Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

[Malcolm]

I don't believe that we are the same "person" who is reborn. The mind is the same, but the contents are more or less [dis]similar, though influenced by past karma.

Causes and effects are not the same, nor are they different.

The mind that takes rebirth is not as same as the previous mind nor is it different.

This is the reason why it is possible for sentients beings to experience serial rebirth through the appropriation of an infinite series of new physical bodies over time, relatively speaking.

By saying that there is no actual rebirth, one is committing oneself to a metaphysical position called ucchedavada i.e. annihilationism. Commiting oneself to the position that there is an actual self, person, or entity that is reborn is called śāśvatavāda, eternalism.

But when one understands that one instant of mind is neither the same nor different than the next instant of mind; since they are not the same, one avoids śāśvatavāda; and since they are not different, one avoids ucchedavada — thus one can understand the truth of rebirth, karma and its result, and dependent origination in the manner in which the Buddha intended and leave off the metaphysical speculations that plague non-Buddhists about such issues. One can then also understand that since the mind has no beginning, it never arose; and since it never arose, it never ceases.

N

[wisdom]

That's the situation with the teachings on rebirth. That is, they're not a literal, scientific explanation of events, but are an attempt to point to something that is difficult to express.

How does a Bodhisattva perceive the mindstreams of those he seeks to help? How does a Buddha perceive events at great distances? How do normal people, who have no training whatsoever, know that a loved one has been in a car accident 1000 miles away? Why do people with no brain activity have experiences of exactly what is happening during the time in which they are clinically brain dead? How come people can have dreams where they receive teachings they had no idea existed prior to the dream. Why do some children begin to talk about their past lives in profound detail, describing specific things that they otherwise had no way to know (normal kids mind you, not reincarnated lamas).

All of these questions relate to rebirth, because they all point to the existence of something that exists outside of the body and therefore is capable of being carried from body to body, birth to birth. You can ignore all of these phenomena and more, and decide its *all* coincidence, delusion, and whatever else, but ultimately science can't explain ANY of them yet, while there are people whose daily existence entails experiencing the mind in this way, as independent from the body and capable of transcending the limitations of the five physical senses.

[ronnewmexico]

Feel free to totally disregard this...I was thinking of this in the morning.

Explaining the thing with agression as me being stupid replies with a agressive thing a challenge with agression...it is as stupid people act .

YOu do this.....
So look at mind. WE find firstly a first word thought...perhaps not, as young infant. Perhaps then we extend to lights colors thought as pictures as infant and certainly animal do....we find no first thought. So we establish a continum is present and evident by self observation. Sleep...well one can be awakened by a pin so one is not asleep as unconscious, it remains and is continual to our observation.

Then we examine this thing of karma.., what impels it. It produces things of aversion and attachment, we know that. We study what it is that is effected by it and forms it....a me. But we study me and find no me as we find not a begining to consciousness. So perhaps we study desire.

I take a object........... a rock, and each morning I put the thing of sexual desire upon this rock. Everytime I look at rock I think also this thing. I intend this thing of sex to rock. At the end of the week the rock will become a very tiny bit more pleasing. It is impossible that it does not. Perhaps a glint to it, a curve in it....we will want it perhaps more than a ordinary rock. A tiny bit.
We could do this same exact thing considering rock as a thing of hatred hurt perhaps hot. A week and we find we don't like it a bit.

So then we establish habitual formation, inclination, and we have established already a continum.
In this manner in this way we have karma. SElf created as a watching but it is clearly there.
It is of course a karma of the past to present. Happening and has happened this thing of study of rock and useage of rock. So it is proven it exists in present form extending from past to present inclination.

As to future....if we have any notion of a future event however slight, as many do(some call it womans intuition things of that sort, some meditators speak of this)....we can presuppose with this present thing is a potential of a future that is knowable. How can it be knowable as evidenced......... by a present pattern. Not consciously discernable but in some aspect knowable, as only this way can we know of a future event..... we can perceive only pattern to ascertain with certainity a future event. Always that is with studying the progression of a baseball to catchers mitt as with anything. So we may then study how we may know things of the future which we do approximate whenever we play catch.

So we add these thing together.

So karma it is real on this basis of study. Past present extending to the future. A very simple(rock) but real thing of karma. Intending thing of sex upon rock rock becomes thing not only of rock but of pleasure derived. Alone with rock I will feel a very slight bit better.
So suchly is all attached to and averted in basis. Action(looking at rock), intention(putting sex on rock by visualization) and result(I find rock slightly more pleasing after a week of this thing). Which as consequence impels me to other action...I look perhaps more often at rock.

So this may be humerous. : in any event a good exercise, in the early morning. Thousands of pages have been written on this thing..I try another tact.

[Tara]

Topic temporarily locked. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regards,

Topic unlocked.

Due to the actions of one individual who has taken it upon themselves to create several accounts and to troll Dharma Wheel several posts have been removed. Apologies to everyone involved in this topic. The team will continue to intervene and ban the person responsible for the sock puppet accounts and remove posts where necessary.

Regards,

[Mr. G]

And a Happy New Year to you Kevin Solway! Are you going for a world record for most User ID's to get banned for trolling?

Seriously, your behavior is really disturbing.

Think of each user id as a new "birth".

Life cannot be stamped out, no matter how hard you try.

You were banned not because of some conspiracy at this forum to censor information, but the following:

1. Misogynistic statements about women while using Buddhist suttas/sutras out of context.
2. Claiming you were enlightened (& not understanding how that is qualified)
3. Inability to provide meaningful discourse and not providing citations for statements out of context.
4. 10+ previous duplicate ID's.

[Mr. G]

I don't believe that we are the same "person" who is reborn. The mind is the same, but the contents are more or less [dis]similar, though influenced by past karma.

Causes and effects are not the same, nor are they different.

The mind that takes rebirth is not as same as the previous mind nor is it different.

This is the reason why it is possible for sentients beings to experience serial rebirth through the appropriation of an infinite series of new physical bodies over time, relatively speaking.

By saying that there is no actual rebirth, one is committing oneself to a metaphysical position called ucchedavada i.e. annihilationism. Commiting oneself to the position that there is an actual self, person, or entity that is reborn is called śāśvatavāda, eternalism.

But when one understands that one instant of mind is neither the same nor different than the next instant of mind; since they are not the same, one avoids śāśvatavāda; and since they are not different, one avoids ucchedavada — thus one can understand the truth of rebirth, karma and its result, and dependent origination in the manner in which the Buddha intended and leave off the metaphysical speculations that plague non-Buddhists about such issues. One can then also understand that since the mind has no beginning, it never arose; and since it never arose, it never ceases.

N

[nowheat]

Hello all,

In another thread I was just getting into a good conversation with two posters who were helping me to understand what they understand about what the Buddha taught about karma and rebirth, because my understanding differs. The thread got shut down because it was perceived that all I was doing was trying to put my view across thinly disguised as a conversation. The thread was about non-standard views, and while it did start out being about how Buddhists with non-traditional views perceive the teachings, the conversation had just begun to move on to a point where *this* non-traditional Buddhist was working on trying to understand where the differences are, and come to understand how those who perceive these things differently than I do come to understand it the way they do. I don't see a way to do that without reference to how I see it (since we're talking about differences in understanding), but we had just gotten to a point where the person who was being combative had stopped posting -- so that I was able to leave off politely trying to answer him -- and we were just getting down to good discussion that was helping me to understand where others were coming from, when the thread was abruptly closed.

Since our discussion has been focused primarily on how karma works with rebirth, this seems like the best place to continue a conversation in which traditional Buddhists try to help me understand the basis for their understanding. I am going to continue to try my best to just genuinely question where the differences are and try to understand what the non-combative conversationalists are saying -- I guess I'll just ignore posts from those whose aggressive style seems to be as much about picking fights as about actually trying to understand anything -- and I'd like to start with retro's attempt to help me understand how it is that karma is the forerunner to the aggregates. If anyone here perceives a post of mine as me proselytizing rather than me asking questions in an attempt to discover the differences in understanding, please let me know.

