Help Refuting a Buddhist/Neo-Platonic Objection

[Justin Martyr]

Hello,

I've discovered an objection to the Faith that, by it's very nature, is difficult to definitively rebut. It goes as follows:

Various spirits, some incredibly powerful, exist

Christianity (and Judaism before it) could have possibly, no matter how improbably, been founded by one of these incredibly powerful spirits, either as an act of malevolent deception, benevolent deception, or a genuine delusion on the part of this spirit that it was the transcendent Actus Purus creator of the universe.

Given the above premises, and the various inconsistencies regarding the Church (The various oriental schisms, the Great Western Schism, Vatican II, etc.), the Scriptures (the Geocentrist, YEC, Flat-Earth cosmology of the OT, chronological inconsistencies in the OT and NT, apparently unfulfilled or dubiously fulfilled messianic prophecies, etc.), and various facts of life (problem of evil, plurality of world religions, inaccessibility of the true faith for most of the Human Race throughout history, etc.), it is more reasonable to conclude that Christianity/Judaism are the work of an extremely-powerful-but-limited spirit rather than a transcendent Creator.

Unlike objections to atheistic claims, I can't see an easy resolution to this. Any fulfilled prophecies are easily doable to at least mimic by a powerful spirit, just as it is easy for me to fulfill a "prophesy" that I am going to make my wife a turkey sandwich at noon. Miracles likewise would prove nothing against this argument, along with the testimony of the apostles. Personal spiritual experiences prove nothing as well. All of the standard proofs that would show the Sacred Scriptures to be inspired would seem non-definitive against the paradigm of the above argument. And, if we can't prove the testimony of the Sacred Scriptures, the entire Christian religion follows.

Assuming that it is possible for a powerful spirit to present itself as the True God and to present its "revelations" as the True Revelation, both of which are valid possibilities and are likely to have already happened (as it almost certainly has in regard to Islam, Montanism, Mormonism, etc.) under a Catholic Paradigm, how can we disprove that this could be the case with the True Religion as well? Granted, this kind of skeptical and suspicious approach should be unconvincing to Catholics who have the gift of faith, but how can we demonstrate to Buddhists, Neo-Platonists, etc. that such an approach is unreasonable?

Thanks to all of you in advance for any help you can render me, and for engaging such an absurd argument. Pax Christi!

[TerrorDæmonum]

Are you trying to refute this for your own intellect, or for someone else's?

it is more reasonable to conclude that Christianity/Judaism are the work of an extremely-powerful-but-limited spirit rather than a transcendent Creator.

This conclusion is highly questionable. I would say it is more reasonable to assume that God as presented by the Judaic and Christian tradition is working with extremely weak and fickle and disobedient human beings, and all those aforementioned issues are either examples of human failing or examples of the dangers of private interpretation of scripture. If nothing else, the testimony of the Jewish and Christians writers against themselves makes them stand apart. Compare this to Islam where their prophet's writing about himself is flattering. The writers of scripture are clearly not promoting themselves and constantly show themselves in a very poor light.

As for the refutation of the nature of God being God, rather than some lower entity, that is a matter of Faith, that is, the theological virtue.

Indeed, if we were relying on human reason and our senses, we would not be able to know God in any way besides a general philosophical conclusion that there must be some sort of supreme being, and maybe be able to guess at a few truths.

Granted, this kind of skeptical and suspicious approach should be unconvincing to Catholics who have the gift of faith, but how can we demonstrate to Buddhists, Neo-Platonists, etc. that such an approach is unreasonable?

That is easy: the teachings of the Church and all the testimony to support it, would not convince people by force of argument by its very nature.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:

We can present the Church and we can present the theology, but that is nothing if one rejects Faith.

Also, the argument seems to be more about questioning the nature of God than anything else. If one is making those assumptions, one is essentially saying that the God we think we worship is just a sufficiently advanced alien (so to speak) and not the God described in Christian orthodox theology. These same people might not even be able to answer the Brain in a Vat situation. It is very philosophical and an exercise of human reason, and thus, very limited.

Man cannot acquire knowledge of things beyond our understanding and we need revelation. The deficiencies of man do not mean those revelations are deficient.

[Justin Martyr]

Are you trying to refute this for your own intellect, or for someone else's?

A bit of both. I've seen this objection online (mainly from Buddhists, though I can easily see it being made from a neo-platonic perspective such as was held by Porphyry or Julian the Apostate) and I'd like to be prepared to address it if I'm ever called to offer an apologetic to someone who makes it. The former skeptic/objectivist in me also desires a satisfying answer, but I know that even if I can not obtain one that the truth of the Faith can not be subject to refutation, no matter how convincing an argument may seem.

it is more reasonable to conclude that Christianity/Judaism are the work of an extremely-powerful-but-limited spirit rather than a transcendent Creator.

This conclusion is highly questionable. I would say it is more reasonable to assume that God as presented by the Judaic and Christian tradition is working with extremely weak and fickle and disobedient human beings, and all those aforementioned issues are either examples of human failing or examples of the dangers of private interpretation of scripture. If nothing else, the testimony of the Jewish and Christians writers against themselves makes them stand apart. Compare this to Islam where their prophet's writing about himself is flattering. The writers of scripture are clearly not promoting themselves and constantly show themselves in a very poor light.

As for the refutation of the nature of God being God, rather than some lower entity, that is a matter of Faith, that is, the theological virtue.

Indeed, if we were relying on human reason and our senses, we would not be able to know God in any way besides a general philosophical conclusion that there must be some sort of supreme being, and maybe be able to guess at a few truths.

I agree completely of course, but at the same time, from the paradigm of a practicing buddhist, the idea of The LORD being a self-deluded deva or asura (may Our Lord blot out such blasphemies from the earth) is not necessarily an unreasonable assumption. They would already believe stories like that of the Bakabrahma, which are essentially the scenario laid out in the argument.

That is easy: the teachings of the Church and all the testimony to support it, would not convince people by force of argument by its very nature.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:

We can present the Church and we can present the theology, but that is nothing if one rejects Faith.

