Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Gideon

That is absolutely and positively a load of bull.

It's the exact opposite. It gets called a philosophy when people take a good long look at it's Western expression or read some of its popularizers and don't know how it is actually practiced or lived.

Buddhism is a religion. T.hough it is distinctly an argument against "religion means belief in God.' It is a nontheistic religion, but it is absolutely a religion. It has gods, it has spirits, it has a supernatural existence. The Buddha may not have wanted that, but in its expression in Asia it absolutely is (and has been for over two thousand years). You mention the Dalai Lama... you have any idea how odd Tibetan Buddhist theology is? The Dalai Lama is great, but he is absolutely a religious figure.

My organization hosted a group of Tibetan monks a few months back (with the help of :gasp: a local Methodist church who let them practice in their sanctuary)... They are absolutely religious.

Westerners like to dress Buddhism up as "philosophy" and at some level it certainly is - Buddhist psychology is also very interesting - but it has a cosmology, superstitions, heavens and hells, demons, gods, afterlife, reincarnation.

I could sit here and say that Christians are actually very progressive, ethically charged people that support science and equal rights for all and don't promote destructive social ideologies and all that... and I'd be full of it. SOME religious Christians, the minority, are progressive and like that. Many are not. I may be talking about me and my friends, but I know better than to imagine the bulk of Christian history or experience is that.

And you're right... the Dalai Lama has said that one should not believe things that science has proved incorrectly (and something I absolutely believe as well). Science doesn't "disprove" religion. You can't prove the lack of something's existence. You can't prove an afterlife or God or anything else. Even if you explain, in excellent detail, theories regarding the origination or expression of religion you don't prove anything with these arguments. It is not at all hard to believe in that fact while staying religion

I happen to practice a very non-religious Buddhism myself along with my religious practice, and it is possible to do so, but don't think for a moment it isn't a religion as it is largely and most frequently expressed both now and historically.

But it does speak to the problems with defining "religion." It isn't particularly clear cut but it sure as hell doesn't entail the necessity of a theistic God. Hell, even coming out of a very Jewish/Christian background I don't go for a theistic God either. Neither do a lot of the clergy and theologians I know.

Ultimately, that's what I've tried to get at... these issues are not simple nor black and white. There is a reason scholars in the fields Dawkins discusses (that is not biology) do not take him or his arguments seriously. His good ones are not new and his new ones are not good. It's a more complicated and nuanced question than "Oh religion is evil because it makes people do bad things..." yada yada. Or "oh no.. kids grow up with religion!" Yeah, it sucks if that religion is terrible.. but all parents raise their children up with an ethos and it is quite capable of being terrible without religion and very often is. If you're going to address that than you're addressing a MUCH bigger question than just religion... you're talking about all people raising their children everywhere and who will decide that they should be raised with? You? Me?

Anyway, I'm done

Oh, my God, you've poked the bear!!!

[nekokami]

Wow, this was an interesting way to spend a snowy afternoon! (I don't have a Sony Reader, so I missed this thread for a while.

Unsurprisingly, I'll go with the previously stated opinion (nearly a consensus, I would say) that no intolerance or malice or other agenda was intended by Sony in the inclusion of Dawkins' book. I don't know whether it's a good book or not, because I haven't read it, though I've read other books by Dawkins and thought they were good. (They were books about biology, however, not books about philosophy.)

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

Most of the religious adverts I've seen on public transport are a lot more firm in their stance that there is a god (The Quakers are the most memorable exception to this); whereas the atheist advert, by using the word "probably" allows for some doubt.

Now I'm really curious (being a Quaker myself). What kinds of adverts are the Quakers in your area putting on public transport? All we have is a sign out next to the road in front of the Meetinghouse.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

However, Buddhism does not embrace (1) a deity, (2) heaven, (3) hell - except for that created by man on earth, and (4) attributes the same type of "soul" to all creatures, man and animals. None of these are concepts that you would find most parish priests teaching to their flock.

I guess I'd use the word "religion" differently than you, Ricky, because #4 would qualify Buddhism as a religion to me. The existence of the soul (human or otherwise) is something I take on faith. I wouldn't require a deity or deities. On the other hand, if you feel that you have fairly compelling evidence of the existence of souls, perhaps for you it's science. (I feel that I have evidence of a sort, but not of a scientific, reproducible kind.)

There is some interesting and lively debate about whether "science" needs to be entirely empirical or whether it's possible to be objective (or even whether there exists any reality outside of what we construct among ourselves). I'm not going there. The world is real enough for me.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I don't think I am causing any suffering except maybe to those reading the thread. Does buying stuff made in China count?

Well, maybe. And I don't want to drag politics into an already crowded thread, but I think if we're going to talk about a life of "doing no harm," we do need to consider the consequences or prerequisites of our lifestyles to some extent. Ricky's story about the fly is a good one-- we can't take responsibility for all the suffering in the world, or even all the suffering from which we benefit, directly or indirectly. But I think we can make the attempt to try to live a life that doesn't depend on others being miserable.

All that being said, employment conditions in China are quite a mixed bag. Living costs are lower there than here (for the present), and not everyone working in factories is being forced to work excessive hours in unsafe conditions. But the conditions I saw in factories when I was there (and these were workshops that foreigners were allowed to see) did make me rather uncomfortable.

[Gideon]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Oh, my God, you've poked the bear!!!

Yeah.... This is why I don't generally spend time on forums and chatrooms...

I like that old saying, getting into an argument online is like wrestling with a pig. In the end you're both covered in crap and the pig likes it.

I'm going to go back to my religious studies department and just pretend none of it ever happened. Me and my academic study of religion... what was I thinking!

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Gideon

That is absolutely and positively a load of bull.

Anyway, I'm done.

Sorry you feel that way. I disagree with you, and my experience of the difference between religion and philosophy has been (and I hope will continue to be) very different from yours.

Glad to know you are "done," however. I hope you really mean that, but somehow I rather doubt it.

Tibetan Buddhism may seem "odd" to you, but I happen to think it adheres very closely to the core Buddhist teachings.

You go right on thinking that Buddhism is a "religion" and I'll go right on thinking you are dead wrong. We will agree to disagree.

I hope you can live with that. I certainly can.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Gideon

Yeah.... This is why I don't generally spend time on forums and chatrooms...

I like that old saying, getting into an argument online is like wrestling with a pig. In the end you're both covered in crap and the pig likes it.

I'm going to go back to my religious studies department and just pretend none of it ever happened. Me and my academic study of religion... what was I thinking!

Oh, am I supposed to be the "pig" in that scenario?? And, here I was hoping you meant what you said about being "done" .... proved that not to be the case before I even had a chance to finish my post.

You and I have both done a lot of study about religion. I just don't happen to make my living at it as you do. Keep up with your studies ... work at it long enough and perhaps you will begin to understand the distinction between a philosophy and a religion.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Gideon

Yeah.... This is why I don't generally spend time on forums and chatrooms...

I like that old saying, getting into an argument online is like wrestling with a pig. In the end you're both covered in crap and the pig likes it.

I'm going to go back to my religious studies department and just pretend none of it ever happened. Me and my academic study of religion... what was I thinking!

I was trying to be humorous. RM and I go back a long way, and I would never seriously call her names, and I am sure you didn't mean your remark that way either.

The problem with the academic study of religion, or any other field, is that it rarely translates to real life.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I was trying to be humorous. RM and I go back a long way, and I would never seriously call her names, and I am sure you didn't mean your remark that way either.

The problem with the academic study of religion, or any other field, is that it rarely translates to real life.

It's OK, DG. I understand that you weren't trying to call me names. That was all Gideon.

The problem with the academic study of "religion" is that it apparently excludes the study of atheistic philosophy. It's more pomp than circumstance.

However, not all academics know what they are talking about .... I once had a religious studies professor sit there with a straight face and try to argue that the story of Apollo was the same as that of Jesus ... no, really ... apparently identical. Not just the idea of the sun's death and rebirth each day, but that Apollo and Jesus were the same figure in his view.

Academics .... where would we be without them. (One can only dream ....)

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Now I'm really curious (being a Quaker myself). What kinds of adverts are the Quakers in your area putting on public transport? All we have is a sign out next to the road in front of the Meetinghouse.

They rather surprised me, as all I've ever seen of them before is signs outside the meetinghouses in various places I've lived.

I think it was less overtly religious quotes from "Advices[sic] and Queries" - basically asking you to think about your behaviour and the effects it has on the world. There may have been ones that mentioned god, of course, and I just never saw them.

[Gideon]

Actually I wasn't trying to call anyone a name. It's a pretty common expression.

I was referring to the futility of these sorts of discussions online. I certainly didn't mean any sort of direct attack or insult. I can be pretty passionate in an argument, but I'm passionate and angry at ideas and such... I don't pass that on to people. I apologize if I was misunderstood.

But... I don't just study religion, either. I live it out, I live it out in my own life, communally and in organizations that work with religions and people affected by it. It's fine not to agree with anything I have to say but I'm absolutely not some academic hanging out in an ivory tower.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

However, not all academics know what they are talking about .... I once had a religious studies professor sit there with a straight face and try to argue that the story of Apollo was the same as that of Jesus ... no, really ... apparently identical. Not just the idea of the sun's death and rebirth each day, but that Apollo and Jesus were the same figure in his view.

Actually that is a rather old-fashioned view, which probably derives from Frazer. Sir James Frazer wrote "The Golden Bough" in which he argues that there is a common theme to all the western mythologies and he strongly imples that there is absolutely nothing new in Christianity except for the personality of Jesus. (He was careful not to say this explicitly because he preferred to avoid being harassed by Victorian fundamentalists.) Atonement, resurrection and suchlike can be found in the Mithras cult, in the Attis cult etc. Christianity, according to Frazer, was merely the most successful of the Mystery religions which proliferated in the middle east during the early Roman Empire.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Gideon

Actually I wasn't trying to call anyone a name. It's a pretty common expression.

I was referring to the futility of these sorts of discussions online. I certainly didn't mean any sort of direct attack or insult. I can be pretty passionate in an argument, but I'm passionate and angry at ideas and such... I don't pass that on to people. I apologize if I was misunderstood.

But... I don't just study religion, either. I live it out, I live it out in my own life, communally and in organizations that work with religions and people affected by it. It's fine not to agree with anything I have to say but I'm absolutely not some academic hanging out in an ivory tower.

You certainly come across that way. In spades. Sorry that you are "angry" at ideas. That must suck. Seems entirely futile to me to be angry at an idea, but then again ... it's elephants and turtles (really, it is .... I'm not saying that just to piss tompe off).

Oh, and with regard to the pig reference, you are forgiven, however, I reserve the right to tease you about making a pig reference at my expense for the rest of your days.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Actually that is a rather old-fashioned view, which probably derives from Frazer. Sir James Frazer wrote "The Golden Bough" in which he argues that there is a common theme to all the western mythologies and he strongly imples that there is absolutely nothing new in Christianity except for the personality of Jesus. (He was careful not to say this explicitly because he preferred to avoid being harassed by Victorian fundamentalists.) Atonement, resurrection and suchlike can be found in the Mithras cult, in the Attis cult etc. Christianity, according to Frazer, was merely the most successful of the Mystery religions which proliferated in the middle east during the early Roman Empire.

Absolutely, and that's my point really. A lot of academic views tend to follow the fashion of the day. Personally, I thought our religious studies prof was a complete loon, but I spat it all back to him on the test and then tried my best to forget that people like him exist. They do more harm than good in my view.

Now, a good debate, especially one where the parties are working with the same set of definitions (which Gideon and I clearly are not -- so there can't be much in the way of argument really), that's really interesting.

However, when the definitions differ, you might as well be speaking two entirely different languages for all of the effective communication that will result (close to none, actually).

And .... I really do need to walk the dogs, and I should be scrubbing the stupid floors (although, now that the new dishwasher will not be delivered until Saturday .... scrubbing floors is of a much lower priority).

Why couldn't I have KNOWN that Whirlpool, Maytag and Farking KitchenAid were all the same company?????

[Nate the great]

I ask this as a preventive measure. Please, would no one make a reference to manure when conversing with Ricky? Her head might explode.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

perhaps you will begin to understand the distinction between a philosophy and a religion.

Philosophy: the study of a subject for which we have no scientific method to create hypotheses, make experiments, or analyze results. May include some religions.

Religion: (1) A systematic method of attaining awareness of, and offering reverence to, that which is sacred.

(2) From Timothy Leary: A system to create a specific religious experience, or "the ecstatic, incontrovertibly certain, subjective discovery of answers to seven basic spiritual questions":

1. The ultimate Power question: What is the basic energy underlying the universe?
2. The Life Question: What is life? Where and how did it begin? How is it evolving?
3. The Human Being Question: Who is man? What is his structure and function?
4. The Awareness Question: How does man sense, experience, know?
5. The Ego Question: Who am I?
6. The Emotional Question: What should I feel about it (life)?
7. The Ultimate Escape Question: How do I get out of it?

Deities optional. Religion does not require a sentient being in charge. You could say it requires a "god" if you're willing to redefine "god" to mean "anything that's considered sacred." Which seems like a much bigger stretch than accepting non-theistic religions.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

For some reason, the context-sensitive advertising doobrie is showing an advert saying "Meet Asian Singles Now!" - I have no idea how a heated debate about religion and philosophy conjures up a dating service...