Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
We of little faith
by Sue Blackmore, Guardian
Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2007/06/we_of_little_faith.html
Religious belief is inconsistent with reason and corrosive to the human mind - and I don't want to live in a world where it is respected.
"Religious faith is not inconsistent with reason."
I nearly choked on my breakfast when I heard this on the Today programme. These words were spoken by Mr Blair, in his inimitably sincere style. He was addressing an Islamic conference in London, on June 4, and pledging more money to support Islamic studies in British Universities.
When I'd calmed down I went to check, and it really is true. In the full text of his speech, on the No 10 website, he says:
"In the face of so much high profile accorded to religious extremism, to schism, and to confrontation, it is important to show that religious faith is not inconsistent with reason, or progress, or the celebration of diversity."
But religious faith is inconsistent with reason (and much more that we value as well).
I'm not referring to the ordinary kind of faith by which we have faith in another person's honesty, or that taking an aspirin will reduce our headache. I am talking about religious faith, as Tony Blair was too. In this context faith means believing without reason. Indeed, this is precisely how it is defined, for example as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" or in Merriam Webster as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Does this make faith inconsistent with reason? I would say yes. Reason demands that you look for evidence and believe accordingly - which is exactly what we do when we trust a friend because they've been reliable in the past, or doubt a rumour until we've checked on the facts.
Faith is corrosive to the human mind. If someone genuinely believes that it is right to believe things without reason or evidence then they are open to every kind of dogma, whim, coercion, or dangerous infectious idea that's around. If someone is convinced that it is acceptable to base their beliefs on what is written in an ancient book, or what some teacher tells them they must believe, then they will have no true freedom of thought; they will be trapped by their faith into inconsistency and untruths because they are unable to throw out false ideas when evidence against them comes along.
The whole point of a university education is to learn to think for yourself, to criticise theories, to compare ideas and to find out the truth by research, exploration and experiment. Whether you are studying French, chemistry, or psychology, you are given tools for thinking independently and ways of evaluating other people's claims. In this there is no room for faith, and should be no room for faith.
I want to be clear about some things I am not saying. First I am not saying that everything has to be rational. There is much about human life that has little or nothing to do with rationality; there's love and affection, art and poetry, happiness, beauty and intuition. But none of these things has to be taken on faith. University courses include much that is not rational, not just in arts courses but even in science, where one has hunches or enjoys beautiful ideas, but again there is no room for holding onto religious faith - wherever the ideas come from they must ultimately be thrown out if they are shown to be wrong.
Second, I am not saying that no students should have religious beliefs. This is (and must be, in a free society) a matter for them, in the privacy of their own minds. There will always be some students who believe things on faith and others who don't, but the job of a university course is to make people think and to give them the tools for doing so. Faith is not one of those tools. Indeed, by and large, a university education reduces religious belief, as indeed it should.
I have had countless students on my psychology courses who began as believers in God, or the afterlife, or spirits and souls, and then had to question those beliefs through the process of learning how the mind actually works. I have seen them (and I hope helped them) go through this painful process of throwing off their restrictive childhood religious beliefs and learning to live with the uncertainties and open-mindedness needed for real learning.
Finally, I am not saying there should be no courses on Christianity or Islam or any other religion. There are and should be, for there is much of importance to study: the history of the religions, the beliefs, their cultural background and much more. But universities should be teaching people how to think, question, and understand these things, not to have faith in "truths" proclaimed without reason or evidence.
Tony Blair pronounces the word "faith" with just that touch of special reverence in his voice, as though it were something to respect, something we should admire in others and grant them licence to believe whatever they want on its account. Indeed he proclaimed that the conference was "an opportunity to listen; to hear Islam's true voice; to welcome and appreciate them; and in doing so, to join up with all those who believe in a world where religious faith is respected". How despicable. How creepy. How frightening when we see the dire consequences of faith-based actions all around us.
Of course people of faith want us to respect their beliefs. For they have no other way of defending them than to appeal to respect, to promise rewards for believers, or threaten punishments for unbelievers. So anyone who cares about the truth should resist these meme tricks. Religious faith is something that we should struggle to throw off when we have better ways of learning the truth about the universe we live in; something we should overcome rather than something we should respect.
I, for one, do not want to live in a world where religious faith is respected. I do not want more "faith-based initiatives". I do not want more faith schools, and our great universities should continue to teach people to think for themselves, to respect the truth, and to take nothing on faith.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2007/06/we_of_little_faith.html
Religious belief is inconsistent with reason and corrosive to the human mind - and I don't want to live in a world where it is respected."Religious faith is not inconsistent with reason."
I nearly choked on my breakfast when I heard this on the Today programme. These words were spoken by Mr Blair, in his inimitably sincere style. He was addressing an Islamic conference in London, on June 4, and pledging more money to support Islamic studies in British Universities.
