The Dawkins Dilemma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by BlackBird »

Chris wrote: Many of us live in areas with such slow downloading that we are unable to watch this video.
Could you post a precis of the points he is making, and your thoughts on them, so we can all join in the discussion please?
Hi Chris, here's a transcript of that talk:
(Applause)

That’s very kind thank you very much

Now it’s sometimes said that human’s need religion, even if it isn’t true. They need the comfort, of religion. I think there’s something rather patronizing about that, rather condescending about it, but… That’s what people say, often atheists say it.

Of course you and I are too intelligent to need religion, but what about all those poor people out there who need the comfort of religion? Humanities need for comfort is of course real. But isn’t there something childish, something infantile, in the belief that the universe owes us comfort, in the sense that if something is comforting, that must kind of make it true. Isaac Asimov’s remark, about the infantilism of pseudo-science is just as applicable to religion, he said: “Inspect every piece of pseudo science and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold.” And it is astonishing how many people are unable to understand that ‘X is comforting’ does not imply ‘X is true.’

A related plaint concerns the need for in purpose [sic] in life. To quote one Canadian critic:
The atheists may be right about god, who knows. But god or no god, it’s clear that something in the human soul requires the belief that life has a purpose that transcends the material plane. One would think that a more rational-than-thou empiricist such as Dawkins would recognize this unchanging aspect of human nature. Does Dawkins really think that this world would be a more human place if we all looked to the ‘God Delusion’ instead of the Bible for truth and comfort?”

Actually yes.

(Laughter and applause from audience)

Since you mention humane, yes I do. But I must repeat, yet again, that the consolation content of the belief, does not raise it’s truth value.
I can’t deny the need for emotional comfort, and I claim that the world view adopted in my book, offers any more than moderate comfort. If you’re afraid of death for example, you might superficially think that a priest, who tells you that you’re not really going to die, would be more comforting than a scientist who tells you it is highly implausible that our individuality could survive the decay of our brains. But I have heard (laughter from audience) I have heard experienced nurses, who have worked all their lives in old people’s homes say that the ones who are most terrified of death, tend to be the Roman Catholics. All that guilt, fed from the cradle up and the terror of purgatory and hell. As for eternal nothingness, is it really all that frightening? As Mark Twain said: "I do not fear death, I’d been dead for billions and billions of years, before I was born and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience. "
In any case, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone at a funeral who desense [sic] from the view, my view that the non-religious parts; the eulogies, the deceased’s favorite poems, or music, those non religious parts, are always more moving, than the prayers.
I want to end by reading the opening lines of a previous book of mine ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’ these are lines that I’ve long earmarked for my own funeral:

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die, because they are never going to be born. The potential people that could have been here in my place, but who will in fact will never see the light of day, outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this, because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA, so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds, it is you and I in our ordinariness that are here. We privileged few who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine, about our inevitable return to that prior state, for which the vast majority, have never stirred.
Thank you, very much

(Applause and ovation)
Last edited by BlackBird on Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by BlackBird »

Ah, acinteyyo's one step ahead of me :thumbsup:

I can see a rather large contradiction in the first few lines of Dawkins' speech, but perhaps that was for dramatic effect.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by pink_trike »

retrofuturist wrote:Not at all, quite the opposite in fact.
That's right on the money. The "peace" arises in part from the acknowledgement that there are no security blankets and that the nature of "reality" is uncertainty.
retrofuturist wrote:This 'security blanket' is the belief in something unproveable just because it makes one feel more safe. This 'security blanket' does not exist in the Dhamma.
...even though many Buddhists are wrapped snug in layers of "Buddhist" security blankets of their own making.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings pink_trike,

That's precisely why I said "the Dhamma" and not "Buddhism".

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Dhammabodhi
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: New Delhi, India

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by Dhammabodhi »

Hi everyone,

Thank you for all your replies! :anjali: :anjali:

I'm sorry I was late in providing the transcript, thanks acinteyyo and Blackbird! :bow:

Ben, I agree with you. But as a highly experienced pratictioner your fact, is my faith. And faith waivers, especially when the 'rational' mind knocks on the door. Due to my own shortcomings I am unable to see.

