Indeed, if there is an article of faith among many present-day Buddhists, it's that the more science discovers, the better scientific knowledge harmonizes with Buddhism. For example, it appears that teachings on evolution and ecology -- that nothing is immutable; that life forms exist, adapt and change because they are conditioned by environment and other life forms -- fits nicely with the Buddha's teaching on Dependent Origination.
Buddhism as a religion
-
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:
So if someone anesthetized you, you will let him eat you, cos you feel no pain?
Let's unpack this question a little bit. I will offer two criteria here:
1. Moral criteria: Does the creature suffer? When we talk about suffering as a criteria, I am using Bentham's beautifully-written argument:
"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
Note that Bentham talks not just of suffering as a criteria; he also blurs the line between humans and animals.
To be sure, we are talking not just of physical suffering, but also mental suffering. We are talking about not just of the suffering of the direct victim (the creature that is being slaughtered for the table), but also others that might be affected by the slaughter.
2. Economic criteria: Does the creature have utility? With farm-bred cattle or poultry, the concept of contribution or utility doesn't usually come in. But with human beings, an economic argument applies as well. To put it in strictly utilitarian terms, the survival of a 20-year-old Einstein-level genius is likely to be more beneficial that that of a 90-year-old person with diminished limited mental capacity.
With these in mind, if the following conditions were true:
- If you were to anaesthesize me so I feel no pain.
- If I were to be completely forgotten by my friends and family so they would not feel the pain of losing me.
- If my life was considered to be equal to that of any other creature; the person who eats me would not suffer unnecessarily as a result.
- If my utility to society was so small that the benefits of eating me would outweigh that of my living, e.g. say I'm a fat 90-year-old man on a stranded boat in the middle of the ocean.
If these conditions were true, then maybe I'll say: "Yes. Eat me."
-
Double-post
-
we could simply deconstruct the elements of water as H2O....
but what makes water water?
let the varieties of human experience define it...
-
one cannot transform reality without eating it...
thats the crux...
-
1.Karma or bile?
In Christian counter-apologetics, there is an argument called the "God of the Gaps", which is used to explain how the concept of God is used to explain fewer and fewer phenomena, as the realm of science expanded over time. For example, ancients thought that lighting and thunder were caused by a God, until we understood the science. Now Christians move on to other yet-unexplained phenomenon, hoping to fill those gaps with God.Likewise, your anecdote of "karma or bile" is an example of this fallacy. In the past, probably many kinds of ailments were deemed to be caused by karma. These days, more of it is being understood within the realms of medical science, so the role of karma gets reduced even more. As we progress into a world of genetic engineering and terraforming, you begin to wonder: How small will the role of karma become?
nay, that's your perception only. we don't see science contrading to buddhism, on the contrary, it's helping to understand or explain Buddhism even more clearly. the more science advance the more it corresponds to Buddhism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science
Buddhism and Science - How Buddhism agrees with Science
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/science.htm
and a whole lot of scientists agreed, including Albert Einstine, see search:-
perhaps u must have tot that karma is about the belief that all happiness and suffering, including all future happiness and suffering, arise from previous karma, and human beings can exercise no volition to affect future results (Past-action determinism), BUT this is wrong view or incorrect understanding of karma.
science is more on randomism, which is also wrong view or incorrect to us.
Incorrect understandings of karma in the early sutras
In Buddhism, karma is not pre-determinism, fatalism or accidentalism, as all these ideas lead to inaction and destroy motivation and human effort. These ideas undermine the important concept that a human being can change for the better no matter what his or her past was, and they are designated as "wrong views" in Buddhism. The Buddha identified three:
- Pubbekatahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering, including all future happiness and suffering, arise from previous karma, and human beings can exercise no volition to affect future results (Past-action determinism).
- Issaranimmanahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism).
- Ahetu-appaccaya-vaada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism).[26]
Karma is continually ripening, but it is also continually being generated by present actions, therefore it is possible to exercise free will to shape future karma. P.A. Payutto writes, "the Buddha asserts effort and motivation as the crucial factors in deciding the ethical value of these various teachings on kamma."[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism
/\
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
If these conditions were true, then maybe I'll say: "Yes. Eat me."
I don't think so. Stop kidding yourself! haha...
-
you also seem to be doing quite well in quoting others almost authoritatively to find agreements with your own points.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Let's unpack this question a little bit. I will offer two criteria here:
1. Moral criteria: Does the creature suffer? When we talk about suffering as a criteria, I am using Bentham's beautifully-written argument:
"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
Note that Bentham talks not just of suffering as a criteria; he also blurs the line between humans and animals.
To be sure, we are talking not just of physical suffering, but also mental suffering. We are talking about the suffering not merely in death, but also in life. We are talking about not only of the suffering of the direct victim (the creature that is being slaughtered for the table), but also others that might be affected by the slaughter.
2. Economic criteria: Does the creature have utility? With farm-bred cattle or poultry, the concept of contribution or utility doesn't usually come in. But with human beings, an economic argument applies as well. To put it in strictly utilitarian terms, the survival of a 20-year-old Einstein-level genius is likely to be more beneficial that that of a 90-year-old person with diminished limited mental capacity.
With these in mind, if the following conditions were true:
- If you were to anaesthesize me so I feel no pain.
- If I were to be completely forgotten by my friends and family so they would not feel the pain of losing me.
- If my life was considered to be equal to that of any other creature; the person who eats me would not suffer unnecessarily as a result.
- If my utility to society was so small that the benefits of eating me would outweigh that of my living, e.g. say I'm a fat 90-year-old man on a stranded boat in the middle of the ocean.
If these conditions were true, then maybe I'll say: "Yes. Eat me."
Too-rigid-arguments... I guess no sentient beings wants to be eaten even it has no utility at all.Your statements seems to place humans superiority than other beings. But in Buddhism here, we are talking about compassion and wisdom. Science cannot do that. Getting Karma and rebirth in scientific explanations is like going into endless circles... ding dong here ding dong there... lol
-
Simply using linear time line, we can think of karma as an affinity or propensity to, as to leading to events or occurences that have not yet happen. The association to happiness or suffering is applicable to those that we percieve able to experience as such. Thus suffering, is an attribute directly related to how we experience such experiences. We are subject to causuality, some occurences affect us directly, some indirectly. Consequences can have a direct impact,other less so. Therefore, karma is an propensity to actions in relation to causuality. Level of awareness is also a factor in this simplistic equation.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
nay, that's your perception only. we don't see science contrading to buddhism, on the contrary, it's helping to understand or explain Buddhism even more clearly. the more science advance the more it corresponds to Buddhism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science
Buddhism and Science - How Buddhism agrees with Science
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/science.htm
Indeed, if there is an article of faith among many present-day Buddhists, it's that the more science discovers, the better scientific knowledge harmonizes with Buddhism. For example, it appears that teachings on evolution and ecology -- that nothing is immutable; that life forms exist, adapt and change because they are conditioned by environment and other life forms -- fits nicely with the Buddha's teaching on Dependent Origination.
and a whole lot of scientists agreed, including Albert Einstine, see search:-
perhaps u must have tot that karma is about the belief that all happiness and suffering, including all future happiness and suffering, arise from previous karma, and human beings can exercise no volition to affect future results (Past-action determinism), BUT this is wrong view or incorrect understanding of karma.
science is more on randomism, which is also wrong view or incorrect to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism
/\
There are certainly elements in Buddhism, especially the purely philosophical parts, that are interesting and reconciliable with science, just as there are elements in Christianity that do the same. However, there are also supernatural elements (e.g. ghosts) in both religions that are completely at odds with science.
Furthermore, both religions also fail in making any testable predicitions about our world. Has Buddhism ever pioneered or founded any scientific ideas that we've subsequently tested and found to be correct?
-
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:
I don't think so. Stop kidding yourself! haha...
I'm being completely serious here.
Does it really matter to us whether we die tomorrow or 10 years from now? Once we die, we have no consciousness, no feelings. Therefore, we ourselves are completely unaffected by our own deaths.
Instead, the effect is on people around us -- both people who suffer because of the loss, and also people who lose the impact we otherwise would be making.
So if I have no relatives, no friends, and my life is suddenly extinguished in the next minute, it really wouldn't matter very much.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Too-rigid-arguments... I guess no sentient beings wants to be eaten even it has no utility at all.Your statements seems to place humans superiority than other beings. But in Buddhism here, we are talking about compassion and wisdom. Science cannot do that. Getting Karma and rebirth in scientific explanations is like going into endless circles... ding dong here ding dong there... lol
On the contrary, I make it very clear that I assume that animals are just as important as human beings by certain criteria. See my reference to Bentham above. Bentham himself was influenced by the enlightenment thinkers, who believed in the power of reason and science to advance society.
It is however important to reason through why exactly animals are different or similar to human beings, rather than putting all animals in the same bucket.
-
the fact is that science could hardly offer explanation or useful verification of the paranormal or the transcendental...
as far as in the human context, religion and science co-exist and run into similarities of thought at times or accidentally, and differs in methodologies or doctrines ....
the issue is not whether karma exists under the microscope of science...but whether science exists under the transcendentalism of the human experience ...
relatively speaking...
-
Originally posted by Fcukpap:
the fact is that science could hardly offer explanation or useful verification of the paranormal or the transcendental...
as far as in the human context, religion and science co-exist and run into similarities of thought at times or accidentally, and differs in methodologies or doctrines ....
the issue is not whether karma exists under the microscope of science...but whether science exists under the transcendentalism of the human experience ...
relatively speaking...
1. If you ask someone 3,000 years ago about the sun, the rain or even the unseen creature that howls in the night, he will tell you that all of those are supernatural entities. Science has been able to uncover the truths behind all of these, dismissing the supernatural elements. In fact, if you look over the course of history, almost ALL supernatural claims have been debunked by science, whether it be ancient claims (Man was made from mud) or more recent ones (e.g. crop circles).
It is therefore a fallacy to think that science cannot cast light on religion. Claims pertinent to the Buddhist philosophy, such as an active role for karma (e.g. in explaining diseases) or mind-body dualism, continue to be examined by science. So far, I think the evidence does not support either.
2. There is simply no evidence for the "transcendentalism" of the human experience. Medical advances, particularly in neurology, is increasingly telling us that the "mind" does not exist outside the "body". There is so far no evidence at all for a soul or a spirit inside each of us that lives beyond our bodily demise.
In short -- as far as we know today -- when we die, we die. Any argument for transcendentalism is an assumption based on scarcely any evidence.
-
all and all, Whether Buddhism is, or is not, a religion depends upon how the word "religion" is defined. as Buddhism don't have a God to worship. i can also say Science is a "religion", a personal set or institutionalized system of "beliefs", and practices. it's still continuing on it's discovery that will bring it closer to Buddhadharma. analogically, Science is equal to thinking earth is flat, vs Buddhism is thinking earth is round. Science have to work further. science latest discovery on micro-oganism, vast universe, sun dying, evolution, e=mc^2, quantum physic, global consciousness, etc, Buddha already know about them.
btw, u still misunderstood, supernatural and reincarnation is from Hinduism at first. they think that there's a permanent soul from one reincarnation to the next. however, Buddhism rebirth concept is different and quite similar to science that there's non-self, that's just energy coming and going. like cycle of water, like weather, rain fall onto the ground and sea and evaporate back to the sky to form clouds and fall back as rain.
/\
-
I think Buddhism is a way of life, rather than a religion....perhaps more of a philosophy?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
all and all, Whether Buddhism is, or is not, a religion depends upon how the word "religion" is defined. as Buddhism don't have a God to worship. i can also say Science is a "religion", a personal set or institutionalized system of "beliefs", and practices. it's still continuing on it's discovery that will bring it closer to Buddhadharma. analogically, Science is equal to thinking earth is flat, vs Buddhism is thinking earth is round. Science have to work further. science latest discovery on micro-oganism, vast universe, sun dying, evolution, e=mc^2, quantum physic, global consciousness, etc, Buddha already know about them.
btw, u still misunderstood, supernatural and reincarnation is from Hinduism at first. they think that there's a permanent soul from one reincarnation to the next. however, Buddhism rebirth concept is different and quite similar to science that there's non-self, that's just energy coming and going. like cycle of water, like weather, rain fall onto the ground and sea and evaporate back to the sky to form clouds and fall back as rain.
/\
1. You're saying that science has to work harder to catch up with Buddhism in understanding the natural facts of our world? Don't just assert. Prove it.
What new natural knowledge is Buddhism bringing to the table? How many dimensions does our world have? Eleven, as M-theory suggests? Or 10, as earlier theories did? Or four, or three? How was the first self-replicable cell formed? Is the RNA world hypothesis correct?
What about applications from knowledge in Buddhism? Has anyone made any discoveries, built any cutting-edge technology based on their insights from Buddhism?
What does Buddhism tell you about all of these questions? And don't talk in riddles. Explain in clear terms that we can predict and test, rather than reactroactively fit into science.
It is one thing to claim that Buddhism offers a spiritual truth that cannot be tested by science. It is quite another to claim that Buddhism offers insights into our natural world that science has yet to discover.
2. You are eager to put Buddhism in the same framework as science, but energy in science is impersonal -- it is used and converted constantly, both (a) from one form of energy to another and (b) from mass to energy and back.
It is therefore a massive leap to go from the energy of science into rebirth, where the "energy" of an individual is retained in its entirety from one life to another.
Furthermore, I can't see how the Buddhist formulations of non-self and "energy" are consistent with the concept of rebirth. If you keep talking about non-self, then why is there even retribution on the self? How is it that the "energy" of an individual remains intact even after death, only to be transported into another sentient being?
The idea of "energy" in Buddhism is hence very different from that of science in significant ways. There is no scientific evidence for what you are claiming. Furthermore, given the way you explain it, I'm not even sure it is consistent with itself.
-
To miss the main aim of Buddhism is to miss the chance to be liberated from cyclic suffering.
That is, if you want that liberation. If one is still currently anaesthetised by temporal comforts, s/he will have no incentive to personally verify the teachings of the Buddha.
Intellectual fodder is just that. It gives the mind something to play with, chew on. There will come a point in time when we will come to realise that rearranging our thoughts still doesn't provide lasting peace and comfort. Too much deliberation at the conceptual level can also easily fuel the afflictions of anger, lust, delusion, pride, jealousy, etc.
Whether or not we are able to see Buddhism for what it offers depends on 'yuan'.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
1. You're saying that science has to work harder to catch up with Buddhism in understanding the natural facts of our world? Don't just assert. Prove it.
What new natural knowledge is Buddhism bringing to the table? How many dimensions does our world have? Eleven, as M-theory suggests? Or 10, as earlier theories did? Or four, or three? How was the first self-replicable cell formed? Is the RNA world hypothesis correct?
What about applications from knowledge in Buddhism? Has anyone made any discoveries, built any cutting-edge technology based on their insights from Buddhism?
What does Buddhism tell you about all of these questions? And don't talk in riddles. Explain in clear terms that we can predict and test, rather than reactroactively fit into science.
It is one thing to claim that Buddhism offers a spiritual truth that cannot be tested by science. It is quite another to claim that Buddhism offers insights into our natural world that science has yet to discover.
2. You are eager to put Buddhism in the same framework as science, but energy in science is impersonal -- it is used and converted constantly, both (a) from one form of energy to another and (b) from mass to energy and back.
It is therefore a massive leap to go from the energy of science into rebirth, where the "energy" of an individual is retained in its entirety from one life to another.
Furthermore, I can't see how the Buddhist formulations of non-self and "energy" are consistent with the concept of rebirth. If you keep talking about non-self, then why is there even retribution on the self? How is it that the "energy" of an individual remains intact even after death, only to be transported into another sentient being?
The idea of "energy" in Buddhism is hence very different from that of science in significant ways. There is no scientific evidence for what you are claiming. Furthermore, given the way you explain it, I'm not even sure it is consistent with itself.
mr reasonable.atheist
if you are still thinking about everything that Buddha realised can be achieved through a few years of study in university ,i must sadly say its is IMPOSSIBLE .Science cannot explained alot of thing like why different people die differently,sometimes tragically .You say that person is a kind person , but why does he died when a tree just fallen on him.Does Newtons Law of gravity "sees" he is a kind person and waive off all calamity befallen on him
Simply to use Science in your arguments is flawed and so childlike .I challenge you to come and practise and realise for yourself what the Buddha have taught.Unless you intend not to be liberated ,so are you SURE next life you can be a great Scientist ?HOW SURE ARE YOU ? HOW SURE ?HOW SURE?
-
Somebody pray to buddha statues at their homes, are they considered as buddhists at all ?
-
Hey there reasonable.atheist, thanks for the hard questions. It's always good to have people around that'll make you look at your own beliefs. I've never studied the history of science, nor actually took the time to seriously know how science "works" and its goals (beyond what I *think* its goals and purposes are), and my understanding of buddhism is not quite there yet to begin lecturing people about my choice of religion, but I feel compelled to post here about my own beliefs of the two. So just bear with me here
.What I believe, is that the purpose of science is simply to understand our surroundings in a way that if we were to be able to reproduce the results in a controlled environment (e.g. a lab), the results will always be the same every single time. So when the results aren't consistent, we keep looking and looking until we find a way that works.
Sometimes though, what we arrive at to be true or false is simply due to the limits that we test them at. For example, Louis Pasteur's experiments with boiling water that proved that pasturization would work to kill off all microbes succeeded partly because he got lucky; now after more experiments we have found that some microbes do survive above 100c .
This is the beauty of science of course, that if something that was previously accepted to be true is now found out to be false, we willingly throw away our old beliefs and embrace the new result(s). It is interesting that some monks (Ajahn Brahm, Dalai Lama) have said that Buddhism works similarly, that what was found to be true should be embraced instead of scriptural authority.
So in that case, why haven't these monks defrocked since certain aspects of buddhism could not be proven to be true under science? I can't speak for them of course, but faith in the teachings, and the fact that the teachings of the Buddha worked for them probably has quite a lot to do with this. After all, science is always moving towards truth, and what is found to be true/untrue is only so for now, until new findings overturn or reinforce them.
For me personally, there are certain parts of Buddhism that I do not totally accept yet, and I will not elaborate here for fear of bad karma (heh heh!). However, I am not particularly smart, nor perceptive. Those aspects of buddhism that I'm skeptical about, I just treat as I'm unable to understand them for now. I'm confident that if I strive hard enough, I'll get to the point that I can see for myself whether they true... or not. Not sure if this has been posted, nor if it's relevant to you, but do have a read about the parable of the poison arrow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_arrow .
In fact for science, I have the absolute confidence that given enough time everything can be found out to be true or false for sure. Who knows, the scientific formula for karma could be discovered 10,000 years from now, and you'll need to plug in 84,000 variables for it to work perfectly. But I am naive like that.
At the end of the day, whoever approaches religion should do so with healthy amounts of faith and the willingness to continually test the teachings. I believe that after a while at it, if you ask yourself if you're a happier, better person and the answer is positive, then there's no problem at all. Unhappy (religionists of your choice)/atheist/deists/humanists exist, so if whatever you believe in doesn't work after rigorous testing, move on and find something else that does.
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Somebody pray to buddha statues at their homes, are they considered as buddhists at all ?
Ya, I also want to know.I have one person who prays with joss sticks and bows to Buddha statue in her house everyday claims she is a buddhist. She does not attend Dharma class, does not believe in existence of Pureland, does not apply buddhism in life. Very hot temper person who loves to quarrel and find fault.
I am confuse is such a person consider a buddhist.
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
Ya, I also want to know.I have one person who prays with joss sticks and bows to Buddha statue in her house everyday claims she is a buddhist. She does not attend Dharma class, does not believe in existence of Pureland, does not apply buddhism in life. Very hot temper person who loves to quarrel and find fault.
I am confuse is such a person consider a buddhist.
"potential" buddhists
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
"potential" buddhistsConfuse. She claims from her mouth she is buddhist.
I am not buddhist , I believe in existence of pureland. she is a buddhist as she claims she does not believe existence of pureland.
-
For me, buddhism works! There's more to life than just kowtow to buddha statues....I think buddhism is about active paticipation in the society....its a form of lifestyle...
Not just meditation or chanting mantras....etc.