We actually have a methodological epistemology that has a long history of actually giving us new information about the nature of our universe: science. This is the basis of modern society. There are, as far as I understand, precisely zero examples of knowledge that any of the innumerable religions of the world have arrived at. So if you don't believe anything particular about the nature of the universe and just want to go exploring finding out new stuff, why on earth would you stick with something that has no precedent of success instead of the one that has enormous precedent of success. And of all the innumerable religions the world has come up with that are equally insuccessful at arriving at truth, how do you choose between all of these on which to go with?

None of us doubt the effectiveness and goodness of science. But what Buddhism and Hinduism deal with are philosophical questions, which are not strictly scientific questions; they are precisely those important questions that traditional science (physics,math, chemistry,biology) has difficulty answering.

If you are so fast to reject Hindu and Buddhist thought as unscientific, then you'd probably reject Philosophy as unscientific. (and you may be right - philosophy is not strictly speaking scientific; analytical philosophy and logical positivism try to be more scientific, but the rest is quite different.) There is little difference.

The difference being that Hindu and Buddhist thought are inserting presuppositions into questions that are not philosophical in nature. Positing that you'll be reborn after death is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

There are two issues here. One is the sets of facts that science and religions respectively claim. The other is the methodologies they go about to acquire knowledge.

Now you can say that Hinduism is just doing philosophy if you will and that is fine. But it also makes very concrete claims about the nature of the universe, such as the notion of reincarnation. If you make a claim you need to JUSTIFY it. So what is the justification for this claim? Is there a any evidence of it? Any rational argument in support of it?

What you cannot do (and remain intellectually honest) is claim there is this big other domain which science does not apply to, and then give no reason why this domain even exists or how we form an epistemology in this new domain if not methodological naturalism.

Hindu and Buddhist beliefs seem to me like String theory - there is little empirical proof, but it appeals to our intuition.

I think the doctrines of H/B all come down to the question of Karma. Does Karma exist and what does it entail?

I think the main reason people find the idea of Karma appealing is that most or maybe even all people are constantly searching for an underlying order to reality. This search presupposes that there actually is such an order and this order is what people have labeled Karma.

I admit that my conjectures about Karma might be a bit premature. I was speaking to a prominent Buddhist author the other day; I showed him what I had written and he told me that the Buddha taught that the details of Karma can be known only by enlightened beings.

But the feeling that draws one towards Karma is not to be dismissed as arbitrary. People's intuition shouldn't be underestimated. It is indeed responsible for much of our progress and I hold that people should realize that intuition plays a big part even in the scientific method. Since you can't apply the scientific method to prove itself, then it means that one accepts it based on his intuition. Read that again if it's not clear; this is pretty important.Furthermore, one should realize that human behavior is always greatly dependent on one's intuition.

“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

Care to present evidence against reincarnation? Can I falsify the conjecture that there is no reincarnation? Isn't it obvious that this is a question to which you cannot apply the scientific method as usual?

Similarly about Karma, Destiny, the nature of the soul, Enlightenment, liberation and so on an so forth. Those are not questions to which you can apply the scientific method in its usual form. Thus, they should be tackled by other means.

Intuition is always important, but it is held that the philosophical conjectures of Hinduism and Buddhist thought become evident in the course of methodical spiritual practice.

I, for one, haven't truly reached such a level, but my intuition and logic tell me that the doctrine is (more) elegant (than any other) and very plausible. I can present you with little bits of evidence that those claims should be taken seriously; I cannot present you with anything astounding. But what's more important is that those questions are meant to be sought spiritually; they are not solvable by any scientific means as of yet and they are also very metaphysical in nature.

Burden of proof...blah...blah...care to present evidence against magical pixies...blah...blah...

It's no so simple. And if you can't reject the existence of pixies with logical argument, then it seems you are relying on your intuition.

I don't buy much into the burden of proof idea. I don't see it as quite logical. If there are no arguments for or against something, then the question should be seen as unanswerable.

If my intuition is to not believe in something until there is sufficient reason to do so, then, yes.

With no evidence either way you should be inclined to say "I don't believe in pixies" which is not the same as saying "I believe pixies don't exist." However, what you shouldn't say "I will believe in pixies until there is evidence against them."

This is, by the way, exactly parallel to the agnostic weak atheist position, just in this case, for pixies (or reincarnation).

I still hold that if a huge percentage of the population craves an answer to why the world is as it is and finds it in Buddhism and Hinduism as opposed to Western Science and Philosophy, the reason is that B/H doctrines actually fit better, and not that humans are idiots.

When you doubt the intelligence of your fellow man, you are making a very bold and unsubstantiated claim yourself.

By no means do I want to disregard Science and Philosophy though. I'm just saying that people feel that something is missing and that B/H doctrines have their place as meaningful areas of study.

Meaningful has many meanings, as it were.

The only reason you can say "I don't believe in pixies" with clean conscience is that your intuition tells you that they probably don't exist. You are clearly no longer following strict mathematical probabilistic logic. If you were you'd say "I don't know whether pixies exist or don't."

"I don't know." That's the answer I usually give to any question. Any other answer requires sufficient evidence.

I also often like to point out that nothing is impossible or improbable, until proven so. And it turns out that it's much more difficult to find sufficient proof for any claim, while much easier to rely on your own intuition to give you the details.

I think that people vastly underestimate intuition. One example I can give is that every time I consult my intuition, I compare the specific notion with all my life experience and if it doesn't contradict it in any way, then I deem it worthy of preservation. This is no different than the scientific method and people make intuitive judgements like these hundreds of times per day. They just don't seem to realize it.

I wonder, why is there no such discussion with Christian believers? Ask those guys why you shouldn't masturbate. Can't a fairly elegant and benign doctrine be given some slack?

No.

Answering "I don't believe in pixies" is not mutually exclusive with "I don't know." In fact, with the pixies question (and the God question and the reincarnation question) I'm answering "I don't believe and I don't know."

You do realize, as I pointed out earlier, that the following two statements are completely different, right?
(1) I don't believe pixies exist.
(2) I believe pixies don't exist.

The difference being that intuition is far less rigorous and far more prone to make mistakes. My intuition, for instance, tells me that there's a mugger around every dark corner. Does this live up to scientific rigor, or even common sense? No.

Except we can do an enormous amount of theoretical work with string theory (much as with GR or anything else), the problem is that it does not make testable predictions. One can deductively prove, say, internal logical consistencies and the like. Regardless, it is instructive because it is irrational to believe either string theory or not string theory. Yet you would have us believe in the metaphysical claims of buddhism without testable predictions.

The bolded kind of rests my case. You are assuming it is true as a first principle, and then deducing other very poor justifications after the fact. Btw, saying that it is appealing has no bearing at all on whether it is true. Nor does the fact that people are "Searching" even if the fact that people are searching is not true. I am not searching for some underlying order to reality, for instance.


So answer the flat earth question. This was the intuition of many people, yet it is completely false. Why should I think that intuition without evidence is good?

Please don't quote out of context. Einstein was a spinozan pantheist; this is what he means when he talks of God. He was very critical of mainstream religions.