Sceptics and the Buddha, a thread for everyone else :)

[username]

But the original question, posted by yyreg at the beginning of this cycle of threads, is whether Buddhism is pseudoscientific, even in part. Pseudoscience I don't like, and it's one of the things that skepticism is appropriately applied to.

How can something that doesn't claim to be science be a pseudoscience?

I have heard buddhism refered to as religion, psychology and philosophy, but never science.

It seems like a subjective thing in that each person evaluates it themselves, just as everyone does with religion, psychology and philosophy.

When it was suggested that we apply skeptical criticism to buddhism (a big topic) I was thinking past lives, karma and that sort of thing would be the focus. I don't really see any way to apply criticism to the personal practice which promises an inward transformation rather than some outward, testable manifestation.

That is why I suggested reading a book and sitting in meditation. I can't think of any other way to test the results.

 

[epepke]

How can something that doesn't claim to be science be a pseudoscience?

I have heard buddhism refered to as religion, psychology and philosophy, but never science.

If it involves claims about reality, then it involves scientific claims.

Please note that I am not declaring clearly that it does. However, a lot of things that I have heard about Buddhism and/or from Buddhists seem quite like this.

In one of these threads, for example, I have heard the claim that it is like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. I don't necessarily endorse or condemn that claim. However, the claim puts it fairly obviously into the arena of scientific claims.

It seems like a subjective thing in that each person evaluates it themselves, just as everyone does with religion, psychology and philosophy.

Except that everyone does not do this with psychology. Scientific inquiry has happened, quite a lot, and it was the undoing of Freudian psychoanalysis.

As far as I'm concerned at this point, it's still a fairly open question as to whether Buddhism can be classified as making scientific claims. Some of the things people have said lead to this conclusion. Others do not. Ryokan, for example, seems to have picked up the gauntlet of trying to provide scientific evidence.

There's also the impression I get that there is a kind of dance associated with Buddhism, which for want of a better word I will call "political." It can be defined or specified as a lot of different things, and I get the impression that this is done in an ad hoc manner. I could be wrong, but the only way I know to settle the question is to do more investigation.

There's a precedent for this. The founder of chiropractic wrote a letter giving the opinion that it be sold as a religion, in order to take advantage of the separation clause. I don't know if I still have a link to this, but I did see it at one point.

When it was suggested that we apply skeptical criticism to buddhism (a big topic) I was thinking past lives, karma and that sort of thing would be the focus. I don't really see any way to apply criticism to the personal practice which promises an inward transformation rather than some outward, testable manifestation.

I can, and I've described it.

That is why I suggested reading a book and sitting in meditation. I can't think of any other way to test the results.

Well, that's fair enough. You can do what you are willing and able to do, and I can't reasonably expect you to do something different. But we're not just talking about you here, nor me, for that matter.

 

[cajela]

If it involves claims about reality, then it involves scientific claims.

Please note that I am not declaring clearly that it does. However, a lot of things that I have heard about Buddhism and/or from Buddhists seem quite like this.

In one of these threads, for example, I have heard the claim that it is like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. I don't necessarily endorse or condemn that claim. However, the claim puts it fairly obviously into the arena of scientific claims.

Yeah, that was me. It wasn't put as a scientific claim in the thread, rather as an experiential one. From a person having some experience of CBT and a little superficial knowledge of some bits of Buddhism.

Depression & anxiety can involve distorted thought patterns, which are cause/symptoms(?) of distress. Attachment of one's personal worth to achieving some goal is a real problem. I may think that I am nothing & completely worthless & a failure as a human being because I'm overweight, or because I do not have so much as a PhD, let alone a Nobel prize. (Yes, this seriously was one of my personal ones.) Either I've failed to reach some goal or I imagine I will always fail... Now in CBT you sit down and gather evidence to show yourself that your thinking is distorted. Some of that means letting go of some of your desires - realising that they do not define you, and that in fact having them can cause you suffering. Not that there is anything wrong with the specific desire (it's good to be fit, well-educated etc), just with your pathological attachment to it. Desire, attachment, suffering - you see the analogy.


And I'd say yes, that does put it firmly in the scientific claims area. But "it" is quite limited - it's a part of Buddhist practice that is claimed to have some real effects, not every bit of every sect of Buddhism ever invented.

Some of it *is* currently being scientifically investigated. You'll find a lot about meditation on PubMed. I'm aware that there are neuroscientists looking at meditation brainwave patterns, for instance; that meditation has been shown to be of use in by medical professionals in managing depression & anxiety disorders.

I think that (some) Buddhists have hit on some very smart mental health management techniques, which well repay study.

 

[Dancing David]

The goal of buddhism is to eliminate all human desires, even those preferences for tacos or broccoli.
why would a true buddhist prefer one food rather than another?.

Natural variation and predisposition.
The buddha never taught that more was required than to reduce attachment.
One must accept desire and learn to live with it, not eliminate it.

You are correct in some way. You are describing how buddhism does work for western people like us, who still have to find a job. You are adapting this philosophy to our societies. However, the purpose of buddhism is to end all desires because -if you think about them- they are meaningless.

That is not a teaching of the buddha, one does not have to retire from life even as a monk?
The end of desire is not a goal because it is apriori un-attainable.
You can learn to ignore your hunger but it still exists. And in doing so you damage the body. This is the lesson of the six year fast.

Why would you desire to have a partner?. Are you implying that a buddhist would expect to receive love and happiness from another person?. The truth is that nobody can provide anything to you and this is well known by buddhists.

If a person choses to engage in life that is thier choice, the buddha did not condem those who did not enter the monastery. Love is encouraged and spoken of by many teachers.
I think that you may have confused buddhism with aesteicism.
But there are many streams in buddhism so there are those that are life denying, although that is not a teaching of the buddha.

Yes, you are right. But I would also say that not only the attachment causes problems, but also the desire in itself. They go together, you cannot separate them.

Desire can be lived with and is related to attachment, the goal is to live with both and reduce attachment. You still have the needs and desires, perhaps an arhat can overcome desire but that is a subject of some controversy.

The ultimate goal of buddhism is to reach enlightenment and this means to end with all human desires, even the slightest. It means death as a human being. In the mean time, we are trapped in these bodies and true freedom can never happen while we are alive.

I beg to differ, the end of desire is an unattainable goal and therefore not a goal. The buddha never taught these things that you speak of. The goal is to be a human being free of attachment and suffering as much as possible. Buddhism is the middle path and very pragmatic, the end of desire is not a middle path.

I like buddhim and practice as much as I can its philosophy, but much of the mental states that it promises are unrealistic. It fails to see that there is no way out of the suffering.

Belem

That is your teaching, are you a buddha?

 

[Dancing David]

I think it can be important, if it means that Buddhism doesn't apply to the majority of lives. So far, I haven't seen much evidence that it does. No chocolate? Broken hearts? Adolescent angst, basically, far removed from the lives of the majority of people.

Just a though and a question,

Can you truely speak for other people, is your experience similar to thiers or the same as thiers.

Grief is different for different people, in the ED , broken heart is often the precipitating catalyst in crisis and depression. To refer to other people's suffering as adolescent angst is to categorise them with really asking them who they are and why they feel that way.

Interdependance and uniqueness.

 

[Dancing David]

Again, I want to be very clear about this. This is just something that happens to bug me occasionally now. It's maybe in the third percentile of things I worry about. But the broken hearts thing doesn't but me at all, and I think it's vapid. I can't really state the title of the Frank Zappa song here, but it's something like "Broken Hearts are for A$$holes.."

And on the other hand, I could spend 40 more years of my life (should I live so long) being a Buddhist and then realize that it was a waste of time.

If you and Frank Zappa feel that way then that is the way you are, other people are different.

If you live and engaged and mindfull life , how is that a waste of time?

 

[Dancing David]

Well, you've put your finger on another reason that Buddhism rubs me the wrong way.

I can remember a scene from some movie, but I don't remember the movie. It went something like this:

A: Being high is like having no worries, no desires. Everything is fine. That's life, man.
B: Sounds more like death to me.

But that is not from the Life Of Brian or the Life of Buddha, if q-source is looking at buddha through the filter of a culture and society then that is not the teaching of the buddha.

The goal is to enjoy life, reduce suffering, it would be off the middle path to try to end desire.

 

[Dancing David]

Well this contradicts what some of the others are saying so here's a few questions for you :

When you say "recent buddhism" what exactly are you refering to?

The non-tradtional recreation of buddhism, there is a very long historical track of buddhist beliefs and practises that are like hood ornaments. I could not begin to call this traditional or pure oractual buddhism, I call it recent because this version of buddhism is very modern although very linked to theravda.

Why do you try to live simply? Does this contradict engaging in life mindfully?

A simple lief is one lacking in complications, I use the term in the sense of 'elegance' in mathematics. If I try to do too many things in one day, or try to acomplish what is beyond my limits, I have real difficulty being mindfull. So when I say simple I mean the consequences of being mindfull, I do one thing at a time, I try to gauge my limits and not engage in 'multi-tasking'. I have many material goods and enjoy many technologies.

 

[Dancing David]

OK, here's another comparison of Buddhism to psychology.

So, is it like CBT in that practicioners of CBT do longitudinal studies and get them published in peer-reviewed journals?

It is like buddhism in that the skills of CBT are similar to the skills of buddhism, the tasks are very similar.
But as to longitudinal studies, I am not aware of them.

Or is it only like CBT in the sense that CBT is like Freudian psychoanalysis?

I hope not, the skills of CBT and buddhism do not recomend that you relive your life from the beggining. Also both buddhism and CBT advocate doing what works, no 'therapy' for years and years and years and years.

These are my beliefs, they may not be demonstrable.

Or is it like CBT in the same way that homeopaths say what they do is like vaccination?

I hope not.

 

[yrreg]

It's an elitist religion.

How many times and different ways do you need to be told buddhism doesn't deal with physical pain before you understand that physical pain is not what buddhism deals with? –- Username #68​

​

First, are you sure you understand correctly the first sermon of Buddha on life and suffering. Please read that sermon again, report back here, and reproduce the lines in that sermon dealing with suffering, here in this thread.

You really mean that the genuine historically authentic teaching from Buddha is not about physical pain from whatever causes or situations in the human entity -- and I maintain that all suffering that is not physical in the human entity eventually in the shorter and longer term comes to physical pain, then you are doing an awful disservice to Buddha; because you are making of Buddhism a religion that is of no appeal to the infinite hordes of mankind agonizing from physical pain, in particular among the poorest and most ill-fated peoples on earth, discriminated against, by nature and by the iniquity of ambitious greedy fellow humans.

And I thought that Buddha sought to extinguish the caste system of his times, which is still prevailing today in India notwithstanding its being the world's biggest democracy.

So, the Buddhist teachers and leaders in traditional Buddhist lands like Thailand, Burma, Tibet keep the vast masses of their ignorant populaces hookwinked into thinking and living on the expectation of help from Buddha to relieve their physical pain, while they know all along that Buddhism is not at all about relief of physical pain.

No wonder I have this very serious suspicion that Buddhism appeals to the so-called intellectuals of the West, who are liberated mostly from the physical pain of keeping one step ahead of life's agony, hardship, and drudgery, intellectuals with nothing else to wait for except the reality of life's extinction, which extinction Buddhism paints in a positive outlook -- but they forget or choose not to realize that it's all a painting, the quest for Nirvana.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Troll is a title of distinction.

This thread is historically part of a series of threads which are, basically, a critical examination of Buddhism to determine whether it is pseudoscientific. The main people doing this are yrreg and myself, and yrreg seems to be widely dismissed as a troll. Though recently a couple of other people have started to do it. Epepke -- #72​

​

Thanks for the compliment, Epepke; appreciate it.

The way I see it, troll is a title of distinction. In recent history of intellectual discourse or what passes for intellectual discourse the original trolls are those guys in CSICOP and in JREF*, and their predecessors.

Read the websites of the CSICOP and the JREF, and you will see how trollish the people there are.

When someone resorts to calling a person a troll, it is a confession of moral incapacity to see the big picture, and to grasp the short statement, in the critical point the latter is making about common claims, which can be of the stuffs of the paranormal, the pseudoscientific, and the supernatural.


You can call me a troll, that is a distinction I choose to welcome; but I am sure you cannot call me an iconoclast.


Yrreg

*
CSICOP = Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

JREF = James Randi Educational Foundation

 

[yrreg]

No need for CBT and Buddhism

Depression & anxiety can involve distorted thought patterns, which are cause/symptoms(?) of distress. Attachment of one's personal worth to achieving some goal is a real problem. I may think that I am nothing & completely worthless & a failure as a human being because I'm overweight, or because I do not have so much as a PhD, let alone a Nobel prize. (Yes, this seriously was one of my personal ones.) Either I've failed to reach some goal or I imagine I will always fail... Now in CBT you sit down and gather evidence to show yourself that your thinking is distorted. Some of that means letting go of some of your desires - realising that they do not define you, and that in fact having them can cause you suffering. Not that there is anything wrong with the specific desire (it's good to be fit, well-educated etc), just with your pathological attachment to it. Desire, attachment, suffering - you see the analogy. – Cajela #83​

​

No need for CBT and Buddhism for the problems above.

If the problems are due to neuro-chemistry and organism idiosyncrasy, then you should repair to pharmaceutics and surgery, or seek asylum in a mental safehouse.

If they are due to or appear in the normal course of growing up and adjusting to the realities of life, then consult your parents who are emotionally stable and have come from well-adjusted folks themselves, if not your parents then parents of people who are well-adjusted in life and in society and who give the credit to their parents.

If you have no parents, then try the school guidance counselors who are successful parents themselves, as evidenced by their children well-adjusted to life and society.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

What a big picture in a short statement!

From levity only...

The goal is to enjoy life, reduce suffering, it would be off the middle path to try to end desire. – D David #87​

​

Now, that is some lifestyle! it beats being a Rotarian or a Mason even, sounds more like what we might imagine a hedonist or a libidinist to be, and you get to wear the Buddhist badge of distinction.

Anyway, I am curious, D David; give me ten acts you do everyday as a Buddhist -- and I presume you are one, at least since you call yourself a Buddhist, and Ryokan says if you call yourself a Buddhist most probably you are one.

Well, maybe ten acts of commission and omission, like how many hours of meditation you do everyday, how many acts of patience or silence in the midst of annoyance, how many acts of compassion like helping people with goods and service and even money.

No, you don't have to live on begging, even though the Buddha expects his solid disciples to so, while in the USA everyone is supposed to live on work -- unless you want to count begging as work which in fact it is sort of. Well, maybe the better phrase should be live on earnings, i.e., in the US, and begging can fit in perfectly as living on earnings.


Yrreg

 

[username]

Anyway, I am curious, D David; give me ten acts you do everyday...

Given your history do you really expect anyone to do anything for you anymore?

May as well make it 1,000 acts done daily. Or one billion.

 

[Dancing David]

From levity only...

The goal is to enjoy life, reduce suffering, it would be off the middle path to try to end desire. – D David #87​

​

Now, that is some lifestyle! it beats being a Rotarian or a Mason even, sounds more like what we might imagine a hedonist or a libidinist to be, and you get to wear the Buddhist badge of distinction.

Anyway, I am curious, D David; give me ten acts you do everyday as a Buddhist -- and I presume you are one, at least since you call yourself a Buddhist, and Ryokan says if you call yourself a Buddhist most probably you are one.

Well, maybe ten acts of commission and omission, like how many hours of meditation you do everyday, how many acts of patience or silence in the midst of annoyance, how many acts of compassion like helping people with goods and service and even money.

No, you don't have to live on begging, even though the Buddha expects his solid disciples to so, while in the USA everyone is supposed to live on work -- unless you want to count begging as work which in fact it is sort of. Well, maybe the better phrase should be live on earnings, i.e., in the US, and begging can fit in perfectly as living on earnings.


Yrreg

I will answer your questions when you answer mine, troll.

I practise buddhism a lot, for me it usualy involves the act of breathing mindfully prior to thinking or acting, especialy under stress.

Until I plonk thee in this thread.

 

[Dancing David]

Depression & anxiety can involve distorted thought patterns, which are cause/symptoms(?) of distress. Attachment of one's personal worth to achieving some goal is a real problem. I may think that I am nothing & completely worthless & a failure as a human being because I'm overweight, or because I do not have so much as a PhD, let alone a Nobel prize. (Yes, this seriously was one of my personal ones.) Either I've failed to reach some goal or I imagine I will always fail... Now in CBT you sit down and gather evidence to show yourself that your thinking is distorted. Some of that means letting go of some of your desires - realising that they do not define you, and that in fact having them can cause you suffering. Not that there is anything wrong with the specific desire (it's good to be fit, well-educated etc), just with your pathological attachment to it. Desire, attachment, suffering - you see the analogy. – Cajela #83​

​

No need for CBT and Buddhism for the problems above.

If the problems are due to neuro-chemistry and organism idiosyncrasy, then you should repair to pharmaceutics and surgery, or seek asylum in a mental safehouse.

If they are due to or appear in the normal course of growing up and adjusting to the realities of life, then consult your parents who are emotionally stable and have come from well-adjusted folks themselves, if not your parents then parents of people who are well-adjusted in life and in society and who give the credit to their parents.

If you have no parents, then try the school guidance counselors who are successful parents themselves, as evidenced by their children well-adjusted to life and society.


Yrreg

I hope that you are not serious, when did they start doing surgery for depression troll, when did the studies show that for depression you benefit most from medication and CBT.
Not only are you a troll, you are ignorant.

 

[Jekyll]

The non-tradtional recreation of buddhism, there is a very long historical track of buddhist beliefs and practises that are like hood ornaments. I could not begin to call this traditional or pure oractual buddhism, I call it recent because this version of buddhism is very modern although very linked to theravda.

I'm still confused. You seemed to use the term "recent budhism" to define your beliefs in contrast to the other budhists.
Are they not recent budhists? Can you spell it out a bit more clearly?

Feel free to stop using the word recent if you think it's clouding the issues.

A simple lief is one lacking in complications, I use the term in the sense of 'elegance' in mathematics. If I try to do too many things in one day, or try to acomplish what is beyond my limits, I have real difficulty being mindfull. So when I say simple I mean the consequences of being mindfull, I do one thing at a time, I try to gauge my limits and not engage in 'multi-tasking'. I have many material goods and enjoy many technologies.

Cool.

 

[epepke]

Just a though and a question,

Can you truely speak for other people, is your experience similar to thiers or the same as thiers.

It's a difficult question.

I think there may be somewhat of a time lag here, as after I wrote what you are responding to, I wrote something else about another kind of existential grief that I thought might provide better common ground. IOW, I'm trying my best to show good faith.

Ultimately, though, if there are problems with my being able to speak for other people, then by the same token, there are problems with Gautama Buddha's being able to speak for other people.

 

[epepke]

The way I see it, troll is a title of distinction. In recent history of intellectual discourse or what passes for intellectual discourse the original trolls are those guys in CSICOP and in JREF*, and their predecessors.

I think the term "troll" is being misapplied here. To me, a troll is someone who is only interested in getting an emotional reaction and is not intereted in engaging in followup. I don't think this really applies to either of us. I'm sticking to the balls-nailed-to-the-wall definitions of "troll" and "skepticism."

However, since you have accepted something as a compliment, perhaps you will think about a criticism as well. Posting multiple, multi-page responses in sequence is likely to give the impression of trollish behavior.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm still confused. You seemed to use the term "recent budhism" to define your beliefs in contrast to the other budhists.
Are they not recent budhists? Can you spell it out a bit more clearly?

Feel free to stop using the word recent if you think it's clouding the issues.


Cool.

You can stop using the word if it deisturbs you.
I use recent because the form of buddhism that I follow is very recent in historical terms, the re-re-introduction of buddhism in the US by Thich Naht hahn, and other's of the era of the Viet Nam war.
I use recent because it is recent that a non ritual, non magic, non cultiral buddhism has arisen in the US.

I don't mean to confuse, but I aknowledge that the forms of buddhism I study may be old , but in expression they are very recent.