Science and Buddhism

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Modus.Ponens » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:52 pm

mahat wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
kmath wrote:“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”


― His Holiness Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality


I strongly disagree with this based on the same point I made in my previous post. There is no "conclusively" in an absolute sense in science. Science provides tentative explanations about phenomena. This means that these explanations can change if better evidence is found that forces us to revise those explanations.

Hypothetically, let's say that "scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false" and we "accept the findings of science and abandon those claims". Then new evidence is discovered later that actually supports that previous Buddhist claim we've abandoned. How foolish would we look?

:shrug:

With all due respect to such a kind man, the Dalai Lama's statement shows a clear misunderstanding of what science is.


I agree, science is solving little pieces of the phenomenal puzzle. Science cannot give ethical directions.

Buddhism is about Dhamma, ethical laws and their relationships to internal/external phenomena as well as gaining self control and wisdom through meditation.

Here is an example of the silliness of the statement of the Dalai Lama and the limits of scientific studies:

Just recently I read an article that showed that scientific studies showed "sex is good for you",

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health

So far my Googling has not found one scientific study showing that celibacy can also be good for you. ;)

THEREFORE: I guess according to the Dalai Lama now monks and nuns should now forfeit celibacy due to this "scientific finding". If Buddha only knew sex can be this healthy he would never have advocated celibacy for monks and nuns... :rolleye:

I'll stick with Buddha. :meditate:



It is a fact. Period. You have, however to know what are the facts and how to interpret them. The following study was not done yet: to study 4 groups: 1- celibates without meditation; 2- sexualy active people without meditation; 3- sexualy active people which practice meditation; 4- celibates who practice meditation. Then, we could start geting a good picture.
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: 1938
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Mkoll » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:15 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:Science can prove what it is false as false, but it cannot prove a theory as true. This means that what has been proven false is false. In that sense I completely agree with the Dalai Lama.

We cannot pick and choose what to take from science. It has proven several good things about meditation. We take it as true. We cannot have a double standard when science proves a buddhist theory to be wrong.


With all due respect...

Science does not prove anything. There is no such thing as a scientific proof. If you read the article that I linked in my first post of this thread, you would understand why. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here is a relevant passage below. However, I strongly suggest you read the article for the whole picture.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:22 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
kmath wrote:“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”


― His Holiness Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality


I strongly disagree with this based on the same point I made in my previous post. There is no "conclusively" in an absolute sense in science. Science provides tentative explanations about phenomena. This means that these explanations can change if better evidence is found that forces us to revise those explanations.

Hypothetically, let's say that "scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false" and we "accept the findings of science and abandon those claims". Then new evidence is discovered later that actually supports that previous Buddhist claim we've abandoned. How foolish would we look?

:shrug:

With all due respect to such a kind man, the Dalai Lama's statement shows a clear misunderstanding of what science is.


It's not an all or nothing question.

You can say for certain that there was evolution of the human species from simian ancestors. If I recall correctly the buddhist myth of how mankind came to existence had to do with devas becoming more coarse, so to speak, due to sexual desire.


Buddhism presents something similar to the Holographic theory of the universe, this would throw evolutionary theory into the garbage heap since it would demonstrate limited knowledge of biologists. Biologists are working in time, limited by time and thus relative notions of before and after.
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:30 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
mahat wrote:
I agree, science is solving little pieces of the phenomenal puzzle. Science cannot give ethical directions.

Buddhism is about Dhamma, ethical laws and their relationships to internal/external phenomena as well as gaining self control and wisdom through meditation.

Here is an example of the silliness of the statement of the Dalai Lama and the limits of scientific studies:

Just recently I read an article that showed that scientific studies showed "sex is good for you",

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health

So far my Googling has not found one scientific study showing that celibacy can also be good for you. ;)

THEREFORE: I guess according to the Dalai Lama now monks and nuns should now forfeit celibacy due to this "scientific finding". If Buddha only knew sex can be this healthy he would never have advocated celibacy for monks and nuns... :rolleye:

I'll stick with Buddha. :meditate:



It is a fact. Period. You have, however to know what are the facts and how to interpret them. The following study was not done yet: to study 4 groups: 1- celibates without meditation; 2- sexualy active people without meditation; 3- sexualy active people which practice meditation; 4- celibates who practice meditation. Then, we could start geting a good picture.


Did I say the above was not a fact? Under certain controlled cases, yes it is a fact. The fact also is that in each case you will be studying only one piece of the puzzle.

How are you going to prove the whole? A "good picture" is not scientific. Science is only there to prove/disprove one hypothesis at a time.

Based on various findings, I can "come to MY conclusion" --but this is not following any scientific method.
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby kmath » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:33 pm

mahat wrote:Buddhism presents something similar to the Holographic theory of the universe, this would throw evolutionary theory into the garbage heap since it would demonstrate limited knowledge of biologists. Biologists are working in time, limited by time and thus relative notions of before and after.


I don't think you've understood "Holograph theory" correctly. Nevertheless, if my options are evolution vs. corruption of devas, I'm going with evolution. Although evolution has not been "proven", surely it's more likely than the apparent alternative.
Last edited by kmath on Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
kmath
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:44 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby kmath » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:43 pm

mahat wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
It is a fact. Period. You have, however to know what are the facts and how to interpret them. The following study was not done yet: to study 4 groups: 1- celibates without meditation; 2- sexualy active people without meditation; 3- sexualy active people which practice meditation; 4- celibates who practice meditation. Then, we could start geting a good picture.


How are you going to prove the whole? A "good picture" is not scientific. Science is only there to prove/disprove one hypothesis at a time.


What is "the whole" in this case? Modus.Ponens is only talking about one hypothesis: for example, celibacy combined with meditation is correlated with higher well being than any of (1-3). That's what M.P's study tests.

(Don't mean to put words in your mouth M.P)
User avatar
kmath
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:44 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby SarathW » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:00 am

The science investigate only the material aspect (Rupa) of the five aggregate.
The science needs the physical proof not the experiential proof so science is not a substitute for Buddha’s teaching.
Though they complement each other in some aspects.
:idea:
SarathW
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:10 am

kmath wrote:
mahat wrote:Buddhism presents something similar to the Holographic theory of the universe, this would throw evolutionary theory into the garbage heap since it would demonstrate limited knowledge of biologists. Biologists are working in time, limited by time and thus relative notions of before and after.


I don't think you've understood "Holograph theory" correctly. Nevertheless, if my options are evolution vs. corruption of devas, I'm going with evolution. Although evolution has not been "proven", surely it's more likely than the apparent alternative.


Please enlighten me as to the "correct understanding" of the holographic theory. I'm game.

Option? That simply means your preference of one belief over another - my own, I'd rather believe I came from a super powerful Deva who ate too much. :smile:

Dr. Barbara McClintock already destroyed Darwinian evolutionary theory with "jumping elements" in genes, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory assumed random mutations:

"In her biography of Dr. McClintock, "A Feeling for the Organism," Dr.
Evelyn Fox Keller of the MIT wrote that geneticists were baffled by
McClintock's ideas because they seem too at odds with the very nature
of Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution holds that changes
occur randomly in genes, giving rise to changes that may or may not
prove beneficial.

Dr. McClintock, however, was saying that purposeful changes occur in
genes, that transposable elements jump to specific places to insert
themselves into genetic material and alter it."
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1 ... 00200.html


BTW, Dr. McClintock said scientists had a huge problem with this discovery since it destroyed Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:22 am

kmath wrote:
mahat wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
It is a fact. Period. You have, however to know what are the facts and how to interpret them. The following study was not done yet: to study 4 groups: 1- celibates without meditation; 2- sexualy active people without meditation; 3- sexualy active people which practice meditation; 4- celibates who practice meditation. Then, we could start geting a good picture.


How are you going to prove the whole? A "good picture" is not scientific. Science is only there to prove/disprove one hypothesis at a time.


What is "the whole" in this case? Modus.Ponens is only talking about one hypothesis: for example, celibacy combined with meditation is correlated with higher well being than any of (1-3). That's what M.P's study tests.

(Don't mean to put words in your mouth M.P)


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.
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby chownah » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:26 am

mahat wrote:
Dr. Barbara McClintock already destroyed Darwinian evolutionary theory with "jumping elements" in genes, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory assumed random mutations:

"In her biography of Dr. McClintock, "A Feeling for the Organism," Dr.
Evelyn Fox Keller of the MIT wrote that geneticists were baffled by
McClintock's ideas because they seem too at odds with the very nature
of Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution holds that changes
occur randomly in genes, giving rise to changes that may or may not
prove beneficial.

Dr. McClintock, however, was saying that purposeful changes occur in
genes, that transposable elements jump to specific places to insert
themselves into genetic material and alter it."
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1 ... 00200.html


BTW, Dr. McClintock said scientists had a huge problem with this discovery since it destroyed Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

mahat,
I think that McClintock's research did not destroy Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and the real reasons that scientists at that time had problems with her findings are twofold: 1.) She was subject to gender prejudice.....and 2.) The bulk of her work was BEFORE the discovery of the structure of DNA and way before what DNA did was understood. McClintock basically discerned that there was some sort of agent which controlled genetic expression.....later it was determined that it was DNA and it's related machinery which does this. There is no controversy that I am aware of concerning her work today.......she received a Nobel prize which seems to indicate that she is well accepted!!!.......also she has been on postal stamps. I don't know for sure but I think that it is a small group of Creationists who claim that she destroyed Darwin.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:41 am

Thanks for that Chownah. I'm not an expert in this area, but obviously Darwin's insights into evolutionary processes preceded detailed knowledge of the biochemistry of genes and gene expression, and were therefore, as I understand it, rather general.

It's reasonably well understood now that genetics is much more complex than a simplistic "gentic code" model. The DNA that you are born with is not the whole story - environmental effects also control how genes express. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation ... expression

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10097
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby kmath » Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:18 am

mahat wrote:Please enlighten me as to the "correct understanding" of the holographic theory. I'm game.

Option? That simply means your preference of one belief over another - my own, I'd rather believe I came from a super powerful Deva who ate too much. :smile:

Dr. Barbara McClintock already destroyed Darwinian evolutionary theory with "jumping elements" in genes, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory assumed random mutations:


Holographic theory doesn't render the rest of science invalid.

My belief in evolution instead of overeating Devas doesn't come from preference. It comes from looking at evidence. I see no evidence that I came from devas or that devas even exist. But there's plenty of evidence that suggests evolution is true.

Dr. McClintock may have slightly refined Darwin's theory but she certainly did not "destroy it." Natural selection is completely accepted by the scientific community.
User avatar
kmath
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:44 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:02 am

kmath wrote:
mahat wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
It is a fact. Period. You have, however to know what are the facts and how to interpret them. The following study was not done yet: to study 4 groups: 1- celibates without meditation; 2- sexualy active people without meditation; 3- sexualy active people which practice meditation; 4- celibates who practice meditation. Then, we could start geting a good picture.


How are you going to prove the whole? A "good picture" is not scientific. Science is only there to prove/disprove one hypothesis at a time.


What is "the whole" in this case? Modus.Ponens is only talking about one hypothesis: for example, celibacy combined with meditation is correlated with higher well being than any of (1-3). That's what M.P's study tests.

(Don't mean to put words in your mouth M.P)


That was exactly what I was saying. Except that multiple studies, for multiple aspects, would be necessary _ which was something I didn't express correctly at all.
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: 1938
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:09 pm

chownah wrote:
mahat wrote:
Dr. Barbara McClintock already destroyed Darwinian evolutionary theory with "jumping elements" in genes, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory assumed random mutations:

"In her biography of Dr. McClintock, "A Feeling for the Organism," Dr.
Evelyn Fox Keller of the MIT wrote that geneticists were baffled by
McClintock's ideas because they seem too at odds with the very nature
of Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution holds that changes
occur randomly in genes, giving rise to changes that may or may not
prove beneficial.

Dr. McClintock, however, was saying that purposeful changes occur in
genes, that transposable elements jump to specific places to insert
themselves into genetic material and alter it."
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1 ... 00200.html


BTW, Dr. McClintock said scientists had a huge problem with this discovery since it destroyed Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

mahat,
I think that McClintock's research did not destroy Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and the real reasons that scientists at that time had problems with her findings are twofold: 1.) She was subject to gender prejudice.....and 2.) The bulk of her work was BEFORE the discovery of the structure of DNA and way before what DNA did was understood. McClintock basically discerned that there was some sort of agent which controlled genetic expression.....later it was determined that it was DNA and it's related machinery which does this. There is no controversy that I am aware of concerning her work today.......she received a Nobel prize which seems to indicate that she is well accepted!!!.......also she has been on postal stamps. I don't know for sure but I think that it is a small group of Creationists who claim that she destroyed Darwin.
chownah


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.
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby mahat » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:42 pm

kmath wrote:
mahat wrote:Please enlighten me as to the "correct understanding" of the holographic theory. I'm game.

Option? That simply means your preference of one belief over another - my own, I'd rather believe I came from a super powerful Deva who ate too much. :smile:

Dr. Barbara McClintock already destroyed Darwinian evolutionary theory with "jumping elements" in genes, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory assumed random mutations:


Holographic theory doesn't render the rest of science invalid.

My belief in evolution instead of overeating Devas doesn't come from preference. It comes from looking at evidence. I see no evidence that I came from devas or that devas even exist. But there's plenty of evidence that suggests evolution is true.

Dr. McClintock may have slightly refined Darwin's theory but she certainly did not "destroy it." Natural selection is completely accepted by the scientific community.


My belief in us coming from Abhassara Devas doesn't come from any predisposition to believe in the supernatural, it comes from Buddhism being an ethical based system, with ethics as it's foundation and standard. I accept this belief as more advantageous to leading a more ennobled life rather than believing in evolutionary theory. I find in my experience this belief helps me to control sense desires better. I have not seen it for myself as you have not seen the any truth of evolution for yourself.

You say you will side per physical evidence with science, I say science changes with new knowledge all the time and is therefore unreliable in formulation of a world view. Scientific studies can be biased by WHO FUNDS THOSE STUDIES.

I would side with Buddhism against science if there was a contradiction since Buddhism is an ethics based system unlike science. Ethics does not change, it is the most solid foundation of knowledge humanity has.

"Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.
What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living."
Einstein p. 70 - Written statement (September 1937)Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, The Human Side: New Glimpses From His Archives (1979)
mahat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby kmath » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:31 pm

mahat wrote:
kmath wrote:
mahat wrote:Please enlighten me as to the "correct understanding" of the holographic theory. I'm game.

Option? That simply means your preference of one belief over another - my own, I'd rather believe I came from a super powerful Deva who ate too much. :smile:

Dr. Barbara McClintock already destroyed Darwinian evolutionary theory with "jumping elements" in genes, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory assumed random mutations:


Holographic theory doesn't render the rest of science invalid.

My belief in evolution instead of overeating Devas doesn't come from preference. It comes from looking at evidence. I see no evidence that I came from devas or that devas even exist. But there's plenty of evidence that suggests evolution is true.

Dr. McClintock may have slightly refined Darwin's theory but she certainly did not "destroy it." Natural selection is completely accepted by the scientific community.


My belief in us coming from Abhassara Devas doesn't come from any predisposition to believe in the supernatural, it comes from Buddhism being an ethical based system, with ethics as it's foundation and standard. I accept this belief as more advantageous to leading a more ennobled life rather than believing in evolutionary theory. I find in my experience this belief helps me to control sense desires better. I have not seen it for myself as you have not seen the any truth of evolution for yourself.

You say you will side per physical evidence with science, I say science changes with new knowledge all the time and is therefore unreliable in formulation of a world view. Scientific studies can be biased by WHO FUNDS THOSE STUDIES.

I would side with Buddhism against science if there was a contradiction since Buddhism is an ethics based system unlike science. Ethics does not change, it is the most solid foundation of knowledge humanity has.

"Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.
What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living."
Einstein p. 70 - Written statement (September 1937)Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, The Human Side: New Glimpses From His Archives (1979)


Ok. Agree to disagree.
User avatar
kmath
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:44 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:44 am

Mkoll wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:Science can prove what it is false as false, but it cannot prove a theory as true. This means that what has been proven false is false. In that sense I completely agree with the Dalai Lama.

We cannot pick and choose what to take from science. It has proven several good things about meditation. We take it as true. We cannot have a double standard when science proves a buddhist theory to be wrong.


With all due respect...

Science does not prove anything. There is no such thing as a scientific proof. If you read the article that I linked in my first post of this thread, you would understand why. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here is a relevant passage below. However, I strongly suggest you read the article for the whole picture.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.


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.

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.
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: 1938
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:59 am

mahat wrote:
kmath wrote:
mahat wrote:Buddhism presents something similar to the Holographic theory of the universe, this would throw evolutionary theory into the garbage heap since it would demonstrate limited knowledge of biologists. Biologists are working in time, limited by time and thus relative notions of before and after.


I don't think you've understood "Holograph theory" correctly. Nevertheless, if my options are evolution vs. corruption of devas, I'm going with evolution. Although evolution has not been "proven", surely it's more likely than the apparent alternative.


Please enlighten me as to the "correct understanding" of the holographic theory. I'm game.

Option? That simply means your preference of one belief over another - my own, I'd rather believe I came from a super powerful Deva who ate too much. :smile:

Dr. Barbara McClintock already destroyed Darwinian evolutionary theory with "jumping elements" in genes, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory assumed random mutations:

"In her biography of Dr. McClintock, "A Feeling for the Organism," Dr.
Evelyn Fox Keller of the MIT wrote that geneticists were baffled by
McClintock's ideas because they seem too at odds with the very nature
of Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution holds that changes
occur randomly in genes, giving rise to changes that may or may not
prove beneficial.

Dr. McClintock, however, was saying that purposeful changes occur in
genes, that transposable elements jump to specific places to insert
themselves into genetic material and alter it."
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1 ... 00200.html


BTW, Dr. McClintock said scientists had a huge problem with this discovery since it destroyed Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.


Arguing with christian creationists is pointless. The reason I will bother to post further is because I hope I can contribute to the disappearance of this completely absurd belief, of humans coming from devas. I'm sorry but that's the mistake I see people doing with the bible. At least the creationist christians have a reason to believe that: they believe that the bible is the word of god _ a god who supposedly has the power of mantaining his words unchangeable through time. We buddhists don't even have that. Our scriptures were written hundreds of years after the buddha died. Do you think that, if the words of Descartes were memorised in the 1600s, by a group of very good people, and were passed down through 400 years of generations, they would be the exact same words today?
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: 1938
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:09 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.



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?
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: 1938
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Science and Buddhism

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:17 am

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?
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: 1938
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Goofaholix and 7 guests

cron