Science is really a religion

[Bill Ryan]

-----

The title is provocative (deliberately so!), but was stimulated by a Personal Message I received which asked:

I was wondering whether you could comment on why mainstream scientists hold such dogmatic and obviously fallacious views on reality?

Here's my best answer. I thought it deserved a thread of its own.

It's because science is actually a religion. It's really a kind of belief system in which the 'priests' present evidence to support their faith... and the 'heretics' are criticized, condemned, or ostracized.

The 'priests' believe they're being rational, but actually (with few exceptions) they are not: their beliefs are very much emotionally based.

When funding, status, corporate retainers and peer acceptance are blended into the mix, real rationality has little chance to challenge the emotional comfort zones which are co-created.

Kerry Cassidy and I had the privilege of meeting a world-class physicist a few months ago, and we were able to ask him some questions about topics that in his world would have been fringe (or over the fringe!).

His reaction was instructive. He became defensive, uncomfortable, and walked out of the meeting abruptly. We realized that we had inadvertently done the equivalent of trying to argue Christ's teachings with an Archbishop.

The real reality is that this world-class scientist (and he really was in the Stephen Hawking class) was probably not good enough to have been recruited into black projects.

In black budget science - heavily ironically - there is real open-mindedness among truly brilliant people whose names we may never know. Closed-minded attitudes are not useful when back-engineering ET propulsion systems.

One has to be smarter than that - and they are. Most top-level academics in the public domain never made the cut.

[Abhaya]

Great post!

[bodixa]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
-----

We realized that we had inadvertently done the equivalent of trying to argue Christ's teachings with an Archbishop.

I highly recommend Rowan Williams' 'Silence and Honeycakes'.

John Sentamu is worth a listen too. He's done some pretty radical things through the vehicle of the CofE - a little like your nun friend.

Just trying to balance the analogy.

Perhaps the question might be "In what ways is science like religion?" We would notice some similarities and some differences. Both serve different purposes and yet the same purpose - to give humankind a greater sense of control over its existence perhaps?

Just some scrambled thoughts.

Thanx.

[Setras]

To most physicists energy is their god.......

Two men are standing on a cliff overlooking a vast plain....One is a scientist the other a native tribesman. An earthquake occurs, the tribesman knows his god exists as he shook the ground, the scientist whose ultimate god is the energy (which is indestructable) knows his god exists after he has looked at his seismograph.

The only diffence between them is their relationship to god...... the tribemans lives with him in his heart every day, the scientist spends his day trying to quantify god.....

One has all the proof he needs, the other he needs all the proof.

[bluestflame]

rigid inflexibility is fast becoming obsolete

[K626]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
-----

The title is provocative (deliberately so!), but was stimulated by a Personal Message I received which asked:

I was wondering whether you could comment on why mainstream scientists hold such dogmatic and obviously fallacious views on reality?

Here's my best answer. I thought it deserved a thread of its own.

It's because science is actually a religion. It's really a kind of belief system in which the 'priests' present evidence to support their faith... and the 'heretics' are criticized, condemned, or ostracized.

The 'priests' believe they're being rational, but actually (with few exceptions) they are not: their beliefs are very much emotionally based.

When funding, status, corporate retainers and peer acceptance are blended into the mix, real rationality has little chance to challenge the emotional comfort zones which are co-created.

Kerry Cassidy and I had the privilege of meeting a world-class physicist a few months ago, and we were able to ask him some questions about topics that in his world would have been fringe (or over the fringe!).

His reaction was instructive. He became defensive, uncomfortable, and walked out of the meeting abruptly. We realized that we had inadvertently done the equivalent of trying to argue Christ's teachings with an Archbishop.

The real reality is that this world-class scientist (and he really was in the Stephen Hawking class) was probably not good enough to have been recruited into black projects.

In black budget science - heavily ironically - there is real open-mindedness among truly brilliant people whose names we may never know. Closed-minded attitudes are not useful when back-engineering ET propulsion systems.

One has to be smarter than that - and they are. Most top-level academics in the public domain never made the cut.

My thoughts are very similar to yours on this Bill.

