Timeline for What if there is no rebirth?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2014 at 21:21 | vote | accept | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | ||
| Aug 15, 2014 at 14:48 | answer | added | MFS | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 15, 2014 at 2:33 | comment | added | MatthewMartin | Which Buddhist community? The secular Buddhists already think reincarnation is at best irrelevant. I think the Dalai Lama is secretly rooting for his team and is confident that it will prevail. It's like those scientists that offer 1 million dollars for proof of psychic powers-- not because they are so open minded about psychic powers, but because they are so solidly confident science will prevail. Anyhow, I sort of agree, as worded, this is a discussion generating question, not so much based in answerable facts. | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 16:47 | comment | added | tkp | @bytebuster, I think you've already avoided that problem by referring to "key concepts". By saying "key" and giving rebirth as an example, it seems clear (to me, anyway) that you're not asking things like "What if science proved the historical Buddha was born on the border of and not actually in the Shakya region" You're interested in, well ... in key things, right? There's certainly reasonable debate over what gets to be key, but for the purposes of your question I think it's pretty clear. | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 16:40 | comment | added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | @tkp I do agree, but I noticed that the community also dislikes the idea of "certain aspect"; the answer would be, "depending on what aspect is disproved". OTOH, I did not want to make my question too specific (e.g., focusing on rebirth only). Then again, since I'm only learning, I would not resist any outcome. | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 16:29 | comment | added | Rabbit | Let's see what community thinks about it. I cancelled my close vote as I'm off to meditation retreat. Have fun and see you on Monday! | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 16:17 | comment | added | tkp | @Rabbit, I can't really disagree with you there. But the point I'm going for (which I think you see) is that in practice the OP's question could be assuming something about science that shouldn't be assumed and so is therefore worth addressing. Here's a suggestion for the OP: what about modifying the question to be something like "To what extent could science disprove aspects of Buddhism (such as rebirth), and what would happen if it did?" That seems to keep all current answers in scope, but also exposes, for discussion, the assumption I'm talking about. Would that work? | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 16:13 | comment | added | Crab Bucket | @Rabbit could I just agree with both tkp and you. I think there is a potentially good question here that is getting a good amount of interest. I think i would be a shame to shut this down but maybe OP would be willing to reframe the question to avoid this and take away the hypothetical nature. The question works if rebirth is disproven or if someone rejects rebirth. What is the interpretation of the Dharma without rebirth? Careful rewording could work though it would be excellent if OP could do it and keep all the answers in scope. A challenge perhaps | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 16:08 | comment | added | Rabbit | @tkp I like your answer but it essentially does not answer the problem of the OP which is 'how Buddhists will behave if science disproves something'. To accommodate that I would suggest to reword the question itself so that your great answer would fit. | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 16:01 | answer | added | Crab Bucket | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:26 | comment | added | tkp | I respectfully disagree with Rabbit on this occasion. There is a crucial metaphysical point at stake that can be answered with precision and without recourse to unsubstantiated opinion. I've given an answer that goes, I hope, some ways towards that. | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:12 | answer | added | tkp | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 14:16 | comment | added | THelper | I agree with Rabbit. General policy on all SE sites is that hypothetical question are closed because there is no way of telling if an answer is correct and which answer is best for that matter (see also the FAQ) | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 8:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 20, 2014 at 11:45 | |||||
| Aug 14, 2014 at 6:43 | answer | added | Sankha Kulathantille | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 6:31 | answer | added | Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 1:56 | answer | added | user382 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 22:55 | comment | added | Rabbit | The problem is that any answer would be talking about something that hasn't happened yet so instead of facts, there would be a bunch of opinions and predictions. Personally, I think that Dalai Lama is so confident about what he teaches that he is not afraid to confront it with science. He himself is consciously being reborn so how can science disprove something he did already 14 times? I would always consider this quote as an expression of his confidence in teachings. But again, it is only my personal opinion. | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 22:35 | comment | added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | @Rabbit you are right, it's a bit speculative since there is no key Buddhist concept scientifically refuted. What I want is just the term "we will accept it" expanded — accept how? | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 22:35 | answer | added | konrad01 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 22:19 | comment | added | Rabbit | This question is highly speculative and invites some opinion-based discussion rather than solid facts or information. | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 22:13 | history | asked | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |