Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why Buddhism is BETTER than Science.
Victorious
Grim Veteran
Al right. Yee who make it through this text. Have in mind I am a theravada buddhist speaking my opinion.
Most people when comparing Sience and Buddhism tend to validate Buddhism through the eyes of Science. This is not the rational thing to do. When comparing two systems it is obivious that one will turn out short of the other if the one is validated using the validation criteria of the other!
What I am saying is it is most people try to evaluate the stone with the criteria of the apple. Of course the stone will fall short. Stones can not be eaten. But doing the opposite the apple falls short. You can not build a house using apples! And now to the gist of it.
1. Buddhism explains the Path to end Suffering Science does not.
The foremost reason why Buddhism is better is becasue it describes a very good way to end suffering. Sciense does not That is not the goal of Science. (Note how the comparison between apples and stones play out here!)
2. Truth in Buddhism
Thruth in buddhism is much more clearly defined.
A truth in Buddhism is what you are yourself convinced is the truth. Nothing else!
A truth in Science is what others have told you is the truth. Blind faith in authority is required!
If somebody says I am lying on this account then think about how many know the proof that the earth is round. Most people does not have a clue. Still they BELIEVE that it is because scientist,books and school tells you so.
The Dhamma is supposed to be tested. When advancing along it you grow more and more confident that it works because every step is described and can be tested by most anybody. Knowleadge is supposed to grow through personal experience. All parts of the Path is supposed to be validated in this way up to the very 'end'.
In science this is not so. The knowleadge is so vast that even accomplished scientist have to have Faith in the findings of their peers without testing it! On the contrary to Buddhism a hypothesis is considered to be true if sufficient people have tested it. After which time it is not tested any more. Until the Hypothesis is replaced by a new one. Many times in science a 'truth' proven in this way has later turned out to be wrong.
3. Objectivity.
There was an argument on this forum that Buddhism is not Science since the practises of Buddhism can not be objectively tested by 'any two people' since the methods of Buddhism are so advanced that not everybody can develop the mental tools needed to do 'all' practises.
But this is wrong. Since that would disqualify Particle Science as a science as well. Since no 'any' two people can duplicate each others findings in that field either.
First of all you need a pretty extensive education. Then you need a Particle accelerator. The only difference between Buddhism and Science here is that in Buddhism you have to build your own tools. A particle Accelerator you can have somebody else build it for you. But if the scientist sonducting the experimets had to build the accelerator himself from scratch I bet there would be a lot less findings in the Particle Science field.
Furthermore in science there is no objective way to quantify Objectivity. More or less. Science does not know what the heck it is speaking about.
Where as Buddhisms core is the very definition of Objectivity. An undisputable definition of the objective is found in the Center Buddhism. Namley Nibbana. Everything else is built around it.
Thank you for your patience.
/Victor
Most people when comparing Sience and Buddhism tend to validate Buddhism through the eyes of Science. This is not the rational thing to do. When comparing two systems it is obivious that one will turn out short of the other if the one is validated using the validation criteria of the other!
What I am saying is it is most people try to evaluate the stone with the criteria of the apple. Of course the stone will fall short. Stones can not be eaten. But doing the opposite the apple falls short. You can not build a house using apples! And now to the gist of it.
1. Buddhism explains the Path to end Suffering Science does not.
The foremost reason why Buddhism is better is becasue it describes a very good way to end suffering. Sciense does not That is not the goal of Science. (Note how the comparison between apples and stones play out here!)
2. Truth in Buddhism
Thruth in buddhism is much more clearly defined.
A truth in Buddhism is what you are yourself convinced is the truth. Nothing else!
A truth in Science is what others have told you is the truth. Blind faith in authority is required!
If somebody says I am lying on this account then think about how many know the proof that the earth is round. Most people does not have a clue. Still they BELIEVE that it is because scientist,books and school tells you so.
The Dhamma is supposed to be tested. When advancing along it you grow more and more confident that it works because every step is described and can be tested by most anybody. Knowleadge is supposed to grow through personal experience. All parts of the Path is supposed to be validated in this way up to the very 'end'.
In science this is not so. The knowleadge is so vast that even accomplished scientist have to have Faith in the findings of their peers without testing it! On the contrary to Buddhism a hypothesis is considered to be true if sufficient people have tested it. After which time it is not tested any more. Until the Hypothesis is replaced by a new one. Many times in science a 'truth' proven in this way has later turned out to be wrong.
3. Objectivity.
There was an argument on this forum that Buddhism is not Science since the practises of Buddhism can not be objectively tested by 'any two people' since the methods of Buddhism are so advanced that not everybody can develop the mental tools needed to do 'all' practises.
But this is wrong. Since that would disqualify Particle Science as a science as well. Since no 'any' two people can duplicate each others findings in that field either.
First of all you need a pretty extensive education. Then you need a Particle accelerator. The only difference between Buddhism and Science here is that in Buddhism you have to build your own tools. A particle Accelerator you can have somebody else build it for you. But if the scientist sonducting the experimets had to build the accelerator himself from scratch I bet there would be a lot less findings in the Particle Science field.
Furthermore in science there is no objective way to quantify Objectivity. More or less. Science does not know what the heck it is speaking about.
Where as Buddhisms core is the very definition of Objectivity. An undisputable definition of the objective is found in the Center Buddhism. Namley Nibbana. Everything else is built around it.
Thank you for your patience.
/Victor
0
Comments
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=6,3895,0,0,1,0
If you have nothing relevant to say. Then please say nothing.
/Victor
:coffee:
Thanks for the link.
/Victor
one is science, the other is a philosophical religion.
or a religious philosophy... take your pick.
A "truth" (or a fact, a theory, a law) cannot be accepted unless it can be PROVEN true and the experiment can be replicated and the same results occur. I can't think of anything more objective than science itself. There's bias in politics, in religions, in philosophies, etc. However, science is the one thing that is based in reality and sets out to explain that reality using indisputable methods that come to a conclusion. These conclusions can be replicated again, and again.
By no means am I seeking to take anything way from Buddhism, but to use Buddhism to take away from science is ridiculous. Science doesn't strive to "disprove" or take anything way from Buddhism. Science merely explains what it can.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
/Victor
Just think about the maxim 'The observer changing the observed'. That has been common knowleadge in Buddhism since 2500 years. Not to speak about the laws of thermodynamics. (Anicca). Which are also relevant in quantum. That makes no sense what so ever. Nothing is true if nobody believes it is true.
/Victor
The deep meditations are an exploration of human consciousness.
Realizing the truth about ourselves.
Just like chemistry is an exploration of the chemical world.
realizing the truth about the chemical world.
If we think of Buddhism only as a religion or philosophy, we miss the personal realizations, the progress on the path and enlightenment.
:thumbsup:
Does zoology tell us about dark matter?
If you understand meditation, you understand the type of research you are doing with it.
The truths you observe with meditation are true whether or not you believe in it.
otherwise they wouldn't be truth.
as an example:
Observing every single moment of consciousness arising, many times per second, is something you directly observe from which you can base your hypothesis...
You'll come up with something along the line of: well, as far as i could see, it would seem that anatta is true. Might not be, but it is very likely to be from what i've seen.
Buddhism will not give you the answer to the universe, like the history of this universe, that is not it's purpose.
Just like it's not the purpose of zoology to tell you the answers of the universe.
But because the field of it's research isn't the answer of the universe, it doesn't mean it isn't a science.
Deep meditation will allow you to observe the deepest truth of yourself, of consciousness, and realize their nature.
That was because of Christianity.
During the time of Aristotle it was a Fact that the earth did not revolve around its axis.
That was due to a Scientific experiment conducted at the time...
