Militant atheist Sam Harris has been making quite a stir lately with his best-selling polemics against religion and his in-your-face public appearances:
… [while] debating a former priest before a packed auditorium… he condemns the God of the Old Testament for a host of sins, including support for slavery. He drop-kicks the New Testament, likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale. He savages the Koran, calling it “a manifesto for religious divisiveness…” [Link]
He goes beyond the usual attacks on fundamentalists to attack moderates for being “enablers” and apologists for more extreme actions:
Religious moderates, Harris says in his patient and imperturbable style, have immunized religion from rational discussion by nurturing the idea that faith is so personal and private that it is beyond criticism, even when horrific crimes are committed in its name. [Link]
<
p>He sees all religion as fundamentally dangerous, especially in the post 9/11 world:
… he demonstrates the behavior he believes atheists should adopt when talking with Christians. “Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you,” he writes, addressing his imaginary opponent, “dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well – by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God…” [Link]The worst part, Harris says, is this: Because Christians and Jews cling to their “delusions,” they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs. And, as he italicizes it in his new book for maximum effect, ” most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith. ” [Italics his] [Link]
<
p>Despite his deep and abiding enmity to all religions, he finds one acceptable:
He endorses Jainism, a religion-philosophy from India that finds God in the unchanging traits of the human soul. But everyone who organizes his or her life around an ancient text that purports to convey the words and sentiments of God — Harris would like you to surrender your prayers, history and traditions. You are welcome to check out Jainism, but Harris recommends that you accept his conclusion, which is that we live in a universe without God. Deal with it. [Link]
<
p>Somehow I don’t think that the Jains are going to get an influx of converts. And that’s OK with him:
It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with genuine morality. The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings. [Link]How exactly the faithful will transition to a godless, Good Book-less cosmology is not exactly clear. Harris isn’t sure it will ever happen. But he is heartened by countries such as Sweden, where he claims 80 percent of the populace do not believe in God. [Link]
My very favorite part of this story? The fact that his (un)faith came to him in a vision of secular humanism:
At age 19, he and a college friend tried MDMA, better known as ecstasy, and the experience altered his view of the role that love could play in the world. (“I realized that it was possible to be a human being who wished others well all the time, reflexively.”) He dropped out of Stanford, where he was an English major, in his sophomore year and started to study Buddhism and meditation. He flew around the country and around the world, to places such as India and Nepal, often for silent retreats that went on for months. [Link]
I’m curious as to why Buddhism doesn’t pass muster with him any more. Does he not consider it a religion at all, or does he have a beef with it to?
More on Jainism: Wikipedia, BBC
Update 1: Sam Harris explains why he thinks religion is bad [long clip]:
My G-d, this thread is like highschool! Long drawn out discussions about whether there is a deity punctuated by really confusing dating arrangements getting reconfigured.
Ennis, can you tell Razib to pass a note to Biege Siege that I asked Yeti to put the note on Shruti’s locker that says that I love her more than I disbelieve in the G-man?
First thing first, where is Pardesi Gori? We need her input. I am being serious.
Second, what religion are we talking about: organized or personal? Huge, huge difference.
In between, strictly diamond trade has no connection with Jainism, sure many Jains are involved in it and they are patrons for Jain temples. As it is, there is nothing wrong with diamond trade, and polishing business, like any other business it does have a rogue strain, which profession doesn’t……….Now to Buddhism, Dalai Lama is opening saying he does not want conversion to Buddhism, rather people use it as a philosophical guide (NYT article from week or two)
Lastly, I think Jesse “The Body” Ventura is equally profound as Dawkins.
“‘Religion’ as I use it here does not refer to a system that has necessarily to do with a concept of God or with idols or even to a system perceived as religion, but to any group-shared system of thought and action that offers the individual a frame of orientation and an object of devotion. Indeed, in this broad sense of the word no culture of the past or present, and it seems no culture of the future, can be considered as not having religion.”
“This definition of ‘religion’ does not tell us anything about its specific content. People may worship animals, trees, idols of gold or stone, an invisible god, a saintly person, or a diabolic leader; they may worship their ancestors, their nation, their class or party, money or success. Their religion may be conductive to the development of destructiveness or of love, of domination, or of solidarity; it may further their power of reason or paralyze it. They may be aware of their system as being religious one, different from those of secular realm, or they may think that they have no religion, and interpret their devotion to certain allegedly secular aims, such as power, money, or success, as nothing but concern for the practical and the expedient. The question is not one of religion or not? but of which kind of religion? — whether it is one that furthers human development, the unfolding of specifically human powers, or one that paralyzes human growth.”
-Erich Fromm
should put him in one of those Jain co-operative buildings in Mumbai where meateatera abd no one else is allowed to live. he will change his opinion.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/06/18/INGQCJEDCE1.DTL
From the article
Too many people are not reading their Koran right I guess!! Who or what is responsible for this? Easy answer: religion, tough answer: socio-economic conditions. The former needs a lot less explaining to does than the latter.
I see a lot problems in society arising from people taking shortcuts! Religion provides the easy answer to many questions that face human beings living in a society. Somebody wronged you today? don’t worry God will take care of it, you just go on about your business. See that was easy!
Despite all their many problems, I find religions extremely beautiful. Nota bene: Weekly meetings of Apologists Anonymous will be rotating through hookah bars in the five boroughs.
Agnosticism I understand and can appreciate. If I were not born to Muslim parents, I would probably classify myself here.
But the atheist’s degree of certainty puzzles me. Sam Harris, here, totally included.
Great quotes @ 54 and wise words at 17.
god is not the creation of man. god is an expression of faith and in the universal enamorment for shruti who is turning a bright peach red right NOW.
But the atheist’s degree of certainty puzzles me. Sam Harris, here, totally included.
some definitions of god are logically incoherent. harris can not negate the full set of god hypotheses, but one can dismiss the possibility that some gods do not exist because a priori they are incoherent (e.g., start out with axioms which entail contradictory propositions and so can not be simultaneously held as valid without contradiction), or, they have been empirically falsified (e.g., “god men” who claim miraculous powers but are shown to be frauds).
Ever wondered how ‘organized’ religious became ‘organized’, doctrined and institutional? Were the teachings of Rama, Krishna, the Prophet, Buddha, Mahavira, etc. meant to develop into what we call ‘religion’ these days or is it us ‘non-enlightened’ humans that messed it up?
What/ where is the gray line between spirituality and religion?
Sorry dudes, I can’t type my own answers right now… maybe later.
Were the teachings of Rama, Krishna, the Prophet, Buddha, Mahavira, etc. meant to develop into what we call ‘religion’ these days or is it us ‘non-enlightened’ humans that messed it up?
see some of patricia crone’s work and you might be surprised (this is not to say that hagarism is the real answer, just that it isn’t as clear cut as you might think).
The discussion I think is not about what the teachings were meant to be but rather what they have become! You can study the why and conclude that it was the ‘non-enlightened’ humans who went wrong or find some other reason, but the issue remains. Should society discard those teachings given that ‘non-enlightened’ humans are using it to justify what is deemed as a problem today or continue to accept the teachings for what it was meant to be and hope that all human beings will someday be ‘enlightened’ and we could all live happily ever after?
or continue to accept the teachings for what it was meant to be and hope that all human beings will someday be ‘enlightened’ and we could all live happily ever after?
just as realistic as everyone abandoning the god delusion 🙂 we’ll muddle on….
Of course if you believe in God you could easily put off that question and say that God will take care of those who believe. God gives closure to many people!
I dont practice a religion, but there has to be something out there, right? I mean something cant come from nothing. Every other day it seem’s like physicist are finding smaller and smaller particle’s and when they do find the smallest one, then where the hell did that one come from?
Im just a confused agnostic person, who Stephen Colbert refer’s to as just “an atheist without balls.”
An interesting thing I read on Jainism last week, was that when a person reaches “old age” they are to starve themselves to death to atone for one’s sins. The picture I saw was of a smiling son sitting next to his old mother, who looked like a famine victom from the starvation, but what ever floats your boat I guess.
In India suicide is a punishable offense and they want to ban this, but there is also freedom of reilgion issue’s.
Just wait for the string theory to completely unfold, you’ll have all your answers 🙂
I’d like an e.g. of this e.g. Or, at least, would you levy this against the Abrahamics? What about the Koran/Bible/Torah-as-allegory school?
