“Keeping an Open Mind is a Virtue, but not so Open that Your Brains Fall Out.”

Athena

I’m a little disappointed in your shallow understanding of Buddhism. You aren’t a Buddhist scholar, but you are sophisticated enough to know that there really isn’t any such thing as “Buddhism” - there are 2500 years of Buddhists in dozens of countries. Some of your comments apply to some of them.

> misogyny (women cannot become Buddhas and must be reborn as men to attain Nirvana)

Yes, that was an orthodox doctrine. There are many other aspects of early Buddhism that were contextually gender neutral and egalitarian in relationship to its Vedic environment. More about that in my essay “Buddhist Feminism”:

http://ieet.org/archive/1984BuddhistFeminism.pdf

> its primitive cosmology of universe-toting turtles

Again, Buddhist cosmology is not of course a modern one. But it is a non-theistic cosmology that posits billion year cycles of collapse and expansion, similar to the 1980s Bang-Crunch model. Don’t know where you heard about turtles (maybe thats something Tibetan) but you can read more about Buddhist cosmology in my essay “Beginnings and Endings: The Buddhist Mythos of the Arising and Passing Away of the World”

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/hughes1993/

> its punitive stance that suffering is the result of bad past karma

All theodicies have their problems. As an atheist theodicy Buddhism attributed success and suffering to the result of individual effort. For those who were oppressed or suffered from bad luck that obviously doesn’t help. And since like most Western Buddhists I don’t believe in reincarnation the traditional idea doesn’t work for me at all. So many of us Western Buddhists have a psychoanalytic interpretation of karma when we use the idea at all. Fortunately, Buddhism can actually be read as a negation of Hindu concepts of karma, a negation of social obligation and appeal to step out of karma altogether.

> its oppressive policies whenever it gained temporal power (including pre-Chinese Tibet, which was a far cry from Shangri-La)

Again, I agree that Buddhist clergy have made many accomodations to power throughout history, including theocratic rule. But the model of political order suggested in the Buddhist sutras is one of either peaceful decentralized democratic anarchism to countervail against greed-driven kings, or establishing the influence of dharma over the state by for instance convincing kings to eliminate poverty. It wasn’t post-Enlightenment liberal democracy, but it also wasn’t Sharia.

> the dog-like master/disciple formula

I presume you are referring to the guru-student relationship in Tibetan Buddhism, which is the most excessive authority relationship in Buddhism. Monastics in other Buddhist traditions really had much less of that kind of authority. I’m not attracted to authoritarian religious practice myself, but if you accept that “getting over yourself” is a useful thing then agreeing to the strictures of egalitarian community can do it as can a relationship of total trust in a teacher.

> suppressing desire, Buddhism’s ultimate goal?

It may sound like a word game, but in Buddhist psychology the goal is not to suppress desire, but to understand your mind well enough so that your desires lose power over you and you stop tying yourself up with them.

Again, I don’t expect people outside of the Buddhist tradition to appreciate these distinctions, and some of your complaints, like about authoritarianism and compromises with power, I and many Western Buddhists agree with. But for me the Buddhist tradition is rather more complex than you seem to appreciate.

Well said, jhughes.  I’ve been a practicing Buddhist for 18 years, and never heard anyone state any Buddhist dogma at all, let alone the collection of misinformation and misunderstanding of Ms. Andreadis’ article.

There is an amusing joke about a wise old monk who told a curious king that it was “turtles all the way down,” and I seem to recall something about the world resting on the back of a turtle from someplace, but I can assure it is not a tenet of Zen—at least not Soto Zen—as was implied.

Thanks for covering it point by point.  Saved me the trouble.

Bill

On my part, I’m more than a little disappointed to see special pleading (and weak pleading, at that) employed to argue that Buddhism is “different”.  There are equally many versions of Christianity or Judaism, as widely disparate as the various Buddhist branches.  Some of them are as progressive and as low-key with respect to dogma as Buddhism.  Several encourage questioning and most of them are better than Buddhism in terms of engaging with the external world.

Americans have this habit of picking and choosing what portions of a religion or philosophy they wish to adopt, and still consider themselves followers of that discipline.  If they were subjected to an imposed orthodoxy with all its ritual and rigor, they would be far less enamored of such mental contortions—because it would affect their lives decisively rather than as an optional overlay.

Most crucially, any religion that attempts to appropriate and misinterpret scientific concepts to justify its own mythology reeks of snake oil to me.  A Buddhist atheist is a contradiction in terms.  You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.  It’s either science or turtles.  For me, it’s science.

I wish Sokol was just an aberration in the realm of scientific honesty, but this article from Science Daily is really frightening:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528203745.htm
“This pristine image of science is based on the theory that the scientific community is guided by norms including disinterestedness and organized scepticism, which are incompatible with misconduct.  Increasing evidence, however, suggests that known frauds are just the “tip of the iceberg”, and that many cases are never discovered. “

“On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had “fabricated” (made up), “falsified” or “altered” data to “improve the outcome” at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including “failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research” and “dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate.”

Saddly enough, a so-called academic who doesn’t check his or her facts before climbing up on their rhetorical soapbox. They come in all shapes and sizes, from the ignorant (as in this case) to the sectarian practitioner who who decides to put their particular tradition above historical fact (Thurman and others).

Is this higher education at its best?

Maybe Prof. Andreadis should stick to Biology and allow others to discuss what is and is not Buddhism.

Veronica, Sokal’s paper has nothing to do with fraud.  He did it deliberately to prove a point.  Social Text accepted and published the paper without reviewing it because they were eager to show that a physicist agreed with their views.

Ven. Boda, I will stick to Biology if/when the other side stops misusing science to mislead people.  You may be happy to know that I’m not singling out Buddhism.  All organized religions are equally guilty in this (and many other) aspects.

I miswrote my last comment. I was actually well aware of Sokol’s clever trick, designed to prove a point. I should’ve pointed fingers at those he was trying to paint as fools, not at Sokol.

Prof. Andreadis,

I agree with you entirely about the misuse of science… as you stated, one encounters it not only in Buddhism, but in all religions.

When all is said and done, one cannot claim that institutionalized Buddhism is “scientific” until it discards its sociocentric tendencies and stops chasing willow whisps in the wind.

I do understand the frustration of encountering those who attempt to exhibit expertise in area far from their fields of study.

Many prominent members within the scientific community have been some of the most avid in attempting to tie religious concepts to advanced science.

I am thinking here of physicists Fritjof Capra and his book Tao of Physics and Niels Bohr who even added a yin/yang symbol to his family crest.

This genre of literature is labelled quantum mysticism and was in fact first created by physicists such as Erwin Schrödinger who was a student of Vedanta as early as the 1940s.

That they have been amplified by such unqualified personages as Deepak Chopra and others only stretches any credibility further.

Truly these theories are easily debunked as the Sokol affair demonstrates. 

But if scientists have strayed into the fields of faith and philosophy perhaps their disciplines didn’t provide all the answers to the big questions of life that they had hoped to find.

NellaLou, I would add Frank Tipler and Guillermo Gonzalez to the list from the Christian side.

Science was once natural philosophy.  The Greeks, first to venture into these domains as thinkers rather than believers, did not distinguish between the two.  As for answers, science is not a magic bullet and the world is very complex.  Non-scientists are in fact more often frustrated with scientists because the latter rarely speak in absolutes (except in clearcut cases: the earth is round and does go around the sun, neither it nor we sprang fully formed six thousand years ago, etc).

Also, we of the middle kingdom are not necessarily equipped to understand whatever is remote from our own scale—the very large (cosmology), the very small (elementary particles)... although we’re also notoriously bad at understanding statistics.  Science is an asymptomatic approach to truth, hewing ever closer.  Its method and mindset is far more crucial than its specific answers, which get constantly modified as we gather new information.

Totally agree on the misuse of science point but you seem to caricature Buddhism a little unfairly in places.

I always found this quote from the Dalai Lama (no he does not represent all Buddhists, but he is quite the modern figurehead of Buddhism in the popular mind) as quite inline with the scientific method:

“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.”

Thank you for your response Professor Andreadis. I have added further to this discussion in a post much too long for this comment section. If you are interested it is at:

http://enlightenmentward.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/science-and-religion-make-a-lousy-cocktail-a-response-to-athena-andreadis-and-barbara-obrien-etal/

This is a most interesting discussion.

I guess what I was doing was showing the misuse of science by—scientists. So it’s not just religious fundies.

Dear Dan,

While the Dalai lama’s statement appears to be in accord with scientific method, it is hardly ever applied in such fashion… even in cases where archaeological evidence counters Tibetan tradition one does not see a retraction, long enough an acknowledgement of the fact, but a complete spirit of denial.

A perfect example of this can be found with the historical Acharya Shantideva of southeastern Bangladesh when compared to the claims still made within the Tibetan tradition… it’s almost like an entire chapter of a history book has been deliberately ripped from its binding.

A more appropriate term for a Buddhist practitioner is “vibhajja vada” (one who analyses), which is not only reflected in scientific method, but also requires that one does not set a side findings when they don’t support our own thesis.

More often than not, Buddhist scholarship does just that, it sets aside that which doesn’t support its own thesis or tradition… not very “scientific” in approach.

Ven. J.M. Dharmakara Boda—A great deal about the history of Buddhism as taught in Buddhism is heavily mythologized. However, for the most part belief in the literal truth of the myths is not a requirement or even encouraged. Tibetan Buddhism is something of an anomaly in that sense.

One of the several fallacies about Buddhism apparently held by Ms. Andreadis (who needs to take her own advice about forming conclusions in the absense of in-depth knowledge and critical thinking) is the idea that Buddhism makes claims about the physical world that somehow requires validation by science. On the whole, it does not.

If you look at the basic teachings common to all schools, and not the most exotic outliers—we have no creation myth—well, none that aren’t plainly allegorical—for example, involving turtles or otherwise. We claim no first cause or source of creation. The way Buddhism approaches understanding is on such a different level from science I don’t think science and Buddhism could conflict with each other if they tried. It would be like saying the existence of birds contradicts the existence of fish.

I’m sure Ms. Andreadis is right that there are Buddhists making claims regarding science that misrepresent science. This is the result of attaching to ideas, which Buddhism discourages. Generally if people keep practicing, they get over it.

When I was younger and more energetic, Ms. O’Brien, I read quite a bit on all religions.  I wanted to find out if there existed any religion that 1) treated women as full humans, no strings attached, 2) was compatible with a questioning, exploring mindset (not, please note, specific scientific answers, which may change) and 3) did not require its practitioners to undergo mental or emotional contortions.

Not one passed the test—and most bored me into near-coma in the bargain.

As for Buddhism not requiring validation by science, of course it doesn’t.  No religious mythology does, each has its own arbitrary rules (and loyal followers) that insulate it from needing to be in touch with reality.

I’m glad you find your version of Buddhism comforting and fulfilling.  It certainly beats more virulent manifestations of blinkered worldviews.

Dear Barbara,

Yes, she’s quite correct about the misrepresentation of science, though the most troubling aspect of the fallacies is that if she had applied the same attention to detail as she does with her science fiction interests it shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

Also, as you stated, there’s the issue of critical thought and the absence of proper application, especially the demonstration of intellectual integrity when addressing the fallacies themselves through retraction.

BTW, re the offending video, I haven’t seen it yet, but I probably wouldn’t be surprised. I’ve seen a lot of nonsense like that in the last 30 years.

This one was probably the most awful I’ve seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know

Pernicious I agree. But then, I do think there is a way to reflect on physics and biology in ways that reinforce our sense of connectedness with nature and the universe, break down our egocentrism, and generate feelings of awe and gratitude. I also think it is a legitimate endeavour to compare pre-scientific and scientific ideas about nature. The difficulty is remain rigorous, skeptical and honest while you do it.

J.

