I saw this on a forum and thought it worth discussing here. Who is interested?:

They have science; but in science there is nothing but what is the object of sense. The spiritual world, the higher part of man's being is rejected altogether, dismissed with a sort of triumph, even with hatred. The world has proclaimed the reign of freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs? Nothing but slavery and self-destruction! For the world says:

"You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the most rich and powerful. Don't be afraid of satisfying them and even multiply your desires." That is the modern doctrine of the world. In that they see freedom. And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, envy and murder; for they have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. They maintain that the world is getting more and more united, more and more bound together in brotherly community, as it overcomes distance and sets thoughts flying through the air.

Alas, put no faith in such a bond of union. Interpreting freedom as the multiplication and rapid satisfaction of desires, men distort their own nature, for many senseless and foolish desires and habits and ridiculous fancies are fostered in them. They live only for mutual envy, for luxury and ostentation. To have dinners visits, carriages, rank, and slaves to wait on one is looked upon as a necessity, for which life, honour and human feeling are sacrificed, and men even commit suicide if they are unable to satisfy it. We see the same thing among those who are not rich, while the poor drown their unsatisfied need and their envy in drunkenness. But soon they will drink blood instead of wine, they are being led on to it.

From "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyoodor Dostoyevsky

This text is based on 19th century thinking, no doubt. Dostoyevsky must have surveyed the thoughts that ruled then before proceeding with such analysis. Of course, the science (or the type of science) that ruled then made no mistake in trivializing the spiritual beliefs of poor, lay people. Comprised mainly of the vicious, early Darwinists and convinced followers and students of Newton, lovers of science at that time saw little reason to derive explanations from old, religious or spiritual texts, for they found all they needed in the simple scientific laws of nature. These laws proved everything from the motions of the planets to the origin of life. Daring scholars, leaning on existing philosophical claims, would even extend such physical laws to the explanation of human desires for spiritual activities. This would go on for many decades after Dostoyevsky's death.
But modern science? Modern science is arguably more lenient in its consideration of nature and of human spiritual needs. Even though some of Dostoyevsky's intensely storied and passionate novels explored psychological topics, scholarly psychological pursuits would not emerge until several years after the Great Russian writer's death. Freud's and Jung's postulates are quite sensible examples of such scientific pursuits. Jung's especially did appeal quite substantially to men's spiritual needs. It did this so convincingly that materialist scientists argued intensely against Jung's conclusions viewing it more of art than science. Today's evidence however puts them in the wrong.
Since Jung, science has grown more all-encompassing over the years with scientific revelations sharing cunning similarities with certain artistic representations. There are not a few examples of this. If this continues steadily, centuries from now should see science possibly identifying with artistic representations and perhaps employing the scientific method in analyzing art conclusions. This will naturally extend to spiritual matters so that in the end science and spiritual matters might end up being one and the same topic!

Has science continued to separate itself from spiritual matters? Have we always had science on the one side and man's spiritual needs on the other? What do we say then of the scientist who derives the greatest joy from discovery, from seeing the light never yet seen by another? Is that not a revelation, not his revelation?
Let's define spiritual truth, first. We can then proceed from there!
And if science itself can be a source of truth to one man, one and only one man, shouldn't it then qualify as spiritual enlightenment?

No, you are wrong. Science has always stood away from spiritual matters. It had never identified with it and for good reasons too. For general investigation purposes, the scientific method suffices when attempting to establish what is true. Over the centuries, it has worked well and done a good job of helping naive, curious investigators understand the world to which they belong. To think otherwise is to attempting clogging the wheel of scientific progress. Now let’s apply this uncolouful interpretation of the world to the things of the spirit. What do we see? Certainly not something useful or something useable. All we see is blankness. Nothing. Nada. Thus, we are unable to conclude about under what aspects we should classify these "spiritual matters".
For Dostoyevsky, he is merely a man. He was a Christian, remember? It is not unusual for them to go about condemning the advances man has toiled to make over the centuries. Creating scenes and invalidating sincere efforts. I have no more comment to make!

Well, dostoyevsky was not a christian! That can be argued, though. But you do not get my argument. I might very well have digressed from the main topic, but c'est a cause of what you just mentioned. First, tell me, what are these "spiritual matters"? I will quickly, they are revelations of the heart which produce joy unlimited. Spiritual matters are not physical in substance, but certainly are in expression. What do you see when you go to the many churches densely spread across our landscape? What do you see on the faces of these worshippers as they cry to their gods in the skies? okay, granted, most of these faces become sullen a little earlier afterwards. But in their intense, most rapturous moments, what do you see line their faces?

You tell me. Hehehehe, I have no idea what they do in there. I have never been to one!

Okay. It's usually quite a scene, the clapping and wriggling and genuflecting. But that's besides the point. The faces are what interest me. What the revelations in their hearts are like, that's what concerns us at this moment. If you saw their faces, what you'd see is an intense expression of euphoria, or release. It's the completion of sincere understanding and of a comprehension that doesn't doubt its realization of truth. Is that spiritual awakening?
If it is, then science undoubtedly produces it and much more so. The joy following a scientific accomplishment is blinding. You'd know this if you were a scientist you has achieved something significant in his career. . . .and am not saying you haven't

Hmmm. . . .

I continue. We do this much more from documented reports and psychoanalytical studies of accomplished scientists such as Poincare, for example. What follows their realizations, every one of such overwhelming conclusions is delightful joy they are unwilling to share. And you could also tell this from their faces! Yes, the faces interest me again. And as a psychologist myself, I see a parallel between the lines and grimaces drawn on the faces of christians and those to be found on the faces of this scientists. It remains to carry out a neurological analysis which will lead to the brain regions that are excited during these episodes. But you see, am not so pressed on pursuing such real scientific facts. They do a bad job of distorting the beauty of self-analysis and completely obliterated the self-realization, or do I say joy?, that comes from proceeding with a "manual" assessment.
My conclusion thus, fellow, is that science produces in scientists what Christianity produces in Christians. If it could awaken a part of them which lies dormant in everyday life, is that not an indication that this part is only what it is: a part, an aspect, which needs prodding often by what is true.

While I do not enjoy these analyses of yours, I feel tempted to join in it. However, I pose a question which puts every of your claim out of balance: By the same token, can we argue that Christianity is true, if this part, this aspect is only awakened by what is true?

Well, to be sure, I said "what is true". Perhaps, however, it is awakened not by what is true, but by what is sincere! Sincerity is truth to an individual, Truth is truth to everyone. We do see this in the scientist who is led down the wrong path by his reasoning methods, yet derives joy from every of these false realizations leading him through the path to falsity.
I'd argue further, it is not our job, well, it's not my job as a psychologist to tell what is true from what is sincere. I cannot sufficiently argue with that man who holds his most intimate feelings as true. I believe the problem with the world is trying to make disciples of others when we remain unconvinced of the innate quality of our conclusions. We seek their blind help as gospel pushers since they do not have to struggle with weighing the truth value of what they have not come up with. Back to my argument, though. My claim is not the truth or non-truth of anything. It's rather an insistence on that aspect of man which hungers for the sincere for the purposes of euphoria. Is it a disease? Probably, but not in the sense that it is curable, rather it is in that that it can be managed.

Hmm...give me some time to think about these arguments of yours. I don't see the substance yet. Certainly not as clearly as you enunciate it

If u by spirituality, u mean religion, u may be right in ur argument about the differences with science. But if u are actually talkin abt spirituality in terms of universal truths which are often beyond d reach of established human frontiers of knowledge then i see no need for the the suggested discrepancies in ur first post

Science is actualy, in reality, a pathway towards true spirituality because reasoning cannot be exclusively empirical. It blends in just the right amount of intuition and imagination. Yet true spirituality cannot be devoid of critical reasoning, otherwise we are only practicin mysticism

'perfection exists in the mind of God, a mind of such infinite power that all conceivable thoughts must exist in it. If humans with their less perfect minds could think of something, then God would think of it too, and if God thinks of somethhng, it must therefore exist' plato

hmmm. . . .if we must follow reason, why then do we need a god? isn't that superfluous? I dare say Plato argued wrongly. In that analogy, there is a hole, a gap. Humans we can see, gods we cannot.
Even though we have quite a good idea what humans think of, how are we to know what gods think of? let alone imagine them?
If perfection exists in the mind of god, then god is a creation of man!

My argument proceeds by claiming that: truth can be experienced through both religious and scientific efforts, because it isn't truth per se. It's euphoria, a human desire. And this is experienceable by any who engages in actions which stimulate certain recesses of his brain.

You support this quite evidently. Science is indeed a pathway towards true spirituality. Thus, science shares intimate similarities with religion or spirituality, if and only if spirituality is a realization urged by sincerity!

Though u wrongly faulted plato, u are right in the comparison btw spirituality nd science. However, d ultimate goal of both science nd religion is spirituality. Religion is man-made, based on doctrines and permanent reliance on transcedence. Science is based on facts which are limited by the senses. Yet the ultimate aim is to get the truth. A truth is not true if its outcomes are not good and any truth that is good is God's truth because God is all good and everything good is in Him. This is also a logical characteristic of God

After reading the opening excerpt my mind hovers on the last verse and second and last stanza of Prayer before birth.

ayosmiles: However, d ultimate goal of both science nd religion is spirituality. Religion is man-made, based on doctrines and permanent reliance on transcedence. Science is based on facts which are limited by the senses. Yet the ultimate aim is to get the truth. A truth is not true if its outcomes are not good and any truth that is good is God's truth because God is all good and everything good is in Him. This is also a logical characteristic of God

A truth could in fact be true if its outcomes are not good. Even if the truth value of Truth were utilitarian, such truth could still be not good. Of course, while not good for one person, it must be good for the other. God's truth could be some other truth in itself, different from the general truth. Whether something is true or not is no basis to tag it God's truth.
Am only trying to make an argument though, Science provides as huge a truth as religion could. Truth thus is not necessarily biblical

My observation: Scientific knowledge should be taken with a pinch of salt where there is a question of what is sacred in humans.How can scientific knowledge acquired by study and research lead to spirituality?Knowledge is what the brain can concieve.Yet the perceptive capacitiy of our brains are highly limited(our brains are bound within space and time).Spiritual concepts like eternity and infinity cannot be hgrasped by the human brain. Do correct me if I'm wrong or off topic.

Truths are much more powerful and dificult than facts. Science provides us with factual truths which have 2 be verified by observation