I’m really enjoying the fact that there is a fast growing consensus between the scientific outlook and tradition, and the spiritual.
People miss how much commonality there is between the two when they want their spiritual beliefs to show them something beyond what science is capable of describing. I can understand that, because if science was the only way we had of viewing or experiencing the universe, then it would seem pretty dry to me.
On the other hand, rationalists want only to believe in what they can know from experiment and experience. This too I can understand as I don’t like to take things onboard that sound like flights of fancy or extreme metaphors just because they may fit into a desirable or reassuring sounding philosophy.
Difficulty arises when an explanation is presented as the sum total of what there is to say about a particular topic. This arrogance diminishes our potential for understanding and sets up positions of conflict between opposing views.
Its almost as if the fact that something can be explained in a certain way somehow diminishes it when in fact multiple viewpoints can only enhance our understanding.
Art wisely manages to keep itself out of the debate by being non-literal enough to duck the blows.
Science is sometimes perceived as saying “this phenomenon can be explained in this way, and that’s all there is to it”. Spirituality is far from exempt from this attitude, which in both cases is a form of fundamentalism that does no one any favours.
What I generally get tho – from both sides – is “here is a way in which we can describe and explore this phenomenon” and in the better cases is sometimes even followed with “and here perhaps is the way in which this aspect can be integrated into a balanced and cohesive world view.”