Science and Buddhism Aren’t in Conflict—They’re Doing Different Things

Interest in Buddhism worldwide has been on the reason in recent decades. Many remain skeptical, however, over potential philosophical problems or un-scientific commitments at the heart of Buddhist teachings and practice. The world's happiest man talks with a renowned philosopher to answer these objections.

Commonplace critiques of religions conflicting with science do not stand up to scrutiny when applied to Buddhism. Rather, science and Buddhism embody processes that aim to understand fundamentally different things, with neither requiring the blind faith of practitioners.


Few are as qualified to discuss the differences between science and Buddhism than Matthieu Ricard. The son of the renowned French philosopher Jean-François Revel and the painter Yahne Le Toumelin, Ricard had an intellectually and culturally dynamic upbringing. As a young man, he worked with the Nobel Prize-winning scientists François Jacob and Jacques Monod and earned a PhD in molecular biology. Then, he abruptly left academia to study with Buddhist teachers in India and Tibet. Now, he is a Buddhist monk and the French interpreter for the Dalai Lama. He has become popular as a speaker and as a writer who teaches about Buddhist ideas, mindfulness practices, and meditation. Through the popularization of his work, he has earned the nickname “happiest person in the world.”

Ricard discusses supposed conflicts between Buddhism and western conceptions of life, spirituality, and knowledge in a book co-written in dialogue-form with his father titled The Monk and the Philosopher. Much of the second chapter—“Religion or Philosophy?”—is spent navigating tensions between Buddhism and science and negotiating the role of faith (or lack thereof) in Buddhism. Some of the concerns raised by Revel are Buddhists’ belief in the self being illusory, Buddhist ideas regarding consciousness, claims made by Buddhists that elude the scientific method, and practitioners’ need for “blind faith.”

To make sense of criticisms made against Buddhism, it is helpful to understand the heart of many Buddhist teachings. During an abstract discussion of the nature of consciousness and the self, Ricard provides a brief overview:

There’s a natural feeling of self, of ‘I’, which makes you think ‘I’m cold, I’m hungry, I’m walking’, and so forth. By itself, that feeling is neutral. It doesn’t specifically lead to either happiness or suffering. But then comes the idea that the self is a kind of constant that lasts all your life, regardless of all the physical and mental changes you go through. You get attached to the idea of being a self, ‘myself’, a ‘person’, and of ‘my’ body, ‘my’ name, ‘my’ mind, and so on. Buddhism accepts that there is a continuum of consciousness, but denies any existence of a solid, permanent, and autonomous self anywhere in that continuum. The essence of Buddhist practice is therefore to get rid of that illusion of a self which so falsifies our worldview. 

The essence of Buddhism, according to Ricard, is to reduce suffering through realizing misconceptions about the nature of ourselves and of the world.

Ricard’s description of Buddhism, as rendered above, may seem utterly farfetched and unscientific. Being Buddhist seems to require both a belief in the absence of a nonmaterial “self” and a belief in a “continuum of consciousness” that is beyond our individual bodies. On the surface, this may seem not only esoteric but also about as unscientific as one can get. And all this from an accomplished biologist, no less! Understandably, then, Revel has difficulty accepting or understanding what Ricard means and how his claims could be justified. He asks, for instance, how one could identify the kind of consciousness that he describes.

Ricard responds to the questions of how Buddhists can justify claims about the nature the self and consciousness by describing their approach in contradistinction to that of scientists. He explains:

The problem here is one of methodology. From a scientific point of view, an experiment is said to be valid if it can be reproduced by other experimenters. It’s presumed that the same means of investigation are available to all concerned…But when it’s a question of training the mind, it’s much more difficult to recognize any results and to acknowledge that it might be possible to attain a degree of mastery over the mind just as exceptional as the physical mastery of an athlete.

