Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
oatsandmilk
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:07 pm

Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by oatsandmilk »

Big question. Knee-jerk answer would be affirmative.

But a hard-nosed scientist who does not believe in Spinoza's God (how I wish we still had nice cuddly scientists like Einstein) would probably have a very different view.

By 8:30 of the video Dawkins more or less dismisses everything that cannot be explained by what we know till now!

Of course he does not mention Buddhism. But the test of a "rational mind" in his view more or less excludes any member here who has even toyed with the idea of Kamma and rebirth (much less accepted it).

That is distressing because I know for a fact very learned people including those who have studied and taught science are part of this forum and the wider Buddhist community.



:anjali:

oatsandmilk
“This doctrine is profound, hard to see, difficult to understand, calm, sublime, not within the sphere of logic, subtle, to be understood by the wise”. – Majjhima Nikāya
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by Spiny Norman »

I think that religion and science are different fields of enquiry, and that it's like comparing apples and oranges. So there is little point in seeking compatibility.
The more secular versions of Buddhism are arguably more rational than others, though I'd still be cautious about claiming they are "scientific".
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

They are compatible in method, but not in paradigm. The current scientific paradigm is strictly materialist. Buddhism is not strictly materialist because of things like rebirth. However, the most important thing in science is the method. A scientific paradigm is a working assumption that can change over time if the scientific method requires it. This investigative method is, in my opinion, compatible with buddhism's investigative approach to subjective experience.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by SteRo »

Of course compatible. As long as the goal of different disciplines isn't the same they can be compatible without conflict. If the goal of different disciplines is the same it is more likely that they are not compatible.

Edit: This refers to the title of this thread exclusively. I have not watched the video.
Last edited by SteRo on Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by Sam Vara »

It's very difficult to work out what the video is about, as it appears that the interviewer is primarily engaged in a bit of self-publicising by means of massaging the great man's ego in public. I watched about half of it, and there is a lot more about octopodes and chameleons' tongues than I find useful in daily life. "If an octopus came from outer space, we would furrrreak out!...Even now telling you this, I'm getting the chills!"

Well, quite.

In so far as there is anything like a systematic exposition in the first part, Dawkins seems to be saying that we need to rigorously test propositions in order to know whether they are true. As a natural scientist, he seems to be most concerned with what types of things there are in the physical universe, particularly living creatures. Truth here means true propositions about octopodes and the like. He doesn't deal with the truth about suffering, which is what the Buddha was concerned with. When the Buddha talks about truth, for example, in MN 95, he doesn't seem concerned with propositional truths about the natural world. So yes, in that sense, Buddhism and science (in the sense that Dawkins is interested in) are compatible.

I have sometimes seen people take a scientific and secular approach to the issue of human suffering, by claiming that the scientific testing of propositions about the natural world are the means of piecemeal alleviation of human diseases and ills, etc. There is undoubtedly something in this, and practical work to eliminate suffering by manipulating external conditions is necessary. It's not the main point of the Buddha's teaching, though.
coconut
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:10 am

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by coconut »

No, they are not compatible. The purpose of the dhamma is to stop suffering by strategically employing perceptions, which are not inherently or objectiveltly true nor false.

Buddhism and philosophy are compatible, but not science.

If life/existence is a sandbox to do anything as you wish, then I think Epicurus is correct that one should live to be as happiest as one can be, regardless if it's objectively true or not.

Buddhism, stoicism, epicurueanism, and even objectivism all operate on the goal of maximizing happiness, they just differ on what happiness is, and how to get it.

Focusing on "objectivity" (science), imho, is a fruitless task. Yes, you may understand the universe and the stars better, which is fun, in and of itself, and I'm a huge trekkie fan, but ultimately the objective rules of the universe has nothing to do with your happiness. The only "rule" you need to know is that nothing is stable/constant/permenant/lasting, and it's up to you to employ a perception (regardless if its real/objective or not) that is compatible with that "rule".

If your perception isn't compatible with that rule of impermanance, you will suffer. If it is compatible, you will be happy, and being happy is all that matters.
Alino
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:15 pm
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by Alino »

I think that yes.

Buddha described such things as BigBang or Theory of Evolution, 4 basic colours (kasinas)... Also yesterday watching video on Standart Model I came to think that it have something to do with 4 Great Elements, planes of existence (sensual, form and formless) etc...

I like science, so naturally iam inclined to join two disciplines toguether, but Its just my opinion and intuition... I think that both study the same stick but from different ends, and spiritual path is clearly more performant... Imho 🙏
Attachments
1280px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles_Anti.svg.png
We don't live Samsara, Samsara is living us...

"Form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness - don't care about us, we don't exist for them"
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by chownah »

When viewed one way everything is compatible....when viewed another way nothing is compatible...why not try the middle way that these things arise from ignornce as the base....
chownah
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Modus.Ponens wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:41 am A scientific paradigm is a working assumption that can change over time if the scientific method requires it.
Sure, though teachings like the Four Noble Truths are presented as truths, and not as "working assumptions".
So for example, Theravada Buddhists are instructed to look for impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self. They're not instructed to look for permanence, satisfaction and Self. Like Christians are told to seek "God", and not to seek the absence of "God". And so on.

So Buddhism isn't really "scientific". It's just another religion, though philosophically more sophisticated than most.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:09 pm
Modus.Ponens wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:41 am A scientific paradigm is a working assumption that can change over time if the scientific method requires it.
Sure, though teachings like the Four Noble Truths are presented as truths, and not as "working assumptions".
So for example, Theravada Buddhists are instructed to look for impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self. They're not instructed to look for permanence, satisfaction and Self. Like Christians are told to seek "God", and not to seek the absence of "God". And so on.

So Buddhism isn't really "scientific". It's just another religion, though philosophically more sophisticated than most.
I'm not sure where the disagreement is.

Whatever claim the Buddhist texts make that is verifiably false should be discarded because they are verifiably false. So the claim can be attributed to mistakes in copying, or addition of myths to the canon by other people, and so on. This is compatible with the scientific approach.

However, it is not verifiably false that rebirth doesn't exist. In science, Occam's razor makes the strictly materialist world view the scientific view. But, since the view that rebirth happens is not verifiably false, the contradiction with Buddhism is with the materialist paradigm of science, not its methods.

It could happen in the future that a rigorous experiment finds out that, for example, psychic powers exist. If that happens, and the experiments are reproducible and all that, then the paradigm is changed.

So Buddhism is compatible with the scientific approach to finding out the truth, but not compatible with some of its paradigms. At least for now.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Modus.Ponens wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:24 pm I'm not sure where the disagreement is.

Whatever claim the Buddhist texts make that is verifiably false should be discarded because they are verifiably false. So the claim can be attributed to mistakes in copying, or addition of myths to the canon by other people, and so on. This is compatible with the scientific approach.

However, it is not verifiably false that rebirth doesn't exist. In science, Occam's razor makes the strictly materialist world view the scientific view. But, since the view that rebirth happens is not verifiably false, the contradiction with Buddhism is with the materialist paradigm of science, not its methods.

It could happen in the future that a rigorous experiment finds out that, for example, psychic powers exist. If that happens, and the experiments are reproducible and all that, then the paradigm is changed.

So Buddhism is compatible with the scientific approach to finding out the truth, but not compatible with some of its paradigms. At least for now.
Science doesn’t verify anything. Science works on the basis of falsificationism, not verificationism. Rebirth, like God, is currently outside of science since it can’t be falsified.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by mikenz66 »

Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:07 am I think that religion and science are different fields of enquiry, and that it's like comparing apples and oranges. So there is little point in seeking compatibility.
Furthermore, it's a pity that labelling something as "scientific" seems to be so important. I presume this is a result of the success of sciences such as physics and chemistry in enabling modern technology. So there is a tend to put the label on subjects ("social sciences") or other knowledge systems ("indigenous science"). I think this is a pity. There are various ways of acquiring and using knowledge, and judging them as good depending on how much we can make them look like physics, for example, is not necessarily the most productive way of proceeding. I see it as potentially devaluing other ways of thinking that are more useful for other contexts.

In connection with Buddhism, this can lead to an undue emphasis on things that can be measured. E.g. physiological effects of meditation. Does that capture what it's actually about? I don't think so. It's so much more than that.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by DooDoot »

oatsandmilk wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:28 am By 8:30 of the video Dawkins more or less dismisses everything that cannot be explained by what we know till now!
The Dhamma Refuge in Buddhism appears defined in exactly the same way as above. For example, in MN 38 paragraph 58, the Buddha is reported to have admonished his monks if they believed in what the Buddha taught but did not realise the reality for themselves.
oatsandmilk wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:28 amOf course he does not mention Buddhism. But the test of a "rational mind" in his view more or less excludes any member here who has even toyed with the idea of Kamma and rebirth (much less accepted it).
Generally, i have never read the suttas refer to "kamma & rebirth" as most ordinary Buddhists imagine it to be. Regardless, "kamma & rebirth" is not a core teaching of the Buddha, as explained in MN 117 paragraph 7.
mikenz66 wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:12 pm Mike
Often, those that don't understand science struggle to understand Buddhism. For example, the most fundamental teaching of Buddhism is cause & effect, which is also scientific, yet the superstitious struggle with both. For example, the following world leading scientist discusses an example of cause & effect than many Buddhists fail to comprehend (as they abide in self-cherishing). :heart:
John P. A. Ioannidis; Stanford School of Medicine wrote:Putting projections together, the excess deaths from the [lockdown] measures taken is likely to be much larger than the COVID-19 deaths, e.g. disruption of tuberculosis programs alone is expected to cause 1.4 million extra deaths over the next 5 years and the death toll from famine can be even more staggering.....

Table 2 simulations show that if eventually 60% of the global population is infected and there is the same risk of infection across all risk-strata, the total number of deaths is expected to be 8.76 million for the full cycle. If one assumes a 5-year horizon, this represents 2.9% of all deaths globally in the period 2020-2024. If only 30% of the global population is infected (a more plausible expectation) without differentiation across risk strata, the total number of deaths (4.38 million) is 1.5% of all deaths globally in 2020-2024....

The co-existence of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza remains a major unknown as of October 2020. Preliminarily, there is some evidence that influenza seems suppressed while the COVID-19 pandemic is active... Moreover, influenza and SARS-CoV-2 would be competing for the same pool of susceptible individuals. In the absence of COVID-19, influenza would be expected to kill 2.5 million people or more in 5 years....

Finally, both COVID-19 and the response measures (especially if they are too aggressive) can disrupt life, economy, civilization, and society at large. A catastrophic impact on mental health is already well documented. Catastrophic social meltdown and chaotic events such as riots, wars and revolutions have unpredictable dynamics but, if they happen, can be devastating. Many measures taken to halt the pandemic may be seriously destabilizing, adding hundreds of millions of people at the brink of starvation, skyrocketing unemployment, and resulting in recrudescence of other infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and childhood diseases from disrupted vaccination schedules.

Learning to live with COVID-19 and using effective, precise, least disruptive measures is essential to avoid such disasters and to help minimize the adverse impact of the pandemic.


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /eci.13423
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by User1249x »

Compatible in what sense? You certainly don't have to reject any scientific facts as i see it but science is also theoretical and there are many wrong popular ideas & ideas that few people fully understand as they are only for those with eyes to see.

Also science can be very good at removing wrong views, in particular philosophy of mathematics and physics; but some people are too fixated and won't accept even a perfect expression. Likewise in Buddhism, some people read Sutta contradict them and they don't accept it because being fixated in wrong views they can't conceive the meaning properly to entertain the correct ideas and thus see the point ur trying to make with discernment.

If a person is Ariya he has no risk of saying stupid ignorant things about science and how the world works but could probably often annoy scientists lest himself very scientific about it.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Science. Are they compatible?

Post by cappuccino »

oatsandmilk wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:28 am But the test of a "rational mind" in his view more or less excludes any member here who has even toyed with the idea of Kamma and rebirth (much less accepted it).
The view is the heart of the matter.


Everything follows……
Post Reply