Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Malcolm »

Sādhaka wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:50 am
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:59 am
PeterC wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:44 am. Buddhists are atheists too.
Bravo.

Yea well it’s kind of one of those apples & oranges type of things.

I think it would be better to say that Buddhists are “non-theists”, to separate ourselves from the “atheist” label of those who often have swung towards militant-atheism as an knee-jerk reaction to having been traumatized by growing up in roman catholicism or some other type of exoteric churchianity.

I mean their frustration is understandable, having gotten raised in exoteric christianity and likely not having been informed that there is a rich philosophical culture to be found within the Coptic & Eastern Orthodox teachings, The Desert Fathers, Nestorianism, Neoplatonism, Gnostic Christianity, etc.

Also, most people who label themselves as atheist, would have a hard time entertaining the idea that all universes are included within the Body of Mahavairocana (I mean that I believe that this is something that we consider from Lower/Outer Tantra on up....)
Ok, you go be a niontheist. I’ll remain an atheist.
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Sādhaka »

Giovanni wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:38 am
Sādhaka wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:35 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:32 amAFAIK his work is completely unconnected to any particular corporate influence.

Maybe not directly; however you can almost be sure that he would jump up to defend those types of things, then call anything else that disagrees with it as “quackery”.
You are not correct. Dawkins is a fierce defender of academic freedom from commercial and party political pressures.
He has organised and participated in marches in his home city of Oxford to protest such.
Including a march to defend his college funding a labrority which was opposed by the local politicians.
We may not agree with him on various important philosophical views, but he is a person who is true to his own quite strict ethical views. He is pro choice and has opposed most recent military actions. He was very prominent in opposing the Iraq war for example. Let us see people as they are even when they are wrong in our eyes.

Hm, then that is something worth looking into, before further commenting on that particular topic regarding him....
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Sādhaka »

Giovanni wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:00 pm www.richarddawkins.net

I’ve looked over some of it, including links to tweets there and so on; and yea, I can agree that no ‘all-loving omnipotent creator-god’ is out there with all being’s best interests in mind, however the overall paradigm he presents is not my cup of tea at all.

And he’s not pro-choice, when it comes to people not wanting to allow needles stuck into them which contains an experimental drug.

For me, there’s no reason to waste any more time on this dude’s ideas, when there are so many amazing Dharma texts and practices etc.

Also, he likely wouldn’t agree with the Aggañña Sutra cosmogony & similar at all either; which is whatever. But again, his whole steez is not my cup of tea.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Sādhaka »

I just want to add one more thing:

That is if some readers here may start to develop some cognitive dissonance or existential crisis worrying about reconciling Dharma and contemporary science (or not reconciling them), I’d like to mention Daniel P. Brown:




Daniel Brown, PhD, is Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology at Harvard Medical School, where he teaches courses on performance excellence for health professionals and judges. He is the author of sixteen books, including Memory, Trauma-Treatment, and the Law (with Alan Scheflin and Cory Hammond), winner of the 1999 Guttmacher award from the American Psychiatric Association for outstanding contribution to forensic psychiatry.

As an example of someone who gets along just fine in the world, and within Dharma, as someone who ‘adheres’ to the quite radical implications of the nature of reality, found within Bönpo Dzogchen. I mean that it obviously would seem very radical, to most ordinary worldly people.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

PeterC wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:49 am


When moderate Christians, who do not want to interfere in others’ lives, condemn and argue against their extremist wing that does, then I will consider the moderate wing representative. But they conspicuously do not. Groups like Westboro get the occasional pro forma “we’re not like them” statement, but generally, the “moderates” sit out the political debates. They don’t ever say that there should be separation of church and state, that Christians shouldn’t force their views on others. They’re quite happy for other Christians to force Christian views on non-Christians. Similarly, good luck finding the moderate Hindus who speak out against the BJP oppressing Muslims. Sure, moderate Muslims in the US speak out against Muslim extremists, because if they don’t there are consequences for them. “Moderate” Muslims in Egypt, though - different story.
Do you live in some small, insular section of the south or something? There have been Christian Churches, Jewish synagogues etc. involved in things like anti-war protests, racial justice stuff, etc. since as far back as anyone can remember. They may not be ideal from some kind of Buddhist standpoint but the idea that they somehow implicitly support the fundies is just total nonsense, and makes me wonder if either you have zero actual experience with them, or are just being disingenuous here to prove a point.

Here are the statements of the United Methodist Church on seperation of church and state:

https://www.umc.org/en/content/political-community

If you do some Google-fu it is not hard to find other churches making such statements. Again the idea that all "theists" support ending separation of church and state or something is so untrue that it makes me wonder if you are just messing around, or what.

So at best the “moderate” deists are indifferent to their extremist coreligionists forcing their views on society, at worst they condone it. Until we see the majority of theists arguing that their religion should stay out of politics and that government should be free of religious influence, we have to treat them as functionally equivalent.
Ok, I'm pretty much doen with the conversation after reading this statement. You have managed to have zero objectivity here and say a bunch of things that are not only demonstrably untrue, but disproved with some simple Google research into the history and political positions of various Churches, Synagogues, etc, here. Not the level of conversation I've come to expect from you at all. It makes me wonder if you actually know any "theists" here.
But all of this is, as you say, somewhat beside the point. We can draw a simple inference from this thread. Someone posts a video of Dawkins. Cue multiple pages of people saying he’s mean, he’s obsessive, he’s deranged, he’s rude, he says bad things about women. But almost no actual engagement with what he said.
I've mentioned way more detail about Dawkins than you have about "theists", and been more accurate to what he actually does and says, sheesh, have fun.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

DAWKINI
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by PeterC »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:08 pm

I've mentioned way more detail about Dawkins than you have about "theists", and been more accurate to what he actually does and says, sheesh, have fun.
Again, you still haven’t engaged with his arguments: you’ve dug up comments he’s made about Muslims and women to impugn him.

And websites with somewhat generic statements aren’t really the point. The point is what they’re doing in terms of endorsing candidates for election, what they’re saying in pulpits to voters. I don’t deny that certain churches have historically been on the side of the good guys from time to time. The civil rights movement comes to mind. But there was a fundamental (no pun intended) shift during the Reagan administration where the larger Christian organisations in the US they got involved into politics in an organized way, and those organisations without exception had a clear “conservative” focus: there was no countervailing moderate Christian representation. I’m not talking about the Deep South, this is prevalent at the national level in an insidious way. And that’s just the US - it’s a story elsewhere but rarely do you see churches being a restraining influence. The Catholic Church was friendly with every Latin American dictatorship of the late 20th century, for instance. (I’m assuming you’re not going to argue that the Catholic Church is a force for good in politics.).

But anyway. You do seem to like the theists more than the atheists. On both philosophical and practical grounds,
I cannot imagine why that would be. But it’s your prerogative.
User avatar
Queen Elizabeth II
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Queen Elizabeth II »

Giovanni wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:00 pm www.richarddawkins.net
This was the first place I looked, but I can only find the two of them endorsing and praising each other, with Blackmore praising Dawkins as recently as September last year.

:shrug:
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Giovanni »

The conversation I quoted from was from about 12 years ago or more. It didn’t say that they were no longer friends. It said that he made it clear that he didn’t approve of her involvement with Zen.
humble.student
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:35 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by humble.student »

