By "promissory spiritualistic" I meant that spiritual (or religious) interpretations will turn out to be true (despite majority of them being demonstrably false).
“Hallucination. "Yes, you had that experience but it was all in your head."”
And where else is it? Call it head, brain, or mind, all anyone ever experienced was their individual perception. That's simply a fact, no matter how much you dislike it.
“Science only labels "real" those things that are repeatable under laboratory conditions.”
And rightly so. If it's unrepeatable in a reliable way, there is obviously some error in hypothesis (and that's true for science as it's true for any other human endeavor). That's why I like entheogens – they reliably replicate “unique” experiences (and yes, it's just a fucking predictable biochemistry). Btw. absolute truth and self-knowledge fulfill all requirements to be labeled real even in scientific context, too.
“For science to have ferreted out the soul it would have had to have seriously looked for such a thing”
Not necessarily. You don't have to explicitly search for something, if other related discoveries simply rule out existence of that particular phenomenon. After all, no one searched for love, but we know what effect pheromones have on us. The same applies to soul and similar concepts.
“much of what we are, perhaps the majority of what we are, is not on the current scientific map”
If that was the case, neither medicine nor psychology and their derivatives would yield working result.
“We exist in extraordinary reality. We are extraordinary reality.”
This is as vague as it gets. You can safely drop the extraordinary adjective. No matter how unique an experience might be, it's still only an experience.
“As long as the goal of science is to explain away the extraordinary”
Well, that's not the goal of science. I would say that you confuse academism (which is overtly conservative, indeed) with science, which is by definition concerned with pushing the explanatory boundaries of phenomena (though, for obvious reasons, in a pretty conservative manner). Furthermore, even academism does not actually care about explaining away the “extraordinary” per se. Neither scientist nor academics wage war against religion and spirituality. Their findings, which you can repeat and check for yourself, only invalidate almost all of spiritual and religious BS.
“ordinary people are rightly going to continue to believe in gods and ghosts and souls”
Operative word being "believe", that is to say, adhere to an interpretation of their preference without actually scrutinizing it.
“the choice is between one set of inaccurate labels or the other”
Only that it isn't. There is a third option and that is to literally dismantle your mind and observe its workings. Then you can choose labels that match the observations as closely as possible (and also see firsthand which interpretations are valid and which are not).
