• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Buddhism scientific?

Nathyn

Thinker
N
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
141
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From Buddhanet:

Is Buddhism Scientific?

Science is knowledge which can be made into a system, which depends upon seeing and testing facts and stating general natural laws. The core of Buddhism fit into this definition, because the Four Noble truths (see below) can be tested and proven by anyone in fact the Buddha himself asked his followers to test the teaching rather than accept his word as true. Buddhism depends more on understanding than faith.
Click to expand...
Is it possible to prove the four noble truths through western "scientific" reasoning?

The Four Noble Truths:

1. There is suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by desire.
3. It is possible to cease desire and thereby end suffering.
4. The way to cease desiring is the noble eight-fold path (consisting of [/FONT]wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental discipline).

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also, see Wikipedia's article: Buddhism and Science.

From the Kalama Sutta:

[/FONT]
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" — then you should enter & remain in them.' Thus was it said.
Click to expand...
T[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]his quote is attributed to him:

"[/FONT]Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

It is unsourced, probably a summation of his teaching in the Kalama Sutta.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
 
Nathyn said:
[/SIZE][/FONT]T[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]his quote is attributed to him:

"[/FONT]Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

It is unsourced, probably a summation of his teaching in the Kalama Sutta.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
So, am I to understand that Dylan Avery, MaGZ, and a whole truck load of CT folks are Bhuddists?

DR
 
Nathyn said:
1. There is suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by desire.
3. It is possible to cease desire and thereby end suffering.
4. The way to cease desiring is the noble eight-fold path (consisting of [/SIZE][/FONT]wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental discipline).
Click to expand...
Well, it looks like the four noble truths constitute a testable claim.
there is observation (suffering exists), a hypothesis for what causes this suffering (desire), a conclusion drawn from this hypothesis (if desire is removed, suffering will cease) and a proposed method for testing this hypothesis (follow eth 8 fold path and you will negate desire and end suffering).

Fine, now all we need is proper, double blind, controlled experiments.

I suggest establishing some form of "pseudo Buddhism" (why does this feel like a Yrreg phrase ;) ), and attracting followers to this pseudo Buddhism, then taking a representative sample from the major sects of Buddhism, and from this pseudo Buddhist control religion, and evaluating which group has less suffering- until then its a nice idea, but we have no data.

After these tests have been published I suggest we move on to double blind tests of other religions. i suggest we start with the Norse pantheon, because between Oden and Hod we're 3/4 of the way there already. ;)
 
brodski said:
Well, it looks like the four noble truths constitute a testable claim.
there is observation (suffering exists), a hypothesis for what causes this suffering (desire), a conclusion drawn from this hypothesis (if desire is removed, suffering will cease) and a proposed method for testing this hypothesis (follow eth 8 fold path and you will negate desire and end suffering).
Click to expand...
Gautama Buddha supposedly modeled the four noble truths after a medical model:

1. Identification of Disease or Symptoms
2. Disease Cause or Diagnosis
3. Disease Prognosis
4. Treatment and Prescription

brodski said:
Fine, now all we need is proper, double blind, controlled experiments.

I suggest establishing some form of "pseudo Buddhism" (why does this feel like a Yrreg phrase ;) ), and attracting followers to this pseudo Buddhism, then taking a representative sample from the major sects of Buddhism, and from this pseudo Buddhist control religion, and evaluating which group has less suffering- until then its a nice idea, but we have no data.

After these tests have been published I suggest we move on to double blind tests of other religions. i suggest we start with the Norse pantheon, because between Oden and Hod we're 3/4 of the way there already. ;)
Click to expand...
One problem, though: It's extremely difficult to quantify "good practice" or "joy."

However, studies in Buddhism would certainly have merit. For example, I think research in cognitive psychology has a great deal to offer Buddhism, in terms of understanding. If Buddhism is in fact true, it ought to be able to hold up to empirical scrutiny, provided that the methodology is sound. I also would like to see what the correlation is between being a monk (from various traditions) and self-perception of joy and personal fulfillment.

On a personal level, though, I do not think that a full study is necessary: Rather than relying upon scientists, Buddhism (if a person considers it a rational choice) can be attempted by people themselves to see if it improves their lives. If it doesn't, then yes, Buddhism doesn't work, from their perspective at least, and so they should abandon it.
 
Nathyn said:
Rather than relying upon scientists, Buddhism (if a person considers it a rational choice) can be attempted by people themselves to see if it improves their lives. If it doesn't, then yes, Buddhism doesn't work, from their perspective at least, and so they should abandon it.
Click to expand...

Just wait until you meet Yrreg. ;)

And welcome to the forums. :)
 
Hiya Nathyn!

Science may be applied to buddhism and buddhism not be scientific. I would argue that science is a method of aquiring knowledge and buddhism is many things like a philosophy and religion.

So no buddhism is not scientific, just as quantum mechanics can be studied scientifi9caly but many unscientific claims are made about QM.
 
Nathyn said:
Is it possible to prove the four noble truths through western "scientific" reasoning?
Click to expand...

What the buddha is advocating is simply a rational approach to faith so that people will not be taken advantage of by charlatans or misguided into committing genocide or whatever, but make no mistake buddhism is a religion and at some point does require that leap of faith (irrationality).

