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.
How Buddhist theories/concepts stand today in the face of modern science?
Hi,
I had a question regarding the validity of Buddhist dogma's in regards of our comprehension of the world as of nowadays.
For instance, Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) had their dogma's pretty much shattered from the discoveries of the past centuries (the Earth has been proved not to be the center of the universe and not created in 6 days, Men are animal as the end result of a biologic evolution process, Men are not responsible and rational creatures (even though "God made human free to choose between Good and Evil") since a big part of our behavior comes from are unconsciousness, etc...). What about Buddhism?
Modern medicine has led many inquiries that converge in recognizing meditation as a healthy process for both the spirit and the body, but the world of meditation is a lot larger than the Buddhist community and many techniques come from many different sources fully unrelated to Buddhism.
What about the other important believes of Buddhism (4 noble truths, 8 fold paths, re-incarnation, Buddhism cosmology, etc.)?
I had a question regarding the validity of Buddhist dogma's in regards of our comprehension of the world as of nowadays.
For instance, Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) had their dogma's pretty much shattered from the discoveries of the past centuries (the Earth has been proved not to be the center of the universe and not created in 6 days, Men are animal as the end result of a biologic evolution process, Men are not responsible and rational creatures (even though "God made human free to choose between Good and Evil") since a big part of our behavior comes from are unconsciousness, etc...). What about Buddhism?
Modern medicine has led many inquiries that converge in recognizing meditation as a healthy process for both the spirit and the body, but the world of meditation is a lot larger than the Buddhist community and many techniques come from many different sources fully unrelated to Buddhism.
What about the other important believes of Buddhism (4 noble truths, 8 fold paths, re-incarnation, Buddhism cosmology, etc.)?
0
Comments
As far as reincarnation, cosmology, etc.- IMO your question is much to broad. There are a myriad of beliefs about reincarnation and what it is exactly, but, IMO, none of them stand up to science. But you would have to ask "Which Buddhism stands up under scientific scrutiny and which does not?" because of the wide range of beliefs about "cosmology" in various forms of Buddhism.
Many unclear and disorganized threads that tend to go all over the place begin with unclear questions. I am suggesting that IMO this is going to be one of those threads because the question is much too broad.
If anything, science has affirmed what Buddhism has led me to learn. And vice versa. Science does not contradict Buddhism per se but Buddhism for sure transcends what science has to teach.
Abu
Thank you for your answers...
What IMO stands for? sorry I can't catch its meaning.
Sorry not to be more specific, my knowledge on Buddhism is not very strong that's why I was asking the question to get feedback from people more knowledgeable on the topic. Often, people are biased (e.g. some Christians still assert that science did not prove "thoroughly" the creation to be wrong and still hang on it, even though the odds are clearly against its likelihood). But since Buddhism teaches also free inquiry (as kalama sutta), I hope that some of you who are knowledgeable on your religion can be more objective...
As to objectivity, what makes you think we might not be. Some of us won't be (laughs) but you will get answers, I believe, based on personal validations through and in practice so that is the degree of 'objectivity' I guess.
Nevertheless @Augustus, you will not know whom is really 'right' or objective until you too, had the same knowledge and insights that are available through a dedicated and genuine Buddhist practice. Until then, you would I imagine be taking all what I or others say with a big dollop of salt, and I say, why not. Only experience can conquer doubts of that sort, and that is a nice invitation for exploration. Buddhism is not about dogma. Sure, it can espouse beliefs and espouse teachings which have been validated by the many, but at the end of the day its genuine encouragement is for YOU to know, for YOU to see, for YOU to come to your own conclusions, and that is a nice foundation for an honest and truthful life IMO.
Of course it is only an invitation, and an invitation only.
In my own limited experience, what I have seen has not contradicted the words laid out by the Enlightened Ones.
But no, they have not contradicted science to my knowledge at all, but it definitely transcends also the scientific only realm.
Didn't someone post a science article recently on the holographic nature of the universe?
I'm pretty sure Buddha discouraged dogma.
I'm also pretty sure "science" is finally "catching up" to Buddha's insights about mind and the nature of reality.
May you find the causes of true happiness within.
:buck:
Most of the important stuff about Buddhism is its teachings on how to transform our minds. To me these don't seem as vulnerable to scientific debunking so are probably a safe place to develop some trust.
Good luck in your hunting.
In regard to Christianity, the OP brings up Old Testament stories. The primary thrust of Christianity today is teachings of Jesus, not the Old Testament. The fact that science has trampled on so many teachings in the Old Testament is irrelevant to the beliefs of modern Christians. Virtually every Christian I know believes in Christianity and evolution, and admits that neither is fully understood. But, there is just about as much agreement about individual aspects of Christianity as there is about individual aspects of Buddhism -- as demonstrated on this forum.
In regard to Buddhism, "Person" has made some very good points, above. People, who knew very little about anything beyond their small world (at the time) wrote the Dhamma long after Buddha spoke his words...same for the Bible. What we need to listen to is the thrust of what Buddha said...and primarily, that is about human interactions (which by the way, is exactly what Christ spoke about). And science has no need to pass judgments on human interactions...although science does help modern religions understand human interactions better...but science approaches it as much from a brain function and brain chemistry perspective, as a behavioral approach.
metta
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_6.htm
many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction & expansion, [recollecting]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.070.than.html
"It was believed that Earth was at the center with all of the stars and the Sun revolving around Earth. The prevailing philosophy was this Earth-centered, human-centered idea. If the Earth were bit the center of the universe, it was concluded, then our planet would just be another planet and nothing special in relation to the universe.
Then came the Buddha and in his revolutionary way proclaimed that there are numerous other planets each with its own life forms. He said that these planets are great distances apart from each other (Jayasuriya, 1963) (Majhima Nikaya 3.124) The Buddha said there are "thousands and thousands of suns, thousands of moons, thousands of continents. " Anguttara Nikaya 1.227"
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5092&start=0
http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/random-rules/
As for Anatta, I've seen one neuroscientist show that in the brain a complex mental event is composed of all the different aspects of brain function but there's no organizing principle, they all just work in harmony to produce a coherent experience.
Its all still pretty new and there's no conclusions but it seems like science maybe is capable of touching those concepts if they can make the philosophical leap.
The idea of an indivisible entity is also present in Greek. And equating the modern understanding of atom with that of a ratharenu seems rather pointless. I dont doubt ancient man could see dust particles.
There are clearly advantages to working with subjective experience. For example a beer brewer can study all the processes of making beer and know in theory what conditions lead to a good taste and so forth. But even if he does everything right and he cracks open the bottle and it does not taste good... That sweeps away all his object theory and schooling. If a philosopher has a system and he says this is the best way to be happy. And you are not happy. Then that objective technology is uselessm (unless you can find the problem of your work with that system and make it work).
metta
There may be a universe made of musical notes or made of whims of gods, but if those universes contain causally interdependent changes then those universes will be subject to the Three Foundations of Existence and thus anything that experiences in those universes will be subject to The Four Noble Truths.
It is not a scriptural proclamation that Dharma is eternal and universal, it is a foundational truth that cannot be doubted, however hard one tries.
So of course science coheres with Dharma, but that isn't that remark-arable when you see that it couldn't be any other way- in this or any other possible world.
This is one of those often under-looked wonders of the Totality of Dharma.
There are some teachings that cannot be proved, like people returning to visit the Buddha after they died, how human beings were formed, etc, but apart from that, most is true.
this is one reason why it is argueable the Mahayana obsession with a lack of inherent existence for EVERYTHING goes too far & is unnecessary for the goal
in the suttas, the Buddha refused to answer the question: "Where do the four great elements cease without remainder?".
*sigh* I know they arnt. Im stating how the concept and idea of an atom first emerged. but yea, great contribution, thanks.
I think we have to be a little careful that we don't do the same thing with Buddha. I was a science major in college. I don't recall Buddha as being credited with the discovery of the atom, Nuclear physics, the Big bang theory, and the discovery of galactic systems.
So when I read a thread about "modern science", I think we go over the top in claiming Buddha to be the most renowned scientist in history.
Check out Quantum Mechanics!
DD this is just many mahayanists observes and finds liberating. They don't find it goes to far, though you may think so.
By studying the workings of the mind, one can conquer one's self, and make an end of suffering. According to the Buddha, there is no greater achievement.
How about potable water? Try meditating if you have cholera.
The Buddha (not necessarily Buddhism) has contributed the greatest, most complete and most profound doctrine of truth in the history of this world, pointing the way to liberation, awakening, happiness, peace, and wellbeing for all sentient beings. He is unsurpassed.
On the other hand, Talisman said, "The Buddha (not necessarily Buddhism) has contributed the greatest, most complete and most profound doctrine of truth in the history of this world, pointing the way to liberation, awakening, happiness, peace, and wellbeing for all sentient beings. He is unsurpassed." That too deserves an "in my opinion" because the majority of the people in the world -- non-Buddhists -- would certainly not agree.
2. I think you could say that Buddhism in and of itself has established the well-being of Buddhists (but not all people), as long as we also acknowledge that some Buddhists, even very devoted Buddhists have created/amplified suffering.
Science, too, has limited intent, but that intent evolves and expands over time to encompass a wide variety of man's interests.