Science and Buddhism

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby chownah » Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:50 am

mahat,
I would be glad to see your reference which says that mutation is not random. I don't think that Darwin theorized that all mutation was random.....I think he implied that there exist random mutations and that these random mutations are a cause of changes in the offspring of living things. Actually, I'm not sure if Darwin even used the term random mutation.....what I usually hear is that he described the process which drives evolution to be "natural selection", a term which does not as far as I know rely on the term mutation at all but I'm not sure because I have not studied Darwin's theory but just read things about it. Have you studied Darwin's theory and do you consider yourself knowledgeable of it?
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby fig tree » Sun Dec 01, 2013 5:16 am

mahat wrote:This was posted in reference to the Dalai Lama's overreaching statement that Buddhists should change teachings which were contradicted by scientific findings. The WebMD article is a case in point. There is no ethics in science, ethics is not the base or foundation.

The article makes no mention of the harmful effects of sexual misconduct - none, and there is no reason to since that's not the business of science.

Science is very piecemeal. That is why I completely disagree with the Dalai Lama. Buddhism and Science can be complimentary, but certainly not the basis for changing important practices in Buddhism if at some point we find a contradiction.

As I recall His Holiness referred to having read in some sacred text that the Moon generates its own light, but discovering as a young person that astronomy had shown that moonlight is reflected sunlight. By now this is something that has been established pretty solidly. One might argue against the use of the term "proof" in such a case, but people ordinarily do call facts like that proven facts. It need not be as certain as a mathematical proof to be enough.

I think one has to distinguish kinds of claims. Science is not prepared to tackle many of the issues relevant to Buddhism, so there's no issue with them. In certain cases one has demonstrable facts, but as with the case of the Moon, this tends to be relatively peripheral to Buddhism.

Fig Tree
User avatar
fig tree
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:25 am

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Mkoll » Sun Dec 01, 2013 9:04 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:Yes, there is such a thing as a scientific proof. You know for a fact the structure of a molecule of sugar. You know that a carbon atom has atomic weight equal to 12. What there isn't, is proof for explanations of scientific facts. Scientific theories are the ones that are falsifiable. They cannot be proven as the absolute truth. They are, however, an aproximation of the truth. Just because scientific theories are not the absolute truth, doesn't mean that they are not close. Nobody who is both educated and rational says that the earth is 6000 years old.


In this respect, I will agree with you that within the conventional framework of knowledge, science is as close as we can get to the truth of things. And by "truth of things", I mean empirical truths that we can all observe and thus come to agreement upon.

Modus.Ponens wrote:One of the advantages of science over any other human endeavour in knowledge is that the new knowledge can be verified and reproduced by any group of peope. That's something we still don't have (publicaly) in buddhism. It's an advantage because we can be fooling ourselves. Just read the stories about alien abduction and you'll be convinced of the gigantic power of self-deception.


That can't happen in Buddhism. The Dhamma is to be "experienced by the wise", one becomes "independent in the Teacher's dispensation", etc. These phrases make it clear that liberating wisdom is an absolutely personal experience. It can only be verified for oneself by oneself. It cannot be reproduced in that there will never be a formula for enlightenment because every person's mind is so radically different.

Each must walk the path alone.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2978
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:53 am

chownah wrote:mahat,
I would be glad to see your reference which says that mutation is not random. I don't think that Darwin theorized that all mutation was random.....I think he implied that there exist random mutations and that these random mutations are a cause of changes in the offspring of living things. Actually, I'm not sure if Darwin even used the term random mutation.....what I usually hear is that he described the process which drives evolution to be "natural selection", a term which does not as far as I know rely on the term mutation at all but I'm not sure because I have not studied Darwin's theory but just read things about it. Have you studied Darwin's theory and do you consider yourself knowledgeable of it?
chownah


Here's a link that you will find useful:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/deverj/pers ... chance.pdf
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:03 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:
mahat wrote:
This was posted in reference to the Dalai Lama's overreaching statement that Buddhists should change teachings which were contradicted by scientific findings. The WebMD article is a case in point. There is no ethics in science, ethics is not the base or foundation.

The article makes no mention of the harmful effects of sexual misconduct - none, and there is no reason to since that's not the business of science.

Science is very piecemeal. That is why I completely disagree with the Dalai Lama. Buddhism and Science can be complimentary, but certainly not the basis for changing important practices in Buddhism if at some point we find a contradiction.



Exactly: there is no mention of the harmful effects of sexual misconduct. As I mentioned before, and you agreed with, there isn't even a broader view on this subject. Why would the Dalai Lama change the rules of celibacy, then?

Why do you disagree? Do you think that, after ruthless analysis of experimental evidence, if the experimental evidence completely disproved something that is on the suttas, you would still choose the words in the suttas? Won't you even consider that the transmition of teachings was flawed? Do you believe that the Buddha had all the marks of an "enlightened being" _ including the "enlightened being's" sandalwood-scented poop?


Again, you show you fail to understand both Buddhism and Science. Buddhism is a contemplative science which changes internal chemistry.

Science can never prove heaven or gods or hells and demons or Mt. Sumeru. These are contemplative understandings, they might mean something completely different.

I can revisit any sutta and wonder if there was a wrong transmission, but the first thing I will say, "wait a minute, Buddhism is contemplative knowledge", I can prove it through further contemplation to verify the veracity of any Sutta - not empirical science.

The science you are talking about is pure empiricism. If you tell me we come from monkeys and pigs, observing our 5 khandas I can believe it. Buddhism is about abandoning these five khandas from monkeys and pigs.:D
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Modus.Ponens » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:06 am

mahat wrote:Again, you show you fail to understand both Buddhism and Science. Buddhism is a contemplative science which changes internal chemistry.

Science can never prove heaven or gods or hells and demons or Mt. Sumeru. These are contemplative understandings, they might mean something completely different.

I can revisit any sutta and wonder if there was a wrong transmission, but the first thing I will say, "wait a minute, Buddhism is contemplative knowledge", I can prove it through further contemplation to verify the veracity of any Sutta - not empirical science.

The science you are talking about is pure empiricism. If you tell me we come from monkeys and pigs, observing our 5 khandas I can believe it. Buddhism is about abandoning these five khandas from monkeys and pigs.:D


I must be honest. I'm having a really hard time understanding your posts in this thread as other thing than trolling.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:31 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
mahat wrote:Again, you show you fail to understand both Buddhism and Science. Buddhism is a contemplative science which changes internal chemistry.

Science can never prove heaven or gods or hells and demons or Mt. Sumeru. These are contemplative understandings, they might mean something completely different.

I can revisit any sutta and wonder if there was a wrong transmission, but the first thing I will say, "wait a minute, Buddhism is contemplative knowledge", I can prove it through further contemplation to verify the veracity of any Sutta - not empirical science.

The science you are talking about is pure empiricism. If you tell me we come from monkeys and pigs, observing our 5 khandas I can believe it. Buddhism is about abandoning these five khandas from monkeys and pigs.:D


I must be honest. I'm having a really hard time understanding your posts in this thread as other thing than trolling.


Yes, you do resort to insults when you don't understand. At least you admit you don't understand.
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby chownah » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:15 pm

mahat wrote:
chownah wrote:mahat,
I would be glad to see your reference which says that mutation is not random. I don't think that Darwin theorized that all mutation was random.....I think he implied that there exist random mutations and that these random mutations are a cause of changes in the offspring of living things. Actually, I'm not sure if Darwin even used the term random mutation.....what I usually hear is that he described the process which drives evolution to be "natural selection", a term which does not as far as I know rely on the term mutation at all but I'm not sure because I have not studied Darwin's theory but just read things about it. Have you studied Darwin's theory and do you consider yourself knowledgeable of it?
chownah


Here's a link that you will find useful:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/deverj/pers ... chance.pdf

