If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, Buddhism will have to change.
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." -The Dalai Lama
Imagine if all world religions have this same notion? There would be no sense of separation. We’re all intrinsically connected.
Read this article:
"A deeper dialogue between neuroscience and society – indeed between all scientific fields and society – could help deepen our understanding of what it means to be human and our responsibilities for the natural world we share with other sentient beings.
Just as the world of business has been paying renewed attention to ethics, the world of science would benefit from more deeply considering the implications of its own work. Scientists should be more than merely technically adept; they should be mindful of their own motivation and the larger goal of what they do: the betterment of humanity."
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
@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science and move forwards, instead of clinging to old beliefs and traditions no matter how incorrect, irrelevant or outdated they are.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.
I just wanted to share the notion of all world religions being interconnected. Just be receptive to that.
It’s sad that there’s always a sense of separation in our world when it comes to religions. Although I was raised Catholic I’m not religious at all. Some people instantly think I’m Buddhist when I tell them I meditate (I’m sure a lot of you get that too). But I don’t attach myself to any religion. At the same time I try to respect it. Each religion has the same purpose. They believe in something.. a god.. no matter how different they think the god is from other gods.. no matter what they call it. There’s no denying that it’s all leads to the infinite source. But it’s buried underneath so much ego and separation which is why people are so disconnected from the spiritual aspect of it. Which gives them the illusion of separation and superiority. It’s always “My religion is better than yours. If you don’t believe what I believe you’re going to hell. You’re the devil. Blah blah blah.” It’s insanity.
Scientists have been discovering throughout the past few decades how much science and spirituality correlates with each other. Proving it or not proving it is just the cherry on top of our understanding or “being in the knowing”. I believe that science will eventually bring all world religions together. One day.
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.
@sisyphus, Technically, the pope does and has changed the Catholic faith. The Church no longer endorses the slave trade and the meaning of Hell has changed about 5 times over the centuries. The problem is that the religion doesn’t change until one man says so. Even if 90% of Catholics suddenly became pro-choice, it wouldn’t be the official stance of the religion until the pope acknowledged it.
The difference is that in Buddhism, there is no hierophant. There’s no one person who speaks for everyone because everyone has their own voice. Hence, if science proved that there is no reincarnation, Buddhists would have to accept this and move on.
I especially liked this part of the article.
“The goal here is not to prove Buddhism right or wrong – or even to bring people to Buddhism – but rather to take these methods out of the traditional context, study their potential benefits, and share the findings with anyone who might find them helpful.”
“Whatever the results of this work, I am encouraged that it is taking place. You see, many people still consider science and religion to be in opposition. While I agree that certain religious concepts conflict with scientific facts and principles, I also feel that people from both worlds can have an intelligent discussion, one that has the power ultimately to generate a deeper understanding of challenges we face together in our interconnected world.”
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.
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!