Peter wrote:That seems forced to me. The 4Nt are usually summarized as:
cause of problem
end of problem
cause of end of problem
Individual wrote:It's considered to be based on the model4 of medicine:
Individual wrote:A long time ago, Retrofuturist (I think) sent me an article in which there was a section on the relationship between Buddhism and science... I remember it was very good. Maybe he still has it.
Pannapetar wrote:Is the epistemic foundation of Buddhism scientific? What do you think?
tiltbillings wrote:What is this need to align Buddhism with science?
Is the epistemic foundation of Buddhism scientific? What do you think?
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,tiltbillings wrote:What is this need to align Buddhism with science?
I think it's more that it shouldn't contradict science. Both spiritual enquiry and scientific enquiry are built upon observation, and the interpretation of those observations. If there is a conflict, it is worthwhile investigating which discipline has either observed or interpreted incorrectly.
Science can be reasonably used to refute the claims of many of the more dubious and superstitious religious traditions that mankind has created. The fact Buddhism is open to and able to stand up to such scrutiny and investigation is going to be one of its biggest "selling points" (for want of a better term) in the 21st century.
tiltbillings wrote:Is Buddhism falsifiable?
tiltbillings wrote:Buddhism is not science. What is this need to align Buddhism with science?
BlackBird wrote:Science is also said to be emperical [sic] truth.
Canki Sutta wrote:Buddha: "Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bharadvaja. If one didn't make an exertion, one wouldn't finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for exertion? We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for exertion."
Buddha: "Contemplating is most helpful for exertion, Bharadvaja. If one didn't contemplate, one wouldn't make an exertion. Because one contemplates, one makes an exertion. Therefore, contemplating is most helpful for exertion."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for contemplating?..."
Buddha: "Being willing... If one weren't willing, one wouldn't contemplate..."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for being willing?..."
Buddha: "Desire... If desire didn't arise, one wouldn't be willing..."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for desire?..."
Buddha: "Coming to an agreement through pondering dhammas... If one didn't come to an agreement through pondering dhammas, desire wouldn't arise..."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for coming to an agreement through pondering dhammas?..."
Buddha: "Penetrating the meaning... If one didn't penetrate the meaning, one wouldn't come to an agreement through pondering dhammas..."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for penetrating the meaning?..."
Buddha: "Remembering the Dhamma... If one didn't remember the Dhamma, one wouldn't penetrate the meaning..."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for remembering the Dhamma?... "
Buddha: "Hearing the Dhamma... If one didn't hear the Dhamma, one wouldn't remember the Dhamma..."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for hearing the Dhamma?... "
Buddha: "Lending ear... If one didn't lend ear, one wouldn't hear the Dhamma..."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for lending ear?... "
Buddha: "Growing close... If one didn't grow close, one wouldn't lend ear..."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for growing close?... "
Buddha: "Visiting... If one didn't visit, one wouldn't grow close..."
Bharadvaja: "But what quality is most helpful for visiting? We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for visiting."
Buddha: "Conviction is most helpful for visiting, Bharadvaja. If conviction [in a person] didn't arise, one wouldn't visit [that person]. Because conviction arises, one visits. Therefore, conviction is most helpful for visiting."
Mawkish1983 wrote:BlackBird wrote:Science is also said to be emperical [sic] truth.
Science is the process of obtaining knowledge by using the scientific method. There's no such thing as 'empirical truth' (for 'truth', see philosophy). In science, all evidence must be empirical, but this does not mean all empirical evidence is science
Mawkish1983 wrote:The scientific method, as laid out by our friendly wikipedia editors, is:
1) Characterisations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
2) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
3) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
4) Experiments (tests of all of the above)
Superficially, this might look a lot like Buddhism: characterising the problem (dukkha), hypothetical explanation (craving), predictions (get rid of craving, get rid of dukkha) and experiments (follow the noble eightfold path and see for yourself) but importantly this isn't strictly the scientific method: point 4, experiments, pertains to conducting experiments to try to disprove point 2 by getting a different result than point 3. Conducting experiments to try to 'proove' point 3 constitutes a converse error, a logical fallacy. Hence, science is in the business of forever trying to prove itself wrong.
With the four noble truthes, can practicing them lead to evidence that the hypothesis (craving causes dukkha) is wrong? I don't think so for two reasons. Firstly, if someone was practicing it their whole life but did not attain freedom from dukkha we would not say "ah, that means Buddhism is wrong", we might say "they weren't doing it right" or "their past conditioning meant they weren't ready" or something else like that. I wonder, has this ever happened? If it had, I doubt it would have been documented but it would be interesting .
The second reason is simple: I believe that dukkha IS caused by craving. I believe the Buddha was right. In my practice I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence to make me believe it. My belief isn't strictly based on science, it's based on reason and anecdotal evidence. I personally believe that no experiment can be formulated to try to prove the Buddha wrong because, simply, the Buddha was right.
BlackBird wrote:This is word play my friend. I'm fairly sure you understood the meaning of my post.
How can anything be 'proven' right except by every experiment that can ever possibly be conducted not contradicting?BlackBird wrote:I have never thought that Science was in the business of proving itself wrong.
BlackBird wrote:I have always assumed Science was concerned with fact, with truth
BlackBird wrote:explain to me why attempting to prove point 3 is a logical fallacy
Fede wrote:Science is fundamentally not about Altruism, and in fact there is much in science which is detrimental to humanity.
There is nothing in Buddhism which is detrimental to humanity, and it is entirely altruistic.
The Buddhadhamma is for individual beings who make up the nations of the world. The background of samsaric existence goes on and on. Living in samsara, but not being distracted from practising sila, samadhi and panna is a difficult but realisable goal.
A Government doesn't "love" - only individual beings do.
The whole world doesn't have to become celibate (As if!!). An individual, should they feel it is best for their practice, can - as a lay person or ordained person - lead a celibate life.
Most Scientists aren't working altruistically in their isolated homes
- they are working on projects for governments and large companies.
Users browsing this forum: chownah, Exabot [Bot], MSNbot Media and 26 guests