…and this is a 
It's been a great week for vapid defenses of religion…at least for atheists, that is. It's been a sad week for the godly, given that their paladins are all such flabby purveyors of tepid tea.
First up, let us consider the Dalai Lama, revered all around the world because he's such a nice guy and is always smiling — and I agree that he is an awfully nice fellow, considering that he's the representative of a medieval theocracy. He has an op-ed in the NY Times, sadly, which reveals that behind his happy face is a bubble of confused cortex. Anthony Grayling has already dealt with the core of his argument, that the many faiths are all facets of one truth, which is ragingly dishonest. The only equality between them is their entirely comparable falsehood — while there are relatively few ways to answer a question correctly, there is endless diversity in error, and that's all we're seeing…swarms of priests vigorously asserting that their weird and substanceless take on the universe is the one truth. And no, you aren't going to arrive at the truth by splitting the difference between the inmates of an asylum.
I want to focus on one other assertion the Dalai Lama made. What is the central core of all religions? Compassion. I disagree, of course, since the religions I get hammered with day after day here in the US are all militant, evangelical, aggressively hegemonical faiths, and compassion isn't what you see if you are confronted by them. Even their putative compassionate outreach in such things as missionary work are often attempts at cultural conquest. That compassion business is just a tool to win over minds for the Lord/Prophet/Messiah/Cult.
But also…what is uniquely religious about compassion? I don't have to be a Muslim to give to the poor, I don't have to be a Christian to abstain from excess. You don't have to believe in ghosts to be kind, and what Tenzin Gyatso is doing is more of that hegemonical impulse — he's seen something he likes, so he rushes to land on it and plant the sacred flag of religion on it, declaring this the property of all the holy people of the world…without noticing all us pagans and infidels already occupying it. Lama go home! We don't need you, or your pious ilk!
Then there's that fellow Francisco Ayala, who apparently has been emboldened by that generous Templeton Prize to babble vacuously and frequently. He has two pieces out. The first is in Standpoint, some rag affiliated with the ghastly Social Affairs Unit. Does Ayala know this is the kind of magazine that will blithely claim that "Evolution describes a linear progression from the amino acid to man of inevitable increasing complexity", and publishes apologists for Intelligent Design creationism like Steve Fuller? At least his drivel is in good company. I was primed with contempt by the first two lines of the article.
Can one believe in evolution and God? Some people of faith and some scientists agree: "No." They are wrong.
Strawmanning already? That's what someone like Ken Ham says, all right, but that's not what the pesky New Atheists have been saying at all. Of course you can believe in evolution and gods. People are not either 100% right or 100% wrong, but can actually be right about one thing and wrong about another. Shocking, I know. It seems to be news to Francisco Ayala, though!
The rest is pure noise in which he mentions internal contradictions within the Bible, but excuses them as irrelevant, and mentions other erroneous factual statements about the world, but says it is OK because the Bible is not a science textbook, and the authors did not intend to accurately describe the natural world. He recites the usual cliches about how it's a book that is supposed to teach us how to live, how to get to heaven, and the purpose of your life. Which, of course, makes it worse. Has Ayala read that book? It's a cacophony of vileness, with god's chosen people raping and murdering for their land, god going off into peevish snits in which he tortures and massacres people, and your purpose is to win a place as god's eternal slave in a 'paradise' where you will spend all your time praising the supreme tyrant. It's a horror.
And Ayala wants to draft science to prop up god's evil regime. The problem of evil is no problem for god, because it's all evolution's fault!
Evolution is not the enemy of religion but, rather, it can be its friend, because it accounts for disease, death, and the dysfunctions and cruelties of living organisms as the result of natural processes, not as the specific design of God. The God of revelation and of faith is a God of love and mercy, and of wisdom.
So if I choose to force you to slave for me and follow my orders with a whip and a gun, I still get to be the good guy, because it isn't me doing all the harm — it's my weapons. I love my weapons, they are my great good friend, taking all the blame and still allowing me to reap the fruits of my methods.
So is Ayala claiming that evolution is not a product of god's actions? Or is he just a goddamned dimwitted airhead?
Ayala's second article is just as bad. What he claims is that religion has nothing to do with science — and vice versa. It's that tired old NOMA garbage, with none of the graceful language of SJ Gould to soften me up. It's simply a series of repeated assertions that science is excluded from decisions about values or meaning, while religion is excluded from saying anything about the natural world, and he allows absolutely no overlap between the two. Ayala's Venn diagram of the universe is rectangle labeled "everything" with a square labeled "science" filling up the left half and another labeled "religion" occupying the right.
It's absurd and dishonest because we know that religion makes claims about the natural world — it's right there in the fabric of the institution of religion, which tells us how we material beings are supposed to act, where we came from, and where we're going to go when we die. Ayala has to rewrite history to say that "Religion has nothing definitive to say about these natural processes" when the religious themselves babble constantly about how every event from the trivial score fo a football game to the cosmic supernovae are evidence of the hand of their god. Somehow, religion is allowed to claim that we have a purpose in our life (life: it's a natural process, you know, something supposedly in the domain of science), but science may not, despite the fact that we've got a good look at our history and the mechanisms and the drives of life, and can say fairly strongly that there is no evidence of an external driver pushing us along.
Now let us admit that in one respect, he's right. Science isn't everything. We don't use science to appreciate a piece of art (although, fundamentally, it is a material object and our brains are similarly natural); we don't break out beakers and bunsen burners to determine if we've fallen in love; calculators have limited utility in writing poetry. That's fine, but it doesn't mean that religion fills in all the spaces! I don't consult a priest to find out what I think of a painting, prayer has bugger-all to do with love, and there is better poetry in the world than what we find in holy books. You don't get to simply assume that if science does something poorly, religion must do it well, and that the universe has to be neatly divvied up into these two mutually exclusive domains.
We already know that science does its job well, and even Airhead Ayala would agree with that. We can talk about and measure expertise in manipulating and examining the natural world.
What about religion's "domain", values and purpose and its insight into a supernatural world?
It's all bullshit. There is no evidence, no reason to believe in a supernatural world at all; priests are no better than John Edward or James van Praagh at letting us see this hypothetical after-life, and are just as patently ridiculous. There is no agreement among all the religions, each claiming greater authority than all the others, on what our purpose is, other than the self-serving one of keeping the clergy prosperous. As for values: are homosexuals to be stoned, or treated as equals? Which is more important, the woman or her fetus? What foods are unclean and an abomination unto god? When the foreskin is lopped off, is that mandatory or a defilement of the temple of the human body? Are you allowed to mow your lawn on Sunday? Or on Saturday?
Ayala assumes and asserts and demands that we privilege religion as the final arbiter of those kinds of decisions. As far as I can see, though, there are no good reasons why believing in reincarnation or witches or angels or omnipotent phantasmal overlords makes one better qualified to decide what is right or good for people…to the contrary, it seems to me that such lunacy proudly declared shows that the believers are the wrong people to make real decisions.
I'm embarrassed for Ayala, and my opinion of the guy is spiralling down fast. His entire essay is an exercise in making a false dichotomy and proposing a supernatural, superstitious authority that he doesn't even try to defend rationally. I guess this is what happens when the Templeton Foundation buys off your integrity.
Comments
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 3:50 PM
PZ -
Can't it be both?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 3:57 PM
Ohhh... so close... you got the first letter right, Dalai, but I'm sorry, control was the word we were looking for... control.
You've been a wonderful contestant though, and you won't go home empty handed. As parting gifts you'll receive a gift certificate to Red Lobster, and a copy of home game, "Let's Be Honest, the Board Game".
Posted by: Richard Wolford
|
May 28, 2010 4:02 PM
But they were smiling when they called the raped woman a whore, that's definitely compassion.
*rolls eyes*
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 28, 2010 4:03 PM
Well, all of those except for cancer. That's Bruce McCulloch's fault.
(Theology (well, in this case theodicy) is much improved when performed by sketch comedy troupes. Dis-fucking-prove that, apologists.)
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 4:04 PM
I don't really have anything to add, but would like to say that this is a great post.
Posted by: vanharris
|
May 28, 2010 4:07 PM
This is insulting to atheists.
It's also historically inaccurate, when you think of the treatment major religions have dished out to heretics & infidels. (To be fair, Buddhism has a fairly good track record in this regard.)
Even today, Chines Confucianism decrees that compassion is to be reserved for the family, whereas Japanese Confucianism would spread compassion more widely.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 28, 2010 4:08 PM
Oh, I hope he's not tempted to use it. See, the core truth that all religions try to approximate is that you better not eat that damn shellfish!
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 28, 2010 4:09 PM
PZ:
Pareidolia. Many human beings have a strong desire to seek common ground. So strong, they see common ground where it does not exist; they interpret arbitrary patterns of conflict as common ground in the same way others see faces or canals on Mars.
Posted by: William
|
May 28, 2010 4:12 PM
The Dalai Lama is obviously referring to the Emperor from Warhammer 40k.
Posted by: coel.hellier
|
May 28, 2010 4:12 PM
Missing a "not" PZ?Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
May 28, 2010 4:13 PM
Brownian, OM:
Phew. I'm safe then.
Posted by: SteveM
|
May 28, 2010 4:15 PM
Bullshit. He is saying no such thing. He is saying that what religions have in common is compassion. No where in his essay is there any claim to compassion being exclusive to religion. He does not say one has to be religious to be compassionate. He is not even saying that religious people are compassionate. Just that all religions includes compassion as an aspect. He is trying to find a way for inmates to stop fighting amongst themselves (to continue your metaphor) by making them realize that they all share at least one common value. I don't see how that in any way declares it to be "the property of the holy people". Just that it is a common property.
