Is Buddhism compatible with Science?

Question

I guess it my depend on the Buddhist and the school of Buddhism, as well as the Scientist and the school of Science?

Thoughts?

Answer 1

It depends on what you're asking. Is our current scientific understanding of reality compatible with the Buddhist understanding of reality? Can a person practice both science and Buddhism without contradiction?

The answer to the first question is sort of. The Buddha was concerned with teaching us the methods and views we need in order to put an end to suffering. Metaphysics wasn't really his thing. However, many Buddhist philosophers DID write quite a bit about metaphysics. Perhaps the most important of these philosophers was Nagarjuna in the 1st-2nd century CE.

Nagarjuna taught that the things we take to be real, both externally and internally, are in truth, completely empty of themselves -- empty of inherent existence or non-existence. They exist only in relation to other things and have no essence or substantiality. On one level of analysis, things appear, they come and go, they have names and structures and functions. On another level, there are no things, nothing comes and goes, and their names are merely conceptual imputations. Nagarjuna's arguments for this are rigorous and incredibly sound, even today.

To the extent that science is the method whereby we analyze objects into components and functions, theorize on those functions and test those theories, science is operating on the relative level. In this sense, science is limited. For a Buddhist, whose goal is to comprehend the truth of emptiness in total, he or she must see the limits of intellectual understanding and go beyond it. This means that while science may be the best way of understanding reality on the conventional level, it is not, and never will be, the whole truth.

The second question on whether a person can be both a scientist and a Buddhist without contradiction, the answer is definitely. Buddhist practice not only teaches compassion and wisdom, it also cultivates concentration, focus, equanimity, healthy skepticism, and perseverance. These are all great qualities for a scientist to have and develop. Contrarily, science is an excellent model for understanding the world, and the scientific method is very much akin to how a Buddhist approaches their practice.

I'm sure you'll find many opinions on this question. This is merely my own.

cheers.

Answer 2

YES AND NO.  Look at it from this perspective. The Buddha is fully enlightened with full sight and knowledge of everything (that's what enlightenment entails). And Buddhas have existed for aeons and aeons, just as long as people have existed. One world lives, and dies, and lives again, and dies. Countless worlds in the universe, each populated with so many people, for so many aeons, we have endured the cycle of birth and death over and over again. Buddhas stick around and cross over beings, helping us to become Buddhas as well.

But anyway, what I'm trying to say is, Buddhas and people have been here for aeons, worlds after worlds. Science on the other hand, is a culmination of the studies pertaining and existing to THIS world's lifetime only. Science has only really begun to pick up with technology just recently, yet we have only come so far.  So the knowledge of science compared to that of a Buddha (whom  understands and sees all) is like the knowledge of an ant compared to 10,000 billion Steven Hawkings (sp?).

Science cannot explain clearly, if at all, the things that Buddha knows/sees/understands, such as the heavens, ghost realms, rebirth, death, karma, retribution, mental stages, thought.

However, science IS compatible with Buddhism because science is a study of what is as it is, and Buddhism is merely the gateway and understanding of the way things are or the way things work.

Buddha did not create the heavens, nor did he create rebirth, retribution, mind, etc. Those who cultivate to become enlightened Buddhas, like Siddartha, finally become enlightened and SEE these things.  It is like everything in the mind finally clicked and you understand everything and see everything.

When Siddartha became enlightened, he realized so many things and saw so many things, from ghost realms, to h***s, heavens, spirits, karmic retributions of others, rebirth, death, know-how of human psyche, past lives, future lives, etc.  When the Buddha spoke sutras, he merely told it as it is. That's Buddhism. It's the way of life, a way of life, and a study of the way things are in existence.

Thusly, Science is compatible with Buddhism, but at the same time, incompatible because it is novice compared to the extent of Buddha's understanding.  Science denounces Buddhism in the sense that science can only see so far at the moment.  Science and technology have yet to catch up with the Buddha's knowledge and the things that He sees/understands.

Isn't it true? When science cannot explain it and run their petty amateur tests (as if their tests were superior and could answer everything), they denounce what science cannot understand or explain? That is why science is incompatible with Buddhism, even Christianity.  Science only started to really pick up in our generation right? Imagine how novice science is compared to, let's say just to be simple, the knowledge of JUST THIS WORLD'S LIFETIME, (... let alone the knowledge of the Buddhas that extends for countless worlds' lifetimes).

Answer 3

Many of the Dali Lama's books address just these issues - try 'The Universe in a Single Atom'

Answer 4

At the present moment if I knew the answer, and what is to know when everything is in a continuous state of change...what I may think NOW will it be changed  or differently perceived or THOUGHT proven to stay?

Words are dangerous. They make commitment from what there'll be a Next...and a Next..and a next ad infinitum. If I thought I sensed an answer to your question, I'd dare not at this moment say it through words. Or ever, if I so tempted!

Even though I must through THIS communication between you a questioner and I an answerer...I'd say only these few words..."I do not know"...nor would I  sully What is of constant transcendence through the medium of words!'I breathe in a void of silence instead...but not for ever...this of myself, I can tell.

Nothing more.

Answer 5

You asked for thoughts, not a factual answer, so here are my thoughts.  What's a factual answer when it comes to religion anyway?

Buddhism is probably the religion most compatible with Science because most schools of Buddhism don't define the religion through exclusion.  Most religions have a jealous god (or gods) who, according to the relevant scripture, proclaim it an offense to believe in anything else (Thou shalt have no God but me).  Buddhism is much more about the self, the practitioner's place in life and the enlightenment that comes from self-awareness.  While you can always track down a few wacky beliefs from most religions, those practitioners of Buddhism that I've met are among the more tolerant people I've ever encountered, and don't set their religion up against other beliefs or, for that matter, the sciences, because they don't feel contradicted by them.

The question of the Buddhist belief in reincarnation is bound to come up, so I'll try to preempt it by saying that those I've spoken to about it don't necessarily believe in reincarnation the same way we imagine it, but use it more as a method of self-discipline, because if you don't believe death is the end, then that's likely to make you a better person during life.  Whether you agree is a matter of opinion.

Buddhism is deeply personal to the practitioner.  It requires no defending because it doesn't seek to convert or convince.  As a consequence, it doesn't stand in opposition to science, although it's also more likely to ask uncomfortable questions about some of the science we engage in.

Answer 6

If there's a biology that can explain human transmogrifacation to explain the 200+ different faces of Budha...