To Those Who say That A Well Trained Devout Catholic

[David Sklansky]

would, on average, make just as good a general or Supreme Court Justice as a well trained agnostic, suppose I changed Catholic to:

1. Devout Lutheran

2. Devout Jew

3. Moderate Muslim

4. Buddhist

5. Scientologist

6. Fundamentalist Christian (believes the bible literally)

7. Someone Who Truly Believes in Astrology

8. A Satan Worshiper

9. A Muslim Extremist Who Believes in the 72 Virgins

10 Someone Who Truly Believes in the Tooth Fairy

I am assuming all of the above are well trained AND that they will put aside their beliefs when doing their job. In other words if they do not perform as well as the agnostic it is because they can't think as well. Given that, which of the above would rate to do as well as the Catholic and agnostic?

[Peter666]

Essentially you are asking: which of those faiths has the least chance of interfering with logic and reasoning?

I say it is about a tie between the Jew and Moderate Muslim, followed by the Lutheran. Because it is a set of unquestionable commands, the Jewish faith can look at questions without interference (so long as none of their commands strictly forbids them to do this). Islam is similar in that it is a very simple faith. You must believe Allah is God, Mohammed is his prophet, and follow some protocols. These again do not interfere with logical reasoning as they are abstract to it, like the Jewish faith.

The Lutheran is similar in that he can claim a simple "faith alone" without recourse to logic. He can look at logical questions abstractly, however, I say this with reservation because the Lutheran opens himself up to subjective reasoning just like his faith does when examining questions in detail. In this case, it would be important to study the judicial record of the Lutheran to make sure his logic is sound.

The others on the list should not be considered for a position on the supreme court, or any position where important decision making is involved. They are too emotional, crazy, or completely anti-logic. For example, the whole purpose of Buddhism is to eliminate thought and reasoning to reach Nirvana! How can a Buddist be considered for a position where logic and reasoning is involved? But on the other hand, it is this lack of reasoning which makes Buddism popular with many Hollywood celebrities.

[imported_luckyme]

Peter666 [ QUOTE ]
Essentially you are asking: which of those faiths has the least chance of interfering with logic and reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]

DS, I guess we need some clarification because it won't be very meaningful if some are answering this 'poll' question based on Peter666's interpretation and those who base their answers more on your statement

[ QUOTE ]
In other words if they do not perform as well as the agnostic it is because they can't think as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, the 'not thinking well' is a cause rather than effect. ??

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
would, on average, make just as good a general or Supreme Court Justice as a well trained agnostic, suppose I changed Catholic to:

1. Devout Lutheran

2. Devout Jew

3. Moderate Muslim

4. Buddhist

5. Scientologist

6. Fundamentalist Christian (believes the bible literally)

7. Someone Who Truly Believes in Astrology

8. A Satan Worshiper

9. A Muslim Extremist Who Believes in the 72 Virgins

10 Someone Who Truly Believes in the Tooth Fairy

I am assuming all of the above are well trained AND that they will put aside their beliefs when doing their job. In other words if they do not perform as well as the agnostic it is because they can't think as well. Given that, which of the above would rate to do as well as the Catholic and agnostic?

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

As long as all these people are strict constructionists and do not legislate from the bench, all of these people would rule just fine. We would have to assure ourselves that they were all sane people, however.

[ QUOTE ]
We would have to assure ourselves that they were all sane people, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sane person believes in the tooth fairy? Or that the alignment of the stars can predict the future? Or that Satan is worthy of worship?

[PrayingMantis]

David, I truely appriciate your intelligence, but this is an example for one of the most stupid threads imaginable. And no, I don't think it's stupid because it's not politically-correct or anything (I care very little about PC) it is stupid because it it signifies a very superficial and childish way of looking at things, that remind me discussions of some 12 years old boys.

And sure as can be, this thread already brought us few of the most ridiculous lines I've read on 2+2 in a very long time:

From Peter666:

[ QUOTE ]
I say it is about a tie between the Jew and Moderate Muslim, followed by the Lutheran. Because it is a set of unquestionable commands, the Jewish faith can look at questions without interference (so long as none of their commands strictly forbids them to do this).

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of ignorance presented here is unbelievable. I almost want to cry.

