I may not know atheism, but I know what I don't like
Frankly, so much of the rhetoric, this antireligious rhetoric from the likes of Richard Dawkins and so forth, is just wildly unconsciously and uncritically ethnocentric. Underlying these critiques and it’s quite homogenous, Daniel Dennett should know better, is the frankly, uncritical and uninformed classification of Buddhism as a religion. That if it looks like a religion, it smells like a religion, it looked a lot like Christianity, there’s prayer and so forth, therefore it must be a religion
-- Dr. Alan Wallace
Some people are unconsciously and uncritically ignorant. Obviously, there is a great deal of this going around, but if you think the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al are unconsciously ethnocentric you haven't been paying attention.
Dawkins opens the book God Delusion by telling the reader he is specifically referring to intervening personal creator deities ala the Abrahamic faiths. He does criticise belief in other deities and even the wooly belief in non-specific changeable semi-things.
Picking up a book edited by Hitchens (I previously mentioned that he has criticised the Dalai Llama and he hasn't got a problem criticising the Thanatocracy of N.Korea) he included a short essay by H L Mencken as something to be noted (and indeed - I think Dawkins has referenced this particular essay in a couple of talks too):
Or where the grave of Quitzalcontl is? Or Tialoc? Or Chalchihuitlicue? Or Xiehtecutli? Or Centeotl, that sweet one? Or Tlazolteotl, the goddess of love? Or Mictlan? Or Ixtlilton? Or Omacatl? Or Yacatecutli? Or Mixcoatl? Or Xipe? Or all the host of Tzitzimitles?
...
the hell of dead gods is as crowded as the Presbyterian hell for babies. Damona is there, and Esus, and Drunemeton, and Silvana, and Dervones, and Adsalluta, and Deva, and Belisama, and Axona, and Vintios, and Taranuous, and Sulis, and Cocidius, and Adsmerius, and Dumiatis, and Caletos, and Moccus, and Ollovidius, and Albiorix, and Leucitius, and Vitucadrus, and Ogmios, and Uxellimus, and Borvo, and Grannos, and Mogon
....
What has become of Sutekh, once the high god of the whole Nile Valley? What has become of:
Resheph Anath Ashtoreth El Nergal Nebo Ninib
Melek Ahijah Isis Ptah Anubis Baal Astarte
Hadad Addu Shalem Dagon Sharrab Yau
Amon-Re Osiris Sebek Molech?
....
They ranked, five or six thousand years ago, with Jahveh himself; the worst of them stood far higher than Thor. Yet they have all gone down the chute, and with them the following:
Bilé Ler Arianrod Morrigu Govannon Gunfled Sokk-mimi Memetona
Dagda Robigus Pluto Ops Meditrina Vesta Tilmun Ogyrvan
Dea Dia Ceros Vaticanus Edulia Adeona Iuno Lucina
Saturn Furrina Vediovis Consus Cronos Enki Engurra Belus
Dimmer Mu-ul-lil Ubargisi Ubilulu Gasan lil U-dimmer-an-kia
Enurestu U-sab-sib Kerridwen Pwyll Tammuz Venus
Bau Mulu-hursang Anu Beltis Nusku U-Mersi Beltu
Dumu-zi-abzu Kuski-banda Sin Abil Addu Apsu
Dagan Elali Isum Mami Nin-man Zaraqu Suqamunu
Zagaga Gwydion Manawyddan Nuada Argetlam Tagd
Goibniu Odin Llaw Gyffes Lleu Ogma Mider Rigantona
Marzin Mars Kaawanu Ni-zu Sahi
Aa Allatu Jupiter Cunina Potina Statilinus Diana of Ephesus Nin-azu
Lugal-Amarada Zer-panitu Merodach U-ki Dauke Gasan-abzu
Elum U-Tin-dir-ki Marduk Nin-lil-la Nin Persephone
Istar Lagas U-urugal Sirtumu Ea Nirig Nebo
Samas Ma-banba-anna En-Mersi Amurru Assur
Aku Qarradu Ura-gala Ueras
Very ethnocentric. Of course the difference between Yahweh/Alla and Sin is that the policies based on Sin's laws aren't impacting our world in any fashion right now.
This handy pie chart shows that around nine to ten times more people are 'Abrahamic' than 'Buddhist'. If anybody is being ethnocentric - why aren't they? Of all the gods or beliefs, they almost always believe in the ones prevalent in their culture. Is there something dangerous or alarming about the present day practices of the Gelug school of Buddhism that merits any more attention than it is getting? Maybe - and some, like Hitchens, are happy to argue that is the case. Others, like Sam Harris have even praised some elements of Buddhism whilst noting that it has a few associated problems:
It is true that many exponents of Buddhism, most notably the Dalai Lama, have been remarkably willing to enrich (and even constrain) their view of the world through dialogue with modern science. But the fact that the Dalai Lama regularly meets with Western scientists to discuss the nature of the mind does not mean that Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or even the Dalai Lama’s own lineage, is uncontaminated by religious dogmatism. Indeed, there are ideas within Buddhism that are so incredible as to render the dogma of the virgin birth plausible by comparison. No one is served by a mode of discourse that treats such pre-literate notions as integral to our evolving discourse about the nature of the human mind. Among Western Buddhists, there are college-educated men and women who apparently believe that Guru Rinpoche was actually born from a lotus. This is not the spiritual breakthrough that civilization has been waiting for these many centuries.
For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion. In many respects, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity.
Harris has also made a case, in The End of Faith that the religious part of Buddhist belief was one of the inspirations behind kamikaze attacks, Hitchens argues the poorness of the Buddhist's desire to "put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals", in God is not Great. Richard Dawkins states that he doesn't know much about the religion of Buddhism, but thinks that a case could be made in favour of their ethics/philsophy.
I know little about Buddhism, meditation as a kind of mental discipline to manipulate your mind in beneficial directions, I could easily imagine. In reciting a mantra in a repetitive way - it's entirely plausible to me that might have some sort of trance-inducing effects which could even be beneficial....I have done it, and it didn't do anything for me, but I gave it a go. But it certainly has nothing whatever to do in my mind with a belief in anything supernatural. -- BBC Radio 4, Belief, Monday 5 April 2004
And finally Dan Dennett, who Dr. Alan Wallace says "should know better". Dennett, starts off his book, Breaking the Spell with an apology for his ethnocentrism. says:
Let me begin with an obvious fact: I am an American author, and this book is addressed in the first place to American readers
and goes on
My focus on America is deliberate; when it comes to contemporary religion, on the other hand, my focus on Christianity first and Islam and Judaism next is unintended but unavoidable: I simply do not know enough about other religions to write with any confidence about them
Right there on the first page of the Preface. A mere few pages later he continues to address the very issue Dr Wallace says that he should know better about.
How do I define religion? It doesn't matter just how I define itm since I plan to examine and discuss the neighbouring phenomena that (probably) aren't religions -spirituality, commitment to secular organisations, fanatical devotion to ethnic groups (or sports teams), superstition...So, wherever I "draw the line", I'll be going over the line in any case.
And
Tentatively, I propose to define religions as social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought...There are many other variants to be considered in due course - for instance, people who pray, and believe in the efficacy of prayer, but don't believe that this efficacy is channelled through an agent...
And look, you don't even need to own a copy of this book. Just go into the bookstore, look "Buddhism" up in the index and you'll find several references including:
Perhaps, once we understand the whole field better, we will see that Buddhism and Islam, for all their similarities, deserve to be considered two entirely different species of cultural phenomenon
So, erm, Dr Wallace, Dennett does know better. You are clearly talking shit (in this instance). I'm sure that you are the kind of guy that corrects errors in the light of new evidence, I've had a quick look at your CV and you are clearly not an outright moron or anything. However, this criticism of the "new atheists'" position is endemic and dreadfully ironic. "The new atheists haven't considered my obscure religion, the new atheists don't realize there is more to it than YHWH, blah blah blah", can be simply turned around: "The critics of the 'new atheists' haven't paid any sodding attention to the new atheists. The critics don't realize there is more to it than criticism of YHWH blah blah."
People ignorantly accusing other people of being ignorant? Who'd have thunk it.
-- Dr. Alan Wallace
Some people are unconsciously and uncritically ignorant. Obviously, there is a great deal of this going around, but if you think the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al are unconsciously ethnocentric you haven't been paying attention.
Dawkins opens the book God Delusion by telling the reader he is specifically referring to intervening personal creator deities ala the Abrahamic faiths. He does criticise belief in other deities and even the wooly belief in non-specific changeable semi-things.
Picking up a book edited by Hitchens (I previously mentioned that he has criticised the Dalai Llama and he hasn't got a problem criticising the Thanatocracy of N.Korea) he included a short essay by H L Mencken as something to be noted (and indeed - I think Dawkins has referenced this particular essay in a couple of talks too):
Or where the grave of Quitzalcontl is? Or Tialoc? Or Chalchihuitlicue? Or Xiehtecutli? Or Centeotl, that sweet one? Or Tlazolteotl, the goddess of love? Or Mictlan? Or Ixtlilton? Or Omacatl? Or Yacatecutli? Or Mixcoatl? Or Xipe? Or all the host of Tzitzimitles?
...
the hell of dead gods is as crowded as the Presbyterian hell for babies. Damona is there, and Esus, and Drunemeton, and Silvana, and Dervones, and Adsalluta, and Deva, and Belisama, and Axona, and Vintios, and Taranuous, and Sulis, and Cocidius, and Adsmerius, and Dumiatis, and Caletos, and Moccus, and Ollovidius, and Albiorix, and Leucitius, and Vitucadrus, and Ogmios, and Uxellimus, and Borvo, and Grannos, and Mogon
....
What has become of Sutekh, once the high god of the whole Nile Valley? What has become of:
Resheph Anath Ashtoreth El Nergal Nebo Ninib
Melek Ahijah Isis Ptah Anubis Baal Astarte
Hadad Addu Shalem Dagon Sharrab Yau
Amon-Re Osiris Sebek Molech?
....
They ranked, five or six thousand years ago, with Jahveh himself; the worst of them stood far higher than Thor. Yet they have all gone down the chute, and with them the following:
Bilé Ler Arianrod Morrigu Govannon Gunfled Sokk-mimi Memetona
Dagda Robigus Pluto Ops Meditrina Vesta Tilmun Ogyrvan
Dea Dia Ceros Vaticanus Edulia Adeona Iuno Lucina
Saturn Furrina Vediovis Consus Cronos Enki Engurra Belus
Dimmer Mu-ul-lil Ubargisi Ubilulu Gasan lil U-dimmer-an-kia
Enurestu U-sab-sib Kerridwen Pwyll Tammuz Venus
Bau Mulu-hursang Anu Beltis Nusku U-Mersi Beltu
Dumu-zi-abzu Kuski-banda Sin Abil Addu Apsu
Dagan Elali Isum Mami Nin-man Zaraqu Suqamunu
Zagaga Gwydion Manawyddan Nuada Argetlam Tagd
Goibniu Odin Llaw Gyffes Lleu Ogma Mider Rigantona
Marzin Mars Kaawanu Ni-zu Sahi
Aa Allatu Jupiter Cunina Potina Statilinus Diana of Ephesus Nin-azu
Lugal-Amarada Zer-panitu Merodach U-ki Dauke Gasan-abzu
Elum U-Tin-dir-ki Marduk Nin-lil-la Nin Persephone
Istar Lagas U-urugal Sirtumu Ea Nirig Nebo
Samas Ma-banba-anna En-Mersi Amurru Assur
Aku Qarradu Ura-gala Ueras
Very ethnocentric. Of course the difference between Yahweh/Alla and Sin is that the policies based on Sin's laws aren't impacting our world in any fashion right now.
This handy pie chart shows that around nine to ten times more people are 'Abrahamic' than 'Buddhist'. If anybody is being ethnocentric - why aren't they? Of all the gods or beliefs, they almost always believe in the ones prevalent in their culture. Is there something dangerous or alarming about the present day practices of the Gelug school of Buddhism that merits any more attention than it is getting? Maybe - and some, like Hitchens, are happy to argue that is the case. Others, like Sam Harris have even praised some elements of Buddhism whilst noting that it has a few associated problems:
It is true that many exponents of Buddhism, most notably the Dalai Lama, have been remarkably willing to enrich (and even constrain) their view of the world through dialogue with modern science. But the fact that the Dalai Lama regularly meets with Western scientists to discuss the nature of the mind does not mean that Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or even the Dalai Lama’s own lineage, is uncontaminated by religious dogmatism. Indeed, there are ideas within Buddhism that are so incredible as to render the dogma of the virgin birth plausible by comparison. No one is served by a mode of discourse that treats such pre-literate notions as integral to our evolving discourse about the nature of the human mind. Among Western Buddhists, there are college-educated men and women who apparently believe that Guru Rinpoche was actually born from a lotus. This is not the spiritual breakthrough that civilization has been waiting for these many centuries.
For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion. In many respects, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity.
Harris has also made a case, in The End of Faith that the religious part of Buddhist belief was one of the inspirations behind kamikaze attacks, Hitchens argues the poorness of the Buddhist's desire to "put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals", in God is not Great. Richard Dawkins states that he doesn't know much about the religion of Buddhism, but thinks that a case could be made in favour of their ethics/philsophy.
I know little about Buddhism, meditation as a kind of mental discipline to manipulate your mind in beneficial directions, I could easily imagine. In reciting a mantra in a repetitive way - it's entirely plausible to me that might have some sort of trance-inducing effects which could even be beneficial....I have done it, and it didn't do anything for me, but I gave it a go. But it certainly has nothing whatever to do in my mind with a belief in anything supernatural. -- BBC Radio 4, Belief, Monday 5 April 2004
And finally Dan Dennett, who Dr. Alan Wallace says "should know better". Dennett, starts off his book, Breaking the Spell with an apology for his ethnocentrism. says:
Let me begin with an obvious fact: I am an American author, and this book is addressed in the first place to American readers
and goes on
My focus on America is deliberate; when it comes to contemporary religion, on the other hand, my focus on Christianity first and Islam and Judaism next is unintended but unavoidable: I simply do not know enough about other religions to write with any confidence about them
Right there on the first page of the Preface. A mere few pages later he continues to address the very issue Dr Wallace says that he should know better about.
How do I define religion? It doesn't matter just how I define itm since I plan to examine and discuss the neighbouring phenomena that (probably) aren't religions -spirituality, commitment to secular organisations, fanatical devotion to ethnic groups (or sports teams), superstition...So, wherever I "draw the line", I'll be going over the line in any case.
And
Tentatively, I propose to define religions as social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought...There are many other variants to be considered in due course - for instance, people who pray, and believe in the efficacy of prayer, but don't believe that this efficacy is channelled through an agent...
And look, you don't even need to own a copy of this book. Just go into the bookstore, look "Buddhism" up in the index and you'll find several references including:
Perhaps, once we understand the whole field better, we will see that Buddhism and Islam, for all their similarities, deserve to be considered two entirely different species of cultural phenomenon
So, erm, Dr Wallace, Dennett does know better. You are clearly talking shit (in this instance). I'm sure that you are the kind of guy that corrects errors in the light of new evidence, I've had a quick look at your CV and you are clearly not an outright moron or anything. However, this criticism of the "new atheists'" position is endemic and dreadfully ironic. "The new atheists haven't considered my obscure religion, the new atheists don't realize there is more to it than YHWH, blah blah blah", can be simply turned around: "The critics of the 'new atheists' haven't paid any sodding attention to the new atheists. The critics don't realize there is more to it than criticism of YHWH blah blah."
People ignorantly accusing other people of being ignorant? Who'd have thunk it.