Dharma, Science, and Reasoned Faith

Sile

I notice the subject of "faith" in ones teacher comes up a lot in Tibetan Buddhism. I thought it might be interesting to examine the nature of that faith.

Science, for example, requires faith. Unless you want to take the time to repeat (and successfully duplicate) every relevant scientific experiment in history, you as a scientist (or we as consumers of science) are taking many, many things on faith.

I've noticed lately that there is criticism among Westerners of young monks memorizing texts--yet, children in school memorize scientific and historical facts, often without being made to go through any proofs of that fact. Whether sutras or formulas or histories, these items become articles of faith--not because teachers want blindly devoted disciples, but because there's only so much time in a day and the proofs have been duplicated many times over by others.

This faith is not blind faith, though - it's reasoned faith. The reasons are many, including "this textbook has been approved, so it must be okay" or "that teacher is well-loved and respected by everyone for miles around, so he/she must be okay" or "if there were something wrong with this theory surely someone would've figured it out by now" or "my culture in general approves of this system, so I do, to." We trust in our fellow man, and if we find many fellow men trusting in something, we are likely to trust in it ourselves. Even the child, appearing to be doing something only on blind faith, has to have some amount of reasoned faith in the parents, teachers or other students who believe the information is worthy of memorizing.

So I think in most cases, "faith" in a Buddhist teacher doesn't (or shouldn't) equate to blind faith. It would only be blind faith if, say, never having heard of Buddhism you just randomly started following some teacher's instructions without knowing anything about his tradition, let alone about him/her, and had never met anyone who'd studied from him/her.

But if you have had a chance to look into Buddhism, and then meet people who study from a certain teacher and are impressed, and then observe that teacher personally and are impressed yourself, and then finally decide to officially become a student of that teacher, I don't think anyone could say you have blind faith in the teacher, but rather, reasoned faith.

What do you think?

person

In general I agree with you. I think though that some have an easier time with science because its objectivly testable via a third party. Having faith in the Dharma usually requires subjective verification, something those of us in the west aren't as accustomed to.

I feel that there does come a point though were one has tested enough of the teaching and found it to be true that they can set aside some of that skepticism. At that point there can be a certain amount of trust that other aspects of the teaching will also be true.

Also blind faith and reasoned faith is an important distinction you raise and is worth repeating.

Bekenze

Most of the Buddha's teachings (on suffering) have, to an extent, been proven to be effective.
Science has been proven to be effective.

Subjects such as rebirth, reincarnation, and metaphysics have not been proven to be correct/effective.

Sile

I would argue that from a Buddhist research perspective, rebirth has been shown (by Buddhist investigative standards) to be likely. We can't prove we have dreams, either, but science accepts the theory that humans have dreams, simply because humans report having dreams.

I think when we say "rebirth hasn't been proven," we mean there's nothing we can measure or weigh; yet that same lack of data applies to dreams and emotions. All we can do is watch the brain's activity, combined with listening to a person's testimony, take into account the number/quality of additional testimonies, and modify our personal theories accordingly.

Here's a short, interesting and occasionally humorous article by Bhikku Cintita Dinsmore (ending with the author's admission to recently allowing for the possibility of poltergeists!):

http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/from-thought-to-destiny-is-rebirth-verifiable/

Jeffrey

faith -sradda- is one of the wings of sensitivity. The other is intelligence -- prajna.

faith without intelligence is dull.
intelligence without faith is in the head and cut off.

B5C

Buddhists who think science can prove rebirth is like Christians who thinks science can prove an afterlife. It's all BS until real scientists can study it.

Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World
A Skeptic's take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens and other invisible powers that be:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity

Jeffrey

science also cannot prove love they can only prove oxytocin. When we look for love or any experience all we find is sawdust. quarks or hormones or evolutionary advantage or whatever.

So why practice?

B5C

science also cannot prove love they can only prove oxytocin. When we look for love or any experience all we find is sawdust. quarks or hormones or evolutionary advantage or whatever.

Is there something wrong for looking for the reasons of why we have love and emotions? I don't find it horrible to find out that LOVE is a evolutionary trait defense mechanism to protect future generation.

If some of you all would love to read more about how love was created:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-wise-brain/201002/the-evolution-love0

Fact the person who wrote the above article also wrote "Buddha's Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom."

So why practice?

To help bring a better me. I enjoy the Buddhist Philosophy on life, but the great thing about Buddhist philosophy is that we don't have to obey dogma. There is no requirement that you MUST believe in rebirth. The 1st and 2nd Noble truth does answer for me of why we have suffering. I try my best to follow the Eightfold path.

If you really want to think rebirth is real and ghosts are real. That is fine, but don't use science as a means to prove your faith.

(I know it says creationist, but the 2nd block can be used on anybody who follows that method to prove their belief.)

Jeffrey

B5C I didn't mean to be critical of science. I have a masters in organic chemistry. I was pointing out that experience is made of non-self elements such as quarks.

That love is made of non-love elements does not negate love itself.

Do you get it?

I enjoy science quite a bit and I am fascinated to find how rebirth is in relation to science. As I understand it there is no self nature. And thus no birth and death.

Jeffrey

Incidentally Einstein tried to fit the understanding of quantum mechanics to fit his understanding that 'god did not play dice'. Though of course he didn't have a traditional biblical idea of god.

B5C

B5C I didn't mean to be critical of science. I have a masters in organic chemistry. I was pointing out that experience is made of non-self elements such as quarks.

That love is made of non-love elements does not negate love itself.

Do you get it?

I enjoy science quite a bit and I am fascinated to find how rebirth is in relation to science. As I understand it there is no self nature. And thus no birth and death.

Sometime for me it hard for me to believe someone who says "I have a science degree and I say rebirth and science is capable." I've meet someone out of the internet who had a degree in biology, but firmly believes in Young Earth Creationism because her faith take priority.

Show me some peer-review studies from an major university (non-religious) showing quarks somehow relates rebirth and I might start to believe you.

B5C

Incidentally Einstein tried to fit the understanding of quantum mechanics to fit his understanding that 'god did not play dice'. Though of course he didn't have a traditional biblical idea of god.

The reason why he didn't have a "biblical" idea of a god is because he was deist. His god was the laws of nature. At first he opposed quantum mechanics because it opposed his world view on stability and order of the laws he help created.

Jeffrey

Birth and death do not exist. Rebirth is a relative truth, an appearance.

The true reality is that there is no birth, no death, no beings, and no lifetime.

Jeffrey

From an ordinary perspective the sun rises and sets. But from a true perspective the earth orbits the sun.

Sile

Science has accepted--or proposed?--the existence of phenomena it cannot yet prove; for example, dreams. Would be interesting to see what other things might fall into this category.

I think science is not nearly as rigid as we often think; it could hardly be science if it were!

Sile

Wow - here's something I'd never thought of - using polygraphs to prove a human experienced something they said they did (in a dream)! Of course all it proves is that the human believes he/she experienced it, but still...

Here's the article - it's on "lucid dreaming"

http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html

person

Buddhists who think science can prove rebirth is like Christians who thinks science can prove an afterlife. It's all BS until real scientists can study it.

Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World
A Skeptic's take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens and other invisible powers that be:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity

From that article:

"The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real."

I completely agree with this idea. To my mind though the author then assumes that there never is a lion ('mystical' phenomena) hiding in the grass. Just because some people have paranoia and imagine that they're being followed when they're not doesn't mean that someone with paranoia is never being followed. This is what is known as an inverse error or denying the antecedent.