Being brilliant at science doesn't exclude spiritual insight. Take for example Issac Newton, living right at the cusp of modern science. He was as innovative in theology as in physics and maths. Not content to accept the dogmas of that time without stress testing them against the manuscript evidence that he was aware of. The tools of science do help us understand human origins and our own nature. Along with the principles the universe is based on. Some have called this a reflection of God's mind. Even when they don't mean that in a literal sense. So clearly lots of room for productive connection between science and spiritual seekers. Religious thought has yet to grapple with the full implications of science and it's toolkit in many ways.

Yeah, there's some truth in that..

Which is why I now define things this-way..

• axiom-based?
• identity-anchoring?
• rejecting falsification-by-evidence?
• seeks self-consistency in some way?

Then it's a paradigm and it can be worldview, ideology, prejudice, religion/"religion", or formal-system.

ALL of those 5 reject the falsification of the paradigm they're standing-within.

Hofstadter's book "Godel Escher Bach" almost communicated that, but stopped short of identifying that it is paradigm, not formal-system or mind-regime: paradigm includes all-5.

& only a mind standing outside of a paradigm can honestly falsify that paradigm.

More interesting, though, are open-&-evolving worldviews, which are .. dynamically-transforming-paradigms?

The more-universal the frame-of-reference, the better..

_ /\ _