Science vs. Spirituality

This subpage does not claim to be exhaustive or comprehensive; rather, it represents a discussion of the premise. Here, various complex terms are presented, explained, and interconnected. This leads to a clear definition of these complex terms to provide clarity for the reader.

• What is science?
  Science is a tool of the human species to generate knowledge. This tool is bound by methodological and formal limits. There is no such thing as "THE science," as science is a collective accumulation of people, opinions, and knowledge.
• What is pseudoscience?
  A highly complex term in the philosophy of science used to separate fields of knowledge from "true" science. The boundaries are fluid! Some now-recognized knowledge was once labeled pseudoscience, such as modern psychiatry, black holes, or continental plate tectonics.
• What is knowledge?
  Information obtained through any channel, which has been practically applied and proven.
• What is spirituality?
  Spirituality is a collective term for abilities, mental qualities, and beliefs developed either socially or personally. Additionally, spirituality is a significant part of general divine belief. There is no singular form of spirituality, as there are thousands of different movements that complement, prove, contradict, or even conflict with each other.
• What is spiritual/divine belief?
  Belief in a higher power, energy, or consciousness that created us, controls us, or from which we originate.
• What is belief?
  Belief is conviction. When we are convinced of something, we believe in it. The individual mind forms this conviction from sources it deems credible, regardless of whether the object of belief truly exists or not. Once conviction arises, belief manifests. It can change at any time since it is simply an opinion.
• What do I mean by "scientific believer"?
  Based on the previous definitions: A person who believes in science, respectively is convinced by it.
• What is cognition?
  The collection of all conscious and subconscious mental processes.
• What do we mean by "meditative science"?
  All meditative content and techniques that are scientifically proven, such as lucid dreaming, MBSR (Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction), or addiction treatment.
• What do I mean by "meditative spirituality"?
  All meditative content and techniques that are not yet scientifically supported, such as astral travel, horoscopes, or past life regression.
• What is truth?
  There are dozens of models, terms, and definitions of truth. We define it as follows: Truth is a state based on factual, emotional, social, or other levels that have happened exactly as expected or not expected.

One can be both scientifically and spiritually inclined at the same time.

It's widely known that science and spirituality are not the best of friends. Therefore, we want to explore the relationships between these two concepts:

In science, many so-called "pseudosciences" have been disproven, such as creationism, astrology, or parapsychology. As a result, those convinced by science have elevated themselves to a moral pedestal, historically disregarding spirituality. One could say that this moral superiority has become part of Western culture.This "cultural arrogance" is not solely due to pseudosciences but also to the many scientific advancements that have significantly benefited humanity. On the other side is spirituality: A purely collective and loose interest group that generally has no desire to scientifically explain spirituality or spiritual belief. Spiritual believers usually don't care if their beliefs can be explained. Spirituality primarily revolves around intuition, emotions, and perception. Here, we already see a fundamental pattern.

Scientific believers often feel superior to spiritual believers, claiming they have facts and evidence on their side. This creates a social hierarchy between the scientifically and spiritually inclined, as scientific believers view themselves as more rational and often more intelligent.

On the other hand, spiritual believers are often misunderstood. Spirituality is cognitively challenging for scientific believers to grasp, leading to it being dismissed.
This discrepancy between the two groups stems mainly from their communication styles: Scientific believers argue on a rational and factual level, often from their "ivory tower," attempting to disprove the convictions of spiritual believers. They are unaware that spiritual believers have valid reasons for their beliefs, which are based on perception, experience, and spiritual practices. The utility of spiritual belief is often questioned by scientific believers on the grounds that it cannot be factually proven. Ironically, spiritual belief can be proven with conventional scientific tools! 

But that's a side note.

Of course, the effects of spiritual belief are measurable, demonstrable, and now explainable. So, a scientific believer who argues otherwise cannot be taken seriously.

Spiritual believers, on the other hand, do not argue factually or rationally but intuitively and emotionally. According to the Four-Sides Model, they communicate primarily on the relationship or self-revelation level, while scientific believers communicate on the factual level. Furthermore, many spiritual believers are skeptical of mainstream science and media, or they outright condemn them. This makes spiritual believers more susceptible to conspiracy theories and cults. New Age followers, in particular, often argue exclusively with the "love of God," which can make spirituality seem one-dimensional to outsiders. Nonetheless, spiritual believers are convinced of their beliefs, which are rooted in personal experiences with practices like prayer, meditation, or fasting.

Additionally, individual cognitive biases of the conversation partners must be considered, although this cannot be addressed here.

Thus, we see that neither side gives nor takes much. The solution to this communication gap is simple:

Scientific believers should engage with spiritual believers on equal footing and empathize with the other party's arguments emotionally, rather than factually. In simple terms: They must emotionally accept the spirituality of the other person! (As long as it does no harm!)

Spiritual believers should also meet scientific believers at eye level without disrespecting their knowledge. They should be open to scientific facts when understandable. They also need to realize that they are engaging with their counterpart on the factual communication level. Unfortunately, many spiritual believers accept pseudoscience, conspiracy ideologies, or cult-like content as proven, which makes fact-based communication between the two sides difficult. Spiritual believers should accept the methodologies of science.

Still, both qualities ultimately aim for the same goal!

For spiritual believers, it's always about truth and love. The same applies to scientific believers—if they have no ill intentions, their motives are also rooted in truth and love.

Thus, we have found a common basis for both sides. They simply need to agree that they both seek to spread love and truth for the betterment of society and individual lives. These core values unite both qualities. Of course, people who do not uphold these values should not be considered part of either party.

The conclusion is simple: Every person should remain neutral when it comes to science and spirituality. There are positive points for both science and spirituality. However, both also have negative aspects and should always be critically examined.

It is very situational as to whether a person should approach things from a rational and scientific perspective or an intuitive and spiritual one. Additionally, everyone is free to believe, love, say, think, and be whatever they wish! These are the cherished freedoms of our modern society. Always remain open and neutral toward ideas and others.