How come there are no Buddhist scientists?

[moe darklight]

WARNING: let's not turn this into a Science Vs. Religion thread, please; that gets tiring.

Long story short: I've recently been trying to get into meditation for health reasons (anxiety problems, attention problems, insomnia) for which I've read it can help.

In looking for a good book on meditation, I've stumbled upon many Buddhist writings and videos, etc.

Anyway, inevitably during such pursuits one also stumbles upon mountains of media inciting one to join buddhism. Much of it claiming that Buddhism is the only religion that promotes empirical thinking, science, etc. (as does pretty much every other religion).

here's where it gets spooky: I can't find a SINGLE notable buddhist physicist, mathematician, biologist, etc. I find this extremely strange!
Every religion, from islam to hinduism to christianity to roman paganism has innumerable notable scientists within its community. What sets buddhism apart?

Maybe I've searched wrong, but this bothered me so much that I've literally spent hours trying to find a single example, and have failed.

In the past, I've read some of the words of the Buddha (or words and teachings ascribed directly to him), and much of it is indeed very enlightening, profound, and rational... more so than any other religious text I have read... so what's going on here, has Buddhism become so extremely dogmatic?

 

[mgb_phys]

If you count Shinto as Buddhist there are quite a few Japanese scientists.
Other than that it's a fairly small religion limited to a couple of tiny under-developed countries.

 

[rootX]

Anyway, inevitably during such pursuits one also stumbles upon mountains of media inciting one to join buddhism. Much of it claiming that Buddhism is the only religion that promotes empirical thinking, science, etc. (as does pretty much every other religion).

Currently, I have a really good book:
"Wherever You Go There You Are" by Jon Kabat-Zinn
One small extract:

So, minfulness will not conflict with any belief or traditions
...
...
A student once said "When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am a buddha, no body is upset at all"

I also had some by the current Dalia Lama. He didn't said anything like that (dogmatic opinions) in those books just one thing I hated was he used concepts of rebirth few times.

Another good book
http://books.google.ca/books?id=-Su..._D33Us&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0807012394/?tag=pfamazon01-20

In the past, I've read some of the words of the Buddha (or words and teachings ascribed directly to him), and much of it is indeed very enlightening, profound, and rational... more so than any other religious text I have read... so what's going on here, has Buddhism become so extremely dogmatic?

chose wrong books?
(When I choose books, I don't search "Buddhism" religious books but rather try to go for mindfulness, love, sympathy etc

 

[moe darklight]

I don't know much about the different classifications of buddhism, but according to wiki, there are over 23 times as many buddhist as there are Jews. It's the 4th largest religion in the world.

By buddhist I mean a person who follows any of whatever school of thought is classified as buddhism, just as a person who goes to church and believes Jesus to be his lord and savior would be considered a christian, regardless of how orthodox or unorthodox his views or the views of his church are.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If you count Shinto as Buddhist there are quite a few Japanese scientists.
Other than that it's a fairly small religion limited to a couple of tiny under-developed countries.

Yikes! Shinto and Buddhism have almost no point in common with each other. Here is some information on the tiny religion of Buddhism:

The estimations on the number of Buddhist in the world vary significantly, according to different sources available, between over 1.5 billion and over 350 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_by_country"
It's not completely sure that when a scientist is from a 'Christian' country that the scientist is a Christian. Nor is there an absolute meaning to the statement that this or that individual is a Christian. The same goes for Buddhists or any other grouping of people. What's more, people from the PRC who are Buddhist may be reluctant to admit it in public even if they are scientists. I wonder then about Yang Chenning who won the Nobel Prize in Physics and is the Yang in Yang-Mills theory. Is/was he a Buddhist?

 

[mgb_phys]

Yikes! Shinto and Buddhism have almost no point in common with each other. Here is some information on the tiny religion of Buddhism:

Interesting - I thought shinto was a Japanese sect of Bhuddism. It looks like they might be a unique case of two religions growing closer together!

It's not completely sure that when a scientist is from a 'Christian' country that the scientist is a Christian.

That was the point I was going to make. Are all Chinese scientists automatically bhuddist scientists because that's what the country would be if it wasn't officially athiest?

I had forgotten about Taiwan and S. Korea - I was thinking of Nepal/Burma/Mongolia as bhuddist countries.
There must be a few of Korean and Taiwanese scientists.

 

[rootX]

Interesting - I thought shinto was a Japanese sect of Bhuddism. It looks like they might be a unique case of two religions growing closer together!

I think you might be confusing Shinto with Zen ...

@op:
And, I think it's senseless
1) to compare apples and oranges
2) Choosing to believe in the incorrect knowledge and then blaming all the religion on the basis of that.

