1. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159700 by Sturmunddrang on April 12, 2008 at 10:15 pm

This is one of the worst shows... I watched the other episode of this with Dawkins and I was not impressed. The host jumps around too much and nothing is covered in depth. I think that if ADHD actually exists, then this show is made for people who have it. It's the kind of thing I might expect to see on Mtv.

2. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144341 by Sturmunddrang on March 15, 2008 at 4:40 pm

I ordered a copy even though it has to come from the UK. I was looking specifically for something like this!

Millsian,

You said:

"Ahh, kind of like The Portable Atheist except not pertaining particularly to gawd."

If you look at the description and the list of authors, I don't think it has much in common with the Portable Atheist, actually. It is more of a compilation of popularizers of science.

3. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141030 by Sturmunddrang on March 9, 2008 at 5:31 pm

"I suggest it is the same with Buddhist philosophy. Of course it was, even at the start, associated with a lot of silly nonsense. But at right at the core of it are some sensible ideas."

If you actually read what I wrote, then it is plainly obvious that I do not disagree with you on this. However, we should not be Buddhists. What you say above does not contradict this idea that we should not be Buddhists. Again, there are interesting and important ideas in the Bible too. We should not reject EVERY bit of wisdom from the bible because a lot of it is wrong. That doesn't mean we should be Christian or that Christianity is anything all that special. You are talking about certain ideas in Buddhism that are good and then arguing for Buddhism as a whole based on them. Again, as I have said countless times, this is the same tactic used by Christian apologists. Jesus, if he existed, had some great things to say! Even Richard Dawkins had a little joke campaign called "Atheists for Jesus." It lends nothing to Christianity as a whole, though. Arguing with you over this just feels the same as arguing with a Christian fundamentalist. Honestly. You don't even seem to read what I write and it's quite concerning, considering your other posts here. You offered nothing to suggest that we should believe in enlightenment. However, you still believe in it based on bad evidence (the Buddha said so). I'm really not seeing any reason to think that Buddhism is so different. It is not exactly the same, but it is not THAT different as you suggest. Newtonian mechanics is completely different. It is not a religion. Buddhism is. Enlightenment is nothing like Newtonian mechanics. There is no evidence for it! I am actually glad you brought up Newton, because it illustrates a clear difference here. One believes in ideas Newton put forth based on good evidence. One believes in enlightenment based on ancient scribblings and "masters" claiming that they achieved it (like a pope might claim to talk to god).

4. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141013 by Sturmunddrang on March 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Steve Zara,

You said:

"Buddhism is different. Unlike Christianity, as you work towards the core of the religion you get less supersition, not more. That is not to say, of course, that there is none left when you get back to the origin."

It depends on what you define as the "core" of the religion. If it is the ancient texts that new teachers draw from, then you certainly do not find less superstition in the core texts. Just read What the Buddha Taught. Rahula draws directly from ancient texts and more recent texts from all the sects to show what unifies all Buddhist sects. Many of the beliefs that most sects of note (just to appease you, instead of "all") hold in common are superstitious. For example the idea that some people are enlightened while others are not. The idea of karma. The idea of rebirth. These are all central ideas. If these are not part of the core, then I do not know what is. If you consider the "core" of Buddhism to be what you cherry pick from it, then of course it appears non dogmatic. Of course, I could also call Christianity nondogmatic if I did this with the Bible.

"Saying "All religions are the same" is, I am afraid to have to say, just lazy thinking. There are many kinds of superstition and mysticism, and many kinds of ways that people can be mislead."

Straw man. I didn't say that all religions are the same. Some are more dangerous than others. However, if we care about what is true, then we should not hold any of them so sacred that they cannot be criticized. I am indeed trying to deal with Buddhism as it is. This is my point. I think that you are dealing with it as you would like it to be. You are dealing with it from a westernized perspective.

Of course Buddhism is different from Christianity. The Muslim religion is different from Christianity too. However, constantly setting up straw men when I make statements (e.g. that I am saying that Buddhism is exactly the same or that I am claiming that we should take nothing from Buddhism) is not helping. I am not saying that we should group all religion together. As I have already said to you numerous times, we should take pieces from Buddhism without viewing the religion as something virtuous. Even Sam Harris, if you read his article in the Shambhala Sun, would agree with me that we should abandon the Buddhist religion as he sees the superstition in it. He claims that the core of the teachings are not superstitious as you do, but he still agrees about the strategy we should take now. However, the difference between you, Sam Harris and I is that I am saying we should draw from Buddhism while abandoning the religion AND we should recognize that there are some seriously irrational beliefs at its core. There is no good reason to believe in reincarnation and if you care about finding the truth in this universe than you would not gloss over such silliness. Also, enlightenment is at the core of the religion. This would be hard to argue with. Enlightenment is a completely nonsensical idea. Tell me what evidence we could EVER have that someone is "enlightened." This is no small problem. This is huge. If the concept of enlightenment falls apart, then Buddhism does. Again, I repeat myself, but I will mention that I DO believe we can have a higher level of awareness and that the practice of mindfulness could help with this. I also believe that some people, the Buddha included, have achieved higher levels of awareness. However, no one is or ever could be enlightened based on the evidence we have. There is no good evidence to believe in such a thing as "enlightenment." The very idea of enlightenment opens the door for person worship and seeing others as super human. It is another way of taking advantage of those who would suspend their disbelief (at the very least it is a convenient way to do that). If someone claims that he or she has been studying meditation or mindfulness for a while and he writes a book about it, then I have no problem with that. I own a book that I like called Breath by Breath, written by Larry Rosenberg, which teaches meditation based on one of the Buddhist sutras. However, it is a secular version of meditation instruction. The one thing that I do not like about the book is the obnoxious name dropping that the author does throughout. FOr instance, he mentions in many parts of the book what great teachers he studied with. When he speaks of them, he seems to elevate them to this higher level. They are enlightened, so what they say goes... it's silly and unnecessary. Again, we agree on many points. I agree about how you think Buddhism SHOULD be. However, you claim that it is how Buddhism IS. This is what I disagree with. Believe in enlightenment alone is dogmatic and unnecessary to get benefit from meditation or mindfulness. Name one piece of evidence that the Buddha was enlightened. Name one way that I could ever know if someone is enlightened. Please, name these things. If you claim evidence for someone being mindful, that is very different. I can show you a clinical psychology article operationlizing mindfulness and I think that it is something that will be more measurable as time goes on. That is different from enlightenment though. There is no measure for that. So, yes, name me evidence what what I ask above. Thanks.

5. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141000 by Sturmunddrang on March 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm

I must contradict myself. In my last message (which I am sloppily quoting using cut and paste below) I said:

"Mmurray and LorienRyan,

Regarding the Sam Harris article:

He said -

"To talk about "Buddhism," therefore, inevitably imparts a false sense of the Buddha's teaching to others. So insofar as we maintain a discourse as "Buddhists," we ensure that the wisdom of the Buddha will do little to inform the development of civilization in the twenty-first century."

Yes, this seems to support what I have been saying. We should not be Buddhists, but instead take pieces of wisdom from it. We do not need the Buddhist religion and it is still a dogmatic religion."

I think Sam Harris is mistaken about the Buddha's teachings. Someone I know who was an East Asian Studies major and who has traveled to India, learning first hand about Buddhism, has agreed with me that Buddhism is indeed a religion. The Buddha was indeed portrayed in a superhuman, magical light in many Buddhist texts and all sects of Buddhism have supernatural and superstitious beliefs, which are directly based on Buddhist texts. The Buddhist religion is not that much different from other religions. See my other posts in this thread for other specific examples of irrational Buddhist beliefs. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and many skeptics have been fooled by westernized notions of Buddhism. It's a religion. We don't need it. That doesn't mean that we can't pick some useful ideas from the religion just as we can from Christianity. For those who are die hard defenders of Buddhism, please ask yourselves why you are so credulous about it. You sound no different from Christian apologists. Get over it.

6. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137525 by Sturmunddrang on March 3, 2008 at 4:38 am

Mmurray and LorienRyan,

Regarding the Sam Harris article:

He said -

"To talk about "Buddhism," therefore, inevitably imparts a false sense of the Buddha's teaching to others. So insofar as we maintain a discourse as "Buddhists," we ensure that the wisdom of the Buddha will do little to inform the development of civilization in the twenty-first century."

Yes, this seems to support what I have been saying. We should not be Buddhists, but instead take pieces of wisdom from it. We do not need the Buddhist religion and it is still a dogmatic religion.

7. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137433 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Prettygoodformonkeys,

It seems that you are thinking in a very religious way in your talk about CBT as being "invented" by the Buddha. I mean, is it really that hard to believe that new ideas on how to alleviate suffering have come about after the death of some ancient man. Again, this is why Buddhism is a religion, this kind of thinking... assuming that we must elevate some ancient scribblings to this higher untouchable level. "The Buddha has revealed x, y, and z, therefore no truth came before this and no truth will come after it!" This is the kind of logic I am seeing. Think about it. Positive psychology and CBT are not good enough, they simply do not compare to the Buddha because he is the ONLY one who knows how to alleviate suffering, right? Is that the thesis? Sorry to use a straw man argument, but I think it is warranted. I am just wondering what the point of your general and extreme statements is (minimizing the efforts in psychology to study healthy humans and making claims that the Buddha invented CBT). I need sleep.

8. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137431 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 8:43 pm

"Do you not find that these are observed / experienced in terrifying array in meditation? Isn't this the way we really get to know ourselves, and sit with who we are until we take ownership of ourselves?"

Yeah, I have no problem admitting that. My problem is that this is a very indirect way of trying to relate mindfulness to CBT. Yes, meditation helps us become more aware of our automatic thoughts, but it is not used in CBT. At the beginning stages of therapy with CBT, you do encourage a client to become more aware of their thoughts, moods and behaviors. However, you do it through a scientific process of recording situations and thoughts, rating moods etc. You could claim that you are building mindfulness, but that is really not the goal. It is about building awareness. However, it lacks the present feeling of mindfulness or the nonjudgemental stance in mindfulness. It's just not the same.

"You can't "think more rationally in a balanced way" unless you are "in the moment" as a mindful participant, and have experienced your unobstructed flow of thoughts - "stewed in your own juices", as it were, automatic thoughts included. If they pop up unacknowledged, your psychotherapist (or ZM) will be there to point them out in a way that is helpful."

Yeah, but mindfulness is just coincidental in this case. The focus is on awareness, not mindfulness. Again, you are really stretching it. YOu also are not addressing the behavioral piece of it. Behaviorism has little to nothing to do with Buddhism. It is an integral part of CBT. It is central.

"I'm sorry, I don't want to over-simplify, and what you say sounds true, but said in postmodern psycho-jargon, and is really just what I am describing."

Uh, no it is not postmodern. I am not into postmodernism. Albert Ellis is, but he does Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, which is philosophy based, not science based. REBT is closer to Buddhism. I would possibly agree with you more if you were talking about REBT. I would still not really agree though. I'm not just talking in psychojargon. I was mentioning specific interventions to point out the differences. The interventions I mentioned, if you know what they are, having nothing to do with BUddhism and owe nothing to it. As I said, everyone who knows about the history of CBT states that it is influenced by Buddhism, but you are the ONLY person I have ever seen try to make this mindfulness connection or claim that the Buddha invented CBT. I am open to new ideas, but this is not one I agree with. I think you are wrong. I disagree.

9. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137404 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 8:01 pm

"Positive psychology: "cutting edge" - "only eight years old" - "leading proponent, only 36 years of age"...

Freud was born in 1856, and in 1999 we legitimized the study of healthy people to learn the psychology of humans. We're excited about it!

Academic molasses."

In my opinion, Freud was an idiot. We got off to a bad start with Freud as the poster child of psychotherapy and clinical psychology. I don't think psychology was much of a science until recently. Freud certainly was not a scientist in my opinion. His way of thinking operated like a religion. For instance, the circular reasoning of the unconscious...

EDIT: Freud was not an idiot, but he was a nutbag. Sorry. I think he was very intelligent. However, he was not a good scientist (or psychotherapist).

10. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137400 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 7:52 pm

"That's all I'm saying, other than I'm glad to hear CBT is finally using mindfulness instead of just talking about it; but it is still the core."

I disagree here. I think that there are aspects of CBT that are similar to mindfulness, but I definitely see differences. The concept of automatic thoughts and challenging automatic thoughts with rational responses is actually closer to being the core. The core is thinking more rationally and in a more balanced way. The core is not jumping to assumptions, examining the evidence, problem solving and weighing out advantages/disadvantages in given situations. It is also using exposure therapy, reponse prevention or relaxation training (to name only some examples) as behavioral changes depending on the mental disorder. The core is scientific research over years and years demonstrating effectiveness of certain cognitive or behavioral techniques for different disorders. It is quite different.

It does not involve a blanket statement about all suffering. It also does not involve mindfulness as a central concept. It involves research into what kinds of automatic thoughts are experienced in depression, OCD, panic disorder, GAD etc., then research into how best to challenge these automatic thoughts. It also involves research into which behavioral techniques are most effective for which disorders (e.g. response prevention for OCD, exposure for PTSD or panic disorder, behavioral activation for depression etc.) The core is science, really. It was built from science from the bottom up. Oh, and it is also influenced directly by the diagnoses found in the DSM-IV-TR. Meaning, the treatments vary depending on the disorder (a unique and important feature of CBT). The DSM-IV-TR was not around in the time of the Buddha. To say that the Buddha invented it or that mindfulness is at its core is just wrong. It's not true by any stretch of the imagination. If you know the basic history of psychology, then this is obvious. There were many influences on CBT. SOME parts of Buddhist philosophy influenced CBT. FOr instance, the concept that our thoughts effect our emotions and the idea that we have control over this. That is about it! A very general concept, nothing so specific as mindfulness or to justify saying that the Buddha "invented" it. Give me a concrete example of how mindfulness is at the core of CBT and I might find that you have a leg to stand on.

11. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137390 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Prettygoodformonkeys,

You said:

"Have you read anything by Abraham Maslow? He postulated that the entire history of psychoanalysis is based on the study of aberrant personalities, and that the study of the healthy human is waiting to be written."

Well, it's not waiting anymore. Positive psychology has been the study of just that. For example:

http://www.apa.org/apags/profdev/pospsyc.html (kind of corny article)
http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/
http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/Default.aspx
http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/01/the-science-of-happiness.html
Here's a book about it by one of its main proponents and researchers:
Positive Psychology in Practice
http://www.amazon.com/Positive-Psychology-Practice-Martin-Seligman/dp/0471459062

Psychologists like Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (with his concept of "Flow") have also been studying healthy humans.

12. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137377 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Prettygoodformonkeys,

"BTW: were you abused in a Buddhist monastery? Just asking."

No, as I said to Steve Zara, this is a personal interest of mine. I meditate, I am inspired by certain Buddhist writings and I find mindfulness to be helpful to me. I attend a local Shambhala Meditation Center each week to meditate with other people and discuss it with them. Considering that I find some of Buddhist philosophy useful, I often wonder if I could just call myself a Buddhist. However, I grapple with various integral parts of the religion. As I said to Steve Zara, I take pieces from it, but I avoid getting too involved in it because the superstition and person worship aspects get to me. I quoted John Allen Paulos, a mathematician who wrote Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up earlier when I posted this:

"The self is a conceptual chimera

Doubt that a supernatural being exists is banal, but the more radical doubt that we exist, at least as anything more than nominal, marginally integrated entities having convenient labels like "Myrtle" and "Oscar," is my candidate for Dangerous Idea. This is, of course, Hume's idea â€" and Buddha's as well â€" that the self is an ever-changing collection of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes, that it is not an essential and persistent entity, but rather a conceptual chimera. If this belief ever became widely and viscerally felt throughout a society â€" whether because of advances in neurobiology, cognitive science, philosophical insights, or whatever â€" its effects on that society would be incalculable. (Or so this assemblage of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes sometimes thinks.)"

I find that statement to be one that I mostly agree with. However, I do not think that it is necessarily a dangerous idea. It was posted here http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_index.htmlpaulos in a list of "dangerous ideas." I just agree with it as a revised, materialist version of the doctrine of "no self." In this context, of course, it is not a doctrine, but an idea/hypothesis. I am a materialist, a naturalist and a determinist grappling with how involved to become in Buddhism. For instance, how much meditation is really necessary? I almost attended a retreat today, but I didn't go because I had some reading to do and I thought it was more important. I could see 30 minutes of meditation useful, but I wonder how useful around 8 hours of meditation is.

I think that the way to figure these things out is by taking these concepts out of Buddhism and no longer labeling them "Buddhist." We can give Buddhism credit for their origins, but we should study them to see what is really going on. When I meditate, what is really going on cognitively/biologically? How could I cognitively, scientifically operationalize mindfulness. Collaborating with Buddhists is necessary initially. But, eventually, the practice of something like mindfulness or meditation can be made more effective and any silly trappings like Chakras can be gotten rid of because we will know what the active ingredients are. To just join a Buddhist sect and say they are the experts and that is it doesn't interest me. I think we can learn more and get more out of the interesting parts of Buddhism. The way to do this is not by pouring money into Buddhist organizations with their talks about "enlightenment." It is in honestly discussing what seems to be going on when I am mindful or meditating. How does the lessening of dualistic thinking affect people's well being as measured by X, Y and Z? Anyway, I hope you get the idea. I think we would do better to take pieces away from Buddhism without getting trapped in the dogma.

13. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137372 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 6:18 pm

"I was ordained by a traditional Japanese Soto Zen Buddhist monk (can't believe I'm saying this), and didn't have to believe in any of those fantasies. It simply isn't on the test."

You were ordained? As what? In what organization?

"Cognitive Behavioral Therapy was invented in India 2,400 years ago, and was called mindfulness. But call it what you will, it doesn't exist if no one is practicing it (it really doesn't exist); and if you don't practice it, you don't understand it."

Eh, you obviously have not studied cognitive-behavior therapy. It is simply not the same. Read Aaron Beck's work to understand why. You could even read Albert Ellis's work to see why too. Epictetus is another influence. There is also behaviorism (e.g. Watson, Skinner), which has nothing to do with any of the aforementioned things. I don't even want to bother getting that far into this discussion. I can just say, read a decent book on cognitive-behavior therapy, take any decent course introducting psychology, take a course in cognitive-behavior therapy and you will see the differences. The concept of mindfulness is only now being used in some limited forms of it. I wonder where on earth you are getting your information from to make such a statement.

14. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137364 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Does anyone else agree with me that we need a book similar to The End of Faith, The God Delusion and god is not Great ripping apart Buddhism?

I think that the discussions I have seen here and in other skeptic/atheist forums indicate that one is long overdue.

15. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137358 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 5:30 pm

"Just like to say to you and others - thanks for the discussion. I don't know much about this (as you can tell) - my husband is far more knowledgeable than I and I have kind of overheard stuff and read the odd book or two.

I realise I can be infuriating, as I like to press points hard to test them, but thanks for your patience."

I honestly don't know that much myself. I am just making sure I stay with what I do know. I also have been looking things up in my East Asian Studies textbooks and that book by Rahula. I think it's been a good discussion. I have been interested because I have been grappling with these issues in my own mind. As I mentioned, I have an interest in meditation. I attend a local Shambhala Meditation Center to meditate each week. I think that, for now, I like John Allen Paulos's thoughts on self. They inspire me to keep meditating regardless of Buddhism. I like the revised secular meditation instruction available these days. I think it's just as powerful without the baggage. I just want you to know my motivation in posting so much here.

16. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137353 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 5:24 pm

"Yes it is my interpretation, and I may well be wrong, but I like it:)

I am interested now to have another look into it. I do find Buddhism fasinating, but like anyone I pick 'n' choose."

Thanks for being honest. I like your interpretation too:)

17. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137352 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 5:23 pm

"Sorry, no, not really. But let's leave it for that for now, if that is OK."

Alright.

18. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137347 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 5:18 pm

"I don't have energy for any more discussion of this right now (perhaps due to my insomnia).

I happen to think tolerance, especially amongst religious leaders is very big thing. Religious intolerance is one of the major causes of conflict in the world."

I didn't mean tolerance is a bad thing. I meant why is it so admirable that the Buddha is tolerant of other's ideas or other's disagreeing with him. There is this presupposition that he is so great to begin with that we might expect him to be intolerant to other views. I am saying, it should be a GIVEN that he be tolerant! It's like if I said to you, "I pay my rent." This is not praise worthy! This should be a given if it is my apartment! So, why is it that in the context of this man who is obviously pretty arrogant to begin with (thinking he knows EXACTLY how everyone should live and think) we are supposed to praise him for being tolerant. He should be tolerant from the beginning is what I am saying. No one is that great that we need to praise the person for being tolerant of other IDEAS! Do you get my meaning?

19. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137340 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Steve Zara,

"The only point I am making is Buddhism is a different type of religion from the Abrahamic ones."

Different enough to make it put in a different category from "religion" when we talk about how "religion poisons everything?" I think not.

"If we want to understand different systems of thought, we need to accept the reality of how they are."

I agree with that. Of course, how could I not agree with that?

20. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137338 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 5:07 pm

ungodlystheist,

You said:

"Smell a rat hear???
If science can prove God does not exist, then Christians are no longer justified to believe in God, but since science cannot prove God does not exist - therefore this can be taken as proof (no matter how small) that he most probably does."

Very good point indeed. Bravo. I feel stupid for not having seen this. Hah! See, this is why these kinds of critical discussions are helpful:)

21. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137337 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 5:05 pm

LorienRyan,

You said:

"On the subject of Buddhism - I understood Siddhattha's version of reincarnation to mean one's action's in this life living on in the memory of future generations. No supernatural bones about it, so to speak. He also mentions that there will be many 'Buddhas to come' after him. I can think of a few great minds in history who's actions have influenced future generations. Darwin for one."

That might be your interpretation, but you are mistaken. Please, look up the Buddha's views on rebirth.

22. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137336 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Steve Zara,

You said:

"Can you imagine a Pope saying something similar? I can't. A major sect of a religion that at least accepts the possibility that its core beliefs should give way to science. That is a substantial difference."

The thing is, why must we hang on the Buddha's every word?? Think about it. In Walpola Rahula's book, he mentions how "tolerant" the Buddha was compared to other religious leaders... big deal! As I said, we can do better. My point is, why should anyone follow a religion named after one man? We should not be talking about one man in this way. He simply was not that great. No man is. I'm sorry. That is my point. It's person worship. I don't care if he said you could revise his texts. How arrogant. Can you please just step back and look at this discussion? One man expects everyone to follow his philosophy and we praise him for letting us revise the texts? This is just wrong. No one should be so presumptuous to assume that he/she would even need to say "yes you can revise my philosophical texts" after writing books saying how everyone should live. No one should think that he/she alone would be able to come up with a book that could cover such topics. We should not praise him for being "tolerant." That should be a given. This is my point. With Secular Humanism, for instance, it is not named after one man, it is not written by one man and it is obviously open to revision. My only problem with it is that it is named after a species and I consider it "speciesist" in that regard. It's still a step up though. Especially considering that in the Humanist Manifesto, it is specifically mentioned that supernatural explanations or supernaturalism is not part of the Humanist view (this could be revised later). I think that is a crucial, important difference. Humanism allows people much more freedom of thought and freedom in their own search for truth. I could meditate as a Humanist, but no one is going to say "hey I'm enlightened and you're not."

23. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137322 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 4:44 pm

My point in mentioning Secular Humanism is that I think it is a step up. It's also not egotistically, arrogantly named after one man (e.g. it's not named, say, Buddhism...).

24. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137320 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 4:43 pm

"If you can point to another religion that has this attitude to flexibility, I would be interested. Can you imagine the pope saying "If science points to the fact that the resurrection could not have exists, our teachings must change"?

I think this alone illustrates a clear difference between Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions."

I've never heard of the Buddha saying this. I first of all think that this is dishonest on the part of Buddhists. They have historically not allowed much revision. Can you name a Buddhist sect that has revised the Buddha's texts? I don't think I've heard of such a thing. They might have different interpretations, but so do Christian sects have different interpretations of the bible. Yes, it could be a difference, but I can think of a philosophy that is much more flexible - Secular Humanism. Look at the Humanist manifesto. It's been revised at least twice.

25. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137316 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Steve Zara,

I should not have said that it had ALL the same baggage. I should have said that it still has a lot of superstitious baggage. It seems like you are trying to portray me as an extremist. I should not have made that statement, but look at my other statements and you will see that I admit some importance in Buddhism.

You said:

"But I will continue to assert, for reasons explained several times, that Buddhism is certainly different from many other religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones."

I will continue to assert that it is not nearly as different as you seem to claim. I am not convinced that it is so different. Did the Buddha ever say that people could revise or add to his texts? No. It's either Buddha's way or the highway. I should mention that many Muslims point out that the Koran mentions that there is no compulsion for their religion or something along those lines. Granted, I admit that the Muslim religion is much more dangerous than Buddhism. I am willing to admit this. It is a step up. However, let's set our standards higher than settling for less. Buddhism leaves much to be desired and as it is, it is not acceptable. We can do better than relying on one man's ancient scribblings.

26. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137312 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 4:20 pm

MaxD,

Referring to meditation, you said:

"This is something that seems like science could understand more, and perhaps even refine by research. That is it could be treated like a medical research program. I bring this up only to show that it could be researched."

It is being researched scientifically and it has been researched for a while. I could provide you with psychology articles on, mindfulness and its use in clinical psychology, for instance.

27. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137311 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 4:18 pm

MaxD,

You said:

"For me I am constantly using statistical thinking to asuage my worry. Whenever I get on a plane I always think about the stats. How likely is it that it will be my plan that goes down? I am always thinking statistically. That is my antidote to the plague of things that our news medias inadvertantly have us worring over. It doesn's always work of course but I find it enormously helpful."

I am a psychotherapist and, believe it or not, the quote from you above is very much in line with the most effective form of therapy we have for phobias. It is not Buddhism, it is called Cognitive-Behavior Therapy. One of the cogntive treatments for phobias involves thinking about the actual chances of something occurring (e.g. a plane crashing). Often, people with phobias (we found this through research) over estimate the chances of certain negative things happening in situations they fear. Cognitive-behavior therapy is very effective and it involves the idea that we create a lot of our own suffering with the way we think about situations. It is different form Buddhism, however, in many respects. Rather than taking a nonjudgmental stance, one can simply try to take a more balanced stance. In CBT, a client is encouraged to think more like a scientist about his/her life, looking at all of the information available. Then, one can see if he/she is discounting positive things, catastrophizing, fortune telling about the future (when one really doesn't know what will happen), mind reading (assuming I know what you think of me) etc. Does this make sense? It's been shown through plenty of research to be helpful for various problems (especially phobias), including problems that are not mental disorders.

28. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137304 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Mitchell Gilks,

"Also, what says that because something is proported to be supernatural that is it automatically wrong? What do you base that on? I definitely wouldn't call that a skeptical or a rational position."

Well, this is pretty easy. Supernaturalism is not automatically wrong, but it is not something we can have clear evidence of. We cannot research it in a rational, skeptical manner. That is why it is not something I focus on. Does that make sense?

29. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137301 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 4:07 pm

"It doesn't matter. It answer the wrong questions in the context I am making my point, It is like saying we know everything about digestion, What does it have to do with the art of cooking?

Also, there is always a big gap between science and technology. You may know a lot in some purely scientific sense, it doesn't have to translate to drugs given to people."

I work in a mental health clinic along side psychiatrists. I work as a psychotherapist. I see how the drugs affect people. I think your understanding is lacking. In practice and in research, I have seen drugs dramatically help people's symptoms. Granted, the drugs have side effects and we have a long way to go in developing drugs that are more specific in their effects.

