The Larger Issue of Bad Religion

"I don't understand what they're doing it for. I don't understand what it is that is being added, either to their lives or to the storehouse of human wisdom or understanding. We're working on building up a complete picture of the universe which, if we succeed, will be a complete understanding of the universe and everything thatis in it. I don't understand why they waste their time going in for this other stuff which never has added anything to the storehouse of human wisdom, and I don't see that it ever will." I hope readers of this thread will really relish the irony of these remarks. Here we have the great coiner of the 'Argument from Personal Incredulity' which in other contexts he - quite rightly - castigates, actually falling back on - what? Why, the argument from personal incredulity, of course! And does he imagine that if he repeats it three times it will carry more weight? Really, I ask you

— danra

Here's the conflict: science makes no presuppositions, it works empirically and is constantly able to be changed as new facts and explanations come to light. Religion, on the other hand, makes a priori statements about the nature of the universe which the facts must then be juggled to fit. Now, that's entirely fine as a matter of personal belief, but as a method of contributing to our "understanding of the universe" - that's the phrase Dawkins used - it is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

R. O'Connor makes an assumption that I "insist that the theory of evolution (ET) be
taught as truth, i.e., as scientific truth." There are several problems with this assumption,
and how it was phrased. First, in my argument above I make some gramatical errors, but
never the assuption that we must teach evolution. I do assume if we are going to teach
biological science we will teach evolution. But that is not part of the argument above.
The case I am making is not directed toward teaching evolution, but aginst teaching
creationism as if it were science. The creationists and their collaborators, such as
postmodernist sociologist Steve Fuller (and sadly which now seems to include Ruse), do
try to make the claim thatscience and religion are the same things- mere "different ways
of knowing." But this is a seperate argument. To win that particular argument is actually
fairly simple: where are the laboratory miracles, and do religionists want their faith
reduced to scientific abstractions?

The existance of faithful who do manage to hold two ideas at the same time is obvious,
review a article on "Christology" sometime and there are at least three ideas a Christian is
expected to hold simultaniously. I think that we ought to leave to the faithful the task of
rationalizing and harmonizing their tradition with sicence.

But, O'Connor does illuminate an excellent point and that is that evangelical atheists who
tout science as "proof" for their beliefs are not being particularly different from the
creationists. There is one glaring difference, and that is that the atheist needs only to
deny miracles while the creationist needs to deny most of the universe. Oddly, the
creationists seem to be rather more popular. Perhaps because one can believe in miracles
without experiencing any, but it takes a lot of work to even begin to grasp the elementary
features of the universe.

Modern theology is much closer to being able to embrace evolution, geology, astronomy
and so on than most scientists might realize. What is striking is that modern theology has
not escaped from the seminary into the pews. For example;

Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor
Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Ehrman, Bart D.
2005 "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" San
Fransico: Harper

Friedman, Richard Elliott
1987 Who Wrote the Bible New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Speiser, E. A.
1962 "Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes" Anchor Bible Library, New York:
Doubleday.

Nor have the facinating archaeological and linquistic studies relevant to biblical study,
and which would at least minimize the hostility some of the faithful have toward science,
become wildly known. For just three examples;

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised
Oxford: Oxford University Press

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman
2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin
of Its Sacred Texts New York: The Free Press

Parker, Simon B. (Editor)
1997 Ugarit Narrative Poetry Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L
Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9 Writings from the Ancient World.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

So to the assorted priests, preachers, and rabbis who may be reading, I do wish that you
would work a bit harder on your clientbase and their dismal understanding of the
foundations of their beliefs.

But this is not a job of scientists, or a topic for high school biology classes.

I don't think bad religion is defined by how it's transmitted. It's defined by some very objective markers: hypocrisy, sanctimony, and a tendency to cause suffering rather than relieve it.

Similarly I don't think it's reasonable to denigrate faith per se for going beyond the evidence because, as has been pointed out on this thread, that starts to infringe on the domain of trust. What's dangerous is not faith that goes beyond evidence, it's faith that goes AGAINST evidence.

Mephisto writes:

"Do yourself a favour and look up 'argument from incredulity.' Making a negative statement about something does not immediately equal to incredulity."

It is surely not good enough simply to claim that one does not understand something or someone, and then use that lack of understanding to condemn it or them out of hand, when you have not actually bothered to try to understand in the first place. If others seem to understand it, why does Dawkins not try to engage with them and attempt to understand what it is that convinces them?
Is there any evidence that he has ever even tried?

Is his lack of understanding culpable, in the way that a born-blind person's inability to understand colour clearly is not? Or is it more like someone who says: "I can't understand why people enjoy football, or classical music," when they have made no attempt to understand it themselves?

Mephisto wrote:

I detest the appeasing view that we should silence Dawkins because he typifies everything fundamentalists hate - that we should be constantly backing down and saying 'no, no, you keep your childish myths and fantasies, as long as they don't contradict these major things - evolution, etc. - we'll leave you alone and not actually address the underlying idiocy of your belief system. Of course your ridiculous mythology doesn't contradict science." Well, it does.

So...are you suggesting we start actively policing other people's beliefs? Apply, perhaps, a "one-percent doctrine" to determine whose beliefs might contradict science, and...do what, exactly?

And by the way, I don't want to see Dawkins silenced, I just want to see him properly educated!

Having laid down the main points of the wisdom of the Latins as regards language, mathematics and optics, I wish now to review the principles of wisdom from the point of view of experimental science, because without experiment it is impossible to know anything thoroughly.

And by the way, I don't want to see Dawkins silenced, I just want to see him properly educated!

I think that there are some fundamentally toxic religious memes that have been repeatedly associated with people doing bad things to each other.

1. God defines goodness. What God wants is Good by definition. What God doesn't want is Evil by definition. This is probably the single most pernicious belief, because it relieves people from the responsibility of judging the morality of their actions. It is also fundamentally irrational--there is no reason why a nonhuman entity--even a Creator--would have any great insight into human morality, nor why it would have our best interests at heart.

2. God requires worship. This is dangerous because failing to worship God (or worship Him properly) is likely to be perceived as an affront or insult to God. It also makes God seem selfish and petty--and when combined with #1, elevates these character flaws to virtues.

3. God punishes (or worse, wants you to punish) unbelievers. This is a particularly pernicious variant of #2. Combined with #1, this is basically a recipe for atrocity.

4. There is a Hell, where those disfavored of God are punished forever. This is dangerous because it confers infinite negative value on falling into God's disfavor. One can justify doing almost any terrible thing, up to and including torture and murder, if the result is to spare somebody Hell by bringing them into God's favor. Combined with #1, it also elevates vindictiveness to a virtue. There are some relatively benign "detoxified" versions of this doctrine, such as the ones that hold that Hell merely means that you don't get to hang with God, or that Hell is reserved for those who are cruel to their fellow human beings.

5. There is a Heaven, where those favored of God are rewarded forever. This is a bit more benign than #4, although the prospect of Heaven can sometimes function as a bribe to get people to do terrible things. One can still rationalize doing nasty things to people if the net result is to get them into Heaven ("You may not like this now, but you'll thank me later, when you get to Heaven). Improving the lot of people in this world may seem less important if they have an eternity of Heaven to look forward to. If Heaven is a lot better than this world, it can become a rationalization for murder--"You're unhappy here, so I'll do you a favor by sending you to a Better Place."

It is surely not good enough simply to claim that one does not understand something or someone, and then use that lack of understanding to condemn it or them out of hand, when you have not actually bothered to try to understand in the first place. If others seem to understand it, why does Dawkins not try to engage with them and attempt to understand what it is that convinces them? Is there any evidence that he has ever even tried?

— Danra

So...are you suggesting we start actively policing other people's beliefs? Apply, perhaps, a "one-percent doctrine" to determine whose beliefs might contradict science, and...do what, exactly?

— Raging Bee

From a marketing point of view, a religious professional would be nuts to give up such highly salable features of the faith as hellfire, self-righteousness, and irrationality. That's the problem with reasonable religion, as I believe Elmer Gantry points out to various local preachers as he promotes his travelling revivialist movement in the Sinclair Lewis novel.

Red meat sells. Beats me how you can combat the appeal of spiritual junk food, especially when you consider that the product really is pretty insipid once you remove the corn syrup, salt, and grease.

Jim's post reminds me of some research I vaguely remember about the psychology behind why extremist religions do well. Strict rules which exclude lots of people tighten the in-group bond, for one thing. I'll try to remember where this article was.

My 2¢ is, all religion is bad religion. Whether you want to discuss that publicly has to do with your goals. If you want short-term liberal victories, don't say that. Unite with the religious moderates, or you won't win the next election. If you want to promote a long-term movement towards sanity, do speak out against religion. The religious moderates establish a baseline irrationality which indirectly helps extremists.

Mark,
One very Darwinian way which you didn't mention of combating those who practice "bad religion" (which seems to be anyone who thinks that their religion is not just a personal preference but is actually true and has something vitally important to say about how we ought to live) is to procreate!

The upsurge in "bad religion", especially Islam in Europe (and to a lesser extent Christianity in America) is due mainly to the fact that those who practice it tend to have a lot more children than those who don't. So do your part - if you breed yourself into the minority, you have no one to blame but yourselves and natural selection.

The upsurge in "bad religion", especially Islam in Europe (and to a lesser extent Christianity in America) is due mainly to the fact that those who practice it tend to have a lot more children than those who don't. So do your part - if you breed yourself into the minority, you have no one to blame but yourselves and natural selection.

— Wedge

Well, Mephisto, you seemed to have a serious problem with "leaving them alone and not actually addressing the underlying idiocy of their belief system," so I was just wondering if you had some sort of alternative policy in mind. And, as your response implies, you don't. So if you're resigned to nothing better than "gradual secularization," then you'd better start choosing your battles sensibly, and realizing that you don't always have to trash religion or call religious people stupid to make your point.

Mephisto says of Dawkins:

"I'm pretty sure he understands what is supposedly being added. I would have thought that was obvious from even a cursory examination of the quote itself."

So is he then being disingenuous in claiming not to understand? Was it no more than a rhetorical flourish after all?

I have read all Dawkins' books, and even reviewed several of them - favourably - but I came to the view eventually that his hatred of Christianity, not just in its rednecked varieties, which leave most of us sickened, but in its very essence was nothing to do with science at all, and everything to do with the personal animosity that disfigures the extreme forms of secular humanism. It eventually dawned on me: this is just the mirror-image of religious fundamentalism!

And to normdoering, not all people who embrace a religious worldview see it - Elmer Gantry-like - as a passport to megabucks (I suppose those living in the BibleBelt can be excused for thinking so) - many give up lives of comparative luxury to serve the poor: Francis of Assisi and Albert Schweitzer are just two well-known examples that quickly come to mind. The world would be a poorer place without them.

Steve S Writes:

"Whether you want to discuss that publicly has to do with your goals. If you want short-term liberal victories, don't say that. Unite with the religious moderates, or you won't win the next election. If you want to promote a long-term movement towards sanity, do speak out against religion. The religious moderates establish a baseline irrationality which indirectly helps extremists."

So he sems to be advocating a merely tactical common-cause with liberal religion to defeat religious extremism so that, when (?if) that is defeated, the liberals themselves can be turned upon!
Lenin might have called them 'useful idiots'. Religion is never going to be wiped out: Stalin tried hard enough and failed. Surely we should want good religion to survive for its own sake, whether we believe it or not. The alternative (as with legal abortion) is not to abolish it, but to drive it underground, where the very worst practices flourish.

I apologise for attributing to normdoering in my last post views that had been expressed by Jim Harrison, and to Mephisto for norm's point. How hard it gets to follow all the byways of this very long thread! Can the moderators tell us if it is the longest ever on PT?

I don't think that religion is the enemy. It's not a crime to be superstitious; and one could argue, indeed I myself have frequently argued, that it's better for the natural religious tendencies of our species to be under the control of organized churches than to run wild in crazy sects. Large, permanent institutions have a vested interest in moderating the fanaticism of their more enthusiastic members. On the other hand, as I wrote above, the churches can't afford to get too reasonable--witness what has happened to the white-bread Protestant denominations in the United States. Liberal theology is no doubt more admirable or at least less embarrassing than the doctrines of the 700 Club or Jehovah's Witness, but it is precisely the most dubious elements of Christianity that fill the pews. Nobody has yet found a stable solution to this dilemma--I just finished reading Brown's biography of St. Augustine, in which the saint spends most of his time as a bishop vainly trying to square that particular circle.

By the way, I never said and do not believe that all or even most ministers and priests are greedy frauds. It's just that everybody has to live with the eternal verities of marketing, even or especially the saints.

Post by Jim Harrison on July 12, 2006 02:32 AM (e):

"I don't think that religion is the enemy. It's not a crime to be superstitious."

But there is still here an assumption - I would say a gratuitous assumption - that relgion is, must be, and can only be, based on 'superstition'. This is an apriorist position that really does not survive critical scrutiny. See, for example, Russell Stannard's contribution to this site:
http://www.counterbalance.org/

Best wishes, Danra.

What's dangerous is not faith that goes beyond evidence, it's faith that goes AGAINST evidence.

Can the moderators tell us if it is the longest ever on PT?

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 12, 2006 04:39 AM (e)

"Can the moderators tell us if it is the longest ever on PT?

Not by a long shot, but that sort of parochial self-centered notion is a hallmark of religious thinking and religious thinkers."

Pray tell us what this sort of abuse is the hallmark of?

It's not a crime to be superstitious

Pray tell us what this sort of abuse is the hallmark of?

"Its not a crime to be superstitious" - not my words, by the way: I was quoting Jim Harrison.

It can, of course, be very dangerous indeed to be supererstitious. I am merely questioning the blanketing of all relgion - on apriorist grounds - as 'superstition'. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary, which some contributors seem not to want to confront.

"Its not a crime to be superstitious" - not my words, by the way: I was quoting Jim Harrison.

Popper's ghost says: "I understand that you feel abused by the truth."

I never feel abused by the truth, only by gratuitous insults.

I never feel abused by the truth, only by gratuitous insults.

Well, Mephisto, you seemed to have a serious problem with "leaving them alone and not actually addressing the underlying idiocy of their belief system," so I was just wondering if you had some sort of alternative policy in mind. And, as your response implies, you don't. So if you're resigned to nothing better than "gradual secularization," then you'd better start choosing your battles sensibly, and realizing that you don't always have to trash religion or call religious people stupid to make your point.

— Raging Bee

So is he then being disingenuous in claiming not to understand? Was it no more than a rhetorical flourish after all?

— danra

I have read all Dawkins' books, and even reviewed several of them - favourably - but I came to the view eventually that his hatred of Christianity, not just in its rednecked varieties, which leave most of us sickened, but in its very essence was nothing to do with science at all, and everything to do with the personal animosity that disfigures the extreme forms of secular humanism.

— danra

It eventually dawned on me: this is just the mirror-image of religious fundamentalism!

— danra

The atheists' greatest failure, in my view, is in automatically thinking that "reason" and "faith" cannot mix at all,

— Raging Bee

Mephisto asks:

"Would it "sicken" you if someone said they hated socialism?"

Well, it certainly would if they used this hatred to justify treating socialists as sub-human things to be liquidated without compunction.

Hitler hated the Jews, and look where that led.....

... there is still here an assumption - I would say a gratuitous assumption - that relgion is, must be, and can only be, based on 'superstition'. This is an apriorist position that really does not survive critical scrutiny.

normdoering writes:

"It comes from people like you pointing out websites where IDist arguments from Stephen Meyer can be found."

Well indeed, if you had looked carefully, you would have seen that this website offers a wide range of opinions : from Duane Gish to - wait for it - Richard Dawkins!

Mephisto asks: "Would it "sicken" you if someone said they hated socialism?" Well, it certainly would if they used this hatred to justify treating socialists as sub-human things to be liquidated without compunction. Hitler hated the Jews, and look where that led.....

— danra

Mephisto asks:

I mean, are you trying to say that Dawkins hatred of religion sickens you or that redneck religion sickens you? I can't help but assume you meant the latter - it would at least make some sense of your latest reply - but your choice of wording doesn't make it very clear.

I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear.
For the record, Dawkins' hatred of religion saddens me,
Redneck religion sickens me.

Hoping that is clear enough!

... this website offers a wide range of opinions : from Duane Gish to - wait for it - Richard Dawkins!

normdoering writes:

"We're not passing off to Dawkins --- you're making us defend him."

Stannard's 10-minute clip adequately represents my views; and as a follower of William of Occam, I consider that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Stannard's 10-minute clip adequately represents my views...

It's to argue against religion...in the hope that people will come around and realise that any religion, even if it isn't particularly harmful, is still fundamentally irrational.

Love, sexual desire, making friends, the whole notion of all people having the same "inalienable rights"...they're all "fundamentally irrational" too. Are you going to argue against them? (Treating all religious beliefs as one and the same is pretty irrational too, especially when any decently-educated person can see they're not.)

And if certain believers are, by your own admission, not particularly harmful, then why should you, or anyone else, be mocking or arguing against their beliefs? This is, after all, one of the needlessly harmful and destructive things religious fundamentalists do: making "enemies" of people who have done no wrong.

And if a religious person has done no wrong, then what, exactly, makes his belief "irrational?" If it benefits him without harming others, maybe it's more "rational" than you think.

As I'm British, I don't need to choose my battles sensibly...

And your nationality is relevant...how? I've met lots of British people, on both sides of the Pond, and you're the only one who thinks that.

Contempt and dislike are not the same as hatred...

They're no more justifiable than hatred, especially when they're based on opinions that flatly contradict observable reality.

[Dawkins] has spent time trying to find out what people think they or larger society gain from religion, and he hasn't found anything satisfactory.

"Satisfactory" to whom? To him? By what standards is he judging other people's responses, and why are his standards "better" than someone else's? I suspect he's rigging the standards to ensure that all religious people will, by definition, fail. This argument from (possibly willful) ignorance/incredulity is no more valid than those of the creationists.

Fundamentalism is an extremist religious position characterised by regressive and irrational belief and usually accompanied by a sort of 'siege mentality' in a society even though they are usually its dominant members. Simply being a rather militant atheist is not the "mirror image" of being a fundamentalist.

It is when the atheist exhibits the same siege mentality and makes equally ignorant statements about other people's beliefs.

Is every atheist who is willing to expound on those reasons then an extremist? Or must it continually be couched in sugary language which pretends they don't find religion to be all those things, and that it's just a matter of a difference of opinion?

We're not asking for "sugary language;" we're asking for basic tact, respect for other people's perspectives (they may have observed something you missed), and informed criticism that doesn't contradict what other people observe in their daily lives. The fact that you would confuse all of this with "sugary language" says a lot about your ability to interact with others.

Of course I have a "personal animosity" towards religion, otherwise I...would have no good reasons for defending my atheism.

So now your atheism is based on "personal animosity" towards religion? There's no other reason for it? I thought you atheists were supposed to be more "rational" than all us superstitious emotional subjectivist believers.

All religions reject reason.

RELIGIONS don't reject reason (they're not sentient beings); SOME PEOPLE reject reason, for a variety of reasons; others don't. I've met devout believers of many faiths who show a helluva lot more reason than the atheists I've met here.

If holding a single non-rational thought in one's head equals "rejecting reason," then everyone who has ever fallen in love, had a sexual fantasy, claimed a right to exist or speak freely, or enjoyed a work of art or fiction has, by definition, "rejected reason."

We can't test every claim to rationality made by religious people, we can only test yours if you offer it.

You have repeatedly been offered statements that many religious people do not, in their words or actions, conform to the uninformed and highly prejudicial statements made about religion here. You have continually ignored such evidence. So stop pretending your prejudice is based on anything resembling disciplined observation.

"Would it "sicken" you if someone said they hated socialism?" Well, it certainly would if they used this hatred to justify treating socialists as sub-human things to be liquidated without compunction. Hitler hated the Jews, and look where that led.....

Godwin! A perfect excuse to dodge a losing argument! Thread over!

Because "reactionary religious minds" invoke the Holocaust; while progressive atheistic minds invoke the Inquisition.

Godwin! A perfect excuse to dodge a losing argument! Thread over!

Because "reactionary religious minds" invoke the Holocaust; while progressive atheistic minds invoke the Inquisition.

Reactionary religious minds executed both the Holocaust and the Inquisition.

That's a pretty broad definition of the word "religious" -- especially since we're having a rather hard time determining which religion, if any, Hitler and his followers were practicing at the time. If you can't answer that question with certainty, then you really can't say that the same "religious minds" perpetrated both atrocities. Unless, of course, "religious" is redefined to mean "evil."

you really can't say that the same "religious minds" perpetrated both atrocities

Love, sexual desire, making friends, the whole notion of all people having the same "inalienable rights"...they're all "fundamentally irrational" too.

— Raging Bee

And if certain believers are, by your own admission, not particularly harmful, then why should you, or anyone else, be mocking or arguing against their beliefs?

— Raging Bee

And if a religious person has done no wrong, then what, exactly, makes his belief "irrational?" If it benefits him without harming others, maybe it's more "rational" than you think.

— Raging Bee

And your nationality is relevant...how? I've met lots of British people, on both sides of the Pond, and you're the only one who thinks that.

— Raging Bee

They're no more justifiable than hatred, especially when they're based on opinions that flatly contradict observable reality.

— Raging Bee

"Satisfactory" to whom? To him? By what standards is he judging other people's responses, and why are his standards "better" than someone else's?

— Raging Bee

It is when the atheist exhibits the same siege mentality and makes equally ignorant statements about other people's beliefs.

— Raging Bee

We're not asking for "sugary language;" we're asking for basic tact, respect for other people's perspectives (they may have observed something you missed), and informed criticism that doesn't contradict what other people observe in their daily lives. The fact that you would confuse all of this with "sugary language" says a lot about your ability to interact with others.

— Raging Bee

So now your atheism is based on "personal animosity" towards religion? There's no other reason for it? I thought you atheists were supposed to be more "rational" than all us superstitious emotional subjectivist believers.

RELIGIONS don't reject reason (they're not sentient beings); SOME PEOPLE reject reason, for a variety of reasons; others don't. I've met devout believers of many faiths who show a helluva lot more reason than the atheists I've met here.

— Raging Bee

If holding a single non-rational thought in one's head equals "rejecting reason," then everyone who has ever fallen in love, had a sexual fantasy, claimed a right to exist or speak freely, or enjoyed a work of art or fiction has, by definition, "rejected reason."

— Raging Bee

You have repeatedly been offered statements that many religious people do not, in their words or actions, conform to the uninformed and highly prejudicial statements made about religion here. You have continually ignored such evidence. So stop pretending your prejudice is based on anything resembling disciplined observation.

— Raging Bee

Mephisto: It is very contentious to state that (a) science works from no presuppositions and (b) is "empirical". There is a lot of work in the philosophy of science that goes against both these viewpoints, some of which I have presented here on PT.

KKJ: Examine carefully what the elder Bacon meant by experiments. There is use of that term in the younger one as well, but it seems to not have its fully modern meaning of a controlled manipulation backed by well known laws rather than a simple "let's see what happens" investigation. That said, there were protoexperiments, activities to illustrate before the period in question. In fact, some of these are found in the work of V. Galilei, G. Galilei's father. The point was not, however, that science began in c.1600. Rather, that one has to carefully understand how one is characterizing science before labelling its begining. For example, if beliefs controlled by experience and reason are the only criteria, a case can be made that science predates our species.

There is a lot of work in the philosophy of science that goes against both these viewpoints, some of which I have presented here on PT.

No, they are simply not irrational. In the least. As has been demonstrated to IDiots on this website before, all of those things fulfill an evolutionary purpose and promote individual and group survival. That's about as rational a reason as you're going to get for anything.

So now falling in love is "rational?" That pretty well proves that you're twisting the word "rational" to suit your own prejudices.

(Besides, it's not even true that falling in love fulfills an evolutionary purpose. In primitive societies, forming sexual/family bonds based on material need promoted group and offspring survival, and falling in love based on non-economic factors tended to interfere with that process.

(And if you're using "evolutionary purpose" to define "rationality," then tribal warfare and genocide can also be called "rational," at least under certain circumstances. Still want to pretend religion is bad just because it's "irrational?")

Believing that your father is Santa Claus and spinning around three times in a circle will turn you into a reindeer is not particularly harmful either, but neither is it something we should encourage uncritically....

A racist will take a good black man and an evil black man, lump them both together, and consider them both the same, based on a single shared quality -- their blackness -- which he has arbitrarily elevated in his own mind above their observable and significant differences. Christian bigots do the same thing when they equate "non-Christians" with "devil-worshippers." And you're doing the same when you equate one irrational belief (which many believe) with another (which few or none believe), despite the obvious and significant differences between those two beliefs.

Since you show thought processes similar to that of other bigots, both racial and religious, I have no choice but to conclude that you are, in fact, a bigot; and your "more rational than thou" posturing is as empty as the sophistry of any other bigot.

Being the noob that I am, I tried to post a message with a lot of links and was blocked by the auto-moderator message. I thought I was banned for being too annoying, which I could easily understand. Anyway, I want to put my money where my mouth is from my former posts and put up links from some of the major denominations showing their science-embracing positions.

I am not trying to prove anything other than information like this, which are simple but important facts, is very useful in affecting the large group of swing voters in your area. I find the biggest concern for the casually religious is that they are easily hypnotized by the Right to think that their choice is either evolution or Jesus. The simplest thing to do is show them that most of the Christian world does not believe that, and if they themselves do, its a personal problem, not necessarily a religous one.

So, for Catholics:
Show them things like this.

Or this. (You can skip to the last two paragraphs of this one if you don't want to read it all).

More for Catholics:

If somemone feels that this is something new and goes against church tradition, show them this from 400 AD. Show them this.
St. Augustine is one of the most influential early writers of Catholic Theology. He is considerd a Doctor of The Church of which there are only 100 so honored throughout history. St. Thomas Aquinas is among them and is pertinent here because in the 12th century he provided a grand synthesis between theology and empiricism. (Summary for those who don't want to read it: "You are an idiot if you use the Bible as your reference for natural phenomenon. And you are especially idiotic if you use Genesis.")

For Protestants:

Show them this from the Aglican/Episcopaleans.

From the Presbyterians.

Or this article by the ELCA's (Lutheran) Martin Marty, one of their most prominent theologans.
I love the bit about teaching the Navajo Creation story.

More for Protestants:
He writes books like this
You gotta ask yourself if you really want to write off this kind of guy as an ally.

Or Lutheran's Ted Peters, on why ID and all forms of creationism are really bad theology.
This guy has written a number of books on this subject, some coauthored with phycisists. Creationism and ID are completely skewered in some of these books from a theological point of view.

Or Lutheran's Dr. George Murphy, who is a theologian and phycisist. He did his Doctorate work on the physics of the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang (of course).
This guy is a prolific writer and has published a few books on the topic of science and religion, once again finding more than compatibility, but mutual justification for both. In fact, this guy is available for lectures to church groups and does it eagerly and willingly.

Anyway, you get my point. I could go on and on with this. Please know that I have refereneced official position statements of denominations and the writings of extremely prominent theologians and representatives in their denominations. No fringe guys here. This is from the heart of mainstream Christianity.

As an aside:
I am going to define "Bad Religion" in very pragmatic terms. Bad Religion is that which holds doctrine, dogma, theology, rigid concepts of morality, and self-interest above love, compassion and concern for misery, suffering, and social injustice in the world.

Housekeeping Note: PZ, please reject my previous attempts to post all these links in one message. Sorry if I am causing extra admin overhead on your part.

For example, if beliefs controlled by experience and reason are the only criteria, a case can be made that science predates our species.

No, they are simply not irrational. In the least. As has been demonstrated to IDiots on this website before, all of those things fulfill an evolutionary purpose and promote individual and group survival. That's about as rational a reason as you're going to get for anything. Love and sexual desire are components of successful sexual reproduction, and both of them - along with making friends - are important parts of the coalition-forming which underlies human and other great ape societies. Love for ones child influences the parent to care for the child; love for ones parents enables one to follow their examples and to care for them. Love for a mate increases the chance you'll stay with them and ensure the survival of offspring. Love for a mate with whom you cannot reproduce - as in the case of homosexuals - is still a rational in the sense of coalition-forming (take a look at bonobos). Are you honestly stupid enough to think that sexual desire fulfills no rational purpose? Did you even engage your brain for a moment before typing that?

