Even though it rarely works out that way, there are sometimes very simple answers. A recent American Buddhist Perspective blog post recently asked a fairly routine question: "Buddhism: religion or philosophy?" It's a religion. Buddhism by its basic principles is a supernatural based belief system, which therefore makes it a religion. It may be true that it is one of the more philosophical religions but that does not make it any less of an organized religion.
Mr. Whitaker throughout his piece seems to make comments to the effect that he knows this already. Throughout he seems to be trying to reconcile himself to the possibility that it could be equally both. I disagree mainly because it ignores a number of common critiques of common theistic assumptions. It doesn't matter if religions are capable of being a specific way if it is possible to be that way without any religious elements. He talks about reducing Buddhism to "techniques" which is the same half-assed argument used in promoting Yoga in public schools. "Yoga" the way many people "practice" it is a matter of technique/method devoid of its original religious overtones. That isn't really Yoga. Essentially you are mixing calisthenics with meditation. It does not require any supernatural beliefs let alone a belief system. Adapting meditative and relaxation techniques from Buddhism does not make you a Buddhist.
If individuals adopted some but not all the various religious based principles along with the methods then you might have more of a debate/question. That does not seem to be what Whitaker is talking about. Buddhism is by its nature a religion. It is just as attached to supernatural thinking and concepts as any other faith.*
I have previously written about Buddhisms supernatural underpinning;
How Atheistic is Buddhism? (12/31/11)
Buddhism and the God Concept (2/24/13)
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
"...hurting science."?!
Once again Connor Wood has proven just how misnamed his Patheos blog is. His recent Science on Religion post, Steven Pinker: Stop bashing religion. You’re hurting science, is nearly as hypocritical as it is full of shit. He doesn't understand science and he certainly doesn't seem to know much about Steven Pinker either. The piece is so chock full of misrepresentations, conflations, logical fallacies, and errors its hard to know where to start. I will stick to just a few points.
One big mistake, though common enough, is Wood's insistence on using the largely bogus term Scientism. Any time a religious person doesn't like what a legitimate scientist, experiment, observation... has to say they tend to slap the label scientism on it. Either you support the scientific method and therefore science or you don't. If you pick and choose when you accept verifiable results you do not have any respect for the process so stop pretending you do.
This is where another major flaw with this post, and the blog as whole, comes in. Science on religion really should be renamed "Bullshit excuses labeled Science". I have read very few posts that did not include various double standards and a considerable amount of hypocrisy as a result. It is not unusual for Wood to hold science to a high standard, which it should be, but utterly fail to do the same when it comes to religion. The title above is absurd to the point of being funny. Religion, when it isn't directly attacking and disrespecting, degrades and belittles science by it's very nature. The whole notion that there are aspects of life that should be accepted on faith is antithetical to the scientific method. Religious people never demand that religion play nice with science so why should the reverse be automatically assumed. Fuck that. Of course, the idea that science goes out of its way to assault religion, which religion certainly does to science, is a myth. It isn't our fault religion and many of the religious are whiny cry-babies who can't handle where critical thinking leads.
Science and religion really are not compatible. I've written about this numerous times (Science Vs. Religion 11/6/11, among others) and have yet to see evidence to the contrary. If someone can explain how these two institutions are not polar opposites or what legitimate reasons science should take religion into account in any way I would love to read it.
One big mistake, though common enough, is Wood's insistence on using the largely bogus term Scientism. Any time a religious person doesn't like what a legitimate scientist, experiment, observation... has to say they tend to slap the label scientism on it. Either you support the scientific method and therefore science or you don't. If you pick and choose when you accept verifiable results you do not have any respect for the process so stop pretending you do.
This is where another major flaw with this post, and the blog as whole, comes in. Science on religion really should be renamed "Bullshit excuses labeled Science". I have read very few posts that did not include various double standards and a considerable amount of hypocrisy as a result. It is not unusual for Wood to hold science to a high standard, which it should be, but utterly fail to do the same when it comes to religion. The title above is absurd to the point of being funny. Religion, when it isn't directly attacking and disrespecting, degrades and belittles science by it's very nature. The whole notion that there are aspects of life that should be accepted on faith is antithetical to the scientific method. Religious people never demand that religion play nice with science so why should the reverse be automatically assumed. Fuck that. Of course, the idea that science goes out of its way to assault religion, which religion certainly does to science, is a myth. It isn't our fault religion and many of the religious are whiny cry-babies who can't handle where critical thinking leads.
Science and religion really are not compatible. I've written about this numerous times (Science Vs. Religion 11/6/11, among others) and have yet to see evidence to the contrary. If someone can explain how these two institutions are not polar opposites or what legitimate reasons science should take religion into account in any way I would love to read it.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Simulation Argument
The Rationally Speaking podcast is always interesting but the most recent edition was even more thought provoking than usual. This special edition was recorded with David Kyle Johnson at the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism. As a thought experiment the Simulation Argument is fascinating and leads to a variety of equally interesting variations and tangents.
There were a few minor points that I either was uncertain of or felt were misconstrued. I'm not sure where the 20% figure came from. I've read a few of Nick Bostrom's articles and papers and do not recall his attaching an actual number. I remember his use of equations to demonstrate specific points and to convey the logic and probability but no definitive numbers. Bostrom does actually state in a few places that he finds it highly unlikely that we are in a simulation.
I also do not think Johnson thought through his comment about not needing a body for the simulation to work. I assume he meant a human body is not necessary for the idea of our existence being contained within a computer simulation. In practical terms, the computer running the simulation would be a "body." It is an important detail since without it it would imply that immaterial existence is possible. This would, of course, defy all that is known or can be known. Physics does not allow for such an immaterial sentient existence.
The basic ideas surrounding the simulation scenario are more than interesting enough to listen to the podcast a handful of times. Johnson's application of the experiment to theology was also notable. It definitely poses some fascinating potential solutions to various theological problems as well as a few dilemmas.
For more on Bostrom's works on the Simulation Argument
Original proposition
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
Clarification/revision
http://www.simulation-argument.com/brueckner.pdf
Philosophy Bites (podcast) interview
http://philosophybites.com/2011/08/nick-bostrom-on-the-simulation-argument.html
There were a few minor points that I either was uncertain of or felt were misconstrued. I'm not sure where the 20% figure came from. I've read a few of Nick Bostrom's articles and papers and do not recall his attaching an actual number. I remember his use of equations to demonstrate specific points and to convey the logic and probability but no definitive numbers. Bostrom does actually state in a few places that he finds it highly unlikely that we are in a simulation.
I also do not think Johnson thought through his comment about not needing a body for the simulation to work. I assume he meant a human body is not necessary for the idea of our existence being contained within a computer simulation. In practical terms, the computer running the simulation would be a "body." It is an important detail since without it it would imply that immaterial existence is possible. This would, of course, defy all that is known or can be known. Physics does not allow for such an immaterial sentient existence.
The basic ideas surrounding the simulation scenario are more than interesting enough to listen to the podcast a handful of times. Johnson's application of the experiment to theology was also notable. It definitely poses some fascinating potential solutions to various theological problems as well as a few dilemmas.
For more on Bostrom's works on the Simulation Argument
Original proposition
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
Clarification/revision
http://www.simulation-argument.com/brueckner.pdf
Philosophy Bites (podcast) interview
http://philosophybites.com/2011/08/nick-bostrom-on-the-simulation-argument.html
Saturday, December 10, 2011
"Ordinary heroism"*
"...when someone does dedicate their lives to helping the poor, we tend to think that they have gone beyond the call of duty, not simply done what morality requires. It could be, of course, that we like to think this because it gets us off the hook. After all, if morality required that we did the same, then we are moral failures..." (Baggini 44)
This poses a number of interesting questions and thoughts. I think it is true that our heroes are never quite as heroic as we make them out to be. That isn't to say they don't deserve to be admired. It has more to do with how we idealize those who accomplish more than we do ourselves. It makes me wonder if an individual's flaws can be as inspirational as their strengths. Do we need to idealize others? Can we respect their accomplishments while acknowledging their shortcomings. Can we use both sides of our heroes to spur ourselves to greater goals and deeds? Can it it help us see our own flaws if we acknowledge theirs?" I don't really know but I think it is well worth contemplating.
*Baggini, Julian. "15. Ordinary heroism" The Pig that Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher. New York: Penguin Group, 2005.
This poses a number of interesting questions and thoughts. I think it is true that our heroes are never quite as heroic as we make them out to be. That isn't to say they don't deserve to be admired. It has more to do with how we idealize those who accomplish more than we do ourselves. It makes me wonder if an individual's flaws can be as inspirational as their strengths. Do we need to idealize others? Can we respect their accomplishments while acknowledging their shortcomings. Can we use both sides of our heroes to spur ourselves to greater goals and deeds? Can it it help us see our own flaws if we acknowledge theirs?" I don't really know but I think it is well worth contemplating.
*Baggini, Julian. "15. Ordinary heroism" The Pig that Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher. New York: Penguin Group, 2005.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Science Vs. Religion
It seems that this debate will never end. I think part of the problem is that there are actually two very different perspectives that people tend to argue from without being aware or acknowledging it. Those who insist that there either is no conflict or does not need to be one tend to argue from an individualistic perspective while those that insist there is and must be a conflict argue from an institutional perspective.
When approaching the question of whether science and religion oppose each other from an individualistic perspective the answer becomes as varied as there are individuals making the argument. It is true that from this view the two do not need to conflict. However, it is very subjective and misleading. We, as human beings, are capable of rationalizing and harmonizing what ever we want. This does not mean the conflict does not exist it just means for specific individuals the conflict does not exist. A scientist may be very good at conducting research within their given field without ever mixing personal views into it. It is possible to compartmentalize different aspects of our lives. It amounts to keeping two aspects as separate as possible. If they never intermingle or only mix to the slightest degree then avoiding conflict is rather easy.
If you look at the argument from an institutional perspective there really can be no argument. The two conflict and must conflict. In most respects science and religion are opposites. In terms of structure, religion is top down while science is bottom up. Most religions do not allow the average believer any say in who leads the religion or in what doctrines or rites are to be followed. It is determined at the top and those below are simply expected to adhere. Without multiple individuals and groups constantly conducting research and experiments there is no science. Constant testing and review by those within a field create the consensus that leads to further developments. It is this process of constantly reviewing what has come before while seeking further information that makes science what it is.
Science is as much a process as it is a body of knowledge. It is constantly self-correcting and therefore changing, progressing. Religion does change but very slowly and usually with a great deal of resistance and difficulty. It is not self-correcting. In fact it tends to be self-insulating. It frequently claims infallibility and that it possesses eternal unchanging truths. When forced to change most religions rarely admit to error they just make a preposterous claim that it has found new insights or perspectives based on the old one. Usually, this new "insight" amounts to a semantics game. The terminology and presentation change but the underlying philosophy is essentially the same.
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, Science does not have any sacred texts. Origin of the Species is not the bible of evolutionary biologists. It is an important work for historical reasons but the theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond what that one book contains. Every work of science no matter how important a role it may have played is subject to scrutiny. Virtually every religion has at least one sacred text. Religions may seek to interpret the text in slightly different ways over time but in the end it is never question that the text is divinely inspired and therefore must contain truth. Scrutiny is generally avoided if not outright forbidden. In science, the very notion of "received wisdom" is abhorrent. Wisdom can not simply be handed out like a door prize. Simply following a text, doctrine, or leader is no way to discover what is true.
