Compatibility with Science - Buddhism vs Christianity
This is a follow up to discussion that started here Message 23343770
Brief description:
>> Would you say that Zen is more about How then Why? Western Christianity appears to me more instructive as to Why...
It may seem that way, but I believe that to be a misconception. Zen is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism with some Taoism influences. Zen students learn all the basics of Buddhism...
>> My question should be rephrased: Christianity says quite a bit about the overall universe, the past, the present, and the future. These are quite specific claims, and hence they are open to refutation by evidence... From my limited knowledge of Buddhism, it seems to avoid making specific claims about the universe, at least as far as being testable by science...
It is not true that Buddhism does not make scientifically testable claims. It is more accurate to say that Buddhism sticks to its knitting and focuses on answering only the questions that it set out to answer, namely the happiness of mankind and the end of human suffering.
The Buddhist approach to solving this problem is highly rational and methodical (at least it was very much so in early Buddhism). This approach may be considered identical to the scientific method. As such, when Buddhist beliefs are testable by science, it is hard to find incompatibilities between the two. The scientific fields that could test Buddhism best are Psychology, Psychiatry, and Neurology. So far numerous studies have all confirmed the Buddhist percepts. Quantum mechanics has also be found to be VERY compatible with Buddhist concepts. This should not be surprising because the Buddhist approach follows the path of Observation-->Analysis-->Hypothesis-->Solution with various feedbacks and retrospections.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that some statement is a Buddhist Sutra is proved to be emphatically wrong. Such a discovery will not have the same effect on Buddhism as it does on say Christianity or Islam. Buddhists do NOT believe that their beliefs are THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH for all time and a single factual error would not shatter their beliefs. Rather Buddhists believe the texts are roadsigns on the journey towards attaining perfection. If one road sign is shown to be wrong, there are plenty of others to use.
This is nothing new. In the past, pupils would spend a lot of time choosing which master to follow. Top students could, and many did, branch out their own schools. I've personally heard Dalai Lama say that inasmuch as there are 6-billion people on Earth, we likely need 6-billion different religions. There is no way that a Pope or a Grand Mofti can comfortably make such a statement.
As a parting thought, I leave you with brief passage from Iktomi's post (two posts back). Note Buddha's answer.
Sun Tzu
In this short discourse, we find the Buddha in his wanderings coming upon the village of the Kalamas. Religious seekers themselves, the Kalamas were bewildered by the plethora of divergent philosophies and teachers vying for their attention. They proceeded to ask the Buddha a series of questions. Here is the relevant portion of the text:
The Buddha once visited a small town called Kesaputta in the kingdom of Kosala. The inhabitants of this town were known by the common name Kalama. When they heard that the Buddha was in their town, the Kalamas paid him a visit, and told him:
"Sir, there are some recluses and brahmanas who visit Kesaputta. They explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others' doctrines. Then come other recluses and brahmanas, and they, too, in their turn, explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others' doctrines. But, for us, Sir, we have always doubt and perplexity as to who among these venerable recluses and brahmanas spoke the truth, and who spoke falsehood."
"Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, not by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: 'this is our teacher'. But O Kalamas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up...And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them and follow them."
The Kalamas voiced their doubts, their perplexity in determining truth or falsehood, as a result of having been exposed to all the competing teachers and doctrines of India at the time: not unlike our modern world today. Each teacher, each school, expounded different and often conflicting notions of the truth. The Buddha's response was to set down a methodology that was in many ways ahead of its time in anticipating the skeptical empiricism of the modern scientific method.
He said, “Do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Don’t be led by the authority even of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances”—all of which eliminate exclusive reliance on cultural convention, received tradition, and deductive speculation, as well as mere sense impressions. Also rejected were opinions and "seeming possibilities"—the stuff of preconceived bias and subjective imagination and fancy. (Some might argue that being "led by appearances" would include a narrow scientific method, at least as it has come to be popularly understood—i.e. an exaggerated reliance on natural phenomena as the only basis of what is true or real. It would also dismiss the equally exaggerated claim that scientific knowledge is the only valid kind of knowledge.The Buddha even discounts blind faith in one's teacher.
So what's left? Here the Buddha lays out a subtle and quite unique epistemology: “Oh Kalamas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome and wrong and bad, then give them up. And when you know that certain things are wholesome and good, then accept them and follow them.” But how to interpret this key passage? |
