Science vs Buddhism

[Scarlett Wampus]

Deliberately misleading title. (sorry)

Any comments on the text below?

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

...

I believe that we must find a way to bring ethical considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry.

Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular ethics," which embrace the principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers; they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.

Today, our knowledge of the human brain and body at the cellular and genetic level has reached a new level of sophistication. Advances in genetic manipulation, for example, mean scientists can create new genetic entities - like hybrid animal and plant species - whose long-term consequences are unknown.

Sometimes when scientists concentrate on their own narrow fields, their keen focus obscures the larger effect their work might have. In my conversations with scientists I try to remind them of the larger goal behind what they do in their daily work.

This is more important than ever. It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement. Yet the ramifications of this progress are such that it is no longer adequate to say that the choice of what to do with this knowledge should be left in the hands of individuals. " - Dalai Lama from small essay Our Faith In Science

 

[themadhair]

Opens by doing it right but goes awry at the end. Can't say I disagree much with his sentiments. Now how do we get the other religious leaders to follow suit?

 

[meogi]

Now how do we get the other religious leaders to follow suit?

We need to get them thinking that science isn't claiming any sort of authority. It's just the best objective explanation.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Opens by doing it right but goes awry at the end. Can't say I disagree much with his sentiments. Now how do we get the other religious leaders to follow suit?

Ok, what about first considering why it might be about Buddhism that it should not have a problem with having to change if science proves one or more of its beliefs wrong?

What do you think would happen if all religions would alter beliefs in accordance with scientific knowledge?

I tell you this, they'd certainly not disappear! So what would happen?

 

[Engyo]

Hi, SW -

Buddhism is basically about observed reality just as sicence is. As well, Buddhism is intended to create observable, repeatable changes in a person who is practicing. These are fundamentally similar to the ways in which science operates.

Buddhism also has no fixed non-negotiable tenets susceptible to being undermined by science (as a whole). This may not be true for specific Buddhist schools, mind; I am talking about Buddhism as a whole in general here.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Hi Engyo

Buddhism is basically about observed reality just as sicence is. As well, Buddhism is intended to create observable, repeatable changes in a person who is practicing. These are fundamentally similar to the ways in which science operates.

Buddhism also has no fixed non-negotiable tenets susceptible to being undermined by science (as a whole). This may not be true for specific Buddhist schools, mind; I am talking about Buddhism as a whole in general here.

* nods * I agree.

It would be interesting to design a test for enlightenment. Something I've heard some Western Zen Buddhists complain about is the ambiguity and obscurity over enlightenment. They would like to know what it is, what causes it and how to distinguish it from clever mimicry without being told that they would need to be enlightened themselves in order to be capable of knowing this.

I believe this should be possible but I'm often met with discouraging views when I've brought it up with Buddhist communities online. The two main objections are, 1) It involves a process that could not be confirmed by an external observer - it is essentially a personal internal phenomenon. 2) It would be too controversial and unreliable.

In other words it would be a waste of time to try. I think, well people do it anyway and Zen tradition itself certainly contains such attempts. I'm about to bring it up again but this time at #buddhism on IRC Undernet (once their discussion on anatta has finished).

 

[Kerr]

Deliberately misleading title. (sorry)

Any comments on the text below?

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

...

I believe that we must find a way to bring ethical considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry.

Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular ethics," which embrace the principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers; they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.

Today, our knowledge of the human brain and body at the cellular and genetic level has reached a new level of sophistication. Advances in genetic manipulation, for example, mean scientists can create new genetic entities - like hybrid animal and plant species - whose long-term consequences are unknown.

Sometimes when scientists concentrate on their own narrow fields, their keen focus obscures the larger effect their work might have. In my conversations with scientists I try to remind them of the larger goal behind what they do in their daily work.

This is more important than ever. It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement. Yet the ramifications of this progress are such that it is no longer adequate to say that the choice of what to do with this knowledge should be left in the hands of individuals. " - Dalai Lama from small essay Our Faith In Science

This is one of the reasons I like Buddhism .

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Deliberately misleading title. (sorry)

Any comments on the text below?

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

I go only as far as that because here already i have problems following.

As far as i know science and buddism are totally different things.
Science is occupied with how the world works. Buddism is (in my view so far) rather an ethical system dealing with behavioral patterns.

In other words... buddism is some form of ethics, science is some form of gaining knowledge.

