Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Jigme

Can religion be disproved by science?

Recommended Posts

Tashi Delek

 

…for those of you who come to the forum to follow the vicissitudes of Wangmo during the pizza retreats will surely want to know, that she had to pay for the pizza herself.

Luckily, her arguments were not convincing enough. But here she has a new chance… :D

 

I will start my argumentation with a supposition that may or may not be true:

“The purpose of any religion is to offer man a viable understanding of the outer world and make him feel safe in it.”

 

The awareness of oneself as opposed to the divine that took place during the Renaissance marked the new beginning of science in the Western world and the decline of Christianity. No longer was the man a tool in God’s hands, but took control of himself and his life. Christian dogmas became unnecessary and science managed to fill the gap left by the tittering religion in explaining the nature of all phenomena. It is my belief that a declining influence of religions is a sign of an advancing society. It is a historic fact that polytheistic societies were first replaced by monotheistic ones, and the letter are increasingly losing ground against atheism.

 

One could argue that this same so-called progress is twisting our morality, and that today, more than ever, we are in search of inner peace. I cannot but agree with it. Science is not at all equipped to take care of this human aspect. Sure we have invented psychologists, psychiatrists and many other mental doctors to fill this gap, but to no avail, because science is not intended for man’s inner needs, but only to explain the nature of phenomena. If the ultimate nature of phenomena is emptiness, scientist will get there, just give us some time.

A once unified system has broken in two units, one governed by science, the other left without a proper guidance. These two units have little in common and barely overlap. Yet, they are both indispensable for our personal growth. The more science progresses, the more it disproves religions and the human need to belong to one. But not our quest for morality! Only religions whose aim is to foster morality and ethics can coexist in a world grounded on science.

 

It is my humble hope, that Buddhism, which (in my case) best fills this need for morality, will eventually renounce the understanding of the outer world through the six realms that do not seem in accordance with modern science. Of course I also demand from science to speeds up in demonstrating their existence, if this were the case. In the meantime, I will walk on the middle way between these units and pick from them, what best fulfills my personal needs. If this sounds too heretic, we will have to change our pizza retreat restaurant. 8O

 

Jigme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

“The purpose of any religion is to offer man a viable understanding of the outer world and make him feel safe in it.”

Could we say: “the purpose of science is to offer man a viable understanding of the outer world and make him feel safe in it”? ;) But, no, we can’t; because science has never been able to offer man any safety regarding his understanding of neither inner or outer world. Proves of it? What the science claimed 50 years to be true, come out to be wrong today…

 

But, at the contrary, what Buddha said 2600 years ago is still true! :)

 

You are basing your argumentation on Catholic religion, God, and such, which was never based on facts and experiences, but desire for power and social control. Therefore, we discovered how much it didn’t make sense with the growing of science.

 

science is not intended for man’s inner needs, but only to explain the nature of phenomena. If the ultimate nature of phenomena is emptiness, scientist will get there

With the revolution of quantum science, we are getting there. Yet, many will oppose this science, because it is far to be safe for the mind, and requires “faith”. A word that many scientist refuse even to read! ;) But, they give so much “faith” to their instruments and equations :))

 

A once unified system has broken in two units, one governed by science, the other left without a proper guidance.

In the West only. Buddhism for example is completely adaptable to whatever modern science would logically prove. Because it integrates both, conventional and ultimate realities.

 

The more science progresses, the more it disproves religions

Science progress, but Buddhism too! Where is your logic?

 

Buddhism, which (in my case) best fills this need for morality, will eventually renounce the understanding of the outer world through the six realms that do not seem in accordance with modern science.

This is based on the faith that science knows everything! Yet, science doesn’t stop to contradict itself. And you can ask yourself, how you can state that science is true? Because, how much of what you believe (regarding science) is based on your personal experience? Or even on the experience in someone you would personally trust? Consequently, you have faith in what some other people have stated as true. Hum...;)

 

In the meantime, I will walk on the middle way between these units

At last something which make sense! ;) Because you started with the idea that one exclude the other, while I believe science and Buddhism are not excluding each other.

Buddhism has developed a science of the mind and of the “what is behind the phenomena we perceive”, which really matter for inner development!

Science is still in what is perceivable with instruments, which, after all, doesn’t help much to grow spiritually :?

 

All the very best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

At last something which make sense! ;)

If after five hours of fervent discussiun, three pizzas (two Veneras and one Cosimo) and one member of the Sangha present we only came up with one sensible thing, I think it is time we change the pizzas. :D

 

What the science claimed 50 years to be true, come out to be wrong today… But, at the contrary, what Buddha said 2600 years ago is still true!

This is the beauty of science; it is self-sustainable. It keeps proving and disproving itself and at each step it gets closer to the truth. Believing in science does not mean believing in what it says, but believing in its self-sustainability. Believing that if something is wrong today, it will be disproved tomorrow until a description of phenomena is found, that is no longer subjected to doubt. Once all proofs are in favour and nothing seems to be against, one can safely state that this is its true nature. It took centuries to calculate the area of a circle, but mathematicians managed to come up with formula (A=Pi.r.r), upon which everyone agrees. I accept this formula not on faith, but on a mutual consensus among experts. (I already see how this statement can be used against my argumentation.)

On the other hand, to say that a statement said 2600 years ago has universal veracity over space and time needs faith to be believed. It goes the same with your answer; I have no means to say, if you are eligible for a pizza or not. And when I buy you one, it will be purely out of faith. ;-F

 

Best regards,

Jigme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It keeps proving and disproving itself and at each step it gets closer to the truth.

And you said that faith is a problem? How can you ever prove that science is getting closer to the truth, and not the opposite (away from it)?

 

Believing in science does not mean believing in what it says, but believing in its self-sustainability.

And you said that science bring more sense of "safety"? When it is able to said one thing, and to contradict itself afterward? It means that it state something as true; people believe in it; while it is not true, because afterward they will say that it wasn't so, but like now they say it is 8O And you want me to buy this? :lol:

 

Once all proofs are in favour and nothing seems to be against, one can safely state that this is its true nature.

Sorry, but this is complete non-sense. On such basis, it was stated that the world was flat. There was nothig against for centuries. Though, was it true?

 

It took centuries to calculate the area of a circle, but mathematicians managed to come up with formula (A=Pi.r.r), upon which everyone agrees. I accept this formula not on faith, but on a mutual consensus among experts.

I wouldn't argue really against this, because this is "peanut". This formula doesn't help in anything about knowing the mind better, and leading to Enlightenment.

I can accept such formula. As I can accept the definition of what "red" colour is; or the number of atomes in such or such molecule... If it comes to be wrong next year, it won't change anything for me.

 

On the other hand, to say that a statement said 2600 years ago has universal veracity over space and time needs faith to be believed.

Jigme, do you even realize that you need also complete faith in what the scientist are telling? You are "swimming" in faith, yet, you say that you can't take this or that Buddhist stand-point because it would require faith 8O

 

Usually, we won't speak much about. But... You know about my past life. And I do remember part of it. It's not an equation, not mesurable with instrument. Yet, the pictures I had in my head when I was 13 have been proved to be true when we went to my past monastery, something like 22 years later!

Now, what could make you to believe or not my words versus a statement from a 'hard-liner' scientist who would object reincarnation on the basis that it can't be tested in a laboratory??

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It took centuries to calculate the area of a circle, but mathematicians managed to come up with formula (A=Pi.r.r), upon which everyone agrees.

I want to explain the difference between mathematic and other branches of science, because a lot of argumentation on this forum these days is based on mathematic principle. Mathematic is not a science in a way other branches of science are, because it is not connected to this world (that means, it is on karmic level, and mathematic is developing because of the needs of other branches of science), but in fact it is just a game of definitions, principles and proofs, e.g. 1 + 1 = 10 is true, if we use just two digits, like computer does. Mathematic also doesn’t have experiments to prove certain theory like other branches of science, so it is useless to use mathematic for explaining faith.

Formula A=Pi.r.r have been developing through the years, because Greeks used Pi = 22/7 or Pi = 3.14 (which is not) to calculate this formula and even now some enthusiastic calculate this Pi with big computers to have more decimals. So this formula is just a construct and does not have exact answer in the real world, but in mathematic it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek everybody,

 

In Occident along centuries, since the beginning of the "SCIENCE" it was opposed to the RELIGION". Why? we can see at least 2 reasons:

 

1° the "CHURCH" looked at the science as a rival which threatened its predominance(so a strong reaction of fear with autodafes, excommunications, whitchcraft trials, torture, exile and so on).

 

2° because of our "dualistic mind", we are used to divide, order in 2 categories: good-bad , true - false , sure - insecure ...

The bias that everything could be proved by science is still persistent and consequently that religion (not only christanism) was not reliable...

 

As if a scientist couldn't be religious and the opposite....

 

How science could be"self"- sustainable as nothing in this world of componed phenomena is permanent and inherent- existent. It is an a-priori ; in fact if we look not so far in the past, we can see that a new theory destroys the last one in the same field. When Einstein wrote E = MC2, it was revolutionary! Now, it is overtaken by the quantum theory, and what of the next one?....

 

A true scientist knows that he knows nothing, that the topical knowlege is very fragile, can be contradicted and forgotten!

 

Ex: the beginning of humanity it is really funny: we are discovering each time an oldest ancestor!... until when? What we learned at school gets no more meaning nowadays: we learned false facts, false science!

 

So, we are able to see the impermanence of the scientist knowleges.

Would we say then that science is self-sustainable?

 

If scientists observe the most tiny particule of matter, they cannot find the first one from which matter comes from!

The same if you focus on the mind and examine it, we will not be able to find anything!

Nevertheless, a bias is more difficult to break than an atome of matter! how thoughts can be so strong and harmful? they have no color, no smell, no substance, no real existence and so numerous (84000 said the Buddha). That is unbelievable! invisible things - nobody could show a thought- can trigger of quarrels and wars because we believe they are true!

 

Because of the negative mental factors, innate since countless time - they have to be uprooted.

 

To succed we need a superior wisdom, a permanent one, on which we can rely without doubt, supported by the hook of the compassion of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. :) .

 

The science and other religions than buddhism don't teach the way to freedom.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche said that ther is no need of God, freedom is innate; we could add there is no need of science too! :D

 

Whatever the topics of the science, it is obvious our knowledge is limited, partial since the wisdom of the Buddhas is unlimited and goes through the centuries unadulterated, unaffected and inalienable, without errors.

It is perfect! Nothing to add, nothing to take away....

 

With much love and prayer

 

ani Chönyi :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek

 

Thank you for your reply Ani Chönyi.

I am so eager to start working on my mind, but find it extremely difficult to overcome this scientific burden.

Sooner rather that later I will start engaging in a practice that will help me get over it. I think Manjushri might be the right antidote.

 

Or le Bouddhisme ... est appelé également "la science de l'esprit"
Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche said that ther is no need of God, freedom is innate; we could add there is no need of science too!

 

No need for an answer, I just like playing with words. :wink:

 

All the best, Jigme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

The more science progresses, the more it disproves religions and the human need to belong to one.

May be, but Albert Einstein said:

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.”

 

And here are also one funny article on BBC, named "Buddhists 'really are happier'" : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm

If we seek for hapiness, we could use Buddha Path for it. If someone could use the Science Path for hapiness, please tell me how to use it.

 

best regards, Sasha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek everybody,

 

Good! you could "touch" the limits of the intellectual world ! :)

But are we able to see the limits of the mind? :idea:

We have to practice an illusionary way, to obtain an illusory result!... But:

"Whatever practice you will do with mindfulness, will be a good activity".

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

 

So, if you "practice" science with relative and ultimate bohicitta, no problem.

 

I like to play with words, too; the most important is not be attached to and see their relativity. Sense of humour change our lives!...

 

With my best wishes for your practice!

 

Much love and prayer

ani Chönyi :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

 

I know I'm a bi late with this reply but here goes:

 

First i suggest checking a book called Good Question, Good Answer:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/gqga2.pdf

 

The interesting thing is that science cannot prove everything, because we aren't evolved enough yet. You can also see that all masterminds (especially Einstein is mentioned more than once) mention afterlife. It is also interesting that quantum scientists (the one that proved that atom is put together from even smaller parts of pozitrons, neutrons,.. called quantoms, are proving that there are even smaller particles which have sam characteristics as a sort of an energy, which is/was used for healing, magic, and other... I read this about 4 months ago...

 

 

Best regards

Uroš

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delk everyone,

 

My first remark goes to Jigme:

 

In the meantime, I will walk on the middle way between these units and pick from them, what best fulfills my personal needs. If this sounds too heretic, we will have to change our pizza retreat restaurant. 8O

 

Jigme

 

Be careful Jigme, because you might be reinforcing your ego structures by picking from Buddhism and Science, what "best fulfills your personnal needs". Keep in mind that Buddhism strives to prove that there is no "person" as we conceptualize it, and that our ego is our most profoud ignorance. Therefore, by engaging into this way of practicing Buddhism, you might be on the opposite path of where Buddhism means to take you...

 

My second remark concerns the emptiness of everything. My father has done his career in chemistry. So I asked him what's the percentage of emptiness in all matter. He looked at me and told me "son, that's over 99%". Then he illustrated... Take an atom, say of Hydrogen for instance... It is composed of a nucleus (with inside a proton and a neutron) and an electron revolving around it right? (you have to trust me on that, it has been proven by other scientists, men I don't know and have no choice but to believe... :wink: ). Well if you increase the nucleus of this particle to say, the size of an orange... well at that point, the electron would be located at about 20 KMs away from its nucleus!!!

And no other electrons from any other atoms will come in between this space, as electron's from other atoms will only bond on the outer rim of the electron's revolution path. So where is matter in all that hum??? Why get angry at something which is mostly...empty :wink:

 

Also my dad told me about other particles, called neutrinos... These particles are known by scientists to cross through the Earth at the speed of light as if Earth wasn't there, as if they encountered nothing but ... emptiness.... So scientists built pools of chloride 1000 meters deep to try and interfere with these particles.... Results are in the following link:

 

What's a Neutrino?

 

In any case, knowing that, does it make us happier than we were before? This leaves me mostly indifferent...

 

What doesn't leave me indifferent, on the other hand, is to feel compassionate for all other living creatures and desiring to free them all from their sufferings... Now that's good aspiration to me, good enough to send me forth on the path towards enlightment and to follow the Dharma way with care and joyous efforts... everyday... until all living creatures have been freed...

 

Good continuation to all,

 

frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek Frederic,

 

I am also a chemist and have done similar calculations as you are giving. There are many interpretations of what an atom looks like and the so-called Bohr model (the orbit model you mentioned) is only one of them. At the faculty we had a subject called “structure of the atom” where we went through the history of several different theories on what an atom looks like. None of them is the ultimate one, of course. For some reason I have always found this attractive. Through hard work and scientific perseverance I have no doubt that the true nature of the atom will eventually emerge.

 

I don’t have the same certainty with the Dharma. Not so much in the Dharma itself, but rather in my suitability to learn from it. The curious thing is, that I may even have had some first hand experiences of its benefices, but still prefer to overlook them. For some reason I have a dismissive attitude towards these states of mind and feel uneasy of what they might entail. Change is the only certainty, but deep in the samsara I still prefer fighting against it.

 

What doesn't leave me indifferent, on the other hand, is to feel compassionate for all other living creatures and desiring to free them all from their sufferings... Now that's good aspiration to me, good enough to send me forth on the path towards enlightment and to follow the Dharma way with care and joyous efforts... everyday... until all living creatures have been freed...

 

What you state here makes little sense to me. :?

You are saying something, which is perfectly in-line with the Dharma, but I could never understand. If there is a person or an animal in need and I can physically help, I will do my best to do so. But to desire the end of suffering for all sentient being seems quite futile. I may desire to be rich, but it is nothing but an empty wish. How can a desire produce a concrete result? Even more bewildering is to notice, that in your case it is what sends you forth on the path.

 

I read on the French forum about your marvellous change as a result of practicing the Dharma and I must admit it is a great deal inspirational. That for one is true, through science alone I cannot hope to attain an inner change of the kind you are talking about. I am looking forward to seeing the same transformation happening to me and I am happy to notice, that my scientific burden is growing weaker by the day.

 

At the end I cannot stop myself from pointing out a chemical heresy some father goes about teaching his son. Hydrogen atoms normally have no neutrons in their nucleus. :)

 

Regards, Jigme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

 

This text is very interesting. But what happens when you try to help others and instead of grabing your finger they take your hand. I mean what if they use you for no good deed? Is it not better to say no instead of being someone that just follows the desires of others? What if others' desires aren't any good? For an example you have a sister aged 13 and she smokes. Do you help her so that she receives short joy by buying her cigarettes or do you take other measures of help?

 

 

Best Regards

 

Uroš

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

But what happens when you try to help others and instead of grabing your finger they take your hand.

I believe the correct answer would be something like: that's why Buddhism emphasizes both Wisdom and Compassion... A bird needs two wings to fly.

 

For an example you have a sister aged 13 and she smokes. Do you help her so that she receives short joy by buying her cigarettes or do you take other measures of help?

Is buying cigarettes to your 13-year-old sister helping her? ://

 

Regards,

Khyenrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer :D it really helped me. What I meant by the sister is that if you help her achieve happines which she sees through the cigarettes?

 

 

Best Regards

 

Uroš

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Khyenrab,

 

Great link, it is very inspirationnal... Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche are actually the two authors thanks to whom I rebonded with Buddhism in this life ... That's what it's all about ! :)

 

Dear Urki,

 

As a responsible big brother aware of the harmfull effects of smoking, do you really believe that you would be doing your kid sister a favor by buying her the cigarettes she demands ?? You must absolutely, categoricaly refuse her this request and explain to her that smoking will only be harmful to her and to the ones around her... And BE FIRM, no matter how much she beggs you or tells you how "uncool" you are !! One day, she will thank you for it ...

 

Kind regards :D

 

frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all thank you for the answer it made some things clearer :D .

 

I would like to ask you all who are reading this and trying to be scientific, don't be! The deeper you start to read from buddhism the more you see that you can't disprove it. Whatever you say is always under the question mark....

 

First the thing about compasion is greatly written on the Lama Yeshe site http://www.lamayeshe.com/lamazopa/goodheart.shtml . The second thing about the reincarnation. There are therapies world wide and books that describe the process of dying - sooner or later it's going to be said to be the right thing... What scientists cant prove doesnt mean it isnt there. And if you believe in it you should be open minded all the time - not saying that when something is said as permanent (but reincarnation is one of the most posible things) if anything is disproved than you thik why and how. We all are intelectual beins.

 

Please dont worry so much if its right or wrong, just enjoy the life and the practises of buddhism. They work and read that page... ;-F

 

 

Best Regards

 

Uroš !:!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may even have had some first hand experiences of its benefices, but still prefer to overlook them. For some reason I have a dismissive attitude towards these states of mind and feel uneasy of what they might entail.

 

At least you are aware of it! ;)

 

If there is a person or an animal in need and I can physically help, I will do my best to do so. But to desire the end of suffering for all sentient being seems quite futile.I may desire to be rich, but it is nothing but an empty wish. How can a desire produce a concrete result?

 

Because eveything is coming first from your mind! Why the wish to become rich is empty? How do you thing the rich people have become rich? They wished it so hard, they worked hard on it, and they got it!

 

Now, when I see the suffering of all beings, how can't I have the wish they would be all liberated from suffering? And how can't I engage myself in harwork to take part in their liberation... because I know that, alone, they might not find the way for it!

And that is what is "pushing" further on the Path ie. if I do nothing, nothing will happen; if I don't work for the sake of all sentients beings, who will?

 

Surely it looks utopic! But why not? When the first person talked about walking on the moon, it was utopia. But they did it. As well, it might sound utopic to think about all sentient beings, because ou mind usually think in a very narrowing way. But through the practice of Chenrezig, Tonglen, and such, you'll get there one day... is you wish it :))

 

Anyhow, in your prayer, you can easilly replace "I wish to liberate all beings" by "I wish to liberate as many beings as possible"! That's a good start ;)

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek everybody,

 

If you can help somebody, you feel happy, that is a logical result, you will not be unhappy because helping another sentient being give happiness. So, what to say of the wish to help all sentient beings! The results are by a way, evident (good products good, as a seed of wheat gives wheat and no barley or tomato...) and on other way, unconceivable. :)

 

True happiness comes from Bodhicitta - a virtuous state of mind whishing happiness for all migrants- here "true" means" everlasting".

 

Bodhicitta and pure wisdom- non-polluted by delusions- are the pristine nature of the mind. This nature exists as " a potential" when we take rebirth and can be developped - with the right conditions- till Buddha's full enlightment.

 

This potential is "here and now" even if we are not aware of it, waiting our goodwill to be able to emerge, like the seed of the lotus in a swamp will grow towards the sun.

Realize our Buddha's nature is the wonderful aim of our lives! whitout that, what would they be? a pile of problems, you just solve one, another is pointing its nose :roll:

Sometimes you are "lucky" and will enjoy some pleasures, giving more frustration at the end because they did not last, beginning when the causes and conditions are gathered and stopping when the fruit of karma has been eaten.

Ex: to get a pinneaple- needs of course different conditions and 2 years to come to maturity and it will be eaten in some minutes!

As we produced in our past lives more negative actions than positive, we will have to endure more problems than pleasurable situations! :(

 

As always, it is a matter of choice... What do we really want? continue to live in a jail or get freedom and happiness for ourself and all our mothers?

 

 

"There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way. Lama Zopa Rinpoche"

 

 

Best regards

 

ani Chönyi :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...