Can you clarify a little as to what you mean? I understand what the virtue of faith is and how the assent of faith works, but at the same time it is the motives of credibility which usually help lead us (with the primary cause being the Holy Ghost who gives us the gift of faith) to make the assent of faith in the first place. Apologetics has a very important role in the life of the Church, something both I and my confirmation Saint (St. Justin Martyr) can testify to. Were you simply restating the First Vatican Council, that ultimately the Faith is not proven or assented to on the basis of rational argument?

Also, the argument seems to be more about questioning the nature of God than anything else. If one is making those assumptions, one is essentially saying that the God we think we worship is just a sufficiently advanced alien (so to speak) and not the God described in Christian orthodox theology. These same people might not even be able to answer the Brain in a Vat situation. It is very philosophical and an exercise of human reason, and thus, very limited.

Man cannot acquire knowledge of things beyond our understanding and we need revelation. The deficiencies of man do not mean those revelations are deficient.

I agree, which is why I disdain such skeptical argumentation. That said, it's a little different from aliens or brains in vats. We have no reason to believe aliens exist or that reality is a simulation. We have incredibly solid reasons to believe that ancient and powerful spiritual entities (demons) exist and that they have deceived men to accept them as the True God and to accept their false revelations (as they did with the Montanists, the Mormons, the Muslims, the Gnostics, and many other false sects). From a Catholic Paradigm, the basic outline of the scenario as contained in the argument is both possible and real (though obviously it is false when applied to the True Faith).

[TerrorDæmonum]

We can present the Church and we can present the theology, but that is nothing if one rejects Faith.

Can you clarify a little as to what you mean? I understand what the virtue of faith is and how the assent of faith works, but at the same time it is the motives of credibility which usually help lead us (with the primary cause being the Holy Ghost who gives us the gift of faith) to make the assent of faith in the first place. Apologetics has a very important role in the life of the Church, something both I and my confirmation Saint (St. Justin Martyr) can testify to. Were you simply restating the First Vatican Council, that ultimately the Faith is not proven or assented to on the basis of rational argument?

More or less, I was simply restating the doctrine. But I was thinking of older theological writing at the time of writing it.

An important thing to consider I think is that theology as we typically study it is always based on reactions against errors against orthodoxy.

Otherwise, we receive the doctrines with Faith, and pray to God, and gain knowledge that way. Theological expositions come after this. We cannot really work backwards: from the theological expositions to Faith. They do lead there rationally speaking, but they cannot cause faith to arise in oneself. Faith must come from God.

There was a discussion on this forum earlier this year where someone was proposing the idea that an approved apparition with long time acceptance was in a demonic deception. At the time, I thought it was just odd speculation, and I pointed out that one can question anything that way and it isn't helpful (if the apparition was a deception to fool a Pope who had a vision, couldn't the Pope's vision been a deception to distract from the other apparition).

This epistemological quandary doesn't really have any sort of resolution on its own. It is sort of a self-imposed confusion, where one questions everything with endless "what ifs?".

Buddhists don't have any answers. It is a type of death-cult, where non-existence is their goal after many iterations of existence. If they are looking to this sort of "death" of self, then the promises of God will seem very strange, and if they seek God using only their reason, they will find they can always introduce doubts and consider diverse possibilities.

I suppose it is one of the interesting questions: what do people who search for truth do when they find it?

Most of the time, they reject it, and continue searching.

[Ragnarok]

Hello,

I've discovered an objection to the Faith that, by it's very nature, is difficult to definitively rebut. It goes as follows:

Various spirits, some incredibly powerful, exist

Christianity (and Judaism before it) could have possibly, no matter how improbably, been founded by one of these incredibly powerful spirits, either as an act of malevolent deception, benevolent deception, or a genuine delusion on the part of this spirit that it was the transcendent Actus Purus creator of the universe.

Given the above premises, and the various inconsistencies regarding the Church (The various oriental schisms, the Great Western Schism, Vatican II, etc.), the Scriptures (the Geocentrist, YEC, Flat-Earth cosmology of the OT, chronological inconsistencies in the OT and NT, apparently unfulfilled or dubiously fulfilled messianic prophecies, etc.), and various facts of life (problem of evil, plurality of world religions, inaccessibility of the true faith for most of the Human Race throughout history, etc.), it is more reasonable to conclude that Christianity/Judaism are the work of an extremely-powerful-but-limited spirit rather than a transcendent Creator.

Unlike objections to atheistic claims, I can't see an easy resolution to this. Any fulfilled prophecies are easily doable to at least mimic by a powerful spirit, just as it is easy for me to fulfill a "prophesy" that I am going to make my wife a turkey sandwich at noon. Miracles likewise would prove nothing against this argument, along with the testimony of the apostles. Personal spiritual experiences prove nothing as well. All of the standard proofs that would show the Sacred Scriptures to be inspired would seem non-definitive against the paradigm of the above argument. And, if we can't prove the testimony of the Sacred Scriptures, the entire Christian religion follows.

Assuming that it is possible for a powerful spirit to present itself as the True God and to present its "revelations" as the True Revelation, both of which are valid possibilities and are likely to have already happened (as it almost certainly has in regard to Islam, Montanism, Mormonism, etc.) under a Catholic Paradigm, how can we disprove that this could be the case with the True Religion as well? Granted, this kind of skeptical and suspicious approach should be unconvincing to Catholics who have the gift of faith, but how can we demonstrate to Buddhists, Neo-Platonists, etc. that such an approach is unreasonable?

Thanks to all of you in advance for any help you can render me, and for engaging such an absurd argument. Pax Christi!

The correct answer is: you can't with natural reason, only Faith.

The Catholic Church has never held you could.

The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that
there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct
not only as regards its source,
but also as regards its object.
With regard to the source,
we know at the one level by natural reason,
at the other level by divine faith.
With regard to the object,
besides those things to which natural reason can attain,
there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God
which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.
Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29] , comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30] , he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31] . And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32] .
...
If anyone says that
divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that
for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it:
let him be anathema.

Subjectively speaking, I'm convinced that all you can do is look at the various paradigms the world has offered, and using reason and a conscious good faith effort in morality, wisdom, prayer, and objective study, pick the paradigm that you objectively think explains the world best. This includes even atheistic paradigms, which require an individual to make several faith-based philosophical / metaphysical assumptions (even if reason is used to make those faith-based assumption).



Speaking to the case of Buddhism at hand, any of those philosophical criticisms that you lodge at Christianity must necessarily apply to Buddhism as well.

There are three major sects of Buddhism who interpret the Buddha's teachings in drastically different ways. Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Vajrayana Buddhism [most popularly practiced in the form of 'Tibetan' Buddhism].

These religions are so doctrinally different from each other, which I will explain later. But I guess we can start with the "Three Baskets" which are the "original" Buddhist scriptures that are common to both Mahayana [called the "Agamas"] and Theravada, with Vajrayana incorporating a portion of these scriptures [such that most Vajrayana practitioners, practically speaking, believe them to be canonical].


These scriptures show that Buddhism holds to an ancient Pre-Hindu Vedic cosmology that, when read literally, is even less congruous to contemporary science than the Hebrew cosmology. They believed the entire world was the Subcontinent of India, flat of course. Moreover, they believed that there were four "Continents" or "worlds" (in each direction). which circled a cosmic mountain called "Mount Meru". The Northern Continent (we are the Southern Continent) is described fantastically in various scriptures - in one ancient account (outside the Three Baskets, but it adds context to understanding the Three Baskets), the Northern Continent was a perfect Utopian Garden of Eden like location. Mount Meru has different realms that are separated by oceans, each representing a different level of spiritual being (that you could reincarnate into) - the bottom of it are the hell realms with demons and fiery torment, the top is a heaven realm where the devas reside.

The top of this cosmic "Mount Meru" is where the devas or the gods [the devas are more like celestial beings, or even "angels", than gods as traditionally understood] lived in heavenly palaces where they have aristocratic heavenly tea parties along with drinking this refined heavenly drink (like champagne or fine wine). There were also malevolent devas who once lived there - one they arrived in Heaven (after reincarnating) Sakha, the King Lightning god, told them to have prudence in drinking the heavenly drink. Out of disorderly conduct and disobedience, theygot drunk off of the wine, so Sakha and his fellow devas threw them off the mountain where they tumbled down and now live in a distorted evil version of that heavenly realm - those fallen devas are called the "Asuras", and every once in a while they are reminded of their fallen state, so they climb up the mountain in order to try to overthrow the devas via warfare and seize their place back in heaven.

Also, the universe exists in cycles, with subcycles. In each cycle (if memory serves, there are four subcycles), the universe gradually declines before resetting back to normal - so in the first subcycle, human beings might live for thousands of years, in the fourth one they only live to 80 or so. In each subcycle, a Buddha comes into the world to teach the Dharma [weird word that means "How things are" whose usage here is basically "The Faith"], and then another Buddha comes to end the world when the Dharma disappears after the morality of the world gradually declines and Buddhism dies out. Each subcycle is ended by a different element - one time by air, one time by water, one time by earth, and in our cycle, fire.


If you want more information on traditional Buddhist cosmology, you can watch Ajahn Sona's 10 part series on it [their cosmology is very complicated, I'm only giving you some brief basics - also, these guys take Buddhism very seriously and share similar moral values to you]

youtube . com /watch?v=lFTkpFsLfrs&list=PLCXN1GlAupG3yowPq9fiy35EUC_uoEUrZ&ab_channel=AjahnSona

So how do you know that the Buddha was right? He very well may have been deceived by what Christians would deem "demonic spirits" masquerading as gods. Apparently the Buddha had insight into how attached and wordly people were, such that he didn't want to bother teaching the Dharma. Fearing the world would end, the god Brahma [the same as the Hindu one] came down from Heaven to convince the Buddha that it was necessary to teach the Dharma for the good of the small amount of faithful who would achieve Nirvanna, and he had to do so three times.

How do you know that it wasn't really Satan, the Father of Lies, to convince the Buddha to teach what he taught? Or one of his demons? The Buddha in the Three Baskets mocks the idea that a single God created the world, and he mocks any "Divine Vision" that other Vedics apparently received at that time of that monotheistic entity - claiming that those visions are just memories of that monk's past life as a spiritual being. As such, Buddhists teach self-reliance above all else, and reject worship towards any deity but the Buddha [and the Bodhisattvas]. How do you know it wasn't Satan using Buddhist doctrine to prevent people from trying to find their Creator?

Here's a cartoon from Thailand recounting the famous story where Buddha encounters Brahma, the god who claims to have created the universe with everything sustained from his will, with the Buddha disproving him by ascending to higher planes of existence that Brahma cannot comprehend. This story is in the Three Baskets.





When the Buddha was born, apparently Devas appeared and were rejoicing and dancing at the Buddha's birth. How do you know that these beings weren't demons rejoicing at his birth?


Now finally, let's talk about the actual historicity of Buddhism as it's practiced today. I think that the lineage of Buddhism is less verifiable than even Christianity, because despite whatever changed, most Christians have the same basic philosophical conceptions, cosmologies, and have Scriptures from Saint Paul, who knew Saint Peter, who knew Jesus (not to mention Scriptures from Saint Peter, Saint John, etc.)

In Buddhism, we have three major sects of Buddhism which have radically different cosmologies, spiritual goals, and even scriptures, all claiming to come from the Buddha with all claiming that the other schools are heretical (traditionally; now they are nicer to each other).

Theravada Buddhism believes that the Buddha was a mere man who became a supreme being by virtue of his Enlightenment, and then he passed on into Nirvanna. He's no longer here. In this conception of the cosmos, everything always exist and will always exist, without beginning or end. And the goal of this branch of Buddhism is to become an Arahant - basically, to cease reincarnation and achieve Nirvanna.

