Over all a good piece however you go a bit far when you say thatscience can't not shed light on everything. It can and will, even the human mind.
Can the author give an insight into nature that science can not shed light on rather then the vague assertions in this peice. Buddhism may help guide your life and may help you to understand yourself, but I don't think it gives you any better information then say a good mental health counsellor would.

This is an interesting article Ian.

I agree intrinsically that science assists human beings in understanding the world but for some there is a need for spiritual enlightenment that science cannot provide.

Buddhism is certainly one way to achieve that spirituality, but religion will probably be with us for some time yet, many being born into the belief of a supernatural deity.

Not all concepts of Buddhism are rooted in science such as reincarnation. Buddhism is similar to mainstream religions in that it believes in the concept of doing good in this life to be able to achieve a positive reincarnation experience in the next life. This is akin to the stick and carrot approach of religions like Christianity (heaven and hell).

It appears for some to find spiritual peace or happiness some form of organised religion or way-of-life groups like Buddhism are important, which suggests as you say that there are some aspects of the human psychology which manifests this need.

Perhaps in the Western world it is because most of our Maslow hierarchical needs are met and some might seek a 'higher meaning', whereas those in poorer nations seek religion as comfort for not having met those basic needs. The human mind is certainly an interesting organ.

What a refreshing change, especially compared to the usual christian attempts to reconcile science, religion and Spirituality with their ding-bat theology and their mommy-daddy "creator" or santa claus good-luck god-ideas.

Also refreshing because it uses simple 21st century reality-language.

The quantum physicist David Bohm had a series of conversations re Buddhism and science with the Dalai Llama some years back.

a religion that does not have man accounting for his actions is very attractive to many who want to enjoy their sin and pretend they won't be answerable for it. It actually fits in quite well with secular humanism and its dogmas. In this life you can hide behind Buddha or you can hide behind pseudo science but Christ is the only One who can forgive your corruption and sin. It is Him you will be answerable to not some man whose flesh rotted long ago.

Ah, so this is why Buddhist nations consistently lead the world in scientific research and discovery!

Hang on...

Yes, science and religion are both belief systems. The only difference between them is that science works, and religion doesn't. When you get an aircraft to fly by chanting mantras, let me know.

I agree that Buddhism is compatible with science as taught by the Buddha, however it is most usually practised as a combined religion and culture, which unfortunately detracts from the key "no attachment" message.
Fundamental Buddhism acknowledges that all is due to Kamma (or Karma), which is literally: cause and effect. this acknowledges that the scientific method can and should work and there is no room for supernatural agents. There is also the recognition that "things" are processes and processes are "things". People consist of atoms. It is not the atoms that are special but their arrangement in space and time. The pattern of the process makes the particular atoms in your body "special"...next year there will be mostly new atoms yet because the essential pattern remains the same, you still exist.
Reincarnation is mostly misunderstood: Given an infinite universe/multiverse, the "essential" pattern that is you can/will/does exist in countless instances. Whilst living you can decide what is essential to you, and therefore decide your essence...which can then be considered a start-point in countless other instances. It is true that the enlightened create their own heaven, and the damned create their own hell. Forget the simplistic: Live-Die-Reincarnate...this is only a "lie to children" or straw man. The real picture, as with real science, is vastly more multidimensional.
Buddhism is regularly re-discovered by any rational mind that seeks spirit without abandoning rationality, indeed I couldn't believe how similar my own personal philosophy based on strict "no supernatural" fits in with the core of Buddhist thought. Just beware of the cultural aspects when looking into it...just because it is said "Buddhists believe" does not make it so, and if so it is often not Buddhism.
Good article!

Yeah Jon J

just as well someone was smart enough to design the aircraft eh! Very unlike the fable you believe in.

runner
A man rises from the dead. A man walks across water. A man parts the Red Seas. A man collects a pair of every animal on earth on a rickety wooden boat.

This is the stuff of fables. Why can't you see what is in front of you?

How do you know for sure you are right?