And if you think that religious belief is somehow borne out by "observable reality," perhaps you can give me one single piece of observable evidence, in the entire history of mankind, anywhere in the world, that would prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a god(s)?

we're asking for basic tact, respect for other people's perspectives (they may have observed something you missed),...

How can someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence; for which there is no particularly good reason for believing (any more, given our much greater understanding of the universe) and which places virtue on faith - i.e., belief in something for which there is more evidence against belief - ever be more rational or reasonable than someone who doesn't?

This thread is a tad depressing. Started out (imo) as a decent strategy to win support for good science teaching. Seems to have degenerated into a "my religious POV is superior to yours" argument.

From my observation as an outsider to the USA, your education system is under a deliberate atack.

Aproximately 80% of your population declares themselves as religious.

The fundy/extreme element is telling the rest of your religious population that the "scientists" want to turn children away from God.

You need to win the moderates over to your side. Telling them they are irational is likely to drive them into the opposition's camp.

I am not advocating that atheists "shut-up", just that there could be a more tolerant way to express opinions.

What is the main aim, to promote better education or convert people to atheism?

The mistake Bee is making is assuming because we do things for "irrational," meaning instinctual, reasons we should not examine why we do things.

Where did I say, or "assume," that? I vaguely remember explicitly stating that many believers do indeed examine their own actions and motives -- contrary to some allegations made here -- and that this was not a bad thing.

If you want to call his bluff, get specific and personal: Raging Bee, do you think you have a healthy relationship to your religion? What exactly does your religion consist of?

Really short answer: Mankind was invented by water as a means of transporting itself from place to place.

Short and slightly more serious answer: My belief consists, among other things, of a strong feeling that there is at least one "higher power" (name(s) relatively unimportant) manifesting itself both in my personal life and in the natural world. I also recognize -- and started to recognize when I was an atheist -- that both divine and worldly wisdom can come from people of any faith, even the ones that don't directly appeal to me (except for Moonies and $cientologists, who are wacko). I believe that even if none of the Gods we worship actually exist in the objective sense, they still embody/personify real and important concepts ("archetypes?") that many people find beneficial; and that acknowledging, and having relationships with, these concepts, helps many (though not necessarily all) people to understand important truths about our lives and our place in the Universe. (Yes, some of these truths are now explainable by the sciences, but not necessarily in terms that ordinary people can appreciate.) I believe that open-minded faith in a benevolent higher power is good, but unquestioning faith is bad. I believe that the fairest and most relevant way to judge another person's beliefs is by the results they get him/her.

Do I have a "healthy" relationship with my faith? Well, I don't smoke dope anymore, I get rip-roaring-drunk in moderation, my bills are paid, I'm not looking for "the red pill," I'm not using any holy book to justify hurting other people, I can hold contradictory ideas in my head without melting my brain, and I'm secure enough in my own beliefs/knowledge/experience that I don't feel any need to shut out new ideas or trash those of other people and pretend that mine is the One True Path for Everyone.

If a religious person says "secularism is empty because it gives no meaning to the world," or something similar, is that not an equal or more egregious an insult than saying "religion is at its heart irrational and delusional"?

Neither of these statements are insults, provided they are expressed as personal opinions with which others might have reason to disagree. If you want to make such statements about other people's beliefs or lifestyles, then be prepared to back them up with specifics. Besides, since when was it the job of "secularism" to provide "meaning?"

And Methodists.

PS: As for why I use the word "they," well, there's no particular reason for that, except perhaps a desire to avoid the appearance of playing the victim. I suppose I could use "we" instead, since the ignorant overgeneralizations about "irrational" beliefs I've encountered here do indeed include me, my friends, nearly all of my family, and a hell of a lot of other decent people with whom I share such common political causes as religious freedom, tolerance, and honest science education.

• Your religion demands worship? - the unbaptised cannot go to heaven. Also it was once explained to me that the pope has stated that good people who where non-christians could go to heaven; however I was disappointed when this was later clarified by the same priest that this only applied to people who had never had the opportunity to become Christians.
• Your religion seeks power? - there is an clear hierarchical structure priests, bishops, archbishops, pope. Priests have special power over you spiritual well being from confession to rights for the dead. You can be excommunicated (damned), and the pope can speak with the authority of God.
• Your religion seeks money? - every single mass they pass the collection plate. The church is one of the wealthiest organizations in the world. It may surprise some to realize that the practice of indulgences (buying forgiveness) still exists. At my grade school the nuns sold special rosaries which would facilitate your entry to heaven should you die with unconfessed sins. The model for venial sins, or for a bit more the deluxe model which covered mortal sins (absolution not guaranteed, offer void where prohibited by divine law).
• Your religion is willing to sacrifice their ideals for the sake of the institution? - we have yet to outgrow the idea of killing for Christ. Also have you ever heard someone suggest you actually pray for someone to die (Pat Robertson has told his congregation this several times). Oh, and there was that little scandal where the church had been protecting priests, who had sexually molested children, from legal or public ramifications.

There's nothing irrational about acting on non-rational impulses. Eating candy because it tastes good is rational. Eating candy because it tastes good despite being a type I diabetic is irrational. Eating lead acetate because it tastes good is irrational. In both cases, the transitory sensory pleasure of the sweet taste is far less important than the long-term negative consequences.

Irrationality is that which contradicts rationality. Something which does not contradict rationality but is not done as a result of a rational process is not irrational, it's merely non-rational.

Thanks to Chiefly for his links.

I concur with Stephen Elliot. I had just about given up on this post providing anything more of interest.

Here's my insight from reading through all of this.

'Bad religion' and 'Bad science' seem to share some characteristics in common. Both see the other as some sort of inferior alternative - as competition. 'Bad religion' seeks to fit everything (physical and metaphysical) into a neat dogmatic package (the word of god or whatever). 'Bad science' conflates methodology with philosophy.

'Good science' is limited and powerful because of its limitations. In 2006 we know a tremendous amount more than we knew in 1906. In 1906 much more was known than in 1806. The aspiration to discover and explain and the discipline of scientific investigation are jointly responsible for this explosion of knowlege. These qualities will hopefully carry us along to find out even more. But the great power of science should not lead to arrogance. If you don't know something, the proper scientific response is - 'I don't know'. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and find out.

I must confess that I personally don't really understand 'good religion'. I have moments when I am struck by the incredible beauty and elegance of the universe in what I imagine a religious person might describe as transcendent. I don't see any reason to ascribe that to anything beyond my own nervous system although I will freely, given what I said in the previous paragraph, confess that I have no idea if my belief on that score is true or not. Many people seem to feel differently than I do about such experiences. If that is fulfilling for them and, even better, it encourages them to be loving and productive then that's cool with me. My experience with religion may be different from that many people here - both of parents are highly spiritual but in very unconventional ways. I still don't get it - but their beliefs seem to be inherently and admittedly subjective and personal and they are just fine with that.

So to return to the practical issues at hand -

1. Science (as opposed to scientists) is not aetheistic, agnostic or anything else because it is, ideally, a discipline without an organizational philosophy but rather a tool with as few assumptions about reality as possible. If we can convey that idea to the public I think the battle is at least half won.

2. Everyone is free to state and advocate their own beliefs. Atheists have as much right to do so as anyone else. I would point out that anyone who wants to advocate for their beliefs would be wise to do so with a careful eye to their language. There is a big difference between saying 'I find atheism to be a satisfying and accurate world view because....' and saying 'Atheism is the only rational world view' or "People who believe in god are deluded'. These same statements can be inverted to apply to things said by the religious. Advocating your view is not the same as denigrating the views of others. Sensitivity and tolerance are not the same things as dishonesty.

Religion is one way of denying that death is real.

I have not met a single person, of any faith, who denied that death was real. You really need to choose your words more carefully, norm.

Chiefly: thanks for all the links. (Find anything for Islam yet?)

I have not met a single person, of any faith, who denied that death was real. You really need to choose your words more carefully, norm.

When I say "death" I mean the death that is the end of you forever. There is no coming back. Your personal memories, your personal desires, everything that is most essentially you is gone --- it no longer exists.

How do you know this? Has it been proven?

Comments here to the effect that there is no such thing as religions compatible with rationality remind me of the creationists' argument against transitional fossils: "I know they don't exist because I have never seen any; I have never seen any because I have never looked; and if I did happen to see one, I would pretend I didn't or redefine it as something else."

I was once an anti-religion absolutist myself, and it took a deal of evidence to change my mind. This included an exposure to Christians who were willing to criticize the fairy-tale beliefs of other Christians and talk about the ideas of theologians. It included examples and testimonials of Christians who themselves were once fundamentalists. It included some study of religion on my own. I am about as big a skeptic you will find, or at least I try to be, and yet I consider the proposition, "Some people practice religion in ways entirely consistent with an honest appreciation of objective reality" to be a fact as well established as "Archaeopteryx fossils were not faked." But don't take my word for it. Enroll in some religious studies courses at mainstream universities, read books such as those Gary Hurd lists, or get to know some religious people who seem reasonable. Make some effort to see for yourself.

To those who dismiss all of religion, I suggest you continue dismissing everything you dismiss now. Just try to realize that it does not include all of religion. The irrationality that bothers you does indeed deserve contempt and condemnation. But the enemy is the irrationality, not all of religion.

