Talk:Buddhism and science

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)

Perhaps these will help address the confusion above:

1.) "When faced with ethical or moral issues which, as in the field of genetics, are becoming ever more pressing, science needs the help of spirituality in order not to forget our humanity. Einstein expresses admirably that need for the union of science and spirituality: 'The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It will have to transcend a personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Encompassing both the natural and the spiritual, it will have to be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, considered as a meaningful unity. . . . Buddhism answers this description. . . . If there is any religion that could respond to the needs of modern scientific, it would be Buddhism.'" Source: "Why the Science and Religion Dialogue Matters: Voices from the International Society for Science and Religion" By Fraser Watts, Kevin Dutton, International Society for Science and Religion Published by Templeton Foundation Press, 2006, p.118

2.) “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....” -- Albert Einstein, quoted in Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists (1982) vol. ii., p. 29

3.) "...a brief piece entitled 'Religion and Science,' first published in the New York Times Sunday Magazine for 9 November 1930...Einstein explains: ...The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development,... Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. (Einstein 1930, 38)" - The cosmos of science: essays of exploration, By John Earman, John D. Norton, Edition: reprint, illustrated Published by Univ of Pittsburgh Press, 1998, p.96

4.) In reference to Romba's personal discussion with John Stachel, please note that only "the first two volumes (out of a projected twenty-five) of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein were published during his tenure (as referenced by wikipedia and me looking up the first 10 volumes)." Volume 1, covers The Early Years, 1879- 1902, and Volume 2, The Swiss Years, from 1900-1909. Considering that Volume 2 has 696 pages and only covered nine years and also considering Einstein died in 1955, I'd put my conclusion on until the other volumes, as well as other misc. collections, are reviewed. --Stylus72 (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I removed it. If a reference can be found, then someone can put it back up. Otherwise a quote like that shouldn't be on the page.74.5.67.65 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Found a ref. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

I would like to comment, though, that I think it's a more modern, Western viewpoint that Buddhism is completely rational and logical at its core, and that superstitious or devotional aspects of Buddhism are unnecessary trappings that are fine overlooking. It might be well suited if we also consider that Buddhism is very rich and has many aspects, and though folks in the West are finding contemplative Buddhist forms or madhyamaka philosophy compatible with modern thoughts on quantum physics that doesn't mean that all Buddhist viewpoints are all that compatible with modern science - in my opinion. It could be more of a Western invention or reinterpretation of Buddhism really. Or another example of how Buddhism transmutes into a new culture, as much as a statement about its underpinnings. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I mean: buddhist tube video about the supernatural - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just got dressed down with this comment concerning my changes: reverted unhelpful, stilted, combative edits by owlmonkey by Langdell (talk · contribs), can you explain what specifically you had problems with? I'm also really curious what constitutes as combative. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of the problems with the version that you reverted to, itemized:

• "Buddhism and science are generally considered to be compatible with each other." - by whom exactly? where is the citation and attribution?
• "Buddhism, eschewing dogmatism, remains neutral on the subject of the supernatural and is open to scientific discoveries." - not all lineages and traditions of buddhism eschew dogmatism or superstition, it's a darn diverse tradition and there is a TON of superstition
• "most scientists see a separation between the religious and metaphysical statements of Buddhism" - who exactly? what is this referring to really? ontological statements in the mahayana sutras?
• Goenka's views on secularism are not universal, they need to be attributed to him specifically when mentioned.
• the structure of the article was haphazard in my opinion

You'll find most of my changes are structural though, and I preferred to tag things than outright delete them. I'm a fan of dialog, let's talk about them here instead of just reverting en masse. Did you have a problem with 'every' structural reordering that I made as well? - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Question, were the structural changes (moving content up or down or reordering things) problematic for you? Were my changes to the WP:LEAD paragraph? Which specific things were combative, stilted, and unhelpful to you? I'm only volunteering here with the intention to be helpful. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you also editing under 81.109.11.33 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)? If so then I should address some of your specific additions as well, not to be polemic but why I weighed in on some of the statements. You added:

• "pure science of mind and matter" is the point of view of Goenka, which is fine, it just needs to be attributed to him.
• Dhamma vicaya is part of the pali canon's view on how one progresses, but not all traditions characterize things that way. i don't want to get into an argument about whether the pali canon is the authentic teachings of buddhism, i'm referring to buddhism here as the full extant of how it is viewed and practiced as opposed to an idealized viewpoint. and I think we need to treat Buddhism that way here.
• eschewing dogmatism. I agree many lineages of buddhism eschew dogmatism and there are teachings that defend against dogmatism, but I think it's false to say that in the full extant of Buddhism no practitioners are fundamentalist. Sri Lanka has examples and I added a citation for that. Japan and China I believe have examples of more fundamentalist interpretations of Buddhism and here I view fundamentalism as an example of dogmatism, perhaps we could discuss that if you disagree.

Also, with respect to Buddhism's analytics and evolved philosophic views — especially in the mahayana lineages — forms Hinduism and Jainism have the same kind of analytic rigor in philosophy, metaphysic, and psychology. It's arguable that buddhism has those elements primarily because there was such a rich dialog and ongoing debate between the schools in India in the first millennium. So I'm not sure we should credit Buddhism for those features as inherent to Buddhism, but something that evolved over time in the later incarnations of Buddhism. See Dignaga and Dharmakirti for example. Their logical contributions were a later addition and revolutionary in my opinion. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

More Citations

I'm going to slowly research the topic more from an academic viewpoint, as opposed to the view of buddhist teachers. Here are some citation ideas for everyone's review:

• Abe, Masao (1985) Zen and Western Thought Edited by William R. LaFleur. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press - In this one Abe proposes that Buddhism and Science are fairly compatible
• Austin, James H. (1998) Zen and the Brain Cambridge, MA: MIT Press - This book also proposes that there is much synnergy between buddhism and science
• Fair, Frank (2005) Buddhism, Christianity, and Modern Science: A Response to Masao Abe Buddhist-Christian Studies 25 (2005) pp.67-74 - This response by philosopher Frank Fair to Masao Abe's earlier article is quite interesting. His main disagreement is around the notion of "karma", which he thinks is ultimately incompatible with science and he's unclear if Buddhism will be able to change in the 21st century to remove some of the classic interpretations of "karma".
• Snodgrass, Judith. (2007) Defining Modern Buddhism: Mr. and Mrs. Rhys Davids and the Pāli Text Society Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East - Volume 27, Number 1, 2007, pp. 186-202

any other suggestions? I'll look for more good ones. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You may also find reliable critical references from the Actual Freedom webpage. - Nearfar (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism and physics section

Who are the people mentioned? Why are their views notable? This absolutist conception of shunyata is not mainstream. On this topic see Richard King's "Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism," chapter 3. Mitsube (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea. Please feel free to remove them if you feel up for fixing the section or others here. This article is orphaned and in need of TLC. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The section seemed to contain pseudo-science from non-reliable sources promoting a non-orthodox view of shunyata together with a partial rebuttal of the latter view. It is not very intelligible or encyclopedic and I have removed it. Mitsube (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)