David Brooks: Science and Buddhism are converging

[grantcart]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13brooks.html?em&ex=1210996800&en=4771d395b62ede84&ei=5087%0A


I really despise Brooks.

Its hard for me to express how much I despise David Brooks because more than any other person he has given intellectual cover for the war in Iraq. By being somewhat sceptical but 'keeping an open mind' he never challenged the premises for the war in Iraq and for the last several years would simply say 'give them 6 more months'.

There fore I was rather surprised to read this article which strongly parallels my own feeling with this conclusion:

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.

clip

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution. It’s going to have big cultural effects.

[Wetzelbill]

1. Brooks is very good sometimes

Like most of the time he writes pretty worded bullshit, but every once in a while, he hits on something very interesting. If he lost Bill Kristol's phone number he could be alright.

[varkam]

2. I think that if everyone lost Kristol's phone number...

the world would be better off, but that's neither here nor there :D

[Wetzelbill]

3. touche'

:toast:

[grantcart]

5. well he surprised me with this article

[Wetzelbill]

6. yeah he does that from time to time

that's for sure. :)

[NewHampshireDem]

4. Hmmm .... interesting ...

I'm curious about your conception of Buddhism. That is, do you conceive of Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy or something else?

I'd like to post my thoughts about what you've written and cited above, but I need some more time to absorb this and formulate them.

[grantcart]

8. Its very difficult to discuss in some ways

Because I know of Buddhism from my Thai side having lived in Thailand for 20 years.

I was theologically trained and found it impossible to explain Christianity in Thai as well.

The idea for example that you call yourself a Buddhist is not something you would really encounter in Thai at all and I simply say I am a Buddhist because it is easier for people to categorize me and I don't want to mislead them but it isn't really the way that I would charachterize myself.

While Buddhism has a center core of beliefs it is not like the Christian Creeds that outline specific core tenets that define what a Christian is - the Holy Trilogy for example or Resurrection.

Buddhism is not a religion in the sense of a Western Monotheistic religion. And yet if you go to a Buddhist Temple the adherents have a much stronger sense of 'the sacred' than can be found in the West. So if you have a strong sense of something that is Sacred then you believe in a higher power and therefore it definitely is a religion. Many people who have studied Buddhism believe that it is not a religion but Buddhists spend as much time or more in prayer.

That higher force is not defined or persued. I find that it reminds me of the early Isrealites primitive version of 'Elohiem' that was distant and powerful.

In any case Buddhists either believe that there is a power or a system that enforces a cosmic system of Karma. It is a force or a force of nature. Buddhists don't call it a god.

In the end Buddhism is a path for truth. There can be no conflict between science and Buddhism. There may be matters that intersect (which makes Brooks article interesting) or matters that have no intersection.

This path for truth is highly individualized. The importance of the Buddha is that he is the one who successfully trailblazed the path first. But he is not a messianic or perfect personality. His path was defined by great failures and excesses until he found a middle way.

The essence of his teaching is that it is necessary to disengage from the emotional, physical and psychological ties of the world to be able to obtain objectivity and a transcendental perspective.

That objectivity of perspectivity teaches us that while we are on our path other people in other religions are on different paths that are very useful for us to study so that we can improve ourselves and our thinking. All religion is seen as good. In the Thai language. for example, Jesus Christ is never, and I mean never ever, addressed as "Jesus" or "Christ" only as Lord Jesus with the same salutation as Lord Buddha (quite a bit different from the local Chinese restaurant that may have a bar in the back called "the Buddha Room", or the nearly universal use of 'Jesus' or 'Christ' as a profane explative - that simply could not be found in Thai. I first became more interested in studying about Buddha so I could be a better Christian. Now I study Christ to be a better Buddhist (which is not very).

Buddhism has certain precepts it has found to be effective guidelines for people to find their own path - these moral precepts of honesty and fidelity and avoidance of temptation are similar to all religions.

At the core of Buddhism however is a stark reality: Life involves suffering. You can reduce suffering but you cannot eliminate it. meditation helps you remove yourself from being consumed by want or temptation - big sources of suffering. Reducing suffering- yours and people in general lies at the center of Buddhism. While slow to violence it you are not expected to give up defending your self but initiating an unnecessary war cannot be justified. I feel comfortable identifying myself as a Buddhist now because I have a community of people that I am happy to identify with who share a similar perspective. I also like being in a religion that finds it impossible to justify well organized violence. There are no sets of circumstances where a society heavily influenced by Buddhism would consider building ovens to exterminate millions of innocent people. While many western/Christian countries have 'the bomb' and many Muslims are proud to have an "Islamic Bomb", and while Israel evidently has one and of course the Secular Religion of Communism has many, if you try and say the words "the Buddhist Bomb" it makes you laugh and sounds like some punchline for an ecclesiastical joke involving a Rabbi, a Priest and a Monk.

We could talk about the sociology of Religion and the similarities of Hindu to Buddhism evolution as compared to Judaism to Christian evolution and so on but I find that there are substantial harmonies between the Christ and the Buddha. The advantage of following Lord Buddha is that all of the miracles and supernatural additions added by the faithful to Lord Buddha are not inherently important to Buddha's message. You can enjoy them as Myth or simply ignore them. You cannot say the same with Christianity. The Resurrection and to a lesser extent The Virgin Birth are essential because they frame the Christology that is most widely accepted in the Church.

So do I consider Buddhism as religion or a philosophy? - yes and no. Do I consider Christianity a philosophy or a religion? yes and no. I for one do not consider the scriptural foundation of The Virgin Birth, Resurrection or other miracles to be particularly well supported in the text. If you strip away all of the supernatural aspects of Christianity away what do you have? A religion or a philosophy?

[NewHampshireDem]

10. Thanks for sharing your insights ...

A couple of my thoughts:

I, too, am often hesitant to call myself a Buddhist for some of the same reasons you are. I find that people often don't know what it means, and even among those who do, it's really about as useful as saying 'I'm a Christian.' There are also sometimes those awkward follow-up questions, to which I usually give decidedly un-Buddhist answers: 'No, I eat meat.' 'No, I don't really sit on a mat and meditate.' 'No, I don't worship anyone.' 'Well, there are only a couple of things I 'believe'.' You probably know how that conversation goes. :shrug:

I guess my reaction to the column you cite is, 'Well, duh!' In a religion/philosophy/belief-set founded on empiricism, of course science is going to be a good fit.

But, then there's the lumping together of Buddhism with other 'religions'. That makes me want to say, 'Well, no!' For me, it isn't the differences between Buddhism and other religions as you've outlined, but rather that other religions have a different set of concerns--or, to put it another way, a totally different paradigm. (Sorry, I know that either says nothing or says so much as to be absolutely not useful.) Scratching the surface of the issue--to me Buddhism is primarily about one's relationship with that which is within, whereas Christianity (I wouldn't presume to speak to other religions) is primarily about one's relationship with that which is out there.

Erm ... like I said, I need more time to think about this. :crazy:

On a related note: Have you read John Burdett's Bangkok books?

http://www.john-burdett.com/literature/

[bananas]

12. There is no Buddhist Bomb, but there is Buddha Palm

(Kung Fu)

[Duppers]

25. You say "There can be no conflict between science and Buddhism"

Yet you state: "In any case Buddhists either believe that there is a power or a system that enforces a cosmic system of Karma."

Science cannot/does not validate such an assumption. Karma is defined as "the law of moral causation." That in and of itself is in conflict with science.

I also disagree that there can be anything called a "Secular Religion."

No offense intended. I like your philosophy. :)

[RainDog]

7. he seems to be saying a whole lot of nothing

what one person wants to call god is what another person would call a state of consciousness if that state is what is required to access this sensation given the noun god.

if someone wants to call something god, they can. science simply notes what occurs physiologically. the "soul" or whatever is not a scientific topic.

[grantcart]

9. what I found interesting is that he is saying that science

seems to be saying that written into our biology is an inherent sense of higher metaphysical reality - that it is as much a part of the cell as the nucleus is.




Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.




and his description of the higher power is very similar to Buddhism




First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.



It seems to parallel Einstein's perspective;


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 spritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. -Albert Einstein

If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. -Albert Einstein

A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compasion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
-Albert Einstein


The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Albert Einstein

[RainDog]

11. yes, you can be buddhist and be atheist

nevertheless, ideas under discussion fall into the realm of quantum physics, don't they? the idea that everything is made up of more nothingness than somethingness. the space between is greater than objects at the atomic level. nothing mystical about that, unless you want to assign a mystical tag to it.

what one person calls an "elevated spiritual state" may be what someone else calls an "altered state." these are tags that fit the way we want to perceive the world.

as far as the idea of the selfish gene and that sort of approach - materialist views of science do not all mean selfish gene at the level of a single individual. Affiliative actions are also viewed as one of many ways to increase the opportunity for one's genes to reproduce. Affiliative behavior, from the work that I saw - and Dimasio isn't someone I would trust as an "expert" - the work notes that such behavior increases based upon relatedness. at a community level, if someone else's existence seems to be tied to ones own, this would also encourage affiliative behavior -- because your survival is enhanced by the other's survival.

Such acknowledgments are the basis for peace, aren't they?

Societies create laws to make it possible for society to exist. Plunder, murder and rape would not be good strategies to create a peaceful society. These may be viewed as moral principals, but they may also be viewed as the means to reproduce, or simply not die.

no god need be present for this sort of thinking to occur.

"transcending boundaries" and "overflowing with love" are chemical experiences in the brain that are part of the response to dopamine. as you note, the brain's responses to these may be monitored or viewed. the result may be reproduced. the emotion is the outcome. Emotions serve to insure our survival. If we didn't love our babies that are born nine months too early to survive, we as a species would be SOL.

These emotions feel good and therefore why wouldn't humans want to experience this? I do not know of one species that seeks to feel bad. I can only determine this, of course, by viewing actions and it seems that animals learn what pain is from painful experiences and don't repeat them when possible -i.e. when they recognize the origin of the pain. do animals seek pleasure? it seems so - if you look at chimps playing with their babies, for instance. ppl reciprocate them. we are a social species. don't lab rats repeat behaviors for rewards?

That issue of fairness - a paranoid schizophrenic, John Nash, was the one messing with game theory who got the bright idea that being totally selfish would insure survival or "balance" in a society, or whatever. The only problem with Nash's theory is that it didn't prove to be true. Rather than acknowledge that the theory was faulty, Nash and colleagues said the subjects were faulty. -- because they were women who decided to cooperate rather than compete to the death. this is an example of bad science that fits an ideological stance - which is something we've seen repeatedly in all areas of society, especially in relation to the female experience of reality.

Is sexism learned? I think it is. Difference in various forms can simply be difference, with no "fear" attached. This is learned, and learned when two beings are not competing for scarce resources - like berries on a bush. There are universal primate experiences, iirc, and those included fear of "others." What creates this "other?" The perception of loss. If chimpanzees have communities in which they are all not related, but in which they cooperate, in hunting, for instance - is this altrusim or is this survival? Is cooperation gain? strength in numbers, you know? Or are the two the same basic idea - group survival and genetic survival, in other words, are not necessarily two different mental or genetic activities.

At the level of physics, yes. We and everything that exists in the universe that we know is made up of matter. What exists beyond this universe is anti-matter, for lack of a better knowledge - or nothingness. The universe is somethingness. Matter is recycled out of the same basic chemical compounds which combine in different ways.

This is truly awe-inspiring, to realize the complexity of the very simple things that make us alive. This does not require any sort of extra-human being in order for someone to experience this, however. It also does not negate a feeling of bliss or oneness or overflowing love.

[grantcart]

15. Yes of course

and if out of our common life we find something is sacred does it matter if it came from some other force or came from our cells?

If it is truthful, without superstition and elevates to a higher moral authority then its source is irrelevent.

[Duppers]

28. well, people tend to 'worship' some 'other force'

And truth is truth.

You said the highest pursuit of buddhism is truth. Therefore, it does matter.

[Duppers]

27. thank you, RainDog.

well put.

[YankeyMCC]

13. Perhaps this is a bit geeky but

...first let me thank you for sharing your thoughts. As an atheist I find I like in Buddhism as a philosophy. And perhaps this interest is spurned by the fact that some of my favorite Science Fiction writers incorporate Buddhist ideas into their stories and your phrase "..higher metaphysical reality" particularly put me in mind of Dan Simmon's Hyperion Cantos story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_cantos

In the second half in particular Simmons introduces the idea of a higher metaphysical plane inhabited by higher intelligences (possibly future incarnations of humanity and the AI's they created or aliens or both). The central characters spend a lot of time on a planet named T'ien Shan and dominated mostly by a transplanted Tibetan Buddhist culture.

There is an interesting article examining the Hyperion novels as an examination of theophany in SF.
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue52/excess.html

[Duppers]

26. can you find the archival source of that first quote?

"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 spritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. -Albert Einstein"

I went through pages of google trying to find a non-religious site that quoted it.

Is sound very much like the often misquote attributed to Einstein: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” He did not say that, even though site after site says that he did.

[charlie]

29. It sometimes seems there's no end to made-up Einstein quotes

Here's a short discussion of WikiQuote's efforts to verify it:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein#Einstein_and_Buddhism:_a_widely-cited_but_spurious_quotation

[Duppers]

31. thank you very much, charlie

really, THANK YOU.

[charlie]

32. Hey Duppers

You're welcome, t'weren't nothing. Tweezing an alpha source out of spaghetti-esque thickets of references is more a matter of luck anymore, one of the banes of the InnerNets.

[cosmik debris]

14. No.

"In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other."

Science is reinforced by adding facts to the equation, not adding superstition.

It has been the dream of every mystic, theist, and woo woo, that some day, science would reinforce their ideas. They twist and torture science to make it look like science is on their side. Just search this forum for mentions of the word "quantum" and you will find a hundred examples.

One of my favorite quotes: It is a poor religion that requires science and a poor science that requires religion. (I don't know the author of that, but if you do know, please share with me.)

[grantcart]

16. If you read the article you will see that this has nothing to do with the

dream of "every mystic, theist, and woo woo".

1) mystic. The impetus is coming from the scientific community that according to the literature he has read that the science is suggesting that there is a link - not the Buddhists.

2) theist - well nothing shows more clearly that you jumped at the headline and did not read the article because the article undermines theism and in the author's point of view will provide a challenge to theistic philosophy in the future as more science is done.

3) woo woo. If this is a reference to light headed wishful thinking people who are not serious thinkers then you can go up thread and read Einstein's points on Buddhism.

4) 'No'. In any question of metaphysics such a definitive statement has to be understood as a statement of faith.

[cosmik debris]

17. No.

I rebutted one sentence.

"In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other."

I rebutted it with this statement: "Science is reinforced by adding facts to the equation, not adding superstition."

My editorial comment about "every mystic, theist, and woo woo" was intended to put my rebuttal in historical context. Since you did not comment on my rebuttal, I can only guess that you have a problem with the historical context. If you had searched the religion forum for scientific references you would see that I was correct.

And, by the way, "No" is not a statement of faith, it is a statement of disagreement. I don't know who made up that rule that you want to dictate to me, but I don't feel any compulsion to follow your rules. You don't get to define "No" narrowly just to suit your argument. You are not the semantic police.

[grantcart]

19. definitive statements in areas of metaphysics are by definition statements of

a subjective understanding of them, even if they are the most logical like; there is no god. There is no objective proof of that it is a logical statement but cannot be considered an objective statement. You are simply arguing your understanding of a metaphysical that appears to be more logical but than cannot be proven in an objective sense.

Your attack on the mystics is odd because the article is focused on what scientists and researchers are doing not mystics.

How is putting into context what odd ball mystics may have done in the past relevant to a discussion of what scientists and researchers are finding?

[cosmik debris]

20. What part of "no" do you not understand?

No
adv.
1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I'm not going. No, you're wrong.
2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more.
3. Not: whether or no.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/No

I did not just pick on oddball mystics. I included all who replace fact with faith and look to science to support their substitution.

That seems to be exactly what the researchers are doing. They have assumed (without evidence) the existence of some metaphysical thing. And they look for any evidence that will support that assumption. (maybe this is a good time for a refresher course in the scientific method)

And by the way, there is no testable evidence for metaphysics so there is no logical argument in favor of metaphysics. Ergo, any argument with testable evidence is more logical than no argument at all.

[Evoman]

18. Holy shit. How did we get from a brain scan to "respect for elevated spiritual states?"

Of course "transcendent states" can be measured. Every state of mind..anger, sadness, concentration, horniness from looking as lesbian porno, has some effect on your brain. Otherwise, that state of mind wouldn't exist. Make yourself angry with certain thoughts, your changing your brain chemistry and lighting up certain areas. Meditate, and your obviously changing your brain in other ways. Neuroscience is interesting, don't get me wrong.

But none of that means anything spiritually. It doesn't back up any of the mystical bullshit buddhists are peddling. Talk about making mountains from mole hills. In fact, to me, it shows the complete opposite of this bullshit...it shows a biological basis for all those "feelings of transendence" your getting; i.e. your soul is not leaving your body, your brain is just making you think it is.

[Disturbed]

21. Is the human brain still the most advanced computer on this

Planet?

[cosmik debris]

22. Do you believe the brain operates like a computer?

Or that a computer operates like the brain?

(hint: the comparison only works for generalizations, not for specific functions.)

[cyborg_jim]

23. It seems like a lot of people - scientists included - haven't quite grapsed the basic idea

You get to invent new entities only when, upon some change, some phenomena occurs that is not covered by an existing entity.

Conversly when some phenomena is covered by existing entities one should seek to remove extraneous entities that seek to explain it.

In this case the only valid reason for postulating a "spirtual" entity would be under the case where there is no observable change in the brain that relates to the "transcendent state". Otherwise it is coverable by the existing entities that explain all other states.

[Evoman]

30. EXACTLY.

Even in your scenario, it wouldn't be a valid reason. Even if there was no observable change immediately in the brain, you should *gasp* look for other natural causes before you start getting loony and positing weird-ass spiritual mumbo jumbo. But if your looking at a fucking scan that basically tells you that their is a physical reaction that EXPLAINS your fucking "state"....ugh.

[Duppers]

24. They're not the same, nor can they reach the same conclusions

(Edited since reading grantcart's post 4 up-stream.)

Scientists usually arrive at the conclusion that all existence is not 'supernatural' but that the 'natural is super'. :+
I think that is what Einstein was alluding to.


Seriously, science's and Buddism's epistemologies are entirely different. When forming conclusions, one is about emotions and the other is not.