Jing-reed's Musings from Thailand

The Silence Wins

Dawkins vs. Sri Lanka, and silence wins

"They call it the Pearl of the Indian Ocean, this island of Sri Lanka. But you could just as well call it Religion Island. There are no less than four major religions practiced here, and that doesn’t count the people in villages that make offerings to the local tree gods. Buddhists dominate the religious landscape, but there are Hindus and Muslims and Christians in abundance. I’ve heard that over 98 percent of this island’s population consists of active worshippers of one religion or another. . . . .

It was with some anticipation, then, that those of us inhabiting Religion Island awaited the coming of Richard Dawkins. His book The God Delusion is, after all, meant to be the definitive scientific debunking of religion for our time. Dawkins came to attend the Sixth Annual Galle Literary Festival, which was started by an English ex-pat named Geoffrey Dobbs and has become a major stopping point for international literary types. These days, the festival attracts big names from all over the world. Galle is a beautiful little city at the southern end of Sri Lanka possessing a Portuguese-Dutch colonial fort jutting out from a rocky promontory into the tropical splendor of the Indian Ocean. It is a damn nice place for a literary festival. . . . .


. . . . It seems Richard Dawkins has no place for the statues of Polonnaruwa in his understanding of the world. And so the great confrontation on Religion Island took place mostly as a battle between competing silences. Richard Dawkins touched down upon the soil of Sri Lanka for a few days and then flew off again to his next destination. He preferred not to know much about the religious practices of the people who live here. He preferred to pass over the recumbent Buddhas of Sri Lanka in silence. And they prefer their silence too. Those stone faces have endured every human folly for a thousand years, and will do so, presumably, for a thousand more."

 

x

The God Wars

The God wars

"To hardline atheists, it is now unreasonable and “dramatically peculiar” to argue that religion is not altogether evil. How did such intolerance become acceptable to rational minds?

Two atheists - John Gray and Alain de Botton - and two agnostics - Nassim Nicholas Taleb and I - meet for dinner at a Greek restaurant in Bayswater, London. The talk is genial, friendly and then, suddenly, intense when neo-atheism comes up. Three of us, including both atheists, have suffered abuse at the hands of this cult. Only Taleb seems to have escaped unscathed and this, we conclude, must be because he can do maths and people are afraid of maths.

De Botton is the most recent and, consequently, the most shocked victim. He has just produced a book, Religion for Atheists: a Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion, mildly suggesting that atheists like himself have much to learn from religion and that, in fact, religion is too important to be left to believers. He has also proposed an atheists' temple, a place where non-believers can partake of the consolations of silence and meditation.

This has been enough to bring the full force of a neo-atheist fatwa crashing down on his head. The temple idea in particular made them reach for their best books of curses. . . . .

...Happily, the backlash against neo-atheism has begun, inspired by the cult's own intolerance. In the Christmas issue of this magazine, Dawkins interviewed Hitchens. Halfway through, Dawkins asked: "Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?" At dinner at the restaurant in Bayswater we all laughed at this, but our laughter was uneasy. The history of attempts to destroy religion is littered with the corpses of believers and unbelievers alike. There are many roads to truth, but cultish intolerance is not one of them."


Religion for Atheists: a Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion [Alain de Botton]

"What if religions are neither all true nor all nonsense? The long-running and often boring debate between fundamentalist believers and non-believers is finally moved forward by Alain de Botton’s inspiring new book, which boldly argues that the supernatural claims of religion are entirely false—but that it still has some very important things to teach the secular world.
 
Religion for Atheists suggests that rather than mocking religion, agnostics and atheists should instead steal from it—because the world’s religions are packed with good ideas on how we might live and arrange our societies. Blending deep respect with total impiety, de Botton (a non-believer himself) proposes that we look to religion for insights into how to, among other concerns, build a sense of community, make our relationships last, overcome feelings of envy and inadequacy, inspire travel and reconnect with the natural world." [Amazon]

.

Thank you Christopher

Of the many tributes to Christopher Hitchens, this is by far one of the best.  Eloquently spoken, beautifully realized.  Much like Mr. Hitchens himself, this video is a work of art.

.

