Skip to main content

A Book Critique of “Why Buddhism is True” by Robert Wright

Robert Wright, Why Buddhism is True: the science and philosophy of meditation and enlightenment (New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks). 2017. 



Robert Wright, the author of “Why Buddhism is True” has taught in the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania and the religion department at Princeton University. He is currently the visiting Professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York.[1] There are sixteen wordy chapters, an appendix, some explanatory notes and cited sources, a bibliography, and an index. The book is a New York Times best seller, with extremely high reviews by sources that are considered to be highly reputable, such as The GuardianThe New Yorker, and The Washington Post

In the book, the author tries to argue, as the title suggests, why Buddhism is true, and supports his proposition through several studies in psychology, personal experience, and numerous anecdotes. In this book critique, I will show that the author is coming from a purely pragmatic position, and because of such, why this position of “Buddhism being true,” simply is a bad argument for it being true. If Buddhism is true, this book does not prove it to be such. 


Why Buddhism is True: the science and philosophy of meditation and enlightenment

The book content begins with chapter one titled, “Taking the Red Pill.” Which is an anecdote about the movie, The Matrix, where the main character is given a choice to take a red pill which will show him the truth about reality or a blue pill, which will keep him in a state of bliss and in a false reality. From here, the author explains that “Our brains are designed to, among other things, delude us.”[2] Much could be said about this statement simply because the author seems to be an evolutionary atheist. Yet this is a frequent concept throughout the book, that our brains are designed,even though he addresses natural selection as an unconscious process.[3]

The point must not be missed here, however. He is focusing on the word, delusion. He continues further down page four and argues, “…If these basic sources of human suffering and human cruelty are indeed in large part the product of delusion [basically, our feelings]—there is value in exposing this delusion to the light.”[4] The light here is to be understood as just something that is clearly seen and comprehended. This, he explains to have found through evolutionary psychology: “Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life.’ Well, with evolutionary psychology I felt I had found the truth.”[5]

Right off the bat then, in chapter one, the author is self-contradicting. He argues in large part that our feelingsare delusional, yet through his own feelings, he is convinced that evolutionary psychology brought him to the truth. The question is, why would it matter how he felt if feelings are just a delusion? Something is not true because we feel that it is, because the truth does not exist in people. The truth is not subjective, but objective. 

The book is largely about mindfulness meditation,[6] but seems to derive the authority of meditation on personal experience at its foundation. Then, throughout the book, the author proceeds to argue for the validity of meditation with psychological studies and statistics. None of these things make Buddhism true. This is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum, which is an appeal to the majority as authoritative. This is how psychologists are trained to understand what is true. Consider the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals (DSM). Because of Facebook and other social media platforms, where people literally have a shrine of themselves, where everything that is said about them or pictures taken of them can be removed or blocked, in order to save face, the new normal is this type of behavior, which is narcissism. The DSM-5 does not have narcissism as a personality disorder because this is the new social norm.[7]Therefore, for many psychologists, the social norm is what makes the truth, but as we shall now see, this is false. 

The reason why this is not true is that just because everyone believes that something is true, does not make that belief true. For instance, for centuries, people thought that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around the earth. But for the people of the world in that time, this did not make what they believed a fact. We now know that the earth revolves round the sun, and this does not even mean that the sun is not the center of the universe. 

In chapter four, the author continues to discuss mindfulness meditation, which is his answer for enlightenment, or “liberation from the Matrix” as he puts it.[8] Most of the rest of the book is about how to do mindfulness meditation, and what it looks like, based on, at least foundationally, an experience that the author had in rural Massachusetts at a silent meditation retreat. This experience of the author is brought to memory in the reader several times throughout the entire book. It makes one think that this is simply a reflection of the retreat. This retreat consisted of basically an anxiety struggle that he had and spoke with a monk leading the retreat, and his reflection of what the monk told him eventually brought him to an understanding of the path to enlightenment. 

The interesting thing is that the author admits his pragmatism, which the reader will see the saturation of his pragmatic approach long before his confession. There is a long discourse about the self being a not-self, and halfway through the book, in chapter eight, the author discusses that “some people say that the Buddha’s original not-self teaching is best seen not as metaphysical truth but as pragmatic strategy.”[9] What he is arguing in favor of here is that the self being a not-self is true because it works. Pragmatism is also an issue because not everything that works is true. Just because something works (even if it works well) does not cause something to be truth. For instance, just because the boiler in a home can burn kerosene does not make it true that it is good for the boiler. Consider OSHA. Just because there are a million ways to get a job done (“HA! It worked!”), does not mean that it is true that it is the best way to get the job done. This is why OSHA has so many laws about safety. Likewise, just because meditation might help one slow his or her mind down to see clearly (enlightenment), does not mean that Buddhism is true. 

Throughout the book, the author puts more stock in the movie the Matrix than he does in the wisdom of Jesus: 

“The original headquarters of the CIA had Jesus’s version of the equation etched in its wall: ‘and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ And the movie the Matrix… offers a truth-freedom linkage that echoes Buddhist philosophy. Life as ordinarily lived is a kind of illusion, and you can’t be truly free until you pierce the illusion and look into the heart of things.”[10]

He goes on talking about how the Matrix fits his theories nicely. The issue here is that of confirmation bias, but the problem with this is that he is getting much of his confirmation from a fictional movie. It is a wonder that people actually take this book seriously. 

In the last chapter, the author admits that he was raised as a Christian, and that he departed from Christianity as a teenager on an account of reading Genesis in comparison to evolutionary biology. He says in regard to his departure of Christianity not being a bitter one that “the Jesus-to-Buddha transition does seem in some ways a natural one.”[11]He explains that he still likes some of the old hymns that he grew up listening to in the church. 

The author clearly does not understand what salvation means, because he claims to have felt a moment of it or a sense of it in the retreat that he attended in rural Massachusetts.[12][13] He goes on to explain more on how meditation is good for him, and basically that the only proof he needs is in how he feels. This continues to show how the book is not only circular, but also extremely self-contradicting. 



The book is not very well planned out. There is little systematic direction and it is not easy to follow. Very little of the content is actually arguing why Buddhism is true. The book is filled with contradictions, such as, “Strictly speaking, there is no Buddhist view of the world,”[14] and “You’re real. But you’re not really real,”[15] and “thoughts[modules] think themselves,”[16]

It is my opinion that the author seems to be more lost on what is true than what he was before he started this retreat. In the last chapter he talks about a refrigerator and how when he is not meditating at home he hears the hum of the fridge, and he finds it monotonous and annoying. But when he is meditating, he hears the same hum of the fridge and he can hear three distinct tones come from the hum, and this is beautiful to him.[17] He explains that the truth about the world that is ordinarily hidden from people, like the fridge hum, is an objective truth. 

After talking about how trivial this information is, he then says, “Even if we can’t comprehend the truth about all of reality and sustain that apprehension throughout our lives, we can apprehend the truth about little corners of reality and sustain that apprehension for a little while.”[18] My question about this is why does it matter? Just for the sake of an obscure, subjective beauty? It makes sense to stop and smell the roses (something that is objectively beautiful), but to try to distinguish the different tones of a refrigerator that is humming appears to be completely useless. If one is trying to find beauty, there are a million things in the world where one can find such: Mountains, oceans, aquariums, museums, food, nature, people, the cosmos, etc. It is hard not to see this book as ridiculous. It boggles the mind how it received so many reviews, and good ones at that. In any case, this book as seen in this paper is more about meditation that it is about Buddhism. If one wanted to see why Buddhism is true, this is definitely not the book for such things. The title is extremely misleading. 



Sources Cited

Wright, Robert. Why Buddhism is True: the science and philosophy of meditation and enlightenment. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2017.