 

[Engyo]

I go only as far as that because here already i have problems following.

As far as i know science and buddism are totally different things.
Science is occupied with how the world works. Buddism is (in my view so far) rather an ethical system dealing with behavioral patterns.

In other words... buddism is some form of ethics, science is some form of gaining knowledge.

[/color]

Hi, TINS -

Interesting. I have been practicing Buddhism since 1981, and that is a characterization I would not make, myself. Yes, there is an ethical component to Buddhism, but that is not the basis or the point of Buddhist practice.

May I respectfully inquire as to how much study of Buddhism have you done? Have you ever actually practiced any form of Buddhism?

 

[Metempsychosis]

Science cannot prove Buddhism wrong(but it is invited to disprove reincarnation and religions in general) and nor can Buddhism can be proved(due to its supramental nature,thats a problem).

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Hi, TINS -

Interesting. I have been practicing Buddhism since 1981, and that is a characterization I would not make, myself. Yes, there is an ethical component to Buddhism, but that is not the basis or the point of Buddhist practice.

May I respectfully inquire as to how much study of Buddhism have you done? Have you ever actually practiced any form of Buddhism?

Hi Engyo,
i wouldn't say that i studied buddism really, so my statements are ones of current opinion.

I got this opinion by reading about the path of purity and combining this with the absence of the normal "religious" features of other religions.
There is no punishment, no reward, no absolute God that deals with you and as far as i see it no real afterlife.
Instead there is a more philosophical approach ( i got it that we live in a constant destruction/creation process?).

I have not seen any "religious" aspects (or aspects that i would normally associate with religion).
Instead i mostly see some guidelines to a path to "purity". And the path mostly contains moral guidelines.

Thats why I have not classified it as a "religion" but rather as an ethical system or if you wish a philosophical one.

But I am always interested in information, so if you disagree please do tell me where i err.

 

[Engyo]

Hi again, TINS -

The point of Buddhism is the eradication of dukkha (inadequately translated into english as suffering); the Buddha proved this is possible by attaining enlightenment. The path towards the attainment of enlightenment (and the eradication of dukkha) leads through ethical behavior, yes; but the ethical behavior is not the goal nor the entirety of the means.

This is similar to traveling to the North Pole. The goal is to reach the North Pole; in consequence, anyone wishing to do so must travel in a northerly direction, and must be outfitted for travel in Arctic conditions. Travelling northward outfitted for Arctic conditions is not the point; it is a necessary factor or byproduct of trying to reach the North Pole.

I hope this helps clarify somewhat.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Hi again, TINS -

The point of Buddhism is the eradication of dukkha (inadequately translated into english as suffering); the Buddha proved this is possible by attaining enlightenment. The path towards the attainment of enlightenment (and the eradication of dukkha) leads through ethical behavior, yes; but the ethical behavior is not the goal nor the entirety of the means.

This is similar to traveling to the North Pole. The goal is to reach the North Pole; in consequence, anyone wishing to do so must travel in a northerly direction, and must be outfitted for travel in Arctic conditions. Travelling northward outfitted for Arctic conditions is not the point; it is a necessary factor or byproduct of trying to reach the North Pole.

I hope this helps clarify somewhat.

Thanks for te reply.
There is one point where i still do need some explanation.
Where exactly do you see the aspect "religion" fullfilled by what you wrote above?

From what i read here you speak about a goal, reachable by following a path. But i see no supernatural things, nor any other things that make up most of lets say theistic religions.

 

[Engyo]

From what i read here you speak about a goal, reachable by following a path. But i see no supernatural things, nor any other things that make up most of lets say theistic religions.

Buddhism isn't a theistic religion. There are lots of "religious" trappings available in Buddhism; more or less, depending on which particular tradition and school you wish to examine.

At the core, though, Buddhism is fundamentally different than theistic religions, in that no belief is required. One practices with the intention of achieving a result. If results are not achieved, examine the practicing, adjust as necessary. Still no results? Stop practicing, or else practice something else. Salvation (in this case, enlightenment/eradication of dukkha) does not require practice; practice is the most optimum method to achieve the goal so far discovered. Belief is nowhere required; it does often occur, as results bear out premises.

 

[Metempsychosis]

and as far as i see it no real afterlife.

Where exactly do you see the aspect "religion" fullfilled by what you wrote above?