Thanks for the reference. It is rather long. I have looked at some of it and have not found anything which seems to overthrow Darwin.....in fact it seems the article does not address Darwin's theory directly at all but instead analyses probabilistic and statistical work that others have overlaid on Darwin's theory. In reading parts of the conclusion section it seems that random mutation is well accepted as being consistent as a probabilistic or statistical adjunct to Darwin's theory but I have not read the article in full or even parts in great depth.....so.......if you are wanting to make your point by using this article as a reference will you please give me some idea as to where to look for the evidence you find for your views......the article is over 150 pages and I'm not going to read it all.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:37 pm

chownah wrote:
mahat wrote:
chownah wrote:mahat,
I would be glad to see your reference which says that mutation is not random. I don't think that Darwin theorized that all mutation was random.....I think he implied that there exist random mutations and that these random mutations are a cause of changes in the offspring of living things. Actually, I'm not sure if Darwin even used the term random mutation.....what I usually hear is that he described the process which drives evolution to be "natural selection", a term which does not as far as I know rely on the term mutation at all but I'm not sure because I have not studied Darwin's theory but just read things about it. Have you studied Darwin's theory and do you consider yourself knowledgeable of it?
chownah


Here's a link that you will find useful:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/deverj/pers ... chance.pdf

Thanks for the reference. It is rather long. I have looked at some of it and have not found anything which seems to overthrow Darwin.....in fact it seems the article does not address Darwin's theory directly at all but instead analyses probabilistic and statistical work that others have overlaid on Darwin's theory. In reading parts of the conclusion section it seems that random mutation is well accepted as being consistent as a probabilistic or statistical adjunct to Darwin's theory but I have not read the article in full or even parts in great depth.....so.......if you are wanting to make your point by using this article as a reference will you please give me some idea as to where to look for the evidence you find for your views......the article is over 150 pages and I'm not going to read it all.
chownah


The first page discusses what Darwin actually said in terms of random mutations, he used the word "chance":

Indeed, Darwin incorporated various concepts of chance into different aspects of his theory. For example, Darwin refers to "mere chance" as causing "one variety to differ in some character from its parents" (Darwin [1859] 1964: 111); to "individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others" as having "the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind" (Darwin [1859] 1964: 81); and to the proportions of plants and bushes along a bank as not being the result of "chance" but of "action and reaction of the innumerable plants and animals" (Darwin [1859] 1964: 74-5). Further compounding matters, at the outset of Chapter V, Darwin notes that he has "sometimes spoken as if the variations" in domesticated and non-domesticated organisms "had been due to chance," conceding that "[t]his, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation" (Darwin [1859] 1964: 131). In other places, Darwin emphasizes that variations are “chance” in the sense that they may be beneficial to the organism, or harmful, or neither (e.g., Darwin [1859] 1964: 81).
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby chownah » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:17 pm

Yes, and in the next sentence it says that Darwin used the term "chance" in many different contexts........so it seems that your assertion that Darwin means "random mutation" when he writes "chance" seems to disagree with the article.

In any event I still don't see how what you have produced indicates that Darwin is overturned or that mutations are not random.........frankly it seems that this article seems to be indicating that your views are wrong. Can you explain how what you have quoted supports your argument or offer some other reference that does?

Again, it seems that Darwin never dealt with the idea of mutations which makes sense since the workings of genetic material we're not discovered until much later I think.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:36 pm

chownah wrote:Yes, and in the next sentence it says that Darwin used the term "chance" in many different contexts........so it seems that your assertion that Darwin means "random mutation" when he writes "chance" seems to disagree with the article.

In any event I still don't see how what you have produced indicates that Darwin is overturned or that mutations are not random.........frankly it seems that this article seems to be indicating that your views are wrong. Can you explain how what you have quoted supports your argument or offer some other reference that does?

Again, it seems that Darwin never dealt with the idea of mutations which makes sense since the workings of genetic material we're not discovered until much later I think.
chownah


Random and chance are synonyms.

ran·dom (rndm)
adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.

So, no neither I nor the quote that was mentioned was wrong. Darwin did not know the mechanism of genetic mutations and set about a theory on "origins of species"…

Buddhism states clearly, there are no "origins", an origin cannot be discerned. Even the Abhassara Devas in the Aganna Sutta devolution was cyclical. Buddhism has both devolution (higher being to lower being) and evolution (lower being to higher being) -- but it is karmic -- never random chance.
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Mkoll » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:53 pm

mahat wrote:Buddhism states clearly, there are no "origins", an origin cannot be discerned. Even the Abhassara Devas in the Aganna Sutta devolution was cyclical. Buddhism has both devolution (higher being to lower being) and evolution (lower being to higher being) -- but it is karmic -- never random chance.

