Talk:Buddhism and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Buddhism and science, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Einstein and Buddhism: a widely-cited but spurious quotation

1) Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. and 2) Buddhism is the only religion able to cope with modern scientific needs – Einstein

As a Buddhist and physicist myself, I'd be delighted if this very widely-cited quote really could be attributed to Einstein, but regrettably there is no evidence that it can. It sometimes appears with a reference to Albert Einstein: The Human Side (Princeton University Press, 1954), but there is never a page reference - for the simple reason that the quote does not appear anywhere in that book.

I have personally discussed the reliability of this quote with Einstein scholars (including John Stachel at Boston U, and founding editor of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein), and with the authors of compilations of Einstein quotations (Thomas J. McFarlane, author of Buddha and Einstein: The Parallel Sayings and Alice Calaprice, author of The New Quotable Einstein) - none of whom cite it. In short, neither they nor I know of any evidence that Einstein delivered a speech containing this quote.

Of course, anyone who had unearthed a reliable citation shouldn't hesitate to reinstate the quote - and to inform these scholars, all of whom would be delighted to know about it (as would I)!. Robma 09:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I presume the putative quotes above (that I posted from your deletion) are what you are referring to. Does anyone know where one or both came from? Einstein's spirituality was most influenced by Spinoza, according to Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion (1999, Princeton, ISBN 0691006997) I find no references by Einstein to Buddhism in that volume, which I believe is the most comprehensive examination to date of Einstein's spiritual writings. Of course, Spinoza's and Einstein's "God" was impersonal (non-theistic rather than atheistic), so there are some points of congruence with Buddhism. --Blainster 08:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times Magazine 1930 quote

Buddhism "contains a much stronger element of [the cosmic religious feeling, by which] the religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished – Einstein

The quote listed in the article is stitched together from three different sentences. What he actually wrote was, "The beginnings of cosmic religious feelings already appear at an early stage of development, e.g. in the early Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned from Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling." - so he evidently came by his knowledge of Buddhism through Schopenhauer. --Blainster 09:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks v much for digging this out. I'd argue that the quote as used in the main piece contains such a clunky parenthetical insert that it at best it should be replaced by something closer to what you've given here. I'd actually go further and say that as we seem to be quoting E's view of what Schopenhauer thought of Buddhism, and Schopenhauer's views of Buddhism are notoriously unreliable, the link with science, Buddhism and this Einstein quote is getting pretty thin (effectively a Chinese whisper) and might be better being put elsewhere in this entry. What do you think ? Robma 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I put the paraphrase in the article myself, to indicate that although the actual quote cited on many Buddhist websites (and previously in this article) is incorrect, Einstein did hold that sort of opinion about Buddhism, although he obviously wasn't very interested or he would have looked beyond Schopenhauer. Ashibaka tock 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not exactly neutral

I removed the following statement list from the intro:

"in psychology and studies of consciousness, as well as occasional applications to evolution, quantum theory, and cosmology"

While I know that scientists have said that Buddhism allows for fresh insights, I have yet to see a claim where Buddhism has actually affected these fields. It also seems to be a hodge-podge assemblage of fields that may be of interest to the Buddhist, but most scientists do not look to Buddhism to provide the "insights" in their work though other parts of their lives may be better complemented by Buddhism's hands-off approach to objectification. --ScienceApologist 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The original statement did not claim to identify areas which have been affected by Buddhist input, but simply stated specific areas of science where some scientists have said Buddhism can offer insight. Certainly they may seem like a "hodge-podge" assemblage of fields, but those specified are the subject of the various refereed papers and books cited at the end of the entry. As such, I'd argue they constitute NPOV information of value to disinterested users. Robma 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Which scientists said that Buddhism offers insight into quantum theory? --ScienceApologist 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
A good starting point for finding out which scientists believe Buddhism offers insights into quantum theory and various other fields is Buddhism and Science: Breaking new ground(Columbia Univ Press 2003)". By the way, isn't an NPOV dispute a bit heavy-handed for an entry which (as far as I can see) makes the rather weak claim that _some_ scientists suggest Buddhism may be useful in offering "insights" ? But perhaps there are other statements that have prompted it ? I certainly feel increasingly unhappy with the direction the entry is taking....Robma 09:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I do know that there are many people who claim that their forms of Buddhism are useful to science, but I haven't read any papers or textbooks in quantum mechanics that make such references. --ScienceApologist 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but at the risk of being repetitive, no-one contributing to this entry has claimed anything more than that _some_ scientists have said Buddhism may be useful. Again, I don't really see what is non-NPOV about all this. For example, I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't find a claim on (say) a Christianity-related page that "Some Christians claim to get benefit from their belief" consistutes a non-NPOV Robma 17:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If this is the case, then please provide a citation to a scientist who says as much. Some scientists are Buddhists. Do these scientists claim that Buddhism helps their research? --ScienceApologist 19:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein collaboration

Not substantiated by Einstein's writings and based on a single conversation. I don't think this is worthy of mention. Einstein conversed with many people. --ScienceApologist 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an article he published, not a letter. Ashibaka tock 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppenheimer

While interested in the Gita and Indian religion, never commented on Buddhism directly. Not worthy of mention in this article, therefore. --ScienceApologist 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

216 seems to be under the belief that Buddhism is merely a sect of Hinduism. I am giving up for now, hopefully he'll go away eventually. Ashibaka tock 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism, but it is connected and these scientists studied all of it, they studied Buddhism and Vedic tradition, and they combined it. Now do you just want to pull out Buddhist elements?
It is not clear from Oppenheimer's writings that he was interested in Buddhism. If you find a source that points to Oppenheimer speaking about Buddhism, per se, please let us know. --ScienceApologist 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
amazing, it's in the next section "scientists specifically mentioning Buddhism". Wow, no wonder you suck at editing, you don't read.
Please, 216, read the guidelines on no personal attacks. We're just a bunch of people editting an encyclopedia from various backgrounds. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the reason that quote from Oppenheimer is still in the article is because it deals specifically with Buddhism. The quotes you were trying to include did not. --ScienceApologist 19:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, it is quite apparent that science seems to be a religion for you that blinds you to the fact that most of these scientists were influenced with the eastern thought of the time.

My personal opinions (which you haven't fingered, I'm afraid) are irrelevant to the task at hand which is making an encyclopedia that is verifiable, neutral, and well-cited. Many of the edits you have made fail these criteria. I encourage you to read through these guidelines and policies of Wikipedia and see if you can pick out the problems. --ScienceApologist 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

you were simply confrontational. I was simply providing sources and you kept on repeating the claim similar to "well there is no evidence that there was any deep influence of eastern philosophy on said scientists". Had you deleated that section, I wouldn't have bothered constantly putting in all the references. I simply provided enough references to prove otherwise. No hard feelings.

Frankly, you failed as you put in your personal opinions without research into the histories and biographies of these scientists.

216, you can sign your responses by placing ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Also, you can indent paragraphs using strings of : at the beginning. --ScienceApologist 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point-Of-View

I attempted to make the the discussion of the influence of Buddhism on quantum mechanics neutral. While it's true that certain scientific luminaries commented from time-to-time on Buddhism/Eastern philosophy, we need to be very careful to prevent people from getting the impression that quantum mechanics is either based on Buddhism or that they share more than superficial similarities. In particular, claims of various authors (Deepak Chopra comes to mind) that science is only properly understood through the lens of Eastern thought is definitely not a perspective shared by most physicists. --ScienceApologist 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

we are talking about the realm of ideas and the influence of many ideas and the CLARIFICATION of concepts which Heisenberg and Bohr clearly pointed out. I hardly find your writing to be "unbiased" since you are denying verifiable quotes in favor of your unverifiable opinions.
I don't think it is helpful to include quotes from one famous scientist or another, except to corroborate the fake Einstein quote which floats around. As an analogy, we could include a quote from Werner Von Braun supporting Creationism on the Creationism page, but it wouldn't enlighten anyone about the relationship between science and Creationism. I think it is better to discuss specific examples of science working with Buddhism in this article, and move all the quotes to Wikiquote. Ashibaka tock 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that our friend joshua is really interested in being helpful--F.O.E. 06:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The relationship between study of Buddhism and quantum mechanics

While people do see parallels as in What the Bleep Do We Know, I'm fairly certain that the primary opinion of the mainstream scientific community as that this kind of analysis represents junk science. What do other editors think? --ScienceApologist 15:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, that movie was totally hokey. Ashibaka tock 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible inaccuracy

"Niels Bohr who developed the presently accepted model of the atom together with Ernest Rutherford says," I'm not a physicist, but isn't the currently accepted model of the atom based off of Erwin Schrodinger's model? Rapidflash 05:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Schrodinger discovered the equation which governs the evolution of quantum systems over time. It was Bohr who produced the first quantum theoretical model of the atom. 90.205.92.249 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Want reference on Bertrand Russell's Quote

So far,I have read many Bertrand Russell's book but didn't see this quote on article page. Anyone can find reference on this quote?

Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of interest as: 'What is mind and matter? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the universe moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is noble?' It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind. 202.80.255.227 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles like this unfortunately demonstrate the weakness at the core of the Wikipedia project.

This article is so bad I nearly fell off my chair reading it. I am done with Wikipedia. 90.205.92.249 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I often fall victim to perfectionism too. When I start an article, I want it to be perfect from the start: fully cited and researched. Can create a kind of writers block for me sometimes though. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)