I found this in the deep in the directory structure of the backup backwater of my harddrive. It’s from my undergrad era. I was taking a class on evolution, team taught by some great teachers. One of them was Michael Ruse, one of the few teachers of any notoriety that I’ve had. He said he would personally mark this assignment, but he didn’t, which is probably the source of my ongoing suspicion about Michael Ruse. I think it was meant to be a fairly open-ended assignment, and I apparently took it in that spirit.

The Buddhist Mouse and the Evolutionist Mouse
A Friendly Dialogue on Some Vaguely Important Issues

Hello Mr. Mouse!

Hello Mr. Mouse!

Well, it is nice to see you once again.

I so enjoyed our conversation of last week, how could I not return?

Ah, I see. The cheese had nothing to do with it then?

Not at all. Ahem. Do you know, I’ve been thinking of what you said last week.

About the Buddhist story of the evolution of the world?

Well, yes. In fact I looked up a translation of the original text.

Oh yes?

It doesn’t mirror the big bang quite as closely as you had said.

Oh no?

Well, it does mention a collapse and rebirth of the universe, but there are an awful lot of radiant beings flying about, chewing clumps of the savoury earth and what-not.

Yes well, it’s only a story.

Oh? But… I thought you were Buddhist?

The Buddha used a lot of metaphors, and parables, and whatever seemed like a good idea at the time, to get his point across. What he had to say depended on who he was talking to. The important part is the “moral”.

Ah. I see. You don’t take issue with evolution then?

No, not particularly. But I wouldn’t accept it on faith.

On faith? Hardly. Short of gravity, what can one be more certain of than evolution? It’s been studied to death.

You certainly seem very certain.

With good cause.

I try to avoid certainty in thinking.

But certainty of evolution and certainty of religious notions is altogether different!

Hmmm… maybe I could use a parable.

If you must.

Well, more of a metaphor really, because I’m making it up as I go along. Imagine a snake-oil purveyor of the old west who has travelled to South America. Travelling far up-river, he contacts a jungle tribe. He displays his wares and orates on their marvellous origins and miraculous and convenient effects. Until now, the closest thing the tribe folk have ever experienced is their own shaman, who has the same showman’s flare, but who actually knows the effects of his potions, thanks to his knowledge of the local flora. But not being shaman or snake-oil sellers themselves, how are the tribespeople to know who is telling the truth?

I’m not sure I see what you’re driving at.

Hang on, I’m getting there.

You like telling stories, I think.

Buddhism is generally an oral tradition.

I thought you said you were making this up as you went along.

All right, I like telling stories. If they trade toucans and bits of river gold for the snake oil, and it turns out to be one part turpentine to two parts molasses, are they dupes? If afterwards, they begin to doubt their shaman, are they silly? What they need is a good system for allocating certainty.

Well, yes, of course! As a scientist, I have the scientific method!

But you seem to accept quite a lot out of hand.

I think that’s the pot calling the kettle, if I may say so. When they have told you that you shall be reborn, and have been reborn many times, you have believed them and taken steps to prepare. This fine oral tradition you mention is quite old I believe?

The Siddartha Gottama Mouse obtained enlightenment some 2500 years ago.

Perhaps you’ve noticed how quickly any little news item or bit of gossip may become distorted when “handed down orally” through a chain of friends. Surely, if Timmy mouse passed on a two and a half millennium old rumour that you could fly, you would not jump off yonder bridge with him?

Actually, the Buddha had first to obtain absolute enlightenment before he could fly. But I see what you mean. At the very least I am aware of my faith. In fact, my faith encourages me to be sceptical of the elements of it that I take on faith. You seem like a nice enough mouse, and I have to admit, I worry a little about you. How many studies have you heard of which support this evolutionary theory of yours?

Lots and many. Really, quite a few. Hundreds or thousands.

Ah ha! Very impressive numbers. They would impress me – they do. And of those hundreds or thousands, how many do you know the details of?

Well, perhaps a dozen. Half a dozen.

That doesn’t seem like very many.

No! But one simply can’t read all the primary literature available on… everything. It’s simply not feasible. Instead, one has to know your teachers, and use reason to choose who is and isn’t likely to offer you a carefully considered insight and summary of what there is to know.

This is what I meant with my parable. It wasn’t very good, for the very reason you pointed out – it was missing the third category, the priests and professors. Here though is where I think my “religion” as we have been calling it, and your “study” differ. It’s in the number of things we are asked to accept and understand by them. When you get down to brass tacks, there are only a few in Buddhism. In fact, thanks to the oral tradition, we have numbers for every aspect of the study – to make it easier to remember – and the number of really important things you need to know and study in Buddhism is… four. The Four Noble Truths. There’s quantification for you. That’s it. It allows a very personal consideration of every point. No need to rely on teachers to tell you the truth, after an introductory lesson. How many ideas or concepts have you been asked to remember and understand in the long path to comprehending evolution?

Um, including what I’ve learnt of physiology, ecology, natural and geological history, physics, bio chem, molecular and mendellian genetics, err… quite a lot I suppose. I think I’m forgetting some.

Of course you are!

But Mr. Mouse, is this not an enormous over-simplification of your religion? There are Buddhists who dedicate their entire lives to understanding the intricacies of Buddhism, just as some mice dedicate their lives to the study of evolution.

Well, yes and no. Some dedicate their lives to living according to the study, but that may be different than studying it… I’m not sure. But as long as we’re being technical, I think if you were to do a mass comparison of the collected texts of the Buddhist canon versus the published literature of the fields of science you mentioned a moment ago, Buddhism would weigh in, but evolution would crush the scale into a fine powder.

Correct me if I am wrong: you are saying that the “diffuseness” of what we are required to learn makes it impossible to be mindful and aware of all the assumptions we’ve made and all the unsupported statements we’ve accepted as fact?

Mindful, yes, good word.

The information we are required to study and learn is at least testable. Our teachers are more likely to be careful in their choice of information to pass on to us because they can be held accountable for their statements. If what they say is untrue, we can absolutely determine it to be so, either through rigorous reasoning or else through actual physical experiments. There is a comprehensive and universally accessible reference against which our teacher’s notions can be tested – the real world. Science is “hard”.

Hmmm…

Religion is soft. The claims your spiritual teachers make aren’t testable. They are inferences made from literature. I don’t presume to know very much about Buddhism, but I would expect that there are many different ways of interpreting the scriptures? Perhaps more than four?

I don’t presume to know very much about Buddhism either. Yes, I suppose more than four, but Buddhism is testable. It is testable by life. It is tested by living. The suggestions of the Enlightened One are largely daily changes we can make with concrete results. Some of those results will show up in the long term, such as what form we will be incarnated into in our next lives. But the natural laws of khamma have shorter term expressions which we call ecology, and political science and civil behaviour and such. The things you do have consequences. Cause and effect is very central to Buddhism, and cause and effect is innately testable. I encourage you, Mister Mouse, take up meditating for 20 minutes a day, and see if you cannot focus on a single question for a longer time, within a week. Time your attention span. Establish a control group. Attempt to be mindful of your emotions, study them and how they affect you. Once you have a grip on them, and can be more careful with yourself, note how frustrated you become, or how often feelings of regret paralyse you. Establish a quantitative index for contentment and keep a record over a few years. Graph it.

Quantifying a subjective concept produces only a subjectively quantified concept, not an objective truth.

What isn’t subjective?

That’s a big question, and we’re running low on cheese. Next week?

Of course.