Posted by: Colin
|
May 28, 2010 4:18 PM
Typo alert
Shouldn't there a not in there somewhere? I'm not quite sure, but "at all" seems to indicate a missing negation between "that's" and "what".
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 28, 2010 4:21 PM
Why? Are you some sort of crustacean? 'Cause the problem with religious truths is that they tend not to effect us atheists...
*[Hungrily licks lips]*
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
May 28, 2010 4:22 PM
Now that he's all grown up, someone should probably tell him that faith itself is the problem. Also, "tolerant" is not the same as "uncritical". Also, however much they may occasionally attempt it, religions aren't really in the "compassion" business -- bullshitting is much more central.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 28, 2010 4:23 PM
Then it is no defense of religion. Why not keep the compassion and get rid of the superstition?
Posted by: mumonjmk
|
May 28, 2010 4:24 PM
I was wondering when you'd get to the Dalai Lama. Regular readers to my blog know that although I'm a Buddhist, I tend to be very critical of the Dalai Lama.
It tends to get me in trouble with certain other Buddhist bloggers.
I have differences with you folk in that you'd call my religion as I do it a philosophy, whereas I call it a religion because it has elements of the cultivation of skills (which most religions admittedly lack, but which pretty much all philosophies definitely lack).
But the Dalai Lama is problematic, as well as the holder of some quite large conflicts of interest.
Posted by: Robert Thille
|
May 28, 2010 4:30 PM
I will say that I agree with PZ about poetry, love, and art being well understood by science right now, I will not admit that they are not within the realm of science. It may prove technically infeasible, but I see no reason why it won't at some point, be possible for science to have a good enough understanding of the brain, and the technology to 'scan' such, so that it can predict a person's response to art, or poetry, or even create works which will please or disturb someone.
Posted by: keinsignal
|
May 28, 2010 4:30 PM
You'll change your tune after you've read my breakthrough sonnet cycle "HELLO, BOOBLESS"
Posted by: mumonjmk
|
May 28, 2010 4:31 PM
Oh, and if you come to my blog, don't forget to click on the advertisers, especially if they're fundamentalist churches.
I don't mind sending their money to a worthy charity!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 4:33 PM
Thread won.
Posted by: eleusis
|
May 28, 2010 4:33 PM
Ouch. Wow. That was a bitch smack.
Posted by: SteveM
|
May 28, 2010 4:34 PM
Yes, the Dalai Lama's essay is somewhat vapid and boils down to little more than "Can't we all just get along?", but there is something I think even PZ would like about it. In that he is also implying that almost all the conflict in the world today is due to religious conflict and that is why he is clutching at the straw of "compassion" to get them all to stop fighting.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
May 28, 2010 4:37 PM
Fixed that for you, Dalai Lama. No charge.Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 4:40 PM
Yes, but in doing so he is clearly making the claim that all religions are based, at their core, in compassion... an assertion unsupported by the evidence and in fact directly contradicted in most cases.
Pointing this out is not only appropriate, but important to convey the message that if compassion is what you seek, religion is not the place to find it.
Posted by: Joey Mack
|
May 28, 2010 4:47 PM
I've been debating my local religionists about homosexuality recently. It's alarmed me into realizing you can almost bring the debate down to this simple point. Homosexuals can indeed be explained by natural selection. Some admit it can't be changed but insist celibacy is the ideal choice in that case. The conclusion is that you must invoke an unscientific idea in order to combat a scientific idea. I think it's exposed right then and there. I told the Catholic priest who tells his gay congregation to be celibate that he is a piece of trash
Posted by: sqlrob
|
May 28, 2010 4:52 PM
We're already at the point of creating works will will please someone. I remember a long time ago something that made mozart like works, and a IIRC, a lot of pop "music" is done by prediction and analysis.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
May 28, 2010 4:53 PM
Robert Thille, #18:
The Pythagoreans used math to formulate a theory of harmony, which most of tonal and quasi-tonal music is based on today (disregarding the minor changes of equal temperament, which is a later advance and also a result of math). It isn't strictly based on a comprehensive scientific theory, mathematical proof, or logical framework; but music (and the rest of art) is nevertheless a product of those types of discoveries. We don't generally like random noises which don't follow some set of rules -- someone first had to figure out what kind of rules there are.
Posted by: Nurse Ingrid
|
May 28, 2010 4:58 PM
I was reading just earlier today about the Dalai Lama and his utterly medieval views on sex. It's not just the usual religious stuff like being anti-gay or against fornication or whatever. He thinks that oral and anal sex are always wrong, even between married heterosexuals. Hell, he thinks having (het marital) sex in the daytime is wrong! I find this interesting because I know so many progressive/liberal woo people who think he is just wonderful.
And Brownian @#4, I love the KITH reference!
Posted by: Robert Thille
|
May 28, 2010 5:02 PM
I meant more specifically. That is, you stick your head in a scanner, and it predicts whether you will like a particular work, or person, and even what you will say about why.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
May 28, 2010 5:04 PM
Yes, but as far as I can tell, it's actually mostly the progressives who actually want to find the common ground. It is possible to find common ground, as long as it's very narrowly defined, but it's really hard not to exaggerate the areas of agreements. Plus you have to expect that the person you agree with about feeding the hungry today will try to fire you because you're an atheist or gay tomorrow.
Good to have a cognitive explanation for tone trolling - pareidolia is definitely my word for the day.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 28, 2010 5:13 PM
Most annoying Buddhist ever.
I understand his aim to promote peace and harmony, but I can’t help but feel a bit of cynicism seeping through his piece. If you can’t wean the people from magical thinking then you might as well use that fanaticism and try to steer it in a positive direction. After all, they’ll believe anything.
Now let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/S8pO0dgN3vZCcp6GFuJzIu14IBqIw1hq7Kw-#24131
|
May 28, 2010 5:13 PM
You can call a turd a diamond for all I care, but I am a little curious as to which skills Buddhism actually cultivates. Also, I strongly disagree that "philosophies definitely lack...the cultivation of skills." For one thing, philosophy can tell you when you're playing semantic games or when you're being logically inconsistent, both of which you're doing with this "religion not philosophy" move (as far as I can tell).
That said, there is a long tradition, beginning (assuming he's not mythological) with Siddhartha Gautama, of a buddhist philosophy as opposed to a Buddhist religion.
Posted by: scottknickelbine
|
May 28, 2010 5:15 PM
Now, I've got my problems with the Dalai Lama and with Tibetan Buddhism in general. But he _is_ the guy who famously said that if science and Buddhism conflict, Buddhism must change. Doesn't he get one frickin' New Atheist point for that?
And while I agree that the statement "all religions are founded on compassion" is a combination of wishful thinking and gratuitous proof-texting, I doubt very much that he was claiming that atheists cannot be compassionate, or that religiosity is a prerequisite for compassion. To be offended -- rather than merely unconvinced -- by this statement is to be constructing strawmen of one's own, it seems to me.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
May 28, 2010 5:20 PM
That is a more general problem for neurologists to sort out, and it is not one that exclusively applies to art.
If I make you listen to a piece of music, and if I know some things about your previous experiences (musical and extramusical), then one can already predict with some degree of accuracy what your experience will be like. I can't think of a reason why it would be more or less accurate than a prediction of any other kind of conscious experience.
Posted by: SteveM
|
May 28, 2010 5:26 PM
re 24:
Fixed that for you, Dalai Lama. No charge.
WTH was that? For the record, the D.L was not incorrect about Leviticus:
Lev 19:18
Which Jesus later says to be the whole of the law.
Posted by: mumonjmk
|
May 28, 2010 5:35 PM
You can call a turd a diamond for all I care, but I am a little curious as to which skills Buddhism actually cultivates. Also, I strongly disagree that "philosophies definitely lack...the cultivation of skills." For one thing, philosophy can tell you when you're playing semantic games or when you're being logically inconsistent, both of which you're doing with this "religion not philosophy" move (as far as I can tell).
Paying attention. Making good use of the breath...
It's not what you folks generally rail against when you rail against religions, and I'll be the first to admit you don't have to be any kind of religion to breathe and pay attention (don't tell monotheists), but you asked, and I answered.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 28, 2010 5:35 PM
The script doesn't do the actual skit justice, Nurse Ingrid.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
May 28, 2010 5:36 PM
Where are all the critiques who tore into Dawkins for his alleged failure to understand theology? Weren't we told again, and again, that someone without a degree from a divinity college should not write a book called the god delusion? Why aren't those same people ripping at Ayala's nonsense? NOMA? Seriously? How many self respecting theologicians buy into that? I am not talking just about the raving mad Pentecostals. Transubstantiation, "eternal soul", anyone?
Posted by: vanharris
|
May 28, 2010 5:37 PM
scottknickelbine
The DL said, "... was how central compassion was to the message of both Christianity and Buddhism...the Talmud and the Bible repeat the theme of compassion...I’ve come to see the centrality of selfless compassion in Hinduism too...Compassion is equally important in Islam..."
No straw man on my part. The DL clearly identifies compassion with religion. He is implying that compassion is a quality of religion. He therefore implies that atheists would tend to (relatively) lack compassion, hence my taking offence.
Posted by: SteveM
|
May 28, 2010 5:42 PM
re 40:
Yes it is a strawman. Does saying all cars pollute the atmosphere imply that nothing else pollutes? Does noting that all fish swim imply nothing else swims?
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
May 28, 2010 5:44 PM
That was a quote-mine from Leviticus, much like the one given by the D.L. (It was right at the beginning of the fucking book, so I doubt the D.L. could've missed it in his careful, mindful, compassionate reading of the text.) Granted mine isn't a particularly "compassionate" quote, but I'm not the one who claimed religions are primarily concerned with compassion.
Sure, Jesus (if he even existed) could have said that until he was blue in the face, but that's not the point. How does one go from sacrificing animals to "love thy neighbor" or compassion? How about genocide or murdering heretics and apostates? How about the ubiquitous misogyny and racism? One can't simply rationalize it all away by claiming that "the whole of the law" contradicts all of it.
Posted by: hwrddean7
|
May 28, 2010 5:46 PM
Ayala is an embarrassment for UC Irvine.
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 28, 2010 5:47 PM
Mattir | May 28, 2010 5:04 PM:
That's my general impression as well. Nisbet and Mooney are both progressives. And I think most of their supporters are as well. But beyond that I don't actually know enough about the politics of most of the accomdationists to know whether or not they are progressives. I guess the counterpoint would be that Miller and Collins are not progressives, and neither is the Dalai Lama, although he is associated with several progressive causes.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
May 28, 2010 5:50 PM
Dear Dr. Ayala:
After reading your op-ed, I've decided to become an accommodationist. I agree with you completely; science and religion should study two completely separate things.
So, would you be so kind as to tell all religions everywhere to:
1. Stop insisting that they have any knowledge of how the universe began. This is a question for astronomy, cosmology and physics, not for religion.
2. Stop insisting that they have any knowledge of how life on this planet emerged. Clearly, this is a question of chemistry, biochemistry, geology, and physics, not a religious one.
3. Stop insisting that they have any knowledge whatsoever regarding the progress of evolution and whether or not homo sapiens sapiens was, in fact, a pre-ordained "goal" of the 3.6 billion year long evolutionary process. This belongs to the province of evolutionary biology.
4. Stop claiming that humans have a post-corporeal energy signature of some sort or another that survives death and carries with it memories of life, and whose ultimate place in the cosmos is dependent on how the meat sack "soul carrier" behaved while alive. Clearly, this is a scientific pursuit for the physicists and anatomists to tease out.
5. Stop claiming knowledge of how human morality and ethics came into being. Clearly, this is another issue for evolutionary biologists.
6. Stop claiming miracles. Clearly, it is science's province to determine whether or not the laws of nature have been violated.
There are more places where religion obviously intrudes on "science space", but I think these will be a good start. Please accommodate science by having religion (all religions everywhere) stop insisting they have any standing to answer any of these questions.
Kindest regards.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 28, 2010 5:52 PM
We don't use science to appreciate a piece of art
well, we could, but at this point science may not be used to appreciate it, but it sure can be used to explain WHY any particular individual appreciates certain types of art.
Posted by: vanharris
|
May 28, 2010 5:55 PM
SteveM, your analogies aren't relevant.
If someone claimed that Ford's are reliable, Hyundai's are reliable, Chrysler's are reliable, Chevrolet's are reliable, then you might conclude that they're either saying that all cars are reliable, (& horses aren't), or that other makes of cars are not reliable. The correct interpretation would depend upon the context.
The DL's context was to imply that compassion is a quality of (all) religions, therefore atheists must be lacking in compassion.
It's simple enough.
Posted by: Sunday Afternoon
|
May 28, 2010 5:55 PM
Great post PZ, though with my family history, I have to take issue with this statement:
"... other than the self-serving one of keeping the clergy prosperous".
My difficulty comes from the fact that I grew up in a clergy household. We lived in a big house that was provided by the church, but my father's stipend was not terribly much and as a family we were by no means well off. This was the same for all clergy of this particular denomination.
As an organization, the church has a responsibility to provide a "living wage" for those who work for it. Now, the question is: "at what level?" The level I experienced was at the low end, especially compared with some of the individual wealth on display at some American mega-churches.
Much of the funds that were gathered by the church were indeed plowed back into the community through things like old-people's homes, playgroups for young children, etc. These were good people doing good things. The church's aim wasn't and isn't all about ensuring that the clergy are prosperous.
And there is the source of my personal dichotomy - I grew up involved with a group of religious people whom I love very much, but after thinking deeply about things, decided that the premise behind their beliefs was not supportable.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 28, 2010 5:55 PM
Why aren't those same people ripping at Ayala's nonsense?
indeed.
It's always a good idea to show the doublestandard the religious rely on to inform their worldview.
it simply won't sink in with them though. It can't, obviously, or their house of cards would tumble.
Posted by: scottknickelbine
|
May 28, 2010 5:59 PM
It was also the Dalai Lama who said: "We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection."
I believe his point is not that we need religion to be compassionate, but that the religions ought to focus on compassion. One might argue that this is asking the improbable, but there are a lot more benighted targets for scorn in the world than Tenzin Gyatso.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 28, 2010 5:59 PM
See, the core truth that all religions try to approximate is that you better not eat that damn shellfish!
Ha! I gnash my teeth at the gods!
*forks large chunk of broiled lobster tail into melted butter*
mmmmm.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
May 28, 2010 6:05 PM
Words are cheap.Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/S8pO0dgN3vZCcp6GFuJzIu14IBqIw1hq7Kw-#24131
|
May 28, 2010 6:07 PM
Absolutely, and thanks for keeping the tone friendly; I was probably a little more..erm..strident than I needed to be.
My objection is more along the lines that your use of the word "religion" strains against the common usage of the term in the English language and (at first blush) smacks of sophistry. It renders the term even more meaningless than it already is, and muddies up the water instead of making it clearer.
Note that the fact that it helps you to be mindful and breathe doesn't make it a religion. The cultivation of skills is, by your own admission, not a necessary condition of religion, and so it cannot possibly make the difference between Buddhism being a philosophy and a religion. That's the other element of my objection (and why I made the comment about logical consistency).
None of this should be read as a criticism of Buddhism in general or your particular flavor; the latter especially seems pretty reasonable to me.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 28, 2010 6:07 PM
Run for it, Crustacean Caine! We don't know for how long this grisly feast will sate his bloodlust, but we can be assured he will kill again!
Posted by: SteveM
|
May 28, 2010 6:08 PM
re 47:
Sorry, I don't see how that follows. Especially when the context is that conflict between religions is a major problem (implying atheists are not part of the problem). That they all share a common trait of compassion and so should not be in conflict.
Say he is speaking to the Hatfields and McCoys to stop their feuding. When he says "you both love your kids and don't want to see them killed by this stupid feud" is he implying no one else loves their own children?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 28, 2010 6:12 PM
Run for it, Crustacean Caine!
what's that you say?
giant lobster off the port bow?
*runs for harpoon...*
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 28, 2010 6:13 PM
Scott Hatfield, OM: what might save us, me and you, is if the McCoys love their children too.
Posted by: Nurse Ingrid
|
May 28, 2010 6:18 PM
Nameless comment at #45, that was amazing!!
And thanks, Brownian. As it happens, I have seen that sketch and just about everything else KITH ever did, many times over. Always happy to see it again though!
I think the "Preacher Character" and "Dr. Seuss Bible" sketches are my favorite atheist (or at least anti-religion) sketches they ever did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5UqU5kjz28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgILxqN_jxE
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/S8pO0dgN3vZCcp6GFuJzIu14IBqIw1hq7Kw-#24131
|
May 28, 2010 6:19 PM
@SteveM:
It doesn't LOGICALLY follow in the manner that Aristotelian syllogisms do. But then, reading and listening are not very much like doing mathematics. They're interpretive activities, and while you might like to think you're the authority on the context of what the DL says, I think it's pretty clear that everyone is going to have their OWN context dependent on their own knowledge of the DL, religion in general, atheism, etc.
That said, an undeniable PART of the context is that in this very same speech, the DL accuses "New Atheists" of fomenting religious discord using some very over-the-top language. Given that, I think finding an "atheists are part of the problem" subtext in the speech is actually pretty reasonable.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
May 28, 2010 6:28 PM
Let's go with this analogy. It's not that they lack compassion for their own children. It's that they don't necessarily have compassion for others' children.
So, for example, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" isn't going to stop many Christians from hating Jews, Muslims, Hindus or anyone else. Just like they think their tyrant God wants, their religion is more important than peoples' lives or well-being.
No appeal to "compassion" will make the RCC start distributing condoms in Africa, because the RCC doesn't think the welfare of those heathen brown people depends on their Earthly welfare. To them, it's all about "spiritual welfare". (Meanwhile, most white people in industrialized countries who can afford it have already learned to ignore the church. They can buy some condoms at the nearest gas station or get some for free at the nearest clinic.) If one encourages the RCC to use an actually-compassionate approach by distributing condoms in Africa, they spout all sorts of non-compassionate bullshit. Pick a topic, and it's always the same bullshit.
Posted by: Armand K.
|
May 28, 2010 6:58 PM
Compassion, eh? What a strange coincidence that religions (at least the major ones) talk about compassion, with very few exceptions, in only two contexts: when they are massively losing ground, and when "compassion" is window dressing for some horrid crime they're advocating or even perpetrating.Posted by: SerenAur
|
May 28, 2010 6:58 PM
The Dalai Lama is one religious leader who could legitimately whinge on about being persecuted by nasty atheists. And as far as I know, he doesn’t.
