The Buddhist deceptions of Stephen Batchelor

Now I know why so many westerners tell such bullshit about Buddhism. Stephen Batchelor, in addition to his other lies, claims the Buddha rejected karma and reincarnation, per this review of his main book.

And? Wikipedia agrees.

Now, exactly what gets reincarnated, and how and why, the Buddha himself may not have detailed. I accept that it stems from him — and have accepted that for many years — that Buddhism rejects the idea of an individual soul. In that sense, then, Buddhist belief in reincarnation is even more offensive than the Vedic/Indian epic religion belief of reincarnation of a personal soul.

I don't believe that Hinduism is the right word for the majority Indian religious belief at the time of Siddhartha Gautama, but I also reject Batchelor and others who claim Hinduism didn't start until the start of the British Raj. Some people even claim — and I think, but am not sure, that that includes Batchelor — that Hinduism was "invented" for the British. Rather, I think Hinduism begins with the Guptas, when Buddhism either faded out or was chased out of India. And, I think that it was probably some deliberate chasing out, at least to some degree, along with a conscious effort to organize beliefs and ideas of the Axial Age epics of the Mahabharata and Ramayana into something coherent and cohesive. The ending of the compilation of the Ramayana in the 3rd century CE gives us a terminus ad quem for the dating of something like Hinduism. And, it dovetails, as that century is when the Gupta Empire started. And, Chandragupta II, circa 375-415, did much to elevate Hinduism.

I assume, but don't know, that Batchelor's "moves" here, and his motive, are ultimately to claim that Buddhism is not a religion, like Robert Wright. Well, Wright was wrong, and wrong. And thus, so is Batchelor. It believes in metaphysical principles and teaches people how to, individually and collectively, through both praxis and doctrine, to "better orient themselves" to these metaphysical principles, and thus fits my personal philosophy of religion-based definition of what a religion is.

I actually tackled this a bit a decade ago, and noted there, with a quote from someone else, that an Owen Flanagan was more intellectually honest than a Batchelor or Wright, in part by consciously admitting that they were creating a project to de-metaphysicalize the Buddha, rather than claiming to exegetically prove that he was an anti-metaphysician. And, here's that quote, again:

I don’t think it’s an accident that there are so many first generation Buddhists in America claiming it’s a philosophy and not a religion. Only if your parents aren’t Buddhists can you claim that Buddhism will do, unlike other religions, all that it promises. The first gen acolytes do all sorts of backbends to get around the obvious malarky of the dogma. Whether it’s the three card monty move of saying “there are many Buddhisms” so that any BS version of the doctrine you point out can be quickly pushed onto the wrong sect, or whether it’s the annoying “ineffable” dodge, or whether it’s the putting off until other lives the need for any sort of freaking evidence.

Owan Flannagan [sic] did his best to come up with a naturalized Buddhism, and I find it unsatisfactory. Nagarjuna is no more a logician than Democritus and Leucippus were Physicists, which, with Massimo’s blessing, they were not. Still I’m going to read the book for the history of logic.

There you are.

Here's Flanagan's primary book on that. And shock me, per one 1-star reviewer, that Sam Harris recommends the book. That's because he's done the Batchelor/Wright type BS peddling himself.

So, contra Flanagan's deliberate project and Batchelor's bullshit? Once again, as I said long ago on these pages?

Buddhism is still a religion.

And, karma is still as offensive as hell, whether it's a personal soul being reincarnated or not. Oh, and per claims that Buddhism teaches rebirth, not reincarnation? 

Per Spock: A difference that makes no difference IS no difference.

Dan Dennett and Q/qualia, the manifest image and more

Tim Bayne has a very good retrospective on some of Dan Dennett's thought at Aeon.

Two main things jumped out at me. One is his claim that Gilbert Ryle wasn't the only major philosophical influence on Dennett. 

He says we should also look at Wilfrid Sellars:

As the contemporary Oxford philosopher Anil Gomes observed in the London Review of Books in 2023, the key to understanding Dennett lies with another 20th-century American philosopher, Wilfrid Sellars – something of a philosopher’s philosopher. Sellars distinguished between two images of reality, the manifest image and the scientific image. The manifest image is the ordinary, everyday conception of reality – the conception of reality that human beings have prior to science. The scientific image, of course, is the conception of reality delivered by science.

Everybody knows a big part of Dennett's schtick was folk psychology, and Bayne says this was Dennett's version of the manifest image.

