Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not a Buddhist now because the rationale failed to stand up to scrutiny. I really don't find that it stands up to scientific or logical evaluation. It is in fact a faith -claim.
That's just saying (because of the thread or I would have held my peace).
I will say that it is, of the religions, one of the best and has some better benefits in practice than the faith -claims in exchange for bigotry and even violence (though Buddhists will be aware of some fakers in saffron who have made it look very bad) of a couple of other religions I could name.
That said, it is a religion I have a soft spot for and feel as culturally Buddhist (by adoption ) as Anglican (catholicism is a bit like KFC - rich and over sensual and makes me feel rather sick after too much of it). There is a place for it in a society, even one that predominantly agrees with me (like that's ever going to happen).
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-26-2020 at 03:40 PM..
I am not a Buddhist now because the rationale failed to stand up to scrutiny. I really don't find that it stands up to scientific or logical evaluation. It is in fact a faith -claim.
That's just saying (because of the thread or I would have held my peace).
I will say that it is, of the religions, one of the best and has some better benefits in practice than the faith -claims in exchange for bigotry and even violence (though Buddhists will be aware of some fakers in saffron who have made it look very bad) of a couple of other religions I could name.
That said, it is a religion I have a soft spot for and feel as culturally Buddhist (by adoption as Anglican (catholicism is a bit like KFC - rich and over sensual and makes me feel rather sick after too much of it). There is a place for it in a society, even one that predominantly agrees with me (like that's ever going to happen).
The title is not a criticism of Buddhism, but more about how it is being misunderstood in the west.
Instead of opinions , which we all have, it would be worthwhile to see what a scholar and philosopher has to say about it by actually reading the book.
I am not a Buddhist now because the rationale failed to stand up to scrutiny. I really don't find that it stands up to scientific or logical evaluation. It is in fact a faith -claim.
That's just saying (because of the thread or I would have held my peace).
I will say that it is, of the religions, one of the best and has some better benefits in practice than the faith -claims in exchange for bigotry and even violence (though Buddhists will be aware of some fakers in saffron who have made it look very bad) of a couple of other religions I could name.
That said, it is a religion I have a soft spot for and feel as culturally Buddhist (by adoption ) as Anglican (catholicism is a bit like KFC - rich and over sensual and makes me feel rather sick after too much of it). There is a place for it in a society, even one that predominantly agrees with me (like that's ever going to happen).
Just got the book. His background, research credentials, and personal engagement with the religion is solid.
Conversation between Robert Wright a journalist and non fiction writer who wrote Why Buddhism i s True and Evan Thompson x philosopher with deep and long connection to Buddhism - who has taken this book to refute the claim of Buddhism being Naturalistic and therefore exceptionally suited to scientific empirical analysis. His argument is this so called Buddhist modernism is full of confused ideas.
Thompson lays out the core belief of Buddhism, the authentic one.
All are impermanent
All are suffering
All are not-self
Liberation extinguishes suffering
Realization is of the non-self.
None of this is Naturalism or scientific
Thompson’s criticism of extraction bits and pieces of Buddhism that is actually practiced and making it into something that it is not, as being superior to other religions
I am not a Buddhist now because the rationale failed to stand up to scrutiny. I really don't find that it stands up to scientific or logical evaluation. It is in fact a faith -claim.
... There is a place for it in a society, even one that predominantly agrees with me (like that's ever going to happen).
Thompson agrees and thinks it is most suitable for promoting a cosmopolitan society with space for a diversity of cultures, ethnicity, spiritual thoughts and ideas. And yes, Buddhism is indeed faith based, but concealed in flawed arguments.
I studied Buddhism for quite some time and continue to do so to some extent (never as a Buddhist but as someone who was open to the possibility). The Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path and Zen mindfulness can be woven pretty seamlessly into a Christian life, as many Christians such as Thomas Merton have emphasized. The Orthodox Church (and others, I'm sure) believes that the Holy Spirit is present to one degree or another in many religions, even if they aren't direct paths to salvation.
My quest has always been for Truth, not for what seemed appealing or pragmatic. For me, Buddhist ontology just wasn't convincing. It didn't explain ultimate reality, human nature or what I observe and experience about the way the world operates as well as Christianity.
I studied Buddhism for quite some time and continue to do so to some extent (never as a Buddhist but as someone who was open to the possibility). The Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path and Zen mindfulness can be woven pretty seamlessly into a Christian life, as many Christians such as Thomas Merton have emphasized. The Orthodox Church (and others, I'm sure) believes that the Holy Spirit is present to one degree or another in many religions, even if they aren't direct paths to salvation.
My quest has always been for Truth, not for what seemed appealing or pragmatic. For me, Buddhist ontology just wasn't convincing. It didn't explain ultimate reality, human nature or what I observe and experience about the way the world operates as well as Christianity.
All right.
But why can you not similarly accept this from other people: My quest has always been for Truth, not for what seemed appealing or pragmatic. For me, christian ontology just wasn't convincing. It didn't explain ultimate reality, human nature or what I observe and experience about the way the world operates as well as Buddhism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) as Anglican (catholicism is a bit like KFC - rich and over sensual and makes me feel rather sick after too much of it). There is a place for it in a society, even one that predominantly agrees with me (like that's ever going to happen).