I'm not a regular at this forum, so of course I mean nothing to any of you here, but since I do think that there are quite a few very intelligent people here (as I can say by reading from time to time) I think it's really sad that this forum discusses mainly all kinds of ridiculous questions with regard to "religion". I'm writing "religion" because IMO discussions about religion can be very interesting and go very deep, but it's definitely not what's going on here. This thread, as many of your other threads too, discuss "religion" in probably the most uninteresting possible way, as if all that is interesting about religion is "who is more logical", Protestants or Chatholics, or X or Y. Come on, this is 3rd grade level of discussing religion. I think that even in high-school you go deeper than that (I would admit that I don't know much about high-scools in the USA... maybe I'm wrong and this discussion represents very high level of thinking in comparison...)

"Religion" as a whole is a fascinating thing to discuss, mainly because it touches upon the most basic and often ancient ideas created by human-beings, and on the other-hand, some extremely complex religion systems were devoloped over time. Researching it, thinking about it, discussing all this, comparing those systems of "action" and "belief" can bring some incredible fruits. But not here, apparently.

Also, I would expect that a rather big variety of subjects could be discussed in a forum called "science, math, philosophy", other than "religion". But it doesn't look like you are much interested in anything but those little superficial "discussions" about "religion", and again, it feels like such a waste.

Now it's clear that something is really bothering you, on a personal level, with regard to what you might call the characterstics of that historical "Jewish-Christian" God, but IMHO, big parts of what seem to bother you are issues that were discussed endlessly before, in a much more thorough way than it's done here. I'm 100% positive that you might even learn one or two things if you bother to go deeper into texts that deal seriously with the philosphy of religion.

Again, I have all the respect for you as a very intelligent person, so I don't mean all this to be some kind of an insult.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We would have to assure ourselves that they were all sane people, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sane person believes in the tooth fairy? Or that the alignment of the stars can predict the future? Or that Satan is worthy of worship?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I should have clarified my statement a little better...sane enough to be a strict constructionist...it doesn't matter what they believe in real life as long as they interpret the law with a clear head and do not try to make decisions based upon their own agenda rather than the law. There are plenty of people of faith that have taken heat in their churches for making a decision based upon the law at hand. These people are only doing their job as they should.

Those are some nice ideas, unfortunately it will obviously be difficult to discuss the interesting aspects of religion with someone who is religious. It is like discussing the interesting aspects of mental health problems with someone who is insane.

Whereas two atheist can say "isn't it intersting how ancient humans created the idea of Gods in order to explain that which they didn't understand". The religious contributer will say "no, God created them". The atheists look at each other and roll their eyes, then decide to go to the pub instead. Perhaps the religious guy goes somewhere to hand over any cash he has on him and chant until any hints of doubt are eliminated.

Thats why there won't be many other discussions than is it true or isn't it?

The fact that somebody is highly intelligent and can reason with apparent logic does not keep them from making highly suspect decisions.
Most of the Nazi's who created the 3rd Reich and the concentration camps were LAWYERS. It was all done legally and so-called reasonably by their standards of the day. Slavery was legal as was Christ's crucifixion.
In all of these cases, it was the intelligentsia who logically decided to do what is now considered unthinkable.

g

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
unfortunately it will obviously be difficult to discuss the interesting aspects of religion with someone who is religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very wrong, for a fact. Few of the best writers, researches and thinkers in the academic field/s of philosophy/history of religion (sepecific religions and religion at large) are religious people (coming from a variety of different religions), and not necessarily researching their "own" religion. Also, throughout history, some of the most interesting, provocative and deep discussions ABOUT religion were between religious people, sometimes very religious people.

Unfortunately, you, as others here, have an extremely narrow idea about what it means to be religious. And the discussions here reflect this narrowness.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, you, as others here, have an extremely narrow idea about what it means to be religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enlighten us.

[PrayingMantis]

Of course I won't be able to enlighten you with regard to this, and I have no ability or good enough tools to do so. However, I'd only say that I find the fact that people here think they discuss "religion" while in fact discussing almost nothing more than some very very simplistic and rather banal aspects of Christianity, to be quite amazing.

