Review: Beyond Religion by The Dalai Lama

[cleanhippie]

I usually don’t recommend books written by religious leaders – but this is an exception: Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World by the Dalai Lama.

Perhaps the title is a give-away – the book acknowledges that religion cannot solve the problems of the modern world. We must go beyond religion.

Personally I find the author’s justification for this position rather weak. He argues that in today’s global world no one religion can speak for everyone. Hence we must go beyond – especially as religions themselves cannot provide a common ground. However, even in non-pluralist societies where specific religions had overwhelming dominance they were still incapable of offering real solutions to people’s problems. That is because of the epistemological problem inherent in religion - its inability to understand the real world.

So the Dalai Lama argues for a secular approach. Here I find his writing valuable. He dismisses the arguments of religious militants who see secularism as the enemy of religion. Who actually fight against secularism. The Dalai Lama presents the correct understanding of secularism as an inclusive social arrangement, and not an atheist ideology. Because it is inclusive it provides a guarantee of human rights to all, irrespective of religion and belief. It provides the only real platform enabling us to solve today’s problems.

The beauty of this book is the simplicity and clearness of the author’s language. There’s none of the theological mental gymnastics and pretzel twisting we have come to expect from religious leaders. I found myself, as an unrepentant atheist, nodding my head at his clear description of secularism. I am sure that we would disagree over specific minor details, but I would be happy to use this text as a description of, and argument for, secularism in today’s pluralist world. And I think that many religious people would too.

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012/03/15/review-beyond-religion/

I really think this part deserves repeating:

"The Dalai Lama presents the correct understanding of secularism as an inclusive social arrangement, and not an atheist ideology. Because it is inclusive it provides a guarantee of human rights to all, irrespective of religion and belief. It provides the only real platform enabling us to solve today’s problems."

My copy should arrive in the mail in a couple of days.

[Silent3]

1. Sounds interesting

It's hard to imagine, however, a book like this influencing religious conservatives, but perhaps it could help moderates and liberals of all kinds get along better with each other and with atheists, making it easier for them to understand that an atheist who fights for a secular society isn't trying to impose atheism on anyone.

[tama]

3. Secular society

is not, however, same as secular state. This is important distinction, as hierarchic religions and hierarchic states tend to engage in very similar behavior. A real pluralistic society would be at the core not under state rule, but with some pluralistic room also for hierarchic religion-states and state-religions, as long as they do not engage in imperialistic behaviour and try to assimilate everything non-pluralistically.

[cleanhippie]

5. You need to repost this part as an OP.

You nailed it. And THAT is where the common ground and dialogue need to take place, not where religion is "going".

[ZombieHorde]

2. Another militant atheist!!11

Just kidding.

[GliderGuider]

4. The Dalai Lama has a pretty clear view of things.

In contrast to his comments on secularism being an inclusive social arrangement, most religions are exclusive arrangements - they define the people of the world into two camps, the innies and the outies. Not that all followers do that, but I generally find that those who are the most inclusive tend to have the weakest affiliation to their religion. The stronger their doctrinal ties, the more they tend to exclude those from beyond the pale.

Even Buddhism isn't immune from this tendency. The deeper one gets into formal, doctrinal, lineage-oriented Buddhism, the more insular and exclusive it becomes. The basic teachings are excellent - even Sam Harris agrees with that. But then, I like the Gospel of Thomas for the same reason. The echoes of such core teachings are found in aboriginal traditions, Advaita and the mystical hearts of many other religions, as well as in the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and the implications of quantum mechanics (a la d'Espagnat, Bohm, Sarfatti etc.)

I think the message is about the harmful effects of dogma, doctrine, ideology, scripture and lineage - all the supportive trappings of unwarranted certainty. Every time we grasp after certainty we fall into the trap. It doesn't matter whether the certainty we crave is religious, social, political, scientific or anything else. As soon as we say, "This is how I believe it must be," we are lost.

[cleanhippie]

6. "I generally find that those who are the most inclusive..."

