A Brief Comment on Science/Religion Riparian Zone
In a brief note, this article makes me curious about the hitherto "unscientific" aspects of Buddhism, such as rebirth (where a subtle consciousness transference is held to occur, at times instantaniously, at moments of death and birth, trans-geographically, or even trans-universe-ally) and karma (where past action-imprints are held to adhere to this subtle consciousness and engage in cause-and-effect relationships trans-temporally, even across lifetimes). A way to think about these "unscientific" modalities metaphorically may be entanglement (just a thought for the rational materialists, to be taken with a hefty dose of self-supplied skepticism)...
And a quick quote from (a scholar of the Science/Buddhism Riparian Zone) B. Alan Wallace's "External, Internal, and Nondual Space":
"[The] current view of physical phenomena consisting of nothing more than excitations of empty space, or-even less tangibly-as oscillations of abstract quantities, recasts the mechanistic question of how substantial bodies of matter can possibly interact with insubstantial minds. There is something antiquated about materialists approaching the mind/body problem as if we still dwelled [sic] in the era of classical mechanics. Consider Steven Weinberg's recent comment, 'In the physicist's recipe for the world, the list of ingredients no longer includes particles. Matter thus loses its central role in physics. All that is left are principles of symmetry.' In light of this assertion by a contemporary Nobel Laureate in physics, what is it exactly that materialists believe in? Shall we, echoing the [sic] Nietzsche's proclamation that 'God is dead' proclaim that matter is both dead and gone? What then are materialists to believe in?"
And a quick quote from (a scholar of the Science/Buddhism Riparian Zone) B. Alan Wallace's "External, Internal, and Nondual Space":
"[The] current view of physical phenomena consisting of nothing more than excitations of empty space, or-even less tangibly-as oscillations of abstract quantities, recasts the mechanistic question of how substantial bodies of matter can possibly interact with insubstantial minds. There is something antiquated about materialists approaching the mind/body problem as if we still dwelled [sic] in the era of classical mechanics. Consider Steven Weinberg's recent comment, 'In the physicist's recipe for the world, the list of ingredients no longer includes particles. Matter thus loses its central role in physics. All that is left are principles of symmetry.' In light of this assertion by a contemporary Nobel Laureate in physics, what is it exactly that materialists believe in? Shall we, echoing the [sic] Nietzsche's proclamation that 'God is dead' proclaim that matter is both dead and gone? What then are materialists to believe in?"
Comments