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 The claim of Buddhism's compatibility with science has been an enduring feature of the debate, despite shifts in what both concepts mean

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A compatibility claim that persists across radically shifting definitions of both terms may indicate semantic flexibility rather than genuine doctrinal harmony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When 'Buddhism' can mean anything from Theravada metaphysics to secular mindfulness, and 'science' from Newtonian mechanism to quantum field theory, the claim becomes unfalsifiable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Unfalsifiable compatibility claims are philosophically trivial, as noted in Laudan's critique of demarcation criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Buddhist doctrines such as rebirth, karma as cosmic moral causation, and the existence of non-physical mental continuants make testable empirical predictions that conflict with mainstream neuroscience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Paul Williams and other Buddhist Studies scholars have argued that stripping Buddhism of these metaphysical commitments to achieve scientific compatibility produces a reductio of Buddhist doctrine itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Compatibility has been consistently asserted by Buddhists since the nineteenth century
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The meanings of 'Buddhism' and 'science' have shifted markedly over time
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The compatibility claim persists despite these conceptual shifts
      ?

      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.