In modern times (and perhaps in times of old, for many people) what is spiritual
merely refers to those things which are outside the scope of what is currently considered logical. In other words, that which cannot be properly parsed and integrated by science and whatever else may be assuming the title of the empirical and rational etc. is automatically relegated to the rational.
The critical mistake here, however, is that spiritual does not necessarily mean the illogical and irrational. It is true that in many apologia for the spiritual, the author tends to describe the limits of our logic and reasoning capacities. Nevertheless what the author is actually doing is telling us the limits of what we currently believe to be the answer to everything. That science is limited, our logic does not explain everything, therefore
it may be a worthy pursuit
other arenas of perception/knowledge/thought. This does not mean that the spiritual necessarily begins where the logical ends, nor does this suggest that there is no overlap between them.
In fact, it would be horribly painful for people to actually live their lives with the belief in the spiritual
if this belief consisted merely in the negational possibility
of the spiritual. While it may be a means of explaining the inadequacy of those belief systems which do not
include the spiritual, this negation of the exclusivity of logic does not reveal the spiritual in the slightest. The negational, perhaps even semi-dialectical form of reasoning only works to create a whole if something else replaces it, and only if that something else truly is capable of presenting its own ontology and belief system.
That science does not explain everything does not explain what it does not explain. It is possible to nominally submit to a higher authority, but at this very moment of submission to this we admit that we cannot go beyond submission and therefore what is left of the spirit to our understanding is merely encapsulated in the sentence "there is something else
Thus Deepak and his respondent were somewhat correct in their arguments. Deepak argues that one does not need to believe in things he knows
. While in itself, this statement is pure nonsense it does hold truth about the nature of belief in itself; that belief as it is lived and thought out, as it is experienced -- that belief as a system
no longer stands out in itself as what we in modern western thought call belief
. In other words, what is belief
is something that is baseless and unmaintainable - that it ultimately has its shortcomings, but to know
, this is were a comprehensive system of thought - something purely ontological can be established.
For Deepak, that which is belief does not have the power to properly influence in a rational fashion. Not only is the belief itself unjustified, but also its influence over any decision is itself also unjustified; it is only knowledge
which has the right to do this as only knowledge is part of our reality. Quite thusly, then, does he point out how God is supported by the negation of science. It is only knowledge, science
which begets God as some kind of man in the sky - in an almost epicurean fashion, that had given this scientific system a jumpstart. Nevertheless, it is science
which is the system
and God merely exist at its head.
The respondent almost seems to agree with Deepak, since for the scientists, the problem is not necessarily with the notion that God exists, but rather that God controls and that God provides a system
. That science is not merely a method
but its own reality
is the general notion advanced by those scientists who are making attempts at explaining God as well as those who refute it. Their logic and belief is almost identical; what they dislike and antagonize is the propagation of other
systems that are entirely dissociated from the method, conclusions, or ontology
that science has advanced. That in this day and age, people do not seek out Science for all their answers and ills -- that people still resort to 'primitive' beliefs and 'primitive' methods which function not only as axioms but also as methods and prototypes in themselves is what the scientists fear the most.
Those like Deepak however will admit the existence of God but still insist on a gatekeeper role. According to this, God does not make sense in any other fashion except for that of the negation of Science itself; it follows that only through the study of Science can we learn that (1) God exists
(2) God created science
(3) God's domain is outside of science
. The first two conclusions were explained above, and the third was hinted at and is yet the most important here:
If Science is our base model, then it is science which necessitates God and not the other way around, even if in the purely causal explanation god precedes science, it is nevertheless for us and our function that science has its primacy over god; the latter being an attainment of wisdom which comes about after science. It is Science then which must shape our conception of God (even though in "Reality" the opposite occurs), and it is therefore deduced that our only way of function and knowledge still remains that of Science, again disclaiming and discounting any spiritual or alternate form of reasoning.