How Buddhism and Science share the same Views of the Nature of Reality.
Science and Buddhism
Re: Science and Buddhism
And on the other hand, a quote from a physicist friend of mine on another forum:
Furthermore, I will claim that most everyone who quotes quantum mechanics, or any branch of science, to promote their particular spiritual/religious views, are cowards. For example, if you use some scientific idea to "prove" some concept from your spiritual/religious views, and a few years from now that scientific idea is disproven, would you lose your faith? I suspect in most cases, you would not, in which case you aren't taking the science very seriously--it's merely a convenient prop, to be discarded if it turn inconvenient. This applies not only to quantum mechanics but also to ill-considered anthropic arguments, the idea that the universe is so fine tuned it must show the hand of God.
Re: Science and Buddhism
So you are calling me a coward?
Re: Science and Buddhism
I was just sharing information. I know that science is built on concepts. Concepts are only subjectively and conventionally true. While Ultimate realities are Truths not depending on conventional definitions.
Re: Science and Buddhism
Of course not. Just sharing another perspective from somebody I know. I think it is a bad idea to use science to support one's practice though.smokey wrote:So you are calling me a coward?
-M
Re: Science and Buddhism
Everything we know, whether it is science or dhamma, comes through the same sense doors.smokey wrote:I was just sharing information. I know that science is built on concepts. Concepts are only subjectively and conventionally true. While Ultimate realities are Truths not depending on conventional definitions.
Kim
Re: Science and Buddhism
This probably would've been the best thing to say from the beginning.meindzai wrote:
I think it is a bad idea to use science to support one's practice though.
-M
Your friend's quote was not necessary to convey your opinion. Pretty uncalled for in a community in which we are supposed to be helpful, supportive and patient with each other. Well at least that is how I figure it should be. Maybe I'm foolish in that regard.
If you want someone to rethink their opinion on a subject, which you obviously did considering what you posted, give them some helpful opinions and advice rather then a flat out insult. I know you said you didn't intend to insult him, but how do you think someone is going to feel when you post something like that?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Science and Buddhism
The quote expressed what I think on the topic rather well, and clearly since it was a quote and not a direct response, it was not an insult. How anybody feels about it is actually up to them, but I apologize for any misunderstandings.SDC wrote:This probably would've been the best thing to say from the beginning.meindzai wrote:
I think it is a bad idea to use science to support one's practice though.
-M
Your friend's quote was not necessary to convey your opinion. Pretty uncalled for in a community in which we are supposed to be helpful, supportive and patient with each other. Well at least that is how I figure it should be. Maybe I'm foolish in that regard.
If you want someone to rethink their opinion on a subject, which you obviously did considering what you posted, give them some helpful opinions and advice rather then a flat out insult. I know you said you didn't intend to insult him, but how do you think someone is going to feel when you post something like that?
Sorry Smokey!
-M
Re: Science and Buddhism
I think it's a good idea to use science to support one's practice. That's part of testing whether it's true. But one should be careful not to attach to theories as fact since it can change or be disproven. But ultimately science and religion can be the opposite view of the same coin.meindzai wrote:I think it is a bad idea to use science to support one's practice though.smokey wrote:So you are calling me a coward?
-M
Re: Science and Buddhism
Right on, meindzai. I apologize for being that abrupt about it.meindzai wrote:
The quote expressed what I think on the topic rather well, and clearly since it was a quote and not a direct response, it was not an insult. How anybody feels about it is actually up to them, but I apologize for any misunderstandings.
Sorry Smokey!
-M
I just felt for Smokey.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Science and Buddhism
Hi Smokey and all
I've been a big fan of Sam Harris for some years and a good friend pointed me to the following video and article: Towards a Contemplative Science.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harri ... 15024.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I hope you get out of it as much as I did.
I've been a big fan of Sam Harris for some years and a good friend pointed me to the following video and article: Towards a Contemplative Science.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harri ... 15024.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I hope you get out of it as much as I did.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: Science and Buddhism
meindzai wrote:And on the other hand, a quote from a physicist friend of mine on another forum:
Furthermore, I will claim that most everyone who quotes quantum mechanics, or any branch of science, to promote their particular spiritual/religious views, are cowards. For example, if you use some scientific idea to "prove" some concept from your spiritual/religious views, and a few years from now that scientific idea is disproven, would you lose your faith? I suspect in most cases, you would not, in which case you aren't taking the science very seriously--it's merely a convenient prop, to be discarded if it turn inconvenient. This applies not only to quantum mechanics but also to ill-considered anthropic arguments, the idea that the universe is so fine tuned it must show the hand of God.
Only if you cling to view.
adosa
"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas" - Dhammapada 183
Re: Science and Buddhism
Yeah, I also will say, be wary of these references to quantum physics.How Buddhism and Science share the same Views of the Nature of Reality.
In particular, lots of people comment on the relationship that consciousness has with reality, and describe quantum physics as "saying" something like that consciousness gives rise to reality. Quantum physics really has little to "say" about consciousness, however. The way that it is described (including in perfectly reasonable physics journals), in terms of "observation" and so on can be misleading. But there isn't anything in the physics itself that gives evidence that observation by a conscious entity is different from interaction with some system such as a brick or a block of wood. Quantum physics does not seem to provide any way to test for consciousness. That consciousness plays a central role is just one interpretation that can be placed on it.
It is interesting that quantum physics takes one further away from picturing reality as composed of isolated component parts. Quantum physics depends on a connection known as "entanglement" existing to make its predictions. For instance, the frequencies of light emitted by a helium atom are predictable with great accuracy, but only by treating the state of the pair of electrons as something more than just a combination of separate states for each electron by itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement. But it seems like a somewhat technical distinction with few real philosophical implications.
Science and Buddhism have a lot in common as enterprises that have investigation of reality at their core, but not so much in the insights they reach, as in their attempting to keep observation pure and unobstructed by attachment to views. Science relies more on ways to prevent observations from being distorted even if the researcher is mentally biased, while Buddhism relies more on ways of ridding the researcher from mental bias, which in a sense is a much more ambitious goal.
Fig Tree
Re: Science and Buddhism
The video presents a variety of speculative views that have nothing to do with science.smokey wrote:How Buddhism and Science share the same Views of the Nature of Reality.
Buddhism entails the end of speculation.
As far as sensually perceptable phenomena are concerned science certainly provides evidence for the infinite divisibility of anything that may be called "form" in a buddhist context.
Buddhism however does not promote the view that by looking "deeper and deeper into form" anything benefitial may be gained. Buddhism advocates the investigation into "I" and "mine" in the first place.
Science implicitely undermines a gross type of realism ("naive" realism) with reference to phenomena (conventionally) "external to mind" which usually are acessible to and verifiable by conventional sense perception. This partial deconstruction by scientific analysis does not touch potential metaphysical remainders like "cosmic energy", "god" or a "monolithic self" or ordinary "quasi-metaphysical" entities like "I" and "mine".
Kind regards
- Prasadachitta
- Posts: 974
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
- Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
- Contact:
Re: Science and Buddhism
I think that as we deconstruct we are engaged in an act of construction. I tend to think of my Buddhist practice as a process of cultivating a sense of the degree to which there is speculation and seeing where it has value and where it is useless. When does having an actionable theory become useless speculation? What criteria do I use to discern this? What is my goal? It is my ever present task to continually cultivate a mind which keeps these questions at the forefront. To my mind this is how Buddha Dhamma will always supersede scientific investigation. These questions and the clarity which I attempt to bring to them are always more important than any of the provisional answers which guide further action. I think that the difference between an effective actionable theory and useless speculation can often simply be a question of whether or not I act on it.
Metta All...
Gabe
Metta All...
Gabe
Last edited by Prasadachitta on Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332