Lee ji, No I do not think in terms of spiritual / non-spiritual truths. Although I do refer to what are conventional and conceptual truths as distinct from what then is called 'ultimate' truth. But being that conceptual and conventional truths are "concepts" and this being non-existent / not real, I tend to then use the word 'truth' only to apply to ultimate truth. Indeed to distinguish into spiritual / non-spiritual truths is the result of knowing only the world of concepts and therefore this distinction has absolutely no meaning to me. And taking into account that you make the particular distinction, I say both scientific truth and spiritual truths are conventional and depend on people to think along certain lines and to agree with each other about. So it depends on how much overlap there is between the two and another set of measure to see the common. After all we do see attempts at finding some kind of unity between these two ways of thought don't we? And again this points to the fact of how dependent on thought both are and how unreal, hence unreliable. Actually 'science' is too much of an abstraction. When you feel grateful, it should be towards some individual. When I'm sick, perhaps I'd think to feel grateful to someone for helping me. I may think about some Chinese doctor of old who went around searching for medicine with a mind to help other people. But what should really be the object of gratitude, is it his discovery or is it his kindness and dedication? But even if I had the medicine itself as object, why the need to go on to refer to the particular abstraction "science"? When I feel gratitude towards my parents, is it not because they took care of me when I needed and is this not again about a particular good quality. Even if my parents threw me out of the house, I'd still need to feel grateful if I've finally come to appreciate the teachings on morality and wisdom. Why, because I value these and without my parents I'd not be here. When it comes to a particular set of teachings I can read on the internet, do I therefore feel gratitude towards the person who invented the PC and internet or do I thank the one who shared those teachings? The former did what he did out of sheer desire and ignorance while the other understood what was truly valuable and wanted to share that without any thought of getting anything in return. No, Truth or ultimate truth. It is only in the world of thought that science exists. Daily life, real life, is just one moment of consciousness together with its mental concomitants, arisen to experience an object through one of the five senses and the mind. Obviously! Brain is one concept science has come up with and gotten trapped by. Like a child with an imaginary friend. The concept is the result of thinking following upon the experience through the different senses which in the end are only physical phenomena. To refer to the brain what in fact is a mental phenomenon is the result of failure at making the distinction between mental and physical phenomena, both to be known directly when they arise as object of consciousness, and this by way of the development of wisdom, itself is mental reality. Brain is only a concept, a result of observations of yet other concepts. Some of these are what happens within the brain itself, while others in making a connection with outward manifestations of human behaviour. None of these however are result of the direct study of mental and physical phenomena. One evidence of this is that, while referring to the concept and going on about this and that and relying on one theory or another, there is absolutely no inclination to study the object of experience there and then at that very moment. This is getting lost in the world of ideas and an indication that ignorance and craving is the driving force and not wisdom. It has taught me things I don't really need. ;-) If I thought otherwise, it will be seen that this comes down to attachment to a particular set of knowledge, one which has nothing to do with the development of wisdom. So you are saying that science has taught me to count, do accounts and to use a particular language? Is the latter a result of science? And would I have not learnt to count on my own and to add and subtract without science. But even then, what does that have anything to do with any ability to understand the Truth? Huh, you mean that you calculate using scientific knowledge when you cross the road? Haven't you seen even dogs, crossing the road successfully? And "biology of a child"?!!! You mean your reference point are not such realities as seeing, thinking, feeling, restlessness, colour, sound, hearing and so on and the most basic concepts that must arise from these, but instead some theories in physics and biology, when you guide your child in crossing the road? Do you think that an uneducated farmer in India will not be able to cross the road let alone guide his kids? Had you no inclinations to the particular kind of beliefs would you have even searched the relevant places, and if you did, would you have been attracted? And if indeed your inclinations are strong, do you not think that you might have found what you sought regardless of whether the internet existed or not as a medium? My point was to make you realize the fact that *you really don't know*. You on the other hand have taken your thoughts in retrospect so seriously that what in fact is simply different perceptions patched up together, attached to each are particular set of values of which you are unaware. And the end result, namely that it is all "due to science", points to a proliferation, one which is not just a matter of thinking about the past with fondness which is plain attachment, but something much worse, namely "wrong understanding". Not Sikhi apparently, but neither is it deterministic. Not knowing the causes and conditions, you rely on a particular story to explain your experiences. I object to this, which should not however translate as being deterministic.