从科学规律的特点来看佛教与科学的区别

内容摘要:从传统观点看，佛教与科学在人们看来更多是两门水火不兼容的知识。本文作者从科学规律或理论的特点的角度对二者作了一个比较。通过它们各自对世界的起源及其运动发展的解释，以及对佛教缘起理论和因果业报理论的考察，我们可以发现佛教比所谓的科学有更多的适应性。

关键词: 佛教　科学　科学规律　缘起　因果

任何思想或理论都因其对世间万象的把握来吸引并引导众生的行为。而最能体现它们对世象把握的内容，莫过于他们给出的理论或描述所具有的规律性特点，即当它的理论越具有规律性特点时，它就越容易吸引或引导大众，反之则易成为被抛弃的对象。

当今社会，似乎任何理论或思想都以它与科学所作的比较来确认自己引导众生行为的能力，这是科学时代的产物。而严格按照科学理论的要求，其它思想的影响未必不如科学本身久远与深刻。佛教就是其中一例。通过对规律特点的分析，我们不难区分科学与佛教的高下低劣。

一、何谓规律？

1、科学规律或科学理论的定义。

科学规律或科学理论总是通过在同样条件下对事物相互联系的一个简明的说明。经由许多科学家在多次实验，并检验其结果与所设假说相符之后才成为科学规律或科学理论。它是被证明每当某些情况存在或遇见时，就不可避免会发生的这样一种现象。它更多的是在硬科学（hard sciences）上使用，与传统上的物理、生物和化学等自然科学联系在一起。

科学规律应该是可以被普遍采用的规律。它对观察现象的描述以及对事物配制的说明，可以普遍地运用于不同学科。它是被多次检测并被认可为真实的理论。

由于每个人对知识领域的认识不同，其所使用的认识方法也不一样，理论或规律这个词有诸多含义。一般来讲，理论是用以解释事实和规律本身相统一的原则。它是对所观察到的现象的解释。另外，与定理对比理论的说明是以一些试探性的假说为特点，通过未观察到一些相反事例而建立的。从这也可看出，所谓的科学理论或规律，它在运用时是暗含有其不确定性或被否证的可能性存在的。以致有些人专门以此作为对规律或理论的一个界定。

2、科学规律或理论的特征

作为一种科学规律或理论，它试图从本质上描述被观察物本身，并且它的这种描述是具有被证实性，并且也具有被否证的可能。

规律或理论本身就是源于一个科学的概念，它是一个广义的声明，它说明在大多数或所有情况下事物将会是什么样子的。从形而上学的意义来说，它是事物固有的性质，稳定的联系。除了可以预测以年，还可以根据需要创造条件让现象再生。现今社会，所有的科学给出的理论，可说都具有这样的特点。不具有科学规律性的东西，是不会成为科学的内容的，这本来就是科学定义的内容之一。

但是，关于科学规律或理论，它所承认那些特征在现实中也具有出现反例的可能。

3、科学规律或理论所能产生效用的领域

科学规律或理论的作用，不仅在所谓的硬科学（自然科学和物理科学）具有效用，在其它各个领域的学术研究上，也都具有有效性。如从哲学到音乐，文学。在人文社会科学方面，科学理论也经常被用来作为对某个批判理论或文学理论的评判依据。有人说，科学规律或理论可用于所有领域，无论在自然科学，物理科学或社会科学。这是一个通用的标准。

二、佛教与科学对科学规律或理论的不同解释

1、在科学看来，证据是评判的唯一标准，这个标准实际具有明显不足

科学讲求证据。通过证据来确认规律的科学性。举例来说，对于苹果下落这样一个事实，我们援引地球重心吸力来解释这一现象。然而，即使在科学内部，规律或其理论也有不同的定义。有的是比较宽泛随意的，有的则要求精确。比如爱因斯坦的相对论，通常被称为“相对论” ，而牛顿引力理论常常被称为“万有引力规律”。正是由于在科学内部有这种对规律或理论的不同含义，使得它们对所述现象的论证的手段或形式也具有很大的随意性，而这在一定程度上成为科学规律或理论的不足，对其权威性构成挑战。

理论本身是用于对事物或现象的检验或预测，包括对无生命现象的说明，以用对人的活动或动物活动的倾向作出说明。在许多情况下，人们习惯于建立某种模式的对现实进行模拟或说明。理论与现象之间是具有内在关联的某些关系。但是，“不管你做了多少次取得相同结果的实验，并由此得出某种结论，你永远也不能确定下一次的结果不会与你的结论相矛盾。实际上，你只要找出哪怕一个单独的事例，它就能使你关于科学规律或理论的说明被完全推翻”（斯蒂芬•霍金：《时间简史》）。

卡尔•波普尔把科学理论的特点描述如下：如果我们只是求得确认，那人们很容易就能获得对事物或现象的确认或认可得到认可。对一事象的确认本来就是一种高风险的预测。通过预测来得到某些相一致的结论，实际也蕴含着不一致结论的存在。

每一个“好”的科学理论，实际我们可以看作是对某些可能的禁止，它禁止某些事情发生。被“禁止”的越多，说明这个理论的可信度越高。

规律如果不被任何相反事例所驳倒，那这个规律也就不是什么好的规律了。科学规律或理论是如果没有相反事物的证伪，那它本身就是非科学的。

对科学规律或理论的每一个真正的考验，就是对它进行篡改的企图。或驳斥它。测试就是试错。它是一种可衡量程度的测试。一些理论更容易通过证实，而一些却更容易被证伪。科学规律或理论本身也是有风险性存在的。

证据实际不应被过分夸大它的作用。有一些被证据确证的理论，当它被发现是假的时候，却仍然有自己的崇拜者，人们总是千方百计地通过引进特设一些辅助假设，或重设理论的某些条件，使得它继续得以成立。这样的一些假设，虽可保持这个理论的可信度，但它在科学中的地位或作用将会大打折扣。

也一些哲学家和科学史学家，如菲利普•基切尔认为，波普尔关于科学规律或理论的定义本身就是错误的。她认为良好的科学理论必须具备三个特点：

统一性：“科学必须具备一致性的……它所使用的理论可能很少，并且也不多，但它能最大限度地对整个学科的体系作出良好的说明。它可以适用于一系列广泛的问题”。

衍生性：“一个伟大的科学理论，如牛顿力学理论，开辟了一个新的研究领域……由于理论提出了一种新的看待世界的方式，它可以使我们提出新的问题，并着手进行新的和富有成果的探索……一个具有生命力的科学是不完整的。在任何时候，它提出的问题远比能回答的要多。但不完备并非无关紧要，恰恰相反，不完备却是一个理论具有强大衍生性的前兆……一个好的理论应该是具有创造性的，它应该能提出新的问题，并且对这些问题的回答或解决也符合整个学科本身的发展规律”。

辅助假设都具独立检验功能：“一个辅助假设应该是独立的、具备对具体问题的检验功能，理论的独立性为的就是使得理论的有效性能继续存在，比如证明海王星存在的证据就是在天王星轨道异常运动时独立提出来的。

类似其它关于理论的定义，包括波普尔的，基切尔曾清楚地表明，一个良好的理论，用她的话来说，是可以看到“观测的后果”的。但是，就如观察中发现的天王星违背常规轨道的运行，只有一个可能的结果，即对理论进行重设。

显然，科学规律或理论也并不是那么完美，他们有自己的缺陷。

2、在佛教看来，定义规律的人合法性与有效性是值得怀疑的

　　如上文所讨论的，即使证据是科学规律的唯一标准，它也有自己的不完备性。佛教不关心科学中特例。佛教的目的是在科学的所有发生作用的时间与空间中来找到普适的理论。而科学规律或理论并不能普遍适用于所有情况或现象。它所代表的只有宇宙中的一小部分。佛教对发现或制度规律的人的有效性与合法性提出质疑。因为，在佛教教义中，人类只是六道轮回中的一道（其它五道是地狱，饿鬼，畜生，阿修罗和天）。人是存在于有限的时间和空间中，他们并不是完美无缺的。以这种有缺陷之身，他们无法找出能够满足所有情况的普遍性真理的。

相对于科学，佛教所作的判断有着更大的适用范围。这点，是我们认为佛教比科学更为高明的地方。

三、佛教与科学关于世界形成的理论

有三种不同的宇宙起源观：第一种认为世界来源于自然，这种自然是一种茫然理智的自然；第二种认为世界起源造物主或上帝，它对所创造的世界具有完全的责任；第三种则认为这个世界和生命既没有开始，也不会有结束。

佛教是属于这第三者。大科学家罗素也支援这派的思想。他说“没有任何理由假定这个世界有一个开始。关于事情必须有一个开始的思想，正说明了我们思想的贫乏。”

1、科学关于宇宙的起源：宇宙大爆炸说

宇宙大爆炸理论解释了我们这个宇宙的起源。它认为在宇宙中确实有一个开端，在这个开端之前，并无一物；在此开端之后有了我们的宇宙。

千万年来，人类一直在问“我们的宇宙从何而来？”在1948年，科学家乔治•盖莫夫，提出了宇宙大爆炸理论。大爆炸理论的主要观点是认为我们的宇宙曾有一段从热到冷的演化史。在这个时期里，宇宙体系并不是静止的，而是在不断地膨胀，使物质密度从密到稀地演化。这一从热到冷、从密到稀的过程如同一次规模巨大的爆发。根据大爆炸宇宙学的观点，大爆炸的整个过程是：在宇宙的早期，温度极高，在100亿度以上。物质密度也相当大，整个宇宙体系达到平衡。宇宙间只有中子、质子、电子、光子和中微子等一些基本粒子形态的物质。但是因为整个体系在不断膨胀，结果温度很快下降。当温度降到10亿度左右时，中子开始失去自由存在的条件，它要么发生衰变，要么与质子结合成重氢、氦等元素；化学元素就是从这一时期开始形成的。温度进一步下降到100万度后，早期形成化学元素的过程结束。宇宙间的物质主要是质子、电子、光子和一些比较轻的原子核。当温度降到几千度时，辐射减退，宇宙间主要是气态物质，气体逐渐凝聚成气云，再进一步形成各种各样的恒星体系，成为我们今天看到的宇宙。

根据科学，宇宙大爆炸理论表明，宇宙的起源150亿年前从一个灾难性的爆炸小质量的物质在极高密度和温度。那么，宇宙开始形成和不断发展变化，以及能源将被释放。当能量释放到年底，宇宙开始返回到原来状态的点，宇宙将再经历一个新的大爆炸。

2、佛教的解释

于佛教之宇宙观中，一个世界之成立、持续、破坏，又转变为另一世界之成立、持续、破坏，其过程可分为成、住、坏、空四时期，称为四劫。每一劫经历的时间都无量久远。成劫指世界的成立期。即山河大地等器世间和有生命的众生世间的形成时期。住劫指世界的存续期。即器世间、众生世间平稳地持续之时期。坏劫指住劫之后世界坏灭的期间。从大地狱有情不生开始，至外器都尽为止。空劫则谓世界的空虚期，指器世间全部坏灭。剩下一片黑暗。正是从这种黑暗开始，又形成下一轮的成、住、坏、空。

在此，佛教比科学家走得更进一步。他们用伽莫夫同样使用过的理由来证明了，如同宇宙永远存在，因此也有心灵！而大多数西方人则认为，人心是在某一时刻突然产生的。但佛教徒说，这是不可能的，因为你不可能有一个“第一时间”。

在佛教那里，世界只不过是轮回——循环反复的出生和死亡。四劫的轮回在宇宙中是一个不断的过程。由于这个世界中各种要素与能量都是相互依存的，独立突出某个事物的开始那是毫无意义的。无论我们对世界起源作何种猜测，它都不是我们观念中绝对中的真理。

由宗教人士提出的关于宇宙起源的种种猜测都不会被现代科学家和知识分子所接受。但在这个问题上，即使是各种从佛经中引申出来的作品，在现代社会中仍可立于不败之地，没有一种科学的观念能够使它屈服。

今天，科学家，历史学家，天文学家，生物学家，植物学家，人类学家和伟大的思想家，对世界起源的观点有了更广泛的认识。但最新的发现和知识仍然无法撼动佛教的思想。为此，罗素再次表示了他对佛教思想的遵从。

四、佛教与科学关于世界存在的理论

1、科学有先入为主的见解，看重特殊个体的作用

科学认识到，一切事物在当代都具有相同的生存权利，这与佛教的观点是一样的。但科学“实事求是”精神是要确定一个具体特例的具体情况，为此，它更加注重其个体的差异性。

正如我们所知，无论是硬科学、软科学还是社会科学，它们都下分为不同的次级领域，科学的考察就是从这些次级的领域开始的。在某种程度上说，我们也可以说科学只是一个检验事物不同分类是否得当的工具。

我们学到的知识，我们接触外界，甚至在我们的头脑的事情或梦想所涉及到的，都是些特别的对象。包括我们对规律或理论的掌握也是具体的、特别的。

其实这并没有过错。对于我们这些生活在一个特定时空的人来说，我们只是六道中的一道，我们不能超出了我们自身存在的世界。研究和处理具体的问题是我们真正的任务。现在的问题是，我们不应该把科学的评价（包括它的规律或理论）作为评价所有事物的标准，因为还有我们之外的非人世间的存在。我们对它们并不认识，也不了解。在这一点上，佛教的视野更加宽广。

2、在佛教看来，事物在本质上都是一样的，没有最终的差别

在佛教，众生都是平等的，无论是在过去还是将来，在人类的生存世界，或在其它五个轮道。它依佛教的缘起理论和因果法则解释了个体之间的内在依存性。

佛教根据缘起的理论来观察和分析人生现象，认为人是物质与精神的组合体。人的肉体是物质的，是由地、水、火、风四大元素构成的，人的精神是由多种心理要素，如受、想、行、识等构成的，一旦四大元素和各种心理要素分离，生命则立即消亡，精神世界也随之消失。所以佛教认为人生具有生、住、异、灭，世界具有成、住、坏、空，世界上没有独立不变的永恒实体。

此外，在佛教看来，每个人在本质上都有成佛的本性。性质是一个佛像一天。大家都是平等的。每一个个体之间的区别也是不重要的。佛教在传说教义，或宣扬理论时，都是把所有的众生都考虑进去了的。因此，它的理论具有最大的普适性。

五、佛教与科学关于世界发展的理论

1、科学了一个先入为主的偏见，认为所有的运动都是一种进步与发展

科学认为从本质上讲，所有的事物和现象的发展只有一个方向，这个方向是无限向前上升的。

在历史学家看来，今天的成就是过去历史积累起来的。所有现代文明的成果都是建立在过去的基础上，过去是为今天准备的。因此，从发展观点来看，今天比昨天更好，明天也将会比今天更好。世界遵循一个朝一个方面上升发展的程序。

当我们在字典中查找“进步”一词时。我们可以发现有许多进步，它表现在当代几乎所有的学科上，如哲学、历史学、生物进化学、社会学等等。说明世界发展的一致向前性。

当我们谈到的进步，科学给我们的始终是它给我们的乐观态度，而佛教给我们的态度是既不乐观也不悲观。

2、佛教没有预设偏见，世间一切事物皆按四劫轮回运行

佛教从不预先设定发展的程序。它在考虑事物时，都是把所有的时间和空间，无论是在过去还是在将来，在地球内的或地球外，所有的众生都考虑进去。它以缘起法及佛教因果法则来说明这世界的发展变化。

在这里，我们人类生存作为一个例子。有一些对现代人来说比较陌生的观念。佛陀继承了印度信仰轮回传统，认为每个人都有他的过去、现在和未来三世的生活。

更奇怪的是，佛陀说，虽然人能乘愿再来，但他们的肉体没有灵魂。在某种程度上，这似乎是一种对古代印度教信仰的继承。认为人的不变的灵魂可以历经多世。但佛陀通过他自己的自觉体悟到了这点。以观受是苦、观行无常、观法无我来解答现世不久住的问题，摆脱执着，超脱痛苦轮回，获得永恒的快乐。

在这点，20世纪物理学的最新发展成果某种程度上对佛教的观点作了说明。除了心灵、或精神外，世界没有任何不可改变的东西。每一个“东西”实际上是一个过程——它产生，发展，繁荣，减少和消失。

