Support NeoGAF

[Raiden]

Dalai Lama for president yo

 

[Azih]

Religion should be one of (many) variables taken into account as we compile a broader ethical calculus, whose multivariate functions could help provide a workable bridge between the spiritual shortcomings of moral relativism and the inflexible, progress-stunting moral absolutism.

Or whatever, I just want to see more techs from SMAC realized in my lifetime.

Not Nerve Stapling Surely!

 

[RSP]

I've felt like this for a long time now, but it's a great way to put it in words.

Then again, the man does have a lot of time to think about this stuff.

 

[jadedm17]

I've thought this for years. This Dalai Lama guy sounds pretty smart.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I agree, but if a concept like institutionalised religion, something greater than the individual, cannot ensure the prevalence of morality, then what can?

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Damn the DL is dropping bombs.

 

[kehs]

Dalai Lama has always been a try hard when it comes to trying to pull people over to his non religion religion.

 

[Shiggie]

I have no idea what kind of religion buddhism is, but I like it.

Technically Buddhism isnt a religion.

 

[Bit-Bit]

Technically Buddhism isnt a religion.

Technically Buddhism is a religion. Albeit one without a god.

 

[astroturfing]

and people say atheist activism isn't worth it, that religous people can't be influenced... such a terrible lie!

Harris, Dawkins etc really need to keep writing more books. and more people should be encouraged to fight religious dogma despite ridicule or accusations of "intolerance", as it is obviously not a futile effort.

today the Dalai Lama, tomorrow hopefully the Pope.

 

[xbhaskarx]

It is really weird that the Dalai lama has a facebook account.

Why is it weird? I'm pretty sure he's also on Twitter.

and people say atheist activism isn't worth it, that religous people can't be influenced... such a terrible lie!

today the Dalai Lama, tomorrow hopefully the Pope.

What day of the week Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?
And who is going to go have the conversation with Ayman al-Zawahiri?

 

[Messypandas]

can't help but like the fella

 

[Zeroth]

Not going to complain about the Gaffer who posted this (since he copied the article's title), but the title is pretty misleading. The full quote is that grounding ethics into religion is not adequate, and not that religion itself is no longer adequate.

That said, I agree that we should move ethics away from religion, it's nice to see a religious leader thinking the same.

 

[CornBurrito]

How scientists usually approach morality: Throw out the fables and just accept that the messages are true out of sheer "goodness" without much good reason (so, anti-scientifically).

Are these scientists stating that they have evidence that something is moral, or are they simply stating their subjective beliefs and why they hold those beliefs?

 

[The Technomancer]

Of course not. If an atheist wants to believe in aether or an immaterial dream world, so be it, stricly speaking atheists simply don't believe in a god. Naturally this may depend on the definition of atheism and spirituality, the former commonly used these days as "not believing in anything supernatural", the latter commonly similar (or intertwined) with religion.

I don't think spirituality even has to transcend perceived reality. Also this really isn't specific to Easter religions, I'd say more that scientific intolerance is more focused in the west, and in the US especially. Let us not forget the Pope meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss the repercussions the Big Bang theory had for Christian belief.

 

[Az987]

How come the Dalai Lama is always Asian?

After all these reincarnations you'd think he'd want to try something different.

 

[BocoDragon]

and people say atheist activism isn't worth it, that religous people can't be influenced... such a terrible lie!

Harris, Dawkins etc really need to keep writing more books. and more people should be encouraged to fight religious dogma despite ridicule or accusations of "intolerance", as it is obviously not a futile effort.

today the Dalai Lama, tomorrow hopefully the Pope.

This says far more about the character of Buddhism than it does atheism's effect on religion.

Since ancient times, Buddhism has always been willing to rephrase its beliefs or downplay certain doctrines in order to reach new cultures or audiences. The whole practice is based upon dispelling mental fantasies... and that has lent itself to being critical of the form of the religion itself.

