Science v. Buddhism

MindGate

Do you believe that science will ever be so incompatible with Buddhism that Buddhism's credibility will be lost?

Just wondering. Don't peg me as a heretic. I'm just curious is there are any concepts, ideas, or beliefs in Buddhism that science could ever make 'untrue,' for lack of a better term.

Vajraheart

I guess we'll have to find out. So far, they seem to be pretty compatible.

Mr_Serenity

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.
-Albert Einstein

Daozen

I think Albert should stick to physics. All the evidence shows that humanity won't suddenly (or even gradually) all become this spiritual. Unfortunately, i think the cycle of war & peace will go on and on. I suppose i'm more Dao than Zen on this issue

As for science/buddhism being compatable ... well, it depends which bits of Buddhism you are referring to. Because certainly there are some cosmological and other beliefs in certain Buddhist schools which a rationalist would say are strictly 'unscientific'. However, IMO the most important elements of Buddhism (which does not include rebirth and cosmo-shenanigans) ARE entirely compatable with science.

Namaste

ShiftPlusOne

Nope, never going to happen.

federica

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.
-Albert Einstein

Unfortunately, poetic as it may sound, there is no written accurate or specific reference to him ever having actually said or written that.
It would appear these words were attributed to him, and put in his mouth. But he never said or wrote them IRL.

Cloud

@MindGate, "Buddhism" varies so much from tradition to tradition, from culture to culture, that rather than use the all-encompassing "Buddhism" label... it would be of greater benefit to determine which Buddhist teachings we would consider to be currently in accord with science, and speculate if those will ever fail in the eyes of science.

Anicca/Impermanence or the law of change is unlikely to yield. Not-Self (or Interdependence) is likely to be further proven by scientific discovery as opposed to disproven...

Whaddaya think?

DaltheJigsaw

I think Albert should stick to physics. All the evidence shows that humanity won't suddenly (or even gradually) all become this spiritual. Unfortunately, i think the cycle of war & peace will go on and on. I suppose i'm more Dao than Zen on this issue

As for science/buddhism being compatable ... well, it depends which bits of Buddhism you are referring to. Because certainly there are some cosmological and other beliefs in certain Buddhist schools which a rationalist would say are strictly 'unscientific'. However, IMO the most important elements of Buddhism (which does not include rebirth and cosmo-shenanigans) ARE entirely compatable with science.

Namaste

Yea, I agree with all you have said.
Especially the first part.

formermonkJohn

who died and made science god???????????

Whoknows

Do you believe that science will ever be so incompatible with Buddhism that Buddhism's credibility will be lost?

Just wondering. Don't peg me as a heretic. I'm just curious is there are any concepts, ideas, or beliefs in Buddhism that science could ever make 'untrue,' for lack of a better term.

Hi MG,

I think this is a very relevant question, and I think the answer is definitely no. Irrespective of the laws of nature that science claims to be true, there are known limitations to knowledge that prevent any ultimate knowledge in the conventional world. Western Philosophy is well aware of these limitations and has been for a significant amount of time. Science or maybe the intellectual elite, has, over the years, intentionally or unintentionally, discredited philosophy because of its lack of progress, and puts up for a symbol of success its own progress, so that progress is a measure of success in its own right.

Also, all previous models of science, specifically those that refer to the smallest building blocks of reality, have been over time replaced. They have not been replaced by refined models, as scientists often imply, but complete paradigm shifts in knowledge that tend to refute the previous models of reality. Basically, "out with the old and in with the new". The "old" is always incorrect, the "new" is correct, unfortunately, in time, the "new" is found to be faulty as well. So why should we have any "faith" in the current views of scientific reality if we know that they will be shown to be wrong in the future. The best we can be is pragmatic about how science can contribute in a positive way to life.

This vacuum of understanding left, when we truly understand the limitations of scientific thought, can be a great insight from a Buddhists point of view, and is completely compatible with theories of non-self, impermanence, interdependence, and even more directly voidness. In fact understanding these topics actually brings strength and insight into scientific understanding rather than refuting in it. This understanding, in our current world, can be a great aid to meditation, which, of course, is our primary focus .


Cheers, WK

being

As far as I know, science (neuroscience & quantum physics) is actually becoming more compatible with Buddhism.

If you are interested, then I would suggest you this movie (the first part of it - 21mins):


And this interview with a biologist: