ancientbuddhism wrote:Where science does not concern itself is with religious myth or cultural beliefs, such as belief in God/gods or post-mortem events, as these are not relevant to empirical evidence.
This is the hub of the concern it seems to me, to wit "empirical evidence" as one sort of constellation within scientific endeavor, and another sort of constellation within contemplative endeavor. ...
And the results of Buddhist empiricism is likely what attracts science to it as an ancient common ground of sorts. Buddhism, like science, also finds wide-ranging agreement
where the the replicability of its experiments and the resultant strength of its claims
are purported to be found without variance – at least in the early texts.
Because contemplative arts in Theravāda were only recently revived (little more than 200 years ago), there is some room for variance of interpretation of the texts, and of application and results. Yet even despite the seeming differences between later contemplative traditions
within Theravāda (controversies over Dhammakaya and Santi Asoke sects notwithstanding), there is still an emphasis on reproducibility of practice and analysis. The Vipassanā traditions come to mind with reference to the emphasis on ‘noting’ in the Mahāsi tradition. U Pandita explained this in retreat as the utility for sati
to fall upon anything that arises; a reproducibility of practice toward sustained results, which every practitioner should find (supposedly without deviation).
With reference to the OP and “the Dragon in my garage”, science seems deftly to step around this, seeing a worldview as a worldview
, and leaving such alone; even when it is most likely staring the scientist in the face when citing some Buddhist text where gods, post-mortem mysticism and other fantastic claims are mentioned yet not relevant to the empirical dynamic were the common ground is met. Although the religious adherent may tend to be a bit more emotional (code for irrational), and piqued by the command of the obvious
claims of science, feel that some quaint doctrine or religious story
either needs defending against science, or even more perplexing, some Ptolemy or Aquinas or Ian Stevenson will fashion a defense in some image resembling scientific method.