Is Buddhism the most scientific religion ever?

1. 0

   PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago

   
   Buddhism does not have a God. It's principles are very similar to the most modern discoveries of psychology. It never killed anyone to prove itself. It is not supernatural to be honest. Is it any near to being scientific?  This will make good debate...

   replyreport
   1. 79

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Does it use the scientific method to determine truth?  Does it experiment and test proposals?  Are those tests repeatable by others?  Does it submit findings and conclusions to their peers for review?  Are the results of tests and experiments resulting on declarations of truth verifiable by others repeating the same or similar tests and experiments?
      
      No?  Then it does not approach being scientific as these things are how science operates.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Richieb799posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
         
         (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)
         
         I think the part about observation and analysis refers to your question.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Partially.  It is a step in the right direction, but it isn't science.
            
            It fails to include some of the steps for scientific investigation, but far more importantly whether a truth is "conducive to the good and benefit of one and all" is immaterial to whether or not it is actually truth.  I would also question whether "agrees with reason" means the "conclusions to observation and analysis" or "agrees with what we already know, mostly through common sense".  One would be scientific, one would be more closely related to philosophy or perhaps religion.
            
            If I had to choose between science and philosophy I would choose philosophy for these statements because it is closer to that study.  While science and philosophy do overlap some and carry some of the same "requirements" they are not the same.  Gautama's statements more closely follow philosophical methodology, mostly because of that final sentence.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Science is always superior to Philosophy - I bow my head and accept that
               
               Science do not know how we are here
               
               Science can not ever know why we are here
               
               
               
               Philosophy does...

               replyreport
   2. 60

      A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Just for starters, both Reincarnation and Karma require supernatural influence, not even mentioning the origins of Buddhism.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Richieb799posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That is a good point. Whether you believe in reincarnation or not, not saying I do..although I'm not sure. There is a large group hypnotherapists who claim to extract thousands of past life memories from people, I suppose some people might call this a pseudo science

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I think an entire Universe coming out of nothing - also requires some influence which is a little out of Normal

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Richieb799posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Thats a good point

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Not really a good point - anything to do with such an event, if it ever occurred, is by definition 'normal'.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     WD Curry 111posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     You dont know your warm, wet nose from a hole in the ground.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        How would you know - you don't even know which warm wet orifice you are spouting from   Go troll an atheist or something.

                        replyreport
                  2. 0

                     PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Are you sure it occurred?
                     
                     Tell me recommend1, I have a little more to ask...

                     replyreport
   3. 50

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      But Buddha never denied ONE the Creator God.
      
      I think Buddhism does not represent the true concepts of Buddha.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      darknight444posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      hhh
      just because it does not speak aboute god does not make it scinetifique at all
      i blieve that islam is because it have e huuge scientifque science that islam pretdict it before sceince verify it

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Disappearingheadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No religion can claim to be scientific because the approach life from different directions via different methods.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with Disappearing Head. No religion can be labeled scientific.
      
      I also think that if you bypass the dogmas; the principles found in many religions mirror what you label discoveries of psychology.
      
      If you think buddhism is all about peace, you aren't looking at the history of buddhism, or the reality of buddhism in many parts of the world today.
      
      And there is definitely a supernatural element to parts of the philosophy.
      
      I think you might be skimming the surface of understanding buddhism.

      replyreport
   7. 60

      recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You should research your topic before posting if you don't know anything about it.
      
      Buddhism got seriously out of hand in China and was one side of a civil war before it was put down back into its proper place as a religion.  Hundreds of thousands were killed in that 'war' directly by buddhists.  This is one reason the Chinese keep the more moronic parts of christianity in check by forbidding proselytising, this also applies to ANY religion.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         When I see my fault, if any, I admit it. I do not run away like a coward as many here sockpuppets do.
         
         I had a relatively small understanding of Buddhism. I have found many many learned scholars here, on this trivial subject. I accept their reasons and step back. Goodness depends on evidence. Thanks for this valuable information.

         replyreport
2. 50

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   Buddha,Jesus,Muhammad and Mirza Ghualm Ahmad- the Promised Messiah; all messenger and prophets of the Creator God; none of them opposed science and all of them supported science.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Don't be ridiculous - of course they didn't oppose science, but neither did they support science.  The scientific method had not yet been conceived of at the time of their lives and science as we know the field did not exist.
      
      Yes, there has always been a search for truth, but not through science.

      replyreport
      1. 50

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That does not mean they were not sensible people; they appreciated knowledge and learning.
         
         Do you mean there were no scientists before the forming of the scientific method?
         
         Do you mean there were no atheist before the forming of the scientific method?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            There were no scientists before the field of science was defined.  That should be self evident.  Searchers for truth, yes, but not scientists.
            
            Of course there were atheists before the coming of science.  Not only have there always been some people that don't follow like sheep, but the Gods are a relatively late invention in human history.  If there is no belief in Gods then atheism exists.  Again, this should be self evident.

            replyreport
            1. 50

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I think the words "science" and the "scientists" existed before the introduction of "scientific method".???

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, but we have found countless times that what you "think" is exactly what you "believe" to be true, even though there is little in realtiy to support what you "think"

                  replyreport
               2. 79

                  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  So?  You seem conversant at times with ancient Hebrew or Arabic.  What is the word for scientist that does not mean simply "learned one" or "searcher for truth" or something similar?  That means they search via the tools that define science as a field of study?  Translations that don't include these things might be equivalent to thinking that the word for "camel" also means "automobile" because both are modes of transportation and then declaring that automobiles existed at the time of Christ.
                  
                  A scientist uses certain tools to find truth, and without proper use of those tools is not considered a scientist.  Simply looking for knowledge doesn't make a scientist out of someone; that's why thinking that religion equates to science is so ludicrous.

                  replyreport
3. 0

   PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago

   Well, my opening line was a question. Good to see that I have been properly refuted...

   replyreport
4. 0

   PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago

   Someone says that Buddhism killed people. I have no idea where and when. The point is that Gautama Buddha told to commit those killings. Very nice.
   
   I think Stalin and Mao, the great atheists, never even killed an insect.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Richieb799posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Please don't say 'Someone said', if you are going to state something, back it up with 'evidence'
      I like examine the findings before I make conclusions, if there is any truth whatsoever, that Lord Buddha ordered killings directly, I would like to see.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Aha, Richard, that will be fairly difficult to point out.

         replyreport
5. 0

   PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago

   Well Richard, we have one bamboo-eater here around...

   replyreport
6. 59

   WD Curry 111posted 13 years ago

   Are you kidding me? Don't advertise your ignorance. Buddhism (the original kind) is totally experiential. Read Siddhartha By Herman Hesse as a prerequisite for the conversation. meanwhile, If a tree fell in the forest and there was no one there to hear it, would it make a sound or did you drive or bring your lunch today. Get to work you slacker! Write a Hub.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You are, WD Curry 111, showing your profound knowledge by naming a novel, by German Hesse, into a serious discussion. Was it not a novel??
      
      Do not bring out someone's subjective ideas, in this case of Herman Hesse, to corrupt what a great man himself said. You may try that elsewhere.
      
      Meanwhile - Et tu, Brute?

      replyreport