According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[pood]

I have discussed this before but hell, why not again? It is Saturday and I am chilln’.

Suppose God exists and knows exactly what you will do before you do it. I have seen this as an atheist argument that God’s foreknowledge precludes your free will, which would mean that you could not be held morally accountable for what you do. Thus it would be illogical for God to punish you for your transgressions, since you are God’s meat puppet.

Does this argument go through?

If God knows infallibly that I will do x, does that mean I MUST do X? Or simply that I WILL do x? Am I really not free to do y instead?

The answer cashes out in terms of modal possible worlds.

There is a (logically) possible world at which God infallibly knows I will do x and I do x.

But there is a also a (logically) possible world at which God infallibly knows I will do y and I do y.

However:

There is no logically possible world in which God infallibly knows I will do x and I do y instead.

And there is no logically possible world at which God infallibly knows I will do y and I do x instead.

The latter two are logically impossible so they are false at all possible words.

The upshot is that in view of God’s alleged omniscience I am free to do as I please — I have free will. I can freely choose x or y. What I can’t do is evade God’s foreknowledge of what I actually do.

Now apply this to Aristotle’s sea battle problem and to causal determinism and see what you get.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Bsilv

You said you are Buddhist, believe in determinism, and inferred that Buddhist scholars link Buddhism to determinism, which I seriously doubt.

You seed science has made that was once i impossible possible seeming to fer determinism could be proven true some day.

I am a bit slow witted and big words tend to confuse me, can you summarize what you believe and what you are trying show in straightforward paragraph?

If you are feeling distressed and insulted if I were Buddhist I'd say your discomfort is not caused by others on the thread. It is caused by your attachment to the your illusion of determinism.

If you would humor me and just answer the question yes or no. You break in a game of pool. Are the positions of the balls after the break predetermined?

I will begin by answering your closing question, and then address you prior assertions.


Closing question:

If you would humor me and just answer the question yes or no. You break in a game of pool. Are the positions of the balls after the break predetermined?

I cannot answer yes or no. My answer is "I do not know," and I have not previously asserted otherwise.

Recall that I entered this discussion simply to join DBT's assertion of the logical incoherence of the notion that Free Will can exist if the universe is entirely, truly, and perfectly Deterministic is logically incoherent if (i) Free Will is used in the manner posited by Libertarians (philosophical and not political), and (ii) Determinism is posited to have the meaning put forth by Karl Popper, William James, Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, and Peter Van Inwagen, among others -- all of whom describe the paradigm as operating in a manner that Jarhyn prefers to call Radical Fatalism. Indeed, Popper expressly uses the word "predetermined" to describe the state of future activity if Determinism is true.

Based on the foregoing, if the form of Determinism described above were true (which I do not claim to be the case), then the answer to your question would be yes. If Determinism is defined in the way described by most quantum physicists, then the answer likely would be no (or, at least, not likely).

I do not claim, I have not claimed, that the form of Determinism summarized by Popper and others is true, nor did I assert any claim as to whether people do or do not have Libertarian Free Will. I simply assert that the two philosophical concepts are logically inconsistent with one another, such that they cannot be harmonized without changing their descriptions or definitions.


I now turn to the other assertions in your latest post

1.

You said you are Buddhist, believe in determinism, and inferred that Buddhist scholars link Buddhism to determinism, which I seriously doubt.

It is unclear from your sentence whether you "seriously doubt" everything that precedes that assertion of doubt, or only the last of the three antecedent assertions of what you claim I believe. It also is unclear whether you 'seriously doubt" the sincerity of the statements and beliefs you attribute to me, or just the accuracy of those things. Finally, it is unclear whether you "seriously doubt" the validity of the inference you claim, and you use the word as if it is synonymous with imply, when it is not. I cannot infer anything. I can only imply something, which may be inferred from what I say. In any event, and as explained below, (i) I did not say I am Buddhist, (ii) I sated that I tend to believe in Determinism for personal reasons and do not claim my belief to be correct and live my life "as if" I have Free Will, and (iii) I stated explicitly (and did not imply, much less infer) that Buddhist scholars link Buddhism to determinism.

