Colbert, a strong Catholic who covers a lot of science on his show and sees no contradiction between science and religion, mentioned that it's becoming common to label fringe and unsupported theories as pseudo-science or junk science. But when are people going to make the same distinction regarding religion? The crazies, fanatics, bigots, or those ignorant of the depths of their own traditions--call it out: pseudo-religion or junk religion.
Maybe it's because nowadays practically anything can pass as a 'religion'-- there are no agreed upon heresies. (Of course in the past, archaic 'science' would not be called science today.)
This is not to say that religion equates with mainstream. Indeed, a lot of "mainstream"--religion, politics, business, what have you--is accommodated to practitioners' egos, with all their cultural impositions, self-serving practices, and social-serving roles. People generally haven't come to an accepted "scientific method" for inner, psychological, non-material inquiries (though maybe Buddhism has).
Richard Foxe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People > generally haven't come to an accepted "scientific > method" for inner, psychological, non-material > inquiries (though maybe Buddhism has).
Been considering Robert Wright’s Why Buddhism Is true, lately...
"People generally haven't come to an accepted "scientific method" for inner, psychological, non-material inquiries (though maybe Buddhism has)."
COMMENT: Exactly. Because such things cannot be properly addressed by the scientific method. That includes Eastern religious efforts to "scieneticize" (Wow, what a great word!) religious experience. That is why humanism (including consciousness, the moral sense, and freewill) transcends science; and also why *theoretical* psychology is essentially bogus. (For Human) :)
Richard Foxe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm curious to know what you think those depths > are. Might they include meditation, centering > prayer, selfless service, ego transcendence?
They might include those. But I don't cherry-pick. They also include book burnings, holy wars, burnings-at-the-stake, endorsement of human slavery, and all the other warts and crazy, fanatical, bigoted, ignorant actions that the ones you talked about don't seem to have curbed.
I also don't see how claiming a spirit-god-thing for which there is no evidence turning itself into its own son by magically impregnating a virgin, then sacrificing itself to itself, to "save" only those who believe the story, is any less "crazy" than Xenu and his volcanoes. And I'd wager that the folks who truly believe scientology don't think it's at all crazy, just like folks who truly believe christianity don't think it's at all crazy. To me, there's *no* difference, and all "depth of tradition" means is that the craziness has been around longer.
Here's an interesting contrast: people are born into a religion but none are "born" into science. With the exception of Mengele and others, science is led by the best in the field; this cannot be said of religion...without being accused of cherry-picking.
Look at the U.S. and all its citizens, past and present--are they all equal exemplars of "Americans," just because they're born there? Perhaps sociologically, but not ideologically. The "depths" of a tradition means its perennial values, exemplified by its epitomes, not its misfits. Should "American ideals" have curbed all the horrific occurrences, cruelties, criminal acts of those who were twisted or just ignorant? The "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
I think religion is different: those born into it (and profess themselves to be practitioners) should be called upon to know and follow the best in their traditions--Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Taoism, Buddhism and all--or they cannot truly call themselves followers of these.
Richard Foxe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look at the U.S. and all its citizens, past and > present--are they all equal exemplars of > "Americans," just because they're born there?
Well, actually, yes -- I think they are. Otherwise I'm engaging in a "no True Scotsman" fallacy. As you pointed out. No cherry picking, we take the bad with the good -- and we can ask why the "ideals" DON'T work on everyone...but not just discard the "bad" ones because they're "bad."
> The "depths" of a tradition mean its perennial values, > exemplified by its epitomes, not its misfits.
Yeah, but the thing is, what you NOW consider "misfits" were the "epitomes" of their time. The bishops/popes who ordered inquisitions were held up as the epitome of religious leaders by their followers. The protestant founders that burned heretics at the stake, the same.
So, yeah, I still think you're cherry-picking.
> ...or they cannot > truly call themselves followers of these.
Then nobody is "truly" a follower. After all, isn't it an axiom in christianity, for example, that "all have sinned," and none are perfect?
> After all, isn't it an axiom in christianity, for > example, that "all have sinned," and none are > perfect?
That is not in the teachings of Jesus, at least as recorded. The whole Sacrificial Lamb trope, referencing the Jewish practice of the time, could not have been the "Good News" of the gospel while he was alive. Rather, that News was about the "Kingdom of God" and that all are 'Sons of the Most High.' I.e., we are not what we appear to be (bodies) or what we take ourselves to be (egos) but are something so much greater--not after death but right now. I think this is a common core of teachings based on the experienced reality of Enlightenment of the founder and the latent reality of everyone.
There are several Youtube videos of The Big Bang Theory on Youtube without the laughter track... it puts a very different spin on it.
Personally I think it is a just one of a large number of formulaic trashy sitcoms with cliché characters... but people lap up some prolefeed. I can imagine "Young Sheldon" is the same. "Frasier" is about the only one of these I can put up with.
Thank you, Exposing Dawkins, for having the guts to say something bad about "Young Sheldon."
My few remaining Mormon friends all rave about "Big Bang Theory" and "Young Sheldon," and say that they are their very favorite TV shows. I don't know if it has anything to do with their being Mormons, or not.
I have tried to appreciate these shows, but I can't even sit all the way through even one show. I usually like comedies of all kinds.