Posted on 06/30/2008 4:41:23 PM PDT by Kevmo
The crevo threads typically degenerate into name calling. Recently, the Religion Moderator declared that "science is not religion", and did not publish the criteria for such consideration. My suggestion to the evolutionist community has been to acknowledge that Scientism is a religion and start to utilize the protections offered under the religion tags that are different than other threads (due to the intensity of feelings over religious issues). So this thread is intended to be an ECUMENICAL thread under the tag of SCIENTISM. The intent is to keep discussion civil.
I would like to see a straightforward discussion over the topic of whether scientism should be treated as a religion on FR. I'll try to find the links to the adminlecture series about what the ground rules are on ecumenical threads, and I'll copy some recent interactions that show the need for scientism to be treated as a religion on FR.
"You don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old? Sorry, you don't get to call yourself a Christian."
No thanks.
That sounds reasonable. Is that forum-wide or are we talking about keeping it all in the Religion forum? If we dump it all into Religion it means we lose the ability to categorize by topic that posting in various other forums affords.
True, but his objection is accomplished without any open tag thread. The "ecumenical" thread is now discredited and the poster labeled an intellectual weakling. All this is accomplished regardless of the actual flaws in the "ecumenical" thread.
I dabbled with ecumenical threads on religious topics and find their use limited for that reason. Since I primariy debate things with Protestants, and their confession all grew from denying Catholiicsm, I feel that if I force them not to criticize Catholicism through the thread tag mechanism, I am putting them at a disadvantage.
As in, "Molto Mario hates Cajun Cooking" or "Emeril hates Hamburgers"
:>)
No, I’m not talking about a freepmail conversation. I’m talking about having use of the great conversation software that Free Republic uses.
Once someone sees the “Closed Caucus” designation, then they know it’s a closed door, so don’t get bent out of shape if you go through those portals.
That’s the same in the civilian world. If you’re walking down the street and hear the organ of the “First Church of the Holy Apparition Apostolic and Congregational” and YOU decide to walk through those doors, then you don’t jump up in the middle of the congregation and begin protesting.
You accept it as a learning experience, keep your mouth shut, and don’t come back again. You leave with lots of stories.
And no, there is no possibility of a “hate site” developing, because FR’s rules already preclude that. No personal attacks, violence, racism, etc.
Does the "Soup Nazi" have a web site?
TigersEye: "I'm not going to read past that nonsense. Good grief, that was only an excerpt? Why would anyone write so much gobbledygook? More to the point why would anyone read it? I got that far and it's like trying to wade through a page on DU. I can't do it."
I don't know what sort of Buddhism you've studied, but will you accept what was stated about anger if it comes straight out of the Dali Lama's mouth?:
Q: What did the Buddha teach about anger, specifically righteous anger? Is any anger acceptable in Buddhism?
A: The Dalai Lama recently answered the question, "Is there a positive form of anger?" by saying that righteous anger is a "defilement" or "afflictive emotion"--a Buddhist term translated from the Sanskrit word klesha--that must be _eliminated_ if one seeks to achieve nirvana. HERE
The soup nazi...
isn’t that found under “sauerkraut soup”
I practice Tibetan Buddhism. A different school than the Dalai Lama. Tibetan Buddhism is not taught or practiced in a hierarchical way so what the Dalai Lama says is of little importance to me unless he were one of my formal teachers or I was taking a teaching from him. Even then my personal teacher is the one whose instructions and teachings are foremost for me. That is essentially the tradition that even the Dalai Lama follows.
Q: What did the Buddha teach about anger, specifically righteous anger? Is any anger acceptable in Buddhism?
The ideas of "acceptable" or "not acceptable" are antithetical to the "view" that is taught and practiced in Tibetan Buddhism. The premise of the question is only valid from an outsider's POV particularly a western POV. What the Buddha said has to be taken according to the view of the particular level of teachings one is a student of and it is not possible to understand them without the view which is why a teacher is essential to any level of practice.
A: The Dalai Lama recently answered the question, "Is there a positive form of anger?" by saying that righteous anger is a "defilement" or "afflictive emotion"--a Buddhist term translated from the Sanskrit word klesha--that must be _eliminated_ if one seeks to achieve nirvana.
"Eliminated" is not a good word there and is not a quote of the Dalai Lama. It certainly shouldn't be taken literally but any Buddhist student would know that or have it clarified early on. You will notice that nothing in that statement suggests that anger (or any other emotion) should be sublimated. The article you link to is not very helpful as it is a mish mash of two very different styles and levels of teaching/practice. It begins with a few statements about what the Dalai Lama says about the nature of anger but switches to examples of what Thich Nhat Hanh says to do about it. It is a very long page of disparate and disconnected thoughts about Buddhist views. Too long for me to go through looking for mention of what I already know. I'm not putting the information there down but it looks like a blog, an internecine conversation, that isn't useful for explaining the view (Hinayana or Vajrayana) to a neophyte. In short; Vajrayana Buddhism practice is a means of transforming negative emotions not sublimating them. The very act of sublimating or suppressing emotions prevents the opportunity to work with them which is what tantric practice is. By definition if you are sublimating your emotions you are not doing practice.
No further comments? I liked that book and it sparked my interest in Intelligent Design ideas. It has an “old earth” view so you would probably disagree with it in parts.
I am open to being wrong on the big bang, but, again, I think it’s a bigger problem for atheists. I’m still going to review your links in greater detail, thank you.
"No further comments?" [excerpt]Being an ecumenical thread makes it interesting don't it?
It's too bad that your anger seemed to have gotten the best of you _:)_ and you then refused to read any further in my post #280. If you had read further, you would have seen that Gagdad Bob replied to the person whose remark you didn't like, pretty much the way you did above. Notice:
Gagdad replied to Bryan's observation thus:
"In the classical ideal, the thumotic passions of the "chest" mediate between the animal appetites of the belly and the abstract intellectual reasoning of the mind. It is a matter of the proper balance.
To the extent that a tradition tries to __eliminate__ anger, it is a false or partial teaching. Righteous anger is needed, but only in service of what is good or moral. [...]
"..We know so much more today about psychology than they did then, about the roots of pathological anger in childhood trauma. The key is not to split off or repress anger, but to integrate it harmoniously within the psyche." (more in #280)
Okay, now to get back to my post #46 which prompted your first reply - where `I said there are only two religions in the whole world when they're boiled down to their essence - ie: God is God or Man is God - would you agree with this statement?:
"..And this is also one of the more concise descriptions of what a Buddha is: a being of infinite compassion." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=105001834
LOL yeah, that's funny. It wasn't anger though it was boredom.
If you had read further, you would have seen that Gagdad Bob replied to the person whose remark you didn't like, pretty much the way you did above. Notice:
To the extent that a tradition tries to __eliminate__ anger, it is a false or partial teaching. Righteous anger is needed, but only in service of what is good or moral. [...]The key is not to split off or repress anger, but to integrate it harmoniously within the psyche."
I did see that. Since it supported my point and contradicted your assertion of what Buddhism teaches I didn't see a reason to address it. I didn't think you were using that as a point in your argument since that doesn't make sense to do.
would you agree with this statement?:
"..And this is also one of the more concise descriptions of what a Buddha is: a being of infinite compassion."
Sure. The definition of the word "Buddha" is "awakened being" and a more precise description of a Buddha would be a "fully awakened being." One aspect of a fully awakened being would be infinite compassion.
It seems that you were so bored _:)_ that you missed the fact that it wasn’t my assertion, it was the assertion of the Buddhist I was quoting.
The Buddhist I quoted was supposedly quoting the Dali Lama and I wanted to determine if you would agree with what he was supposed to have said about _eliminating_ boredom ... I mean...anger. :)
It made sense for me to do that because you had already said that you didn’t read past Bryan’s comment in my post - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=280#280 - even though now you’re admitting that you “did see that”. Your boredom seems to really be confusing you. :)
I asked you if you would agree with this statement:
“..And this is also one of the more concise descriptions of what a Buddha is: a being of infinite compassion.”
And you answered: “Sure. The definition of the word “Buddha” is “awakened being” and a more precise description of a Buddha would be a “fully awakened being.” One aspect of a fully awakened being would be infinite compassion.”
“Infinite [fill in all the rest of the attributes of God]”.
Thank you. Have we reached full circle from post 46 yet?http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=46#46
How is this not just another run-of-the-mill “Man is God” religion?
I thought that exchange between us was in reference to Gagdad Bob's writings in post #280. Is he a Buddhist?
The Buddhist I quoted was supposedly quoting the Dali Lama and I wanted to determine if you would agree with what he was supposed to have said about _eliminating_ boredom ... I mean...anger. :)
No, I don't agree that he was supposed to have said that and I don't agree that that is the Tibetan Buddhist view of how emotions are dealt with.
It made sense for me to do that because you had already said that you didnt read past Bryans comment in my post - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=280#280 - even though now youre admitting that you did see that. Your boredom seems to really be confusing you. :)
Not really. I read it after posting to you. My instinct that whatever followed the first mistake I found would be irrelevant was born out when I went back and read it.
Infinite [fill in all the rest of the attributes of God].
Those are your words and your choice to add them not mine. I can't account for attributes I didn't speak of, you haven't described and I have no knowledge of being a part of Buddhist view. Something I can't speak to not knowing what they are.
Thank you. Have we reached full circle from post 46 yet?http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=46#46
How is this not just another run-of-the-mill Man is God religion?
That is a very different statement than what you said in post #46 so it isn't really full circle to anything. As to the question; I don't know what you mean by "run-of-the-mill "Man is God" religion" or which ones (other than Buddhism) you put in that category. Since there are no external self-existent gods in the Buddhist view it isn't possible for a man to be one. Whether you intended it or not that is a straw man argument.
I agree that this is better approach. In addition to the objections you've raised, the idea of "Scientism" being considered a religion for purposes of starting ecumenic threads is flawed because as a religion it is only hypothetical.
I think what is being called "Scientism" and defined as a discrete religion is schism - a doctrinal point of departure among various other religions and denominations. It fails the test of being a religion for purposes of an ecumenical discussion because there are no adherents to that philosophy as a religion to post to the threads and represent that view.
Wow! I hope that this will be my last post in this thread as we have gotten way off subject. Not only that, but it has gotten to the point that I’m sure readers (if any) have totally lost track of who said what, when.
In this post, I will not attempt to address the “I said”, “no, you said” replies again as it’s gotten too confusing and I haven’t the time to go back over all those posts.
Suffice it to say that what I said in post #46 about there only being 2 religions is not any different than what I said in my other posts. If one rejects the Absolute Truth (God), he will substitute it for his own personal “truth” (god). Each human being has an “ultimate concern” (a god). That ultimate concern will either be God (as revealed by Jesus Christ), or it will be himself (nature, sentient and/or otherwise) and what he can achieve.
You asked if Bob Godwin, PhD (Gagddad Bob) is a Buddhist. He would answer that he is a Christian. I think he’s a very interesting character, and really like to read what he writes.
Here is a flavor for what he believes - and he addresses “scientism” in this commentary, also:
Excerpt:
“...The traditionalists are also profoundly anti-Darwinian, and in this regard — despite the great wisdom embodied in tradition — I believe they go too far. In my case, I would not call myself “anti-Darwinian,” just “un-Darwinian.” In other words, I accept any truths discovered by science, including natural selection, but I place those facts in a much wider metaphysical context that can never be explained by the empirical facts of science. To put it another way, the facts of science are only intelligible within a metaphysical framework that cannot be derived from science. In this regard, the water-tight logic of .. Kurt Gödel can never be surpassed by humans.
I cannot believe that this is what the Creator wants of us — to bury our heads in the sand whenever we encounter a fact that seems to contradict revelation, and then turn this intellectual vice into a virtue by claiming that we are more “faithful” than the person who believes in evolution or psychoanalysis. I mean, I would actually have more respect for these people if they had the courage of their convictions and stop taking antibiotics.
And perhaps not coincidentally, the traditionalists are also profoundly anti-psychoanalytic. In this regard I suppose I can cut them some slack, as they all seem to share the same ignorance of modern psychoanalysis as does academia. They seem to assume that psychoanalysis began and ended with Freud, which is analogous to rejecting modern physics on the basis of Newton’s ignorance of quantum physics. So the traditionalists rail against Freud — for example, his determinism (because it erodes free will) and his hostility to religion — even though there are almost no purely Freudian psychoanalysts anymore.
