Buddhism VS Science

[Promo]

I got into a really long debate last night with a friend of mine. He is an avid science hater, he is always claiming “science is often wrong and is always changing with little consistence”. After this statement from him he proceeds to try to explain to me why “most” scientists just rip off Buddhism and even the accepted scientific method is a rip off of Buddhism. I’ve been looking around and trying to do some research, I figured I would post this to see if people could direct me to several places so I can continue to do more research.

Thanks for the help.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhis...entific_method

[spidergoat]

While there are some aspects of Buddhism that seem to be aligned with the philosophy of science, Buddhism isn't science. The fact that science is always updating it's models is a strength, not a weakness.

[Promo]

While there are some aspects of Buddhism that seem to be aligned with the philosophy of science, Buddhism isn't science. The fact that science is always updating it's models is a strength, not a weakness.

And I understand that but, his point is that science is never truly updating. Since science has really never been right and they just "make shit up". I'm trying to figure out how to prove some valid points to him before I flip out on him.

[spidergoat]

Science basically proves itself by technology, which utilizes scientific discoveries to actually make things that work. The products of science are self-evident.

[gmilam]

And I understand that but, his point is that science is never truly updating. Since science has really never been right and they just "make shit up". I'm trying to figure out how to prove some valid points to him before I flip out on him.

So all the advances in medicine over the last century are due to scientists making shit up? He's using a computer on the internet because of made up shit?

Does not compute...

[Promo]

So all the advances in medicine over the last century are due to scientists making shit up? He's using a computer on the internet because of made up shit?

Does not compute...

I should not have generalized his words. He is more talking about science vs. religion, creation of the earth etc.

[Yazata]

I got into a really long debate last night with a friend of mine. He is an avid science hater, he is always claiming “science is often wrong and is always changing with little consistence”.

Science is the fallibilistic pursuit of knowledge about our natural universe. It's an ongoing process more than it's an idealized destination, populated with infallible Truths. As Spidergoat says, science's ability to detect errors in our current understanding and to make improvements is a tremendous strength, not any kind of weakness.

After this statement from him he proceeds to try to explain to me why “most” scientists just rip off Buddhism

I don't think that traditional Buddhism had very much interest in understanding our natural world. Most of what the Buddhist suttas say in passing about physical reality was simply commonplace belief in the 5'th century BCE when the Buddha lived, and in the centuries following. No distinctively Buddhist physics or biological science ever appeared.

One place where Buddhism might arguably have been more scientific and very much in advance of its time was in its psychology. There definitely is a very distinctive Buddhist psychology. I personally believe that some aspects of Buddhist psychology remain more sophisticated than corresponding aspects of Western psychology (and Western philosophy of mind), even today.

and even the accepted scientific method is a rip off of Buddhism.

There's a definite empirical note to a great deal of Buddhism. Of course it's a psychological empiricism, focused very tightly on individual subjective experience. It's not an objective empiricism regarding the physical world. There's a very interesting Buddhist anticipation of pragmatism as well.

But then there's the Buddha himself. There's nothing in science that corresponds to him, or to the role that he plays in Buddhism. The Buddha was supposed to be enlightened, he was supposed to have seen the way things really are, in some kind of all-encompassing transcendental vision under the Bodhi tree.

It's true that early Buddhism wasn't so much about faith in the Buddha or his teachings, as it was about the Buddha's disciples achieving a similar transforming realization themselves. But as time went on, popular Buddhism turned more towards faith not only in the historical Buddha, but in a whole pantheon of heavenly Buddhas and advanced Boddhisattvas, to selfless prayer and compassionate grace, and even towards practice of ritual magic.

Buddhism and science are two very different traditions in the history of human thought. It's true that there are some similarities between them, occasionally profound but often only superficial. But there are tremendous differences as well, in style, content, methods and ultimate goals.

I think that what makes Buddhism interesting today in this age of science isn't Buddhism's probably illusory identity with science. It's the fact that Buddhism seems more consistent with the modern scientific worldview than many of the other more essentially supernaturalistic religions might be. Buddhism might be capable of coexisting alongside science without a great deal of contradiction or cognitive dissonance, addressing the more subjective, aesthetic and spiritual sides of human life that science largely ignores.

[wynn]

I got into a really long debate last night with a friend of mine. He is an avid science hater, he is always claiming “science is often wrong and is always changing with little consistence”. After this statement from him he proceeds to try to explain to me why “most” scientists just rip off Buddhism and even the accepted scientific method is a rip off of Buddhism. I’ve been looking around and trying to do some research, I figured I would post this to see if people could direct me to several places so I can continue to do more research.

Here's an example of a Western psychologist referring to the Buddha - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...a-make-do-list

One of the traditional Buddhist concepts, "mindfulness," was idiosincratically appropriated by Western psychology/psychiatry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindful...8psychology%29


The whole "Buddhism and science" issue was probably significantly fueled by a statement that the Dalai Lama once made, namely, that Buddhism will align itself science (ie. give up everything that is not aligned with science).

[Balerion]

Sam Harris, who is the youngest as probably meanest of the atheist "Four Horsemen" is a tremendous champion of Buddhism. He believes a lot of what they're talking about achieving in terms of loss of ego and freedom from stress is attainable through meditation, and meshes well with what we know of neurology today. I don't really buy it, because he seems a little too enamored with the whole thing, and even seemed to skirt the question when someone asked him if he believes in reincarnation, but I would think Buddhists would love him.

[C C]

...he proceeds to try to explain to me why “most” scientists just rip off Buddhism and even the accepted scientific method is a rip off of Buddhism.

Science had a template for how to methodologically proceed long before any direct contact with Buddhism.

...He is more talking about science vs. religion, creation of the earth etc.

Immanuel Kant, from the 18th century - "Nor does that [natural] science require this for its physical explanations. Nay even if such grounds should be offered from other sources (for instance, the influence of immaterial beings), they must be rejected and not used in the progress of its explanations. For these explanations must only be grounded upon that which as an object of sense can belong to experience, and be brought into connection with our actual perceptions and empirical laws." (Prolegomena To Any Future Metaphysics)

...his point is that science is never truly updating.

Kant - "As long as the cognition of reason is homogeneous, definite bounds to it are inconceivable. In mathematics and in natural philosophy [science] human reason admits of limits but not of bounds [...] The enlarging of our views in mathematics, and the possibility of new discoveries, are infinite; and the same is the case with the discovery of new properties of nature, of new powers and laws, by continued experience and its rational combination."

[C C]

Sam Harris [...] believes a lot of what they're talking about achieving in terms of loss of ego and freedom from stress is attainable through meditation, and meshes well with what we know of neurology today.

The practices may cause measurable alterations in brain structure over time, so there indeed seems to be nothing spooky floating independent of body correlations, in terms of implementation and beneficial effects.

Evidence Builds That Meditation Strengthens the Brain
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0314170647.htm

Evidence Supports Health Benefits of 'Mindfulness-Based Practices'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0711104811.htm

Meditation Practice May Decrease Risk for Cardiovascular Disease in Teens
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0607092810.htm