When I'd calmed down I went to check, and it really is true. In the full text of his speech, on the No 10 website, he says:
"In the face of so much high profile accorded to religious extremism, to schism, and to confrontation, it is important to show that religious faith is not inconsistent with reason, or progress, or the celebration of diversity."
But religious faith is inconsistent with reason (and much more that we value as well).
I'm not referring to the ordinary kind of faith by which we have faith in another person's honesty, or that taking an aspirin will reduce our headache. I am talking about religious faith, as Tony Blair was too. In this context faith means believing without reason. Indeed, this is precisely how it is defined, for example as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" or in Merriam Webster as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Does this make faith inconsistent with reason? I would say yes. Reason demands that you look for evidence and believe accordingly - which is exactly what we do when we trust a friend because they've been reliable in the past, or doubt a rumour until we've checked on the facts.
Faith is corrosive to the human mind. If someone genuinely believes that it is right to believe things without reason or evidence then they are open to every kind of dogma, whim, coercion, or dangerous infectious idea that's around. If someone is convinced that it is acceptable to base their beliefs on what is written in an ancient book, or what some teacher tells them they must believe, then they will have no true freedom of thought; they will be trapped by their faith into inconsistency and untruths because they are unable to throw out false ideas when evidence against them comes along.
The whole point of a university education is to learn to think for yourself, to criticise theories, to compare ideas and to find out the truth by research, exploration and experiment. Whether you are studying French, chemistry, or psychology, you are given tools for thinking independently and ways of evaluating other people's claims. In this there is no room for faith, and should be no room for faith.
I want to be clear about some things I am not saying. First I am not saying that everything has to be rational. There is much about human life that has little or nothing to do with rationality; there's love and affection, art and poetry, happiness, beauty and intuition. But none of these things has to be taken on faith. University courses include much that is not rational, not just in arts courses but even in science, where one has hunches or enjoys beautiful ideas, but again there is no room for holding onto religious faith - wherever the ideas come from they must ultimately be thrown out if they are shown to be wrong.
Second, I am not saying that no students should have religious beliefs. This is (and must be, in a free society) a matter for them, in the privacy of their own minds. There will always be some students who believe things on faith and others who don't, but the job of a university course is to make people think and to give them the tools for doing so. Faith is not one of those tools. Indeed, by and large, a university education reduces religious belief, as indeed it should.
I have had countless students on my psychology courses who began as believers in God, or the afterlife, or spirits and souls, and then had to question those beliefs through the process of learning how the mind actually works. I have seen them (and I hope helped them) go through this painful process of throwing off their restrictive childhood religious beliefs and learning to live with the uncertainties and open-mindedness needed for real learning.
Finally, I am not saying there should be no courses on Christianity or Islam or any other religion. There are and should be, for there is much of importance to study: the history of the religions, the beliefs, their cultural background and much more. But universities should be teaching people how to think, question, and understand these things, not to have faith in "truths" proclaimed without reason or evidence.
Tony Blair pronounces the word "faith" with just that touch of special reverence in his voice, as though it were something to respect, something we should admire in others and grant them licence to believe whatever they want on its account. Indeed he proclaimed that the conference was "an opportunity to listen; to hear Islam's true voice; to welcome and appreciate them; and in doing so, to join up with all those who believe in a world where religious faith is respected". How despicable. How creepy. How frightening when we see the dire consequences of faith-based actions all around us.
Of course people of faith want us to respect their beliefs. For they have no other way of defending them than to appeal to respect, to promise rewards for believers, or threaten punishments for unbelievers. So anyone who cares about the truth should resist these meme tricks. Religious faith is something that we should struggle to throw off when we have better ways of learning the truth about the universe we live in; something we should overcome rather than something we should respect.
I, for one, do not want to live in a world where religious faith is respected. I do not want more "faith-based initiatives". I do not want more faith schools, and our great universities should continue to teach people to think for themselves, to respect the truth, and to take nothing on faith.
Comments 1 - 50 of 70 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #48716 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Tony Blair:Some of the most distinguished scholars and religious leaders the world over are gathered here. I ask people to listen to them. They are the authentic voices of Islam. The voices of extremism are no more representative of Islam than the use, in times gone by, of torture to force conversion to Christianity, represents the true teaching of Christ.I listened to Blair on NPR. The words, "They are the authentic voices of Islam," made me go, "Whaaa?" I must have missed the memo naming Blair arbiter of Islamic authenticity.
When Blair eloquently pledged friendship to the US after 9/11, I regarded him as one of the most well spoken, inspiring statesmen I've ever heard. I still feel a debt to the Brits for that speech. But Jesus, what happened to the man.
Pre-mass media, politicians didn't have to do their fence sitting and dancing right in front of us all the time. Maybe even Churchill would have come off as a putz in today's world of 24 hour hyper coverage.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
3. Comment #48726 by MIND_REBEL on June 8, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I find it interesting that Mrs. Blackmore calls herself an athiest, yet is a follower of Zen Buddism, which is the same irrational faith that drove the kamikaze bombers and the Japanese rape of China. Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
4. Comment #48742 by bouwe on June 8, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Comment #48726 by MIND_REBELHuh? Firstly, if Zen Buddhism does not postulate the existence of a deity, then it is consistent with being an atheist, so saying she "calls herself an atheist" as if she isn't due to an adherence to Zen Buddhism doesn't make sense.
I find it interesting that Mrs. Blackmore calls herself an athiest, yet is a follower of Zen Buddism, which is the same irrational faith that drove the kamikaze bombers and the Japanese rape of China.
Secondly, you haven't demonstrated that Zen Buddhism is the thing which "drove the kamikaze bombers and the Japanese rape of China." Just because some of them were adherents to Zen Buddhism doesn't follow that that is what caused their behaviour. Even if you make a strong case that Zen Buddhism is "irrational" it still doesn't prove the effect. Love is irrational, but does that mean that it is the cause of all the ills of the world?
Anyway, I thought it was the Cult of the Emperor and blind allegiance to the nationalist cause that was the main problem in this case, rather than too much Zen meditation.
Other Comments by bouwe
5. Comment #48745 by CloudedHills on June 9, 2007 at 12:53 am
Many forms of Buddhism are entirely atheist. Stripping away mysticism, there is a lot to be said for it.I really think Blackmore's hair is fantastic. Whoever said scientists couldn't be cool?
Other Comments by CloudedHills
6. Comment #48758 by Logicel on June 9, 2007 at 2:10 am
Spot on, Ms. Blackmore! Excellent article. Other Comments by Logicel
7. Comment #48771 by pewkatchoo on June 9, 2007 at 3:10 am
I will be writing a very angry letter to my mp to ask him if he thinks it is a good use of public funds to give money to a religious organisation for 'further study'. What the fuck is there to study anyway. I am getting so angry with this government and it's so-called opposition. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
8. Comment #48777 by pewkatchoo on June 9, 2007 at 3:26 am
Bouwe, it was not zen buddhism which drove the kamikaze, it was militant shinto and emperor worship.Zen is a personal discipline, it has very little to do with religion and nothing at all to do with deities.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
9. Comment #48780 by pewkatchoo on June 9, 2007 at 3:32 am
Dr Benway, Blair is searching for his legacy just now and will say absolutely anything that he thinks people want to hear. He is only elloquent if you are not prepared to analyse exactly what it is he is saying. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
10. Comment #48809 by bluebird on June 9, 2007 at 5:40 am
About six months ago a poster made mention of this woman's good work, and pink hair. Nice to see another article, avec photo. Other Comments by bluebird
11. Comment #48823 by Vinelectric on June 9, 2007 at 6:16 am
I will be writing a very angry letter to my mp to ask him if he thinks it is a good use of public funds to give money to a religious organisation for 'further study'. What the fuck is there to study anyway.
That really cracked me up.. thanks pewkatchoo !!
Other Comments by Vinelectric
12. Comment #48829 by bouwe on June 9, 2007 at 6:37 am
Comment #48777 by pewkatchoopewkatchoo, I was aware of that but didn't get around to mentioning it. You should really be addressing
Bouwe, it was not zen buddhism which drove the kamikaze, it was militant shinto and emperor worship.
Comment #48726 by MIND_REBEL ...I'm still trying to get my head around his Zen comments....he has taken his rebellion a little too far I think....
Other Comments by bouwe
13. Comment #48836 by Greg23 on June 9, 2007 at 6:49 am
Ah, SusanAlways one of my favorites.
Other Comments by Greg23
14. Comment #48849 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 7:25 am
9. Comment #48780 by pewkatchoo>Blair is searching for his legacy
Looks like his legacy is searching for him. This latest Saudi weapons sale corruption with Blair shutting down the investigation due to "national interest" stinks. The whole cabinet should be in the slammer. It reminds me of the ending to the 'Lord of War' movie.
So much for Blair having Christian values.
Other Comments by Rtambree
15. Comment #48853 by the great teapot on June 9, 2007 at 7:42 am
Sue Blackmore was on a radio 4 program earlier this week, I forget the name and date but it was at 11pm. I was only half listening to it as it was only intended to be a lightweight stocking filler type of program.The programe was about people who believe in strange things joining the real world.
She described how she believed all the new age nonsense ,Tarot cards etc and was a champion of these beliefs.
Then one day she had a eureka moment and no longer believed. She then was a champion for the skeptics and became the celebrity rent a quote for skeptics. Since then she has not changed her views but claimed to have given up on the rent a quoting - obviously not completely.
She wrapped up with what I thought was the only telling point of the program (loosely quoted) "Skeptics don't send hate mail, believers do"
Funny how you never hear a name all your life, then bang twice in 1 week, spooky.
Other Comments by the great teapot
16. Comment #48857 by pewkatchoo on June 9, 2007 at 8:05 am
vinelectric:You are welcome
bouwe:
sorry, I did get you mixed up with rebel because your post was straight after his. I must be in my dotage.
Rtambree:
yes, I saw that movie too. I did not make the connection that you did, but you are absolutely right. What a shocking affair that is.
After posting my own responses on the Graudain site I read some of the posts from the 'faithful' and, to paraphrase Weinberg:
'Without religion you would have clever people saying clever things and stupid people saying stupid things, but for (apparently) clever people to say totally, braindead, off the wall, stupid things, it takes religion.'
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
17. Comment #48860 by pewkatchoo on June 9, 2007 at 8:12 am
DejaFuI am a 3rd Dan Kendoka and 1st Dan Karateka, which is why I know a wee bit about Zen Buddhism. I try to use it to help my concentration, with mixed success of course. )^8
I also studied Japanese culture, history and mythology to try and get an insight into how they think. I even did two language courses so that I could try and make the visiting sensei feel more comfortable when they came to our club. I find it a fascinating society, wide open in some areas, totally repressed in others. Full of contradictions.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
18. Comment #48864 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 8:32 am
>'Without religion you would have clever people saying clever things and stupid people saying stupid things, but for (apparently) clever people to say totally, braindead, off the wall, stupid things, it takes religionGood one - you're churning them out pewkatchoo. Compile them into another atheist book and with sales the way they are, you won't have to work again.
Other Comments by Rtambree
19. Comment #48872 by MIND_REBEL on June 9, 2007 at 9:30 am
I think you guys are falling for the Western Religion=Bad, Eastern Religion=Good. They're both bad. Buddhists have a tendency to just sit around, and justify the most horrible governments in the history of the world. The government could slaughter 100K people, and some monk would respond with some meaningless bromide like "two grapefruits with yellow skin are one orange in training". And Buddhism is irrational. Many forms of Buddhism have a concept of hell, believe in the afterlife through reincarnation. And it was that same believe in reincarnation which drove the kamikaze planers and submariners during WWII. And what Buddhism allowed the Kamikazee pilots to carry out during WWII isn't that much different in principle than other events where religious lunatics used planes to suicide themselves. It just that instead of 72 virgins they get reincarnationed as super models lap dog or a hawaian tropic tan boy.
And you can call me stupid all you want, but the facts are facts and i'm more concerned with the truth than looking cool or hip in some nonsense mystical faith. No disrespect, but Buddhism is pretty stupid, and for a religion that aims to dissolve the ego, they tend attract some real egomaniacs.
Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
20. Comment #48881 by Donald on June 9, 2007 at 10:21 am
Blair: "religious faith is not inconsistent with reason, or progress, or the celebration of diversity."Blackmore: "But religious faith is inconsistent with reason (and much more that we value as well)."
This is a good article from Sue Blackmore. But I would have liked to see it longer, and tackle the other two of Blair's three assertions:
Blair: "religious faith is consistent with progress"
Not if it's based on ancient scripts that are claimed to be the unchallengeable, unchanging, right for all time, word of god, it isn't. Especially Islam.
Blair: "religious faith is consistent with the celebration of diversity"
Not if divides humans into two camps: believers who will go to heaven, and unbelievers whom god hates and will go to hell, it isn't. Especially Islam.
Blair entered politics as a naive orator who found a neat way to advance the labour party. He leaves it as a deeply deluded and corrupted politician.
Other Comments by Donald
21. Comment #48882 by pewkatchoo on June 9, 2007 at 10:29 am
Mind-RebelYou may think that you are stating facts, but you clearly are not. I do not know where you are getting your knowledge from, comics by the look of it, but you are sadly wrong. Buddhism is not an irrational faith system. The Gautama Buddha laid down 4 truths and 8 paths. These are all to do with building the mind and the moral way to do things. There was no god involved in the process, simply human enlightenment. Gautama Buddha did not believe in reincarnation and it is not actually a central tenet of the original teachings. Zen buddhism is purely a mental discipline based on the 8 paths. It is intended to improve wisdom and concentration in the hope of eventually achieving enlightenment.
These disciplines are easily translated to modernistic morality, self-discipline and the search for knowledge. Pretty much what you need to better yourself. No mumbo-jumbo need be applied.
If we take your course, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is nihilism and anarchic.
I don't know if I have explained this very well, but I am sure that there are others more knowlegeable who will correct anything I have got wrong.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
22. Comment #48883 by pewkatchoo on June 9, 2007 at 10:32 am
DonaldExcellent summation. There is a danger sometimes to pick the most obviously nonsense phrase and ignore the rest with Blair. Brown is very similar in that regard. Politics is just another form of irrational belief.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
23. Comment #48884 by Logicel on June 9, 2007 at 10:36 am
pewkatchoo wrote: Bouwe, it was not zen buddhism which drove the kamikaze, it was militant shinto and emperor worship.___________
I read that many pilots were coerced to do the kamikaze flights because the Japanese authorities threatened their families in various ways.
Other Comments by Logicel
24. Comment #48888 by Bonzai on June 9, 2007 at 10:48 am
Zen Buddhism is not a "faith". In fact it is quite the opposite. One is trained to doubt everything, even the teaching of Buddha. Not all schools of Buddhism believe in reincarnation. Even though I don't believe in reincarnation myself, but I think it is at least infinitely more interesting a possibility than a Christian after life. And it is actually not that outlandish if you take it as a metaphore. Afterall matter does get recycled and not all schools of reincarnation insist that one retains a memory and personhood in the process of death and rebirth.
The belief in Hell in some buddhist sects is probably a corruption arising from being mixed up with folk worships. Taoism suffers the same fate.
Some Chinese folk religions believe not only in hell, but on a complete underworld bureaucracy. They think the underworld is very much like the real world, with governments, offices, banks, police and department stores etc. To live a comfortable life while dead you need money and all kinds of amenities.
In any China town you can find shops that sell a kind of fake money that looks like monopoly money, it is supposed to be burnt as offering to the dead. When I grew up in Hong Kong, I remember people making life size paper cars with bamboo frames and stuffs like paper refrigurators, paper washing machines and even paper servants,--which are life size paper dolls. All to be burnt as offerings. Rather vulgar supersitition it is for sure, but the paper maches are a lot of fun to look at. I think it is a waste to burn up all these artistic creations. In a sense folk religions at least add some colour and charm to life. A completely rational society would probably be very boring.
Other Comments by Bonzai
25. Comment #48889 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 10:59 am
25. Comment #48888 by Bonzai> a completely rational society would probably be very boring.
Spock: That is illogical Captain
Other Comments by Rtambree
26. Comment #48890 by Logicel on June 9, 2007 at 11:03 am
Mind_Rebel wrote: No disrespect, but Buddhism is pretty stupid, and for a religion that aims to dissolve the ego, they tend attract some real egomaniacs.___________
Similar in the way that health food stores attract unhealthy people.
Reincarnation is a part of what religion then, if not buddhism? Hinduism? Was Buddha a reformer of Hinduism like Jesus was of Judaism?
I consider Buddhism to be both a philosophy and a religion. Since philosophy for the most part leaves me cold, I have been little attracted to that aspect of Buddhism. The focus on that we are all one--though I do not disagree in principle, we came from stardust and will return as stardust--can be achieved by studying science and not just Buddhism. I prefer the study of science.
I have been doing yoga postures and breathing for decades, because I find them fun and effective in stretching muscle and keeping me limber. I also embrace the golden rule so touted by Christianity as a rule of their making. However, I am neither a practicing Christian nor a Hindu.
If Ms. Blackmore had flirted with new age religion in the past, it would suggest that she is receptive to some aspect of the power of the mind as being able to transcend the shackles of matter. I think that Sam Harris is also open to this possibility.
I do agree with Mind_Rebel that buddhism as embraced by westerners, is an often odd spectacle of their feeding their egos, instead of suppressing them. I also find the Buddhist training riddles of which Mind_Rebel so adeptly parodied to be tiresome and silly.
Other Comments by Logicel
27. Comment #48893 by Bonzai on June 9, 2007 at 11:32 am
Comment #48890 by Logicel Buddhism is many things, a philosophy, a religion and a mental discipline. There are many schools of Buddhism as a result of blending with other philosophical and belief systems. The Hindu root is almost unregonizable in Buddhist sects practised in China and Japan.
Not only Westerners selectively adopt and rework Buddhism. The Easterners do it too, that's why different schools exist and as noted, Chinese and Japanese sects are so unique in flavour that a superficial observer wouldn't even guess they have their roots in Hinduism. It is pretty much the way how civilization gets transmitted and evolves.
Myth has a role in human societies. It is not always undesirable. Without role playing and make beliefs human civilizations would probably not have existed, and if it managed to survive it would probably be very sterile and oppressive,--like modern designer cities where all the streets, all the houses are exactly the same, orderly and efficient but lifeless. I find the kind of barren world of rationality advocated by the likes of Mind_Rebel frightening and it represents a complete ignorance of human nature. If one wants to understand humans as a species she has to engage the subjects on their own terms. This should be basic to anyone claims to be an adherent of the scientific method.
Other Comments by Bonzai
28. Comment #48904 by Logicel on June 9, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Bonzai wrote: I find the kind of barren world of rationality advocated by the likes of Mind_Rebel frightening and it represents a complete ignorance of human nature. If one wants to understand humans as a species she has to engage the subjects on their own terms. This should be basic to anyone claims to be an adherent of the scientific method._______
Being an artist and a writer, I fully embrace the human imagination. I also view emotion--as shown by neuroscience studies--to be the fuel to ignite our rationality to achieve solid results. Obviously, the imagination that was required to initiate myths for various reasons--for explanatory purpose, or societal cohesion--became trapped within specific religious dogma which are present today.
