"I suspect that our voracious appetite for the daily routines of cultural icons is fueled by a deep yearning to glean some insight on and practical help with this impossible balancing act, from people who seem to have mastered it well enough to lead happy, productive, creatively fruitful, and altogether remarkable lives."
Right now I hold him somewhat (perhaps unfairly which is why I'm asking) in the same regard as Deepak Chopra. Deepak often provides "deepities," things that may sound profound, but are intellectually hollow.
But in the meantime, he thinks I should believe stuff unsupported by evidence. Going back to the Pope. If he had made a similar statement as the Dali Lama, that would be a huge step forward, but it doesn't mean I'm going to spend a long time contemplating the "mystery" of the Trinity, even if science can't definitively debunk God. See what I mean?
I'll ask it again, again earnestly. Why should I care about the beliefs of the spiritual leader of a religion I don't subscribe to? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I really want to know. I have not read the Dali Lama's writings. What is so good about them? Right now I think of the Dali Lama as someone famous for being "wise" in a generic sense. He loves talking about compassion. That's great. But that doesn't answer my questions. I am curious for the answers and certainly can be swayed to believe he might have great insights I should pay attention to, but as I said, I haven't read him, and haven't encountered anything in popular culture to make me think that's the case. Present some reasons, please.
People have given you reasonable answers to the first question. Take them or leave them. This string of responses telling everyone that the answers still aren't good enough and demanding more... it is making me ask a new question -- why we should care whether you appreciate the Dalai Lama or not?
(BTW, the article answers that question, too.)
That is the whole point.
If you do not share his spiritual beliefs, then you should not care any more or less than any other public person of similar standing. Others have pointed about the worldly achievements of this guy, so... let's say. You should care about as much about him as about any other Nobel laureate.
Now, if you happen to care about him (or the Pope) less than other more secular Nobel laureates... there is a bias you should acknowledge. Not to say that you should not be biased, but you owe to yourself to at least be honest and know why you feel the guy is pointless.
Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion.
Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO.
Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim.
>> "Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO."
Of course that's your opinion but this is Hacker News, not science news. If your interested in how someone runs a large company it can be relevant to look at religious leaders like the pope of dalai lama as that is essentially what they do and on a bigger scale than any company.
Everybody believed it due to religion, even when the science described a different reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_mod...
E:
The important takeaway:
"It has been determined, in fact, that the Copernican, Ptolemaic and even the Tychonic models provided identical results to identical inputs. They are computationally equivalent. It wasn't until Kepler demonstrated a physical observation that could show that the physical sun is directly involved in determining an orbit that a new model was required."
You also seem to believe that Galileo was the creator of the heliocentric model. Please see my other reply. [0]
So does science.
>Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion.
That's a gross simplification. See: Ptolemy and Nicolaus Copernicus.
It was actually "common knowledge" in the scientific community that the Earth was the center of the universe. The popularized issue between Galileo and the Catholic Church (and not just "religion") was largely political. The Catholic Church, to retain power, could not be wrong about anything. If they had been teaching (with scientific backing even!) that the Earth was the center of the universe. That was how it must be.
Galileo wanted to educated people outside of the scientific community that the Earth was not the center. So he had to be silenced, else the Church would be wrong and may lose power.
As early as 300~ B.C.E , there is a reference from Archemedes' book "The Sand Reckoner" of a heliocentric system described by Aristarchus of Samos. [0]
Science isn't about choices. It's about Truth. What is true and what is false isn't a choice.
And rebirth happens to you right now when your consciousness arises again and again from previous states of your mind.
Yes, there's also a "fantastic" theory that this process goes beyond physical death but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy.
but not supported by science.
(Please note that my world view is purely scientific but I'm using buddhist ideas for looking into my consciousness because science doesn't say much about it.)
To clarify, reincarnation in this context is happening dozens of times every second. So then, "you" don't really last all that long, and there really isn't a constant "you" anyway. And what happens in-between those beats? Ah, look into -that-.
Has the alternative been falsified by evidence? Has this process been observed? As complex/beautiful/philosophical/metaphysical as a concept is, it is not Science unless it can be experimentally verified. One can just as easily say that reincarnation is bullshit, and you can't prove otherwise unless you have no evidence.
Science and logic are related but they mean different things. Science requires evidence for falsifiability. Deduction and proof are the domain of logic, not science.
Still. Not. Scientific. At. All.
Of course, this makes no sense, because I can't make that step for you. It could take minutes, or years, to get the point. Be instead like the child who sees the order in clouds without labeling them as seeming to be this or that as they move across the sky. The experiment is experiential to the individual; do these things, and expect this result to inevitably occur. Do not these things, and it will not occur. Thousands of years of the same results, and yet you ask for evidence to be produced by others instead of yourself.
Don't misconstrue this as a personal failing - everyone starts from the same confusing position you are expressing. That each individual must overcome this futile attempt at reasoning and thinking their way to liberation is only a problem when you are determined to solve the problem in that way.
Look. Spin a pen or shoot a basket until it can be done without effort or thought - who is it that has learned this? Motor memory, brains dissected and labeled; etc., but all that is useless towards learning or doing. Would it ever be the same to describe how these actions are done with words as it is to do them without words or thoughts? I can spin a pen skillfully for a long time with the simple directive of "don't drop it", and my fingers do it for me. Over time, they avoid actions that did not lead to the desired outcome, moment to moment. When that brain that has learned that action has been dissolved, who would expect it to be innate in a new being? Yet the knowledge of how to do this thing was never mine; it is available to all to use.
But I guess that's a question you can ask of any posting on HN, "why should I care about so-and-so's opinion, daily routine, life, etc?" So perhaps the burden is on the person asking to question to say why we shouldn't care.
Also, I would say that the Dalai Lama's teachings aren't meant to be intellectually rich. He does have a high regard for science, but I wouldn't say his teachings are intellectual. They are practical and meant to help you observe the world without the intellect.
I've seen him in person too. Yes, charismatic. I don't think it is my burden to say that you shouldn't, because it is fine with me that you do care. Obviously lots of people care about him. The whole point of my questioning is to get at, "why?" I don't know and so I ask the question. Really, no other motive. He seems to transcend and earn respect from people outside of his religion in a way that other spiritual leaders do not. I want to understand that.
It also helps that his messages are in general agreeable. The whole peace and meditation and good-will stuff has a very low potential for controversy.
EDIT: Also let me add that I don't see why you are being buried. You aren't being disrespectful or rude or in anyway breaking the guidelines by asking these questions. You even stated in the first post that you if you came across as snarky it wasn't intended.
That is not a very compelling argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Peac...