Are there any suttas you can point out that show that the Buddha says that the aggregates are generated by karma, rather than karma being generated by the aggregates?

Karma is cetana (action).

I'm not quite understanding this, so I'm going to go through this slowly.

The version of PED I have has:

Cetanā state of ceto in action, thinking as active thought, intention, purpose, will .

So I can see saying "Karma is cetana (active thought)" but it seems to add fuzziness to equate cetana with pure action because, since the original meaning of karma is action, this leaves us with action is action. Telling an American just exploring Buddhism that karma is action is actually useful (because karma isn't its results, as most Americans understand it to be). But is that what the Buddha was saying when he said "cetanāhaṃ kammaṃ vadāmi"?

I'm not, then, really sure what you're conveying by translating cetana as action with no reference to thought. If you are just trying to say that karma is action, I can understand that this is so, but don't see your point. If you're wanting to say karma is action to do with thought, I agree with that, also. But maybe you're trying to say something else, so I'm asking. But for the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume you mean that karma is action to do with thinking.

Appropriating aggregates is an action, so it is the first of the two.

I asked about the above in the original thread, and you indicated that you mean that "Appropriating aggregates is an action, so of the two things I described at the top, it is 'the aggregates are generated by karma'".

If I take your "Karma is cetana" above to mean "Karma is active thought" then you are saying that "appropriating aggregates" is karma.

This means that it is the appropriating that is the karma (aggregates are not activities, while appropriating is, and karma has to equate to the active bit).

The aggregates themselves are empty bundles of appropriation (upadana).

I can understand and agree with that.

More precise causes and conditions involved are depicted in the following sutta.

MN 109: Maha-punnama Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Lord, what is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation[2] of the aggregate of form? What is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness?"

"Monk, the four great existents (earth, water, fire, & wind) are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness."

[2] - Delineation (paññapana) literally means, "making discernible." This apparently refers to the intentional aspect of perception, which takes the objective side of experience and fabricates it into discernible objects. In the case of the aggregates, the four great existents, contact, and name-&-form provide the objective basis for discerning them, while the process of fabrication takes the raw material provided by the objective basis and turns it into discernible instances of the aggregates. This process is described in slightly different terms in SN 22.79.

Using note 2 above, it seems the question being asked is "What is the cause or condition for the aggregate of form to become visible? (aka "to be made discernible"). The answer is that it's the material elements that make the aggregate of form visible. That's logical and easy to see.

In turn the other four aggregates are addressed: What makes the aggregate of feeling visible? contact. Same for the aggregates of perception and fabrications. The last, like the first, is different from the other three: the aggregate of consciousness is made visible by name and form.

I am not sure how this sutta demonstrates your point that active thought (karma) is the cause or condition that brings the aggregates into being, since the elements are not active thought, and neither is contact. I probably would agree that name-and-form is active thought (given my understanding of its place in dependent origination) but it is only one of the five aggregates. More to the point, the question in the sutta is *what makes the aggregates discernable*, not what has us appropriating them.

Can you explain in more detail how you see this as "karma is the cause of the aggregates"?

[Dechen Norbu]

This topic will be temporarily locked until nowheat behavior is examined to determine if it's legitimate for him to bring a conversation from a locked topic to this one.
Somehow I figured this was exactly his next move.
We just don't want people here evangelizing in a camouflaged manner or abusing our tolerance by using false pretexts only to spread a position grossly contrary to Right View (and I'm not talking about secular buddhism notion of right view). One example would be making questions only to counter them later with that sort of opinions. Such line of behavior falls under "actions with a hidden agenda" and is not welcome in any intellectually honest discussion.
It may be legitimate, but I'll debate the subject with the moderating team just for sure.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
It will be unlocked as soon as we reach an agreement.

PS- Your post was not deleted nowheat. If it is decided that it is admissible for you to continue that line of inquiry, I'll place it right back where it was, untouched. I hope you understand.

[Dechen Norbu]

To all,

It has been agreed that the topic can be reopened.
nowheat is able to pursue his inquiry and debate here. After all this is what this topic is for.
It must be noted, however, that debating and evangelizing are two different things.
If we wish to stimulate the first, the second falls under disruptive behavior.
That said, it's time to reopen the topic and retrieve nowheat's post.

Thank you for understanding.

[Dechen Norbu]

So, here it is:

Hello all,

In another thread I was just getting into a good conversation with two posters who were helping me to understand what they understand about what the Buddha taught about karma and rebirth, because my understanding differs. The thread got shut down because it was perceived that all I was doing was trying to put my view across thinly disguised as a conversation. The thread was about non-standard views, and while it did start out being about how Buddhists with non-traditional views perceive the teachings, the conversation had just begun to move on to a point where *this* non-traditional Buddhist was working on trying to understand where the differences are, and come to understand how those who perceive these things differently than I do come to understand it the way they do. I don't see a way to do that without reference to how I see it (since we're talking about differences in understanding), but we had just gotten to a point where the person who was being combative had stopped posting -- so that I was able to leave off politely trying to answer him -- and we were just getting down to good discussion that was helping me to understand where others were coming from, when the thread was abruptly closed.

Since our discussion has been focused primarily on how karma works with rebirth, this seems like the best place to continue a conversation in which traditional Buddhists try to help me understand the basis for their understanding. I am going to continue to try my best to just genuinely question where the differences are and try to understand what the non-combative conversationalists are saying -- I guess I'll just ignore posts from those whose aggressive style seems to be as much about picking fights as about actually trying to understand anything -- and I'd like to start with retro's attempt to help me understand how it is that karma is the forerunner to the aggregates. If anyone here perceives a post of mine as me proselytizing rather than me asking questions in an attempt to discover the differences in understanding, please let me know.

Are there any suttas you can point out that show that the Buddha says that the aggregates are generated by karma, rather than karma being generated by the aggregates?

Karma is cetana (action).

I'm not quite understanding this, so I'm going to go through this slowly.

The version of PED I have has:

Cetanā state of ceto in action, thinking as active thought, intention, purpose, will .

So I can see saying "Karma is cetana (active thought)" but it seems to add fuzziness to equate cetana with pure action because, since the original meaning of karma is action, this leaves us with action is action. Telling an American just exploring Buddhism that karma is action is actually useful (because karma isn't its results, as most Americans understand it to be). But is that what the Buddha was saying when he said "cetanāhaṃ kammaṃ vadāmi"?

I'm not, then, really sure what you're conveying by translating cetana as action with no reference to thought. If you are just trying to say that karma is action, I can understand that this is so, but don't see your point. If you're wanting to say karma is action to do with thought, I agree with that, also. But maybe you're trying to say something else, so I'm asking. But for the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume you mean that karma is action to do with thinking.

Appropriating aggregates is an action, so it is the first of the two.

I asked about the above in the original thread, and you indicated that you mean that "Appropriating aggregates is an action, so of the two things I described at the top, it is 'the aggregates are generated by karma'".

If I take your "Karma is cetana" above to mean "Karma is active thought" then you are saying that "appropriating aggregates" is karma.

This means that it is the appropriating that is the karma (aggregates are not activities, while appropriating is, and karma has to equate to the active bit).

The aggregates themselves are empty bundles of appropriation (upadana).

I can understand and agree with that.

More precise causes and conditions involved are depicted in the following sutta.

MN 109: Maha-punnama Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Lord, what is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation[2] of the aggregate of form? What is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness?"

"Monk, the four great existents (earth, water, fire, & wind) are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness."

[2] - Delineation (paññapana) literally means, "making discernible." This apparently refers to the intentional aspect of perception, which takes the objective side of experience and fabricates it into discernible objects. In the case of the aggregates, the four great existents, contact, and name-&-form provide the objective basis for discerning them, while the process of fabrication takes the raw material provided by the objective basis and turns it into discernible instances of the aggregates. This process is described in slightly different terms in SN 22.79.

