I agree. Genuine skeptics usually incline toward liberalism anyway, since as you said being conservative pretty much requires putting blinders on so that you can pretend your political ideology isn’t just a worldview designed to protect the wealth and privilege of an elite few.

There are plenty of self-proclaimed libertarian skeptics, but their “lol Bigfoot believers are dumb” shtick just gets trite coming from a group of people who believe that less government regulation leads to greater justice and equality. (Whether or not they actually believe this is really an open question - it’s more likely that they just don’t give a shit about equality and justice, except for the wealthy - but they certainly do proclaim it.)

“lol Bigfoot believers are dumb”

And this is really what the skeptic community seems to be grappling with when they get upset by change. The real giants of skepticism are people like Carl Sagan. The “movement,” such as it is, seems to have attracted a large crowd of groupies whose motivation was the opportunity to feel superior to someone else. It should be no surprise that this attracted a lot of conservative white guys.

Skepticism is an intellectual movement, not a self-esteem society for people who need to feel like they’re better than someone. That said, the danger from New Atheism is that it will attract, well, a bunch of conservative white dudes who come for the “lol religious people are dumb” joshing around.

I read that piece and made several comments. It seemed like a few people were just pissed that prominent skeptics (e.g., PZ Myers, Greta Christina, and Jen McCreight) are unapologetically liberal and write pro-liberal/anti-conservative blog posts on the their popular blogs where they also discuss skepticism/atheism. In typical conservative fashion, the fact that people openly disagree with them means they are being oppressed.

The right wing ‘War on Science’ has driven a lot of previously askeptical and apolitical people into the skeptical/atheist movement, they can see the harm that truthy-based policy, rather than evidence based policy, has wrought over the past couple of decades.

I’m very happy about it, the fact that some of the older members of the movement aren’t? Well, to be perfectly honest, if they’d done a better job holding their conservative/libertarian friends in check when they came out with rubbish like the Laffer Curve, Climate Change denial, and anti-choice politics then we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now.

If the insanity of the right wing and religious is driving people into our movement, then that can only be a good thing. Maybe our dinosaurs can learn a bit from the fresh points of view.

People who claim to be skeptics don’t get to specially plead on the god question, or any other question for that matter.  Rejection of all special pleading is a critical basis of skepticism without which skepticism can not meaningfully exist.  There’s nothing worse than an agnostic who thinks he’s more logical and skeptical than an openly religious person.  Whether you’re an agnostic or a believer you’re engaging in special pleading on the god question, subjecting it to a different standard than any other question of existence, and you are not a skeptic nor are you logical.

Frankly there is a problem with most skeptical treatment of the god question.  “God” isn’t well enough defined a term for questions about the existence of god to even be coherent questions.  You can’t even begin to sensibly talk about evidence for something’s existence until you have a precise enough agreed upon definition of what that something is to be able to recognize it when you see it.  The god concept is too amorphous and wishy-washy to ever get to the point of debating the evidence, and when skeptics debate evidence with believers the skeptics have already lost the battle.  Make believers define “god” in such a way that a god can be readily distinguished from a non-god and that isn’t grossly inconsistent with common usage of the term “god” and then we can start talking lack of evidence.

hmmm…. isn’t saying that diversity leads to a narrowing of viewpoints an act of othering? It seems to imply that white, straight, well-off dudes have diverse points of view, while everyone else marches in lockstep in support of the Ebil Athiest Librul Agenda

I’ve never understood idea that atheism and skepticism should somehow be considered completely separate movements, because skepticism leads so naturally to atheism for me. It’s always made sense that one would be part of the other.

@2:
The “movement,” such as it is, seems to have attracted a large crowd of groupies whose motivation was the opportunity to feel superior to someone else. It should be no surprise that this attracted a lot of conservative white guys.

Well put. Penn and Teller are exactly this type of skeptic (no surprise, they’re also big-time libertarians). I actually really like a fair number of episodes of Bullshit!, and they can be good skeptics when it comes to topics that don’t threaten their privilege. But like many (most?) libertarian skeptics, they believe that denying global warming is a skeptical outlook, and that the “believers” in global warming are the dupes. *sigh*

hmmm…. isn’t saying that diversity leads to a narrowing of viewpoints an act of othering? It seems to imply that white, straight, well-off dudes have diverse points of view, while everyone else marches in lockstep in support of the Ebil Athiest Librul Agenda

This. What Loxton really wants is to maintain his circle of dudes who pat themselves on the back for not believing in UFOs. When somebody shows up to point out your privilege, suddenly the back-pats cease and you’re not the pinnacle of humanity anymore. :O

There is no such thing as a skeptical conservative, not really.  So yeah, eventually they’re gonna leave the movement.  It’s neither good nor bad; it’s just inherent to the worldview.  To be a conservative, you must believe transparently false things.

@luxaeturna: it is of course quite possible to be an atheist without being skeptical.  Any given worldview does not need examination to be held.  That said, in the US, they would be closely allied. 

What the hell is skepticism for if not doing away with false beliefs?  It’s one thing to wary about dismissive attitudes that keep one from hearing a contrary viewpoint, but there are too many so-called skeptics who feel we should never actually agree that certain things are false.

If there is an objective reality and if we can know things about it, then we should eventually be able to form a consensus on what that reality is like.  But, no, for some people, consensus = teh bad!  Just because conservatives can wrongly come to a consensus that global warming is a sham, it doesn’t mean that when skeptics come to a consensus on the non-existence of fairies the skeptics are necessarily also doing something wrong.  What matters is why the vast majority of people are in agreement and whether those reasons are consistently applied to other beliefs.

Bigfoot is real tyro! I’ve seen it. I’ve also been abducted by aliens, had a remote control device planted in my ass and whenever they hit it I vote Republican. Seriously, I hate those guys in the sky! I wanted to vote for Obama but when I awoke I found that I had checked for McCain. I’ve felt dirty ever since. Liberals need to get on this. Its real!It would explain so much and why so many Southerners skeeve me out.

I’m not really familiar with the whole skeptic thing; I don’t go anywhere that it gets mentioned except here.  So I’m wondering, if being skepticism (in this case) means not believing in fairies/ESP/etc., where would something like chi fit in?  There are at least a few studies done on it (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be3ScfZy944 ), and there are exercises you can do to see its effect. But, since it’s not a visible phenomenon and the nature of it hasn’t been scientifically ascertained, is that considered enough evidence to allow that it’s a real thing?

Agreed #7 luxa. I do think that the idea that we should allow religious in who are skeptics of other phenomena would be an ill-thought idea. Usually they arent true skeptics they just dont like that what group A says is against their religion and are reluctant to address and apply the same standards to their own religious beliefs and beliefs stemming from their religion such as creationism or that you cant mix salt and fresh water. I also dont see any problem with fusing skepticism and atheism but true skepticism doesnt really have religion in it. Also who needs more conservative douchbags ruining everything? These are the people who believe in creationism, fixation on blood having “germs,” not being able to mix salt and fresh water and people who dont believe in medical advances and in some cases even refuse them erroneously thinking that only prayer will help. These are the same people who say a fertilized egg which hasnt implanted in the woman/girls uterus “starves” to death.

#13 spiffy,
I think chi is just another word for mental focus/meditation and the influence it has on the person.

#13 Spiffy

There is no good evidence for chi as defined by Eastern or New Age practitioners. Yeah, if you hold your hands close together you can feel the heat in one on other. If you move them together you may even feel the slight pressure waves in front of each as they they approach. There are numerous flows of energy through the body, but they are all physical in nature (i.e., thermal, chemical, kinetic). There are studies that show real benefits to certain types of meditation and movement. But, those benefits are best attributed to actual physiological responses in the body and not the channeling of some sort of “life energy”.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

A giant thumbs-up to everything you said in this post.

I just deleted a big portion of text that was basically repeating a lot of who you just said. I didn’t say it any better.

As someone who is actively involved in the skeptic community, I very much think we need to embrace issues more vociferously that sometimes get ignored because they’re stickier politically, such as anti-choice rhetoric and “free-market” nonsense. These are claims made for which there is evicence. Let’s look at it!

We’ve more-or-less won the War on Bigfoot.

There’s also the problem of real experiences of non-real supernatural events. The human brain is designed to make awful guesses just in case it picks the tiger out of the forest the one time it saves the person’s life, and the rest of the sightings are ghosts. No less real to the person experiencing them, but they aren’t there in reality.

Fairies are in fact real, but only in the heads of people that have experienced the illusion of fairies. Every human is an awful judge of what reality actually is, especially when religion is in play when society physically or emotionally rewards people for being mistaken. Not seeing that something is there, like sexism, is just as irrational, and sadly understandable, as seeing something that isn’t there, like fairies.

The only way to get anywhere near objective reality is to test it, a lot, and unfortunately the statistics and evidence concerning sexual violence and the 2nd class status of women and minorities is very strong indeed. Skeptics should be on top of this like they are with bigfoot, but it should be far more important for us to judge society skeptically, as rubes that are happy to be misled are one thing, where women and minorities who suffer often extreme distress because of prejudice in society are the real victims when people allow their blindness to reality to control their reactions.

There’s also the problem of real experiences of non-real supernatural events. The human brain is designed to make awful guesses just in case it picks the tiger out of the forest the one time it saves the person’s life, and the rest of the sightings are ghosts. No less real to the person experiencing them, but they aren’t there in reality.

Fairies are in fact real, but only in the heads of people that have experienced the illusion of fairies. Every human is an awful judge of what reality actually is, especially when religion is in play when society physically or emotionally rewards people for being mistaken. Not seeing that something is there, like sexism, is just as irrational, and sadly understandable, as seeing something that isn’t there, like fairies.

The only way to get anywhere near objective reality is to test it, a lot, and unfortunately the statistics and evidence concerning sexual violence and the 2nd class status of women and minorities is very strong indeed. Skeptics should be on top of this like they are with bigfoot, but it should be far more important for us to judge society skeptically, as rubes that are happy to be misled are one thing, where women and minorities who suffer often extreme distress because of prejudice in society are the real victims when people allow their blindness to reality control their reactions.

Sorry for the double post, muck up at my end somehow. :(

Spiffy, I don’t have time to comb through these studies to demonstrate their flaws, but I recommend boning up on skeptical tools so you can do it yourself.  I suspect strongly that these “studies” aren’t any good.  But of course I don’t know!  But I’ve read and listened to skeptics tear some of that stuff to pieces.

Here’s the thing. There was a bit of hubbub last year when Pamela Gay was announced as a speaker at TAM because she was a Christian. Most people (including myself) didn’t care, because she never tried to proclaim to others the evidence for Christianity. Her talk was actually one of the most inspiring ones I saw last year.

There was also a climate change panel. One of the people there (I forget his name) was a well-known UFO skeptic, and also a climate change denier. I had no problems with his UFO talk (other than that it was the dullest talk of the conference), but he was more or less torn apart by the other panelists on climate change. Which is good.

I’ve been completely frustrated by this false line drawn by many, vociferously by Loxton, between “supernatural claims” and “religion.” Now, I get that religion is important to many people, and that it’s such a part of our culture that going up against it is no small task, but if we’re to be an honest movement, let’s be an honest movement.

“The irony of a fairy-disbelieving-only panel on “diversity” did not escape me, but I expected it to pass without comment. The sentiment that skepticism is an anti-fairy club is recent, but it has taken root very quickly. As with other sorts of “do-fish-know-they’re-wet?” privilege in other, larger communities, the assumption of default disbelief in fairies is rarely questioned in the skeptical subculture. Indeed, the panel set out to discuss diversity in gender, sexual orientation, age, race, class, education, and physical ability—but not fairy belief.”

Mr. Crocker takes the stand at a skeptic convention.

There’s also the problem of real experiences of non-real supernatural events. The human brain is designed to make awful guesses just in case it picks the tiger out of the forest the one time it saves the person’s life, and the rest of the sightings are ghosts. No less real to the person experiencing them, but they aren’t there in reality.

Quite true, and sadly there are many, many people who can’t grasp that just because their brain told them something was there doesn’t mean it actually was. I mean, lots of people (probably most) have an emotional need to trust the accuracy of their senses, but there comes a point where you just have to accept that the existence of what you think you perceived is less likely than the possibility that your brain is fucking with you. Because people’s brains fuck with them a lot.

Near-death experiences is the big one here. THEY MUST BE REAL. MY OXYGEN-DEPRIVED BRAIN CLEARLY SAW ALL MY DEAD RELATIVES. THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION. ^_^

Here’s my comment, posted over there:

I find it odd that the Skeptical writer of the post thinks that religion is out of bounds for skeptical discussion because it lacks a “testable hypothesis” and can neither be proven nor disproven. This would come as a surprise to many believing Christians who have, in fact, staked their lives and their afterlives on a firm conviction that the traces of their god and his doings are everywhere apparent in everyday life, in history, and in the archaeological record. A serious skeptic actually can’t help but disbelieve most religions that insist on miracles (the sun stood still, Jesus appeared in the Americas and strove with civilizations of a particular type and technology, Noah’s ark has been discovered, the shroud of turin). At almost every turn prior to the enlightenment Christianity, Islam, Mormonism after it was invented, offered their followers and their detractors a near infinite set of factual propositions that can be proven, or disproven.
Of course, if you insist on claiming Harry Houdini as the archtypcal Skeptic and insisting on modeling yourself on him then that’s a personal preference that no one can contest. But its certainly not the only way of being a skeptic and strikes me as extremely culturally bound in a way that skepticism really ought not to be. To me its like saying that a prominent founder’s taste in clothes proves that all future skeptics need to wear spats. That’s fairly typical of some minority groups, like the Hasidim for example, but has absolutely nothing to do with a community which prides itself on investigating and using reason rather than mere habit.
aimai

  One reason why some skeptics might be reluctant to take on religion is because many times religion and culture are rather tricky things to separate. The most well-known example is the relationship between Jews and Judaism. The percentile of Jews who are fundamentalists in the sense that Evangelicals are is small, even in the Orthodox Jewish community. Yet, most Jews practice at least some elements of Judaism like circumcision, fasting on Yom Kippur, and definitely the Passover seder at least as folk customs/Jewish culture. Is this Jewish people doing culturally Jewish things or, assuming that all religions are wrong, Jewish people doing deluded religious things that no proper skeptic/atheist should do. Shinto is another example of where separating culture and religion is not the easiest thing. The number of Japanese that actively believe in Shinto is probably insignificant but most do feel that maintaining Shinto shrines and going to the occasional Shinto festival are in important part of their cultural heritage.

    Than you have the issue of whether you could be an atheist and a religious person. This seems silly from a Western perspective but many Buddhists believe that you could be an atheist and a Buddhist because Buddhism is more of a philosophy with accompanying practices rather than a religion. This actually caused some problems in the early Soviet Union. There was a relatively small Buddhist population in the Russian Empire and some of them became Bolsheviks. They saw no contradiction between being a Communist, atheist, and a practicing Buddhist while the other Russian Communists saw a lot of contradictions because Buddhism was a religion to them.

