spiked article: Is the Dalai Lama a religious dictator? by Brendan ONeill

[Des]

I thought you might be interested in the following article from spiked:

Is the Dalai Lama a ‘religious dictator’?
by Brendan O’Neill

As the world’s favourite giggling Buddhist arrives in Britain, a Buddhist
nun tells spiked that he is denying people their religious freedom.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5170/

[John Murphy]

While I agree with the sentiments in the article, nowadays I also have a
weather-eye out for being used as a pawn in the global fracas over Tibet.

Or am I just paranoid... Just 'cos you're paranoid - it doesn't mean that
they're not after you ;-)

John

m.

[John Shaw]

It is interesting how the West, if not exactly adopted Buddhism, thinks
its a jolly-good-thing and has taken the very affable Dalai Lama to its
collective heart. Based on what I wonder? Smiles a lot; stands up to the
Chinese bully; makes you feel good; isn't too demanding religion-wise.
The later very appealing to those who feel guilty about not going to
church themselves!

John

[John Murphy]

It's all the fault of those pommie stirrers - the Beatles making the
whole eastern Guru thing 'cool'.
So please add still being "spiritual", while rebelling against the
establishment, as an attraction.

John M

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.4/1617 - Release Date: 8/17/2008 12:58 PM
>
>
>
>

[David Stott]

I agree but would add science. While I'm one of the one or two of my generation who still revere the Beatles as the-greatest-band-who-ever-lived, I never bought into the "eastern rubbish" at the time and blamed it mainly on George (wrongly). However, for many years I have been happy to proclaim that, if I was forced to pick a religion, then it would be Buddhism. This from a base of knowing very little about it in reality, but listening to the Dalai Lama and realising that he is a religious leader who profoundly supports science. That and the fact that he smiles a lot, seems a really nice guy, and stands up to the Chinese. I suspect a lot of westerners have as flimsy reasons for liking Buddhism as me.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: NZbr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NZbr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2008 3:54 p.m.
To: NZbr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [NZbrights] Re: spiked article: Is the Dalai Lama a religious dictator? by Brendan ONeill


It's all the fault of those pommie stirrers - the Beatles making the
whole eastern Guru thing 'cool'.
So please add still being "spiritual", while rebelling against the
establishment, as an attraction.

John M

John Shaw wrote:
> It is interesting how the West, if not exactly adopted Buddhism, thinks
> its a jolly-good-thing and has taken the very affable Dalai Lama to its
> collective heart. Based on what I wonder? Smiles a lot; stands up to the
> Chinese bully; makes you feel good; isn't too demanding religion-wise.
> The later very appealing to those who feel guilty about not going to
> church themselves!
>
> John
>
>
> Des wrote:
>
>> I thought you might be interested in the following article from spiked:
>>

>> Is the Dalai Lama a religious dictator?
>> by Brendan ONeill
>>
>> As the worlds favourite giggling Buddhist arrives in Britain, a Buddhist

[Tony Tait]

It's off subject but I have to agree with you again David. The Beatles are
amongst the greatest English composers ever.

Tony

[Des Vize]

Still off subject - or have we changed subject? - I was always a Stones fan myself, none of this namby-pamby nice-boy Beatles rubbish.  Do yourselves a favour and go watch Scorsese's "Shine A Light".

2008/8/20 Tony Tait <tony...@xtra.co.nz>

--
Des Vize

www.the-brights.net
THE BRIGHTS: ILLUMINATING AND ELEVATING THE NATURALISTIC WORLDVIEW.
(A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements.)

[John Murphy]

I don't agree about the science thing. The Dalai Lama "has participated in
many conferences on science and spirituality." I see him as one of those
that is attempting to neuter sciences' march away from the supernatural and,
through his work with (the late) David Bohm, attempted to take some aspects
of quantum mechanics as a way to sanction Buddhist ideas about
consciousness, connectedness and "afterlife".

Having a keen interest in QM, I have looked closely at Bohm's work and now
think it to be plain pseudo-science. Basically, Bohm postulates an ethereal
"quantum potential" that is supposed to guide all particles, by showing that
the Schrödinger equation has a form that resembles equations for a particle
in a potential field.

At the outset Bohm failed to get the equation to work as such (for reasons
that are clear to me but not worth going in to here), so Bohm then takes the
results of standard QM calculations and draws contours on them claiming that
he has 'mapped' said potential. In effect Bohm's potential is nothing more
than arbitrary make-believe (as is religion at its core), and as such, is
a-priori designed to be unfalsifiable. Any arbitrary make believe can never
be falsified because you can keep on making up stuff to account for any
test. In effect, there is no test that we could devise that if failed, then
we could say Bohm's theory is wrong, and therefore, it is unfalsifiable
before the get go.

This 'implicate order' is very attractive to religion and woo woo peddlers.
The Quantum Potential is so vague one can invent any story one likes to
attribute this quantum effect, or that, to its magical presence.
In my view, the Dalai Lama is pushing pseudo-science, and is distorting
science in order to support his religious agenda.

"Though he professes to accept evolutionary theory, he recoils at one of its
most basic tenets: that the mutations that provide the raw material for
natural selection occur at random. Look deeply enough, he suggests, and the
randomness will turn out to be complexity in disguise - "hidden causality,"
the Buddha's smile. There you have it, Eastern religion's version of
intelligent design. He also opposes physical explanations for consciousness,
invoking instead the existence of some kind of irreducible mind stuff, an
idea rejected long ago by mainstream science. Some members of the Society
for Neuroscience are understandably uneasy that he has been invited to give
a lecture at their annual meeting this November. In a petition, they
protested that his topic, the science of meditation, is known for
"hyperbolic claims, limited research and compromised scientific rigor."
(www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=10,1715,0,0,1,0)

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NZbr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NZbr...@googlegroups.com] On

> Behalf Of David Stott
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2008 7:41 a.m.

> To: NZbr...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [NZbrights] Re: spiked article: Is the Dalai Lama a religious
> dictator? by Brendan ONeill
>
>

> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.5/1619 - Release Date: 18/08/2008
> 5:39 p.m.

>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.5/1619 - Release Date: 18/08/2008
> 5:39 p.m.

[John Shaw]

Come of it, Des, they fed off each other. In the '60s they had a deal
whereby they each brought out a new record in turn so as not to compete
with each other. The nice boy/nasty boy thing was just a way of
covering the market. Mick Jagger's dad had a building firm - hardly a
representative of the downtrodden masses. And, for god sake, Mick
accepted a knighthood!

John

Des Vize wrote:
> Still off subject - or have we changed subject? - I was always a
> Stones fan myself, none of this namby-pamby nice-boy Beatles rubbish.
> Do yourselves a favour and go watch Scorsese's "Shine A Light".
>

> 2008/8/20 Tony Tait <tony...@xtra.co.nz <mailto:tony...@xtra.co.nz>>

> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>

> > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.4/1617 - Release Date:
> 8/17/2008
> 12:58 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Des Vize
>

> www.the-brights.net <http://www.the-brights.net>

[Des Vize]

John

 

I'm not sure Dawkins would agree with you that mutations occur randomly.  If the environment in which a population of living things favours a certain trait then that trait will be represented more strongly in subsequent generations.  This could be represented by a series of bell curves moving to the right along the time axis.  If I underatsnd Dawkins correctly, evolutionary change is irreversible: no bell curve will ever move to the left of the one before.  This is not random, nor is it designed: it is evolution at work.

 

Random change would mean that in a population of giraffes, in response to the same external environment one would grow a longer neck, another a shorter neck, another a pair of wings, another a tail.

 

Taking a different tack, one could argue that there is more randomness in the imaginary world of the supers, where a virgin can give birth, a man can walk on water, another can rise from the dead, etc.

 

Cheers,

Des

2008/8/20 John Murphy <jknm...@woosh.co.nz>

--
Des Vize

www.the-brights.net

[Jeff Hunt]

The mutations are random. It is the natural selection that does the evolution. A giraffe growing a useless tail or a shorter neck has less chance of surviving. Mutation does not respond to environment it simply happens. It is the subsequent deaths or failure to breed that is important. (Umm I think)

[Des Vize]

Jeff

A quote from Dawkins in response to the suggestion that evolution is all about random chance:

 

"That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming."

 

(I got this from "The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins" by Laura Sheahen on beliefnet.)