Actually the Washington Post article is wrong. He does not endorse Jainism. In that part of the book he is talking to Xtians who claim that theirs is the bestest religion of love and peace. He mentions that Jainism does a much better job without the gruesome bits about killing your non-Xtian wife, mother, father, etc. The second part where he mentions Jainism is when he talks about the claim that we derive our laws from the 10 commandments and if we did not have them we would all be running around murdering, raping (There are some scary chicks at my gym. I hope they are brushed up on their 10 commandments) and generally causing mayhem. He says that Jainism does a much better and a more pithy job of prohibiting these things without getting into the specifics about cattle, wives, and slaves.
I am sure if Sam was mostly confronted with Janis he would have several issue with them.
Theological fatalism is a common example.
ShallowThinker:
Its called Sallekhana and it is not to atone for one’s sins. Its a symbol that one has conquered the fear of death.
Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Mauryan empire, was a Jain bhikshu in his later years, and died through sallekhana.
I’d like an e.g. of this e.g. Or, at least, would you levy this against the Abrahamics?
strong atheism:
Strong atheists who believe that the existence of a certain deity is impossible commonly claim that the combination of attributes which the Christian God is purported to have (for example, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence, etc.) is logically contradictory, and therefore, the existence of the Christian God is a priori impossible.
the part about omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are key, these three concurrent with the existence of evil seem to be strongly suspect. this is why theodicy arose, philosophical theists understand that there are problems with this rationalistic conception of the god entity. some theists, like mormons, even claim that their own religions is more “rational” beause they do not define their own god in such a precise and all-powerful manner, their god is not omnipotent but is constrained by the nature of logic.
What about the Koran/Bible/Torah-as-allegory school?
what about it? if a subset of fantasists didn’t take their “scriptures” as literal truths to justify their abominable acts you wouldn’t have atheist polemics being published. it isn’t like harris and dawkins are giving much space to attacks on crystal worship and astrology, these private delusions don’t have deleterious effects on those who do not partake of the fantasy.
Ok… let me throw something else out:
“Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual; not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.” – Jiddu Krishnamurthy.
Is it not possible to quest for a greater Truth without being ‘deluded’ by the notion of doctrined/institutionalized religion or the idea of ‘God’ dictated by respective religions?
Thanks, Razib, for pointing out the article on theodicy. I’d like to quote a section here.
This sums up the reason why arguing with a theist is never a pleasant experience. Their confirmation bias is extremely strong: you can usually tell that nothing you say or do is going to change their mind. People do not believe in a religion because they have come to an objective conclusion that it is true, but because it fills a certain need within them. The arguments are just eye candy.
But I do not find belief in God to be unacceptable, only arguments for/against them to be pointless. As Mr Kobayashi mentioned above, I have met some wonderful people, who believe strongly in God, and this faith is essentially an expression of the beauty and mystery they see in the world. I myself was quite religious as a kid, but lost faith in my teen years. I envy those who still have faith in a benevolent God, but somehow I feel the evidence just does not support that conclusion. Though the temptation to believe is still strong. I love these words by Russell: “What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.”
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
I have to disagree with you there. Bertrand Russell felt compelled to strongly defend and advocate atheism in the 30s, as did other British scientists like Crick in the late 50s, even when Britain was not consumed by any kind of religious fundamentalism, nor was the world itself in the throes of religion related conflict. Of course, Russell paid for these (and other) opinions in (where else?) the U.S, when his appointment as a professor at City College in New York was withdrawn after a public outcry.
And I don’t see why they shouldn’t have if they felt strongly that it was the right thing from an intellectual point of view. Especially since it does not have the negative externalities that the practice of organized religion often does.
In an attempt to tie the two interweaving threads of this post together, I should add that there are no atheists in foxholes…or on blind dates.
Just you wait until the suicide astrologers come at us with the exploding crystals! We’ll probably elect Jenna Bush for President right about then. And boy, won’t Hawkins be all shame-faced then!