Science is turning into its own religion as well, more so now then ever. The notion of building a God through the use of science and technology is heavily explored by Ben, hugo and others.  I expect topics such as these to grow more and more complex as we see a rise of techno spirituality and other such movements. For now Ill watch from the sidelines.

Carlos, if science builds a God, whether anthropomorphic or AI, it will have defeated its open-ended purpose of exploration and become just another religion.  This is why the Singularity has been dubbed The Rupture for Nerds: transhumanism has a strong millennarian/messianic strain and this hurts the movement precisely because it makes it resemble a cult—aka a fringe religion.

Jim, I agree with you about trying to achieve a unified, coherent view of the universe.  As I said in my last paragraph, scientists do that when they practice science as exploration into the complexities and nuances of reality, astrogators who map the starry night.

As Nobel laureate Odysseus Elytis said:

We will go on, and let them stone us
And let them say we’re walking on air,
Those who have never felt, my friend,
With what iron, what stones, what blood, what fire
We build, dream and sing.

I do wish religion would stop attaching itself to science.  Science is ever changing.  New discoveries rewrite old laws.  By attaching itself to the vogue theories of the day, religion dooms itself to similar obsolescence….  Both parties should stick with what they know.

Greetings Athena

You wrote:

“each [religion] has its own arbitrary rules (and loyal followers) that insulate it from needing to be in touch with reality.”

Please explain your term “reality”. And what means you use psychologically to justify your belief in that term. You seem very certain of it and it’s absoluteness.

Thanks

I won’t be drawn into “define what ‘is’ is” debates, Marnie.  The common definition of reality is: the state of things as they are, rather than as you would like them to be.  If you jump out of an airplane without a parachute, believing that a god will hold you lovingly aloft, or pray over a gangrenous limb, you’re in for a surprise.  That’s absolute enough for me.

States of enlightenment or epiphany are real enough in terms of brain neurons firing—sometimes misfiring, as is the case with epileptic seizures or schizophrenic episodes, which often register as visions and ghostly voices, respectively.  But such experiences won’t bend either time or spoons.  They may change those who experience them, who then may in turn go forth to change the world… usually for the worse, since they’re convinced they possess The Truth, as witness the outcome of Paul and Mohammed’s visions.

As for Ms. O’Brien’s claim that Buddhism is free of superstition, the Dalai Lama is still selected on the basis of visions and portents and as a reincarnation of his predecessor.  To use an Anglosaxon idiom, ‘nuff said.

Athena Andreadis rocks!

I did want to comment on two things she said.

Andreadis wrote:

‘‘A Buddhist atheist is a contradiction in terms. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. It’s either science or turtles. For me, it’s science.’‘

According to Wikipedia article on God in Buddhism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism:

“Since the time of the Buddha, the refutation of the existence of a creator has been seen as a key point in distinguishing Buddhist from non-Buddhist views. Buddhism is usually considered a religion, but is also commonly described as a “spiritual philosophy”, because it generally lacks an Absolute creator god. The Buddhist approach is clinical and systematic. In the Four Noble Truths, the Buddha analyzed the problem of suffering, diagnosed its root cause and prescribed a method to dispel suffering. He taught that through insight into the nature of existence and the wisdom of “not-self” or “selflessness” (anatta) all sentient beings following the noble eightfold path can dispel ignorance and thereby suffering. Hence Buddhism does not hinge upon the concept of a Creator God but upon the personal practice of ethics, meditation, and wisdom. Buddhist philosophy can also be contrasted with Hindu ideas of an ultimate Self, the definition of which varies between sects.

However, in all Buddhist traditions, veneration of the Buddha as a teacher of Dharma is significant and an important part of spiritual development. While according to Pali Buddhism, the Buddha rejected being deified, in some streams of Mahayana Buddhism Gautama Buddha is worshipped as ‘an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities’.”

Andreadis wrote:

“When I was younger and more energetic, Ms. O’Brien, I read quite a bit on all religions. I wanted to find out if there existed any religion that 1) treated women as full humans, no strings attached, 2) was compatible with a questioning, exploring mindset (not, please note, specific scientific answers, which may change) and 3) did not require its practitioners to undergo mental or emotional contortions. Not one passed the test—and most bored me into near-coma in the bargain.”

