It's a great debate of course, and ultimately all truth must be the one and the same truth, albeit perceived on different levels.
I personally am a 'Christian' I suppose, in that I have personally found Jesus' teachings in the four gospels and the Revelation of St John to be full of truth about being human. I'm not a churchgoer, I am 'free range' if you like. I can also see how his teachings connect and cross over with the other great spiritual traditions also - which of course they must, if indeed there is a fundamental truth.
I personally don't see a conflict between spirituality (if that's what you want to call it) and science. My understanding of spirituality isn't based on faith, it's based on my own perception. I see ample evidence for a human 'template', the mould out of which we are all pressed, if you like, and within which there is infinite room for differences, and that mould includes the basic design of the human mind, which is hugely powerful really.
The thing about being human which seems to have evaded scientific description so far is the whole business of consciousness and self-awareness, and I haven't found any satisfactory explanation yet of how this can arise out of 'inanimate' matter. Zen teaches that it is the mind which gives rise to matter rather than the other way around, and that is the way it seems to me also. Again, Zen refers to the enlightened mind as the 'unborn mind', that is to say the awareness which exists before consciousness.
In order for science to exist, there must first be an awareness capable of devising it and understanding it. Science is derived from experience.
The example I gave of love and hate was meant to show that we do not need to reduce existence to a scientific explanation in order to understand it. What is actually important is the meaning in our lives. We can model things scientifically, but it is the actual things which are real, not the scientific models of them.
The late Dr Ali Samsam Bakhtiari wrote an excellent essay entitled "Liberating":
(
http://www.sfu.ca/~asamsamb/Liberating/Liberating.htm)
which contains this paragraph about the human brain:
THE HUMAN BRAIN
The human brain consists of roughly a trillion cells, a 100 billion of which are nerve cells, the so-called neurons [79]. And "every single neuron is a sophisticated computer" capable of "integrating up to 1000 synaptic inputs ... that do not add up in a simple linear manner" [80]. There are many different types of neurons -- from the rather simple granule neuron (with its short axon and a couple of sparse dendrites) to the ultra-sophisticated 'Purkinje' neuron with its up to 80,000 synapses [81] !!
The brain physically consists of two main parts: (1) the Cerebrum (the upper part) and (2) the Cerebellum (lower one). The former contains some 70 billion and the latter around 30 billion neurons [82]. But, in the total number of synapses, the Cerebellum, due to its monopoly on the awesome Purkinje neurons, might well come to rival, if not surpass, the Cerebrum. And, whereas the Cerebrum controls the brain's conscious activities, the Cerebellum "seems to act entirely unconsciously" [83].
Neuroscientists are still busy grappling with the basics of the Cerebrum's functions and operations, meeting puzzle after puzzle. For example, the four phenomena of (i) hearing words, (ii) seeing words, (iii) speaking words and (iv) generating words occur at four different regions of the Cerebrum [84]. No one knows why: this is how things are. Yet another example is that of the tennis player for whom "the movement, color or shape of a tennis ball are processed in different cortical visual centers" [85]. Where are then these three data sets integrated to yield a single picture of the oncoming ball is a mystery -- a mystery that will not be easily elucidated because analysing the constantly-evolving and intricate web of millions of interconnected neurons receiving hundreds of non-linear synaptical signals triggered by complex electro-chemical reactions seems to defy our potential human capabilities !
If the Cerebrum with its 'accessible' files already seems out of reach of human comprehension, then the Cerebellum with its 'hidden' files must be seen as a 'black box'. Especially that trying to understand the functions of larger neurons such as the 'Purkinje', without being able to benefit from direct access, appears practically impossible !
Sigmund Freud pioneered in linking "dreams to the unconscious" -- a proposal that has lately found, on hand of the latest evidence, a receptive echo among leading neuroscientists:
"For reasons he could not possibly have known, Freud set forth a profound truth in his work. There is an unconscious, and dreams are indeed the 'royal road' to its underst" [86].
Now, as science condones this 'royal road', it instanly places itself in deep trouble, because the meaning of dreams is still an archaic art and nowhere near to becoming a science. Just to underline the puzzling aspect of dreams, suffice it to mention the constrat between black-and-white and coloured dreams; and venturing the possible explanation that the former be profane dreams while the latter be "numinous, sacred, and holy" dreams for being "wholly other" (ganz anders) [87]; while adding that this is one among many possible explanations for this difference.
With the 'royal road' so enigmatic, other roads will be murkier still -- leaving little hope for deciphering the 'hidden' Cerebellum files and getting to the "deeper life of the psyche".
It seems to me that as an eminent scientist (who seems to be respected here, and who Colin Campbell teasingly called "The Prophet") and committed Muslim, Dr Bakhtiari's understanding of the issues behind consciousness is excellent. Like Einstein, it seems that some of the very best visionary scientific minds have an appreciation of the spiritual.
Is this a coincidence? I personally think not, but everyone must make their own judgement and arrive at their own understanding, of course.
