Sometimes, I can’t help but believe that the majority of people often mistake their limited field of knowledge for absolute knowledge, especially when it comes to understanding Buddhism. Such an attitude, believe it or not, makes it seemingly easy to understand everything, even a recondite subject like Buddhism: Just ignore what you don’t understand, for example, rebirth! Keep telling yourself that on the important issues like a soul or rebirth you know there is no such thing.
I hate to say this, but people with this kind of attitude often turn out to be pseudoskeptics who are quick to claim such and such has been proven wrong or can't be so who, unlike the classical skeptic, are incapable of suspending judgment while engaged in the activity of investigation. Let me say right now, that Buddhism is not without a substantial number of pseudoskeptics who call themselves secular Buddhists.
When it comes to science, the pseudoskeptic’s hubris takes over the wheel. In their minds, only they have respect for science. Only they fully grasp the scientific method. But truth be told their position with regard to the scientific method when it comes to psychical research is untenable. The scientific method works even in the growing field of psychical research. How pseudoskeptics deal with this research is, not surprisingly, underhanded. The pseudoskeptic declares that the so-called scientific method cannot be extended to psychical research—not without it becoming “pseudo-science”!
On the same thread, if the question comes before us: “Is there postmortem survival?” the pseudoskeptic believes there is no rational means by which to investigate the question, not without the end result falling into the category of pseudo-science. All the NDEs (Near Death Experiences), for example, are bunk—the hallucinations of an oxygen starved brain. The same goes with SDEs (Shared Death Experiences). The investigators are deluded fools, according to the pseudoskeptics.
When Buddhists who are pseudoskeptics take up Buddhism trying to make it modern, what they are actively disseminating isn't real Buddhism. When we closely look behind their efforts, what we find are staunch materialists who are defending the status quo of materialism which still undergirds most of the sciences. This materialism has no place for a self, soul, spirit or a beyond all of which the Buddha taught.
The scientific method (a methodology) and materialism (a philosophy) are two separate things. This is not the case, a genuine scientifically minded person will not reject any hypothesis a priori. In the world of science, a personal experience cannot count as evidence. Not because scientists are evil materialists, but because, a mere experience doesn't prove anything. - How can the world know whether one has had a psychotic episode or a mystical experience? We can't know. We can't just trust people's experiences, because people can hallucinate. - Under DMT/LSD people meet with God and Buddha and so forth. Does it prove the validity of Buddhism or Christianity? -
Posted by: Kevin N. | April 19, 2012 at 06:45 PM
David, It light of the Kalama Sutta how have you tested the notion of rebirth?
Posted by: kojizen | April 19, 2012 at 09:32 AM
My master told me;
"Surrendering to the poisonous influence of the skandhas is like surrendering to a beast of burden. The more its rule over your spiritual nature increases, the heavier the burden of suffering. Much like yourself, it tries to improve itself.
Where your spirit seeks noble wisdom, in conjunction with its unquestionable deathlessness, this beast seeks knowledge in conjunction with the world, as to overcome the threat of its own extinction.
If it succeeds, it means you are assured another rebirth into its limited consciousness trap, contrary to the longing for enlightenment and release of your spirit. It is this last part that causes the friction between the material and the spiritual you experience as suffering (dukkha) on so many levels."
Posted by: minx | April 19, 2012 at 05:35 AM
Disbelief without proof is as rationally indefensible as belief without proof.
If there is an afterlife, is it important to believe in it? Can you suggest anything that that I would do differently if it exists, as opposed to if it does not exist?
The Kamala Sutta exhorts us to believe in and act on only those things we have tested for ourselves and found to be both reasonable and beneficial to all, does it not?
Posted by: David Ashton | April 19, 2012 at 03:13 AM