It's a Material World: The Materialist Religion part 1

It's Scientifically Proven

In my Blog about Kary Mullis I was really fascinated initially about his strange unearthly encounter at his cabin in the woods. But Kary Mullis has a larger than life er. . . life. He is clearly a very gifted member of the "Scientific establishment" and there are some aspects to his life which have sparked off quite few important ideas in my own, not quite, larger than life. . . er life.

"Scientific Establishment"

I place this in quotations because I would like to make a remark about the "general public" (i.e. me and people I know, and . . . I assume. . . other people in general - who are not scientists) and their attitude towards the 'scientific establishment' that I suspect places them in a disproportionately lofty position.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/11/creative-science-experiments_n_6306838.html

I don't have a problem with this idea, in principle, keeping in mind the many wonderful discoveries and inventions made by scientists. But the problem arises when these 'scientist' people are placed in an unassailable position and their pontifications and prognostications are accepted as "gospel" truth.

They have become the "Nouveau God's" just like Zeus who castrated and supplanted Kronos, so too 'the Scientist' has ostensibly rendered the priest and guru impotent and supplanted the 'primitive' religions of this world with a new kind of 'materialist' religion in which all the superstitions of the past have been explained and demythologised in a laboratory test-tube.

Or have they?

Zeus castrating Kronos - Goergio Vasari

How many times have we heard "It's been scientifically proven" as if this is a 'catch all' phrase that ends all dispute even though we don't know the first thing about the particular subject at hand but we willingly place our trust and faith in our high priests of learning and knowledge.

THE CURRENT ORTHODOXY

LEFT: Religious ceremony with people wearing strange regalia and RIGHT: academic ceremony with people wearing strange regalia . . .

Endorsing products to achieve credibility

When a new product runs an Ad campaign on TV and they want us to buy a new washing powder or toothpaste we are presented on TV with a white coated scientist person who reassures us that it has been "scientifically or clinically proven"
This appeals specifically to the public's perception and reverence for 'the scientist' as paradigm of wisdom truth and Knowledge.

I should buy these brands because. . .They are Scientifically Proven

The world I grew up in was being controlled almost exclusively by the materialist world view.

The theory of evolution was well entrenched and considered the cornerstone of all ideas and beliefs of the modern world and as my generation grew up in the 60's and 70's we were were all thoroughly indoctrinated in our School curriculums.

Well of course the Church was still around but it was generally felt that this institution only retained value in a 'traditional' sense and in due time it would be fazed out completely.

https://whybecausescience.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/star-wars-evolution.jpg I should buy this because . . .it's scientifically proven

It was happy times for the supporters of Darwinism and in the Universities as well as in the media and their ideas and assertions were certainly not challenged at least not seriously by any person who wished to be considered 'educated'. Well of course we had the hippy movement and Timothy Leary, but the general perception was these were simply a rebellious minority of lazy kids who didn't bath smoked pot and ingested LSD.

Actually there was much more to this than meets the eye . . .but not now.

A shift in people's perceptions

I would suggest there has been a marked shift in peoples perceptions beginning probably in the 80's and 90's. This shift did not begin in the 'scientific establishment' which is determined to maintain it's uniformitarian evolutionist stance at all costs.

Any kind of challenge to these materialist fundamentalists is not received with any kind of encouragement or praise, there is far too high a price for going against the grain, there is much money to be lost, in fundings and research grants, and even worse. . . prestige and respect, we shall see these things are very important for people who are used to being held in high esteem and a fall from grace is not something easily embraced in the world of science.

Usually the charge is led by people who have less to lose . . . such as journalists and writers like Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Robert K G Temple, Rick Strassman, Jeremy Narby and others who have made a good living through their totally unorthodox ideas, but these writers are usually regarded as 'fringe' and not taken too seriously since they lack the credentials of M.D. and tenured professorships and 'peer reviewed' articles. So if there is any serious challenge to the orthodox system it has to come from within in order to carry any credibility.

Slowly but surely a few courageous members in the fraternity begin to question well established beliefs using the methods and knowledge of scientific enquiry. Predictably they are greeted with hoots of derision and persecution but eventually some of the bad elements become exposed and the community is finally forced to accept this.

The Edifice Crumbles

In the 16th C AD an Augustine monk martin Luther lead the charge against the prevailing orthodoxy of the day.

Like all monopolies it had become top heavy and self serving. As with all power bases, a challenge would be perceived as a threat and self preservation meant this would have to be dealt with and eradicated by any means at their disposal.

Martin Luther survived by the grace of God and . . . the support of other power bases which swung the balance of power away from the central authority.

1517 Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg

But some will argue

Surely the scientific method of enquiry is the very thing that liberated us from the religious stranglehold on freedom of thought and enquiry?

Well that is certainly what we are taught to believe. . . but we shall find out the truth is far different to that and the so called 'scientific community' has its bishops and popes who are just as determined to prevent any kind of challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy in our own day as they did in Martin Luther's time.