Has anyone on those endless "religion" discussions ever mentioned any religious text (or a text about religion) other than the bible? I don't think so. This is absolutely ridiculous.

I once mentioned the new testaments of the mormon religion.

Now they were absolutely rediculous /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I once mentioned the new testaments of the mormon religion.


[/ QUOTE ]

You see, this is exactly what I mean. The only non-bible religious text you have mentioned in those discussions about "religion" is "the new testaments of the mormon religion.". This is beyond amazing IMO. In a way it's like thinking that all human-beings are living, and ALWAYS lived, in Los-Angeles or something (Yes, I know it's an exaggeration I'm making here here, but I make it, so my point will be more clear. And I mean just that.)

BTW I'm British, there was a dry-sarcasm element to the above post.

Maybe I should have put more smileys in.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW I'm British, there was a dry-sarcasm element to the above post.

Maybe I should have put more smileys in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about missing it... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

It was extremely dry, I'll tell you that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif which is prefectly fine, actually.

(BTW there's the "paradox" about smileys and sarcasm: when you are being sarcastic and add smileys, it's not sarcasm anymore, and if you don't add them, well, there's a good possibility no one will get it, so not much sarcasm in that).

[Zygote]

what is superficial about the question? the point is a basic one, but is still fundamental to the religion issue. the importance is that this point hasn't been fullly established amongst many posters and, therefore, needs to be emphasized.

i'm disappointed by your critique of david's post because you didn't really provide any substantive thought. you just said he was wrong and troubled over and over again. tell us why he is wrong, what issues you believe are more important, and specifically why this post has no importance to the issue of religion.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
Fundamentalist Christian (believes the bible literally)

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "believes the bible literally?"

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
what is superficial about the question? the point is a basic one, but is still fundamental to the religion issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is "fundamental to the religion issue" in this question?

[ QUOTE ]
you just said he was wrong and troubled over and over again. tell us why he is wrong, what issues you believe are more important, and specifically why this post has no importance to the issue of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said he is "wrong"? I'm not sure it's my post you're replying to, but in any case, this post "has no importance to the issue of religion", for the same reason that most posts/threads on this forum have no importance to the issue of religion. You are so into your own little discussions, that you don't see that you are not discussing the issue of religion at all, you are simply going again and again at some questions that as worded are very uninteresting (like this one here) and do nothing more than repeating your "opinions" about your own or others "beliefs".

When you also consider the fact that some significant % of posters here have absolutely zero idea about the things they talk about (and I mean absolutely zero idea, as with Peter666 in this thread, and probably in many others as well), this is really becoming embarassing.

What issues are "more important"? Well, you might very well say that the issue that this thread "presents" is important, and I won't be able to say anything. I would suspect, however, that you have never read or encountered a truely interesting discussion about religion, some aspect of religion, a specific religion or religion at large, and that's why you think those rather idiotic and repetitive discussions around here are "important".

I don't know that anyone thinks these discussions are important and that may be where you are misconstruing things. These discussions are a diversion, for me personally, and a way to spar intellectually.
Is table tennis important?

g

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, throughout history, some of the most interesting, provocative and deep discussions ABOUT religion were between religious people, sometimes very religious people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bibliography, please.

[PrayingMantis]

Again, to make one of my points, back to Peter:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, the whole purpose of Buddhism is to eliminate thought and reasoning to reach Nirvana! How can a Buddist be considered for a position where logic and reasoning is involved?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have such a little idea with regard to the things you are talking about (with such confidence!) it is just painful. Actually painful. I feel pain now.

It's fine that you have never heard anything about the _great_ and rich tradition of Buddhistic philosophy, logic, and systems of reasoning, but why do feel the need to expose your ignorance in such a way?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know that anyone thinks these discussions are important and that may be where you are misconstruing things. These discussions are a diversion, for me personally, and a way to spar intellectually.
Is table tennis important?


[/ QUOTE ]

My previous post was a reply to Zygote's post, who specifically asked "what issues you believe are more important, and specifically why this post has no importance to the issue of religion".

Otherwise your point of view is very valid, and not much to say against it.

[J. Stew]

If a person believes themselves to be any one of those titles then they are not able to be completely unbiased. What they believe themselves to be is exactly what skews the decision-making process.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]

Bibliography, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't know where to start, honestly. It's huge. And also I'm no expert, and I'm not saying this forum "should be" some academic platform or something. I think that intelligent people can talk and discuss stuff in an interesting and deep way without being experts, and without reading tons of books - it's a question of approach, perspective, curiousity, open-mindedness, and I feel the "religious" discussions around here get D- in all of these.

[kbfc]

I agree with your general assessment. Like someone else said in this thread, this is basically table tennis for me. That said, I've read/studied a lot of religious philosophy over the years (I'm talking specifically about stuff by religious people), and I'm hardpressed to give any of it better than the D- you give the forum.

[Zygote]

i know you love touting your ego and i'm sure you are the only one on this planet who has ever actually discussed religion in an intellecutal sense, but you still haven't told us ANYTHING other than none of us know what we're talkign about.

start a thread detaling some of your secretive deep religious examanation, i beg of you!

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
i know you love touting your ego and i'm sure you are the only one on this planet who has ever actually discussed religion in an intellecutal sense,

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no, very far from it.

[ QUOTE ]
but you still haven't told us ANYTHING other than none of us know what we're talkign about.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think you have misread me. Where did I say that none of you know what you are talking about? Some of you clearly have very little idea about what they're talking about, which is sad (especially since this forum is called "Science, Math and Philosophy"), and if it wasn't about "religion", people wouldnt be so easy with others who are completely ignorant with regard to the things they talk about (think about any poker forum around here - would you be happy with people talking very confidently about pot-odds without knowing anything about the actual meaning of it? So how is that different than someone talking confidently about Judaism or Buddhism while clearly having zero actual knowledge/understanding?).

Other than that I have said that there are very intelligent posters here, and also I have mentioned several times the exact things that bother me. It is pretty clear if you read my few posts here. BTW, You obviously don't need to care about those things too.

[ QUOTE ]
start a thread detaling some of your secretive deep religious examanation, i beg of you!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but I have no secretive religious examinations to detail. Also, when/if I feel like starting a thread on this forum, I'll do just that, believe it or not.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bibliography, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't know where to start, honestly. It's huge. And also I'm no expert, and I'm not saying this forum "should be" some academic platform or something. I think that intelligent people can talk and discuss stuff in an interesting and deep way without being experts, and without reading tons of books - it's a question of approach, perspective, curiousity, open-mindedness, and I feel the "religious" discussions around here get D- in all of these.

[/ QUOTE ]

So far you've pointed out that two religious nuts -- Peter666 and txag007 -- don't really know what they are talking about.

For better or worse, much of what goes on here is non-believers trying to point out to the fundamentalists how idiotic much of what they say is.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, much of what goes on here is simply non-believers trying to point out to the fundamentalists how idiotic much of what they say is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is exactly how I see the discussions here, and probably that is why I am "disappointed" and why I started this rant here (if anyone cares about it at all).

Discussions that evolve around pointing out to others how idiotic their beliefs are, are very boring, IMO, and if intelligent people are busy with such discussions, it is a waste of energy and time.

For instance - here's an idea for people on a board like this who want to discuss religion in a deep and interesting way. Why not turn it into something like a "movie/book club", where each week/month/whatever some religious tradition/book/text/figure will be discussed thoroughly. It does not have to do with Christianity even. Just going to explore ideas, thoughts etc with people who are interested in that, on a philosophical level. How about that, instead of those endless dog fights between believers and non-believers that lead to nothing?

[PokerAmateur4]

[ QUOTE ]
If a person believes themselves to be any one of those titles then they are not able to be completely unbiased. What they believe themselves to be is exactly what skews the decision-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since he said it's a presmise that they would put their biases aside, than let's try to answer his question from that standpoint.
I think he is asking, at the core of it: Of the average mental capacity of a given member of the following groups, which would be best suited to rule on the court.

[Peter666]

"it is just painful. Actually painful. I feel pain now."

I think you are proving my point. One should not have such an emotional reaction to a topic of discussion. That pain is what influences your decision making process and is dangerous when it comes to rational, logical thinking.

I have studied Buddism, but please feel free to educate me on any systems of logic that they have that would warrant their position as a judge, mathematician or scientist. Are there any famous Buddhists that fall into that category of professions?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
"it is just painful. Actually painful. I feel pain now."

I think you are proving my point. One should not have such an emotional reaction to a topic of discussion. That pain is what influences your decision making process and is dangerous when it comes to rational, logical thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I just feel pain when encountered with sever ignorance, in disguise of knowledge. It is the same pain I feel when I encounter stupidity. What you think/say about the consequences of this pain is simply not true.

[ QUOTE ]
I have studied Buddism

[/ QUOTE ]

No you haven't. Unless by "studied" you mean watching a show on your travel channel.

[ QUOTE ]
but please feel free to educate me on any systems of logic that they have that would warrant their position as a judge, mathematician or scientist. Are there any famous Buddhists that fall into that category of professions?

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever heard about a tiny, exotic and unimportant country called Japan, for instance? Population 128,000,000, from which the huge majority observe Buddhism? Does this little piece of information answer your last question?

And sorry about not "educating" you here about Buddhist systems of logic, but, hmmm, they exist. You shouldn't find this fact very difficult to verify, if, for some reason, you don't believe me.

[Peter666]

Well I watched "Little Buddha" with Keanu Reeves, certainly that counts for something.

There are as many Buddhist sects in Japan as there are Protestant sects. Their views differ widely so it is hard to formulate a coherent doctrine.

The so called "logic" of Buddhism is a rhetorical device that has no fundamental similarity with the deductive reasoning of Western thought as formulated by the ancient Greeks.

Your arguments of feeling sad and bad don't cut it I'm afraid.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I watched "Little Buddha" with Keanu Reeves, certainly that counts for something.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Not sure that I have witnessed your wit before this, Peter. Nice to see (in anyone, too).

[ QUOTE ]
Well I watched "Little Buddha" with Keanu Reeves, certainly that counts for something.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if that is your source for your study of Buddhism, it explains the ignorance displayed in the next two statements. I was at a loss to understand your claim of having studied Buddhism. In fact, I am hoping for your sake, that you had better knowledge retention in anything else you may have studied. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The point I don't understand is why post these two statements (below) which are false. Are you trying to confuse others, like you are? It doesn't seem to me to be aligned with the ancient greeks, or the scientific, view of knowledge to make unsubstantiated statements.

[ QUOTE ]
There are as many Buddhist sects in Japan as there are Protestant sects. Their views differ widely so it is hard to formulate a coherent doctrine.

The so called "logic" of Buddhism is a rhetorical device that has no fundamental similarity with the deductive reasoning of Western thought as formulated by the ancient Greeks.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Peter666]

Those statements are facts. I allowed Praying Mantis to direct me to sources contradicting my conclusion, but he did not do so. Now you are contradicting me with no evidence.

I realize Buddhists have a problem with logic and can only contradict but not prove, but use some of your Western influence to show that I am wrong if you can.

Hi Peter,

I did not want to hijack the thread, but since you aked..

Fact 1: There are indeed many lineages/sects in Buddhism, however, all agree on this fundamentally: to be recognised as a legitimate Buddhist doctrine, three things need be accepted/recognised. Those are the three charcteristics of existence, on which there are no disagreement amongst Buddhists. The three are:
1) dukkha (suffering, in a very broad sense of the word - including like in " I suffers someone presence" presence") All life is suffereing.
2) annatta (No self) There is no enduring self (soul/spirit, etc.. ) anywhere
3) annicca (Change) every thing is subject to change.

Makes for a very simple catechism, no? And it is very clear too.

Fact 2: Scientific achievements. The first thing to remember is that the objective of Buddhism demands a withdrawal from the wordling life, since life is perceived as a negative experience, and therefore the more well versed and pacticed, the least likely to continue, even, if it had began, a life of scientific achievement. That being said, I have personally known, some highly regarded scholars that were Buddhist monks. Indeed one of them, was considered generally the foremost authority in the world in Sanskrit and Pali languages. Another was Professor of Linguistics at Colombo University,. And there were more...

Fact 3: Buddhist logic. The third part of the Tippitaka (the triple basket, the oldest extant canonical writings... ie the equivalent of the christian bible), called the Abhidhamma, is a very detailed and coherent model of human psychology. It is entirely based on, and described in terms of, cause and effect. Hard to be more deductive than that! It has not been matched in terms of coherence, accurateness, minutia and broadness, by any western phychological theory that I have studied (ie. not gotten from travelog or TV program vulgarising the theories). It is also, a model that can be verified experientally by anyone who wish to do so.

Fact 4: your statement "I realize Buddhists have a problem with logic and can only contradict but not prove" is really not substantiated and, in fact, is contradicted by the above facts as I describe them.

This answer is with the aim of enlightening ( /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) you and to ensure that others do not increase their ignorance by accepting your unfounded statements at face value.

May you be happy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PrayingMantis]

Great post, MidGe. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

[ QUOTE ]
I did not want to hijack the thread

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post was as far from hijacking the thread as possible, IMHO, since clearly, this thread started as questioning the different "logical abilities" of different "believers", and Buddhists were on that list too.
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Peter666]

Ok, lets tackle this.

Point 1

The fundamental principles in Buddhism are like the fundamental principles in a Christian religion: Christ is God; You must have Faith; He redeemed us from sin; the wicked are punished the good rewarded in the afterlife.... However, the emergence of differing sects shows lack of authority and thus no objective reason to adhere to any one sect unless it claims absolute authority.

Point 2

I have no doubt that Buddhists are well disciplined and can make great scholarly or artistic achievements.

Point 3

Buddhist "logic" is not Western logic. This is evident in Buddhism's lack of scientific and mathematical discoveries. I am sure they have deep insight into human psychology, but we are talking about different things. This is from the perspective of a western logician: "Daye maintains that the descriptive utility of mathematical logic with early Nyaaya texts has simply been overrated";(2) that although the Nyaaya texts contain metalogical rules for evaluating the "legitimacy or illegitimacy" of arguments, the distinction between validity and invalidity does not apply;(3) that Nyaaya models are not inferences but "formalistic explanations"; and that "... Buddhist logic is not deductive, nor can it be formally valid nor is it an
inference."(4)

Douglas Daye, "Metalogical Incompatibilities
In the Formal Description of Buddhist Logic
(Nyaaya)," Notre Dame Journal of Logic 28, no. 2
(1977): 231.

I don't mess with Notre Dame Logicians. So bottom line, keep meditating, don't be a judge.

[bearly]

sir david's post does not use the word 'bias'. it seems at least that this slew of "religious" posts has brought out the bigots of the 'elite'. c'mon guys you know you are out there---i watched you prance around for years; and heard very slick versions of what you accuse the 'rednecks' of doing...............b

Ok Peter666,

Let me cover the tree refutation you gave. I will address the in order of difficulty rather than the original order.

Point 2:

I assume that we are nearly on accord here. I surely dispute your original point about lack of memorable Buddhist scinetists/mathematicians whetever. Even without researching I would doubt that no Nobel prize in hard sciences has ever been given to a Buddhist. I would expect that amongst the people exposede trained in western logic, I would expect a proportional number of buddhist, christians, muslims, etc... As there is more exposure to western logic, I expect abigger and bigger proportion of scholars than there is now, to be representative of the various religions. Conversely, you could say that there many more Buddhist scholars that happen to be Buddhis than there are Christians so. My andwer to the third point will expand a bit on that. I am no suprematicist and I hope you are not either.

Point 3:

