Can We Prove Buddhism is Right? – Dialectic Two Step
Did you hear about the studies that show can actually improve ?
Response:
I’m always cautious when it comes to citing scientific studies to support a Buddhist world view or to practice. There are a few reasons:
I have an ongoing non-scientific study that shows that many studies attempting to prove religious practices work are followed on by even more studies debunking those claims.*
Religious practices are practices of the mind and their effects are on the mind. Because of this there is a tenuous link to objective truth.
Designing a study that could prove a religious practice is effective sounds impossible to me. In my opinion metaphysics is outside the bounds of the scientific method. I’ve said this many times – it’s not the right tool for the job. In general we can’t “prove” anything about religious belief, including Buddhist religious beliefs.
Not All Studies Are Equal?
One of the regulars at the meditation group I lead is a physicist and he often asks about what science has to say about Buddhism. We’ve talked about studies that show prayer helps healing, how chanting can make you healthier, and so on. I encourage people to follow the data when it comes to meditation and the Buddhist world view.
But when I talk about data in the context of meditation, it is always subjective. Here’s an example of what I mean. When a newcomer arrives for a meditation sitting, I always encourage them to do three things:
Notice how you feel before the practice
Notice how you feel during the practice
Notice how you feel after the practice
After the sitting, most people report a bumpy but consistent trend in a positive direction. They usually leave feeling better than the came. But this is a not a well designed study, and the results cannot be generalized to prove that Buddhism is good for everyone or that it is the “correct” religion.
Is It All In My Head?
Religions are belief systems or world views, so they live squarely in the arena of the mind. One important question we have to answer if we want to prove that a religion or a religious practice is “right” is this: Is the human mind capable of determining objective truth?
I’m going to approach that question by way of examining the functions and disposition of the mind. I’ll look at whether that disposition is compatible with the quest for truth with a capital T.
The “Me” Machine
What is the purpose of mind? I think that a good place to start is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Our minds are focused on the “me” or the “I”. We are the beneficiaries of all of its deliberations, intentions, and impulses. I’ve spelled out the needs hierarchy below with an analysis of how the mind is involved in meeting those needs. As we move up the hierarchy, you’ll note that the mind has more influence.
1. Biological and Physiological needs – Here the brain does the lion share of the work. It unconsciously coordinates billions of life sustaining functions. Breathing, heart beat, immune response, maintaining body temperature and acidity, and so on are all handled silently by the body. At a more advanced level, it coordinates hardwired behavior like shivering, hunger pangs, sex drive, etc. Of course the mind does play a role in these functions. For instance, we can strategize and make decisions on how to get warm or what to eat in response to what’s available and where we are. But at this level, the brain is in the driver seat.
2. Safety needs – Again the brain is in charge here. It controls most bodily functions that support our survival. Take the fight and flight instinct. It is produced by the release of hormones without any deliberation or intention. The body manages the complex muscle movements needed to run or fight. A mother’s instinct to protect a child is also hormonal. The mind supplements this hard wiring vis a vis allowing us to invent clever and flexible ways of meeting these needs. Consider informal and formal social contracts like friendships, marriage, and systems of government. We begin to see the mind playing a gradually more important role.
3. Love and Belongingness needs – The brain still plays a significant function here. Our biological need for connection is hardwired into the human condition out of the evolutionary necessity to reproduce. But a lot of this happens in our heads. We spend a lot of time and energy navigating our complex relationships.
4. Esteem needs – At this level, the brain still plays a role, but the mind is fundamental. Self-esteem is likely associated with sexual selection. But within that context, it remains highly conceptual and subjective. How we achieve it is dependent on how we and those we relate to define it. Esteem is achieved in a complex matrix of personal goals, relationships, and cultural norms.
5. Self-Actualization needs – The pinnacle of the hierarchy seems to be wholly in the mind. How this is related to survival and propagation of genes is an interesting question. Few if any other species on earth appear to be consciously engaged in self-actualization if only because it would require language to articulate the need and its fulfillment.
Is That All Mind Is?
So, mind is clearly about the individual. In this context it’s disposition is purely subjective. But the question I’m asking is about objective truth? Can the mind be effective in finding big T truth?
I think that the mind is capable of supporting the search for truth, but there are caveats and boundaries. We would expect the body and mind to be objectively accurate in determining threats and find resources. It does this very well, but there are two sides to that coin.
Our mind-body views the world in terms of threats and resources. A tiger is a threat and an apple is a resource. We know this as a fact, without much in the way of caveats or ambiguities. Generally the mind-body does a fantastic job of keeping us alive and safe. It does so through an accurate determination of threats and resources.
Our mind-body views the world in terms of threats and resources. Our body and minds operate through a strong filter of self-preservation. For instance, if there is a bug crawling on us, we instinctively swipe it off. But not all bugs warrant this response. A black ant is generally harmless. A deer tick could be a much bigger deal. A lot of our hard wired responses are “better safe than sorry” interpretations of the environment. Evolution can sometimes favor a cautious view of the world.
So there is usually a bias where the mind is concerned. I would add, that the more we rely on the mind, the bigger the bias.
Here is one way to look at it. If we plot Maslow’s needs on the spectra of mind-body and objective-subjective, the more the mind is involved, the more subjective, or biased, the outcome will be. For example, it is objectively true that a tiger is a threat. The fear that we feel when we meet a tiger in the jungle is objectively valuable. But if we adopt a world view of “it is what it is”, this self-actualization strategy may help us cope with things we can’t change, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t change anything.
[image error]
What Can We Say About The Mind and Religious Practice?
So now I want to make some statements about the mind that I believe are non-controversial.
The unconscious functions of the body are often overlapped and complimented by the mind
The functions of the mind provide novel supports for our biological, physiological, and safety needs. To put this more succinctly – the mind increases the odds of survival.
The functions of the mind have the most impact at the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy.
The higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy are almost entirely subjective.
If you’re on board with these statements. I’m going to use them as premises for the following three conclusions:
The mind produces survival behavior, including the ability to function and compete in a complex society.
The mind is a survival adaptation – it’s primary function is to increase the likelihood that our genes are propagated
Because survival behavior is primarily self interested, the mind will have a bias towards self-preservation and self-esteem and away from objectivity.
Now, I want to make a few brief observations about meditation and religious practices in general.
Religious views and practices like meditation, act in the arena of the mind.
These practices enhance human experience at the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy
They are primarily relevant to the individual doing the practice. This makes generalization of the results difficult and tenuous at best.
Can Studies Prove Buddhism Right?
So, let’s reflect on the question that I posed in the title. Can science prove that Buddhism, or any other religion, is right? I’d have to say no. Because religions operate on belief. Belief is firmly in the realm of the mind and at the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Therefore it is subject to bias.
This doesn’t invalidate the needs or the practices. If you accept Maslow’s proposition, these needs are valid. If your needs are met with the practice, it is effective – for you. It just means they aren’t “right” for everyone. Knowing this can free you from a great deal of unnecessary suffering.
Religious truth claims are usually not warranted and can create problems. Truth is not necessarily applicable or necessary for a religious belief to fulfill a need. Asserting a religious practice or belief is objectively true is risky. If your self-esteem is heavily tied up in the truth of your religion, it’s going to get a little bruised.
* Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction is one notable exception.
If you enjoyed this post, please like and share.
Dialectic Two-Step is an ongoing series of my thoughts on questions that come my way.
Wisdom lies neither in fixity nor in change, but in the dialectic between the two. - Octavio
Dialectic Two Step, Modern Koans, Verse Us, Say What?, and Minute Meditations all copyright Andrew Furst
Subscribe to My Newsletter
Join me for a little peace through reflection, art, video, sound, and poetry
The post Can We Prove Buddhism is Right? – Dialectic Two Step written by Andrew Furst appeared on Andrew Furst.
