Coupla quotes from the Dalai Lama’s op-ed in the New York Times:
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
This openness to change sets the Dalai Lama, and the philosophical tradition he represents, apart from most Western thought. For example, I’ve often argued politics with a friend from the East Bay who was schooled in Roman Catholicism. As a result, he clings to his beliefs regardless of the facts, and is therefore without understanding of the world. When I send him articles from the Washington Post about the American use of Russian gulag prisons, and the torture of Iraqis by Americans, he refuses to believe it, claiming that it hasn’t been proven in court and is therefore no more than the “rantings” of members of MoveOn.org.
This attitude, so typical of certain philosophical positions that are held in the West, is what brought on the Dark Ages. As Gibbon intimates, the ability to believe in miracles means the inability to recognize reality and react to facts. Such people will never be able to manipulate the world around them, because they’ll never understand it. They prefer the certainty of the philosophies they’re locked into, despite the evident falsehood of those philosophies.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them.
The Dalai Lama does not have this problem. He’s ready to accept new ideas and change his views when it becomes clear that it would help him achieve his goals.
At Princeton University, Dr. Jonathan Cohen, a neuroscientist, is studying the effects of meditation on attention. At the University of California Medical School at San Francisco, Dr. Margaret Kemeny has been studying how meditation helps develop empathy in school teachers.Whatever the results of this work, I am encouraged that it is taking place. You see, many people still consider science and religion to be in opposition. While I agree that certain religious concepts conflict with scientific facts and principles, I also feel that people from both worlds can have an intelligent discussion, one that has the power ultimately to generate a deeper understanding of challenges we face together in our interconnected world.
[…]
I believe that we must find a way to bring ethical considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry.
Rather, I am speaking of what I call “secular ethics,” which embrace the principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers; they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.
Eyes on the prize: what are we going for?
A deeper dialogue between neuroscience and society — indeed between all scientific fields and society — could help deepen our understanding of what it means to be human and our responsibilities for the natural world we share with other sentient beings.Just as the world of business has been paying renewed attention to ethics, the world of science would benefit from more deeply considering the implications of its own work. Scientists should be more than merely technically adept; they should be mindful of their own motivation and the larger goal of what they do: the betterment of humanity.
Interestingly, there has never been fought a war in the name of Buddhism.
Posted by: Peter on November 14, 2005 6:08 AMHorseshit. Tell that to the Nyingmapas who were butchered by the Gelugpas several hundred years ago. The Buddhists can be as reprehensible, vile and vicious as any other organized religion in the world. Your bigoted comment about Roman Catholicism reveals a quality you should question. I seem to recall Pope John did a few things to change the Roman Catholic church before he died. I have been exposed to a number of Buddhist monks and Tibetan lamas in particular whose political thought is as vile as any you can imagine. They can also be a racist and sexist lot to boot. The 14thDL's comments were ridiculous. Science cannot be used to prove or disprove any religion. The guy might as well be talking about intelligent design! Science is founded on a philosophy of nihilism, all systems of philosophical thought that are loosly termed as religions are eternalist. Except that is the teachings of Buddha, which should never be confused with "Buddhism", which like any other "religion" is just another organization. And like any other organization is completely screwed up because it consists of human beings.
Do not confuse a persons' emotional beliefs with their professed religious beliefs. There are only two kinds of people in the world, those who put private property before all other things and those who don't. the latter are truly spiritual, regardless of their philosophical thought, the former are, well, evil, no matter how much religion they profess to have. Organized religion inevitably exists to protect itself, and therefore will do what it can to support the ruling class, regardless of the teachings from which it sprang. That goes for the Buddhists as well. Which is why the the Thirteenth DL was killed by his own lamas. Western Buddhists need to get their heads out of their asses. The first part of that is getting rid of their attachment to the idea that Buddhism is somehow superior to other religions.
Posted by: Matthew Alexander on November 14, 2005 9:24 AM"Science is founded on a philosophy of nihilism"
Actually, science is historically rooted in positivism, which is more or less the antithesis of nihilism.
"The first part of that is getting rid of their attachment to the idea that Buddhism is somehow superior to other religions."
The 'superiority' question seems irrelevant to me. You would better serve your original argument by instead recommending that Western Buddhists rid themselves of the notion that Buddhism (or any generic religious grouping for that matter) is some sort of monolithic 'organization'. After all, one will get a remarkably different experience reading St. Augustine or Nagarjuna than one would listening to Pat Robertson or a corrupt monk. With that said, I do think the West could benefit quite a bit from exposure to certain aspects of Buddhist thought, regardless of the fact that various sordid individuals have appropriated that name for their own actions. To that end, I think Mr. Dupree's point holds, despite your peripheral concerns.
Posted by: Erik Leander on November 14, 2005 10:04 AMMr. Doolittle,
How are you using the term "friend"? Is this blinkered person someone you grew up with, and so have bonds of familiarity? It seems strange that you would form an adult friendship with a person whose point of view is so different from yours.
To Ranter Matt,
Why can science not be used to demonstrate the value of meditation? That's what the Dalai Lama was talking about, not as you imply Buddhism's "moral superiority". He didn't say ONE WORD about that, explicitly or indirectly.
I'm a strongly secular pro-science person, and I agree with what he says. There are some technologies which should be approached with caution and scepticism, because of the threat to the natural world they represent. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be done, just that they should not be done until an open discussion of their ramifications has been undertaken, and consensus that the potential rewards are greater than the likely technical and ethical risks.
Oh my word, Mr. Alexander. Only two kinds of people in the world! Heavens! Since you seem to have great respect for Catholics, perhaps you are aware of the seven deadly sins. I suggest they are a starting point for the woes of the world.
and to Chuck, I thought you were a Flying Spaghetti Monster guy.
Posted by: Buck on November 14, 2005 12:33 PM
and to Anandakos: Can't tell you who this friend is, since it's Chuck Dupree's post. My own view on religion is whatever fairy tale gets you through the night is okay with me, as long as you don't start pushing it to the other kids in the neighborhood. The Jews seem to be particularly admirable in this last respect. If I understand the matter correctly, it is a point of principle in Judaism not to proselytize. You want to see pushy? Take a look at our Christian talibangelists.
Posted by: Jerry Doolittle on November 14, 2005 12:53 PMAnandakos: This blinkered person, as you call him, is a colleague with whom I teach. I did not grow up with him. I like to think I'm able to make friends with people who are unlike me. I've had several friends over the years who think of themselves as conservatives, while I label myself a libertarian socialist. In part I probably enjoy tweaking them with the stuff they try to avoid looking at. But many conservatives are really libertarians at heart: they want to conserve the values of liberty and justice, which, after all, is how socialism is defined.
I completely agree with your take on the idea that society should openly discuss technologies and decide whether their value is greater than their threat. In fact, I claim that socialism is a system in which decisions are made on the basis of what benefits the society as a whole.
I was a big fan of Mr. Spock. The greatest good for the greatest number, and all that.
Posted by: Chuck Dupree (Belisarius) on November 15, 2005 5:04 AM