Nice to see an article on Buddhism, though the author doesn't differentiate Theravada Buddhism from the latterday corruptions: Mahayana and Zen. Buddhism has one very important thing in common with science: neither is, or should be, an ideology. Why all this cow towing to science? which is nothing more than method; it has nothing to offer us but (bar the lucky ones) an engaging hobby. Yet we readily adopt the geeky myopia of science as somehow revelatory. Scientists are the new priests, as always funded by surplus production. Buddhism is akin to contemporary existentialism, and ancient cynicism; it's not about finding happiness--life is fundamentally "unsatisfactory"--but about escaping suffering (dukkha) and the endless cycle of rebirth. And since there is no afterlife, oblivion (wisdom) is its goal. Thus, according to Nietzsche: like Christianity, Buddhism offers no hope in 'this' world.
Buddhism is about renunciation, not just of material things, but of illusions, including those fostered by science; more properly, the progressivist ideology that indifferent science parasitises.

In some ways the above reasoning fits in with that of St Thomas Aquinas who with a so-called troubled mind decided to accept Hellenistic Reasoning to help lift Christianity out of the Dark Ages.

Apparently because Aquinas regarded himself as a philosophical teacher as well as a Preacher, he was at the time and is still not regarded as a true Christian.

Indeed, it remains a mystery how Aquinas was ever accepted as a Saint?

Regards, BB, WA.

For all the talk of "science vs religion" it pays to remember that they simple cannot be ENTIRELY in conflict. Science, by sheer definition, is incapable of answering many of the questions religions attempt to answer. In some spheres of knowledge and for some questions, it's simply religion vs religion or philosophy vs philosophy. I like pointing this out whenever an enlightened Buddhist or some psuedo intellectual atheist trys to paint out the old battlelines and make the case for science vs religion, and how religion is some outmoded idea put forward by Cavemen. Regardless of how far in conflict you may think that they are, the fact will always remain that science is inherently limited in many ways and that there are many questions which it will never be able to answer.

An example: Studying the components of the universe and why they work a certain way is one thing, but questioning why anything exists at all (and something that we're capable of studying) is another altogether.

Science cannot tell us how something came from literally nothing (A disclaimer: I realise attempts have been made, but the definition of "nothing"ness put forward by physicists is always actually "something"ness when you drill down further). And it can't tell us why something has always existed without any reason whatsoever. Personally, I'd argue that the nature of time and the existence of an ordered universe point us closer towards an intentionality based explanation and away from a mindless explanation- but that's a topic for another day...or a long, long essay

(continued)

Another question is why the universe is simply ordered and mathematical in the way it needs to be in order for science to work. This is another question for which religion provides a (satisfactory, in my view) answer but that science is simply incapable of providing any response to whatsoever.

Science itself presupposes many things, in fact, but it is capable of providing an explanation for those presuppositions. It simply launches from them and goes on it's merry way. Dealing with the presuppositions lies in the realm of religion and philosophy. (For an interesting article on this kind of thing, check out this brief piece by distinguished physicist Paul Davies: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html)

Yet another example would be the realm of moral questions. Consider this from Holmes Rolston:

"Science is never the end of the story because science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: The meaning of life and how to value it....science has evident survival value, teaching us how to gain benefits that we desire. But what ought we to desire? Our enlightened self interest? Our genetic self interest? More children? More science? The conservation of biodiversity? Sustainable development? A sustainable biosphere? The love of neighbour? The love of God? Justice? Equity? Charity?...After science, we still need help deciding what to value; what is right and wrong, good and evil, how to behave as we cope. The end of life still lies in its meaning, the domain of religion and ethics"

I should add that the author would probably agree with much of what I've just written. However, my concern was in defending more traditional religions (and more specifically Christianity). The author basically writes them off as unscientific and therefore not worthy of devotion(in a more diplomatic, indirect way) yet I contend that they might not be as unscientific as many suggest, and that Christianity might provide some powerful answers in those areas which Buddhism shares the arena, and some other answers that Buddhism doesn't answer or answer as sufficiently.

Pelican- you criticise Runner for believing such things, but I contend that you, too believe in miracles. Everyone does. Why? Existence itself is a miracle.

After all, what is a miracle? I had some thoughts about this after reading an essay by CS Lewis, and I agreed with Lewis in that there were a couple of key points that I thought would make something a miracle: Something unexplainable, and something that doesn't ascribe to any natural laws we know of. Under this definition, the existence of the universe fits the definition.

I googled "miracle" and the definitions agreed with the definitions I'd been pondering, for example:

This website: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God

Now, the part about God isn't important to my argument. Whether or not someone holds something inexplicable to be supernatural or an Act of God is really an act of faith. And that's the whole point, isn't it? We have this something called existence which we can't really explain, making it very much miraculous. Regardless of what you believe about existence, you'll be believing on faith and faith alone. And that brings me back to the original point: We all believe in miraculous things by faith, whether we want to or not. So why berate those who believe in a few more miraculous things, and have a little more faith than you do?

Trav
I merely asked runner what makes him so sure that there is a God (or the one he subscribes to). That is all. I was hoping that runner might open his mind and question - not to take things purely on faith. Although I accept already this is unlikely - unless there is a true miracle. :)

As for miracles - our existence is indeed a marvel and many things remain unexplained, however why must something miraculous (unexplained) immediately earn the supernatural tag. Especially as the supernatural is accepted purely on faith (of man's making) rather than on evidence.

Why can we not just say we don't know the reason yet but with further advancements in technology and in knowledge may know the answer one day.

The lack of an answer to a mystery is not in itself a miracle.

Probably in our lifetimes we won't know the exact origins of the universe and the answers to the questions why? We will probably never know the why. But that does not mean a supernatural explanation is the correct one even if many take various religious dogmas as faith (whether it be Islam, Christianity etal).

Do we have to know the Why to be content? Maybe some have more of a need for explanation, others just content to marvel and accept the natural beauty around them.

Hi Trav,

Please tell us which of these two assertions is more likely to result in scientific progress, and why:

1. An intangible being with unfathomable motives used some inconceivable powers to carry out an unspecified sequence of irreproducible actions over an unmeasurable period of time which in some inexplicable way produced the Universe.

2. The Universe was produced by some natural process we don't know much about yet.

Here's a hint: how is 1. distinguishable in practice from "I don't have a clue! Stop asking me!"?

Pelican

Your pathetically inept explanations for life dressed in science certainly makes me surer about my faith. To deny design defies what is obvious to anyone not blinded by dogma like yourself.

runner
Why don't you answer the question instead of getting into hateful name calling. Accusations of being pathetic only detract from your failure to answer the question.

Atheism is not a religion so it cannot be dogma.

I think atheism, like theism, might be an admirable thing if it were free-standing--vested in genuine insight, intellect, conviction, and not merely partaking of a currently popular world view. That's why I'm an agnostic. Like the Buddha, I want to be free of all ideologies.

I see Pelican, an attack on the God you are answerable is alright in your eyes but an attack on your belief system is 'hateful name calling". This sort of thinking is as logical as that of a highly designed earth coming about as a result of chance.

runner
I am not sure if you are deliberately misinterpreting these posts. How can I attack something which does not exist?

How do you know your God exists?

I understand if you are unable to come up with an answer, I don't think anyone could other than having faith in what someone else has told them or what one has been taught.

Pelican unlike you and many others I am prepared to admit that my belief is a faith based position. Those who believe evolution are totally dishonest when claiming their position is not faith based as shown by your lack of explanation for beginnings and blindness towards design.

Dear o dear, Runner. Evolution has nothing to do with faith; it is the best, most reasonable, most evidence-based explanation of life on Earth. If you bothered to humble yourself (it's not all about us humans), take your blinkers off and actually read about it, you might even be inspired---who knows where it will end?. There is no 'design'--the very notion belittles the cumulative ingenuity, and yet simplicity, of natural selection.
Sorry cobber, but we ain't the centre of everything (get over it); if we do live forever, we'll be keeping pretty mean company :-)

Squeers

You are also one prepared to bend your observations to fit your dogma. You call that science, I call it deceitful.

I think I know what you mean, Runner; but I'm not running with the hare 'and' the hounds. I reject the 'ideology' of scientism, but I can't deny the reasonableness of its findings. You apparently can.