Did you read about Unitarian Universalism since it does meets your 3 requirements?

http://uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml

Thank you Athena.

The definition you offer of reality is quite sufficient for me. That is all most Buddhists I know are attempting to discover sans the load of mental distortions (cognitive errors if you will) labeled ego. I don’t know any enlightened people who would or could bend time or spoons.

And I too am dismayed that the Dalai Lama takes advice from a state oracle who goes into a trance. Whether he follows that advice or not though is another question.

As to founders and their followers and chroniclers it is precisely those mental (and social) distortions of reality that have lead away from what may have been a beneficial teaching into realms of patriarchy, fundamentalism and sectarianism. The inability for people to see themselves and their contexts and all their cherished beliefs in a realistic and even objective fashion causes much suffering. This is at the crux of Buddhist theory.

Popular Buddhism (just like Popular Science) is a distortion of the actual theory. Expertise and education as well as an ability to suspend attachments to belief in order to discover the truth are as needed in the realm of Buddhist (an other religious) theory as much as in science. Both have enormous implications for society.

Religions, like all social systems and structures (marriage, gender roles, political structures) do evolve as the efficacy of their functions are tested by circumstances.

The social instincts of human beings to gather in groups and organize those groups according to some sort of consensual reality is not going to evolve away any time soon. Biology does lag behind technology. And that social instinct and its organizing principles have to be dealt with in some fashion. Religion seems to be one such outlet for this instinct.

The rights and wrongs of religions are numerous. Misorientation is common when dealing with belief systems.  But I think you and your readers realize that just because one professes a religion it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are irrational or closed to looking beyond that.

NellaLou wrote: ‘‘Popular Buddhism (just like Popular Science) is a distortion of the actual theory.’‘

That’s the classic apology but if everyone practices popular buddhism or christianity or communism the popular versions of these theories become more important that the theories themselves…

Athena

I agree The Rupture for Nerds is definitely on the table here and if we can all sit down and rationally discuss it, we may be able to navigate whats coming.

All of this does seem to be wrapped with a cozy thick blanket of millenianism and this is something that must not be dismissed.

The sides are going to form and the possible clash that hugo describes is a very serious reality which again needs to be explored. I know that my work tends to be highly loaded and easy dismissed but its not ungrounded. 

A part of me wants to just document the unfolding of all this but some how this may be rather difficult as I genuinely do care to see the best possible outcome manifested. 

This is why I have chosen only to seek out a reset switch. We need to be able to start over if it all goes wrong.

Humans can always reinvent the wheel if need be.

I have no problem with the movement perse, its the building of “God” that troubles me. Simply the use of the word God in the overall evolution of the “master plan” deeply roots themselves into an occultist/scientific mesh as I have depicted here.

http://tinyurl.com/nzw63o

Doing such a thing posses risks not just to all biological life here on earth but all biological life in the universe.

Do we really want the karma of releasing the Borg into the universe? 

But at last we can sit here all day having trivial linguistical debates over what is and isn’t transhumanism, our notions of what God is and isn’t and what the “purpose” of the human race is. Instead I’ll leave you with my final statement for this post.

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
Albert Einstein

I think you mean “Rapture”, Athena, but “Rupture” is also kind of apppropriate. lol

Anyway, I totally agree that there’s a risk of the transhumanist movement looking like a cult, rather than like a bunch of smart, cool-thinking people giving rational consideration to the benefits (AND risks) of technology. It’s important to avoid that trap.

Rupture is actually the correct term, Russ.  I looked it up when I was writing my book, because I spoke of it there.  It means sudden rending, the separation and ascent of the Righteous from the condemned hoi polloi.  Rapture means bliss, a very different concept.

Libertarian-Socialist, I know of the Unitarians, aka “lapsed Christians”—too much of a smorgasbord, though a relatively benign one!  The two religions that tempted me emotionally if not intellectually, for very different reasons, were SF creations: one was that of the fallen angels in the Kushiel novels, the other was the Ythrian Hunter (a bit more of the latter at http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=356).