George Carlin on Religion [Video]
Sakshi – I think it is reasonable that deeply rational people believe in the kind of God that you describe. For example, Einstein believed in exactly this kind of God – a God who reflects the deep mysteries of the universe, and its underlying harmony and beauty, and inspires reverence and humility. At least for me, this is not at all hard to reconcile with an abiding respect for science. For example, the simplicity of Theories (with a capital T!) such as evolution by natural selection explaining the complexity of all life around us, or the eventual Theories that will hopefully describe all physical processes, or the working of the brain, and so on.
Kobayashi, among other things, is describing people who have a deep belief in God, or the principles of a religion (like Islam). AAK, for example, has led an exemplary public life, and I don’t think it is reasonable for me to have any complaint about the fact that he believes in God. The problems arise when one’s practice of an organized religion impinges on the rights of, and peaceful coexistence with, other people. This is what Steven Weinberg was referring to, and what upsets most people who don’t believe in God or religion.
I don’t think we are ever going to have concrete proof of the existence or otherwise of a God. People are going to continue to believe whatever they choose to believe. The er, cosmic mystery, is going to be whether they will be able to do this without killing themselves.
I will get off my soapbox now. This debate has been had by people far smarter than I for hundreds of years, and been documented on the Internet by people who need far less sleep, or are far more jobless than I, in the past several years, so Google away to get your fix.
but where else would i be assured an iridescent sepia tint ? =)
its good.I accept
Ironically it is the intolerance towards athiesm that is surprising when you consider all the religious tolerance being discussed.
Thanks for having this discussion guys.
Siddhartha:
DDiA:
Rahul:
sexy voice and come hither look Boys, boys, boys. What do you say you all come back to my place tonight? Don’t worry, there’s enough Shruti for all three of you.
He couldn’t be more wrong about the Koran,” says Reza Aslan, the “No God but God” author. “In the history of the prophetic biblical canon that starts with Genesis, the Koran is by far the most tolerant of the views of other religions.”
The key is not the literal scripture but the interpretation and practice based on the scripture. Aslan is right only to the extent of making a line to line comparison of general intolerance and violence. Also lets remember that the Old Testament is way older than the Quran and I am sure human sensibilities had seen some progress in that period. Also Aslan has some pretty ridiculous things to say about Quran and the polytheists. He thinks there are not enough polytheists around. Hello? Mainstream Muslims believe that hundreds of millions of Hindus are polytheists and now an increasing number also believe that the Catholics are polytheists as well.
According to me, Buddhism is Jainism light. Jainism has been unwavering in the first principal of ‘Ahimsa’ since the religion was formed. While other religions has tag-line of ‘peace’ and ‘love’, Jains vehemently practice it.
Jainism is closer to Atheism than any other major religion, thus Sam Harris approves it.
Religion does not make people bad (if there is such a thing as good and bad). One of my parents hippy friends changes her religion practically every week. It doesnÂ’t change a thing, sheÂ’s still a nut case.
And every time when she visits us (unfortunately) she screams that she has found the truth. So Harris found his truth. Good for him! I donÂ’t think that the atheist ideology is superior and I donÂ’t think Jainism is an option for meat-loving persons comme moi.
Enfin, I was watching an documentary about the survivors from the Schiphol-fire and one of the men said something that reminded me of this post and it just cracked me-up
God has his good moments tooÂ…
Whats Harris’s position on the axiom of choice for example? Does he think it is a religion? Or useful/interesting theorems which actually need AC (like Paris Harrington and so on)
Not all things that are unprovable are evil.
It takes about two minutes of thinking to realize that a benevolent God doesn’t exist. Just as agnostics are puzzled that anyone can be “so sure” that they settle on atheism, so atheists are bemused by the “maybe, maybe not” bet-hedging of agnostics. I don’t envy people who believe in the tooth fairy, in Santa Claus, in alien motherships or in a benevolent God.
I find almost nothing of value in what people believe religiously. From my point of view, most of it is childish superstition (though, due to its role in human history, it has also occasioned some staggeringly beautiful art and music). However, I find tremendous value in how some religious people live. I can think of a great number of religious people, of all persuasions, that I would more readily spend an evening with than the cranky Sam Harris or smarty-pants Dawkins (I do think I’d enjoy Dennett’s company).
People (religious or otherwise) don’t act according to their “beliefs” but according to a more subtle brew of instinct, life experience and intelligence. This is why someone like Amjad Ali Khan (just to take an example that’s close at hand– I don’t mean to set him up as a paragon) can blithely say, “I am a Muslim and my wife is a Hindu.” The most enlightened people, it seems, are not too literal minded about these things. Religion, with its insubstantial (and sometimes offensive) foundation, can actually be a matrix, like any other, for the entire spectrum of human expression, from Dick Cheney all the way to the Thich Nhat Hahn.
Do athiests religiously not believe in God?
Most pertinent question – What kind of guys do chicks like better? Religious or agnostic or atheist?
That was a serious question by the way. I am trying to understand to what extent our beliefs are guided by sexual selection, which from my understanding is a primary motivator for almost everything.
Memes might be very relevant also. I would be willing to bet the % of self confessed atheists and agnostics reduces sharply in more traditional societies( even after accounting for beheading factor)
Kobayashi – it is very hard to justify a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God (although philosophers have been trying for centuries – and not convincingly, in my opinion), but I don’t see why you logically can’t have a God that’s purely benevolent, and does not Run The World in the sense that many religious people imagine. This sort of viewpoint is compatible with evil, free will etc.
But why am I arguing for “the other side” again? To paraphrase Jack Lemmon in Some Like it Hot, I’m an atheist, I’m an atheist, My God, I’m an atheist!
I also don’t necessarily understand the second part of your post. So some atheists are annoying/unpleasant/boring/not worthy of company, and some religious people are nice/pleasant/interesting/worthy of company? And?
Ennis, judging by the number of comments, you have clearly found the second hot button of Sepians. Taz, you need a post of Jolie’s religion or Paris’ deep observations on Hinduism if you are going to deal with this competition.
And, everybody, check out the Carlin rant/sketch that Ken#79 linked to, it is HILARIOUS!
gautimi, you are wrong, religion can make a person bad or good. The soul has the potential to be either, religion provides the means to move in the direction of good or bad.
also, Jainism will not approve of any meat-eaters, however, it is not necessary to be a Jain to aim for some of the noble principles of Jainism.
just like to add a desi connection.
http://www.humanistictexts.org/carvaka.htm#Introduction
The system of philosophy named after its founder, Carvaka, was set out in the Brhaspati Sutra in India probably about 600 BCE. This text has not survived and, like similar philosophies in Greece, much of what we know of it comes from polemics against it and remarks by its critics. There is a further similarity with Greece in that this is a rationalistic and skeptical philosophy, thus undermining the widespread belief in the West that Indian philosophy is primarily religious and mystical. Amartya Sen has argued, in fact, that there is a larger volume of atheistic and agnostic writings in Pali and Sanskrit than in any other classical tradition—Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Arabic. He adds that this applies also to Buddhism, the only agnostic world religion ever to emerge.
CarvakaÂ’s philosophy developed at a time when religious dogma concerning our knowledge of reality, the constitution of the world, and the concept of an afterlife were being increasingly questioned, both in India and elsewhere. Specifically, the school of Carvaka contained within itself a materialism that ruled out the supernatural (lokayata), naturalism (all phenomena described in terms of the properties of the four elements), rejection of the Vedas (nastika), and a skepticism that included rejection of inferential logic, or induction.
One of the best sources for CarvakaÂ’s atheistic argument happens to be a book, Sarvadarshansamgraha (the collection of all philosophies), written in the Fourteenth Century by Madhavacarya, a Vaishnavite (Hindhu) scholar. Extracts from this are provided below.
blaspheny in Britain
Okay, maybe time for me to briefly enter the Collosseum…..
Mr Kobayashi,
You’re assuming that:
a) Your own thought-processes and conclusions are correct; b) God can be understood purely via logical deduction and mental acrobatics; c) As humans, we are in a sufficient position to truly grasp the “mind of God”.
With all due respect, the above may be correct but only up to a certain point. I’ve made the analogy previously on SM that humans trying to understand God in His/Its entirety is like an amoeba trying to understand the mind of Einstein — only in this case, the intellectual and cognitive difference is extrapolated to infinity.