Chris, as is evident, my take on this is of a confused person, lost in the 'thicket of views'. For me, the third and the fourth noble truths give the kind of comfort and purpose of life that Dawkins is talking about. Perhaps I've got it all wrong, that's why the doubt. I'll explain more below.
Blackbird wrote:Do we admire Hitler for his courage during those early years?
As for Dawkins himself, he clearly differs from Hitler in that he opposes all those things that are carried on in the name of religion that are not just illogical, but unjust and a lot of times fraudulent, not to mention violent. As far as I'm concerned, courage to stand up against what is wrong is admirable. Does the way he presents his views skilful? I don't think so, because a) people who don't base their lives on reason can't be reasoned with in hope of changing them, and b) his way is perceived to be harsh and disrespectful, even to some atheists. He argues in the same lecture in UC Berkeley (but in another video) that even critics for theaters, art, or restaurants are outright rude and it is socially acceptable.

Laurens and Tex, I see your point. But nevertheless, his vocal and straightforward ways don't make him wrong, and raising awareness about science and rationality in this way probably reaches a wider audience. I remember it's somewhere in the Suttas that the Buddha asked us to speak through logic and reason, even though others might not like to hear what's being said.

I do agree though that he does not appear to be so well-versed with Buddhist philosophy. But he's extremely vocal against some New-age gurus like Chopra who under the garb of Buddhism or Hinduism or some other mixture of esoteric eastern mystical traditions take huge amounts of money for 'spiritual healing'. He is perfectly justified in this in my view.
retrofuturist wrote:I don't see anything inherently incompatible between them.
The incompatibility lies in the problem of 'after-death'. He clearly advocates a nihilist point of view which the Buddha has denied. This of course doesn't effect the present moment. So it is not the incompatibility that is a problem, but to ask questions from one point of view to the other is. For a beginner like me, experiencing fleeting moments of profound peace has changed my world view completely. So much so that I'm strongly inclined to commit completely to the path. But, as he says, 'just because X is comforting doesn't mean X is true'...which I take to mean that I should question whether I should take as my goal a purported future enlightenment, for which I have not seen any evidence, just because I have an 'intuition' for it and the practice gives me peace and comfort in my life. This is the reason for my vicikicca. The Kalama Sutta comes to mind, but if I am honest with myself, I have to say that I'm susceptible, like many people, to this 'need' for a higher purpose and following it through in this life. Through personal experience I do have a very strong feeling that I'm on the right path, but I have to keep asking questions to be sure that I'm not deluding myself.

Thanks again for all your comments. I'll of course keep practicing, and try to see. I know of a particularly big giant whose shoulders I can stand on. :)

Metta, :anjali:
Dhammabodhi
"Take rest, take rest."-S.N.Goenka
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dhammabodhi,
Dhammabodhi wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I don't see anything inherently incompatible between them.
The incompatibility lies in the problem of 'after-death'. He clearly advocates a nihilist point of view which the Buddha has denied.
Well that's just another belief in something unproveable, isn't it? He just needs to be more consistent with his argument.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by BlackBird »

Dhammabodhi wrote:This is the reason for my vicikicca. The Kalama Sutta comes to mind, but if I am honest with myself, I have to say that I'm susceptible, like many people, to this 'need' for a higher purpose and following it through in this life. Through personal experience I do have a very strong feeling that I'm on the right path, but I have to keep asking questions to be sure that I'm not deluding myself.

Thanks again for all your comments. I'll of course keep practicing, and try to see. I know of a particularly big giant whose shoulders I can stand on. :)

Metta, :anjali:
Dhammabodhi
Been through a bout of this myself just recently. One thing that helped me through was to observe the 1st and 2nd Noble Truths. Looking closer, dukkha is everywhere, you can't escape it. At the same time there's this constant desire to be rid of it, to go do something else, because maybe that will satisfy. Not so.

These first two truths can be seen on our mundane level, everywhere. Now the logical inference is that if the Buddha is the only teacher ever to diagnose dukkha, the only teacher ever to get to the heart of craving, then the 3rd and 4th Noble truths must be spot on the money also. How could it be otherwise?

To a degree, it's always going to be a leap of faith. The important thing is that the Dhamma is Opanayiko, like a rabbit hole. There are those alive today, even here at Dhamma Wheel I suspect, who have gone a lot further than us and can yodel on back that the way is clear and good. Who knows actually, I might be at the back of the pack, in which case I'm probably telling my grandmother how to suck eggs. It's impossible to say, but the important thing is, as you have said Dhammabodhi is that we keep practicing, and keep this Dhamma-train rolling.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by zavk »

Dhammabodhi wrote:Is the peace one experiences through meditation just a 'security blanket' which is self-decieving?
This immediately reminded me of something that Ajahn Chah said. I think I read it in A Still Forest Pool:
If you haven't wept deeply, you haven't begun to meditate.
Not sure if you can call that kind of experience a 'security blanket'......
With metta,
zavk
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by PeterB »

Mawkish1983 wrote:
Tex wrote:Dawkins specifically mentions that there is reason to view Buddhism apart from other religions.
How terribly nice of him.

Sorry. I find Dawkins to be... abrasive. Might have to do a bit of reflection on that...
I think those of us who live in the UK sometimes have a different view of Dawkins than those who do not. We see him on the box frequently when not reading from prepared statements or literary passages composed in his Oxford study for delivery to a TV or video camera. After a while many of us find that the strident anger and intolerence becomes wearying. The eyes become steely and flashing just a little too often for comfort. And as for the young cohort of followers who dog his steps, they are frankly worrying as they ( among over things ) bombard anti vivisection protests with verbal abuse and intimidation......for those who will not know the story a new lab specifically designed for vivisection experiments on primates was planned for Oxford, it was opposed by many, but championed by Dawkins at his most wild eyed, and his followers , who won the day by intimidatory tactics. One of Dawkins proteges Susan Blackmore is a Zen student and there is evidence that she has modified his views on Buddhism, but frankly with friends like Dawkins I am not sure that Buddhism needs enemies.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by Kim OHara »

Hi, everyone,
Coming late to the thread, I'll make a series of assertions which agree with some of you and disagree with others (sorry) while trying to move the discussion forward a bit:
:soap:
Dawkins is abrasive, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, just that his teaching style will alienate some listeners.
Dawkins is (nevertheless) wrong when he falls into the (typically militant-Western-atheist) habit of tacitly equating religion with monotheism and describing arguments against monotheism as arguments against religion. (I note that he did explicitly say, once, that he was not talking about Buddhism - but I am sure that he did not repeat that caveat often enough to remind himself, and his audience, that some religion is not monotheism.) Tamas Pataki does exactly the same thing in 'Against Religion'.
Dawkins is right in a lot of his criticism of religion. Any belief system that rejects or denies the conventional truths discovered by the physical sciences is an obstacle to both commonsense learning and to enlightenment. 'Creation science', one of Dawkins' pet hates, falls into that category. (HHDL has supported what I'm saying here, saying that where Buddhist cosmology conflicts with Western science, Buddhist cosmology must step aside in favour of more accurate knowledge.)
Dawkins is wrong when extrapolates from that to say, in effect, that anything the physical sciences don't know or can't know is illusory and irrational. Subjective experience is the real locus of Buddhism and it is outside of Western science (however much some people try to say that Buddhism is scientific) but not necessarily irrational or illusory.

Conclusions?
Monotheism looks very wobbly. Dawkins' criticisms do (mostly) apply, and belief in any interventionist deity is inconsistent with belief in science.
Buddhism still looks good. Most of Dawkins' criticisms of religion don't really touch it, but we may need to abandon some of the peripheral parts of Buddhist lore.
/ soap-box

:anjali:
Kim
User avatar
Michael_S
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:09 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by Michael_S »

Dawkins is wrong when extrapolates from that to say, in effect, that anything the physical sciences don't know or can't know is illusory and irrational.
Dawkins could thus perhaps be considered as one who's outlook can be considered as scientism.

Not sure where I heard it, but a waggish description of scientism is:

Scientism is the self-annihilating proposition that the only real knowledge is that
which can be demonstrated scientifically, which is itself a proposition that can not be
scientifically demonstrated.

