In preparation for our Flanagan discussions, I listened to several episodes of both The Secular Buddhist and Buddhist Geeks. I still don't feel like I've really at bottom decided what I think of either of them, but both have articulate hosts and interview lots of people apparently big in the Western Buddhist community (I can't comment on how representative or penetrating a sample they really represent), so I can recommend either for people who want to immerse themselves in that world. The obvious difference is that the Secular Buddhist has a specific agenda compatible with Flanagan's (he appeared on the show), while Buddhist Geeks seems more of a catch-all to expose the wonderful world of different and disparate approaches.
For example, one of the more big-name guests on Secular Buddhist is Stephen Batchelor, who appeared first on this earlier, August 2010 episode to describe his approach: Similar to Flanagan, he focuses on the early Pali canon and remarked about the promising connections between Buddhism had Stoicism/Epicureanism. However, he mentioned the Abhidamma specifically as part of the later accretions that may have obscured what the Buddha actually advocated and he casts the emergence of secular Buddhism as political, i.e. in breaking from the exclusive teacher-to-student-through-the-generations traditions that constitute what little counts as religious authority in Buddhism to turn instead in sort of a Protestant Reformation-type move to go look at the texts yourselves and work with other secular-minded people to use the ethical tenets of Buddhism to create positive political change. Flanagan in our discussion with him did not seem so optimistic about the potential of Buddhism to yield adequate political philosophy given its history (and I'm wondering if any of our listeners took great issue with his claim that there's never been a successful Buddhism-driven government).
Batchelor also then appeared on this episode from January 2012 to elaborate on the historical movement of Buddhism in the West, again with a mind to defending his non-traditional (selectively traditional?) approach.
Buddhist Geeks also featured Batchelor (see this episode from June 2010, where he among other things talks about the difference between atheism and agnosticism; it's nice hearing about that outside of an Abrahamic context), but the episodes I was complaining a bit about in our episode were this one on Buddhist magic, which I found insufficiently skeptical, and moreso this interview with Charles Tart where Tart defends the paranormal as backed by evidence which no unbiased person could deny. For the sake of completeness, here's another covering "Western Magick" more generally, back to Pythagoras. For more on Batchelor vs. Tart, you can read this long post by Dennis Hunter on the Buddhist Geeks blog, which focuses particularly on karma and rebirth.
My weariness with the supernatural in this context is the same as came up in our discussions here about the historicality of the resurrection of Jesus. Establishing a convincing lack of bias is difficult, particularly when the person you're listening to has an admitted prior allegiance to religion or conversely (according to the accusations of the religious) is already committed to naturalism prior to reviewing the evidence. And in both cases, I'd much rather just take in the account of someone trustworthy who's looked at the historical or in Tart's case allegedly scientific data rather than slog through and try to in some way authenticate or debunk it myself.
-Mark Linsenmayer
Ernest Prabhakar says
April 20, 2012 at 4:59 pmI find it amusing the you are weary of how “supernaturalists” spend so much time trying to find truth outside the scientific context, given that (as far as I can tell) *philosophy* is entirely concerned with trying to find truth outside the scientific context!
I’m not saying they are the same, but perhaps if you could articulate exactly how and why *philosophers* pursues a non-scientific understanding of truth, it might give you more patience/insight with us “religious kooks.” 🙂
Mark Linsenmayer says
April 20, 2012 at 5:39 pmHi, E, good to hear from you.
You’ve hit on that difficult distinction between supernaturalism and what I was calling philosophical non-naturalism (a la G.E. Moore) and those elements compatible with a naturalism like Flanagan’s that yet aren’t the subject matter of chemistry and physics (like virtue). Did you find Flanagan’s argument that such an inclusive naturalism is coherent unconvincing?
My flippant comparison of the ESP case to the historical resurrection is of course not very exact, if the point of the resurrection is that it was an exception to natural law (which I don’t have more to say about beyond my previous miracles entries), whereas paranormal researchers are making what are supposed to be verifiable scientific claims that then are not (as far as I know) actually verified.
Tom McDonald says
April 22, 2012 at 1:08 pmThis is a helpful distinction. Seems to me the best philosophers are usually trying to articulate the truth and dignity of what is neither supernatural nor merely natural in the scientific materialist sense.
dmf says
April 21, 2012 at 7:56 amhttp://www.radioopensource.org/rebecca-goldsteins-36-arguments-the-ontological-urge/
here is a respectful but firm “no” to the ontological urge, I understand that atheism is a minority position but I for one am glad to have found a place on the web where philosophy isn’t subsumed by theology and other forms of magical thinking.
Brent says
April 21, 2012 at 5:10 pmThe role of superstition in religion is deeply ambiguous, to say the least. My impression is that the Buddha of the Pali canon was very skeptical about supernaturalist metaphysics, but he teach that the correct view was to live as though there would be postmortem moral judgement, but if not, at least if one has lived as though karma extends beyond lifetimes or if there is a heaven then as least you would still have lived the best possible live because you will have understood the tremendously important role that morality plays in creating a meaningful life, whether or not there is an afterlife.
dmf says
April 22, 2012 at 8:22 amhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/philosophy-is-not-a-science/?src=tp
Tom McDonald says
April 22, 2012 at 1:16 pmThis is a good article, but if you seriously consider the problem of demarcation in philosophy of science, i.e., the question of how to precisely demarcate between real science and pseudo-science, thine eyes will be opened to ineradicable, non-empirical aspects of social construction and interpretation required to define empirical science, which fuzzes the notion that science is always crystal clear.
dmf says
April 22, 2012 at 2:11 pmI’m actually a proponent of the “practice turn” of folks like Latour, Hacking, Pickering, Ihde, Rabinow, Mol&Law, etc. and have done research and teaching in ANT, STS, and medical anthro.
Burl says
April 22, 2012 at 9:32 amdmf
I’m really not trying to be your shadow contrarian, but this article really argues better for the side opposing philo …
“In sum, philosophy is not science. For it employs the rational tools of logical analysis and conceptual clarification in lieu of empirical measurement.
So does scientific theory.
“And this approach, when carefully carried out, can yield knowledge at times more reliable and enduring than science, strictly speaking.
So philo is better at scientific self-improvement, advancement, and theoretical fine-tuning than science itself? Bravo, philo!
“For scientific measurement is in principle always subject to at least some degree of readjustment based on future observation. Yet sound philosophical argument achieves a measure of immortality.
I think therefore dogs have no consciousness. Immortal truths like that?
“So if we philosophers want to restore philosophy’s authority in the wider culture, we should not change its name but engage more often with issues of contemporary concern — not so much as scientists but as guardians of reason.
As someone commented on a PEL thread, “All philosophersseem to do is criticize innovators”
“This might encourage the wider population to think more critically, that is, to become more philosophical.
Yep, that really is about all philo has come to be in the 21st century.
Too many of these self-justifying articles by philos are showing up these days. I recall hearing the same arguments from sociology grad students back in my freshman days “Soc deserves more respect – to be considered a science.” Well, 40 years later, it pretty much has established itself as such.
And in another 40 years, we very well may have a respectable science of Ontics.
dmf says
April 22, 2012 at 12:52 pmthere are a lot of leaps and gaps in in your comment so I may have missed the point but if you follow my line of comments hereabouts you will see that I’m usually the one wondering if there is still a field/subject that remains to be properly called Philosophy, let alone some thing/discipline called “reason” to be guarded.
dmf says
April 22, 2012 at 1:05 pmps the scientific status of sociology,psychology,economics,cultural-anthro, etc are still highly debated in and out of the academy.
Greg says
April 22, 2012 at 4:18 pmI no longer feel as though I have a dog in the fight over the purported naturalism/irreligiousness of the historical Buddha. But what continues to bother me about Batchelor is that he consistently presents himself as some sort of expert on early Buddhism, which he is most assuredly not. He is entitled to his biases, but not to any unearned authority – and his credentials in the field are nonexistent. Further, he seems to cleverly disguise that fact for an audience that is not in a position to discern as much.