Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
He rejoices here, he rejoices after death, in both states does the well-doer rejoice. He rejoices and greatly rejoices having seen the karmic purity of self. — Dhammapada 16
It is always worth reminding ourselves that the context of the Buddhas reported remarks to the Kalamas was that they were NOT his followers. They were followers of another teacher. And to those who wonder if that matters I suggest that another read through in the light of the fact sheds a different light on it. That and the fact that after the discourse many then did become his followers....
I know what you mean @riverflow, but I would violently, er, sorry, I mean politely disagree with you about fundamentalist idealogues who stick to syllogistic thinking. This is usually exactly what they refuse to do. It is by refusing to think logically that they protect their ideologies. It's a rampant practice in science and philosophy, never mind down the pub.
[derail -- sorry!]
@Florian , I can only speak from my own experience about fundamentalism--as someone who has lived (and still lives) in the southern US, where fundamentalism runs rampant-- and as someone who once bought into Christian fundamentalism so rigid that me and my friends ended up getting kicked out of the already very fundamentalist Church of Christ. As long as you keep your ideology protected from inductive logic and use (or claim to use) deductive logic only, you can construct a consistent and logical system. Everything gets filtered and interpreted through that logic. It can provide a weird kind of comfortable certainty that fundamentalists mistakenly call "faith."
Imagine a computer fed with only certain amounts of data, and then remove all the input devices. The computer can still process the information it possesses, but it can't have any new data added to it to work with and develop. But the logical "infrastructure" remains in place.
This hermetically sealed world only falls apart once you admit in any inductive reasoning (and the less absolute conclusions it can provide). And so you just shut it out inductive reasoning. Only syllogisms remain, and then everything makes perfectly good sense. The logic is bizarre only to those without this "faith." Certainly in the Church of Christ circles, they love syllogisms, as if you need no other proof for your ideology. The same logic drives abortion clinic bombers to do what they do.
I think of it as a kind of "logic sickness"--you cannot reason with such people because the narrow logic they possess won't allow them to process anything any other way. The problem with fundamentalism lies not in the content of their beliefs but the form in which it takes. This doesn't make fundamentalists hopeless cases--but it will take something outside the sphere of intellectual debate to shake them out of it the "logic sickness" they have. Debating with fundamentalists serves very little purpose because this deals with information content--I find this approach too simplistic. Many atheist writers I find disappointing in that regard (though I too do not believe, but for my own peculiar anti-metaphysical reasons). They think of the matter to simplistically.
The problematic roots of fundamentalism lie far deeper than that, in this syllogistic certainty, the "faith" of fundamentalists. All the empirical evidence in the world means nothing to them--the problem has to be addressed epistemologically--something people that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al apparently don't recognize. It preoccupied Dostoevsky's mind quite a lot, though in a different, political context.
At any rate, it seems that way to me and my own experience-- as a fundamentalist, and also as one who, as an atheist, has gone round and round in circles with fundamentalists. It will take something much more than reason to shake their "faith."
The secret of health for both mind and body is not to mourn for the past, nor to worry about the future, but to live the present moment wisely and earnestly.
Comments
Dh 21
And to those who wonder if that matters I suggest that another read through in the light of the fact sheds a different light on it.
That and the fact that after the discourse many then did become his followers....
@Florian , I can only speak from my own experience about fundamentalism--as someone who has lived (and still lives) in the southern US, where fundamentalism runs rampant-- and as someone who once bought into Christian fundamentalism so rigid that me and my friends ended up getting kicked out of the already very fundamentalist Church of Christ. As long as you keep your ideology protected from inductive logic and use (or claim to use) deductive logic only, you can construct a consistent and logical system. Everything gets filtered and interpreted through that logic. It can provide a weird kind of comfortable certainty that fundamentalists mistakenly call "faith."
Imagine a computer fed with only certain amounts of data, and then remove all the input devices. The computer can still process the information it possesses, but it can't have any new data added to it to work with and develop. But the logical "infrastructure" remains in place.
This hermetically sealed world only falls apart once you admit in any inductive reasoning (and the less absolute conclusions it can provide). And so you just shut it out inductive reasoning. Only syllogisms remain, and then everything makes perfectly good sense. The logic is bizarre only to those without this "faith." Certainly in the Church of Christ circles, they love syllogisms, as if you need no other proof for your ideology. The same logic drives abortion clinic bombers to do what they do.
I think of it as a kind of "logic sickness"--you cannot reason with such people because the narrow logic they possess won't allow them to process anything any other way. The problem with fundamentalism lies not in the content of their beliefs but the form in which it takes. This doesn't make fundamentalists hopeless cases--but it will take something outside the sphere of intellectual debate to shake them out of it the "logic sickness" they have. Debating with fundamentalists serves very little purpose because this deals with information content--I find this approach too simplistic. Many atheist writers I find disappointing in that regard (though I too do not believe, but for my own peculiar anti-metaphysical reasons). They think of the matter to simplistically.
The problematic roots of fundamentalism lie far deeper than that, in this syllogistic certainty, the "faith" of fundamentalists. All the empirical evidence in the world means nothing to them--the problem has to be addressed epistemologically--something people that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al apparently don't recognize. It preoccupied Dostoevsky's mind quite a lot, though in a different, political context.
At any rate, it seems that way to me and my own experience-- as a fundamentalist, and also as one who, as an atheist, has gone round and round in circles with fundamentalists. It will take something much more than reason to shake their "faith."
[/derail -- sorry!]
Or is there more to add?
:skeptic:
Dh 406
"WTF? OMG! LOL. Whatevs."
than to conquer a thousand armies.
the world is like a mirror, see?
Smile.
And the world smiles back.
Mr. Han: You think only with your eyes, so you are easy to fool.
The Karate Kid (2010)
"Same here." -Albert Einstein
Okay.....
OK,
"We the unhating live
happily midst the haters,
among the hating humans
from hatred dwell we free."
Dhammapada Verse 197
http://quotesnsmiles.com/quotes/calming-buddha-quotes/