Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Sippuddin wrote:
>
>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>
>>> Sippuddin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sippuddin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:17:21 +1000, "Sean"
blah.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Roy Jose Lorr"
comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:M7SdnXXTctDGo0HbnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hhyapster@
gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 6:35 am, "Sean"
blah.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Dalai Lama is of course quite on the money here imho,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and it's nice to
>>>>>>>>>>>> see that he still is able to be respectful of the scientists
>>>>>>>>>>>> positions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst significantly disagreeing with the majority on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue of Darwinism
>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> let's see how the athesists respond to his thoughtful and
>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>> contemplations on this subject .... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sound of Trumpet"
mailcan.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> messagenews:1188754931.011946.319250@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part Three: Why does the Dalai Lama reject Darwinism?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Denyse O'Leary
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARN correspondent
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Lama has no problem with evolution in principle. But he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (though tactfully) rejects Darwinism (non-purposeful
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution) as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation for the history of life on earth. However, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejects it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for somewhat different reasons than many Christians do. He
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubled by the prospect that humans and apes may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic cousins
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but he has three primary reasons for doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, he does not agree that the development of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> random. Indeed, Buddhism places law or karma in precisely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the place
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where most Christians would put God. But the law of karma
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>> causation rather than randomness. The Lama writes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the philosophical point of view, the idea that these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which have such far-reaching implications, take place
>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unproblematic, but that they are purely random strikes me as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsatisfying. It leaves open the question of whether this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> randomness
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is best understood as an objective feature of reality or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood as indicating some kind of hidden causality. (P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 104)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Second, he rejects the idea that the mind is not real and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore consciousness is an illusion. Many people do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a central axiom of materialist science is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a buzz created by the neurons, with no real power to affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is, the materialist is not just saying that there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no God, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is also saying that there is no you. But the Lama does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, he was forced to, in a dialogue with a materialist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he recounts in Single Atom,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said to one of the scientists: "It seems very evident
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that due to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes in the chemical processes of the brain, many of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences like perception and sensation occur. Can one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> envision to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reversal of this causal process? Can one postulate that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself could effect a change in the chemical processes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the brain?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was asking whether, conceptually at least, we could allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility of both upward and downward causation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The scientist's response was quite surprising. He said that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mental states arise from physical states, it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> downward causation to occur. Although out of politeness, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> respond at the time, I thought then and still think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet no scientific basis for such a categorical claim. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> view that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all mental processes are necessarily physical processes is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> metaphysical assumption, not a scientific fact. I feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spirit of scientific inquiry, it is critical that we allow the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question to remain open, and not conflate our assumptions with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical fact. (p. 128)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a Buddhist, he places a great deal of emphasis on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is top down, not bottom up. To him, the mind is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> real and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative. It is independent of matter. On that, he is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> budge, as his reacton to the scientist shows. He writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> further,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order for the study of consciousness to be complete, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> methodology that would account not only for what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> neurological and biochemical levels but also for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience of consciousness itself. Even when combined,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> neuroscience
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and behavioral psychology do not shed enough light on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, as both approaches still place primary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> importance on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective, third-person perspective. Contemplative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> traditions on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> while have historically emphasized subjective, first-person
>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigation of the nature and functions of consciousness, by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> training the mind to focus in a disciplined way on its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> states. (P. 141)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, no view of mind is accurate if it dismisses
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the you in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, he rejects the idea that no one genuinely feels
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compassion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (altruism). Strict Darwinism accounts for altruism as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply the way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that your selfish genes compel you to spread them. Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feelings are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful illusions that help spread your genes. He acknowledges,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some more dogmatic Darwinians have suggested that natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and survival of the fittest are best understood at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual genes. Here we see the reduction of the strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> metaphysical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief in the principle of self-interest to imply that somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual genes behave in a selfish way. I do not know how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> today's scientists hold such radical views, As it stands
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> biological model does not allow for the possibility of real
>>>>>>>>>>>>> altruism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P. 113)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Revisiting the topic and choosing his words carefully, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lama
>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am told there is in fact an entire discipline called
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychology". To an extent I can see how evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> given for the emergence of basic emotions such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attachment, anger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fear. However ... I cannot envision how the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do justice to the richness of the emotional world and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective quality of experience. (P. 181)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> His views come as no surprise because the development of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compassion is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> central to the Buddhist understanding of spiritual growth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved unacceptable to many neuroscientists.- Hide quoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let see what you will get in your next life, please feel free
>>>>>>>>>>> to come
>>>>>>>>>>> back to tell us that you are with your god.
>>>>>>>>>>> This has not happened despite many bigots passed through this
>>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>> and seemed to be suffering in "hell", not permitted to
>>>>>>>>>>> venture out to
>>>>>>>>>>> inform the life in the next world.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, we conclude that THERE IS NO NEXT LIFE, whether you like
>>>>>>>>>>> it or
>>>>>>>>>>> not !
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see, your conclusion is holy writ. Seems atheist dogma is
>>>>>>>>>> no less based on faith than any other religion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Atheism is steeped in unproven beliefs and dogma! ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. Anything else an
>>>>>>>> atheist may or may not believe has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no such thing as 'lack of belief'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lack of belief that there might be a deity is what was said,
>>>>>> knucklehead. What are arguing, that EVERYONE believes your
>>>>>> proposition that there might be a deity?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No. I'm saying that there are only two choices: belief and disbelief.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> That's what I said, either one believes or does not believe your
>>>> proposition that there might be a deity. I just don't believe you
>>>> that's all. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
>>>> existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html>>>
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as an 'absence of belief' after the fact.
>>
>> *
>>
>> Come on now, you said there are only two choices: belief and disbelief.
>>
>> That's what I said, either one believes or does not believe your
>> proposition that there might be a deity. I just don't believe you
>> that's all. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
>> existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html>
> Try reading this again: There is no such thing as an 'absence of belief'
> after the fact.
*
Come on now, you said there are only two choices: belief and disbelief.
That's what I said, either one believes or does not believe your
proposition that there might be a deity. I just don't believe you
that's all. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
