Scientific Spirituality is Spirituality based on Scientific knowing instead of dogmatic belief.

But, the word ‘scientific’ in this context is not identical with any of our contemporary science or any branch of science that we can learn from any university. Neither does it mean that Scientific Spirituality is just an attempt to use the latest scientific discoveries, ie. in quantum physics, to justify a certain spiritual belief like it has been done by numerous other people.

The main aim of science is to investigate and to understand the law of nature. And that’s exactly what I’ve done to arrive at my thesis The Ultimate Unification Theory (The UUT), that simply describes the fundamental law of nature, the physical, the psychological as well as the spiritual.

However, to be able to arrive at the UUT, I had no choice but to break through the current limitation of contemporary science. It uses the synthetical way of thinking (to synthesize), and a good balance of logical reasoning enhanced by intuitive thinking, which is diagonally opposed to the analytical way of thinking and rigid mathematical logic of our contemporary science.

Hence, though the UUT discusses about Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics, it is not a theory of academic Physics.

As a consequence of this synthetical way of thinking, all the scientific words used in these pages, ie. energy, polarity, resonance, induction etc., which have rigid definitions in science, should be interpreted as broad as one can conceive, beyond the current scientific (physics) definitions.

Anyway, as Albert Einstein once said;

Physical concept are free creation of human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He see the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such comparison.