THE FUTURE OF THE BUDDHIST PAST: A RESPONSE TO THE READERS

I respond to comments offered by Peter Harrison and Thupten Jinpa on my book Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (2008). I report briefly on the reception of the book thus far and provide a summary of its contents before responding individually to the essays of Harrison and Jinpa.     

THE USE OF RESPONSE PREVENTION TO ELIMINATE NOCTURNAL THUMBSUCKING

The effects of a response prevention strategy consisting of the fading of restraint and the removal of reinforcers on nocturnal thumbsucking behavior was evaluated in four experiments. In the first experiment, nocturnal thumbsucking was restrained for approximately 1 week by having each of two boys wear a boxing glove to bed. Next they wore absorbent cotton over the thumb for 11 nights. During the last phase in this condition, they wore a fingertip bandage over the thumb for 10 to 11 nights. The response prevention package completely eliminated thumbsucking behavior in both boys. In the second experiment, the removal of reinforcers alone for nocturnal thumbsucking had little or no effect on the thumbsucking behavior of three girls whereas the later introduction of the entire package completely suppressed thumbsucking in all three girls. In the third experiment, the package was evaluated in the absence of the glove restraint condition. The results showed that the treatment package was effective in the absence of the glove restraint condition for all three children. The final experiment examined whether the package could be effective if the absorbent cotton condition was abruptly removed without using the fingertip bandage condition. The results showed the treatment to be effective with one of two boys, but not the other.     

THE FORMULATION OF DISJUNCTIVISM: A RESPONSE TO FISH

ABSTRACT Fish proposes that we need to elucidate what 'disjunctivism' stands for, and he also proposes that it stands for the rejection of a principle about the nature of experience that he calls the decisiveness principle. The present paper argues that his first proposal is reasonable, but then argues, in Section II, that his positive suggestion does not draw the line between disjunctivism and non-disjunctivism in the right place. In Section III, it is argued that disjunctivism is a thesis about the special nature of perceptual experience, and the thesis as elucidated here is then distinguished from and related to certain other ideas about perception, namely, direct realism and also McDowell's epistemological disjunctivism.     

A PEIRCEAN RESPONSE TO THE EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING OF MORAL KNOWLEDGE

The evolutionary debunking argument advanced by Sharon Street, Michael Ruse, and Richard Joyce employs the logic of Paul Griffiths and John Wilkins to contend that humans cannot have knowledge of moral truths, since the evolutionary process that has produced our basic moral intuitions lacks causal connections to those (putative) truths. Yet this argument is self‐defeating, because its aim is the categorical, normative claim that we should suspend our moral beliefs in light of the discoveries about their non‐truth‐tracking origins, when it is precisely this claim that relies upon the normativity under attack. This article cites Charles S. Peirce (1839–1914) to argue that such self‐defeat can be avoided by expanding upon the basic structure of the argument put forth by Griffiths and Wilkins, provided that one embraces a version of realism that corresponds with Peirce's doctrine of final causation. So construed, final causation reconciles real generals (including real moral values) with natural selection and undergirds further speculation of moral facts within values per se.     

CLARIFYING THE EUTOPIA ARGUMENT: A RESPONSE TO JOHN CAIAZZA

Abstract The “eutopia” vision of the future, promulgated by technoscientists and libertarian thinkers, could herald the coming of a third axial age that could reshape and reformulate the legacy of the Great Religions and their transcendental moral imperatives, and of Modernity and the democratic imperative of equality of social conditions. A sociological diagnosis of a third, technosomatic, morality, is not a matter of supporting or rejecting such a possibility, but a matter of detecting its rise and regulating its impact.     

RELIGION AND SCIENCE THROUGH THE AGES: RESPONSE TO MARANGUDAKIS

Abstract This paper is in response to an article by Professor Marangudakis in Zygon in which he presented a “grand narrative” that predicted the coming of a new “axial age” (Marangudakis, 2012). In his article, Marangudakis criticized parts of my article in Zygon, “Athens, Jerusalem and the Arrival of Techno‐Secularism” (Caiazza, 2005). Two issues separate us: first, whether the Athens/Jerusalem dilemma can or should be overcome in a new axial age, and second, how benign future technological developments will be. Marangudakis thinks that the Athens/Jerusalem dichotomy will be overcome, whereas I think that the dichotomy should and will persist in future ages. I am suspicious of the future effects of current technologies, since they give political elites increased control over the individual, while Marangudakis generally applauds the new technologies (especially biotechnology). The Athens/Jerusalem dichotomy arises as an inevitable part of monotheistic religious belief.