I think you are basically oversimplifying the process of psychiatry. At the clinic I work in and in countless others, drugs are NOT the only treatment. There is a lot of research clearly showing that combining psychoactive medications with psychotherapy is superior to just one or the other alone. The psychiatrists at the clinic always encourage clients to see a therapist on top of seeing them. Cognitive-Behavior Therapy has sooooo many studies showing its effectiveness for depression and various anxiety disorders. It is also effective for many people with borderline personality disorder and certain eating disorders. Mentally retarded people can benefit from behavior therapy. Even people with psychotic disorders or bipolar disorder can benefit from cognitive behavior therapy. People with chronic pain can benefit from cognitive behavior therapy. It can be used for treating insomnia too. I could go on, but I'll stop. My point in mentioning all of this is that SCIENCE is what developed Cognitive-Behavior therapy, starting with behavioral experiments on other animals in the lab clearly showing how we can influence behavior. Then we moved toward showing this in humans. We combined cognitive theories in psychology with this into therapy. We ended up with Cognitive-Behavior Therapy. While the cognitive aspect is not perfect (relying a lot on the patient's report of thoughts) it is still scientific. We can figure out, through research, how clients' thoughts are changed using therapy. They can rate their levels of distress and we can establish behavioral indicators of distress too to see if there is a behavior change when we help someone change his thoughts. Anyway, you get the idea. I am just saying that "science" as used to help with human suffering is NOT the way you portray it.

30. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137291 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 3:52 pm

"I think you are trying to say that there is a big wastebin labelled "total mystical and supernatural nonsense", and that after having thrown the Bible and other Abrahamic holy books in it, all the writings about Buddhism should be thrown in with equal enthusiasm."

*sigh* I am not saying that at all. How could you possibly take that statement from my last statement to you? You just did a straw man. Honestly, please read my last comment again. I already said that we should keep studying these texts, but taking pieces out of them and using them is not the same as being in the religions. If I meditate and find it helpful, I am not a Buddhist. I have taken a piece of it and it is useful, but I am not ascribing to all of the teachings of Buddhism in order to do it. Sure, I might have to adhere to some of the teachings to do that, but I am not a Buddhist. We can take pieces from all of the religions you mention! However, we just don't have to elevate them to some level that is somehow untouchable or immune to criticism. I am saying we should learn from some of the wisdom of different religions, but we should be critical at the same time. Saying "I'm a Buddhist" and defending all of the statements of the Buddha and claiming that Buddhism is so different from other religions is not the kind of critical thinking I am talking about.

31. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137284 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Bonzai,

Have you ever taken a class on behavioral neuroscience or psychopharmacology? I am just curious about whether or not you have seen first hand how far we have come recently in those fields. I have taken classes in both subjects. I was a psychology major in undergraduate study. While we have a lot to learn, I argue that we know more and our understanding of the way the brain works is more sophisticated than you claim. For instance, our ability to breed "knock out" mice who lack certain neural receptors in order to test which receptors certain drugs are affecting is astonishing to me.

32. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137279 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Steve Zara,

You said:

"All I am saying is that there may be some useful ideas there that would be good to look at, that may provide a different perspective on life."

If you have read what I have wrote, I have said nothing that contradicts that idea. I must mention that I say the exact same statement in relation to the Muslim faith, Judaism and Christianity. I could even say that about Scientology (perhaps much less so). My point is that when you take pieces out of it, it is not Buddhism anymore. There is no point in defending Buddhism. You made a straw man argument about my stance before when you made a statement that I was somehow claiming that there is nothing interesting or important in Buddhism. I never said that. I have said again and again that I meditate, I read Buddhist texts and interpretations of them and I also try to apply mindfulness to my life. I also have an interest in mindfulness meditation or just mindfulness as a form of psychotherapy. However, none of that is Buddhism. It is just pieces of it. Again, the bible is not all bad... I find certain parts of Ecclesiastes beautiful. However, I think that the book as a whole is ridiculous.

"Actually, I am curious as to what it is you think I am defending."

The way you have been writing, it looked like you were defending something else. You have said flat out that it is somehow different from other religions and that people could be atheist Buddhists. You could be an atheist Buddhist, but I do not think you could be a skeptic or naturalist Buddhist. Do you honestly believe that you could? I don't think that most people here are claiming that there are NO important pieces of Buddhism. I certainly am not. I think that people should read the Suttras and study meditation. I also think that people should read the bible and the koran. However, We should not take any of it as being somehow the best philosophy that we have. It's simply not. I'm curious to see what you think I am trying to say.

33. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137272 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 3:31 pm

You know, in this program, while I have not seen the entire episode (just the clip here), it seems that all of the other people try to take the focus off of Obama and Farrakhan. They mention other politicians and what they are doing that is similar. It's like they are defending Obama. I am annoyed by Obama and his pandering to Evangelicals and black Muslims. Farrakhan is a racist bastard and people tippy toe around him too much. I honestly wonder if it is just because people are afraid to call a black man racist in America. He has made openly anti-semitic statements and he has also made outrageous statements about the holocaust. Considering his public spotlight position this is an awful thing to do. We must hold him accountable for what he does and anyone who hangs out with this guy is a son of a bitch. People who shrug their shoulders about Obama associating with Farrakhan need to wake up. It's a shameful, bad thing. I am totally behind Hitchens on this point. Obama made statements decrying what Farrakhan has said about Jews only AFTER people made statements publicly about Farrakhan's endorsement. Obama should be making statements against the Nation of Islam as a whole and he should not accept Farrakhan's endorsement. It's like tippy toeing around a nazi organization and being afraid to say something bad about them.

Christopher Hitchens makes some very good points about the problems with our political system. We should not be whoring ourselves to the religious so much to get a vote and, indeed, we may not need to! There should not be sections about "faith" on any politician's campaign website, they should NOT be visiting churches with campaign money and they shouldn't even mention it in debates. I'm tired of it. It has no place in politics and it needs to stop now!

34. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137263 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 3:16 pm

MPhil,

"reincarnation necessitates something that transcends the body... I suppose the Buddhist variety of "soul", so that would be a graver error than postulating a mere non-transcendent self. However, I'm not sure how "soul without self" would work... after all, a soul is the unique transcendent part of your being (that can be reincarnated)... wouldn't that somehow include a form of "self"?"

You weren't asking me, but I would say yes. That is one of the problems with Buddhism. There are claims that people are reincarnations of past spiritual teachers and nonsense like that. If that is true, then how is there no persistent self? I really don't understand why people on this forum feel such a need to defend Buddhism in the way that they do. It's a religion. It seems that people on here are cherry picking Buddhist texts for the good parts and leaving out the crap. This is no different from Christian apologists doing the same thing with the bible. The belief in Karma is absurd... so is the belief in enlightenment and rebirth. Chakras make no sense. They are a silly concept from ancient obsolete views of the body.

Why must we defend Buddhism like this? Just admit it, it's a religion. As such, it carries along all of the superstitious baggage as any other religion. There are certain good pieces we can extract from it, like almost any other religion. However, if you cherry pick from it and only take certain pieces, then guess what... it's no longer Buddhism! Buddhism is not compatible with a naturalistic, scientific approach toward life. Yes, I know people try to say it is. Christians do the same thing with Christianity. Look at the discussion here and tell me how this is any different from a Christian apologist debating with Richard Dawkins? It looks almost exactly the same. I think there should be another book picking apart Buddhism. We really need it apparently. Perhaps we need it even more than books like The God Delusion, The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation and Breaking the Spell. It could be directed at secular liberals and atheists dispelling a lot of the myths about Buddhism. It could go through Buddhist texts showing all of the absurdities. It could show how people cherry pick the texts for things that make more sense while neglecting to mention the parts that are nuttery.

While the Buddhist apologists here have said that Buddhism is about finding your own path, I should mention that this makes little sense. I always thought that it was about studying the suttras and other people's interpretations of them. It is also about meditating. All of these things come from one guy, the Buddha. If you are a Buddhist, then you follow HIS path. He came up with it! Oh, I should also mention that there are plenty of prescriptions in Buddhist texts for how one should live that are really ridiculous. For instance, in the Buddha's texts, the treatment of women is not so great.

35. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137159 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 12:50 pm

"'Science's' answer--if I can call it that,--to many of these problems is pills, pills and more pills which often just amounts to chemical lobotomy."

"To me, that's not science's answer, that's just a BAD answer. (or good, depending on how you look at it lol)"

I agree. Science's answer is also, as I said, effective psychotherapies, such as Cognitive-Behavior Therapy. It helps us alleviate suffering, we can apply it to many aspects of our lives and it was built with science. It was influenced by some Buddhist ideas, but it is quite different. There are no side effects (other than maybe frustration or getting annoyed with your therapist when you are having difficulty learning it in a mentally ill state).

36. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137145 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 12:23 pm

I think another way of rewording my point about Buddhism is that it has too much superstitious baggage... to the point that we should just abandon the title in order to avoid confusion. To call myself a Buddhist would, I think, be dishonest. As a materialist and a naturalist, indeed any naturalist, I simply cannot reconcile my philosophical views with the beliefs in Buddhism. The belief in rebirth, the belief in karma, the belief in enlightenment and the belief in Chakras are simply not in line with a naturalistic, rational, scientific view of the universe or life. I think that people who claim that naturalism is compatible with this are doing a disservice to naturalistic philosophy. Again, Buddhism is not the answer (though this doesn't mean we can't take pieces from it, in which case it is not Buddhism anymore).

37. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137137 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm

"Let me give an example. I have a fear of flying. In order to overcome that fear (as I hope to this year), I will have to overcome the highly negative doubt that the plane will survive the journey."

Yes, but in order to decide if the Buddha is full of BS or not, I must use doubt somewhere in the process.

"I have researched Buddhism in various texts. I happen to think the writings of Christmas Humphreys (what a name!) are helpful, as he covers a broad range of sects.

You will find superstitious nonsense in all kinds of belief systems. There was superstitious nonsense in chemistry and medicine centuries ago.

But at the core of Buddhism is what I consider useful philosophy. I do think the Buddha (if he existed), or at least those who came up with that philosophy were very wise people. They came up with good practical ideas in many areas. We still haven't caught up in the West, as we are still battling with ideas (like that of "no-self").

Almost all models of reality involved superstition and supernaturalism until a few centuries ago. But it is wrong to condemn an entire set of ideas because of that. Do we reject Newton's ideas because he assumed he was examining God's universe?"

I could say very similar things about many of Jesus's ideas in the bible. I think you are making a case for abandoning Buddhism, taking pieces from it, and not saying "I'm a Buddhist." I am saying that, yes, of course, we can find useful ideas in Buddhism. However, I am arguing against people being atheist Buddhists. I think that actually sums up what I am arguing against. We should NOT be atheist Buddhists. Stephen Bachelor's concept of Buddhism Without Beliefs seems silly to me. After we modify Buddhism enough, I don't think it is Buddhism anymore. I think I am just David, not a Buddhist. I like to meditate, I even like certain Buddhist Suttras (however spelled) and I like to apply the concept of mindfulness to my life. I am not a Buddhist, however. I will not contribute to a Buddhist organization and I will not claim that there is such a thing as "enlightenment" (there isn't). The Buddha was wise? Ok, so is Richard Dawkins. Years from now, after Richard Dawkins dies, many of his ideas will probably have been found to be incorrect. He is not deified and we have no problem adopting the ideas of another scientist or philosopher. I think that the case of the Buddha is different. For instance, there is no Dawkinsism. I think that we can learn to be wiser than the Buddha and not just by mindlessly defending everything he said. We can be wiser by using this great tool called science, studying his claims and keeping an open mind about how to alleviate suffering. As I said, Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, for instance, was influenced by the Buddha, but it is very different from most of what he wrote. It is effective in alleviating many people's suffering (loads of research gives evidence of this). I have found it effective for myself too. We do not call it a Buddhist therapy, though. It was influenced by Epictetus too, but we do not call it an Epictetusist therapy or a stoic therapy. Is this relevant? Of course, I am illustrating how we can take pieces of it in a sensible way without calling ourself atheist Buddhists. I am also showing why it is wrong to call ourselves atheist Buddhists. At least, if you are a naturalist atheist, which many atheists are.

38. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137129 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 11:54 am

Steve Zara,

"This itself is a dogmatic statement. Being a Buddhist need not involve those."

Sorry, let me rephrase it so that it is not dogmatic:

Buddhism is dogmatic, it involves superstition, oversimplifications of scientific concepts, misunderstandings about human psychology and downright falsehoods.

39. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137128 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 11:51 am

"I can't comment on reincarnation, because I have never subscribed to it because it isn't necessary to practice, though it is necessary if you call yourself a Buddhist."

Yeah, that is exactly my point. I am not talking about your beliefs. I am talking about Buddhism.

"Simply, though: if I eat nothing but raw pineapple for a week and it burns my ass, is that 'revealed' to me?

The difference is here: and the Lord said "thou shall not eat of the raw pineapple, for the ass-burning shall be great thereof.'"

If I came up with a term "enlightenment" and I came up with a philosophy after hanging out with some people who spend most of their time meditating in caves, then I said that I had special knowledge of this "enlightenment" and I went around giving talks to people about it, people would call me a prophet. If a religion is started and literally named after me, then people would call this a revealed religion. It is based on my revelation, not from god, but from my own head. It is a revealed religion. I revealed THE TRUTH to everyone and everyone bases their religious practices on MY truth. I have a problem with the concept that there is such a thing as enlightenment. That is a hard pill to swallow. If you are ok with believing in such a thing, then that's the kind of thing you like. What can I say? It's the different between being a little skeptical, which I thought we were all here for, and being credulous. I would like to see some kind of clear, operational definition of "enlightenment." At what point does someone become enlightened? Who decides that they are? I have seen how the process works. Some Zen Master magically just KNOWS that another practitioner passed the test and is enlightened. There is no explanation of how. It just IS. Presto! Again, if you are ok with that sort of thing, then what can I say to argue with you? I have seen no one on here address this issue with me. Do you really believe in enlightenment? That is the question. If so, why? We have psychologists working on an operational definition of mindfulness, which is not so hard to do. I could see how someone might be more mindful than someone else. However, enlightenment is a bunch of nonsense. To say that one is "enlightened" is just as meaningless as saying that angels' wings are _____ long.

"If you actually cared about mindfulness instead of either the research or the ancient writings, you wouldn't have written "mindulfness". It seems picky, but that is exactly the difference academics can't see."

This is pathetic. I am not going to take the time to edit such things. If this is all you have, then I am not discussing things with you. Do you have an argument? This isn't very Buddhist of you.

"Your straw men are already knocked over without you bothering to set them up. Who the fuck said anything about this?"

You may need to meditate to calm down and stop being so judgmental. You didn't get my point, so I am not going to bother explaining.

"You say some true things, but they're ultimately off topic and you've missed the point entirely.

I have to get on with my life; it's a beautiful day here. Too beautiful a Sunday to ruin with (eww) Religion."

I don't see how I was off topic. Have a nice day. I should get out of the house at least once, even though it's cold here. I need to go to the gym. Take care.

40. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137123 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 11:36 am

Steve Zara,

I already answered some of your specific objections in past posts and especially in Comment #137107, but I wanted to address something you mentioned earlier. You said:

"No, it is not like that at all. Doubt can be a negative feeling, leading to worry, even neuroses. There is a difference between the kind of doubt being mentioned here and skepticism."

If I listen to someone and I do not take everything the person says as truth, then there is an element of doubt in me. A certain level of distrust is healthy.

Here's a quote from Walpola Rahula about doubt:

"But in order to progress further it is absolutely necessary to get rid of doubt. To get rid of doubt one has to see clearly."

My response is, yeah, tell me something I do not know. That says nothing about how useful doubt is BEFORE the fact. Sometimes, we must doubt things before progressing so that we are not going down the wrong path. If someone tells me something that is false and I listen to all of it, then I do exactly as he says without doubting it at all, then I am being a credulous fool. I have heard people tell me that I do not understand this concept of doubt in the context of Buddhism. However, I have never heard an adequate explanation of the problem I raise above in Buddhist terms. In a sense, doubt can impede progress. However, this does not mean that it has no use. This is merely a description of what happens when you doubt. It is like a tautology. It is a way of veering from the issue. What I am asking is not what happens when you doubt, but I am asking about the usefulness of doubt. Doubt can still be useful even if it impedes progress for the reasons I already stated. Religous thinking and fancy footwork similar to that used by Christians seems to be what I am running into when I bring up the issue.

Why is it so hard to believe that there are obvious holes in Buddhist philosophy or that the Buddha was not enlightened or even that wise? Is it because we are elevating him to some sacred, holy, super human status? Don't get me wrong, I am sparing with this kind of talk. I hate it when people claim that Dawkins is a fundamentalist and people are elevating him to the level of a demigod. I think that is silly. However, my mentioning this gives me a good opportunity for a little thought experiment: compare my talk about the Buddha as being elevated to the level of a superhuman to other people's talk about Dawkins being elevated in the same way. Can't you see a clear difference? I am much more justified. Why? Buddhist texts talking about the Buddha in such a way that he is seen as more than human. Also, even Buddhists after the Buddha, such as Dogen, were seen in a magical or supernatural way. Just read Soto Zen In Medieval Japan. If you get all of your information about Buddhism from Americanized, pop culture books, then you probably will see Buddhism as completely devoid of superstition. However, if you read into what was actually in texts about the Buddha or his other followers, you find superstitious nonsense. Also, if you look into what the beliefs are of Buddhists in other countries, such as Japan, you find more superstitious nonsense too. I think I should have been more matter of fact about this before, but more of this is coming back to me now, so I will be less sparing in my critique of Buddhism.

41. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137111 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 11:10 am

MaxD,

If you want an introduction to Buddhism as a whole and a book that explains the differences in the sects of it, then a great start is What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula. It is used in classes on Buddhism. You can find a copy here: http://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313

42. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137109 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 11:06 am

Oh, and Zen Buddhism is just as guilty for the rebirth concept as all the other sects. In addition, here's an example of superstition in Zen, Chakras. I mean, hey, if we see some special value in Chakras, then why don't we all just do acupuncture? The special significance of hand positions while you meditate. Koans, which are basically just logical paradoxes or nonsense. Hmm, what else?

43. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137107 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 11:04 am

In response to Comment #137086 by prettygoodformonkeys,

I am not in the least bit nervous about anything you supposedly pointed out as wrong in your Comment #137074. Buddhism is often put in the group of revealed religions. My brother was a religious studies major and he always grouped it in the revealed religion category. Look it up. No, the Buddha was not a prophet in the same way that Jesus was. However, it depends on which meaning of the word prophet you use. Again, look up the different meanings of the word. I meant that it is revealed in the sense that you have on man, who is seen as EXTREMELY wise, who had revelations (though not from god) that other people wrote down years later and everyone studies his texts. Everyone is interpreting his texts. Yes, people interpret Dogen's texts too, but Dogen ultimately is interpreting the Buddha's writings. I thought everyone knew this. It is called Buddhism for a reason. You can play with words all you like, but you have one man who supposedly wrote some texts or other people wrote them later based on what he supposedly said, then you have a bunch of followers who take everything he says as gospel. How can you not see this dynamic. Also, look up the fact that many texts, even the earliest texts about the Buddha which are considered part of his original message describe him in supernatural terms. He has been described as more than human in many Buddhist texts.

In terms of the soul idea, no they do not call it a soul. So what? There IS the concept of rebirth, that something carries on to another life. This is found in all forms of Buddhism and it is a silly idea based on no evidence. It is superstition. It is an oversimplification of the processes of our bodies as some kind of "life force" that somehow lives on and somehow goes into another body. Why the electrical, physical, and chemical processes of our bodies would not somehow disperse instead of magically going into another body I have no idea. Anyway, look it up, page 33 of What the Buddha Taught, by Walpola Rahula. The Five Aggregates are not compatible with science. There is no point in doing some post hoc move wherein we try to reconcile the writings of people who did not understand basic science with modern science. To do so is to commit the same fraudulent mistakes as Christians do. Again, let's be honest with ourselves, if I use the word soul to describe the "force" or whatever the group of words Buddhists postulate would travel from one body to another for rebirth, don't nit pick and tell me I am not understanding the concept. Theologians have studied nonsense for ages, but it doesn't mean that I cannot use different names for their concepts or that I cannot easily understand their concepts. I understand the basic tenets of Buddhism. I just don't agree with them. For instance, I actually find Cognitive-Behavior Therapy to be more interesting, complex and important than the four noble truths. I find psychological research into mindulfness to be much more important than ancient writngs on the same topic. Why? I care about the truth and I care about progress, not the ramblings of ancient people. I would rather take bits and pieces from, say, the bible, ancient Greek philosophers, Buddhist texts, or the bhagavad gita. Being a Buddhist is dogmatic, it involves superstition, oversimplifications of scientific concepts, misunderstandings about human psychology and downright falsehoods. Hey, if it helps you out, great, but don't go around telling people that it is so different from other religions, it's not.

44. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137084 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 10:31 am

Rational G,

"Wrapping up useful ideas in cosmic nonsense is not my idea of seeking and promulgating the truth. You're picking out stuff a la carte and holding your nose about the rest - sounds like the Episcopalians."

I agree.

45. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137078 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 10:21 am

Steve Zara,

"Oh, I certainly agree. I am just convinced that someone could be a Buddhist without superstition. A pretty rare type of Buddhist though!"

Aren't we somewhat in agreement, then? Regardless of the details, we both seem to agree that Buddhism often "plays out" with superstition. I have my theory that it is because Buddhism is a religion not the different in its structure from the 3 big monotheisms. You have yours that Buddhism is inherently different, containing safeguards against dogmatism. However, in the end, when we just look at most Buddhist organizations (perhaps all of them), Buddhism "plays out" with superstition and person worship.

