Tag Archives: science

01/17/18

There Is No Scientific Buddhism

The dominant paradigm in science is that mind is an emergent property of the brain whereas Buddhism sees mind as forerunner. If Buddhists want science to recognise the Buddha’s claims about the mind then Buddhism has to play by the rules of science. The burden of proof is upon Buddhists to devise experiments that show beyond reasonable doubt that purely mental activity can be detected and measured independently of matter. Until then, any talk of “Scientific Buddhism” is meaningless.

Continue reading →

03/28/17

Is Buddhism Fundamentally Flawed?

….
I don’t always agree with self-declared “ex-Buddhist” Eisel Mazard, nevertheless I do count him among the people who have assisted my own developing understanding of the religion. While giving a very brief description of the “fundamental flaw” Mazard sees in Buddhism I also recommend watching the embedded video to hear it straight from the horses mouth…

Continue reading →

04/29/16

Does Buddhism Have A Future?

Buddha and DevasDoes Buddhism have a future? Buddhism will almost certainly continue to diversify as practitioners adapt themselves to the current harsh realities of globalisation. The issues of Rationalism, Consumerism, and Activism, are especially liable to influence future perceptions of the religion. Whether or not Buddhism remains relevant beyond the 21st century, or is viewed increasingly as anachronistic, will depend largely upon the various Buddhist schools all being much clearer on what the foundational teachings actually are…

Continue reading →

01/26/16

Mind & Meditation: Observations From Buddhism & Science


F1tbm
Does modern science lend support to Buddhist ideas about the human mind? Does modern science lend support to the logic behind Buddhist meditation practice? After summarizing what Buddhism says about human minds and meditation, I refer to three scientific studies which may enable one to answer ‘yes’ to both questions.

Continue reading →

01/29/15

Understanding Humanity: The Limitations Of Evolutionary Perspectives

Brain (image source - www.wired.com)
 
Ever since Darwin, the temptation for many has been to regard human behaviors as biologically based, instinctive, and most likely advantageous from an evolutionary point of view. But explanations of human psychological behavior in evolutionary terms are necessarily more speculative than are explanations of the human digestive system, for example.

Continue reading →

08/30/13

Knowing And Believing

In this post I argue that the popular science ‘priesthood’ of celebrities, journalists et al are serving a similar function to the spiritual leaders within organised religions who have traditionally interpreted scripture for the masses.  However, there’s a big difference between believing the truth and knowing it. Just as reading about science is no substitute for actually conducting experiments and applying the data to solving practical problems, so too one’s reading of suttas and commentaries is no substitute for actually practicing the Buddha’s advice…

__________________

Continue reading →

06/9/13

Reality

After what I said last time about ‘faith’ it was perhaps inevitable that someone would ask me what my conclusions are regarding ‘reality’.  The short answer is of course, I’ve no fixed conclusions – I’m still investigating through meditation and study. Nevertheless, in this post I briefly outline three main philosophical perspectives and where I currently stand with regard to knowing reality…

___________________

Continue reading →

05/30/13

Faith

According to Wikipedia, “Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is not based on proof… The word faith is often used as a substitute for hope, trust or belief.”  In this post I contemplate the meaning of ‘faith’ and identify five types that appear to be operating in modern day society…

___________________

Continue reading →

02/24/13

Is Buddhism Compatible With Modern Science?

The compatibility of Buddhism and science was being argued during the Victorian period. More recently this idea has been popularised by writers like Fritjoff Capra (who wrote a book – The Tao of Physics – on how Western science and Eastern religions were apparently converging), and former monk Stephen Batchelor (who argued the case for a socially engaged, secular western Buddhism free from its cultural and religious accretions in Buddhism Without Beliefs.) In this post I explain why I no longer regard Buddhism and western science as compatible…

___________________

Continue reading →