According to Buddhism, the cause of all suffering is desire and liberation from desire would lead to the cessation of suffering.
But isn’t curiosity a desire? Is Buddhism against scientific attitude? Is it against scientific research? (as all research is about the desire to find answers to questions.)
No.
I'd say that Buddhism is or can be pro (in favour of) a scientific attitude. The structure of the four noble truths, for example, are analogous to medical thinking: symptoms, cause, cure, and prescription (or, possibly, analogous to the "scientific method": observations, hypothesis, prediction, and experiment).
Also there are different types of "desire": tanha is unwholesome craving, whereas chanda can be wholesome.
Furthermore Buddhism (more-or-less) encourages the proper functioning of lay society: including right livelihood and so on.
And a contemporary Buddhist leader (the Dalai Lama) says that Buddhism has a lot to offer or to add to science (e.g. here) -- or for example here, "The Science for Monks project is a direct result of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s long-term personal interest in science".
I think it's true though that Buddhism doesn't put faith in merely technological development, any more than it says that the mere accumulation of material wealth is the ultimate solution for all life's problems.
Also, I think that "(idle) curiosity" may be endless: meaning, both "without limit" and "without (or with no good) purpose". But Buddhist Dharma is overtly purposeful and, therefore, limited (see for example Simsapa Sutta). I think it expects endeavour should be harmless, beneficial, benevolent: so I expect it opposes some types of "scientific" Research and Development (notably, probably, of weapons for example). Conversely I think there are scientific fields that have more affinity with Buddhism (possibly medicine or ecology).
For the sake of completeness I think that Buddhism (or some Buddhists) can also be dogmatic: the ancient descriptions of (for example) cosmology and pre-history don't co-exist easily with modern "scientific" theories of astronomy, geoscience, and evolution.
Some contemporary Buddhists might discount or excuse such dogma: for example as the unscientific product of its time; or as a corruption introduced into the (perfect) Dharma during subsequent history; or as having a metaphorical or pedagogical purpose which no longer needs to be taken literally.
Other Buddhists might hold that any doctrine that's canonical is therefore important (in spite of the Kalama sutta mentioned in Suminda's answer) and therefore (as you asked) be "against" modern science and "scientific attitude".
There are also some practices in Buddhist cultures and countries, which might be seen as "superstitious" rather than "scientific". But there are also Buddhists who would view these practices as "superstition" and (therefore) not "true Buddhism".
There are many suttas in which the Buddha seems to use and to encourage the use of "scientific attitude", as opposed to the superstitions of his time.
People sometimes contrast Buddhism with Religions, which say "This is true because the prophet (or 'the holy book' or 'our tradition') says so" -- whereas I think that Buddhism's attitude is more like "This is true because it stands to reason, is observable."
One more comment -- I see people try to reconcile, compare, and/or compete Buddhism with science: for example, sometimes, saying that the Buddha taught about Atomic Theory well before "atoms" were discovered by modern experiment; or conversely, saying that science's discovery, that seemingly-solid matter is mostly empty space, is comparable to Buddhist doctrines on emptiness (sunyata).
I see them (science and Buddhism) as separate (independent) fields of endeavour and doctrine.
Within science, there's a conventional way to classify the fields of science into layers, e.g. illustrated here:
Each less "pure" discipline is arguably more complex, less simple, and is based on emergent properties of the field below (or to the right of) it.
I'd place Buddhism well to the left of that scale: highly complex, describing properties of complex phenomena (e.g. human beings). It's a study of things like:
Buddhism is a bit ruthless about what it considers on-topic and not. For example people ask, "Is there a Self?" and I think that Buddha's answer is that it's better not to think about that, that there's no view or doctrine about Self which would lead to the goal (of non-suffering).
There's an expression "not even wrong" which is used to describe what seem to be muddled statements about physics. I like Wikipedia's description of it:
The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking. Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" in Pauli's native German.
I especially like the phrase, "Pauli remarked sadly".
In my opinion, Buddhism might describe science in general as neither "right" not "wrong" but as "not even wrong" -- because science more-or-less fails to make useful statements about topics which Buddhism considers important, for example "ethics" or "liberation from suffering" or anything like that.
I think that Saptha's answer and comments are that even when science has pleasant practical applications and consequences, these (and the pursuit of these) don't help to "unbind" people (i.e. to unbind from the "wheel of life").
If we view sufferings as cognitive dissonance, then clinical psychology is in fact Buddhism? "Impressionists are painters. If we view cubists as painters then in fact they're impressionists?" I think Buddhism is might be defined as "the doctrine of the Buddha and doctrines derived therefrom"; and "clinical psychology" (i.e. "Western psychology") arose/developed separate, with only a little cross-over recently (e.g. the principle of "mindfulness").
The word ‘vijja’—translated here as clear knowing—also means ‘science.’ And just as science implies a method, there is a method—a discipline—underlying the knowledge that leads to Unbinding. If Dhamma equates to ‘vijja’, then the prevailing scientific attitude is ‘a-vijja’, as it leads to more binding. Unlike the Dhamma, the method, the discipline, and ultimately all results of modern/ popular science leads to more binding – resulting in the very opposite of what Buddha taught.
The curiosity that drives the scientific taught is desire. That is why science will never be able to prove or disprove the truth of the Buddha’s claims. That proof can be found only within the awareness of the person who puts those claims to the test in the way the Buddha recommended: by developing the factors of the noble eightfold path.
Buddhism concerns with feelings, emotions, sensations, and cognition, pointing both to cognitive and emotional causes of suffering. The emotional cause is desire and its negative opposite, aversion. The cognitive cause is ignorance of the way things truly occur, or of three marks of existence: that all things are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and without essential self. This is the opposite of the Scientific attitudes that are rooted in desire as evident in Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s article ‘Pushing the Limits - Desire & Imagination in the Buddhist Path:
”All phenomena, the Buddha once said, are rooted in desire. Everything we think, say, or do — every experience — comes from desire. Even we come from desire. We were reborn into this life because of our desire to be. Consciously or not, our desires keep redefining our sense of who we are. Desire is how we take our place in the causal matrix of space and time. The only thing not rooted in desire is nirvana, for it's the end of all phenomena and lies even beyond the Buddha's use of the word "all."”
Is Buddhism against scientific attitude? Is it against scientific research?
Kalama Sutta embodies scientific thinking where nothing should be accepted due to various non scientific reasoning. The non rational reasons are:
and accept because them when you know for yourself at a verified or experiential level that things:
Also not accept based on different sources as immediately truthful and free from fallacies which are:
The content should be verified at the experiential level.
This Sutta is also know as Kesa,puttiya Sutta
In addition, Vimansaka Sutta goes to the extend and states that even the Buddha should be examined.
It is free inquiry and experience that Faith in Buddhism is reinforced than dogmatic belief, which is very scientific.
But isn’t curiosity a desire?
It can be either or both Chanda and Tanha. In the latter cases it is not good. A scientist may crave for results. But a meditator merely observes. Objective observation is more scientific than many scientific results, were due to craving, aversion and ignorance one may have a bias towards the hypothesis.
In science or otherwise craving not not considered a good thing as it keeps us in misery.
In conclusion, buddhism is scientific that you have to rely in:
Also following might be interesting / related: Buddhist point of view in the research process
Is Buddhism against scientific attitude? Is it against scientific research? part of the question, but updated.
Commented
Mar 21, 2017 at 4:45
Strictly speaking, Buddhism doesn't say "desire" is the cause of suffering, but that craving rooted in attachment is the cause of suffering.
Sometimes scientific curiosity is rooted in attachment, but other times it's rooted in wholesome motives such as compassion. Often the motives are a combination of the two. So I think Buddhism is silent on this question. It's up to each inquirer to evaluate their motives, moment to moment.
Science speaks of experimentation. Buddha speaks of arya experimentation. This isn't something science can comprehend, and is more sophisticated and effective in understanding matter and energy (dark or otherwise).
For example science would say, "look, the moon could be having on its face the shadow of earth", and devise experimentation accordingly, thus understanding things like solar eclipses.
A Buddhist, ideally should say, "look, things that rise, change and destroy. This, by its very nature, gives rise to sorrow.", and devise experimentation accordingly, thus understanding the four noble truths.
Experimenting things other than dhamma is considered "anarya" (not noble) and is discouraged.
Curiosity is an ambiguous word. I would replace it by "a wholesome desire to know". And this wholesome desire for understanding and expanding knowledge is a pillar of science and buddhism. Buddhism and science share something in common: objectivity, and seeing things for what they are. This is far more essential than curiosity.
Now the difference between buddhism and science is that science is driven by the desire for a systemic and usable knowledge, it is not about experiencing the ultimate nature of things it is about grasping their structural design, we approach various aspect of nature with the intellectual part of our brain, which store knowledge, find patterns and can speculate about future phenomena that will occur and analyze the past ones. Buddhism on the other hand is not interested about speculations, the goal is to intuitively and directly experience an insight of the structures and patterns of nature at the experiential level by using other part of the brain related to consciousness and intuition.
Therefore science and buddhism doesn't contradict each other, but at the same time don't use the same tools and don't share the exact same goal.
The Buddhist take on the world and the scientific take on the world share many similarities.
Science deals with a negational 'truth' at its core - knowledge arises through disproving a negatively stated null hypothesis (that the phenomenon being measured has no effect). Scientific theory is accepted if the data rejects a null hypothesis to a certain statistical significance. This, in it self, does not provide for Absolute Truth and a theory derived from evidence gathered from the world cannot have 100% accuracy, if only because science extrapolates rules from measuring a sample of a population to which the rule is aimed at. The sample being measured must always be at most n-1 relative to a population of n, meaning absolute certainty about a population is not possible. The search for answers through negation works well in a world of non-self, and it strikes me as similar to the Buddhist approach to dealing with Nibbana. And because the Truths found are negational, there is less psychological incentive to stick to your guns against new evidence.
Science advances by discovering new phenomena and replacing theories about old ones that fit the data better - Aristotelian Mechanics to Newtonian Mechanics to General Relativity. GR is not a denial of NM, simply a superseding of it due to higher accuracy. (I think this is similar to what Karl Popper writes btw, his take on science is good). In this sense the scientific method can be seen as a method of sorting hypotheses according to accuracy.
Because of the possibility to sort theories, and of unbiased methodology, the scientific method has lead humanity to a closer experimental understanding of 'things as they really are'. And by this I mean the scientific method is rediscovering dependent origination, in a mathematical context. Science has relativised concepts - velocity is a meaningless term unless stated with reference to another body. In special relativity, simultaneity of two distant events is meaningless without reference to an observer (doesn't have to be conscious). In general relativity, the spacetime position of an object is meaningless, unless referenced to a gravitational field. Theories seem to describe more the more we take away our own assumptions within them. Remove man-made constants and theories explain more and more. General relativity is background independent - it is derived from first principles, without a man made input, and it has yet to be proven inaccurate.
The most interesting one is quantum mechanics (a theory of motion at the smallest scales), because it delves the deepest into 'things as they are', and because it has been stuck in the essentialist Copenhagen interpretation. But even this view is becoming relativised atm. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/#SomConRelPoiVie, the first being the groundbreaking paper on it, the latter a simpler description.
RQM states that the state of an unmeasured system is meaningless because meaning comes from the interaction between systems, rather than any intrinsic property of a system. In fact, it says that all properties arise from interactions between quantum systems, the quanta is found empty - Anatta by definition. Because of this, RQM does not allow for the state of 'All of everything' (where would the measuring party be to measure such a state?), sits ambiguous on determinism and whether we suffer a unique history just repeating on us (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations). This is Anicca, but it naturally follows on from Anatta (can't built anything permanent and deterministic with empty building blocks).
Because the Buddha's message was an expounding of actuality as it is, it should not disagree with the scientific method - the unbiased examination of actuality as it is. In this sense, they should (and do) work with each other to enlighten our world view.. In fact, the relativisation of experience with the help of the scientific method is humanity coming around to supramundane right view imo.
However, with regards to desire, the question of whether the scientific method stands with Buddhism is probably more accurately answered if it is known whether the scientific method encourages the four right exertions. So long as the method limits unwanted qualities and raises wanted qualities within its practitioners or benefactors, then it's of benefit. In terms of the physical - bodily and mental health - it is a great asset. You can't escape dukkha by engineering it away, but you can make people's lives less miserable, which is compassionate and should give them a better chance to advance their psychology.
Science has yet to play out with regards to where it will lead human consciousness - it has never fairly stated a world view (beyond its methadology), because it never had one truth to neatly jump back to, like it is finding now with non-self across disciplines (RQM isn't really popular even though it's so parsimonious - appeared properly in 1996 and only around 5-10% of quantum physicists endorse it). As such science has less influenced how humans behave, rather more what they can do once they have chosen their behaviour patterns - both the peaceful and the violent have more tools at their disposal!
In a world of Anatta though, it would be unfeasible that the 'internal examination of things as they are' (Buddha) and the 'external examination of things as they are' (science) would ever come to anything but the same answers if the methods used are unbiased. As such, they should work together very well!
The answer is neither. Buddhism is not against science nor for science.
Scientific inquiry (relative measurement) and mathematics (quantity and patterns) are universal and independent of theology (beliefs & ethics) and philosophy (how to live).
The basis of your question asks to ponder the meaning of desire as "According to Buddhism, the cause of all suffering is desire."
Inquiring and desiring are quite different.
Desire as a wanting... for possession, personal use for self... a conscious self. Desire can be for tangible items as well as relationships.
Curiosity is to inquire, to learn or to know. Curiosity is innate and driven by the subconscious. On does not choose to inquire.
A curious inquiry, a measurement or recognizing a pattern is independent of desire as Buddhism is independent of science and mathematics.
Thus the answer is neither. Buddhism (any theology or philosophy) is independent of science or math.
