Very unfair comparison. Chopra is full of pseudo-scientific bullshit, whereas the Dalai Lama has notably stated that “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
back
2 comments
The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it.
Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion.
Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO.
>The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it.
So does science.
>Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion.
That's a gross simplification. See: Ptolemy and Nicolaus Copernicus.
It was actually "common knowledge" in the scientific community that the Earth was the center of the universe. The popularized issue between Galileo and the Catholic Church (and not just "religion") was largely political. The Catholic Church, to retain power, could not be wrong about anything. If they had been teaching (with scientific backing even!) that the Earth was the center of the universe. That was how it must be.
Galileo wanted to educated people outside of the scientific community that the Earth was not the center. So he had to be silenced, else the Church would be wrong and may lose power.
As early as 300~ B.C.E , there is a reference from Archemedes' book "The Sand Reckoner" of a heliocentric system described by Aristarchus of Samos. [0]
>> "Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion."
Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim.
>> "Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO."
Of course that's your opinion but this is Hacker News, not science news. If your interested in how someone runs a large company it can be relevant to look at religious leaders like the pope of dalai lama as that is essentially what they do and on a bigger scale than any company.
>>Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim.
Everybody believed it due to religion, even when the science described a different reality.
Everybody believed it because of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_mod...
E:
The important takeaway:
"It has been determined, in fact, that the Copernican, Ptolemaic and even the Tychonic models provided identical results to identical inputs. They are computationally equivalent. It wasn't until Kepler demonstrated a physical observation that could show that the physical sun is directly involved in determining an orbit that a new model was required."
Theories can change. That is the nature of science, peer review and new observations. When the science on heliocentricity was developed, religion tried to warp reality as we know it and shove Galileo under a rug. Inevitably, reality won out, but not without cost. See famous story below:
You're conflating the Catholic Church to cover all religions - as well as ignoring the politics behind the Galileo events.
You also seem to believe that Galileo was the creator of the heliocentric model. Please see my other reply. [0]
Buddhism is as close to a science as anything that could be described by anyone as a religion can get. It's really an experiment that you choose to perform on yourself, and your objective reality. What you find is precisely the point of it.
No it's not. Reincarnation is about as fantastic as you can get. Not. Close. To. Science. At. All.
Science isn't about choices. It's about Truth. What is true and what is false isn't a choice.
If you're misinterpreting the concept of reincarnation (the popular meaning of "karma" is just as confused) that badly, it's clear that you haven't looked at the basics of Buddhism. Generally begins with something aptly labeled the "Four Noble Truths". To "choose" to falsify these is ignorance, (the default starting point for everyone born) and subsequently realising that it cannot be done, is the experiment you must do on yourself. There is no one else who can write it down for you to read and then think about it once over and to "get" it like a math theorem is not what you should be expecting. This is more and more obvious once you take a look at the the substantial buddhist writings; all of it is entirely based in solid logical thinking, yet where it points is not a place where logic can go.
To clarify, reincarnation in this context is happening dozens of times every second. So then, "you" don't really last all that long, and there really isn't a constant "you" anyway. And what happens in-between those beats? Ah, look into -that-.
>To clarify, reincarnation in this context is happening dozens of times every second. So then, "you" don't really last all that long, and there really isn't a constant "you" anyway. And what happens in-between those beats? Ah, look into -that-.
Has the alternative been falsified by evidence? Has this process been observed? As complex/beautiful/philosophical/metaphysical as a concept is, it is not Science unless it can be experimentally verified. One can just as easily say that reincarnation is bullshit, and you can't prove otherwise unless you have no evidence.
Science and logic are related but they mean different things. Science requires evidence for falsifiability. Deduction and proof are the domain of logic, not science.
Still. Not. Scientific. At. All.
You're acting like a child who keeps asking "why?" to every statement. Don't stay hung up on "is my idea of reincarnation real, or not?" - because that is just a concept. What's the difference between two trees? What did you bring with you when you were born? Whose mind would be reincarnated? There is no mind - the concept of a mind exists; and there are brains. Science is a concept. Religion is a concept. I never equated them, because what I am describing is not a concept: reality itself is not a concept. Your either/or viewpoint will get you nowhere in these matters: there is no alternative - it is both, and neither; non-dual. I'm telling you that the starting point for this experiment is to look at reality closely, without trying to complicate it by saying it must be this and not be that. It is what it is.
Of course, this makes no sense, because I can't make that step for you. It could take minutes, or years, to get the point. Be instead like the child who sees the order in clouds without labeling them as seeming to be this or that as they move across the sky. The experiment is experiential to the individual; do these things, and expect this result to inevitably occur. Do not these things, and it will not occur. Thousands of years of the same results, and yet you ask for evidence to be produced by others instead of yourself.
Don't misconstrue this as a personal failing - everyone starts from the same confusing position you are expressing. That each individual must overcome this futile attempt at reasoning and thinking their way to liberation is only a problem when you are determined to solve the problem in that way.
Look. Spin a pen or shoot a basket until it can be done without effort or thought - who is it that has learned this? Motor memory, brains dissected and labeled; etc., but all that is useless towards learning or doing. Would it ever be the same to describe how these actions are done with words as it is to do them without words or thoughts? I can spin a pen skillfully for a long time with the simple directive of "don't drop it", and my fingers do it for me. Over time, they avoid actions that did not lead to the desired outcome, moment to moment. When that brain that has learned that action has been dissolved, who would expect it to be innate in a new being? Yet the knowledge of how to do this thing was never mine; it is available to all to use.
There's no reincarnation in Buddhism, only rebirth.
And rebirth happens to you right now when your consciousness arises again and again from previous states of your mind.
Yes, there's also a "fantastic" theory that this process goes beyond physical death but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy.
This is, in my opinion, the correct interpretation of "reincarnation". It's the realisation that your experience (and you!) is changing moment-to-moment, never constant. Being that the self is inconstant, what is self and what is not self can be sorted out. Going beyond that to imply a continuity of the "same" "individual" consciousness after a birth is not the point being made.
>but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy.
but not supported by science.
Science is not an absolute knowledge. It has many unproved theories and makes mistakes on a regular basis.
(Please note that my world view is purely scientific but I'm using buddhist ideas for looking into my consciousness because science doesn't say much about it.)
Religious flamewars are not allowed on HN. There are other places on the internet to conduct generic polemics against religion. Please don't do it here.
I know I'm getting downvoted here, but I don't think I'm being unfair, @Panoramix. Yes, I'm also aware of his statements with regards to science trumping religion. That's a much better position than other religious leaders. Kudos.
But in the meantime, he thinks I should believe stuff unsupported by evidence. Going back to the Pope. If he had made a similar statement as the Dali Lama, that would be a huge step forward, but it doesn't mean I'm going to spend a long time contemplating the "mystery" of the Trinity, even if science can't definitively debunk God. See what I mean?
I'll ask it again, again earnestly. Why should I care about the beliefs of the spiritual leader of a religion I don't subscribe to? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I really want to know. I have not read the Dali Lama's writings. What is so good about them? Right now I think of the Dali Lama as someone famous for being "wise" in a generic sense. He loves talking about compassion. That's great. But that doesn't answer my questions. I am curious for the answers and certainly can be swayed to believe he might have great insights I should pay attention to, but as I said, I haven't read him, and haven't encountered anything in popular culture to make me think that's the case. Present some reasons, please.
Somehow you have jumped from asking why you should care about his daily routine into why you should care about his beliefs. Those are different questions, with different answers.
People have given you reasonable answers to the first question. Take them or leave them. This string of responses telling everyone that the answers still aren't good enough and demanding more... it is making me ask a new question -- why we should care whether you appreciate the Dalai Lama or not?
(BTW, the article answers that question, too.)
The thing is, the basis on meaning in your life is always stuff unsupported by evidence in the scientific sense of the word. You're not going to get very far with reasoning if you can't see the black hole of logical positivism. (My favorite quote from philosophical logic, "self referentially incoherent".)
> Why should I care about the beliefs of the spiritual leader of a religion I don't subscribe to?
That is the whole point.
If you do not share his spiritual beliefs, then you should not care any more or less than any other public person of similar standing. Others have pointed about the worldly achievements of this guy, so... let's say. You should care about as much about him as about any other Nobel laureate.
Now, if you happen to care about him (or the Pope) less than other more secular Nobel laureates... there is a bias you should acknowledge. Not to say that you should not be biased, but you owe to yourself to at least be honest and know why you feel the guy is pointless.
I don't think anyone suggested everybody should or should not care or should or should not believe. It is not a question of need to care but rather one of want to. I also do not subscribe to Buddhism and I am also almost not practicing at all the religion I deeply believe into. Some spiritual discoveries started with turbulent anxious indifference, subsisted by confrontational curiosity.
He is an embodiment of the highest human vales that others can only talk about.