Rebirth is there,just that it is not emphasized in Buddhism.This is the religious aspect.

Moreover,i think u have studied lot of abrahamic religions.Have u studied other dharmic philosophies?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Rebirth is there,just that it is not emphasized in Buddhism.This is the religious aspect.

Moreover,i think u have studied lot of abrahamic religions.Have u studied other dharmic philosophies?

I haven't studied non abrahmitic religions much.
I have spend most of the time with the classical three.
As for the others i just read the books mostly.

As said i am not "well versed" in them.
My impression concerning buddism (and only buddism) was that it lacked many things i would see in a religion normally.

But i would agree that the reborth aspect and karma involved therin would qualify to make buddism a faith. Incorporating a priesthood and a systematic ruleset would make it a religion.

 

[Metempsychosis]

I haven't studied non abrahmitic religions much.
I have spend most of the time with the classical three.
As for the others i just read the books mostly.

As said i am not "well versed" in them.
But i would agree that the reborth aspect and karma involved therin would qualify to make buddism a faith. Incorporating a priesthood and a systematic ruleset would make it a religion.

You have spent time on classics of abrahamic religion.These three are based on faith and fear.Thats the problem.You should spend time on the unorthodox ,heretic philosophies--->Gnosticism of Christianity,Sufism in Islam,Kabbala of Judaism.For me ,thats were "real" and "technical" practice of religion lies.These are based on direct experience.

(Or)Start reading on dharmic philosophies ,viz Buddhist,The hindu vedanta,Jain . Material in english with clear explanation available on this forum.These 3 religions are not fundamentalist,i suggest u remain in ur religion and not to convert even if u follow these.
First,question these religions, scrutinize them for right answers.If it increases ur tolerance , morality and does not harm others u follow them
Buddhism has deep philosophy,if u find it non-theeist religon difficult , read the advaita vedanta (hindu non duality) and then proceed to Buddhism.

My impression concerning buddism (and only buddism) was that it lacked many things i would see in a religion normally.

This is how a religion has to be.It is not intended to be a oppressive force and moreover u are first asked to question nd then believe ,this is absent in orthodox abrahamic faiths.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Science cannot prove Buddhism wrong(but it is invited to disprove reincarnation and religions in general) and nor can Buddhism can be proved(due to its supramental nature,thats a problem).

Many claims about Buddhist practices do lend themselves to scientific investigation. Even the supramental nature of Buddhism comes within reach of the soft sciences and who knows what will be possible later.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Many claims about Buddhist practices do lend themselves to scientific investigation. Even the supramental nature of Buddhism comes within reach of the soft sciences and who knows what will be possible later.

It may lend evidences for scientific research,but proving it conclusively is difficult because of its nature.For ex:there are many scientific examples for reincarnation,but none of them conclusively proves the theory.But I want scientist to carry their research too,that would be very helpful.Buddhism or any form of mysticism is a science that starts when mind stops working.

 

[TheGodless1]

Hi Engyo,
i wouldn't say that i studied buddism really, so my statements are ones of current opinion.

I got this opinion by reading about the path of purity and combining this with the absence of the normal "religious" features of other religions.
There is no punishment, no reward, no absolute God that deals with you and as far as i see it no real afterlife.
Instead there is a more philosophical approach ( i got it that we live in a constant destruction/creation process?).

I have not seen any "religious" aspects (or aspects that i would normally associate with religion).
Instead i mostly see some guidelines to a path to "purity". And the path mostly contains moral guidelines.

Thats why I have not classified it as a "religion" but rather as an ethical system or if you wish a philosophical one.

But I am always interested in information, so if you disagree please do tell me where i err.

You see the aspects of creation and destruction in Buddhism but not in other religions? How about God destroying the Earth with a great flood and allowing one family to repopulate the earth? Is that not creation and destruction in a cycle? Does not the teachings of the Bible provide us with the 10 Commandments? are these not an ethical code by which that religion has chosen to build and use as a guideline for their religion? Perhaps that what "god" is...a series of ethical codes one must place on themselves to achieve a state of compassion and unconditional love to reach a state of enlightenment not previously known to that individual? That compassion and love are ethical "feelings" taught by both Christ and Buddah? Seems pretty similar when you take away "god" from the equation and put it into a question of ethics such as you have. Not criticizing just asking.... you make a good point and just trying to delve deeper as a good conversation should.