Society in our time, in its scientific sensibility, imagines it is making real progress by overcoming religious differences amongst people and joining all the world in epistemological union under the banner of physical science. Furthermore, science in principle, contains in itself the impulse for reconciling eventual disagreements (i.e. eventual verification of hypotheses through attempts at falsification). In this respect it raises itself above all religions through its commitment to truth above dogma.
From a very limited perspective, the narrative of science’s cultural magnificence is accurate, but it is accurate in the same way as it would be accurate to affirm that George Washington was identical to the sum of the subatomic particles that constituted his body in 1776 on November 11 at high noon. The fundamental problem with this particular narrative of science as the reconciliation of philosophical and religious differences is that the only way that science has succeeded in conceiving a faith common to all humanity is by extracting all meaning from its consideration. It should not really be a surprise that people can agree on questions that have no meaning. The very pith and marrow of reality is swept under the rug of uniform quantification. Indeed, the instant a theory in physics appears to contain philosophical or spiritual implications, the illusion of pristine epistemic harmony is utterly shattered. This is the reason I affirm that the future needs a spiritual science, a science of meanings, a qualitative science, for which the current quantitative science may serve as a symbol and may even offer a model in some respects.