Marnie, it seems that you and I agree about being as clear-eyed, consistent and humane as possible.

Ah, Athena, you must have posted the above comment before our email exchange. It is, of course, “the Rapture” that you’re referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture

I wonder what you read that gave you the impression it was “Rupture”. It’s very puzzling. Obviously it was not someone with my level of immersion in/experience of evangelical Christianity.

There was no Wikipedia when I wrote the book, Russ, so I asked several people who should know.  They split evenly down the middle about the spelling and I went with what made sense etymologically.  Always more to learn!

Carlos, that quote from Einstein is essentially my definition of reality.

“I’m more than a little disappointed to see special pleading (and weak pleading, at that) employed to argue that Buddhism is “different”“

I think Buddhism has a legitimate claim at being different, and the differences are what attracted me to it. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism doesn’t posit a soul. And it does not invoke any supreme being.

“Americans have this habit of picking and choosing what portions of a religion or philosophy they wish to adopt”

I don’t know; if that were true I’m not sure we’d see so many Catholics falling in line with the Pope’s extreme views on abortion.

As for QM: I’m a physical scientist. There are some genuinely weird/spooky things about QM, like the behavior of electrons being more like a wave or a particle depending on whether you are observing it. And non-locality. I expect that someday we might better understand how, exactly, QM and the Observer connect. We may, as Penrose suggests, find biological structures that can demonstrate nonlocality. Or maybe we won’t. I’m not holding my breath. These questions will have to be resolved by physicists with very big brains; not Buddhist practitioners, and not people “flipping through Wikipedia”. These latter folks are not unlike the followers of Nostradomus, looking too hard for Mystery. For me, my interest in Zen is that my life is unsatisfactory and I hope to make it less unsatisfactory, and the practices seem to move me in the direction of that goal. Zen is, at best, a way to achieve “one-ness with the universe” (or something); at worst, “positive psychology”.

I agree with you that there is beauty in the scientific fact that, as Moby puts it, “we are all made of stars”. And, though, I can enjoy a Star Wars movie now and then, it is very clearly a quite inferior story cycle than Star Trek. I, like, perhaps many other, credit Star Trek with helping me develop my concepts of social justice in my youth.

I like such discussion specially based on Buddhism and science.

Tom, Buddhism doesn’t posit a soul?  What do you call reincarnation?  If it walks like a duck, etc.  The benefits of contemplation and meditation are real, but the practices didn’t enter the world with Buddhism.

I’m with you on Star Trek versus Star Wars.  I wrote a book on the former (To Seek Out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek) and a scathing critique on the latter, less for its total lack of science—it’s frankly a fantasy—than for its deeply reactionary, punitive stances.  Here are the respective links:

http://www.toseekoutnewlife.com/
www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20051003/star-wars-a.shtml

P. S. to Tom: Penrose and Hameroff’s quantum microtubules are utter nonsense.  Trust me, I work with them and they are quite, quite decoherent.  Not a prayer (sic) of entanglement there, beyond the macro-scale one.

“Tom, Buddhism doesn’t posit a soul? What do you call reincarnation?”

A hold-over from Buddhism’s origins in Hinduism, IMO.

“Penrose and Hameroff’s quantum microtubules are utter nonsense.”

Agreed, but perhaps there is a different structure in biological systems that could do the job.

Believe it or not, Buddhism in its original form does deny the existence of anything like the soul (the Brahminical spiritual self is rather different from the soul in Western thought, but that’s not relevant to this discussion). Indeed, the doctrine of anatta, “no self”, is actually a core doctrine of Buddhism. It says that the continuing self is an illusion. All that exist are “name” and “form”, which are constantly changing, and a certain degree of continuity in that what exists at moment x +1 arises causally from what exists at moment x (but it is never the SAME as what exists at moment x).

How this allows for reincarnation is a bit difficult to explain, and I expect that many modern Buddhists will deny that it can. But the early Buddhist thinkers used the image of one flame lighting another one.

