Baraka_Guru

There are exceptions. For example, interactions and crossovers between psychology and Buddhism have been occurring for a while now. There are many parallels between Buddhist philosophy and approaches to psychology in terms of self-awareness, self-esteem, and our interactions with other people.

The challenge, then, is distinguishing religion from philosophy; namely, applied philosophy, which is what I consider pure Buddhism to be. I'm sure the same can be said about certain approaches to Christianity and Judaism, from what I understand. Also, I wouldn't doubt that there are parallels to other religions as well.

The problem with religion is the dogma. What makes Buddhism stand out is that it's both atheistic and "anti-dogmatic" (for the lack of a better term).

As for finding the middle ground between science and religion, I think it takes a certain level of humility. The function of religion is to help us navigate the world between what is known and what is unknown, whereas the function of science is to seek understanding and knowledge. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and yet the two play different roles in the human mind.

I'm an atheist, but I'm not anti-religious. To be truly humble is to realize that neither religion nor science has all the answers. Life is a process, not a goal.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot