Alan Brush's Articles on Lions Roar

Science journalist James Hrynyshyn, in a blog post, asserts his firm belief that science and religion "simply cannot be reconciled." Even the Dalai Lama's famous quote, "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change," fails to make a dent in Hyrnyshyn's belief, as he airily suggests that the Dalai Lama "may not have thought this through." Hyrnyshyn insists that the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation, regardless of what the Dalai Lama says, is irreconcilable with science. He appears to assume that this doctrine is essentially no more sophisticated than the common western (new age) notion of reincarnation. That's like refuting the Christian belief in God by assuming that it's no more than some idea about a big guy in the sky with a white beard and a thunderous voice. A serious critic has to do better. Why should anyone consider the possibility that the Dalai Lama knows what he's talking about? Well, aside from his international stature as a leader and scholar, his long history of engagement with scientists, his many writings*, and his Nobel Peace Prize, as well as Hyrnyshyn's judgment that he is a "nice guy," the Dalai Lama is supported by many centuries of highly skilled empirical research in the Buddhist meditative tradition. On the other hand, one can note the historical reluctance of western science to engage in subjective research on the mind. Looking at the different strengths of both traditions, we can see at least that reconciliation at some point is far from being ruled out. Rather than looking at the same things differently, they have been looking at different things. Personally, I have one foot firmly in each camp. I see many questions, but no direct conflict. What do you think?

Do science and Buddhism agree on the idea of character?

Is reincarnation irreconcilable with science?

TEACHINGS

LIFE

EXPLORE BUDDHISM

NEWS