 

[mgb_phys]

I think you might be confusing Shinto with Zen ...

Well according to the Wiki article Shinto and Buddhism were closely linked in Japan for 1200 years, until the 19C. But it was an honest mistake - I though Shinto had grown out of Buddhism.

2) Choosing to believe in the incorrect knowledge and then blaming all the religion on the basis of that.

I meant that it was rather nice that Shinto and Buddhism should go "so we believe in pretty much the same things = let's be friends" rather than the "we dissagree about the translation of a single word in one verse of the same book = let's kill each other for 1000 years" which seems to characterize most religions.

 

[rootX]

I meant that it was rather nice that Shinto and Buddhism should go "so we believe in pretty much the same things = let's be friends" rather than the "we dissagree about the translation of a single word in one verse of the same book = let's kill each other for 1000 years" which seems to characterize most religions.

Sorry, I was talking about the OP:

nyway, inevitably during such pursuits one also stumbles upon mountains of media inciting one to join buddhism. Much of it claiming that Buddhism is the only religion that promotes empirical thinking, science, etc. (as does pretty much every other religion).

so what's going on here, has Buddhism become so extremely dogmatic?

 

[f95toli]

Well according to the Wiki article Shinto and Buddhism were closely linked in Japan for 1200 years, until the 19C. But it was an honest mistake - I though Shinto had grown out of Buddhism.


I meant that it was rather nice that Shinto and Buddhism should go "so we believe in pretty much the same things = let's be friends" rather than the "we dissagree about the translation of a single word in one verse of the same book = let's kill each other for 1000 years" which seems to characterize most religions.

AFAIK it is pretty common for people in Japan to consider themselves to be BOTH buddhists and Shintoist, the two are not mutually exclusive since Buddhism is mainly a philosophy (at least in Japan); there are eg. no Gods as such. I think this is true to some extent in other countries as well, e.g. Buddhism in India is strongly connected to Hinduism and many Buddhists elsewhere (in e.g. Thailand) believe in local Gods/spirits etc.

Also, I think you confused Buddha and Confucius when you mentioned China above.
AFAIK most people in China were Taoists before the revolution and many still use e.g. Taoist burial traditions (nowadays the Communist regime is more tolerant), and the "main" philosopher is still Confucius -not Buddha.

 

[mgb_phys]

e.g. Buddhism in India is strongly connected to Hinduism

Don't Hindus claim Bhudda is an incarnation of Vishnu? Presumably an attempt to bring the new sect 'onside'.

Also, I think you confused Buddha and Confucius when you mentioned China above. AFAIK most people in China were Taoists before the revolution

Does Taoism count as a religion? Actually does Bhuddism for that matter (you would have thought a God was pretty much a necessary requirement!)
The point was mainly about making up numbers for a religion by just saying eg. 1billion Chinese count as X.

To answer the OP, it's fair to say that countries in which Bhuddism is common haven't exactly been at the forefront of economic and technical growth for most of the 19+20C - but a few of them are in a very good position for the 21C.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I asked my wife about this and she said that if a Chinese claimed to have any religion at all, it would be Buddhism 80% of the time. I asked her about Confucianism and she said that no Chinese would consider it a religion. Confucius is honored as a philosopher like Socrates. I pointed out that there are Confucian temples but no Socratic temples. She said notwithstanding, Confucianism is not a religion. Further that this I did not dig.

As for the situation in Japan, Shinto is a locally grown religion based, I believe, on ancestor worship. I can't say how much it has been influenced by Buddhism, but it has remained a separate religion. There are Shinto shrines and Buddist temples and these are separate. The Japanese don't seem to attach themselves to any particular religion. There's a saying that I can't find just now about how they are Shinto for births, Buddhist for deaths, and Christian for marriages. Or something like that.

 

[epenguin]

Other than that it's a fairly small religion limited to a couple of tiny under-developed countries.

It underlays the culture of most of East Asia! It is a philosophy with a kind of compatibility and nonconflict with other beliefs, recognising their 'spirituality', hence the confusion made with Shintoism and Confucianism - many of its teachings would be recognised and accepted by many Hindus even.

 

[f95toli]

Confucius is honored as a philosopher like Socrates. I pointed out that there are Confucian temples but no Socratic temples. She said notwithstanding, Confucianism is not a religion. Further that this I did not dig.

But Taoism is not the same thing as Confucianism, the latter is a philosophy but one that used to dominate China and -as far as I understand- most Taoists (and followers of other religions as well) used to follow which is why the two are interlinked.
Taoism is most definitely a religion, although it too has strong links to Buddhism.

I think it safe to say that the kind of sharp divisons (real or imaginary) that exists between different religions in the West simply do not exist in the Far East; e.g religious conflicts seem to have been almost non-existent there until quite recently.

 

[moe darklight]

That was the point I was going to make. Are all Chinese scientists automatically bhuddist scientists because that's what the country would be if it wasn't officially athiest?

I'm speaking about any individual who would consider himself a member of that religion, and practice its customs and follow its beliefs to any degree. There are many non-asian buddhists too.
So for example, A scientist from texas isn't necessarily a Christian scientist, but a scientist from Iraq who reads the bible, prays to Jesus, and celebrates christmas is.

I know definitions can get a bit murky with some individuals (was Einstein Jewish?), but there are always cases that are not: Mendel, Newton, etc.

**
**

The reason I found this odd, is because Buddhism is the only religion that I know of for which its very founder and original scripture instructs the follower against blind faith and dogma: the Buddha essentially tells people not to blindly follow any "wise man", for they might be wrong, even he himself, but to look for themselves and consider the teachings of wise men for themselves, and only then hold something as true (from what I understand, the degree to which this is taken as such varies between more dogmatic sects and less dogmatic sects, but the meaning is clear if you... well, read the passages for yourself).
You would think that this sort of philosophy would be a breeding-ground for scientifically minded people.

One thought that occurred to me while reading this book on meditation:
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/mindfulness_in_plain_english.pdf"
was that if one really lived that in the moment, one really would have no desire for deep scientific inquiry. I think I would lose all desire for such pursuits if I were to become as mindful, as they call it, as these monks... scientific studies inevitably involve desire and not being satisfied with letting things just be as they are... this is what leads to and obsession with wanting to understand things and being able fix problems.

There is also the possibility that such Buddhist scientists would simply not feel the need to "flaunt" their beliefs, as do scientists from other religions for which there are altercations between fundamentalists and science constantly-- and so christian or muslim scientists may feel a need to defend their beliefs. Since there is no such altercations between buddhists and science, it may simply be a non-issue.

Those are the only two explanations I can think of for the seeming lack of buddhist scientists, and they're not particularly good.

 

[alxm]

But Taoism is not the same thing as Confucianism, the latter is a philosophy but one that used to dominate China and -as far as I understand- most Taoists (and followers of other religions as well) used to follow which is why the two are interlinked.
Taoism is most definitely a religion, although it too has strong links to Buddhism.

Then there's Cao Dai which mixes Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism with some Catholicism, Islam and a helping of good old Animism. They venerate Joan of Arc, Victor Hugo and Sun Yat-sen as saints.

It has over 2 million adherents!

 

[mgb_phys]

The reason I found this odd, is because Buddhism is the only religion that I know of for which its very founder and original scripture instructs the follower against blind faith and dogma:

Interesting - yes I can see it's attractions for scientists.

I think the reasons for the demographics of scientists are more historical than philosophical - with a little bit of statistical bias.

 

[moe darklight]

To answer the OP, it's fair to say that countries in which Bhuddism is common haven't exactly been at the forefront of economic and technical growth for most of the 19+20C - but a few of them are in a very good position for the 21C.

yea, this accounts for technological advances, but at the same time, there are plenty notable mathematicians and physicists and doctors from India, for example, all throughout the 20th century.

I think it safe to say that the kind of sharp divisons (real or imaginary) that exists between different religions in the West simply do not exist in the Far East; e.g religious conflicts seem to have been almost non-existent there until quite recently.

hm, this might be it.

 

[mgb_phys]

there are plenty notable mathematicians and physicists and doctors from India, for example, all throughout the 20th century.

I don't know how accessible education and universities were to Bhuddists in India in the past.
The official position is now that India welcomes Bhuddists and the Dalai Llama - although that might be for political reasons with China

 

[moe darklight]

I think the reasons for the demographics of scientists are more historical than philosophical - with a little bit of statistical bias.

mybe western culture is more concerned with individualism too?
for example, one knows the development of algebra and other mathematics in eastern culture, and also of the development of gunpowder and other technologies, but there are no individuals tied to this. western culture is very much interested in the achievements of individuals over the achievements of a community.
... but then again, there are plenty well known eastern philosophers. I dunno.

 

[CRGreathouse]

mybe western culture is more concerned with individualism too?
for example, one knows the development of algebra and other mathematics in eastern culture, and also of the development of gunpowder and other technologies, but there are no individuals tied to this.

I cede gunpowder, but algebra? Aryabhata and especially Brahmagupta are known even in the West.

 

[mgb_phys]

for example, one knows the development of algebra and other mathematics in eastern culture, and also of the development of gunpowder and other technologies, but there are no individuals tied to this.

I think it's more a history thing - Arabic science was big C8 to C12 (although not all were Arabic or even muslim) then pretty much stopped and hasn't recovered since. Historians are still arguing if it was external invasions or internal politics that did for it - but the point is that it was pretty much ending by the time that Europe got interested in science.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm a Buddhist Scientist.