First, I did not say that I am Buddhist. I said only the following about my respect or affinity for Buddhism (in two separate posts):

Within Buddhism (which I respect as a philosophy, but do not practice as a religion), there is a doctrine known (in English) as "Dependent Origination" or "Dependent Arising."

and

I begin by saying that I have studied Buddhism from an academic standpoint, I have an affinity to the the teachings of Buddhism as I understand them, and I have a spiritual practice that incorporates aspects of Buddhism along with aspects of other philosophies and religions. I am not, however, a practicing Buddhist in a formal sense.

I also respect and have an affinity for some of the tents of many mainstream religions, but I do not practice any of those religions.

Second, I did say that I tend to believe in Determinism, but I repeatedly have acknowledged that I do not know that belief to be consistent with reality and I also have acknowledged that a belief in Determinism is somewhat meaningless because the truth if Determinism would preclude the ability to have a belief (other than one planted by the Universe and in a predetermined manner). I also have said that there is a language barrier that precludes a coherent discussion of the subject.

Third, I have stated that Buddhist scholars link Buddhism to Determinism. That is a demonstrable fact, and I cited some of the literature and quoted some of the statements. I did not claim that view to be universally held, and I acknowledged, and the literature I quoted discusses, that there is disagreement within Buddhism -- just as there is disagreement of many things in many philosophical and theological circles, and just as there is disagreement within science and physics.
2.

You seed science has made that was once i impossible possible seeming to fer determinism could be proven true some day.

I have never said such a thing (and I believe you mean cede). Indeed, I have asserted repeatedly that Determinism (as summarized by Popper and others) is unprovable and non-falsifiable -- even in theory. I also have noted that Popper and others have said the same thing, and that the very fact of non-falsification precludes Determinism from being examined as a scientific hypothesis. I also have stated that a belief in the truth of Determinism can be based only on faith, just like a belief in existence of nonexistence of God, or a belief in solipsism (which Bilby introduced into the discussion).

You even wrote the words below, with which I thereafter stated my agreement:

You can speculate on determinism and think as if it were true, but there is no way to test it. That leaves it in philosophy not science.

Same with a belief in Jesus. You can think as if he is real but there is no way to prove it.

Thus, I do not understand how you can now say that I have ceded or implied (or that it can be inferred from my statements) that "determinism could be proved true one day." Not, for that matter, have I said that "science has made that was once [] impossible possible." In fact, accepting the value of science, I have said only the opposite -- that things once thought impossible have been shown to be possible. I have not said that science has proved anything to be impossible -- that was your contention about a perpetual motion machine, among other things.

3.

I am a bit slow witted and big words tend to confuse me, can you summarize what you believe and what you are trying show in straightforward paragraph?

Your false modesty aside, here one straightforward paragraph that summarizes what I first asserted in this forum:

Accepting Popper's characterization of Determinism and the Libertarian's description of Free Will, the concept that truth of Determinism and existence of Free Will is logically incoherent, or as William James has observed: "The issue . . . is a perfectly sharp one, which no eulogistic terminology can smear over or wipe out. The truth must lie with one side or the other, and its lying with one side makes the other false.”

Separately, I offer the following paragraph:

I believe that there are multiple reasons that humans are incapable of knowing (as opposed to believing) the truth of how the universe operates in the same way that humans are not capable of knowing (as opposed to believing) whether God does or does not exist. Indeed, the very fact that we cannot know whether God exists is one of the many reasons that humans are incapable of knowing (as opposed to believing) the truth of how the universe operates.

4.

If you are feeling distressed and insulted if I were Buddhist I'd say your discomfort is not caused by others on the thread. It is caused by your attachment to the your illusion of determinism.

I am not feeling distressed nor insulted.

I have searched my posts, I have not used the word distress (or distressed) and I do not feel that way.

I also have searched my posts for the words insult and insulting, and I found only 4 instances of my use of those words.

The first three instances, all of which were addressed to Pood, were the following:

If you just want to hurl insults, I suppose that is your prerogative, but it does nothing to advance the discussion, and it says much about the author.

Rather than focus your responses on insulting the poster, it would be more productive if you would address the substance of the posts.

I simply find it to be a waste of time to engage with someone who repeatedly asserts the same thing, and also tends to be insulting, without attempting to engage and refine the analysis in a mature manner.

The only other instance was the one addressed to you, and which I understand you to be referencing in your latest post:

And, it is an insult for anyone to brand any unfalsifiable belief to be absurd or illogical -- especially when the same people rest their laurels on an unfalsifiable belief to justify that assertion. It also is an insult to suggest, without expressly saying so, that I am being dishonest, when I could not be more open about the non-provable nature of my views.

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition of "insult" as a verb is "to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt" and the first definition of "insult" as a noun is "an instance of insolence or contemptuous speech or conduct." Dictionary.com similarly defines the word "insult" as "to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness." These definitions (and others) focus on the act of the speaker and not the object of the statement.

I concur with your statement that a Buddhist would say that a feeling of being insulted or disrespected is an inside job, and that words can bring about such feelings only if the person to whom the words are addressed allows that feeling to result. That also is a teaching of many religions. Again, however, I did not claim to feel distressed or insulted, so that is neither here not there.

 

[BSilvEsq]

I can assert as a hypothetical foundational premise that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and after we die we get beer volcanoes. And?

I am simply pointing out that it is indeed a modal fallacy to confuse “will” with “must.”

It would be very cool to get beer volcanoes from the Flying Spaghetti Monster after we die. That is a very imaginary hypothesis, which is non-falsifiable unless and until we are able to verify what, if anything, actually occurs after death -- and even then it would be non-falsifiable if death were defined in a way that it cannot be discerned what happens thereafter.

With respect to the balance of your post, and the one that follows, you are, again, insisting that a foundational premise can be fallacious, which, by definition, is not a term that can be used to describe a foundational premise.

I get that you are so averse to the concept of non-deliberate predeterminism that you find it a waste of time to discuss it -- which is fine, even though you do continue to do so. But, the fact that you find it to be a waste of time to discuss something you believe to be fantastical and not possibly real does not make that thing fallacious - and that will not change no matter how many times to assert it to be the case. Just as you cannot bring Tinkerbell back to life by saying over and over that you believe in her, you cannot make a foundation premise of a paradigm a fallacy by saying over and over that it is a fallacy.

Lastly, and unlike your Flying Spaghetti Monster example, which finds no discussion in classic literature, I did not invent or conjure up the paradigm of Determinism of the sort Jarhyn brands Radical Fatalism. Rather, this is a philosophical paradigm that occupies many pages of many philosophical text books and is taught in philosophy courses at distinguished universities. None of that makes the paradigm true or even gives it an air of truth. But, it is not like I am just making upon scenarios and saying they are viable philosophical paradigms.

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly I find it far more useful to ask the question "what would disprove solipsism for me" and go about attempting to find that.

Unless and until I learn otherwise, I understand solipsism to be non-falsifiable, which is why it is rejected by science, as a tenet of science is that a hypothesis will not be accepted as being even potentially scientific if it is incapable of falsification.

Thus, if I use science as the guidepost for accepting or rejecting philosophical hypotheses, I would reject solipsism.

As a practical matter, I do rely upon science for my daily life, and do not believe it is practical to subscribe to solipsism for paying the bills, putting food on the table, or getting me through the day safely.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I do not rule out solipsism as a possibility because I know of no way to disprove it without incorporating a presumed rejection of solipsism in the analysis.

As I said, it's part of Occam's razor.

While we can't absolutely prove it's foolish to assume solipsism, the overwhelming success of assuming simplicity rather than complexity in the face of such ideas as idea of a brain not only convincingly operating in a sensible and logically understandable way but being able to present that way while concealing all real mechanisms of its operation seems apparent.

 

[pood]

We can adopt Euclidean geometry as a foundational prcinple of the world, because it is self evident.

Only it’s not, and it’s not.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Honestly I find it far more useful to ask the question "what would disprove solipsism for me" and go about attempting to find that.

Unless and until I learn otherwise, I understand solipsism to be non-falsifiable, which is why it is rejected by science, as a tenet of science is that a hypothesis will not be accepted as being even potentially scientific if it is incapable of falsification.

Thus, if I use science as the guidepost for accepting or rejecting philosophical hypotheses, I would reject solipsism.

As a practical matter, I do rely upon science for my daily life, and do not believe it is practical to subscribe to solipsism for paying the bills, putting food on the table, or getting me through the day safely.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I do not rule out solipsism as a possibility because I know of no way to disprove it without incorporating a presumed rejection of solipsism in the analysis.

As I said, it's part of Occam's razor.

While we can't absolutely prove it's foolish to assume solipsism, the overwhelming success of assuming simplicity rather than complexity in the face of such ideas as idea of a brain not only convincingly operating in a sensible and logically understandable way but being able to present that way while concealing all real mechanisms of its operation seems apparent.

As a practical matter, I agree with you. But this is a Philosophy forum -- as designated by the board heading.

Occam's Razor is a pragmatic tool that is not a part of formal method of proof or falsification in logical, math, science or otherwise. It is like the medical aphorism "When you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras." There may well be a zebra, but it is more likely (even probably) a horse -- unless, of course, you are in an African plane. As a practical matter, when seeking to solve a problem, it is best to begin with the most simple solutions and assume the most common issues. But, that is purely a matter if practicality based on statistical probability (in the mundane) and not anything approaching a formal proof.

I am quite fond of Darwin's theory of natural selection, which I believe to have wide acceptance within scientific and philosophical circles. Natural selection is a robust paradigm that appears to correlate with reality. It also is non-falsifiable, as there is always a potential hidden variable in any seemingly contrary circumstance. And, while I suppose that reasonable minds might differ, it seems to me that some people applying Occam's Razor would argue that natural selection is much more complex than Lamarkian Evolution or Biblical Creationism. It all depends upon the paradigm that guides the life of the person shaving off what they perceive to be the more complex explanations.

 

[Jarhyn]

Occam's Razor is a pragmatic tool

I would argue that it is also a philosophical tool in ascertaining what things are most worthy of belief: that which is suggested to exist, even without evidence (complexity), can be dismissed without evidence, because there is no evidence for it.

If we're talking about "possible worlds", it's simply much more convoluted at this point to believe you are the only person in the universe. Also, if we can observably describe what you feel you can observably describe someone else feeling... And the you have the proof of the existence of those feelings outside of the thing producing your own.

It's going to be really hard for the solipsist to continue justifying solipsism, especially as our understanding of how our feelings and thoughts are determined.

Of course, systems can always be simulated by more powerful systems so you can't prove you aren't in an instance of a simulation short of catching a "dirty last Thursday".

 

[bilby]

You also describe the philosophical discussion as

useless.

I disagree.

As Steve Bank wrote in a prior post:

A belief in determinism or Jesus can affect how you make a personal choice. As can any philosophical or religious belief.

If nothing else, there is value in that.

Well, there could be. But only if Radical Fatalism is false.

If Radical Fatalism were true, it would just be a contradiction.

 

[bilby]

As I have written to others, if you find a concept to be useless, you need not engage.

Yeah, that's nonsense.

A wise man once said:

A belief in determinism or Jesus can affect how you make a personal choice.

People's false beliefs often (perhaps usually) entail their personal choice to refuse to let non-believers live in peace.

 

[steve_bank]

Bsiv

Ok. In short you lean towards determinism, don't know if things are predetermined, and live as if you have free will.

No issues with me. I might even call that pragmatic.

As to Buddhism and determinism you would have to quote chapter an verse and authorship.

Over here in the USA identifying as Buddhist has very little meaning. Many identify for different reasons.

You would have to show the 'scholars' you refer to and what their lineage is. In traditions like Hinduism and Buddhism lineage of a teacher or author is important.

Saying one is Buddhist is like saying one is Christian. Cristian can men almost anything.

Perhaps a thread on religion.

 

[steve_bank]

Solipsism sounds like a form of mental illness if one lives by it.

I wonder if something similar is a diagnosable condition in the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses.

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ ⓘ SOLL-ip-siz-əm; from Latin solus 'alone' and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Bsiv

Ok. In short you lean towards determinism, don't know if things are predetermined, and live as if you have free will.

No issues with me. I might even call that pragmatic.

As to Buddhism and determinism you would have to quote chapter an verse and authorship.

Over here in the USA identifying as Buddhist has very little meaning. Many identify for different reasons.

You would have to show the 'scholars' you refer to and what their lineage is. In traditions like Hinduism and Buddhism lineage of a teacher or author is important.

Saying one is Buddhist is like saying one is Christian. Cristian can men almost anything.

Perhaps a thread on religion.

Not arguing with anything you wrote. Just providing some citations to the scholarship you have requested.

Repetti, R. ( 2012). Buddhist Hard Determinism: No Self, No Free Will, No Responsibility. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 19 (April 19, 2012), 130-97. Repetti is a Professor of Philosophy at CUNY/Kingsborough.

Charles Goodman, Consequences if Compassion: An Interpretation and Defense of Buddhist Ethics. Goodman is a Buddhist scholar, who has a BA in Physics from Harvard University and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Michigan. Goodman is a Professor in the Philosophy Department and the Department of Asian and Asian American Studies at Binghamton University.

I do not claim that Repetti or Goodman have any greater insight into Buddhism than anyone else, and I do not claim that there are not others who have greater insight. I do not even understand either of Repetti or Goodman to practice Buddhism as a religion. I have, however, read their work and find it to be well researched, well written, and persuasive. As I have written before:

A person can write about a belief without subscribing to it, much less believing it to be true. Many modern scholars have written books about Greek and Roman Mythology. I doubt that they believe in the truth of what we now call myths, but were one time thought to be true by large segments of the population. These scholars can examine the myths in depth, but are not preaching their truth or advocating that others believe them. Jewish scholars can study and write about Islam, and vice versa. Atheists also can write about theist religions. A theist can write about atheism. A person does not need to believe in the truth of a subject to be able to study it, write about it, and even defend it against criticisms if the defense is apt. Indeed, a person who lacks a belief or faith in a paradigm may have a better understanding of the paradigm than does someone who does have such faith. By the same token a person who has faith in a certain belief can critically evaluate it and acknowledge its flaws or at least the fact that the belief is not provable.

In the end, what matters is what these authors have to say, and not whether it falls within the mainstream of other authors, including religious leaders. If, however, you put personalities over substance, and care more about lineage than content, I suppose the work of Repetti and Goodman is of little or no consequence to you.

I learned of Repetti and Goodman through my participation many years ago in an on-line course about Buddhist Scripture developed and presented by Harvard University. The course can be accessed at https://harvardonline.harvard.edu/course/buddhism-through-its-scriptures. I found it very enlightening (in the mundane use of the word, and not the super-mundane Buddhist use of the word).

​

 

[BSilvEsq]

You also describe the philosophical discussion as

useless.

I disagree.

As Steve Bank wrote in a prior post:

A belief in determinism or Jesus can affect how you make a personal choice. As can any philosophical or religious belief.

If nothing else, there is value in that.

Well, there could be. But only if Radical Fatalism is false.

If Radical Fatalism were true, it would just be a contradiction.

Agree that there could be value in a belief in determinism, Jesus, and other philosophical or religious beliefs.

Disagree that a belief in Radical Fatalism would be a contradiction if Radical Fatalism were true. It would not be a contradiction so much as a meaningless consequence of the Fatalistic universe -- like a computer that asserts "I believe I am alive" when it is turned on simply because it has been programmed to say that whenever it is turned on.

 

[Jarhyn]

Solipsism sounds like a form of mental illness if one lives by it.

I wonder if something similar is a diagnosable condition in the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses.

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ ⓘ SOLL-ip-siz-əm; from Latin solus 'alone' and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

In practice it goes further, with the assumption that because only one's mind is sure to exist, only one's own mind exists and all is a reflection of the one mind.

Pretty much all "universal awareness" beliefs are in fact solipsistic, as is the idea of "a mind of all thought", and these, predictably, share an identity with the attempt to define "the set of all sets", or to have "an axiom which maintains the truth of all other axioms" or any of an unbounded set of nonsense statements that all equate to "there is a God:EinSof*".

I'm not really sure I would really call someone an atheist if they don't reject EinSof.

I could fill whole books about the real phenomena behind religious beliefs, from Buddhist reincarnation to the teachings of Christ about the Holy Spirit, to even discussions about Alistair Crowley's ideas of Occult Magic.

But EinSof is an intellectual trap, a stumbling block for anyone seeking the truth, and the first one that Ian Stewart should be capable of disabusing you of in the first part of The Foundations of Mathematics.

*Google this? It's a bit of a rabbit hole.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Solipsism sounds like a form of mental illness if one lives by it.

I wonder if something similar is a diagnosable condition in the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses.

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ ⓘ SOLL-ip-siz-əm; from Latin solus 'alone' and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

In practice it goes further, with the assumption that because only one's mind is sure to exist, only one's own mind exists and all is a reflection of the one mind.

Pretty much all "universal awareness" beliefs are in fact solipsistic, as is the idea of "a mind of all thought", and these, predictably, share an identity with the attempt to define "the set of all sets", or to have "an axiom which maintains the truth of all other axioms" or any of an unbounded set of nonsense statements that all equate to "there is a God:EinSof*".

I'm not really sure I would really call someone an atheist if they don't reject EinSof.

I could fill whole books about the real phenomena behind religious beliefs, from Buddhist reincarnation to the teachings of Christ about the Holy Spirit, to even discussions about Alistair Crowley's ideas of Occult Magic.

But EinSof is an intellectual trap, a stumbling block for anyone seeking the truth, and the first one that Ian Stewart should be capable of disabusing you of in the first part of The Foundations of Mathematics.

*Google this? It's a bit of a rabbit hole.

Do you believe that anything (including a principle, law of nature, concept, etc.) is true, unqualified, and absolute (other than the impossibility of something being true, unqualified, and absolute)? It seems to me that you do not have such a belief, but I could easily be mistaken.

If you do believe that there is something and/or are some things that are true, unqualified, and absolute, are you able to state with confidence that such a belief does not lead to a some form of self-contradiction or paradox?

 

[bilby]

You also describe the philosophical discussion as

useless.

I disagree.

As Steve Bank wrote in a prior post:

A belief in determinism or Jesus can affect how you make a personal choice. As can any philosophical or religious belief.

If nothing else, there is value in that.

Well, there could be. But only if Radical Fatalism is false.

If Radical Fatalism were true, it would just be a contradiction.

Agree that there could be value in a belief in determinism, Jesus, and other philosophical or religious beliefs.

Disagree that a belief in Radical Fatalism would be a contradiction if Radical Fatalism were true.

I didn't suggest that a belief in RF being true would be a contradiction; It is the belief that RF has value that would be contradictory.

If you believe that RF is true, then you must logically believe that knowing that it is is valueless. The knowledge gets you nothing you weren't getting anyway.

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the 70s I read Willhelm's translation of the I Ching. It is or was used for divination. You toss bones or sticks and come up with a number used to index into the book, and then interpret an answer to a question. From what I gathered it was used by practitioners as a psychological tool to guide people.

There is a question of asking the same e question twice and getting different answers. The answer is that in the time between the asking the same question again the universe has changed and the answer is different.

Jartyn

We are ina 'post philosophy' era where physical science is dominant. With what we know of the brain it is a simple deduction to assume we all have thoughts, feli8ings, and sense of self.

Bsilv

More wordy talking around an issue. You claimed a connection between Buddhism and determinism, present it.

Christians quote 'Christian scholars'. They abound with an array of interpretations, inventions, and they do not all agree.

As with Jesus there are no contemporaneous accounts of an historical Buddha and who he was. The main story is anecdotal.

Back in the 60s/70sn when peplee were rejecting mains rem Christianity and looking for something else Buddhism, Zen, and Hinduism were popular.


Books with Zen in the title were popular.

Gurus like the American Ram Das. The Maharishi.

A derail to religion. I started a thread on Buddhism in religion. Post there if you like on Buddhist scholars.