The Buddha says samsara, conditioned existence, has no beginning. Cosmologists' prevailing theory say that the universe began with the Big Bang but there are many other theories. However, regardless what theory you think about, one can always ask of it "what happened before that?" ad infinitum.

So if the Buddha can't find the beginning and the most brilliant scientists in the world can't find the beginning...I'd say that it's safe to say there is no discernable beginning.

The inquisitive mind can always ask another question.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2978
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Modus.Ponens » Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:17 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
mahat wrote:What is making a theory based on lack of knowledge and incomplete information called? -- MYTH. You are making people believe things as fact when they are not.

Science is indulging in making myths by not knowing or understanding genes and matter. Evolutionary theory is pure myth since genetic expression was not understood by it's very founder -- Darwin.

I did not quote a creationist site. The Theory of Evolution was based on an INCORRECT ASSUMPTION, this very assumption of random genetic expression was destroyed.


Oh really? Science and myth are put in the same bag? What do you call what you are doing? You are taking an incomplete knowledge of the dhamma and believing it as a fact, when it is not. You want to go even further into this rabbit hole? The Buddha wasn't perfectly omniscient. He could know whatever he wanted, but not everything at once. Since he didn't have the full and complete picture, was what he taught just a myth?


Mahat you are trolling. Or else, you would have responded to the above. Please, go ahead and enlighten my un-understanding mind.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:46 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
mahat wrote:What is making a theory based on lack of knowledge and incomplete information called? -- MYTH. You are making people believe things as fact when they are not.

Science is indulging in making myths by not knowing or understanding genes and matter. Evolutionary theory is pure myth since genetic expression was not understood by it's very founder -- Darwin.

I did not quote a creationist site. The Theory of Evolution was based on an INCORRECT ASSUMPTION, this very assumption of random genetic expression was destroyed.


Oh really? Science and myth are put in the same bag? What do you call what you are doing? You are taking an incomplete knowledge of the dhamma and believing it as a fact, when it is not. You want to go even further into this rabbit hole? The Buddha wasn't perfectly omniscient. He could know whatever he wanted, but not everything at once. Since he didn't have the full and complete picture, was what he taught just a myth?


Mahat you are trolling. Or else, you would have responded to the above. Please, go ahead and enlighten my un-understanding mind.


No you are trolling since I have not insulted anyone. Learn right speech. The Buddha had complete knowledge of the 4 Noble Truths and did not claim complete knowledge until he fully expressed it as the 4 Noble Truths. The 4 Noble Truths is not the 4 Noble Theories. So no, Buddha did not produce theories and impartial knowledges presenting them to be fact. This is why it is called Wheel of the LAW or Dharma Chakra, not theory or hypothesis. That is proof of his enlightenment.

You probably don't even understand what the 4 Noble Truths are.

He did not say, "well I don't know how time and matter or genes work, but let me propose the theory of origin of species."

Buddha vs. Science -- science got us some knowledge? Sure! However Buddhist contemplative knowledge does not require killing beings for my knowledge:

1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/un-environment-programme-_n_684562.html
guardian.co.uk:

According to the UN Environment Programme, the Earth is in the midst of a mass extinction of life. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate and, say many biologists, is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago.

2)Or testing on animals in labs:

The positive side:
http://northernstar.info/opinion/column ... k-comments

the negative side:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used ... oratories/

3) Destruction of the Ozone layer

4) Global warming

5) Nuclear bombs to destroy the earth 1000 times over.

6) Industrialization which is polluting most of our rivers and water systems.

7) Agro industrialization which is destroying our food supply through animal torture.

Yes, science is wonderful :rolleye: -- what price are you willing to pay for knowledge should be the question...Thank you.
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Mkoll » Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:58 pm

Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

-SN 56.11

Sometimes we want others to agree with us but they won't. When we don't get what we want, we suffer.

Wouldn't it be better to apologize to each other, agree to disagree, be friendly, and drop the topic, drop the wanting, drop the stress?

:|
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2978
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:12 pm

Mkoll wrote:
Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

-SN 56.11

Sometimes we want others to agree with us but they won't. When we don't get what we want, we suffer.