Science has no holy men. Those who are afforded considerable respect are done so for their work. If they do not follow the strict standards of scientific research they will lose respect. Clergy are given respect simply because they are clergy. They need never demonstrate any insight or skill. That isn't to say there are not talented clergy. I know there are but that is not the same as earning respect rather than having it handed to you simply because of the position you hold.
In the end the knowledge gained from science is tested and reviewed constantly. It is based on objective standards. the "knowledge" from religion is based on faith. it is based on blindly following those who happen to be in leadership positions or have gained a following. Religion is highly subjective and therefore with little foundation. From an institutional perspective, science and religion really are opposites and do conflict. In this way the argument is foolish. Individual rationalizations do not make religion rational. Religion is simply a matter of opinion and can never rise beyond it. Its structure does not allow it to ever rise above its own subjectivity.
Science must conflict with religion. I only hope that it will eventually supplant religion entirely. Religion is one of our species dead ends.
When approaching the question of whether science and religion oppose each other from an individualistic perspective the answer becomes as varied as there are individuals making the argument. It is true that from this view the two do not need to conflict. However, it is very subjective and misleading. We, as human beings, are capable of rationalizing and harmonizing what ever we want. This does not mean the conflict does not exist it just means for specific individuals the conflict does not exist. A scientist may be very good at conducting research within their given field without ever mixing personal views into it. It is possible to compartmentalize different aspects of our lives. It amounts to keeping two aspects as separate as possible. If they never intermingle or only mix to the slightest degree then avoiding conflict is rather easy.
If you look at the argument from an institutional perspective there really can be no argument. The two conflict and must conflict. In most respects science and religion are opposites. In terms of structure, religion is top down while science is bottom up. Most religions do not allow the average believer any say in who leads the religion or in what doctrines or rites are to be followed. It is determined at the top and those below are simply expected to adhere. Without multiple individuals and groups constantly conducting research and experiments there is no science. Constant testing and review by those within a field create the consensus that leads to further developments. It is this process of constantly reviewing what has come before while seeking further information that makes science what it is.
Science is as much a process as it is a body of knowledge. It is constantly self-correcting and therefore changing, progressing. Religion does change but very slowly and usually with a great deal of resistance and difficulty. It is not self-correcting. In fact it tends to be self-insulating. It frequently claims infallibility and that it possesses eternal unchanging truths. When forced to change most religions rarely admit to error they just make a preposterous claim that it has found new insights or perspectives based on the old one. Usually, this new "insight" amounts to a semantics game. The terminology and presentation change but the underlying philosophy is essentially the same.
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, Science does not have any sacred texts. Origin of the Species is not the bible of evolutionary biologists. It is an important work for historical reasons but the theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond what that one book contains. Every work of science no matter how important a role it may have played is subject to scrutiny. Virtually every religion has at least one sacred text. Religions may seek to interpret the text in slightly different ways over time but in the end it is never question that the text is divinely inspired and therefore must contain truth. Scrutiny is generally avoided if not outright forbidden. In science, the very notion of "received wisdom" is abhorrent. Wisdom can not simply be handed out like a door prize. Simply following a text, doctrine, or leader is no way to discover what is true.
Science has no holy men. Those who are afforded considerable respect are done so for their work. If they do not follow the strict standards of scientific research they will lose respect. Clergy are given respect simply because they are clergy. They need never demonstrate any insight or skill. That isn't to say there are not talented clergy. I know there are but that is not the same as earning respect rather than having it handed to you simply because of the position you hold.
In the end the knowledge gained from science is tested and reviewed constantly. It is based on objective standards. the "knowledge" from religion is based on faith. it is based on blindly following those who happen to be in leadership positions or have gained a following. Religion is highly subjective and therefore with little foundation. From an institutional perspective, science and religion really are opposites and do conflict. In this way the argument is foolish. Individual rationalizations do not make religion rational. Religion is simply a matter of opinion and can never rise beyond it. Its structure does not allow it to ever rise above its own subjectivity.
Science must conflict with religion. I only hope that it will eventually supplant religion entirely. Religion is one of our species dead ends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)