Buddhist Practice, Science and Philosophy

This has come up in a few other places so maybe having its own topic will reduce the amount of impinging it might do on other threads.

I'll start:

My view is that the practice of buddhism and all that entails from that practice has as its ultimate purpose the integration of a particular view of reaity - that which stems from our practice - with the rest of the world and how we engage it. I believe our practice informs us and is not mutually exclusive from the rest of society, law, science, philosophy or any other human endeavor we want to address. I believe that buddhists need to recognize the value of science and other pursuits. I think the Dalai Lama was once asked what he would do if science were to legitmately contradict a major tenet of buddhism. He replied that buddhism would have to adapt to that view.

Science is not God. Buddhism is not God. We need to have a healthy skepticism about us, even for those things, those insights, we believe are absolute truths based on insights from our practice. Does that make me a heretic? Does that make me naive?

"
I'll start:

My view is that the practice of buddhism and all that entails from that practice has as its ultimate purpose the integration of a particular view of reaity - that which stems from our practice - with the rest of the world and how we engage it.
... ...
Science is not God. Buddhism is not God. We need to have a healthy skepticism about us, even for those things, those insights, we believe are absolute truths based on insights from our practice. Does that make me a heretic? Does that make me naive?

"

Speaking as someone who can say withh 99% certainty that he has very little experience of the P o'I beyond a&p/dissolution territory I am heartened that an at least first path yogi thinks this is an important topic!
some thoughts:
A: Buddhism and its host culture seem to mutualy impregnate each other.
B: a "protestant" reaction to this which seeks "pure buddhism" seems just as naive as an attitude that uncritically interprets buddhist doctrine from some cultural standpoint, i.e. Confucianism, Cognitive psychology, materialism, new age spirituality, whatever, whether affirming or denying it through that lens.
C: between the extremes of "B" there seems to be a fertile ground for "A" to take place creatively and with a sensitivity to the demands of our actual historical situation.
D: There are some belief systems operative in modern culture that may be contributing to a global ecological, political, cultural etc. system of crises. These ways of speaking and thinking about things may not be the best subcultures with which to interface buddhism, and doing so uncritically would be a shame. I can imagine a community of developmentally enlightened people who take the broader effects of their practice/realization on the world as seriously as the transmission of that practice/realization, and I see that sort of thing happening on this and related websites!
--Jake

Welcome to this little corner, Jake!

Buddhism matters to me in large part because it has skepticism deep in its roots. We don't have to accept anything purely on faith. We are expected to investigate everything and not accept authority as an argument that matters, even if it is coming from some form of "pure" Buddism (I'm not sure that that is but I'l accept your construction). In that way Buddhism is very well suited to our times. And I couldn't agree more that examining the lenses through which we all see the world can only be a good thing. That's what Buddism helps me do at a very deep level.

Hi! I also appreciate that Buddhism is verifiable and appeals to logic and evidence more than any other "religion" of which I'm aware. I forget where I just read that Arthur C. Clark predicted that Buddhism would be the only of the major religions to survive in a rational/scientific age because it's based on verifiability; also I think Einstien said something to that effect.
I tend towards the view that there are some coherant stages to the history of religion and culture in general and I think Buddhism started out a bit ahead of its time in that regard!
Also, just to be clear, in referring to "pure" Buddhism I meant to point out that no such thing exists. The form most often pointed to as an example of "pure" Buddhism by early western scholars of religion when they as secular humanists/materialists were trying to denigrate such things as Zen, "Lamaism" (their derogatory term for Central Asian Buddhism) and heaven forbid Pure Land sects was Theravada which is actually only one school of early buddhism which wasn't even institutionalized until much time had passed after the Buddha's death, as I understand it; and it itself has been evolving and developing a wealth of branches in different regions.. of course, it's practice is very effective and in some ways it's the most compatible with mainstream western sensibilities, but I digress-- thanks for starting this thread! --Jake