Parker-Pope, Tara. “Narcissism no longer a Psychiatric Disorder.” New York Times (blog). November 29, 2010,



Written by Nace Howell through the grace of the Lord Jesus

© Nace Howell, 2023



[1] Robert Wright, Why Buddhism is True; the science and philosophy of meditation and enlightenment (New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. 2017), Back cover.

[2] Ibid, 4.


[3] Ibid, 7.


[4] Ibid, 4.


[5] Ibid, 11; emphasis mine.

[6] Mindfulness meditation is paying attention to whatever is happening. Ibid, 115.


[7] Tara Parker-Pope. 2010. “Narcissism no longer a Psychiatric Disorder.” New York Times (blog). November 29, 2010,


[8] Wright, 55.

[9] Ibid, 113.

[10] Ibid, 225.


[11] Ibid, 260.


[12] Ibid.


[13] Of all places.

[14] Ibid, 24.


[15] Ibid, 64.


[16] Ibid, 112.


[17] Ibid, 250.


[18] Ibid, 251.


Popular posts from this blog

How to Show a Mormon the Difference Between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus

I find that Mormons frequently claim that they are Christians, and that they want to be referred to as Christians, and that they have even recently sought to distance themselves from the word “Mormon.” The problem is, they worship another Jesus, and here is how to show them the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus. Before we get to that, some clarifications are necessary. Specifically, that they cannot even distance themselves from being called "Mormons."   The Mormon President Russell Nelson said,    “What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.” [1]   So,

The Dividing Line of Doctrine

How and Where to Make Divisions... Sometimes, I get asked “Why do you get so up at arms about other religions?” or, “Why do you pick on other religions so much?” I think the following will help you see where I’m coming from, before I spill the beans on such.   We have difficulty sometimes in discovering where to make divisions when considering where to spend our money, and who to support, where to make purchases, and where not to do such. We also often have difficulty on how to know if a church or a congregation is a place where someone can actually become saved. Like, how can we know that a Mormon is likely not saved but we can know that a regular church attender at a gospel sound church is likely saved? What is it that would make my church attendance at a specific body no longer appropriate? Both answers to these questions deal with doctrine. If a company is pushing false doctrine using their influence and power to push a heretical doctrine or teaching, this is often when the red fla

Joseph Smith had the same Demon that influenced Muhammad

What does Islam have in common with Mormonism? Seriously, the similarities are uncanny. Like human beings, demons are creatures of habit . The Bible does not tell us much about them, but from what it does tell us, we can learn a lot. Jesus reveals to us some things about their behavior: When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first… [1]   Jesus clearly knows that demons have typical behaviors. He has seen it many times before. He lets us know that a typical behavior for a demon is that home is where the heart is . When your house crumbles to the ground, you move to a new one. Likewise, when a person dies, the demon is f

The Highest Virtue

A virtue is a trait of excellence. What is the highest virtue? It seems that based on the nature of truth, that truth itself is perhaps the highest virtue. For instance, I could say that love is the highest virtue, but then I could ask the question of whether that is true or not. If it is or isn’t true, this places truth virtuously higher than love, at least in some sense. The fact that I can question love through the lens of truth seems to place truth above love in height of virtue. On the other hand, if I said that truth is the highest virtue, then it seems that it would be loving to tell others the truth! Perhaps truth and love go hand in hand, but this also concerns the nature of what truth is.  Truth is a requirement for love, which I argue here , but is love a requirement for truth? Love must contain truth in order to be  true  love. But truth does not have to contain love in order to be true truth. Take for instance, mathematics, or numbers in general… Sometimes, the truth hurts

The Two Systems: A Confused Definition of Love

A couple years ago I wrote an article called  the Jehovah’s Witness training videos . The article was meant to be humorous in a sense, because there are likely not any actual training videos, but it seems that they have all watched them. We can suspect this because they all often have the same points of conversation. When you talk about the Trinity, they will use the Bible like a machine gun and shoot you with verses. The verses are always the same: Colossians 1:15, Mark 10:18… So, there is an implication that they all have the same information. There is one source from where they gather their patterns and behaviors. Similarly, I think we can see the power behind the system of the world as well. We can see what this power is like by the tracks he leaves behind. The contrast of the two systems is really seen in Revelation 14:8. “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.” John is using the word  Babylon  here for

Objectivity is the Language of Heaven

NDErs (i. e. people who have claimed to have had a   Near Death Experience ) often report that when they go to Heaven, they frequently see and recognize people such as friends and family members. It is often also reported that when they were communicating with friends and relatives, they realized that they weren’t speaking English, but that they were telepathically speaking to one another.   It seems it would be impossible to have communication with others without learning every language that has ever existed under the sun, but since heaven is a perfect place, [1]  then communication should be perfect as well. In other words, it seems unlikely that there are barriers to communication. So, I should be able to communicate with the Apostles, upon my arrival for instance, but how? I personally only really know how to speak English fluently. My Spanish, Japanese, German, Russian, Chinese, and Latin is like that of a child, and my Greek is only in reading and writing.  If communication is me

Defending Christianity against Mormonism

“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect ” (NIV 1 Peter 3:15). In other words, LOVE THEM . Mormons                                                             Biblical Truths Mormons are monolaters, meaning, they believe in many gods, yet worship only one. LDS believe that “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” LDS do not believe in Hell. LDS believe God is flesh and bones. LDS believe in baptism for the dead. LDS believe Jesus and Satan are created brothers. LDS do not believe in the Trinity. LDS believe that “it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do” (Nephi 25:23). Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (See also Isaiah 43:11; Acts 5:4; 1 Timothy 2:5; Exodus 20:3; et. al.). God kn

The Evidence and Power of Testimony

What to say to People who Demand more Evidence for God. Why is there something rather than nothing? Glacier National Park. © Nace Howell, 2018. The question is, how much evidence do you require? Would Jesus have to come back and slap you in the face with evidence that He is God? It seems to me that there is a line we must draw. We do this in all other areas of our lives, so why would we treat theism any different? When a court convicts, they do so “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I would like to take a few moments to explore this a bit. But before we get to that, I want to pose a question, which is… why are you the standard? What makes you think He has to prove His existence to everyone individually? He already created the universe from nothing. In the beginning, there was a big bang. Seriously… do you believe your mom when she tells you a story about her day? Did you believe the reports of 9/11 when they were happening? Do you accept the testimony of anything you hear on social

Self-tests of Some of the World's Religions

It is fairly common for a religion of the world to give itself a sort of test for truth, since this is one question that is asked of any religion: “Why should I believe what you are telling me is true?” After all, the answer to such a question will ultimately result in followers of specific beliefs and doctrines, let alone religions, or will result in a lack of followers.  If a religion can answer this question posed by seekers and thinkers, and therefore train its adherents to be able to answer why a religion is true, this will inevitably help people believe in such, even if the claims are false. If there is no answer, this is where a religion will perhaps find more trouble for itself.  Many religions make an appeal to a higher authority, namely,  God , for the veracity of their existence and as a result, no one can question the truth from such an authority. This is correct in a sense, that  if in fact God is making such a claim, then what is said or stated is true , but the question

Argument from Beauty: Evangelical Christians have Neglected a Favorable Catalyst for the Gospel

It seems to me that some Evangelical Christians have taken a certain biblical passage in the wrong direction. Perhaps I, considering myself to be an Evangelical Christian, am guilty of such as well. Romans 12:1-2 says, “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”  Verse 2 is where we get the phrase,  be in the world, but don’t be of the world . What this means is that we should know our place. Our place is in heaven. The Bible says that we are citizens of heaven, and that we should think and act as if we are. Philippians 3:20-21 says, “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, b