Ask Dan Goleman
Monday November 20, 2006
Do you have a knotty problem that you are just burning to put to a psychologist and behavioural scientist with decidedly Buddhist inclinations? If so, scuttle on over to the Tricycle and ask Dan Goleman a question. As members of the public you can ask your own question, comment on the questions of others, and vote on the question that you want answered most. At the end of the month, the top three questions will get a more substantial response.
Having been told about this by the friendly folks at Tricycle, I went on over and posted a question this morning. The topic upon which questions were invited was Buddhism and social intelligence, but I couldn’t help stretching it a bit to ask about something that particularly interests me – the question of the relationship between Buddhism and science. This is often talked about as a “dialogue”, (although I am a little uneasy about the language of “dialogue” for reasons I’ll try to explore in a future post), but dialogue is about more than having a cosy chat: to engage in dialogue is to risk your own position being called into question, and even undermined. So my question to Dan Goleman was this:
You are an advocate of dialogue between Buddhism and science. For true dialogue either partner must in principle be capable of relinquishing some of its former beliefs. How do you think both Buddhism and science may be transformed by this encounter?
What this means is that both Buddhism and science must be capable in principle of transformation for there to be true dialogue. However there is, I think, a kind of imbalance here. In such a dialogue, I can’t help thinking that it is Buddhism that must undergo the greatest transformation, and not science. The reason for this is simple, and is related to my previous post on Dan Dennett’s call for a scientific study of religion. Whilst I am not sure that Buddhism can really engage with this dialogue and keep its character as Buddhism, I think that science – although it may through such a dialogue discover all manner of new and interesting things – can keep its character as science through this dialogue. This is simply because as a system science has a commitment to that which is in principle testable, whilst religion does not.
Let me put it like this: either Buddhist beliefs and practices can be seen to be supported by genuine effects within the world (and where else could such effects be found?), in which case they can be investigated by the natural sciences; or else they are really of not very much interest, on the grounds that which is of human interest, in the end, is precisely that which does have an an effect in the world.
Anyway, if you want to see what Dan Goleman has to say on this, you can always go over to the Tricycle site and vote for my question. Or you can ask your own. Or you can vote for another question that is much more interesting and relevant than the one I’ve asked. It’s up to you! When our friend Mr. Goleman comes up with some answers, whatever the questions, I’ll post again here on thinkBuddha.
i have a science test this wednesday.I want to ask how to separate copper cloride form salt in a jar of water?And what equipment should i use.Plz try to answer my question ask soon as possible.
Hello, Zunaira, I’m not sure I can be of much help. This is a site for Buddhism and philosophy, not chemistry. But good luck in the test.
Will
I am continually bemused by the insistence of religious people on a “dialogue” with “science,” whether it be as you described above or the silly intelligent design issue. It is so clearly an attempt to gain credence by hanging around with those who have it already.
Science is about things that can be measured, tested, described precisely, and tested again in repeatable experiments. Religion is about the transcendent at least (if not the imaginary). The two have no common ground. Apples and oranges are more similar, by far. Scientists would fare better, indeed, as they have rational material to discuss. Religious, on the other hand, can only talk about perceptions and legend. That is not to say that religion has no value or validity, but simply that it has no common ground with science on which any sensible dialogue can be based.
My attraction to Buddhism was because of its foundation in the Four Noble Truths, which are self-sustaining through pure logic, and one of its (minor) continuing annoyances is the seeming need of its adherents to graft onto it all manner of unnecessary (to my mind) trappings. It’s as if the basics were too simple—or too difficult—and a bunch of mystical stuff is necessary to render it more dignified (or provide an easier path). To the extent that a dialogue with scientists remains within the logical matrix, I believe it could be beneficial—at least to the scientists. Whether any data useful to practitioners would result is an open question.
Still, we won’t know if we don’t try.
In many ways you are right, I think Bill. As I said, I am uncertain about the idea of “dialogue”, although I myself used the term. For example when asked about intelligent design, the Dalai Lama called for “dialogue”, but this seems to miss the point.
I’m more interested in what might be called the process of naturalising Buddhism. For me, taking Buddhism as a system of human practice rather than a religion, I am certainly interested in putting such practice within the context of understandings from the sciences. But this isn’t exactly dialogue.
All the best,
Will
Isn’t Buddhism ultimately about attaining Enlightenment? And isn’t Enlightenment the shattering of ALL our views?
— Sam · Nov 29, 01:07 PM · #
