The Inaneness of Expecting Spirituality to Be Scientific
One thing religious people prior to the Enlightenment period did not have to contend with was the false dichotomy of science and spirituality. Strangely, while this attitude is presented both explicitly and implicitly throughout our modern materialist society—and interestingly, almost globally as it affects Eastern societies as much as Western—it creates strawmen of both. Religion is seen as foolish, fully disproven, and for the gullible and feeble-minded. Science, on the other hand, is held up as certainty, clarity, and the foundation of all reality. Even for many religionists, it's something to strive toward, whether it's in attempting to have astrology quantitatively studied or watering down broad similarities between initiatic traditions to a code that can be cracked by non-initiates.*
But the thing that materialists, or many people with one foot in spirituality and the other foot in a material perspective, forget is that science is not an ideology. Science is built off the scientific method, which is a very particular process that is only truly undertaken in few and usually professional circumstances. As defined by Merriam Webster:
1 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
the science of theology
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
have it down to a science
Science's very point is that there is much unknown in the universe and always something to learn. As a subject, or rather as a countless number of subjects under one umbrella, science as understood through the scientific method has not been applied to everything. One can naturally fulfill the first three steps of the scientific method by making observations, asking questions, and even forming hypotheses. But not every phenomena nor experience can be easily recaptured as to run an internally and externally valid, reproducible, and unbiased experiment.**
Culturally, this results in an ironic reversal of the Tower of Babel. The science champions—many not realizing that many scientists have personal religions—see that there are many languages (realities) and tries to re-impose a shared global language (reality). To some extent, a shared vision is necessary to understand and articulate what leads to healthy wellbeing.*** However, when a narrow version of reality is being forced upon others in the name of progress and righteousness, we have colonialism with a new costume.
Also, here's the funny thing I learned from my recent Essentials in Research college course: not all scientific research rejects the existence of multiple realities. In fact, qualitative research is entirely about the validity of differing perspectives and experiences, including the participants' realities, the researchers' realities, and the realities that arise as the two roles interact. All of these realities are considered dynamic.
From my textbook, Rebecca L. Mauldlin's Foundations of Social Work Research:
Social science is not only concerned with objective truth. Social science also describes subjective truth, or the truths that are unique to individuals, groups, and contexts. Unlike objective truth, which is true for all people, subjective truths will vary based on who you are observing and the context in which you are observing them. The beliefs, opinions, and preferences of people are actually truths that social scientists measure and describe. Additionally, subjective truths do not exist independent of human observation because they are the product of the human mind. We negotiate what is true in the social world through language, arriving at a consensus and engaging in debate.
Of course, in the scientific world there's biases against the social sciences and other sciences that are considered "soft." I don't have any interest in addressing that in full, only to say that I genuinely believe all human efforts including science solely has value in humans' subjective interactions with it. There is a common conception that "reason" and "logic" are separable from emotion, which is biologically and observably untrue. Quantitative research is useful in showing what is being studied is significant, but qualitative research is what gives those numbers context, narrative, and meaning.
Science is simultaneously much broader and flexible than providing one truth when it is being used. Even when it is not, most people adhere to strict beliefs in rules of reality and many do so out of fear. A lot of practitioners or halfway practitioners like the 72,000 subscribers to the subreddit for Skeptical, Atheist/Agnostic, Science-Seeking Witches probably just don't want to look stupid to their social networks or experience disappointment in some way if they did fully embrace witchcraft. There is vulnerability to both pursuing anything spiritual and deviating from the crowd.
And, you know, if that's your journey, there is nothing wrong with that. However, as someone who identifies as a pious polytheist, has seen many results from zir magical practice, and has done so for a number of years now, I have no desire for external validation for my path especially scientific. If scientific fields have reproducibility problems even within themselves****, it is absolutely inane to think science can be used on spirituality to an accurate or additive effect especially for formal religions that have centuries to thousands of years of knowledge and practice behind them. Tibetan Buddhism, as it so happens, managed to make many observations prior to the development and widespread usage of the scientific method that have since been confirmed by topic experts using the method.
A final note: this is not to denounce all forms of questioning. Not all questioning is scientific. Critical thinking is, in fact, an imperative ingredient for a spiritual practice of any kind—as well as life in general because... well, look where we are now in terms of global events. However, if you are a spiritual person that calls yourself something like "science-seeking," maybe the first thing you should question is what does that really mean? Because chances are, science has very little to do with it.
*Referring to religious traditions that require initiation, not always but sometimes those in black and brown cultures. Almost inevitably, individuals trying to crack the "science" of these traditions' magical technology are white cis-identifying males. I hopefully don't need to describe the oppressive structures in depth within such an unfortunately common occurrence.
**These are the basic expectations of scientific study design and if you think they are easy to achieve, you are wildly incorrect.
***Although this is often also very culturally-informed. See: humanity's very unusual negative relationship with fat bodies in the present day when in many historical periods a fat body was a sign of good food access.
****It's really interesting because every scientific field talks about reproducibility problems in their research as if it's something unique to them, but it's actually universal. This gives credence to idea I've seen shared by journals of psychical research that researchers' expectations or perspectives influence outcomes of their projects in an unavoidable and even psychic way, much like how hypnosis clients have more successful sessions when their hypnotist simply expects the work to be effective.
