What you feel, think, sense about science and astronomy and astrophysics, is what it is now, after procedures and searching and interpretations and processing of data, connecting of "dots", etc. This is a path you walked on, dedicating energy, time, your attention, your perception. I think that what you dedicated to the other path/another path (you can say it mystical, spiritual, metaphysical) wasn't the same. Not the same amount of energy, but less. Not so much time, etc. Not the same attention. Not the same digging. I'm not saying that this is bad of wrong. It is what it is.
You can’t exclude though, that that path too, might have given you the proof you say it doesn’t. It might have given you the same conclusions as science. The "kind" of proof, fits the conscious or uncosncious pre-choice of "what kind of proof I would accept".
I know that you believe that real is only what can be proven and "touched". What kind of proof would be good enough for your criteria? Mathematical? Seeing something with your eyes? What? Do you believe the mind exists?And if so, how do you believe it since it can’t be tangible proof? ( I’m talking about the mind, not the brain of course) Can science prove there is such thing as mind? It is proven through its results. Like existence. I can’t catch it with my hands, I can’t write a mathematical equation that proves it, but its proof is everywhere. The proof of being able to exist. The same about friendship, love, etc. Empirical and biomatic proof isn’t of a lower value and it isn’t so "opposite" of the scientific way. In science, too, theory isn’t enough. You proceed to experiments to bring real proof, to transform theory into experience. If someone will toil for the other path’s proof, they may be amazed by the similarities of the two paths. I’m not being the smart-ass. You know it’s not my style. And I’m not angry as my logos may seem. I still just interact with you, for both of us to be expanded. That’s real communication to me.
You know my thesis. I don’t believe that science and soul/higher Self’s reaching are contradictive, but the one is within the other. And you know that when I talk about soul or spirituality etc., I don’t mean religion.
I know that you can answer something to all these,too. The main thing to me, is that --as you know-- I don’t try to persuade you or change you or win. I am here for the meaningful interaction. We exchange things. Useful things, not BS.
I have already proved that our disagreements and our different points of view about some topics, are not fog-producers for me. I don’t dislike you (if I would, the criteria wouldn’t have been our disagreements. This is not how I choose to like or dislike someone). I find our interaction useful and creative to the point that it isn’t to be stopped because of disagreements. In parallel, I express my point of view when I sense it’s necessary. If the fact that you don’t like Jung, or that you are an atheist, was of "more gravity" than the positives I find while we communicate, you would have sensed it by now. I know your thesis for a long time.
Thank you for this dedication, Patrick!
PS. Mysticism and astronomy may not have so many differences as it seems.