[Buddha-l] Article: The Death of the Scientific Buddha

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 02-11-12 16:35, Richard Hayes schreef:
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 8:58 AM, "Curt Steinmetz" <curt at cola.iges.org> wrote:
>
>> That is to say, reports of the death of "the scientific Buddha" are greatly exaggerated, while his evil twin, "the scientistic Buddha" has in fact gone the way of all flesh. May it rest in pieces.
> Well, tastes differ in these matters. I myself quite like the "scientistic" Buddha. Despite have read dozens of earnest critiques of what is disparagingly called "scientism," I am ineluctably drawn to what is being vilified and never feel as though I have been refuted by them. And, oddly enough, I have never felt as though my scientism was an impediment to my Buddhism.
>
>
I'm afraid this is not a matter of taste, but of bad philosophy. In the 
sixties Fritjof Capra and Gary Snyder made a lot of bucks with their 
fairy tales, just because so many people do not know what science is. 
The only reason for scientific Buddhism is to draw funds for useless 
experiments. Show me an atom that has reached nirvana and I will accept 
the idea that a collection of atoms, a human in the scientific sense, 
can do the same.

Erik