Do you think karma is a logically scientific concept and can be proven to be true?
Well unless anyone has a clue as to what it is and how it actually works and methods of creation, no.
It's a pretty unscientific idea too. Everything in science is objective while hte idea of "responsibility" and "making someone happier" etc etc is completely subjective. It's like asking if the sun's light is less intense if your sad today. The light doesn't know or care, its a subjective idea and science doesn't seem to like subjectiveness.
karma might be true, but i think it would have more to do with intentions than actual actions.sometimes actions with good intentions may have negative effects, what happens to your karma then?
You might be interested in the Buddhist forum www.e-sangha.com .
Although I'm not a believer myself, they do have a wide range of topics including some on karma.
I believe Karma can be scientifically defined. I'll use an example to portray what I mean. If I go to a gas station & give the cleric a hard time for no reason, the cleric will most likely carry that over to the customer after me. So, the customer after myself then comes to my workplace later in the day & gives me an attitude. Or perhaps it'll give the customer road rage & cause an accident. See how my actions have caught up with myself? This is obiviously a crude explanation, but it's the general idea. Basically, if you go around & do "bad" things, it'll spread like an infectious disease, & vice versa with doing good deads. I like to view karma as cause & effect rather than some mystical force.
there are so many people around you, the probability you'd do something that affects you is very low... its like thinking throwing a rock to a stormy sea would make it even more stormy...
when you're happy, look on the bright side of life, and help to others, good things happen because you notice them more then the bad things, and vice versa, thats my explanation to karma.
its a great feeling to be optimistic and happy, you dont need any scientific reason for it.
i love the feeling i get when i make others happy as myself, and i think life just gets better every moment.
and its pretty good right now too
There are many people, but that's my point. Your action spreads to one person than to another. Now you got two upset people, we infect two more. Understand? It's obivious some people just brush it off, but I can't tell you the number of times I've gotten an irate customer at work & I've carried over my upset feelings to the next customer.
the butterfly effect exists, but it doesnt mean that it affects you for the worse, even if bad actions are what made it happen in the first place.
Which is why I stated it works vice versa. :tongue:
i think that people that believe in karma would even say that the butterfly effect would affect those with good karma for the better and thos with bad karma for the worse, it doesnt matter who created the first "wave" and with what action (i.e. "good" or "bad")
i dont think that the chaos theory would help this statement..
what about those with no karma?
So, can i conclude that karma only happens by chance?
That's only my take on the subject. But yes, in that particular version it would be chance & chance alone.
if youd give more weight to good thing that happen to you over bad things, youd notice them more often and be happier.
optimism is good karma in my view, and it doesnt happen by chance.
but karma in the more known form (i.e. the way it was introduced by sprinter in the top of this thread) isnt explained well by the butterfly effect because it happens only by chance if you want to explain it by the butterfly effect.
so the butterfly effect is not a good explanation, karma is supposed to be related to ones soul, rewarding people with good karma and punnishing those with bad karma, and that is not scientific (we cant see, or measure it in any way, so theres no way to know if you carry good/bad karma from previuos life). so scientifically you cant say anything about karma, it may or may not exist.
only when you finished your iterations on earth and join the perfect souls, would you know if it was true or not.
What is the difference between karma, and the explanation of disease and death used centuries ago - that it was caused by some kind of wrongdoing by the person with the misfortune.
I thought the very notion of medical science disprooves this?
in the case of desease, the real cause has been found, thus disprooving the belief it was a punnishment from god or whatever they thought it was (some thought bad smell caused it).
but in the case of karma, theres no way to disproove its existance.
by the statement that the count is related to a soul, and that the soul can live many times, you cant realy make any measurement.
and because this isnt an observable phenomena, you cant find any other "real" cause to replace karma.
this is why karma is not a scientific thing - it doesnt make any measureable predictions.
Buddha had an idea called the "chain of conditioned arising". In it, he described that for every thought, action, and word we speak, we are conditioning the next thought, action and word we will have in the future.
I believe that this ties in strongly with karma. I feel the only way that we can scientifically prove whether it is correct or incorrect, is to become the scientist of our own lives.
I know from experience that what Buddha is speaking of is true (to my own perception of reality). When I leave for work, and forget to close the curtains in my apartment, my apartment is hot when I get home. And because the apartment is hot, I am uncomfortable. The "lack of" thought in this case affected my karma. Also, the chain of conditioned arising has to do with habits. If you smoke a pack and a half of cigarettes a day, and get lung cancer, don't you think that your habits affected your karma?
you seem to connect karma with causality... but this is not the case, karma is carried over to next lives, and isnt the immidiate rewards\punnishments for your actions.
and because theres no way to track one's soul, there can be no experiment concerning karma.
Fargoth, thank you for correcting me. I see where I was connecting karma with causality. I also agree with the statement that karma is carried over to next lives.
I also agree that there can be no real "experiment" to prove whether karma exists, that is why I was suggesting observation (in our own lives). Similar to how cosmology studies the universe, using observations.
In my point of view, it was speaking more for the scientific mind. Past & future lives can not be proved, we don't even know if there is an after life. However, cause & effect can be proved.
Separate names with a comma.