It does seem that Mind_Rebel, in his admirable desire/efforts to not be trapped within a gray-walled prison of dogma and faith, fails to see that elements that dogma 'prostitutes' to its advantage for its continuing its noxious memes, are also wonderful aspects of the human experience and can be harnessed to improve the human lot a great deal.
As Anne Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, has said, human spirituality, needs to be wrested back from the theocrats. Spirituality can be defined also in a secular sense, but the faith-heads have fully adopted it as their own bastard child.
Other Comments by Logicel
29. Comment #48945 by steve99 on June 9, 2007 at 5:13 pm
And you can call me stupid all you want, but the facts are facts and i'm more concerned with the truth than looking cool or hip in some nonsense mystical faith. No disrespect, but Buddhism is pretty stupid, and for a religion that aims to dissolve the ego, they tend attract some real egomaniacs.
I don't think you are stupid. But, I think your posts here sometimes do a disservice to the cause of rational atheism. You latch on to a simplistic view and defend them even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Sometimes your views seem so simplistic that they almost seem to be parodies posted by those who who wish to attack atheism. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but this has also been pointed out by others. Personally, I have no doubts that your motives are good, but I would suggest you take more time, and do more research before you post.
I also find the Buddhist training riddles of which Mind_Rebel so adeptly parodied to be tiresome and silly.
I am rather disappointed by this point of view. It is easy to dismiss as silly that which you don't understand. I recently have detected an attitude on recent threads on this site that philosophical arguments are somehow against the spirit of rationality and clear thinking. That just isn't the case. Discussions about reality involve more than just practical science.
Other Comments by steve99
30. Comment #48946 by Smith on June 9, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Hi, here is an link to the article "Killing the Buddha" by the "pro-torture neo-Zionist" Sam Harris. I think some of you might be interested in learning how crazy he can be.http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2903&Itemid=244
Other Comments by Smith
31. Comment #48949 by Smith on June 9, 2007 at 5:47 pm
oh... did you miss the quotation marks, steve99? Other Comments by Smith
32. Comment #48950 by steve99 on June 9, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Smith:Apparently, I did, and have, as a consequence, removed my comment!
Other Comments by steve99
33. Comment #48953 by krogercomplete on June 9, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Not sure what is so crazy about Sam's article.??Other Comments by krogercomplete
34. Comment #48958 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Déją Fu:I'd be curious to read your proof that myth actually *does* have any usefulI couldn't do without the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
current role.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
35. Comment #48959 by Dan Rowden on June 9, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Buddhism, much like Taoism, has two faces: a philosophical one and a religious one. The religious face of each can and should be criticised for its respective folly, but it's only part of the story and in my view the least interesting part. The esoteric always seems to manage to produce a mangled exoteric face; it's just part of human nature. As to a couple of the comments about Sue Blackmore, a more accurate view of her venture into paranormal beliefs and her slow march out of them can be found in this discussion:http://geniusrealms.com/reasoningshow/show4.htm
Other Comments by Dan Rowden
36. Comment #48966 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 6:28 pm
krogercomplete on June 9, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Not sure what is so crazy about Sam's article.??
I agree. Maybe Smith could expand on why he thinks Sam Harris is crazy based on this article.
And "pro torture neo Zionist" ? I thought these misconceptions had been explained. Sorry Smith you are way off here.
Other Comments by alovrin
37. Comment #48973 by BAEOZ on June 9, 2007 at 7:37 pm
"two grapefruits with yellow skin are one orange in training"
Champagne parody that! I'm not an expert on the history and pros and cons of zen and am not supporting any side, but that did strike me as funny.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
38. Comment #48978 by Bonzai on June 9, 2007 at 8:40 pm
A myth is not the same as faith by my understanding. Faith = myth cemented and made rigid by dogmas. Myth in its most basic is simply a way to organize and articulate experience, intuition, emotion and world views through metaphores and symbolism. There are things which are either too ambiguious to be formulated in scientifically testable hypothesis, or rational explanations exist yet not particularly relevant. The appeal of myth is vicesral, not cerebral.
For example, romantic love. You can explain it in terms of genes and what not, but most people don't feel that they are just trying to pass on their genes when madly in love. Poets are not thinking of DNAs when they compose their heart throbbing songs. Now this is an enduring and perhaps even useful myth for Deja fu
Other Comments by Bonzai
39. Comment #48981 by Bonzai on June 9, 2007 at 8:50 pm
How does one get the cool shaded boxes around specific quotes and embed them in one's replies here?
Use the function blockquote.
Click "Comment Posting Guidelines" and see the instruction there.
Other Comments by Bonzai
40. Comment #48993 by Rtambree on June 10, 2007 at 12:10 am
>35. Comment #48951 by Déją Fu on June 9, 2007 at 5:51 pm>[Sam Harris is]
only "crazy" there in the sense that he seems to accept a religious king (The Deli Llama) as some form of authority. The Deli Llama is only interested in the Return of The King, and Tolkein stories don't seem to be helping - he (the Llama) remains enthralled by his superstitious position and need for lots of money to keep him and his minions afloat.
