Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Buddhism and Science :

Compatible?

Incompatible?

or do they belong to different "camps"

A few thoughts can be found here.

Oh thanks, i forgot about that thread lol



Metta

should be compatible if the buddha was right... but i think a lot of religious stuff is just out of the realm of sience

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

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.

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.

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.

retrofuturist wrote:ontological.... phenomenological.

Please define.

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.

Why is Buddhism not empirical?

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

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.

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

Greetings zavk,

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



Metta,
Retro.