When you understand what a Fact is and what evidence is you will understand why your argument is void. I think I have explained this to you before.
Oh yes and the concept of evolution has more or less been buried. Brush up.
/Victor
zoology observe animals, physic observe particle colliding, Buddhism observe the mind.
:clap:
Never underestimate the Dark Side....
thank you. Very convincing. As always your arguments are to the point and relevant.
/Victor
Evolution is a real, can we forget victorious ever mention this?
you're killing the credibility of our position victorious!!
And that makes it not so different from science.
There is a difference though in focus. Buddhism – as you point out – is only interested in understanding reality as far as liberation from suffering is concerned. It is practical.
It’s best compared with medical science.
Medical science has changed through the ages and improved a lot. Buddhism has to change too, or it will become (or should I say remain) irrelevant.
:skeptic: Sure, walk towards the horizon. When you reach it, you can stop.
There are ways to prove the Earth is round. One way is to view it from space, which has been done. The belief that the world is round has been around far longer than NASA has, there are ways to prove it. I think you lack basic knowleadge of science theory. Conclusions are not 'true' because they can be replicated again and again. A Hypothesis is more true than an other Hypothesis because an experiment says so. So all truth in Science is relative. You dig?
A theory is based on a hypothesis that has been proven to be true. There is no evidence to dispute it.
Evolution like all other Fields of Science is changing. That is the nature of Science. New findings change the understanding we have of nature.
Science of Evolution has changed pretty much from the time it set of. No it is not dead of course not but like the Ego it is no longer what it used to be.
It is better to speak of the Mutual Evolution of species than the Evolution of Species.
/Victor
What I was a saying when writing about the apples and stones comparison is that people tend to evaluate one thing through the eyes of another thing. we are all biased. I am only shifting the Focus... That is not the point. Are you convinced that the earth is round because YOU KNOW it is or because you believe the second hand information of others?
What is true knowleadge? Buddhism says one thing and Science says another. Until another hypothesis emerges that disputes the former... That is how science evolves.
The earth used to be flat until it was round.
/Victor
The world arises in the Six sense bases Exists in the six sense bases and Dies in the six sense bases.
Pretty neat.
/Victor
Each is significant, but the two are very different.
To the OP, you're a bit off target when it comes to defining science. A scientific fact is one that has been proven, and will turn out the same every time no matter who does it...providing they conduct a valid experiment. No, each person doesn't re-experiment with every scientific fact. Yes, simply because of the volume of information in science, we rely on journals and articles and texts. But still, if we wanted to do the experiments again, they would turn out the same...IF it is scientific fact. Of course there is theory. And that's different.
No, evolution has not been buried. Certain parts of the theory have evolved and changed over time as man has gathered more and more evidence to study.
I agree with the majority that the two are very different and can't really be compared, but I remember reading his thoughts and opening my eyes to how there is a lot of scientific research on ancient Buddhist practices - e.g. mindfulness, meditation, metta.
Two different subjects with two different goals. No further investigation is needed.
As for the claim that science is based on blind faith because certain findings cannot be proven by an individual instantaneously is just silly.
According to such logic, you can convince yourself that you only BELIEVE other people exist or not because you cannot directly observe their experience.
asinine.
One is a tool like a hammer.
Other is like a boat to cross a river.
Is you ask me, both are fine.
Something is a Fact because people agree that it is. There is no other criteria.
It is commenly known that through scientific experiment the hypothesis that the earth revolves around its own axis was DISAPPROVED by the ancient Greeks. And the fact that earth did not revolved could be tested by anybody using an experiment.
Because their understanding of Science (physics in that case) was so different from todays understanding.
Think about what Physics will be at in a decade. All the Facts, as you say, that we hold so dear today might or might not be a fact tomorrow.
/Victor
whut.
/Victor
This is superstition.
On the contrary Buddhism explaines that intrinsic value is created by the Human mind. Again it is called Anatta.
/Victor
k then.