In the Mahayana branch of Buddhism, for example, we have seen it evolve into forms that endear itself to theists (with Bodhisattvas to pray to to aid in one's enlightenment, male figures and feminine figures, for those who are attracted to such superstition and need a personal touch)...

.....and we have seen it evolve into forms that endear it to essentially atheists: Zen (with ideas such as "If you see the Buddha, kill him." "Buddhism is just a raft to get to the other side.... and when you are done, throw away Buddhism", and "the secret to unlocking the truth of this sacred scripture is to literally rip it to pieces").

Not that I don't have hope for other religions to be influenced away from superstition, but the Dalai Lama throwing away the packaging of religion and suggesting ways that work better for the modern age is a very, very classically Buddhist response.

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

Not one for religions, but if I was, Buddhism would be my choice.

 

[The Technomancer]

This says far more about the character of Buddhism than it does atheism's effect on religion.

Buddhism is fascinating. I don't follow it because I don't feel like I need it, but its an incredibly interesting..."philosophy" to read about

 

[BocoDragon]

How come the Dalai Lama is always Asian?

After all these reincarnations you'd think he'd want to try something different.

The Dalai Lama is just the king of Tibet, so of course he's going to be Tibetan. The whole reincarnation angle is a farce, and I bet you the DL himself thinks so, but doesn't say it because the exiled government and people need him to carry on the lie. Former DLs were selected by the old Dynastic Chinese government for crying out loud! The DL has said that it may be time to "end" the Dalai Lama position, which is him setting the stage for no further successor, and that doesn't sound to me like someone who believes in its spiritual reality.

 

[noah111]

I love this guy. Just boss.

 

[Jintor]

How come the Dalai Lama is always Asian?

After all these reincarnations you'd think he'd want to try something different.

He likes to keep things local. Foreign countries are nice to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there

 

[Jacobi]

Dalai Lama has always been a try hard when it comes to trying to pull people over to his non religion religion.

I'd say that's the exact opposite of pulling people over

 

[Trent Strong]

The more interesting part of this article is Sam Harris's idea that there can be a science of morality and that moral questions can be scientific questions. I know most GAFers think that morality is completely subjective, but Sam Harris' book 'The Moral Landscape' makes a good case that it's not.

Buddhism isn't a religion, except it has religious followers.

Some sects of Buddhism are definitely religions. Like Pure Land Buddhism.

 

[Ken]

You are now aware that the DL has a Facebook

This is the most shocking thing about the thread.

 

[Herbspiceguy]

Spiritual leaders are no longer adequate.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Where's angry fork to tell us that this is the most evil thing ever.

 

[kehs]

This is the most shocking thing about the thread.

He also has a G+ account.


(It's where he goes to meditate)

 

[GungHo]

There are transcendent, undefinable things that move us deeply. They're all pretty subjective - what may move me, may not move you, etc., but they still exist.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

The Dalai Lama is just the king of Tibet, so of course he's going to be Tibetan. The whole reincarnation angle is a farce, and I bet you the DL himself thinks so, but doesn't say it because the exiled government and people need him to carry on the lie.

He is the hero Tibet deserves, not the one it needs right now etc.

Really respect this guy and feel the world would be a much better place if other religious leaders showed some awareness to what the world is today rather than at the time their bibles were written.

 

[BocoDragon]

The more interesting part of this article is Sam Harris's idea that there can be a science of morality and that moral questions can be scientific questions. I know most GAFers think that morality is completely subjective, but Sam Harris' book 'The Moral Landscape' makes a good case that it's not.

I find it ironic considering Harris' own views on the use of judicial torture. Did he consult science to determine that?

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I like Thomas A. Tweed's definition of religion from Crossing and Dwelling, according to it Buddhism would be considered a religion. Some people seem to think that religion is a bad word but I don't agree with that assessment, maybe if the definition somehow took dogmatism as an essential component, but frankly I don't see how that could be possible considering how diverse and non-static religions are.

"Religions are confluences of organic-cultural flows that intensify joy and confront suffering by drawing on human and suprahuman forces to make home and cross boundaries."

 

[Vaporak]

The more interesting part of this article is Sam Harris's idea that there can be a science of morality and that moral questions can be scientific questions. I know most GAFers think that morality is completely subjective, but Sam Harris' book 'The Moral Landscape' makes a good case that it's not.

That morality is either objection and religious in nature, or subject in nature, is a modernish western idea. It's become such a common thought in the western world because Ethics discourse was completely subsumed by Theology for such a long time. The idea that morality can be objective and not religious in nature is historically/globally speaking not too uncommon.

 

[~Kinggi~]

Too much logic, does not compute. All hail lord Buddha!

 

[Trent Strong]

I find it ironic considering Harris' own views on the use of judicial torture. Did he consult science to determine that?

I don't know what Harris' views on torture are, or what scientific studies have been done on the efficacy of torture in obtaining information (I can't imagine them doing a real scientific study on torture, like with control groups and whatnot, although I've heard there is plent of evidence that torture doesn't work), but even if Harris is completely wrong about torture, that doesn't mean his whole book about morality and science is wrong, or that all of his ideas are wrong. I'm sure Harris has his own irrational prejudices, just like everyone else.

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

People say anything on FB for attention. What's his Twitter? There youll find out how he really feels.

 

[FallingEdge]

People say anything on FB for attention. What's his Twitter? There youll find out how he really feels.

twitter.com/livinonaprayer

 

[BocoDragon]

I don't know what Harris' views on torture are, or what scientific studies have been done on the efficacy of torture in obtaining information (I can't imagine them doing a real scientific study on torture, like with control groups and whatnot, although I've heard there is plent of evidence that torture doesn't work), but even if Harris is completely wrong about torture, that doesn't mean his whole book about morality and science is wrong, or that all of his ideas are wrong. I'm sure Harris has his own irrational prejudices, just like everyone else.

Right, but that's the point. The very authority who argues that science can determine morality, possesses a subjective moral viewpoint that is uninformable by any science. Or perhaps acceptable torture is the scientific calculation that he comes to?

Needless to say, I find the idea that science can determine some objective morality unconvincing, and doubly so for someone with ideas that are arguable to say the least. Granted, I haven't read the book.

IMO, Ethnics can be determined through philosophy and dialogue amongst peoples. But it is art, not science.

 

[twobear]

The more interesting part of this article is Sam Harris's idea that there can be a science of morality and that moral questions can be scientific questions. I know most GAFers think that morality is completely subjective, but Sam Harris' book 'The Moral Landscape' makes a good case that it's not.

I've not read Harris' book, but my understanding is that he either does not confront the is/ought problem, or gives an unsatisfactory 'solution' to it. Anybody claiming that science can help with moral problems in a serious, rather than merely utilitarian, way needs to confront that problem first. I do need to read it, though.

 

[Devolution]

Morals and ethics don't really have to do with science (excluding whether certain kinds of experimentation is ethical, and such matters). Science has made abortions safer and easier to perform, for example, but it does not tell us whether abortions are bad or good. People still have to construct a code for themselves. Science can help mold said code but it does not provide the answers.

 

[BocoDragon]

Morals and ethics don't really have to do with science. Science has made abortions safe and easier to perform, for example, but it does not tell us whether abortions are bad or good. People still have to construct a code for themselves.

Exactly.

 

[nilbog21]

The Dalai Lama's advice sounds startling familiar — one that echos the sentiment put forth by outspoken atheist Sam Harris who argues that science can answer moral questions. The Dalai Lama is no stranger to scientific discourse, and has developed a great fascination with neuroscience in particular. It's very possible, therefore, that his thinking has aligned with Harris.

lol?

