Science and Buddha

Not long ago, Dr. Roderick T. Beaman mentioned in this article that skepticism of evolution is a valid position shared by the Dali Lama (thanks goes out to PZ Myers for pointing the article out in the first place). We all know (or should know) that the validity of a scientific theory does not depend on who believes it or not. The fundie crowd is notorious for saying "so and so doubts evolution... therefore you should too". The question raised here is whether the Dali Lama sides with science or religion. Since those same fundies are also fond of quote-mining to show doubt of accepted science where none really exists, could they be lying here as well? I aim to find out...

A friend of mine recently transcribed the Dali Lama's speech at the 2005 Society for Neuroscience convention in Washington, D.C. (heartfelt thanks goes out to Talyn for doing all the hard work here). A few of the things he said at the conference seem to show that he sides with reasoned inquiry, rather than religious dogma. Here's a couple of highlights:

In the Buddhist tradition, in particular the Sanskrit tradition, ancient authors are viewed with 100% respect, but I told my colleagues that if we compared [these texts] to modern science- some would be contradictory.

This is so much more refreshing than claiming that "true" science and God's word can't possibly be at odds with each other. I like the guy already.

Therefore, the Buddhist tradition, which respects empirical experience, requires us to view these texts with understanding, with the knowledge that these texts would be written differently today. I hope those senior colleagues don’t view me as a rebellious Buddhist.

Thank whomever for religious leaders who are ballsy enough to question what they've been brought up to believe. Many people today with their "one true faith" ideals seem to ignore the fact that, without questioning deeply held "sacred" ideals, their churches wouldn't exist at all. Martin Luther didn't nail his protest to the church door one day without first doubting the dominant dogma of his day. Without that bump in a different direction, who's to say whether the protestant church would have ever existed at all (it certainly wouldn't have been called "protestant"). Jesus would never have found any disciples either, had everyone simply accepted the tenets of their faith without question, which leaves the Christian church in general in a state of nonexistence.

I guess I just can't understand how people of faith cannot accept that faith, just like everything else, is prone to evolving over time. They will admire those who questioned the religious institutions of the past, yet frown on the same process within their own ranks. Do they not realize that those who were brave enough to ignite change in the past were frowned upon as well? Leaders are born out of strife or need... not just for the pure hell of it.

I have started [encouraging] studying science among the monk students [as part of their training] because it is so important.

The science he refers to here includes standard biology, cosmology and other disciplines.

One of my favorites came shortly after:

When I first wanted to talk to scientists, an older monk gave me the advice: "Be careful: scientists are killers of religion"... but, I thought, scientists are also trying to find reality, and with an open mind. In the same way as we are.

Nice to see that he thinks reality is not the enemy of faith. Maybe he can teach our fundies a few things. I'm betting not, since Buddhists are nearly as bad as atheists in their eyes (damn idol-worshipping heathens).

To Buddhists, skepticism and an open mind is also important, required [in order] to have true investigation into reality. If you blindly accept, you don’t reach reality.

Truly refreshing.

Buddha said many things, but always encouraged empirical investigation, using your mind to see reality. It then developed in Buddhist tradition as a custom to examine his words and find those that contradict empirical evidence, and interpret them as less... definitive. They may be metaphorical

Try getting some of our fundies to admit that the old prophets might just be a little off. Betcha can't do it.

In the Sanskrit tradition of Buddhism, if the Buddhist finds traditions that contradict the evidence, then those parts of the tradition need to be rejected, or interpreted differently. The tradition believes there is a liberty to change that which contradicts reality.

The fundies might see this as chickenshit fence-sitting, but as I said in another post, I respect those ready and willing to walk away from something which contradicts the evidence that they've held to on faith. That takes guts. Holding on for the sake of holding on is about the same as a battered woman staying with her abusive husband simply because "I know he really does love me and things will get better". Meanwhile, the bruises multiply and the supportive friends give up and walk away.

After his speech finished, he took the time to answer some questions from the audience. One member actually asked his position regarding the teaching of ID in American science classes. To this he replied:

I don't know. You must decide [for yourselves]. It is not an issue for [Buddhists]. There is a difference between theistic and nontheistic religions. No conflict. But the education in the United States, I don't know. You can do more research.

Basically "your country, your problem". I can respect that. Many of us probably wish that we could say that as well, but those of us in the States can't afford to risk our childrens' futures and the future of science in America simply because we want someone else to solve the problem for us. Maybe if ID would "do more research' it would be worthy of respect. Public opinion polls do not count as scientific research in the biology field.

Perhaps we should put ID into Sociology... that seems to be their strong-point.