Blackmore's wikipedia biography, quoting herself, says she is not a Buddhist, and presumably is just interested in meditation.
I doubt that Dawkins could find fault with sitting down quietly for an hour a day, but then again, he just might.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Aemilius »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:30 pm
Aemilius wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:35 pm
You can't avoid the language of "I", it seems; you too say "whose three-dimensional space am I occupying?”. Language refers to things in the outer and inner world. In the Apohavada it is said that if the things that language refers to have results, then they exist and are real, i.e. they act as real causes.
Decision is or it can be a complicated process, e.g.: 1. certain possibilities appear to you in your mind or imagination, 2. you weigh these possibilities, 3. you try to visualize and predict their outcomes, 4. maybe you remember your previous commitments and promises to certain courses of action, 5. you decide to follow your commitments, or 6. you interpret these commitments in some ingenious way, or 7. you discard the commitments and you decide to do something contrary to them, and 8. you give reasons to yourself for doing so, and 9. time is running out now and you finally you have to make a decision, 10. you arrive at a decision and execute it as speech, bodily action or activity of mind.
All true.
However, they are still conventions imputed on the object.
Again, if I perish, the space I occupied is still there.
In the Apohavada it is said that if the things that language refers to have results, then they exist and are real, i.e. they act as real causes.
Santa Claus makes children behave and have trouble going to sleep on Christmas Eve. Those are both very real results. But is Santa real then?

Most would argue that it isn’t Santa Claus per se but rather childhood anticipation which causes behavioral changes. I suggest that, likewise, it is like this with other things as well. If something can be identified as a cause, as an ultimate cause, then that thing must have an inherent existence, being the result of not anything other than itself. Buddhist theory says “good luck finding very many things that fit that description!”
The presents given by Santa Claus are real, so he must be real too!
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Aemilius wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:44 amThe presents given by Santa Claus are real, so he must be real too!
or it could be said that santa is no more real than the presents he delivers.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Nemo »

Aemilius wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:44 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:30 pm
Aemilius wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:35 pm
You can't avoid the language of "I", it seems; you too say "whose three-dimensional space am I occupying?”. Language refers to things in the outer and inner world. In the Apohavada it is said that if the things that language refers to have results, then they exist and are real, i.e. they act as real causes.
Decision is or it can be a complicated process, e.g.: 1. certain possibilities appear to you in your mind or imagination, 2. you weigh these possibilities, 3. you try to visualize and predict their outcomes, 4. maybe you remember your previous commitments and promises to certain courses of action, 5. you decide to follow your commitments, or 6. you interpret these commitments in some ingenious way, or 7. you discard the commitments and you decide to do something contrary to them, and 8. you give reasons to yourself for doing so, and 9. time is running out now and you finally you have to make a decision, 10. you arrive at a decision and execute it as speech, bodily action or activity of mind.
All true.
However, they are still conventions imputed on the object.
Again, if I perish, the space I occupied is still there.
In the Apohavada it is said that if the things that language refers to have results, then they exist and are real, i.e. they act as real causes.
Santa Claus makes children behave and have trouble going to sleep on Christmas Eve. Those are both very real results. But is Santa real then?

Most would argue that it isn’t Santa Claus per se but rather childhood anticipation which causes behavioral changes. I suggest that, likewise, it is like this with other things as well. If something can be identified as a cause, as an ultimate cause, then that thing must have an inherent existence, being the result of not anything other than itself. Buddhist theory says “good luck finding very many things that fit that description!”
The presents given by Santa Claus are real, so he must be real too!
OK, but who is going to be the jerk and tell the kids Santa is a lie?
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Santa is a pretty powerful lie. MY daughter figured out he wasn't a real dude early on, like 5 or something. Still, she spent all kinds of time teaching her brother about him and making it fun, even participated in "from Santa" present giving before he figured it out too - we didn't have to tell either of them, no one told me either. They still love all the Santa stuff, even though they're Jewish. A lot of people and figures "aren't real" have been dead a long time, etc. but still have an undeniably huge effect on things. Hell, this doesn't even need to be said (or shouldn't) to a group of people who are familiar with Deity yoga.

I guess if one is a complete materialist there is no real significance to this - it's just all make-believe-, because that is the materialist view, all subjective experience is ultimately not only empty (but certainly not luminous), it is basically just a lie, because reality can be boiled down to matter, and mind and experience are just a kind of pointless epi-phenomena of matter.

Am I saying everyone should literally believe in Santa, or deities for that matter? Naw, not really, there are some serious pitfalls there too obviously. However, there is more to subjective experience from my point of view than boiling everything down that way, saying that something has no ontological status if it has no physical manifestation. Think about the number of things that rules out, it's actually a little absurd, maybe nearly as absurd as insisting that Santa "really exists". If this is a good way to look at the world, then there is no point in art, music, remembrance, or anything really that acknowledges profound or significant subjective experiences. I'm not saying that everyone who is a materialist does that by any means, but it is always the argument which is brought out when trying to disprove a "superstition" or some such.

While it might be a convenient thing to use against the local fundies, against the notions of Santa Claus or whatever, there are some underlying assumptions to that line of thinking that I don't think are particularly grand.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
KristenM
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:13 am
Location: California

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by KristenM »

Ok, I’ll bite, Peter C. Some of us are making ad hominem arguments against Dawkins, just for the fun of it; however we basically agree with the video and Dawkins’ views on religion overall. He merely makes a cottage industry out of stating the obvious. Seems we have ALL agreed he is a competent evolutionary biologist.

Just for the sake of argument, theistic religion is like any and every institution created by humans, i.e. deeply flawed, as we ourselves are. Religion and politics have been organizing principles in society, for better and worse, for a very long time. I do know some devout Christians who are pro LGBTQ, pro-choice, vote liberal etc. I’ll even go so far to say that many of my African American acquaintances and friends are practicing Christians and their faith is deeply important to their family and culture, having gotten through a lot of hell with faith that helped them survive, if someone wants to dismiss their faith as stupid and naive, then have at it. Dawkins has the privilege of never having needed faith to help his family survive, I suppose.
Danny
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:43 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Danny »

TharpaChodron wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:43 pm Ok, I’ll bite, Peter C. Some of us are making ad hominem arguments against Dawkins, just for the fun of it; however we basically agree with the video and Dawkins’ views on religion overall. He merely makes a cottage industry out of stating the obvious. Seems we have ALL agreed he is a competent evolutionary biologist.

Just for the sake of argument, theistic religion is like any and every institution created by humans, i.e. deeply flawed, as we ourselves are. Religion and politics have been organizing principles in society, for better and worse, for a very long time. I do know some devout Christians who are pro LGBTQ, pro-choice, vote liberal etc. I’ll even go so far to say that many of my African American acquaintances and friends are practicing Christians and their faith is deeply important to their family and culture, having gotten through a lot of hell with faith that helped them survive, if someone wants to dismiss their faith as stupid and naive, then have at it. Dawkins has the privilege of never having needed faith to help his family survive, I suppose.

This is a good post.
Peter C also had made some valid points. JD has contributed well..Malcolm as well...
Good reading.
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Nemo »

So is the religious part of Buddhism Santa? You could argue effectively the culty bits are worthwhile for character development if they are discarded once one reaches the far shore having achieved the 8 Paramitas(or however many your tradition has). My problem is lately the culty bits are making people sick. Both teachers who have been saddled with the ego trip Tulku and the students they sexually and financially exploit.I think we need to get a bit more sophisticated or risk things becoming exactly as the Buddha predicted by this time. Charismatic charlatans masquerading as Dharma teachers.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Nemo wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:32 pm So is the religious part of Buddhism Santa? You could argue effectively the culty bits are worthwhile for character development if they are discarded once one reaches the far shore having achieved the 8 Paramitas(or however many your tradition has). My problem is lately the culty bits are making people sick. Both teachers who have been saddled with the ego trip Tulku and the students they sexually and financially exploit.I think we need to get a bit more sophisticated or risk things becoming exactly as the Buddha predicted by this time. Charismatic charlatans masquerading as Dharma teachers.
Poison can be medicine and vice versa. Devotion is both a force for amazing things, and something that can be transformed into the ugliest excesses in human history. Look at what happens with emotionally intelligent sociopaths.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Danny
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:43 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Danny »

Devotion to other is not the Buddha’s essential teaching.
This is an out growth of centuries of man made conceits and needs to be rejected.
Is modern Buddhism a cult?

Does it make for superstition and an enemy of reason?
Absolutely.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”