According to Wikipedia, “Science (from the Latin word scientia , meaning “knowledge”)[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”
Typically, we also want causal theories out of science. That is, science isn’t merely describing what we see, but we want to understand why and how things happen. Science is also about controlling the universe, for example, scientific knowledge about viruses allows us to create vaccines, which allows us to avoid getting sick.
There’s a bit of a ‘causal revolution’ ongoing in the sciences right now. Here’s an excerpt from The Book of Why by Judea Pearl (page 155), describing a huge innovation in the scientific analysis of causality which came in the late twentieth century.
Robins and Greenland set out to express their conception of confounding in terms of potential outcomes. They partitioned the population into four types of individuals: doomed, causative, preventive, and immune. The language is suggestive, so let’s think of the treatment X as a flu vaccination and the outcome Y as coming down with flu. The doomed people are those for whom the vaccine doesn’t work; they will get flu whether they get the vaccine or not. The causative group (which may be nonexistent) includes those for whom the vaccine actually causes the disease. The preventive group consists of people for whom the vaccine prevents the disease: they will get flu if they are not vaccinated, and they will not get flu if they are vaccinated. Finally, the immune group consists of people who will not get flu in either case.
However, this idea seemed to have been known in India 2500 years ago, AN 3.22:
In some cases a patient won’t recover from an illness, regardless of whether or not they get suitable food and medicines, and a capable carer.
In some cases a patient will recover from an illness, regardless of whether or not they get suitable food and medicines, and a capable carer.
In some cases a patient can recover from an illness, but only if they get suitable food and medicines, and a capable carer, and not if they don’t get these things.
Now, it’s for the sake of the last patient—who will recover only if they get suitable food and medicines, and a capable carer—that food, medicines, and a carer are prescribed. But also, for the sake of this patient, the other patients should be looked after.
It’s amazing to me to find one of the most advanced modern scientific ideas, expressed more clearly by the Buddha ~2500 years ago.
If we look further in AN 3.22:
In the same way, these three people similar to patients are found in the world. What three? Some people don’t enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, regardless of whether or not they get to see a Realized One, and to hear the teaching and training that he proclaims.
Some people do enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, regardless of whether or not they get to see a Realized One, and to hear the teaching and training that he proclaims.
Some people can enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, but only if they get to see a Realized One, and to hear the teaching and training that he proclaims, and not when they don’t get those things.
Now, it’s for the sake of this last person that teaching the Dhamma is prescribed, that is, the one who can enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, but only if they get to see a Realized One, and to hear the teaching and training that he proclaims. But also, for the sake of this person, the other people should be taught Dhamma.
So here we have the Buddha framing Dhamma-teaching as an intervention, using causal logic that is supposedly a ‘revolutionary’ late 20th century scientific innovation
Therefore, I propose that Buddhism is actually a science and not a religion. But we’re unable to recognize this because our modern notions of science are underdeveloped, particularly when it comes to causation. In other words, since most of our science is limited to studying correlations, not causation, we’re not able to recognize the scientific nature of the Buddha’s dhamma, since it is so thoroughly grounded in causality.
What do you think?