Buddhism and science are coherent ?

[only1]

I know beliefs in any god might not be debunked by science unless there are any claims of that god which are found to be logic-defying, but how about the karma and rebirth part of Buddhism ? I do find them compatible and coherent with science.

I wonder what the Buddhists and non-Buddhists think.

I do research and wish to devote my life to religions.

[rockyysdt]

Can you elaborate on how you find the "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science"?

[only1]

Can you elaborate on how you find the "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science"?

Yes, I will share my knowledge but later because I wish to know first what others think of Buddhism relationships with science.

[rockyysdt]

Can you elaborate on how you find the "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science"?

Yes, I will share my knowledge but later because I wish to know first what others think of Buddhism relationships with science.

H only.

It's just that you specifically indicated that you find that "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science."

Don't share your knowledge at this stage, but is it possible to advise why you think karma and rebirth are compatible and coherent with science?

[only1]

Can you elaborate on how you find the "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science"?

Yes, I will share my knowledge but later because I wish to know first what others think of Buddhism relationships with science.

H only.

It's just that you specifically indicated that you find that "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science."

Don't share your knowledge at this stage, but is it possible to advise why you think karma and rebirth are compatible and coherent with science?

Yes, possible but that means sharing my full knowledge on the part of rebirth and karma that is coherent or compatible with science. It can be quite lengthy. No point of me putting it up here if no one else seem to be interested about it. Maybe later.

[VincentRJ]

Can you elaborate on how you find the "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science"?

Yes, I will share my knowledge but later because I wish to know first what others think of Buddhism relationships with science.

H only.

It's just that you specifically indicated that you find that "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science."

Don't share your knowledge at this stage, but is it possible to advise why you think karma and rebirth are compatible and coherent with science?

Yes, possible but that means sharing my full knowledge on the part of rebirth and karma that is coherent or compatible with science. It can be quite lengthy. No point of me putting it up here if no one else seem to be interested about it. Maybe later.

Don't hesitate. If you have any convincing evidence of rebirth and karma, this thread will break all records for length. When I did a search on the internet some time ago, for any evidence on this issue, I came across some rather impressive studies by a now-deceased psychiatrist called Dr. Ian Stevenson who investigated 3,000 cases of children around the world who recalled having past lives. Read all about it in the following link.

http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html

Here's an extract.

"The most frequently occurring event or common denominator relating to rebirth is probably that of a child remembering a past life. Children usually begin to talk about their memories between the ages of two and four. Such infantile memories gradually dwindle when the child is between four and seven years old. There are of course always some exceptions, such as a child continuing to remember its previous life but not speaking about it for various reasons.

Most of the children talk about their previous identity with great intensity and feeling. Often they cannot decide for themselves which world is real and which one is not. They often experience a kind of double existence where at times one life is more prominent, and at times the other life takes over. This is why they usually speak of their past life in the present tense saying things like, "I have a husband and two children who live in Jaipur." Almost all of them are able to tell us about the events leading up to their death."

[Neeranam]

Yes, possible but that means sharing my full knowledge on the part of rebirth and karma that is coherent or compatible with science. It can be quite lengthy. No point of me putting it up here if no one else seem to be interested about it. Maybe later.

Don't hesitate. If you have any convincing evidence of rebirth and karma, this thread will break all records for length. When I did a search on the internet some time ago, for any evidence on this issue, I came across some rather impressive studies by a now-deceased psychiatrist called Dr. Ian Stevenson who investigated 3,000 cases of children around the world who recalled having past lives. Read all about it in the following link.

http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html

Here's an extract.

"The most frequently occurring event or common denominator relating to rebirth is probably that of a child remembering a past life. Children usually begin to talk about their memories between the ages of two and four. Such infantile memories gradually dwindle when the child is between four and seven years old. There are of course always some exceptions, such as a child continuing to remember its previous life but not speaking about it for various reasons.

Most of the children talk about their previous identity with great intensity and feeling. Often they cannot decide for themselves which world is real and which one is not. They often experience a kind of double existence where at times one life is more prominent, and at times the other life takes over. This is why they usually speak of their past life in the present tense saying things like, "I have a husband and two children who live in Jaipur." Almost all of them are able to tell us about the events leading up to their death."

There is proof - I've seen it in McLeod Ganj where a Spanish child chose the correct belonging of a previous Lama.

Personally, I've been hypnotically regressed to a previous life on live television.

[VincentRJ]

Neeranam, on 16 Aug 2015 - 21:34, said:

"There is proof - I've seen it in McLeod Ganj where a Spanish child chose the correct belonging of a previous Lama.

Personally, I've been hypnotically regressed to a previous life on live television."

I'm not aware of any scientifically verified proof. Coincidences and random events do occur, but they are not proof. I've read of a number of situations when people under hypnosis appear to have recalled a previous life, but on further investigation it has been discovered that the character of the previous life, as described by the person under hypnosis, closely matches a character in a novel that sits on a shelf in the house of the person's grandmother. It becomes clear that the person probably read the novel as a child, became impressed with a particular character whom he forgot about until the hypnosis session many years later.

This is why the psychiatrist, Dr. Ian Stevenson, did his research on very young children who had just begun to speak. They would have had less opportunity to pick up stories from novels, TV or other sources. However, there was always the possibility that the previous life the child describes, actually represents a character that the child has heard his parents, relatives or visitor talk about. It's difficult to completely rule out such possibilities, which is why the work of Dr. Stevenson does not constitute scientific proof.

[rockyysdt]

There may be testimonials from individuals of past lives.

Unfortunately this is not scientific proof.

We rely largely on the Buddha's teachings, but then these are subject to interpretation.

Re Birth moment to moment vs Re Birth to figure lives.

The only way to know, unless you have scientific proof is through self experience.

[rockyysdt]

.

[VincentRJ]

The only way to know, unless you have scientific proof is through self experience.

Rocky,

You've just highlighted the core of the problem with all religions. They are based upon someone's personal experience and conviction that something is true, despite any scientific evidence to support the claimed truth.

In the days before the scientific methodology was formulated, or thought about, it's easy to empathise with peoples who were puzzled, amazed and frightened by natural events, such as the enormously loud noise of thunder, and lightning strikes from the sky that could kill and/or set alight a devastating bush fire.

It's quite understandable that communities, and the more intelligent leaders of such communities, would have searched for a meaningful explanation for such events. The invention of various Gods would have made sense, even to the intelligent, in the absence of a scientific methodology.

Some time ago, I recall reading a scientific article on the effects of a 'near death' experience from a lightning strike. The circumstances were, the person was partially shielded from the full force of the strike because he was sitting in a car. He survived, but it was noted that his psychological state had undergone a great change.

Things that he previously liked, he now disliked. Things that he previously disliked, he now liked. Now that's very revealing, don't you think?

Because I have a general interest in religious matters, I immediately thought of the story of Paul's (or Saul's) journey to Damascus. Paul was against Christianity. He was carrying a letter authorising the arrest of dissident Christian Jews.

On the way, it appear that Saul and his entourage were struck by lightning and fell off their donkeys. Maybe some were killed. Who knows! However, that Paul should have developed the opposite view that he previously held, with regard to Christianity, is consistent with the recent scientific findings on the effects of lightning strikes.

If Paul on the road to Damascus had started out with a belief that Christianity was the true religion, he might well have developed the opposite view, as a result of the extreme weather event.

Now, I should add, the above example is not proof, because we don't really know precisely what happened on the road to Damascus. It's just something we should take into consideration.

Here's a description of what happened.

"Everything he could see and hear and feel all around him underwent a change. There was a chill wind blowing at him, a blinding light shining on him from the heavens, and the roar of great waters in his ears."

Sounds pretty much like thunder and lightning to me.

[KarenBravo]

Sorry, but there is no scientific evidence for a soul.