Using note 2 above, it seems the question being asked is "What is the cause or condition for the aggregate of form to become visible? (aka "to be made discernible"). The answer is that it's the material elements that make the aggregate of form visible. That's logical and easy to see.

In turn the other four aggregates are addressed: What makes the aggregate of feeling visible? contact. Same for the aggregates of perception and fabrications. The last, like the first, is different from the other three: the aggregate of consciousness is made visible by name and form.

I am not sure how this sutta demonstrates your point that active thought (karma) is the cause or condition that brings the aggregates into being, since the elements are not active thought, and neither is contact. I probably would agree that name-and-form is active thought (given my understanding of its place in dependent origination) but it is only one of the five aggregates. More to the point, the question in the sutta is *what makes the aggregates discernable*, not what has us appropriating them.

Can you explain in more detail how you see this as "karma is the cause of the aggregates"?

[gregkavarnos]

In turn the other four aggregates are addressed: What makes the aggregate of feeling visible? contact. Same for the aggregates of perception and fabrications. The last, like the first, is different from the other three: the aggregate of consciousness is made visible by name and form.

This question was answered by this statement:

Quite clearly you have no understanding of DO. Ignorance gives rise to mental formations, that give rise to consciousness, that gives rise to name and form... Ignorance and mental formations (karmic preponderance or predispostiions) are based in the past, consciouness and name and form (mind and matter) arise in the present as a consequence of these. Your misundertanding of DO arises from you clinging to materialist views whereby you are forced to START at mind and matter rather than ignorance and karmic predisposition. This is the reason that you hold the deluded view that physical death is (also) the end of suffering whereas Buddhists believe that suffering ends (solely) through Nirvana.

In the locked thread viewtopic.php?f=66&t=7990&start=180#p96372

"Visibility" of action is not a precondtion of karmic outcome. Thoughts can create karmic outcomes that may be purely mental. Due to your clinging to materialist views you (purposefully) blind yourself to this option and thus (purposefully) blind yourself to karma vipakka that may lead to rebirth in realms which are purely mental (hell, preta, asura, long life gods). But of course it is going to be difficult to see the whole picture if you are focused only on one pixel.

[nowheat]

In turn the other four aggregates are addressed: What makes the aggregate of feeling visible? contact. Same for the aggregates of perception and fabrications. The last, like the first, is different from the other three: the aggregate of consciousness is made visible by name and form.

This question was answered by this statement.

What question are you referring to, greg? The question above is rhetorical. It is simply describing what is going on in the sutta snippet.

"Visibility" of action is not a precondtion of karmic outcome.

That would be consistent with my reading of the sutta, I think. Retro quoted the sutta to show that karma is a forerunner of the aggregates, not the other way around, and I was pointing out that the sutta was discussing the causes and conditions for *visibility* not the causes and conditions of the aggregates.

My original question remains unanswered, which is: What is there that shows us that the Buddha taught that karma is a cause and condition of the aggregates, rather than that the aggregates are what brings karma into existence? I am told that this is the way it works: karma is a condition for the arising of the aggregates, and I can understand seeing it that way, but I am looking for evidence that the Buddha actually taught it that way. I'm trying to get clear on whether this is a later understanding -- an innovation of a later great thinker, perhaps? -- or is part of the original teachings.

Due to your clinging to materialist views you (purposefully) blind yourself to this option and thus (purposefully) blind yourself to karma vipakka that may lead to rebirth in realms which are purely mental (hell, preta, asura, long life gods). But of course it is going to be difficult to see the whole picture if you are focused only on one pixel.

Just to be clear, you have a few affectations in your writing that I don't find conducive to getting anywhere in a conversation. These include -- but are not limited to -- mind-reading (as above with "purposefully"), implying insulting things, making statements without support*, and pasting in quotes without giving detail about their purpose or the specific ways in which you understand them to apply to the point. I will ignore these as if there was a sudden burst of static, and will be sorry if somewhere in the middle of them you actually made a good point that I'd have otherwise wanted to congratulate you on. Hopefully this will encourage you to refrain from embedding good points in the noise. I did want to be fair, though, and not just expect you to have read my general policy statement higher in this thread, but to let you know that I am applying it to conversations with you specifically. You often make good points, and I don't wish to lose them, but neither do I have any need to be the pots you bang on.

