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.
Is Buddhism 100% compatible with science?
Is Buddhism 100% compatible with science? Is there any teaching of Buddhism that does not reflect our understanding of science?
0
Comments
Our science is only a few hundred years old basically, and can only explain so much so far.
On one hand, even the most non-theistic, stripped-down-to-the-bare essentials practice (Theravada? some forms of Zen perhaps?) utilise the concepts of karma and rebirth. On the other hand, these are seen in Buddhism as natural mechanisms, not as 'supernatural' <i>per se</i>.
The dharma and what what we call 'science' are both ways of looking at the world around us. Differing language is used for describing or exploring the same phenomena in at least a few cases.
Buddhism offers verifiable results.
In this, there is no need for debate.
Results, however, may vary.
True science is based on empirical evidence. Since the main focus of Buddhism is the subject of "mind", which is a matter that can not be "measured and weighed", it can't be validated empirically by a third party, and therefore can't be science.
You could say that Buddhism is the "science of mind" but that's not the same as saying its the same as empirical science.
Much love
Samten
Could neuroscience or psychology, in the very far future, ever replace Buddhism? By understanding the way the brain or mind works entirely?
In some cases, psychology is coming around to Buddhist thinking. There's a very intriguing book by a cognitive psychologist, in collaboration with the Dalai Lama, called <i>The Art of Happiness</i> that discusses this somewhat.
http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/post/63-mind-and-life-xviii---attention-memory-and-mind
Here are some thoughts on Buddhism and quantum physics:
http://www.boloji.com/buddhism/00119.htm
And while I haven't read this book, it looks interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Buddha-Quantum-Hearing-Voice-Every/dp/1591811066
What we call science today is empiricism and buddhism is profoundly experiential and empirical but it has many different starting assumptions.
In any case, it Buddhism is definitely in conversation with science and philosophy of science on these ideas.
I understand that "how" can never answer "why", at least currently. But eventually, neuroscience or psychology may allow us to fully understand how our minds and brains work, thus giving us a detailed reference to use to live in accord with reality, much the way Buddhism does now.
Yes, I read that book, a very interesting read
Mainly physics and neuroscience.
This is my biggest problem with it and one I am trying to reconcile.
This.
As Einstein said it: Science is reality exposed to our method of questioning. Thus the reality uncovered is dependently arisen with intentions etc...
For example in order to see the moon in a pool of water, the eye, the mind, the pool, and the moon all have to dependently arise.
I don't see that the mystical stuff is, but most mystical stuff isn't, anyways, That's why its mystical.
Doctrine kills the mind. Science is a tool.
Science doesn't tell you how things are. That's what doctrines do. Science shows you why.
It's up to you to know how to lead your life.
I think you have this backwards. Science tells you how things are. Doctrines "tell" why. Science can never tell you why an object in motion stays in motion, just that it does.
A few things I did in chemistry studies were just games you play to predict reality. But the game itself was not observed. That it predicted reality was, of course.
Lewis dot diagrams, octet rule etc..
The games guided your research and then you looked at observations and interpreted them based on the game (spectra to identify structure is like a crossword puzzle).
Then you looked to see if the structures concluded by the spectra game were consistent with your reaction predicted game. Maybe you would play games to look at the mechanism with games to interpret observations.
Peer reviewed by scientists with motivations and thoughts. And sometimes businesses. All careers and degrees, and egos on the line.
Financed by the government, military, and major corporations.
As the tao te ching says:
Yes, I mean why as in how. As in "why the apple falls".
What I meant is that science does not presume to know how you should live your are.(because depends what you mean by reality. suffering is as much a reality as gravity).
And that doctrines presume to know how you should live your life.
And that doctrines kill the mind with assumptions. While science asks you to stay open and leaves the life doctrine to yourself.
Science isn't flawless, but it certainly predicts things correctly. It works. We've made atomic bombs, computers, etc. That proves it works. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, is undoubtedly correct. Sometimes things are wrong but we can test them.
I was trying to say that science is interconnected.
Ohh. I see.
OK, I will say it louder: Stop speaking about science as if it is one thing. It would be like speaking of religion as if all religions are all the same. There are many, many different points of view in the various sciences. They don't always agree, even in the same discipline.
Science is based on one thing: the scientific method. Religion is based on all kinds of different scriptures, oral traditions, and experiences that aren't even slightly related.
It is nothing like speaking as if all religions are the same. Science IS one thing, it just has different branches and different theories. And when I say science, I don't include dumb sciences like psychology or social science. I mean physics, chemistry, biology. They are all agreeable.
Something tells me you haven't looked much at cutting-edge modern physics. Science is a collection of different approaches with different starting assumptions. To say that they all use scientific method for everything is not strictly true. You are talking about this in the abstract rather than what actually goes on. Almost all advances in science come from those with imagination who see things in a way different from their peers; who push the boundaries of what is thinkable.
Science is not as pedestrian as you are making it out to be.
Why do you think that psychology and the social sciences are "dumb?"
You stated yourself that the uniting factor of all the modern sciences is the use of the scientific method for testing hypothesis. Psychologists test theories involving human behavior in order to help people suffering from anxiety, depression, anger, loneliness, frustration, etc. If anything, I would say that the Buddha was a psychologist as well.
Same here! ^_^
Because that's not the way Western science is "done". But Einstein tended to make his "discoveries" via a flash of insight first, and then he would backtrack, and come up with a mathematical formula to "prove" his theories. So...maybe that's sort of along the same track as the Buddha. Ya think?
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/VerhoevenBuddhismScience.htm
Buddhism is much more compadable with science than any other religion.
Psychology and buddhism may have basically the same goal, but psychology uses childish metaphors (unless we are talking of Jung's psychology; which is better).