I’m not arguing for or against any of this, just saying what Buddhist doctrine actually was and is, as a philosophy of the self, under all the later accretions.

I am aware of the “passing flame” metaphor. I would still say this is quite distinct from the Christian “Caspar the Friendly Ghost” homunculus. The Buddhist view is more like: “What is left after you subtract the 5 skhandas?”. I’d like to believe there is something to the universe beyond what we see. At the same time, if someone comes up with an “extend your lifespan 50 years” pill, believe me, I’ll be lining up for it.

But, we’ve gone a bit off-topic. I agree with your basic premise: until one sees prominent theoretical physicists correlating QM and inner space, it’s hokum.

When Science becomes the bigot, then folks stop listening.

Quote : “I watched it until I heard that “a particle is everywhere in the universe at all times”.  At that point I turned the video off and wondered aloud why I wasted even moments of my finite life on such arrant nonsense.”

Exactly how big is a particle anyhoo, and witch particle are you talking about?
How big is the Universe?
Do particles actually exist : tiny ballshmmm, I thought string theory was the new black these daze?
How big is my mind?
How big is the Self I perceive inside my mind?
Singularities, Big bangs and expansion, and the elusive Higgs Boson

Now this all sounds like metaphysical mysticism M&Ms;
Our maths teacher always told us you could manipulate the equations to get the results you desire. Lambda : My biggest mistake, says Uncle Albert, (Einstein). I put it in, I take it out.

And that Schrödinger guy, (Advaita?), how dare he put a cat inside a safe for his personal egotistical gains! He could so easily have used the same analogy with a blindfold and the lights on or off?

A Unified theory -  Well perhaps there is only one to realise? Funny how man spends his time pulling things to pieces and then tries to put them back together again : rather like working on your motorbike

1. Electromagnetic force
2. Strong force (property of Electomagnetism)
3. Weak force (property of Electomagnetism)
4. Gravity : well perhaps this is the real foreigner : from another place : spooky!

“What does a fish know about the water in which it swims all its life?”
Albert Einstein

According to Buddhism all is impermanence and change, in fact if you reason with it, perhaps you only really appear to exist, because of perception, and an uncontrolled habit of comparing each moment you perceive, (of change), to the next moment, using short term memory : what happens if you reboot?

Does this mean memory is of vital importance to vitality?

Can a universe borne of change arise from a state of non-change : Advaita?

Time is a measure of the rate of change of motion, without change, without motion, does time cease to exist?  If any such state of non change exists it thus follows that it would exist eternally, whereas the changing universe may only appear to be timeless?

Let the truth be known
“Nothing exists, and if it did, no one could know it, and if they knew it, they could not communicate it”. : Gorgias.

Truth is relative?

Buddhism : a religion or a philosophy? Or a philosophy followed religiously?

When science can explain why I am self aware, and what agent is the cause, then I will cast aside all questions and doubt.

:0]

Buddhism, like Christianity, and indeed like all religions, is a product of human culture.  As such, it will have both the strengths and the weaknesses that humans have.  That explains the misogyny in traditional Buddhism (and pretty much all of the world religions).  Siddhartha transcended many of the unjust cultural beliefs in which he was raised, but not all of them.

As several others have already said, your understanding of Buddhism is shallow.  However, I absolutely agree with your questioning of how many Westerners pick and choose what they like from religion. 

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by Western converts to Buddhism that they preferred their new, adopted religion over the one in which they were raised because (so they claim) Buddhism is entirely rational and devoid of supernaturalism, unlike Christianity or Judaism.  These people seem to have never read Buddhist scripture, which is quite full of “supernatural” events.  Either that, or they feel free to edit their adopted religion in a way that they cannot do with the one in which they were raised.  Which leads me to conclude that even though they vilify their old religions and praise Buddhism, they on some levels treat their old religions with greater respect.

All that said, I have great fondness for both science and religion, for both Christianity and Buddhism (in their progressive forms).  And I find your need to denigrate religion as you lift up science to be along the same lines as the fundie religionists who claim that their’s is the only truth.