Buddhism and the Sciences: Historical Background, Contemporary Developments
- PDF / 442,008 Bytes
- 25 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 65 Downloads / 188 Views
Buddhism and the Sciences: Historical Background, Contemporary Developments Richard K. Payne 1 Accepted: 13 October 2020/ # Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract While discourse on the relation between Christianity and science has a long history, it has only been in the last century that Buddhists and Buddhist scholars have begun to consider the relation between their own religious tradition and the promises and challenges of modern science. This does not mean that there has not been a long history of a relation between Buddhism and the sciences. However, rarely has that relation been conceived of in terms of “discourse on religion and science” as such. As a result, much of the recent work done in the area of science and religion, though significant in its own right, inadequately considers many core Buddhist concerns. Originally published in 1993, this version has been updated with a preface surveying developments over the last three decades. Technology Scientific method . Science as social institution . Interpretation . Secularizing .
Buddhist thought
Preface to “Buddhism and the Sciences” Introduction: Enduring Issues The essay below was written in hopes of contributing to a more productive dialogue between Buddhism and science, and the conviction that a more productive dialogue could be achieved by adding clarity to key ideas in the rhetoric. Dividing the essay into two sections, contemporary developments and historical background, reflects the difference between a dialogue between Buddhism and science, and a dialogue about Buddhism and science. In both cases, distinctions were drawn that can make these dialogues more fruitful. Clarifying the dialogue between Buddhism and science, the contemporary discourse, calls for three different sets of distinctions. First is the distinction between “Science” as an abstraction, and “the sciences” as specific epistemological projects. Second, there * Richard K. Payne [email protected]; https://www.shin–ibs.edu/
1
Institute of Buddhist Studies, at the Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA, USA
Journal of Dharma Studies
are four different rhetorial uses of the term “science.” And third, a distinction between different kinds of materialism. The first distinction actually seeks to set aside vague generalities about “Science” as an undifferentiated whole by shifting the focus to specific sciences. Each of the sciences has their own set of concepts, categories, and concerns, as well as unique histories, methods, and theories. An additional distinction within the sciences is between experimental and observational. This distinction serves to displace the common presumption that the category “science” only properly means experimental sciences. Second, the four different rhetorical uses of the term science point to distinctions that all too often are not made. When we say “science”, it can mean a body of authoritative knowledge, the method for producing such knowledge, a social institution, and a set of practices (on this last, see Latour 1986). The third distinction
Data Loading...