I think.

 

[moe darklight]

I cede gunpowder, but algebra? Aryabhata and especially Brahmagupta are known even in the West.

Well then.. for that previous statement I'll go ahead and blame my own ignorance; I swear had nothing to do with it

 

[Blenton]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/a/a4/ReligionIQ.jpg/750px-ReligionIQ.jpg

Strange to think the smartest are the ones who aren't scientists...

 

[mgb_phys]

The unlabled bit above130 is presumably FSM/Jedi

 

[rootX]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/a/a4/ReligionIQ.jpg/750px-ReligionIQ.jpg

Strange to think the smartest are the ones who aren't scientists...

Looks BS to me ...

 

[moe darklight]

Looks BS to me ...

follow the link: encyclopedia dramatica
I don't think that's a real survey and I can't find it.

The unlabled bit above130 is presumably FSM/Jedi

:rofl::rofl:

 

[Zdenka]

So how does the graph explain that almost 90% of Nobel prize winners are Caucasians (whites), who obviously aren't Shinto

Anyway, it's very interesting to note that Buddhists - who are apparently self proclaim to be smart, did not endeavor to develop any prolific educational institutions in all their thousands of years of existence. Very interesting indeed.

 

[moe darklight]

So how does the graph explain that almost 90% of Nobel prize winners are Caucasians (whites), who obviously aren't Shinto

Anyway, it's very interesting to note that Buddhists - who are apparently self proclaim to be smart, did not endeavor to develop any prolific educational institutions in all their thousands of years of existence. Very interesting indeed.

Um, no. See, this is precisely what I didn't want out of this thread.-- Being white has nothing to do with being a Buddhist. Buddhism is either a religion or a life philosophy (depending on who you ask).

-- Yes, Buddhists "self proclaim" to be smart, but so does about every other group of people.

-- Winning Nobel prizes is not directly correlated to being smart. Plenty brilliant people have not won Nobel prizes. They are given to a small minority whose achievements are deemed significant at the time for whatever reason, and are not given to large teams of scientists, only individuals.

-- Hell, being a scientist has nothing to do with being smart. Shakespeare seemed to be a pretty clever feller; he wasn't a scientist. Scientific inquiry rises from a hunger for understanding how things work and solving puzzles, if you live in a society which does not prioritize these issues, then you are less likely to become a scientist, regardless of how smart you are: Shakespeare grew up to appreciate the ability to deconstruct human nature through words over the ability to find out why the moon went in circles above him every night.

My question is of that nature: if there is something about living a strict Buddhist lifestyle that deters one from being interested in scientific inquiry.

I've noticed monks are all about living in the now, observing things as they happen and accepting them, not over-thinking things, etc.
This isn't stupid, but you won't find many Newtons living in an eternal now and letting things be as they are.

 

[Zdenka]

Sorry, I didn't mean to border on the 'race issue', but simply pointing out the fact the overwhelming number of Buddhists are Asians.

My question is of that nature: if there is something about living a strict Buddhist lifestyle that deters one from being interested in scientific inquiry.

I believe the answer is the Buddhists are simply VERY content in their own way of thinking and are less likely to pursue other schools of thoughts such as Science, quantum physics etc. Being Buddhist takes up a lot of their time and energy!

On another note, I do NOT think true Buddhists are living a 'divine' life. They aren't allowed to marry or fall in love, create offspring, nor experience profound human emotions, etc.

A divine/desirable life would be to live life to the fullest, be kind, find love with a beautiful woman (if a male), have children, experience such human emotions as pure joy, laughter etc. This is what being a human being really comes to.

Buddhism can talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. :)

 

[Evo]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/a/a4/ReligionIQ.jpg/750px-ReligionIQ.jpg

Strange to think the smartest are the ones who aren't scientists...

I'm assuming that you posted this as a joke. This is utter nonsense.

 

[Zdenka]

I'm assuming that you posted this as a joke. This is utter nonsense.

Yes obviously a joke since none of the IQ of religions overlap. Eg the graph shows that Hindus have an IQ of exactly 85 to 100, but Atheists are 110 to 115. What about those in between?

 

[Integral]

I'm assuming that you posted this as a joke. This is utter nonsense.

Ya Think?

Looks pretty good to me for the most part, maybe Catholics and Scientologists should be switched?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I believe that modern mainstream buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion for the most part. I believe also that it tends to be a rather personal sort of belief system, not something you go around telling people or that proscribes regular visits to temples or meetings or what have you. Considering these things I would say it is not likely that many buddhist scientists would be prone to advertising their religious beliefs.