while Bhuddism gets a free ride because it's more innocent. The OP clearly insinuates that it's more legitimate to hold a karmic belief than an Abrahamic belief and he is using the "usefulness" argument, which I think is flawed from the very start. So I wanted to adress that right off the bat.
2. I dismissed the karmic justice belief system in relation to Christianity in a sweeping manner. I didn't do that out of accident though and it wasn't meant as an insult. There was thought behind it.
First, to simply claim that "Christianity is true" sounds on the surface just like primitive bible thumping, which I also admitted to. But that's just one side of it. That claim in its simplicity also includes theological truths.But more about that some other time.
Second, to use logic and reason as an argument to dismiss Karmic justice versus Christianity. Again I did it in a sweeping manner without going into depth. It was just meant as a broad claim, the detailed arguments - the evidence for my claim - would be for a later time. You can use a sweeping argument to raise awareness and I did that.
- - - - - - - - - - -
3. Now you propose all possible deities as alternatives to Christianity. That's perfectly legitimate. I only wanted to adress Christianity versus Karmic justice though, in line with the OP.
It connects to my first reaction, that the question of religion primarily hasn't so much to do with how "useful" a certain religion is, but how likely it is to be true. For a sociologist or politician it might be the other way around, but obviously for people pondering deeply on matters of faith, existence and worldview, the main question is whether something is true or not.
So why do I claim it's more logical for one religion to be true than another? In this case Christianity vs Buddhism. It's a huge topic and as I said I quickly wanted to raise awareness of a principle. Sometimes religion debates are seen as faith versus science, or religion versus atheism. Yes, but it's also religion versus religion.
Just like you say, out of all those gods out there, what reason do I have for choosing the Christian God? It's like I said a huge topic and needs its own thread, but I just wanted to express my opinion that Christianity is much more grounded in reality than the belief in karmic justice is (the Western interpretation of Buddism, that's what the OP laid out for us).
Both beliefs (Christianity and Karmic justice) share one trait. The naive, childish hope that there exists something supernatural to counter the evil and dysharmony of our world. And I admitted to that. There's no doubt about that.
But in my opinion both beliefs also differ in their likelyhood of being true. Now for an atheist that might sound like an outrageous statement since all religion is based on delusion. Well, thats his problem. Obviously one can evaluate any belief system for its probability of being true, especially if you are a "seeker". As best as we can, obviousy, because we are limited. And we do that with all theories, with all worldviews. So that claim is not outrageous in itself.
I often ponder how people who are inclined to Bhuddist ideas, how they can believe in that. What evidence and factors do they invoke to get that idea? I don't know of many (that's why I also threw a question about it to ultima as a challenge). One key difference between Christianity and Bhuddism is that one has a personal almighty creator as an explanation while the other has a vague life force who brings order and balance to the world. I can't believe in a nameless lifeforce. A God is much more logical and a Christian God is even more probable to be true than the simple existense of karmic justice.
Meditation can lead to a sense of gnosis and is often the main way for a seeker to come into Bhuddism, and there was a figure named Bhuddha who discovered some principles of living, but that's not enough to form a satisfying belief system in my opinion. Christianity has a much more robust belief system no matter if you agree with the evidence or not. If you study Bhuddism (and here we mean the Western version of it) you don't get as many satisfactory answers like you do in Christianity. That's my claim.