The spiritual investigations of Buddhism, as Ricard described, neither contradict nor conflict with the process of scientific inquiry. Rather, their respective subjects necessitate different methodologies. Kadam Morten Clausen, a spiritual teacher in New York, puts it another way and describes Buddhism as a “science of the mind” in which “you’re the scientist.”

One might accept that spiritual inquiry and scientific inquiry are distinct and still question whether Buddhist monks like Ricard and his teachers ought to be given any credence with respect to the latter. Indeed, deferring to Buddhist teachers for spiritual guidance may seem like embracing the same kind of faith that critics of other religious traditions resist.

In response to such concerns, Ricard distinguishes such blind faith from a reasonable kind of trust. Reflecting on his experiences studying and practicing with numerous lamas, Ricard describes:

How can we be sure of their accounts? By means of indirect evidence, and evaluating all sides of their character. There’s no smoke without fire. I spent twenty years with some of these teachers who say that there is a nonmaterial consciousness and that it is possible to perceive another being’s stream of consciousness. These are people I never heard lying, who never misled anyone, in whom I never detected the slightest harmful thought, word, or deed against anyone. To believe what they say therefore seems more reasonable to me than to come to the conclusion that they’re telling tall stories.

Ricard observes that committed practitioners of Buddhism have hardly any plausible reasons to lie about their experiences. Furthermore, many of their experiences and insights have been similar and consistent for thousands of years.

Indeed, Ricard suggests that the kind of “faith” or trust is consistent with how individuals negotiate their daily lives as well as scientific findings. Hey notes:

[I]n everyday life, we’re continually being impregnated with ideas and beliefs that we take as true because we accept the competence of those who provide the information. They know what they’re doing, it works, so it must be true. That’s where confidence comes in. But most of use would be incapable of proving scientific truths by ourselves. Quite often, too, such beliefs – like that of the atom seen as tiny solid particles orbiting an atomic nucleus – continue to influence people’s views of things long after they’ve been abandoned by the scientists themselves. We’re ready to believe anything we’re told as long as it corresponds to an accepted view of the world, and to be suspicious of anything that doesn’t. In the case of the contemplative approach, the doubt that many of our contemporaries feel about spiritual values is due to the fact that they haven’t put them into practice.

The kind of confidence Ricard has in Buddhist teachers under whom he studied is comparable to the confidence many have in scientists whose research they neither witnessed nor necessarily understood. Such trust – as opposed to mere faith – provides structure and direction into our own inquiries and journeys. For those inclined to investigate their own mind, then, taking a cue from some Buddhist monks and nuns may well be a good way to start. 

Big Think
Sponsored by Lumina Foundation

Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!

As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.

Keep reading Show less

7 fascinating UNESCO World Heritage Sites

Here are 7 often-overlooked World Heritage Sites, each with its own history.

Photo by Raunaq Patel on Unsplash
Culture & Religion
  • UNESCO World Heritage Sites are locations of high value to humanity, either for their cultural, historical, or natural significance.
  • Some are even designated as World Heritage Sites because humans don't go there at all, while others have felt the effects of too much human influence.
  • These 7 UNESCO World Heritage Sites each represent an overlooked or at-risk facet of humanity's collective cultural heritage.
Keep reading Show less

Yale scientists restore brain function to 32 clinically dead pigs

Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.

Still from John Stephenson's 1999 rendition of Animal Farm.
Surprising Science
  • Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
  • They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
  • The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.

The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?

But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.

What's dead may never die, it seems

The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.

BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.

The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.

As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.

The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.

"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.

An ethical gray matter

Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.

The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.

Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.

Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?

"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."

One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.

The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.

"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.

It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.

Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?

The dilemma is unprecedented.

Setting new boundaries

Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."

She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.

Scientists discover how to trap mysterious dark matter

A new method promises to capture an elusive dark world particle.

Surprising Science
  • Scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) devised a method for trapping dark matter particles.
  • Dark matter is estimated to take up 26.8% of all matter in the Universe.
  • The researchers will be able to try their approach in 2021, when the LHC goes back online.
Keep reading Show less