gdp's Comments

The Tory Diary : Why Cameron must win Eastleigh

Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:36:35 +0000

They didn't though.

The Tory Diary : Why Cameron must win Eastleigh

Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:35:37 +0000

So he didn't win. Now what?

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/ : Calamities of Nature - Destructive Forces

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:00:24 +0000

The HUP was central to the creation of the atom bomb. It was scientists who conceived of this greatest of all weapons of mass killing.

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/ : Calamities of Nature - Destructive Forces

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:58:22 +0000

Yes. I agree with Milgram

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/ : Calamities of Nature - Destructive Forces

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:51:04 +0000

The proposition was that religion is *always* a bad thing. All I'm saying is that sometimes other ideologies are the cause - and this suggests that it is not religion per se, but ideologies that cause conflict. Religion is often just a scape goat now, to hide the ambitions of the powerful.

And on the other hand we have Christian groups running shelters for homeless people, food banks, and drug rehabilitation centres. All round the world.

And anyway, are they really holy wars? Or are they all about politics and power; control of resources and arguments over sovereignty. And dressed up as religious in order for to cynically manipulate people - the powerful have always done this, and then we blame the victims. The USA's imperialism is not religiously motivated at all, though no doubt religion adds fuel to the fire. At heart is it about gaining and sustaining power. Israel/Palestine is first and foremost about land and sovereignty. Pakistan is power again. I wasn't aware that India was at war. Sudan is about power and sovereignty.

Again my point is not that religion does not play a part in world conflicts. It does. But so do other ideologies like communism and capitalism. And to say that religion only or always causes conflict is jut wrong, and to insist on it is to shrink from examining the issue honestly.
______________________________
http://jayarava.blogspot.com
http://www.visiblemantra.org

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/ : Calamities of Nature - Destructive Forces

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:11:42 +0000

Was Stalin religious then? Or Pol Pot? Wasn't it the Mao who said "religion is poison"? I think you mean that *ideologies* of all kinds are destructive. Wikip: "Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwin and Social Darwinism."

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : BG 179: An Evidence-Based Spirituality for the 21st Century

Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:00:38 +0000

"I don't agree" (what kind of pseudonym id that?) I don't understand you at all. What do you consider a straw man? What do you consider "actual evidence"? Why is it not OK to question the validity of either the validity of the so-called evidence or the conclusions drawn from it? Doesn't that just stifle the discussion and prevent any kind of examination of the idea? The original author was the one invoking the scientific paradigm, not me, I just point out the scientific process works through conjecture and refutation. I was participating in that discussion, on that basis. That is how "science" works. What's the problem here? "Many place much higher value in furthering the collective ontology of things." In fact there's not much difference between the predictive power of a theory and it's contribution to ontology. Different aspects of the same project - to describe reality. But a scientific theory can only be tested on the basis of the (ontological) predictions it makes, and all scientific theories are only scientific to the extent that they can be tested. So scientists do tend to focus on the predictive power of a scientific theory. What were you thinking of? "The science that is attempting to understand what appears to be ESP is still very very young." Rubbish. They've had 100 years or more as investigations of ESP were begun by the Victorians. The real problem is that when really rigorous standards are applied ESP is not observed. Please look for and watch the Derren Brown documentary called "Messiah" - it demonstrates how easy it is to dupe believers. (Or the Project Alpha). Every time ESP comes under proper scrutiny it fades from view. But you knew I was going to say that I suppose. Magical belief is not the same as magical reality. Contrast that 100 years of zero progress with the major, monumental, tectonic, earth shattering changes in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Geology in the last 100 years. Whole paradigms have been born and died in that time. A scientific theory must falsifiable, and any person supporting that theory must be open to it being falsified. And the first duty of a scientist is not to confirm results but to attempt to falsify them. Only a theory which has resisted vigorous attempts at falsification is accepted as contributing to our ontologies. Theories of ESP have been repeatedly falsified. So if we are invoking science then we must find another theory, because ESP is not the answer. Theories about rebirth (which is what this thread is about) can never be falsified, or even tested, so they fail at the first hurdle. Though of course I given some criteria for substantial evidence which might make me change my view. What kind of evidence would make you change your mind? Or is your mind just made up and no kind of evidence would make you change it? What would falsify your theory, and why are you not looking for that evidence?

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : The Koan of Christian Buddhism

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:00:38 +0000

I see no attempt to deal seriously with the many good points in comments on your last, very recent post, which dissented in a positive way. Obviously it's not something you want to discuss, merely to proclaim. People will believe what the want to believe, and they will call it what they want to call it.

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : Christian Buddhism?

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:20:25 +0000

BoulderDPnx Not only did the Buddha *not* refuse to answer the question, the Pali texts show him answering the question in the affirmative. Hardly a sutta goes by without reference to Brahma or Pajapati - two names for the creator god. Indeed in several suttas, for example Tevijja Sutta (DN 13), the Buddha is reported to have said "I know Brahma, I know Brahma's world, and I know the way to Brahma's world". The context make it clear that he is talking about God. If not for God in the form of Brahmasahampati, the Buddha, according to the Pali texts, might not have taught his insight to other people! The Buddha's argument against a creator God took a different route. Firstly he employs parody. In the Tevijja and other suttas God appears to be a bombastic idiot who cannot answer questions put to him, and is mainly concerned to put on a good show for the other gods. God is just the first being to emerge after the expansion cycle of the world begins (a pan-Indian cosmogony). He longs for company and then other beings appear, so he thinks he wished them into existence. They believe it too. Secondly Gods are always portrayed as subservient to the Buddha: so Brahma the creator God of the Upanisads, and Indra the chief God of the Vedas bow down to, and ask the advice of, the Buddha. The Buddha has what they do not which is liberation from the rounds of rebirth. You are right to say that he specifically denied being a deva on many occasions. Although the presence of many gods throughout Buddhist literature argues against calling Buddhism non-theistic, it is true that Gods are seen as being caught up in cycles of rebirth, and it is only the Buddha and the Arahants who are not so caught. The whole soteriology is different. I think your portrayal of Theravada is a bit slanted. It does not apply to the vast majority of the Theravada world which above all emphasises merit making and compassion - the most popular Buddhist text in places like Sri Lanka is the Vessantara Jataka and it does not mention meditation. The Pali texts are full of magic, gods, demons etc. So yes, let's get back to core teachings, but you have a little way to go in being a good representative for them.

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : Christian Buddhism?

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:02:44 +0000

Guest. I think by taking up the example of Merton you have helped to clarify the issue. I suspect that those "Christian Buddhists" that are not simply humanists wanting a different label, are actually Christians who find some of the methods of Buddhism attractive.

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : Christian Buddhism?

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:57:00 +0000

That is the weirdest description of karma I have ever read. TNH's books is one of the most appalling books on religion that I have ever read. The argument in this case is about labels. When it comes down to it you just want the labels to apply to you no matter what you profess. I'm pretty broad minded when it comes to labels. Call yourself a Buddhist and in my book you are a Buddhist. Similarly I've met nominal Christians who did not believe in God or Jesus. But why is the label important? Why insist that Buddhism and Christianity are the same when what you are combining is central to neither religion? When if you did combine the central tenets of the two you would, for instance, both affirm and deny God. Why not call yourself a mysticist?

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : Christian Buddhism?

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:41:20 +0000

Robert. Leave out all the metaphysical stuff, and you have two varieties of humanism! Sure, if you take God and Jesus out of Christianity then you're left with an ethical system, albeit with no rationale any longer. Likewise if you remove conditionality and liberation from Buddhism you're left with an ethical system with no rationale. That is a contrived fusion by definition because you leave out what is most important to both faiths to create a new ethical system that involves no faith. I don't see the point. If that is your approach why do you need religion at all? Why not just be a humanist and be done with? There's no shame in it. I'd rather see more honest humanists than this "all religions are one" stuff muddying the waters and confusing people. Ego death? Sigh. The bastard child of Freud's translators and Buddhist translators. German 'Ich' and Sanskrit 'ātman' are not necessarily related. The Buddhist view is that 'I' is not permanent, that it disappoints, and that it does not survive the rebirth process. Take away metaphysics and 'I' is not a problem at all because you leave no discourse in which to problematise it. I'd ask why you think there is a similar discourse in Christianity, but the truth is I don't care.

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : Christian Buddhism?

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:21:12 +0000

I just don't get why one would try to combine two such different faiths. On the one hand you believe in a creator god, on the other you deny the very possibility. On the one hand a saviour who only saves those who have blind faith in him; on the other all beings are already 'saved'. On one hand salvation comes only after death; on the other enlightenment in this very life. On the one hand morality is simply obedience to Gods law no matter what; on the other is rational morality based on intentions and outcomes. On the one hand knowledge of good and evil is the fundamental problem facing humanity, on the other ignorance of good and evil is the fundamental problem. One has as it's most prominent symbol a man nailed to cross, the other shows a man or a woman sitting peacefully in meditation Etc etc. The contradictions are so profound that the result of combination can only be confusion. And that of course is what we have. Combining Buddhism and Christianity seems like a disaster for both sides. I wish people would just get off the fence and make a commitment rather than trying to have their cake and eat it. I have more respect for committed Christians who live out their faith to the best of their ability, than I do for the pic and mix people who want a little bit of everything and commit to nothing in particular.

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : BG 179: An Evidence-Based Spirituality for the 21st Century

Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:27:20 +0000

The main problem with "remembering" past lives is that memory formation, storage and recall is at every stage absolutely dependent on the brain - the details of the parts of the brain involved having been worked out in part from malfunctions in memory. If brain damage can completely disrupt (any, or all of) the formation, storage and recall of memories in living people, then how do memories survive the complete death of the brain?

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : BG 179: An Evidence-Based Spirituality for the 21st Century

Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:05:56 +0000

How can we demonstrate that they (personally) were present at some previous time? The usual historical methods seem insufficient, and taking their word for it hardly credible (think Uri Geller, the famous bender). Perhaps one of these people could predict some *previously unknown* historical fact that could then be shown to be true by previously unknown archaeological finds? Get the prediction made under control circumstances with no advance warning to the subject, publish it well in advance of the search, and then go off and dig and find some previously unheard of city or civilisation which substantially confirms the predictions of the person. That should not be hard to organise. Or perhaps get the person to predict the discovery of the previously unknown species recorded in the fossil record, and then discover a fossil just as described, and where described. Perhaps they could decipher one of the previously undecipherable scripts? The value of a scientific theory is in the predictions it makes. Predicting the known has value as a calibration, but predicting the unknown is what makes people sit up and take notice. That would satisfy me and, I think, the scientific community more broadly. If such evidence exists, then let me know.

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : BG 179: An Evidence-Based Spirituality for the 21st Century

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:49:38 +0000

@G-M. So your criteria for giving their research a fair shot is that it 'satisfies' the 'editorial boards' of some 'high profile peer-reviewed journal' like Nature, Science....' Yep. You've got it. If we are going to have evidence based spirituality then let's have the highest standards of evidence - let's have proper scrutiny of method and observations, let's expose conclusions to the deepest questioning, let's dig out unspoken assumptions, and sort out anecdote and conjecture from fact and evidence. Let the results be repeatable and testable. It was Charles Tart that invoked the scientific method, and I was going along with him, 100%. Quantum Mechanics (completely weird and counter intuitive) got through this process and has become widely accepted, despite opposition from Einstein and other conservative/establishment physicists of the day. Recently ideas about "dark matter" and "dark energy" which run counter to all known cosmological theories got published in Nature and are being widely discussed by physicists. Both of these happened because there was experimental and theoretical *rigour*, and because the evidence could be compared and confirmed by other experimenters. That is what science is like. Let ESP satisfy those same criteria and I will indeed take it seriously as science. Until then it's magic; and I have Dharma practice to get on with. To answer your 2nd question I have no interest in Buddha Nature, though there is no doubt that many Buddhists do, and in my opinion Buddhism is all about what Buddhists believe it to be about. Hence Buddhism is often all about metaphysics. Though I have often argued that metaphysics are a red-herring, just as ontologies are. The materialist/non-materialist dichotomy is hopelessly limited for discussing real life views. I'm not a materialist or a reductionist: I'm an sceptical epistemological realist, and a transcendental idealist. Perception arises out of the interaction between an object (which I take to exist in some sense without me observing it, though I cannot say more than that) and a subject (which has an important determining role in how the object is perceived through a-priori categories and psychological conditioning). Though as I'm also a pragmatic Popperian empiricist I don't believe that any view can be proved, only disproved; however some things are useful to believe even if they are not factually true (which doesn't include ESP).

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : BG 179: An Evidence-Based Spirituality for the 21st Century

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:12:51 +0000

@G-M. As I say, scientists have standards of evidence that popular books on ESP tend to overlook - it's been a while, but yes I've read one or two; and in the mean time gained a degree in chemistry and physics, and had one or two peer-reviewed papers on Buddhism published. I've also self-published books and so I know the difference. I'll read, and assess, the evidence when in it's in Nature, Science, or some other high profile peer-reviewed journal - let Radin et al satisfy the editorial boards first. Meditation research certainly seems to have no problem getting through the peer-review process these days. ESP has tried and failed for decades. Life is too short to spend it on day time TV.

Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : BG 179: An Evidence-Based Spirituality for the 21st Century

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:23:28 +0000

One question is counts as evidence, and one what basis do we evaluate evidence? Scientific method has an established procedure for this and as far as I know there is no test for psychic powers that has ever passed muster - there are anecdotes a plenty, but *no* evidence. On the other hand there have been several debunkings of high profile 'psychics' who had taken in people who were not particularly gullible (one thinks of Uri Geller, or Sai Baba...). Compare the situation with homeopathy for which is there is no good evidence that it is better than placebo (probably because it IS placebo). The other question is "what is spirituality?" (and is it the same as spiritualism?) At what point do we stop wasting our time tracking down evidence for magic (in the hope of a shortcut to Enlightenment?), and get on with the relatively mundane work our practice? I know plenty of people who claim to have had psychic experiences of various sorts. Often they simply become distracted by the details of the experience and behave as it it makes them special, without it really making any positive difference to how they live their lives. Even if there are psychic powers they don't seem to help with the job at hand, and may make it more difficult. This may be why the Buddha appears many times in the Pāli Canon to warn bhikkhus against cultivating or displaying their psychic powers. The evidence for the beneficial effects of ethical behaviour and meditation is far stronger (in the sense that it actually exists!), more widely accepted and confirmed by impeccable scientific method. That's what an evidenced based spirituality will be based on.