Yes, I don’t mean to say that they are exactly the same. I certainly don’t think you or others are arguing for emptiness as a similar kind of thing to God. By “emptiness in the gaps” I am just comparing it to how an idea is dependent on science not disproving it. So there is a kind of direct relationship between the findings of physics on one hand and the validity of emptiness on the other. So long as physics leaves room for the possibility that things do not have an essence, then emptiness can be assumed there.
The difference between ‘emptiness in the gaps’ and ‘God in the gaps’ is that the movement is in the opposite direction. And I think this is why the comparison is popular. It’s a kind of Buddhist modernism. Christianity became unpopular because as science expanded, it seemed to remove more and more room where God could be hiding. Buddhism rises in popularity because as science expands, it seems to agree with many findings of Science. But the relationship between science and God/emptiness is the same, in that emptiness is confirmed or denied wherever proves or disproves it. When Science takes some of God’s territory, it’s Science +1 and God -1. But there’s the assumed God lurking where Science hasn’t caught up to him. With emptiness, every time Science agrees with emptiness its Emptiness +1. So God loses popularity and Emptiness gains it in this philosophical turf war with Science.
The ‘God in the gaps’ argument is a way of not disagreeing with science, but also not letting it disprove God, while also granting that Science can disprove God. Similarly, ‘Emptiness in the gaps’ is not to fight against Science. It leverages it to gain a better reputation for Buddhism. But it has to accept the cost of this fame: granting that emptiness is within the territory for Science to conquer. They already got God, now it’s a test if they will get Emptiness.
I have several problems, some of which I’ve already discussed. In brief, if the type of proof the Buddha needed to claim knowledge of emptiness was the same as scientific proof, then he couldn’t have claimed knowledge of emptiness. Because he simply did not know where quantum mechanics will lead us, and if it is at least possible it will lead us elsewhere, then it means he didn’t really know things were empty! So either the Buddha was (1) a really, really good scientist who somehow failed to mention his methodology, (2) a crappy scientist who drew conclusions too soon, or (3) he was doing something other than science.
Another problem, though, setting that aside, is very different in nature:
How is it possible for Buddhist texts to agree with the findings of Physics in the most subtle field, yet at the same time, Buddhist texts teach that we are on a flat earth with a huge mount Meru in the middle floating in space? To claim that the Buddha knew quantum mechanics, but did not know that the Earth is a sphere and that Mt. Meru isn’t a place, nor do the Sun and Moon orbit around it, is questionable.
Obviously one solution is to say that the Buddha didn’t think what every Buddhist tradition, including EBTs, say about the Earth and basic astronomy. There is clearly some reason to say so, because the statements about the world are not really common, major ideas in early Buddhist texts. Of course, they were accepted as factual for thousands of years by Buddhists. But in the early texts they are not common. Still, there are some occasional mentions of similar ideas or suggestions like mentioning Mt. Meru or that the earth floats on water, etc.
Another possibility of course is to say that emptiness is a core philosophical tenet of Buddhism whereas the Earth being a disc or floating on water is not; it doesn’t really make a difference for Buddhist philosophy whether the world is a globe or a disc. Obviously, for the ancient Buddhist traditions it does make a difference because this was believed and taught as true, or so it seems. But again, for early Buddhism this is a valid enough point. Here though, we would basically admit that it’s possible that the Buddha didn’t know this, and that he still somehow had to know what science would say about quantum mechanics thousands of years later, otherwise emptiness would be disproven?
It also seems strange that the Buddhist tradition would be depending on and waiting for science to see if it disproves emptiness? If the Buddhist tradition contained access to proofs of emptiness, then you would think the scientists would be learning QM from them! How could Buddhism claim to know anything about emptiness other than an educated guess if it depends on hoping science never finds some supposedly problematic thing?
A third option is to say that Buddhist emptiness simply does not depend on the findings of quantum mechanics, and that all the proofs needed for emptiness were provided in Ancient India by the Buddha alongside a practical guide. In fact, maybe emptiness would be sooner disproven by a meditator or philosopher than a Physicist due to the nature of the claim!
This is by far not a comprehensive discussion. But just some further thoughts. ![:pray: :pray:](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/images/emoji/twitter/pray.png?v=12)