I generally find that those who are the most inclusive tend to have the weakest affiliation to their religion. The stronger their doctrinal ties, the more they tend to exclude those from beyond the pale.

Exactly. Well said.

[skepticscott]

7. When people seem not to understand skepticism

of which atheism is merely one facet, I tell them it is the position that the strength of one's convictions should be based on the strength of the evidence supporting those convictions. The Dalai Lama seems to have a good grasp of that, but I've never been able to get any of the skeptic/atheist bashers here to tell me what part of that they have a problem with.

[GliderGuider]

8. Knowledge and belief

I think of one's convictions on any particular subject as a water glass. In this metaphor the size of the glass represents "100% convinced", water represents knowledge and air represents belief. If you only have a bit of water in your glass, (i.e. you only know a bit about the subject) but you want to feel "100% convinced", you need to top the glass off with air (belief). The more knowledge you have, the less belief you need. The less knowledge, the more belief.

Since we can never know everything about anything, some belief is always required in order to become 100% convinced about anything. The only way out is to accept uncertainty - to become comfortable with however much knowledge you have at the moment and be able to say, "I don't know more than that." If you want to go all the way, you could add, "and I'm not 100% convinced even about the stuff I think I know."

To me this seems like the only intellectually honest position, but it's not nearly as emotionally satisfying as telling people they're full of shit because their beliefs are different from yours.

[skepticscott]

9. Well, see my tag line

That sums it up pretty well.

And if you can point to people here telling others that their beliefs are full of shit simply because they're different, as opposed to because their beliefs have no support and are in direct contradiction to mountains of evidence, please do so. Love to see. For myself, I don't tend to "believe" things. I like to be convinced of things.

[GliderGuider]

10. Thanks, I missed that before!

I'm even skeptical of that feeling of being convinced. It usually tells me that a belief crept in the back door.

One more edit: IMO "beliefs" don't have supporting evidence. Or if they do, it's incidental. Beliefs are there to tell us what to think when our knowledge is incomplete. So any attack on someone's belief, whether it's me attacking someone for scientism or them attacking me for being a squishy QM Bohm-head is an attack that has precious little to do with evidence on either side. It has a lot more to do with our egoic need to feel right (and I'm 100% convinced of that ).

[skepticscott]

15. Being convinced is always a matter of degree

and never certainty, and is always provisional in any case. Science and empirical inquiry are not about proving anything, but about finding the best and most likely explanations and descriptions for things.

As far as belief, why would you take things on faith unless you had no other choice? Why substitute pure faith for lack of knowledge, instead of just waiting for knowledge?

[GliderGuider]

16. Is there a difference between trust and faith?

Modern science tells us that fundamental reality is nothing like what we perceive on a mundane level - indeed it's nothing like we can even imagine. Since most of us can't perform those experiments or do the math, we have to trust that those we believe are in some way correct. In other words, we have to "trust" that the scientists are competent and truthful. Before science we had "faith" that religious leaders were competent and truthful. What exactly is the difference between having trust in a scientist and faith in a shaman? Is the difference in the man, the endeavour or the times?

Look at the progression of world-views humanity has moved through. We've gone from a world sitting on the back of a turtle, through various mysteries explained in terms of whatever god or gods were fashionable at the moment, though pure mechanistic explanations a la Democritus and Descartes, to current views of QM in which a number of heavy hitting physicists claim that the universe is indistinguishable from human consciousness, and may even be a product of it.

Given that range of theories, especially the radical divergence between traditional mechanistic explanations and the interpretations/implications of recent QM, how can we possibly say that our understanding of the universe - at anything but a superficial level - is founded on anything but faith? Yes, we have experiments, but when so much of current experimentation ends up down in the weeds where the universe looks like it's made either of a single electron, pure consciousness or nothing but geometry, on what grounds can we say "this is real, that is fantasy, this is knowledge, that is faith"?

My problem with most god-based world-views is not that they are any more irrational than scientific systems. Most human interpretations of the world and its behaviour (including most lay interpretations of science) are irrational, after all. My objection is that they are crude and un-nuanced. As a result, the worlds they generate are less fun to live in - less complex, less mysterious, less surprising, less full of awe and wonder. They tend to be two-dimensional, drained of colour and passion.

I'm always looking to make my world more interesting to live in. So if I recognize all "Truth" as being provisional, I see no problem with weaving together truths from a variety of streams to achieve my goal. Rather than waiting for knowledge I take whatever is available to paint my impression of reality. If a new piece of information comes into view I tend to try it out. If it makes my inner painting more interesting, passionate, compassionate, harmonious and useful, I keep it. If not I take it back out. All the while reminding myself that none of it represents "Truth" in any exclusive sense.

Perhaps I find more value in beauty than truth. Since neither is absolute, I paint with the colours that please me, no matter what paint-box they come from. Saying, "I will not permit myself to paint my world with that colour because I have not been told by a scientist that it contains enough Truth," seems arbitrary, restrictive and impoverishing.

[skepticscott]

17. Uh, yes..a huge difference..

Science has a long and proven track record of providing a quite accurate (though never perfect) understanding of how the physical world works. Look around you and ask yourself how many things would not be there (including the carpet on the floor, the paint on the walls, the clothes you're wearing, the computer you're typing on, and the internet you're typing through, to name just a few). Now count up the number of things that wouldn't be there if not for religion. That's why we trust science (again, provisionally), and don't have to rely on blind faith that what science tells us is relatively accurate (and useful) when measured against the real world.

Now be honest..is what I just wrote really a completely new concept to you? Had you never thought about it or had it explained to you before, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

And you might try reading some articles on the relativity of wrong for understanding of the rest.

[GliderGuider]

18. Nope, not being obtuse.

I'm playing with more extended notions of reality, that's all.

For at least the last 20,000 years humanity has tried to generate an accurate understanding of how the physical world works. We did the best we could with the tools and knowledge at hand. The development of the scientific method has greatly accelerated that process.

That acceleration has not come without costs, however. From the physical point of view science has enabled us to severely damage the natural world. From the emotional and psychological point of view the acceptance of science as the singular arbiter of value has restricted the horizon of respectable inquiry by declaring all investigation beyond its boundaries as having no value.

You may object to such a broad characterization. If so, good for you. We do, after all, still have our philosophers, our mystics, our depth psychologists, our artists and poets. Not everyone subscribes solely to scientism and its increasingly dubious assumptions of physicality, objectivity and separation, even though we can all agree that the scientific method itself is one of humanity's great achievements so far. However, many of us have found that there is as much of deep personal value to be found off the reservation of science as within its fences. That's what I'm exploring here.

I have no problem at all with you holding your views. I'd invite you to ask yourself why it's so vital that I submit to them as well?

[skepticscott]

19. I can only assume

that your resort to pointing out the obvious fact that scientific knowledge can be misused or go wrong means you have no real answer to what I posted. It's irrelevant to the issue of how accurate the discoveries of science are, and doesn't serve to elevate religion as something to be "trusted" more in any event.

And where you got the idea that science is regarded as "the singular arbiter of value" is another mystery. I can only assume that it's another manifestation of the straw man of "scientism", which neither you nor anyone else who has tried to bring it up here can cite any actual examples of, from groups or individuals.

I also wonder why you assume that I care at all (let alone think that it's "vital&quot that you "submit" to my views. Do you flatter yourself so much that you think my responses are intended solely, or even primarily, to convince you personally of anything?

[GliderGuider]

20. Well, you keep objecting. While you may not be trying to convince me personally

it does seem as though you find approaches like mine (and tama's if I might be so bold) to be error-ridden, and therefore to be corrected. Correcting an idea may require correcting the person who holds it.

I'm certainly not looking to elevate religion "above" science in any sense. If anything I'm trying to point out that the assumptions about intrinsic reality that lie at the roots of science are just as much assumptions as those that lie at the roots of most religions. I'm also pointing out that QM has changed the assumptions about fundamental reality rather drastically since the days of Newton and Descartes. The implication of this for me is that we have no way of knowing what reality is yet, and perhaps never will. That thought makes me quite happy, as it opens so much territory for exploration.

Science has given us massive technological capability and has improved the lives of billions of people - as well as enabling the birth of billions upon billions of people. I'm a big fan of balance, though - one of my favorite sayings is "There are no one-sided coins." So in our glorification of the gifts science has given us, it behooves us to remember the other side of the coin - the damage it has caused in the process. Humility is considered a virtue for a very good reason.

Regarding scientism (a word used even by real scientists like Bernard d'Espagnat), I have a couple of questions for you. In your opinion is there anything in the universe beyond the physical? Does empirical science constitute the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning? What is the value of exploring the non-physical relative to the value of exploring the physical universe?

My own answers are implicit in my posts so far. I think there is probably a lot in the universe beyond the physical, since the physical universe is only the part of reality that we can perceive through our senses, and our senses cannot give us an accurate representation of fundamental reality. Empirical science is the most useful toolset we have yet found for exploring the physical aspects of the universe. When it comes to exploring non-physical aspects of reality, I think that the scientific method may not be (probably isn't) the best toolkit to use. The relative values of exploring the physical vs. the non-physical can only be determined when one answers the question, "Value in what sense, and for what outcome?" In some domains science is king, in others logic and synthesis may be more appropriate. I prefer to combine the two approaches, applying each within the realms they serve best.

[skepticscott]

22. Another conspicuous failure

to supply any actual examples of people or organizations that adhere to the position you characterize as "scientism". Mentioning one "real scientist" (is that supposed to impress me?) who uses the word doesn't even come close.

You claimed above that "From the emotional and psychological point of view the acceptance of science as the singular arbiter of value has restricted the horizon of respectable inquiry by declaring all investigation beyond its boundaries as having no value." Again, can you provide ANY examples of people or scientific organizations that say they regard science as "the singular arbiter of value", or who have declared that any inquiry outside of science has "no value"? Unless you can, I have to regard most of what you've posted as just the flinging of straw men in an attempt to smear science by making it seem closed-minded (as opposed to being properly mindful of its inherent limitations), couched in reams of philosobabble.

[GliderGuider]

23. Well, I rather suspect you're an adherent of that view.

That's why I posed the questions I did in the post that you non-replied to. Care to take a shot at answering them?

[skepticscott]

25. Another conspicuous failure

And an even more conspicuous attempt at deflection. "I rather suspect"? That's the best you have? And I'm your only possible adherent? Please.

You launched your argument here based on the notion that a position or worldview you call "scientism" actually exists, rather than simply being alleged by you as a way to take science or scientists down a peg (out of envy or frustration, I can only imagine). So show us, and then we'll move on to your secondary questions.

Provide examples of people or scientific organizations that say they regard science as "the singular arbiter of value", or who have declared that any inquiry outside of science has "no value"? If you can't, then just be honest, admit you pulled those claims out of your ass, and stop wasting my time.

[GliderGuider]

27. You may start here.

Martin Ryder of the University of Colorado writes the following:

Scientism

Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological. Drawing from the general empiricism of The Enlightenment, scientism is most closely associated with the positivism of August Comte (1798-1857) who held an extreme view of empiricism, insisting that true knowledge of the world arises only from perceptual experience. Comte criticized ungrounded speculations about phenomena that cannot be directly encountered by proper observation, analysis and experiment. Such a doctrinaire stance associated with science leads to an abuse of reason that transforms a rational philosophy of science into an irrational dogma (Hayek, 1952). It is this ideological dimension that we associate with the term scientism. Today the term is used with pejorative intent to dismiss substantive arguments that appeal to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply. This over commitment to science can be seen in epistemological distortions and abuse of public policy.

Epistemological scientism lays claim to an exclusive approach to knowledge. Human inquiry is reduced to matters of material reality. We can know only those things that are ascertained by experimentation through application of the scientific method. And since the method is emphasized with such great importance, the scientistic tendency is to privilege the expertise of a scientific elite who can properly implement the method. But science philosopher Susan Haack (2003) contends that the so-called scientific method is largely a myth propped up by scientistic culture. There is no single method of scientific inquiry. Instead, Haack explains that scientific inquiry is contiguous with everyday empirical inquiry (p. 94). Everyday knowledge is supplemented by evolving aids that emerge throughout the process of honest inquiry. These include the cognitive tools of analogy and metaphor that help to frame the object of inquiry into familiar terms. They include mathematical models that enable the possibility of prediction and simulation. Such aids include crude, impromptu instruments that develop increasing sophistication with each iteration of a problem-solving activity. And everyday aids include social and institutional helps that extend to lay practitioners the distributed knowledge of the larger community. According to Haack, these everyday modes of inquiry open the scientific process to ordinary people and they demystify the epistemological claims of the scientistic gate keepers. (p. 98)

The abuse of scientism is most pronounced when it finds its way into public policy. A scientistic culture privileges scientific knowledge over all other ways of knowing. It uses jargon, technical language, and technical evidence in public debate as a means to exclude the laity from participation in policy formation. Despite such obvious transgressions of democracy, common citizens yield to the dictates of scientism without a fight. The norms of science abound in popular culture and the naturalized authority of scientific reasoning can lead unchecked to a malignancy of cultural norms. The most notorious example of this was seen in Nazi Germany where a noxious combination of scientism and utopianism led to the eugenics excesses of the Third Reich (Arendt, 1951). Policy can be informed by science, and the best policies take into account the best available scientific reasoning. Law makers are prudent to keep an ear open to science while resisting the rhetoric of the science industry in formulating policy. It is the role of science to serve the primary interests of the polity. But government in a free society is not obliged to serve the interests of science. Jurgen Habermas (1978, Ch 3) warns that positivism and scientism move in where the discourse of science lacks self-reflection and where the spokesmen of science exempt themselves from public scrutiny.

References

1. Arendt, Hannah, (1951/1973). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace
   
2. Haack, Susan, (2003). Defending Science Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books
   
3. Habermas, Jurgen, (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press (Ch. 3, "The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as a Social Theory&quot
   
4. Hayek, Friedrich A., (1952). The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason, Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press.

The following is from a review of Haack's book on Amazon:

Haack is one of the few brave souls willing to take the middle position in the science wars (which, by the way, no one is really fighting anymore). Her middle position concedes to the scientists that facts are facts, not constructions, that the scientific process is, when used properly, as objective a method as one can get, and that science has achieved overwhelming success in discovering true things rather than simply inventing or constructing them. To the skeptics - the relativists, postmodernists, etc. - she concedes that science can too easily be led by background assumptions that are not objective, that there is no 'one thing' that is the scientific method, and that science is a much messier and stranger affair than many scientists want to admit, leaving much room for misstep. These essays explore these concessions as they apply to natural and social sciences. What do we mean when we say 'the scientific method' (remembering that Haack is skeptical that there is 'one')? Why have the social sciences been less successful than the natural and are they still sciences (to the latter question she answers 'yes')? Are religion and science actually compatible (though she is not as extreme as, say, Dawkins, she answers a loud 'no')?

I occupy much the same philosophical ground that she does.

Now perhaps we might move on to my previous questions, which are really an invitation to apply your skepticism to your own position.

[skepticscott]

28. Long-winded, cut-and-paste non-answer

Is this really what you came up with? Citing more people who have the same undemonstrated notion as you is not evidence of anything, and not even remotely an answer to what I posed.

Your so-called "sources" spout more of the same bullshit strawmen in trying to characterize "scientism":

"We can know only those things that are ascertained by experimentation through application of the scientific method"

Fine, can you show a single real live person (let alone a group) who makes that claim or adheres to that view? No.

