Eastern Religions and Science

Philip Goldberg argues, over at Huffington Post, that Eastern Religions are more friendly to science then their Western counterparts.  The claim is a little simplistic, for sure, but interesting to think about.  One only has to think about the many Hindu Gurus whom have denied some claim of science because it doesn’t reconcile with science.  What is true, though, is that many South Asian and East Asian traditions have been based on investigation, rather then blind acceptance of revelation–this isn’t true across the board.

I usually tell my students that Buddhism is not a religion of faith, but of realization.  It sets out a program for investigation that is supposed to help someone realize certain truths.  Of course, one only has to look at Pure Land Buddhism, and even many phases of more traditional Buddhism, to find places where faith in a particular Buddha or Bodhisattva is held as necessary, and this is often lacking the deep examination of the dialectic of faith and doubt that Christianity provides.

I think that the problem is the classic one of dividing faiths into “Eastern” and “Western” and assuming that they hold completely different, unique, essential ways of being.  What is interesting in studying religion, and perhaps most worthwhile, is noticing common patterns across traditions.  Do we see similar denials of science in faith intensive movements verses movements based on some sort of practical program of investigation?  What are the traits of a religious mode that can enter into dialog with science.  Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam–all can be both pro and anti-scientific, and maybe whether they are more or less so relies less on the overarching structure of the tradition then on the specifics of given movement within the tradition.