Science and Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
smokey
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: Budaševo, Croatia

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by smokey »

meindzai wrote:
SDC wrote:
meindzai wrote:
I think it is a bad idea to use science to support one's practice though.

-M
This probably would've been the best thing to say from the beginning.

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?
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
Do not worry about it Meindzai. You did not offend me. :toast:
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by jcsuperstar »

depends on what you mean by science. the science to know whether or not the stars are in our atmosphere or whether or not there is an ocean in the sky(these are taught in the bible) is far different from the more theoretical or "cutting edge"sciences where you cant just take a plane up and look around. sure the math behind a lot of modern science is beautiful and tells us things should be such and such a way but ideas change, new insights are added or mistakes are found out etc and to pin any sort of faith that science has things figured out is a mistake. i have faith that the process of science is a valid one and has the potential to uncover great truths but beyond that i don't place my "salvation" in its hands.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
User avatar
Dhammakid
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Contact:

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Dhammakid »

I absolutely agree that science in general - and quantum mechanics specifically - should be carefully used (if at all) when attempting to apply it to spiritual concepts. The Buddha teaches us that we tend to misinterpret reality in pretty much everything we do. We look for a specific conclusion and don't stop until we find it. It's hard not to be selfish, even when using the scientific method. Science is a fantastic way to observe the material world, but it still involves suffering since it seeks to understand things the mundane human intellect will never be able to understand. We as students of Dhamma are concerned with ceasing these pursuits.

Quantum mechanics demonstrates that the rules of everyday life physics are much different than the rules on a micro level. Beyond this, further interpretation is speculative and most often ascribed to previously existing beliefs, often of the type not readily testable by conventional science. Besides, the way science is applied these days seems to be geared more towards controlling and dominating nature rather than understanding and appreciating it. Buddhism has no interest in this, since our practice is purely about eliminating suffering. Maybe if science as a whole was concerned with the same, then the discussion of their similarities would be more productive.

Also, just as Eastern philosophers can claim kin to quantum mechanics, so can a stout materialist atheist. After all, it shows us that we really don't know anything.

Just my thoughts.
-Dhammakid
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by DNS »

Good posts, adosa, jc, and Dhammakid.

Quantum mechanics has been under some scrutiny lately because much of it appears to be speculative and not testable. But in regards to "other branches of science" this is certainly not the case. Recognizing some compatibility of one's religion to the sciences in other areas is certainly not "cowardly" as cowardly is a term normally used for someone afraid, such as being afraid to take a position or to defend a position. One can take a view, but not cling to it and modify it as necessary with an open mind. The Dalai Lama has been open to the linking of Buddhism as compatible to the sciences, but he has also stated that he would drop some belief if science absolutely showed it to be false.

The sciences in other branches (other than the quantum) has shown that Thor is not the reason there is thunder and lightning, has shown that animals and humans evolve, that the earth is several billion years old, not 6,000 etc. To this extent that the sciences are compatible with Buddhism, why not acknowledge that and welcome this link?

:toast:
User avatar
Dhammakid
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Contact:

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Dhammakid »

Some good points, David.

One of the reasons Buddhism appeals to me much more than any other faith is its closer compatibility with science than pretty much any other faith. I'm not necessarily ready to say it's completely compatible with science, but I also don't necessarily need it to be in order to be comfortable as a Buddhist. Scientists have begun speculating the existence of other universes, worm holes through black holes, time travel and a host of other unproven (and maybe even unprovable) ideas. Yet scientists aren't leaving their profession because of this. There are many parts of Buddhism that just makes sense to me, even if they aren't provable. There are also some Buddhist ideas that don't make sense to me; I can keep what's relevant to me and discard the rest. In due time, both scientists and spiritual students will come to know the truth(s) for themselves. For the time being, I'm quite happy the Buddha was at least a bit more grounded in reality than most other hippy dudes recorded on ancient scrolls.
-Dhammakid
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

Yea, many years of observing myriad intelligent and often well-trained people, many of whom were actual physicists (as opposed to amateurs attempting to create a Grand Unified Theory of Everything :P ) wrestling with this knot have taught me one thing: While Buddhism and Natural Science have exploring "reality" as their intention, the End Game of the two are very different.

Some things just don't fit well on the same plate. Ice cream and tuna fish for example. Best to keep them in separate bowls. I think at this point in our experience these two investigative tools are best kept separate. Otherwise, we only confuse ourselves and waste time. Although it can be an interesting waste of time, if that's yer thing.

At the root of the problem is that our Science only examines Rupa and phenomena arising from Rupa. If it acknowledges consciousness at all, it's how it arises from Rupa. Buddhism recognizes both Rupa and Nama (non-material elements) and these non-material elements are part of our experiences. These non-material elements of consciousness are not part of Material Science at this point; there are no instruments yet to measure them. Perhaps one day there will be a fusion of Science and Dhamma. If this happens quite a few changes in our existence would occur, it seems to me.

J
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Freawaru »

Bubbabuddhist wrote:Yea, many years of observing myriad intelligent and often well-trained people, many of whom were actual physicists (as opposed to amateurs attempting to create a Grand Unified Theory of Everything :P ) wrestling with this knot have taught me one thing: While Buddhism and Natural Science have exploring "reality" as their intention, the End Game of the two are very different.
Indeed. If Buddhism had been about physics by now we would have warp drive, time travel, stargates, ascension ...
Some things just don't fit well on the same plate. Ice cream and tuna fish for example. Best to keep them in separate bowls. I think at this point in our experience these two investigative tools are best kept separate. Otherwise, we only confuse ourselves and waste time. Although it can be an interesting waste of time, if that's yer thing.
Swimming in the possibilities. I think this is something similar in Buddhism and physics. At first we consider the possibilities of everything stated in a speculation (it is possible to be in absorption, iddhis, awareness, jhana ...), then we test it, find its range of limits and construe a full fledged theory adapting and upgrading it on the base of the results of every new experiment.
At the root of the problem is that our Science only examines Rupa and phenomena arising from Rupa. If it acknowledges consciousness at all, it's how it arises from Rupa. Buddhism recognizes both Rupa and Nama (non-material elements) and these non-material elements are part of our experiences. These non-material elements of consciousness are not part of Material Science at this point; there are no instruments yet to measure them. Perhaps one day there will be a fusion of Science and Dhamma. If this happens quite a few changes in our existence would occur, it seems to me.

J
Does physics really examine rupa? I don't think so. Rupa consists of the elements: fire, earth, water, and air. This is not what physics acknowledges or investigates. The proper science to compare the lore of rupa to would be psychology (more precisely: psychosomatic science), namely how the information from the senses are feeding the impression of how our physical body and the physical world appears to us (in yoga this is called the "ether body" and "ether world"). The rupa jhanas and rupa realms of the deva are not about physical levels, either, but about what is called "astral" in the West, the mind made realms, not based on any information provided by the physical senses, but based on the mind-made rupa senses. And so far I have not seen any Hamiltonian describing the mechanics of an Astralion.
"What self do you posit, Potthapada?"

"I posit a gross self, possessed of form, made up of the four great existents [earth, water, fire, and wind], feeding on physical food."

...

"Then, lord, I posit a mind-made self complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

I think you have an incomplete understanding of the term "rupa." :namaste: This term in its most general meaning refers to material objects and their appearance. The elements Earth, air, fire and liquid, I believe are commonly referred to as Dhathus.

J
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by meindzai »

Freawaru wrote:
Bubbabuddhist wrote:Yea, many years of observing myriad intelligent and often well-trained people, many of whom were actual physicists (as opposed to amateurs attempting to create a Grand Unified Theory of Everything :P ) wrestling with this knot have taught me one thing: While Buddhism and Natural Science have exploring "reality" as their intention, the End Game of the two are very different.
Indeed. If Buddhism had been about physics by now we would have warp drive, time travel, stargates, ascension ...
Some things just don't fit well on the same plate. Ice cream and tuna fish for example. Best to keep them in separate bowls. I think at this point in our experience these two investigative tools are best kept separate. Otherwise, we only confuse ourselves and waste time. Although it can be an interesting waste of time, if that's yer thing.
Swimming in the possibilities. I think this is something similar in Buddhism and physics. At first we consider the possibilities of everything stated in a speculation (it is possible to be in absorption, iddhis, awareness, jhana ...), then we test it, find its range of limits and construe a full fledged theory adapting and upgrading it on the base of the results of every new experiment.
At the root of the problem is that our Science only examines Rupa and phenomena arising from Rupa. If it acknowledges consciousness at all, it's how it arises from Rupa. Buddhism recognizes both Rupa and Nama (non-material elements) and these non-material elements are part of our experiences. These non-material elements of consciousness are not part of Material Science at this point; there are no instruments yet to measure them. Perhaps one day there will be a fusion of Science and Dhamma. If this happens quite a few changes in our existence would occur, it seems to me.

