Omnis Dei, it looks like you have answered your own question!


Like I said, it has already been done. But what we end up with is probably the most abstract concepts that we can deal with on earth. Because they're so abstract, while there is consensus about them (spiritual people will understand), there is still much potential dispute across the spectrum of scientific interpretation because science has little to hang onto in those realms. It's not something in everyday science that can be studied to the extent of proof, so scientists are not in a hurry to transit into the new paradigm that has been illustrated because it is not comprehensible with traditional methods.

Rare do I hear of scientists that can accept that Love is not an emotion, or that God and his Creation can exist simultaneously to evolution. Even something as simple as God having many names is not typically known. It may be rational that forgiveness brings peace, but still, anybody living solely in a rational world has yet to understand why forgiveness is destined to set the world free. There are studies, but they do not meet the truth as scientifically as most would like.

The paradigm difference is even described by yourself; a significant problem it presents is essentially this:

Quote Originally Posted by Omnis Dei View Post
The observer is not really definable as it lacks all definitive qualities since it cannot observe itself to discover its own attributes.
The same really applies in this situation, because anybody familiar with meditation can see the stunning relevance of this. Definition and science really work together. But while we can be abstract and invent words and definitions still, in the end we can also say that what they are about is actually what is wordless and undefinable. It's a paradox; it's a paradigm limit.

If you're only talking about studying spiritual practices/meditation, revelations, etc. I don't see the point of it, because a) again, those have already been extensively documented although not exclusively scientifically (regardless of whether the literature is "good"), and b) because it is impossible to understand those truths fully without witnessing them for oneself, and therefore study cannot achieve this; i.e. cannot be studied scientifically.

On a different note, maybe this will give you insight. I'm not sure if you've seen it before, but it is a very big thing (pun intended): Dr Thomas Campbell - My Big TOE (1 of 18) - YouTube