We cannot possibly grasp the enormity of the entity are discussing — consider the size, age, and complexity of the universe, right down to the most cutting-edge subatomic forces. If the entity who created all this does indeed exist, and is omniscient, immortal and all-pervasive, not just regarding this universe and the associated dimensions, but all others, then it would be staggeringly arrogant for any person (I’m speaking generally, not referring specifically to you here) to be able to “know” and predict the mind of this being.
Up to a certain point, yes (from a religious viewpoint, at least within Sikhism, this is because our souls are aspects of God, and “removing the duality” means you become “plugged in” to the true nature of God), but beyond that it’s impossible. Our own brains have limits which prevent us from becoming really aware of the nature of God purely by theoretical speculation and abstract reasoning.
It’s also for this reason that I find it arrogant and abhorrent when people behave maliciously towards others while using the self-righteous justification that “This is what God wants/would want”.
(You also have to factor in issues such as the fact that humans themselves are the primary source of “evil” in the world regarding man’s inhumanity to man — ie. “free will” etc. Especially once you discount the idea of “Satan” causing such behaviour; people have to take primary responsibility for their own negative conduct. This is compatible with the idea of a truly benevolent God).
Perhaps, but I think that sometimes the impact that a person’s religious beliefs have on their character and behaviour is an indication of the truth or falsehood of their religion (assuming that they’ve interpreted their religion’s tenets accurately and are practicing them to the letter). For me personally, for example, the veracity of Sikhism is first and foremost due to how the Sikh Gurus themselves lived their lives. Their own conduct was proof enough, from my point of view. Not that I agree with believing anything blindly, of course (and Sikhism itself explicitly teaches against this), and there are various other aspects of the faith’s teachings which also made the most sense to me, after a long process of analysis and questioning on my part (still on-going).
Agree to some extent, although sometimes people twist their religious beliefs to match their own agendas and personalities. Also, it depends on how you view the concept of religion — whether it’s believing in a collection of stories which may or may not be historically accurate, and rigidly following various prescribed rules of behaviour, or if it’s something more subtle involving genuinely increasing one’s inner spirituality. Which is an important point: One has to differentiate between religion and spirituality, because the two do not mean the same thing and do necessarily always go together either. There are also some other issues which Sikhism specifically addresses regarding the difference between blind orthodoxy and tangibly increasing one’s awareness of God, but this isn’t the place for all that so I won’t go into further detail (SM isn’t a place for “grandstanding” about one’s own faith). Ennis and Amardeep probably know what I’m talking about, for example. However, there is a famous saying by Guru Nanak regarding the dangers of religious literalism — especially blindly following the contents of various holy scriptures — and unthinking beliefs, (approximate quote): “The pages are the prison, and the writings are the bars on the windows”.
Abhi also recently posted an article on the News tab by Deepak Chopra regarding the soul as part of a discussion on “Life after death”, and for once the good doctor said something which I fully agree with and is certainly in line with my own perspective, at least based on my own life-experiences:
“You get in touch with it when you are intoxicated with love. You get in touch with it when you have a peak experience. You get in touch with it in the stillness of meditation. You get in touch with it when you do selfless service, like a Mother Theresa. So there are many ways. Being, thinking, feeling and doing can all allow you to get in touch with your soul.”
I’d like to sign off with Bulle Shah’s quote, kindly supplied by DJ Drrrty Poonjabi in post #42:
“A lover’s heart is God’s abode”.
Carvaka is the guru I have been seeking all my life. The dudes ideas make him sound like the worlds first libertarian circa 600 BC!
I have always been a pleasurist – a firm believer in guiltlesss pursuit of pleasure. I remember Amartya Sen mentioning him, but I dint take it seriously enough. And only now I realised there is an entire philosphy to justify my debauched ways –
That the pleasure arising to man from contact with sensible objects, is to be relinquished because accompanied by pain— such is the reasoning of fools…
Religion has been marketed so well over the last 2-3000 years, it has sucked itself into the fibre of civilisation.
from my earlier post:
Amartya Sen has argued, in fact, that there is a larger volume of atheistic and agnostic writings in Pali and Sanskrit than in any other classical tradition—Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Arabic. He adds that this applies also to Buddhism, the only agnostic world religion ever to emerge.
wonder if this is true.
AL Basham said the same thing in his book ‘The wonder that was India’.