Infact I have gamed out/debated (sometimes on scientific forums) these very notions. Ideas don't come from science or the process of science, they are only DISTILLED by science and ideas will continue to come because chance is outside of science or infact any kind of postulated rigour.

For me a lot of science is tied up by the elites/big pharma and so on and slandted towards profit and control and much less these days towards ventures to do with the benefit of mankind (an observation that holds up every time when you look at funding data). Often big moments are kept quiet and discoveries shelved as there isn't an apparent quick profit path and the concrete thinking is further stultified.

I think of science in other terms, for me it is closer to the art of observation and the filtering of chance. There is a expectancy that is perpetuated by the high priests and this ideation is only repeated by the lower orders tinkering away in labs. The training for science is also at fault because for me, a scientist primarily needs to be a creative thinker rather than a performer of repetitive tests and formulaic paradigms. As Einstein said, "One day there will be little differance between science an poetry" .

In the world of quantum mechanincs and those who delve in that ambitotic pool we are already there. And it is acknowledged that the observer has a non-linear influence on the experiment (neutrino tracks being altered depending on which scientist is doing the experiment being the obvious example).

The gaze of man, properly self-actualised and still is the most magically powerful thing and one day it will be this that builds the new world, the power and ideation of the gaze and its ability to manifest and to see within the contortion fields of chance. In my opinion more artists and philosophers need to be recruited and encouraged to delve in science.

After all what is science but the manipulation of the building blocks of life?


cheers

Klabs.

[elysian]

Good point Bill!

I believe that if you look the mainstream science, then yes it is a lot like religion. It is close minded and does not allow for much thinking outside of the box. It is like cussing.
"Science" though, as a descriptive word, is a word I believe should be regarded as fluent and constantly evolving.

[king anthony]

The title is true.

If I may comment in brief; the human need to be a part of something appears to be a need for most - even those who feel they have no need belong become part of that need.

Science is part of the fragmented truth, as with traditional religions and other beliefs systems. The 'knowledge' (for example from the ancients), has been scattered by both design and by chance.

To simplify, there is the 'mystical' (thought, overall) and there is the practical (science); and each has been fragmented further. Many find comfort with 'the familiar' and are limited by the level of ability to 'overcome and adapt' - although all may have the potential.

'What one seeks binds them, and what one obtains imprisons them'. Is this not the case with the above story? For those who can, 'overcome and adapt', think outside the box; while the rest govern each other within the system - and leave when threatened.

It is too bad the meeting had ended, as it may have been interesting if it continued; however, maybe it is better that it did happen.

[BMJ]

Very interesting I never thought of it that way but it is very true.

When I asked my GP why don't you do something about the flouride in our water via whatever professional association your affliated with he just sat there in silence. So I moved onto my next question and asked him what I can do to reduce the flouride in my system he said "drink less water". I was gob smacked, but with Bill's post in mind it all makes clear sense now. My GP didn't want to buck the system, opps sorry the religion.

[Alex Laker]

For me, the biggest contradiction in modern society is to say that science should be inherently at odds with religion, and then declare yourself an atheist. For atheism is the most destructive dogma imaginable. Atheism should be inherently at odds with science, even though its origins lie exactly there. The fact that science has been constantly disassociated from the church throughout history even though many of the greatest scientists who ever lived were very spiritual human beings indeed, is nonsense. Yet, many people will align themselves to exclusively to either the scientific method, or a religion and all its scripture.

However, if one does not want to take the traditionally 'religious' path, then you are left with a world of logic and brutal empiricalisation, which the majority of society will not take the time to go through and understand. So, the majority of an atheist society align themselves blindly to science, and therein seek all the answers.

But, those answers will never come because the scientific method which is employed ruthlessly in modern times in order to explain and quantify everything is inherently incompatible with the other side of human nature - the spiritual side, which is brushed aside by most scientists as wishy washy unquantifiable (but frightening) nonsense. In this sense, I believe science is a religion, because it has the ability to breed a blind faith amongst a population, who rely on a group of 'divine' scientists to give them all the answers.

Science will only ever be at its most useful to society if it agnosticises itself (because science is gnostic, in that it pretends the possibility of ultimate knowledge) and reverses centuries of divide with spirituality.

Regards,
Araxes

[Gardener]

Fragmented is key. Seperation of knowledge into compartments. Each with their own 'high priest'. I am reminded of the old saying, the higher up the ladder in the subject the 'priests' get, they... "know more and more about less and less" and thus they are compartmentalised. Its worked so far why change it. There is a palpable aggression when a 'priest' is challenged outside his subject area by something which may, on closer inspection, be inextricably linked.
g

[Steven]

Exactly Bill,

When some WHO professionals push the urgent need of mass vaccination,
when fluoride is presented as a solution legally put into public water system,
when misconception are presented like realities,
when half truth are presented as ultimate knowledge,
when we build nanochips but still use explosion engine,
when innovation and creativity are suppressed,
when technology serves the fictional law of profit,
when scientist ignores their courageous counterparts,
when global problems are fabricated to serve a few,
when they build their temple to worship science, http://ca.io9.com/#!5049671/call-to-worship-at-the-temple-of-science
they have much in common with what they like to turn into ridicule; religion.

They have their priest, cult, dogma, belief system, specialized language, oppression/suppression of those who dare question their assumption. It is simply another dogmatic religion which preaches with proselytism.

Namaste, Steven

[Midnight Rambler]

Was it Jordan Maxwell that said that the top of the universities are controlled by Jesuits? And they make sure that some topics don't get funding or people are being silenced.

Certain topics are off limits, like the way the pyramids were built.

[Lancelot]

I agree Bill, Science is like a religion and scientists suffer from the same closed mindedness as many representatives of religion.
Mainstrem scientists are reluctant to challenge what has always been taught and this is the debilitating factor to science progressing any faster than at a snails pace. I mean you don't often see professors coming out and saying 'Theres a good chance that what i have been teaching all my students for the past 20 years is most likely wrong! ' It is also true that science holds the beleif that if you can see and measure it then it doesn't exist, whilst this is obviously a restricted viewpoint when it comes to things like superconductors. What is refreshing is open minded new age scientists having the belief (and audacity!) to challenge conventional science views and bring forward this understanding. What is key to this in my opinion is the balancing of the logical left brain with the intuititive right.

[ExHaLaTiON]

Dont let the box confine you, open up your mind to infinity.

I concur with your post Bill.

[bodixa]

When an injured child receives a prosthetic limb
When the sight of someone in a remote part of Africa is restored
When geneticists develop new strains of grain that are more robust in a changing environment stricken by famine
When you see your unborn child's heart beating on an ultrasound scan
When medicines give HOPE and a cure to children born to HIV+ mothers
When sanitation and clean water become available to communities left behind by war, greed and abuse.
When children in a remote school can learn to read and write and share by using the internet to communicate with children in other schools in the world.


Then science, faith and humanity work together.



It's not all doom and gloom.

[Billy]

I agree Science is self made belief system, At the same time many scientists are Islamic, Christian or Hebrew Etc, Athiestism is also self made belief system. My theory is that one day soon science will discover that ALL things in creation are made of Light, then science and spirit will be as one. I look foreward to that day

[000]

I am in full agreement with Bill's excellent post. White science (as opposed to Black science) is ripe with dogma. I am positive that it has been let to continue this way because if White science came up with the same technologies (perhaps even better ones) as Black science has currently got, the Military-Industrial Complex would be at a serious disadvantage where their control paradigm is concerned.

It really is quite ironic that Black science is very much more open minded and White science is tightly strapped to a bed of dogma.

[Adaiahsshadow]

I agree with you for the most part on this one Bill, however I was wondering how you would classify noetic science? Such as the Noetic Science Institute studies that was created by Edgar Mitchell. Or what is being studied at IONS/INACS?

[Steven]

Ah! I enjoyed your post. It is right that I presented only one aspect of science. But since the thread was about it's analogy with religion

Posted by bodixa (here)
...When geneticists develop new strains of grain that are more robust in a changing environment stricken by famine...

I bet we could argue on this one. Is it preventing famine or creating it?

Namaste, Steven