My answer to point 2 above already give a refutation of your first stetement. I find it interesting that you use this quote from Douglas Daye and that you use Notre Dame logicians as some sort guarnteed of expertise. My experience with christian (and in particular catholic) education, was rather dismal in truth in those courses that I took regarding comparative religions. They were, in fact, quite untruthful, and as I found out later. They could no be substanttiated by looking directly at the sources. Having said that, I am a bit suspicious of any comment made about Buddhism by, however famous, a logician associated with Notre Dame University. Here I presume it is the catholic university, of which there happen to be, an associated one in the city I live in. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Having said that, I will try not to prejudge, and continue on the basis that indeed Douglas Daye understand/knows what he is talking about or, at least, has researched the subject. If that is so, then I must assume that you are quoting this out of context, and that his comments were not direcxted at Buddhism. For your, and his, altough I hope he doesn't need it, information, the Nyaaya (his spelling system, usually spelled Nyaya in latin script) is a buddhist sect that, to my knowledge is no longer extant. It is stronly rooted in Hindhuism, with the exception of overturning the believe of a god creator (shared by christian, muslims and hinddhus alike) and overturning the class system which was not very palatable at the time (about same time as JC), to the Hindu elite. In fact, it is this that is often associated with the fact that Buddhism, altough originating from India, is now a real minority there, having been "eradicated" or at least opposed by the authorities of the day as being revolutionary (which it was). Furthermore there are very few (a handful were only discovered) original texts. All scolarly work is done using translated reconstructed text (mainly from tibetan) and extrapolation from the tests of Vedic tradition. It is true that some of those texts address logic, but more so (not exclusively I admit) in terms of form which indeed still echoes in Tibetan Buddhism today as would probably be seen in travelogues or populist documentaries regarding tibetan monks. Their famous arguments which are punctuated by hitting the closed right fist in the open left palm, making a hudding/clapping sound. But this is just form, in the same way that tere exists rules and addresses for parlements or meeting in Western society. This is indeed very diffrent in content and purpose from the texts (Abhidhamma) that I refered too which are exactly what I said,at the very least an attempt at modelling the human psyche with no fault of logic, be it western or not(?). Or at least lacking the need for acrobatics required of wetern logic, to support such concept as the trinity, the dual nature of chirst, etc.. Of course, calling those mysteries does away with need for undertsanding and verification and even logic. Now you see it, now you don't. lol I challenge you to find a single statement that is illogical in the Abhidhamma, and I mean that, in accordance with western logic. You may very well dispute the truth of it but not the logic. I undertand you may not wish to "mess" with Notre Dame logicians and will address that ine my answer to the next poit. Suffice it to say I have no such qualms. Bring it on, baby /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Point 1:

This is probably your most important point and, again, unfortunately it shows a lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Worse, it does misrepresent Buddhism in a fundamental way. My explanation might get us to the point where we agree to disagree about the truthfullness of the respective positions we are supporting, but it shall not be on the basis of misrepresentation. The reason I am making the effort to reply, is just that I don't like misreprestentation, that it is an efarious act, of no benefits but rather great detriment of society. I would be as vociferously defending catholicism if someone said/posted that a well known fact was the pope kept a harem , in an inner room of the Vatican, for his exclusive benefit. In fact I would object to a number of the inferences contained in that statement. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

First of all, fundamentals principle are NOT like fundamental principles in a Christian religion. How are they not? They, of course, do not mention a god or authority. Specificall rejected as reasons to be a Buddhist, by the Buddha, are: because it is in texts, or, because he, or another master(?) said so. There is no room for authority whatever. In fact the Buddha encouraged his followers, when questionned about it, to go and listen to other teachers, to try out/prectice what they said, and if they found out it resulted in hapiness for themselves and for other, to take it on!
Secondly the Buddha never claimed to be anything but an ordinary man. What he achieved, is achievable by anyone (given efort, of course). His achievement can be defined as the elimination of suffering, by the eradication, with his psyche, of greed, hate and ignorance (all three terms, as is suffering, are approximate translation from the Pali, and are broader in application than the colloquial way in which they are used in English.
Thirdly, the Buddha never claimed anywhere that the way he expounded was the only way. He only stated he found a way to escape suffering, and descibed that way. Now you must see that logically the point your make is not relevant since it implies things/ a context, in contradiction with what you are asserting is true, in the case of Buddhism.

Lastly I will be keeping on both meditating and judging. This may very well be a not very Buddhist thing to do, in the broader meaning of "hate" ie, it covers such things as mild dislike, or, any negative reaction in the psyche for that matter. And no, I don't hate you /images/graemlins/smile.gif at all, I swear to god /images/graemlins/smile.gif but as I said misrepresentation will get neither of us where we want to be. By the way, the exclusively, specifically or distinguishing Buddhist meditation (there are others that are used by Buddhists also and are of benefit) is precisely an attempt at improving non-judgemental observation of your own psyche. The net result is bringing about an elimination of erroneous view point about what reality is, and, what we are as conscious being. It is called Vipassanna.

Enjoy, and again, I wish you all happiness possible.