Science by definition needs objective peer review to confirm validity of a phenomenon. Anything which cannot be objectively measured, or at least subjectively measured/observed by considerable number of people, is considered false or unscientific. In the current post we consider limits to application of science** to spiritual and/or religious experience.
The verifiable criteria for science is its strength and also it's weakness. It is, in a way, democratization of reality (more precisely, "democratization of our understanding of reality"), which neutralizes any possibility of outliers as unscientific, an anomaly. If an artist feels exhilaration while painting or performing a musical piece, but other people do not while doing the same thing, then is the artist's exhilaration fake (or unscientific) as it is not verifiable objectively (plugging in measuring equipment, assuming it can measure subjective experience, may cause change in artist's body parameters, by virtue of being plugged in)?
Reliance on peer review, approval and verification, also brings up an interesting possibility that "anything which cannot be peer reviewed and verified is beyond the scope of science, and science cannot be used to explain such phenomena as it is not equipped for it."
To elaborate, the scientific method has, when applied to spirituality, following main subjective steps (taken from Wikipedia diagram titled, "The scientific method as a cyclic or iterative process"):
To add to the complexity of verifying spiritual experience, by definition spiritual experience has very low chance of manifesting itself (not everybody trying to hear from God does hear from God, but stories of prophets tell that they did hear from God, but it seemed like a special privilege).
In a nutshell, the problem of applying science to spiritual/religious experience is "How can science be used to verify and explain sparsely occurring phenomena, for which there is no definite method to collect positive data" (positive data is that which can confirm the phenomena). We can say that a phenomena is just hearsay, or superstition because millions tried to get an experience but failed. But we need to remember that even if one of the persons who claim to have a spiritual experience is telling the 'truth', then it is real. And so perhaps the fact is that science is not mature enough to be applied to this particular set of problems.
To elaborate, the scientific method has, when applied to spirituality, following main subjective steps (taken from Wikipedia diagram titled, "The scientific method as a cyclic or iterative process"):
- Make observations
- Develop testable predictions
- Gather data to test predictions
To add to the complexity of verifying spiritual experience, by definition spiritual experience has very low chance of manifesting itself (not everybody trying to hear from God does hear from God, but stories of prophets tell that they did hear from God, but it seemed like a special privilege).
In a nutshell, the problem of applying science to spiritual/religious experience is "How can science be used to verify and explain sparsely occurring phenomena, for which there is no definite method to collect positive data" (positive data is that which can confirm the phenomena). We can say that a phenomena is just hearsay, or superstition because millions tried to get an experience but failed. But we need to remember that even if one of the persons who claim to have a spiritual experience is telling the 'truth', then it is real. And so perhaps the fact is that science is not mature enough to be applied to this particular set of problems.
Science is a very reliable hammer, but not every problem in the world is a nail.
Some religious and spiritual experience reported by few outliers may come in this category. No doubt there are more than enough false claims to fool the gullible, but even if there is a single 'genuine' claim, is that not a reason enough for further investigation.
To recap - as highlighted above, the most common equipment used to measure a subjective experience is the human body/mind itself. And going by the differences (physical and psychological) in the human body/mind as a measurement tool, there is a high degree of possibility that even true claims may remain unverifiable. How many times does it happen that in a jungle safari only a few people of the group may catch glimpse of an elusive animal in the act of a hunt, never to be seen again for a long time. Professional photographers have to pitch tent for years before they are able to get truly detailed pictures in some cases. How many of scientists are willing to pitch tent with same amount of patience for a glimpse of the unexplained, specially when there is no likelihood of getting a funding? Human subjects cannot measure/observe
in equal capacity. This shortcoming is generally overcome by increasing number of subjects whose feedback is considered
to reduce error and personal bias. But is voting a science (I called it voting because beliefs could potentially alter experience, so even if a person votes honestly, they might have experienced different things because of different beliefs)? Basically conventional science has little
place for subjective phenomena, which is generally identified as
an anomaly, but highlights the limitation of science also.
Another interesting aspect of a scientific claim is that it has to be falsifiable. So in effect all theories are true until we get sufficient data to disprove it, basically a theory is waiting to be invalidated as more data is gathered. A scientific theory is waiting to be replaced by a better theory. This brings up another interesting question - Can science really be used to explain and address absolute facts (absolute truths), as it might seem that there is no (or little) space for absolute facts/truths in science?**
-x-**Note: My knowledge of the "philosophy of science" is limited, but it is an interesting subject which deals with what science is and how reliable it can be. I would encourage rationalists (and atheists), the self proclaimed champions of science, to spend time understanding where science can be applied or cannot be applied, before they "bet the ranch" on reason and science.
-x-
PS: The above post does not cover a person applying the scientific method on self, and systematically trying to understand personal experience which are of a spiritual/religious nature. I believe this should be possible (because the data gathering equipment remains same, the body and mind of self), but what may not be as effective is trying to get the resulting theories, which came out of personal experience, verified by the wider scientific community. So there is always the risk of misunderstanding a personal experience, due to lack of peer-verification.
-x-
This may well be a path on which you have to walk alone,
For if you seek the comfort of company,
Know that you might be on a different path,
You alone need to convince your mind,
Of the truth that you can perceive,
But if you do find a like mind, do not forget gratitude.
But if you do find a like mind, do not forget gratitude.
-x-
