jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (33 posts)

Is Buddhism the most scientific religion ever?

  1. profile image0
    PhenomWriterposted 5 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5711147_f248.jpg
    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...

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 5 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.

      1. Richieb799 profile image59
        Richieb799posted 5 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.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 5 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.

          1. profile image0
            PhenomWriterposted 5 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...

    2. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. Richieb799 profile image59
        Richieb799posted 5 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

        1. profile image0
          PhenomWriterposted 5 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

          1. Richieb799 profile image59
            Richieb799posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thats a good point

            1. recommend1 profile image66
              recommend1posted 5 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'.

              1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
                WD Curry 111posted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

                1. recommend1 profile image66
                  recommend1posted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

              2. profile image0
                PhenomWriterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Are you sure it occurred?

                Tell me recommend1, I have a little more to ask...

    3. profile image71
      paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      But Buddha never denied ONE the Creator God.

      I think Buddhism does not represent the true concepts of Buddha.

    4. profile image0
      darknight444posted 5 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

    5. Disappearinghead profile image84
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

    6. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 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.

    7. recommend1 profile image66
      recommend1posted 5 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.

      1. profile image0
        PhenomWriterposted 5 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.

  2. profile image71
    paarsurreyposted 5 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.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 5 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.

      1. profile image71
        paarsurreyposted 5 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?

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 5 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.

          1. profile image71
            paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 5 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"

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 5 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.

  3. profile image0
    PhenomWriterposted 5 years ago

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

  4. profile image0
    PhenomWriterposted 5 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.

    1. Richieb799 profile image59
      Richieb799posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Please don't say 'Someone said', if you are going to state something, back it up with 'evidence' wink
      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.

      1. profile image0
        PhenomWriterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

  5. profile image0
    PhenomWriterposted 5 years ago

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

  6. WD Curry 111 profile image60
    WD Curry 111posted 5 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.

    1. profile image0
      PhenomWriterposted 5 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?

 
working