Re: Batchelor's "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist"
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:48 pm
Thanks for your comments, clw.
clw:
"They are arguing against faith so this would apply to organised religion as awell as private beliefs. Its not elitist to say that the emperor has no clothes is it, your just showing a fact. I also have never heard them say that only "educated westerners have all the answers". Actually they claim not to have all the answers, its the religious who claim to. Furthermore they are not racist in any way. I would like to see you provided a racist comment that any of them has ever said. You also seem to be forgetting that their attacks are aimed at white americans just as much as arab muslims etc
"Also on a side note, there is no such thing as "western science" there is only science"
No, it is not elitist to say the emperor isn't wearing clothes. But it is an act of elitism for a small group of self-prescribed "militant atheists" (Dawkins' term) to go around assuming that specific peoples in specific cultures can't find answers to their own issues, and thus need the rational Westerners to tell them what's what. Who cares what they think? Why should India or Tibet or Thailand care what they have to say about their practices? Those guys aren't from that culture - they didn't grow up there, they don't have a personal connection to the culture at all. They are merely observing from the outside, interpreting what they see from their own cultural lens and therefore establishing erroneous solutions on that basis.
Like I said, I'm the first person to criticize most organized religions, especially those espousing blind faith. But I'm not so pompous as to think that everyone except me is getting it wrong.
They don't have to specifically come out and say "only white Westeners have the answers" - their actions say it for them. Batchelor is a prime example: reading into the scriptures with his own interpretations, practically casting aside all evidence to the contrary of his theories, relegating important Buddhist concepts to mere normalities of a period. It's one thing not to believe, but another to deny importance and even historical validity. That is selfish and culturally insensitive.
Please read my statements again - I never once said those guys are racist. I said their positions, their insistence on rejecting all things religious and spiritual, comes off as racist - appears racist in nature. By denying whole cultures the right to define their own experiences, their own truths - ones that work for them specifically - by denying this right, they are being culturally insensitive and maybe even a little racist. You don't have to say "I hate black people" to act in a way that proves it. This insistence on pure materialist science is the same tradition that our modern technologies come from that are killing off ecosystems and biodiversity on this planet.
If there are parts of a religious tradition that are oppressing its members and/or are concentrating power into the hands of just a select few, these parts should be strongly criticized and addressed. That being said, it's not up to us outsiders to determine what should be done. How about we let people determine what's best for them, as they have done? They don't need us to come over there and save them. And besides, as I've said before, the West has proven time and time again they aren't so good at that anyway.
Dawkins, Batchelor, Hitchens and the like have some very important things to say about the tremendous downsides of organized religion. But they rarely take the time to give cultures and ethnicities the chance to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not up to a handful of so-called scientists to determine what's good practice for people thousands of miles away from them. What gives them the right to do that? If they were to come down here to the Southern U.S. and walk into a black church or family, they would be laughed out the door. Their efforts are futile in light of their ultimate aim - do you honestly expect them to acheive the end of religion? Of course not. If a culture does away with a tradition, its because they were ready to do so (or were forced to by an outside, which is what the West seems to be good at doing).
And there's a huge difference between the way pure materialist science is practiced and the sciences that allow further investigation into non-material phenomena. As a couple of the articles I have posted have stated, there's nothing wrong with invoking the scientific method into non-material phenomena. We may just as well find out that nothing of spiritual or non-material substance can be tested in this way, but the norm in science has been to reject the possibility before ever even finding out if it's actually possible. This is patently non-scientific even according to their own definitions.
clw:
"Of course it is. We need to stop thinking its a taboo to question religious belief otherwise it fosters a wall of silence and this lets irrationality become more entrenched. An example would be the "Intelligent Design" movement. Now of course not all religious people adhere to such nonsense, however this is because they use reason and do not just rely on blind faith, which is the whole point"
I never said anything about questioning religion as a taboo. Just because a particular religious belief or notion doesn't fit with our own definitions of logic and reason doesn't mean it's not a functional part of another's life. My parents believe in the christian god, devil/satan, and most all of what the bible says about everything. This doesn't mean they aren't able to hold intelligent, well-reasoned discussions about these issues without resorting to religious faith (and they have had such discussions with me and others on numerous ocassions). Furthermore, their particular beliefs serve a certain FUNCTION in their lives - family and cultural traditions, and remaining close to those traditions so they don't forget where they come from.
This is what Batchelor and his kin fail to realize. Religions aren't created in a vacuum - they MUST be seen in their cultural and ethnic context. I can hoop and holler all I want about how my beloved African American people were not christian before being forced in chains to the Americas, that doesn't change the fact that christian beliefs and faith systems have been a part of my culture and ethnic reality for centuries. Do we honestly expect the peoples of the Middle East and Eastern parts of the world to completely give up their cultural and ethnic traditions (which oftentimes includes their religions) just because a few scientists in the world show them they could be all wrong? Give me a break.
Dawkins and Hitchens talk a lot about doing more good in the world than religion can ever do, and I agree with them for the most part. You don't have to be religious to have the capacity to practice generosity, charity and goodwill towards all people. But then again, it can also be said that you don't have to give up your religion to do it either. And if the religion can help people do it, what's wrong with that? Our energy is better used encouraging the capacity in people to do good deeds than trying to get them to rid themselves of long-held beliefs. It's not our place and we shouldn't want it to be.
How about we absolve ourselves of the self-imposed role of "belief court" of the world, and instead be examples of goodness that others can follow?
Dhammakid
clw:
"They are arguing against faith so this would apply to organised religion as awell as private beliefs. Its not elitist to say that the emperor has no clothes is it, your just showing a fact. I also have never heard them say that only "educated westerners have all the answers". Actually they claim not to have all the answers, its the religious who claim to. Furthermore they are not racist in any way. I would like to see you provided a racist comment that any of them has ever said. You also seem to be forgetting that their attacks are aimed at white americans just as much as arab muslims etc
"Also on a side note, there is no such thing as "western science" there is only science"
No, it is not elitist to say the emperor isn't wearing clothes. But it is an act of elitism for a small group of self-prescribed "militant atheists" (Dawkins' term) to go around assuming that specific peoples in specific cultures can't find answers to their own issues, and thus need the rational Westerners to tell them what's what. Who cares what they think? Why should India or Tibet or Thailand care what they have to say about their practices? Those guys aren't from that culture - they didn't grow up there, they don't have a personal connection to the culture at all. They are merely observing from the outside, interpreting what they see from their own cultural lens and therefore establishing erroneous solutions on that basis.
Like I said, I'm the first person to criticize most organized religions, especially those espousing blind faith. But I'm not so pompous as to think that everyone except me is getting it wrong.
They don't have to specifically come out and say "only white Westeners have the answers" - their actions say it for them. Batchelor is a prime example: reading into the scriptures with his own interpretations, practically casting aside all evidence to the contrary of his theories, relegating important Buddhist concepts to mere normalities of a period. It's one thing not to believe, but another to deny importance and even historical validity. That is selfish and culturally insensitive.
Please read my statements again - I never once said those guys are racist. I said their positions, their insistence on rejecting all things religious and spiritual, comes off as racist - appears racist in nature. By denying whole cultures the right to define their own experiences, their own truths - ones that work for them specifically - by denying this right, they are being culturally insensitive and maybe even a little racist. You don't have to say "I hate black people" to act in a way that proves it. This insistence on pure materialist science is the same tradition that our modern technologies come from that are killing off ecosystems and biodiversity on this planet.
If there are parts of a religious tradition that are oppressing its members and/or are concentrating power into the hands of just a select few, these parts should be strongly criticized and addressed. That being said, it's not up to us outsiders to determine what should be done. How about we let people determine what's best for them, as they have done? They don't need us to come over there and save them. And besides, as I've said before, the West has proven time and time again they aren't so good at that anyway.
Dawkins, Batchelor, Hitchens and the like have some very important things to say about the tremendous downsides of organized religion. But they rarely take the time to give cultures and ethnicities the chance to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not up to a handful of so-called scientists to determine what's good practice for people thousands of miles away from them. What gives them the right to do that? If they were to come down here to the Southern U.S. and walk into a black church or family, they would be laughed out the door. Their efforts are futile in light of their ultimate aim - do you honestly expect them to acheive the end of religion? Of course not. If a culture does away with a tradition, its because they were ready to do so (or were forced to by an outside, which is what the West seems to be good at doing).
And there's a huge difference between the way pure materialist science is practiced and the sciences that allow further investigation into non-material phenomena. As a couple of the articles I have posted have stated, there's nothing wrong with invoking the scientific method into non-material phenomena. We may just as well find out that nothing of spiritual or non-material substance can be tested in this way, but the norm in science has been to reject the possibility before ever even finding out if it's actually possible. This is patently non-scientific even according to their own definitions.
clw:
"Of course it is. We need to stop thinking its a taboo to question religious belief otherwise it fosters a wall of silence and this lets irrationality become more entrenched. An example would be the "Intelligent Design" movement. Now of course not all religious people adhere to such nonsense, however this is because they use reason and do not just rely on blind faith, which is the whole point"
I never said anything about questioning religion as a taboo. Just because a particular religious belief or notion doesn't fit with our own definitions of logic and reason doesn't mean it's not a functional part of another's life. My parents believe in the christian god, devil/satan, and most all of what the bible says about everything. This doesn't mean they aren't able to hold intelligent, well-reasoned discussions about these issues without resorting to religious faith (and they have had such discussions with me and others on numerous ocassions). Furthermore, their particular beliefs serve a certain FUNCTION in their lives - family and cultural traditions, and remaining close to those traditions so they don't forget where they come from.
This is what Batchelor and his kin fail to realize. Religions aren't created in a vacuum - they MUST be seen in their cultural and ethnic context. I can hoop and holler all I want about how my beloved African American people were not christian before being forced in chains to the Americas, that doesn't change the fact that christian beliefs and faith systems have been a part of my culture and ethnic reality for centuries. Do we honestly expect the peoples of the Middle East and Eastern parts of the world to completely give up their cultural and ethnic traditions (which oftentimes includes their religions) just because a few scientists in the world show them they could be all wrong? Give me a break.
Dawkins and Hitchens talk a lot about doing more good in the world than religion can ever do, and I agree with them for the most part. You don't have to be religious to have the capacity to practice generosity, charity and goodwill towards all people. But then again, it can also be said that you don't have to give up your religion to do it either. And if the religion can help people do it, what's wrong with that? Our energy is better used encouraging the capacity in people to do good deeds than trying to get them to rid themselves of long-held beliefs. It's not our place and we shouldn't want it to be.
How about we absolve ourselves of the self-imposed role of "belief court" of the world, and instead be examples of goodness that others can follow?
Dhammakid