kmath wrote:“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― His Holiness Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
I strongly disagree with this based on the same point I made in my previous post. There is no "conclusively" in an absolute sense in science. Science provides tentative explanations about phenomena. This means that these explanations can change if better evidence is found that forces us to revise those explanations.
Hypothetically, let's say that "scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false" and we "accept the findings of science and abandon those claims". Then new evidence is discovered later that actually supports that previous Buddhist claim we've abandoned. How foolish would we look?
With all due respect to such a kind man, the Dalai Lama's statement shows a clear misunderstanding of what science is.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Mkoll wrote:
Hypothetically, let's say that "scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false" and we "accept the findings of science and abandon those claims". Then new evidence is discovered later that actually supports that previous Buddhist claim we've abandoned. How foolish would we look?
Not that foolish. In each instance, we're just following the best available information.
But it makes me wonder: which Buddhists teachings could science potentially contradict?
kmath wrote:
But it makes me wonder: which Buddhists teachings could science potentially contradict?
Mount Sumeru. Science has pretty conclusively shown that there is no known center of the universe. In Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain mythology Mt. Sumeru is the center of all physical and spiritual universes.
It is mostly mentioned in Mahayana texts such as the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, if that is any consolation for us Theravadins.
kmath wrote:“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― His Holiness Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
I strongly disagree with this based on the same point I made in my previous post. There is no "conclusively" in an absolute sense in science. Science provides tentative explanations about phenomena. This means that these explanations can change if better evidence is found that forces us to revise those explanations.
Hypothetically, let's say that "scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false" and we "accept the findings of science and abandon those claims". Then new evidence is discovered later that actually supports that previous Buddhist claim we've abandoned. How foolish would we look?
With all due respect to such a kind man, the Dalai Lama's statement shows a clear misunderstanding of what science is.
I agree, science is solving little pieces of the phenomenal puzzle. Science cannot give ethical directions.
Buddhism is about Dhamma, ethical laws and their relationships to internal/external phenomena as well as gaining self control and wisdom through meditation.
Here is an example of the silliness of the statement of the Dalai Lama and the limits of scientific studies:
Just recently I read an article that showed that scientific studies showed "sex is good for you",
So far my Googling has not found one scientific study showing that celibacy can also be good for you.
THEREFORE: I guess according to the Dalai Lama now monks and nuns should now forfeit celibacy due to this "scientific finding". If Buddha only knew sex can be this healthy he would never have advocated celibacy for monks and nuns...
kmath wrote:“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― His Holiness Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
I strongly disagree with this based on the same point I made in my previous post. There is no "conclusively" in an absolute sense in science. Science provides tentative explanations about phenomena. This means that these explanations can change if better evidence is found that forces us to revise those explanations.
Hypothetically, let's say that "scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false" and we "accept the findings of science and abandon those claims". Then new evidence is discovered later that actually supports that previous Buddhist claim we've abandoned. How foolish would we look?
With all due respect to such a kind man, the Dalai Lama's statement shows a clear misunderstanding of what science is.
It's not an all or nothing question.
You can say for certain that there was evolution of the human species from simian ancestors. If I recall correctly the buddhist myth of how mankind came to existence had to do with devas becoming more coarse, so to speak, due to sexual desire.
On the other hand, the current observation that the universe is accelerating its expansion does not contradict buddhist cosmology. The general agreement is that the universe will expand forever and will eventualy become cold and lifeless. But there could also be the case of the universe being in an expansion phase, to fit the buddhist cosmological model.
Science can prove what it is false as false, but it cannot prove a theory as true. This means that what has been proven false is false. In that sense I completely agree with the Dalai Lama.
We cannot pick and choose what to take from science. It has proven several good things about meditation. We take it as true. We cannot have a double standard when science proves a buddhist theory to be wrong.
'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
kmath wrote:“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― His Holiness Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
I strongly disagree with this based on the same point I made in my previous post. There is no "conclusively" in an absolute sense in science. Science provides tentative explanations about phenomena. This means that these explanations can change if better evidence is found that forces us to revise those explanations.
Hypothetically, let's say that "scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false" and we "accept the findings of science and abandon those claims". Then new evidence is discovered later that actually supports that previous Buddhist claim we've abandoned. How foolish would we look?
With all due respect to such a kind man, the Dalai Lama's statement shows a clear misunderstanding of what science is.
I agree, science is solving little pieces of the phenomenal puzzle. Science cannot give ethical directions.
