I’m not sure I understand your response. Let me restate what I was getting at above, in responding to this assertion:
In Buddhism lying isn’t as bad as it is in Christianity. Using violence is more accepted in Christian culture than in Buddhism. As a result the followers do act differently. They are less likely to use violence against him but more likely to lie to him.
This claim makes a prediction regarding the rates of lying and violence among “followers” of Buddhism and Christianity. But what counts as a data point for or against this claim depends on what could be meant by “the followers” of these religions. Two possible interpretations:
“People who explicitly consider themselves to be Buddhists or Christians, and who attempt to live according to what they think the precepts of Buddhism or Christianity are”;
“People who come from those cultures which we call ‘Buddhist’ or ‘Christian’ respectively, regardless of whether those individuals consider themselves observant or religious at all.”
For instance, I consider myself an atheist, but I was raised in a Christian family and live in a society where Christianity is the predominant religious influence. I have read the Gospels (and most of the rest of the Bible); by contrast I have not read the Qur’an, the Tripitaka, the Vedas, or the Talmud. I don’t pray, attend church, or listen to the teachings of priests or pastors.
By interpretation 1, I am not a Christian; and whether I happen to lie or do violence would not count for or against the claim above. (It would also not count regarding Buddhism; although I’ve done Zen meditation more recently than I’ve done Christian worship …) By interpretation 2, my cultural background counts me as a Christian; and my tendencies to lie or do violence would count for or against the claim above.
So, I’m asking: What would count as evidence for or against the claim regarding the rate of lying and violence among Christians and Buddhists?
I don’t think you understand what Buddhism happen to be. If I go into something rumored to be a Buddhist monastry and ask the inhibatans whether they attempt to live according to the precepts of Buddhism there a fairly good chance that the answer is no.
Attempting stuff means having attachment to it. Buddhism is about moving beyond such attachments.
What’s my empiric claim?
log(Time spent in Buddhist rituals + X /Time spent in Christian rituals +X) correlates with log(Rate of lying Y / Rate of being violent + Y)
The formula is only supposed to give a general idea. There probably a better way to express the idea.
I’m not sure I understand your response. Let me restate what I was getting at above, in responding to this assertion:
This claim makes a prediction regarding the rates of lying and violence among “followers” of Buddhism and Christianity. But what counts as a data point for or against this claim depends on what could be meant by “the followers” of these religions. Two possible interpretations:
“People who explicitly consider themselves to be Buddhists or Christians, and who attempt to live according to what they think the precepts of Buddhism or Christianity are”;
“People who come from those cultures which we call ‘Buddhist’ or ‘Christian’ respectively, regardless of whether those individuals consider themselves observant or religious at all.”
For instance, I consider myself an atheist, but I was raised in a Christian family and live in a society where Christianity is the predominant religious influence. I have read the Gospels (and most of the rest of the Bible); by contrast I have not read the Qur’an, the Tripitaka, the Vedas, or the Talmud. I don’t pray, attend church, or listen to the teachings of priests or pastors.
By interpretation 1, I am not a Christian; and whether I happen to lie or do violence would not count for or against the claim above. (It would also not count regarding Buddhism; although I’ve done Zen meditation more recently than I’ve done Christian worship …) By interpretation 2, my cultural background counts me as a Christian; and my tendencies to lie or do violence would count for or against the claim above.
So, I’m asking: What would count as evidence for or against the claim regarding the rate of lying and violence among Christians and Buddhists?
I don’t think you understand what Buddhism happen to be. If I go into something rumored to be a Buddhist monastry and ask the inhibatans whether they attempt to live according to the precepts of Buddhism there a fairly good chance that the answer is no.
Attempting stuff means having attachment to it. Buddhism is about moving beyond such attachments.
What’s my empiric claim?
log(Time spent in Buddhist rituals + X /Time spent in Christian rituals +X) correlates with log(Rate of lying Y / Rate of being violent + Y)
The formula is only supposed to give a general idea. There probably a better way to express the idea.