Summer Institute on Science and Religion at the Jefferson Center

The conflict is not between science and religion as such but between science and certain dogmatic religions that think they know better than to accept empirical facts they do not like.

Okay, which religions aren't "dogmatic religions that think they know better than to accept empirical facts they do not like" or do not know about or don't understand?

Matt, thanks so much for coming to Ashland for this conference. Hopefully it will continue to grow in size. I'm glad you found the conference useful. As I think I mentioned to you in an email, we had another local coup at Southern Oregon University here in Ashland when they agreed to let me teach a course on the scientific failures of ID and creationism. It took a lot of convincing to get a university science dept. to allow a class that even mentions the word religion, even if it's in the context of defending evolutionary biology. But I'm looking forward to it. Your book with Taner will be required reading. Cheers, John Williams

Okay, which religions aren't "dogmatic religions that think they know better than to accept empirical facts they do not like" or do not know about or don't understand?

Here's a quote from H.H. the Dalai Lama

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso#Quotations

I don't think, genrally speaking, that Buddhists have any problem at all with the direction and discoveries of science. Which doesn't mean, however, that some don't try to engage in form of apologetics. Which is how Wallace sometimes comes across.

Here's a quote from H.H. the Dalai Lama "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

Keep in mind that's a quote from a man who is supposedly the reincarnation of his predecessor the 13th Dalai Lama and a manifestations of the Buddha of Compassion who chose to take rebirth for the purpose of serving other human beings. While I can't prove all that wrong, I'm not seeing much scientific evidence to support reincarnation

I'm not sure what your point is here. You asked above about which religion was willing to accept or include a scientific view. I gave you an example. But your reply (and perhaps I've misread you) suggests that since H.H. holds a religious worldview, he's not to be taken seriously when he speaks favorably about the potential influence of science on his worldview. If I'm not misreading you, I'm curious to know what would be an acceptable answer to your question?

I'm not sure what your point is here.

While I can't prove all that wrong, I'm not seeing much scientific evidence to support reincarnation.

Normdoering, you seem to be having a hard time staying on topic. Your first post suggested that all religions put dogma ahead of science. I gave you an example which showed that this was not always the case. But you've not acknowledged that.

Instead, you point out that Buddhists believe that people are bound to a chain of birth-death-and-birth. You furthermore acknowledge that while you can't disprove this there's no scientific evidence in favor of it either. Then you go on to suggest that it's up to the monks to prove that rebirth is a scientific fact. This really has nothing to do with your original question, or my answer to it. Really, it just smacks of moving the goal posts.

Leaving that aside, I'm curious why you think they (the monks - and for that matter, the lay practitioners as well) should prove what you yourself cannot disprove? I'm also curious whether you think their inability to prove what you cannot disprove somehow renders the Dalai Lama's statement an invalid answer to your original question (i.e. the original topic which was about the relationship of science and dogma to relgious worldviews as perceived by the holders of those views).

On the other hand, I'm beginning to think that your original question was mostly flippant, not wholly considered, and that I've taken you more seriously than you expected to be taken.

Belief in reincarnation seems to be a belief that is held irrationally, in spite of science --- not because of it.

Okay, which religions aren't "dogmatic religions that think they know better than to accept empirical facts they do not like" or do not know about or don't understand?

Keep in mind that's a quote from a man... While I can't prove all that wrong, I'm not seeing much scientific evidence to support reincarnation.

Belief in reincarnation seems to be a belief that is held irrationally, in spite of science --- not because of it.

Nor will you, since it's all symbolic.

Normdoering, you seem to be having a hard time staying on topic. Your first post suggested that all religions put dogma ahead of science. I gave you an example which showed that this was not always the case.

I am surprised that no members of the Bahai faith showd up to present their views. My wife is a Bahai, so I am familiar with the ideas. It is interesting in that the founder, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, expressed forcefully this idea in the following passage:

"If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation."

One of the few religions that explicitly states that science and religion should agree.

Ms. Wertheim argued that science and religion are indeed driving us crazy but for deeper reasons than meet the eye. Specifically, she was concerned with the manner in which science has expanded to include psychology and human behavior, and even religion itself. She decried the "physicalizing" of psychology; it seemed almost as if she was censuring psychologists for applying quantitative tools to their discipline.

I will add only that we need liberal religion to help fight off the barbarians at the gates of science.

No, you gave me an example of a claim that isn't't supported by the facts.

Oh Norm, that's really, really sad.

Do you really mean to say that it's not a fact that, the Dalai Lama, a religious leader and spokesperson for millions (but not all) Buddhists said "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change"? Do you really mean to say that this factoid does not speak directly to your question?

Do you really mean to say that an opinion expressed in the form of "if X happens , then Y" is the equivalent of a truth claim?, or of an assertion about some fact of the world? Can you explain to me the truth claim embedded in the phrase "Buddhism will have to change"? Can you show me what fact is asserted in that statement? Can you show me why the statement is anything more than just the Dalai Lama's opinion (one that seems to have dashed your preconceptions about religious worldviews)?

But I know what you want, Kippy. You want to be able to say that if the Dalai Lama really meant what he said, he wouldn't believe the things he does. But there are two problems with that. The first has already been pointed out to you - as science has nothing to say about multiple lifetimes, it is a nonsequitur to hold these beliefs as contradictory to the Dalai Lama's statement. The second and even bigger problem is that you really have no idea (1) what the Dalai Lama thinks, and (2) what Buddhist tenets or practices have to say at all. As such you really have no idea the extent to which the Dalai Lama and all the other Buddhists in the world have accepted scientific facts about the world and about people which contradict ancient tenets. In other words, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Now I'm going to bow out here as I really have nothing else to say.

It took a lot of convincing to get a university science dept. to allow a class that even mentions the word religion, even if it's in the context of defending evolutionary biology.

Do you really mean to say that it's not a fact that, the Dalai Lama, a religious leader and spokesperson for millions (but not all) Buddhists said "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change"?

Do you really mean to say that this factoid does not speak directly to your question?

...as science has nothing to say about multiple lifetimes, it is a nonsequitur ...

...The second and even bigger problem is that you really have no idea (1) what the Dalai Lama thinks,...

As such you really have no idea the extent to which the Dalai Lama and all the other Buddhists in the world have accepted scientific facts about the world and about people which contradict ancient tenets. In other words, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Now I'm going to bow out here as I really have nothing else to say.

just curious, how would one go about testing scientifically whether one is a reincarnated entity or not, give the Buddhist definition of what is supposedly transfered from one entity to another through reincarnation to begin with?

It does seem akin to the "trying to prove whether there is a soul" issue.

If we say "spirit" or "essential essence" is transfered, how can one possibly quantify that?

IOW, the Dalai Lama is perfectly safe in saying he would change if science proves him wrong, as the very tenets of most religion (inlcuding Buddhism) are really untestable to begin with.

as to "walk the walk", if nobody changed their religions based on scientific evidence, all religions would still proclaim we are living on a flat, geocentric earth, would they not?

there is definetly an aspect of psychology involved in some sects that is lacking in others. It is demonstrably the case that even within xian sects, not all sects reject evidence out of hand, and many incorporate the evidence into their teachings. the ELCA is a good example; in fact the history of the split between the ELCA and the Misouri synod is a great example of how the very sects withing religion itself can come from acceptance of scientific evidence.

Not recognizing the difference between sects is just as bad as religious sects not recognizing the difference between "science" and "religion" to begin with.

"If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation."

just curious, how would one go about testing scientifically whether one is a reincarnated entity or not, give the Buddhist definition of what is supposedly transfered from one entity to another through reincarnation to begin with? It does seem akin to the "trying to prove whether there is a soul" issue.

... Mr. Wallace burdened us with an overlong (well over his allotted 1.5 hours), rambling plea for a new science of consciousness based on introspection. He argued that William James had pioneered such a program but claimed it was scuttled by the behaviorists. He castigated present neuroscientists for assuming without evidence that the mind is nothing but the functioning of the brain, yet provided no evidence whatsoever that introspection can lead to anything as scientifically useful as, say, functional magnetic resonance imaging. Like an intelligent-design creationist, Mr. Wallace seemed to think that he supported his own position by poking holes in someone else's. I thought he was searching in vain for a sort of "consciousness of the gaps." ....

good references, but I think you miss my point when speaking of the issue of the Dali Lama.

all they have to do is redefine "soul" such that if intelligence/cognition can be passed to an artificial entity that can pass the Turing test, they will simply move the goalposts and say that the sould encompases more than what can be determined by the turing test.

all I'm saying is that you can claim they "aren't walkin' the walk", but they can always just move the goalposts into the next gap, thereby claiming that their ideology has NOT been refuted by science.

I hope that's a bit clearer way of expressing what I meant.

on the more uh, "concrete" side, you do agree that various sects have actually accepted a varying amount of scientific evidence, and that their ideologies have changed as result, yes?

just curious, how would one go about testing scientifically whether one is a reincarnated entity or not, give the Buddhist definition of what is supposedly transfered from one entity to another through reincarnation to begin with?

— Sir_Toejam

all they have to do is redefine "soul" such that if intelligence/cognition can be passed to an artificial entity that can pass the Turing test, they will simply move the goalposts and say that the soul encompases more than what can be determined by the turing test.

... they can always just move the goalposts into the next gap, thereby claiming that their ideology has NOT been refuted by science.

... you do agree that various sects have actually accepted a varying amount of scientific evidence, and that their ideologies have changed as result, yes?

Comment #124553 Posted by normdoering on August 30, 2006 10:45 PM (e) Tim wrote: Do you really mean to say that it's not a fact that, the Dalai Lama, a religious leader and spokesperson for millions (but not all) Buddhists said "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change"?

Do you really mean to say that this factoid does not speak directly to your question?

...as science has nothing to say about multiple lifetimes, it is a nonsequitur ...

...The second and even bigger problem is that you really have no idea (1) what the Dalai Lama thinks,...

As such you really have no idea the extent to which the Dalai Lama and all the other Buddhists in the world have accepted scientific facts about the world and about people which contradict ancient tenets. In other words, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Now I'm going to bow out here as I really have nothing else to say.

Yes, I agree. But accepting science costs --- sometimes what's left of such a "liberal" religion looks like a hollow shell, vague, evasive, full of holy words and concepts that have not really become symbolic, but just meaningless.

... you do not understand the practice of meditation and conditioning the mind in the buddist fashion.

It is not brainwashing.

There is no presupposition.

You discover the same thing as everyone else all by yourself.

Now Budda, he ... figured out was really real.

The Dali Lama is human though and fallable and subject to foibles himself so perfection isn't really necessary. He does a better job than most people who are born into religion. And he is an honest politician who works actually for his people.

When Lhamo Thondup was barely three years old, a search party that had been sent out by the Tibetan government to find the new incarnation of the Dalai Lama arrived at Kumbum monastery. It had been led there by a number of signs. One of these concerned the embalmed body of his predecessor, Thupten Gyatso, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, who had died aged fifty-seven in 1933. During its period of sitting in state, the head was discovered to have turned from facing south to northeast. Shortly after that the Regent, himself a senior lama, had a vision. Looking into the waters of the sacred lake, Lhamo Lhatso, in southern Tibet, he clearly saw the Tibetan letters Ah, Ka and Ma float into view. These were followed by the image of a three-storied monastery with a turquoise and gold roof and a path running from it to a hill. Finally, he saw a small house with strangely shaped guttering. He was sure that the letter Ah referred to Amdo, the northeastern province, so it was there that the search party was sent.

So, this Dali is only symbolically the reincarnation of his predecessor the 13th Dalai Lama? This Dali was only chosen randomly as a child?

I don't think you know as much about Buddhism as you pretend to.

Up to a point, that's true. But he hasn't renounced the title of Dali Lama which requires him to the reincarnation of the previous one.

Well, the term in Buddhism is "atman" and it's not exactly like Western ideas about the soul: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/atm...

It already suffers from that "it depends on transcendent entities and is maddeningly evasive about the relation between science and religious belief

Here's a quote from H.H. the Dalai Lama "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. "

The meditation didn't seem to do much for me

It might help to reconsider the problem of reading ancient sacred texts as if they are newspaper reports...that is to say literally.

The language looks similar but the use is quiet different. Sacred texts can only be read figuratively and speak to subjective truths .....in Buddhism the so called "Noble Truths".

Do subjective truths have less value than objective truths?
Rather than answering that question I would ask "Does everything have to be factualised?"

Do some people in Buddhist Cultures take those sacred texts literally? You bet...they're only human.

One of the aims of Buddhist practice is to reach a state of so called 'Nirvana' which itself may be mythical, however the description of that state is the loss of ego where one becomes ...er..... 'one with everything or the Buddha nature' BY breaking the birth re-birth cycles of less than ideal states of mind. Remember imagination is required here. WHAT that really means is in the here and now, in ones own lifetime not in the past or the future, no mystery, it refers to the continual re-birth of ego , identity, the loss of personae or the masks one wears. Don't believe me? ...ask the Dali Lama, want it to be something else? Go for it, it's a free world

The business of finding a talented child as the next leader of course is clouded in obscurantism ...er that is one of the functions of a church, they are hardly going to say you can all go home now we were only pulling your leg.

For a Westerner the loss of ego is a truly bewildering concept, the hilarious examples of westerners going to a guru in India to 'seek enlightenment' who are confronted by someone who only has a teaspoon to crack ego's when he really needs a steam hammer!

Yes it does make societies that have a constructed reality, how else can one make war and build monuments?
All societies have a constructed reality the more magical the better, particularly if you want to wage war...cannon fodder is better served without inconvenient truths.

I have deleted this offensive comment, and I will delete all such offensive comments. Please keep the discussion civil and on task. --Matt

Norm,

You are right to say that any religion, or for that matter, any group can talk the talk, but not walk the walk. However, in my opinion, one tenet of the Bahai faith makes it, in some ways, a unique religion.

Having attended many Bahai events (I am not a Bahai, I'm a skeptic) I can say, in my opion, it is no cult, and there is no con job.

To be clear, 'Abdu'l-Bahá said: "When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles--and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God."

Whatever, Matt. Norm's posturing is pointless and I would hate to see him destroy yet another good thread. Is that inoffensive enough for you?

This is useful, because it does show the coming (well, to some extent already there) conflict between neuroscience and religions. People are somewhat willing to pay lip service to evolutionary biology, but when it comes to neuroscience, all bets are off. As I've stressed repeatedly, that's where effectively all of the world's religions become antiscience.

hooligans: Fine as far as it goes; however it is important to take their actions seriously too. For example, in the case of (Tibetan) Buddhism, the claims are similar, but they have refused to give up the psychoneural dualism, as we see in the original posting. Actions speak louder than words.

"dogmatic religions that think they know better than to accept empirical facts they do not like"

...you seem to move the goal posts... ... did I miss something?