Buddhism is about Dhamma, ethical laws and their relationships to internal/external phenomena as well as gaining self control and wisdom through meditation.
Here is an example of the silliness of the statement of the Dalai Lama and the limits of scientific studies:
Just recently I read an article that showed that scientific studies showed "sex is good for you",
So far my Googling has not found one scientific study showing that celibacy can also be good for you.
THEREFORE: I guess according to the Dalai Lama now monks and nuns should now forfeit celibacy due to this "scientific finding". If Buddha only knew sex can be this healthy he would never have advocated celibacy for monks and nuns...
I'll stick with Buddha.
It is a fact. Period. You have, however to know what are the facts and how to interpret them. The following study was not done yet: to study 4 groups: 1- celibates without meditation; 2- sexualy active people without meditation; 3- sexualy active people which practice meditation; 4- celibates who practice meditation. Then, we could start geting a good picture.
'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
Modus.Ponens wrote:Science can prove what it is false as false, but it cannot prove a theory as true. This means that what has been proven false is false. In that sense I completely agree with the Dalai Lama.
We cannot pick and choose what to take from science. It has proven several good things about meditation. We take it as true. We cannot have a double standard when science proves a buddhist theory to be wrong.
With all due respect...
Science does not prove anything. There is no such thing as a scientific proof. If you read the article that I linked in my first post of this thread, you would understand why. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here is a relevant passage below. However, I strongly suggest you read the article for the whole picture.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
kmath wrote:“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― His Holiness Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
I strongly disagree with this based on the same point I made in my previous post. There is no "conclusively" in an absolute sense in science. Science provides tentative explanations about phenomena. This means that these explanations can change if better evidence is found that forces us to revise those explanations.
Hypothetically, let's say that "scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false" and we "accept the findings of science and abandon those claims". Then new evidence is discovered later that actually supports that previous Buddhist claim we've abandoned. How foolish would we look?
With all due respect to such a kind man, the Dalai Lama's statement shows a clear misunderstanding of what science is.
It's not an all or nothing question.
You can say for certain that there was evolution of the human species from simian ancestors. If I recall correctly the buddhist myth of how mankind came to existence had to do with devas becoming more coarse, so to speak, due to sexual desire.
Buddhism presents something similar to the Holographic theory of the universe, this would throw evolutionary theory into the garbage heap since it would demonstrate limited knowledge of biologists. Biologists are working in time, limited by time and thus relative notions of before and after.
mahat wrote:
I agree, science is solving little pieces of the phenomenal puzzle. Science cannot give ethical directions.
Buddhism is about Dhamma, ethical laws and their relationships to internal/external phenomena as well as gaining self control and wisdom through meditation.
Here is an example of the silliness of the statement of the Dalai Lama and the limits of scientific studies:
Just recently I read an article that showed that scientific studies showed "sex is good for you",
So far my Googling has not found one scientific study showing that celibacy can also be good for you.
THEREFORE: I guess according to the Dalai Lama now monks and nuns should now forfeit celibacy due to this "scientific finding". If Buddha only knew sex can be this healthy he would never have advocated celibacy for monks and nuns...
I'll stick with Buddha.
It is a fact. Period. You have, however to know what are the facts and how to interpret them. The following study was not done yet: to study 4 groups: 1- celibates without meditation; 2- sexualy active people without meditation; 3- sexualy active people which practice meditation; 4- celibates who practice meditation. Then, we could start geting a good picture.
Did I say the above was not a fact? Under certain controlled cases, yes it is a fact. The fact also is that in each case you will be studying only one piece of the puzzle.
How are you going to prove the whole? A "good picture" is not scientific. Science is only there to prove/disprove one hypothesis at a time.
Based on various findings, I can "come to MY conclusion" --but this is not following any scientific method.
mahat wrote:
Buddhism presents something similar to the Holographic theory of the universe, this would throw evolutionary theory into the garbage heap since it would demonstrate limited knowledge of biologists. Biologists are working in time, limited by time and thus relative notions of before and after.
I don't think you've understood "Holograph theory" correctly. Nevertheless, if my options are evolution vs. corruption of devas, I'm going with evolution. Although evolution has not been "proven", surely it's more likely than the apparent alternative.
Last edited by kmath on Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Modus.Ponens wrote:
It is a fact. Period. You have, however to know what are the facts and how to interpret them. The following study was not done yet: to study 4 groups: 1- celibates without meditation; 2- sexualy active people without meditation; 3- sexualy active people which practice meditation; 4- celibates who practice meditation. Then, we could start geting a good picture.
How are you going to prove the whole? A "good picture" is not scientific. Science is only there to prove/disprove one hypothesis at a time.
What is "the whole" in this case? Modus.Ponens is only talking about one hypothesis: for example, celibacy combined with meditation is correlated with higher well being than any of (1-3). That's what M.P's study tests.
The science investigate only the material aspect (Rupa) of the five aggregate.
The science needs the physical proof not the experiential proof so science is not a substitute for Buddha’s teaching.
Though they complement each other in some aspects.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
mahat wrote:
Buddhism presents something similar to the Holographic theory of the universe, this would throw evolutionary theory into the garbage heap since it would demonstrate limited knowledge of biologists. Biologists are working in time, limited by time and thus relative notions of before and after.
I don't think you've understood "Holograph theory" correctly. Nevertheless, if my options are evolution vs. corruption of devas, I'm going with evolution. Although evolution has not been "proven", surely it's more likely than the apparent alternative.
Please enlighten me as to the "correct understanding" of the holographic theory. I'm game.
Option? That simply means your preference of one belief over another - my own, I'd rather believe I came from a super powerful Deva who ate too much.
Dr. Barbara McClintock already destroyed Darwinian evolutionary theory with "jumping elements" in genes, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory assumed random mutations:
"In her biography of Dr. McClintock, "A Feeling for the Organism," Dr.
Evelyn Fox Keller of the MIT wrote that geneticists were baffled by
McClintock's ideas because they seem too at odds with the very nature
of Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution holds that changes
occur randomly in genes, giving rise to changes that may or may not
prove beneficial.
Dr. McClintock, however, was saying that purposeful changes occur in
genes, that transposable elements jump to specific places to insert
themselves into genetic material and alter it." http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1 ... 00200.html
BTW, Dr. McClintock said scientists had a huge problem with this discovery since it destroyed Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
Modus.Ponens wrote:
It is a fact. Period. You have, however to know what are the facts and how to interpret them. The following study was not done yet: to study 4 groups: 1- celibates without meditation; 2- sexualy active people without meditation; 3- sexualy active people which practice meditation; 4- celibates who practice meditation. Then, we could start geting a good picture.
How are you going to prove the whole? A "good picture" is not scientific. Science is only there to prove/disprove one hypothesis at a time.
What is "the whole" in this case? Modus.Ponens is only talking about one hypothesis: for example, celibacy combined with meditation is correlated with higher well being than any of (1-3). That's what M.P's study tests.
(Don't mean to put words in your mouth M.P)
This was posted in reference to the Dalai Lama's overreaching statement that Buddhists should change teachings which were contradicted by scientific findings. The WebMD article is a case in point. There is no ethics in science, ethics is not the base or foundation.
The article makes no mention of the harmful effects of sexual misconduct - none, and there is no reason to since that's not the business of science.
Science is very piecemeal. That is why I completely disagree with the Dalai Lama. Buddhism and Science can be complimentary, but certainly not the basis for changing important practices in Buddhism if at some point we find a contradiction.
mahat wrote:
Dr. Barbara McClintock already destroyed Darwinian evolutionary theory with "jumping elements" in genes, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory assumed random mutations:
"In her biography of Dr. McClintock, "A Feeling for the Organism," Dr.
Evelyn Fox Keller of the MIT wrote that geneticists were baffled by
McClintock's ideas because they seem too at odds with the very nature
of Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution holds that changes
occur randomly in genes, giving rise to changes that may or may not
prove beneficial.
Dr. McClintock, however, was saying that purposeful changes occur in
genes, that transposable elements jump to specific places to insert
themselves into genetic material and alter it." http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1 ... 00200.html
BTW, Dr. McClintock said scientists had a huge problem with this discovery since it destroyed Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
mahat,
I think that McClintock's research did not destroy Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and the real reasons that scientists at that time had problems with her findings are twofold: 1.) She was subject to gender prejudice.....and 2.) The bulk of her work was BEFORE the discovery of the structure of DNA and way before what DNA did was understood. McClintock basically discerned that there was some sort of agent which controlled genetic expression.....later it was determined that it was DNA and it's related machinery which does this. There is no controversy that I am aware of concerning her work today.......she received a Nobel prize which seems to indicate that she is well accepted!!!.......also she has been on postal stamps. I don't know for sure but I think that it is a small group of Creationists who claim that she destroyed Darwin.
chownah