I agree with the sentiments expressed here that outspoken atheists like Harris and Blackmore being sympathetic to eastern mysticism is an inconsistent application of rationality. It's definitely their Achilles Heel and leaves them vulnerable to attack from the religious who say "you have your superstitions, and I have mine".
Sure, these eastern "religions" (or philosophies, etc) may be more scientifically compatible and less harmful, but it's a round-about way - why not just embrace science directly.
Other Comments by Rtambree
41. Comment #49011 by Logicel on June 10, 2007 at 2:01 am
Déją Fu wrote: Logicel:You sound a bit like Sam Harris there. The word "spirituality" infers that the ancient
mind/body problem hasn't been resolved. It's a horrible word that gives rise to
all kinds of crap and is worth no more than a tooth-grinding cringe when you hear it.
Perhaps it's best simply put aside - especially the completely wierd term, "human
spirtuality" which invites comparison to "cabbage spirituality" and quite a variety
of other species...
I'd ask, if "spirituality" simply means feeling an integral part of the cosmos,
right down to sunshine and your next breath, whatever made you feel otherwise?
My answer would be your religious and disconnected education that somehow
implied that you were madly separate from it. That includes killing animals
and thinking differently of them than of yourself, btw.
_________
In previous discussions about using the words spirituality and soul, I was able to see that those words--whose use often stirs up criticism from other atheists--are words that have been so bastardized by theists that they are useless to anyone except to theists. Though I still throw them out in this forum, I am careful not to present myself as being spiritual or possessing a soul when discussing topics with theists, for it is impossible for them to conclude anything else except that I am more like them than I realize. And I am not, I have no belief in the supernatural at all.
However, when growing up as a closet atheist--in the sense that I knew I was, but needed to keep it to myself--one of the many bits of evidence in support of my stance that I amassed secretly was that I was obviously a part of nature. I had the good fortune of spending my childhood summers at a summer shack near the Atlantic ocean where I was allowed to run around bare-chested and bare-footed up and down immense sand dunes. I have always felt drawn and close to nature and other species--I would befriend stray cats, birds, dogs, collect plants, rocks--and this bond allowed me to not get suckered into accepting supernatural beliefs which were relentlessly presented to my captive mind during my childhood. In brief, spirituality for me is the sensation of enjoyment which comes from utilizing fully the realization that one is part of nature. This realization came to me when I was a mere tot, way before I really got my science toes wet.
As for the mind/body dichotomy being resolved, I regard understanding of how the mind and body works together has a long way to go before our understanding becomes substantial. One beef I have with mysticism, is that many brands do focus on the body/physical aspects as being negative. Also, western civilization focuses on the physical life as being negative, greedy, lustful, lazy, etc. For me, being balanced between the mind and body, between rationality and emotion, constitutes spirituality--oh, I can just sense the gnashing of teeth all over cyberspace because of that disgusting word.
To be spirited, is to have confidence in your wholeness as a human, not to use this perspective to isolate and throne yourself on a higher plateau than other species, but to rejoice in your humanity without regarding yourself as a fallen angel that needs to be punished for its corporeal part. And that is why I detest that the theists have made spirituality a word which makes humans feel dirty/imperfect/uncomfortable in their physicality.
Other Comments by Logicel
42. Comment #49014 by Logicel on June 10, 2007 at 2:40 am
And this spirit of mine was the bane of the nuns which instructed me. Every unsuccessful attempt on their part to knock my spiritedness out of me--that is, my grasp that my humanity was in itself whole, with no need of a God creator to give it meaning--was met by my successful musings that I was part of something bigger that my own self, that is, nature.Also, because of a uncle of mine was able to bring home children books from his publishing job, I was able to gather strength against my daily Catholic indoctrination from reading among others, fairy tales written by the Grimm brothers.
I realized that if the Grimm brothers collection of fairy tales were possible, and these tales were clearly regarded as myths fabricated by humans, then it was very likely that the particular creator god myth about which I was being taught was of the same ilk. I also adored the fact that humans were able to be creative, and I wrote fiction quite young. The nuns hated my writing fiction, as God had the monopoly on all things creative. They ridiculed my writing talent and accused me of plagiarism, including not submitting an entry of mine to a national writing contest. All that accomplished for me was to add to my secret and growing data base that religion and belief in the supernatural often exhibited itself in ugly and cruelly oppressive ways.
Other Comments by Logicel
43. Comment #49016 by steve99 on June 10, 2007 at 2:46 am
Sure, these eastern "religions" (or philosophies, etc) may be more scientifically compatible and less harmful, but it's a round-about way - why not just embrace science directly.
Because not everything in our lives is to do with science.
Other Comments by steve99
44. Comment #49022 by Mikado on June 10, 2007 at 3:15 am
What never fails to amuse me is the way so many "atheists" still needs to have some sort of religion to cling to.Other Comments by Mikado
45. Comment #49025 by Logicel on June 10, 2007 at 3:22 am
And I find it equally amusing that so many atheists need to perceive and identify "religion" where it does not exist. Other Comments by Logicel
46. Comment #49026 by the great teapot on June 10, 2007 at 3:22 am
Buddhism seems very popular among contributors here. In fact it seems to be the only subject people can be divided on on this site. I can't help but notice there is a"party line" on various questions such as abortion, the Iraq war and homosexuality amongst otherthings, all of which have nothing to do with Religion except for the fact religion also has party lines on some subjects.I must admitt until reading this website I had no idea how much of the nonsense side of Buddhism was added on at a later date, no doubt to someones gain.
A question I would like to ask of Buddhist adherents is "How long would the teachings of Buddha have been preserved if they weren't wrapped up in all the trappings of the other religions? How much of a shelf life does your average self improvement manual have without dressing it up as something more and how long did his ideas last before they were corrupted into the mumbo jumbo we see today.
Not a criticism just a question.
Other Comments by the great teapot
47. Comment #49030 by Rtambree on June 10, 2007 at 3:38 am
50. Comment #49026 by the great teapotBuddhism seems very popular among contributors here. In fact it seems to be the only subject people can be divided on on this site. I can't help but notice there is a"party line" on various questions such as abortion, the Iraq war and homosexuality amongst otherthings, all of which have nothing to do with Religion
Are you implying that those who are Buddhism sympathesisers will also hold particular positions on the Iraq and West Bank occupations (and other social issues), that others on this site wouldn't have? We'd need a statistically significant poll.
Other Comments by Rtambree
48. Comment #49035 by the great teapot on June 10, 2007 at 3:54 am
No I am not implying Buddhism has a party line I am implying that "this site" has a general common consensus of opinion on most things.Opinion about buddhism seems more divided.Other Comments by the great teapot
49. Comment #49047 by rokort on June 10, 2007 at 4:55 am
Rtambree, comment #48993, wrote:I agree with the sentiments expressed here that outspoken atheists like Harris and Blackmore being sympathetic to eastern mysticism is an inconsistent application of rationality. It's definitely their Achilles Heel and leaves them vulnerable to attack from the religious who say "you have your superstitions, and I have mine".
Sure, these eastern "religions" (or philosophies, etc) may be more scientifically compatible and less harmful, but it's a round-about way - why not just embrace science directly.
My personal "spiritual master", or Lama, (in Vayrajana) goes to the University of Chicago once a while, gets all kinds of plugs on his head and starts meditating. Within 4 seconds his brain activity resembles an epileptic attack. While the scientists measure a temporary yet very unfavorable condition my Lama feels sheer joy. So now what are we looking at: abnormal brain activity, or happiness?
Other research shows that women that orgasm have close to zero activity in a part of the brain that deals with happiness, the same center one could expect to be overflowing with activity since an orgasm can be quite an electrifying and full filling experience. This same area in the brain is "used" for the experience of happiness by trained practitioners of meditation. Maximum feeling equals no activity.
Methinks why not look at it from this perspective:
To cope with the hardships of reality "Buddhism" came up with some ground rules. They implied meditating and reflecting on your ego and all that matters. As science now shows, being/becoming happy is likely simply a mental state. No surprise there. How this is achieved is not fully understood though. I think science will inevitably understand what brain- (and perhaps "energy"-) processes lie at the heart of what we conceive as truth and happiness. This is something that Buddhists don't understand at the molecular level either but -though Buddhism as I get it doesn't claim it has divine truth- they do seem to have an idea how to get there. Why not use the knowledge of these well-trained introspectives to fast-forward the emergence of scientific facts through reasoning?
As pewkatchoo mentioned earlier: why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Other Comments by rokort
50. Comment #49049 by steve99 on June 10, 2007 at 4:57 am
"How long would the teachings of Buddha have been preserved if they weren't wrapped up in all the trappings of the other religions? How much of a shelf life does your average self improvement manual have without dressing it up as something more and how long did his ideas last before they were corrupted into the mumbo jumbo we see today.
Not a criticism just a question.
It is not so much a question as a statement of what you believe Buddhism is. There is no one thing called Buddhism. Some is definitely full of superstitious nonsense, but some isn't. So the ideas have survived for millenia.
Other Comments by steve99
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #48671 by PeterK on June 8, 2007 at 5:13 pm
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" or in Merriam Webster as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".I feel this is just scratchimg the surface of what the hideous province of religious faith entails. The actual distorting, altering and ignoring of premises that would lead to a desired conclusion which cannot ever change, is where its evil lies. Faith is the heinously abominable act of viewing reality with mistrust and contempt.
Other Comments by PeterK