Reincarnation is not a traditional Buddhist belief, though many people think it is because Buddhists do have a doctrine of rebirth, which sounds similar but is actually quite distinct. Instead of imagining that some sort of substantial soul transmigrates from life to life, the Buddhists hold that there is a causal sequence that links one existence to another like fire travelling down a fuse. Somebody mentioned "atman," which is the Sanskrit word for self. Buddhism denies the atman. Indeed, in India Buddhism is always defined as one of the anatman (no self) doctrines. That the self is an illusion is precisely what Buddha figured out in his 40 days of meditation and what everybody learns in the Buddhist equivalent to Sunday school.

As noted before, there simply is nothing supernatural in Buddhism.

When Lhamo Thondup was barely three years old, a search party that had been sent out by the Tibetan government to find the new incarnation of the Dalai Lama arrived at Kumbum monastery. It had been led there by a number of signs. One of these concerned the embalmed body of his predecessor, Thupten Gyatso, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, who had died aged fifty-seven in 1933. During its period of sitting in state, the head was discovered to have turned from facing south to northeast. Shortly after that the Regent, himself a senior lama, had a vision. Looking into the waters of the sacred lake, Lhamo Lhatso, in southern Tibet, he clearly saw the Tibetan letters Ah, Ka and Ma float into view. These were followed by the image of a three-storied monastery with a turquoise and gold roof and a path running from it to a hill. Finally, he saw a small house with strangely shaped guttering. He was sure that the letter Ah referred to Amdo, the northeastern province, so it was there that the search party was sent.

Why waste your breath on us Norm, hop on the nearest plane fly up to Tibet and just freaking tell them their cultural beliefs are wrong and you have the facts to prove it.

When the Dali Lama went to see the Pope a few years ago the Italian press asked him afterwards "Did he and the Pope talk about God" The Dali Lama cleverly answered "God is your business Dharma is my Business"

Do you understand why he said that?

Do you understand HOW mythology works?

Humans love a good tale, otherwise TV would just be a museum curiosity.

Why isn't that "supernatural"?

Norm,

I'm sorry but in this case, it's not exactly that you are wrong but more like you are missing the point. Levitation etc. is was and continues to be majik. Like Houdini. k.e. hit the point exactly. Western indoctrination and individualism is sort of the antithesis of buddist practice. We spend most of our educational energy on creating and bolstering the myth of the ego. It get's next to impossible to undo. I have studied and attempted to practice a kind of zen buddism (which is not exactly like tibetan) for over twenty years. I have developed a capacity to take myself less seriously. On the outside that would seem to be about it. But that is also wildly oversimplification. But it is an experience not an idea. Actions and words that define them are not equivocal. It is actually true that you can't describe the nature of impermanence but you can experience it. And it is not as easy as 123.

Sorry, you just don't and kind of can't know what you are talking about without doing the experiment. If folks come up and say, "god makes the weather" you can say, well, then god is simply a word that means "the way things are". We can test and design experiments and etc to figure it out. But that is simply not what the Dali Lama is about. Truth is truth to a very large degree. Subjectiveness can be minimized to a very large degree. We can figure out con-men (aka religion, marketing and politics) but it's just different.

[temporarily suspend soapboxing]

Perhaps interestingly, In Sagan's book The Demon Haunted World, Sagan talks of a conversation he had with the Dalai Lama, whom Sagan found very impressive. Sagan challenged him directly: If science can prove that reincarnation does not happen, would Buddhism abandon this belief? And the Dalai Lama said, yes, even reincarnation would be discarded if science should disprove it. But (said the D.L.), that's going to be very difficult for science to disprove.

The point seems very simple, even if some here can't quite grasp it. Buddhism is willing to change in order not to conflict with what science learns. This is something entirely different from making truth claims inaccessible to scientific investigation. Apparently normdoering is unwilling to grant to religions the scope to make any statement UNLESS science has already blessed it as probably correct (and in principle verifiable). But limiting religion to only what science can learn and has learned pretty well means science is the only religion he'll accept as meaningful or valid.

The D.L.'s claim is that Buddhism cannot conflict with science, because it is not dogmatic, and is willing to accept empirical facts EVEN IF this means discarding central tenets of the faith. This is a direct, unambiguous response to normdoering's question "which religions aren't "dogmatic religions that think they know better than to accept empirical facts they do not like" or do not know about or don't understand?" The answer is Buddhism, perhaps among others. No doubt about it.

Not to lend credence to Norm's mental gyrations, but for the very reasons mentioned (and valid they were), and Norm's objections (as invalid as they are), Buddhism maybe ought to not count as a religion, since it makes no claims about the super-natural. Similarly "undogmatic" belief systems, including Daoism, flavors of Christianity (such as held by Ken Miller), Bahai, and probably the faith of anyone reasonable, maybe aren't really religions at all.

Reason being, they don't make any strong claims about the super-natural. A strong claim (IMHO) is falsifiable. Reincarnation, as the DL suggested, is probably not falsifiable; therefore, Buddhism doesn't make a strong claim.

Creationism, on the other hand, is falsifiable and therefore makes strong claims. They happen to be wrong, that's where the religious dogmatism comes in to save the day (and your soul).

Here's a quote from H.H. the Dalai Lama "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change..."

Keep in mind that's a quote from a man who is supposedly the reincarnation of his predecessor the 13th Dalai Lama

In Sagan's book The Demon Haunted World, ... Sagan challenged him directly: If science can prove that reincarnation does not happen, would Buddhism abandon this belief? And the Dalai Lama said, yes, even reincarnation would be discarded if science should disprove it.

But (said the D.L.), that's going to be very difficult for science to disprove.

The point seems very simple, even if some here can't quite grasp it. Buddhism is willing to change in order not to conflict with what science learns. This is something entirely different from making truth claims inaccessible to scientific investigation.

Apparently normdoering is unwilling to grant to religions the scope to make any statement UNLESS science has already blessed it as probably correct (and in principle verifiable).

But limiting religion to only what science can learn and has learned pretty well means science is the only religion he'll accept as meaningful or valid.

The D.L.'s claim is that Buddhism cannot conflict with science, because it is not dogmatic, and is willing to accept empirical facts EVEN IF this means discarding central tenets of the faith. This is a direct, unambiguous response to normdoering's question "which religions aren't "dogmatic religions that think they know better than to accept empirical facts they do not like" or do not know about or don't understand?" The answer is Buddhism, perhaps among others. No doubt about it.

Norm,

You are actually misunderstanding. Buddism is a practice. Or more appropriately a process of experience. It is in and of itself a way of experiencing not a dogma. You have to know the methods but it isn't about what science can or can't disprove. I have met dozens of people who are exceedingly good at the practice of buddism but I have never met a buddist who thinks that dogma trumps reality.

Er... Since I am grossly oversimplifying anyway, buddism uses the scientific method to explore consciousness through meditation and reflection. More to the point, the 2 are on the same path.

Science could in fact prove the fundy god and it wouldn't really affect the practice of buddism. Well, actually, the practice of buddism is a sort of a negative proof for the fundy god.

Anyway, you are equating dis-similar items.

Mmmmm... Bacon

Let's repeat once more: Here's a quote from H.H. the Dalai Lama "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. " Seems, uh, pretty clear to me ....

Perhaps interestingly, In Sagan's book The Demon Haunted World, Sagan talks of a conversation he had with the Dalai Lama, whom Sagan found very impressive. Sagan challenged him directly: If science can prove that reincarnation does not happen, would Buddhism abandon this belief? And the Dalai Lama said, yes, even reincarnation would be discarded if science should disprove it. But (said the D.L.), that's going to be very difficult for science to disprove. The point seems very simple, even if some here can't quite grasp it. Buddhism is willing to change in order not to conflict with what science learns. This is something entirely different from making truth claims inaccessible to scientific investigation.

— Flint

Sounds like they are talking about some paranormal abilities no one has demonstrated for James Randi.

An analogy:

Is a point in a stream reincarnated continuously? You are not the same as you were when you started reading this post. But, you probably believe in a universal you-ness. Possibly that there is some innate, relatively unchanging quality which makes you, well, you?

If you are not the same as you were 5 minutes ago, what is the universal you-ness? When you learn to watch your mind, that question becomes a little different.

The idea of reincarnation is nearly impossible to explain until you learn a few other things. There is an analogy to that in science:
link here

Samsara.

You are actually misunderstanding. Buddism is a practice. Or more appropriately a process of experience.

It is in and of itself a way of experiencing not a dogma.

STJ: If this statement is correct, surely we could point to adjustments that have been made in deference to increasing knowledge, yes? Is there nothing within the entire scope and history of Tibetan Buddhism that has been adjusted as a result of new information resulting from scientific pursuit? we can clearly see the effects of evidence on the creation of sects within many religions, including Xianity, of course. should be at least some history of similar happening withing Tibetan Buddhism as well, yes? so, for those who claim to be knowledgeable of Tibetan Buddhism, can you tell us if any such adjustments have been documented? wouldn't this be a quick way to demonstrate the veracity of the Lama's comment?

Buddism is a practice. Or more appropriately a process of experience.

It is in and of itself a way of experiencing not a dogma.

I have met dozens of people who are exceedingly good at the practice of buddism but I have never met a buddist who thinks that dogma trumps reality.

... buddism uses the scientific method to explore consciousness through meditation and reflection.

buddism uses the scientific method to explore consciousness through meditation and reflection.

quantum physics turned out to be quite similar as Fritjof Kapra or whatever his name is in "The Tao of Physics" argues.

Because nothing in that tale contradicts science in any shape or form. That story doesn't even claim that anything extra-ordinary happened.

Comment #124838 Posted by normdoering on August 31, 2006 07:11 PM (e) BWE wrote: Buddism is a practice. Or more appropriately a process of experience. Meditation is a practice, perhaps a process of experience, but the Buddhism that the Dali Lama talks about on his website is a religion. Perhaps your Buddhism is not the same as the Dali Lama's. It is in and of itself a way of experiencing not a dogma.

I have met dozens of people who are exceedingly good at the practice of buddism but I have never met a buddist who thinks that dogma trumps reality.

... buddism uses the scientific method to explore consciousness through meditation and reflection.

As far as I know, "consciousness" isn't even a scientific term, it lacks definition. Marvin Minsky calls consciousness a "suitcase" term; it's packed with a confusing jumble of ideas and mental capabilities that have yet to be unpacked.

One project I worked on at Caltech involved trying to understand the approximate symmetries of the elementary particle system --- particularly the hadrons or strongly interacting particles (including the neutron and proton and their brothers and sisters and the pi mesons and their brothers and sisters). I tried various higher symmetry schemes and then finally hit upon what I called the eightfold way, with the group SU(3) as an approximate symmetry. That worked very nicely. At the time I was interested in India and in the various religious traditions of India --- not that I would embrace any religion --- my interest was merely academic. I thought it would be a good joke to call the scheme the eightfold way, since the particles tended in many cases to come in sets of eight. Some silly people wrote books trying to connect my work on particle physics with oriental mysticism, whereas the connection was only a joke.

whow reality

Give it up, Norm; the layers of intellectual dishonesty are too thick to penetrate.

Because nothing in that tale contradicts science in any shape or form.

That story doesn't even claim that anything extra-ordinary happened.

The ability of particles of the universe to gather and look upon itself. There is my definition. But, feel free to disagree. It's not hard science.

Popper,

I do understand where you're coming from but you're just plain equating different things.

The concept of reincarnation is not even an allegory, it is a point of view. It isn't the same as a psycic telling you that you were marie antoinette in a past life. Or a bug or a dog or a virus. It means that you are new but similar.

When you burn a log and it turns to ash, is the quality of log there? Is there a quality of ash in the log? At any point in time you look at something and determine it to be something. But it has other potentials and when they are realized, you change it's quality in your mind. You classify. But when you view yourself as a child, and an old man, even though they are very different, you see them as having each qualities that are fixed. But they don't have those. The cells are made of new material and the ideas and emotions that you have are new. You create the past and future etc. oh hell, whatever.

It's all gobblety gook. But DL isn't asking anyone to believe. And, actually, neither am I. It's not denseness, it's simply preferences. What do you do to pass the time kind of stuff.

if you read a mountain, you won't really understand. Sorry, they are more like directions for baking. You can read a million recipe books but if you are unfamiliar with the ingredients, you won't be able to imagine the product very well.

It isn't the same as a psycic telling you that you were marie antoinette in a past life.

Oh norm, my feelings are hurt.

Carl Sagan your type?
http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

Similar concept.

Well, if that's what they really think, then I have to agree that they are probably wrong.

Like I said earlier, I don't know much about Tibetan Buddhism. I do know that they have all these gods and stuff that are regarded as allegorical. I guess I assumed that they also regarded the rest the same way.

I can see that this isn't going to be one of my good days. So all I can say is "Wow! they really believe stuff that flies so much in the face of logic? I've never been exposed to that before. It seems so hard to believe given my experiences with a similar practice."

But, given the cold hard facts, I suppose I have to agree. They do seem to take themselves a mite seriously.
Cheerio :)

Okay. So, in your mind, an embalmed corpse that turns from facing south to northeast doesn't necessarily contradict science? And what about following vague visions and dreams to a reincarnated Dali Lama? Can you tell me how you explain such things?

Well, if that's what they really think, then I have to agree that they are probably wrong.

What exactly needs explanation?

I think everyone knows down deep that authoritative assertion is not a reliable source of truth.

Catholicism too is willing to change if science (or rather, the empirical observation that science makes possible) proves it wrong. The Bible is truly the word of God, but only "symbolically"; it was written by real men inspired by God. The Eucharist is really and truly the body and blood of Christ, despite lacking his DNA.

... buddism uses the scientific method to explore consciousness through meditation and reflection.

Well, if that's what they really think, then I have to agree that they are probably wrong.

Er... Since I am grossly oversimplifying anyway, buddism uses the scientific method to explore consciousness through meditation and reflection. More to the point, the 2 are on the same path.

"I will add only that we need liberal religion to help fight off the barbarians at the gates of science." please keep repeating that in private to PZ. eventually, it might start to sink in.

BWE, I can't make much sense of your drivel, but it seems personnally directed and offensive. That you give me a definition of "probable" suggests that you didn't read my post or didn't comprehend what I wrote about inference to the best explanation.

Ah, I grasp that you gave a definition of "probably" because that's the word you used. But you seem to have completely and utterly missed the point that this whole discussion has been about proof, and that you can't even begin to provide any evidence to support your "probably" claim. Just what is the probability? 50% 75% 99%? Try to defend your claim; I don't think you can.

Admitted, I am a bit hedonistic to be a monk

Mercifully, Mr. Anees did not wholly blame colonialism for the intellectual condition of much of the Muslim world today.

plea for a new science of consciousness based on introspection. He argued that William James had pioneered such a program but claimed it was scuttled by the behaviorists. He castigated present neuroscientists for assuming without evidence that the mind is nothing but the functioning of the brain

I confess, therefore, that to posit a soul influenced in some mysterious way by the brain-states and responding to them by conscious affections of its own, seems to me the line of least logical resistance, so far as we yet have attained. [p.182] If it does not strictly explain anything, it is at any rate less positively objectionable than either mind-stuff or a material-monad creed. The bare PHENOMENON, however, the IMMEDIATELY KNOWN thing which on the mental side is in apposition with the entire brain-process is the state of consciousness and not the soul itself. Many of the stanchest believers in the soul admit that we know it only as an inference from experiencing its states. In Chapter X, accordingly, we must return to its consideration again, and ask ourselves whether, after all, the ascertainment of a blank unmediated correspondence, term for term, of the succession of states of consciousness with the succession of total brain-processes, be not the simplest psycho-physic formula, and the last word of a psychology which contents itself with verifiable laws, and seeks only to be clear, and to avoid unsafe hypotheses. Such a mere admission of the empirical parallelism will there appear the wisest course. By keeping to it, our psychology will remain positivistic and non-metaphysical; and although this is certainly only a provisional halting-place, and things must some day be more thoroughly thought out, we shall abide there in this book, and just as we have rejected mind-dust, we shall take no account of the soul. The spiritualistic reader may nevertheless believe in the soul if he will; whilst the positivistic one who wishes to give a tinge of mystery to the expression of his positivism can continue to say that nature in her unfathomable designs has mixed us of clay and flame, of brain and mind, that the two things hang indubitably together and determine each other's being, but how or why, no mortal may ever know.

Well, if that's what they really think, then I have to agree that they are probably wrong.

Ah, I grasp that you gave a definition of "probably" because that's the word you used. But you seem to have completely and utterly missed the point that this whole discussion has been about proof, and that you can't even begin to provide any evidence to support your "probably" claim. Just what is the probability? 50% 75% 99%? Try to defend your claim; I don't think you can.

Posted by Popper's ghost on September 1, 2006 12:59 AM (e) BWE, I can't make much sense of your drivel, but it seems personnally directed and offensive

what makes you think you are too hedonistic to be a monk? what specifically is different about being a monk? I guess my point is, does one need be a monk in order to "correctly" practice either Zen, mahayan, or tibetan buddhism? why?

. Ok, you made a claim that DL believes in supernatural events taking place.

Same with Dead folk moving about. No? If someone, without visible evidence, believes aforementioned idea, I can say without fear, that they are probably wrong. No?

monks and monestaries tend to frown on hedonism

PS, wanna know a secret?

oh, and Popper -

give the attitude a rest already would ya?

you're among friends; no need for it here.

I damn well know you can communicate disagreement without the additional insult attached.

I've personally grown used to it, but it is still tiresome to hear on such a regular basis.

save your invective for those truly deserving.

BWE, you've got me confused with the the reincarnation of Marie Antoinette, otherwise known as Popper's ghost. I'm not exactly the one making claims about dead Dalais moving around, but I did point to that claim on the Dalai Lama's website. Ms Antoinette did not.

You should read the Lama's website:
http://www.dalailama.com/page.4.htm#discovery

In spite of that bit of apparent superstition and supernaturalism, the Dalai Lama, I have to admit, comes off for more rational than the pope.

As religious figures go, he's one of the better ones.

give the attitude a rest already would ya?

and I've never seen PZ say otherwise.

Science can't prove that humans never rode on the backs of dinosaurs, and it can't prove that the flagellum evolved. But science isn't in the business of proof, only inference to the best explanation. Religion, including Buddhism with its dharma, are based on a different epistemological principle --- authoritative assertion, aka dogma, aka "revealed truth". But everyone, of any religion or no religion, uses the same epistemological principle as that of science --- though less rigorously --- in everyday life to determine whether it's true, say, that their spouse is cheating on them, that the pedestrian is going to step off the curb into their path, that they have time to run a quick errand before the kids get home, etc. I think everyone knows down deep that authoritative assertion is not a reliable source of truth.

wherein PZ says over and over that to invite liberal religion into this fight is to weaken science

He simply views all religions as essentially anti-science by their very nature

Insult me again and I will escalate, so it's in your interest to STFU

Kindly provide a direct quote; what I remember is that his views were repeatedly misrepresented there, and I don't trust you or anyone else (including myself) to characterize them accurately. And I made a distinction between religious liberals and liberal religion; he may have made a similar distinction.

PG, are you confusing escalation with erection?

Here's what will blow your mind: I'd rather have open-minded, rational Christians on my side than dismissive anti-science types like yourself, who defend evolution as a political game rather than because of any appreciation of the evidence.

I'll meet you halfway. find and post a link to the thread

since I don't feel like looking it up right now

That adaptable religion that willingly steps aside when science comes forward is very nice, and I have no complaints with it; I will endorse it wholeheartedly, and tell everyone uncomfortable with godlessness to join it.

Yes, I know Einstein did good work. I'm saying that his oft-quoted platitudes are often selected for their simplistic moralism rather than any insight or truth. I objected specifically to that one because no one ever bothers to provide any evidence that religion contributes to science in any useful way. Einstein didn't. Neither did you.

I do not: 1. threaten to shoot all the Christians, 2. call all religious people idiots, 3. suggest that we need to convert all the religious people to atheism, or 4. deny that religious people contribute to science. I know. Hard to believe, isn't it? Must have been an off day at Chez Pharyngula.

do you suffer from asperger's syndrome or what? it must be terribly difficult being you, which is both true and patronizing at the same time. feel free to escalate if you wish, but you aren't gaining anything by doing so. you really need to get that shit under control. that's not patronization, that's simply a fact. You made a lot of excellent observations in Pim's thread, but a lot of your impact was dulled by unnecessary invective. I mean, gees, I'm one to often fly off the handle, but you make me look like Mr. Rogers! MANY people pointed it out to you. You obviously have a problem with this. friggin deal with it, rather than saying we are "patronizing you". grow the fuck up already.

PG, are you confusing escalation with erection?

you're among friends; no need for it here.

I damn well know you can communicate disagreement without the additional insult attached.

I've personally grown used to it

save your invective for those truly deserving.

One thing i do know from prior experience is that starting a flame war with PG is usually a losing prospect.

Oh, and here's a quote from a stupid hypocrital jackass, which applies very much to its author:

and while the quote you picked out does complicate the issue, he has said things that directly support what I was saying as well, and in the very same thread.

like i said, grow the fuck up already. Your act doesn't play well with others.

... there are more meanings to "losing prospect" than a simple victory scenario. ever think why i chose to answer your call with a few minor lines of flame?

do show any of us where I am wrong in accusing you of being overly combative, and I'll glady STFU.

Heck, folks have been pointing out to you on this forum for months now, even before your current incarnation.

It was pointed out by three or four people in Pims thread, even those who mostly agreed with what you had to say. Shall we go back and examine those in detail? see who was on your side from a substantive standpoint and who defended you? Who were the folks who graciously took the time to summarize what you had to say of substance that was on point (compared to the rest of your posts there), and STILL called you an asshole, even though they agreed with a lot of what you had to say?

so... if you want to continue, ask yourself:

why is it that everybody keeps pointing out what an asshole you are?

you don't want to be sociable, that's fine, but don't pretend you don't WANT to be belligerant. You don't want "friends" that's fine, but remember that i meant that in the context of those involved in the discussion being putatively on the side of teaching good science, and fighting against religious nutjobs who want to change the definition of science.

You do apparently have some issues, that is plain as day. If you don't want to admit that, then perhaps you shouldn't flaunt the obvious symptoms out there so often?

and that is the last I will say until manyana.

sleep well.

before i create a strawman of my own; I have to ask: is it realistic at this point in time to boot all those folks out of the tent, until after we've marginalized the fundies?

— PZ Myers

Before you create a strawman? This has gotten beyond annoying: nowhere in my article did I suggest booting the religious out of the tent, or otherwise stomping on their delicate little toes. You really have to stop believing the BS Lenny spews. Did you bother to read what I wrote, or are you just going by the fact that any statement of the atheist disbelief in the supernatural sends certain people here into spastic shrieks of, "you're planning to send the Baptists to death camps!"

PG,

I can run faster, jump higher, screw better and enjoy it more than you. And I owe it all to Buddha.

I talk to Buddha you know. And he tells me that your mother dresses you. And that you can't figure out what you are talking about or what others are talking about. He also tells me what the very best issues of playboy are. And that you don't read em cause you like guys.

:)
Night

ever think why i chose to answer your call with a few minor lines of flame?

Of course; it's because you're a pathetic intellectually dishonest hypocrite with a highly inflated view of your own intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge. You should read Steviepinhead's posts; he's much brighter than you are.

ahh, yes, like the one where he points out what an asshole you are

Don't be a condescending ass and tell me that I am screaming in a thread where Lenny is pulling his "dick swinging" act.

I've gotten the distinct impression that your position is that religion has no value at all, moral or otherwise. Is this a correct assesment? If not, why don't you spell it out more clearly, because obviously you haven't done so yet.

— Sir_Toejam

You say you've read a lot of what I've written. Of course. Religion is morally neutral, conferring no benefit on anyone. To think otherwise is to claim that those who have no religion are morally weaker, and that's patently false. You'll also see me argue that atheism is similarly morally neutral. As I mentioned in passing above, the answer I like is modeled after Europe. We don't need to 'punish' or otherwise get rid of the religious --- we just need a more secular society in which people are free to practice whatever religion they want. They just don't get to expect that religiosity confers special privileges in public policy.

Well, PZ, maybe you can hunt me down and drag me before the Inquisition, or whatever the evangelical atheist version of the Inquisition is.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Lenny jumped in, claiming I'm planning to hunt him down and bring him before the evangelical atheist inquisition

— PZ Myers

Lenny jumped in, claiming I'm planning to hunt him down and bring him before the evangelical atheist inquisition,

— Sir_Toejam

in case you wanted to argue you weren't using hyperbole, that's hyperbole.

I don't care what Wes's views of religion are. Whatever they are, apparently my goal is to "hunt [him] down and drag [him] before the Inquisition, or whatever the evangelical atheist version of the Inquisition is." You say I'm guilty of hyperbole, but that is a direct quote from Lenny, you know.

— PZ Myers

I'm gettin pretty sick of the contributors deciding they want to air their dirty laundry out on PT itself, rather than taking it to an OT rant on ATBC, where it belongs.

— Sir_Toejam

This was a legitimate post about the interview with Ron Numbers, intentionally derailed by Lenny. You should be more sick about never apologizing for your claim that PZ was being hyperbolic when in fact he simply quoted Lenny's inanity.

— Popper's ghost

What school did you say you were just starting at? ... You also have a hole in your head that your brains are leaking out of.

— BWE

BWE, I can't make much sense of your drivel, but it seems personnally directed and offensive.

— Popper's ghost

Seems? dang. You are a stickler aren't you?

— BWE

oh, and Popper - give the attitude a rest already would ya? you're among friends; no need for it here. I damn well know you can communicate disagreement without the additional insult attached. I've personally grown used to it, but it is still tiresome to hear on such a regular basis. save your invective for those truly deserving.

— Sir_Jackass

I am sorry, but I have to sleep, so I didn't catch the "debate" between Popper's Ghost and Sir Toejam. I can't be bothered going back and sending them to the bathroom wall right now, but I will firmly request that you both and everyone else refrain from such invective and personal insults. I will not allow wholesale name calling on any thread of which I am the moderator. If anyone has anything of substance to add to the discussion, please do so. If not, I will cut off comments this afternoon. I may at my option delete the irrelevant comments later today.

Perhaps your Buddhism is not the same as the Dali Lama's.

I am sorry matt. PG jumped on me unnessesarily and ridiculously so I spent a little time frustrating him. All in good fun. He has some issues to work out and I thought maybe I could help.

The tensions between Dogma and information opposed to it are one of the biggest social issues in America at the moment and deserve to be explored. But it is a slippery slope because there is quite a bit of "Taking oneself overly seriously-ness" generated by the polarizing nature of the issue. I guess if the other side starts a war, we will need warriors like PG too, but that feels in some strange way like legitimizing the other side. Like when the cops mount a full scale swat team raid for a kids prank.

There is a corresponding issue involved with political correctness and decency which confounds the issue a little more. It's hard to respect Pat Robertson but in the spirit of inclusiveness, we say that we should include all viewpoints and respect his will to be wierd, then the next day we have to repair damage done by the viewpoint.

It is a very different thing to say "this is what I have learned" than to say "this is what I know."

I'm not sure that Buddism really holds very many things as absolute truth.

Like I said earlier, I don't know much about Tibetan Buddhism. I do know that they have all these gods and stuff that are regarded as allegorical. I guess I assumed that they also regarded the rest the same way.

The Dali Lama is said to be the reincarnation of each of the previous Dalai Lamas of Tibet, so what exactly is recycled?

Are you saying such questions don't flood your mind when you read that stuff?

I liked a lot of the ideas, but it was filled with bits of superstition carried over from shinto as well.

Care to explain how Buddhism uses the scientific method?

Well, for starters, what caused the embalmed corpse of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, sitting in state, to turn its head from facing south to northeast? If in fact, it did turn its head. If someone snuck in and turned the corpse's head, then it's not a supernatural sign, they were tricked. If it's just some twitch of dead, emembalmed muscles or the effect of gravity as the corpse slumps, then that is not necessarily a supernatural sign either.

What is and isn't a sign? Are they just following some gut intuition about signs? Or are their omen rules?

I am a bit hedonistic to be a monk

I guess my point is, does one need be a monk in order to "correctly" practice either Zen, mahayan, or tibetan buddhism?

Insult me again and I will escalate

Hey Popper, when you;re finished with PZ, make sure you wipe your chin off.

Geez.

norm, face the facts: you made a sweeping overgeneralization about all religions, disguised as a question, and you got two answers, about two belief-systems (Buddhist and Bah'ai), that proved your generalization wrong, in plain English. You made yourself look like an idiot, and harping about reincarnation and evidence only digs you in deeper.

norm wrote:

You have to be specific to be meaningful.

Which, norm, is exactly why your repeated, monotonous overgeneralizations about all religions are meaningless.

Also, since you've explicitly admitted that you failed and gave up the practice of meditation, perhaps you should not be so quick to brush off the thoughts of those (many) people who have had better experiences or results than yours. Their path may not be yours, or mine, but that fact alone doesn't make them wrong, stupid, or misguided.

Comment #125094 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 1, 2006 12:18 PM (e) I'm not sure that Buddism really holds very many things as absolute truth. Indeed, there simply is no 'absolute truth' in Buddhism. The entire *point* of Buddhism is to give up any and all 'absolute truths'. Including Buddhism. If you meed the Buddha on the road, do't worship him --- kill him instead. You determine your own path. No one else can do that for you. Not even the Dalai Lama.

