(August 12, 2018 at 1:16 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:Responding one subject at a time.(August 10, 2018 at 10:58 am)SteveII Wrote: Is it an evidence-based or a philosophy-based worldview? The teachings about origins and endings (two very important things in a worldview) are hard to square with what we know about reality. Anyway, there isn't really much evidence to support or to refute so I don't think there is much of a parallel here with the Christianity/evidence/rejection point I was making.
The Buddhist canons contain arguments based on the phenomenology of human experience relating to the essential nature of that reality. This is a fundamental claim of Buddhism and if you are not familiar with it and basing your rejection on sound counter-argument, instead of what appears to be the case, that you are rejecting Buddhism based on a superficial and shallow understanding of it, then your complaint about people not conducting a thorough examination of the case of Christianity is nothing but rank hypocrisy, and your supposed conclusions about the comparative strengths of the evidence for both which you gave in another thread are nothing more than special pleading based upon an ignorant and dishonest misrepresentation of the fairness and diligence which you have failed to apply to the case for other religions. I don't fault you for being ignorant of Buddhism. But I do fault you for your hypocrisy and the essential sophistry of attempting to compare a nuanced view of Christianity and an ignorant and clumsy view of other religions, and pretending that you've made a fair comparison. The fact that you are not even aware of what the evidence for Buddhism would consist of, speaks volumes about the competence with which you've conducted your investigation and subsequent dismissal.
The "hypocrisy" charge requires a parallel. I don't 'reject' Buddhism because of its beliefs per se. I reject it because according to my understanding of it, it does not satisfactorily answer fundamental question about the important worldview questions like origins, the nature of reality, does it reflect our basic understanding of personhood and how we intuitively think about ourselves? I would say that hurdles like that act as a filter to move on to find out about other worldviews without having to know core details.
People don't reject Christianity because it does not answer basic worldview questions--it does--more completely than any other religion. They say they reject it specifically because of lack of evidence. That is a positive claim that then can be examined--and in almost all cases, proven that they cannot even articulate the evidence let alone support that it is insufficient.