‎If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, Buddhism will have to change.

Yes I agree, it would be nice if it was wide-spread enough that people could get along. When i was a christian, i never could agree with creation because 1: what is 7 days to god? and 2: there was undeniable proof that life has existed far longer than it said, and in many more forms than it said. yet still many rigidly believed that evolution was a hoax. it boggled my young teenage mind. But interestingly, it can go both ways, and you see throughout history that scientists themselves often opposed notions that eventually revolutionized the field, stubbornly clinging to their understandings of the world as if the world would end if it wasn’t true.

I can’t agree with you more on this. If everyone was open to the possibility of new information changing your understanding of the world aorund you, there would be that much less conflict. Change is always inevitable, but even so it is often greatly feared for its potential risks while the possible opportunities are put on a back burner. Things get done by people who take the leap and challenge the known.

I always say that any belief I have, I should be willing to put it through a trial by fire. Anything that remains intact, will work, and if not, then it won’t help me any longer and is discarded.

Maybe this is missing the point, but what can you really prove wrong about Buddhism. It isn’t like most religions where astrophysics can prove 90% of it wrong. Maybe it’s been a while, but Buddhism to me never seemed to care who or what created the universe. The only universe it cares about is the one you create. But maybe I’m wrong.
Or maybe I’m missing the point.

I believe that the further we study religion, the more we will realize the duality of existence.

I believe that consciousness, and the perception of our world is the frame of science’s principles, if that makes any sense.

Proving religions wrong in some aspect is fine and dandy, as long as people accept it, but truly, its what science cannot prove that is most important!

@Sean Isn’t it the point of Buddhism? That there is no set God to follow, no leader to worship, no book to adhere to? That we must be open to and question everything, to think for ourselves?

I’m not sure, but thats what I got out of buddhism. I like the article because of the open mindedness to work together with science and move forwards, instead of clinging to old beliefs and traditions no matter how incorrect, irrelevant or outdated they are. You don’t always see that with many religions.

Buddhism is the only sane religion.

See now why can’t the pope be so open to change…?

@stephaniekaitlyn,

I like your post alot. I’ve always thought that each religion (in its original, pure form before people started to distort the teachings with egocentric interpretations) are just different cultural expressions of one spiritual existence that’s really out there. If you haven’t you should definetely look into the book The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.

This whole article is amazing, but this quote really struck me:
“It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement. Yet the ramifications of this progress are such that it is no longer adequate to say that the choice of what to do with this knowledge should be left in the hands of individuals.”
I think there needs to be ALOT more dialogue about exactly how much scientific “progress” we’re ready for. Technology can do beautiful, amazing things for mankind if used in a healthy & positive way, but already I think that our technology is way too advanced for our level of maturity as a species. We need to master mroe ethical/moral/philosophical/spiritual principles before we let ourselves use so much technology.