I am separating them. Science and religion can coexist in the mind of a man but the latter can never influence the former despite the former routinely disproving the latter. Of course they're separated. Anything less devalues the scientific method.
I'm not insisting there's no spirituality, I'm insisting that
I will not believe it in it unless it can be supported by evidence. And since the supernatural, by its very definition, is unsupportable by science then I'm never going to truly "believe" in it. I'll believe in the possibility but then again it's equally as likely that aliens are in control of my mind and making me
think that there's something supernatural going on.
Science doesn't give a rat's ass if it's boring or bland or disappointing. It only cares about the truth. That's it. What we get out of it, however it makes us feel, is our own responsibility and our own concern.
Just because we don't know something yet doesn't mean it can't be known through logical, rational means of exploration, observation and experimentation.
Science and spirituality can exist together in the world and they can exist together in one's mind. But science provides things spirituality is wholly incapable of and spirituality - to
me - provides nothing that can't be gleaned from secular philosophy.
I think I failed to make a point with this post
but the one you replied to still stands
you can't learn about the natural world and share that knowledge by relying on the supernatural, on spiritual or religious ideas. that's not learning. we only know the things we know because people have taken steps to do so in a rational, logical manner and others demanded that they prove it with evidence.