[ExI] Fw: Re: atheists declare religions as scams

[Stefano Vaj]

On 17 January 2011 14:18, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ancient Greek Paganism and Hinduism are obviously in conflict with a scientific worldview, as they posit the existence of supernatural entities without any proof.

Do they?

"Existence" in the mythical realm for Heraclitus or for a contemporary
hindu is not in the least considered on the same basis as in the
historical/empirical realm. That the existence of the latter is just a
pale reflex of the "real" existence of a metaphysical entity is only a
kind of judeo-christian misunderstanding of Platonism - pretty much
exclusive to their, and Islam's, religious legacy.

How would you explain otherwise that the same tradition contains
different, mutually exclusive, versions of the myths and that its
affiliate does not perceive any particular contradiction?

How comes that they remain fully free to advance any hypothesis as to
the empirical world and not perceive any tension with their religious
persuasion, which do not demand them to "have faith" in any sense that
the western world has unfortunately become used to?

> Zen Buddhism is a bit more tricky, as it's more of a philosphy than a religion, but it still makes untestable claims and rests on the revered words of a long-dead person (who, for a change, probably actually existed, and may not have been mentally ill).

Yup. That's the point. Your idea of religion is based on the religions
of the Book, and conformed by their vocabulary Now, christianity was
emphatically *not* considered a religion during the Roman empire, and
was in fact dubbed superstitio nova ac malefica (a new and evil
superstition). Anthropologically, however, it is difficult to deny the
status and the function of a "religion" to things such as Zen or for
that matter Marxism.

[quote]Granted, Buddhists don't believe in and worship a god, but they
believe in and worship Buddha.  [/quote]

I believe in and worship Natasha, does it make me less
scientific-oriented than the next fellow? :-)

[quote]I doubt that a Buddhist would try to kill you or condemn you to
hell for questioning his beliefs, but they are still Beliefs rather
than working hypotheses that are expected to be improved upon.[/quote]

Most perfectly secular philosophies contain tenets (e.g., value
judgments), which have absolutely nothing to do with "working
hypotheses that are expected to be improved upon". The real issue, if
any, is whether a given persuasion is *compatible* with scientific
epistemology.

> Also (this is nothing to do with it conflicting with science, of course) Buddhism is so *pessimistic*!

So am I... :-)

In fact, I maintain that "optimism" (the rapture to come
no-matter-what, the nice extrapolations, the expectation of
automagical solutions to contemporary problems, etc.) is too tainted
by religious mentality - in the restricted, contemporary sense - for
my personal taste. :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj