Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 16 Editor's Choice: 1
-
What Science Can Teach B. Allan Wallace
[Read the article: Buddha on the brain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]B. Alan Wallace has failed the litmus test of basic logic in his assertion that he's "still waiting" for evidence that conciousness is an activity of a physical mind. Firstly, it's incumbent upon Wallace to present evidence for his own hypothesis that conciousness has a nonphysical basis; the burden of proof lies with him, not the scientists he's challenging. Otherwise we might all be waiting for proof that conciousness isn't caused by the movements of an invisible ballroom full of invisible dancers. You can't prove a negative and its fallacious, not to mention intellectually dubious, to challenge your rivals to do so. Secondly, there is indeed a great deal of evidence for the material mind--evidence Wallace himself alludes to in the article--such as the relationship between activity in certain regions of the brain and the subjective awareness reported by test subjects. Although I find Buddhism fascinating and certainly more intellectually rigorous than the Abrahamic religions, I can't help but feel that Mr. Wallace has put his beliefs ahead of the evidence--a most unscientific approach indeed.
-
Science versus the Believer
[Read the article: If you meet the Buddha in Salon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the first article, B. Allan Wallace failed the litmus of basic science by demanding the scientific establishment prove a negative without presenting evidence for his own hypothesis. He has apparently decided to backpedal from his earlier assertions that the scientific establishment (whom he now accuses of a strawman ideology called "physicalism") must prove that consciousness isn't caused by non-physical means. He's retreated to safer waters, saying only that every subjective conscious experience hasn't yet been correlated to a particular brain state and we should therefore be open-minded about looking for answers outside the brain. This is equivalent to claiming we should look for the cause of global warming outside the solar system merely because every temperature spike hasn't yet been attributed to a terrestrial activity. I'm afraid this is still spurious reasoning; the burden of proof lies with Mr. Wallace to present evidence for his hypothesis. Once again it would seem the Buddhist has a lot to learn from the scientific method.
-
arguing from ignorance
[Read the article: Religion is poetry]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]James Carse argues atheists fail to truly understand the gods they dismiss. But when he says, "to be an atheist is not to be stunned by the mystery of things or to walk around in wonder about the universe," he shows his own lack of understanding. Atheism isn't an ideology or belief-system that compels adherents to have no sense of wonder; only a worldview framed by religious assumptions would conceive of it that way. Carse's glib dismissal shows that his perspective is colored by a such a worldview. Atheists like Richard Dawkins have repeatedly argued that it's possible to have respect and awe for the majesty of the universe without religion--indeed moreso because of the sheer intricacy and elegance of the laws unearthed by scientific insight. It's worth noting that religious apologists like Carse often try to defend religion on the merits of it's beauty without ever answering the objections raised by atheists.
-
Centrism vs. Conservatism: A Poor Choice for Progressives
[Read the article: Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn Greenwald is among the most perceptive writers Salon has. The Democratic Party has, overall, failed as the party of progressive politics. Back in the 90s, the Green Party under Ralph Nader made a decent challenge to the Democratic Party because progressive voters were tired of the choice between centrist and conservative. Nader often gets blamed for the loss of that election to George Bush but the fact remains that if the Democrats had done a better job actually opposing the Republican agenda, Nader would never have drawn so many supporters in the first place. After 8 years of the Bush regime's mismanagement of our nation at a critical time in history, most progressives have been scared into supporting the Democrats unreservedly. That won't last. After a few years, Bush will become a bad memory just like Nixon before him and the Democrats will look a lot less like the saviors they're running as now. Then will the progressives drift to a hopeless protest candidate again? Let's not go there. The Democrats need to clean house and become true agents of progress in America.
-
Shortchanging Sebelius
[Read the article: Ranking Obama's final four]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really think it's a mistake to discount Sebelius simply because she isn't Hillary Clinton. As one of her constituents in New York, I doubt our Junior Senator worked as hard as she did merely to prove that a woman can only achieve high office if her name is Hillary Clinton. An Obama/Sebelius ticket would send a powerful message to the electorate; showing that we've entered a new era in which women are a regular sight in the Oval Office. Clinton's near-win and Sebelius' Vice Presidency would show America two powerful women in politics and go a long way towards normalizing the idea that a woman can rise as high as her will takes her. That would certainly add legitimacy to Obama's attempt to brand himself the candidate of hope and change.
-
Salon vs. Secularism
[Read the article: What's wrong with science as religion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems as though Salon has been giving voice to an alarming number of religious apologists. The general result is a large amount of letters to the editor excoriating the apologist du jour for his blatantly unscientific views. One would imagine the editors might get the hint--Salon's readers are a profoundly secular lot and aren't moved by arguments that boil down to "well religion--no spirituality--sure FEELS good and hey, isn't it pretty too?" and "can't you atheists and agnostics just play nice?" Salon needs to realize that the secular movement is tired of playing nice with a worldview that breeds intolerance and stands in the way of real answers and solutions for the problems that face humankind and instead just offers metaphysical prozac.