虽然所有的东西都是在一个过程，但这个过程与科学告诉我们的有很大不同。它并不意味着这一进程是一个发展、上升的程序，它也可能是逆行的运动，例如佛所说的“末法时代”。

六、佛教缘起法的殊胜

佛教缘起理论是“此有故彼有，此生故彼生；此无故彼无，此灭故彼灭”。这不仅适用于人类，同时也适用于各界有情与器物。它不仅是一个认识世界的工具，也是人类涅盘成佛的基础，具有最大的有效性。

从本质上讲，缘起理论是一个描述痛苦产生及其息灭的过程。“苦”是佛教中一个非常重要的内容。关于它有诸多的解释。如几个数字，其最重要的教义，如三大苦。为了更清楚地了解缘起的原则，必须首先了解这个“苦”。

“苦”中的佛教中使用广泛，并非如英语中那个单词的含义所能概括。它泛指逼迫身心苦恼之状态。苦与乐乃相对性之存在，若心向着如意之对象，则感受到乐；若心向着不如意之物件，则感受到苦。苦之分类有多种，根据它的本质，佛教把它分为苦苦、坏苦、行苦三种。

苦苦谓有漏行蕴中，诸非可意之苦受法，逼恼身心之苦。坏苦谓诸可意之乐受法，生时为乐，坏时逼恼身心之苦。行苦，指除可意非可意以外所余之舍受法，为众缘所造，难免生灭迁流，故圣者观见之，于身心皆感逼恼，故称为行苦。这里面既包括身体的痛苦，也包括了精神的痛苦。在这三者中，第三行苦最为重要。因为它必须对造世间诸法间的所有关系有正确明晰的认识之后才能摆脱。

而缘起法表明，世间相互依存性和相即相入的形式众多纷繁，不是那么容易能够认识清楚的。

比如在事物的发展过程中，所有事物的出现或发展都是遵循一定的程序的。在这个过程中，各种因素相互关联，并且随着条件的变化发生相关联的变化。是一个复杂的整体，相互间有众多的互利为用的关系。

在此，我们还要提一下业力，因为业力决定了所有因果关系的判定标准。业力是一种功能，它虽为短暂而存，但其功用巨大。没有任何事物能逃脱于业力之外。认清业力的性质及其发生作用的过程才是正确判定事物的关键。

佛教认为，在任何情况下，寻找事实的第一因或造物主上帝的问题，都是没有什么价值的。因为它本身不具任何意义。只要把握了缘起法则，那么一切都将迎刃而解了。

七、佛教因果法则的殊胜

佛教因果法则强调，“假使百千劫，所作业不亡；因缘会遇时，果报还自受。”因与果在佛教中具有特定的含义，佛教的因果法则可以运用于广大的领域。他们的缘份，原因和后果的佛教有其特殊的意义。该原则可以适用于大范围的宇宙中。

从佛教的观点来看，数学和科学解释事情是如何发生的，但没说明原因。像科学一样，佛教对自然界和物理学所说的因果关系也持肯定的态度。认为这是我们都应共同遵守的规律。

这个法则的作用力量巨大，它不是由外在的某个观察者或上帝创造的，是不能由人力所改变的。比如您的朋友跳下悬崖死亡，你并不会仰天大喊“都是因为地球引力杀害了我的朋友”。同样地，如果您经常损害他人，或经常遭遇坏运气，你也不能责备上帝或因果法则。

对自己的选择（就好比佛教中的种子），你就必须承担选择带来的结果（比喻为水果）。当佛教教导人们要奉行戒律的时候，这并不是一种暴君作出的武断安排。它犹如父母于孩子，长辈一般都比小辈见识更多，为此更会为小孩的行为提供借鉴或指导。比如教育小孩，“不要抽烟。”这并不能说明父母是反对抽烟的，只是他们担心吸烟对儿童造成的后果。经过痛苦的经验和见解，他们有对疾病和死亡的痛苦有着更加深入的了解。他们热爱儿童，并希望他们能够避免这些后果，即使孩子在这一点上是无法完全理解他们行为。同样，佛陀也是在以这种慈悲心在告诫我们的行为，希望我们能早日去除执着，远离痛苦。他所教授的那些理论或规则，都是为了我们的利益着想的。

在您的生命中，你永远不会看到独立自存的东西。这就是说，你所见的都是从其它事物中创设出来的。所有的事情在不断的建立和改变当中。如果我们深思下去，我们可以看到自己经常对一些很明显的事物不屑一顾，或从来就没意识到它们的存在。我们理所当然地认为我们所见的都是实在的、都是可以永恒存在的，并由此产生执着。

如果你有一个宽阔的胸襟，你首先就该去理解佛教关于因果的理论。然后把它运用到你自己的现实生活中。当你在生活中明了它的作用时，你就能明白佛教所讲的道理就是我们行为的指标。

在佛教中，其因果法则与“因果报应”有内在的联系。有时，这二者之间又没有区别。不管因果报应对现世的影响是积极的或消极的，它仍旧具有正确的含义。它经常以它自己所说的理论形式出现，所以当它在我们生活中出现时，我们就能很容易地认识并体悟它。

通过对佛教与科学各自对世界的起源及其运动发展的解释，以及对佛教缘起理论和因果业报理论的考察，我们发现佛教的理论比科学所给的理论有更大的适用范围。虽然我们不必因此说佛教一定比科学高明，但从我们所作的考察来看，佛教确实具有所谓科学无法拥有的优势。

On the Difference between Buddhism and Science

——From the Perspective of the Characteristics of Scientific Laws or Theories

Xu Donglai

Abstract: Traditionally, Buddhism and science are most the two opposite disciplines of the knowledge. In this essay, the author makes a comparison between the two from the perspective of the characteristics of scientific laws or theories. From the comparison of the explanation in the original and the movement of the world, and the explanation of the Buddhist principle of Dependent Origination and principle of Cause and Effect. We could find that the Buddhist theories have more advantages than the so-called science.

Key words: Buddhism Science Scientific law and theory Dependent Origination Cause and Effect

Any kind of ideas or theories attracts and guides the conduct of all living creatures by its methods grasping of the world. And the best embodies of its grasping content are their theories or descriptions on the world. When its theories fit more phenomena, give the better explanation to the world, it becomes easier to attract and guide the public, or it will be easily abandoned.

In modern time, it seems that any theory or ideology have made it as the criteria to evaluate the power of attracting and guiding the human beings’ action. It is a product of the scientific dominion. But, in strictly accordance with the requirements of scientific theory, other theories’ influence on the world would be more profound than science itself. As for an example, Buddhism is one of them. By analyzing the characteristics of the law or theory, we can easily distinguish the difference between science and Buddhism.

I, What is meant by the law or theory?

i), definition of scientific law or theory

A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always under the same conditions. Only after numerous experiments by many scientists over an extended period of time can a hypothesis become a scientific law. It is a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; it is a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law. It is traditionally associated with the natural sciences like Physics, Biology and Chemistry, and it is used interchangeably with the term physical laws.

A scientific law is a law that should be taken to be universally applicable. It attempts to describe an observation in nature and applies to all of the different sciences. It is also a theory that has been tested and is believed to be true.

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion. Definitively speaking, a theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. In other words, it is an explanation to a set of observations. Additionally, in contrast with a theorem the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established. This may merely indicate, as it does in the sciences, that the theory was arrived at using potentially faulty inferences (scientific induction) as opposed to the necessary inferences used in mathematical proofs. In these cases the term theory does not suggest a low confidence in the claim and many uses of the term in the sciences require just the opposite.

ii), characteristics of scientific law or theory

As a scientific law or theory, it attempts to describe an observation in nature and must be capable of testing and potentially of disproof.

The law or theory itself is derived from a scientific concept, it is a generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases, and it rose to the significance of metaphysics has become the inherent in nature, stable links in the development process of things or phenomena. Apart from it can be tested and occur again and again with the same conditions. Inherent nature, inevitability and stability are the features of the law. Nowadays, all scientific theory, are said to have such characteristics. It will not become the content of science without these characteristics. Laws or theories and their characteristics are the elements of a scientific definition.

Even about the characteristics of scientific law or theory, so-called science admits that in sometimes these characteristics will be opposed by the reality.

iii), the areas the law or theory effects

Theories exist not only in the so-called hard science (natural science and physical science), but in all fields of academic study, from philosophy to music to literature. In the humanities, theory is often used as an abbreviation for critical theory or literary theory. It is said that the scientific laws or theories could be used in all areas. It is a standard to evaluate the validity in different sciences, no matter in natural science, physical science or in social science.

II, The difference between Buddhism and science on the explanation of laws or theories

i), In science, evidence is the unique criteria for laws or theories, but there are defects in it. .

Evidence is the most important thing in science. In science, as laws can give the evidence to test its theories, laws are treated as guideline when taking actions. the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet but we invoke theories of gravity to explain this occurrence. However, even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called “the theory of relativity” while Newton's theory of gravity often is called “the law of gravity.” In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined. It is for this instance that a scientific theory is a claim based on a body of evidence.

Theories are constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena (e.g., inanimate things, events, or behavior of animals). In many instances we are constructing models of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models. But “No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory”(Stephen Hawking : A Brief History of Time).

Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:

It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.

Every “good”scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.

Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

One can sum up all this by saying that according to Popper, the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Several philosophers and historians of science, like Philip Kitcher(菲利普•基切尔), have argued that Popper's definition of theory as a set of falsifiable statements is wrong. According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features:

Unity:” A science should be unified…. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems”.

Fecundity:”A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research…. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry…. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raises more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity…. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies”.

Auxiliary hypotheses that are independently testable:”An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save” (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus's orbit).

Like other definitions of theories, including Popper's, Kitcher makes it clear that a good theory includes statements that have (in his terms) “observational consequences”. But, like the observation of irregularities in the orbit of Uranus, falsification is only one possible consequence of observation.

It is obviously that scientific law or theory is not so perfect, they have their own defects.

ii), In Buddhism, the qualification of individuals who make the laws or theories is suspected.

As discussed above, even though evidence is the unique criteria in science, it has its own unperfection. Buddhism doesn’t care about the special cases in science. buddhism aims all laws in science are specific cases in the universe, there is no universal law or theory fits for all cases or phenomena. What it has demonstrated are only a small part in the universe. Buddhism suspects the qualification of the individual person who makes the laws or theories. Because, in Buddhism teachings, human being is one of the six directions of reincarnation (the other five directions is the hells, hungry ghosts, animals, malevolent nature spirits and deva existence). Human beings are limited by the times and space, it is only one of the six, they are not perfect in their mind and action, they can not figure out a law or theory which could meet all the situation universally.

Comparing with science, the judgements made by Buddhism have more broaden using sphere. Which we could think is wiser than science.

III, The theories of science and Buddhism on the formation of the world

There are three schools of thought regarding the origin of the world. The first school of thought claims that this world came into existence by nature and that nature is not an intelligent force. The second school of thought says that the world was created by an almighty God who is responsible for everything. The third school of thought says that the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end.

Buddhism is in accordance with this third school of thought. Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by sayings “There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.”

i), The scientific explanation of the universe’s origination: big bang

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

For thousands and thousands of years, mankind has asked the question "Where did our universe come from?” In 1948 a scientist, George Gamow, came up with the theory of the Big Bang. Gamow said that in the beginning there was nothing at all: just a big open space with a ball of heavily compressed matter, or”stuff”, floating in the middle of it. Gamow said that this ball had gravity and that gradually the tension created by the gravity became so great that it made the ball explode. As the stuff that made up the ball floated out in the different directions it became the planets, stars and meteorites that make up the different solar systems and galaxies of the universe.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the “Big Bang”), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. Then the universe began to take shape and constantly evolving, and the energy will be released. When the energy released to the end, the universe began to return the original state of the point, and then there will be a new Big Bang. This is the Big Bang theory.

Not long afterwards, some other scientists questioned Gamow’s theory. Even though it seemed like a decent explanation of where the present universe came from, it didn’t explain where the blob of stuff at the beginning of things came from.They argued that the blob must have come from somewhere else and that therefore, Gamow’s theory didn’t explain the whole story.

According to science, the Big Bang theory indicates that the universe originated 15 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small mass of matter at extremely high density and temperature. Then the universe began to take shape and constantly evolving, and the energy will be released. When the energy released to the end, the universe began to return the original state of the point, and then there will be a new Big Bang.

ii), Buddhist explanation

Interestingly, Buddhists also say that the universe has existed since time without beginning. They break time down into four ‘aeons’, incredibly long periods of time lasting millions and millions of years. The first aeon is the ‘aeon of creation’, where things are just coming into existence. Then comes the ‘aeon of abiding’, where things have reached a kind of maturity and there is stability in the universe. Third comes the‘aeon of destruction’, where things start to get worse and worse until everything is destroyed. Finally, there is the aeon of space or‘nothingness’, where there is nothing but darkness. It is out of this darkness that the next universe appears, in yet another ‘aeon of creation’.

However, Buddhists go a step further than the scientists. They use the same kind of reasoning that was used by Gamow’s critics to prove that, just as the universe has existed forever, so too has the mind! Most Western people seem to believe that the mind suddenly appeared at some point in time. Buddhists say that this is impossible because you cannot have a ‘first moment’ of mind, a moment that is not the result of a previous moment.

In the eyes of the Buddha, the world is nothing but Samsara--the cycle of repeated births and deaths. To Him, the beginning of the world and the end of the world is within this Samsara. The world experiences the four kalpas or epochs: formation and completion; existing or abiding; destruction and annihilation. These four stages of the universe are in a circle evolution with no stopping. Since elements and energies are relative and inter-dependent, it is meaningless to single out anything as the beginning. Whatever speculation we make regarding the origin of the world, there is no absolute truth in our notion.

The speculative explanations of the origin of the universe that are presented by various religions are not acceptable to the modern scientists and intellectuals. Even the commentaries of the Buddhist Scriptures, written by certain Buddhist writers, cannot be challenged by scientific thinking in regard to this question.

Today scientists, historians, astronomers, biologists, botanists, anthropologists and great thinkers have all contributed vast new knowledge about the origin of the world. This latest discovery and knowledge is not at all contradictory to the Teachings of the Buddha. Bertrand Russell again says that he respects the Buddha for not making false statements like others who committed themselves regarding the origin of the world.

IV, The theories of science and Buddhism on the existence content of the world

i), science has advanced opinion and pay attention to special individuals

Science recognizes that all things in contemporary have the same right living in the same world which is the same as Buddhist notions. But the spirit of science, “to seek truth from facts”, is to determine a specific location for special cases, which is given by the theories with the so-called scientific laws or theories. It pays more attention on its differences in individuals.

As we know, no matter hard science, soft science or social science, all are divided in different sub-areas. To some extent, science is something like a tool to exam different special categories or areas of things and phenomena.

We learn knowledge from special things, we touch the outside world from the special things, even the things in our mind or dreams are special. Nevertheless, the laws or theories grasped by us are specific.

It is no fault for these. For we are all living in a particular realm—human existence of the six directions of incarnation. We can’t go far beyond the existence world. We have to survive in the same world. So, learning and handling with the specific matters are our real task in the world. The problem is that we should not evaluate all things with the criteria we gained in the existence world. Because there are other realms except our human being, there are other sentient beings we have never contacted or thought of. In this point, Buddhism has a more broaden perspective than so-called science.

ii), In Buddhism, there is no difference between the individuals in its ultimate nature.

In Buddhism, all beings are equal, whether it is in the past or in the future, in the human existence realm or in the other five realms. It explains the mutual interdependence relation based on the discipline of Dependent Origination and the principle of Causes and Effects.

Everything in the universe is built up of just four things, namely in Pathavi, Apo, Vayo and Tejo; or in English: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. But the earth, water, air, and fire here mentioned are not quite the same as the plain earth, water, air, and fire we have to do with in the world about us every day. These four names in Buddhist Abhidhrama teaching, that is in the deeper doctrines of Buddhism, stand for forces orenergies, forces, energies, which, however, manifest themselves, make their presence known to living creatures like us, with sensoria such as are ours, as the things we call by these names. Earth, for instance, in Buddhist philosophy does not mean the dust in the road outside there, but the quality, the property, of Extension, of extensibility; that is, it means the power of occupying space. “Earth,” speaking Buddhistically, is the correlated space. “Earth” is where there is not space. Space is where there is not “earth.” Apo or Water, again, in Buddhist philosophy does not mean just the fluid in this jug and glass on the table before me. Speaking strictly Buddhistically, Apo or “Water” means the force of Cohesion wherever it may be found, in water and in everything that holds together and keeps its shape through the atoms composing it sticking to each other, more or less, and not flying off in all directions, as they might do but for the presence among them of this force of cohering which keeps them together in shape, somewhat as a drop of water holds together in the round shape of a small globular mass ol fluid on the leaf of a lotus flower. Vayo or Air represents the-force, Vibration, as found in the air, and for that matter, in .ill (lungs. And lastly, Tejo or Fire stands for radiation. Fire in all its forms and variants as latent heat and light and so on, is the most pronounced kind of radiation we have before our eyes, from the sun in the sky of our solar system, and the countless suns shining far out in space all about us, down to the least: little glow-worm in the grass or firefly in the air. Wherever radiation is found in our universe—and it is found everywhere: some, indeed, saying that the universe is nothing else but radiation—but wherever it manifests itself, there we have Fire .is that term is understood in Buddhist philosophy.