 

[Oersted]

Morals and ethics don't really have to do with science (excluding whether certain kinds of experimentation is ethical, and such matters). Science has made abortions safer and easier to perform, for example, but it does not tell us whether abortions are bad or good. People still have to construct a code for themselves. Science can help mold said code but it does not provide the answers.

and with religions comes the problem that people are convinced they should push their answer onto others, no matter what.

 

[nilbog21]

Morals and ethics don't really have to do with science (excluding whether certain kinds of experimentation is ethical, and such matters). Science has made abortions safer and easier to perform, for example, but it does not tell us whether abortions are bad or good. People still have to construct a code for themselves. Science can help mold said code but it does not provide the answers.

I think the word Science has completely gone out of control

 

[twobear]

and with religions comes the problem that they are convinced of pushing their answer onto others, no matter what.

But it's a total false dichotomy to suggest that the foundations for ethics are either in science or religion.

 

[pigeon]

The more interesting part of this article is Sam Harris's idea that there can be a science of morality and that moral questions can be scientific questions. I know most GAFers think that morality is completely subjective, but Sam Harris' book 'The Moral Landscape' makes a good case that it's not.

No, it really doesn't. It makes the same case Jeremy Bentham made two hundred years ago, which we all already agreed was just a combination of begged questions and repeated tautologies. It's a philosophical education for those who have no philosophical education and do not want one.

 

[Mudkips]

Some sects of Buddhism are definitely religions. Like Pure Land Buddhism.

Like I said - not a religion, has religious followers.
A sect is nothing but a group of people splintering off and doing things their own way.

 

[Trent Strong]

and with religions comes the problem that people are convinced they should push their answer onto others, no matter what.

Do you want murder, rape, child abuse, etc. to be illegal? If you do, then you want to force your morality or ethics on other people. Everybody wants to force their ethics on other people. If we didn't, the society couldn't exist.

Morals and ethics don't really have to do with science (excluding whether certain kinds of experimentation is ethical, and such matters). Science has made abortions safer and easier to perform, for example, but it does not tell us whether abortions are bad or good. People still have to construct a code for themselves. Science can help mold said code but it does not provide the answers.

The last thing we want is for people to construct their own code for themselves. Because people like Charles Manson will construct a code that involves killing innocent people, or fundamentalist Muslims will construct a code that involves making singing illegal or kiling gay people.

No, it really doesn't. It makes the same case Jeremy Bentham made two hundred years ago, which we all already agreed was just a combination of begged questions and repeated tautologies. It's a philosophical education for those who have no philosophical education and do not want one.

'The Moral Landscape' is not supposed to be a philosophical education. At all.

 

[Devolution]

The last thing we want is for people to construct their own code for themselves. Because people like Charles Manson will construct a code that involves killing innocent people, or fundamentalist Muslims will construct a code that involves making singing illegal or kiling gay people.

What are you even talking about. Everyone has a moral and ethical code that is unique. There are things we all agree on as a society that are bad but morals/ethics are merely informed by science not dictated by it, as well as personal opinions and experiences.

Does science tell you whether cheating on your SO is bad or good? Does science tell you whether you should buy the humane mouse trap? What is humane anyway? These are all philosophical dilemmas.

 

[Vaporak]

I'll put myself out there and say I disagree with everyone saying that science cannot in principle answer moral question. The way I see it, once you actually define what you mean by "immoral", then the sentence "X is immoral" is either well defined in an axiomatic system, or it references the material world, or it is nonsense. If it's the second, it can be tested scientifically, if it's the first it can be proved logically (with some exceptions in sufficiently complex axiomatic systems), and if it's the third then you didn't actually say anything at all. I'd be interested in any counter examples people can propose, but I submit that what you are thinking is a counter example will in fact turn out to be a complicated and deceptive version of the 3rd category and you didn't examine it very well. And before you respond with "well everyone has to come up with a definition of moral! That makes it subjective and therefore you are wrong" Please examine this argument in the same light "Well, you have to come up with a definition of blue! That makes whether your shirt is blue subjective and therefore you are wrong."