Technically true, but nice though that is, saying that scientific proof would force you to change your beliefs still isn’t a very impressive show of rationality. It would be better if he had said “Whenever science and Buddhism conflict, Buddhism should change”.
I know, it is good to hear it from a religious figure, but if it were any other subject the same claim would leave you indifferent. “If it were scientifically proven that aliens don’t exist I will have to change my belief in them.” Sound impressive? No? Then the Dalai Lama shouldn’t get any more praise just because it’s about religion.
When would you say that science and X is in conflict when there isn’t scientific proof that X is wrong?
Science is a method. In itself it’s about doing experiments. It’s not about the ideology of the scientist that might conflict with X even if there’s no proof that X is wrong.
Science and X are in conflict when on the whole there is more scientific evidence that X is wrong than there is evidence that it is right. Saying “I’ll change my belief if science proves me wrong” SOUNDS reasonable, but it is the kind of thing homeopaths say to pretend to be scientific while resting secure in the knowledge that they will never have to actually change their mind, because they can always say that it hasn’t been “proven” yet.
There is no “scientific proof” that there are no aliens. There is no “scientific proof” that the earth is 4.7 billions of years old. Not in the sense that there is a “proof” of Bayes’ theorem. And that’s where all the problem is. You can’t limit yourself with changing your believes when they are “proven” wrong. You should change your belief when they are at odd with evidence and Occam’s Razor.
The Dalaï Lama believes in reincarnation (or at least he officially says so, I don’t know what are his true believes and what is political position, but let’s assume he’s honest). There is no “scientific proof” that reincarnation is not possible, so he can’t bolster how much he is open to science. But yet, if you understand science, the evidence that there is no such thing as reincarnation is overwhelming.
People like Carl Sagan were pretty confident that there are aliens out there in the universe. He’s still has a reputation as a great rationalist.
The fact that you would personally Occam’s Razor away reincarnation given what you know, doesn’t mean that it’s also rational for other people to Occam’s Razor it away.
Someone who remembers a past life and who knows other people who do it can be common sense to have a prior that reincarnation exists.
If you start with a piror that reincarnation exists I don’t see the scientific evidence that suggest that you should drop the belief.
Assuming that reincarnation is true makes some things that involve working with memories of past lifes easier. Occam’s Razor is all about making things easier.
On a practical side there are scientists who believe that reincarnation into Boltzmann brains is plausible, given their current models of how the world works. If you belief that there are random fluctuation in vaccum, time doesn’t end somewhere in the future and that the existance of humans is completely accidental it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that reincarnation will happen.
If you think you “understand” science than you aren’t rational. Any good skeptic should belief that he doesn’t understand it. Human have the habit of being much to confident in the beliefs that they hold. The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb is a great book.
Has anyone taken the time to present to the Dalai Lama a list of things about Buddhism that science proves (or can convincingly demonstrate to be) wrong?
Technically true, but nice though that is, saying that scientific proof would force you to change your beliefs still isn’t a very impressive show of rationality. It would be better if he had said “Whenever science and Buddhism conflict, Buddhism should change”.
I know, it is good to hear it from a religious figure, but if it were any other subject the same claim would leave you indifferent. “If it were scientifically proven that aliens don’t exist I will have to change my belief in them.” Sound impressive? No? Then the Dalai Lama shouldn’t get any more praise just because it’s about religion.
When would you say that science and X is in conflict when there isn’t scientific proof that X is wrong?
Science is a method. In itself it’s about doing experiments. It’s not about the ideology of the scientist that might conflict with X even if there’s no proof that X is wrong.
Science and X are in conflict when on the whole there is more scientific evidence that X is wrong than there is evidence that it is right. Saying “I’ll change my belief if science proves me wrong” SOUNDS reasonable, but it is the kind of thing homeopaths say to pretend to be scientific while resting secure in the knowledge that they will never have to actually change their mind, because they can always say that it hasn’t been “proven” yet.
There is no “scientific proof” that there are no aliens. There is no “scientific proof” that the earth is 4.7 billions of years old. Not in the sense that there is a “proof” of Bayes’ theorem. And that’s where all the problem is. You can’t limit yourself with changing your believes when they are “proven” wrong. You should change your belief when they are at odd with evidence and Occam’s Razor.
The Dalaï Lama believes in reincarnation (or at least he officially says so, I don’t know what are his true believes and what is political position, but let’s assume he’s honest). There is no “scientific proof” that reincarnation is not possible, so he can’t bolster how much he is open to science. But yet, if you understand science, the evidence that there is no such thing as reincarnation is overwhelming.
People like Carl Sagan were pretty confident that there are aliens out there in the universe. He’s still has a reputation as a great rationalist.
The fact that you would personally Occam’s Razor away reincarnation given what you know, doesn’t mean that it’s also rational for other people to Occam’s Razor it away. Someone who remembers a past life and who knows other people who do it can be common sense to have a prior that reincarnation exists.
If you start with a piror that reincarnation exists I don’t see the scientific evidence that suggest that you should drop the belief. Assuming that reincarnation is true makes some things that involve working with memories of past lifes easier. Occam’s Razor is all about making things easier.
On a practical side there are scientists who believe that reincarnation into Boltzmann brains is plausible, given their current models of how the world works.
If you belief that there are random fluctuation in vaccum, time doesn’t end somewhere in the future and that the existance of humans is completely accidental it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that reincarnation will happen.
If you think you “understand” science than you aren’t rational. Any good skeptic should belief that he doesn’t understand it. Human have the habit of being much to confident in the beliefs that they hold. The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb is a great book.
Has anyone taken the time to present to the Dalai Lama a list of things about Buddhism that science proves (or can convincingly demonstrate to be) wrong?