Is Buddhism a Failure?

[Michael]

I have often said that I will make a judgment call. I am not without prejudice. My moral code is as subjective as any.

I don't think racism is acceptable.

I can try and make a logical argument that race is not real, but, in the end what really matters is for me, that I think it is wrong. People wearing Klan hoods should feel ashamed for doing so.

They are a They in that regards.

But, they are also Citizens too As in We the People


While at this point in history monotheism is tolerated, at some point enough people will realize it isn't acceptable any more than racism is acceptable. Just like a racist hiding behind "What's wrong with being proud of our culture" don't be fooled into thinking monotheism are any less racist-like. Oh, they don't want to come out into the light, they hide. Like any bigot they don't feel fully comfortable admitting to their racism in public, better done in a Church or a Mosque.

Which is interesting isn't it?

It means We are winning the battle ... peacefully


Oh, and lastly, I did mention that superstition is probably a good thing in society. I just think that if we accept superstitious ideas we need to make sure they are socially acceptable ideas - which Buddhism seems to offer.

Anyway, monotheism like Christianity is being changed to be more tolerant. They are beginning to preach that theirs is only one of many equally as valid paths to heaven. A step in the right direction. It's the reason why we use the word fundamentalism negatively now, whereas before it would be a good label. You know?

 

[Michael]

It's almost as if the ideas in Buddhism are percolating up in modern liberal Christianity? Could that be true?!?!?

 

[nirakar]

It's almost as if the ideas in Buddhism are percolating up in modern liberal Christianity? Could that be true?!?!?

Sure it could be true. Has Christianity ever stood still? Hasn't Christianity been in constant change from day one? This is a small world now and Hybridization of religions would seem to be a normal outcome of all the cross cultural mixing.

Pagan was a Greek word meaning rural country folk. Greek country people rejected this strange Grekofied Middle Eastern religion that gave birth to Christianity and clung to their old Greek religion for a few centuries. The people in the cities have more exposure to the world and more hybridized ideas and a faster pace of change.

Christianity will change fastest in the cities or Christianity will die out fastest in the cities.

 

[cosmictraveler]

People themselves are the real "failures", but only unto themselves.

 

[wise acre]

I have often said that I will make a judgment call. I am not without prejudice. My moral code is as subjective as any.

I don't think racism is acceptable.

You're still missing the point and oddly keep saying 'racism' when it is really another issue.

Are you contributing to the dehumanization of a group in the name of criticising the dehumanisation of groups?

Again: I see a number of recent wars that killed 100s of thousands have painted these same groups, also, as irrational and 'racist' in the odd way you are using this term.

While at this point in history monotheism is tolerated, at some point enough people will realize it isn't acceptable any more than racism is acceptable. Just like a racist hiding behind "What's wrong with being proud of our culture" don't be fooled into thinking monotheism are any less racist-like. Oh, they don't want to come out into the light, they hide. Like any bigot they don't feel fully comfortable admitting to their racism in public, better done in a Church or a Mosque.

Which is interesting isn't it?

It means We are winning the battle ... peacefully

Not on this planet. I mean in terms of 'peacefully'. The non-religious seem just as gun happy, just as demonizing, just as violent. Look at the Neo cons.

 

[wise acre]

It's almost as if the ideas in Buddhism are percolating up in modern liberal Christianity? Could that be true?!?!?

So, in other words, religions change, like science does. (not 'like' as in with the same mechanisms)

 

[Michael]

Are you contributing to the dehumanization of a group in the name of criticising the dehumanisation of groups?

OK, I'll be clear here.

I'm discrediting an intolerant ideology not a particular people. It's no different than criticizing racism. The implication is that a racist is a bigot, not inhuman.

Having been on this site for along time, I have in many times said that the way to go about this is through education.

Beginning in grade K through to grade 12. There's really no sense making laws or banning ideas or anything like this. What we need to do is teach children that's it's not nice to think of others as inferior heretics that needs a good burning to make baby Jesus happy. Seriously, we do need to start by teaching children about all the other beliefs. Preferably out of the mouths of children. "Hi my name is Jenny, I'm a Wicca. Hello, my name is Toshi, I'm a polytheist Shinto". "My name is SAM, I recently converted to Scientology.... " etc...

Then as children mature we present data on the archeological bases for various religions. How the Bible is based on earlier myths, etc...

All along the way children are taught ideas about rationalism.

Highschool students will finally hear debates. They know at this point it's wrong to condemn a person to hell-fire for eternity and most likely most will not believe in that sort of myth.

With this new complex view of belief and ideology a more mature and tolerant religion will emerge - somewhat based on ideas inherently tolerant in Buddhism, but maybe not Buddhism per say. Better.

No one is dehumanized.

 

[wise acre]

OK, I'll be clear here.

I'm discrediting an intolerant ideology not a particular people. It's no different than criticizing racism. The implication is that a racist is a bigot, not inhuman.

Having been on this site for along time, I have in many times said that the way to go about this is through education.

Beginning in grade K through to grade 12. There's really no sense making laws or banning ideas or anything like this. What we need to do is teach children that's it's not nice to think of others as inferior heretics that needs a good burning to make baby Jesus happy. Seriously, we do need to start by teaching children about all the other beliefs. Preferably out of the mouths of children. "Hi my name is Jenny, I'm a Wicca. Hello, my name is Toshi, I'm a polytheist Shinto". "My name is SAM, I recently converted to Scientology.... " etc...

Then as children mature we present data on the archeological bases for various religions. How the Bible is based on earlier myths, etc...

All along the way children are taught ideas about rationalism.

Highschool students will finally hear debates. They know at this point it's wrong to condemn a person to hell-fire for eternity and most likely most will not believe in that sort of myth.

With this new complex view of belief and ideology a more mature and tolerant religion will emerge - somewhat based on ideas inherently tolerant in Buddhism, but maybe not Buddhism per say. Better.

No one is dehumanized.

I'd feel more supportive of the idea if you listed non-religious ideas as mythological and bigoted.

And again. I don't find Buddhism tolerant. Some Western Buddhists are and some Eastern Buddists are, though the feel is different. But overall, I can't say I find Buddhism tolerant.

It can seem this way if causes are looked at in Newtonian terms. Elastic and inelastic collisions and the like.

But that is only a part of the world I live in.

 

[Michael]

I'd feel more supportive of the idea if you listed non-religious ideas as mythological and bigoted.

If the ideas are mythological and bigoted (racism per say). I think we can make a good argument for why race doesn't exist.

Also, I'm more than happy to teach children that we can not know if there are Gods or not. and that words like theist and atheist should all be prefaced with agnostic (qualifier? adjective?)

Why? What are you referring to?

And again. I don't find Buddhism tolerant. Some Western Buddhists are and some Eastern Buddists are, though the feel is different. But overall, I can't say I find Buddhism tolerant..

well that's why I said "better".

But, the world we live in is one filled with monotheists (in the west) and so the transition will be made from that being a starting place anyway.

Hell, in a few more decades we'll have figured out how to prevent death by aging and at that point who knows what the hell will happen (although death and heave and hell may not be as important).

It can seem this way if causes are looked at in Newtonian terms. Elastic and inelastic collisions and the like.

But that is only a part of the world I live in.

I don't understand?

 

[wise acre]

If the ideas are mythological and bigoted (racism per say). I think we can make a good argument for why race doesn't exist.

Also, I'm more than happy to teach children that we can not know if there are Gods or not. and that words like theist and atheist should all be prefaced with agnostic (qualifier? adjective?)

Why? What are you referring to?

Communism, free market or neo con capitalism, folk psychology, common sense, consumerism......etc.

You cannot know what people can know. You can only state what you know and what you would need to accept something as knowledge for you.

The moment you go in the classroom with kids with the ideas you are presenting above, you are indoctrinating.

well that's why I said "better".

yeah, but it's not.

Hell, in a few more decades we'll have figured out how to prevent death by aging and at that point who knows what the hell will happen (although death and heave and hell may not be as important).

Sounds like revelations. In a few decades they may have removed what is human in us in the name of improvements and it'll only be the irrational religious who make an organized defense of homo sapians.

I don't understand?

There are animals that use quantum non-local sensing as part of the way they experience the world. Hell, there are plant microorganisms that can use quantum effects to help themselves. We have just gotten the technological knowhow to find these things.

You really think our brains, which are a billion times more complicated than those microorganisms and orders of magnitude more complicated than the bird brains that use quantum based homing systems
are devoid of this kind of experiencing of the world?

I truly doubt that.

 

[Michael]

What is the difference between "indoctrinating" and "teaching"?
You seem to suggest it's wrong? But is it wrong to teach that racism is wrong?

sure there is no common sense, but so what? I still do not think it's good for society to teach racism. IMO. Which I said is just that. My personal moral code. As we live in society, it is within my rights to express this as a meme and infect other peoples

I really don't know about the quantum based homing systems. I haven't read anything on the topic. But it sounds interesting.

 

[wise acre]

What is the difference between "indoctrinating" and "teaching"?

I'd be interested to know your answer. I would say it is when one presents philosophy as knowledge.

You seem to suggest it's wrong? But is it wrong to teach that racism is wrong?

Could be. But you had more ideas than that racism is wrong. And by the way, there is no way to empirically prove any ethical idea.

sure there is no common sense, but so what? I still do not think it's good for society to teach racism. IMO. Which I said is just that. My personal moral code. As we live in society, it is within my rights to express this as a meme and infect other peoples

That metaphor in the context of teaching children sounds a lot like indoctrination.

As an aside: the trick is to respond to racism, not to teach them that racism is wrong. Kids have to be taught racism makes sense. Adding another layer doesn't help in the long run.

I really don't know about the quantum based homing systems. I haven't read anything on the topic. But it sounds interesting.

http://arxivblog.com/?p=370

and look at this....

http://arxivblog.com/?p=1230

 

[nirakar]

What is the difference between "indoctrinating" and "teaching"?

It is "indoctrinating" if you don't like the message and the messenger and it is "teaching" if you like the message and the messenger.

 

[wise acre]

It is "indoctrinating" if you don't like the message and the messenger and it is "teaching" if you like the message and the messenger.

I agree with this to some degree, but one can foster an environment where children gain knowledge
or
you can see your role as inserting FACTS in childrens' heads.

The latter approach is indoctrination and I personally don't care if I agree with the FACTS or not. I'd pull my kid away from such a teacher.

And the sad thing is most teachers I ever encountered had the latter pedagogy. Some were nicer and more creative about it, but in the end this was the ruling approach. And fill in tests with regurgitation as the skill contributes and reinforces this approach.

It you stick things in kid's brains you really can't complain if other people do.

in⋅doc⋅tri⋅nate
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

Funny how nice the last one sounds.
The first is how I would use the word. Most people do not think they have an ideology. They think they are realistic. So most people do not think their views are biased. A world filled with objective people.

 

[Tyler]

And by the way, there is no way to empirically prove any ethical idea.

False. And I'm quite tired of hearing this nonsense. Though I'm 100% a relativist. An ethical idea can be 'empirically proven' in the sense that one could prove "if x is chosen as a principle, then y is forbidden/neutral/required." What I've given is only the most simple of possible examples. You can dive into three-valued logic textbooks if you want to see the extent to which this can be taken. As a relativist I maintain that there is no "empirical" reason any one set of principles is greater than any other. That is, there is no external justification that cannot be shot down with a simple "why?" That said, usually human beings are capable of finding at least some common ground in terms of principles - otherwise we wouldn't have societies - and from there we can work out more details.

Ethical propositions can be proven. Ground-level principles cannot.

What is the difference between "indoctrinating" and "teaching"?

Teaching - in general - is presenting all relevant information, creating an environment suitable to learning and allowing and encouraging them to form understandings. Indoctrinating is forcing one specific understanding on students and ignoring any and all information that does not directly support that one specific understanding.

Indoctrinating is not always a negative thing. I teach English. My job is not to present students with all the many sounds of the English language and then let them make up words, grammar and such as they see fit. My job - what my employer and my students want - is for me to give them an extremely proper and specific understanding of the language. That said, there is also room for more experimental and "free" teaching within that structure. I encourage my students to take works of English art and interpret them as they see fit. Likewise, I push my students to create original and inventive turns of phrases or ways of explaining ideas as opposed to simply rehashing old, well-known ways of speaking. This, mind you, is only possible once a student has reached a certain level. Moreover, it is extremely difficult for adults, who tend to rely on being instructed rather than thinking for themselves.

Kids have to be taught racism makes sense.

If the choice your offering is between teaching that racism is reasonable and indoctrinating kids against it, I choose the latter. But I think you've raised a false choice. It is perfectly possible to teach kids the nature and natural causes of racism - the reasons it has and will always exist - without saying that it "makes sense".

The latter approach is indoctrination and I personally don't care if I agree with the FACTS or not. I'd pull my kid away from such a teacher.

I have to suspect you're not a parent. Different children learn in different ways in different subjects. Sometimes some children get a quicker jump start in an area when they are lectured to; others work much better when they are simply placed in an independent learning environment. It's not such a simple question as to say "Way A is the best and every other way is complete garbage". Moreover, I would certainly welcome what you would call 'indoctrination' in a great number of circumstances.

If I want to become a doctor, I don't want my professor wasting 1 second of his time giving me the "other side of the argument" for why chanting an ancient Mayan hymn and dancing to the moon is more effective than medical treatment. Within the spectrum of medicine there are plenty of debates, contentions and possibilities to go around that we don't need to waste a doctor's time talking about every folk myth that ever existed just for the sake of avoiding 'indoctrination'.

Although I guess your response to this will just be that you don't want your kid to be a doctor. Or an engineer. Or a mathematician. Or a research scientist of any sort. Or a pilot. If you want to go into any of these fields - indeed, any field that handles any sort of responsibility - you will be taught by people who wish to insert facts in your head. You're not going to piloting school to hear "okay, well under one theory - which is, of course, no better than any other theory - the wind blowing at such a rate will have such and such an effect on the wing's movement. Under another theory the great eagle in the sky is guiding your plane and you have no control over whether or not you land safely." You will hear straight up facts and you will be expected to learn them.

I certainly hope you don't take advantage of modern medicine. Or computers for that matter. Both of them were produced by people who learned a surprising amount of facts and then used these facts to create new products and methods. Or, as you would call it, 'indoctrination' and unworthy of your child.

And fill in tests with regurgitation as the skill contributes and reinforces this approach.

You're not a teacher either, then. The most useful aspect of any test is that it shows the teacher what the students have effectively learned. Some - lazy or old-fashioned - teachers sincerely want their kids to just memorize without thought. Most teachers I've worked with and talked to purposefully arrange their tests so that students are required to apply knowledge rather than simple regurgitate it. This is the precise difference between our education system and that of China. If you think western education focuses on regurgitation, go check out Asia.

 

[wise acre]

False. And I'm quite tired of hearing this nonsense.

What are ethics made of. How do we measure them? What units are they in? They are not objective entities. Or?

Though I'm 100% a relativist. An ethical idea can be 'empirically proven' in the sense that one could prove "if x is chosen as a principle, then y is forbidden/neutral/required."

Right, but that 'if x' cannot be empirically shown. This was a sleight of mind.

What I've given is only the most simple of possible examples. You can dive into three-valued logic textbooks if you want to see the extent to which this can be taken. As a relativist I maintain that there is no "empirical" reason any one set of principles is greater than any other.

'greater?' Great is a value judgment, also not objective.

That is, there is no external justification that cannot be shot down with a simple "why?" That said, usually human beings are capable of finding at least some common ground in terms of principles - otherwise we wouldn't have societies - and from there we can work out more details.

None of which is relevent to the point I was making. Michael and I have been going back and forth about certain issues. I felt like ethics did not really fit his science based stance.

Ethical propositions can be proven. Ground-level principles cannot.

Sure you can use deduction based on imagined axioms. This has little to do with empirical research.

If the choice your offering is between teaching that racism is reasonable and indoctrinating kids against it, I choose the latter. But I think you've raised a false choice.

I cannot see where an English teacher could possibly have gotten the impression that this is the choice I was offering.

It is perfectly possible to teach kids the nature and natural causes of racism - the reasons it has and will always exist - without saying that it "makes sense".