Christopher Hitchens 1949 – 2011

Christopher Hitchens memoir to be published in January  [The Guardian]

"There is no-one like Christopher Hitchens. He was the most brilliant and versatile non-fiction writer of modern times, whose prodigious output was of stunningly high quality, a showcase for his vast range, deep knowledge and fierce wit. When he was diagnosed with cancer, he faced it with characteristic honesty, courage and rigour," said Mundy. "He is, quite simply, irreplaceable."

.

 
.

.

Welcome to "Possibilians"

What is possibilianism?

"Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the idiosyncratic claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground. .....

    "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."

An adherent of possibilianism is called a possibilian. The possibilian perspective is distinguished from agnosticism in that it consists of an active exploration of novel possibilities and an emphasis on the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others.  Possibilianism reflects the scientific temperament of creativity, testing, and tolerance for multiple ideas. ...."


As frequent visitors to his site well know my personal position regarding 'religion vs science' has always been in favor of science.  However I have never felt that I could, with any certainty, comfortably call myself an atheist.  Would I consider labeling myself a 'Posibilian'???


TEDxHouston - Dr. David Eagleman

Dr. Eagleman holds joint appointments in the Departments of Neuroscience and Psychiatry at the Baylor College of Medicine. His areas of scientific expertise include time perception, vision, synesthesia, and the intersection of neuroscience with the legal system. He directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action, and is the Founder and Director of Baylor College of Medicine's Initiative on Neuroscience and Law. Dr. Eagleman has written several neuroscience books, including Wednesday is Indigo Blue: Discovering the Brain of Synesthesia and Dethronement: The Secret Life of the Unconscious Brain.  He has also written an internationally bestselling book of literary fiction, Sum, which was named a Best Book of 2009 by Barnes and Noble, New Scientist, and the Chicago Tribune. Dr. Eagleman has written for the New York Times, Discover Magazine, Slate, and New Scientist, and he appears regularly on National Public Radio to discuss both science and literature.

x

 

Ask Sam Harris Anything

Sam Harris is an American author, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and has a B.A. in philosophy from Stanford University. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism. 

Sam Harris, is the author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, and The Moral Landscape. In this video he answers questions submitted by users on Reddit.com.  Sam talks about everything from the benefits of meditation to religion and some of the pitfalls of religious thinking.

.

Scientific American And The Possibilty of a Soul

Physics and the Immortality of the Soul
Guest Blog By Sean M. Carroll

"The topic of "life after death" raises disreputable connotations of past-life regression and haunted houses, but there are a large number of people in the world who believe in some form of persistence of the individual soul after life ends. Clearly this is an important question, one of the most important ones we can possibly think of in terms of relevance to human life. If science has something to say about, we should all be interested in hearing.

Adam Frank thinks that science has nothing to say about it. He advocates being "firmly agnostic" on the question. (His coblogger Alva Noë resolutely disagrees.) I have an enormous respect for Adam; he's a smart guy and a careful thinker. When we disagree it's with the kind of respectful dialogue that should be a model for disagreeing with non-crazy people. But here he couldn't be more wrong.

Adam claims that there "simply is no controlled, experimental[ly] verifiable information" regarding life after death. By these standards, there is no controlled, experimentally verifiable information regarding whether the Moon is made of green cheese. ......."

Mr. Carroll received his PhD in physics from Harvard and is currently a professor at Cal Tec.


So far this article has received more than 130 comments, both pro and con his thesis that there is no evidence within current physics for the possiblity of life after death. 

From Joshco:

".....To say there is no soul surviving death is to make the mistake of identification with the mind/body. To those who have attained enlightenment there is unanimous teaching that what we really are is beyond the mind and body. In fact, this is precisely the obstacle- taking yourself to be the mind and body instead of that which gave rise to it...... Within the immensity of space floats a tiny atom of consciousness and in it the entire universe is contained.

It's the idea of this being a holographic universe~ every part contains the whole and our suffering results of mistaking ourselves to be the temporary manifestation the container (mind/body) instead of actually being the whole.   The key to life after death is to understand that who you really are is the entirety of the cosmos. That each self-conscious mind's goal is to overcome the limited restrictions we believe ourself to be. And that is to say, to overcome the illusion of birth and death and achieve either through will or grace the experience of pure and unassailable being.

This is precisely what survives the birth and death of the mind and body- the beingness of the Universe, what you really are."

From rshoff:

"Perhaps I misinterpreted the blog. Bottom line, I don't see how modern physics can accommodate an immortal soul. If it had, it would have been presented as proof by many many people. I don't think it's a question of equals (a persistent soul or absolute death). A persistent soul does not exist, if it had, it would be scientifically documented."

and from joyss:

"The way things work is how we perceive how they work. During my lifetime, I have always asked "why" and then attempted to find the answer. It was not always forthcoming. Everything that Science has discovered has been based on the human endeavor alone. As I matured into old age I realized that I had never asked "why not?"
And if a spiritual dimension exists, I ask again, "why not."


But my personal favorite comment [vmfennimore]:

"I understand doubt. But extreme confidence of any kind always baffles me. Ultimately I think all humans (everyone yes even the phd author) are somewhat like dogs trying to solve a rubiks cube. Take the info, chew it up, spit it out, yay it's solved. But only in the dogs perspective. To my perspective, it's just a slobbery, chewed up and destroyed rubiks cube.

Oh how I long to have the ignorance of complete faith in God or complete faith in science "

The Believing Brain

The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths  — Michael Shermer'


"Bestselling author Michael Shermer's comprehensive and provocative theory on how beliefs are born, formed, reinforced, challenged, changed, and extinguished

In this work synthesizing thirty years of research, psychologist, historian of science, and the world's best-known skeptic Michael Shermer upends the traditional thinking about how humans form beliefs about the world. Simply put, beliefs come first and explanations for beliefs follow. The brain, Shermer argues, is a belief engine. From sensory data flowing in through the senses, the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning. Our brains connect the dots of our world into meaningful patterns that explain why things happen, and these patterns become beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive-feedback loop of belief confirmation. Shermer outlines the numerous cognitive tools our brains engage to reinforce our beliefs as truths.

Interlaced with his theory of belief, Shermer provides countless real-world examples of how this process operates, from politics, economics, and religion to conspiracy theories, the supernatural, and the paranormal. Ultimately, he demonstrates why science is the best tool ever devised to determine whether or not a belief matches reality."

From a reader's review:
"If you are a Liberal and you cannot understand how those crazy Conservatives can actually believe the things they do, it will be explained to you in Michael's book. The same goes for Conservatives who think that Liberalism is some kind of mental disorder....they will understand why Liberals believe what they believe. Michael also explains why neither Liberal nor Conservative is likely to change: it's all based on the way the human brain works. "

.

"The Sense and Morality of Agnosticism"

The Sense and Morality of Agnosticism
by: Vincent Bugliosi, Divinity of Doubt: The God Question

"I can say with relative confidence (because what I'm saying, at least it would seem, has to be true) that there is only one necessary religion that has any merit to the people who inhabit this earth, and that's the Golden Rule: "Whosoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (from the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:12). To treat others as you would want them to treat you (the only obvious exception being when acting in any kind of self defense) is the highest, most noble form of human behavior and the basis of all morality. No matter what some papal encyclical says; no matter what some bishops conference says; no matter how many sacraments of the Catholic church there are or chapters and verses in the bible or thick and complex books by theologians or Sunday school classes and sermons by pastors; no matter how many heated arguments there are about God, Jesus, and religion; no matter how many pilgrimages there are to Mecca, Jerusalem, and other holy places; no matter how many thousands of hours Jewish scholars struggle over the meaning of the Torah; no matter how many multimillion-dollar churches and synagogues and grand cathedrals to Christ are constructed, nothing can ever change that simple reality.

"When I do good, I feel good," Abraham Lincoln said. "When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion."

What can any church, religion, priest, minister, rabbi, theologian, seminary, religious book, or college course teach you beyond the Golden Rule that has any value? Anything else has to be man-made piffle.  ....."


Listening to the arguments of a Fundamental Christian Literalist, a militant Atheist, or anything in between those two extremes and it is indeed 'man-made piffle'. 

Knowing that I do not know, with some amount of certainty, is for me, the true measure of knowledge.

.

A History of 'God'

Thanks to Custador at Unreasonable Faith for the information which led me to discovering the following videos posted on YouTube by Evid3nc3.

At last a scholarly video presentation of 'The History of God', complete with 'footnotes' for revelant information.  This is not some frenzied wanker sitting in his basement making outrageous, and non-verifiable statements about whatever subject, but rather a young man who KNOWS his subject well, and has done considerable investigation and research.

Just a few of the references for the video:




This is an excellent history of the supreme being/God  of the Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which evolved from polytheism into monotheism.  

.

 

.