SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Washington's Blog reports
The Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life is reporting, in their poll of 35,000 Americans, that during the seven years from 2007 to 2014, the numbers of religiously "Unaffiliated" were soaring, the numbers of Christians were plunging, and the numbers of adherents to non-Christian faiths were rising substantially but not nearly as much as were the numbers of "Unaffiliated".
This report, issued on May 12th, is headlined, "America's Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow".
It shows that: the percentage of Americans who are unaffiliated rose from 16.1% in 2007 up to 22.8% today.
[...][The USA] is becoming a less [religious], and a more religiously diverse, country.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:04PM
> no supernatural claims are needed in Buddism
That looks rather like equivocation.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:00PM
No, it really is not. It is more of a less than optimum translation, for lack of better terminology. Also, I was trying to be brief, so attribute that directly to my efforts, and not the concept.
Not all 'Eastern' concepts can be fully and correctly rendered in 'Western' languages.
In a nutshell, there is nothing equivical about General Relativity and the idea that mass = energy(the main principle behind 'Atomic Energy', or nuclear energy production). That is the 'field' of 'cosmic energy' I used. That seems obvious to me, but sorry for not being clear about that in my original post. That is specifically why I made the comment referring to Buddists smiling and updating there vocabulary with physics advancements. Quantum mechanics was fine. The idea of quantum entanglement provided a good modern language platform to update the description of that 'cosmic connectiveness' that we all share with the universe, and the concept of the Big Bang theory just reinforced that.
That's one of the issues with religion. The language and concepts defining most religion resist 'updating' as blasphemy or heretical, and was formed long before we even had the concept of 'science'. Most Buddist sects do not have this problem, as new understanding(science) only gives us better ways to describe concepts that are effectively unchanged by the new understanding gained. We never made the outlandish claims that are being refuted by science in the first place.
And yes, most(if not all) Buddists are atheists; to us, there are no supernatural forces, agents, or influences(thus no dieties to be concerned with) to have to account for.
To be perfectly clear about all of this, I only claim to be a Buddist when someone insists I HAVE to have a religous belief. I was highly exposed to it in my youth[1], and I found it is the only religion that I can accept. I am not what you would call an actual, or practising Buddist. I mostly use it to fill in a blank on a form when 'no thanks' will not be accepted as an answer.
Between 'the Golden Rule', the 'Eight-fold Path', and what my culture and society indoctrinated me with, I have my own 'rules' in life to follow. I highly value the 'Golden Rule' as a guiding principle, and science just reinforces that for me. It is a really comfortable and practical/useful 'place' to be, mentally(and as a subset: 'spiritually') in life. YMMV.
I hope that takes care of the mistaken impression of equivocation you had. I will shoulder the blame for not being more specific and clear by omitting this explaination for brevity's sake earlier. :-)
I'm starting to regret not just writing all of this up concisely and posting it to my journal, and then just linking to that, but Oh Well.....
If the subject actually interests you, the wikipedia article on 'the Noble Eightfold Path' in Buddhism is pretty good, and there are countless youtube vids featuring the Dalai Lama on science and Buddhist philosophy.(more correct than 'religion' for a label, but whatever- it is no matter of importance)
[1]And to top it all off, what I was exposed to for many years was the particularly quirky Japanese adaptation of Buddism commonly known as Zen Buddism! Most 'classical' Buddists are not entirely comfortable with 'Zen Buddism' from my experience. Again, YMMV.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:05PM
Well, as far as I know Buddhism believes in some form of reincarnation. This clearly is something supernatural.
Also, Karma means there has to be something that distinguishes between "good" and "bad" actions in a moral sense. But moral is not a concept found in nature, therefore anything that is based on it can only be either human-made (but Karma isn't human-made, is it?) or supernatural.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:53PM
Karma is man made, just as is Buddhism. It is nothing more than a philosophy on how to live a 'right/correct' life. Buddhism is not a religion as Western Cultures view religion. Not all Buddhist sects incorporate reincarnation, and not all Buddhists accept it, even if it is part of their sects philosophy.
Just consider 'you reap what you sow' as a good defination/translation for Karma. It is a human-made concept and describing word. There is nothing devine or sacred about Karma. It is in essence, just a flowery wording of one aspect of cause and effect as it applies to human interactions in society.
I question your statement: "But moral is not a concept found in nature,..."
Coincidently, I just watched an interesting youtube vid(still loaded in another tab) of a talk given by Dr. Andy Thomson titled "Why We Believe in Gods" at the 2009 American Atheist in Atlanta, GA. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg/ [youtube.com]-link to vid)
He addresses that far better than I can, so instead of trying to argue/debate with me, I will refer you to his interesting talk. Also, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Chris Hutchins(RIP), and MANY others have all addressed this in lectures and debates...ad nauseum.
Not only am I an atheist, I don't even think religion has had a legitimate place in the modern world, and has not for at least 150 years. Religion is a harmful, self-imposed crutch, that should be immediately tossed aside, IMO.
I only make a claim to Buddhism as a placeholder/answer for the 'Religion?:_________' question on documents for the few times 'No Thanks!' would not be accepted. The only reason I use Buddhist for that 'answer' is that I was heavily exposed to the quirky Zen Buddhism, and it is about the only 'religion' that I can half-assed claim as a possible answer for that blank without gagging. I don't claim to be an actual Buddist, but that is the only answer that won't get me lynched/attacked in the 'Bible Belt' where I live.
Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy on self-improvement, and how to treat those around you, and how to treat the world around you. A set of instructions for a happier life, if you will. It's focus is on self, not external to self.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:01PM
> The language and concepts defining most religion resist 'updating' as blasphemy or heretical, and was formed long before we even had the concept of 'science'
Absolutely. That's one of the issues that I have with them, and is related to why I consider myself an "ignostic" or "igtheist" - I demand a clear definition of all terms such that they only rely on previously agreed premises before any meaningful discussion can be entered into, and all religions (including the supersymmetry - I'm perfectly fair about how I apply this) fail at this first hurdle. Buddhists saying their life energy field is just the same as the quantum fields which particle physicists study is to me a cheap get-out. That's what Feynmann would call cargo cult science. It's attempting to look like it says something about reality with a scientifically supportable perspective, but it doesn't. No feature that they claim it has is defined in terms of the physical, or should I say mathematical, properties of the quantum fields.
> We never made the outlandish claims that are being refuted by science in the first place.
You do make non-testable claims though. You shouldn't piggy-back on scientific concepts and then do non-science with them. That's pretty outlandish.
I used to share a flat with the maintainer of the talk.religion.buddhism FAQ, and I used to like discussions about not just his beliefs, but those of other branches of buddhism too. Unfortunately, we never delved into these deep layers of mysticism, we spent more time discussing more superficial practical aspects, or ethical/moral ones. Which was a shame, I learnt a great deal about a lot of things from him.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:02PM
I agree about it being a form of mysticism.
The only thing I have any objection or real disagreement is calling it a cargo cult science. Buddhism does not really focus on the 'science' of the natural world. This focus by Western folk as a means to refute it as a religion is a 'WTF?' experience to me. The focus and 'purpose' of Buddhism is more about how to think and act better. That is why I keep repeating myself with the 'if it concerns external forces/agents, it is not of Buddhism' refrain. As I said several times previously, I ONLY claim to be a Buddhist when someone will not accept the 'No thanks!' I always put in the 'Religion?' blank on documents, and I claim Buddhism is a phylosophy, and not a religion.(IMO)
I'm just trying to answer questions to the best of my ability to use modern, Western language to explain concepts that do not translate accurately.
If you are trying to class Buddhism as a religion so you can refute the validity of it as religion, then you've already misunderstood the whole point of Buddhist philosophy(it is not a religion), and are just spinning your wheels.
So, if you want to debate Buddhism further, you will have to find someone that is actually qualified/more knowledgable. I'm not a scholar of Buddism, I was exposed to Zen Buddhism, and use it as the most plausible(if erroneous) placeholder to fill in blanks on documents when 'No thanks!' is not accepted.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:32PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:59PM
Peace, then. We are on the same 'page' it would seem. :-)
...I have a lot more respect for Buddhism than I do for pretty much any other religion, I often find myself standing up for it,..."
This is the position I feel I am in for this discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @05:01AM
>Japanese adaptation of Buddism commonly known as Zen Buddism!
Oh what a fib! Zen is completely independent! You lot just co-opted it to look good!
I can speak the whole of Zen and not even mention Buddha!