All I do here is call mythology what it is. Mythology. If people get offended by that, that’s up to them. It doesn’t change the fact that mythology is an inferior way of examining the universe to an evidential approach.

As for Buddhism, some elements of it are, without doubt, mythology and others aren’t. For example, the Tripitaka is a tradition of oral myths about Gautama’s teachings and life. They weren’t written down for hundreds of years after his death. Therefore, they are, by definition, a mythology. Mahayana Buddhism is almost completely a mythology.

Theravadic and Tibetan Busshism, on the other hand, both seem to emphasise the tradition of critical analysis of individual experience, which I’m totally supportive of. Some schools of Tibeten Buddhist thought, primarily Dzogchen, are very similar to Advaita Vedanta, which I obviously don’t consider religion or mythology, because I do an entire podcast about it.

Total props to the Dalai Lama for embracing scientific inquiry. Also to Alan Wallace, that’s a great speech you linked to, although he totally mis-understands BF Skinner’s point about the mind versus physical processes. Of course the mind is nothing more than physical processes, as Skinner and Jack Smart declared in the 50s. At least we have no scientific evidence to the contrary that I’m aware of.

Though I can’t and don’t want to speak for the Christians.
Buddhists would say that anyone who says that Buddhism is a mythology is just plain ignorant of what Buddihsm is and how it is presented at least in the Tibetan tradition. Where it has and continues to have a rich culture of empirical investigation. We are encouraged to not believe the tenets of Buddhism but, to investigate for ourselves. If we can run the experiements and can replicate the result then accept the findings if not leave to one side.

Openness and true empirical learning is how we can move from todays society to a better one.

>Calling me names isn’t going to stop me.
This is a classic
You call other people names and expect them to listen to your presentation of the reality of the universe but, get defensive and defiant when it happenings to you! Do you really think that the people that do need changing will?

>I don’t want to engage them? Show me them and I’ll happily engage them.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=983112177262602885

In fact I believe the Dalai Lama has said that if any scientific evidence was presented to him that directly contradicted any element of Buddhism, then he’d change Buddhist wisdom accordingly.

Yes there are still occasional arguments over differences and suchlike but that falls under human nature. The worst earful I’ve copped from a Buddhist was a lecture on the importance of education and not drinking or smoking… That and not meeting up with people I’ve met on the internet in case they abduct me.

That said, Buddhism in many of its forms could be considered to be closer to a philosophy than a religion.

Zeilinger is a fine scientist but so is Dawkins and he is as adamant as I am that the time for going easy on religion is well and truly over.

I don’t mind at all being called arrogant or a fundamentalist when it comes to the issue of truth versus mythology because I don’t believe mythology is a valid premise to understanding the universe. It’s terrific for understanding human history and culture but not as a means for making decisions in the 21st century.

I AM the other side of the coin, as you put it. I am fighting for truth and awareness and rational thought, which is something most professional scientists CAN’T do, because they are too scared about the negative impact it might have on their sources of funding support, especially in the USA.

It’s time for those of us who can to speak up and denounce religion completely.

Calling me names isn’t going to stop me.

There are plenty of them out there but, you don’t want to engage them! Preferring to instead ram your own version of science down your listeners throats, becoming as fundamentalists as the religious types you talk about. In fact The Dalai Lama has recently insisted that modern physics now become a part of the monastic curriculum in all Tibetan Buddhist monasteries.

Scientists like Anton Zeilinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Zeilinger famous for the first demonstration of quantum teleportation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information_theory
between two separately emitted photons don’t play this arrogant – we are better than you – game but instead prefer to engage so called religious types without becoming a convert in order to LEARN! I myself have read and continue to read AND learn from science, especially physics.

Get off your pedestal Cam and start using empirical knowledge (a core science tenet) rather than just regurgitating what you have read. Because without doing so you end up looking like the very people you criticise…your just the other side of the same coin.

Raj – What about the universe, in your humble opinion, isn’t logical? Apart, of course, from people who believe in mythology? The laws of physics are mind-boggling and mysterious beyond belief, but they are logical, in as much as the universe has its own logic. They certainly don’t correspond well with our previous Newtonian “logic” though.

A serious flaw in your argument. Why would “religious types” need to be digging through books on physics and chemistry? Physics and Chemistry are very limited for realm you are talking about. Not everything in the universe isn’t logical, so not everything can be explained by science.

CG

I can’t play chess to save myself precisely because I can’t think more than… actually I cant think ahead at all! But I can manage the 5 year plan though.