Can you provide examples of people or scientific organizations that say they regard science as "the singular arbiter of value", as you claimed? No.

Or who have declared that any inquiry outside of science has "no value" No.

Can you quote any scientist or scientific organization declaring that science can solve all problems and answer all questions? No.

Or any scientist that recognizes nothing outside of the physical? No. EVERY scientist recognizes and uses concepts that do not and cannot have any physical existence. Perfect circles, frictionless surfaces and monochromatic light exist as useful concepts while being completely non-physical and non-material. Is wondering whether scientists recognize anything that is not physical or material even a serious question?

Since you are clearly unable or unwilling to defend your claims honestly or to answer direct questions, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, we're done here. Crash. Burn. Fail.

[GliderGuider]

29. Here are a few examples of scientism.

Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 10:37 PM - Edit history (2)

Associated with your questions, for easy reference.

"We can know only those things that are ascertained by experimentation through application of the scientific method"

Fine, can you show a single real live person (let alone a group) who makes that claim or adheres to that view?

Bertrand Russell: “Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.”

Can you provide examples of people or scientific organizations that say they regard science as "the singular arbiter of value", as you claimed?

Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson: “All tangible phenomena, from the birth of the stars to the workings of social institutions, are based on material processes that are ultimately reducible, however long and torturous the sequences, to the laws of physics.”

Or who have declared that any inquiry outside of science has "no value"?

The late Carl Sagan: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”

Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin: "The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of. . . . Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth." What the public needs to learn is that, like it or not, "We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of material relations among material entities."

Can you quote any scientist or scientific organization declaring that science can solve all problems and answer all questions?

Chemist and science writer Peter Atkins: “There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence.”

Or any scientist that recognizes nothing outside of the physical?

Lewontin again: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Now will you answer my questions?

You're sure this isn't personal, right?

[ellisonz]

12. +1000

[tama]

13. Skepticism and empiricism

All empirical evidence is in the end sensual, also when senses are technically extended, and it is long tradition of skeptical philosophies to doubt also sensual data and impressions - as well as the validity of repetition.

That's the criticism on most general level, on more pragmatic level the amount of various evidence is so huge that we cannot help omitting much of it by simple ignorance, and then other much of it get's willingly and/or subconsciously ignored and denied by our emotionally laden prejudices and expectations.

Thirdly, even when presuming that all of evidence is accepted and it's same, the deductions and conclusions based on empirical equivalence can and do vary hugely depending on from which philosophical, metaphysical, culturally and linguistically conditioned etc. premisses the empirical data is approached from.

[skepticscott]

14. Skeptical, rational inquiry

does not trust the sense impressions or conclusions of any one person as the final word on anything, because it is aware of the many biases and self-delusions that human beings are subject to. It is a collective enterprise, counting on that to smooth out the effects of individual bias. Criticism #1 crashes and burns. As does #2 for similar reasons.

As far as #3, does gravity work differently on Chinese missiles than on American or Russian ones? Is quantum mechanics different in Egypt than in Japan? Does an iPhone used in Mozambique run on completely different physical laws than one in Sweden, because of those "culturally and linguistically conditioned etc. premisses the empirical data is approached from"?

Seems you're 0 for 3. Care to try again?

[tama]

21. OK

1) - so no doubs against "safety in numbers"? If one person is delusional or 100 billion are collectively delusional in group-thinking, what's the real difference?

3) don't really know. Multiverse-theories with pocket universes may have e.g. inverse cube instead of inverse square gravity, etc, and it can be all collective delusion. But that does not address the question which was about different premisses and axioms WITH empirical equivalence.

***

Another question. There is claim 'scott is skeptic'. How can that claim be proven with empirical methodology and beyond reasonable doubt?

Is there a technological skeptometer that can objectively and physically measure the level of scott's skepticism and quantify it between 0-100%?

[Boojatta]

24. deleted by Boojatta

I created a new thread for what was here.

[Starboard Tack]

11. +100 Excellent post. nt