If it's not too far off-topic I gnawed a bit this morning on which might be a more fruitful approach to spiritual life -- scientific inquiry or flowering belief.
It's probably a false dichotomy, but I always found scientific inquiry to be more compelling... not necessarily better or more lofty or exclusive, but, for me, convincing.
Scientists of course have their sometimes unrecognized beliefs, but they do dwell in the empirical, the provable and the right-in-front-of-your-nose. Science is what guides our day from gravity to starlight to the crunch of a potato chip. If you can't incorporate the obvious into spiritual life, what use would spiritual life have?
And the answer is that belief, when pushed and prodded far enough, can tell wondrous tales that can be more enthralling than television or Victoria's Secret. Beliefs have a format and if you work hard, you can fit anything into a belief ... allowing the belief to be the arbiter of what is right in front of your nose. The beautiful flowers bloom and God did it ... that sort of thing.
The trouble with beliefs is the same as the trouble with science ... both have edges and limits and spiritual life has no such edges.
But as a means of actualizing or realizing the edgeless, you have to start somewhere. Science or faith -- is there really so much difference, assuming anyone would consent to keep on investigating, keep on knocking down conveniently cozy walls? Conclusions are tentative, answers are tentative, certainty is tentative.
A false dichotomy, yes. But I prefer the false safety of science to the false safety of belief ... assuming I had to choose one over the other.
Which, obviously, I do not.