|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Book Review: "Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science," by David P. Barash |
|
|
|
| Author |
Cheung, Kin
|
|---|
| Source |
Religious Studies Review
|
|---|
| Volume | v.42 n.3 |
|---|
| Date | 2016.09.15 |
|---|
| Pages | 228 |
|---|
| Publisher | Wiley-Blackwell |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
|
|---|
| Location | Oxford, UK [牛津, 英國] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article; 書評=Book Review |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science. By David P. Barash. Oxford University Press, December 2, 2013. 216 pages. ISBN-10: 0199985561 ISBN-13: 978-0199985562 |
|---|
| Abstract | The discourse on Buddhism and science has mainly engaged the former with physics, psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience. Trained as a biologist, Barash brings a new perspective with a focus on ecology and evolution. His main audience is the contemporary scientific community, which tends to see a conflict between religion and science. Unlike the Abrahamic traditions, however, Barash argues that Buddhism can be reconciled with science. In making this argument, Barash responds to S. J. Gould's typology of religion and science but neglects perspectives by Buddhist scholars such as D. Lopez, J. Cabezón, and R. K. Payne. Buddhist insights of not‐self, impermanence, and interconnectedness are presented as compatible with scientific accounts of genetics, inter‐ and intra‐species competitive, parasitic, and symbiotic relationships. He proposes a novel analogy to understand karma as genotypes: actions of organisms are affected by ancestral genes and will have an effect on genetic progeny. The payoff is to develop normative claims to more responsible action toward the environment and other species. Barash's impulse to apply Buddhist doctrine toward the ecological crisis, while not new, is commendable. However, his ethical claims are without conviction. Despite critiquing the naturalistic fallacy, he commits the very same mistake: moving from is to ought. Similarly, though he cites D. McMahan on Buddhist modernism's tendency to demythologize, he misses the overarching critique of McMahan, and furthers that project. He dismisses aspects of Buddhism he finds unpalatable—like rebirth and healing rituals—as “hocus‐pocus,” “abracadabra,” “poppycock,” “ludicrous,” “mumbo‐jumbo,” and “arrant nonsense.” An uncharitable reader may apply some of these labels to his musings, especially the last chapter where he hastily introduces the existentialism of Sartre and Camus into his materialist version of a “biological Buddhism.” Deferring to science whenever Buddhism and science conflict, Barash misses the chance for a more meaningful engagement like D. Arnold's use of Buddhist philosophy to challenge cognitive science, rather than having Buddhism serve as a handmaiden that confirms biology and materialism. |
|---|
| ISSN | 0319485X (P); 17480922 (E) |
|---|
| DOI | 10.1111/rsr.12531 |
|---|
| Hits | 287 |
|---|
| Created date | 2017.04.14 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2019.11.25 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