Mahayana Buddhism believes that the essence of the entire cosmos is beyond all dualism [basically, categories], and that the essence of all things is Buddha-nature - the Buddha was a docetic manifestation of that divine essence so he never really lived, never really died, and never really left us. In some schools, that Buddha-nature is personified as a Primordial Buddha who existed beyond all time, called "Dainichi" or "Vairocana". They also believe that the goal of Buddhism is not to become an Arahant and cease reincarnation, but to either (depending on the school)

1.Reincarnate as a future Buddha to bring other beings into Enlightenment, knowing you will pass on anyways.
2. Reincarnate perpetually until all sentient beings are saved, because if you know that all is Buddha, than you have already achieved Nirvanna.

The "Primordial Buddha" is most explicit in Vajrayana / Tibetan Buddhism, where this personification is explicitly identified as "First Buddha". They reject the eternity of the universe, believing the cycles of time had one single starting point. They believe the goal of Buddhism is achieved through Tantric and Yoga practices, as well as finding a Buddhist god (basically a "familiar") who guides you to Nirvanna.


All of these cosmologies, while they accept the basics in the Three Baskets, also have additional facts to their cosmologies that differ between the schools. For example, the Mahanaya Buddhists honor a "Bodhisattva" goddess called Guan Yin, who in some schools is a male, in some schools is a female - in some schools he was a great ascetic, in some schools she was a young princess who became an ascetic.


So how do you know which one is actually congruent with historical Buddhism? Not to mention that as a matter of history, early Buddhists were iconoclastic / anionic, and no school today is actually iconoclastic / anionic.


There's also some remaining questions about the historicity of the Buddha's life. The Founder of Jainism's life, for example, literally is beat for beat the Buddha's life. Both were Indian princes predicted to become great ascetics whose father locked them away and they saw suffering and became a monk and spread their schools, etc.




So in total, any of the problems you addressed towards Christianity are equally so towards Buddhism, even more so. You have the problems of archaic cosmologies (not that Western "Zen Buddhist Masters" actually know any of this stuff, because most of them are grifters who meditate to virtue signal - most of them don't even know about the Hell realms or that the traditional Buddhist position on sex parallels the Catholic position), the problem of historicity, the problem of potential doctrinal continuity, and the fact that demons may have revealed their doctrines.

[Xavier]

Would Buddhists really object such things? In any case, you can tell Eucharistic Miracles are Supernatural Proof of an Infinite Power, i.e. of Almighty God as Infinite Love and Supreme Goodness - therefore the One True God of Catholic Christianity. The reason is because, To Transubstantiate is more than even To Create. Both require Infinite Power. As only God can be the Creator (contrary to demiurge absurdities, which Buddhists may want to re-invent), so also only an Almighty God can be the Efficient Cause of an Act of Transubstantiation. In Transubstantiation, the first substance ceases to exist (the bread/wine), and the Second Substance, (The Holy Body/Precious Blood of Lord Jesus Christ) begins to inhere in the accidents of the first. An act only an Infinite Power can accomplish.

Taken from: https://onepeterfive.com/5-good-reasons-to-become-or-remain-a-catholic-christian/

"1. Eucharistic Miracles – Signs and Proofs of Christ's Divine Power to Miraculously Transubstantiate

A non-Christian friend of mine called Eucharistic Miracles "the most powerful evidence for (Catholic) Christianity." It is easy for us non-skeptics to understand why. For skeptics and doubters, these miracles serve as supernatural signs. Vatican I explains it well:

In order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God's will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external indications of His Revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the Omnipotence and Infinite Knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith: Chapter 3, On Faith).

Christ worked the wondrous Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano in response to a poor Priest struggling through his own dark night. He wondered if Christ really was present in the Eucharist, as Christ had promised in the Gospel. In His Mercy, the Good Lord chose to answer the doubts of this "doubting Thomas" with a Eucharistic Miracle. It reminds us of His post-Resurrection apparition to St. Thomas.

The next time you are at Holy Mass, or Eucharistic Adoration, just remember the Living God is truly present in the Host. Some believe because they have seen. But blessed are those who believe even without seeing, as Our Lord said. Believing without seeing will merit a great reward in Heaven." https://onepeterfive.com/5-good-reasons-to-become-or-remain-a-catholic-christian/

[Justin Martyr]

Hello,

I've discovered an objection to the Faith that, by it's very nature, is difficult to definitively rebut. It goes as follows:

Various spirits, some incredibly powerful, exist

Christianity (and Judaism before it) could have possibly, no matter how improbably, been founded by one of these incredibly powerful spirits, either as an act of malevolent deception, benevolent deception, or a genuine delusion on the part of this spirit that it was the transcendent Actus Purus creator of the universe.

Given the above premises, and the various inconsistencies regarding the Church (The various oriental schisms, the Great Western Schism, Vatican II, etc.), the Scriptures (the Geocentrist, YEC, Flat-Earth cosmology of the OT, chronological inconsistencies in the OT and NT, apparently unfulfilled or dubiously fulfilled messianic prophecies, etc.), and various facts of life (problem of evil, plurality of world religions, inaccessibility of the true faith for most of the Human Race throughout history, etc.), it is more reasonable to conclude that Christianity/Judaism are the work of an extremely-powerful-but-limited spirit rather than a transcendent Creator.

Unlike objections to atheistic claims, I can't see an easy resolution to this. Any fulfilled prophecies are easily doable to at least mimic by a powerful spirit, just as it is easy for me to fulfill a "prophesy" that I am going to make my wife a turkey sandwich at noon. Miracles likewise would prove nothing against this argument, along with the testimony of the apostles. Personal spiritual experiences prove nothing as well. All of the standard proofs that would show the Sacred Scriptures to be inspired would seem non-definitive against the paradigm of the above argument. And, if we can't prove the testimony of the Sacred Scriptures, the entire Christian religion follows.

Assuming that it is possible for a powerful spirit to present itself as the True God and to present its "revelations" as the True Revelation, both of which are valid possibilities and are likely to have already happened (as it almost certainly has in regard to Islam, Montanism, Mormonism, etc.) under a Catholic Paradigm, how can we disprove that this could be the case with the True Religion as well? Granted, this kind of skeptical and suspicious approach should be unconvincing to Catholics who have the gift of faith, but how can we demonstrate to Buddhists, Neo-Platonists, etc. that such an approach is unreasonable?

Thanks to all of you in advance for any help you can render me, and for engaging such an absurd argument. Pax Christi!

The correct answer is: you can't with natural reason, only Faith.

The Catholic Church has never held you could.

The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that
there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct
not only as regards its source,
but also as regards its object.
With regard to the source,
we know at the one level by natural reason,
at the other level by divine faith.
With regard to the object,
besides those things to which natural reason can attain,
there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God
which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.
Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29] , comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30] , he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31] . And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32] .
...
If anyone says that
divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that
for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it:
let him be anathema.

Subjectively speaking, I'm convinced that all you can do is look at the various paradigms the world has offered, and using reason and a conscious good faith effort in morality, wisdom, prayer, and objective study, pick the paradigm that you objectively think explains the world best. This includes even atheistic paradigms, which require an individual to make several faith-based philosophical / metaphysical assumptions (even if reason is used to make those faith-based assumption).



Speaking to the case of Buddhism at hand, any of those philosophical criticisms that you lodge at Christianity must necessarily apply to Buddhism as well.

There are three major sects of Buddhism who interpret the Buddha's teachings in drastically different ways. Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Vajrayana Buddhism [most popularly practiced in the form of 'Tibetan' Buddhism].

These religions are so doctrinally different from each other, which I will explain later. But I guess we can start with the "Three Baskets" which are the "original" Buddhist scriptures that are common to both Mahayana [called the "Agamas"] and Theravada, with Vajrayana incorporating a portion of these scriptures [such that most Vajrayana practitioners, practically speaking, believe them to be canonical].


These scriptures show that Buddhism holds to an ancient Pre-Hindu Vedic cosmology that, when read literally, is even less congruous to contemporary science than the Hebrew cosmology. They believed the entire world was the Subcontinent of India, flat of course. Moreover, they believed that there were four "Continents" or "worlds" (in each direction). which circled a cosmic mountain called "Mount Meru". The Northern Continent (we are the Southern Continent) is described fantastically in various scriptures - in one ancient account (outside the Three Baskets, but it adds context to understanding the Three Baskets), the Northern Continent was a perfect Utopian Garden of Eden like location. Mount Meru has different realms that are separated by oceans, each representing a different level of spiritual being (that you could reincarnate into) - the bottom of it are the hell realms with demons and fiery torment, the top is a heaven realm where the devas reside.

The top of this cosmic "Mount Meru" is where the devas or the gods [the devas are more like celestial beings, or even "angels", than gods as traditionally understood] lived in heavenly palaces where they have aristocratic heavenly tea parties along with drinking this refined heavenly drink (like champagne or fine wine). There were also malevolent devas who once lived there - one they arrived in Heaven (after reincarnating) Sakha, the King Lightning god, told them to have prudence in drinking the heavenly drink. Out of disorderly conduct and disobedience, theygot drunk off of the wine, so Sakha and his fellow devas threw them off the mountain where they tumbled down and now live in a distorted evil version of that heavenly realm - those fallen devas are called the "Asuras", and every once in a while they are reminded of their fallen state, so they climb up the mountain in order to try to overthrow the devas via warfare and seize their place back in heaven.

Also, the universe exists in cycles, with subcycles. In each cycle (if memory serves, there are four subcycles), the universe gradually declines before resetting back to normal - so in the first subcycle, human beings might live for thousands of years, in the fourth one they only live to 80 or so. In each subcycle, a Buddha comes into the world to teach the Dharma [weird word that means "How things are" whose usage here is basically "The Faith"], and then another Buddha comes to end the world when the Dharma disappears after the morality of the world gradually declines and Buddhism dies out. Each subcycle is ended by a different element - one time by air, one time by water, one time by earth, and in our cycle, fire.


If you want more information on traditional Buddhist cosmology, you can watch Ajahn Sona's 10 part series on it [their cosmology is very complicated, I'm only giving you some brief basics - also, these guys take Buddhism very seriously and share similar moral values to you]

youtube . com /watch?v=lFTkpFsLfrs&list=PLCXN1GlAupG3yowPq9fiy35EUC_uoEUrZ&ab_channel=AjahnSona

So how do you know that the Buddha was right? He very well may have been deceived by what Christians would deem "demonic spirits" masquerading as gods. Apparently the Buddha had insight into how attached and wordly people were, such that he didn't want to bother teaching the Dharma. Fearing the world would end, the god Brahma [the same as the Hindu one] came down from Heaven to convince the Buddha that it was necessary to teach the Dharma for the good of the small amount of faithful who would achieve Nirvanna, and he had to do so three times.

How do you know that it wasn't really Satan, the Father of Lies, to convince the Buddha to teach what he taught? Or one of his demons? The Buddha in the Three Baskets mocks the idea that a single God created the world, and he mocks any "Divine Vision" that other Vedics apparently received at that time of that monotheistic entity - claiming that those visions are just memories of that monk's past life as a spiritual being. As such, Buddhists teach self-reliance above all else, and reject worship towards any deity but the Buddha [and the Bodhisattvas]. How do you know it wasn't Satan using Buddhist doctrine to prevent people from trying to find their Creator?

Here's a cartoon from Thailand recounting the famous story where Buddha encounters Brahma, the god who claims to have created the universe with everything sustained from his will, with the Buddha disproving him by ascending to higher planes of existence that Brahma cannot comprehend. This story is in the Three Baskets.





When the Buddha was born, apparently Devas appeared and were rejoicing and dancing at the Buddha's birth. How do you know that these beings weren't demons rejoicing at his birth?


Now finally, let's talk about the actual historicity of Buddhism as it's practiced today. I think that the lineage of Buddhism is less verifiable than even Christianity, because despite whatever changed, most Christians have the same basic philosophical conceptions, cosmologies, and have Scriptures from Saint Paul, who knew Saint Peter, who knew Jesus (not to mention Scriptures from Saint Peter, Saint John, etc.)

In Buddhism, we have three major sects of Buddhism which have radically different cosmologies, spiritual goals, and even scriptures, all claiming to come from the Buddha with all claiming that the other schools are heretical (traditionally; now they are nicer to each other).

Theravada Buddhism believes that the Buddha was a mere man who became a supreme being by virtue of his Enlightenment, and then he passed on into Nirvanna. He's no longer here. In this conception of the cosmos, everything always exist and will always exist, without beginning or end. And the goal of this branch of Buddhism is to become an Arahant - basically, to cease reincarnation and achieve Nirvanna.

Mahayana Buddhism believes that the essence of the entire cosmos is beyond all dualism [basically, categories], and that the essence of all things is Buddha-nature - the Buddha was a docetic manifestation of that divine essence so he never really lived, never really died, and never really left us. In some schools, that Buddha-nature is personified as a Primordial Buddha who existed beyond all time, called "Dainichi" or "Vairocana". They also believe that the goal of Buddhism is not to become an Arahant and cease reincarnation, but to either (depending on the school)

1.Reincarnate as a future Buddha to bring other beings into Enlightenment, knowing you will pass on anyways.
2. Reincarnate perpetually until all sentient beings are saved, because if you know that all is Buddha, than you have already achieved Nirvanna.

The "Primordial Buddha" is most explicit in Vajrayana / Tibetan Buddhism, where this personification is explicitly identified as "First Buddha". They reject the eternity of the universe, believing the cycles of time had one single starting point. They believe the goal of Buddhism is achieved through Tantric and Yoga practices, as well as finding a Buddhist god (basically a "familiar") who guides you to Nirvanna.


All of these cosmologies, while they accept the basics in the Three Baskets, also have additional facts to their cosmologies that differ between the schools. For example, the Mahanaya Buddhists honor a "Bodhisattva" goddess called Guan Yin, who in some schools is a male, in some schools is a female - in some schools he was a great ascetic, in some schools she was a young princess who became an ascetic.


So how do you know which one is actually congruent with historical Buddhism? Not to mention that as a matter of history, early Buddhists were iconoclastic / anionic, and no school today is actually iconoclastic / anionic.


There's also some remaining questions about the historicity of the Buddha's life. The Founder of Jainism's life, for example, literally is beat for beat the Buddha's life. Both were Indian princes predicted to become great ascetics whose father locked them away and they saw suffering and became a monk and spread their schools, etc.




So in total, any of the problems you addressed towards Christianity are equally so towards Buddhism, even more so. You have the problems of archaic cosmologies (not that Western "Zen Buddhist Masters" actually know any of this stuff, because most of them are grifters who meditate to virtue signal - most of them don't even know about the Hell realms or that the traditional Buddhist position on sex parallels the Catholic position), the problem of historicity, the problem of potential doctrinal continuity, and the fact that demons may have revealed their doctrines.

Thank you very much, this is exactly the kind of take down I was looking for. It would appear that for an actual Buddhist (western worldlings who meditate dont count), this argument would prove too much, and therefore prove nothing.

Though, how would you respond to a Neo-Platonic interlocutor (like I mentioned in the OP) making the same argument? They aren't "weighed down" by the inconsistencies of the buddhist "scriptures", or by any of the other quirks that come with popular religions, while still affirming the existence of a supernatural aspect to reality and various spirits of varying "power levels" roaming around. As far as I know, none of them ever claimed Plato to have received revelation of some kind.

If Porphyry were briefly released from Hell to write a new Adversus Christianos (presumably this would be allowed by God to "check the pulse" as it were of contemporary apologetics), and he made the same argument as in the OP (presumably more sophisticated), how would you respond/rebut him?

[james03]

I've discovered an objection to the Faith that, by it's very nature, is difficult to definitively rebut.

It's difficult to rebut because it is a shotgun approach to see what sticks.

For individual arguments on Buddhism, it looks like Ragnarok is a good source.  I'm not.

In general, from philosophy we arrive at the necessity of the First Cause/Prime Mover.  This has been confirmed by science in that the beginning is bounded by zero entropy and the end is bounded by zero Gibbs Free Energy.  In short, what philosophy arrived at was (much) later confirmed by science.  Given that, we see that God names Himself "I Am" and Jesus says "before Abraham, I Am.".  At a minimum, the Christian God matches the requirements developed outside of Christianity for what God must be.

Given the above premises,

Basically "prove a negative".  A weak argument.  The Catholic Church insists on a First Cause/Prime Mover and shows how the Christian God satisfies this necessity.

and the various inconsistencies regarding the Church (The various oriental schisms, the Great Western Schism, Vatican II, etc.), the Scriptures (the Geocentrist, YEC, Flat-Earth cosmology of the OT, chronological inconsistencies in the OT and NT, apparently unfulfilled or dubiously fulfilled messianic prophecies, etc.), and various facts of life (problem of evil, plurality of world religions, inaccessibility of the true faith for most of the Human Race throughout history, etc.), it is more reasonable to conclude that Christianity/Judaism are the work of an extremely-powerful-but-limited spirit rather than a transcendent Creator.

The individual objections can be dealt with one-by-one.  For example, St. Augustine warns against using the Bible for science.  To show this is not a type of no-true-Scotsman argument you can refer to St. Robert Bellarmine's discussion on what the Church would do if science proved geocentrism wrong (it would revise its teachings). (An aside, Galileo was wrong due to his circular orbits vs. elliptical orbits, and the crazy epicycle system was more accurate).  But it seems that the argument boils down to "we humans don't agree with how God ordered the universe, so we won't believe in God."

[Justin Martyr]

I've discovered an objection to the Faith that, by it's very nature, is difficult to definitively rebut.

It's difficult to rebut because it is a shotgun approach to see what sticks.

Yep, its more or less a conspiracy theory on a monumental scale.

For individual arguments on Buddhism, it looks like Ragnarok is a good source.  I'm not.

In general, from philosophy we arrive at the necessity of the First Cause/Prime Mover.  This has been confirmed by science in that the beginning is bounded by zero entropy and the end is bounded by zero Gibbs Free Energy.  In short, what philosophy arrived at was (much) later confirmed by science.  Given that, we see that God names Himself "I Am" and Jesus says "before Abraham, I Am.".  At a minimum, the Christian God matches the requirements developed outside of Christianity for what God must be.

I agree, but this only applies to the objection from a Buddhist/Vedic Paradigm. A Neo-Platonist would affirm the necessity of a First Cause.

Given the above premises,

Basically "prove a negative".  A weak argument.  The Catholic Church insists on a First Cause/Prime Mover and shows how the Christian God satisfies this necessity.

I agree. That's why I described it as difficult to rebut "by its very nature". Unfortunately, unlike most objections along this line of thinking (brain-in-a-vat, solipsism, modernist/kantian critiques of knowledge, etc.), I can't just deny the possibility in general a priori, as I myself believe Islam and Montanism to originate with demons/Satan masquerading as the True God/Messenger(s) of the True God (Mormonism seems more likely to be a purely human con on the part of Joseph Smith, but I digress). By in general, I mean as a hypothetical valid objection to any given claim to Divine Revelation; I do reject the argument a priori in regard to the Catholic Faith, since I already know the Catholic Faith to be true with the certainty of Divine and Catholic Faith. However, this is the result of the gift of Faith, and would not be persuasive as an apologetic response to a non-Catholic.

and the various inconsistencies regarding the Church (The various oriental schisms, the Great Western Schism, Vatican II, etc.), the Scriptures (the Geocentrist, YEC, Flat-Earth cosmology of the OT, chronological inconsistencies in the OT and NT, apparently unfulfilled or dubiously fulfilled messianic prophecies, etc.), and various facts of life (problem of evil, plurality of world religions, inaccessibility of the true faith for most of the Human Race throughout history, etc.), it is more reasonable to conclude that Christianity/Judaism are the work of an extremely-powerful-but-limited spirit rather than a transcendent Creator.

The individual objections can be dealt with one-by-one.  For example, St. Augustine warns against using the Bible for science.  To show this is not a type of no-true-Scotsman argument you can refer to St. Robert Bellarmine's discussion on what the Church would do if science proved geocentrism wrong (it would revise its teachings). (An aside, Galileo was wrong due to his circular orbits vs. elliptical orbits, and the crazy epicycle system was more accurate). But it seems that the argument boils down to "we humans don't agree with how God ordered the universe, so we won't believe in God."

I agree, almost every one of the "apparent" inconsistencies are capable of somewhat simple and plausible explanation (with the exception of Vatican II, which requires a fair bit more legwork but can also be reconciled). However, the point the hypothetical Buddhist/Neo-Platonic interlocutor was making was that for every inconsistency that has to be explained and reconciled, the more probable it is that the source of a given religion is not omniscient/omnipotent/Actus Purus. It's this premise that has to be shown wrong rather than the inconsistencies themselves that have to be reconciled. Would you agree or disagree that the apparent historical errors of Islam and Mormonism are proofs in favor of the probability that they are not the from a Divine but rather preternatural source?

[james03]

Would you agree or disagree that the apparent historical errors of Islam and Mormonism are proofs in favor of the probability that they are not the from a Divine but rather preternatural source?

No.  I'm not aware of the historical errors (not denying they exist).  Not particularly knowledgeable with Mormons besides some converstations with my ex-Mormon bishop buddy.  It was really whacky, so I have no interest.  On Islam, it is the teachings themselves that are erroneous and evil.  The natural impulse of soldiers when they became exposed to the pedophilia of Islam was to vomit.  Also, the moslem concept of heaven makes no sense in that it is materialistic.

[Justin Martyr]

Would you agree or disagree that the apparent historical errors of Islam and Mormonism are proofs in favor of the probability that they are not the from a Divine but rather preternatural source?

No.  I'm not aware of the historical errors (not denying they exist).  Not particularly knowledgeable with Mormons besides some converstations with my ex-Mormon bishop buddy.  It was really whacky, so I have no interest.  On Islam, it is the teachings themselves that are erroneous and evil.  The natural impulse of soldiers when they became exposed to the pedophilia of Islam was to vomit.  Also, the moslem concept of heaven makes no sense in that it is materialistic.

Ah, well fair enough. To give one particularly aggregious example, the Qur'an states that Abraham built the Kaaba in Mecca and that there was a pilgrimage to the Kaaba as well going back to the time of Abraham and Ishmael. There is quite literally zero historical support for this claim, and the only non-Islamic sources Muslims tend to point to as far as I know is to take Psalm 83 horribly out of context. The argument doesn't even work with the Douay-Rheims translation or the Vulgate (since it's missing the main word they point to), but that doesn't stop them from repeating it all the time as "proof" of the "truth" of Islam in the Bible. Of course, the Muslims think this reconciliation of such an inconsistency is perfectly valid, since they tend to accept a priori (similar to presuppositionalist protestants) that the Qur'an is the "true" revelation and the other claimants are false. But I digress.

[james03]

I agree, but this only applies to the objection from a Buddhist/Vedic Paradigm. A Neo-Platonist would affirm the necessity of a First Cause.

I am not familiar with the neo-Platonist argument, so can't comment.  Do you have a summary reference? 

[Justin Martyr]

I agree, but this only applies to the objection from a Buddhist/Vedic Paradigm. A Neo-Platonist would affirm the necessity of a First Cause.

I am not familiar with the neo-Platonist argument, so can't comment.  Do you have a summary reference?

That's kind of like asking me to sum up Thomism lol. This is probably the most concise of a summary I can provide that isn't my own (and, given that I have not read The Enneads or On the Divine Names, I do not consider myself qualified): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/

Neo-Platonism was very influential on, and often in combat with, the early Fathers of the Church. I don't know if the Neo-Platonists of late antiquity ever raised this particular objection as contained in the OP (the ancients didn't tend towards paradigm level criticism like we do), but I could certainly see a modern Neo-Platonist (rare as those may be) raising it. That said, I'd have to dig through Contra Julianum of Saint Cyril and Saint Peter Canisius (which was written to rebut Against the Galileans by Julian the Apostate) or Contra Porphyrium by Saint Jerome (which was a response to Porphyry's Adversus Christianos) in order to see if this kind of thing came up. We can't really go through the original works themselves, as the Empire and the Church burnt all the manuscripts. So all we have are the citations of their arguments that are found in the Fathers.

Nothing substantial would change in the objection though. The Neo-Platonists (at least back then) accepted the existence of power spirits who were capable of and had deceived men in the past. Likewise, from what I do know, they often attacked the details of the Gospels or Genesis in order to disprove the claims of the Sacred Scriptures to be Divine Revelation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT: I looked into what fragments of Against the Galileans by Julian the Apostate are extant, and the thrust of his argument seems to be the objection of the OP. A summary of the work taken from wikipedia states this succinctly:

"Julian goes on to discuss the creation myths of the Greeks and the Jews, citing the account of the Book of Genesis. He ridicules the idea of literally interpreting the Jewish account, claiming that it is not only logically impossible (75B) – he asks how the serpent was able to speak a human language (86A) – but that is also blasphemous and insulting to God (89B). A true God, he says, would not have withheld the knowledge of good and evil from men or have been jealous of men eating from the tree of life and living forever. Indeed, this behavior shows God to be evil and the serpent, giving man the enormously valuable gift of differentiating good and evil, to be good. Therefore, it must have a deeper meaning (94A).

Julian also brings up questions from the account of how God created the world. Where, he asks, did the abyss, the darkness, and the waters come from that are mentioned (49C)? Where did angels come from, since they are not mentioned in the creation account? To Julian, the account of Genesis is not about a creator God, but about an inferior god who merely shaped the matter that had already been created (49E). He compares this to Plato's account of the creation in Timaeus, in which inferior gods shape the matter created by the creator God (58C), and concludes that the Genesis account cannot adequately explain who created the matter that the God of Moses shaped (49E). Julian goes on to argue that there must be more than one god who shaped matter (66A), as if there was only one God, all created beings would be identical. The fact that there is such a difference between immortal beings, humans, and animals, proves that different gods shaped different beings (65D). The God of Moses, being a god who chose the Jews as his people and gave them alone the gift of prophecy and his teachings, is merely the god of the Jewish people, not the god of any other race of men (106D). Julian finds it absurd to believe that the God who created everything in the world, who describes himself as being a jealous God (106D–E), was content to confine himself to caring for a small tribe in Palestine while letting all races besides the Jews worship false gods for thousands of years (106D).

Julian then discusses how the Greeks view the gods as being the delegates of the creator God, each responsible for caring for different nations, cities, and races of men (115D), which explains why the character and customs of men are so different (131C). He mocks the idea that a literal interpretation of the story of the Tower of Babel can adequately explain why men differ so greatly, saying that it does not explain why men have different morals or laws or why they have such marked physical differences (138A). Instead, he believes, different gods responsible for different races and nations are responsible for mankind's differences (143A). The God of Moses does exist, but only as an inferior to the God of All (148B). Julian expounds on this idea, asking why, if the Jewish God is the only god, the Jews have not accomplished as much as other races, such as the Greeks, Phoenicians or Egyptians (178A), and why the Jews have been subjugated by so many other races (213A)."

The bolded portion seems to be the conclusion and crux of his Argument. Definitely going to have to check out St. Cyril's refutation of him now.

[AlNg]

.... it is more reasonable to conclude that Christianity/Judaism are the work of an extremely-powerful-but-limited spirit rather than a transcendent Creator.

I think that I agree that God is extremely powerful but that He is limited to some extent.
For example, I think that God is limited by logic. Can God make a circle that is not round but is square?
Can God create a person who has free will but is never able to choose to be discourteous while driving on the freeway?
Can God require all leaders of a democratic country to be of high moral character, never divorced, pro-life, against contraception. opposed to SS marriage, opposed to the possession of nuclear weapons, allow all poor immigrants to enter the country without any barriers, setup a free medical and free dental system, run the whole country without requiring taxes of any kind, provide employment to everyone,  while at the same time giving the citizens of the country the complete freedom to choose whomever they want as their leader and as their supporting politicians (for example, as Senators or Congresspeople)?

[Justin Martyr]

.... it is more reasonable to conclude that Christianity/Judaism are the work of an extremely-powerful-but-limited spirit rather than a transcendent Creator.

I think that I agree that God is extremely powerful but that He is limited to some extent.
For example, I think that God is limited by logic. Can God make a circle that is not round but is square?
Can God create a person who has free will but is never able to choose to be discourteous while driving on the freeway?
Can God require all leaders of a democratic country to be of high moral character, never divorced, pro-life, against contraception. opposed to SS marriage, opposed to the possession of nuclear weapons, allow all poor immigrants to enter the country without any barriers, setup a free medical and free dental system, run the whole country without requiring taxes of any kind, provide employment to everyone,  while at the same time giving the citizens of the country the complete freedom to choose whomever they want as their leader and as their supporting politicians (for example, as Senators or Congresspeople)?

For context, the hypothetical Buddhist or Neo-Platonic Interlocutor in the OP is arguing that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a lesser spirit (like a Deva in Buddhism or one of the Olympian Deities as viewed by the Platonists). They would deny that the claims to omnipotence, omniscient, Actus Purus, etc. are true, rather than that he is limited because he can't make a square circle or something of the sort. That's more of the classical Epicurean objection which the Neo-Platonists refuted (it was their line of argument that was adopted by Saint Augustine and become the standard answer in Western Theology).