paradigm

Here is a post from my class called The Nature of Human Nature. We are discussing the relationship between the spiritual and scientific means of understanding truth, especially concerning our nature. Enjoy:

I recognize the dilemma here and I can certainly see how a contradiction is possible here and yet I am not convinced that it is necessary. Starting from conflict I want to suggest that the dilemma could be paraphrased as whether or not we are believe that the truth about our human nature is is revealed or discovered. If one is compelled to accept that such information is revealed then the spiritual side of the equation appears to take dominance. I say appears here deliberately as I believe there is an alternate approach available to us that I will return to. On the other side of this seeming contradiction lies science and discovery. Under this model the truth about our nature is up to us to discover either inductively or deductively. On this side of the coin the only significance of revelation has is how it may fuel our discovery process. What this thought does not allow for is revelation as revelation. It is in this sense that I would suggest that if one is inclined toward discovery that the conflict is necessary. Also I would say that the conflict inherent in the terms would be present regardless of which side one elects. However...

I wonder, could a paradigm exist in which what appears to be contradiction actually be complement? I believe that such a paradigm does exist and here is why. Truth does not contradict itself. If one holds to the existence of truth as both of these methods classically do this statement is rather intuitive. This being the case our discussion becomes not how does one truth acquired one way connect with another truth acquired another way. Rather we are considering the relationship of these two means as they pursue the same goal in distinct ways. Now one may suggest that these ways will usually lead to dissenting opinions and this is a important issue. The reality though is that these means do not do such a thing but rather the administrator. It is not the science does not allow for the spiritual but rather prejudice practitioners who in their validation of one means are compelled to invalidate the other.

I believe the resolution lies in allowing each means to be what it is in it's pursuit of authentic truth. For me the function looks something like this, though this is by no means an absolute statement; Science answers, in large part, the how question while spirituality tends to speak to the why question. While a posting such as this can in no way facilitate a comprehensive handling of such a subject I am content that this is a fair starting point for a dialogue on the means of apprehending the truth of human nature.

So the question is this: What is the relationship, if any between a scientific approach to human nature and a spritual one?