I was wondering if there are Buddhist answers to this kind of philosophical criticism of Buddhism:
- Buddhist Illogic: A Critical Analysis of Nagarjuna’s Arguments by Avi Sion (readable for free here)
- Emptiness Appraised: A Critical Study of Nagarjuna’s Philosophy by David Burton
- Nägarjuna’s Appeal by Richard Hayes
- The Unexpected Way: On Converting from Buddhism to Catholicism by Paul Williams
- An Argument against the Buddhist Concept of Dependent Origination through William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument by James David Lynch (readable for free here)
I have the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that there are no great metaphysical or apologetic thinkers of Buddhism in our time - in the philosophical sense I mean, like what William Lane Craig and others are to Christianity: Buddhist thinkers who work on the philosophical foundations of Buddhism and defend them rationally against other philosophers. Maybe because Buddhism is practice-oriented and these issues are seen as “undecidable”?
It’s a pity, it leaves a whole area of reason to others and doesn’t help to convince people who are sensitive to rational arguments. Yet I do not think that the Buddha abandoned rational debate, nor did he reject the confrontation of ideas.
I have the impression that Buddhists are a bit quick to throw reason out the window, preferring a kind of supra-rational mysticism, presupposing (probably rightly) that it is incapable of capturing the absolute. But even when Nāgārjuna criticizes logic, he does so by using it to show that, in his opinion, it is unreliable. He didn’t just assert it, he tried to demonstrate it.
But as William Lane Craig says:
(…) Rather the eastern religions you speak of deny the application of logic to ultimate reality at all. As mentioned, the Absolute is beyond all distinctions, and therefore nothing can be said of it. It is apprehended only in mystical experience. Such a view is logically incoherent. For if nothing can be said of the Absolute, how can we say that nothing can be said of it? It is not true, after all, that the Absolute is beyond all distinction, for that is to say something truly of the Absolute. The position is thus self-refuting. Thus, you were quite wrong (…) to say that these eastern perspectives are “logically coherent.” They are by definition logically incoherent, since they renounce logic, and are, moreover, self-refuting.
In any case, what ought to be clear is that no reason whatever can be given to adopt such an incoherent perspective. For any argument one gives will involve the assertion of certain truths and the use of the logical rules of inference in order to draw conclusions. No sort of justification can be given, e.g., “Ultimate reality is beyond human logic,” for that is to assert a putative truth about ultimate reality, when there is none. Why would anyone want to adopt such a logically incoherent view for no reason at all?
What do you think?