Therefore there can be no scientific hypothesis, or theory's for life after death, or, what happens after death.

It really isn't a subject that science gets involved in.

[rockyysdt]

The Buddha's teaching aligns with your view, but the absence of soul doesn't mean there is nothing.

Bhikku Buddhadasa explains in his book Anatta.

[rockyysdt]

This is why only's scientific knowledge, if real, would be a revelation.

[VincentRJ]

I'll just add that the more we know, the more we realize how limited our knowledge really is. There's an unfathomable complexity to our universe. We can't, scientifically, even record 95% of the stuff that surrounds us. We call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which is completely invisible and undetectable. It exists hypothetically, according to our current theories of Physics, which might well be wrong.

I understand that such uncertainty presents a problem for belief. However, I'm sympathetic towards the placebo effect, which appears to be real. Even Jesus Christ, when healing the sick at some gathering, felt someone touch his cloak, and turned around to ask who that was. The lady who touched his cloak confessed it was she. She also confessed she was healed. Jesus' response was that it was her belief that cured her.

The message here is that even in those days, the placebo effect was recognised.

[AlexRRR]

Science and religion do not align, science needs hard proof religion is based on faith and acceptance.

[VincentRJ]

Science and religion do not align, science needs hard proof religion is based on faith and acceptance.

I have no problem at all with that concept, provided that the faith and acceptance is based upon reality.

Science can often demonstrate that a particular view, or belief, is not based upon the reality of how the real world works. When people persist in believing in something that does not accord with reality, then serious problems can arise.

[Neeranam]

Neeranam, on 16 Aug 2015 - 21:34, said:

"There is proof - I've seen it in McLeod Ganj where a Spanish child chose the correct belonging of a previous Lama.

Personally, I've been hypnotically regressed to a previous life on live television."

I'm not aware of any scientifically verified proof. Coincidences and random events do occur, but they are not proof. I've read of a number of situations when people under hypnosis appear to have recalled a previous life, but on further investigation it has been discovered that the character of the previous life, as described by the person under hypnosis, closely matches a character in a novel that sits on a shelf in the house of the person's grandmother. It becomes clear that the person probably read the novel as a child, became impressed with a particular character whom he forgot about until the hypnosis session many years later.

This is why the psychiatrist, Dr. Ian Stevenson, did his research on very young children who had just begun to speak. They would have had less opportunity to pick up stories from novels, TV or other sources. However, there was always the possibility that the previous life the child describes, actually represents a character that the child has heard his parents, relatives or visitor talk about. It's difficult to completely rule out such possibilities, which is why the work of Dr. Stevenson does not constitute scientific proof.

Spirituality is basically consciousness and awareness. These are hard to prove scientifically especially when most scientists don't want to prove it, despite some experiments like the quantum dual slit thing which changes when people observe it.

Those wanting scientific proof are ignorant IMHO, how can one prove scientifically that the Buddha, or anyone else was enlightened for example?

[KarenBravo]

Those wanting scientific proof are ignorant IMHO,

Just the opposite actually.

Accepting without proof is being ignorant and proud of it.

[VincentRJ]

Spirituality is basically consciousness and awareness. These are hard to prove scientifically especially when most scientists don't want to prove it, despite some experiments like the quantum dual slit thing which changes when people observe it.

Those wanting scientific proof are ignorant IMHO, how can one prove scientifically that the Buddha, or anyone else was enlightened for example?

I never dismiss the entire teachings of a religion. There are often jewels to be found. The 'Serenity Prayer' in Christianity is one such jewel.

"God grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change;

Courage to change the things I can;

And wisdom to know the difference."

Now, for the benefit of Neeranam, I've modified this prayer as follows. I hope he pays attention.

"God grant me the wisdom

To understand what is certain;

The courage to see what is uncertain;

And the intelligence to know the difference."