Wouldn't it be better to apologize to each other, agree to disagree, be friendly, and drop the topic, drop the wanting, drop the stress?

:|


We are not monks, we are lay people, we have to be used to stress. :tantrum: :tongue:
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Modus.Ponens » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:36 pm

Mkoll wrote:
Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

-SN 56.11

Sometimes we want others to agree with us but they won't. When we don't get what we want, we suffer.

Wouldn't it be better to apologize to each other, agree to disagree, be friendly, and drop the topic, drop the wanting, drop the stress?

:|


You are right. Not wanting what one wants is suffering. Thank you.

I will, however, not apologize, since I didn't insult to begin with, and furthermore I think s/he is trolling. I was agressive in speech, but I didn't insult.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby thljcl » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:36 am

I’ve been a science student for years and still am. I think the question here seems to be not so much related to the way we do scientific research to discover the laws of nature but existing scientific theories that are widely accepted not necessarily seemingly compatible to the description found in Pali Canon. That is, to assume we actually understand what is being said in the suttas.
Let’s clear up some misconceptions. Before we learn the existence of the law of kamma, we might think that living beings are born due to their parents. In fact, that’s the basis behind the theory of evolution, is it not? It’s undeniable that our physical body has inherited biological traits (as well as seemingly random changes) from our parents. Such understanding is also based on a tacit assumption, which is living being is defined purely by a system of “matters” which exhibits the “basic characteristics of living thing”. Such definition has some fundamental issues, such as “matter” itself is not well-defined within the realm of physics. In fact, in doing scientific research, they avoid talking what is matter at all because it could not be defined in any sensible ways.
Science neither denies nor recognizes the existence of consciousness, feeling, perception, and volitional formation. Through our experience, we one way or the other recognize their existence. But we do not really think of them as “part of the matters”, which does not seem to be the case at all. If we think somehow they are all “derived from matters”, which is based on nothing other than pure guess.
Recognizing plants and bacteria are living things, but it’s puzzling that they do not seem to exhibit any traits of consciousness, unlike animals or human beings. Because they do not have a “nerve system”. Even if you are not a scientist, you should more or less recognize science itself, which particularly deals with “matters”, could not explain anything that is beyond its scope of study. In a way of speaking, the very definition of science and scientific research limits what can be found out from scientific research.
The missing part of the understanding of sentient beings in biology, which do exhibit consciousness, is the fact that they all exhibit consciousness. Does psychology give us the answer? That does not seem to be the case. At best, its study gives us some hints to deal with what we perceive as “mental illness”.
In a way of speaking, it’s not wrong to say cylindrical shape when a blind person only touches the leg of an elephant; but it is not the shape of the entire elephant, is it?
Unlike scientists, Buddha did not attempt to explain the natural phenomena. When he did seemingly describe them, it’s meant for a greater purpose of understanding the four noble truths or “dependent origination”.
The very idea that we can say the “physical body” is truly “mine” or represent “me” as a “being” is wrong view. Obviously, the corpse is not a living thing. We may have thought we temporarily “own” the physical body as living beings. However, the thing that we think we own is always subject to change; so what we perceive we “own” no longer exists? Or, its very own existence is subject to changing conditions, which we have no control whatsoever. That is the truth which cannot be denied by somebody who is non-delusional.
Buddha said about the “four great elements”, namely “earth, fire, air, water”. But if you think of them as chemical elements, if you have clearly misunderstood what Buddha meant. Even though it sounds similar to the old-school teaching in ancient Indian philosophies, Buddha merely borrowed the terms to describe something. You may perceive the physical body consists of parts that exhibit different characteristics, such as solid, liquid, energy, and gas. Such a fact is directly observable. What Buddha tried to tell is that this physical body is derived from “elements” which themselves are impermanent and lack of self, which explains why it’s impermanent and also lack of self. At the fundamental level, some elementary particle such as electron seemingly has very long half-life. But with an anti-particle, the can “disappear” which gives rise to a pair of photons. Their behavior is also dependent on conditions, such as electromagnetic force, gravitational field, strong interaction, or weak interaction.
Sentient beings would not be sentient beings without consciousness, feeling, perception, and volitional formations. But consciousness, at least in the realm of sense, does rely on physical body. They are different but also dependent on each other. When this physical body breaks up, consciousness can exhibit itself in another physical body. This in itself is not disputable. This however, does not mean a “soul” has been transferred from one body to another.
The validity of a scientific theory relies on the validity of the assumption. Our live begin with birth and end with death. However, kamma extends beyond a single life. The understanding of four noble truth cannot be found by understanding physical laws itself. Our suffering is not necessarily within the scope of natural science.
One way of determining death of a sentient being is to see that consciousness ceases from a physical body. Within medical science, they usually rely on determining the condition of some organs, such as heart, brain… They cannot prove or disprove the existence of consciousness through empirical evidence, can they?
Alternatively, birth can also be understood as the arising of consciousness in a physical body, as a reverse of death. In this way, we do not deny that our physical body does come from the growth of zygote which is formed by combination a “sperm” and an “egg”. But does either of them exhibit consciousness? From biology, we understood that our consciousness requires the work of brain. If such understanding is taken to be correct, then we must accept neither sperm nor egg exhibits consciousness as brain does not exist yet.
As if it is not already obvious biology has left out a large part of what think of ourselves. I am not here to say that science is not useful. But we need to understand science and its scope before again falling into wrong view.
Contrary to popular belief, “Kamma” is not a moral law even though producing good kamma does seem to be fit in the definition of living a moral life. The understanding of kamma requires the understanding something which is much difficult to understand, dependent origination. The “Stream-Enterer” is said to gain “Dhamma Eye”, but he has not rooted out ignorance. A “stream-enterer” has understood thus gained unwavering confidence to Buddha, Sangha, Dhamma and abandoned “identity view”. He is still clinging to the “identity view” even when he recognizes such view is fundamentally wrong. Only a fully-enlightened being, an arahant, with or without the knowledge of the details of previous lives, has true knowledge of “dependent origination” and “four noble truth”.
Contrary to widespread misconception, meditation does not lead to the perpetual cessation of craving; it does help suppress the craving temporarily, which somebody calls it “temporary liberation”. If craving has not been rooted out, human being would inevitably desire for sex; thus it not contradictory that psychology may call that “sex” is a basic necessity. Only a fully enlightened being, an arahant has rooted out craving completely. Any study being done over human beings will inevitably shows human being desires for sex, which is exactly what Buddha says.
“When craving arises, clinging arises; when clinging arises, existence arises; when existence arises, birth arises; when birth arises, aging and death arises.”
thljcl
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:27 am