J
Does physics really examine rupa?
rupa = form/physicality/materiality. By definition,that's *all* physics does, and it cannot acknowlede anything outside physicality and stil be considered physics.
Rupa consists of the elements: fire, earth, water, and air. This is not what physics acknowledges or investigates.
Sure it does. It just doesn't classify the above as "elements" anymore.

-M
User avatar
Nibbida
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:44 am

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Nibbida »

Many good points raised here. Science is a way of understanding reality, so there is nothing to hide from but rather something to be invesitaged and embraced. It all comes through the same sense doors, as Kim succintly put it. However, it's also important to realize that science doesn't emerge from a burning bush, but rather from people who have their own interpretations and biases. The potential for clinging to views is something to be aware of.

Like Ben, I'm a fan of Sam Harris for this reason. Like the other atheist authors he's in favor of reason over dogma. To many religious people, this seems cynical and cold. But Harris offers something up more useful in place of dogma.

Listen to this talk by Henry Markram. He's trying to build a computer simulation of a brain. Without even touching on the pros and cons of that, listen to the talk especially at 1:50. He's describing emptiness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS3wMC2BpxU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
User avatar
Nibbida
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:44 am

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Nibbida »

Ben wrote: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 love this quote from that article:

"In the West, if you speak to yourself out loud all day long, you are considered crazy. But speaking to yourself silently -- thinking incessantly -- is considered perfectly normal. On the Buddhist view, the continuous identification with discursive thought is a kind of madness -- albeit a madness that is very well-subscribed."
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Ben »

Yes, he's a great writer and he knows his stuff.
kind regards

Ben
“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 ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Dudenextdoor
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:39 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Dudenextdoor »

My first day in Quantum Mechanics class, the professor stood in front of the lecture hall and looked out at the 70 students before him. All had their notebooks out, and all were ready to learn this crazy-sounding field they'd only heard about before.

"How many of you," he asked, "are physics majors?" About half the class raised their hands. I was one of these.

"Good," he said. "You belong here. Now, how many of you are math majors?" About a quarter of the class raised their hands.

"Good. This will be a useful and interesting course for you. Now, how many of you are engineering majors or chemistry majors?" Most of the rest of the class raised their hands.

"Impressive! You're fine." Then he gritted his teeth and said in a much, much lower--I would even go so far as to say threatening--tone, "Now how many of you are philosophy or religion majors?"

Two students raised their hands. The professor proceeded to yell the loudest F-word I have ever heard in my life. And I'm a high school teacher, so... I've heard some pretty intense ones. This was the F-word that ate all those other puny cusses in one fowl bite.

When the echo died down, he said, "Alright, now LOOK. Here's the deal. There's more [expletive] written about Quantum Mechanics by people who don't know anything about it than there are actual books on the subject. People use the word 'Quantum' to justify beliefs in alternate universes, multiple consciousnesses, miracle medicines, and a bunch of other things. There are unfortunate phrases in this course, like 'The Uncertainty Principle,' which people take so far out of context it's not funny. To you who are philosophers and wish to learn this stuff, I'm not kicking you out of class, but be aware: this is a science course. Everything here is backed by data and experimentation. QM isn't a well-respected theory because of uncertainty or philosophy; it's respected because it is one of the MOST supported by evidence in the history of science. This is a science for the hard skeptics, for the doubters, for those who need to see to believe. If you need to believe things you can't see, this course will disappoint you. You'll do hard math. You'll see clear results. That's the way it is. And anyone who tells you QM is anything else is either ignorant or lying through their teeth."

And that's about all there was to say about the subject of philosophy in that class.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Dan74 »

This is a nice story and it sure does drive its point home, and yet the very founders of QM and many who followed spent a fair bit of time worrying how to interpret it and what it all means philosophically. Also serious mathematical physicists like Penrose, have been "guilty" of those crimes your professor has mentioned - positing quantum origins of consciousness, for example.

So it's not all so clear cut, but sure it is hard science in the way it models observable events.
_/|\_
Dudenextdoor
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:39 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Dudenextdoor »

I actually did talk with one of the philosophy majors after the whole course had finished. He got an A, by the way, and I got a B. He said the loud expletive scared him at first, but he thought it was actually the right approach for the class. He took the course basically because he wanted to gather arguments to refute some of his philosophy-oriented peers when they started quoting Deepak Chopra and the like. His view was basically that all of science actually is a philosophy in itself: that no belief should be held unless it is 1. justifiable based on evidence, 2. falsifiable if future evidence appears, 3. verifiable by peer review, etc. (I think he had about twelve things on the whole list).

So when the professor was ranting on about how this wasn't a philosophy course, this student was hearing nothing but philosophy. I found that rather interesting.
Post Reply