Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Buddhism is compatible with science

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Buddhism posits robust metaphysical commitments—karma, rebirth, and the causal efficacy of mental states across lives—that lack scientific warrant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The compatibility thesis selectively emphasizes Buddhist epistemology while bracketing doctrines that are empirically substantive and falsifiable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A religion cannot be deemed compatible with science only by exempting its core metaphysical claims from scientific scrutiny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The supporting argument conflates absence of theism with absence of metaphysical commitence, which is a non-sequitur—non-theistic ontologies can still clash with naturalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Philosophers such as Paul Williams and scholars in the Madhyamaka tradition demonstrate that Buddhist ontology (e.g., the two-truths doctrine, dependent origination) makes revisionary claims about causation and mind that are not simply neutral with respect to physicalist science.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Buddhism does not require belief in metaphysically substantive entities such as God, the soul, or the self
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scientific claims do not conflict with religions that lack commitments to such metaphysical entities
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Christianity, by contrast, does require belief in such entities and is therefore more in tension with science
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.