Is Dharma compatible with science?

[RedLantern]

One reason why the Dharma can easily be embraced by the scientific spirit is that the Buddha never encouraged rigid ,dogmatic belief.He did not claim to base His Teachings on faith belief or divine relevation,but allowed great flexibility and freedom of thought.
The second reason is that the scientific spirit can itself be found in the Buddha's approach to Spiritual Truth.
The Buddha's method for discovering and testing Spiritual Truth is very similar to that of the scientist.A scientist observes the external world objectively and would only establish a scientific theory after conducting many successful practical experiments.
Using a similar approach,twenty five centuries ago,the Buddha observed the reality with detachment,and encouraged his disciples not to accept any teachings until they had critically investigated and personally verified it's truth. Just as the experiment of a scientist can be repeated by others,the Buddha's experience of Enlightenment can also be repeated by others following his instructions.Thus,in his approach to Truth,the Buddha was an analytical  as the present day scientist.He established a practical,scientifically worked out method  for reaching the experience of Enlightenment.
This is not a surprise that we cannot find in the Dharma,a single doctrine that is in conflict with the discoveries of modern science.Buddhist have no problem believing that the universe is billions of years old,or that there  were such things  as dinosaurs and in evolution.Indeed there is much common ground between them especially in the areas of physics and pshycology ,one concerns the workings of the universe and the other workings of the mind.
"The religion of the future will be cosmic religion.It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas theology.Covering both natural and Spiritual,it should be based on religions sense arising from the experience
of all things natural and spiritual.It should be based on religious  sense arising from the experience of all things ,natural and Spiritual and a meaningful unity.Buddhism answers this description.If there ia any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs,it would be Buddhism" ALBERT  ELASTEIN

[fruven]

I would guess that the methods ascribe to validating claims taught by the Buddha is the complete and superior to scientific methods whatever it may be. The science is a running target evolving itself based on the scientific community learning from each others and the outside world. Whatever methods learned and become part of the common acceptable way to proof things is label as science. It doesn't mean whatever not learned yet by the scientific community is not scientific method unless one think that the best mind comes from scientific community alone. There can be individual out there present or the past whom would have methods better at solving or proving but it doesn't get used in the science of today.

[DS Star]

One reason why the Dharma can easily be embraced by the scientific spirit is that the Buddha never encouraged rigid ,dogmatic belief.He did not claim to base His Teachings on faith belief or divine relevation,but allowed great flexibility and freedom of thought.

The second reason is that the scientific spirit can itself be found in the Buddha's approach to Spiritual Truth.
The Buddha's method for discovering and testing Spiritual Truth is very similar to that of the scientist. A scientist observes the external world objectively and would only establish a scientific theory after conducting many successful practical experiments.

...Enlightenment can also be repeated by others following his instructions.Thus,in his approach to Truth,the Buddha was an analytical as the present day scientist. He established a practical, scientifically worked out method  for reaching the experience of Enlightenment.

This is not a surprise that we cannot find in the Dharma, a single doctrine that is in conflict with the discoveries of modern science. Buddhist have no problem believing that the universe is billions of years old, or that there were such things as dinosaurs and in evolution. Indeed there is much common ground between them especially in the areas of physics and psychology, one concerns the workings of the universe and the other workings of the mind.

Buddha Dharma is definitely much more superior to the science. Though there are 'common grounds' but Buddha's explanations on universe, physics, psychology, etc. are beyond scientists' findings. Scientists are slowly proving and confirming what Buddha taught 2500 or more years ago.

Nevertheless, modern society is more convinced of scientific findings than Buddha's sutras or texts; hence I would agree that by being 'compatible with science', Buddhism is getting more popular. The topic on reincarnation, for example, is gaining wider acceptance now, even among non-Buddhists and followers of other faiths.

Yes as stated by Albert Einstein, Buddhism is the religion for the future modern people.

[yontenjamyang]

Science is based on empirical observations. It relies on proofs of its theories. This proofs are in turn based on observations. Observations are based on measurements and measurements are based on the senses. The senses are based on the human existences. Without an observer (in our case, human) there can be no science.

However, in the last hundred years or so, a branch of science ie Quantum Mechanics (sub atomic science) has emerged out of the need to explain everything in the universe. Interestingly, the theories of Quantum Mechanics has to ultimately concur that the observer is part of the experience/experiment in that having the the observer observe a phenomenon changes/affects the results of the experiment/events and that everything exist only in potentiality ie things do not exist in its absolute form. It is literally saying that the observer is supreme. everything depends on the observer.

Here are some interesting links:

http://www.examiner.com/article/buddhism-and-quantum-mechanics-have-something-common

[hope rainbow]

Science only needs to proof one thing: re-incarnation.
With the proof of re-incarnation, then karma can be proven too.

Indeed, if re-incarnation becomes established as a fact through scientific methods, then we have 3 possibilities:
- the next re-incarnated existence is propelled by karma
- by choice
- or through randomness

If it was by choice, then there would be no cockroaches, no worms, no handicapped people neither, so it cannot be "choice".
If it was by randomness, then it would not be scientific, as there is no such thing as a random event, there is always a cause that has a cause that has a cause.
Thus there must be a cause that has a cause that has a cause... and thus the re-incarnation must be the effect of a cause. That is karma, the law of cause and effect applicable to the experiences of living beings.

Yet, so far science has failed to demonstrate re-incarnation. And thus science has not touched on karma neither.
There are many researches made on the subject or re-incarnation and surely there is a reluctance from the scientific world in general as to imply "laws" from reports of people recalling previous lives as there could be numerous other explanations to that than that of re-incarnation.

Now, let's imagine that science gets to prove that the re-incarnation process is true and then gets to prove that karma is true, what would the next challenge be?
The next challenge would be for science to prove that enlightenment is possible.
And I think that would even be harder to touch than proving re-incarnation and karma.
Because if there may not be incompatibility between Dharma and science, there could be between anything samsaric and enlightenment... Or if not incompatibility, at least an enormous resistance!

Thus the scientific journey into Buddhism would follow exactly the order of the 4 Nobel truths...