Tradition betrayed

[Josquin des Prez]

and there are sutras where the Buddha supposedly reluctantly allowed women in the order although he said it would hasten its downfall.

Quite a sensible attitude, since metaphysics is generally the domain of men par excellence. The argument about Buddhism being more philosophical vis-a-vis western or near eastern religions is of course only valid for the times we live in. One would have to look into medieval Christianity, or esoteric Islam, to find a complement to the traditional teachings of the far east. In the case of Christianity of course, it isn't an easy task since the religion lost many of its traditional values through the late middle ages all the way to the reformation, which is when most of its traditional teachings were lost for good. As for esoteric Islam, that is, by definition, quite difficult to discover as well. Its a matter of fact, all traditional teachings are supposed to be esoteric in nature, so they are not meant for mass consumption in the first place.

[Guido]

I am a Jew,  in part because that's what I was born into, and in part because I find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence. (The contrary view, when examined, turns out to be based on circular reasoning, false assumptions, and rejecting the traditional view summarily, almost ideologically, without pausing to consider how accurate it might be.)

Really?! Everything said here I find astonishing (except the first 13 words!): Moses? Jewish slaves in Egypt? Adam/Eve? Noah? Best fit to historical evidence? Really?

[Florestan]

In the case of Christianity of course, it isn't an easy task since the religion lost many of its traditional values through the late middle ages all the way to the reformation, which is when most of its traditional teachings were lost for good.

When you write Christianity you actually imply Roman Catholicism, but there is more to it than that: Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance.

[jowcol]

Quite a sensible attitude, since metaphysics is generally the domain of men par excellence. The argument about Buddhism being more philosophical vis-a-vis western or near eastern religions is of course only valid for the times we live in. One would have to look into medieval Christianity, or esoteric Islam, to find a complement to the traditional teachings of the far east. In the case of Christianity of course, it isn't an easy task since the religion lost many of its traditional values through the late middle ages all the way to the reformation, which is when most of its traditional teachings were lost for good. As for esoteric Islam, that is, by definition, quite difficult to discover as well. Its a matter of fact, all traditional teachings are supposed to be esoteric in nature, so they are not meant for mass consumption in the first place.

The notion of "philosophical"  is not really a modern vs traditional, but the fact that Buddhism, in its core form, does not really address notions of a deity, afterlife, etc.  In one of the  more famous sutras, the Buddha likened worrying about the afterlife to man shot be an arrow who refuses to have teh arrow removed until he gets a huge list of questions answered about who shot him.  So the focus is not on issues like the creation, etc.   Also, the core teachings were said to come from rational analysis-- not a burning bush. (Not a jab at other faiths here-- just a comparison...)



Whew-- as far as some of these other associations (metaphysics the domain of men, all traditional teachings should be esoteric, loss of traditional values,etc)-- these are very broad assertions over abstractions.  I'm not going to wade in there.  It is interesting that the reformation, which among other things, tried to reempahsize a return to the original scripture as opposed to what had been collected afterwards was interpreted as a loss of tradition.

[Mn Dave]

The notion of "philosophical"  is not really a modern vs traditional, but the fact that Buddhism, in its core form, does not really address notions of a deity, afterlife, etc.  In one of the  more famous sutras, the Buddha likened worrying about the afterlife to man shot be an arrow who refuses to have teh arrow removed until he gets a huge list of questions answered about who shot him.  So the focus is not on issues like the creation, etc.   Also, the core teachings were said to come from rational analysis-- not a burning bush. (Not a jab at other faiths here-- just a comparison...)



Whew-- as far as some of these other associations (metaphysics the domain of men, all traditional teachings should be esoteric, loss of traditional values,etc)-- these are very broad assertions over abstractions.  I'm not going to wade in there.  It is interesting that the reformation, which among other things, tried to reempahsize a return to the original scripture as opposed to what had been collected afterwards was interpreted as a loss of tradition.

I dig where your head's at. 

[Grazioso]

Who are you to tell my information isn't relevant? I don't know everything but nobody does. I know things you don't and vice versa. A thinking person can fill the caps to a certain degree. There is no time to read every (relevant) book in the word.

The big problem here is that you advocate a scientific, rational worldview while damning religions, yet judging by most of your posts here, you are proceeding in a totally unscientific manner: you adopt a quasi-scientific outlook to suit your personal preferences while condemning something without gathering and testing data to support your highly questionable conclusions.

If you're serious about these issues, if you want to make informed choices instead of just going with your gut and justifying it after the fact, you need in detail to study the history and philosophy of science and the history of world religions.

[Grazioso]

FWIW- I've been a practicing Therevadan Buddhist for nearly 20 years now. (Not that that branch is any better or worse than any other, but you could say I married into it)   In some ways, you are right about Buddhism  being more philosophically based, but I would be careful not to confuse the theory and practice.  If you've been a a Buddhist country, you will realize that a lot of animism and local customs creep in.  I dont tend to follow this aspect of the teaching, but the Therevadan (old school) Buddhists do not recognize female nuns and nearly the same level as males-- they are second class citizens in that respect, and there are sutras where the Buddha supposedly reluctantly allowed women in the order although he said it would hasten its downfall.

This is a good book on that issue for those who might be interested:

[Grazioso]

Even if this is true, I'm not convinced Christianity serves us intellectually anymore (after Darwin's theories about evolution) not to mention the Middle Ages when the development of western civilization was frozen for centuries.

Others have refuted the rest of your post, but where does this stuff about civilization being frozen for centuries during the Middle Ages come from? Have you studied the philosophy, art, and technology of the Middle Ages? It did not all come to a standstill, still less was it all benighted peasants living like hogs in the mud, as some people imply.

[Karl Henning]

I dig where your head's at. 

Aye, it's a cool cat he is. Yourself, too, dude.

[Mn Dave]

Aye, it's a cool cat he is. Yourself, too, dude.

Thanks, good sir.

[Karl Henning]

Who are you to tell my information isn't relevant?

Actually, what Andrei said was: thinking requires relevant information.

In posts like this, you do not traffic in information at all, but only in belligerent assertions.

[chasmaniac]

...the philosophy, art, and technology of the Middle Ages...

Occam and Machaut leap to mind, two true hipsters! 

[Florestan]

Have you studied the philosophy, art, and technology of the Middle Ages?

It's obvious he hasn't studied anything besides his field of competence. His body of knowledge of the things he pontificates about amounts to exactly minus zero. I've never ever met a more self-delusional individual.

[Mn Dave]

Jeez, lighten up, dude. 

[jowcol]

Science is much much more than E=mc². Your poems can be addressed by semantic linguistics. Learning machines (Self Organizing Maps) have been around already couple of decades and in 50-60 years we should have computers smarter than us. By then human spirituality is peanuts for science because the understanding of mental processes is so high.

Sorry to go after this one late, but I worked in the Artificial Intelligence field for several years before getting into health IT.  (Including automated proving of math theorems-- painful stuff... )


In the early 70s, it was felt that by the end of the decade, it would be possible to create a computer that would mimic the intelligence of an average person.  We are still a LONG way off- particularly in areas we did not anticipate, since our brains aren't wired the same way.  Basic image recognition (how do I know that is a chair in front of me?) is still a daunting problem. Yes, with OCR  and face recognition, we have handled some limited domains as long as the rotation factors aren't too high, but a generalized capability that could perform all the image recognisiton tasks as a person is still hopelessly out of reach-- and this is something that the "dumbest" person can do without thinking, and it's a lot harder than calculating pi to 100,000 places.

Our "right brain" activities and learning process is still very hard to support except in very limited domains.  Game playing programs, for example, can apply learning to the same game so that they can use your previous style against you, but they can't switch to learning a new game.   A lot of our thought-processing is non-linear, and as you can tell by the varied posts on this forum, we all are very idiosyncratic in our thinking. 

So, if you talk about a computer being "smarter", you need to specify how.   IBM's Watson is pretty cool, but it's basically the sum of all that is fed into it, and cannot really do much out of the box.  There has been some efforts to address more heuristic, out of the box thinking, but its in its infancy.  Most any computer program out there today can whip my ass in chess, but I would bet I could write a better novel.  (Of course, it would be fun do write a generator for romance novels, but then again, that is a limited problem space. )

FWIW-- I'm not trying to talk you into any sort of stance on religion-- that's something we all need to figure out for ourselves.

[71 dB]

It's obvious he hasn't studied anything besides his field of competence. His body of knowledge of the things he pontificates about amounts to exactly minus zero. I've never ever met a more self-delusional individual.

We all are limited in that way and only have competence on narrow fields. That's why it is so important to be able to think to compensate the lack of knowledge.

Just curious: what should I say about religions with my (lack of) competence in order to not be self-delusional? Nothing? Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion. I NEED those opinions in order to define myself, to know I am an atheist.

Maybe I am self-delusional (I am what I am) but you aren't the friendliest person I know.

[Florestan]

Just curious: what should I say about religions with my (lack of) competence in order to not be self-delusional? Nothing?

Bingo!

Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion. I NEED those opinions in order to define myself, to know I am an atheist.

See? You have yourself made a very good distinction: you are of course entitled to your opinions but please don't pretend they are thoughts, i. e. the result of a thinking process. Once again: thinking about a subject requires first and foremost relevant information (which you do not possess, and willingly so because of your stubborn refusal to read).

How on earth can you pretend that we take seriously your pronouncements on sociology of religion and philosophy of science when it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with both, lacking the very basics that would enable you to tackle such enormously difficult topics?

How would you react if I'd begin to lecture you about engineering accoustics without having read a single relevant textbook?

[71 dB]

Sorry to go after this one late, but I worked in the Artificial Intelligence field for several years before getting into health IT.  (Including automated proving of math theorems-- painful stuff... )


In the early 70s, it was felt that by the end of the decade, it would be possible to create a computer that would mimic the intelligence of an average person.  We are still a LONG way off- particularly in areas we did not anticipate, since our brains aren't wired the same way.  Basic image recognition (how do I know that is a chair in front of me?) is still a daunting problem. Yes, with OCR  and face recognition, we have handled some limited domains as long as the rotation factors aren't too high, but a generalized capability that could perform all the image recognisiton tasks as a person is still hopelessly out of reach-- and this is something that the "dumbest" person can do without thinking, and it's a lot harder than calculating pi to 100,000 places.

Our "right brain" activities and learning process is still very hard to support except in very limited domains.  Game playing programs, for example, can apply learning to the same game so that they can use your previous style against you, but they can't switch to learning a new game.   A lot of our thought-processing is non-linear, and as you can tell by the varied posts on this forum, we all are very idiosyncratic in our thinking. 

So, if you talk about a computer being "smarter", you need to specify how.   IBM's Watson is pretty cool, but it's basically the sum of all that is fed into it, and cannot really do much out of the box.  There has been some efforts to address more heuristic, out of the box thinking, but its in its infancy.  Most any computer program out there today can whip my ass in chess, but I would bet I could write a better novel.  (Of course, it would be fun do write a generator for romance novels, but then again, that is a limited problem space. )

FWIW-- I'm not trying to talk you into any sort of stance on religion-- that's something we all need to figure out for ourselves.

I agree about what you say. People have been too optimistic about "thinking machines" in the past. One mistake is predicting too optimistically short time developments. People tend to overestimate technical development for less than 30 years underestimate long term (>30 years) progress because progress is exponential in nature while people sees it linear. I think it's safe to predict that technologically the advances are huge in 50-60 years. Extremely powerful quantum-computers should be very common by then. Of course predicting the future is almost impossible. WWIII might kill all people on Earth long before these smart computers. Let's hope that doesn't happen!   

[jowcol]

We all are limited in that way and only have competence on narrow fields. That's why it is so important to be able to think to compensate the lack of knowledge.
Just curious: what should I say about religions with my (lack of) competence in order to not be self-delusional? Nothing? Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion. I NEED those opinions in order to define myself, to know I am an atheist.

As well you should.  And as well JDP should.   I'd agree we should be able to say what we think without any name-calling. 

Even as an atheist, there may be value in looking for something to harvest before completely tossing out the accumulated baggage of world religions over history.   First,  as Karl pointed out, it's hard  to appreciate many of the arts without some knowledge of the source material or inspiration.

There is also the approach of a Joseph Campbell (Masks of God, Hero with a Thousand Faces) where we examine and compare these materials to better understand our archetypal selves.  His analysis of the flood from multiple cultures is fascinating. 

There is also the notion that faith serves a human need that rational analysis can't satisfied.  If one thinks that, for example, Christianity is out of date given modern science, you might wish to check out the works of "Christian Existentialists" such as Rudolph Bultmann.  I am stealing the following from the Wikipedia page about him-- I must confess it's been at least  two decades since I've read any of his work. 

In 1941 he applied form criticism to the Gospel of John, in which he distinguished the presence of a lost Signs Gospel on which John, alone of the evangelists, depended. This monograph, highly controversial at the time, became a milestone in research into the historical Jesus. The same year his lecture New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Message called on interpreters to replace traditional supernaturalism with the temporal and existential categories of Bultmann's colleague, Martin Heidegger, rejecting doctrines such as the pre-existence of Christ.[4] Bultmann believed this endeavor would make accessible to modern audiences - already immersed in science and technology - the reality of Jesus' teachings. Bultmann thus understood the project of "demythologizing the New Testament proclamation" as an evangelical task, clarifying the kerygma, or gospel proclamation, by stripping it of elements of the first-century "mythical world picture" that had potential to alienate modern people from Christian faith:

    "It is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all of our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such acceptance a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work"[5]

While Bultmann reinterpreted theological language in existential terms, he nonetheless maintained that the New Testament proclaimed a message more radical than any modern existentialism. In both the boasting of legalists "who are faithful to the law," and the boasting of the philosophers "who are proud of their wisdom," Bultmann finds a "basic human attitude" of "highhandedness that tries to bring within our own power even the submission that we know to be our authentic being."[6] Standing against all human highhandedness is the New Testament, "which claims that we can in no way free ourselves from our factual fallenness in the world but are freed from it only by an act of God ... the salvation occurrence that is realized in Christ."[7] Bultmann remained convinced the narratives of the life of Jesus were offering theology in story form. Lessons were taught in the familiar language of myth. They were not to be excluded, but given explanation so they could be understood for today. Bultmann thought faith should become a present day reality. To Bultmann, the people of the world appeared to be always in disappointment and turmoil. Faith must be a determined vital act of will, not a culling and extolling of "ancient proofs."

I'm not sure if this guy was any fun at parties, but you get the drift...

[Karl Henning]

Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion.

Yes, you are right: you have the right to express yourself and your thoughts. And you are right: when those thoughts are not much more than the expression of ignorance, that is sorry.  Yet sorrier, when that ignorance is wilful and smug.