07.30.07
ID gang worried about Buddhism
Intelligent Design Promoted to Buddhist Sri Lanka.
The ID gang must be worried about Buddhists, non-theists (if not atheists, exactly, Dawkins et al. having wrecked the term), and eager to confuse innocent Buddhist adherents with their design swindle. Buddhists should be wary of Christians with their god-obsessions wishing to corrupt their tradition. It has already happened to Hinduism! Look at Deepak Chopra and his slush compromise of both traditions, satisfying neither.
Buddhists need intelligent philosophic leadership in order to deal with the ‘designed to confuse’ design arguments. The distinction of G-design, and N-design, as often expounded here, might help, along with the Kantian critiques of metaphysics. The Kantian framework, in the form recast by Schopenhauer, is almost tailor-made as a foundation for rewriting the ancient tradition. The Buddhist tradition has more than enough resources to deal with the question of design without getting fleeced by the ‘designer’ pickpocket scheme of American fundamentalists.
It is entirely possible to critique Darwinism without sinking into the theistic quagmire.
Don’t let confused Buddhists at the fringes of the tradition get hypnotized, to reset the mode into wishy-washy PR Buddhism with a dash of god.
The Daily News, a newspaper in the predominantly Buddhist nation of Sri Lanka, has an excellent article authored by Dr. V.J.M. de Silva expressing skepticism towards Darwinian evolution. Silva states, “This article is not meant to be a critique of any Buddhist doctrine, for which I have the highest regard,” and he then explains, “Life, it seems, did not wait for blind chance to roll the dice, but erupted at the first available instant, leaving Darwinists with no time at all for their probabilistic processes. . . . Evolution (neo-Darwinism) is not a theory that has been proved. It is not like physics and chemistry. However, it is presented in the news media as an accomplished fact of science and all intelligent people are supposed to accept it. It is really a highly speculative hypothesis.” He demonstrates a clear grasp of ID: “Intelligent Design allows the possibility of God, but does not specify God.” Silva also knows how to recognize the false information put out by the Darwinian community:
In 2001, the US Public Broadcasting System ran a seven part TV series on evolution, and the spokespersons for this presentation asserted that “all known scientific evidence supports Darwinian Evolution, as does virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”
In response to this, the Discovery Institute, a ‘think tank’ in the US, sought the opinion of reputed scientists. Over one hundred scientists from various specialties, most with doctorates from prestigious universities, responded immediately.They said they were sceptical of what was shown on the TV series, especially its impartiality. These scientists ran a two page advertisement in The Weekly Standard of October 1, 2001.
“We are sceptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for the Darwinian Theory should be encouraged.”
Since then, over 700 others have signed in, agreeing with the above.
(Dr.V.J.M.de Silva, “The origin of life in the universe ,” The Daily News (July 12, 2007).)
It is refreshing to see such an accurate perspective on the debate over evolution and intelligent design published by the Sri Lankan press.
James said,
July 30, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Oh no. The IDers need to be stopped. Anyway, it doesn’t surprise me that this is coming out of Sri Lanka. In general, Lankans tend to be the most confused about Buddhism.
James said,
September 4, 2007 at 2:24 am
I noticed O’Leary has a post at UD implying that Buddhism supports ID. I have no idea how you can square ID and agency with the deeply impersonal analysis recorded in the Abhidhamma:
“A fertile soil for the origin and persistence of beliefs and ideas about a self, soul, god or any other form of an absolute entity, is misinterpreted meditative experience occurring in devotional rapture or mystical trance. Such experience is generally interpreted by the mystic or theologian as revelation of, or union with, a godhead; or it is taken for a manifestation of man’s true and eternal Self. Such interpretations are conceived and accepted all the more readily since such meditative experience so greatly transcends the average level of consciousness that the temptation is very great, indeed, to connect it in some way or other with a deity or some other eternal principle. The overwhelming impact of such meditative experience on the mind will produce a strong feeling of certainty of its reality and superiority; and this strong feeling of assurance will be extended to the theological or speculative interpretation, too. In that way these interpretations will obtain a strong hold on the mind, for they are imagined to correspond with actual, irrefutable experience, while, in fact, they are only superimposed on the latter.
The analytical method of the Abhidhamma gives immunity against such deceptive interpretations. In the Dhammasangani the consciousness of meditative absorption (jhana) is subjected to the same sober analysis as the ordinary states of mind. It is shown that meditative consciousness, too, is a transitory combination of impermanent, conditioned and impersonal mental factors, which differ from their counterparts accompanying ordinary consciousness, only in their greater intensity and purity. They do not, therefore, warrant at all any assumption of a divine manifestation or an eternal Self. It has already been mentioned how the Venerable Sariputta undertook such an analysis of his meditative experience.”
http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh07.htm
Darwiniana » Buddhism supports ID? said,
September 4, 2007 at 4:33 pm
[...] James comments on ‘ID gang worried about Buddhism’, good quote from Abhidhamma. There is something almost Kantian about early Buddhism. James said, [...]