The Religious Method

[Notedstrangeperson]

Not relevant to the OP.

Like I said, I've already answered OP.

False. I'm the Buddhist, I know. No belief in an afterlife, no supernatural beliefs.

If you think that then you are not a Buddhist. You are an atheist who calls herself a buddhist.

Reincarnation is central to buddhism, and without it it's impossible to achieve nirvada. What you are describing is uccheda-vāda or "the doctrine of annihilationism", which says that nothing surives after a person's death. This was one of the extreme and therefore incorrect beliefs which the Buddha himself rejected (link). Traditionally Buddhists have also believed in gods or god-like beings called Devas, and even make offerings to them (link).

I don't know of any reputable source on Buddhism which would agree with what you're describing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That is not the purpose of religion.

Although Wiccan Child's question seems to be about scientific knowledge (and then Strathos is correct) the actual question was:

"What knowledge has been ascertained as a result of wholly religious methodology?"

If religion is not the proper method for determining scientific knowledge, at least it must be the proper method for determining religious knowledge.

Religious methodology has produced the result that the nature of the godhead is either:
unitary
dual
threefold
many
equivalent to the universe
outside the universe
nothing at all
something else

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Are you claiming no school of Buddhism has those thing? Or just that whatever school you may subscribe to does not?

I'm zen. No text. No doctrine. No afterlife. No Nirvana. Etc.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I've already answered Wiccan_Child's question.

Several christians and many muslims helped develop the scientific method. These include: Ibn-al-Haytham, Robert Grosseteste, Francis Bacon, Roger Bacon and William of Ockham.

The Western world is not the ultimate authority on what counts as a religion - but even by Western definitions Buddhism counts as a religion because it contains supernatural beliefs, including belief in an afterlife. Stricter forms of Buddhism are more similar to a religion than more modern, liberal forms.

I'm sorry, you missed my point. Religious methodology did not help the development of the scientific method. THEISTS may have done so, but religious thinking did not.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Like I said, I've already answered OP.

If you think that then you are not a Buddhist. You are an atheist who calls herself a buddhist.

Reincarnation is central to buddhism, and without it it's impossible to achieve nirvada. What you are describing is uccheda-v?da or "the doctrine of annihilationism", which says that nothing surives after a person's death. This was one of the extreme and therefore incorrect beliefs which the Buddha himself rejected (link). Traditionally Buddhists have also believed in gods or god-like beings called Devas, and even make offerings to them (link).

I don't know of any reputable source on Buddhism which would agree with what you're describing.

Have you considered that there are so many Buddhists hostile to Christianity on these boards because we're tired of the ignorant telling us what we believe?

There are many schools - many of which reject both Devas and annihilation. And you're not even describing the concept correctly.

Shall I then point out that you're an atheist? Or Muslim? Or some faith that you don't hold to?

I am weary of discussing Buddhism with google-educated theists who seem to believe they have a complete mastery of the subject based on a page of search results.

And of course I'm an atheist. I also happen to be a Buddhist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you're asking whether any scientific discoveries have been made through divine revelation?

Hmm ... none that I can think of off the top of my head. Most divine revelations mentioned in the Bible have more to do with future events (prophecies) raher than anything to do with science.

Prophecies that come true would qualify. A prophecy might foretell the election of President Obama ('religious' knowledge), and then we observe Obama get elected (scientific knowledge).

However, one must beware self-fulfilling prophecies ("Israel will come back into existence"), or prophecies of such broadness that they're guaranteed to come true ("Someone, somewhere, will win the lottery during 2013") - these aren't things know through religious means, they're human guesses that play the odds.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Religion - particularly Christianity and Islam - helped develop the scientific method. So by extension it has helped eliminate disease and improved farming techniques.

I disagree. Christians and Muslims helped develop the scientific method. At best, their faith inspired them to understand the world, or search for cures for diseases. But their faith has never gone further than that.

For instance, during the Islamic Golden Age, when much scientific and mathematical development was done, it wasn't specifically Islam which allowed these developments, it was the sheer fact that the disparate, warring tribes were now unified. The time and resources that went into conflict and defence were now free for leisure. It was not through religious, paranormal, supernatural, or spiritual means that we acquire the knowledge that we did during this time.

As I stipulated in the OP, simply being inspired by your religion to pursue science is all well and good, but that isn't a religious method of acquiring knowledge. It's still a scientific way.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Really? What evidence do you have of this? And that's not what the OP asked. He asked about knowledge generated by religion techniques: revelation, reading entrails, etc.

You speak from a position of ignorance. Buddhism in it's stricter forms is certainly NOT a religion as the Western world understands it.

Is it not a collection of beliefs on spirituality? Samsara, Nirvana, enlightenment, etc? If not, then what is your understanding of Buddhism?

 

[Greg1234]

(e.g., the existence of atoms),

What is an atom?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm zen. No text. No doctrine. No afterlife. No Nirvana. Etc.

Were we supposed to guess that, when you said this:

You speak from a position of ignorance. Buddhism in it's stricter forms is certainly NOT a religion as the Western world understands it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you considered that there are so many Buddhists hostile to Christianity on these boards because we're tired of the ignorant telling us what we believe?

Somewhat like what you did, when you said that I said I bring nothing of value to religion ... and said it after I corrected you for having said it once before?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Religious methodology did not help the development of the scientific method. THEISTS may have done so, but religious thinking did not.

I disagree. Christians and Muslims helped develop the scientific method. At best, their faith inspired them to understand the world, or search for cures for diseases. But their faith has never gone further than that.

Funny how, whenever science and religion come into conflict, it's because of religious thinking, but whenever science and religion agree, it's because of scientific thinking.

Most early religious thinking relied on animism: natural phenomenon occured according to the will of the gods or spirits. The only way to change it was so try and appease them. By contrast, much of Christian theology was based on ideas from Greek philosophers like Thales (who believed the world worked like a giant machine) and Aristotle (who focused on the philosophy of causes and causality). Christians believed that if the world worked like a giant machine, then it must have had an inventor. We call that inventor God.

Indeed one of the reasons science never took off in China, despite being much more advanced than the Western world at the time, was because ...

There was no confidence that the code of nature's law could ever be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read.​

- 'The Grand Titration:
Science and Society in the East and West'
by Joseph Needham​

The idea of God as the creator of the natural world and the laws which govern it persist today. And because God was the creator of these laws, many Christian believed we could prove He exists by examining these laws. Both Augustine and Aquinas developed "proofs" of God based not on divine intervention but on reason and logic. They didn't argue that God exists because He spoke to them personally, they argued we could prove He existed by looking at the evidence.

It's probably fairer to say scientific thinking was developed by monotheism rather than Christianity alone. No eastern mystic religion helped developed the concept of the scientific method.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

What is an atom?

An assemblage of protons, electrons, and neutrons. Seriously, dude?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Somewhat like what you did, when you said that I said I bring nothing of value to religion ... and said it after I corrected you for having said it once before?

You lie. I did not say you bring nothing of value to religion. You boast that you bring nothing to these discussions.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Have you considered that there are so many Buddhists hostile to Christianity on these boards because we're tired of the ignorant telling us what we believe?

Considering Christians were heavily persecuted by Buddhists and Shinto nationalists between 16th and 19th century (due mostly to people like Toyotomi Hideyoshi who made Christianity illegal and executed many monks and missionaries), I'd say Christians have more reasons to feel grievance against Buddhists, rather than the other way round.

There are many schools - many of which reject both Devas and annihilation. And you're not even describing the concept correctly.

The concepts I described came from Buddhist websites and dictionaries defining and explaining them.

I am weary of discussing Buddhism with google-educated theists who seem to believe they have a complete mastery of the subject based on a page of search results.

And of course I'm an atheist. I also happen to be a Buddhist.

You complain of "google-educated theists" without actually explaining why they're wrong, especially since the sources I use come from Buddhists websites (rather than secualr websites about Buddhism, like Wikipedia). Besides, you originally said that Buddism was not a religion. That's why other users asked whether you were talking about Buddhism as a whole or just one particular sect.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Funny how, whenever science and religion come into conflict, it's because of religious thinking, but whenever science and religion agree, it's because of scientific thinking.

Most early religious thinking relied on animism: natural phenomenon occured according to the will of the gods or spirits. The only way to change it was so try and appease them. By contrast, much of Christian theology was based on ideas from Greek philosophers like Thales (who believed the world worked like a giant machine) and Aristotle (who focused on the philosophy of causes and causality). Christians believed that if the world worked like a giant machine, then it must have had an inventor. We call that inventor God.

Indeed one of the reasons science never took off in China, despite being much more advanced than the Western world at the time, was because ...

There was no confidence that the code of nature's law could ever be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read.

- 'The Grand Titration:
Science and Society in the East and West'
by Joseph Needham
The idea of God as the creator of the natural world and the laws which govern it persist today. And because God was the creator of these laws, many Christian believed we could prove He exists by examining these laws. Both Augustine and Aquinas developed "proofs" of God based not on divine intervention but on reason and logic. They didn't argue that God exists because He spoke to them personally, they argued we could prove He existed by looking at the evidence.

It's probably fairer to say scientific thinking was developed by monotheism rather than Christianity alone. No eastern mystic religion helped developed the concept of the scientific method.

Which merely reinforces his point. Theists developed the scientific method. Theism did not.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Considering Christians were heavily persecuted by Buddhists and Shinto nationalists between 16th and 19th century (due mostly to people like Toyotomi Hideyoshi who made Christianity illegal and executed many monks and missionaries), I'd say Christians have more reasons to feel grievance against Buddhists, rather than the other way round.

The concepts I described came from Buddhist websites and dictionaries defining and explaining them.

You complain of "google-educated theists" without actually explaining why they're wrong, especially since the sources I use come from Buddhists websites (rather than secualr websites about Buddhism, like Wikipedia). Besides, you originally said that Buddism was not a religion. That's why other users asked whether you were talking about Buddhism as a whole or just one particular sect.

Seriously? Persecution by Christians in Japan in the Tokugawa shogunate over issues of national unity is somehow responsible for universal Christian animus towards Buddhists?

If you'd try learning some history instead of thinking you know things via google-fu, I might be more sympathetic. And given the Christian track record in the Americas and Europe, I'd say it's everyone else who has a legitimate grievance.

You think you understand Buddhism and its varieties and tenets from 30 seconds of google and a complete failure to ask questions. You instantly accuse me of being mistaken and lying about my beliefs without making a single inquiry of the person in front of you.

Where is your integrity? Where is your Christian charity? With the inquisition? With the codex burning in Mexico?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Which merely reinforces his point. Theists developed the scientific method. Theism did not.

If you think that is what my post is saying then I don't think you've actually read it through.

Seriously? Persecution by Christians in Japan in the Tokugawa shogunate over issues of national unity is somehow responsible for universal Christian animus towards Buddhists?

No, I'm saying you can't make blanket statements like "So many Buddhists [are] hostile to Christianity on these boards because we're tired of the ignorant telling us what we believe" as though Christianity alone is responsible for every bad thing that's ever been done in the name of religion. Nobody can claim people have not been killed in the name of their religion. Indeed today Christians living outside the Western world are some of the most heavily persecuted.

If you'd try learning some history instead of thinking you know things via google-fu, I might be more sympathetic. And given the Christian track record in the Americas and Europe, I'd say it's everyone else who has a legitimate grievance.

You think you understand Buddhism and its varieties and tenets from 30 seconds of google and a complete failure to ask questions. You instantly accuse me of being mistaken and lying about my beliefs without making a single inquiry of the person in front of you.

Where is your integrity? Where is your Christian charity? With the inquisition? With the codex burning in Mexico?

Don't start making this personal - I've only just met you and you're not exactly exemplifying the concept of Right Speech.

My argument isn't whether you're a "good" Buddhist or a "true" Buddhist; my argument is saying things like Buddhists don't believe in an afterlife or anything supernatural is a basic factual error, akin to someone saying that going to church automatically makes them a Christian.

And if you'll forgive me for being snippy, I don't think it's a coincidence that the type of buddhist who complains so bitterly about religion is also the same type of buddist who claims Buddhism itself is not a religion. They are automatically exonerated from the same type of thinking they loudly and frequently criticise. You aren't the first one I've met.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Prophecies that come true would qualify. A prophecy might foretell the election of President Obama ('religious' knowledge), and then we observe Obama get elected (scientific knowledge).

Theoretically there are many prophacies in the Bible which fit this description. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem for example - an event we know which happened but isn't actually mentioned in the Gospels.

I say "theoretically" because actually proving this would be almost impossible.

 

[AV1611VET]

You lie. I did not say you bring nothing of value to religion. You boast that you bring nothing to these discussions.

Since you said I lie, I'm going to ask you a second time to back this post up with a link, please:

AV has actually stated several times that he contributes nothing to threads. Apparently, he is simply here for entertainment value. It's why I don't usually bother to reply to anything he says: it has no value, by his own admission.