Another one, everyone has the nature to be a Buddha in someday. So, in nature, there is no difference between individuals things, they are all made of the same materials, and all the sentient beings have the same ability to be Buddha. In this way, Buddhism has a wholesome way in thinking about the universe, it thinks all matters are equal. When it takes things into account, all things will in its views at the same time. Each of its teachings or theories fit for all the conditions. In other words, the Buddhist doctrines will be validity in different times and spaces.

V, The theories of science and Buddhism on the development of the world

i), science has an advanced opinion, all the movement in the universe has a proper direction.

Science takes it in advance that the development of the world is in the procedure of progress. In essence, all the things and phenomena develop in only one forward direction, and there is no end of this procedure.

In historians’ opinion, today’s achievements are accumulated in the past years. All contemporary civilization is the results of the past development. Today is better than yesterday, and tomorrow will be definitely better than today. The world is in a procedure with the direction of development.

When we look up the word “progress” in dictionaries, we could find there are many progress in different science or areas. Just like philosophy, though there are two opposite attitude on this topic in philosopy); Progress in history; the largest-scale trend evolutionary progress in organisms and that the trend; the scientific progress of the abilities applied in solving problems; Social progress in which societies or individuals become better and something like progress trap, talking about the human ingenuity in pursuing progress, etc.

When we talk about the progress in science, it always gives us an attitude of optimism, whereas Buddhism gives us an attitude without optimism no pessimism.

ii), Buddhism has no pre-set point, all things in the world are move in a circle of four kalpas or epochs: formation and completion; existing or abiding; destruction and annihilation.

Buddhism doesn’t take it as a pre-set point that the procedure of development is progress. It takes all the time and the space, whether in past or in future, in globe or out of globe, and all the sentient beings in consideration at the same time. It explains the development of the world by the principle of causes and conditions and the Buddhist principle of causes and effects.

Here, we take the human existence as an example. A few Buddhists concepts seem strange to the modern mind. Buddha inherited the Indian belief in reincarnation: Each person has lived before, and past lives influence how you experience this one.

More strangely, Buddha said that, although people reincarnate, they have no souls. In part, this seems to be a reaction to the ancient Hindu belief in an immutable, eternal soul (atman) that migrates through many lifetimes. In part, though, Buddha arrived at this conclusion by his radical method of awareness. Buddhism invites you to look unwaveringly at every experience and ask, “Is it solid, unchanging, whole?”

The answer, Buddhists say, is always, “No”--even when asked of the soul. Everything changes. Everything is impermanent. It is our attempt to attach ourselves to impermanent things, and gain happiness there by, that guarantees and perpetuates suffering.

In some important ways, the Buddhist view of the universe resembles the view developed by 20th-century physics. Except for the mental categories we impose upon experience, we find nothing in experience that is immutable. There is no constant but our own misconceptions and our own doomed instinct to deny change. Every “thing” is actually a process--it arises, develops, flourishes, declines, and dissipates. All nouns are still-photos from the movie of life--which is made up of verbs. All that we see around and inside us is the result of trillions of simultaneous processes, arising and declining in a symphony of different overlapping rhythms at once. All that appears solid in this cosmos is in reality a shimmering, substanceless dance of energy in flux.

Though all things are in a process, but this process is very different from that sciences tell us. It doesn’t mean this process is a procedure of development, it maybe a retrograde movement, e.g. the Degenerate Times in Buddhism.

V, The advantage of the Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination

The Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination is “The being of one thing induces the existence of the other; the appearance of one thing causes the growth of the other; the nothingness of one thing demonstrates the nonexistence of the other; and the extermination of one thing brings about the extinction of the other”. This includes not only the human beings, but also the environment related to all beings. It is not only a tool for understanding the world and is also the basis for enlightenment Nirvana. The theory has the greatest scope of applicability.

In essence, the principle of Dependent Origination is a description of the process of the arising and cessation of suffering. The word “suffering” (dukkha) is a very important term in Buddhism. It figures in several of its most important teachings, such as the Three Characteristics (tilakkhana) and the Four Noble Truths (ariyasacca). In order to more clearly understand the principle of Dependent Origination, it is essential to first understand this word dukkha, or suffering.

The term “dukkha” in the Buddha's teaching is used in a much broader sense than is its English equivalent, “suffering”. In Buddha's words, it divides suffering into three types,they are:

Dukkha-dukkhata, the suffering which is a feeling. This includes both physical and mental suffering -- aches, pains, sadness and so on.

Viparinama-dukkhata: the suffering which is inherent in change; the suffering concealed within the inconstancy of happiness. This is the suffering which is caused by the changes within, and the cessation of, happiness. If the pleasant feeling had not arisen, the suffering dependent on it would likewise not have arisen. If pleasant feeling is accompanied by an awareness of its fickle nature, fear, worry and anxiety tend to shadow it. When the pleasant feeling in time passes away, it is followed by the longing, “I used to have such happiness, now it is gone.”

Sankhara dukkhata: the suffering which is inherent within all sankhara, all things which arise from determinants; specifically, the five khandhas. This refers to the subjection of all conditioned things to the contrary forces of birth and dissolution, how they are not perfect within themselves, but exist only as part of the cause and effect continuum. As such, they are likely to cause suffering (that is, the feeling of suffering, or dukkha-dukkhata) whenever there is inflexible craving and clinging to them through ignorance (avijja-tanha-upadana).

The most important kind of suffering is the third kind, which describes the nature inherent to all conditions, both physical and mental. Sankhara-dukkhata as a natural attribute assumes a psychological significance when it is recognized that conditions are incapable of producing any perfect contentment, and as such will cause suffering for anybody who tries to cling to them.

The principle of Dependent Origination shows the interdependence and interrelation of all things in the form of a continuum. As a continuum, it can be analyzed from a number of different perspectives:

All things are interrelated and interdependent; all things exist in relation to each other; all things exist dependent on determinants; all things have no enduring existence, not even for a moment; all things have no intrinsic entity; all things are without First Cause, or Genesis.

To put it another way, the fact that all things appear in their diverse forms of growth and decline shows their true nature to be one of a continuum or process. Being a continuum shows them to be compounded of numerous determinants. The form of a continuum arises because the various determinants are interrelated. The continuum moves and changes form because the various factors concerned cannot endure, even for a moment. Things cannot endure, even for a moment, because they have no intrinsic entity. Because they have no intrinsic entity they are entirely dependent on determinants. Because the determinants are interrelated and interdependent, they maintain the form of a continuum, and being so interrelated and interdependent indicates that they have no First Cause. The functioning of the principle of Dependent Origination applies to all things, both physical and mental, and expresses itself through a number of natural laws.

It is worth noting that kamma, as with all other cause and effect relationships, can only function because things are transient (anicca) and are void of intrinsic entity (anatta). If things were permanent and had intrinsic being in themselves, none of the natural laws, including the law of kamma, could operate. Moreover, these laws support the truth that there is no First Cause, or Genesis.

Things have no root cause or first arising. Tracing back along the stream of causes ad infinitum, no root cause can be found for anything. Another kind of reasoning which contradicts nature and is related to the idea of a root cause is the belief that in the beginning there was nothing. This kind of false reasoning is the human habit of ”clinging to concepts,” or “not knowing the truth of concepts,” which in turn is not knowing things as they are. This causes the attempt to find something eternal, a First Cause, Mover of All Things, or Creator, which in turn gives rise to a number of contradictions, such as: “How can that which is eternal create that which is non-eternal?”

In any case, searching for the facts regarding the question of a First Cause, a Creator God, and such, have little value in the Buddhist view, because they are not essential to a meaningful life. And even though reflecting on these matters can provide a wider world view as mentioned above, such reflection can still be passed over, as the value of the teaching of Dependent Origination in terms of life fulfillment already covers the benefits desired. We should therefore direct our attention more toward that.

VII, The advantage of Buddhist principle of Cause and Effect

The Buddhist principle of Causes and Effects says: “the Karma will not disappear until it given to the maker, even after long and long time”. The Karma, cause and effect in Buddhism have their special meanings. The principle could be applied in the largest scope in the universe.

From a Buddhist point of view, mathematics and science explain how things happen, but not why. Like science, Buddhism acknowledges the law of cause and effect in nature and physics, called niyamas .

This law works exactly like gravity or inertia. It is not run by observant gods punishing or rewarding people. If your friend jumped off a cliff and died, you wouldn't look up to the sky and cry out “Curse you gravity for killing my friend!” Similarly, if you constantly cause harm to other people and constantly have bad luck, there is no point blaming the gods or even the law of cause and effect itself.

You make your choices (likened to seeds in Buddhism). You bear the results (likened to fruit). When Buddhism recommends precepts of behaviour (sila), this is not in the style of a tyrant making arbitrary laws, but of a parent, with more experience than a child explain, for example, “Don't smoke”. It's not that the parent is anti-tobacco, but that they fear the consequences of smoking on the child. Through bitter experience and insight they have a better understanding of the risk of pain, disease and death. They love the child and want them to avoid these consequences even if the child is unable to fully understand them at this point. Similarly the Buddha had advice for our conduct based on his greater understanding of the nature of realty. Like the child though, we can understand the basic ideas ourselves and use our imagination to perceive that, in reality, these rules are even more beneficial than they seem to us.

In your whole life, you never saw a thing that existed independently. That is to say, you never saw a thing that wasn't created by something else. Everything is being created and changed constantly. If we think deeply about this, we can see it has a lot of implications and also that we constantly ignore this obvious fact. We behave as if everything is permanent.

If you have an open mind, initially that you should try to understand the theory of cause and effect. Then look for it in your life. When you see it happening, you will come to understand the theory is a law.

The law has something with the word “karma” in Buddhism. Sometimes, there are no differences between them. Karma has a positive or negative quality but it also has a “poetic justice” quality to it. It often comes back in the form it was made. This makes it easier to spot when it happens in your life.

From the comparison of the explanation in the original and the movement of the world, and the explanation of the Buddhist principle of Dependent Origination and principle of Cause and Effect, Buddhist theories have the advantages of the characteristics of the scientific law. And it can be applied in larger realm than science. Though we will not say that Buddhism is super than science, but the theories grasped by Buddhism is indeed better than the so-called science.