Buddhism and the Question of Faith and Science

I have come across a surprising amount of conversations regarding faith and science lately, almost all laced with elements of tension if not outright heated arguments. It is difficult to get one's ideas out in such a conversation as both sides have already decided  their position; instead of a consensus of resolution being sought in cooperative effort both sides are just trying to win an argument. One conversation that has become as relevant as it is troublesome for me is whether or not Buddhism is scientific.

I certainly don't have all the answers and am often wrong. In an academic environment, I am proved wrong almost daily. I say this without shame for a few reasons. First, I have just started publishing, 2 conference papers so far, and have much to learn. Secondly, no matter how many papers I publish I will have much to learn. Thirdly, any good academic is proved wrong almost daily. This being said, I have decided to post a quick introduction of my thoughts on the matter regarding Buddhism and science.

This is a very brief look into my thoughts, but I believe it is important that I make this public, as much as possible. One particular conversation prompted me to post this as the tides of patience turned when someone insisted that Buddhism was not only scientific, but a science itself. I had heard this statement before and read a couple papers on it, but never took it very seriously, I will explain why below, but something said in this particular conversation concerned me. It was proposed that, even though some elements of Buddhist belief are not based in science it is still not only scientific but an actual science.

The conversation began as it normally does, someone says Buddhism is scientific, and I respond that some elements are but not all. Sometimes people will agree, sometimes not, I am very used to this conversation as it is quite common. However, this particular one took an unexpected turn when the person agreed that not all elements of Buddhist belief are rooted in the scientific method and then said "Nevertheless it is still a science." I am still unsure how to respond to this statement, but it did serve as the catalyst for this post.

Many people will disagree with what I am going to say, many will agree (though few people read this blog). That being said, I am always open to dialogue. Serious study of what the Buddha said is my life's work, and I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong within intelligent discourse that is attempting to find the truth of the Buddha's words instead of a debate about who is correct.

Instead of responding to the statement, "Even though there are aspects of Buddhist belief that are unscientific, it is still a science", I will respond to the statement, "Buddhism is a science". Again, this is a very brief summary of my views and this post is in no way trying to resolve any issues nor mimic an academic paper. It is just my clumsy attempt at making these views public, as far as this blog is able.

When faced with the statement. "Buddhism is a science", one needs to understand what exactly Buddhism and science are.

Buddhism, though it has a surprising amount of emphasis on empiricism and reason for a religion, is structured around a framework of absolute truth that any believer most hold in order for many teachings to make sense. For brevity, I will use only one example of these absolute truths, rebirth. If one does not hold that reincarnation is true, then the teachings of kamma and rebirth don't make sense and are at best a myth (though the teachings are very clear that this relation of cause and effect between action and birth is not only essential to the understanding of existence, but an actuality ). If one does not hold that reincarnation is true, then the idea of nibbana is nonsense. There can be no state of non-rebirth if there is no state of rebirth. If one does not hold that rebirth is true then the idea of past lives is ridiculous. The results of past kamma from past lives being experienced in this present life are dependent upon there being past lives. There are many more examples of these absolute truths the  Buddha builds upon in his teachings, but I will leave those for future discussion.

This is where many people will say that rebirth can be tested by science, if not now, then in the future. Here is my response to that.

Science is a field of study that uses the scientific method. It is a study that leads to a belief in how the world functions and exists based on induction. One critical element of science is that it must always assume that it may be wrong, no matter how insignificant the chances are, science must be prepared to be proven wrong. That means two things, what is tested by science must be falsifiable and the result of the test must never be absolute.

Continuing with reincarnation as the example; rebirth is not presented as a phenomenon that is falsifiable in the teachings. If science were to somehow test rebirth in the future, from a Buddhist perspective, then the premise of the test would be something that exists absolutely and could not be falsified. Another important point is that things that may or may not be tested by science in the future can not be used in an argument as if those things ARE scientific.

Secondly, let's say reincarnation happened to be tested by unbiased scientists and the results were favorable that rebirth is an actuality of existence. These findings would be unusable by Buddhists for proof of their faith as it would be making the findings an absolute truth. Remember, any findings made by science must allow for the chance to be disproven.

This summary of my views is really nothing more than a comparison of what science is and what Buddhism requires a practitioner to hold as truth, and the conclusion is that they are incompatible in many ways. I am not saying Buddhism doesn't have qualities of reason and empiricism,  I have devoted my life to Buddhism in part because of this. What I am saying is that the qualities of reason and empiricism exist within a framework of absolute truths that are foundational for the teachings of the Buddha. The teachings must be understood in relation to these truths. At some point, the practitioner must make a decision from a position of faith that transcends the realm of scientific observation,  and hold these  truths as unfalsifiable and absolute certainties. Yes, I said faith, as I believe the Buddha said as well.

I welcome criticism. I welcome dialogue. I welcome the chance to be proved wrong. What I don't welcome is more debates where cooperation and respect  fall to the waist side and winning an argument becomes more important than an active search for what the Buddha said.