[Neeranam]

Spirituality is basically consciousness and awareness. These are hard to prove scientifically especially when most scientists don't want to prove it, despite some experiments like the quantum dual slit thing which changes when people observe it.

Those wanting scientific proof are ignorant IMHO, how can one prove scientifically that the Buddha, or anyone else was enlightened for example?

I never dismiss the entire teachings of a religion. There are often jewels to be found. The 'Serenity Prayer' in Christianity is one such jewel.

"God grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change;

Courage to change the things I can;

And wisdom to know the difference."

Now, for the benefit of Neeranam, I've modified this prayer as follows. I hope he pays attention.

"God grant me the wisdom

To understand what is certain;

The courage to see what is uncertain;

And the intelligence to know the difference."

I've aid that prayer at least 5000 times. It is basically copying what Epictetus said hundreds of years previously but adapted for Christianity by Niebuhr.

The long form is

God, give me grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. Living one day at a time, Enjoying one moment at a time, Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace, Taking, as Jesus did, This sinful world as it is, Not as I would have it, Trusting that You will make all things right, If I surrender to Your will, So that I may be reasonably happy in this life, And supremely happy with You forever in the next. Amen.

[Neeranam]

Those wanting scientific proof are ignorant IMHO,

Just the opposite actually.

Accepting without proof is being ignorant and proud of it.

You haven't grasped the meaning of what I said in the bit you conveniently never quoted, for whatever motives.

.

[only1]

Hi,

Nice to know that there are some of you interested in it but before I reveal my knowledge, I wish to comment on some of you.

Firstly I don't it is right or fair to say that science cannot be linked to any Buddhism or any religious beliefs. Not now but not necessarily forever.

If science could debunk or prove some religious belief theory as false or fake, it does not mean that all religious beliefs are not true or fake.

Bare in mind that many scientific research and development are fairly recent.

Take for example the case of Galileo, it clearly proved a lot about ignorance of people.

Take oxygen for example, few hundred years ago if anyone said there are different types of gases or elements in the air, no one will accept it too but that doesn't mean whoever claimed them is wrong.

I think one must understand logic before understanding science.

If any belief is logic defying e.g. an almighty God, I think science will not even search for him as the logic of the claim itself is already not coherent with logic. Science proved many things through research. Religious beliefs of gods, ghosts, spirits, souls, rebirth, karma,etc may not be believed by many people or scientists but they are not debunked or

proven to be non existence by science too.

Anyone agree or disagree with any part of my above comments before I continue ?

[coulson]

Can you elaborate on how you find the "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science"?

Yes, I will share my knowledge but later because I wish to know first what others think of Buddhism relationships with science.

H only.

It's just that you specifically indicated that you find that "karma and rebirth part of Buddhism compatible and coherent with science."

Don't share your knowledge at this stage, but is it possible to advise why you think karma and rebirth are compatible and coherent with science?

Yes, possible but that means sharing my full knowledge on the part of rebirth and karma that is coherent or compatible with science. It can be quite lengthy. No point of me putting it up here if no one else seem to be interested about it. Maybe later.

My contribution could also be quite lengthy, so I'll also opt out of contributing to your little experiment.

[rockyysdt]

Only, if you had verifiable scientific proof that the Buddha's teaching of Kharma and Re birth into future lives is fact, somehow I doubt you would be announcing it on ThaiVisa.

I'm sorry Only, but going by the Buddha's teaching, one way you might personally know such things would be through personal Awakening.

I don't believe this is the case as such an egoless state would not present on a forum in such a manner.

We've now been waiting 4 days, but going by probability & statistics I don't think there is going to be any revelation.

The Buddha's teaching was more about the cessation of Dukkha, by practice of the eightfold path. Such things as re birth fashioned by kharma will take care of itself.

[VincentRJ]

I think one must understand logic before understanding science.

If any belief is logic defying e.g. an almighty God, I think science will not even search for him as the logic of the claim itself is already not coherent with logic. Science proved many things through research. Religious beliefs of gods, ghosts, spirits, souls, rebirth, karma,etc may not be believed by many people or scientists but they are not debunked or proven to be non existence by science too.

Anyone agree or disagree with any part of my above comments before I continue ?

First, I would make the point that it's not always possible to prove the non-existence of something without being certain that one is aware of, or can detect, the presence of everything that can exist within the space that one is considering.

With regard to the existence of God, the space is the entire universe. Furthermore, the latest science admits that 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is invisible and undetectable by the latest and greatest scientific instruments, just as the radio waves that are currently transmitting the image that I see on my TV set, are invisible to me, despite my tremendous eyesight and billions of neurons in my brain.

I can see the result or effect of such rays because the TV is switched on. But the rays themselves are invisible, even though they are continuously present.

Science is all about investigating what can be detected. Supposing I were to concoct a story along the following lines. I was born on a planet that encircles a distant star about 3,000 light years from Earth. My spirit was transmitted over a long period of time to my mother's womb where I took on a physical presence as a human fetus.

Now such a story is ridiculous, but how can science disprove it? We simply don't have the technology to examine all the planets that might encircle stars that are 3,000 light years away. Got it?

[rockyysdt]

Another way of putting it.

Current technology limits our ability to scientifically prove or disprove given scenarios.

Failing to scientifically disprove a given scenario doesn't make it scientifically coherent.

[VincentRJ]

Now that you've all had time to digest what I've previously written, and have understood that it's not possible in principle to prove the non-existence of an unknown, undetectable entity, the question could arise as to what is the best attitude to have regarding any claimed certainty about the existence of God.

This is where Buddhism and modern science seem to be in alignment. The Buddha, and also certain Chinese philosophers such as Confucius, seemed to have understood that the existence of an almighty, creator God is so obviously beyond the capacity of humans to understand, why waste time over the problem! They held the view that there are better or more urgent things to attend to. When embarking upon any project, whether it's an expensive scientific research project, or a small-scale personal project, one should be reasonably confident of a successful outcome, otherwise one could waste a lot of effort and resources to no avail.

In my opinion, the best position to have on this issue is to be honest and truthful, that is, agnostic, which essentially means 'ignorant'. Unfortunately, many people are too uncomfortable with the reality that they are ignorant. The term is also often used in a derogatory sense to insult someone, as in, 'you ignorant slob', so people tend to have an aversion towards considering themselves ignorant. But the reality is, we are all ignorant to varying degrees, and often the more we know, the more we understand the extent of our ignorance.

At this stage of human development, we are so ignorant that we are unable to detect in any way, shape or form, 95% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. We give it the fictitious names of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

We think that Dark Matter and Dark Energy must exist because our current theories of Astrophysics imply that it should exist. If the reality is, it doesn't exist, then our theories are wrong, or at least very inaccurate in relation to the large-scale universe.

[AlexRRR]

The world was flat once, the sun revolved around the earth at another time...your not telling us anything we didn't know so what you trying to prove?

Your wrong that many people are ignorant, they have free will and choice to choose there belief structure, better to not label people because they don't fit into your box, religion like politics is a subject that has no boundaries, to each his own as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

[VincentRJ]

The world was flat once, the sun revolved around the earth at another time...your not telling us anything we didn't know so what you trying to prove?

Your wrong that many people are ignorant, they have free will and choice to choose there belief structure, better to not label people because they don't fit into your box, religion like politics is a subject that has no boundaries, to each his own as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I think you might be on the wrong forum, mate. This is the Buddhist forum. Ignorance and suffering are central to the Buddhist understanding of mankind. A major purpose of the Buddhist teachings is to help people dispel their ignorance, particularly with regard to deluded notions about 'self' and 'ego'.

In Buddhism, the only people who are free from ignorance are those who have achieved full enlightenment. Those who are not enlightened fall into two categories (for the sake of simplicity); those who know they are ignorant, and those who don't know they are ignorant.

Which are you? I fall into the first category. I know I'm ignorant.