Cheers,

Des

 

2008/8/20 Jeff Hunt <jeffh...@gmail.com>

[John Murphy]

Hi Des,
The random bit was from a passage I quoted, not my own thinking. As far
as I can see, the formation of mutations is pretty close to random, the
non-random, non-reversible part is the natural selection acting on a
population that contains a set of variations.
.What I was trying to say is that while the Dalai Lama purports to
embrace science, and says that "if science shows part of Buddhism wrong
then Buddhism must change", he simply selects a mish-mash of science and
pseudo-science (with no attempt to distinguish) to suit his 'super'
prejudices.

Basically I see evolution as the action of natural selection acting on
breeding populations that have inheritable traits. Just because
mutations happen randomly, doesn't mean that the process that works on
those mutations is random.

John

Des Vize wrote:
> John
>
> I'm not sure Dawkins would agree with you that mutations occur
> randomly. If the environment in which a population of living things
> favours a certain trait then that trait will be represented more
> strongly in subsequent generations. This could be represented by a
> series of bell curves moving to the right along the time axis. If I
> underatsnd Dawkins correctly, evolutionary change is irreversible: no
> bell curve will ever move to the left of the one before. This is not
> random, nor is it designed: it is evolution at work.
>
> Random change would mean that in a population of giraffes, in response
> to the same external environment one would grow a longer neck, another
> a shorter neck, another a pair of wings, another a tail.
>
> Taking a different tack, one could argue that there is more randomness
> in the imaginary world of the supers, where a virgin can give birth, a
> man can walk on water, another can rise from the dead, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Des
>
> 2008/8/20 John Murphy <jknm...@woosh.co.nz

> <mailto:jknm...@woosh.co.nz>>

> <http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=10,1715,0,0,1,0>)

> > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>

> > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.4/1617 - Release Date:
> > 8/17/2008 12:58 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.

> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>

> > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.5/1619 - Release Date:
> 18/08/2008
> > 5:39 p.m.
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.

> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>

> > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.5/1619 - Release Date:
> 18/08/2008
> > 5:39 p.m.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Des Vize
>

> www.the-brights.net <http://www.the-brights.net>

> THE BRIGHTS: ILLUMINATING AND ELEVATING THE NATURALISTIC WORLDVIEW.
> (A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview, free of
> supernatural and mystical elements.)
>
> >

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.5/1619 - Release Date: 8/18/2008 5:39 PM
>

[David Stott]

My tuppence worth as someone who was married to a science teacher who
specialised in evolution.

Mutations are random. Period. But the mutations are usually tiny. It's not
growing a pair of wings where there were none before. The gene variation
required to do that would be a combination of so many random changes as to
make it certain that that would never occur. It's more likely to be a
slightly stronger shade of blue in part of the wing. Which mutations provide
a sufficient benefit to the organism to make it more likely that that
organism will reach breeding age and reproduce is not entirely random.
That's based on a) what happened to the organism with the mutation during
its life up to reproduction age (it could have been a brilliant survival
improvement but it still got run over by a bus before it got to pass the
mutation on) - still pretty random, and b) how much of a change it makes. If
everything is good, then more of those organisms with bluer wings will start
to occur in the population, and if it's really, really good, then those with
less blue wings will eventually be replaced by the bluer winged variety.
THAT is evolution.

And by the way, for evolution to work, genes must not only be able to
mutate, but they must usually NOT do so. Ie it must be the overwhelming
norm, that genes are passed on unchanged. Otherwise there would be total
chaos and nothing would ever have been achieved.

Regards
David
Postal: PO Box 90, Tairua 3544, New Zealand   Phone: +64 (7) 864 7470 
 Mobile: +64 (21) 107 3885   Skype: davidstott
THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL TO THE RECIPIENT AND MUST NOT BE FORWARDED OR
DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR.

-----Original Message-----
From: NZbr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NZbr...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of John Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2008 5:58 p.m.
To: NZbr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [NZbrights] Re: spiked article: Is the Dalai Lama a religious
dictator? by Brendan ONeill

Hi Des,
The random bit was from a passage I quoted, not my own thinking. As far
as I can see, the formation of mutations is pretty close to random, the
non-random, non-reversible part is the natural selection acting on a
population that contains a set of variations.
.What I was trying to say is that while the Dalai Lama purports to
embrace science, and says that "if science shows part of Buddhism wrong
then Buddhism must change", he simply selects a mish-mash of science and
pseudo-science (with no attempt to distinguish) to suit his 'super'
prejudices.

Basically I see evolution as the action of natural selection acting on
breeding populations that have inheritable traits. Just because
mutations happen randomly, doesn't mean that the process that works on
those mutations is random.

John

Des Vize wrote:
> John
>
> I'm not sure Dawkins would agree with you that mutations occur
> randomly. If the environment in which a population of living things
> favours a certain trait then that trait will be represented more
> strongly in subsequent generations. This could be represented by a
> series of bell curves moving to the right along the time axis. If I

> understand Dawkins correctly, evolutionary change is irreversible: no

> > > it's a jolly-good-thing and has taken the very affable Dalai

> Lama to its
> > > collective heart. Based on what I wonder? Smiles a lot; stands
> up to the
> > > Chinese bully; makes you feel good; isn't too demanding
> religion-wise.
> > > The later very appealing to those who feel guilty about not
> going to
> > > church themselves!
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > Des wrote:
> > >
> > >> I thought you might be interested in the following article
> from spiked:
> > >>
> > >> Is the Dalai Lama a religious dictator?
> > >> by Brendan ONeill
> > >>

> > >> As the world's favourite giggling Buddhist arrives in Britain, a

[John Murphy]

David,
Your tuppence-worth is pretty much in line with my own thinking.
Although mutation is not apparently perfectly random (breeders often induce
mutation by exposure to chemicals) - one can control the incidence, but not
the nature of the mutations. Also, in plant and bacteria, many variations
arise from mixing sets of genes from different groups.

My sense of these responses to this thread is that contributors are bent on
'correcting' my supposed misconceptions regarding evolution, when in fact I
was quoting a Bhuddist site in order to illustrate how badly the Dalai
Lam'as institute distorts evolution.

I was attempting to illustrate that the Dalai Lama's approach to science
actually wholeheartedly embraces pseudo-science and, to boot, a 'Buddhist'
version of 'intelligent design' in which he holds that evolution can a) lead
somewhere, and b) is aligned with some supernatural aspects to do with
revealing the Buddha. Des seemed to read this as though I was presenting my
own thinking. Arrgggg.

I think that the distortion of science and the holus-bolus mixing of science
with pseudo-science are driving inflation in the belief in the supernatural.
The DL and his Mind and Life institute, has the agenda of promoting the idea
that the mind is more than its neural systems, are significant players
because they give respectability to the idea that one can employ
pseudo-science to back up supernatural beliefs.

> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1624 - Release Date: 20/08/2008
> 7:11 p.m.

>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1624 - Release Date: 20/08/2008
> 7:11 p.m.

[Des Vize]

John

 

Apologies for misconstruing your email, but it did lead to what I thought was an interesting discussion on the role of random mutation in natural selection.  I still don't think I really understand it, but my books are all in boxes at the moment so I can't do the research I would like to.  I will have to stew on it.

 

Cheers,

Des

2008/8/21 John Murphy <jknm...@woosh.co.nz>

--
Des Vize

www.the-brights.net

[John Murphy]

Thanks Des,

          I’m heading to the Wellington conference this weekend, so if you’re there we’ll have to catch up and speculate on whether the yeast in the Guinness could have arisen by unnatural selection acting on inheritable variations that were caused by random mutations.

 

One of my hobby horses is the modern-day penchant for blurring science, scientific speculation, and pseudo-science in to religious contexts. I think that this occurs because science has such implicit authority that the religious crave its sanction.

There was a movie out about 2 years ago, (What the Bleep) in which ideas from quantum mechanics were posited as confirming a whole load of pseudo-science bunk, the Baha’i claim to unite science and religion while blithely adding that evolution did not happen.  In the US, the Dalai Lama is also playing this game with his tax-exempt ‘Mind and Life Institute’.

 

John

 

---

Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1636 - Release Date: 26/08/2008 7:09 p.m.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1636 - Release Date: 26/08/2008 7:09 p.m.