tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post8521184350275399918..comments2024-03-13T13:29:33.800-05:00Comments on SocraticGadfly: Gnu Athests are also guilty of "motivated reasoning"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-61060231722376467282011-11-06T13:10:41.954-06:002011-11-06T13:10:41.954-06:00Beyond that, Harris arrogantly (and perhaps Batche...Beyond that, Harris arrogantly (and perhaps Batchelor, and not arrogantly) is saying <b>2,500 years of Buddhism is wrong</b> when he admits Buddhism originated as a religion, but says "all those Buddhists got that wrong." Buddhism evolved from a Hinduism that was already full of metaphysical beliefs, including the two baseline ones of karma and reincarnation, and I've blogged about this elsewhere, too. Even if Siddhartha, assuming he existed, didn't consider himself a deity, he did consider the metaphysical beliefs of Hinduism real.<br /><br />And again, all of these parallels apply to Jesus and Christianity. So, too, does the fact that if some "liberal Christian" made the "just a psychology" claims, Harris would surely go attack-dog on that person.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-5819289243019686222011-11-06T12:43:13.843-06:002011-11-06T12:43:13.843-06:00Stu, flip side is, every claim Sam Harris says cou...Stu, flip side is, every claim Sam Harris says could be made about Christianity. But, but, but, Gnu Atheists like Sam Harris (or, even worse, P.Z. Myers) hoot down liberal Christians who do make such claims. That's point No. 1.<br /><br />Point No. 2 is that I don't think all of Buddhism can be practiced naturalistically, any more than all of Christianity can. That's why I time after time note that the Dalai Lama, whom many westerners hold up as a model for wanting to integrate science and Buddhism, has said more than once, if science conflicts with either karma or reincarnation, science goes out the door.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-7840266329629096892011-11-06T07:31:16.090-06:002011-11-06T07:31:16.090-06:00Isn't it the case that both Harris and Batchel...Isn't it the case that both Harris and Batchelor are simply claiming that Buddhism can be practiced "naturalistically" without the metaphysics? I don't think that either one of them, or any of the other secular buddhism advocates, suggest that traditional buddhism is not a religious practice. <br /><br />"The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism. Even in the West, where scientists and Buddhist contemplatives now collaborate in studying the effects of meditation on the brain, Buddhism remains an utterly parochial concern. While it may be true enough to say (as many Buddhist practitioners allege) that “Buddhism is not a religion,” most Buddhists worldwide practice it as such, in many of the naive, petitionary, and superstitious ways in which all religions are practiced."<br /><br />http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/<br /><br />CheersStunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-19025967291924494452011-08-31T07:12:03.062-05:002011-08-31T07:12:03.062-05:00"Reality? By empirical evidence, as leader of..."Reality? By empirical evidence, as leader of the USSR, Stalin was indeed an atheist."<br /><br />Wait a minute, I agree that it is silly to argue that Stalin was not an atheist. But it is also weak reasoning to argue he was based on his position as leader of the Soviet state. Hypothetically he could have been a secret believer. He probably was an atheist, but still.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04604847159462215168noreply@blogger.com