Scriptures & Science

[Jainarayan]

His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL from now on in this thread) teaches that if science conflicts with scripture, go with science. Before getting into why he says that, what do you think?

I think HHDL is one smart cookie. His full quote is “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

I think this meshes nicely with what the Buddha is quoted as saying (and I refer to frequently): "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

The reason I think this is because scriptures of virtually any religion were composed in historical times devoid of a scientific understanding of the world and universe. Many of them leave themselves open to interpretation and application for the times.

 

[savagewind]

I think he is right, to cling to a belief and never believing it will never change is ignorance, and damn right silly.

I hear you. That is a double negative. I appreciate the mental exercise it gave me today, but I have decided it is wrong. But I think you are right if you leave out one of those nevers. Is that right?

I agree that to cling to a belief believing it will never change is not wise. Is that what you said too?

 

[ChristineES]

I don't think I need to choose between the two. There is room for both in my life, and my faith is not at odds with any science I have learned and studied.

 

[rusra02]

His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL from now on in this thread) teaches that if science conflicts with scripture, go with science. Before getting into why he says that, what do you think?

Since the DL is not a Christian, one wonders which scripture he is referring to. I believe the Bible is in agreement with proven science, though not in agreement with unproven theories such as macro-evolution. In this, I go with the Bible rather than the shifting sands of men's theorizing.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Since the DL is not a Christian, one wonders which scripture he is referring to. I believe the Bible is in agreement with proven science, though not in agreement with unproven theories such as macro-evolution. In this, I go with the Bible rather than the shifting sands of men's theorizing.

Lol...you don't know what theories mean even now...come on man. Why the dishonesty?

Why not just say that you do not believe in the science we have today and you believe the bible is accurate? It's better than this fence straddling you are trying to do.

 

[BruceDLimber]

His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL from now on in this thread) teaches that if science conflicts with scripture, go with science. Before getting into why he says that, what do you think?

The scriptures of the Baha'i Faith, while stressing the essential harmony of science and religion--and the importance of both!--say essentially the same thing.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[metis]

I think HHDL is one smart cookie. His full quote is “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

I think this meshes nicely with what the Buddha is quoted as saying (and I refer to frequently): "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

The reason I think this is because scriptures of virtually any religion were composed in historical times devoid of a scientific understanding of the world and universe. Many of them leave themselves open to interpretation and application for the times.

Thank you so much for the quotes above whereas you give indication that I'm not just citing my opinion with what I wrote in the OP.

 

[metis]

Since the DL is not a Christian, one wonders which scripture he is referring to. I believe the Bible is in agreement with proven science, though not in agreement with unproven theories such as macro-evolution. In this, I go with the Bible rather than the shifting sands of men's theorizing.

He was particularly talking about the Buddhist scriptures and, as far as I know, hasn't made reference to how people in other faiths must supposedly look at theirs.

"Macro-evolution" is not only a scientific axiom that accompanies what you might call "micro-evolution", but from the Buddhist viewpoint, both are pretty much just common sense. BTW, one of the name for "Buddhism" in the Vietnamese language literally means "common sense".

 

[metis]

The scriptures of the Baha'i Faith, while stressing the essential harmony of science and religion--and the importance of both!--say essentially the same thing.

Peace,

Bruce

Thanks, and shalom to you as well.

 

[payak]

I don't think it'll fly. I don't know much about Buddhism, but I would imagine its followers would be more inclined to stay with religious teachings rather than switch.

we are taught to believe what we see with our 5 senses first,always have been well before he said it.
that is our religious teachings.

 

[Willamena]

His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL from now on in this thread) teaches that if science conflicts with scripture, go with science. Before getting into why he says that, what do you think?

Science is less easily misinterpreted than scripture.

 

[metis]

Science is less easily misinterpreted than scripture.

Good point. And what makes it often quite difficult with scripture as that many do not understand the historical and cultural settings that well, along with language difficulties going from one to another.

 

[Jainarayan]

Thank you so much for the quotes above whereas you give indication that I'm not just citing my opinion with what I wrote in the OP.

Ah, you are welcome.

 

[michel]

His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL from now on in this thread) teaches that if science conflicts with scripture, go with science. Before getting into why he says that, what do you think?

I don't know that I would agree wholeheartedly; science has been know to "get it thoroughly wrong". True, religion cannot be verified - I think I would have to use a "judge each case using what I can find out, and intuition"....

 

[Jainarayan]

science has been know to "get it thoroughly wrong".

However, science corrects itself over and over when new discoveries are made. HHDL's statement is the first to say that a scripture should be revised if proven wrong. I do not believe we will ever see the Bible, Qur'an or Vedas retconned.

 

[George-ananda]

His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL from now on in this thread) teaches that if science conflicts with scripture, go with science. Before getting into why he says that, what do you think?

I agree 110%.

But people vastly overrate science's reach. He still believes in rebirth and such as this is beyond the reach of science. I believe science will someday confirm spiritual beliefs.

(I like your avatar. We clinched!)

 

[Shermana]

I agree 110%.

But people vastly overrate science's reach. He still believes in rebirth and such as this is beyond the reach of science. I believe science will someday confirm spiritual beliefs.

(I like your avatar. We clinched!)

I agree 220%!

 

[Thief]

Science is less easily misinterpreted than scripture.

Not so....I point out the long standing conflict between Hawking and Susskind.
Thirty years of it and I think Hawking conceded for being tired.

People still debate the nature of physical reality.

And people do the same to theology.

So...here we are.

 

[Thief]

Interesting, could I ask how does science prove God to you ?.

Cause and effect.
The most basic of science attitude.
For every effect there is a cause and for every cause an effect.

If you separate cause and effect, lab experiments have no conclusion.

Take that and apply to the singularity.
The event is the effect and God is the Cause.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science is less easily misinterpreted than scripture.

Not so....I point out the long standing conflict between Hawking and Susskind.

Name-dropping aside, the reference is irrelevant.