If your contention is just something like "the root psy- comes out of mystical/spiritual conceptions in Ancient Greece, and that speaks to the bunk/ungrounded c

If your contention is just something like "the root psy- comes out of mystical/spiritual conceptions in Ancient Greece, and that speaks to the bunk/ungrounded conceptions of modern psychology," then I would ask why the same critique is not levied against the ancient Greek conception of "nature" and the "natural" from which we get the word "physics". You might retort here "ah well, 'nature' is just the word we use when we speak of observable phenomena in the hard sciences, its not muddied by religion like that crock stuff psychology." And then I would say, "ok, if 'nature' is just observable phenomena, what is the aim or purpose of the hard sciences? If it is all just observing/experimenting on discrete phenomena, there would be nothing we could do or conclude from the rigor of physics." You laugh at my insanity (well, if you believed in such a thing): "But we do conclude things from physics, because experiments are reproducible, and with their reproducibility we can gain confidence in generalizing the laws of our universe." And yes! You would be correct here. But now all the sudden you have committed physics to something just as fundamentally "spiritual" as the soul: that the universe is sensible, rational, and "with laws." Which is indeed just speaking the very same mystical "nature" of ancient Greece from which we get phys-. But this need not be some damning critique of physics itself (like psychology), and rather, can lead to a higher level understanding of all scientific pursuits: that we are everywhere cursed by a fundamental incompleteness, that in order even to enter into scientific pursuit we must shed an absolute skepticism for a qualified one. Because this is the only way we accumulate a network of reinforced hypotheses and conceptions, which do indeed help us navigate the purely phenomenal world we are bound in.