Neurononsense

[Nitaidas]

What a bunch of nonsense. Build up a straw man and then tear him apart. No one suggests that the "human condition" can be explained solely by the brain sciences any more than that a chair can be explained solely by quantum physics. But, to exclude brain science or quantum physics from the effort to understand the human condition (whatever that means) or chair is to create an illusion rather than arrive at a full understanding. This man loves his illusions and wants them kept safely free from the attack of any pesky intrusive facts.

[Nitaidas]

May 21, 2012 17:14:00 GMT -6 malati said:

Nitaidas

I do not agree with everything in the article. And I do agree with you somewhat. However, even in neuroscience correlation does not mean causation. Our brain states do not always make the mental states.

This is, of course, debatable. If you are citing as evidence that earlier article by ?, I think the results there are inconclusive. Even those who did the experiments doubted them. More and better work needs to be done.

However, isn't that what the most prominent atheists are saying (mostly the scientists) that science may not have the answer to everything at present but they are making progress and may just explain everything about the human conditions in the future.

As it turns out there is a nice posting by Jerry Coyne today on just this topic. He is responding to the rambles of one Andrew Sullivan. It applies most directly to "scientism" but also to neuroscience. Coyne's view as a scientist is reasonable I think and is not the view attributed to scientists by Scruton. You can read it here.

Just for your information, I read from a historian and prof. of christian studies, Joseph Hoffman (don't know if you know him) that Steven Pinker was suggesting for the abolition of the religious studies in universities . That means including your specialization. I know there are reduction in the offering of similar subjects in the universities at the moment because of the economic crisis but if the passionate atheists can have the power even your position will be vanished forever.

So I suggest you have to be careful who you flirt with!

Regards

I think Pinker is correct in his suggestion. I don't think Pinker meant, however, the academic, or non-faith based study of religion. This is the kind of course that I teach. Religious studies meant to push the faith of one of the religions or even the idea that religion is an unquestionable good for humankind should be tossed out of the universities. But religion should be studied because it has been such a big part of our past and in some parts of the world still is a big part of our present. We don't exclude the study of folklore, or fairy tales, or mythology. Nor should religion be excluded as long as it is done in an unbiased, critical, matter-of-fact sort of way. Indeed, if there is something in the world that people are willing to die for, or to start wars over, or to kill others for, it is immensely important that we study it. Daniel Dennett, one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse also agrees. He has said on many occasions and in his book Breaking the Spell that children should all be taught just such a course that covers all religions in an unbiased and objective way. Such courses have the effect of problematizing religion which is a step forward. People will see the great diversity of faiths and realize that they cannot all be true. The question then becomes are any of them true. However one answers the question, it is important just to have asked it.

Anyway, I am not too worried. Pinker is a reasonable man. The Pope isn't.

[Nitaidas]

May 22, 2012 18:01:01 GMT -6 malati said:

Yes, of course some results in neuroscience is highly preliminary and extremely debatable.


Joseph Hoffman is an atheist/historian of christianity, but even he was worried about Pinker's suggestion.

I know of Hoffman. He is one of those envious creeps angry with the New Atheists because their work gets more attention than his drivel. I think we can pretty much discount anything that comes out of his mouth. I notice you did not comment on Dennett.

I think Pinker vision would be like the universities in Australia (Oz is a secular country), where religious study is never part of university offering. I know that in the U.S. even Yale has buddhist study where philosophy is discussed and I think Chicago would have similar as part of the curriculum. I believe that one of your coursework when you did your PhD was about GVism , not just it's history and myth but its philosophy and dialectics, as well.

I don't know much about the universities here other than what my son told me and what I saw from the materials he brings home. But I think that if one religious school of thought is ever discussed in a univ. class (if at all) its more in the context of culture and history than about it's philosophy. And it's not offered as one exclusive subject, just a passing mention, I think.

You are just guessing about what Pinker might want. It is basically what you want him to want for the sake of your argument. Anyway, I agree with you that religion should be studied more than that in the Australian schools. I teach a course called Exploring Religions that introduces students to the academic study of religion which has roots going back almost two centuries, basically from the time that Europe woke up to the rich cultural heritage of the East at the end of the 18th century. We survey all the great religions of the world focusing on their beginnings and histories and practices and beliefs. None are favored, shortcomings and strengths are given equal time. A growing percentage of my students are atheistic which is a good thing, I think. Recent polls and studies have made it clear that atheists tend to know more about religions than religious people and that includes more about the very religions of the religious people. More knowledge is always a good thing.

The course I took at U of C in CV was from Edward Dimock. We read parts of his CC translation. But, until I was a student there, he had never heard of manjari-bhava. I was aghast when I read his book Place of the Hidden Moon. He simply failed to distinguish between orthodox CV and sahajiyism. My master's thesis was an effort to show how much they differed.. I think he had some bad advisors in India, like Sukumar Sen.

As a believer, even a non- literalist believer, I think that is sad and would be a lost to a beautiful diversity in education. And as an Australian I am sad about that.

You said: Pinker is a reasonable man. The Pope isn't.
Well, there are so much unreasonableness in CVism also. Why single out the Pope?

I wasn't really singling out the Pope. He was just an example of a biased and irrational religious leader. Maybe he is the biggest example of that class. A billion people listen to the blabber of that nut and think it is the word of god. But, I meant the whole class of arrogant, irrational religious leaders including those in CV. Imagine what our education systems would be like if one of those idiots ran the show. Talk about lack of diversity.

I also would like to note this. I consider myself a GV but I think some western born people, even some westerners GV devotees are ungrateful to Christianity. The western civilization is founded on the values of Christianity and much of the foundation of science came from the thoughts of Christian believers. That is undeniable history. If you read your (U.S.) constitution it was written by believers, mostly Christians and through which they imparted their christian values. I hope you American devotees or readers of Indic school of thoughts and its culture will recognize that.

I am a GV but I respect the contribution of Christianity to the progress and values of the west, eg. equality.

Here you speak as if you knew what you were talking about but you clearly have not thought very deeply about. Christian philosophy is a blend of the philosophy stolen from the ancient Greeks and Romans, what to speak of that inherited from older Jewish sources. The Christians brought really nothing to the table. Anything of value was stolen from somewhere else. Boethius for instance took from Plato. Augustine did too. When Aristotle was rediscovered from the Muslims then you have a Thomas Aquinas. The Renaissance was initiated by the rediscovery of the classical world and it was that that got science moving again. There is nothing that one can point to as a purely Christian contribution. It is the same today. A Jewish philosopher named Husserl invents phenomenology and the next thing you know there is a Paul Tillich. Christian philosophy and theology is complete derivative. I don't think there is a Christian thinker who has ever had an original idea.

The West only really began to make progress when the Enlightenment dawned and that was in spite of Christianity not because of it.

As far as the founding fathers of this country are concerned the leaders like Thomas Jefferson were far from orthodox Christianity. TJ even created his own Gospel from the Gospels of the Bible in which he removed all the silly miracle stuff and left only the most general moral teachings (Love thy neighbor, etc.). He thought of Paul as the corrupter of Christianity. The official name for him was a Deist, but that hardly qualifies him as a Christian. The best values found in the Constitution were Enlightenment values, not Christian values. The Christian values are represented by not letting women or blacks vote. Oh yes, and slavery.

[Nitaidas]

On the subject of education, look at what passes for education in the USA in some cases here.

[vkaul1]

Nitai ji, someone sent me this blog.
Five faulty arguments that religious people use against atheists
www.alternet.org/belief/151539/5_faulty_arguments_religious_people_use_against_atheists_%28debunked%29/?page=entire

There is one humorous statement!
As Richard Dawkins said to the queen of vague theology, Karen Armstrong, "Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right."

[Nitaidas]

May 29, 2012 1:56:26 GMT -6 malati said:

Of course, there were influences to Christian thoughts and tradition because there is no such thing as a cultural vacuum. Duh! Some got stuck to it, some drop off as christianity moved through history to consolidate its system. But you have to appreciate that Christianity paved the way for what we call western civilization.

Malati, I am not denying the presence of Christian cultural values in the development of Western Civilization. What I am saying is that those values have more often than not held WC back rather than helping it develop. In other words, WC developed its finer traits despite its religious history not because of it. Christianity supports slavery and inequality. It is all over the NT, especially in Paul. How then could Christian values have contributed to the belief in equality that is present in WC? Well, it did because people eventually reacted against the stupidity of its teachings and chose to ignore what the Christian texts really say. That reaction against the stupidity and darkness of Christianity is what we call the Enlightenment and it is those values that are incorporated into the best values of WC. So yes, Christianity was an influence, a negative influence on WC that provoked a positive reaction which formed the best values of WC.

Well, they definitely were not atheists. Duh!

They were Deists which is about the same thing. "Yes," quoth they, "there might have been a Creator, but he is no longer involved with creation. It is now up to us."

The statement from your famous Decalaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Why do you think the statement says it is "self-evident?" Because it is not found in any Christian scripture. Instead the Christian scriptures speak in support of slavery and the inequality of women compared to men. O wait! That is here: "all men are created equal." It took two centuries for women and slaves to be allowed to own land and vote. That is the only Christian value in this statement. The idea of equality is un-Christian. It is an Enlightenment value.

Comments from wikipaedia. It is said to be the best know sentence in the english language. It was promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted. It has inspired work for the rights of marginalized people throughout the world.

All of this may be true, but as I said those aren't Christian values.

Nitaidas, please don't argue with me about my acknowledgement of Christianity's contribution to your great country just because you want to uphold an AGENDA. (As a Filipino by birth, I love the U.S. because the Philippines has a strong historical link with the U.S.)

And you don't hold an agenda? Yours is to defend theism at all costs, even when it is at its most stupid and corrupting. Imagine all the millions of people in the West over the last two millennia who were told by their Christian religion that their poverty-stricken condition and slavery were okay because their reward was in heaven. What a convenient teaching for those lords and ladies who owned everything and exploited the hell out of those poor people. That is the value of Christianity for Western culture.

You have to acknowledge the contribution of christians to the founding of your great country. They had contributed to the development of its legal system, political system, moral and ethical codes and educational approaches.

Again whatever good was done was done by people acting not as Christians but as rationalists pushing Enlightenment values not the values found in the Bible. Don't forget all the witch hunts that took place in this country or the hatred of one Christian sect for another (take the Protestant hatred for Catholics that has been such a part of our US history. Have you even read our US history?)

What I want you to realize is that atheists are cowards. Atheists always attack Christianity. Why? Because it is a soft target. Why not change target, say Is _ am, for example. ( not spelled in full so won't appear in search engines)

On the contrary, the atheists are the brave ones. They are the minority here and yet the speak out bravely and challenge the majority opinion, the rampant stupidity of the Christian majority. As far as I know atheists challenge Islam as much as any other of the stupid religions. Take Christopher Hitchens for instance (God is not Great!). I think the cowards are the Christians and other theists who year after year buy all this evolution-denying, young earth "science," and repressive bs without so much as a whimper or a questioning thought. They are a bunch of sheep, a herd that cannot think for itself.

About the link that VKaul gave. I started to read the drivel but realized have heard them all before.

This is my gripe about atheists. In my opinion they are arrogant jerks. Their ideology , ok, viewpoints are internally incoherent. Just figure it out for yourself. I have no time to repeat it as I have commented on it here before.

Atheists are arrogant? What about the dumb-ass Christians who claim that they and only they know the truth? And what is that truth? That God became man, died and was buried, and then rose again from death on the third day. That is an extraordinary claim. And where is the extraordinary proof? There is none. We are expected to believe in such an extraordinary claim without any extraordinary proof. And if we don't we are condemned to an eternity in hell. Is this in any way, shape or form defensible? And this isn't arrogance? Islam is as dumb and so is Hinduism. Buddhism too is not free of idiotic superstitions and fantasies.

But that is ok, I respect their opinions. They have the right to disagree with me. What I hate is their making a fake war between theists and them. And provoking theists by calling them names. Arguments between the existence and non-existence of God had and have been debated for ages by great and small minds and believers had held their own. We all are here on this planet which seems to be moving forward in history. There was never a time in the history of the world when people's lives have been easy than NOW and atheists are wanting to disrupt the balance.

That is the thing you hate the most. Atheists do not respect your opinions in return. Why because they are no better than fairy tales or belief in elves or goblins. I think it is time for mankind to grow up and put those silly fetishes and fantasies behind it. And I think this is the real hidden message of CV. What is the highest paradise of Krsna like: it is aisvarya-gandha-asprsta, "untouched by even the scent of theism." This is a quote from Sanatana Goswami in which he is describing Goloka dhama, the highest paradise conceived in CV. That is the world we are to aspire to. Not this ridiculous world full of fairy tales and vengience and inequality all promoted by the theisms of the world. That is no balance. That is just madness.

Theists and atheists can co-exists on this planet harmoniously. My family situation is an example, my son is an agnostic, my daughter is an atheists but that does not create friction between us. I can chant on my japa in front of them, etc and I can even sometimes vocalize to them the realizations I have in my mind at the moment when it occurred to me (although they may not be interested).

Fricking irrational atheists are creating a needless war.

The war is not needless and atheists are not irrational. It is those who believe in some fictional religion full of imaginary beings and immoral morals on the basis of absolutely no evidence who are irrational. They are the real dangers to the balance of the world today.

[ash]

May 29, 2012 1:56:26 GMT -6 malati said:

What I want you to realize is that atheists are cowards.

And you think that telling such things to someone's face is going to be met with kindness and acceptance?

Atheists always attack Christianity. Why? Because it is a soft target. Why not change target, say Is _ am, for example. ( not spelled in full so won't appear in search engines)

In the spheres where most of us live, in the "Western world," Christianity is simply historically the prominent religion, so this seems to contribute why it is often a target of atheist attacks.

Secondly, Western atheism is shaped considerably precisely by Christianity, in opposition to (mainstream) Christianity.
Many atheist arguments are counterarguments against particular mainstream Christian tenets; those atheist arguments are not necessarily possible in relation to other theisms.

This is my gripe about atheists. In my opinion they are arrogant jerks. Their ideology , ok, viewpoints are internally incoherent. Just figure it out for yourself. I have no time to repeat it as I have commented on it here before.

I think that many Western atheists are quite disappointed with theists and theism, and I think rightfully so.
Unfortunately, they are often also not particularly articulate, and that causes problems in communication with theists.

Theists and atheists can co-exists on this planet harmoniously.

I don't think so at all.

My family situation is an example, my son is an agnostic, my daughter is an atheists but that does not create friction between us. I can chant on my japa in front of them, etc and I can even sometimes vocalize to them the realizations I have in my mind at the moment when it occurred to me (although they may not be interested).

But they are your children! It's because they are your children that they grant you a respect they wouldn't or don't to other theists.

Fricking irrational atheists are creating a needless war.

I don't think so.

I don't consider myself a theist. I know that many theists consider me an atheist. My own stance is that I am against simplistic theism as well as against simplistic atheism, and I am for true religion (even though I'm not sure what that is).


I feel hurt by the way theists are exclusive toward ordinary people. "We devotees against you karmis."
To me, it is grossly unfair that for information about God, I have to rely on fallible people.

For me, this is the core problem of theodicy: Why did God set up the world in such a way that ordinary people like myself are per default cut off from God, and have to rely for information about God on other people - on people who are often the kind of people I would not want to have anything to do with, this is how cold and immoral they seem to me.

[kalki]

May 29, 2012 9:07:59 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

May 29, 2012 1:56:26 GMT -6 malati said:

But you have to appreciate that Christianity paved the way for what we call western civilization.

Not sure about this at all. Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to Christianity because of its history of torture and slavery of people. The US was founded by Freemasons who interpret the Bible their own way. Christians are allowed to be Freemasons if they accept the twist that the Masonic Lodge views the Bible. Many of the early presidents were Christians, but in a Masonic sense. Not true Christians. Most of the Christian world is up in arms about being duped by George Bush Jr. who they gave their vote to and he turned out to be a Mason and anti-Christian.

[Nitaidas]

Jun 1, 2012 3:38:21 GMT -6 kalki said:

May 29, 2012 9:07:59 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

May 29, 2012 1:56:26 GMT -6 malati said:

But you have to appreciate that Christianity paved the way for what we call western civilization.

Not sure about this at all. Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to Christianity because of its history of torture and slavery of people. The US was founded by Freemasons who interpret the Bible their own way. Christians are allowed to be Freemasons if they accept the twist that the Masonic Lodge views the Bible. Many of the early presidents were Christians, but in a Masonic sense. Not true Christians. Most of the Christian world is up in arms about being duped by George Bush Jr. who they gave their vote to and he turned out to be a Mason and anti-Christian.

Good points, kalki. I forgot about the Masonic connection. It is true that most of the founding fathers were Masons. I have visited that Masonic temple in Arlington VA to which they belonged. It is pretty amazing. Each of them had a secret or initiation name that was taken from the Middle East, in other words roughly Arabic and sometimes even Sanskritic, because in those days the distinction was not clear. They looked back to ancient Egypt as the source of their secret wisdom and it was at least unChristian if not anti-Christian. Christianity was for the common uninitiated and unenlightened blokes. The true wisdom was esoteric and pagan. Lots of these secret societies grew up in the 16th and 17th centuries and some are still around, like the Rosicrucians for instance. Perhaps our master of esoterica (gerardji) can comment on this if he is still following the conversation.

What is this about Christians being disappointed in Bush Jr because he was Masonic? I have never heard this. Could you expand on it, pls?

[ash]

I remember public demonstrations in the US where some protested against Bush Jr. considering himself a Christian.

[Nitaidas]

Jun 1, 2012 10:47:39 GMT -6 ash said:

I remember public demonstrations in the US where some protested against Bush Jr. considering himself a Christian.

Humm, I guess I missed those. I think there as a bigger worry, perhaps more in the circles I move in, that he really believed in the coming apocalypse and was trying to do things that would provoke it by fanning the flames in the Middle East. I have never heard the complaint against him that he was Masonic. I don't know. Is he a Mason?

[kalki]

Jun 1, 2012 10:18:31 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

What is this about Christians being disappointed in Bush Jr because he was Masonic? I have never heard this. Could you expand on it, pls?

I read a butload of stuff on the net some years ago about the whole hoax about how George got the Christian vote and convinced everyone through his language that he was a Christian and then later admitted off the record, but it was got on tape that he was not a Christian at all and he duped everyone. There is one particular guy that exposed him and I read a bunch of links. I have a good Christian friend that is on top of this stuff so I will ask him and try to get that link. I read it years ago and was shocked.

In the meantime, you could read this:

Is George W. Bush a real Christian?
I don't see it that way! His actions speak louder than words, but few see them! www.directoryupdate.net/gwbush.html

[kalki]

Jun 1, 2012 10:53:23 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Jun 1, 2012 10:47:39 GMT -6 ash said:

I remember public demonstrations in the US where some protested against Bush Jr. considering himself a Christian.

Humm, I guess I missed those. I think there as a bigger worry, perhaps more in the circles I move in, that he really believed in the coming apocalypse and was trying to do things that would provoke it by fanning the flames in the Middle East. I have never heard the complaint against him that he was Masonic. I don't know. Is he a Mason?

well before I get tagged as the local nutcase conspiracy theorist of this forum, as I have been labelled elsewhere, I will say I am not sure of course. what I am sure of is that a friend of mine gave me a link some years ago about a person who was basically guiding all of Bush's speeches to appear Christian but basically contained numerous hidden masonic messages. the whole concept of a "new world order" is completely masonic and I think we have all heard those words out of Bush's mouth.

it doesn't mean that the masons are going to be in charge of the world. there are many groups competing for power in the United States and the whole world, the mason's being one of those but various groups connected with world banking are the ones pushing forward all the reforms to create this new world order.

I just tend to accept that this is the way it is and it is mostly common knowledge, but do you need any NWO links? *please don't let the mods ban me, I like it here at the Symposium*

[Nitaidas]

Jun 3, 2012 8:13:23 GMT -6 kalki said:

Jun 1, 2012 10:18:31 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

What is this about Christians being disappointed in Bush Jr because he was Masonic? I have never heard this. Could you expand on it, pls?

I read a butload of stuff on the net some years ago about the whole hoax about how George got the Christian vote and convinced everyone through his language that he was a Christian and then later admitted off the record, but it was got on tape that he was not a Christian at all and he duped everyone. There is one particular guy that exposed him and I read a bunch of links. I have a good Christian friend that is on top of this stuff so I will ask him and try to get that link. I read it years ago and was shocked.

In the meantime, you could read this:

Is George W. Bush a real Christian?
I don't see it that way! His actions speak louder than words, but few see them! www.directoryupdate.net/gwbush.html

This sort of stuff was completely absent from our news media. This is the first I have heard about it. It goes to show how powerful a new media can be in shaping the ideas of its consumers. That said. I don't think that this claim about Bush is true. I don't think he is that clever. There are plenty of conspiracy theorists around espousing just about every conceivable position. I don't really give any of them much credence. I think Bush is a Christian and that perhaps because it is impossible for a non-Christian to be elected in this country. I think he genuinely believes, however. Now Obama I am not sure of. I think he is too intelligent to believe in that claptrap. At least, I hope he is. As a president who wants to be re-elected, he has to play the game, however. This is the sad state of affairs in the USA at present. Big forces: money and religion.

[gerard]

Jun 3, 2012 12:22:05 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Jun 3, 2012 8:13:23 GMT -6 kalki said:

I read a butload of stuff on the net some years ago about the whole hoax about how George got the Christian vote and convinced everyone through his language that he was a Christian and then later admitted off the record, but it was got on tape that he was not a Christian at all and he duped everyone. There is one particular guy that exposed him and I read a bunch of links. I have a good Christian friend that is on top of this stuff so I will ask him and try to get that link. I read it years ago and was shocked.

In the meantime, you could read this:

Is George W. Bush a real Christian?
I don't see it that way! His actions speak louder than words, but few see them! www.directoryupdate.net/gwbush.html

This sort of stuff was completely absent from our news media. This is the first I have heard about it. It goes to show how powerful a new media can be in shaping the ideas of its consumers. That said. I don't think that this claim about Bush is true. I don't think he is that clever. There are plenty of conspiracy theorists around espousing just about every conceivable position. I don't really give any of them much credence. I think Bush is a Christian and that perhaps because it is impossible for a non-Christian to be elected in this country. I think he genuinely believes, however. Now Obama I am not sure of. I think he is too intelligent to believe in that claptrap. At least, I hope he is. As a president who wants to be re-elected, he has to play the game, however. This is the sad state of affairs in the USA at present. Big forces: money and religion.

I'm pretty sure the Bushes are Skull & Bonesmen, a sort of masonic lodge at Yale.
You don't have to be smart to be a mason, Reagan was a mason.

Most of these clubs sprang up in the 17th and 18th century. They claim to go back to Hiram Abiff the temple architect of King Solomon. Nowadays they are mainly interested in the interpretation of religious symbology. They have to work on themselves to make themselves a better building block in the creation of the Master Architect. Generally they are deists.

On the Internet it is, I think, not really possible anymore to research this because of the tremendous influx of conspiracy stories. Some of which are true; the USA did have 14 free-mason presidents, the French Revolution and the American Independence would not have happened without free-masons like Lafayette, Thomas Paine and Washington. (Anti-revolutionary forces like Napoleon were of course also masons.)

And see this list: conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.nl/2007/01/list-of-proven-conspiracies-from.html


In the late 18th and the 19th century all that sort of occultism were the height of fashion. The word "occultism" didn't even exist before 1840 (Eliphas Levi).
It seem to be losing ground now (in Europe anyway), young people don't join anymore, the only famous mason they parade with is Michael Richards (Kramer in Seinfeld).