The biggie is — where is Dennett at in trying to incorporate some ideas from folk psychology into real psychology as a philosophy of mind? And, Bayne eventually looks at Dennett's idea of the self as a center of narrative gravity. He says this, essentially, stays in the manifest image and not the scientific image, and is based on stories. From this, he goes back to Wittgenstein as ordinary language philosopher. Here's his take on storytelling in general.

Indeed, if Dennett’s analysis of the self was driven by anything, it was driven not by science but by stories – and by stories about stories. At the heart of his paper ‘The Self as a Centre of Narrative Gravity’ (1992) is a story about a story-writing machine

From this, he says Dennett's idea is that, based on Ryle, "we" aren't looking for a causal explanation of behavior but rather sense-making. And, that's where Bayne discusses "the intentional stance."

That said, Bayne says Dennett himself was retreating from his view of intentionality by the end of his life.

Beyond that, aren't "we" as professional and amateur philosophers looking for a causal explanation of mind, beyond but including behavior?

Here qualia pop up.

The Philosophers’ Lexicon – first published by Dennett a decade before ‘Quining Qualia’– defines ‘to quine’ as to deny ‘resolutely the existence or importance of something real or significant’. Dennett coined the term in homage to his undergraduate advisor W V O Quine, who had tried to construct a metaphysics with as few entities as possible. That’s ‘quining’; what about ‘qualia’? Dennett distinguished two senses of this term. In one sense, qualia (singular: quale) are simply the ways that things seem to us in perceptual experience. (To use Dennett’s example, consider how a glass of milk looks at sunset – that’s a quale.) To deny that there are ways the world appears to us in perceptual experience would indeed be in the running for ‘the silliest claim ever made’, but Dennett made no such claim. Instead, his eliminativism was directed towards a certain conception of perceptual experience – Qualia-with-a-capital-Q. To believe in Qualia is to think that the experiential character of consciousness (‘the ways things seem to us’) involves properties that are intrinsic, private, ineffable and directly available to introspection. It is Qualia – and not qualia – that Dennett quined.

As I told Massimo Pigliucci, assuming Bayne has a good interpretation of Dennett's thought, then Dennett comes off as essentially creating a fictive (sic) Platonic idea of Qualia capital Q, and then using that as a strawman to beat down opponents of his thoughts.

Dennett was good at other strawmanning, which leads me to endorse that Bayne IS at least in the right neighborhood. Further confirmation comes further down:

Note, in passing, the absence of science here. There is no mention of single-cell recordings; no appeal to computational models of brain activity; no measures of entropy. Instead, we’re asked to consider a purely fictional scenario. Dennett’s case against Qualia rests on a purely philosophical argument that would not have been out of place in the 1950s. (Indeed – as Dennett himself points out – it is a variation on a purely philosophical argument that was given in the 1950s: Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ‘beetle in the box’ argument.) Although there is background concern here with scientific methods – in effect, Dennett is challenging the Qualia-phile to explain how Qualia might be studied – nothing in the way of ‘brain learning’ is assumed.

Dennett’s rejection of Qualia wasn’t a rejection of consciousness – it was a rejection of a certain conception of consciousness. But if Dennett didn’t reject consciousness, what explanation did he provide of it?

None, of course. Hence wags noting that the proper title for a mid-1990s book of his was "Dan Dennett's Ideas of Consciousness Explained."

There you are. That's our Danny boy!

And hence, while I noted his passing, and followed up on that, I wasn't philosophically crushed. Per that first link, I agreed with John Horgan that Dennett's rejection of at least capital-Q Qualia was a back door to Chalmers' p-zombies. Horgan's piece has a section on this. Second, I also agreed with John that Dennett was a practitioner of scientism, namely in his philosophy. His lack of actual science in his ideas on consciousness is one example. His claiming that evolution was algorithmic and a universal acid beyond biology is another.

In fact, Dennett deserves some Horgan pull quotes. I know Horgan actually deserves them:

Like many philosophers, Dennett clearly gets a kick out of defending positions that defy common sense. But his primary agenda is defending science against religion and other irrational belief systems. Dennett, an outspoken atheist, fears that creationism and other superstitious nonsense will persist as long as mysteries do. He thus insists that science can untangle even the knottiest conundrums, including the origin of life (which he asserts that recent “breakthroughs” are helping to solve) and consciousness.

Followed by:

Dennett accuses those who question science’s power of bad faith; these doubters don’t want their “beloved mysteries” explained. Dennett can’t accept that anyone might have legitimate, rational reasons for resisting his reductionist vision.