Some people have argued that religion itself leads to irrationality. I don't buy it. Perhaps it's just the circle I travel in, but I have heard of many examples of people changing from less rational to more rational religion, but I cannot think of any examples the other way. When people are attracted to irrational religion, I suspect it is because it sounds more rational to them than the strawmen they have heard elsewhere, including the strawman that science is anti-god. But that's just my impression from reading testimonials in ICR pamphlets, so don't put much confidence in it.

The mistake Bee is making is assuming because we do things for "irrational," meaning instinctual, reasons we should not examine why we do things.

I vaguely remember explicitly stating that many believers do indeed examine their own actions and motives --- contrary to some allegations made here --- and that this was not a bad thing.

Short and slightly more serious answer: My belief consists, among other things, of a strong feeling that there is at least one "higher power" (name(s) relatively unimportant) manifesting itself both in my personal life and in the natural world.

I believe that even if none of the Gods we worship actually exist in the objective sense, they still embody/personify real and important concepts ("archetypes?") that many people find beneficial; and that acknowledging, and having relationships with, these concepts, helps many (though not necessarily all) people to understand important truths about our lives and our place in the Universe.

I believe that open-minded faith in a benevolent higher power is good, but unquestioning faith is bad.

I believe that the fairest and most relevant way to judge another person's beliefs is by the results they get him/her.

Do I have a "healthy" relationship with my faith? Well, I don't smoke dope anymore, I get rip-roaring-drunk in moderation, my bills are paid,...

I'm not looking for "the red pill," ...

so it's okay for scientists to impose their theory's on poeple, but it's not okay for "religious" people to share their testimony about God. looks like another double standard in favor of the liberal scientist.

Comments here to the effect that there is no such thing as religions compatible with rationality remind me of the creationists' argument against transitional fossils:

'The first battle is science vs. apathy and poor education generally. ' Why not approach the problem with the first battle? If we can raise the education levels of people and get rid of the apathy then likely religion - at least bad religion - would eventually go away too.

— Trisha

When I say "death" I mean the death that is the end of you forever. There is no coming back. Your personal memories, your personal desires, everything that is most essentially you is gone --- it no longer exists. How do you know this? Has it been proven?

When I say "death" I mean the death that is the end of you forever. There is no coming back. Your personal memories, your personal desires, everything that is most essentially you is gone --- it no longer exists.

Popper's ghost: "the extensive arguments people have presented for the view" have repeatedly been debunked, and you know it. Did you even try to read ANY of Chiefly's links to statements by various Christian churches?

And you're accusing Isaak of a "bad faith comment" for stating his own observations as such? Who do you think you're fooling?

There is no reliable evidence against survival after death either.

The bottom line is that there is every reason, in terms of evidence and logic, to believe that a person's personality, their "self", is entirely extinguished upon their death, and no reason (other than desire), to believe otherwise. To ask for proof of that which all evidence and logic supports is to apply the wrong epistemological standard. The question is, what grounds are there to deny that the self is extinguished upon death. If there are none, then it is perverse to deny it.

There is no reliable evidence against survival after death either.

Popper's ghost: "the extensive arguments people have presented for the view" have repeatedly been debunked

and you know it

Did you even try to read ANY of Chiefly's links to statements by various Christian churches?

And what, exactly, did a lot of uninformed, insulting generalizations about other people's religious beliefs have to do with 'the epistemological value of "faith?"'

so it's okay for scientists to impose their theory's on poeple, but it's not okay for "religious" people to share their testimony about God. looks like another double standard in favor of the liberal scientist.

And what, exactly, did a lot of uninformed, insulting generalizations about other people's religious beliefs have to do with 'the epistemological value of "faith?"'

There is no reliable evidence against survival after death either.

If parts of the brain are damaged, memory and cognitive function are lost. If the damage is severe enough, the person enters a vegetative state. But if the whole head is lopped off ... the self "survives" into an "afterlife". The obvious explanation is that, as those parts are damaged, the lost memories and functions go to heaven, where they await the rest of the self to join them. Nutin' irrational about that, cuz ya can't pruve udderwize!

(thumbs remote to channel-surf)

Damn. Nothing but re-runs.

(turns off TV)

I have not met a single person, of any faith, who denied that death was real.

Speaking of reason ... the problem goes beyond the empirical. Considering a claim of survival after death, how can one establish any identity between what exists (if one can even properly speak of something non-physical existing in this sense) after death with what existed before death? Normally, identity over time is a matter of spatial continuity, but no such continuity applies here, since the entities aren't physical. No physical or causal relationship can be detected or measured between the before and after "thing" that purportedly "survives". When the body dies, the thing, whatever it is, supposedly "leaves" -- what does that mean? -- and "goes" -- what does that mean? -- somewhere else ... heaven? What is that, where is it? How can something non-physical be somewhere? It's hard to make any sense of this, because it isn't actually coherent. Only the physical has spatial or temporal extension, so the very notion of "survival" of a non-physical self is nonsensical. Forget empirical evidence -- the very words "survive after death" entail a logical contradiction, so in fact it provably does not occur.

I have not met a single person, of any faith, who denied that death was real.

I have observed the following: no matter the issue under discussion, both sides are equally convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position.

Also, I wonder what the statements were in which "the candidates clearly contradicted themselves", and who judged them to be contradictions. For instance, although many people think that John Kerry contradicted himself when he said "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it", it's not a contradiction but rather an accurate fact -- and it wasn't even a flip-flop, because he voted for the funded version before he voted against the unfunded version.

Looking at this again ... this study actually isn't about confirmation bias at all. Imagine listening to Saddam Hussein reading from the Federalist Papers. Should we weigh his arguments carefully and use them to form judgments as whether this fellow has the right ideas about politics and whether we might want to vote for him sometime? Of course not ... we already have a model of Saddam formed from a great deal of prior evidence of his behavior, and his reading the Federalist papers is interpreted in light of that model. Likewise, hearing a contradiction from someone whom you model as basically honest is interpreted quite differently than a contradiction from someone whom you model as basically dishonest, and it would be irrational, not rational, to treat them as equivalent. The question of rationality goes to whether one's models accurately reflect the evidence they were exposed to, and for that you must go beyond isolated utterances by familiar figures.

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) a study showed where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions.

Here's an illustration of how dubious Shermer's piece is, pretty much junk science. (But it's Michael Shermer! He's a skeptic! It's in SciAm(.com)! It's a study! Using scientific equipment like fMRI! ... pretty heavy bias there.)

Consider playing a game of mastermind, where you're trying to determine your opponent's set of colored pegs by making guesses and being told how many commonalities there are between your guess and the opponent's pegs. People usually make guesses that they think could be the correct set, though that isn't necessary, and often disconfirming guesses are more efficient. Is the bias toward choosing confirming guesses more "emotional"? Should we expect such guesses to show more involvement of the emotional centers and less of the reasoning centers than disconfirming guesses? There's certainly no obvious reason why we should. Yet this is exactly the sort of confirmation bias for which the discoverer of the phenomenon named it (he was trying to get subjects to guess a rule governing number sequences).

So how does the given experiment, in which subjects do not seek confirming evidence or any other evidence, but instead "assess" the statements of politicians, and in the process show involvement of emotional centers and little involvement of reasoning centers, establish a connection between the emotional centers and confirmation bias, such that any rational person should expect such fMRI studies to detect the occurrence of confirmation bias?

normdoering writes:
"Orthodox Christians traditionally claim that the dead aren't actually dead, but 'asleep in the Lord', ..."

Perhaps, just perhaps, that could now be translated as: "fully backed-up on his hard drive". Just a thought ......

Chiefly: thanks for all the links. (Find anything for Islam yet?)

— Raging Bee

I've never heard squat about specific organizations or hierarchies of any Islamic "church," other than state-run religious organizations like the Saudi Arabian madrassas, religious colleges, and muttawa, or the headline-hogging Islamofascist militants. There's Shiites and Sunnis, of course, but I've never heard of a specific "church" in either camp. The Iranian mullahs kinda sorta pretend to speak for most Shiites, while the Saudis, as keepers of Mecca and financiers of Wahabbist wackos, kinda sorta pretend to speak for most Sunnis. Not that anyone from either camp could speak with any authority on any complex issue, let alone science...

"But, as anyone who pays any attention to the news in the United States knows, the battle is far more wide-ranging, covering issues such as ... prohibiting certain love-based marriage...

"We need to ask why [bad religion] churches today should act as though the Taliban is a role model"

So, if I disagree with gay marriage (as most Americans do), then I'm the equivalent to a creationist, which is equivalent to the Taliban?? Interesting.

How about, instead of "bad religion," we define "bad activist." A person is practicing bad activism if he or she, uninvited, attempts to impose any of their policy preferences (like gay marriage) on another or society at large, especially through dirty, underhanded tricks like linking it to the fight to maintain good science in schools.

[...] the same strawman that Isaak did (his other strawman) ... arguing that not everything every religous person does is irrational. But that is not, of course, the argument. The argument is basically about the epistemological value of "faith".

— Popper's ghost

Yeah, right, Hamilcar, a "bad activist" is someone who has the nerve to advocate a cause you don't agree with?

And by the way, "advocating" is not the same as "imposing." If you understood how open public policy debate worked, you'd know the difference.

which deny the empirical fact that some people's religion, as they practice it, is rational all the time. The fact that people resort to extensive arguments to deny something observed to exist is what made me think of creationists on transitional fossils.

What "universal?" We're observing the behavior of religious people we meet, and noticing that the overgeneralizations made here simply are not uniformly true for those people, or their beliefs. Therefore, for all practical purposes, we conclude that such statements are "false."

You could, of course, rephrase those statements to cover a narrower, more specific group of persons or beliefs...

I was referring to comments such as 111630, 111635, and 111641 which deny the empirical fact that some people's religion, as they practice it, is rational all the time.

Popper's ghost wrote: [...] the same strawman that Isaak did (his other strawman) ... arguing that not everything every religous person does is irrational. But that is not, of course, the argument. The argument is basically about the epistemological value of "faith".

The fact that people resort to extensive arguments to deny something observed to exist is what made me think of creationists on transitional fossils.

What "universal?" We're observing the behavior of religious people we meet, and noticing that the overgeneralizations made here simply are not uniformly true for those people, or their beliefs. Therefore, for all practical purposes, we conclude that such statements are "false." You could, of course, rephrase those statements to cover a narrower, more specific group of persons or beliefs...

AC demands: Please define the following terms: "mechanistic", "prayer", "work". Does he not have a dictionary?

— danra

Damn. Nothing but re-runs.

— Lenny

So religious people have ONE irrational belief in common, and that justifies all the drivel about how all religion "rejects reason" and religious people are, by definition, incapable of reason? That's all you have to go on? You're really getting desperate, norm. Even, dare I say it, irrational...

The problem with this stance; "That bad religions is one that impose it's beliefs on others" it that many creationist, it desperation, have begun to tag evolution as a religious idea. Therefore, to them, the teaching of evolution in public schools is equivalent to forcing our beliefs on their children. It must be made clear that you don't "believe" in evolution like you "believe" in Christ. You "accept" the theory of evolution like you "accept" the theory of gravity!

So religious people have ONE irrational belief in common,...

...and that justifies all the drivel about how all religion "rejects reason" ...

...and religious people are, by definition, incapable of reason?

That's all you have to go on?

You're really getting desperate, norm. Even, dare I say it, irrational...

Bee, Re: 111913
So yeah, I decided it was best to declare my ignorance rather than demonstrate it. Here is a good example. Is this representative of a long Islamic tradition or is it their equivalent of one of our storefront snakehandler chapels? They certainly have mischaracterized evolution. So the conversation doesn't even begin.

But balance that with the fact that the Islamic world was custodian of and contributor to much of the knowledge from the classical period while we were busy being medieval. Mathematics, Astronomy, Logic, etc. So you know the story is far more complex than our simple exposure to recent extremism would inform us.

The belief in the after life is just the common thread that seems to motivate religious belief.

Seems to motivate all religious belief? Not so sure of yourself anymore, are you?

That may be the first rejection of reason which then leads to others.

You mean like one joint "may" lead to heroin addiction?

Lenny Flank would say that one rational religion is Zen Buddhism, his religion. Maybe. But I haven't seen that reindeer fly, just heard Lenny claim that it does.

I believe that the fairest and most relevant way to judge another person's beliefs is by the results they get him/her.

I am wondering how you can say this as it violates Christian precepts as I understand them, AND the Wiccan Rede.

As long as you include that qualifier I've bolded, you may have a point. Care to be more specific as to which "precepts" I'm violating?

Mind you, when I talked (hastily) about "results," I was referring to what kind of person one's beliefs made one, as judged by one's actions and visible character. (We can't reliably judge a believer by his/her thoughts, since they're not verifiable.)

Given that there isn't a person alive who is absolutely, consistently rational, it would follow that no system of thought devised by people would be either. HOWEVER, (and forgive me here, it's been YEARS since I read The Spectrum of Consciousness by Ken Wilbur) the emphasis in Buddhism as I understand it is not on belief or what can be determined by the mind, but what is EXPERIENCED when the mind is stilled, and on daily PRACTICE of compassion and loving-kindness. Belief is irrelevant to them for the most part.

They have some, to be sure, but those beliefs are considered ephemeral, being a construct of mind, and should always take a backseat to practice.

1. Assume that there is a God.
2. Assume that God is good and just.
3. Belief in God is not a pre-requiste for being a good person.
4. A good and just God would not punish a good person.
5. Therefore God will not punish us for a lack of belief.
6. Belief in God is unnecessary (being a good person is)
7. Religion is the instution representing belief in God.
8. Religion is unnecessary.

• God has a good sense of humor (being the God of atheists is pretty funny)
• They don't blaim stuff on him (like Katrina)
• They don't pester him with stupid requests (like please kill a supreme court justice)
• They don't go arround dropping his name to get attention. All personal meetings are postmortem, so when exactly did you talk to him?
• God is pretty non-denominational and you cannot get much more non-denominational than atheists
• He really likes the part right at the end were he gets to jump out and yell "Surprise!"

As long as you include that qualifier I've bolded, you may have a point. Care to be more specific as to which "precepts" I'm violating? Mind you, when I talked (hastily) about "results," I was referring to what kind of person one's beliefs made one, as judged by one's actions and visible character. (We can't reliably judge a believer by his/her thoughts, since they're not verifiable.)

Are you claiming there is a religion that is "rational all the time"? Which one is it?

— normdoering

Karen made a good point that no person is rational 100% of the time. I should emphasize that when I speak of rational religion, I am referring to the ideal. The ideal is achievable for intervals, but there is no requirement that people keep to it perfectly forever. Heck, I sometimes screw up adding numbers together, but that does not mean arithmetic is illogical.

I should also say that by "rational," I mean consistent with reason. It may contain aspects, such as art appreciation, to which reason does not really apply.

Taoism is one.

Zen Buddhism is probably another, though I do not know any Zen Buddhists well.

A third is a syncretism of Christianity and humanism which I have seen in some Unitarians.

While I appreciate that for some people religion isn't more than a set of practices, I have a hard time to avoid finding dualisms, epecially supernaturalism, at the core of religions.

Taoism for example. Wikipedia describes outright religious and philosophical taoism, and ascribes divinity to both. The yin and yang of taoism describes two supernatural forces.

Lenny Flank would say

Taoism for example. Wikipedia describes outright religious and philosophical taoism, and ascribes divinity to both. The yin and yang of taoism describes two supernatural forces.

Taoism is not a religion, nor a philosophy. It is a "Way" of life.

... a force that flows through every living and sentient object, as well as through the entire universe.

Oh, lookie, everyone --- Norm is trying to start a fight.

Isn't it cuuuuuuuute?

Sorry, Norm --- not interested.

What is a religion?

What is a religion?

"Loving my neighbor" and "turning the other cheek" does not mean refusing to dispute statements I have good reason to consider BS. Nor does it mean letting false statements that needlessly insult others go unchallenged. And who have I harmed?

"Loving my neighbor" and "turning the other cheek" does not mean refusing to dispute statements I have good reason to consider BS. Nor does it mean letting false statements that needlessly insult others go unchallenged. And who have I harmed?

Sorry, Norm -- as I said, I'm not interested in your little fight. (shrug)

Run along and go bite a religionist somewhere. (pat, pat)

Apparently, it's "anything an evangelical atheist doesn't like".

Hey lookie, everyone --- ANOTHER of PZ's Puppy Dogs is trying to pick a fight with me . . . Awwww, isn't it cuuuuuuuute? (pat, pat)

Where's Popper? Let's complete the set.

the reason you're not permitted to post at Pharyngula.

- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

By the way, if PZ would like to ban me at any OTHER blogs where I, um, ya know, don't post, I might suggest:

Aetiology
Stranger Fruit
EvolutionBlog
The Questionable Authority

and

Evolving Thoughts.

Alas, though, it's so pitifully easy to yank the Puppies' chains, that it ain't even fun any more. So I will take my leave, and let the Puppies engage in their Jihad.

Go get 'em, tigers.

"Loving my neighbor" and "turning the other cheek" does not mean refusing to dispute statements I have good reason to consider BS. Nor does it mean letting false statements that needlessly insult others go unchallenged. And who have I harmed?

What "universal?"

— Rabid Bee

Being atheistic doesn't imply being areligious, only that any religion involved lacks a deity.

What exactly is being practiced? What are the expected results? What theory guides the practice?

Is it rational to expect to experience more than random mental activity and self-imposed sensory deprivation experiences when the mind is stilled? Sometimes talking about "compassion and loving-kindness" can have a similar effect as saying; "you are feeling very relaxed, you're getting sleepy..." --- it can be hypnotic.

You DO understand that Buddhism is a large topic and that what you're asking for is akin to asking for a decent one-paragraph synopsis of (let's pick a topic near and dear to everyone's heart) evolutionary theory? So that amounts to a disclaimer of sorts.

What exactly is being practiced? "The first step, therefore, is to cut off the chain of associated concepts and the words that flood the mind,...

What are the expected results? Calming the stream of endless thoughts, concepts, and our attachment to them rather than observing the reality of how things ARE.

What theory guides the practice? Ah, read some stuff Norm. If I do much more you're just going to get the wrong idea and immediately try to refute it.

If you really want to know about Buddhism (so you can critique it more effectively) in the words of its practitioners, which is always better than a paraphrase from someone who only knows a bit, like me, I'd suggest "An Introduction to The Buddha and His Teachings" edited by Samuel Bercholz and Sherab Chodzin Kohn, and from which the quote above comes.

Being atheistic doesn't imply being areligious, only that any religion involved lacks a deity. Ummm... that's true. Some people say that Buddhism and Taoism are atheistic religions. However, I did say that the idea of a rational religion was like the idea of a flying reindeer --- it doesn't exist. Since their arguments are against my statement your observation is of no help.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Being atheistic doesn't imply being areligious, only that any religion involved lacks a deity.

Certainly universal unitarianism is not a religion, considering that the majority of its members are self-proclaimed humanists, atheists, or agnostics. Sometimes it's useful to consult a dictionary, e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Surely the word "religion" as at least as many distinct meanings as the word "acid" in chemistry. If you are doing intellectual history, it may make sense to take the ideas of religious intellectuals as somehow representative of the faiths they defend. On that basis, one can say that there are atheistical religions. If you're doing sociology, on the other hand, the elaborate ideological constructions of tiny elites are less relevant. Thus Buddhism on the hoof is not very different than lay Catholicism; and, for that matter, if the average Christian caught wind of what their theologians were saying about God, they'd probably decide the profs were atheists. Indeed, from time to time, they have--recall the reaction to the rationalizing moves of Vatican II.

If you are doing intellectual history, it may make sense to take the ideas of religious intellectuals as somehow representative of the faiths they defend.

On that basis, one can say that there are atheistical religions.

Or, can we have Buddha style deities that achieve a non-creator of universe kind of godhood?

And why would you want to "cut off the chain of associated concepts and the words that flood the mind" if you didn't believe the results of doing so would be worth it? That's the first belief.

What reason do you have to trust these experts?

How did they earn you trust enough to tell you that if you practice doing nothing you'll achieve something?

That's a phenomena that can be explored scientifically, not religiously, and Sam Harris is doing that --- but I'm not sure he isn't giving in to the siren call of religious irrationalism in his attempt:

But I'm not really interested in Buddhism. I'm interested in how religious believers defend the rationality of their beliefs.

If the ideas of "religious" leaders aren't theistic, then there is no basis for calling them religious leaders.

And if they are religious leaders by virtue of defending some "faith" about deities, then any non-theistic ideas they have are clearly not "representative" of that "faith".

On that basis, one can say that there are atheistical religions.

Use meditation to achieve a revelation about your soul and/or the universe and then you're doing religion.

Then what is Rev. John S. Spong, Bishop of Newark?

Thing is, religious intellectuals think of their ideas as representative of the religions to which they belong since a lot of what they at least think they are doing is defining the faith. Thus Buddhist theoreticians were certainly aware that the vast majority of their correligionists were superstitious in the normal human way, but they surely thought that Buddhism was nevertheless atheistical in tendency and Buddhism was classified as an anatman doctrine (= no self) by Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.

To count as a religious intellectual, a theologian or pandit only has to be associated with a social institution that is recognizably religious under reasonable sociological criteria. Such an individual doesn't have to think of the religion the same way as the laity or even the clergy and often doesn't.

Even if you explain it down to a gnat's ass, you still will not KNOW what it is about until you experience it, and then your concepts and your words will fall short of describing it.

Thing is, religious intellectuals think of their ideas as representative of ...

To count as a religious intellectual, a theologian or pandit only has to be associated with a social institution that is recognizably religious under reasonable sociological criteria.

Despite causal talk of those who have experienced something "knowing what its like", it can't properly count as "knowledge" if it can't be communicated.

To count as a religious intellectual, a theologian or pandit only has to be associated with a social institution that is recognizably religious under reasonable sociological criteria.

Such an individual doesn't have to think of the religion the same way as the laity or even the clergy and often doesn't.

I've observed in myself that thoughts about a thing can cause far more emotional pain than the actual thing or situation itself.

I've also observed that wanting a thing or the perceived lack of a thing or person can cause emotional pain and distracts me from actually BEING in this moment,...

I have observed that the perceived lack of things will cause people to do horrible things to others in order to get the things that they think will make them happy or remove the feeling of lack.

I have observed that the wanting never ceases, even when I have no real needs.

I have also observed that I'm not fond of emotional pain or a feeling of lack.

I have tried meditation and feel better whenever I do it.

I am willing to entertain some of what Buddhism has to say as useful to myself (the reduction of want and personal emotional pain), and if that reduction of inner turmoil results in more outer peacefulness and tolerance, then yes, the results of "quieting the mind" will be worth it.

Is that rational enough for you?

... rationality for its own sake has never been my personal goal, it is a tool only.

Even if you explain it down to a gnat's ass, you still will not KNOW what it is about until you experience it, and then your concepts and your words will fall short of describing it.

The same could be said about the experience of electroshock therapy, getting a lobotomy, taking LSD or 'shrooms, using heroin, sky diving, etc..

No, it's clearly irrational because you are attributing to meditation things that can be attained without meditation.

...a theologian or pandit...

...what you claim here is "clearly irrational" does not seem so to me. I don't even see where Karen claimed that there was anything that could only be obtained through meditation; rather, she said that she had tried meditation and had obtained these things. So your statement seems to me fallacious, and thus irrational. There's plenty of it to go around.

But I still have doubts --- did she really learn these things from meditation? If so, how does meditation teach them?

why would you want to "cut off the chain of associated concepts and the words that flood the mind" if you didn't believe the results of doing so would be worth it?

Nor has she claimed anything very controversial or metaphysical or religious. It's very first year psychology class.

What are the expected results? Calming the stream of endless thoughts, concepts, and our attachment to them rather than observing the reality of how things ARE.

You asked why would you want to "cut off the chain of associated concepts and the words that flood the mind" if you didn't believe the results of doing so would be worth it?

You asked her to justify a belief, and she did. You can then debate the validity of her justifications --- which you did, in part, but I think you got lost somewhat, perhaps because you set yourself up to defend the broad assertion that practicing anything that anyone calls a "religion" is irrational,

... you (irrationally, I think) felt a need to argue that meditation is irrational, beyond just neutrally going wherever evidence and reason lead, and so you overstated your case.

What are the expected results? Calming the stream of endless thoughts, concepts, and our attachment to them rather than observing the reality of how things ARE.

The notion of theory-ladenness of observation is rather sophisticated and modern, and one can be quite unfamiliar with it without being at all religious.

... I think her statement can be taken as an attempt to avoid observer bias by trying to set aside judgments while making observations. I've had the experience as a juror of struggling to listen to the presentation of evidence and witnesses without letting prejudices take rein; thoughts creep in about which of the lawyers' personalities I like, whether the defendant is well groomed, and all sorts of other misleading stuff. Perhaps Karen views meditation as a technique to create habits of observing without judging, or with reduced judging.

... I have neither practiced it nor read careful scientific analyses of the effects of meditation. I do know that studies show that people are generally very poor introspecters and unreliable sources as to the consequences or significance of their own mental practices.

She said "Calming the stream of endless thoughts, concepts, and our attachment to them _rather_ than observing the reality of how things ARE." She's denying, it seems, that her goal is to "observe the reality of how things are."

Which is good.

"We habitually engage in a stream of endless thoughts, concepts, and our attachment to them, rather than observing the reality of how things ARE; meditation allows us to calm the former, so we can do the latter."

I am willing to entertain some of what Buddhism has to say as useful to myself (the reduction of want and personal emotional pain), and if that reduction of inner turmoil results in more outer peacefulness and tolerance, then yes, the results of "quieting the mind" will be worth it.

We habitually engage in a stream of endless thoughts, concepts, and our attachment to them, rather than observing the reality of how things ARE; meditation allows us to calm the former, so we can do the latter.

What are the expected results? Calming the stream of endless thoughts, concepts, and our attachment to them rather than observing the reality of how things ARE.

While I'd like to say that I appreciate the apology Norm, in the ensuing 10 post analysis of my original post, I've been told I may have an emotional problem, that meditation is to be equated with dangerous addictions such as smoking and heroin, that perhaps an option is for me to KILL myself, or that I might be doing meditation to reduce my neuroses, that I'm probably epistemologically, ontologically, and psychologically naive and had the subjective nature of meditation equated to the (pretty much universally "bad") experiences of electroshock, getting a lobotomy or taking LSD. Even allowing for a bit of hyperbole on your part, it still was a fairly ugly reply.

And after all that it just now occurs to you that you might have misinterpreted me and you might need clarification?

You really must clank when you walk to have the gall to ask me to clarify. WHY exactly, should I wish to talk you now? To give you another opportunity to stroke your own ego at my expense? I came here for a discussion, not a microscopic parsing of my every noun and verb. And while I might not be as rational as you think everyone should be, I find that I'm a pretty good judge of people, even on a board such as this. Realizing as I typed that I was probably not making my best post, I do recall saying "If I do much more you're just going to get the wrong idea and immediately try to refute it." And damn! was I right or WHAT?? You, with what you no doubt consider to be your towering rationality and intellect, didn't bother to read carefully, so poised were you to refute, SO certain were you that you knew EXACTLY what I meant, that you didn't even give me the courtesy of a clarifiying question or two before you attacked.

Is this arrogance characteristic of the approach you use when trying to "turn ID'ers" or get your message across about evolutionary theory? No wonder you have such a hard time. Chiefly had it right when he said "....you all seem to be saying that if we can't make an Atheist out of someone, nothing else will do. Well, good luck with that." Yeah, good luck indeed. Any marketer will tell you the importance of packaging. Might I suggest that your message will sell much better when it doesn't come packaged in an arrogant ass?

Have a field day gentlemen (and I use the term loosely). I won't be returning to this thread. It has ceased to be enjoyable, and I don't bother with things I don't enjoy. I have enough on my mind right now with a layoff and my mother's recent diagnosis of ALS. I throw in the towel: you win.

Any marketer will tell you the importance of packaging. Might I suggest that your message will sell much better when it doesn't come packaged in an arrogant ass?

that I might be doing meditation to reduce my neuroses, that I'm probably epistemologically, ontologically, and psychologically naive

— Karen

I have observed that the perceived lack of things will cause people to do horrible things to others in order to get the things that they think will make them happy or remove the feeling of lack. I have observed that the wanting never ceases, even when I have no real needs.

Even allowing for a bit of hyperbole on your part, it still was a fairly ugly reply.

one option to rid yourself of unwelcomed desire is to kill yourself

one option to rid yourself of unwelcomed desire is to kill yourself

The Buddhists reject suicide because it is just another act motivated by ignorance and blind desire. In this respect, they are in accord with a host of Western philosophers. Of course, not everybody buys into the Buddhist notion of rebirth, which makes suicide especially futile; but you don't have to be a Buddhist to recognize that there is something morally problematic about killing yourself. As the psychologist Karl Meninger used to point out, suicide requires somebody who wants to die and somebody who wants to kill.

Sorry for interjecting a comment that isn't obviously part of flame war. I hope it doesn't break anybody's rhythm.

I'm not selling anything

The Buddhists reject suicide because it is just another act motivated by ignorance and blind desire.

... you don't have to be a Buddhist to recognize that there is something morally problematic about killing yourself.

... Sorry for interjecting a comment that isn't obviously part of flame war. I hope it doesn't break anybody's rhythm.

While I do think that suicide is morally problematic, I haven't yet figured out how to turn a buck out of my opinion. Meanwhile, whether the Buddhists are a bunch of greedy con men or not, they do in fact oppose suicide for the reasons I stated above. You can look it up in the Pali canon and umpteen Mahayanist sutras. A European version of the basic idea: 'Far from being a denial of the will, suicide is a phenomenon of the will's strong affirmation. For denial has its essential nature in the fact that the pleasures of life, not its sorrows, are shunned. The suicide wills life, and is dissatisfied merely with the conditions on which it has come to him. Therefore he gives up by no means the will-to-live, but merely life, since he destroys the individual phenomenon.' [Schopenhauer]

The fact that the doctrines of Buddhism or Christianity are based on highly dubious assumptions doesn't mean that all the ideas of Buddhists or Christians are absurd or valueless. Just as one can learn a lot about history from the Marxists without being a Marxist, one can learn a great deal from the Buddhists or the Christians without believing in rebirth or the ressurection or any other dogma of those faiths.

The Buddhists reject suicide because it is just another act motivated by ignorance and blind desire.

but you don't have to be a Buddhist to recognize that there is something morally problematic about killing yourself

Sorry for interjecting a comment that isn't obviously part of flame war.

While I do think that suicide is morally problematic, I haven't yet figured out how to turn a buck out of my opinion.

...they do in fact oppose suicide for the reasons I stated above. You can look it up in the Pali canon and umpteen Mahayanist sutras.

The fact that the doctrines of Buddhism or Christianity are based on highly dubious assumptions doesn't mean that all the ideas of Buddhists or Christians are absurd or valueless.

Just as one can learn a lot about history from the Marxists without being a Marxist, one can learn a great deal from the Buddhists or the Christians without believing in rebirth or the ressurection or any other dogma of those faiths.

The Pali canon and Mahayana sutras are not offered because they authoritatively establish the morality or immorality of suicide. I'm not a Buddhist. They aren't scripture for me. They are very good evidence of what the Buddhists have had to say about suicide, however. Which is why I cited 'em.

Jim Harrison:

...a theologian or pandit...

While I've not previously heard of this creature or profession, it certainly seems site-appropriate: a panda with a yen for forbidden stalks?

I am the author of a new book, The First Scientific Proof of God.' I teach and expand this book on http://georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com/.
Your subject and this article are important because I show the single religion of the future. So, religions can now be compared and classified with the perfect religion. I also show why people have become divided on the subject of religion

I am the author of a new book, The First Scientific Proof of God.'

Especially one who thinks s/he is cleverer that s/he really is.

I am the author of a new book, The First Scientific Proof of God.'

Currently, the US economy is inconsistent with this teachings of Jesus Christ and my scientific proof of God. How did the US economy become inconsistent with God? I can explain this inconsistency. The US government began as a government of believing people, by believing people, and for believing people. This beginning is confirmed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of all of the States. However, in time, the US government transformed itself into a government of, by, and for both believers and nonbelievers. This illegal transformation was made possible by the US Supreme Court because it (1) does not consider the US Declaration of Independence as a 'law of the USA' and (2) separates State and God. This illegal transformation has led to a laissez-faire US economy, which is inconsistent with God.

Ah, good ol' George--what can I say?

Some have drifted farther into pinheadedness than is good for them. And some of those have now gone so far beyond that fuzzy-but-remorseless boundary that they'll never drift back. The very tip of the pin acts something like a singularity, it seems.

Which seems not to stop these lost ones from gesticulating, tossing off the odd message in a bottle, and engaging in other futile behaviors.

The Pali canon and Mahayana sutras are not offered because they authoritatively establish the morality or immorality of suicide. I'm not a Buddhist. They aren't scripture for me. They are very good evidence of what the Buddhists have had to say about suicide, however. Which is why I cited 'em.

Beats me how to deal with unmotivated hostility. I don't recall having picked a fight with anybody, and in any case I don't care who wins the arguments in these parts. After all, there's small glory in outstripping donkeys, a sentiment we can perhaps agree upon even if we differ on which one is the donkey.

What theory guides the practice? Ah, read some stuff Norm. If I do much more you²re just going to get the wrong idea and immediately try to refute it.

Beats me how to deal with unmotivated hostility.

The US government began as a government of believing people, by believing people, and for believing people.

— Some Christian Nationalist who cares little about truth.

The lie that America is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles is one of the most egregious pieces of crap ever to be propagnadised upon the American public.

I am British, and in our short syllabus on American history we learned repeatedly that the major difference between American and European governments of the time was its insistence upon the values of the Enlightenment - namely that government should be seperate from whatever religious ideology may be dominant in the country at the time, and that it should not represent a certain class or ideological element but simply be a force for regulation of whatever exists thrrough free will. The seperation of church and state was a truly revolutionary development, and it saddens me immensely that America has regressed from such a foresighted standpoint to one of religious fundamentalism and irrationality.

America was once called the beacon of hope in a world of darkness. Now it seems to me that that beacon has been extinguished at the same time as torch fires of rationality are created all across Europe and thinking societies everywhere. What a terrible loss for not only Americans, but all of us.

Various attempts, for the most part along similar lines, have been made to explain why suicide is prohibited for the unenlightened but permitted for the enlightened. In 1965 Lamotte wrote: The desperate person who takes his own life obviously aspires to annihilation: his suicide, instigated by desire, will not omit him from fruition, and he will have to partake of the fruit of his action. In the case of the ordinary man, suicide is a folly and does not achieve the intended aim. This situation is compared with the suicide of an enlightened person: In contrast, suicide is justified in the persons of the Noble Ones who have already cut off desire and by so doing neutralised their actions by making them incapable of producing further fruit. From the point of view of early Buddhism, suicide is a normal matter in the case of the Noble Ones who, having completed their work, sever their last link with the world and voluntarily pass into Nirvaa.na, thus definitively escaping from the world of rebirths (1965:106f).

It's difficult to argue with people who are so poorly informed of the most basic general facts of comparative religion. My comments on what the Buddhist tradition has to say about suicide are hardly controversial. If I'm begging the question, I've got an awful lot of company. Maybe the previous poster is just having a bad hair day, that is, he's writing as if his hair were on fire.

Religions don't have unchangable essences so that any generalization about them is liable to have exceptions. And if some Americans read a couple of paperbacks and decide they're Buddhists, I won't quarrel with that either even if what they identify as Buddhism differs in important ways from the beliefs and practices of Asians--that's no affair of mine. That said, there's lots of interesting stuff in the huge scholarly literature on how Americans and Europeans created their own versions of Buddhism.

Actually I should have said "According to the arguments of some Buddhist scholars, the Pali canon ...", since the author of that piece disagrees. But in the end it's much as if I had pointed out something hypocritical in Christian behavior and someone who didn't even believe in the bible themselves referred to the bible for justification.

Even in their own terms, religious fables are notoriously self-contradictory. Anyone who does take Buddhist dogma seriously has to deal with the fact that even the Buddha slit his own throat to become tiger food.

It's difficult to argue with people who are so poorly informed of the most basic general facts of comparative religion.

My comments on what the Buddhist tradition has to say about suicide are hardly controversial.

If I'm begging the question, I've got an awful lot of company.

Religions don't have unchangable essences so that any generalization about them is liable to have exceptions. And if some Americans read a couple of paperbacks and decide they're Buddhists, I won't quarrel with that either even if what they identify as Buddhism differs in important ways from the beliefs and practices of Asians---that's no affair of mine.

"In the case of the ordinary man, suicide is a folly and does not achieve the intended aim." Like I said. The logic of the Pali canon is pretty clear in re garden-variety suicide, which is what I assumed we were talking about. What the already enlightened do is another matter, although the underslying rationale is similar, i.e. the crucial thing is whether one acts out of ignorance and desire. One could also look at instances such as what Durkheim called altruistic suicide (martyrdom, for example) where the intention is also different.

I still don't get what it is you don't understand or what there is to disagree about.

I still don't get what it is you don't understand or what there is to disagree about.

Beats me how to deal with unmotivated hostility.

I don't have trouble arguing with people who are poorly informed. Perhaps it's that you're stupid, inept, and wrong.

That said, there's lots of interesting stuff in the huge scholarly literature on how Americans and Europeans created their own versions of Buddhism.

religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!religion sucks!