From a philosophy of science perspective some of this reasoning is anticipated in the thread: Science, Scientism & Dharma
That something “needs to be compatible with scientific truth” makes sense only to the degree that what is called “scientific truth” is true. I think some caution is called for here.
- Scientific truth is generally held provisionally and/or probabilistically. The word truth is to be use advisably.
- The idea endorsed by Bhikkhu Cintita Dinsmore to Take seriously but hold loosely applies equally strongly to notions of “scientific truth”.
I would advise something less emphatic even for the cosmology found inside the EBTs. I might suggest this revision:
“The student should be advised that it is permissible and perhaps wise or skillful to put aside aspects of Buddhist cosmology when they contradict the more certain aspects of scientific cosmology.”
Q Do you agree?
Q Can you source the proposition that “Buddhism, as presented in the EBTs , needs to be compatible with scientific truth” in passages from the EBT?
I’m thinking that cannot be done.
Buddhism, as presented in the EBTs, claims to be true, in the sense that it reflects reality.
I would say that reflecting reality is not the same as a literal, one-to-one correspondence with reality. In similar fashion a map is a map, not the territory. A reflection is a reflection of an image of a thing and not the thing itself.
Q Would you care to revise the proposition or did I capture your intended meaning?
Any aspect, or supposed aspect, of the natural world is at least in principle open to scientific investigation, and surely rebirth is no exception.
Spot on! That proposition has more of the flavor of respect for uncertainty that is appropriate to the subject.