[ExI] Darwin and Buddhism

[John Grigg]

I think Darwin was actually Mormon.  ; )

John

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/16/was-darwin-a-buddhist/

Just days after the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, the father of
evolutionary theory, journalists and scientists from all over the
world converged to confront a fascinating connection: Some of Darwin's
views have a lot in common with Buddhist teachings.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, psychologist Paul Ekman, known for his
research showing the universality of facial expressions across
cultures, told us that Darwin's descriptions of compassion, as well as
his view of morality as it relates to compassion, closely mirror
Buddhist ideas.

"There's always the possibility that two wise people looking at the
same species will come up with the same conclusions," said Ekman, who
co-wrote a book with the Dalai Lama on compassion called "Emotional
Awareness: Overcoming the Obstacles to Psychological Balance and
Compassion."

It turns out that Darwin's friend Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker, a botanist
and explorer, visited Tibet in 1847. He became familiar with Buddhist
views there. He also wrote letters to Darwin. This is just one of many
ways that Darwin could have been influenced by Buddhist teachings,
Ekman said.

For Darwin and Buddhists, the seed for compassion is in the
mother-infant relationship — this is "simple compassion," Ekman said.
Then there's global compassion — for example, sending money and
clothes to victims of a natural disaster. Finally, heroic compassion
means risking your own life to save another — and you probably don't
know if you have heroic compassion unless you've been in a situation
like that, Ekman said.

The fundamental idea in both Darwin's writings and Buddhist views of
compassion is that "when I see you suffer, it makes me suffer, and
that motivates me to reduce your suffering so I can reduce my
suffering," Ekman said.

The curious coincidence of views serves as a backdrop for
understanding the nature of compassion, he said.

"I'm not by any means accusing Darwin of plagiarism," he explained.

What do you think? Does this link between Darwin and Buddhism have
greater implications? Read more about Darwin on CNN.com


Posted by: Elizabeth Landau -- CNN.com Writer/Producer

S Callahan   February 16th, 2009 6:49 pm ET

My understanding is he was a Christian theologian….I'll have to
research this again..but I'm almost sure I have read this in the past.
He was a man of faith, this is true.

S Callahan   February 16th, 2009 6:53 pm ET

There is a vd on utube called the Darwinian Gospel-Part 1 (under
LUMEL) that shares some of his views. He questioned if life was
designed , by God, to evolve and felt that Science closed it's mind to
the Spiritual Rhealm.
Though, we know today, Intelligent Design is in fact acknowledged by
somein science.

Franko   February 16th, 2009 11:36 pm ET

"motivates me to reduce your suffering "
I feel your pain is the modern, short version

Thought, emotion, contagious from one physical entity to another
Witch Doctor, with his rattlers, points at you, and commands you to die
Several days later, undiagnosed stomach ailment, dead you are

Basis of advertising, conform for acceptance (or die)
Mass marketing, manufacturing of consent, by the controllers

FastEddie   February 17th, 2009 9:34 am ET

Darwin went to seminary in his 20s, but he left to go on the Beagle's
voyage. Although he was religious early in his life, Darwin's faith
faded away as he aged. The death of his 10 year-old daughter Annie was
the nail in his faith's coffin.

derek   February 17th, 2009 9:47 am ET

Darwin studied theology and was on a path to priesthood in the
Anglican church. However he was became disillusioned at the passing of
his daughter and was unable to reconcile the 'problem of evil' with a
loving God ( http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue04/index.shtml#problem_of_evil_part_two
.) As to Buddhism I don't know all what Darwin said about
compassion/emotion but the idea that 'I help you out to reduce my
suffering' is clearly a Darwinist thought bereft of any moral
obligation (which would IMHO contradict Buddhist teaching.) The Buddha
taught his son Rahula "Compassion has the capacity to remove the
suffering of others without expecting anything in return." This
thought of sacrificial love is what delineates naturalism from most
religious thought.

McTim   February 17th, 2009 10:14 am ET

Darwin, like many scientists and philosophers of his time and since,
have not wanted to submit to a moral authority. Since THE moral
authority in Europe was the Christian church, anything but was a way
out. Dawkins is very clear that true Darwinism leads only to aethisim
in belief. Any compassion would have to be for our own self genetic
expression - that is even if you think it is compassion, it isnt, it
is natural selection acting upon you. Darwin was ultimately an
aethisit, not a Buddhist and definitely not a Christian. Influenced by
either perhaps, practicing faithful definitely not.

Dan Seidman   February 17th, 2009 10:54 am ET

I've been a big fan of Paul Ekman's work for many years.

He however is a big fan of the Dalai Lama and Darwin, so it's no
surprise he attempts to make that connection.

Mark   February 17th, 2009 11:00 am ET

I'm not sure the following would be considered Buddist:

"The Origin of the Species." … the books subtitle: "The Preservation
of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."

It seems that evolution as a worldview is an inherently racist theory
that opens the moral door for eugenics, euthanasia, and other crimes
against humanity.

Darwin writes in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are eliminated; and those that
survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men,
on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination;
we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we
institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to
save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to
believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak
constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak
members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has
attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must
be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a
want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a
domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any
one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Has this all been considered in the psychoanalysis of Darwin?

Stegermeister   February 17th, 2009 11:05 am ET

Putting a label like "Buddhist" or "Christian" confuses the matter
some. A truth is a truth no matter what belief system one may or may
not follow. Darwin was a brilliant motivated man and his beliefs were
his beliefs. Ask several Christians or Buddhists what they believe and
you will likely get different individual answers even if they belong
to the same Church or Sangha.

Sathanuman S. Khalsa   February 17th, 2009 11:18 am ET

Charles Darwin was a Christian. To say he was a Buddhist is
remarkable. The Buddhist would never disown him because he was
'outside the box' but he shallow following of the Christ seem to
disown their own if the have unorthodox views.
Jefferson created his own bible from the King James version. His views
on religion were unorthodox and he was painted by John Adams during
the presidential race of 1800 as an atheist.
What remarkable Americans we are. We are the most diverse nation on
earth, but our scientists, our clergy, our political leaders seemed to
have to follow a linear belief system or they are treated like someone
unacceptable to the norm.
Charles Darwin, like his soul-mate Abraham Lincoln were unique and a
blessing from the Divine to humanity's evolution as human beings.
God bless him.

Jake   February 17th, 2009 12:05 pm ET

To S. Callahan:

Here are the facts, in the interest of having an intellectually honest
dicsussion:

(1) Evolution is a scientific theory concerning how and why we have
the diversity of life that we have today. Here, I use the terms
"Scientific" and "theory" in their proper and technical senses.
"Scientific" is hard to define quickly, and others are better
qualified to do so. But, generally, scientific propositions must be
falsifiable and have some relationship to the facts in the world. This
is not arbitrary. Science advances knowlege by testing hypotheses
against the evidence in the world. We get to scientific truth when our
popositions or collections of propositions repeatedly pass such tests.
Without a falsifiability requirement, Science would be able to just
make stuff up as it goes along (e.g., "God did it"), and we would
learn nothing. A "theory" - roughly speaking - is a set of complex,
interrelated, highly-verified, scientific propositions with
explanatory value (that is, they help explain the way the world is).
ID proponent often suggest that the scientific use of the term
"theory" accords with our common-sense understaning of the term - for
example, when we say "I have a theory about x" and we really mean "I
conjecture the following about x, based on what little I know, etc."
This suggestion is incorrect.

(2) ID proponents use the terms "scientific" and "theory" incorrectly
all the time. Some get this wrong because they don't understand. These
poeple surely are NOT scientists. Folks who do understand the details,
but still mususe these terms, are playing anit-intellectual dirty pool
- the precise OPPOSITE of science. They have a non-scientific agenda
to push, science and knowledge be damned.

(3) In this regard, your claim that ID "is in fact acknowledged by
some in science" is simply incorret. ID is neither scientific nor a
theory. First, scientists agree that there is, to date, only one
scientific theory of the origins/diversity of life - and that theory
is Evolution. Evolution is one of the most tested and verified
scientific theories that has ever been developed by science.
Scientists are willing to look at contervailing evidence - many would
welcome it. Or even countervailing theories to better fit the facts.
But, to date, none of these have been produced (no - not even by ID
proponents. They just think (or pretend) that they have done so).
Second, ID is NOT "scientific," because the statment "GOD did it" is
neither falsifiable nor related - in any way - to the evidence in the
world. It cannot be tested or verified. It is just "made up." Also, ID
is not a "theory," because, it contains not one proposition - let
alone a set of interrlated propositions - that explains anything about
the world. ID proponents have no research plan or agenda. They merely
try to punch holes in evolutionary - succesfully. Upshot, to suggest
that the scientific community is actively wondering whether evolution
is true - or, more strongly, wondering if ID might be an alternate
scientific theory to evolution, is incorrect on many distinct levels.

Can we please have an intellectually honest discussion?

Jake   February 17th, 2009 12:20 pm ET

McTim –

I don't think you are being quite fair to Dawkins or athiests.

Dawkins is an athiest. He even has a chapter in his book about why
there "almost certainly is no God." But, if you read that chapter, you
will see that much of what he says doesn't relate to evolution at all.
He speack more generally about the "scientific facts on the ground" -
which include, but are not limited to, evolution.

(As an aside - please stop using the term "Darwinism." That is a term
made up by ID proponents and creationsitsts - those are synonyms,
actually, but that is another discussion - in an attempt to make
people think that we are just talking about some loosey-goosey
philosophicl viewpoint, not the most higly tested and verified theory
in the biological sciences).

Second, I think folks like Dawkins, Hitchens, and their ilk are more
rigorous and defensible on ethics than you give them credit for.
People do, in fact, display all sorts of ethical impulses and
behaviors - routinely. Generally, we don't injure, kill, steal from
each other, etc. And, we generally teach our children and others to do
the same. These are just empirical facts. And, despite what religious
leaders will generally tell you, these facts generally hold true
across a wide range of belief and non-belief. On the other hand, the
most powerful tool for suppressing natural human moral behaviors and
implusles is religion. As Steven Weinberg famously said, "With or
without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things and evil
people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it
takes religion."

John Dilmun   February 17th, 2009 12:22 pm ET

Gimme a break. Nobody really cares if Darwin was a Buddhist, an
Anglican, or Bozo the Clown. Additionally, nobody really cares if his
theories hold water or not. Modern interpretations have left his
initial work in the dust and I doubt if he would understand what some
of his adherents now hold to be true.
The bottom line for the academic community is "publish or perish" and
if everybody suddenly rejected his theories and decided that there was
no method, pattern or reason at all for the development of life on
this planet there would be no reason to spend a ridiculous amount of
money on the text books that are nothing more than regurgitated
rubbish in the first place.
If the reader wants to study evolution they need to study the
evolution of the growth of academic bank accounts instead of trying to
figure out whether the chicken or the egg came first.

Franko   February 17th, 2009 1:48 pm ET

Darwin was not an ist
Buddha got high by staring at his navel -achieved "the unconditioned"
Then heard the one hand clapping

Torske   February 17th, 2009 2:32 pm ET

It could be just Universal Consciousness.