Are science and religion converging?

No, says Richard Dawkins in the article Snake Oil and Holy Water.

In India , it is fashionable to claim that what Dawkins says is true – in case of Western Religions. That religion and mysticism are English words. They refer to the ways of the Christian churches, Judaism and Islam. That these religions are essentially sets of rules to be obeyed.

The thesis being that for Europe and West Asia , religion means obedience to the commandments of the scriptures (Old and New Testaments and the Koran). That unlike in Europe and West Asia , there is actually no 'religion' (in the same sense ) in the East. The practices in the East that are misinterpreted as religions by Western observers are not religion at all....

Personally, I do not subscribe to the above fashionable distinction between "Eastern" and "Western" attitudes towards life or knowledge. I feel that this "schism" has no basis whatsoever. Eastern religions (as actually practiced) too demanded obedience, and sought to control people, and indeed "herd them" into castes with pre-specified expectations of behaviour and social conduct. This Eastern social structure was (as also were feudal social structures elsewhere in the world) never consensual, but always imposed through force and violence.

There is no evidence¹ that the "Easterners" (thanks to their cultural advantage) tend to live happier lives, or are less likely to be intolerant or violent, compared to the "Westerners". Despite Buddhism & Zen , Japan (of early 20th century) emerged as a militarist and expansionist power. The Buddhist Sinhalese had no qualms in unleashing a pogrom against the Tamils in 1982 (with tragic consequences for Sri Lanka ).

Some people say that Yoga is scientific. This is true in the sense that Yoga's claims of being an effective wellness system can be validated through modern (I would not like to say, "Western") scientific methods.

But when it is suggested that modern scientists (like Dawkins) in their pursuit of knowledge, are under some disadvantage because they have no knowledge of the concepts in yoga, I would join issue. Who are these people with the "knowledge of the concepts in Yoga"? Is there evidence that statistically, such people tend to be healthier or happier than those like Dawkins? That these people are more equipped to come out with scientific (or otherwise valid) insights about the world we live in?

Yoga – so wonderful as a wellness system -- does get discredited when religion and "Eastern mysticism" are allowed to appropriate it.

Yoga needs to get rid of this "Eastern" baggage, positing this in opposition to "Western reductionist" thinking. The fact is that holistic insights need validation through reductionist methods of modern science.

Indeed, no holistic system can afford to stand in disdain of the methods of modern science -- reductionist as these are. Contrarily, modern science would rightly not accept any system merely based on its claim of being "holistic". (Homeopathy comes to the mind). Any candidate holistic system will need to submit itself for a scrutiny by modern science -- whose methods are more than adequate for the purpose of such evaluation.

Note 1: There was an article in New Scientist which claimed that Tibetan Buddhist Monks were found on the whole "happier" than people elsewhere. This may suggest that the regimen of meditation and yoga may indeed be effective as wellness systems.