for the purpose of discussion the dictionary definition of each term is such:

religion: a system of beliefs or belief of a supreme being or force that created(creates) all that is.
science: the observation, indentification, and explanation of all natural phenomena.

(perhaps taoist alchemy attempts this fusion) is such a fusion possible in the world today? and if it is, what effects would it have on the human condition?

one view, science is the the true perception of the world outside his skin, religion is the true perception of the world within his skin.

peace,
paul

What's funny is that the definition of religion is based on the "western" view of Catholicism.. hhahaa, "a system of beliefs or belief of a supreme being or force that created(creates) all that is."
Science observing, identifying and explaining all of natural phenomenon seems like the root of living being's problems. Taking things, observing separately, attaching ideas to them, and making up a story inwhich one can explain them..and then, dare not change too far from it because it was hard enough to come up with the first story...hahaha

Peace,
Aiwei

Boy! What a sticky subject!
The problem I see cropping up is the division between pure scientists and "religious" scientists as I like to call them. The former are those who use science as a tool for further understanding, always advancing by disproving a hypothesis rather than proving one and always saying "the data seems to be pointing in this direction" rather than "this is the way it is." The later see the scientific method as the only thing they can count on, the only way of knowing, the only source of meaning. Generally they tend to see the world without awe.
They don't seem to have noticed that when science scratches away the surface layers it usually challenges our basic assumptions.

I bet there are many here who have a love/hate relationship with science.

I think Freeman Dyson has it right:

'Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.'

So, in answer to your question is such a fusion possible? - I hope so, yes. Beyond that, I wouldn't even begin to speculate. I'd suggest, however, that we neglect meaning in the pursuit of truth, religious or scientific, at our peril.

Peace,
ZenB

This is a very interesting topic to write about. I have written many pages about this and studied the work of Robert Pollack of Columbia's Earth Inst.'s center for the study of Science and Religion... good people....

It comes down to medicine, consciousness and freedom through the Tao/reality.

I have been busy and not checked this website for a while... send me a PM if you want to see any writings I have done on this topic....THIS IS THE FUTURE but it wont be realized through talking, just organizing...

when a well built machine is working perfectly there is no mention of the parts,
when the body is in peak health, there are no internal organs, just a complete organism,
when science and religion are in harmony, there is no science and religion.

as lao tzu would say, when people recognize the good as good, there is already bad....

perhaps we should be looking at the fissure, not the fusion.

peace,
paul

Taoism can't be a religion in this Western sense, because the creator of all that is in taoism is neither a supreme being nor a force. Which gives us a neat alternative definition of Indo-European religions: "a belief or system of beliefs in mommy or, more often, daddy complementary to the actual ones -- someone bigger-better to create ME than the real-life mommy and daddy." Which makes any and all Indo-European religions a neurotic quest for better parents. Which means that any science growing out of this quest is every bit as agenda-driven, and therefore biased, and therefore fundamentally false, as any and all gods created in the human mind out of this need. If science is "observation of the natural phenomena," it helps for the observer to be unbiased as to what she is and isn't willing to observe. If all she's looking for is a better set of parents, the way our modern science works, better "creating forces" to harness than the ones actually in existence, her science will still be a religion.

In this sense, our Western science hasn't been born yet --
we have never observed natural phenomena for what they are without trying to make them into something else. Moreover, we only observe them via opposing them, always taking a purported "objective" view, i.e. removing the scientist himself from the phenomena under scrutiny. It is still a religious stance to take, and a punitive one at that -- "separation from god" is just another way to say "scientific objectivity," and our modern scientist eagerly perpetuates the tradition of classical Christian punishment for sins consisting in one's separation from god in all his supposedly non-religious, "scientific" endeavours.

Taoist sciences, on the other hand, are designed to study natural phenomena via merging with them rather than via observing or otherwise opposing them. That's how they came up with the microcosm that is no different from the macrocosm, and with a general sense that being human ain't no punishment, failing, or limitation. Being just human -- but fully human -- sufficies to be a force of nature, so forces of nature can be studied within, without, or without making a distinction between "inside" and "outside," a false one.

wonderful,

thank you taomeow

peace,
paul

Albert Einstein once quiped that god does not roll dice with the universe...As a great scientific mind he still related his views of the cosmos through a belief system that encluded a "diety" that held sway over the whole scheme ...This has always fascinated me.

I for one, have deep faith in reason as well as reasons to have a deep faith...but this last is not like a Christian belief system nor any other religious belief system that I have studied as yet...But there is my " Taoist" sense that there is a oneness of consciousness within the essence of all of life...I have not yet found a true scientific study of such a force within nature but I do believe it to be so...

If someone belittles the scientific process as too "humanistic" or self serving they may have a valid point...even as quantum theory predicts that the observer will always change the result of the experiment etc...

The subjective /objective realities touched on by father paul as to inner space and outer space having their own realms of discovery that exclude each-other does not ring true for me... I do think that there is a common ground for all searching through various means and techniques that will eventually show us that spirit is a real thing as is any other form of energy...

thank you for your intelligent reply wayfarer
perhaps you misunderstand my statements to mean they are my views on this,
as a mirror can only reflect what is in front of it, thus it is.

the fusion of science and religion is actually a redundent question.


peace and happy pancakes,
paul

Papa Paul-
'tis cool daddyo- yr thoughts are a blessing here-
BUT...may I please have a bit of syrup with those pancakes!?
Aunt Jemimah is in the cupboard and I am off to get some aggs and milk -I am inspired!!!
-love to all-wayfarer (8x8)

For what it's worth, I have two complementary outlooks on life:

* Science answers my questions about how? and why?.

* Ethics answers more abstract questions such as should I?.

You'll note that I've labelled my second category ethics, not religion. Some people derive their ethical beliefs from religious frameworks, others from non-theistic frameworks such as philosophical Taoism. For me, religion isn't part of my daily experience. (And, frankly, I don't feel the lack.)

My beliefs in science and ethics are separate but they also inform each other.

Some of the scientific areas that interest me (for example genetics) inform my opinions about ethical matters such as cloning. Conversely, my ethical beliefs influence how I feel about certain types of scientific research; for example, the testing of products on animals.

Peace.

thank you so much for your reply, "religion" is an archaic and vastly misunderstood word, your definition of "ethics" is more illuminating.
i would boil it down even further to say that such is "right attitude",
right attitude is a living thing and meets each person and event completely, dealing with it properly.
dealing with it properly means that the true nature of oneself responds honestly and completely.

peace,
paul

You're very welcome. Thank you for the question.


Strange that you should mention that now. I had a moment this morning when I arrived at a client's office and they'd messed up all the arrangements that I'd been expecting. I know that a few years ago I would have become stressed out and waspish with the people I was dealing with.

It began to happen to me this morning, but I spotted it and realised that the real problem was my own attitude. I consciously thought about Taoism and being like water: flowing around my obstacles. We adapted and the day went smoothly.

I'm proud of myself.

I like that feeling. I'm growing.

I found myself startled at the juxtaposition of ethics and science...

I thought about how we must indeed have a huge amount of ethics for any important work IN science...

because the results of our knowledge of science can (and Has often) been a threat to well-being when misapplied...

we have a need to grow and learn as a spieces step by step spirit and physical awareness hand-in-hand...

An old issue of Time Mag had an article about the "God Gene" back in 2004 or so... I saved it and hope to find it to add to this discussion... There was a gene found that was thought to corispond to our spiritual musings as I remember it -there was some mention of Buddhists saying that we had chromosomes from past lives as well as from our perants -that made me wonder how our genetic code could "remember " such items and reastablish them in subsiquent lives etc...
anyone else remember have this article?

I never read the article, but such a thing is due to cultivation from previous lifetimes which refine over time, and
once a new body is acquired, the amount of "momentum" from past cultivation functions in transforming
the physical body to fit its energetic level of vibration. That is how we have certain physical attributes with our bodies.
That is why in this lifetime, some people can develop certain abilities easier than others. It is in the energetic function which transfroms the genes, not the genes themselves. The genes are just the outcome, the mirror image, of the cultivation at time of birth. The genes that can uphold the function of such energy are only conduits of the refined energy. A tool that is evolved/transformed at the time of the bodies growth in the womb.

It can be changed throughout one's lifetime...they just have to diligently cultivate in order to see results.

Peace,
Aiwei