Some people surely have an unhealthy attachment to mysteries, but Dennett has an unhealthy aversion to them, which compels him to stake out unsound positions. His belief that consciousness is an illusion is nuttier than the belief that God is real. Science has real enemies—some in positions of great power--but Dennett doesn’t do science any favors by shilling for it so aggressively.

There you are.

That last paragraph may seem a bit harsh, but I would at least halfway accept it, including Horgan's "nuttier."

Too bad I wasn't famous enough to know Dennett while he was still alive and call him a Platonist, too.

Top blogging of 2024

 As usual, these are the most read pieces from last year, whether or not written in 2024. "Evergreen" ones will be noted by approximate date of publication.

At No. 10, a piece on a mishmash of problems at r/AcademicBiblical (which seems to continue to head downhill) and other biblical criticism subreddits.

At No. 9, since 2017, I have continued to say "Goodbye to 'History for Atheists'" and Tim O'Neill's Samuel Huntington-like Catholic Chistianism.

At No. 8, an exemplum of what's wrong with r/AB, "The Unbearable Lightness of Chris(sy) Hanson," who is independent, and arguably a researcher but most certainly not a scholar.

No. 7 goes to the world of aesthetics, which is part of philosophy, and specifically, to the world of classical music. That's my savage critiquing on how what could have been a good book about 20th century American classical music got butchered.

No. 6? Yes, until proven otherwise, Morton Smith is still the forger of Secret Mark.

No. 5? It's from five years ago, but trending because I posted it at the ex-Lutheran subreddit. The idea of "Gun Nuts in the Name of Luther" and its lies by omission on biblical interpretation will probably jump up more in Trump 2.0.

At No. 4, from early 2024? Contra philosophy of religion prof, it's not fundagelicals vs other Christians, and it's not even literal vs liberal religious believers in general. It's secularists vs everybody else on treating climate change as a climate crisis.

No. 3? Riffing on Rolling Stone et al, in 2023, I wrote about "Fascism in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod." I expect a resurgence in Trump 2.0.

No. 2 was also from 2023, and riffed on Paul Davidson of "Is That in the Bible," as well as, via him, my reading of Idan Dershowitz's then-new monograph on what Moses Wilhelm Shapira may actually have found. "Standing Josiah and Deuteronomy on their heads" tied together a number of threads in biblical criticism.

And at No. 1?

A very evergreen, 2007, "More proof the Buddha was no Buddha." (I have a new piece about Stephen Batchelor coming up in a week.) For more on my thoughts in general, click the Buddhism tag.

Language is not a game, it's a leap of faith!

This piece makes the argument that the interactions in speech, which of course came eons before written communication, involve an act of faith, so to speak, not only between people in a group or duo, but by the speaker themselves, basically an act of faith and faith in memory that "they know where they're headed" with their string of morphemes.

In turn, I can see this related to the sometimes stilted language of people with autism. It's another spin on theory of mind issues.

Top blogging, fourth quarter of 2024

As is normally the case, these may not all have been written in late 2024, but they were the most-read pieces of mine in that quarter.

At No. 10, a 2009 oldie but goodie, reposted recently on a subreddit. "Paul, Passover, Jesus, Gnosticism"; the title should lead you in.

At No. 9, from early 2024, "It's secularists vs all others on taking climate seriously" is an important issue in addressing the climate crisis as crisis.

At No. 8, from in this past quarter, my thoughts on the idea that changing from pen to typewriter changed Nietzsche's philosophy and philosophizing.

No. 7? A semi-oldie from 2020, how a Lutheran college myth, from my now-closed alma mater, about Paul Hill, wound up biting the dust.

No. 6? My crushing review of a bad book about language origins issues, including crushing its claims of massive modularity in the brain.

No. 5? Another callout of teh stupidz at Reddit's r/AcademicBiblical, stupidity over Luke-Acts, mod hypocrisy over theological beliefs and more, among other things.

No. 4? It's from five years ago, but trending because I posted it at the ex-Lutheran subreddit. The idea of "Gun Nuts in the Name of Luther" and its lies by omission on biblical interpretation will probably jump up more in Trump 2.0.

No. 3 was my spoofing and mocking of — complete with Monty Python angle — Francis the Talking Pope's pending "patron saint of the internet," with the Sacred Heart of would be St. Acutis and all!

No. 2 was my mocking review of seeming Gnu Atheist bad history in the book "Nature's God."

And, at No. 1?

Just a couple of weeks after No. 5, it was about more problems at r/AcademicBiblical, which seems to be going downhill in general.