So no it can never ever ever ever be proven scientifically, but the good news is that buddhism advocates criticism of buddhism and is okay with people who don't believe in it if it doesn't work for them.
 
Well, I would say that (1) is testable, and quite clearly true. Obviously suffering exists. Number (2) is also testable, and if what is meant is that all suffering is caused by desire (which would be a requirement for the elimination of desire to eliminate suffering), then it is quite clearly false.

Mabe I am missing something fundamental here, but the suffering of a burn victim is not caused by desire. The suffering of somebody who is dying from starvation or disease is not caused by desire. The suffering of somebody who is being persecuted or tortured by somebody else, is not caused by desire. And eliminating desire (if possible) is not going to eliminate the above suffering.

That's not to say that the idea is completely flawed. I suppose some suffering is caused by desire. Whether or not the elimination of that desire is a practical and/or desirable way to eliminate that suffering is highly debatable. For that matter, doesn't the whole issue only arise because we desire to eliminate suffering?


Dr. Stupid
 
lolurigeller said:
What the buddha is advocating is simply a rational approach to faith so that people will not be taken advantage of by charlatans or misguided into committing genocide or whatever, but make no mistake buddhism is a religion and at some point does require that leap of faith (irrationality).

So no it can never ever ever ever be proven scientifically, but the good news is that buddhism advocates criticism of buddhism and is okay with people who don't believe in it if it doesn't work for them.
Click to expand...
Science itself is founded on intuition, however, because in order for any definition or conception of truth to be tested, one must first have a pre-existing conception of truth. So, all conceptions of truth and all proposed methods of gaining truth rely upon circular reasoning.

As it seems to me, it is critical examination of these assumptions, not specifically "empiricism," which yields truth.

Stimpson J. Cat said:
Mabe I am missing something fundamental here, but the suffering of a burn victim is not caused by desire. The suffering of somebody who is dying from starvation or disease is not caused by desire. The suffering of somebody who is being persecuted or tortured by somebody else, is not caused by desire. And eliminating desire (if possible) is not going to eliminate the above suffering.

That's not to say that the idea is completely flawed. I suppose some suffering is caused by desire. Whether or not the elimination of that desire is a practical and/or desirable way to eliminate that suffering is highly debatable. For that matter, doesn't the whole issue only arise because we desire to eliminate suffering?
Click to expand...
There are different views on this. I've heard some teach that Buddhism is about alleviating "added" suffering, not all suffering.

However, through cessation of desire and self-hypnosis training, it is conceivable that one can eliminate all suffering.

There is the example of the burning monk, Thich Quang Duc:

300px-Thich_Quang_Duc_-_Self_Immolation.jpg


He set himself on fire, but did not make a sound or a single movement as he burned to death.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Well, I would say that (1) is testable, and quite clearly true. Obviously suffering exists. Number (2) is also testable, and if what is meant is that all suffering is caused by desire (which would be a requirement for the elimination of desire to eliminate suffering), then it is quite clearly false.

Mabe I am missing something fundamental here, but the suffering of a burn victim is not caused by desire. The suffering of somebody who is dying from starvation or disease is not caused by desire. The suffering of somebody who is being persecuted or tortured by somebody else, is not caused by desire. And eliminating desire (if possible) is not going to eliminate the above suffering.

That's not to say that the idea is completely flawed. I suppose some suffering is caused by desire. Whether or not the elimination of that desire is a practical and/or desirable way to eliminate that suffering is highly debatable. For that matter, doesn't the whole issue only arise because we desire to eliminate suffering?


Dr. Stupid
Click to expand...

Yes, from what I understand, that is a common misconception. When the list of afflictions (kleshas) is shortened in the sutras, the first item on the list was used to represent the whole list. The first item is suffering.
 
Nathyn said:
Science itself is founded on intuition, however, because in order for any definition or conception of truth to be tested, one must first have a pre-existing conception of truth. So, all conceptions of truth and all proposed methods of gaining truth rely upon circular reasoning.

As it seems to me, it is critical examination of these assumptions, not specifically "empiricism," which yields truth.
Click to expand...

That honestly sounds buddhist.
 
Nathyn said:
Science itself is founded on intuition, however, because in order for any definition or conception of truth to be tested, one must first have a pre-existing conception of truth. So, all conceptions of truth and all proposed methods of gaining truth rely upon circular reasoning.

As it seems to me, it is critical examination of these assumptions, not specifically "empiricism," which yields truth.


There are different views on this. I've heard some teach that Buddhism is about alleviating "added" suffering, not all suffering.

However, through cessation of desire and self-hypnosis training, it is conceivable that one can eliminate all suffering.

There is the example of the burning monk, Thich Quang Duc:

[qimg]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...g/300px-Thich_Quang_Duc_-_Self_Immolation.jpg[/qimg]

He set himself on fire, but did not make a sound or a single movement as he burned to death.
Click to expand...

Don't you all think that this shows supernatural \ paranormal abilities?

(A pity he is not available to get the million dollars )
 
JetLeg said:
Don't you all think that this shows supernatural \ paranormal abilities?
Click to expand...
Astonishing self control, an inability to feel pain, or pharmacological help, yes. Supernatural or paranormal abilities, no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom