I'm pretty sure I have read this before, but it predates this blog and a quick search indicates I have not linked to it before. (Or maybe I have - Google searching the blog is still rather hit or miss.)
It's a 2003 Slate piece by science writer John Horgan explaining why he gave up on meditation and his investigation of Buddhism.
6 comments:
Maybe. But he wouldn't be the one to ask about the subject. Horgan is a complete idiot and a science illiterate.
Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the “G” word.Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.
So wrong. Reincarnation and karma do not require theism. He is thinking about Buddhism from a Christian perspective. Additionally he is making a sweeping generalisation because while reincarnation if held by the more popular and well known schools of Buddhism is not held by all schools.
Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn’t so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness.
People should try meditation, yoga and tai chi. These don't work for everyone but some people derive considerable benefits.
The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation’s effects to be highly unreliable.
Meditation is potentially dangerous for people especially those prone to psychosis and anxiety. The many studies published on meditation in recent years have been riddled with methodological problems.
doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion. Varela contended that anatta has also been corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion foisted upon us by our clever brains.
Questionable. There is a sense neurologically one can at least posit
a self does exist.
Much more dubious is Buddhism’s claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate.
Meditation does not make you more compassionate, creative or insightful. I perceive meditation as a form of cognitive training. For those with sub-clinical ADD it may prove useful. Meditation can improve our arousal levels, generally by reducing it overall which is a good thing.
To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial.
That's a naive nonsense view of Buddhist metaphysics.
All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit.
I don't see how Buddhism asserts that, its emphasis on suffering contradicts the idea the universe was created for us. It is the Abrahamic religions which are narcissistic.
In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental.
I don't think science can answer those questions. There is something very exceptional about human beings that evolutionary theory has yet to answer.
I wondered about this bit: “ But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha’s first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality.”
That’s true, but in the conventional narrative Buddha goes on to try - and reject - the ascetic path too. He rejects everything including rejection! It’s like an ancient version of the dictum, “be moderate in all things, including moderation itself.” So maybe the world is okay after all.
Yes, Tim. Buddhism, or branches of it, are a bit too fond of paradox, if you ask me.
On another issue: I haven't yet Googled the topic "can you be a Buddhist and never meditate?" because meditation has always had little appeal to me.
You are pretty fond of paradox. You think you can come to a scientific conclusion without scientific evidence.
Yes, Tim. Buddhism, or branches of it, are a bit too fond of paradox, if you ask me.
That's just the Buddhist way of laughing at the contradictions in Christian theology.
Paradox is not confined to Buddhism, philosophers like to illustrate paradoxes.
Post a Comment