Posted by: steve
|
May 28, 2010 7:02 PM
Too bad zombie boy and his invisible dad didn't hash this out before he tele-ported to earth through the vagina of a jewish virgin.
Just saying ...
Posted by: omar.chavira
|
May 28, 2010 7:10 PM
I don't know if you know the whole story, but immediately after saying that he said *With a mischievous twinkle in his eyes* "But it's going to be very difficult to disprove reincarnation" WTF?! How are we supposed to believe that BS if he believes himself to be an emanation of buddha what's-his-name and still has the hipocrisy of claiming ANY KIND OF INTELECTUAL HONESTY AND SCIENTIFIC RIGOR!! And what about his other bullshit beliefs such as karma and the nature of consciousness? Words are cheap, and that guy has zero credibility whatsoever.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
May 28, 2010 7:13 PM
Many theists want to have their metaphysical cake an eat it too. If they believe in an interventionist deity, they have to believe that God is part of the natural world. Otherwise the theistic jig is up.Posted by: John Morales
|
May 28, 2010 7:20 PM
SerenAur:
On what do you base this claim?
AFAIK, the only persecution he's subject to is by the Chinese regime, inasmuch as the DL is head of the Tibetan "government in exile" — which makes such persecution political, not religious.
Posted by: nerdiah
|
May 28, 2010 7:32 PM
The Dalai Lama is not a "nice guy". John Safran played a game of 'guess who said this?' on Safran vs God a while back that should be required viewing for everyone sympathetic to the Lama's religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kstH-8jwa80
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 28, 2010 7:36 PM
When did Fred Phelps' brand of religion become compassionate?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
May 28, 2010 7:39 PM
He's trying to save Americans from God's wrath...Posted by: SerenAur
|
May 28, 2010 7:39 PM
Well imagine if the pope had to flee the country in disguise and you'd get in trouble for having a picture of him in your house. Mind you, the only place I'd put a picture of the pope is on the dartboard.
Posted by: John Morales
|
May 28, 2010 7:47 PM
SerenAur @70, since you concede the persecution is political and not religious, you should also concede your #62 was an empty (and misleading) claim.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
May 28, 2010 7:59 PM
PZ sez:
I see what you did there. *large grin splits face*
And then Ayala wants to paint atheism as the fall guy for God, standing proxy for the most egregious acts in history and thereby freeing God from blame. A more complete turning of the tables would be hard to imagine:
When I was the largest of a litter of five I used to put on puppet shows for the amusement of my litter mates. Since maturity we have all fondly recalled such childish diversions and never once Never Once! have we regard my fictions as tools for domination. (all my sibs remain free and successful agents, bless 'em)
Another thing. Sometimes I use the phrase, "Oh, my people." More often than not I have to explain that I am not quoting any testament. Then, turning away gracefully I must repeat the phrase, sotto voce, to insure that I won't have to repeat myself.
Posted by: ZK
|
May 28, 2010 8:02 PM
A bit off topic, but related:
Two or three weeks ago my five year old daughter was surfing the internet via BBC CBeebies (a site for very young children, generally a very good one too). Somehow or other she came upon a video about "Queen Esther", an old testament story writ large as a piece of acting. Blimey! Was that a nasty, evil, and totally unsuitable piece for a five year old or what? This piece was actually wittering on about murder and violence as if it was a walk in the park? I was so shocked by it that I had to tell my daughter that "this is a bad story" and gently move her away from it.
Usually we try to be pretty cool about real world stuff with our young daughter. We've already had to explain to her that people die eventually[1], that tombs and coffins are "boxes for dead people", when asked I told her that the thing I have which she doesn't is called a "penis", and soon enough we may have to explain that couples don't always stay together forever (one set of her grandparents in this case, fortunately not her parents).
I suppose what I am trying to say is that we try not to feed too much bullshit to our daughter, not when it comes to real world things.
Equally though we don't let her watch violent films (I made that mistake once, and only once, with a James Bond film that was being shown one Saturday afternoon, which made her cry during the big gun fight scene before I realised what an idiot I was being - my bad - switched it off right away once I realised - parents make mistakes, don't we? oops!).
Quite how the story of Esther, complete with all its double dealings and murder, can be considered suitable for a five year old is beyond me. If that had been a made up story in anything other than the bible then I very much doubt that any broadcaster, at least not any national broadcaster, would have aired it as part of their set for the under fives.
To say I was unimpressed and angry is putting it mildly.
Ho hum.
ZK
[1] My daughter has told me most confidently that one day I will die. Which is true. She didn't seem quite so convinced when I replied that one day she too would die - ah the delusions of youth :-)
Posted by: Aquaria
|
May 28, 2010 8:10 PM
#62
Bullshit.
China (your presumed evil atheists) isn't persecuting the DL over his religion, but because he is a threat to their authority regarding a small area that they have chosen to control for historical and political reasons, including enforcing supremacy of their current Communist dogma, issues that have zero, zilch, nada, zip to do with religion.
Communist dogma!=atheism.
Posted by: SerenAur
|
May 28, 2010 8:25 PM
Fair enough, John @71, the being head of state thing might have had something to do with the Dalai Lama’s treatment. But I reckon he’s probably got more of a case for complaint than the god botherers who actually do whinge on about being persecuted by nasty atheists. Mostly Western religious nuts complaining about being picked on by the nasty atheists are just unhappy that they are criticised a bit for talking bollocks.
My extensive research on the subject of Tibetan religious persecution happens to consist of vaguely remembering seeing a film called Windhorse. Something about a pretty young American visitor to Tibet films a nun who is dying of a beating in prison and wins the affection of the toothless granny by drinking disgusting yak milk.
And I’m not proposing that we take lessons in religious persecution from the Chinese or the ancient Romans. Don’t have anywhere to keep torture implements or lions anyway.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
May 28, 2010 8:32 PM
About the John Safran piece: it's true, but it's also a bit misleading. Unlike most other religious leaders, the DL has been known to change his mind. He is no longer opposed to homosexuality.
While the Tibetan lamasery was a hideous religious dictatorship, and puts the lie to the "peaceful kind Buddhism" meme, the DL can't be blamed for it. He was a child at the time. What the older lamas did to their baby DLs is pretty much child abuse; he is in many respects lucky to have escaped it.
Posted by: John Morales
|
May 28, 2010 8:41 PM
SerenAur, the Dalai Lama is leader-in-exile of a theocracy.
You might find this of interest: Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth.
Posted by: Robert H
|
May 28, 2010 8:50 PM
Ichthyic @46
well, we could, but at this point science may not be used to appreciate it, but it sure can be used to explain WHY any particular individual appreciates certain types of art.
The demonstration of this will be taking place when? If it's within 1,000 miles of northern California I shall strive mightily to be in attendance. (smirk)
Posted by: SerenAur
|
May 28, 2010 9:05 PM
Aquaria @74, I’m not presuming that the Chinese are evil atheists, I’m just saying that the DL could more realistically make the claim that he’s been given a hard time for his religion than many in the West who do whinge endlessly about being picked on. So I just making a contrast with the sob stories of our home grown religious whiners and complainers and part of me is wishing we could run them out of the country so they would have something to complain about.
And surely a good communist should be an atheist. I went to a school (North of England in the 1970s) where the headmaster was a Communist Party member. Unlike other schools I attended, there was no religious school assembly and we were taught about the creation myths of the world, from obviously silly ancient ones to equally whacky Genesis stories.
John @77, interesting link, must admit I’ve mainly seen the cuddly media image of the DL. Mind you, the UK is also a theocracy although admittedly the queen sticks with dressing up in a posh frock and opening parliament with a boring speech written by somebody else.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
May 28, 2010 9:48 PM
Robert H:
It is possible to do it in principle, and we have already made huge leaps in understanding how it can be done. But I agree at this point it hasn't quite developed into a science; it's still more of an artform.... (smirk)
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
May 28, 2010 10:14 PM
Ever heard of Christian Communism?
Posted by: SerenAur
|
May 28, 2010 10:48 PM
Keiranfoy @81: Hadn’t heard of christian communism, no. I thought it was either or. Now I should be going to sleep but I’m going to be pondering whether christian communism involves more cognitive dissonance than just being christian.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
May 28, 2010 10:57 PM
Everybody knows Jesus was a teabagger....
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
May 28, 2010 11:21 PM
PZ
Mine's for sale where do I sign up? I'll even throw in a few buckets of dignity I have laying around.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 28, 2010 11:49 PM
Moar nitpicking from the religious, what else is new, nothing else left for them to do to justify the contradictions and stone age morality in their holy books....
Hilarious !
Posted by: j-brisby
|
May 28, 2010 11:57 PM
I'm surprised you didn't mention this recent gem from Deepak Chopra:
http://www.theprovince.com/life/then+believe+believe+then/3062909/story.html
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 29, 2010 12:18 AM
Is that like Christian Rock ?
Posted by: ChinaBounder
|
May 29, 2010 1:03 AM
But the Dalai Lama can’t go home. The Chinese won’t let him.
It is undeniable that Tibetan Buddhism did perpetuate a system of vile cruelty and unfairness. And indeed Buddhism today does attract a wide range of flakes and simpletons.
But I think, Mr. Myers, that it is a little unfair to say the DL is ‘the representative of a medieval theocracy’ without mentioning that he wishes to see democratic reform in Tibet - which the Communists will not allow - and that he has stated the old system “was outdated and ill-equipped to face the challenges of the contemporary world.”
