Buddhism And The Scientific Method

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11922
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by DNS » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:04 pm

Mawkish1983 wrote: The compatibility is one of the factors that originally made Buddhism SO appealing to me.
Me too.

Great posts above (after mine), good points.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11922
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by DNS » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:07 pm

appicchato wrote: It does because we're here, although all the work is about what is upstairs...I won't belabor the point, it's just my take on it... :smile: [/i]
Hi Bhante,

Okay.

By the way, you have got to be the best photographer ever . . . okay, I know, "have I met every photographer in the past, present, and future, no " . . . then perhaps the best photographer I have seen. If you ever go to Bodh Gaya, take some pictures for me!!

Mawkish1983
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by Mawkish1983 » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:12 pm

Individual wrote:Science can be seen as inferior to or distinct from Buddhism
I choose answer B.

User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1603
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by appicchato » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:38 am

TheDhamma wrote:By the way...If you ever go to Bodh Gaya, take some pictures for me!!
Thank you David...I hope to get there before long, and certainly will... :smile:

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1933
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by BlackBird » Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:45 am

I like the fact that Buddhism and Science are not at odds with one another, I still like to think of Science as the exploration of relative truth, and Buddhism as the exploration of ultimate truth.

To that end there's a lot Buddhism can offer Science.

I think that the relationship that Buddhism and Science could be beneficial for all. I think there's probably quite a few people in the field of science who are searching for the Dhamma - Not that they know it yet...
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks

flyingOx
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:08 pm

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by flyingOx » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:46 am

I'm a scientist. To those who think that science and Buddhism don't and won't mix, then which would you prefer? Would you like those of us who are scientists also practicing the Noble Eightfold path, influencing our industry with morality towards animals, the environment, and humanity, or would you like those of us who are scientists to be amoral and in it for nothing but the money?

Also, I was planning on working as a scientist saving all of my money so that I could donate it all to Buddhist organizations when I finally retire to become an ordained monk. I ask you again, "Are you sure that science and Buddhism can't mix?"
One is encouraged to seek the truth, but be warned if you ever find it, you will be treated as blasphemous.

User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by zavk » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:43 am

Hi FlyingOx,

I don't think anyone is saying that science and Buddhism cannot mutually inform each other. From what I have read, I don't think anyone here is saying 'Buddhism and science are not compatible'. The word 'compatible' has been mentioned a few times. Looking at the definition of the word compatible from dictionary.com, it says:

1.capable of existing or living together in harmony: the most compatible married couple I know.
2.able to exist together with something else: Prejudice is not compatible with true religion.
3.consistent; congruous (often fol. by with): His claims are not compatible with the facts.

There are other definitions relating electronics and computing but I won't list them here.

Following these definition of 'compatible' I think most people would say that Buddhism and science are indeed compatible: i.e. they are entirely capable of living together in harmony. I certainly think so. And indeed as you are saying, I too think that Buddhism can provide a much needed ethical dimension to the activities of science. However, what some people might argue--as I have--is that we should not mistake the two to be the same thing just because they are compatible.

I would use the analogy of a couple. Two persons may be the very compatible. But I believe anyone who has been in a long term relationship (or any relationship counselor) would tell you that to sustain the relationship, those two people should always maintain a healthy sense of self. One should not blindly defer oneself to the other to maintain the relationship. In fact, doing so would actually harm the relationship. :hug:
With metta,
zavk

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1691
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by acinteyyo » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:30 am

zavk wrote:I don't think anyone is saying that science and Buddhism cannot mutually inform each other.
they can, but I think not really beneficially, refer to my post
zavk wrote:From what I have read, I don't think anyone here is saying 'Buddhism and science are not compatible'.
according to your definition I have to say "buddhism and science are compatible"
zavk wrote:And indeed as you are saying, I too think that Buddhism can provide a much needed ethical dimension to the activities of science. However, what some people might argue--as I have--is that we should not mistake the two to be the same thing just because they are compatible.
I find this very important.

with a shallow point of view they might be limited beneficial by some means or other but the "area of examination" of buddhism and science (imho) is completely incompatible as I tried to explain in my post

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:32 pm

Mawkish1983 wrote:Personally I find it hard to understand why anyone would follow a religion that isn't compatible, but that's their choice I suppose
I suspect Buddhism is compatible with myth, and science is one of the myths.

Mawkish1983
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by Mawkish1983 » Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:53 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:science is one of the myths.
?

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:21 pm

Mawkish1983 wrote:
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:science is one of the myths.
?
Nothing has self-essence including this statement - and therefore also all "facts of science".

Mawkish1983
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by Mawkish1983 » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:30 pm

I'm trying to unravel what you mean but I'm struggling. Can you maybe clarify a bit for me, why is science myth?

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6629
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:32 pm

Mawkish1983 wrote:I'm trying to unravel what you mean but I'm struggling. Can you maybe clarify a bit for me, why is science myth?
I'll second that!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by clw_uk » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:50 pm

Nothing has self-essence including this statement - and therefore also all "facts of science".


Just because something is anatta doesnt mean its not real, it just isnt fit to be taken as Self



2+2=4 doesnt have a Self, doesnt mean that if you get 2 apples and add 2 more you dont get 4 apples


metta
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: Buddhism And The Scientific Method

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:01 pm

Mawkish1983 wrote:I'm trying to unravel what you mean but I'm struggling. Can you maybe clarify a bit for me, why is science myth?
Because everything is myth, since nothing has self-essence. What else can it be? There is no thing/moment that is "fact". Every single "fact" that has ever been, is, will be, really a fiction. We create a nice concrete reference point for everything - supernovas, atoms, sentences, ideologies, etc. But those reference points are always changing. They always empty/extend/refer themselves into other reference points, other things/moments. Therefore they are not really facts - more like fictions. Yes, no?
Last edited by Karma Dondrup Tashi on Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], JamesTheGiant, kamui, Majestic-12 [Bot], SkillfulA and 102 guests