    The difficulties of separating certain religions from certain ethnic cultures/folk customs and the hard question of what is and is not a religion might be why some of the older skeptics are reluctant to take on religion in general or particular.

Mr. Crocker takes the stand at a skeptic convention.

There’s no way Mr Crocker would be able to discuss fairies that calmly.

@26:

Not to detract from what you’re saying, because you’re right, but there’s also a difference between “Let’s perform this ritual because it’s a tradition” and “Let’s pray for this person and God will heal their cancer.” The latter is both a religious belief and a testable claim.

There’s also a difference between “Let’s decorate a tree” and “On this day 2000 years ago the Son of God was born to a virgin.”

I do think skeptics as a group should be selective in approaching religion. Any given skeptic is welcome to believe some blanket statement like “religion is bullshit” but in the actual practice of skepticism it’s probably better to stick with specific claims about reality, and not worry about whether or not they’re religions claims. Religion certainly shouldn’t be exempt.

But given how much religious practices overlap with cultural ones, you have a point.

Lee @ #26:

One reason why some skeptics might be reluctant to take on religion is because many times religion and culture are rather tricky things to separate.

Actually, there’s a far simpler reason scientific skepticism doesn’t concern itself with belief in gods— it’s because those are metaphysical beliefs and therefore untestable by science.

However, historically, scientific skepticism has concerned itself with testable religious claims—weeping statues, faith healing (James Randi made quite a name for himself debunking Peter Popoff), etc.

My experience with atheism in gen y is that the majority of people I know and strangers I’ve met on campus (in CO) identify as atheists or agnostics. These arent just the political science and philosophy majors either. For one of my business courses the majority raised their hand in regards to not having religious belief or not believing in after-life.

Awesome post, Amanda! I hadn’t even realized that we were in any way “supposed” to keep skepticism and atheism separate in the first place. Like you, my skepticism led to my atheism (and the two nicely reinforce each other; rejection of magical thinking is rejection of magical thinking.)

I do think skeptics as a group should be selective in approaching religion. Any given skeptic is welcome to believe some blanket statement like “religion is bullshit” but in the actual practice of skepticism it’s probably better to stick with specific claims about reality, and not worry about whether or not they’re religions claims. Religion certainly shouldn’t be exempt.

For sure. I’m just as willing to accept the (religious) claim that “praying makes me feel happier” as I am the non-religious claim that “eating ice cream makes me feel happier.” And I’m just as loathe to unquestioningly accept the (religious) claim that “praying cures AIDS!” as the non-religious claim that “eating ice cream cures AIDS!” When someone reports a personal experience I absolutely believe they have/had that personal experience (even if I privately might think it’s a fucking stupid one), but once they start talking about the world outside of their perceived reality then I want some evidence and I’m perfectly willing to call bullshit on it if there’s none.

such as non-allergic people cutting gluten

A nit to pick: gluten intolerance isn’t a food allergy.

@boring old dude: speaking as a person with gluten intolerance, it’s fucking well close enough.  If people want to view it as an allergy until they get deeply educated on the subject, they will make exactly zero mistakes.

One of the attractions for arguing against, for example, Loch Ness Monsterists is that not only are you obviously right, it also doesn’t matter, at least not to anyone with any power. You can show off your fancy rhetorical and logical manoeuvres in the safety of the sandpit. However, if you start using your skeptic skills on religious or political targets, people will care, and you will be wrong some of the time - which is much less fun for the sort of skeptics who are in it for a bit of gentle intellectual frottage.

Lee: I think your first point is strong.  I think the way to go about it is to be clear that criticizing religious claims is separate from attacking religious freedom or being a stalking horse for bigotry.  Atheists and skeptics can show good will by fighting for, say, the right to build a mosque near the WTC if you damn well please. 

Your second point is a red herring—-it’s obvious that when atheists criticize “religion”, they mean “the supernatural claims of religion” not “the cultural practices of religion”, and most atheists are actually supportive of religious traditions that are more about history and ethnic tradition than belief in gods.  (I’m an atheist and I celebrate Christmas, and many atheist Jews celebrate holidays to honor their history and their people.)  Buddhism is something that amateur hour critics bring up; Buddhists may not believe in god, but they still base their religion around supernatural claims that are clearly ridiculous.

So I’m wondering, if being skepticism (in this case) means not believing in fairies/ESP/etc., where would something like chi fit in?  There are at least a few studies done on it

Many people think that chi (or vitalism, or life energy - whatever you want to call it) exists and can be manipulated, especially for healing. It’s all a bunch of bullshit. It’s so much bullshit, in fact, that it was debunked by a 9 year old: Rosa, Linda; Rosa, Emily; Sarner, Larry; and Barrett, Stephen. 1998. “A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch”. Journal of the American Medical Association 279 (13): 1005–1010. doi:10.1001/jama.279.13.1005

Also see The Physics of “Alternative Medicine”: Bioenergetic Fields for a good analysis of the subject.

So when you’re talking about “letting people in” or “keeping people out”, what does that mean, exactly? Not allowing them to speak at conferences? Not allowing them to join or run for office in certain organizations? Is there a central ruling authority on who is considered a pure enough atheist and/or skeptic? Do they need to sign oaths?  Agree to certain creeds?

You’re just jealous cause my fairy godmother is more caring than yours and you’ll never be wed to a magical prince.

I love that the skeptic movement is moving on to the God question. It’s about time! It’s like a video game. First you start out fighting bigfoot, chupacabras, and UFOs, then you move on to moon landing deniers and medical woo. That gets you enough power ups to fight the “Boss” within your own movement the Giant Godbot.

Once the Godbot Boss is defeated, the skeptic movement will get enough power ups to fight the antivaxers and lesser religions. Defeat the Boss there and we can fight in the third series of waves where the fundies are infiltrating the Air Force Academy to gain access to nuclear weapons, and then fight fundiclones. After that multi boss waves including the pope.

So when you’re talking about “letting people in” or “keeping people out”, what does that mean, exactly?

Honestly, like so many other other “Attacks” or “assaults” or “censorship” that is criticized these days, all it really means is talking, arguing and challenging viewpoints. No-one is really being “kicked out”. Rather, you have a group of people taking their ball, going home, and whining incessantly about it.

A few things:
1) You say “Look: atheism is the result of applying critical thinking and demands for evidence to the god hypothesis.  It’s not any different than non-belief in all sorts of supernatural claims, such as ESP and ghosts.”

This is wrong.  Atheism is non-theism.  You can’t know anything about how someone comes to that place without asking them.  I have met many atheists who didn’t “reason” their way to non-belief, but were simply raised in households where there wasn’t any religion practiced.  That didn’t make them critical thinkers it just made them non-theists.

2) Your article might make someone think that Daniel Loxton is some kind of conservative right-winger.  Maybe you even think that yourself?  Not sure.  But I didn’t see anything you quoted from Daniel implying his political position on anything.  Seems like a non sequitur conclusion from here.  If you go back and search through your big stack of Skeptic Magazines and look at the Junior Skeptics I don’t think you’ll find any particular political viewpoint being advocated because - as Loxton admits - he likes to keep his skepticism and his politics separate. But if you’d bothered to look at his Facebook page or twitter feed I think you’d find that he’s quite socially liberal.  I’ve never asked him about his politics but maybe you’re confusing him with Michael Shermer?  Shermer wears his libertarianism on his sleeve.  Trying to paint Loxton as a conservative seems not just misguided but simply wrong.

3) I happen to agree with Loxton on wanting to keep Scientific Skepticism out of politics - and religion.  My own personal reason is that both of those topics are divisive and we’re a minority and we need allies to achieve our goals, not to dickishly run around pointing out how we know more than everybody else.  Being right is great, but convincing others usually requires more nuance than just telling them they’re wrong.

That being said, I have several friends who are both skeptics and political activists.  You’re hitting on a powerful emotional topic here and many will agree with you.  I think the simple solution is for people who want to form political groups based on skepticism to do so.  Just don’t try to change the JREF, CFI and Skeptic’s Society into those groups.  Make a political group and see if you can get it to grow.  Prove your point by making it happen.  (I’d suggest reaching out to Sean Faircloth for some advice on how to get started!) 

One cool thing about having a political blog which is allegedly powered by skepticism is that people will be much more tolerant of logical fallacies.

Amanda, I’d been thinking a lot about the more practical uses of skepticism, when you were booked for a Boston Skeptics appearance (Was it only a year + ago?). I remember discussing my interest in feminism, atheism, and diversity issues, vs. the tired forgone conclusions of Bigfoot, UFO’s , Haunted Houses, etc, with other Boston Skeptics members. The topic was renewed shortly after when, as a show of *skeptic support* a couple of us attended a neighboring state’s event where they seemed all too happy to dwell on UFOs, haunted houses, etc, and have since displayed a hostility to critical thinking as applied to feminist issues, and a general unwillingness to accept that these issues have any place in skeptical discourse. It’s a drag when skeptic peeps you’ve met IRL turn out to be reactionaries, but hey, it’s learning experience.

There is no more support for scientism than deism, Amanda:

The statement “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically”, is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as the truth of the statement itself cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true”.[28]

Also, at least one religious leader is willing to have some of his faiths’ practices studied, and the results were rather interesting:

BEGLEY They were both hoping to get something from the other. The Dalai Lama was interested in establishing Buddhism as a modern faith, one that is open to science.
The scientists, for their part, need the Buddhist scholars to volunteer for their experiments. They need the Buddhist scholars who have 10,000 hours of meditation under their robes, as it were, to come into the labs and to lay down in the FMRI machine and have their brains scanned.

RATHER (VOICE OVER)  THE MONKS WHO COME TO DAVIDSON’S LAB ARE WILLING TO
SPEND HOURS IN THE TUBES OF THE GIANT F-M-R-I MACHINES…AT THE DIRECT REQUEST OF THE DALAI LAMA HIMSELF.

BEGLEY He encourages the monks, the Lamas, the other Buddhist scholars around him to volunteer their brains for this neuroscience research and specifically what he’s interested in learning is whether mental training, which in Buddhism, of course, takes the form of meditation, can act back on the brain to produce structural and functional changes.

RATHER Can it?

BEGLEY He believes it does. Buddhist philosophy says it does. And the emerging
research, indeed, shows that it can.

http://www.hd.net/ui/inc/show_transcripts.php?ami=A5156&t=Dan_Rather_Reports&en=313

Link opens to a PDF to open or save.

DoctorAtlantis says:

My own personal reason is that both of those topics are divisive and we’re a minority and we need allies to achieve our goals, not to dickishly run around pointing out how we know more than everybody else. ... I think the simple solution is for people who want to form political groups based on skepticism to do so.

And just what are “our” goals if we have to keep our hands off religion and politics?  What the fuck is the point of a skeptic movement if we can’t apply skepticism to issues that actually affect us on a daily basis and that will impact the future of the planet?  Movements are meant to move, and you’re asking for progress to warm the bench.  That’s stupid.  I say if people want to cling to ideologies that don’t stand up to scrutiny, they can go make their own “skeptic” clubs where special pleading is allowed for whatever bullshit they hold sacred.

Also, at least one religious leader is willing to have some of his faiths’ practices studied, and the results were rather interesting

That has… zero to do with God, though? What are you getting at? I think it’s very cool how much control people can have over their bodily functions but that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with religion (except that these monks do it via a religious exercise.) So it’s more like skepticism and science applied to human biology than to religion, imho.

What are you getting at? I think it’s very cool how much control people can have over their bodily functions but that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with religion (except that these monks do it via a religious exercise.

That is it.  I don’t believe a belief in Tibetian Buddhism is necessary for the meditation techniques to work, but we can learn from what is ostensibly a ‘religous exercise’ a lot about our own nervous system.

It’s also worth noting that the Dalai Lama has said that if science could prove that reincarnation, a strong part of the Buddhist faith, didn’t take place, he would accept the results, and adjust his POV accordingly.

The real question is how they developed these exercises based on their religion in the first place, a point which you seem more than willing to ignore.

To paraphrase Bernard Shaw, science should understand everything, and that includes religious-based phenomenon such as this.

They believe that their meditation changes them, and our science tells them they’re correct, at least on a neurological level. 

A far cry from “Buddhist superstition”, IMHO.

if they’d done a better job holding their conservative/libertarian friends in check when they came out with rubbish like the Laffer Curve, Climate Change denial, and anti-choice politics then we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now.

Right here the problem illustrates itself. The Laffer Curve is real. Its not hard to find liberals like Krugman or Delong talking about it. The debate is over where the curve bends, not whether or not it exists. What’s voodoo is the idea that tax cuts always pay for themselves.

Now its possible that’s what you meant but you just spoke with an oversized paint brush. But no one but a RWinger corrected you and the inclusion of abortion doesn’t make me hopeful. The danger of a politicized skeptic movement is groupthink. Zealots will try to position their opinions as facts and within due time the skeptic movement itself becomes detached from reality, like communists and socialists became. You’re going down the path of The God that Failed.

There is no debate over where the curve bends, in the context of US tax policy.  There is no debate by rational persons over the fact that not only are we nowhere near the bend, but also that no proposal currently floated puts us near the bend.

Why do a preponderance of trolls around here seem to have a name based on some penis-related slang?

Qui Gong is great fun; you can feel your blood pressure being moved around your body and it’s quite a rush to touch all your muscles and tactile senses like that.  That doesn’t make it magical power.

I’m not entirely certain what good arguing amongst a bunch of people, who don’t believe in Bigfoot, “that Bigfoot isn’t real,” would do.

I suppose it’s like model trains or reenacting science experiments in your kitchen, but I don’t see amateur scientists and train enthusiasts saying their skills are wasted on the real world.

There is no debate over where the curve bends, in the context of US tax policy.

Sure there is. People debate that all the time. Lefties are generally around 60-70% but the point is we don’t know the answer, so economists debate. A more defensible position is what you have below:

There is no debate by rational persons over the fact that not only are we nowhere near the bend, but also that no proposal currently floated puts us near the bend.

But the point is, without me gracing these pages with my beauty and wisdom, the echo chamber here will exaggerate, as we have now seen twice in regards to the Laffer curve on this very thread. Exaggeration turns to falsehoods and sooner or later you have lefty teabaggers. After all, the communists were smart atheists too. Brilliant even. Look what happened to them.

@43 That “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically” is one of those gotchas often pulled out by people who want to believe things without evidence.  No one here has proposed that formulation so your accusation of scientism is a strawman.
It is perfectly reasonable to point out when positive statements have no evidence to support them and to be agnostic or skeptical as far as those claims go without straying into scientism.

I’m having a little trouble understanding what the issue is here. Skeptics who don’t want to deal with atheism, atheists who don’t want to deal with feminism, skeptics and atheists who don’t want to deal with liberalism?

I say we throw the libertarians and the sexists under the bus. Is everyone with me? Then we’re done.

If atheism is our goal, the surest way to accomplish that is by creating a more equal society in which economic security is our birthright. The same is true for feminism. If we really care about our values, and we want them to shape our society, we are liberals.

An argument from Communists? Really? By now anyone objecting to atheists should have shifted to an argument from Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s ideology). Of course communists placed their faith in History, the ineluctable results of dialectical materialism. Nearly nobody takes that seriously any more, yet atheism remains more intellectually respectably than its alternatives.

one of those gotchas often pulled out by people who want to believe things without evidence.

Nope,  there’s plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the meditation techniques yield measurable results
that can be measured by scientific methods.

Giving any credence whatsoever to the Laffer curve is a perfect example of fake skepticism. Sure, there are effects. Same as there are relativistic corrections to the age of everyone depending on how fast they walk and whether they’ve every been on an airplane, or to the color of traffic lights depending on how fast you’re driving. But not important.

I’m still gobsmacked by the idea that one can neatly make a division between moral and nonmoral scientific arguments. What was the name of that paraphilia in DSM-III again?

There’s some problems with your basic premises. First, the idea that all atheism is a result of reasoned thought is absurd - I know as many knee-jerk atheists who take the non-existence of God as an unexamined (and unexaminable) given as I know theists who behave the same way. You see it here a lot - any spiritual claim is treated as facially absurd without any analysis at all.

Skepticism should be as skeptical of unexamined non-repeatable claims for atheism as it is skeptical of theistic claims. Any rational atheism should agree that it is as scientifically unprovable as theism. I have no problem with an atheist claiming that the scientific support for theism, especially a specific form of it like evangelical Christianity is sketchy or non-existent, but claims that science proves atheism are just as false.

Skepticism should (and apparently tries to) limit itself to dealing with specific claims. Does prayer work? Is this form of faith healing scientifically supported? Even things like whether those who claim to be faithful are happier and healthier. And certainly, things like whether a piece of toast or a stain on a piece of cloth are indicative of Divine Intervention are all fair game.

And skepticism has as much place in examining the claims made by the religious, on a case basis, as it does in examining spoon bending or psychic abilities to tell the future.

But skepticism cannot deal with the broader question of theism taken AS a broader question. And atheists wanting to claim that it can, does, or should ARE warping the meaning of skepticism into something it isn’t suited for. And in doing so, they severely damage it’s ability to do what it does.

Why do several people think…

Look: atheism is the result of applying critical thinking and demands for evidence to the god hypothesis.  It’s not any different than non-belief in all sorts of supernatural claims, such as ESP and ghosts.  All of the weaseling around that is intellectually dishonest.  It’s not about critical thinking, but about politics and frankly, not taking on religion because religion is seen as too powerful.

....means that Amanda is arguing that’s how everyone becomes an atheist? That’s not really how I stopped believing in God, it was much more of an emotional thing, though being raised to respect science was certainly part of the DNA.

Nonbelief is the result a fair-minded person will get when applying critical thinking and demands for evidence to the god hypothesis. If people want to not do that and be skeptics except in case of religion, then they should be able to handle people nicely pointing out the contradictions there.

They believe that their meditation changes them, and our science tells them they’re correct, at least on a neurological level.
A far cry from “Buddhist superstition”, IMHO.

I don’t know which straw man you think you’re attacking, but I’m pretty sure it’s dead.  Anyways, most scientists are at least passingly familiar with both the history of science and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, so the Scientism you pretend exists . . . really doesn’t.

Excellent post Amanda. I also loathe the “Cult of Irrelevance”, that makes meaninglessness into a cowardly kind of virtue. If Mr. Loxton is so frightened that Skeptics will start taking on the real world then maybe he should ditch Skepticism and take up some other fetish, like Manga, BDSM or Dr. Who.

don’t know which straw man you think you’re attacking, but I’m pretty sure it’s dead.  Anyways, most scientists are at least passingly familiar with both the history of science and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, so the Scientism you pretend exists . . . really doesn’t.

Yes, I forgot how Amanda adds in the Godels’ Theorem when she talks about skepticism and atheism.

The fact is, you can’t prove a negative, i.e., God doesn’t exist.

The best you can do is say that there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, that it is likely he doesn’t exist, but to say you KNOW there is no God is just as dogmatic as anything given the nihil obstat by the Catholic Church.

And the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging to belief, of holding on.

Buddhism has in it no idea of there being a moral law laid down by some kind of cosmic lawgiver.

But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.

In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all.

Alan Watts

Sure there is. People debate that all the time.

No, they don’t.  Quite literally—there is no information from US tax policy which is relevant to the debate.  The US has never in its history been near the inflection point in the Laffer Curve, so there is no valuable information. 

The closest we’ve come to real information is from some of the Scandinavian countries, which have floated at 50-60% of GDP government expenditures. 

People don’t “debate” the Laffer Curve in the United States.  Conservatives lie about it.  You have to understand; Economics isn’t a science.  It’s a battleground between scientists and conservatives.  It’s as though Darwin never won through in Biology and respected biologists were still simply saying that their worldview requires God to create life, so He did.

You see it here a lot - any spiritual claim is treated as facially absurd without any analysis at all.

Take every bit of nonsense that pops out of my mouth seriously, because I am a religious person!

But skepticism cannot deal with the broader question of theism taken AS a broader question.

This is a nonsense statement, and you obviously didn’t understand what Amanda said about the god hypothesis. H0: There is no god. H1: There is a god. There is a serious shortage of evidence for H1, therefore we must accept the null hypothesis.

@58:

No, science doesn’t disprove theism. It just happens to disprove pretty much every specific claim theism makes about reality. But sure, when you’re dealing with a concept so nebulous that it can retreat into the gaps between scientific understanding whenever that understanding expands, and can move the goalposts as needed, you’ve certainly got a concept that can’t be disproved by science.

This gives it the added trait of being completely useless as a description of reality.

@56: red herring.  The claim is meditation channels mystic energy.  Zero scientific proof of that.  Its effects probably have a biological, non-mystical origin.

@59 has addressed the strawman “not every atheist is rational!!!!!” argument.  I never said they were.  But if you apply skeptical thinking to the god hypothesis, treating it the same as the Bigfoot hypothesis, atheism is the result.  That’s why the majority of skeptics are atheists, and why atheism is common amongst scientists and generally goes up with educational levels.

The claim is meditation channels mystic energy.

Sorry, Amanda, not in the Buddhist tradition that the Dalai Lama comes from.

Its effects probably have a biological, non-mystical origin.

I’ve never said otherwise.

Its effects probably have a biological, non-mystical origin.

I’ve never said otherwise.

Then what exactly is your point? Where are these legions of skeptics who are irrationally denying the potential benefits of meditation? Because I’ve never seen them.

Loxton has talked for a long time about the need for focus on paranormal claims.  It isn’t something he came up with at TAM9 to try and keep the non-(bearded-white-men) out.
see: http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/WhereDoWeGoFromHere.pdf - an essay about the future of skepticism as he’d like to see it.

He also is behind a broad effort to talk about how skeptical enthusiasts can take action:
http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/WhatDoIDoNext.pdf - featuring input from a broad swath of well-known skeptics.

But this post and the discussion thread is indicative of one of the reasons why I hope atheism and skepticism stay apart.  Nearly every atheist blog and board I visit is filled with people being shitty to each other.  Throwing people under the bus at the first chance. Making broad, unreasonable claims about how certain they are of various “facts.”

Certitude is unbecoming of a skeptic.  But it seems to be the favored coin of atheists.

Skepticism - the kind Loxton (and I) love - is helpful in that it researches and answers questions that many people are too busy (or too certain) to investigate.  Is that house haunted?  Can that blessed water cure my tumor?  It has a simple scope: testable claims can be tested.

“God loves me” - not testable.
“God will heal you if you give $10 to my ministry” - testable

Where the claim is testable, skepticism should engage.  That’s been the rule since its formalized inception, to the best of my knowledge.  If you think you have a better mandate for skepticism don’t kvetch about how lame “they” are, formalize and codify your principals and start your own group.  But if you draw your motive power by grinding up and crushing the hardworking people who came before you, your own fate will be the same.

Regarding the “Laffer Curve”:
I propose something that makes at least equal sense — The MikeEss Curve.

I was eating in a Taco Bell a few years ago (actually I was working there too), and I suddenly had an epiphany about sound-levels and the success of parties in an apartment building.  I wrote out my thesis on a Taco Bell napkin using mild taco sauce: 
I propose that if you live in an apartment, you can make a sound like a soft whisper and your neighbors won’t hear it.  I also propose that if you make a very loud noise, like a loud scream or loud laughing or have music playing at club-volume, your neighbors will call the cops, and might even shoot you. 

Therefore, there is sound-level, somewhere between a soft whisper and club-volume music, where you can play your music, laugh, or scream and get maximum enjoyment without being arrested or shot.  If you plot the sound level by volume on one axis, and by party success on the other, you get a nice curve — this is the MikeEss Curve.

I don’t know where this ideal sound-level is, but I know with mathematical certainty that this sound-level exists.  And understanding where this magical sound-level is becomes key to having the best party in your apartment.

I now expect to be deluged with appreciative comments regarding my deep insight…

I got tripped up early when Loxton listed Martin Gardner among “people of faith.”  I was like “whuh?” and had to look it up: Wikipedia says Gardner was a “fideistic deist, professing belief in God as Creator, but critical of organized religion” but who

Okay. I guess I don’t know what other people mean by “person of faith,” but I’ve always thought it to be a polite generic term for people who actually believe in and practice religion.  Gardner seems to have held the safest, most trivial view of God: that he may exist, but we can’t prove or disprove it, and he has absolutely no impact on the material world.  Fine, a teapot in space.  If that’s your threshold for “people of faith,” I think we can write “faith” off as trivial.

Skepticism has to move beyond being a mutual admiration society for people who think they’re oh-so-fucking-clever for not accepting claims of alien abduction.

Atheists already have their own advocacy groups.

Maybe the problem is that the “skeptic community” doesn’t know what they’re about anymore, and they might be too cowardly to take on the “conservative white guy” contingent that they’d offend by become advocates for science.

Where are these legions of skeptics who are irrationally denying the potential benefits of meditation?

I didn’t say that, but Amanda wrote this:

Buddhists may not believe in god, but they still base their religion around supernatural claims that are clearly ridiculous.

Amanda dismissed all Buddhist beliefs as ‘supernatural claims’, yet this one so-called ‘supernatural claim’ has yielded measurable results in the lab that have yet to be replicated using our so-called “Modern Science”.

In fact, if you want to see irrationality at work:

Research with the Dalai Lama

A longtime friend of the 14th Dalai Lama, some of his work involves research on the brain as it relates to meditation.[5] Davidson has long maintained his own daily meditation practice, and continues to communicate regularly with the Dalai Lama.

This connection has caused controversy, with some scientists criticizing Davidson for being too close to someone with an interest in the outcome of his research and others claiming that it represents an inappropriate mix of faith and science. When he invited the Dalai Lama to speak at a 2005 neuroscience conference, dozens of researchers signed a petition in protest.[11][12]

Thank you for bringing some light and zero heat to this discussion, DoctorAtlantis.

BTW, here’s the empirical evidence that the Laffer Curve doesn’t work, Manju:

So how do we gauge the effectiveness of supply-side theory in practice? I propose we look at three specific measures:

The core claim of supply-siders is that tax cuts spur investment, so we’ll look at growth in private investment;

Supply-side theory also claims that tax cuts increase government revenue, so we’ll look at whether that actually occurred;

And since growth in gross domestic product is the ultimate aim of any economic policy, we’ll include that in the analysis as well.

...................................
n conclusion, in all three categories central to the claim of supply-side proponents, the economy performed significantly better in the wake of tax increases than it did in the wake of major tax cuts.

Confronted with such data, the first word out of a supply-sider’s mouth is usually “But ….,” followed by a series of rationalizations for why the economy didn’t perform in real life as supply-side theory dictates it should have. Some of those excuses, such as the fact that the economy under Clinton benefited by the high-tech boom, are legitimate. Others, such as the claim that Bush had to deal with the economic fallout of Sept. 11, are not. There was no major economic fallout in the wake of the terror attacks.(and the fact that the tax cuts were passed before 9/11—ed)

And the excuses themselves, whether lame or legitimate, further undercut the lofty claims of supply-side advocates. If the economic benefit of major tax cuts is so weak that it can be washed away by larger trends, to the point that you can find no real evidence of it in the data, and if the economic damage of tax increases is so minor that it too can’t be found in the data, then what exactly is this supply-side theory about in the first place?

Now, this doesn’t disprove the Laffer Curve per se, it just disproves the claims that supply-siders make about it.

As for Kruthulhu:

So everything you’ve heard about how revenues have boomed since the Bush tax cuts is wrong. What really happened was that revenue plunged, as a percent of GDP, in the early Bush years, then staged a partial, but only partial, recovery. And that recovery seems to have run its course.

UPDATE: Aha, I forgot to point out that GDP growth has not been exceptionally strong under Bush, so that I’m not cheating by looking at revenues as a percent of GDP. Check out Figure 2 here.

Yet on the basis of this experience, both Bush and his would-be Republican successors are proclaiming that tax cuts actually increase revenue.

Three points:

1) No one is an “everythingologist”. There are plenty of great organizations that work on political fact-checking, debunking anti-gun control propaganda, anti-women pseudoscience, etc., etc., etc., whereas there are very few organizations that work on countering non-political pseudoscience, e.g., UFOs, anti-vaccinationism, crystal healers, etc. While the former group of issues are *undeniably more important*, it doesn’t follow that it makes sense to try and divert the resources of traditional skeptical organizations towards those causes—As a group, we are both less qualified to deal with them than other experts/organizations currently working on them, and at the same uniquely qualified to deal with what we have traditionally focused on.

2) Mission creep is bad. It leads to confused messages, and smaller groups of supporters. In the Good Fight, the pool of interested activists is small, and there’s a lot of work to be done. It doesn’t make sense to turn away anyone who will sign off on a pro-science agenda (i.e., old-school skepticism), simply because they don’t agree or hold wrong-headed positions on matters of metaphysics/morality/politics. (Newt Gingrich, PZ Myers, and Francisco Ayala might all join the former group; I challenge you to find a common political group they’d join.)

3) Politics are poisonous; you should avoid them where you can. (And I say this as someone who served in leadership roles on human-rights, atheist, and political campaigns.) Many questions skeptics have traditionally avoided, e.g., economic ones: whether the bailout was a good deal or not, are empirical questions, and *could* be dealt with under any banner of ‘skepticism’. But, they probably shouldn’t be.

Why? These questions are intimately related to values questions (e.g., whether individual liberty is more important than societal cohesion or mean happiness), and arguments over these empirical political questions—whether explicitly stated or not—is usually really about these meta issues as much as the question at hand. This is another reason why dedicated organizations are best left to deal with them: the more of these charged, but empirical, questions you deal with, the greater the number of background value issues you have to grapple with at the same time, and the less likely you are to actually get agreement/anything done. (Which is another reason why many political activist groups stay single issue.)

Bottom line: The defense of the traditional definition of ‘skepticism’, i.e., as restricted to empirical questions and reluctant to tackle political issues, has little or nothing to do with secret political agendas, cowardliness, or fear of offence. Rather, it represents: 1) a recognition of the genuine methodological limitations of science (some religious statements are not testable), 2) a recognition of where our expertise does and does not lie (we are the world experts on bigfoot and creationist BS, and laymen at most other things), and 3) a recognition that otherwise fun parties (and meetings and activist campaigns) crash and burn the moment the conversation turns to abortion. (Moral: It’s best to leave conversations about abortion to meetings about abortion.)

P.s. Dan’s a social democrat, who mostly votes for Canada’s furthest Left mainstream party. But, of course, that has nothing to do with his position on boundary demarcation in science and skepticism (laid out clearly in many blog posts and interviews). The fact that it came up here—alluded to in the main post and explicitly addressed in the comments—nicely illustrates my point: Politics are distracting, and steer you off topic.

Comment #60: Punditus Maximus on 08/01 at 10:21 AM

Anyways, most scientists are at least passingly familiar with both the history of science and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, so the Scientism you pretend exists . . . really doesn’t.

Part of the work of Thomas Kuhn was about how the teaching of a science distorts its history in order to shore up its paradigm.  Nearly all scientists’ “passing familiarity” with the history of science is suspect.

And I really don’t see that most scientists know about Gödel’s incompleteness theorems either, or that those theorems are somehow relevant to this discussion.  I mean, who the heck actually believes that we’re going to formulate our scientific theories in a formally defined system of logic and then prove whether they entail the Peano axioms or something.

MikeEss:

The reason your curve has languished in obscurity is that you’re missing Paul’s Corollary: I know myself to be a reasonable person who plays music at reasonable levels (just as I know my tax rates to be uncomfortably high) and hence if any party I am at appears to be going less well than expected, the answer is to PUMP UP THE VOLUME.

There are additional corollaries including

a) anyone who thinks the volume is too high has abnormally sensitive hearing (and should find themselves another party where their parochial concerns can be discussed)
b) any loud music a police officer hears is actually being channeled into my dwelling by heretofore unsuspected acoustical phenomena and/or spiteful neighbors (see a).

@sacundim: I know a lot of scientists, and all of them disagree with the idea that the only things that can be true are things that are already scientifically explained by definition.  Because they are trying to use the scientific process to understand more things.

It’s just such an absurd statement.  There’s a related statement, which is “The scientific revolution has been so successful that you will do well making decisions based only on current science in the vast, vast majority of the situations you face in your life.”  That statement is a judgment call based on incomplete information, but it’s certainly defensible.  But, again, so far away from “scientism.”

@Jason Loxton: what you’re describing is skepticism as an amusing hobby, where we share stories about fun and mutually nonthreatening ways we applied the techniques.  Geocaching vs. Bigfoot, essentially.

That’s great, but what if people want to take it and use those techniques to improve things?  Then the amateurs who were just in it to feel awesome about themselves are going to be shunted aside in favor of people who actually want to get things done.  In a few years, either skepticism will prove useless because it’s too closely identified with privileged douchebags, or the eddy of feeling-superior-to will eventually reassert as the hobby version that everyone can play with.

Conservatives generally play extremely poorly with others, though, so that’ll be a thing.

@75:
non-political pseudoscience, e.g., UFOs, anti-vaccinationism, crystal healers, etc

In what universe is anti-vaccinationinsm non-political? These are people who want to effect policy changes, or at the very least whose personal decisions have a real-world social impact by hampering herd immunity and whatnot. The vaccine issue is absolutely political.

So why are you trying to lump it in with your apparently arbitrary grouping of non-political issues? Could it be because the anti-vaxxers are a relatively small group with limited public sympathy? It sort of just looks like you want to stick with the easy targets.

Where are these legions of skeptics who are irrationally denying the potential benefits of meditation?

I didn’t say that, but Amanda wrote this:

Buddhists may not believe in god, but they still base their religion around supernatural claims that are clearly ridiculous.

Amanda dismissed all Buddhist beliefs as ‘supernatural claims’, yet this one so-called ‘supernatural claim’ has yielded measurable results in the lab that have yet to be replicated using our so-called “Modern Science”.

Dark Avenger, where did Amanda, or anyone, say that meditation having benefits is among Buddhism’s supernatural claims? Clearly that’s not a supernatural claim. But the idea that you have a soul or spirit that transmigrates from body to body, that the selection of a body is dependent on how well you performed your dharma, that there’s “karma” that dictates that people who experience misfortune did something in a previous life to deserve it, that human beings can achieve “enlightenment” and move to another plane or place where their consciousness, but not their body, is still intact? Those are all supernatural claims.

It seems pretty disingenuous to me to point to an obviously non-supernatural claim, while ignoring a bunch of other supernatural claims, to contest Amanda’s assertion that Buddhism is based on supernatural claims. The way most people practice Buddhism, that is true. There are many supernatural claims. Some sects even have their own gods, demons, saints, heavens, and hells.

There are also sects like Vipassana, which deliberately exclude the supernatural stuff so that they can spread the non-supernatural benefits of meditation to the widest audience possible. But they are no more representative of Buddhim than Quakers are of Christianity.

@80: anti-vaccinationism was admittedly not the simplest example I could have given. It is political (individual vs. group rights, etc.), albeit not as much so as many of the social justice issues that people have been advocating expanding into post-TAM 9. Skeptics will inevitably need to deal with empirical issues that fall into value-heavy areas, but as I note above, we should attempt to do this only when they overlap with our traditional mandate/current expertise and/or when no one else is dealing with them. (The three examples I give were chosen for those reasons: We *are* the experts on these questions—See Sciencebasedmedicine, Whatstheharm, or Jennymccarthybodycount, for example.)

1) No one is an “everythingologist”. There are plenty of great organizations that work on political fact-checking, debunking anti-gun control propaganda, anti-women pseudoscience, etc., etc., etc., whereas there are very few organizations that work on countering non-political pseudoscience, e.g., UFOs, anti-vaccinationism, crystal healers, etc. While the former group of issues are *undeniably more important*, it doesn’t follow that it makes sense to try and divert the resources of traditional skeptical organizations towards those causes—As a group, we are both less qualified to deal with them than other experts/organizations currently working on them, and at the same uniquely qualified to deal with what we have traditionally focused on.

This will just ensure that skeptical organizations will continue to remain few and small. What’s wrong, really, with diverting resources away from things you agree are less important to things that are more important? And why do you discount the possibility that by throwing in our lot with people who do activism around the things you acknowledge are more important, we may actually be increasing the amount of resources we have to allocate? Keeping the organization/movement focused on things that are not of concern to that many people merely ensures that the organization/movement will remain small and irrelevant. That’s not a desirable outcome, at least to me.

2) Mission creep is bad. It leads to confused messages, and smaller groups of supporters.

Un-evidenced assertions need more explanation before I can accept that this is true. What’s the mission, and what’s creeping up on it?

In the Good Fight, the pool of interested activists is small, and there’s a lot of work to be done. It doesn’t make sense to turn away anyone who will sign off on a pro-science agenda (i.e., old-school skepticism), simply because they don’t agree or hold wrong-headed positions on matters of metaphysics/morality/politics. (Newt Gingrich, PZ Myers, and Francisco Ayala might all join the former group; I challenge you to find a common political group they’d join.)

Actually, it really does make a lot of sense to tell bigots who want to join your pro-science organization that they have to check their prejudice at the door. In the short run, perhaps your organization shrinks thanks to the exodus of vocal bigots. In the long run, however, it will grow because women, people of color, gays, lesbians, transgender people, and other minorities will join up and expand the movement. The pool of interested activists may seem small if the picture of “activist” in your head is white and male. I think that’s an illusion, though, because people who are discriminated against, that is, people who are not white/straight/male/cis, tend to realize the value of political activism quicker than people who are not.

3) Politics are poisonous; you should avoid them where you can. (And I say this as someone who served in leadership roles on human-rights, atheist, and political campaigns.) Many questions skeptics have traditionally avoided, e.g., economic ones: whether the bailout was a good deal or not, are empirical questions, and *could* be dealt with under any banner of ‘skepticism’. But, they probably shouldn’t be.

Why not? Why should we not address the question of whether the bailout was a good deal or not from an empirical point of view? If anything, this is an even stronger call to get skepticism to “come out of the closet,” as it were, and apply skeptical standards to political claims. Politics is poisonous? Perhaps, but it’s also nourishing. In fact, that’s exactly what some of the best (in my consideration) pundits, such a Krugman and Reich, have been doing throughout this fiasco, though it seems the administration is tuning their empiricism out.

I mean really, you just sound silly here. Sorry your personal experience with being an activist left you feeling poisoned, but to ask us to apply your personal experience to the movement/organization as a whole is fallacious. At some point, we are going to HAVE to get involved in politics. Simply asserting that religious supernatural claims should not be respected in the public sphere is political enough, especially when you consider that Obama carved out a special exception for religious institutions in his recent order about making health insurance plans cover birth control with no co-pays. If you don’t want to deal with this sort of thing then your options as an outspoken skeptic/atheist are limited. You can try to urge other skeptics/atheists to abide by your personal comfort levels vis-a-vis politics. (Obviously that’s a fool’s errand, though it hasn’t stopped you from trying.) Or you can just keep doing what you’re doing and let other people do politics and activism. What’s wrong with the second option?

Dark Avenger, where did Amanda, or anyone, say that meditation having benefits is among Buddhism’s supernatural claims?

I didn’t say she did, she arbitrarily said that

but they still base their religion around supernatural claims that are clearly ridiculous.

I gave the counter-example of the Dalai Lama subjecting his belief system to scientific investigation, and that the claims of the benefits of their religious meditation are, in fact, scientifically valid on a physiological scale.

Clearly that’s not a supernatural claim.

The claim was also that the meditation helps one move towards Enlightenment, which of course, science isn’t able to verify.

But the idea that you have a soul or spirit that transmigrates from body to body, that the selection of a body is dependent on how well you performed your dharma, that there’s “karma” that dictates that people who experience misfortune did something in a previous life to deserve it, that human beings can achieve “enlightenment” and move to another plane or place where their consciousness, but not their body, is still intact? Those are all supernatural claims.

I guess you missed the part where I cited the Dalai Lamas’ oft-cited statement that if science could prove that reincarnation didn’t take place, then he would accept that finding.  Hardly the statement of someone who ‘bases their religion on superstitious claims’. See comment 46.

It seems pretty disingenuous to me to point to an obviously non-supernatural claim, while ignoring a bunch of other supernatural claims, to contest Amanda’s assertion that Buddhism is based on supernatural claims.

And if I hadn’t covered that angle already, you would be correct.

Comment #78: Punditus Maximus on 08/01 at 01:42 PM

I know a lot of scientists, and all of them disagree with the idea that the only things that can be true are things that are already scientifically explained by definition.  Because they are trying to use the scientific process to understand more things.  It’s just such an absurd statement.

Your use of the world “already” there distorts the sense of the philosophical doctrines that the term “scientism” is meant to critique.  Take as an example Logical Positivism—an actual historical movement in the philosophy of science that had actual proponents (who didn’t agree on everything, but agreed on a lot).

Their philosophy doesn’t reach the absurd conclusion that you’re saying that the critique of it as “scientism” does—that something can only be true if it is “already” explained by science.  Rather, they assume that there is a logical distinction between “observational” and “theoretical” statements, and that theoretical statements can only admit of truth or falsehood if it is possible to specify the set of observational statements that would verify them (an idea that Popper would simultaneously critique yet build on when he formulated his famous falsifiability criterion). 

This doesn’t in any way say that “the only things that can be true are things that are already scientifically explained by definition,” or that scientists can’t “use the scientific process to understand more things.”  There can be observation statements that are not entailed by any existing theory, and scientists can attempt to formulate new theories that account for those.

There’s a related statement, which is “The scientific revolution has been so successful that you will do well making decisions based only on current science in the vast, vast majority of the situations you face in your life.”  That statement is a judgment call based on incomplete information, but it’s certainly defensible.  But, again, so far away from “scientism.”

Your notion of “scientism” appears to be a strawman.  Though to be fair, many people who toss that word around use it as an automatic response to the use of “positivism” as another strawman.

Dark Avenger,

So the Ocean of Wisdom says that he’ll abandon the transmigration of souls theory if science shows that it’s not possible? Science has already shown that, by showing (via discoveries of the non-separation between brain and mind) that there is no such thing as a soul. The Dalai Lama is behind the curve on that one. I’m not about to give credit for being willing to abandon a position, IF it is discredited, when it has already been discredited. Where does the Dalai Lama stand on the existence of hell realms, heaven realms, bodhisattvas with magical powers, wrathful deities, oracles, and the like?

Personally, I like meditation, I did a Vipassana retreat and benefited it from it. I can easily see how Buddhism could be practiced as a set of mind exercises, devoid of supernatural claims. But I can also easily observe how Buddhism is actually practiced by most people, and it is chock full of supernaturalism.

If skepticism inexorably leads to atheism, then people who are avowed skeptics AND avowed Believers can’t really be skeptics. It is, it would seem, to be all or nothing. So should Pamela Gay, or any other professed believer be refused permission to talk at a Skeptic convention?

This thread has mentioned global warming denial, and Penn & Teller’s claims that that is a skeptical position. Now, clearly they are wrong. But I don’t think anyone would say they aren’t “real skeptics” because they are wrong on certain issues.

What I’m getting at is that, sure, the Skeptical community doesn’t GAIN anything, per se, by having religious members, but I don’t think it really LOSES anything either if it has members that cop to having irrational religious beliefs, but still work to end dangerous real-world practices that are based on woo. (And yes, of course, they shouldn’t get a free pass for religious based woo, either)

Comment #84: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein
Towards what ends do Buddhists practice meditation? Because the reasons why they perform those practices are what is relevant when it comes to establishing the basis of Buddhism.

The fact that in their endeavours to attain enlightenment and release from Samsara, or whatever the particular sect’s formulation, they have happened upon a convenient method to relax and control their blood pressure and even attain a certain emotional equilibrium, it doesn’t alter the fact that their intentions are otherwise. These things are mere side-issues. The ends of Buddhist practice are supernatural.

Your claim is rather like saying Christians go to church for the sense of well-being and community and not because they ultimately believe in and want to get to heaven with Jesus. That is confusing merely cultural Christians with true believers.

As for the Dalai Lamas’s claim that if science could disprove reincarnation then he would abandon it, ignoring the possible criteria of such proof, where does he see that leaving him? Is reincarnation, for him, what all other Buddhist beliefs hinge upon?

Without reincarnation would there be no Karma? No Nirvana?

If he would be eject all other supernatural claims could he still salvage Buddhism? Or, in essence is he just doing what theists do when they say that until someone can prove that God does not exist then they won’t change. Posing as rational and sceptical while doing everything to insulate their beliefs from challenge.

Or perhaps he would end up pulling a William Lane Craig move, who said that even if it were proven that Jesus never resurrected, that he rotted away in his tomb, he would still believe the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.
I doubt that. I think he is probably intellectually more honest than Craig, but I just don’t know. And neither would he until it happened.

@Comment #83:

Sally, I don’t have time to write an articulate reply (I’ll let your two comments stand as they are). I just wanted to quickly note that I appreciated your tone and the effort you put into your response. Civility can be tough to find on the Internet. : )

Shorter Sacundim: “What do these stupid scientists know? I’m smarter than all of them — I know philosophy! And I’m smarter than all you atheists, too!”

You gonna tell us again about how you can’t really learn empathy unless you’re a graduate student? Because that was a good one.

So the Ocean of Wisdom says that he’ll abandon the transmigration of souls theory if science shows that it’s not possible?

Then you should have no trouble putting together a package documenting that fact and sending it to him to inform him of this fact.

The Dalai Lama is behind the curve on that one. I’m not about to give credit for being willing to abandon a position, IF it is discredited, when it has already been discredited.

Here’s the exact quote:

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

You don’t give him credit for having meditation studied scientifically, or don’t you think I’ve noticed that as well?

Where does the Dalai Lama stand on the existence of hell realms, heaven realms, bodhisattvas with magical powers, wrathful deities, oracles, and the like?

What, you can’t use teh Google to find out?

This is my simple religion. No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness.

Love and Compassion are the true religions to me. But to develop this, we do not need to believe in any religion

I always tell my Western friends that it is best to keep your own tradition. Changing religion is not easy and sometimes causes confusion. You must value your tradition and honor your own religion.

Yup, according to the Pond of Smart, you have to believe in all the spooks, etc.

But I can also easily observe how Buddhism is actually practiced by most people, and it is chock full of supernaturalism.

Yes, that’s the No True Buddhist isn’t full of supernaturalism argument, an oldie but a goodie.

The fact that in their endeavours to attain enlightenment and release from Samsara, or whatever the particular sect’s formulation, they have happened upon a convenient method to relax and control their blood pressure and even attain a certain emotional equilibrium, it doesn’t alter the fact that their intentions are otherwise. These things are mere side-issues. The ends of Buddhist practice are supernatural.

It’s more than that:

In a monastery in northern India, thinly clad Tibetan monks sat quietly in a room where the temperature was a chilly 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Using a yoga technique known as g Tum-mo, they entered a state of deep meditation. Other monks soaked 3-by-6-foot sheets in cold water (49 degrees) and placed them over the meditators’ shoulders. For untrained people, such frigid wrappings would produce uncontrolled shivering.

If body temperatures continue to drop under these conditions, death can result. But it was not long before steam began rising from the sheets. As a result of body heat produced by the monks during meditation, the sheets dried in about an hour.

Attendants removed the sheets, then covered the meditators with a second chilled, wet wrapping. Each monk was required to dry three sheets over a period of several hours.

Why would anyone do this? Herbert Benson, who has been studying g Tum-mo for 20 years, answers that “Buddhists feel the reality we live in is not the ultimate one. There’s another reality we can tap into that’s unaffected by our emotions, by our everyday world. Buddhists believe this state of mind can be achieved by doing good for others and by meditation. The heat they generate during the process is just a by-product of g Tum-mo meditation.”

Benson is an associate professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and president of the Mind/Body Medical Institute at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He firmly believes that studying advanced forms of meditation “can uncover capacities that will help us to better treat stress-related illnesses.”

But, hey, except for someone with extreme stress issues, this isn’t interesting or worthy of further study.

Your claim is rather like saying Christians go to church for the sense of well-being and community and not because they ultimately believe in and want to get to heaven with Jesus. That is confusing merely cultural Christians with true believers.

Nope, it would be more like people going to church and demonstrating physiological changes while they were in a worshipful frame of mind.

For the rest, see the above.

Here’s my question to all you folks

@Comment #92
It all well and good to allude to the Dalai Lama’s stance on love and harmony but don’t ignore what his response is to questions about homosexuality. Which though he can waffle with the best of them still comes down to the same cant.

“Your Holiness, what do you think of homosexuality?”

“It’s part of what we Buddhists call ‘bad sexual conduct.’
Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and
the female element and everything that deviates from that is not
acceptable from a Buddhist point of view. Between a man and [another] man,
a woman and another woman, in the mouth, the anus,
or even using a hand.”

As to the practice of tum’mo you don’t have to be a Buddhist to adapt to extreme temperatures.

“PERCHED on the edge of an Antarctic ice sheet, Lewis Gordon Pugh surveys the waves. At 0 °C, water does not get much colder than the sea beneath him. Undeterred, Pugh unzips his jacket, strips down to his swimming trunks and dives in.

Most of us would start to hyperventilate uncontrollably if we dived into such cold water. Pugh doesn’t even gasp in pain but instead starts swimming. In December 2005, when Pugh took this plunge (pictured above), he went on to swim a kilometre in just over 18 minutes. Many ordinary people would drown after just a few minutes in such cold water. Pugh, however, not only survived but went on to make several more long-distance swims in extremely cold water (see graph). So what makes him able to keep swimming in such extreme cold?”

It all well and good to allude to the Dalai Lama’s stance on love and harmony but don’t ignore what his response is to questions about homosexuality. Which though he can waffle with the best of them still comes down to the same cant.

When have I ever stated that I agreed 100% with all his teachings?

Besides, he explicitly states that you don’t have to be a Buddhist(translation: Agree with the Buddhist stance on homosexuality) in order to be a good person or to do the right thing.

We can reject everything else: religion, ideology, all received
wisdom. But we cannot escape the necessity of love and compassion….
This, then, is my true religion, my simple faith. In this sense, there is no need
for temple or church, for mosque or synagogue, no need for complicated
philosophy, doctrine or dogma. Our own heart, our own mind, is the temple.
The doctrine is compassion. Love for others and respect for their rights and
dignity, no matter who or what they are: ultimately these are all we need.
So long as we practice these in our daily lives, then no matter if we are
learned or unlearned, whether we believe in Buddha or God, or follow some
other religion or none at all, as long as we have compassion for others and
conduct ourselves with restraint out of a sense of responsibility, there is
no doubt we will be happy.

As to the practice of tum’mo you don’t have to be a Buddhist to adapt to extreme temperatures.

You forgot the punchline:

following an intensive programme of acclimatized to such cold water.

BTW, I never said you did.  Solomon Shereshevsky wasn’t a Buddhist. but according to the neurophysiologist Luria, he was able to warm his hands by recalling the feeling of having them before a fire, and he didn’t have to undergo any such training in meditation or other techniques to do so.

I guess you missed the part where I cited the Dalai Lamas’ oft-cited statement that if science could prove that reincarnation didn’t take place, then he would accept that finding.  Hardly the statement of someone who ‘bases their religion on superstitious claims’. See comment 46.

I don’t get it. How does this in any way absolve reincarnation of being a supernatural or superstitious claim?

All you’re saying is that the Dalai Lama will change his views if science ever figures out how to prove a negative. Hooray.

SallyStrange already pointed out that dualism has been falsified, to the degree that scientific inquiry permits. Has the Dalai Lama recanted? I’m guessing not.  But of course, why would he? Nothing has been “proven.” With claims like this, you can only ever say, “there is no observable evidence or effect.” And that’s not sufficient to dispel a pernicious superstitious claim.

Which is sort of what defines one. If I say there’s an invisible teapot swinging through space somewhere in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, does it suddenly put my claim into the realm of rationalism if I add that I’ll accept scientific disproof of this wildly implausible postulate?

No. Not really. It’s still a silly claim.

If the Pope or some other Abrahamic leader says, “I’ll accept it if you scientifically prove god doesn’t exist,” does that suddenly remove all traces of superstition and supernaturalism from Catholicism?

No. Not really. It’s still superstition.

If the Dalai Lama says “I’ll accept it if you can prove there are no souls or reincarnation,”... Well, you get the idea.

@Comment #94 Honestly, I am a little dizzy from all this and don’t quite know if we are getting anywhere.
I know you aren’t alone in thinking that all the supernatural stuff can be excised from Buddhism and it will remain Buddhist. Within the West and particularly the U.S., and influenced by the Enlightenment this has been developing for some time. How many changes can you make to something before it is something else altogether? A change in degree eventually becomes a change in kind.

Personally, a lot of it appears to me like what theologians do, creating a whole philosophical edifice which ends up describing a god that no ordinary theist even recognises, let alone worships. Just moving the semantic goal-posts.

It should be noted that the Dalai Lama is not representative of Buddhism in general, only Tibetan Buddhism. We should not refer to him and his brand of Buddhism as if it’s the only Buddhism in the world. Tibetan Buddhists make up less than 10% of the world’s Buddhists. The vast majority of Buddhists in the world live in Southeast Asia and practice a variant of Mahayana Buddhism. They pray and make offerings to supernatural beings in the hope that magical assistance will be provided. These supernatural beings are not “God” as we would describe it, but it’s basically the same activity: ritualized wishful thinking. This exists along with the tradition of meditation and mental liberation passed down in the monasteries. Noting that some Buddhists meditate, while the vast majority do things we would recognize as religious activities, such as going to temple on a weekly basis, making offering to the temple, adhering to the rules of a priestly caste, and making offering to supernatural entities in hopes of gaining their good favor, is quite far away from trying to pull a “No True Buddhist” argument.

By the Dalai Lama’s definition, everybody in the world, excepting sociopaths and psychopaths, is a Buddhist. So, not helpful for distinguishing Buddhism from anything else. Also, Dark Avenger, you failed to answer the question about whether the Dalai Lama believes in hungry ghosts, demons, oracles, bodhisattvas, etc. Since you’re the one trying to get us to accept your special pleading on behalf of Buddhism, you should do us the favor of knowing what you’re talking about. Sure, the theoretical philosophical foundation of Buddhism does not necessitate supernatural beliefs. But if oracles and hungry ghosts are an accepted part of the Tibetan Buddhism pantheon, you can’t seriously claim that supernatural beliefs are not part of Tibetan Buddhism. And this isn’t even getting into Buddhism the way it’s practiced in Thailand vs. Japan, etc.

By the way…

Nope, it would be more like people going to church and demonstrating physiological changes while they were in a worshipful frame of mind.

Nope, a better comparison would be between hours of intense solitary prayer and hours of meditation.

Or, comparing a Christian going to Church with a lay Buddhist (not a priest) attending weekly temple and participating in chants.

Both activities will, most likely, have similar effects on the brain. If they had dissimilar effects, why, that might be evidence for the validity of one religion or another! As far as I know, though, no such differences have appeared.

Something has shorted out your logic circuit on this subject, Dark Avenger.

Hah! My wife dated that guy.

I know you aren’t alone in thinking that all the supernatural stuff can be excised from Buddhism and it will remain Buddhist.

No, it’s a matter of falsifiability, a concept that was mentioned earlier in this thread.

I don’t get it. How does this in any way absolve reincarnation of being a supernatural or superstitious claim?

Can you point me to exactly where on this thread I stated that proposition?

SallyStrange already pointed out that dualism has been falsified, to the degree that scientific inquiry permits.

Then you can act on the suggestion I made to her about that.

Which is sort of what defines one. If I say there’s an invisible teapot swinging through space somewhere in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, does it suddenly put my claim into the realm of rationalism if I add that I’ll accept scientific disproof of this wildly implausible postulate?

How rational was this?

When he invited the Dalai Lama to speak at a 2005 neuroscience conference, dozens of researchers signed a petition in protest.[11][12]

No. Not really. It’s still a silly claim.

If the Pope or some other Abrahamic leader says, “I’ll accept it if you scientifically prove god doesn’t exist,” does that suddenly remove all traces of superstition and supernaturalism from Catholicism?

Falsifiability.

Now, we can disagree that reincarnation is or isn’t a falsifiable concept, but the fact that he was willing to have the meditation techniques studied is like a faith healer asking the Mayo Clinic to verify his so-called ability.

Get the difference?

I know you aren’t alone in thinking that all the supernatural stuff can be excised from Buddhism and it will remain Buddhist.

I’m minded of Bernard Shaws’ description of the Gospel of Matthew:

“You must love your neighbor as yourself, and to demonstrate this, I shall now cure this mans’ blindness.”

It should be noted that the Dalai Lama is not representative of Buddhism in general, only Tibetan Buddhism.

I never said he was, btw.

We should not refer to him and his brand of Buddhism as if it’s the only Buddhism in the world.

I never said otherwise.

The vast majority of Buddhists in the world live in Southeast Asia and practice a variant of Mahayana Buddhism.

True enough.

Also, Dark Avenger, you failed to answer the question about whether the Dalai Lama believes in hungry ghosts, demons, oracles, bodhisattvas, etc.

I think it’s revealing that he places believing and living a compassionate life above religious doctrine.

Besides, what am I, your research assistant?  I’m already suspect in my affiliations, and have you heard of this new-fangled website the kidz call Google?

By the Dalai Lama’s definition, everybody in the world, excepting sociopaths and psychopaths, is a Buddhist.

Now you’re putting the cart before the horse.  He’s saying you don’t have to be a Buddhist to practice what is important in his religion, that is, the core doctrines of compassion, love, etc.

He even says or implies that it’s better to stick to ones’ own religion and practice compassion rather than convert to Buddhism if one isn’t already.

I don’t know how you are able to come to such screwy conclusions with the quotations and the link to the pages they came from.

You are illustrating the difference Alan Watts talks about between having belief and having faith.

Since you’re the one trying to get us to accept your special pleading on behalf of Buddhism, you should do us the favor of knowing what you’re talking about.

Thanks for being so patronizing.  Do you do windows as well?

But if oracles and hungry ghosts are an accepted part of the Tibetan Buddhism pantheon, you can’t seriously claim that supernatural beliefs are not part of Tibetan Buddhism.

Having the head of the Yellow Hat sect of Tibetan Buddhism willing to have religious practices tested by science doesn’t absolve Tibetan Buddhism in general of practices and beliefs that aren’t supernatural.

Both activities will, most likely, have similar effects on the brain. If they had dissimilar effects, why, that might be evidence for the validity of one religion or another! As far as I know, though, no such differences have appeared.

Again, from above:

The real question is how they developed these exercises based on their religion in the first place, a point which you seem more than willing to ignore.

Something has shorted out your logic circuit on this subject, Dark Avenger.

That’s an old tactic known as Poisoning the Well.

Glad to see some folks around here don’t let their skepticism interfere with their respect and practice of past traditions.

No, they don’t.

Yes they do. Here is Ezra Klein’s blog hosting a debate on the laffer curve. 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Quite literally—there is no information from US tax policy which is relevant to the debate.

According to one of the papers from 3 econ professors, 2 of whom are NBER members, that Ezra includes:

“This paper critically surveys the large and growing literature estimating the elasticity of taxable income with respect to marginal tax rates (ETI) using tax return data.”

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf

The US has never in its history been near the inflection point in the Laffer Curve, so there is no valuable information.

1. Top marginal tax rate.
2. Capital gains Tax

The closest we’ve come to real information is from some of the Scandinavian countries, which have floated at 50-60% of GDP government expenditures.

Well, the goalposts were moved to US-only so I played along. But I assume you have non-USers in your skeptic movement. So putting Laffer Curvers in bed with Climate Denialists means skeptics must sleep on the couch when they visit Europe.

People don’t “debate” the Laffer Curve in the United States.  Conservatives lie about it.

Wrong, Right.

You have to understand; Economics isn’t a science.

You don’t say.

It’s a battleground between scientists and conservatives.

Wait! We have Scientists without a Science? Actually, that might be possible.

Can you point me to exactly where on this thread I stated that proposition?

You seem to be using up a lot of electrons to dispute this seeming uncontroversial statement, among others:

but they still base their religion around supernatural claims that are clearly ridiculous.

Much of your effort has been based on the red herring of meditation.

So SallyStrange pointed out that meditation, to the extent that it is a verifiable physiological process, is clearly not one of the supernatural claims referenced. However, there are a number of other important supernatural claims in mainstream Buddhism sects, including reincarnation, and presumably it was to these AM referred.

You responded to this by triumphantly declaring that SallyStrange must have missed the part where you’d pointed out that Dalai Lama had offered to accept scientific falsification of reincarnation. You went on to claim that you had “covered that angle”.

[RECORD SCRATCH SOUND]

If you didn’t mean to imply that the Dalai Lama’s offer served as proof that reincarnation was not in fact a supernatural claim, I’m at a loss as to how the last part of your #84 could be considered remotely responsive.

So, look, there are 3 components here:

Item 1: reincarnation (and/or demons, and/or bodhisattvas, etc.) are key parts of mainstream Buddhism sects (at least in Buddhism qua religion, which is the subject of discussion).
Item 2: these are superstitions, unsubstantiated and unfalsifable supernatural claims.
Item 3: a superstition remains a superstition even if someone offers to accept “scientific proof” of its falsehood - doubly so if such proof has already been provided.

And all of 3 of those components seem uncontroversial to me. Taken together, they obviously add up to Amanda’s claim that Buddhism is still a religion, built around superstitions - the one which you appear to be disputing.

So, are you still disputing that claim? If so, which item(s) are you taking issue with?

Punditus Maximus: The closest we’ve come to real information is from some of the Scandinavian countries, which have floated at 50-60% of GDP government expenditures.

Manju, from the paper you linked to to prove Punditus wrong:

empirical analyses should look more systematically at non-U.S. experience to potentially validate the conclusions based on U.S. experience and to sharpen our understanding of how the environment, writ large, aects the ETI. As discussed above, this line of research is already under way and indeed the most promising and innovative recent studies on the ETI have been based on non-US data. Part of the reason is that several OECD countries, especially in Scandinavia, are now making individual-level tax data, often linked with demographic information, much more widely-available for research purposes than is the United States.

The paper you linked to specifically backs up Punditus Maximus’ point, Manju.

Manju -

Much of what you say is technically true, but I feel you might be missing the point.

In everyday parlance, and ordinary political debate, I believe that derisory mention of the Laffer curve without elaboration or qualification can be understood to refer to the well known - but unacknowledged by right wing hacks - fact that we are realistically nowhere near the right hand side of the curve. It’s shorthand, not a rejection of the principle itself (which of course predates Laffer and associated supply side mendacity.)

You could probably raise similarly pedantic points about all kinds of other commonly understood phrases in this thread (e.g., “What do you mean UFOs don’t exist? Weather balloons are frequently unidentified, and they’re real enough.”) I don’t think anyone needs to accept such pedantry as serious evidence of skeptical groupthink.

So SallyStrange pointed out that meditation, to the extent that it is a verifiable physiological process, is clearly not one of the supernatural claims referenced.

That is it.  I don’t believe a belief in Tibetan Buddhism is necessary for the meditation techniques to work, but we can learn from what is ostensibly a ‘religious exercise’ a lot about our own nervous system.

Did you miss that part as well?

You responded to this by triumphantly declaring that SallyStrange must have missed the part where you’d pointed out that Dalai Lama had offered to accept scientific falsification of reincarnation. You went on to claim that you had “covered that angle”.

I even went to the trouble to find the exact quote from what the Pond of Smart said about science and Buddhist beliefs,  obviously a sign of my lack of logic and inability to handle a discussion in an adult, rational matter.

Please go on:

If you didn’t mean to imply that the Dalai Lama’s offer served as proof that reincarnation was not in fact a supernatural claim, I’m at a loss as to how the last part of your #84 could be considered remotely responsive.

Then you need to read #91, where quoted him exactly, although the difference between my faulty recollection and what he said isn’t much of a difference, although that is rather a side claim one way or another.

So, look, there are 3 components here:

Item 1: reincarnation (and/or demons, and/or bodhisattvas, etc.) are key parts of mainstream Buddhism sects (at least in Buddhism qua religion, which is the subject of discussion)

Item 2: these are superstitions, unsubstantiated and unfalsifable supernatural claims
.
Item 3: a superstition remains a superstition even if someone offers to accept “scientific proof” of its falsehood - doubly so if such proof has already been provided.

Item A:  They developed their meditation techniques with said supernatural beliefs

Item B:  They had an understanding of human physiology perhaps primitive at best, certainly nothing close to what we know today.

Item C:  They had discovered, with their supernatural beliefs, techniques that demonstrate what I learned from my own observations/actions and confirmed with my physiology professor in college over 30 years ago, that any bodily function can come under conscious control with the right kind of ‘training’.

And all of 3 of those components seem uncontroversial to me. Taken together, they obviously add up to Amanda’s claim that Buddhism is still a religion, built around superstitions - the one which you appear to be disputing.

But the question remains, how did they get from supernatural beliefs to a practical application?

It’s a tough question.

But, I dared to disagree with Amanda, and I can’t explain it to anyones’ satisfaction here, apparently.

I can live with that.

I don’t think anyone needs to accept such pedantry as serious evidence of skeptical groupthink.

Ohh, this is going to be good folks…..............

@Comment #105: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein

But the question remains, how did they get from supernatural beliefs to a practical application?

Things that start out based on supernatural beliefs can come to have practical applications because you learn things along the way.

Look what happened with Alchemy and Astrology. Despite many incorrect observations and inaccuracies, mixed with mysticism and superstition, alchemists and astrologers made many useful observations and discoveries and laid the basis for the modern sciences of Chemistry and Astronomy.

In exactly the same manner, the basis of Buddhism is in superstition and mysticism, and while those ideas have not been validated there was lots learnt that could be relevant to cognitive science and the understanding of human neurology.
Just as in Alchemy and Astrology we can ditch the superstition and keep the practically useful stuff.
However, as with Astrology, you will probably have die-hards who persist in insisting that there is still something of relevance even when the scientific study shows otherwise.

That is it.  I don’t believe a belief in Tibetan Buddhism is necessary for the meditation techniques to work, but we can learn from what is ostensibly a ‘religious exercise’ a lot about our own nervous system.

Umm. Ok. Fine. I’m not sure who you’re arguing with about that.

But what in the world does that have to do with anything we’ve been talking? What does it have to do with whether Buddhism integrates a lot of supernatural beliefs? What does this have to do with skepticism of superstitious religious beliefs?

Gotta count that as non-responsive.

Then you need to read #91, where quoted him exactly,

Not helping. What part of #91 shows that Buddhism isn’t chock full of superstition exactly?

Item A:  They developed their meditation techniques with said supernatural beliefs

So… We’re back to meditation somehow. Do you think we could stay on topic instead? Which of items 1-3 in #102 do you object to?

But the question remains, how did they get from supernatural beliefs to a practical application?

Really? This is puzzling you? I mean, not that this has anything to do with what we’re talking about, but I’ll give you a hint:

Accident.

This has been another episode of obvious answers to simple questions. Yadda yadda.

(To elaborate: it was more or less chance that a cultural institution—Buddhist religion, and whatever ascetic/yogic/whatever forebears it sprang from—developed which gave a bunch of guys the opportunity and the motivation to sit around really still and quiet for, collectively, thousands of years, getting deeply in touch with their bodies. Also: you mention “primitive understanding of physiology, but note that just because people a couple thousand years ago didn’t have FMRI machines doesn’t mean they were stupid. I’m sure a lot of trial and error, observation and experiment, etc. went into figuring out various meditation techniques. And that has jack all to do with superstitious belief in transmigration, nirvana, lotus blossoms, or anything else except inasmuch as superstition and religious indoctrination often served as a good motivating factor.

Similarly, the creations of things like the Sistine Chapel, Handel’s Messiah, or Newton’s Principia—great works of art and science motivated by religion—have no bearing at all on whether or not the story of the resurrection of Jesus is a crock of poo.)

(I should add: be careful not to get the arrow of causation wrong. Think of the various religious uses of hallucinogenic substances around the world—native Americans, Sami, etc.—just like meditation, those substances have real physiological effects. But it’s not likely that some religion sprang into existence which caused people to go out and start eating mushrooms. No, they tried out the mushrooms, then put a religious spin on the experience.

So, did belief originally prompt people to try to meditate, or did meditation lead to belief? It’s easy to see how, through some chance but not necessarily unlikely occurrence, one or more proto-meditation practitioners might have more or less accidentally had a trippy experience while sitting still or isolated somehow. Then they replicate the experience, spread the word, and, naturally, interpret it through whatever religious lens they have at hand. Voila.)

The paper you linked to specifically backs up Punditus Maximus’ point, Manju.

You quote Punditus saying:

The closest we’ve come to real information is from some of the Scandinavian countries

Then you quote the Berkely paper directly contradicting her:

empirical analyses should look more systematically at non-U.S. experience to potentially validate the conclusions based on U.S. experience and to sharpen our understanding

The econ profs see relevant information in both the US and Europe. In contrast, Punditus said there was no relevant info from the US:

Quite literally—there is no information from US tax policy which is relevant to the debate.

To be clear, here is an example from that paper of “information from US tax policy which is relevant to the debate”:

For example, the timing of capital gains realizations appears to react strongly to changes in capital gains tax rates, as evidenced by the surge in capital gains realizations in 1986, after the U.S. announced increased tax rates on realizations beginning in 1987 (Auerbach,
1988). Dropping the top individual tax rate to below the corporate tax rate in the same act led to a signicant shift in business activity towards pass-through entities, which are not subject to the corporate tax (Auerbach and Slemrod, 1997).

Err, yeah, Dark Avenger. I’m not “poisoning the well” by pointing out that your arguments simply don’t make sense.

Yes, meditation is verifiably useful and was developed in concert with a whole host of other not so useful rituals and superstitions.

So? Meditation’s utility doesn’t say anything about the rationality of the accompanying myths, superstitions, and magical beliefs. It’s rational to accept that meditation is a useful practice. It’s not rational to accept that hungry ghosts, wrathful deities, heavens, hells, and oracles exist.

As Mr. Lecou pointed out, you seem to be attempting to contest the idea that Buddhism is based around a bunch of irrational magical beliefs. Since you are also at the same time refusing to address the majority of of those beliefs and superstitions, you’re doing a horrible job of it.

Then there’s this:

But, I dared to disagree with Amanda, and I can’t explain it to anyones’ satisfaction here, apparently.

which is really rather pathetic. Yes, people are disagreeing with you because we’re all Amanda’s little teacher’s pets, or sockpuppets, or something. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that you’re making a silly, indefensible argument and using shoddy logic to do it. Keep telling yourself that, it’ll make you feel better I’m sure. Meanwhile the rest of us are scratching our heads wondering what the heck is up with Dark Avenger and Buddhism. I have this recollection of enjoying reading your other posts. That’s why I think your logic circuit is shorted out on this particular subject.

Actually, oracles do exist—the question is whether they function as advertised. Minor point.

Err, yeah, Dark Avenger. I’m not “poisoning the well” by pointing out that your arguments simply don’t make sense.

If there are errors in my logic, then you should be able to point them out instead of talking about logic circuits, unless you think my real name is Joe.

So? Meditation’s utility doesn’t say anything about the rationality of the accompanying myths, superstitions, and magical beliefs. It’s rational to accept that meditation is a useful practice. It’s not rational to accept that hungry ghosts, wrathful deities, heavens, hells, and oracles exist.

For the last time, plz show where and when I stated that is rational to do so.

As Mr. Lecou pointed out, you seem to be attempting to contest the idea that Buddhism is based around a bunch of irrational magical beliefs.

Again, the question, nobody wants to acknowledge:

But the question remains, how did they get from supernatural beliefs to a practical application?

which is really rather pathetic.

What is pathetic is that you can’t tell sarcasm from salsa.

Yes, people are disagreeing with you because we’re all Amanda’s little teacher’s pets, or sockpuppets, or something.

Uh, Amanda made one reply to what I’ve posted here, but you folks don’t want to let up until I do what?

It’s got nothing to do with the fact that you’re making a silly, indefensible argument and using shoddy logic to do it.

Thanks for the support.

Meanwhile the rest of us are scratching our heads wondering what the heck is up with Dark Avenger and Buddhism.

Your concern is noted.

I have this recollection of enjoying reading your other posts.

As I’ve stated again, the question isn’t the existence of supernatural entities, the question is how you get from believing in supernatural entities to developed techniques that allow control over bodily functions by the conscious mind.

If you can’t understand the question, you’re unlikely to come up with a usable answer.

That’s why I think your logic circuit is shorted out on this particular subject.

Have a cup of your favorite non-intoxicating beverage while you examine this thread carefully, and perhaps you’ll see what I’ve been getting at all along.

Minor point.

Glendower:I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

Again, the question, nobody wants to acknowledge:
But the question remains, how did they get from supernatural beliefs to a practical application?

Uh. Whut?

I think we covered that: Chance. (Plus, you’ve probably got the causal arrow backward.)

. . . . .

Can you just remind us Dark Avenger:

WHAT IS YOUR POINT PLEASE?

Is it,

A. Meditation is a thing that has real physiological value?

Then: Done. Conceded. Was not even contested in the beginning, AFAICT. Kind of a non-sequitur, really.

Or is it,

B. Buddhism is a religion that is not based on any supernatural beliefs?

If so, then PLEASE ATTEMPT TO ARGUE ON THIS POINT.

Hint:

The existence of meditation as a real thing will have nothing to do with this point. Bringing it up again and again does not further your argument. Instead, you need to address all the OTHER bits of Buddhism.

So, A or B?

I don’t mean to be rude. It’s just that this is really bizarre.

You claim to be disagreeing with something Amanda said, except we can’t quite figure out what it is you disagree with.  Every time anyone tries to pin you down on an actual declaration of what it is you are trying to claim, you say that’s not what you stated.

Then the rest of this exchange is fluffed up with various apparent non-sequiturs about meditation and the Dalai Lama.

And now it seems to have reached the implosion point where you just rehearsing the same lines over and over and making vague gestures back to posts that we’ve already pointed out didn’t make any damn sense.

So please, A or B?

(Or even C: fill in the blank. [in a single clear sentence please!]).

Skepticism is either a political endeavor, or it’s wanking. Nothing more.

To paraphrase the great Michel Chartrand, friends I understand you’d rather not have to take care about politics, but the fact is that either you take care of politics, or politics takes care of you.

From Satanic Ritual Abuse to anti-vaxxers to AIDS woo in Uganda and South Africa, skepticism is by nature a political statement, it involves a stance on policy. If there’s a lack of humanpower and ressources to do everything, the question skeptics organizations should ask themselves is not why they should get involved in the more political aspects of skepticism, but why they should still waste ressources on the trivial, non-political aspects like Bigfoot/UFO/ghost/cryptozoology debunkings and such.

I didn’t have quite the same reaction to Loxton’s piece.  Since the title was “The Surprising Twists of TAM9’s Diversity Panel,” I read the piece looking for the surprising twists.

It seems that Loxton was expecting the diversity panel to be “overly ambitious,” meaning he perceived a danger of skepticism losing its well-defined scope and becoming an overly broad and vague “Rationalism,” and it also seems that he was pleasantly surprised by what actually happened. Here’s a quote from Loxton’s “surprising twists” segment: 

Greta Christina and the rest of TAM9’s diversity panel seemed to settle on the position that their call was not for widening the scope of scientific skepticism beyond testable claims (a radical proposal to which I and many others would object) but for widening our hearts—our willingness to be interested in other people’s experiences. As she argued, there are testable, empirical, pseudoscientific claims embedded within the arenas of social values, political discourse, and yes, religion as well. The forest may be out of scope, but some of the trees are not.

I’m not going to critique Loxton as a person or as a political entity, but what he wrote seems reasonable, specifically when it is taken as a whole.  He was worried about the panel taking a certain “ambitious” direction, and it didn’t go that way.  I think his biases might be a little more conservative than some (meaning his “red flags” at the beginning of the piece might not be red flags for a lot of people), but the piece ends with, IMO, something that wasn’t so outrage-inducing to me:  “one tree at a time.” 

Whether or not it was or should have been surprising to Loxton is not a part of my evaluation. 

Also, I’m not trying to speak for Dark Guardian here, but the illustration of meditation as an empirically verifiable good works really well with the overall conclusion of the diversity panel, at least as Loxton sees it.  Those who want to raze the entire “forest” of “religion” as a collection of “ridiculous beliefs” are trying to uproot some potentially useful trees along with the bad ones. 

By mentioning the Dalai Lama, Dark Guardian seems to point out that in one particular branch of one particular religion, there are certain “trees” which are more important than others.  The “trees,” or concepts left standing are useful to most of us, like compassion, love, etc.  I don’t agree that these things were arrived at “by chance” (in the case of meditation).  We make progress by working in a particular direction.  Must any and all work be done under the bright light of the Rational? 

If so, where does that leave music or poetry? 

What if one views fairies and religion as Jung viewed symbols, i.e. “false on the outside and true on the inside?”  This is my view, and at times I feel like a “person of faith” here. 

In my view, a bigger problem than belief or non-belief in fairies is literalism.  Literalism leads to statements like:  “I know that God wants this…”  That’s a tree I’d be happy to take an axe to. 

In addition, when people try to take on “Religion” as this big, cultural monolith tend to sink into preaching (with statements about how stupid it is to believe in fairies, for example) just as quickly as the people telling me I’m going to go to hell.  That’s why I think, in this case, it’s right for organized skeptics to hesitate to take on the whole thing. 

Oh for pete’s sake Manju
You link to a 70 page paper that’s complaining about how there is no real information in the US

Estimates of the elasticity of taxable income in the long run (i.e., exceeding a few years) are plagued by extremely difficult issues of identification, so difficult that we believe that there are no convincing estimates of the long-run elasticity of reported taxable income to changes in the marginal tax rate.

Then you chop out half of what I directly quoted which was saying that because of the lack of solid conclusions from the US data, to get any real data the best information now was coming out of Scandinavian countries, and then you say that disproves “The closest we’ve come to real information is from some of the Scandinavian countries”?  Which is what the conclusion of that paper would be if it was written in human language.

I think you might have tricked me into reading a 70 page economics paper that you didn’t even read.

Cosign BlackBloc @ #115! If we’re not going to make skepticism relevant to our lives then it’s just a lot of jerking off about how smart we are and how silly other people are (and I can do that better via other media, frankly.) Just because a lot of old white dudes are enjoying their Ivory Tower anti-ghost circle jerk doesn’t mean any of the benefits are, um, trickling down to the rest of us.

And thank you jack lecou and SallyStrange for trying to figure out WTF Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein is getting at. I gave him a pat on the back for meditation and biology being super-keen-and-nifty but apparently that didn’t do it for him? Not sure who he’s arguing against, frankly. :p

If so, where does that leave music or poetry?

If the music or poetry are delivery systems for pernicious ideas then why suspend reason?
If you read poetry that romanticises femininity as yielding, supportive, innocent, would you suspend reason just because it is in the form of poetry? You get where I’m coming from.

Emotion is essential to being human, but just because something feels good or attractive doesn’t necessarily mean it is right or true.

This seems a variation on that canard of the cold spock-like rationalist who won’t be satisfied till the world has been purged of all beauty, colour and feeling.

oh for pete’s sake Manju
You link to a 70 page paper that’s complaining about how there is no real information in the US

Nimravid

You cut off the first sentence of the paragraph and started with the 2nd (I kept your second, edited to get rid of the irrelevant):

The empirical methods are most convincing in estimating the short-term response to tax rate changes…Estimates of the elasticity of taxable income in the long run…are plagued by extremely difficult issues of identification

Considering what Keynes said about the long-run, I fail to see how convincing estimations of the short (based on US data) is tantamount Punditus’ dramatic claim: “there is no information from US tax policy which is relevant to the debate.”

Then you chop out half of what I directly quoted which was saying that because of the lack of solid conclusions from the US data, to get any real data the best information now was coming out of Scandinavian countries, and then you say that disproves “The closest we’ve come to real information is from some of the Scandinavian countries”?  Which is what the conclusion of that paper would be if it was written in human language.

Well, you quoted the paper as saying “empirical analyses should look more systematically at non-U.S. experience to potentially validate the conclusions based on U.S. experience and to sharpen our understanding…”

Looking for data that might validate US experience = only Scandinavian countries possess real information? In that case, what information are the researchers looking to validate? Unreal ones?

As to why they plan to look at those countries, the portion you object to me cutting out says:

Part of the reason is that several OECD countries, especially in Scandinavia, are now making individual-level tax data, often linked with demographic information, much more widely-available for research purposes than is the United States.

Now that’s not the same reason Punditus gives.

In that case, what information are the researchers looking to validate?

Unvalidated ones

Sorry for the boring derail.

Emotion is essential to being human, but just because something feels good or attractive doesn’t necessarily mean it is right or true.

Exactly the problem I have with letting religion have a special pass.  Because people wrap up what they already feel they want to do in these mystical reasons -and skepticism can’t address even the disprovable hypotheses?  The whole idea of believing what you want to believe despite evidence seems antithetical to skepticism.

Whether you need.Gets into our website for a minute that uses you.
http://www.fortruereligionjeans.com/
We are international trade. We offer grade a quality product only. Our products are authentic quality with original box .No matter what reason it is. buy from us will have much more confidence ! So, please don’t hesitate, just contact us for details! We will be your reliable business partner!
Hope you guys will enjoy by online shopping without much disturbances

Thank you for sharing. I like it very much . it is really good. And I think it is very useful.

I think we covered that: Chance. (Plus, you’ve probably got the causal arrow backward.)

You think it went from a practical application to a religious exercise?

That really takes some special pleading.

C:  Buddhism is mostly composed of superstitious beliefs, but this is a practical application that came out of said beliefs, and the process of getting from SB to a PA is worth studying,  regardless if you believe that Buddhism is profound wisdom, or believe it’s horseshit.

The problem you have, SS, is that you’re just as caught up in your belief system as much as any Bible-thumper, otherwise you could’ve left my ramblings here a while ago without getting all uptight about what I wrote here.

The existence of meditation as a real thing will have nothing to do with this point.

And where have I written something different on this thread?

Again, this applies to atheists and theists alike:

In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all.

You think it went from a practical application to a religious exercise?
That really takes some special pleading.

Why special pleading? This is just the way the world works. Meditation probably simply evolved from a slightly weird experience to religious exercise.  Or from an undisciplined religious exercise to more disciplined and refined religious exercise. Or likely a combination of the two. In any case, I just utterly fail to see what you find so mysterious about it.

Practically every religion on the planet involves some kind of “prayer” or “meditation” which in which practitioners try be more spiritual or to get in touch with the spirit world or whatever. Sometimes it involves drugs, or chanting, or physical deprivation or discipline, sometimes it just involves folding your hands and sitting still while thinking hard. All of them can produce weird moods and experiences. Regular practice of any of them will affect the mind (and probably the body). Certain Buddhist practitioners happened to hit upon a series of techniques that can affect the body’s “autonomic” processes in a somewhat directed way.

It’s all very interesting in its way, but not somehow a challenge to the general principle that religious claims about the supernatural are hooey. All of these things have real explanations from the real world.

C:  Buddhism is mostly composed of superstitious beliefs, but this is a practical application that came out of said beliefs, and the process of getting from SB to a PA is worth studying,  regardless if you believe that Buddhism is profound wisdom, or believe it’s horseshit.

Well, I disagree that meditation is a “practical application of superstitious beliefs” or came fully formed out of said beliefs rather than coevolving. That’s actually begging the question in a big way. But I’ll read this as saying you essentially want to apply skepticism to religion. So hooray. Was that so hard?

And where have I written something different on this thread?

It’s hard to say. So much of what you’ve written is basically incoherent or seemingly not in reply to what people said (see, e.g., #56, or attacking strawmen in #62). And since you apparently haven’t actually been trying to argue for B anyway, it’s moot. The basic point is that nobody could tell what you were arguing for. I’m still not sure I can.

Still, #46 is suspicious. And #74 is quite bad: you falsely characterize Amanda’s comment as dismissing “all Buddhist beliefs as ‘supernatural claims’”, confusing the existential quantifier for the universal. That or similar probably prompted much of this pointless exchange with you: SallyStrange pointed out this mischaracterization at #81, and your incoherent reply at #83 prompted my own entry into the fray. Your various defenses of this untenable position are certainly what lead me to the perception that you might be somehow trying to argue that nothing in Buddhism is superstitious, though I couldn’t really tell what you were trying to say, hence the repeated, and repeatedly evaded, attempts to pin you down on something. (Incidentally, I just noticed that you admit in 83 that Buddhists beliefs about meditation indeed involve a supernatural claim - moving toward enlightenment - even though you had dismissed that idea earlier. Whatevs.)

Again, this applies to atheists and theists alike:

Umm. Yeah right. Are you directing that at someone in this thread?

Why special pleading? This is just the way the world works. Meditation probably simply evolved from a slightly weird experience to religious exercise.

Evolution is a difference process that “by chance”, even a Darwinian would tell you that.

Practically every religion on the planet involves some kind of “prayer” or “meditation” which in which practitioners try be more spiritual or to get in touch with the spirit world or whatever.

Yah know, I’m talking about one type that has physiologically measurable effects, not someone doing a rosary or “Om mani padma”.

Are you directing that at someone in this thread?

“Let them that have ears to hear, hear.”

Incidentally, I just noticed that you admit in 83 that Buddhists beliefs about meditation indeed involve a supernatural claim - moving toward enlightenment - even though you had dismissed that idea earlier. Whatevs.

Yes, and it is unfalsifiable, but the results of their meditation techniques to keep bodily heat going aren’t.

Well, I disagree that meditation is a “practical application of superstitious beliefs” or came fully formed out of said beliefs rather than coevolving. That’s actually begging the question in a big way. But I’ll read this as saying you essentially want to apply skepticism to religion. So hooray. Was that so hard?

I’m not making claims for meditation as practiced world-wide, so by confusing my wanting THIS PARTICULAR TIBETAN FORM and its’ roots studied(how they developed techniques to maintain their body temperature without shivering and under concious control), you’re muddying the discussion and poisoning the well, as the saying goes.

you falsely characterize Amanda’s comment as dismissing “all Buddhist beliefs as ‘supernatural claims’”,

but they still base their religion around supernatural claims that are clearly ridiculous

You know, I haven’t seen someone demonstrate perturbation like this since I raised the possibility of telepathy with a psychology professor, his emotionalism and denial on the subject as in this case, is very revealing.

It’s as possible to be as dogmatic a skeptic or atheist as the most devout nun at her prayers is about the RCC being the only possible true religion.

And thanks to all you folks for demonstrating that for the past few days.

Evolution is a difference process that “by chance”, even a Darwinian would tell you that.

Being deliberately obtuse is going to draw this out a lot longer. Yes, I mean evolution. I think that should have been pretty clear from the elaboration that followed the single words you’re picking out.

Yah know, I’m talking about one type that has physiologically measurable effects, not someone doing a rosary or “Om mani padma”.

AFAIK, most forms of sufficiently concentrated prayer or meditation have physiologically measurable effects, up to and including changes in brain structure. As do other quasi-religious practices like yoga or tai chi. Not to mention partaking of hallucinogens, of course.

[Tibetan] Buddhist meditation has its own particular facets, but it is not unique in the broad sense of being a religious devotional exercise with physiologically measurable effects.

Yes, and it is unfalsifiable, but the results of their meditation techniques to keep bodily heat going aren’t.

Which is why skeptical dismissal is directed at the former, not the latter.  Your problem appears to be some kind of dogmatic inability to keep the two separate, and/or your unsubstantiated belief that the specific supernatural beliefs preceded the innovation of religious meditation.

I’m not making claims for meditation as practiced world-wide, so by confusing my wanting THIS PARTICULAR TIBETAN FORM and its’ roots studied(how they developed techniques to maintain their body temperature without shivering and under concious control), you’re muddying the discussion and poisoning the well, as the saying goes.

If you want to perform this study by first isolating Tibetan meditation from other traditions, and pretending it has no relation to other forms of meditation, particularly the very old and large family of similar and related practices on the subcontinent (incl. e.g., yoga), I don’t know how you can have any hope of this endeavor succeeding. Not to mention the fact that study of the evolution of even unrelated disciplines will be useful in informing your model of how this particular one may have evolved.

And while such a study, with suitably adjusted constraints, might be interesting, I see no reason to expect that its results will be very surprising, or again, that they will unearth this idea of “applied application” of the religious beliefs in question. At least not in any sense other than that of (1) superstition serving as motivation and opportunity to practice and refine meditation techniques and (2) back-updating the specific religious beliefs by reinforcing/revising them with the results and experiences from the ongoing refinements in meditation ‘technology’.

I would note in particular that the discovery of the body’s ability to do things like respond (to some degree) to conscious control of body temperature is just that: a discovery, about the natural world. Like lifting large amounts of weight,  running long distances, figure drawing or calculus, this is a latent ability that (nearly) every human being has, even if it takes some time to develop the skill fully. A latent ability that is or was just waiting to be discovered. 

In other words, Tibetan monks didn’t magically create this ability from scratch based on some religious vision, they chanced upon indications of these already existing latent abilities* and then refined their control within the framework of a long tradition of meditation and physical discipline - and patched the results into their religious framework while they were at it.

—-
* I note that something like relaxing and accepting the feeling of cold in order to stop shivering is not a difficult trick to discover or master. I’ve done it myself quite independently of Buddhist superstition, or even the specific knowledge that it could be done. Tibetan monks have presumably refined this rather further, but it’s easy to see where it started, and that wasn’t by mapping out the process in advance with a religious vision.

Me: you falsely characterize Amanda’s comment as dismissing “all Buddhist beliefs as ‘supernatural claims’”,
AM: but they still base their religion around supernatural claims that are clearly ridiculous

DAGCM: You know, I haven’t seen someone demonstrate perturbation like this since I raised the possibility of telepathy with a psychology professor, his emotionalism and denial on the subject as in this case, is very revealing.

Do you mean to say that you STILL don’t see how that quote from Amanda is NOT saying (as you characterized in #74) that every single thing Buddhists do or think is a supernatural claim, but instead that, well, THE RELIGION IS NEVERTHELESS BASED AROUND RIDICULOUS SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS, including but not limited to things like the belief that meditation will lead to nirvana, the concept of reincarnation, or belief in demons and bodhisattvas.

Just to be clear: I couldn’t care less about your idiotic claim that the development of meditation techniques was planned out in advance by religious revelation. It’s stupid, but I’m satisfied slapping it down more or less unemotionally. What’s making the SIWOTI flare up here is your pugnacious refusal to admit that the statement “Amanda dismissed all Buddhist beliefs as ‘supernatural claims’” is a FLATLY WRONG way to characterize the statement “they still base their religion around [SOME] supernatural claims.”

I wouldn’t be the least surprised if this psychology professor you mention was perturbed by some similar dis-ingenuousness on your part, rather than by any merely ignorant discussion of telepathy. (The possibility of which, btw, is certainly unsupported by anything known to science.)

AFAIK, most forms of sufficiently concentrated prayer or meditation have physiologically measurable effects, up to and including changes in brain structure. As do other quasi-religious practices like yoga or tai chi. Not to mention partaking of hallucinogens, of course.

None of them allow you to control your body temperature as I linked to above.

Which is why skeptical dismissal is directed at the former, not the latter.  Your problem appears to be some kind of dogmatic inability to keep the two separate, and/or your unsubstantiated belief that the specific supernatural beliefs preceded the innovation of religious meditation

Specific supernatural beliefs preceded the innovative forms of religious mediation in Tibet that allow practitioners to control their body temperature like a thermostat on the wall.

For religious meditation to arise, you have to have the concept of religion, i.e., belief in the supernatural,(at least on a metaphysical level) in the first place.

Please try to follow along, okay.

I couldn’t care less about your idiotic claim that the development of meditation techniques was planned out in advance by religious revelation. It’s stupid, but I’m satisfied slapping it down more or less unemotionally. What’s making the SIWOTI flare up here is your pugnacious refusal to admit that the statement “Amanda dismissed all Buddhist beliefs as ‘supernatural claims’” is a FLATLY WRONG way to characterize the statement “they still base their religion around [SOME] supernatural claims.”

I wouldn’t be the least surprised if this psychology professor you mention was perturbed by some similar dis-ingenuousness on your part, rather than by any merely ignorant discussion of telepathy.

No, he was just expressing the fear some people have unconsciously that telepathy works, thus giving others an unwelcome insight for other around them.  My own reaction would be of course, “You want to read my mind?  Good luck.”

And no, I wasn’t gaslighting him or anything like that, but thanks for demonstrating your own devotion to truth and logic in this thread. 

None of them allow you to control your body temperature as I linked to above.

Not that I’m aware, no. But a unique feature or two is not enough to pretend this specific type of meditation is completely different or unrelated to all the others.

Specific supernatural beliefs preceded the innovative forms of religious mediation in Tibet that allow practitioners to control their body temperature like a thermostat on the wall.

Let us say that the first instance of any form of this temperature ability was first demonstrated in year X.

Are you saying that you have evidence that Tibetan supernatural beliefs documented in year X-N included the specific belief that monks would be able to control their body temperature in year through these techniques?

And I mean specific. To avoid selection bias, you have to distinguish this somehow from any other rather more mystical abilities that might be discussed in the mythology, or the general idea of supernatural-ish powers. If the prior superstitions mention abilities A-Z (which I’m just making up here, fill in the blanks as necessary), and the monks happen to eventually discover something more or less resembling belief Q (body temp.) but still haven’t made progress on beliefs G (floating or flying), K (growing spiritual protuberances on their heads), W (living hundreds of years without eating), or any of the other letters of the alphabet - well, that’s less than impressive. You can’t really say that the progenitors of the supernatural beliefs were actually predicting the capacity for this ability. They just listed a bunch and got lucky when the Tibetan monks actually discovered it was possible. Probably with a lot of nudging to make the ability that was “predicted” look more like the ability that was actually discovered.

Basically, what you have to figure out how to demonstrate that the religious aspect is actually fundamental to and/or predictive of these meditative practices. You have to distinguish that hypothesis in a meaningful way from the alternative hypothesis that these techniques were developed in a more or less quasi-scientific manner, albeit with religious trappings and motivations.

For religious meditation to arise, you have to have the concept of religion, i.e., belief in the supernatural,(at least on a metaphysical level) in the first place.

Uh. Yeah. Right.

Let’s try this a different way:

Suppose, somewhere in the mountains of Central America, there is a mysterious tribe of people that have had lighter-than-air flight for thousands of years.

The exact story of the origins of the first primitive balloons is lost in the mists of time—and to this day, various uses are in evidence (military, artistic, agricultural)—but it is the religious monks of this culture that have developed the technology to a high art. In order to better commune with the “sky father”, who they believe lives high in the atmosphere, they have developed balloons that are capable of ascending to tremendous heights, along with breathing exercises and training regimens that allow them to survive for hours or days in the cold, thin air.

All of this is of course quite amazing, and a real accomplishment. Nevertheless, if someone were to come along and say:

“For religious [aeronautics] to arise, you have to have the concept of religion, i.e., belief in the supernatural,(at least on a metaphysical level) in the first place.”

I would give them a very funny look.

I couldn’t care less about your idiotic claim that the development of meditation techniques was planned out in advance by religious revelation. It’s stupid, but I’m satisfied slapping it down more or less unemotionally. What’s making the SIWOTI flare up here is your pugnacious refusal to admit that the statement “Amanda dismissed all Buddhist beliefs as ‘supernatural claims’” is a FLATLY WRONG way to characterize the statement “they still base their religion around [SOME] supernatural claims.”

I note that you quoted this without response.

Interesting.

Are you directing that at someone in this thread?

“Let them that have ears to hear, hear.”

JEEZUS CHRIST bro, isn’t your typing hand tired from jacking off yet? Does sanctimony increase stamina or something? D:

You think it went from a practical application to a religious exercise?

Actually it was my first thought that might be the case.  Because of an experience I had of accidentally discovering self-hypnosis when I was a kid, I can see how someone might go from a practical application of lowering blood pressure/heart rate, general sense of well being to a religious practice rather than the other way around.  I didn’t personally go that route, but it seems completely plausible based on my own experience.

We don’t know the origins of meditation but historians have speculated that it might go back into human prehistory to when Hunter-Gatherers sat around fires gazing at the flames. To stalk game they would have had to stay still and silent for long periods of time.
If there is any truth to that it may have become part of the repertoire of shamans and been preserved and developed until it was adopted by ascetics in the forests of India.

The fact is that no one knows and there is lots of speculation.

Given that there are strong reasons to believe that the default state of humans was belief in spirits then probably everything ever invented and discovered by humans during prehistory was done so within the framework of spiritual ideas and superstition. Taming fire, hunting, the lot.

So it is probably more correct to say that supernatural beliefs and magical thinking were no obstacle to the discovery of many useful things, and those discoveries were understood within a magical worldview.
Hence all the taboos and myths that surround these activities within cultures around the world. Gods and spirits that gave fire, gods that gave birth to and had dominion over the animal world, .etc.

So humans were learning to control their environment, developing technologies, and teaching them to those who came after them, and creating mythical narratives to explain the origins of these skills.

The odd thing would be to take meditation, out of all the other human discoveries, and try to claim some special status for it, rather than just accepting that it is one of the many things whose origins stretch back into prehistory when humans were elaborating countless magical ideas and worldviews.

By the time the Buddha is said to have learnt to meditate under the instruction of forest mendicants these practices already had a long history.

I note that you quoted this without response.

Interesting.

Yes, it was so funny, that it bore repeating.

Yes, it was so funny, that it bore repeating.

So you’re basically just a troll then?

Childe O’ Grace. That’s a great summary. Much clearer than what I’ve been trying to say.

And I think it’s easy to see how an experience like Nimravid’s would be quite different in a time and a place more steeped in superstition. The experience would, first of all, be interpreted through a that lens, explained within the framework of the dominant mythology, and then get even more filtered and added trappings as it was shared and transmitted. If it were reasonably popular, even the pre-existing background superstitions would begin to evolve or be embellished to better accommodate the new addition. Wait long enough, and maybe you have whole religions forming around the new discovery, incorporating it seamlessly.

Also, although magical thinking was, self evidently, no obstacle to the many useful things humans have actually discovered while under its influence, that’s not to say it’s no obstacle to other things that might have been discovered. Magical thinking often influenced the interpretation and development path of those discoveries.

Take Tibetan meditation. On the one hand, it’s pretty cool that people learned to control their bodies that way.  On the other hand, this is a discipline that’s pretty much confined to a handful of monks. While I think they’re abstractly concerned about helping people, developing their meditation techniques along the lines of, say, something that would be useful for ordinary people to use to control high blood pressure, is something that simply never occurred to them (on their own).  That’s a consequence of the fact that they were focused primarily on their superstitious motivation of developing techniques to find enlightenment, not really on finding practical, mundane applications.

(A further hindrance to this is that all the religious trappings probably get in the way of really distilling the techniques down to the essentials. Monks take it for granted that they should train for years or decades, going through all sorts of rituals and diets and exercises. Some fraction of that preparation is probably more or less necessary, but a great deal is probably just authoritarian or superstitious rigamarole.)

@Comment #139: jack lecou,

Also, although magical thinking was, self evidently, no obstacle to the many useful things humans have actually discovered while under its influence, that’s not to say it’s no obstacle to other things that might have been discovered.

Definitely, and that is an important point.

I have always been fascinated by mythology and am very open to there being a mythopoeic substatum of the mind that operates even in modern humans, but I’m wary of the traps it can lead to.

This leads to arguments with feminist friends of mine who invoke wondrous Matriarchal/focal pasts when under the guidance of the Great Mother we all lived in an egalitarian paradise.
LGBTQ people will reference Native American tribes to talk about how children could freely choose their gender and sexuality, ignoring the dangerous ground you are on when you talk of free choice in children below the age of reason and when there is a lot of evidence that it was more a matter of social construction; young boys being selected and trained for the purpose of providing sexual service to the community braves, so that the same community’s marriageable girls would not be violated.
Cases where there were a set number of berdaches and when one died the next male to be born would be chosen to take his place.

I don’t think it is merely coincidental that women’s suffrage and feminism first arose in the West after the Enlightenment. When people are suspicious of reason, as in appeals to music and poetry, I think they fail to grasp how essential it is for grounding us in what actually exists.

For all the Dalai Lama’s years of meditation and talk of love and compassion he still has very traditional patriarchal ideas about gender roles and ‘proper’ sexual expression.
I’d be a lot more impressed if meditation had led to insight’s that were more revolutionary and initiated greater social change instead of usually acting to cement the status quo.

People easily elide the fact that Tibetan Buddhism was a feudal system before being ousted by the communists. Or just don’t know that in trying to produce a ‘scientific’ study of Tibetan Buddhism, L. A. Waddell censored what he found to be more shocking aspects of the religion when writing “The Buddhism of Tibet or Lamaism”.

At the same time I find meditation fascinating for what it shows about the plasticity of the brain and don’t rule out that one day such skills might come into their own and not be just the province of priestly elites.
I know that many people who are into transhumanism are also interested in and practice Buddhism.
I just think enchanted narratives of the past and intoxicating dreams of possible futures can be some of the greatest obstacles to real positive change in the here and now.

I just think enchanted narratives of the past and intoxicating dreams of possible futures can be some of the greatest obstacles to real positive change in the here and now.

I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
                                              —————————J.B.S. Haldane

If you think I idolize or was unaware of the shortcomings of Tibetan Buddhism, you are sadly mistaken.

I don’t think it is merely coincidental that women’s suffrage and feminism first arose in the West after the Enlightenment. When people are suspicious of reason, as in appeals to music and poetry, I think they fail to grasp how essential it is for grounding us in what actually exists.

Definitely. And something like a Great-Mother, matriarchy-ish society might or might not be more benign than other superstition-based social orders. It’s just that, either way, without grounding in reason and reality it would never be feminism.

It occurs to me that one of the key characteristics I think any genuine religion—i.e., one actually in touch with some higher source of truth—would tend to have is that it would run radically counter to the status quo. I’d expect one to anticipate moral, cultural and technological development, and very dramatically so, rather than lagging it. IMO, most religions completely fail that test. You might make a weak case for some, bringing about radical changes in their time and so forth, but I think on close examination it’s usually more that they institutionalized an already fairly popular view rather than sweeping through with a new and completely anachronistic one.

A period like the Enlightenment is also not completely anachronistic, of course. But it’s closer. I think such phases, when reason and science are ascendant, are the closest we ever come.

Dear Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein,

Please learn to read for comprehension.

Thx

jack lecou, please check for motes before pointing out beams in others.

KTY

re: motes

You mistake me for someone who’s still even trying to figure out what it is you think you’re saying.

Sorry, jack lecou, you haven’t even figured out my POV, let alone formulated a reasonable response to it.

Sorry, jack lecou, you haven’t even figured out my POV, let alone formulated a reasonable response to it.

Agreed.