Buddhism and Science

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Buddhism and Science

Post by Ceisiwr »

Buddhism and Science :

Compatible?

Incompatible?

or do they belong to different "camps"
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by Jechbi »

A few thoughts can be found here.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by Ceisiwr »

Oh thanks, i forgot about that thread lol



Metta
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by jcsuperstar »

should be compatible if the buddha was right... but i think a lot of religious stuff is just out of the realm of sience
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
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by mikenz66 »

I'm generally unimpressed by writings on Buddhism and Science. In most cases I've seen the author has little idea of one or other (or both).

I quite like B Alan Wallace's books, since he has a Physics degree, so has a reasonable understanding of Physics.

His book "Choosing Reality" is good, as is the collection that he edited called "Buddhism and Science."

Metta
Mike
green
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:25 am

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by green »

Two very different forms of knowing.

All knowledge is compatible for the knowledgeable -- it's those who are ignorant and assume there can only be one valid way of knowing and not others is when we have a problem.
Element

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by Element »

Bikkhu Buddhadasa was interested in science. He said: "Buddhism is a science and not a philosophy because it studies real things" (see You Tube)

Also, try the essay: "Scientific cure for spiritual disease' on the internet.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

Generally speaking, science is ontological and Buddhism is phenomenological.

Thus, they both aim to learn more about reality, but via different methods.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Element

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by Element »

retrofuturist wrote:ontological.... phenomenological.
:shrug: Please define.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Element,

Phenomenology - A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.

Ontology - philosophical inquiry into the nature of being itself, a branch of metaphysics.

Actually, ontology probably wasn't the best choice of words to represent science. That would be more relevant for Philosophy. Allow me to change that to...

Empirical
- Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

All definitions from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Element

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by Element »

Why is Buddhism not empirical?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by mikenz66 »

green wrote:Two very different forms of knowing.
Yes, I should have added that. Wallace is careful to distinguish places where there might be some worth in making comparisons and some where there is not.
green wrote: All knowledge is compatible for the knowledgeable -- it's those who are ignorant and assume there can only be one valid way of knowing and not others is when we have a problem.

I definitely agree that there are different forms of knowledge, but I think we can (not necessarily accurately) make some distinction between "useful" and "useless" forms of knowledge. I.e., just because one accepts different forms of knowledge doesn't mean one has to accept ANY form of knowledge that comes out of someone's mouth (or keyboard)...

For example, some forms of "alternative medicine" may be helpful for certain ailment, though almost impossible to prove "scientifically". Some others are most likely to be dangerous quackery.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Element,
Element wrote:Why is Buddhism not empirical?
It is, but only subjectively. Your observations cannot be proven to anyone but yourself.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by zavk »

Hi Retro and others,

On the topic of phenomenology vs. ontology, there are some nuances that need to be teased out. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I was browsing E-Sangha and it turns out there is a discussion about the very topic in the Buddhist philosophy forum. I shan't paste the url here; don't know if it is appropriate. But it is worth a read.

Metta,
zavk
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Science

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings zavk,

Feel free to post the link if you think it would be of interest to members.

:coffee:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply