This is problematic, as you’re bundling a massive amount of very different concepts together in a manner which may change your argument phenomenally. Case in point:
And I see spirituality as the reason why the twin towers haven’t been around the last decade or so. See, this is the problem with your overly broad definition. Is it harmful to believe in a deistic, non-reactionary god? Yes (I’ll get to that in a moment), but not overtly. Is it harmful to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent god who demands human sacrifice? Yes. Overtly so. Spirituality is a vague, ill-defined term that encompasses everything from pantheism to the shit Al Qaeda believes in.
And yes, I have been kind of a dick about semantics in these kinds of discussions lately, and that’s because it’s important. What even is spirituality? Belief in a higher power? Belief in something beyond ourselves?
Hey, I agree with you! Science ain’t done. We haven’t discovered everything there is to discover. We haven’t found all the answers. But why should spirituality be appealed to? Not only has every single documented case of a phenomenon being attributed to the supernatural or spiritual shown itself to be a mistake (in the immortal words of Tim Minchin: “Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be… Not magic.”), but there’s good reason to believe that depending on how you want to define the supernatural, it will either fold itself into science alongside the natural to the degree that the distinction is irrelevant/nonexistent*, or it is, by definition, something that science and empiricism cannot approach, or even establish exists in the first place. In that case, I’m stuck asking the question I always ask in these scenarios - what is your epistemology for determining these things if not scientific empiricism and naturalism? Because that’s the only reliable epistemology we’ve come up with to know anything.
*See also: Clarke’s Laws
Yeah. Dark matter is one of the current mysteries we’re working on. Just to take that as an example… Do you know what invoking the spiritual would do to further our goal of understanding this phenomenon? Nothing. It would merely put a layer of obfuscation between us and the answer. Like, if you were to ask “how does X work”, and I were to answer “magic”, even if I was right, now we’ve just moved the question down. “What is magic and how does it work?” “I don’t know.” We’ve gone from a perfectly honest “I don’t know” to a term which offers us no explanatory or predictive power, but people are quite loathe to get rid of.
But God is almost always defined in such a way that demonstrating its existence is impossible. Even so, when we have no reason to believe that such a thing exists in the first place, why should we waste time looking for it?
Nobody is looking for proof that God does not exist.