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby chownah » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:42 am

mahat wrote:
chownah wrote:Yes, and in the next sentence it says that Darwin used the term "chance" in many different contexts........so it seems that your assertion that Darwin means "random mutation" when he writes "chance" seems to disagree with the article.

In any event I still don't see how what you have produced indicates that Darwin is overturned or that mutations are not random.........frankly it seems that this article seems to be indicating that your views are wrong. Can you explain how what you have quoted supports your argument or offer some other reference that does?

Again, it seems that Darwin never dealt with the idea of mutations which makes sense since the workings of genetic material we're not discovered until much later I think.
chownah


Random and chance are synonyms.

ran·dom (rndm)
adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.

So, no neither I nor the quote that was mentioned was wrong. Darwin did not know the mechanism of genetic mutations and set about a theory on "origins of species"…

Buddhism states clearly, there are no "origins", an origin cannot be discerned. Even the Abhassara Devas in the Aganna Sutta devolution was cyclical. Buddhism has both devolution (higher being to lower being) and evolution (lower being to higher being) -- but it is karmic -- never random chance.

Yes, random and chance are synonyms and the article says that Darwin used the term chance in many different ways while you are saying that he means random mutation when he says chance.......you are disagreeing with the article. I have read part of the conclusion to the article and as far as I can tell the article supports Darwin's theory.....again this is in disagreement with what your claim that it Darwin has been overthrown.

Have you studied Darwin's theory? It really seems that you are very misinformed about it and I expect that your misinformation is coming from unreliable sources. Did you know that there are Christian fundamentalists who keep trying to discredit Darwin? Actually you sound just like one of them so I'm thinking that maybe they are where you are getting your misinformation........I guess.......don't know for sure........
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Previous

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alan, mikenz66, Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests