1

From a Dhammic perpective of truthfulness: wouldn't, isn't following science preaching totally based on blind faith with no personal prove?

And isn't the non changing of the truth of suffering, the fact of being still dependend, not free, actually a proof that, althought putting it's advices into action, they hardly bring ever the actually desired effect?

[ Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, cyber-sex, unskilful entertainment of notions of identifications, or what ever world-binding trade but to get pregnant with the seed of release]

3
  • 2
    My person thinks it's a useless question, so good either to ignore it or to delete it, if wishing. – Samana Johann Sep 26 '20 at 23:02
  • Maybe it's actually an ok question: If Asker could please clarify what is meant by the term 'religion' in this question & context, since in most places Science isnot classified as a Religion, could be helpful. And also what's meant by the parenthetical italicised text etc, or if the italicised text is intended to be smutty, And, does the person referred to in the comment refer to a servant of the Asker, or to a specific revered writer or acquaintance of the Asker. Thank you. – M H Sep 29 '20 at 13:52
  • 2
    I voted to close this nonsense. – Dhammadhatu Oct 5 '20 at 2:35
4

Science is not a religion, it is a method. Science does not "preach", has no hierarchy, ultimate authorities, dogmas, axioms, faith, nor any principle or concept that cannot be questioned and criticized. Any student is free to prove his teacher wrong. In fact, science values being proven wrong as much as being proven right, as both indicate the direction of further inquiry. Science goes where the evidence takes us, not where we would prefer the path to go.

In this regard, science is similar to these words from the Kalama Sutra:

  • Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
  • Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
  • Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
  • Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
  • Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other wonderful being.
  • Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
  • Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
  • But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

To assert that science is blind faith, based on nothing more than scripture - written down before we understood atoms & particles, microbes, evolution, neurology, etc. - would be a textbook example of attachment and clinging to concepts. It would be willful ignorance, not in line with the Kalama Sutra.

“Suppose that something is definitely proven through scientific investigation, that a certain hypothesis is verified or a certain fact emerges as a result of scientific investigation. And suppose, furthermore, that that fact is incompatible with Buddhist theory. There is no doubt that we must accept the result of the scientific research.” - The 14th Dalai Lama

7
  • 1
    I agree with your explanation of how science is conducted, but that being said there are a series of belief systems that serve as the foundation of science. Blind faith is required at the foundational level to take part in scientific discovery. These beliefs include but are not limited to materialism or the belief that shared experience is an accurate metric of measurement. Also, consider the dogmatic attitudes held by some who dismiss and invalidate phenomena that science is ill equipped to explain. Sometimes scientists tend to believe if science can not explain it, it can not be real. – w33t Sep 28 '20 at 12:03
  • "belief that shared experience is an accurate metric of measurement. " - on the contrary. the scientific method attempts to eliminate the dependence on human & subjective observation. This is why we develop detectors and measurements outside of the human sensory range. – Codosaur Sep 28 '20 at 12:56
  • 1
    "Blind faith is required at the foundational level to take part in scientific discovery" - this is demonstrably incorrect. For example, Newtonian Laws were though of as "final" until Einstein came along and extended them into General Relativity. If Einstein would have exercised blind faith in the Newtonian principles, we would not have discovered and proven general relativity. What you call "dogmatic attitudes in dismissing phenomena" is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It's a logical fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative. – Codosaur Sep 28 '20 at 13:01
  • 2
    The only way you can experience detectors is through personal experience. Machines that take measurements exist within our experience. Is a machine observed in your waking experience and a machine viewed in a dream just as reliable? If they are not, what beliefs do you hold to differentiate between seeing and seeing? Without subjective experience, we would be unable to perceive any “objective” data. I do not disagree in the power of scientific discovery, history proves its usefulness. I’m just pointing out all scientific discovery occurs through subjective experience. – w33t Sep 28 '20 at 21:42
  • Differentiation between waking observation and dreaming does not require "beliefs". It has been adequately quantified by monitoring brain activity. Also, there is a difference between the individual subjective drive of inquiry that drives scientists, and objectifying observation and results. This is just like the difference between the individual drive to understand the true nature of things in Buddhism, which should not be confused with the common, verifiable realization that is shared by all these individuals who attain this realization. – Codosaur Sep 29 '20 at 7:28
1

Pure science is simply science. By definition, it ought to have no beliefs associated with it. But as it is practiced by imperfect people, what we call science in the West is very much plagued by a substantial amount of clinging to views.

For example, the theory of natural selection is often touted as as unquestionable scientific doctrine. Challenging it in anyway would get one labeled as a crank at best and end one’s career at worst. But it remains a theory - a well tested, fairly conclusive one - but it’s not scientific law.

I think one sees larger evidence of this especially in the softer sciences like psychology. The American Psychological Association long ago decided that liberal politics were far more important than actual data and the scientific method. You can see this manifest especially in their positions regarding gender expression. Any paper, however benign and well intentioned, that challenges their leftist orthodoxy on the subject is quickly censured and the author labeled a bigot.

So no, science isn’t a religion in theory, but remains one in practice. Proving all that it espouses to ourself would also be largely impractical and, I’d argue, a complete waste of time. But where we can benefit from science are in those places where it makes us feel uncomfortable. That discomfort is where our unexamined biases lie and is the springboard for insight.

0

People often take the search for understanding and turn it into dogma: rites, rituals, habits, forms; silent imposing structures of thought and loud protestations and prostrations of belief. It's always easier to cling to a raft than to sail a ship, and this is true of everything in life, 'science' and 'religion' included.

People who argue about 'truth' are merely shoring up their raft, battling each other for choice pieces of driftwood to lash to the sides. Those busy charting a course pay it no mind.

'Science' isn't the opposition, and neither is 'religion'. They are tools that can help or hinder depending on how one uses them. Clinging is clinging, regardless of what one clings to.

0

Science is not a religion. It is a category of human knowledge that is gained by following the Scientific Method, which is based on verification. So Science is a practice, the result of the practice (verified knowledge), and the practitioners of the method.

However, scientists are human, not gods, and they practice the method with varying degrees of expertise, honesty, and ego. Thus, there are well-known faults with the practice of Science today (“Science for sale,” “Science advancing one funeral at a time,” etc.)

Today, Science is practiced using technology that operates beyond the human scale (micro and macro levels) and the ability of the vast majority of humans to validate for themselves. Thus, non-scientists in general must accept scientific knowledge as it is given to them by a scientific authority, so it can have the appearance of religious belief.

And although scientists can question the findings of Science, the general public cannot, as some of the negative reactions even here to the OP’s question evidences. Thus Science takes on the appearance of a religion-like authority.

Lastly, because this is getting too long, the very fact that all scientific knowledge is falsifiable means that it is not absolute knowledge, and is never absolutely true, but only contingently true (two truths), thus, for non-scientists it must be accepted on blind-faith alone because the ‘evidence’ is also contingent. Thus, again, this knowledge takes on the specter religious doctrine.

The Dalai Lama is known to be a firm believer in Science and its findings. But does he accept the scientific understanding of what “mind” is? Absolutely not. To do so would undermine the deep wisdom of Buddhism which holds that enlightenment is possible, that an end of suffering is obtainable through mind-training, and that the physical reality that is the whole and complete range of the scientific endeavor, is in a certain way illusory (Emptiness). If the Dalai Lama was to do this, he would undermine his own authority, and in retrospect call into question the standing of the Buddha, who did not follow the scientific method, and thus, whose teachings were never verified by other scientists.

Science is not absolute truth and for all practical purposes its endeavors are beyond the ability of non-scientists to fathom, or verify, and thus, its assertions must be accepted on belief.

0

Science is not religion but more like giving hints to the science development and rather compatible.

Buddhism and science are considered by various commentators beginning in the twentieth century to be uniquely compatible.[1] While downplaying Buddhism's theological attributes, they assert that Buddhism contains philosophic and psychological teachings that share commonalities with modern scientific and philosophic thought, or they assert that modern Western thinkers were variously influenced by Buddhist concepts. An example of such a claim would be that Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of Nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon) — the principal object of study being oneself. Some popular conceptions of Buddhism connect it to modern theories of evolution, quantum theory, and cosmology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

》》And isn't the non changing of the truth of suffering

My personal understanding Buddhism teaches how to train ourself to adapt good habit(suffering) to achieve joy in the future (good karma) or does study or workhard or quit drinking is suffering ? Buddhism teaches study smart too. It depends how people interprete it.

-1

In science, whatever is true today, is false tomorrow when a new paper is published; a new discovery is made. Hence, musa, mosadhammaṃ when compared to the Four Noble Truths.

The issue is really in the delusion (moha), the wrong view (micca ditthi) that one thinks he can exist and continue to exist using science, when in reality all he has is birth, aging, sickness and death.

A person who understands this, not holding on to any view, works his way towards the ending of this suffering.

In Dhatu-vibhanga sutta, Buddha explains what the highest determination for truth is:

"His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Unbinding — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth, for this — Unbinding, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth."

Tassa sā vimutti sacce ṭhitā akuppā hoti. Taṃ hi bhikkhu musā, yaṃ mosadhammaṃ. Taṃ saccaṃ, yaṃ amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ. Tasmā evaṃ samannāgato bhikkhu iminā paramena saccādhiṭṭhānena samannāgato hoti. Etaṃ hi bhikkhu, paramaṃ ariyasaccaṃ yadidaṃ amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ.

Unlike science, this truth does not change.

One who is determined for this highest determination for truth - nibbana wins. One who holds on to any other truth, ultimately deceived, and continues in the cycle of suffering.

1
  • Sadhu, Sadhu And why, good householder, is it that so many bind follower take it for real, a refuge, sacrifices into it? – user11235 Oct 5 '20 at 3:15
-2

“'Everything exists' is the senior form of science, brahman.”

“Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?”

“'Everything does not exist' is the second form of science, brahman.”

“Then is everything a science?”

“'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of science, brahman.”

“Then is everything a Manyness?”

“'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of science, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come ...Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist (Scientist)

As it seems, since non of the answerer and follower of the religion science have ever looked by themself whether the stated by their priests is right, have never investigated and proved things and follow actually blind, the follwers of the various sects of science are also heavy fundamentalist.

As follower of other sects, not believing in the basics of right view and kamma, actually denying all factors of right view, lokayatika count as merely not so much desired, a stony field, and would need to undergo a long test phase before they possible would be accepted by the Sangha.

Brainwashed from childhood on, living in fundamentalistic religious countries, they are hardly in getting toward Dhamma and let go of their former believes.

...“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion feels angered, displeased, and upset if dispraise is spoken of the teacher, the view, the persuasion, the preferences, the belief of the religion from which he has come over.

“He feels gratified, pleased, and elated if dispraise is spoken of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha.

“He feels gratified, pleased, and elated if praise is spoken of the teacher, the view, the persuasion, the preferences, the belief of the religion from which he has come over.

“He feels angered, displeased, and upset if praise is spoken of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha.

“Monks, this is the tell-tale sign of one previously of another religion in regard to not winning approval.[3]

“Monks, this is how one who was previously a member of another religion does not win approval.

“When one previously a member of another religion who is displeasing in this way comes, he should not be given Acceptance.... Aññatitthiyapubbakathā The Discussion of Those Previously a Member of Another Religion

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel and blind following believes]

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.