Wow. I'm surprised that Jim Horgan's article made it into The Scientific American, as he makes such oversimplified, blanket statements about Buddhism. Not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation or karma. Not surprisingly, there are many different types of Buddhist practice (fortunately, not anywhere near 20,000, as with Christianity). Most of them do limit themselves to the original, simple tenets of Buddha, & do not delve into the supernatural/metaphysical realms. One thing is for certain, though; Buddhism does not consider itself "the one true way," nor does it worship any deities (Buddha denied being any sort of a deity, & urged his followers to constantly question him). I take umbrage with Mr. Horgan for his statements suggesting otherwise. Of course there are "splinter groups" that veer from Buddha's suggested path, but they are by far in the minority of Buddhist practice. The basic message is that there is suffering, & only by accepting what one's own life has to offer (including suffering) - instead of wishing things were different - can we conquer our own misery. I'd like for Mr. Horgan to explain to me what good it does any of us to "wrestle with the big 'why' questions." There are no answers, & acceptance of the "it is what it is" philosophy will save anyone a lifetime of torment. My humble opinion.....

Buddah has nothing to do with conspiracy of words. It is merely a wonderful way to approach life. They are not anti science , metaphysical or anything like that. It you view it as the purity of thought you get it.
It is not a religion as it calls not for a deity. Sometimes we feel the need to over analyze everything which perpetuates our displeasure with everything. Leave it alone and fine the peace in your own soul.
Just do not entertain a deity because then you are certain to be miserable

the buddha literally said that if the obersvable world was counter to a teaching, you are using the teaching wrong. buddhism is not anti-science, although some practitioners still fall prey to what the buddha was warning about in this lesson.

as far as the "big questions" he didn't address, he was teaching people how to be content, not why they weren't. as he said to one student who asked about the beginning of things, "Did I ever offer to teach you about the beginning of things? Then why are you upset that I haven't?" This is not to say the buddha found such study pointless, or was against them, just that it was not his purpose or intent.

I've never been mad at a history teacher for not teaching me math, why would I be mad at the buddha for not teaching outside his subject?

but the ones mentioned are partially false. He actually did address what makes life painful, and the origin of "unfairness".

I would suggest you not take this article too seriously, and study what the actual buddha said about these things. not modern buddhists, every practitioner of every faith has the potential to put their own spin on the teachings, study the teachings.

now, this is not to say that there aren't supernatural elements to the teachings. but even with those, the buddha himself said it is not necessary to accept them in order to benefit from the teachings. buddhism is not about your relationship to supernatural things, but rather your relationship to the world as you are experiencing it.

Basically everything you just asserted about Buddhism is false. You make a lot of broad statements, disregarding that Buddhism is a branching tree of religions just like every religion. Tibetan Buddhism is extremely scientific and rational, the extent that our leader has stated that if science proves a doctrine wrong then the doctrine will be changed. And Tibetan monks have been on the forefront of brain research for decades, being parts of major projects that have changed how we define consciousness and thought. Pure Land Buddhism teaches about a heavenly afterlife, which most other branches do not accept, sort of like Mormons against Catholics.

In the future, please do not make broad false statements about millions of human beings. Please.

I speculate that Buddha himself may have thought his doctrines empirical, in that he arrived at them after years of contemplation and observation. But one man's observations are not "everything", and even he admitted there were many things he did not know.

As far as reincarnation and karma go-I think reincarnation is just pure fanciful thinking, although widely espoused in the India of Buddha's time (and still widely believed there, today). If anything of our "self" persists after death, it is certainly NOT the person we think we are, and who our lovers love, and who bears our distinct personality traits. For these things are intrinsically bound up with the life we lead.

Karma is a bit more subtle-it's common knowledge that actions have consequences, and that many of the consequences are seemingly small, but continue to affect other events-the so-called "butterfly effect." Perhaps more profoundly, the things you do affect you, and not always right away. Think of our planet, or even just our society as a homeostatic environment. The differential equations that govern the demonstrable physical processes that take place seek states of equilibrium. An unjust ruler may not have to pay immediately for beheading his enemies, but there conceivably might be a revolution against his/her successor as a result of the outrage.

Buddhism is, in some forms, something less than a religion, and something more than a philosophy. It is not comprehensive, but I don't think ANY comprehensive system of explaining everything CAN exist. It's also not as monolithic as the writer implies-some forms of Buddhism resemble Catholicism, with their pantheons of devas, boddhisattvas, demons and other lesser forms of spiritual beings, while some are quite minimalist, and cross-compatible with following other existing religious traditions. Not all forms of Buddhism embrace the supernatural, while others are steeped in a staggering complexity of traditions and rules.

**I m not a Buddhist but I love their temples and statues - they are gorgeous and interesting. When in Asia I went to visit as many as I could in every country we flew to.

Buddhism is yet another divisive religion or ideology where adherents claim truth. Just ask the Rohingyas how peaceful and tolerant the Burmese Buddhists are.

It's genocide.

Lol you’re shrugging at me but for the record, top 3 nonscientific questions that science doesn’t answer either are:

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is life this way and not some other way? Why is life so unfair and painful? Buddhism does actually answer the last part of this question which is the only really solid claim it attempts to make: suffering comes from attachment/resistance to change. But I digress.

Metaphysical speculation is exactly what you would want to avoid if you’re trying not to be too woo-woo, let alone if you’re trying to be a scientist. Merely accepting that life is hard and prescribing methods for making it more pleasant is literally all you can ask of a man trying to remain empirical about his own psychology in his day. I don’t understand your complaint; first he’s too religious and then he’s too rational?

I got the opposite impression when I studied Buddhism, although admittedly a lot of what I learned about it was through Alan Watts’ lectures. His interpretations are fun to listen to while stoned and shrugging off fundamentalism, but who knows how true to the practice it was. I did listen to some Sunryu Suzuki too and several other more native practitioners. But the impression I got was that:

Buddha was very much against telling anyone to believe in anything they couldn’t prove for themselves. If science or personal experience contradicts any of his teachings you are to disregard them. The Dalai Lama’s manner of speaking leads me to believe he holds to the same principle; he seems very open minded and curious about scientific discovery.

The ideas of reincarnation and karma are based on the Hindu cosmology of the universe and that’s the only place it seems to get spiritually hokey at all, and yet I get the impression that very few people believe in the old Hindu gods in any sort of literal sense. It’s more like the way we viewed the Greek pantheon in the 19th century or something. A bunch of colorful stories of archetypes that are useful as metaphors.

As a western Buddhist I would and have never made the claim that Buddhism is a science. In the way I practice, it’s a secular philosophy if anything. Somewhat informed by science, history, and personal experience; it’s my sociological experiment on myself to improve the way my mind and body function together. So far yoga and meditation have done far more for me than any Christian prayer, fast, communion or baptism ever could.

The idea of karma isn’t necessarily as supernatural as people assume. It’s not that the universe automatically doles out justice and everything becomes fair in the end, or that everything bad is because of something you did. It’s just the mechanism of cause and effect being described, nothing more nothing less. It’s generally not a bad idea to behave as if the simplified view of karma is real, but ultimately you should be doing good because it feels good and avoiding bad because it feels bad; anyone who’s not a sociopath and has a functioning conscience will bear that out into creating their own karma. The universe doesn’t do the math and feed our bad with more bad or good with more good. We do it to ourselves and each other. Every type of action you can think of will have a butterfly effect and a resonance of impact, and that’s all that karma describes. The way intentional acts of good or ill get passed along amongst us and cause a ripple effect has been tested in plenty of ways, and I think it holds up.

Reincarnation I’m fairly certain doesn’t exist in any sense of one consciousness making it intact from one life to the next, but that could also be interpreted more generally as the cycle of matter and energy. Neither can be created nor destroyed, so we’re all gonna keep getting reused in many incarnations one way or the other, whether we know it or not. At any rate; the ideas of karma and reincarnation being literal and spiritual don’t figure into my practice, no need for them to. So I’m not trying to be an apologist for anyone who does take it far out on a limb and treat it as their orthodoxy. But I’m also not gonna throw out the baby with the bath water, as eastern philosophy and physical practices have been invaluable to me and I’ve proven their usefulness to myself. Meditation, yoga, and many parts of ayervedic medicine should be in everyone’s arsenal when learning to care for themselves. They may not have known exactly why they were so useful when they came up with the shit, but they make a huge difference.

Atheism can be argued as anti-scientific or anti-intellectual since it avoids wrestling with big "why" questions. All it really addresses is the disbelief in the existence of deities. Now many atheist may believe in the scientific method (most do) and logic/reason, but by strict definition it only deals with the question of supernatural gods.

Seems the article critiques Theravada or Mahayana (or their offshoots) approach to Buddhism, but attributes the deceit and deficits to "Western Buddhists". It has been my experience that W.B. don't follow the dogma of the old schools, and do concentrate more on their personal struggle with anger, desire, and how they individually affect the world. Some may even be defined Atheist Buddhist on evaluation of their belief system, denying reincarnation, and defining karma as nothing more than the logical conclusion that if you live in a community and do bad stuff, the people there are going to know you as a bad person and treat you in kind.

Given the above, I think this article is disingenuous.

Yes you are right about Buddhism it hangs onto spiritual ideas more than belief in a supernatural being.
If is supposed to help people relax and meditate to relieve them of their everyday stresses. Yoga is practiced and helps to relax the mind and think positively. That sounds good to me for anyone who wants an alternative to medicine to help them cope with any mental or stressful situations. Having said all that it is still unscientific and does not give mankind and positive answers to how we got here and where are we going. Apart that is from the ridiculous claim that we will be reincarnated either upwards or downwards. Personally if that happen I would like to come back a albatross and see the world from up in the sky.

As if all Buddhists are the same; a very glib and superficial article.

There can of course be buddhists who are anti-scientific or anti-intellectual, but I think there are also secular and agnostic buddhists, who just follow some moral guidelines. Buddhism today can be a philosophy or a religion, so for some your critique applies, for some not really.
Also, I agree with buddhists when they say that the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is meaningless, but that is not anti-intellectual but just a philosophical position I hold.