Our Faith in Science (If science proves Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change)

New York Times ^ | 11/12/2005 | TENZIN GYATSO, 14th Dalai Lama

[SeekAndFind]

SCIENCE has always fascinated me. As a child in Tibet, I was keenly curious about how things worked. When I got a toy I would play with it a bit, then take it apart to see how it was put together. As I became older, I applied the same scrutiny to a movie projector and an antique automobile.

At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light.

But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently.

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

For many years now, on my own and through the Mind and Life Institute, which I helped found, I have had the opportunity to meet with scientists to discuss their work. World-class scientists have generously coached me in subatomic physics, cosmology, psychology, biology.

It is our discussions of neuroscience, however, that have proved particularly important. From these exchanges a vigorous research initiative has emerged, a collaboration between monks and neuroscientists, to explore how meditation might alter brain function.

[Darteaus94025]

And is science proves that Christianity is right, then Christianity will have to be discarded.

/s

[Da Coyote]

Heh, science has proven liberalism wrong for decades, and those dolts won’t change.

Good luck.

[headsonpikes]

Samsara IS nirvana!

I knew it!

[HiTech RedNeck]

It’s good to take a look at how the modern sciences arose, which was as natural philosophy, which in turn arose from a theologically perceived imperative to investigate how the glory of deity was expressed in nature. (While having an unabashed Christian world view, I am speaking in general terms which could be understood by those of different faiths.)

Anyhow, when the modern sciences begin to presume that they are self contained philosophical systems, that they can in fact rule out spirit in spite of mankind’s implicit entwinement in all manner of spiritual things, they presume to bear a very heavy load. So far they bat very miserably as far as offering any viable alternative to spirituality. Psychology is the best they can do, and this is a psychology that does not even acknowledge spirit. Psychology of that kind also cannot furnish any moral imperative; it can observe events but it cannot ever say anything is good or bad or urge someone to do something in one way rather than in another way or to refrain from doing something.

[MrB]

We should make no mistake - there isn’t any hatred for religion in general,

just for Christianity.

[HiTech RedNeck]

As they say... when you are taking the heaviest flak then you know you are over the target.

[MrB]

This was a good, but dry, read:

Toby Huff examines the long-standing question of why modern science arose only in the West and not in the civilizations of Islam and China, despite the fact that medieval Islam and China were more scientifically advanced. Huff explores the cultural contexts within which science was practiced in Islam, China, and the West. He finds major clues in the history of law and the European cultural revolution of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as to why the ethos of science arose in the West and permitted the breakthrough to modern science that did not occur elsewhere.

[Slambat]

It all depends. Is it science fact or consensus?
Lately science has become as faith based religion.
Take global warming for example.

[cuban leaf]

the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light.

---

I find it interesting that the bible’s descriptions of things unknown to man at the time were broadly worded enough to fit the reality we now know. No biblical mentions of the moon, when translated to English, to not prevent the interpretation of it reflecting light. They are just not that specific.

I do find teh description of the Behemeth and Leviathan fascinating as well. They sound an awfully lot like dinosaurs.

[HiTech RedNeck]

One had to accept an imperative to “do science” before one actually carried it out. The more focused and intense the imperative, the more effect the obedience had. Seems glaringly obvious in retrospect. Anyhow, if sciences presume to nullify the concept of imperative, then they ultimately commit suicide (well actually, imperative does not go away, because it’s built into the spiritual universe, but now no longer understood according to its divine root, it gets to do all sorts of mischievous things — case in point the global warming craze).

[cuban leaf]

The James Burke series “Connections” from 1979 argued that, and I use my own interpretation of his words, if a dirt farmer in china invented the airplane, the ruling class would thank him and give him the boot back to his farm. There was no incentive to be inventive. Meanwhile, western civilization worked hard to protect the rights of the inventor to keep any profits it generated. This incentivized countless tinkerers to change the world rather rapidly.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Some think the behemoth and leviathan of Job may have been the hippopotamus and crocodile; in any event Job would have had to be aware of them or God’s mention of them would have seemed like so much nonsense to him.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Take global warming for example.

They’re not using that term anymore. Now it’s CLIMATE CHANGE.

[cuban leaf]

Or, as someone once said: Science is about how. Religion is about why.

And I will add: Understanding of the latter is the higher pursuit.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And not just why, but what. And in understanding what, the how comes in.

[cuban leaf]

Some think the behemoth and leviathan of Job may have been the hippopotamus and crocodile

---

Yes, my bible sez Behemoth may have been an elephant.

However, when you read the description, those descritions seem to be reaching way too far. Men at the time did not fear any of those creatures the way the Behemoth and Leviathan are feared based on the descriptions.

Also, I raised a bit of a stir this last month in my church bible study. We were studying Job and It hit me as I read the thing from cover to cover: It reads like a parable. All the other books tie togehter. The characters are mentioned in other books, they string together, etc. But this book is completely self contained. The whole book is there solely for instruction to the reader, just like Jesus’ parables.

Just a thought.

[MrB]

Ah, but global warming has an imperative, and it IS a religious imperative, though not a divine one.

Humanism demands that the human himself define and live out his own righteousness. You will be as gods, knowing/defining right and wrong for yourselves.

Global warming gives an imperative “cause” for those who are... looking for love in all the wrong places.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And don’t forget who... and when... and we now have the classical elements of the well written news story. Who, what, how, when, and why. And there is one News Story that crowns all the rest.

[cuban leaf]

Yes. Ultimately it all fits together.