Wheee!

I think I'll sit on the sidelines for this one.

Except to note that I didn't call Popper's Ghost an ass, um, hat (remember, kiddies, kiddies could be reading...or might be allowed to read, until their parents see us getting all overly chummy). And, no, in "real life," I'm not that delicate of speech either.

And, needless to say, no one calling himself Stevie "pinhead" is making any claims to any particular degree of intelligence, either.

Well, okay, I do admittedly consider a "pinhead" to be several intellectual steps above a "maroon."

And, with that, I'll, er, STFU and get back over to my sideline seat, with its umbrella, hot and cold drink receptacles, and warm plaid blanket...

You may not have said it, but I'll bet you thought it.

Ever read "Aesop's Fables", Norm? Ya know, the tortoise racing the hare, the talking animals Do scientific questions flood your mind when you read that stuff? Do you say indignantly to yourself, "This is all crap --- rabbits can't talk"? Does the entire point of it go right over your scientific head?

If the present situation regarding Tibet remains the same, I will be born outside Tibet away from the control of the Chinese authorities. This is logical. The very purpose of a reincarnation is to continue the unfinished work of the previous incarnation. Thus if the Tibetan situation still remains unsolved it is logical I will be born in exile to continue my unfinished work.

Another thing I didn't mention in my autobiography is that after my birth, a pair of crows came to roost on the roof of our house. They would arrive each morning, stay for while and then leave. This is of particular interest as similar incidents occurred at the birth of the First, Seventh, Eighth and Twelfth Dalai Lamas. After their births, a pair of crows came and remained. In my own case, in the beginning, nobody paid attention to this. Recently, however, perhaps three years ago, I was talking with my mother, and she recalled it. She had noticed them come in the morning; depart after a time, and then the next morning, come again. Now, the evening the after the birth of the First Dalai Lama, bandits broke into the family's house. The parents ran away and left the child. The next day when they returned and wondered what had happened to their son, they found the baby in a corner of the house. A crow stood before him, protecting him. Later on, when the First Dalai Lama grew up and developed in his spiritual practice, he made direct contact during meditation with the protective deity, Mahakala. At this time, Mahakala said to him, "Somebody like you who is upholding the Buddhist teaching needs a protector like me. Right on the day of your birth, I helped you." So we can see, there is definitely a connection between Mahakala, the crows, and the Dalai Lamas. ... Another thing that happened, which my mother remembers very clearly, is that soon after I arrived in Lhasa, I said that my teeth were in a box in a certain house in the Norbulinka. When they opened the box, they found a set of dentures which had belonged to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. I pointed to the box, and said that my teeth were in there, but right now I don't recall this at all. The new memories associated with this body are stronger. The past has become smaller, vaguer. Unless I made a specific attempt to develop such a memory, I don't recall it. ... Children are usually born with their eyes closed. I was born with my eyes open. This may be some slight indication of a clear state of mind in the womb.

Norm, you're alright. I don't care what everyone else says about you.

My thanks to BWE for the gracious apology, which I read only now. I sometimes share your frustration with certain commenters, but if you want to influence anyone, I strongly recommend against hurling insults like Mr. Doering and "Dr." Flank, who have taken up the cudgels that BWE has wisely dropped. Both seem to me to be knowledgeable people, but neither seems to have figured out that someone can disagree with you, misunderstand you, or even be flatly wrong without necessarily being a fool. May I suggest to them that they try gentle irony and see if that works better?

By "apology," I meant Comment #125093, not the preceding comment to mine. Things evidently go too fast for me here.

I think there's a distinction to be drawn here between irrational and arational beliefs. Most religions believe stuff that's unsupported by facts (arational) but many avoid believing stuff that's actively contradicted by the facts (irrational).

The only question is whether arational beliefs count as dogma. That's a valid issue - I'd say no, but that's just my opinion.

Norm and PG are ignorant of Buddism and equated it with religion.

Science can't prove that humans never rode on the backs of dinosaurs, and it can't prove that the flagellum evolved. But science isn't in the business of proof, only inference to the best explanation. Religion, including Buddhism with its dharma, are based on a different epistemological principle --- authoritative assertion, aka dogma, aka "revealed truth".

He also tells me what the very best issues of playboy are.

— BWE

If you meet the Buddha on the road, don't worship him --- kill him instead.

— Lenny

Posted by normdoering on September 1, 2006 02:26 PM (e) BWE wrote: Norm and PG are ignorant of Buddism and equated it with religion. You and Lenny didn't seem to know that the Dalai Lama believed in omens, actual reincarnation and gods that visit them. Now, who is really ignorant of Buddism? GuyeFaux seems to find belief in omens, signs, gods and reincarnation as equally scientific as belief in gravity. You all, including the Dalai Lama, seem to think science is in the business of "disproof." But do you understand Popper's ghosts's post where he said: Science can't prove that humans never rode on the backs of dinosaurs, and it can't prove that the flagellum evolved. But science isn't in the business of proof, only inference to the best explanation. Religion, including Buddhism with its dharma, are based on a different epistemological principle --- authoritative assertion, aka dogma, aka "revealed truth".

But PG, in all his magnificent glory actually said much more than this. And he equated Buddism with Authoritative Assertion which is nearly the exact opposite of what buddhism is.

GuyeFaux seems to find belief in omens, signs, gods and reincarnation as equally scientific as belief in gravity.

You may not have said it, but I'll bet you thought it.

GuyeFaux seems to find belief in omens, signs, gods and reincarnation as equally scientific as belief in gravity.

Another way to look at it though is to say that the arbitrary rules are also coincidental and therefore signifficant. Here's the emphasis: by saying that these signs are arbitrary, you're saying that the new Lama was chosen because of the signs. That he was not yet the new Lama until they picked him. A Buddhist would say that the new Lama was found thanks to the signs. That in fact he was the new Lama all the time and therefore caused the coincidence. There's no scientific disparity between the viewpoints. There is no scientific way to distinguish them, which means there's no conflict.

If Popper doesn't come back to explain it, I'll explain that disparity later.

F--k. I mean replace "scientific disparity" with "scientific conflict".

At the risk of Lenny Flank disagreeing with me, I will flatly state that Zen is so abstract that it no longer is 'part of' Buddism. Yes, it grew out of the Buddist tradition in China and was brought to full flower in Japan. But it is perfectly possible to combine Zen with a variety of religious experiences: I knew a Zen Quaker, who had indeed studied in a Zen monastery. A most impressive individual.

The most important book in Zen is Dogen's 8th(?) century "Instructions for the Zen Cook". No it is not a cookbook. At that time the cook was one of the officers in a Zen monastery and Dogun provides instruction in this office. For example, "When you are washing rice, just wash rice. Pay attention to every grain." Note the 'pay attention'. The (partial) practitioners of Zen of my acquaintance were extremely alert to their surroundings.

"When you are driving the car, just drive the car. Pay attention to every vehicle."

PG jumped on me unnessesarily and ridiculously so I spent a little time frustrating him

What school did you say you were just starting at? I know one thing for absolute certain fact but it's a secret that I only tell my friends. You also have a hole in your head that your brains are leaking out of.

My thanks to BWE for the gracious apology

But PG, in all his magnificent glory actually said much more than this. And he equated Buddism with Authoritative Assertion which is nearly the exact opposite of what buddhism is.

And my apology was, in fact, sincere. Norm made a good point but didn't know the context and PG buried a small, obvious point in a barrage of ignorant, arrogant and overexuberant verbosity.

BWE: I don't think further discussion between us is fruitful. Enjoy your whiskey.

My "attitude" is that I don't suffer fools gladly.

Comment #125127 Posted by Corkscrew on September 1, 2006 02:25 PM (e) I think there's a distinction to be drawn here between irrational and arational beliefs. Most religions believe stuff that's unsupported by facts (arational) but many avoid believing stuff that's actively contradicted by the facts (irrational). The only question is whether arational beliefs count as dogma. That's a valid issue - I'd say no, but that's just my opinion.

No, the Dalai Lama and the other institutional figureheads of Buddhism do make Authoritative Assertions based on revealations from gods, crows, visions and reincarnated memories. PG is not wrong, you are. Or, at least I share PG's view there to put it more open mindedly. Here's another question to consider: Is religion an institution or a belief system? I'm defining religion as the institutions, however losely tied together. It's the institutions where people of like mind get together and drive themselves deeper into their cultural illusions. The Dalai Lama is part of an institution --- not that disimilar from the Vatican.

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 1, 2006 03:37 PM (e) BWE: -You may not have said it, but I'll bet you thought it.- Nope. Indeed, I hardly ever think about "it" at all. Less discursively, I realize that some have found Popper's Ghost's style of discourse abrasive (the same was said of "ts" and "mobius," who may or may not have been previous "incarnations," heh heh, of PG's). Nobody, and certainly not PG---who I know only through these pages---has appointed me his defender, any more than anyone appointed me summarizer-in-chief of Pim's "trainwreck" thread. But neither am I one of his detractors.

Posted by David B. Benson on September 1, 2006 04:52 PM (e) At the risk of Lenny Flank disagreeing with me, I will flatly state that Zen is so abstract that it no longer is 'part of' Buddism. Yes, it grew out of the Buddist tradition in China and was brought to full flower in Japan. But it is perfectly possible to combine Zen with a variety of religious experiences: I knew a Zen Quaker, who had indeed studied in a Zen monastery. A most impressive individual. The most important book in Zen is Dogen's 8th(?) century "Instructions for the Zen Cook". No it is not a cookbook. At that time the cook was one of the officers in a Zen monastery and Dogun provides instruction in this office. For example, "When you are washing rice, just wash rice. Pay attention to every grain." Note the 'pay attention'. The (partial) practitioners of Zen of my acquaintance were extremely alert to their surroundings. "When you are driving the car, just drive the car. Pay attention to every vehicle."

Comment #125163 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 1, 2006 05:00 PM (e) PG jumped on me unnessesarily and ridiculously so I spent a little time frustrating him What you did was write What school did you say you were just starting at? I know one thing for absolute certain fact but it's a secret that I only tell my friends. You also have a hole in your head that your brains are leaking out of. So don't play the victim here.

All apologies.

we usually manage to understand each other without quite as much acrimony as others tend to encounter

— Steviepinhead

Yeah, right, all your ad hominems are "sincere".

Lenny, the rabbit and the tortoise do not exist. The Dalai Lama does, he writes books, he has a website, you can read it (which you obviously haven't) and you see the guy admits that he believes in a very actual, not symbolic, reincarnation.

Don't make me pull a Popper's Ghost.

If Dolly Lolly believes supernatural stuff, then I would have to agree he is probably wrong.

You [(Steviepinhead)] may not have said it, but I'll bet you thought [PG is an ass]".

Don't forget I said you like guys.

At the risk of Lenny Flank disagreeing with me, I will flatly state that Zen is so abstract that it no longer is 'part of' Buddism.

I will firmly request that you both and everyone else refrain from such invective and personal insults.

So f'ing what? ... I do understand that, being a fundie and all, the very concept of a non-authoritarian religion is utterly beyomnd your understanding.

Most of all, Norm needs to stop being more literalist than the f'ing fundies are.

that doesn't make it true by scientific epistemological standards.

It's like flavors.

So what?

he equated Buddism with Authoritative Assertion which is nearly the exact opposite of what buddhism is.

There is actually only a very small minority of posters at PT who encounter acrimony from me ---those who are transparently dishonest, like someone who writes things like "What school did you say you were just starting at?" and "You also have a hole in your head that your brains are leaking out of.", and then "graciously apologizes" by writing "PG jumped on me unnessesarily and ridiculously so I spent a little time frustrating him", and continues with "PG buried a small, obvious point in a barrage of ignorant, arrogant and overexuberant verbosity ",

There's of course disparity between thinking that the Lama caused the omens versus thinking that the omens caused the Lama. Cf Popper's Ghost referencing Russel's teapots in space and tooth-fairy agnosticism.

But I'm sure that in a past life, I watched the brains leaking out of the hole in your head. And I distincly remember that your Karmic punishment for taking yourself so seriously was to be brains leaking from the hole in your head for several more lifetimes.

First off, Norm, you need to learn what a "metaphor" is.

... my mother remembers very clearly, is that soon after I arrived in Lhasa, I said that my teeth were in a box in a certain house in the Norbulinka. When they opened the box, they found a set of dentures which had belonged to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. I pointed to the box, and said that my teeth were in there, but right now I don't recall this at all. The new memories associated with this body are stronger. The past has become smaller, vaguer. Unless I made a specific attempt to develop such a memory, I don't recall it....

First off, Norm, you need to learn what a "metaphor" is.

PG, why don't you like me? Is it the hole in the head thing? I mean, we can get past that little thing can't we? I mean, I didn't bring up any of the really embarrassing stuff. And I won't. I promise.

Can't we just be friends again? Like we were in the good old days?
If it's any help, I like you.

The new memories associated with this body are stronger. The past has become smaller, vaguer. Unless I made a specific attempt to develop such a memory, I don't recall it....

Can't we just be friends again?

There's no wrong way to be a Buddhist, as long as you be yourself.

... my mother remembers very clearly, is that soon after I arrived in Lhasa, I said that my teeth were in a box in a certain house in the Norbulinka. When they opened the box, they found a set of dentures which had belonged to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. I pointed to the box, and said that my teeth were in there, but right now I don't recall this at all.

Comment #125220 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 1, 2006 06:41 PM (e) -Can't we just be friends again?- Only if you were to post a sincere apology, explaining that your insults were in error and how they reflect your own personal failings. Only if you were to explain to Matt Young how he was wrong to call your insincere "apology" an apology at all, or to refer to it as "gracious". Only if you were to admit that "PG jumped on me unnessesarily and ridiculously so I spent a little time frustrating him", and "PG buried a small, obvious point in a barrage of ignorant, arrogant and overexuberant verbosity" are factually incorrect and convince me of your sincerity. Only if you were to convince me that you are a totally different sort of person than you appear to be.

Here's the emphasis: by saying that these signs are arbitrary, you're saying that the new Lama was chosen because of the signs. That he was not yet the new Lama until they picked him. A Buddhist would say that the new Lama was found thanks to the signs. That in fact he was the new Lama all the time and therefore caused the coincidence. There's no scientific [conflict] between the viewpoints. There is no scientific way to distinguish them, which means there's no conflict.

... science can't prove that the Dalai Lama's mother's recollection is incorrect or that the Dalai Lama had been cued as to the location of his predecessor's teeth, but, as BWE noted about rocks rolling uphill, science can apply probabilistic measures, and thus there is a scientific conflict here.

I will firmly request that you both and everyone else refrain from such invective and personal insults.

— Matt Young

You appear to be a man with brains leaking out of a hole in your head.

— BWE