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
May 29, 2010 1:31 AM
vanharris writes:
It's also historically inaccurate, when you think of the treatment major religions have dished out to heretics & infidels. (To be fair, Buddhism has a fairly good track record in this regard.)
There used to be yellow/red, blue, and black hat Tibetan buddhists. But something happened to all the black hat Tibetan buddhists. Care to guess what? You got it - the yellow/red hat Tibetan buddhists happened to the black hat Tibetan buddhists and now there aren't any black hat Tibetan buddhists any more. Interestingly, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find information on the Internet regarding sectarian slaughters that absolutely did take place between various brands of Tibetan buddhists. There used to be mention of it on one of the wikipedia pages but now it's gone. I guess that's one way to be a religion of peace: lie.
Before the Chinese kicked them out, the lamas lived in big palaces while everyone else was dirt poor. In return for skimming the cream, the lamas offered intercessionary prayer. Does that scam sound familiar? They wielded the power of life and death over their people and kept them ignorant and backward. Of course the dalai lama wants the Chinese to give his country back - most deposed dictators are pretty miffed when someone upsets the family business. Granted, China's a moderately benign dictatorship, but the whole Tibet thing is achingly reminiscent of the scene from Life of Brian: "Aside from roads, education, sanitation, electricity, modern medicine - what have the Romans done for us? NOTHING!"
What amazes me most about the dalai lama is that here's a guy who claims to be a reincarnated god and he goes around hanging out with amurrican christian presidents. It just goes to show you that "any deposed dictator that opposes China must be on our side, even if he thinks he's god" holds with our christofascists. The CIA used to support the dalai lama to the tune of about $1/4 million annually, so he could be a thorn in China's side. The guy's a grinning goon and a consummate conman.
Now, as far as the buddhists being pretty good about nonviolence - the Nichiren sect were kind of like the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld axis of Japan, circa 1930 or so; they caused a great deal of trouble. Of course, their emperor was also a descendant of god - but he damn sure wasn't the peaceful, loving kind. Buddhist violence in Japan goes back to the 11th-15th centuries, when the good buddhist monks of Mt Hiei and other temples were actually such powerful paramilitary forces that they frequently threatened the weaker feudal lords' authority. They had a particularly charming scam where they would show up at a town with a portable temple, a "mikoshi", and leave it as a sort of portable curse-fountain until they were paid large sums of money to take it away. Aaaah, the nice buddhists! As usual there was a revolving door between the church and state - powerful samurai would often install a son as the abbot of Mr Hiei or one of the other strategic properties. SOhei ("warrior monks") often could challenge the samurai because, like the samurai, they didn't actually work - they just spent their time practicing thuggery and violence; they were as much professional soldiers as any landsknechts. When you read accounts of how the Enryaku-ji temple was able to send 7,000 monks to go fight the Taira shogunate you realize pretty quickly that "the church, militant" was not just a christian concept.
Buddhism gets an unfair break in the religious stupidity front because of the whitewashed bullshit that is passed off as buddhism in the US and other 1st world countries. That mostly comes to us thanks to Alan Watts and DT Suzuki in the 1970's "I'm OK you're OK we're all one with the universe" bullshit that bears as much resemblance to the typical idol-worshipping prayer-whacking incense-burning buddhist as I do to the pope. Buddhism makes the typically obviously false claims that all other religions do. You're not one with the universe; you're a very tiny little part of an eeny-weeny-teeny-tiny little piece of it. You're not enlightened, you've just got your head up your ass. You're not a butterfly dreaming you're a man, you're an ape reading feel-good bullshit that's just as stupid and red-fisted as the other religions.
My thing as a kid was Japanese military history so I'm sort of up on the history of Japanese buddhism in particular, but it's not just the Tibetan and Japanese buddhists that periodically like to drench their robes in blood. I seem to recall that suicide bombing was originally a buddhist invention. Someone will no doubt correct me if I have that wrong.
There are a lot of neo-buddhist flatheads who play the no true scotsman gambit and cast buddhism as a religion of peace. Do not believe it for a second. If it's a religion of peace, it's for the same reason that a lot of christians are peaceful: their fangs have been (mostly) pulled.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
May 29, 2010 1:48 AM
Aquaria writes:
China (your presumed evil atheists) isn't persecuting the DL over his religion, but because he is a threat to their authority regarding a small area that they have chosen to control for historical and political reasons, including enforcing supremacy of their current Communist dogma
I am not sure that the Chinese are exactly pushing communist dogma, anymore. In order to deal with the emerging middle/merchant class, the ruling clique has backed away from all that inconvenient communist stuff. It's pretty much a straightforward dictatorship, now, without a lot of ideology except for obedience, cooperation, work hard, be a good drone.
It used to be fashionable to describe China as "stalinist" but it lacks the personality cult and random purges of stalinism. A friend of mine just got back from spending a year there and she says it's pretty much like the Russia or the other pseudodemocracies. I guess the best description of it would be a plutocracy. The state wears a velvet glove over the iron hand and uses the possibility of upward mobility to get the maximum work out of the populace, while everything is run - relatively subtly - by a committee of very powerful people.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
May 29, 2010 2:01 AM
All that religion does is to appeal to our lower instincts and encourages the killing of those who do not follow a particular dogma.
Posted by: ChinaBounder
|
May 29, 2010 2:23 AM
And most Tibetans are still dirt poor. The wealthy people in Tibet are mostly Han Chinese.
This is untrue. It is a smear. The DL has made it clear he wants democracy in Tibet. Not theocracy.
These slaughters were centuries ago. They have little to do with the argument today. In any case, Buddhist-on-Buddhist violence is historically trivial compared to the internecine wars of Christianity and Islam.
The Tibet of the past was very different to the Tibet of today - it was a warlike and military nation, and indeed Tibetan soldiers even captured the Chinese capital of Ch'ang-an in the Tang Dynasty. So what? It is irrelevant to the present situation.
Posted by: gould1865
|
May 29, 2010 2:34 AM
Some gave theirs, this is my opinion. Not all opinions are worth the same.
Ayala is a scion of Dobzhansky at Columbia U, New York, whom you all show you have read extensively on evolution and even know the anecdote about his cousins, though you show it elsewhere not here. And you know that Ayala was ordained a Catholic priest in Madrid, Spain, but left it the same year, 1960.
Ayala's writing in this essay at Standpoint is bizarre. His sentences are extra simple, so simple that one commenter asks whether a middle-schooler is the writer. Why do that? Guile? To whom is he writing? Why? Except that Ayala made about a million pounds on the Templeton Prize, I can't tell what he's doing, not having read enough of his ninety-five books, in fact none, nor do I have plans to, but it seems he is rich from whatever it is he is doing.
In the essay at hand, Quote Evolution is not the enemy of religion but, rather, it can be its friend. Strange, and specious. Normally we would say, It is its friend, not 'can be' and the rather is a feint to discombobulate us, no? So it's not a fact, only a possibility that could develop in the future, and in that future religion [and we have good reason from Bible quotes to assume by 'religion' he means only Christianity--to whom does that appeal?] and in that future religion evolution can explain evil, and religion is left with only good and compassion. [Dante's Inferno and the Fundamentalist Fall be damned.]
His proposal, future or no, is preposterous, PZ has caught him at it in several directions at once, and I suggest that a parallel proposal attempting to shreeve religion of evil was made before by Leibniz, his best of all possible worlds proposal, and Voltaire, atheist, riposted with the hilarious little novel Candide.
Both proposals, Ayala and Leibniz, are the familiar fill-in-the-gap of unknown (or little understood by some) with God, but the unknown here with Ayala is all the chance ways of natural selection which he wants to call 'done by God.' No evidence for God in it. Ayala does not talk about his own beliefs, handy is it not? Consider the Big City, is Ayala doing a New York number on us where we don't give him money but somebody does, in publishing, in prizes, in employment, in Christian readership anxious for common ground? Some evidence that he is dong a number on us is this Standpoint essay. How much do they pay? Indirectly a great deal indeed if you say the right spiritual thing.
Ayala's second essay in the Guardian blog appears equal to the developing view of the Roman Catholic church on evolution. Figures.
Now there are those who will not understand. For them, just so they don't miss it, I am saying the evidence indicates Ayala is a whore, from New York. But being a whore is not a condemnation in itself.
Now the Dali Lama's op-ed, I confess that I still see him as the little boy with Brad Pitt in Seven Years in Tibet. I am willing to learn more, and change my mind gradually, as the evidence accumulates. The Dali L too is playing to an audience to win favor. Perhaps he should however. In fairness to Ayala for equal treatment, I add that the evidence indicates the Dali L is a whore, from Tibet. But being a whore is not a condemnation in itself.
As you may tell, Ayala displeases me more ["Once a priest, always a priest"--Victor Hugo, Quatrevingt-treize]. So I've got this shunted to whores, a pleasing turn. Some steal, some fake, some trick, some are honorable, a regular group of people, more honorable than...[your choice]
Cheers
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
May 29, 2010 2:57 AM
And most Tibetans are still dirt poor. The wealthy people in Tibet are mostly Han Chinese.
I didn't say that the Chinese don't suck. I said that the lamas did a consistently sucky job ruling Tibet for a very long time.
This is untrue. It is a smear. The DL has made it clear he wants democracy in Tibet. Not theocracy
I didn't say he wanted to be the holy god-ruler again, I said he wants his country back. Think about what you just said for a second: "he wants democracy in Tibet" As if his opinion matters? Why does his opinion matter? If you'd said "the Tibetans want democracy" then you'd be talking some sense. Do they want democracy or would they vote for the next reincarnation of their zombie avatar king as president? How much of this democratic movement is a result of the obvious fact that it'd be pretty hard to sell the international community on "get one dictatorship out of Tibet so we can put our old dictator in?" I wonder?
These slaughters were centuries ago. They have little to do with the argument today. In any case, Buddhist-on-Buddhist violence is historically trivial compared to the internecine wars of Christianity and Islam.
I love it when religious idiots say "my religion sucks less than those other guys because we never slaughtered as many as the christians or muslims." That's some consolation to the losers, I'm sure. When you're talking about an area the size of Tibet, of course you're not going to get the kind of gargantuan slaughter that the other faithtards were able to rack up; there simply aren't enough heads to chop. Buddhist-on-buddhist violence has resulted in sectarian wars of eradication, in which the losers were completely obliterated. Go argue with the christians about body counts, but no matter how you slice it, it's a losing game to compare how badly you suck next to another bunch of bloody-fisted god-whallopers.
Sorry to inject a note of historical reality on the little "buddhism is really super peaceful" love-fest. It's complete bullshit.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 29, 2010 3:29 AM
I hope what you mean is that "some people are right, some are wrong, when their opinions are evaluated for truth, but everyone is free to state their opinions".
That was what you meant, right ?
Then again, maybe you are just a bigoted dimwit.
Posted by: ChinaBounder
|
May 29, 2010 3:53 AM
Comment 94
It seemed to me that was your implication. Your tone - ‘most deposed dictators are pretty miffed when someone upsets the family business’ certainly suggested it. But of course I retract my claim that you were smearing the DL if this was not your intention.
The Tibetans do want democracy - or at least a greater say in running their country. The problem is that those in Tibet who say it too prominently get arrested and often abused.
The DL’s opinions matter because the people of Tibet listen to him. This does not make him any more correct than when the Pope speaks and Catholics choose to listen. But it does mean his opinion matters.
An example of the kind of influence he wields is that for many Tibetans, hunting is part of the culture. This has had a negative effect on wildlife. The Chinese tried to stop the Tibetans hunting, and failed, since the Chinese have no credibility in Tibet. The DL called for an end to hunting, and the people of Tibet largely obeyed.
That is influence. That is why his opinion matters.
But no one is calling for that. Do you have any evidence to suggest that if the DL felt the international community would allow it he would seek his ‘traditional’ role?
It has indeed. But my point is that this does not happen today. It is simply an irrelevance to the argument at hand. Buddhism at present is a peaceful religion and there is no evidence to suggest this is changing.
To an extent. But the point here is that you are talking about centuries-past violence. You seem to be doing that to suggest that violence is endemic to Buddhist religion and perhaps all religion.
That is a false premise; Buddhism is at present a peaceful religion. Islam and Christianity are not.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 29, 2010 4:24 AM
From Ayala's Standpoint essay
But Reverend Professor Ayala, are there not biblical scholars who are agnostics or even atheists?
But Reverend Professor Ayala, how could it happen that a Creator perfect in love and wisdom chose to work through such a clumsy - and for many of those involved in it, agonizing - process?
Posted by: Scotlib
|
May 29, 2010 5:21 AM
First comment
@89
Suicide bombing as a modern concept was first used by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. They’re mainly but not exclusively Hindu, and a minority in the country. The Sinhala majority are mostly Buddhists. Also, AFAIK, their motivations for suicide bombing were political rather than religious (they were doing it because they realised it was effective). Not saying I disagree with you on anything else you’ve said (since you obviously know a *lot* more about medieval Japan than me).
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
May 29, 2010 5:30 AM
I was so annoyed by the coverage of Ayala's Templeton prize that I wrote to the "Times Higher Education" to complain- they'd reported that Ayala "refutes the idea that there is a contradiction between science and religion". They've actually printed my response this week- it's here:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411797&c=1
Text as follows:
Refutation? Denied
27 May 2010
We read that Francisco Ayala "refutes the idea that there is any contradiction between science and religion" (The Week in Higher Education, 13 May). I think you'll find that he denies, not refutes, via such well-known methods as claiming that any aspect of religious doctrine that turns out to be embarrassingly false - for example, that a god made the world a few thousand years ago - must be a metaphor.
Refutation is disproof via reason and evidence. In a world where many religious people in the US, for example, believe that human beings are not the product of biological evolution, it is impossible to "refute" the idea of a contradiction between science and religion, because the contradiction is visible.
Stephen Wells, Department of physics, University of Warwick.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 29, 2010 5:40 AM
Good letter, Stephen!
The use of "refute" when "deny" should be used is a common trick - how often have you heard a politician or crook (not that the categories are exclusive) say something along the lines of "I completely refute that". Dictionaries do often give "deny" as a possible meaning, but there is no reason to use it to mean that, other than to exploit this ambiguity.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 29, 2010 6:15 AM
Googlemess #90
It used to be fashionable because China under Mao was stalinist. Nowadays China is a plutocracy.
Posted by: SerenAur
|
May 29, 2010 6:22 AM
The comments mostly made more sense that the Guardian article. Apart from one or two like this!Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 29, 2010 6:55 AM
My daughter has told me most confidently that one day I will die. Which is true. She didn't seem quite so convinced when I replied that one day she too would die - ah the delusions of youth - ZK
When my son was three, talking to him while wheeling him around the supermarket in a trolley, he said something about "When I die...", as if this might happen at any time (as of course it might). I replied "I hope you won't die.", meaning of course, not before me, not for a long time. "I will!", he said somewhat indignantly, "Persons die, I'm a person, so I will die." I don't think he's said anything since (he's now 15) that's surprised me so much!
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 29, 2010 7:27 AM
But something happened to all the black hat Tibetan buddhists. Care to guess what? You got it - the yellow/red hat Tibetan buddhists happened to the black hat Tibetan buddhists and now there aren't any black hat Tibetan buddhists any more. - googlemess@89
Well, be fair: everyone knows the guys in the black hats are the baddies!
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
May 29, 2010 8:04 AM
In the sense that both parties whose names are used in the term are embaressed by its very existance? Yes.
Posted by: redsonja2000
|
May 29, 2010 8:45 AM
You can be a Buddhist and an atheist. I checked the fine print and it's right there in black and white. So as an atheist I also ended up as a Buddhist.
Dalai Lama is a very sweet guy, but he's suffering under a common delusion which is that religion makes you a better person. It can do that (sometimes) but so can the works of Marcus Aurelius or Santayana.
Compassion is the central aspiration of Buddhism, so that's the lens through which the DL sees the world. He can't wrap his mind around obedience to the will of God. There's nothing in Buddhism that's the equivalent of "Allauakbar" or "In Jesus' name we pray." Since he's spent his life trying to rid himself of delusions (with obviously uneven success), he doesn't understand deliberately working to believe an irrational delusion that insults your senses and your intelligence.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 29, 2010 9:29 AM
Buddhism at present is a peaceful religion - ChinaBounder
There are some members of minorities in Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand who might disagree with that claim.
However, I think you're largely right about Tibet. As occurred in Poland, a once highly oppressive but now marginalised religious establishment has become a focus for opposition to communist (and more important, foreign) rule. (Of course in Tibet this establishment was the actual government, unlike in Poland.) We don't have any evidence that Tenzin Gyatso wants to become dictator of Tibet, rather than a revered figurehead (not that need for such figureheads is a good thing, but it's very different from a dictator). Unfortunately, I can't see Tibet gaining even the autonomy Gyatso is now seeking, unless China falls apart; and in the latter event, we'll have more to worry about than Tibet.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
May 29, 2010 10:13 AM
And here I thought the common message of religions was to subjugate women! I'm relieved to learn that it's actually "compassion", toward men of the same religion at least.
Posted by: Robert H
|
May 29, 2010 11:13 AM
@89
The red and yellow hats indicate whether the practitioner is a member of the Old Translation School/Nyingma lineage (red hat) or the New Translation School, which include the Kagyu, Sakya, and Gelugpa (the Dalai Lama's) lineages; the latter all wear yellow hats, at least when hats are called for depending on the ritual.
There never has been a school of Black Hat lamas in the sense that there are Red and Yellow. However, within the Kagyu tradition the head of the Karma Kagyu school is sometimes referred to as the Black Hat Lama, and there is an empowerment where he uses the Black Hat.
As far as Blue Hat lamas go... It would be nice were people to do a little fact-checking prior to accusing others of reprehensible acts. I am left to believe that either you are blithely and comfortably ignorant, or you intentionally choose to spread deceit for your own ends.
There are problematic buddhists, just as there are problematic biologists or ____________ (name pretty much any group of people). The problem isn't so much the group as it is the assorted assholes in the groups. Some groups have significantly higher densities of sphincterocity but you would be hard-pressed to name any group that doesn't have at least one. The difficulty I see arising is that with groups we don't like we assume all members are assholes, that it it inheres to the group, but with groups that we do like the problem lies with the individual, who wouldn't be asshole if only he were to truly follow that program's agenda. Kiddies, this is a conceit.
Posted by: ChinaBounder
|
May 29, 2010 11:31 AM
Knockgoats:
I do not know enough about Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand to comment. But from your posts I can see you are well informed about the matter and so I accede to your take on the religion in those areas.
You are certainly right that if the CCP falls Tibet will be only a minor issue.
I do not see that happening at the moment, but I do think that if the CCP is perceived to lose the support of the people in the cities in China (and they are the constituencies that matter, not the countryside) the PLA will simply take over and China will become - like Burma and to an extent Thailand - a military dictatorship.
I think you are right that the Communists will not grant Tibet any genuine autonomy. This is a grave mistake on their part. They have an opportunity right now to reach an agreement of some sort with the DL; many Tibetan people will listen to him. If he accepted an agreement with the CCP it would be accepted by Tibet.
But the CCP can only see the DL in the most crude and simple-minded terms, as an enemy. They will not deal with him. He’ll die and they’ll put in some stooge in his place. And that stooge will have no credibility in Tibet, and Tibet will rise up.
There were hints of this in the pre-Olympic riots, when younger Tibetans spoke of their frustration with the DL’s stance. Right now he still retains enough cred to keep to hotheads cool. Once he’s dead, Tibet will explode.
Posted by: Robert H
|
May 29, 2010 11:47 AM
ChinaBounder
Undoubtedly they'll put in a stooge, but stooges aren't always easily controlled, for example the Panchen Lama and the Karmapa, neither of whom ended up doing the Chinese's bidding.
As fr as any future uprising, it would probably have less effect than the one in 1959: the Chinese are considerably stronger (and just about as ruthless) and the Tibetans are now outnumbered in their country by Han Chinese.
Posted by: gould1865
|
May 29, 2010 11:52 AM
@ Rorschach # 95
Ha!
No, I meant what I said. Your hopes for others are your own. Who knows why you fling them around.
Ad hominem noted [loser]. Lack of ability to refute or discuss noted. Barely worth replying to. You think your gang's block has been invaded. It has, you never had an entitlement. Take your attempted bullying mug out of my face and back to your stock replies for ados. No, I'm not going to look up what you have ever said elsewhere, good or bad, which you have made irrelevant today. Be sure and post another attempted insult that you counterfeit as an on-topic reply.
Signed, Your imaginary friend.
This comment-reply will confirm for you that you are alive. May you have a long and happy life beginning now.
Posted by: onimelman
|
May 29, 2010 12:58 PM
"I don't have to be a Christian to abstain from excess."
This would seem to imply abstinence from excess as a virtue.
If you enjoy it and it doesn't hurt anybody, where is the moral imperative to abstain?
(Good) Food?
Sex?
Posted by: ChinaBounder
|
May 29, 2010 1:07 PM
RobertH
Yes, on the whole I suspect you are correct in your assessment.
The only possible difference is that today a Tibetan uprising would get much more scrutiny from the global media, which it did not in the 1950s.
Yet I am not sure that would really matter so much in the end. It seems to me that most of the world is happy to acquiesce to any shit the CCP does as long as the flow of cheap goods from China continues.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 29, 2010 1:32 PM
Antiochus Epiphanes,
So far, I could agree with that definition, although I would stress a different aspect of what I would call the theory of materialism: that mental and intentional phenomena (those to do with experience, meaning, goals, etc.) are secondary to and arise from non-intentional, non-mental processes, and cannot exist in their absence.
I guess you mean in principle observable (so, neutrinos were observable before we developed techniques for detecting them).
I think you are conflating two distinctions here. The god(esse)s of ancient Greece were supernatural, in the everyday sense of the word (they were, after all, divine), but they had observable properties. So, a deity that never acts on the world is indeed beyond science – and vacuous – but a deity that is held to so act, is not necessarily so.
You’ve misunderstood me here. I agree with you that strong reductionism is mistaken, but that wasn’t what I was referring to. Weak reductionism (mental and intentional phenomena are supervenient on physical ones) is a key part of materialism. However, weak reductionism could be false – and that’s the possibility I was referring to. It’s not obviously impossible that, as several recent wooist visitors have suggested, everything is conscious (although there is no reason whatever to believe it, and AFAIK no coherent account of how it could be possible has been given).
Agreed so far.
Contrary to what you say, the two formulations are not equivalent. There is nothing whatever wrong with the possibility that material phenomena could indicate that materialism is wrong. If the sky were to roll up like a scroll, and Gabriel blow his trumpet o’er sea and land, I would conclude that materialism was probably false. Similarly, if the human genome turned out to contain an encoding of the final page of The Da Vinci Code in Klingon, or if the 4th through 6th centillionth digits of pi turn out be make a portrait of an old man with a beard and a nasty, censorious expression, or magic spells started working… As for “the existence of A may negate that A implies B” – well, if I interpret you correctly, it often can. If we know that B is false, then if we are using the logicians’ truth-functional interpretation of “implies”, “A implies B” is false if A is true, but true otherwise (“A implies B” being false when and only when A is true but B is false). In any case, as I say, this formulation is not equivalent to the first.
But some supernatural explanations plainly do make predictions, for example: good weather and harvests are provided by the gods if they are pleased with us, and this can best be assured by prayers and sacrifice. It’s just that the predictions are not properly tested.
More specifically, a deity that will heal the sick, at levels above chance, when prayed to.
It could be planned by believers in the power of prayer, or sceptics, or both.
Christians claim all the time that God does heal them. Sure, a negative finding doesn’t rule out all deities, but it is strong evidence against a class of them: deities who will heal under certain circumstances, and won’t refuse to do so simply because it’s part of an experiment. As before, you are saying, rightly, that some very general supernatural hypothesis is untestable, but overlooking the possibility that more specific supernatural (and more generally, anti-materialist) hypotheses can be, and have been, tested.
Yes, the experiment would quite clearly corroborate the conjecture that a healing deity exists. Of course, for any body of evidence one can always invent alternative explanations, but past a certain point, when an explanation has passed numerous tests and explains wide classes of phenomena, when we see creationists or AGW denialists doing this, we are rightly contemptuous. If a specific supernatural explanation passed enough empirical tests and explained previously mysterious phenomena, your reliance on conspiracy theory to avoid provisionally accepting it would be exactly the same.
They’ve only taken this line in recent times because all their testable supernatural explanations (e.g. Noah’s flood) were refuted. It’s only completely quietist gods that are vacuous (even there, I wouldn’t say “meaningless”, a word I reserve for the likes of “Squerble dynk rubbox hnecto”.
Posted by: Pareidolius
|
May 29, 2010 1:50 PM
The days when the last vestiges of my magical thinking were on the run were spent by my dying sister's bedside. It had been a decade of disillusionment and had been punctuated by the deaths of two people that were mountains in the landscape of my life. Now a third peak was being leveled and spirituality was short on comfort and totally bereft of answers.
There in my sister's suburban Sacramento home, the terrible beauty, banality and utter ordinariness of death was finally sinking in. As this understanding took root in my psyche, my longtime fear of Death-with-a-capital-D drained from me.
Lounging in her living room watching a horribly wonderful Charlie Chan movie, I caught her looking at me. She said "you still don't believe in all that 'create you own reality crap' do you?"
"No, not really." I answered. She then announced that in this second of her battles with mortality she had come across a better answer to The Truth about the universe . . . "shit happens."
There was one of those weird, long silences that I've found to be fairly common when one spends time with the dying. Then a smile cracked across her hairless head and we both laughed until we cried (a frequent occurrence in those five precious weeks of decline).
Yeah, it was a funny moment of snark, but in it, something burst in me. It became plain to me: Shit Happens really was the baseline of the universe . . . and it was okay. Suddenly a meaningless universe (a thought that always terrified me) was comforting, bracing, thrilling and peaceful.
My atheism was cemented in that moment. As for my own meanings, my love, grief, anger, humor, wonder were all safe because they were mine. No unseen, ethereal sky-fairies were going to tell me I was wrong. Everything I needed to know about the universe could be explained by science. How I felt about it, well, that was up to me alone.
The next afternoon, when we were all out of the house, my sister asked her caregiver to make some popcorn shrimp. Then she died. I would have wondered where she went at one time in my life, but now it's awesome to think of her returning to the shimmering, searing, quarky strangeness from which everything emerged. I am so much better for her having been here.
I cannot say the same thing about any religious leader. How did I end up back on topic? I must be losing my touch.
Posted by: Robert H
|
May 29, 2010 2:31 PM
ChinaBounder @114
It's not just China's cheap goods anymore, it's their sheer economic muscle.
And as for global scrutiny... when's the last time said scrutiny actually stopped aggression? It certainly hasn't slowed us down in our adventurism over the last fifty years (which is an uncomfortable thought to mull over on Memorial Day.
Posted by: dahduh
|
May 29, 2010 6:19 PM
Huh. Funny how apologists are always eager to assume that S∩R=∅ rather than S∪R=S; or even that R∩U=∅, which is at least as plausible.
Posted by: sgwitness
|
May 29, 2010 9:17 PM
What's wrong with wanting everyone, religious or not, to behave more compassionately towards one another?
Seems like it is at least worth a try to get everyone to try turning swords to plowshares.
Debunking the myths of religion sure ain't gonna work -- that only invites counter-responses that in the end settles nothing conclusively.
The DL's speech and Karen Armstrong's Charter for Compassion are along the same spirit.
Is there a better win-win solution for everyone?
Posted by: amaterasu-kami
|
May 29, 2010 10:31 PM
To be fair, Buddhism is non-theistic and contains atheists. It doesn't preach gods, demons, ghosts, and all that. That is added by people with indigenous beliefs like the Lama. Tibetan Buddhism has things added to it like Tara in it, who is from that country and not India.