Yup. You can even go a step further and treat it as a PBL project and avoid trying to get your own take on it into their brains. The only time, I think, you have to take some sort of stance on racism is when the issue comes up in real life in the classroom. Then as an adult member of the community you are on the spot, which is fine, and I, at least would definitely take a stand, and have. But I do not see my role as getting my morals into the children's heads. In practical terms I will structure the environment so that it is not racist. IOW I won't tolerate racist interpersonal attacks, for example, though even there, if it were public, I would hope we could tackle it as a group. But I do not see my role as being responsible for what is inside any kid's brain.

I have to suspect you're not a parent.

I have to suspect this is an ad hom.

Different children learn in different ways in different subjects. Sometimes some children get a quicker jump start in an area when they are lectured to; others work much better when they are simply placed in an independent learning environment.

I agree. Though it is very hard to get a control group who has not already been treated this way by adults to see if this is nurture - and a habit worth challenging - or innate. And you can lecture without indoctrinating.

It's not such a simple question as to say "Way A is the best and every other way is complete garbage". Moreover, I would certainly welcome what you would call 'indoctrination' in a great number of circumstances.

Of course, people welcome indoctrination everywhere.

If I want to become a doctor, I don't want my professor wasting 1 second of his time giving me the "other side of the argument" for why chanting an ancient Mayan hymn and dancing to the moon is more effective than medical treatment.

So this is how you see the options? You do noticed you shifted to adults who have chosen a very specific profession?

Within the spectrum of medicine there are plenty of debates, contentions and possibilities to go around that we don't need to waste a doctor's time talking about every folk myth that ever existed just for the sake of avoiding 'indoctrination'.

The straw man goes on.

Although I guess your response to this will just be that you don't want your kid to be a doctor. Or an engineer. Or a mathematician. Or a research scientist of any sort. Or a pilot.

You know me so well. My response is that my kid is not in a medical program and that children can learn practical skills in ways that do not require indoctrination, which is not, by the way, the opposite of 'giving several viewpoints.'

If you want to go into any of these fields - indeed, any field that handles any sort of responsibility - you will be taught by people who wish to insert facts in your head. You're not going to piloting school to hear "okay, well under one theory - which is, of course, no better than any other theory - the wind blowing at such a rate will have such and such an effect on the wing's movement. Under another theory the great eagle in the sky is guiding your plane and you have no control over whether or not you land safely." You will hear straight up facts and you will be expected to learn them.

I certainly hope you don't take advantage of modern medicine. Or computers for that matter. Both of them were produced by people who learned a surprising amount of facts and then used these facts to create new products and methods. Or, as you would call it, 'indoctrination' and unworthy of your child.

Wow you do go on based on your imagined axioms.

You're not a teacher either, then.

Oops. Wrong.

The most useful aspect of any test is that it shows the teacher what the students have effectively learned. Some - lazy or old-fashioned - teachers sincerely want their kids to just memorize without thought. Most teachers I've worked with and talked to purposefully arrange their tests so that students are required to apply knowledge rather than simple regurgitate it. This is the precise difference between our education system and that of China. If you think western education focuses on regurgitation, go check out Asia.

Imagine one of your students used the logic in the bolded portion.
What critical thinking issue would you raise with them?

That's your homework assignment, one teacher to another.

I don't know why you felt you needed to focus on me, rather than simply on the ideas, but I won't read you again.

 

[wise acre]

Just realized that many people, even teachers, seem to think ad hominem is a fancy ass way of saying 'insult'. The latter is a subset, but I used the term in the traditional sense of a rhetorical shift from the idea to the person.

Further, you missed the whole point of my discussion with Michael. He was the one who thought one can avoid indoctrination.

But once I picked up your tone and got a sense of our likely pedagogical differences, I wanted to go at some of the assumptions in there. I do think indoctrination can be minimized.

Notice however that the definition I quoted leaves a great deal of room to treat practical knowledge differently from other kinds of knowledge and ideas.

to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

IOW a lot of your objections are not relevent to the discussion Michael and I were having.

 

[Enmos]

I don't know why you felt you needed to focus on me, rather than simply on the ideas, but I won't read you again.

Wow.. we might as well start a club. How many is that now ?

 

[Michael]

Well actually, I have to go teach ... so I will bu busy for a couple days.

A couple remarks on this side topic
1) I usually try to give an exam where some of it is pure regurgitation and some is applied knowledge. Most Ss in my field will work as Techs running the same assay 1 million times. Some want to do Medicine. Some want to do Research. I need to separate those that want to go on from those who just want to get out (and of these who is competent and who are not and I will fail).

2) PBL is the worst system ever invented for Medical Ss. It just absolutely sucks and is only adopted as a cost cutting measure. Ss "teach" themselves. Yeah - right. I spent 5 year running PBLs and I put a lot into them and as an adjunct to other forms of learning they can help at the 20% over all learning level but where I was at they were 80% and I think were putting out the worse Med Ss. They learn more in 3 months at a hospital than 2 years of PBLs and they say as much themselves.

Sorry about that rant...

I think Tyler brought up some good point and so does wise acre.

Anyway, I have a lecture in 1.5 hours and need to work on it


M

 

[Tyler]

What are ethics made of. How do we measure them? What units are they in? They are not objective entities. Or?

I would not say there is such a thing as an "ethic". What people usually refer to as 'ethics' would be divided into principles and derived propositions.

Right, but that 'if x' cannot be empirically shown. This was a sleight of mind.

I think you made a mistake. The "x" cannot be proven. "If x" is not something that could possibly be true or not true, it is half of a proposition.

Also, I never said the 'x' could be proven. So I'm not sure where the sleight of mind came it. I'm pretty sure I made it obvious that I agreed principles cannot be objective.

'greater?' Great is a value judgment, also not objective.

Right. And in the sentence you quoted I was agreeing with you 100%.

None of which is relevent to the point I was making. Michael and I have been going back and forth about certain issues. I felt like ethics did not really fit his science based stance.

I understand, I just don't agree with you. The scientific method can very easily be applied to ethical studies. What it cannot do is apply to making any sort of objective statement of ethical axioms or principles.

Sure you can use deduction based on imagined axioms. This has little to do with empirical research.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'empirical research' in ethics. Sometimes phrases like this are used to refer to research into how people form and act out their ethics; sometimes they refer to research into the foundation, validity or consistency of ethical frameworks. If you are more clear about what you mean by empirical research in ethics I could reply more thoroughly.

I cannot see where an English teacher could possibly have gotten the impression that this is the choice I was offering.

From here: "Kids have to be taught racism makes sense."
It's unclear what you mean by 'makes sense'. Do you mean reasonable, natural, helpful, ethical or rational? Or something else?

The only time, I think, you have to take some sort of stance on racism is when the issue comes up in real life in the classroom. Then as an adult member of the community you are on the spot, which is fine, and I, at least would definitely take a stand, and have. But I do not see my role as getting my morals into the children's heads. In practical terms I will structure the environment so that it is not racist. IOW I won't tolerate racist interpersonal attacks, for example, though even there, if it were public, I would hope we could tackle it as a group. But I do not see my role as being responsible for what is inside any kid's brain.

I'd be curious how far you would take such a stance. (Note: I agree with you on at least getting involved when it becomes an interpersonal issue.) If you were - for some reason! - teaching in Nazi Germany in 1935, would you hold the same stance? Would you say "well now, it's not my job to try to change these kids minds about Die Fuhrer. I best just leave my opinion out of things and let them join the Hitler Youth." If your answer is no, then where do you draw the line? How 'evil' or against your ethics does something have to be before you start speaking up?

So this is how you see the options? You do noticed you shifted to adults who have chosen a very specific profession?

It was just an easy example, sorry. What about kids in grade 7 science? Do you support teaching "creationism" in science class just because a large percentage of the population thinks it's true?

Oops. Wrong.

Apologies.

Imagine one of your students used the logic in the bolded portion.
What critical thinking issue would you raise with them?

That's your homework assignment, one teacher to another.

Well my students are all Chinese and they know this as a fact. It's a very highly debated and public concern in China. I've yet to meet a single person in the country who does not think a serious reform is needed in the education system. In fact, education reform is one of the few "hot topics" (to borrow a local phrase) and areas of public acknowledgment of national weakness.

If you mean that the logic "well, at least we're not as bad as Asia" is poor... Yeah, that's true. You shouldn't base your analysis of yourself on the condition of others. All I meant to say is that Canadian (and I think American) education actually do a pretty good job of allowing healthy education as opposed to indoctrination when considered in the context of world-wide education.