Judging what is unlikely

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm going to use as part of my illustration two stories about the Buddha, and then I'll ask you which is more likely to be true.

STORY #1
Siddhartha Gautama, later known as the Buddha, was born a prince in the 6th century BCE in Lumbini, present-day Nepal. Raised in luxury, he was shielded from the suffering of the world. However, at the age of 29, Siddhartha left the palace and encountered the "Four Sights"—an old man, a sick man, a dead body, and an ascetic. Deeply troubled by the reality of suffering, he renounced his royal life and embarked on a spiritual journey to find the cause of and solution to human suffering.

STORY #2
When Siddhartha Gautama was born, he immediately stood up and took seven steps in each cardinal direction. At each spot where his foot touched the ground, a lotus flower bloomed, symbolizing purity. He then pointed to the heavens and declared, "I am the chief of the world, this is my final birth." As he grew older, Siddhartha developed miraculous powers. He could fly across rivers without using a bridge, shrink his body to the size of a grain of rice, and transform into thousands of different beings simultaneously. It is said that during one of his teachings, he caused an entire field of mango trees to suddenly bear fruit, feeding thousands of his followers who had not eaten for days.

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

 

[Jimmy]

#2
Real life is a wondrous miracle and all of existence is here because of a great and glorious miracle.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

#2
Real life is a wondrous miracle and all of existence is here because of a great and glorious miracle.

If you really think #2 is the story more likely to be historical, that would tend to make sense of some of your other posts.

 

[Jimmy]

If you really think #2 is the story more likely to be historical, that would tend to make sense of some of your other posts.

It would be fair to use my reasoning with all religions.

 

[Nakosis]

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

The first.

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

Which is more likely to have occurred with respect to my own experience.

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

Yes, but that still is no guarantee that either story is accurate.

 

[Spice]

Both stories draw attention. Which is the most fantastical and memorable? Which one is told to philosophical minds? Which is told to miracle seekers?

All religions, in every variation, have those who are drawn into the one that most fulfills their "current" need. What I find sad is becoming stagnant.

Continued learning, continued exploration, continued wonder and wander makes for a life that continues to be fulfilling, IMO. If we were truly created to be in one place mentally and spiritually, we'd still be in Eden.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

1. Story Number 1.
2. Life experience informed by science/
3. Yes.

Both stories draw attention. Which is the most fantastical and memorable? Which one is told to philosophical minds? Which is told to miracle seekers?

All religions, in every variation, have those who are drawn into the one that most fulfills their "current" need. What I find sad is becoming stagnant.

Continued learning, continued exploration, continued wonder and wander makes for a life that continues to be fulfilling, IMO. If we were truly created to be in one place mentally and spiritually, we'd still be in Eden.

So, you appreciate fantasy and myth. OK, but why avoid answering the questions?

 

[PureX]

Why would I care about the historical accuracy of either story? I see no logical reason to presume that the historical accuracy of a story somehow validates the truth or wisdom that the story means to convey to me.

I could tell you a thousand historically accurate stories that would mean nothing to anyone in terms of conveying some degree of truth or wisdom. And yet many of us can recall lots of stories we've encountered over the years that were not in the least bit historical that nevertheless do convey both truth and wisdom from generation to generation.

I just don't see the correlation between history and wisdom that seems to be presumed in the OP. .

 

[sayak83]

I'm going to use as part of my illustration two stories about the Buddha, and then I'll ask you which is more likely to be true.

STORY #1
Siddhartha Gautama, later known as the Buddha, was born a prince in the 6th century BCE in Lumbini, present-day Nepal. Raised in luxury, he was shielded from the suffering of the world. However, at the age of 29, Siddhartha left the palace and encountered the "Four Sights"—an old man, a sick man, a dead body, and an ascetic. Deeply troubled by the reality of suffering, he renounced his royal life and embarked on a spiritual journey to find the cause of and solution to human suffering.

STORY #2
When Siddhartha Gautama was born, he immediately stood up and took seven steps in each cardinal direction. At each spot where his foot touched the ground, a lotus flower bloomed, symbolizing purity. He then pointed to the heavens and declared, "I am the chief of the world, this is my final birth." As he grew older, Siddhartha developed miraculous powers. He could fly across rivers without using a bridge, shrink his body to the size of a grain of rice, and transform into thousands of different beings simultaneously. It is said that during one of his teachings, he caused an entire field of mango trees to suddenly bear fruit, feeding thousands of his followers who had not eaten for days.

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

Neither is likely to be actually true, though the first is more closer to reality than the 2nd based on background understanding on what does or does not happen.
Obviously yes. However, unlike the literalist, I believe religious texts contain narratives that help us get a sense of the spiritual dimension of life or an aspect of the path. They are not usually meant to be considered literally true. There is a difference between factually true and real.

 

[Quintessence]

I feel the need to leave the words of Karen Armstrong here:

In the traditional world, there were two recognized ways of thinking, speaking, and acquiring knowledge, which scholars have called mythos and logos. Both were essential to humanity; neither was considered superior but both were regarded as complimentary, each with its special area of competence. Myth related to what was thought to be timeless and constant; it looked back to the origins of life, to the beginnings of culture, and to the deepest levels of the mind. Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning. Unless we find some significance in our lives, human beings fall very easily into despair. The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day existence. It directed their attention to the eternal and universal.​

​

...​

​

Myth could not be demonstrated by logical proof; its insights were more intuitive and similar to those acquired by means of art. Myth only became a reality when it was embodied in cult, rituals, and ceremonies which worked upon the worshipers esthetically, evoking within them a sense of sacred significance and enabling them to apprehend the deeper currents of existence.​

​

...​

​

But in the traditional world, logos was equally important. Logos was the rational, pragmatic, and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function effectively in the world. Our modernity may have reduced our understanding of mythos, but we are very familiar with logos, which is the basis of our society. Unlike mythos, logos must relate accurately to the factual evidence and correspond to external mundane reality if it is to be effective. It must work efficiently in the ordinary world. We use this logical, discursive reasoning when we have to make things happen, get something done, or persuade other people to adopt a particular course of action. Logos is practical.​

From - http://worldwisdom.com/public/viewp...le=Faith_and_Modernity_by_Karen_Armstrong.pdf

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm going to use as part of my illustration two stories about the Buddha, and then I'll ask you which is more likely to be true.

STORY #1
Siddhartha Gautama, later known as the Buddha, was born a prince in the 6th century BCE in Lumbini, present-day Nepal. Raised in luxury, he was shielded from the suffering of the world. However, at the age of 29, Siddhartha left the palace and encountered the "Four Sights"—an old man, a sick man, a dead body, and an ascetic. Deeply troubled by the reality of suffering, he renounced his royal life and embarked on a spiritual journey to find the cause of and solution to human suffering.

STORY #2
When Siddhartha Gautama was born, he immediately stood up and took seven steps in each cardinal direction. At each spot where his foot touched the ground, a lotus flower bloomed, symbolizing purity. He then pointed to the heavens and declared, "I am the chief of the world, this is my final birth." As he grew older, Siddhartha developed miraculous powers. He could fly across rivers without using a bridge, shrink his body to the size of a grain of rice, and transform into thousands of different beings simultaneously. It is said that during one of his teachings, he caused an entire field of mango trees to suddenly bear fruit, feeding thousands of his followers who had not eaten for days.

mmkay.

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

Obviously the first.

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

A variation of Occam's razor. No part of the first story requires the assumptions of any magic or similar. All of it deals with pretty ordinary mundane things.

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

I do. It's why I am an atheist.

The standard of evidence that a claim is being held up to is directly proportional with the extra-ordinary nature of it.

This is why when a woman goes to a police station with the claim that she was just sexually assaulted by a man at the park, she is taken seriously and a proper investigation is set up. While if the same woman goes to a police station with the claim that she was just sexually assaulted by space aliens on their flying saucer after having been abducted from the same park, instead of having her medically checked for signs and consequences of sexual assault, she'll most likely be checked for drug abuse...


As Matt Dilahuntly so eloquently stated a few times: Not all claims are created equal

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It would be fair to use my reasoning with all religions.

That's going to be hard because you'll end up having to believe many mutually exclusive religions.

You will also have to take out a few mortgage loans to pay me off so that I won't send my undetectable fire breathing dragon to you to kill you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would I care about the historical accuracy of either story?

Because that is what the OP is asking about.

I just don't see the correlation between history and wisdom that seems to be presumed in the OP. .

I see no such presumption in the OP, which only mentions historical accuracy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just don't see the correlation between history and wisdom that seems to be presumed in the OP.

I don't detect such a presumption, but you prompt me to ask: Do you see any value in history?

 

[PureX]

I don't detect such a presumption, but you prompt me to ask: Do you see any value in history?

Do you see any value in artifice?

Both have value, of course. But when it comes to the conveyance of wisdom and truth, human to human, artifice does it much better.

 

[Spice]

So, you appreciate fantasy and myth. OK, but why avoid answering the questions?

You misinterpreted my response. "I" am drawn to #1, but "I" can't speak for everyone. Some people don't do well with the truth. I prefer it, but I can still feel for those who'd rather have hope in the fantastical.

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm going to use as part of my illustration two stories about the Buddha, and then I'll ask you which is more likely to be true.

STORY #1
Siddhartha Gautama, later known as the Buddha, was born a prince in the 6th century BCE in Lumbini, present-day Nepal. Raised in luxury, he was shielded from the suffering of the world. However, at the age of 29, Siddhartha left the palace and encountered the "Four Sights"—an old man, a sick man, a dead body, and an ascetic. Deeply troubled by the reality of suffering, he renounced his royal life and embarked on a spiritual journey to find the cause of and solution to human suffering.

STORY #2
When Siddhartha Gautama was born, he immediately stood up and took seven steps in each cardinal direction. At each spot where his foot touched the ground, a lotus flower bloomed, symbolizing purity. He then pointed to the heavens and declared, "I am the chief of the world, this is my final birth." As he grew older, Siddhartha developed miraculous powers. He could fly across rivers without using a bridge, shrink his body to the size of a grain of rice, and transform into thousands of different beings simultaneously. It is said that during one of his teachings, he caused an entire field of mango trees to suddenly bear fruit, feeding thousands of his followers who had not eaten for days.

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

You have two stories with two different purposes and both contain truth. One may be a better approximation of the physical events that could be observed but does not accurately explain the spiritual experience occurring. All texts have a mythologic truth and often have some historic truth also.

 

[Augustus]

Neither is likely to be actually true

That’s the thing, both resemble common mythic tropes.

Of the two, 1 is less improbable, but it’s 2 things that almost certainly didn’t happen (but their factuality is not the most important feature).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You have two stories with two different purposes and both contain truth. One may be a better approximation of the physical events that could be observed but does not accurately explain the spiritual experience occurring. All texts have a mythologic truth and often have some historic truth also.

The objective of this thread is not to dis myth. I actually enjoy myth. And I think that the best way to transmit ethics and values is through fiction. But that's not what this thread is about.

There are people who read religious texts without an eye as to what genre is being used. They assume that everything in the text is factual, HISTORICAL. And they don't like it when others point out that it is very obvious at face value that it is not.

What I have attempted to do here is give them a neutral scenario (Buddhists are scarce in here), ask them for their REASONING why Story 1 is far more likely to be historical than Story 2, and then end with the suggestion that they should use the same reasoning when reading their own sacred text.

 

[Augustus]

ask them for their REASONING why Story 1 is far more likely to be historical than Story 2

Is it far more likely? Or just marginally less unlikely?