One of the more intriguing collaborations that I have found is between neuroscientists and monks. I first heard about this partnership when reading The Art of Happiness by the Dalia Lama. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddism and one could argue for all Budhhists in the world, has chosen to embrace the science community. He became one of the cofounders of the Mind and Life Institute in 1987, along with a neuroscientist and entrepreneur. The organization's purpose is to promote dialogue and collaborative research between science and Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama has actively encouraged monks and scientists to work together to study meditation. Neuroscientists have been interested in understanding what happens to the brain during meditation and how the brains of monks, who meditate on average 10 hours a day, may differ from those of non-monks. Many studies have shown that training the mind through meditation can in fact change the brain (i.e. neuroplasticity). Click here and here for some articles that discuss some of these findings.
In his book, The Universe in a Single Atom, the Dalai Lama looks at how scientific inquiry and Buddhism both have the objective to understand the nature of reality through critical investigation. While there are some central disagreements such as science's rejection of reincarnation and the Dalai Lama's rejection that consciousness is a combination of chemical reactions, the Dalai Lama seems unthreatened. In fact, he even goes as far to say that if science disproves Buddhism, then Buddhists must accept the findings. Listen to or read this this NPR piece on about the controversy over Dalai Lama, a nonscientist, addressing neuroscientists about the neuroscience of meditation.
Do you think these two worldviews be combined/united? Ultimately, I think both models show a strong overlap but use a different language and framework to describe the world. In any case, it is nice for a change to see religion and science, two diametrically opposed fields, taking a moment to learn from one another.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Ooh-- Buddhism as a "pseudoscience" is a big one to throw down. Are you equating all religion as "pseudoscience", or just Buddhism? Perhaps "metaphysics" would be a better choice of word...
Typo in the first sentence of the final paragraph ("can be united").
I want to compare your comments on meditation and neuroscience with the research on medical studies of prayer (such as this and this).
The scientific examination of both prayer and meditation is not necessarily a compromise of faith -- if indeed Buddhism seeks answers beyond the observable, than certainly it can accept truths from the examination of the observable, when they are available. The Dalai seems to agree with this.
Scientists and philosophers (religious and otherwise) are all looking for answers. But sometimes, it's not the how, but the why. Why argue over evolution, when it is clear that biodiversity is beautiful and worth preserving? Why debate prayer and meditation, when they are held already dear to the hearts of those who believe in them, and no technician can dissuade them otherwise. Besides, let the scientists taken on the burden of the "search for physical truth" -- they're the ones who want to know the "how" anyway! :)
For another take on the intersection of science and philosophy, see this latest article from The Economist on quantum physics and logic. I still don't get all of it, but you get the gist at least...
Ben,
Thanks for adding your perspective. I agree my use of pseudoscience was not appropriate.
Post a Comment