And in any event, I don’t think it’s particularly intellectually admirable to deal with anomalies in one’s world view by simply rejecting them a priori, a strategy which is ironically shared by both fundamentalism and scientism. [...]
One reason why so many people get the “Jesus willies” and therefore reject their own precious spiritual and intellectual heritage is because their only exposure to Christianity is in its anti-intellectual fundamentalist version, which I myself find impossible to take seriously. As Dawson wrote, the intellectual synthesis of Christianity and classical thought “was not a contradiction but the crown and completion of continuous effort to achieve an integration of the religious doctrine of the Christian Church with the intellectual tradition of ancient culture.” On this view, the “wisdom of the Greeks” is not opposed to Christianity. Rather, the Christian synthesis was the completion, perfection, or sanctification of these other vital intellectual streams — which is an ongoing project, since history doesn’t just arbitrarily stop historing.
This is a much more expansive view of reality whereby, for example, the great wisdom of Plato and the neo-Platonists is not rejected but integrated, say, in the deeply mystical works of Denys the Areopagite (see here as well for a fine introduction to the synthesis of Christian and Greek thought). By the same token, with this time-honored intellectual approach, a Christian needn’t necessarily reject the wisdom of, say, Vedanta or Taoism, for ultimately, the appearance of Jesus in the Hellenized Roman world is not essential but accidental. What if he had appeared in the Indian subcontinent? Then the task of early Christians would have been to place Christ within the context of Vedanta — to demonstrate how he represented, say, the “perfection” or “completion” of the Upanishads, so to speak.
Indeed, what if Jesus were here today — an absurd hypothetical, since he is. Then the task would be to integrate Christianity with current knowledge. Which I, as a Coon, believe is the whole point: to integrate wisdom and knowledge and thereby sanctify the intellect. “ [...] ~Gagdad Bob
More here: Saturday, December 08, 2007
On Sanctifying the Intellectual World http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-sanctifying-intellectual-world.html
And even more [excerpts]:
“But on any traditionalist view — including traditional Christianity — religion does not evolve. Rather, the whole point is that it is fixed and final. However, just like everything else, scripture looks very different to a developmentally mature mind than it does to an immature one.” [below]
“It’s not that I believe any kind of salvation lies with conservative political success. Rather, it’s just that the left is so incredibly dangerous and destructive on every level — intellectual, economic, psychological, and spiritual — that it must be combatted.” [below]
Friday, December 07, 2007
History, Herstory, and the Babystory
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8580258&postID=6290988988644854291
I was just answering your questions. I never asked you anything.
Yes you did. #293 and #315
In #91 your _first_ post - you disputed what I wrote.
"A confession of atheism is simply an honest confession of ignorance of any realities that transcend the human ego, nothing more, nothing less. And why argue with a man who not only clings to ignorance, but is proud of the fact?" ~ Gagdad Bob
"..For reason is only a faculty of knowing something indirectly in the absence of direct vision, while God is known directly, the same way one knows one is alive, perceives reality, or is aware of free will. In order to see something, it is not necessary to logically prove the existence of sight. Many of the most important truths are known simply by their superabundance of clarity, by pure intellect, not by the reason which is its servant. Reason is not Intelligence in itself, only an instrument of intelligence. Few things create more mischief than reason in the hands of an unintelligent or immoral wonker. .[..]Not for nothing did Richard Weaver say that every attack upon religion is inevitably an attack upon mind. Naturally there are many forms of stupid religion, for there is nothing touched by humans wonkers that cannot be made stupid. But at least religion as such does not exclude the possibility and priority of Intelligence, and therefore, Truth. ..." ~ Gagdad Bob
But I haven't asked you to explain your thinking to me. All of my responses have been to answer your detailed inquiry into my understanding of Buddhism and to correct the multiple misperceptions you have posted about it.
In #91 your _first_ post - you disputed what I wrote.
That's true and I stand by that. The statement I disputed is incorrect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.