Mike
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by pink_trike »

zavk wrote:
Dhammabodhi wrote:Is the peace one experiences through meditation just a 'security blanket' which is self-decieving?
This immediately reminded me of something that Ajahn Chah said. I think I read it in A Still Forest Pool:
If you haven't wept deeply, you haven't begun to meditate.
Not sure if you can call that kind of experience a 'security blanket'......
Great quote.

Real peace doesn't start emerging until we've shed security blanket after security blanket after security blanket...

It takes commitment, courage, and a willingness to experience appearances and sensations nakedly and raw. The Dharma isn't necessarily about feeling good, its about being awake.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by PeterB »

One of Ajahn Chahs monks told me that Luang Por had said to him " your practice doesnt really begin until you have been taken to despair three times " He didnt suggest that at that point all traces are kicked over and tradition abandoned, rather that tradition sparks into life, renews itself, the baton passes.
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by Cafael Dust »

The problem with science is that when I say, for instance, 'I know there is no life after death because I saw brain pathways during a dissection and so I have proof that my consciousness is a machine', I am really saying:

'I know a past experiment involving a machine-brain-causing-consciousness to be true because a thought and image popped up in my awareness telling me it was a memory, and I remember that there is a past which one can rely upon for information about the future. I know the future to exist because I remember it doing so before, right after the past - oh look, here it is, just like all the other bits and pieces of what-I-think-truth-to-be-ness all of which occur, conveniently, right at this moment. Yet I rely on the utterly unsupported underlying assumptions without question, and call people mad if they attempt to undermine them. '

And another thing with reason/materialism/fetters of views in general; does one really understand one's own thoughts, language, therefore views in general? Consciousness is not elastic through time, it only exists right now, so one couldn't possibly understand durational objects like thoughts, sentences, conversation, meaning in general. You aren't there to. So you don't understand what you're reading and I don't understand what I'm writing. (insert witty comment here). How can a person have an ego about being clever or having the right opinions when he never understood anything in his life?

The aggregates just give you these little eureka-I-understand/grrr-that-makes-me-angry/sigh-this-is-boring moments that keep us in the loop of believing we're believing we believe in the illusion which isn't one. In truth, they don't even do this much, even that's just another story. (Yes, I know Buddha said that the aggregates create a sense of self etc etc and that this was really definitely true and true even if you write it in frivolous fonts or translate it to german and back using Babelfish. What I'm saying doesn't contradict him on the level he spoke, it's just my dance, what I have to offer, for us now, pile of rafts by the river).
One of Ajahn Chahs monks told me that Luang Por had said to him " your practice doesnt really begin until you have been taken to despair three times " He didnt suggest that at that point all traces are kicked over and tradition abandoned, rather that tradition sparks into life, renews itself, the baton passes.
You just keep peeling, I guess. And it's completely unfair and intolerable and then it begins, and there's no more despair then.

So Buddhism is not science or scientific and so on. It's not about what you read and cross-referenced or reason or scholarship or memory of any other of these empty vessels, floating on no shore. It's got nothing to do with Dawkins and his whole metaphysical world of spacial/mental-beams and foundations and so on. Buddhism, or rather Dharma, can only be experienced; it's not a metaphysical thing, it's your life, now, as it unfolds and surpasses all expectations.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Dawkins Dilemma

Post by Kim OHara »

Hi, folks,
I saw an interview with Dawkins on (Aussie) ABC TV last night. If I had thought of it, I could have alerted you to it ahead of time - sorry - but you still may be able to see it. Try http://www.abc.net.au/
Andrew Denton, who is a good, thoughtful interviewer, talked to him and it was revealingly uninformative: Dawkins was unable, I think, rather than unwilling, to answer any questions about why he is the way he is, or why he thinks the way he does. He came across as a basically nice, kind, positive person but one with no insight at all into himself (and very little into other people). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the abrasiveness people have commented on is simply that lack of empathy.
At this point we can all jump up and down and say, 'typical [insert expletive of choice] scientist.' That would be partly right, too, but not all scientists are so one-sided.

Kim
Post Reply