When he talks of "compassion" he's referring to Buddhism's tenets. I don't mind criticizing of religion. In fact a lot of times I encourage questioning of beliefs. But I think his comment was taken out of context and (no offense to you or anybody else) it seemed like you only referred to two of the big three, which doesn't reflect all the beliefs in the world, or the Buddhist view.
Posted by: Andrew Finden
|
May 30, 2010 4:38 AM
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that you can be both and right and wrong.. you may be right about evolution, but your insistence that God is 'bullshit' has as much validity as the claim that he isn't. For all your hot-heated ranting, it doesn't mean you are certainly right and those whose experience and reason cause them to disagree with you are simply idiots. Ranting and raving is hardly demonstrative of a rational approach, even if you think it is.. you can be right AND wrong.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
May 30, 2010 4:44 AM
so andy, got some evidence for that god of yours? because if not, then it IS bullshit, no matter how many fancy "experiences" you've had.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 30, 2010 5:31 AM
Is there a better win-win solution for everyone? - sgwitness
Yes, indeed there is: the rapid spread of rationality, which would include the withering away of religion to a few harmless relics and quaint survivals.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
May 30, 2010 5:51 AM
Something which is not going to happen in your lifetime, or in mine. Or, I suspect, ever.
Religion is generally declining across much of Europe, certainly, but it would be hopelessly optimistic to view this as a "spread of rationality". It's simply a spread of apathy. The fact that someone is not religious doesn't imply that s/he has a rational and sceptical worldview. And while religion in Europe may be in decline, there are other, more toxic forms of irrationality which are growing - in particular, anti-immigrant sentiment and xenophobia, as well as various forms of pseudoscience woo.
So I don't think our society is growing more rational. Some forms of irrationality (orthodox Christianity in particular) are in decline - though they may well revive again in the future - but other forms of irrationality and nonsense are growing. There will always be a significant proportion of the population who are credulous and easily-deluded. Such is human nature.
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 30, 2010 6:14 AM
Walton | May 30, 2010 5:51 AM:
True. However it is an opening. Start by pointing out that something a person already agrees with - that religion is not to be believed n - is an example of skeptical thinking. Then expand to other topics.
More importantly - for most people, the factor most likely to drive them away from skeptical thinking is religion. Take that away, and the biggest barrier to learning is gone.
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 30, 2010 6:19 AM
Oh, and Walton, you have exams to study for.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
May 30, 2010 7:51 AM
All of them...?
Nothing is ever gone from Wikipedia. Every article has a "History" section... click on it.
No, a reincarnated enlightened human.
That was before Lamaism developed. Tibet was an ordinary secular monarchy back then, with a king and a plundering cavalry.
The hat color massacres happened after Lamaism was introduced.
As abb3w once reminded us, one of these examples is not like the others – π has an infinite number of digits, so everything occurs in it somewhere, and that an infinite number of times.
Of course, the probability that precisely the 4th through 6th centillionth digits spell out precisely such a portrait is rather negligible.
I don't know how to say it in any sensitive way, so I've written it in white – highlight it if you actually want to read it:
She's not returning anywhere. She's rotting. She's turning into soil, not into strangeness. Unless, of course, if she was burnt; then she has turned into air and a couple of metal oxides, not into soil, but still not into strangeness.
Neither, however, is it demonstrative of anything else. It's completely orthogonal to the content of the rant.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
May 30, 2010 8:00 AM
I don't think they are growing. Probably they're actually in decline. They just have lots more opportunities to manifest nowadays. If you never encounter strangers, you can't hate them for being strange!
Not without a nuclear war or some other way to interrupt education for several decades.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 30, 2010 8:20 AM
Walton,
My # did not assign any likelihood to the scenario I sketched, it simply expressed a preference for it. However, you are far too sure you know what is and is not possible in the development of human societies. Hint: you don't.
There will always be a significant proportion of the population who are credulous and easily-deluded. Such is human nature.
Well, social and human scientists, novelists, playwrights, philosophers - you can stop work now, Walton can tell us what "human nature" is.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 30, 2010 8:37 AM
Everyone, stop engaging Walton in conversation.
Walton, you have exams to study for. Go back to studying NOW!
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 30, 2010 8:41 AM
Walton,
My # did not assign any likelihood to the scenario I sketched, it simply expressed a preference for it. However, you are far too sure you know what is and is not possible in the development of human societies. Hint: you don't.
There will always be a significant proportion of the population who are credulous and easily-deluded. Such is human nature.
Well, social and human scientists, novelists, playwrights, philosophers - you can stop work now, Walton can tell us what "human nature" is.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 30, 2010 8:43 AM
See Walton,
Failure to go and work is now causing outbreaks of double posting! Begone!
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 30, 2010 9:00 AM
Nice trick there David.....
Posted by: nerdiah
|
May 31, 2010 3:04 AM
Cath #76, thanks for the info, I didn't know that. I have heard several Buddhist sources saying things along the lines that the teachings are to be questioned, and if science or another source turns up better evidence, than so be it. If true, as demonstrated by the Lama's shift in position, then that puts it miles ahead of most other religions.
Posted by: abb3w
|
June 1, 2010 12:43 AM
David Marjanović: As abb3w once reminded us, one of these examples is not like the others – π has an infinite number of digits, so everything occurs in it somewhere, and that an infinite number of times.
You rang?
Although incidental to the basic point, on a couple levels that's not quite correctly phrased. The decimal expansion of π involves an infinite non-repeating decimal. Also, the distribution appears in some sense "random", such that the expectation is that anything turns up somewhere is plausible on the face. However, the extent to which is is "random" is a somewhat open question in mathematics; if it's less than random, it might be that something just never shows.
But yes, pure mathematics is a different question from material phenomena.
To the original point on material phenomena being able to refute materialism: no, it can't. You need an additional basis for making the inference. Materialism allows inference about material phenomena, but only about material phenomena; and materialism itself is a philosophical principle, not a material phenomenon. Thus, you can't make inferences about materialism, by means of materialism, but must use (and thus, have) an additional philosophical principle such as the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction (not that I can see a way that would particularly help in this case...), which is not itself dependent on materialism as prior, and which is allowed to be applied to reasoning about philosophical principles.
Of course, there's more than a little ambiguity in the discussion that's been going on as to what is meant by "material" and "materialism", as indicated by the "immaterial" versus "supernatural" distinction.
For myself, I find "experiential" gets down to more basic questions more usefully. Theists, however, seem to dislike this, since it leaves various flavors of "but God is beyond science" argument as so much wibble-wibble-wibble.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnJP7POVA57BAHU57VLJVK2BG941wJQtX8
|
June 3, 2010 6:19 AM
Dear PZ, you seem to have generated a good discussion here. At present time, European atheists do not get such "militant, evangelical, aggressively hegemonic" religious hammering as, I understand, you do in the US. Therefore our responses to religion tend to be, say, less hammered. Good Old Mother Europe (isn't it just amazing how Europe got more tolerant in the last 30 years).
The bit that really caught my attention was your statement that "while there are relatively few ways to answer a question correctly, there is endless diversity in error". Surely as the science evolves we are getting more and more ways to answer a question correctly, and there is no guarantee that all of those ways will be converging?
Isn't your "few ways to answer" statement, in extremis, similar to assertions about "one truth"?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 3, 2010 6:35 AM
congratulations on missing the point. there is, indeed, only one "truth", i.e. reality. there's no guarantee that the answers we have are correct, but there is indeed only one actual, 100% correct answer to questions about reality (unless they're stupidly general questions, of course; then there is no answer at all, usually). So, no, science does not provide us with more and more ways to answer a question correctly; it can give us multiple models that approximate the correct answer to a question, or it can give us many answers to questions, but that's not the same.So PZ's statement is correct: there's an unlimited number of ways to be (partially or totally) wrong, but only one way to be right. And I should add that we can know what the wrong answers are, but we can't ever know what the 100% correct answer is.
Posted by: sgwitness
|
June 4, 2010 8:55 PM
In all probability, truth could be multi-faceted and is dependent on the kind of sense organs we are equipped with. "True" colour is different if you have the eyes of a human, a housefly or a bull. The experience of color is no less true for all three, but they are far from identical. Or is it the case that there is no such thing as true colour? Or that we can never know the true colour of anything?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnJP7POVA57BAHU57VLJVK2BG941wJQtX8
|
June 5, 2010 12:54 PM
I probably agree with sgwitness that "truth could be multi-faceted", indeed why there should be just One Reality? In fact, if you read BRAIN TIME by David M. Eagleman (http://bit.ly/prDQB) you will find, for example, that "tall people may live further in the past than short people". I am not tall so reality suits my fine (but not Reality).
What my post was about was a call for tolerance. When Church had to defend the earth-centric view, they put in quite an intelectual effort and not only brute force. (Luckily, even combined they were insufficient). The intolerance then was somewhat similar to that in 20th century dished out on those who did not know that the speed of light is constant (repressive educational systems worldwide played the brute force role on that occasion, which lost again).
By the way, I am an atheist and can be contacted on erljoe@yahoo.co.uk
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnJP7POVA57BAHU57VLJVK2BG941wJQtX8
|
June 6, 2010 10:40 AM
In fact, it might be that the intellectual opposition from the Church forced the proponents of heliocentric view to sharpen their act.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnJP7POVA57BAHU57VLJVK2BG941wJQtX8
|
June 6, 2010 10:48 AM
By the way, please follow Roger Schank ( his bio on http://bit.ly/9QQpW1 ) regarding education ( No More Teacher's Dirty Looks )