Religion without science is blind.

Some people really need some of this sense talked into them!

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

I do not try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.

I too agree that the idea of a personal, personified God is silly. These quotes precisely illustrate how I like to look at the world myself. Maybe that means I’m a genius too! (ha)

One thing that sets us apart, though, is his definition of “religion,” which is a little too broad for my taste. Take a look at these quotes:

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

(An extension of the first quote of the post:)

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Clearly, when he said “religion,” he wasn’t referring to your classic ones. I think he meant something like a more personal religion or belief system – which I would hesitate to call “religion,” because I find myself in the same boat, and I don’t like to call myself “religious.” Meh, it’s all good!

There’s a nicely related NY Times excerpt from the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins that I highly recommend. He seems to share my view on the words “God” and “religion.” (I wanted to excerpt some of it here, but it said I needed the publisher’s permission. Too messy.)

Don’t miss my previous discussion of how religions are simply just tools of cultivation/self-improvement.

real is Nothing
nothing is real
what’s real is what’s Not

Capitalized words include “Nothing” and “Not.” This site is based upon the idea of an “infinite zero.” ‘kay, enough of that for now — let’s move on.

What is this Dao that you hear about? 何謂道？ (For my spiel on my preference for “Dao” instead of “Taoism,” see the FAQs.) 老子 (Lao zi, also “Lao tze” or “Lao tse”) opens the 清靜經 (Qing jing jing) with:

大道無形，生育天地；
大道無情，運行日月；
大道無名，長養萬物。
吾不知其名，強名曰道。
The great Dao has no shape, yet gives birth and nourishes heaven and earth.
The great Dao has no emotion, yet moves all heavenly objects.
The great Dao has no name, yet cultivates all things.
I know not its name; I am forced to call it “Dao.”

and 道德經 (Dao de jing, Tao te ching) with the following:

道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。
The Dao that can be put into language is not the enduring and unchanging Dao.
The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.

Dao is in everything. It is the universal Truth. A waterbottle works because it has its own Dao. A knife and fork can coordinate together on your plate because of the Dao they share. You need to use the bathroom every few hours because of an intrinsic reason behind the way your body works, Dao. Some of us are attracted to movies and TV shows because of a Dao behind it all.

Modern science is a subset of Dao, because it deals only in the physical realm, and all things physical are plagued by their ephemeral nature. Take our waterbottle, for instance. You might say that one particular waterbottle has a cylindrical shape with a narrow opening on one end, with a cover of some type for that opening. But everything physical has a beginning and an end. A waterbottle is born when it is made; its essence is lost when it is destroyed, somehow, sometime, somewhere. Maybe its lid falls into a gorge. Maybe it becomes cracked and can no longer hold any water. Maybe gets lost somewhere and becomes devoured by acid rain over the years.

Nothing physical is everlasting, and thus science, the study of the physical realm, can never pry open Dao, the universal and everlasting Truth. Science measures change. Everything is relative in science. It is absolutely impossible to use science to detect something omnipresent, everlasting, and absolute. (Though I do think, however, that we can use what we’ve learned from science to gain insight to how the Universe works beyond its physical aspects. I know I’ve had a lot of fun doing so.)

To illustrate, let’s return to our waterbottle example. After the waterbottle dies, I contend that there is still an essence of it that lives on. It’s impossible detect this essence with scientific methods. It is an essence that existed long before the waterbottle was made, that stays with the waterbottle throughout its lifetime, and that lingers after the waterbottle dies. This essence is what I call Dao. Sure, you could argue that this essence doesn’t exist, because we can’t detect it tangibly. Ah, but it clearly does, since can see the shape and form of a waterbottle during its lifetime! You’ll need to think beyond logic for this one.

Point: Nothing physical is everlasting. The essences of physical objects are mere subsets of the essence of Dao.

Philosophy, too, is only a small corner of Dao, because no philosophy can exist without some manipulation of language to convey the ideas behind it. Not only is language severely limiting in the scope of ideas it can express, it too is plagued by its ephemeral nature; nothing put into language is true for eternity. Hence, “The Dao that can be put into language is not the enduring and unchanging Dao” (above). This means that the study of Dao, which is a philosophy in itself, can only talk around the true Dao, because no language can be used to actually describe it. Beyond description is a Dao that can’t be put into words. It’s just an essence, something that makes things the way they are, that makes things tick. This Dao is the everlasting Truth. It is the Dao that stays true with the waterbottle even when it becomes destroyed. Complete understanding of this Dao depends completely on the individual and can only be achieved by searching within the Self.

Think about this: While Daoism is only a philosophy, philosophy is but a small subset of Dao.

Point: Language is limiting and conveys ideas that are only ephemerally true.

Dao is everywhere, in you, in me; it’s not alone, seperate from everything else. Dao is not a seperate school of thought — it’s in every school of thought. I invite you to contemplate on this as I have. It’s fun, trust me. Make yourself one with the the universe — and thus with Dao — and you can truly come to understand it.

Updated 17 Oct 2007.