I think what we are seeing here, including prettygoodformonkeys's comment above, is defense of Buddhism in a similar sense of defense of Christianity by apologists. I bring up objections and then I am met with statements that I took things out of context or that I don't truly grasp the complexity of these topics. Since we are on the website for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, I think it is helpful to stay in line with that larger topic's purpose. In keeping with the spirit of the foundation, I think that perhaps the skeptics who are enamored by Buddhism should ask themselves if they are applying the same rigorous scientific approach to Buddhism that they are to other religions. I am applying the law of parsimony. I am taking what I see and instead of being credulous, I am taking the simplest explanation first without multiplying entities unnecessarily. I see others elevating Buddhism to an untouchable status in much the same way that people have done with Christianity, Muslim faith and Judaism. Buddhism is all of a sudden something we cannot criticize. Really, step back and just look at it for what it is. Again, I am not saying that the Buddha (or whoever actually wrote his supposed writings) didn't have good ideas. I am saying that I like many of his ideas. I meditate and I find it useful. It is like therapy for a mind plagued by dualism. However, I refuse to read his writings like gospel or take them all that seriously. They are NOT sacred or holy. There are certainly numerous faults one can find in the philosophy without much trouble. I think I am just concerned with the way skeptics seem to talk about Buddhism, not applying the same skepticism in that area. Let's not become so open minded that our "brains drop out." :)

46. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137070 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 9:42 am

"If we identify as atheists, then we have to accept that alongside us are people who don't necessarily share all our ideas of naturalism."

Right, and I think that the incompatibility of Buddhism with naturalism is indication of its major fault. I recently found this quote from John Allen Paulos, the mathematician who wrote Irreligion:

"The self is a conceptual chimera

Doubt that a supernatural being exists is banal, but the more radical doubt that we exist, at least as anything more than nominal, marginally integrated entities having convenient labels like 'Myrtle' and 'Oscar,' is my candidate for Dangerous Idea. This is, of course, Hume's idea â€" and Buddha's as well â€" that the self is an ever-changing collection of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes, that it is not an essential and persistent entity, but rather a conceptual chimera. If this belief ever became widely and viscerally felt throughout a society â€" whether because of advances in neurobiology, cognitive science, philosophical insights, or whatever â€" its effects on that society would be incalculable. (Or so this assemblage of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes sometimes thinks.)"

This is similar to Buddhism, but different in a key respect, there is no soul or "life force" needed. There is no spiritual mumbo jumbo BS. John Paulos comes to the above statement from a completely materialist perspective. Again, we can draw certain aspects of Buddhism away from the religion, but it does not make us Buddhists. Buddhism contains some intriguing concepts and practices. The psychotherapy (Cognitive-Behavior Therapy) I use is influenced by its philosophy (that we cause much of our suffering with our thoughts and behaviors). However, consider that one of the 5 hindrances in Buddhism is "doubt." HOW CONVENIENT! If you doubt the Buddha's teachings, then you are hindered. Yet, Walpola Rahula tries to claim that it is not a religion based on faith when he mentions this fact about one of the 5 hindrances. From an outside perspective (as opposed to someone trying to go back and justify all of my assumptions post hoc) this looks like the same kind of thinking involved in other revealed religions - namely, if you question the religion, then this is inherently a problem. That is certainly not a safeguard against dogmatism or person worship. Indeed, it is actually discouraging one of our natural safeguards against BS. We must believe everything the Buddha teaches or be "hindered" from "progress." As Richard Dawkins points out, one of his fears is that the United States citizens are losing their allegiances to organized religions, but they will probably go the way of many Europeans in replacing them with equally absurd rubbish. For example, new age crap and in this case Buddhist superstition. Buddhism is not a viable alternative to the big 3 monotheisms. It is just as much of a scam and a sham. Again, consider that it is a revealed religion with a prophet, the Buddha. The Buddha has a special intimate knowledge of something that ONLY he can teach you (or those who have been taught by him or his students) just as Jesus had an intimate knowledge with god that only he could share with others. I think that Buddhism is just exotic and Americans are mystified with it. Secular liberals and skeptics seem to like it, but they miss the fact that it is really not that different in its basic structure and level of superstition. It is not the answer to our problems. Reasonableness, intellectual honesty, open mindedness, healthy skepticism and scientific thinking are the answer, not more superstition.

47. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137059 by Sturmunddrang on March 2, 2008 at 9:00 am

Steve Zara,

I have been thinking about Buddhism since our last discussion about it. You said:

"Hitchens is wrong about the birth of Buddha. There is no consistent dogma about how the Buddha was born. There are some Buddhist schools which include supernatural nonsense, but there are others than accept that he was born the normal way."

When you look at even the least superstitious sects of Buddhism, they still are filled with person worship (whether it is being worshipful toward Zen masters or the Dahlia Lama) and superstitions. All sects of Buddhism focus on the elusive, lofty, cryptic concept of "enlightenment." Somehow certain people attain enlightenment and they have this privileged knowledge of the subject. Only they can truly teach others the way. This sounds like the idea of a priest or the pope having a privileged relationship with god. I have no problem with the idea that one can develop his level of concentration and awareness. I also have no problem with the idea that some people might be more aware, have more concentration skill and more compassion for others. However, to say that one person is "enlightened" is when you reach an absurdity. This is when we reach white noise and nonsense. No one is "enlightened" just as no one is a special messenger from some god. Hitchens may be wrong about all Buddhists believing that the Buddha was born that way, but I have still seen plenty of reason to think that Buddhists are way too focused on needless superstitions. Buddhism is a religion like any other. We can take certain aspects of the philosophy of Buddhism out of the religion and we can extract and distill practices like meditation from Buddhism, but Buddhism, in all of its forms, is indeed a religion. It contains all of the trappings of other religions. It is one of the worst kinds too, a revealed religion.

48. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #136297 by Sturmunddrang on February 29, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Chispita,

You said:

"Richard refers to Atheists who are okay with the existence of religion as 'patronizing and condescending.'"

Actually I thought he was referring to atheists who are okay with religion being used as a way to make people feel better even if it is unlikely to be true or obviously false. That is patronizing. I don't think Dr. Dawkins was patronizing. He was polite, but not patronizing in the interviews. He called people people on their BS.

49. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #136296 by Sturmunddrang on February 29, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Dr. Dawkins seemed to mess things up when the host mentioned that so many people believing that the world is only 6000 years old is a flaw of the educational system. It is NOT a flaw of the education system. It is a result of religious indoctrination. I thought this was so obvious and Dr. Dawkins should have pointed it out. The question is, where did this belief that the world is only 6000 years old COME FROM? It came from religious thinking and religious people. To blame our education system is just dishonest, ignorant and ridiculous.

50. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #132139 by Sturmunddrang on February 24, 2008 at 9:41 am

Whodatninja,

you said: "I've been going back through and watching some of the debates posted on this site, and Harris certainly seems to be the most poised of the bunch. My response to many of Wolpe's claims would have been snarky (and quite true) a la Hitchens, but Harris' quiet approach here is masterful.

On the other hand, you can't beat Hitch when it comes to pure entertainment..."

I think you summed it up nicely. I think very similar things about the debates. I think that I would also add that one could say Sam Harris, in the way he speaks/presents himself, is probably the best example of "reasonableness" out of all of the debaters we have seen on this site.