My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.
I like that. It is a bit careful, but better than everything else I saw from other religions.
Fortunately for him, Buddhism is cleverly designed to contain no scientifically falsifiable claims.
Well, maybe some of the 14 (really only 4) unanswerable questions can be answered some day. Cosmologists might prove that the universe is finite (current odds are slim), AI researchers might prove that self is both identical with the body and different from it by doing a successful upload. Would it make Buddhists abandon their faith? Not a chance.
Fortunately for him, Buddhism is cleverly designed to contain no scientifically falsifiable claims.
A Buddhist friend told me that at a class in a temple, the teacher mentioned four types of creation, of which one was spontaneous generation- like maggots spontaneously generating in meat. My friend interrupted to say that, no, that’s not actually what happens, and that people did experiments to prove that it didn’t happen. (My friend was too polite to mention that the experiments were 350 years old.) If I remember correctly, the teacher said something like “huh, okay,” and went on with the lesson, leaving out any parts relevant to spontaneous generation.
Traditional Spontaneous generation and modern abiogenesis are very different things, and comments that assume the first may be invalid if only the second is true.
I’d say “careful” would be the other way around, not believing doctrines that make complex claims about reality until he has good evidence that those beliefs are true. Giving up hard-to-test beliefs only in the extreme case where scientific research conclusively proves them wrong is just a small concession in the direction of being epistemically responsible.
That’s a bold claim. The Old Testament historical narrative post-Genesis is still controversial-to-accepted; anthropology hasn’t for example turned up any evidence that I know of for Hebrew slavery under Pharaonic Egypt, but it’s still presented as fact in many Christian circles that are not Biblical literalists. Deuteronomy and Leviticus have largely been rejected, but for cultural rather than scientific reasons. Psalms still seems to be taken in the spirit it was intended.
On the New Testament side of things, the Gospels still generally seem to be taken as, well, gospel, miracles and all. Acts is mostly accepted. The epistles are very short on supernaturalist claims, concerning themselves mostly with organization and ethics. Revelation’s supernaturalist as hell but it’s in prophecy form, and interpretations of it vary widely anyway.
Really, aside from scattered references like that odd pi == 3 thing, about the only parts of the Christian Bible that mainstream churches have widely dropped on scientific grounds are in Genesis—and these days it’s got to be pretty hard for any religion to maintain a literalist interpretation of its creation myth, if it has any regard for science whatsoever.
I underestimated how bad survey questions can be. ”Do you completely agree / mostly agree / mostly disagree / completely disagree with: Miracles still occur as in ancient times” (I shortened the first part a bit, without changing the context) Seriously, wtf? The question assumes that miracles occured in ancient times. It does not define what “miracle” means at all, and it does not ask if miracles occur at all, it asks for a trend. 79% of the answers were counted as “belief in”, I think that those were the first two groups only (but I do not see that in the study).
However, the questions about heaven and hell are fine, and the large amount of “yes” answers (heaven 74%, hell 59%) makes me sad.
Funny numbers: At least 15% believe that “good” people come to heaven, but “bad” do not come to hell. So where do “bad” people go? To heaven, too? In the group of age 65+, 74% believe in heaven, but only 71% believe in a life after death. So at least 3% believe that “good” people will live in heaven after death, without living at all.
The mormons would tell you, for the most part, yes. And they generally believe in heaven and not hell.
The question assumes that miracles occured in ancient times.
Indeed, I might have given a “completely agree” there given that miracles occurred none of the time in ancient times, and are still going strong at that rate. But maybe other respondents have less trouble with loaded questions.
In the group of age 65+, 74% believe in heaven, but only 71% believe in a life after death. So at least 3% believe that “good” people will live in heaven after death, without living at all.
Or those 3% believe in heaven but don’t believe that dead people get to go there. It might just mean “God’s house”, or be reserved for those who are raptured.
Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso,_14th_Dalai_Lama) quotes this as
I like that. It is a bit careful, but better than everything else I saw from other religions.
Fortunately for him, Buddhism is cleverly designed to contain no scientifically falsifiable claims.
Well, maybe some of the 14 (really only 4) unanswerable questions can be answered some day. Cosmologists might prove that the universe is finite (current odds are slim), AI researchers might prove that self is both identical with the body and different from it by doing a successful upload. Would it make Buddhists abandon their faith? Not a chance.
A Buddhist friend told me that at a class in a temple, the teacher mentioned four types of creation, of which one was spontaneous generation- like maggots spontaneously generating in meat. My friend interrupted to say that, no, that’s not actually what happens, and that people did experiments to prove that it didn’t happen. (My friend was too polite to mention that the experiments were 350 years old.) If I remember correctly, the teacher said something like “huh, okay,” and went on with the lesson, leaving out any parts relevant to spontaneous generation.
That’s an unfortunate example. The teacher should have amended his maggot example to ‘the first living cell’, then.
Traditional Spontaneous generation and modern abiogenesis are very different things, and comments that assume the first may be invalid if only the second is true.
They may have differences… but are they any that matter for that Buddhist typology of creation?
I’d say “careful” would be the other way around, not believing doctrines that make complex claims about reality until he has good evidence that those beliefs are true. Giving up hard-to-test beliefs only in the extreme case where scientific research conclusively proves them wrong is just a small concession in the direction of being epistemically responsible.
I meant “careful with respect to ‘admitting that religious claims can be wrong’ ”—in other words, the same as you.
Christians have given up virtually all of the bible on the basis of science. Whether or not they are still christians is another issue.
That’s a bold claim. The Old Testament historical narrative post-Genesis is still controversial-to-accepted; anthropology hasn’t for example turned up any evidence that I know of for Hebrew slavery under Pharaonic Egypt, but it’s still presented as fact in many Christian circles that are not Biblical literalists. Deuteronomy and Leviticus have largely been rejected, but for cultural rather than scientific reasons. Psalms still seems to be taken in the spirit it was intended.
On the New Testament side of things, the Gospels still generally seem to be taken as, well, gospel, miracles and all. Acts is mostly accepted. The epistles are very short on supernaturalist claims, concerning themselves mostly with organization and ethics. Revelation’s supernaturalist as hell but it’s in prophecy form, and interpretations of it vary widely anyway.
Really, aside from scattered references like that odd pi == 3 thing, about the only parts of the Christian Bible that mainstream churches have widely dropped on scientific grounds are in Genesis—and these days it’s got to be pretty hard for any religion to maintain a literalist interpretation of its creation myth, if it has any regard for science whatsoever.
Ok, I guess I underestimated how many people believe in miracles.
I underestimated how bad survey questions can be.
”Do you completely agree / mostly agree / mostly disagree / completely disagree with: Miracles still occur as in ancient times” (I shortened the first part a bit, without changing the context)
Seriously, wtf? The question assumes that miracles occured in ancient times. It does not define what “miracle” means at all, and it does not ask if miracles occur at all, it asks for a trend. 79% of the answers were counted as “belief in”, I think that those were the first two groups only (but I do not see that in the study).
However, the questions about heaven and hell are fine, and the large amount of “yes” answers (heaven 74%, hell 59%) makes me sad.
Funny numbers:
At least 15% believe that “good” people come to heaven, but “bad” do not come to hell. So where do “bad” people go? To heaven, too?
In the group of age 65+, 74% believe in heaven, but only 71% believe in a life after death. So at least 3% believe that “good” people will live in heaven after death, without living at all.
That’s one option. Another option would be that bad people just cease to exist. Or they get reincarnated until they become non-bad enough for heaven.
The mormons would tell you, for the most part, yes. And they generally believe in heaven and not hell.
Indeed, I might have given a “completely agree” there given that miracles occurred none of the time in ancient times, and are still going strong at that rate. But maybe other respondents have less trouble with loaded questions.
Or those 3% believe in heaven but don’t believe that dead people get to go there. It might just mean “God’s house”, or be reserved for those who are raptured.