Re: A larger presence, the unknowable total of all there is

On Tue, 13 May 2008 06:32:15 -0400, Tang Huyen
<tanghuyen{delete}@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Today the New York Times has an Op-Ed piece
>by David Brooks, "Neural Buddhists".
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/
>13brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
><<Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to
>understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are
>not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people
>seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy
>and attachment.
>
>Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual
>states. Andrew Newberg of the University of
>Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent
>experiences can actually be identified and
>measured in the brain (people experience a
>decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which
>orients us in space). The mind seems to have the
>ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger
>presence that feels more real.
>
>This new wave of research will not seep into the
>public realm in the form of militant atheism.
>Instead it will lead to what you might call neural
>Buddhism.
>
>If you survey the literature (and I’d recommend
>books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S.
>Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio
>and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to
>speed), you can see that certain beliefs will
>spread into the wider discussion.
>
>First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic
>process of relation****ps. Second, underneath the
>patina of different religions, people around the
>world have common moral intuitions. Third,
>people are equipped to experience the sacred, to
>have moments of elevated experience when they
>transcend boundaries and overflow with love.
>Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature
>one experiences at those moments, the
>unknowable total of all there is.
>
>In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and
>Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been
>defending the existence of God. That was the
>easy debate. The real challenge is going to come
>from people who feel the existence of the sacred,
>but who think that particular religions are just
>cultural artifacts built on top of universal human
>traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose
>beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.
>
>In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are
>joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s
>bound to lead to new movements that emphasize
>self-transcendence but put little stock in divine
>law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to
>have to defend particular doctrines and particular
>biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend
>the idea of a personal God, and explain why
>specific theologies are true guides for behavior
>day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe
>me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the
>debate is headed. We’re in the middle of a
>scientific revolution. It’s going to have big
>cultural effects.>>
>
>Tang Huyen

The man's a clueless douchebag. a blitherer. He'd be lost even on
"these boards". 
Dowd is the clever one, and she steers clear of this sort of nonsense.