* I make this observation without providing detailed support, because I am not interested in rehashing less-than-civil behavior. Anyone unfamiliar with this behavior can go visit the Navayana thread and find detailed examples there.

[gregkavarnos]

My original question remains unanswered, which is: What is there that shows us that the Buddha taught that karma is a cause and condition of the aggregates, rather than that the aggregates are what brings karma into existence?

It's not an either/or situation. Samsara is a cycle http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html liberation is a matter of breaking the cycle. The cycle is broken at the link of ignorance (the destruction of ignorance, ie Nirvana) not the link of mind and form (the destruction of this existence, ie death).

Now to your other points:

1. So you are not a materialist? If you do subscribe to materialism then you are (purposefully) ignoring non-materialist arguments (rebirth, karma). If your objection to these is not based on materialism, then what is it based on?
2. I post links and quotes from Sutta and Sutra without going into further detail because: a. The points made in the quotes are normally astoundingly obvious and do not require interpretation. b. I normally post the quotes and links after stating a point, as evidence that the Buddha taught it in this way.

You see, unlike you, I see no need to bend and shape what the Buddha says, I am happy just taking the teachings at face value. So when the Buddha says:

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html I take it to mean exactly what it says and nothing more. Now if you consider this "banging on pots", well then... Feel free to ignore my noise.

[LastLegend]

My original question remains unanswered, which is: What is there that shows us that the Buddha taught that karma is a cause and condition of the aggregates, rather than that the aggregates are what brings karma into existence? I am told that this is the way it works: karma is a condition for the arising of the aggregates, and I can understand seeing it that way, but I am looking for evidence that the Buddha actually taught it that way. I'm trying to get clear on whether this is a later understanding -- an innovation of a later great thinker, perhaps? -- or is part of the original teachings.

Actions (body, speech, and mind) bring aggregates, and aggregates in turn will perpetuate actions. Like an orange seed (cause) with conditions of water, soil, sunlight, and temperature grow to become an orange tree. The orange tree will bare oranges, and within those oranges there are seeds (causes). That is the cycle or chain of death and rebirth such that everything exists because of causes and conditions. Those who study and practice Dharma will try to steer away from unwholesome actions.

Consciousnesses exist relatively to material forms. This is the relationship between subject and object. There is and there is that sort of thing.

[gregkavarnos]

Yes, except it is just that "an experience" a projection, an overestimation. Nothing else. The "feeling" quite easily breaks down under analysis.

[Dechen Norbu]

It seems to me that under analysis, what breaks down is the idea of a permanent self, not the feeling of a continuous of awareness. Just the illusion that there is a fixed entity traveling through time instead of a continuum of one moment of consciousness that leads to another an so on. Common experience shows that the awareness we're talking about, you have from the moment you can remember yourself to the moment you die. It's interrupted by deep sleep, deep comatose states and other periods in which you lose consciousness. It's said however, that through consistent practice you can remain conscious even during those periods and explore that continuum before birth. It is also said you can maintain it during the bardo.

[dharmagoat]

This reliance in buddhism on what others have said is unfortunate. While it serves to provide a map for those who are exploring these things for themselves, and offers a degree of evidence of such things, it is not enough to base assertions on without qualification, yet is frequently used that way.

[Josef]

This reliance in buddhism on what others have said is unfortunate. While it serves to provide a map for those who are exploring these things for themselves, and offers a degree of evidence of such things, it is not enough to base assertions on without qualification, yet is frequently used that way.

The religion of science is no different.

[dharmagoat]

The religion of science is no different.

True, but not to the same extent. Although I don't see how science can be considered a religion.

[Bhusuku]

The religion of science is no different.

True, but not to the same extent. Although I don't see how science can be considered a religion.

Religion is not science, and science is not religion. However, religion is based (at least in general) on certain dogmas, and so is science.