Comments on Deric Bownds' MindBlog: The Neural Buddhists

Just as the word 'sacred' is deceptive, so is the ...

2008-05-14T13:37:00.000-05:00

Just as the word 'sacred' is deceptive, so is the word 'mysticism'. For all its imprecision, I still applaud Brooks' writing as hopefully nudging some conventionally religious people in a more rational direction, loosening their attachment to their own creed's creation myth, anthropomorphic god, etc.

There's a criticism of this article on ScienceBlog...

2008-05-14T12:35:00.000-05:00

There's a criticism of this article on ScienceBlogs.

Science and mysticism aren't going to blend. Science is not reinforcing mysticism. The use of the word 'sacred' is deceptive. There is no proof for the supernatural.

Brooks's article is little more than posturing and severe misunderstanding.

Best I can tell all he means to say is: God isn't ...

2008-05-13T14:55:00.000-05:00

Best I can tell all he means to say is: God isn't dead, but religion is (or will be). I don't see that happening, although it'd be a step in the right direction.

The rest of his materialism stuff seems to be very old news, rehashed in a simplistic manner.

In my master's thesis at UC Santa Barbara, I argue...

2008-05-13T11:26:00.000-05:00

In my master's thesis at UC Santa Barbara, I argued that nudges toward conclusions like "neural Buddhism" should be viewed not as unassailable scientific determinations but as another step in the lineages of religious thought. I deal directly with a number of the figures that Brooks mentions here, especially Andrew Newberg.

It is available in unpublished draft form on my website. A simplified version is currently available in the May/June issue of Science & Spirit magazine as well.