The tale of Galileo Galilei

Do you know that this story is famous specifically for illustrating how scientific enquiry eventually triumphed over religion?

The story is supposed to demonstrate how religious orthodoxy is based on a holy book that is written by men from a distant shadowy past trying to make sense of the world they lived in. They were ignorant and slightly less developed on the evolutionary time scale, so they created in their primitive minds this transcendent God.

The Church held on to these ideas because it enabled them to control and govern the masses through manipulation and fear.

But thanks to the few brave mavericks, like Galileo, who decided to risk all and stand up to the huge conglomerates and declare the truth of their scientific endeavours, we now have a method of free and uncensored enquiry today unfettered by the dogmas of outmoded and debunked religious organisations.

Galileo Galilei before the Inquisition

There is more to this story than the romanticised version above. The Church was also in control of education, in reality this was akin to the universities of today and the Jesuits (professors) were well versed in all the latest findings of Copernicus long before Galileo even came upon the scene and it is true they kept the knowledge to themselves for all the wrong reasons but the point is they were not as ignorant as the historians would like us to believe.

Albrecht Durer - the four horsemen of the apocalypse

The wicked Pope depicted as the anti-Christ in a section of a 16th Century print by Albrecht Durer, rallying to the cause of the Reformation.

Just like the conglomerates of today they would disseminate their knowledge and wisdom at its most profitable, and mavericks who spread ideas that interfere with business had to be silenced . . for this reason and this reason alone. . . it is that simple.

http://mkboards.com/forums/threads/mk7-instant-team-conglomerate.9226/

The Greedy Capitalist: Does this picture rear its ugly head in the Scientific World as well?

We shall see this played out in History again and again - just follow the money

Todays Orthodoxy are still at it, but the materialist revolution has just about exhausted itself as more and more dissension arises from within its own ranks. As I suspect The confident sounding assertions of its spokesmen are a symptom of a kind of desperation to assert the beliefs and values of the materialist elite. To be sure Dawkins sounds confident enough . . .but in fact it really does raise a question.

Why is it so necessary to have these evangelists for the materialist cause making aggressive campaign speeches and engaging in debates?

If the science is so solidly and convincingly proven and the truth is firmly established then what appropriate response should there be towards the religionists? Surely looking down from the secure and established haven of truth there should at most a genuinely heartfelt pity for what must be the very last few religious dogmatists who refuse to let go of their 'God Delusion'.
It would make more sense just to ignore this deluded minority of woefully ignorant fools and simply concentrate on building on the accomplishments of science looking towards a bright atheistic future.

But no

For some reason the mighty edifice of science has time to waste and finds it necessary to engage religionists in debating and writing treatises full of vitriolic and sometimes a bit hysterical anti religious material.

"the Lady doth Protest too much"

When Dawkins calls Religionists names like 'stupid' and 'ignorant' its almost as absurd, when arguing from his perspective, as saying 'stupid' and 'ignorant' to people who believe in the tooth fairy or santa claus.
There is simply no need . . .
except for the feeling that we get when "The Lady doth Protest too much" one infers the opposite.

Let me give an example

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/alumni/news/warwickconnect2014/discworld/discworld.jpg

Do you know there is a vigorous argument today for the earth being flat?

This is what is clearly stated on their website "The Flat Earth Society"

Earth is a curved disc with the Arctic Circle in the centre.
Antarctica, is a 150-foot-tall wall of ice, around the rim.
NASA employees guard this ice wall to prevent people from climbing over and falling off the disc.
They are quite serious about this.

http://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

Does Richard Dawkins now feel its necessary to write another book called 'the flat earth delusion'?

Surely not!

Because Its a complete waste of time, of course! arguing over such a silly idea.
Any astronomer would just ignore such an idea as far too preposterous to be in any way concerned about or take seriously.

So Then. . .

Isn't religion regarded in the same category as the flat earth society by scientists? Why waste time debating and arguing over silly and absurd ideas? . . . if not for one thing. . .

Maybe they are not so confident and secure as they would have you believe.

Introducing Rupert Sheldrake

http://www.sheldrake.org

When I began writing out and researching my Blog on exposing the flaws in the materialist world view, I stumbled upon this name (as often is the case when surfing around the internet gathering info).

Who is Rupert Shedrake?

Cambridge-trained biochemist with a double-first-class honours degree and a doctorate.

Developed ground breaking discoveries in plant physiology before developing his current interest in parapsychology. A bona-fida insider of the 'scientific community'

He has been subjected to many attacks and vitriolic criticism . . why?

Could there be professional resentment that Sheldrake’s research continues to be funded by Cambridge University? You bet there is. . . not to mention the fact that his books are very popular as well.
But
His worst misdemeanour is his non conformist stance with regard to accepted scientific dogma; this has made him a particular target of the materialists.

Controversy at TED

On January 13, 2013, at TEDxWhitechapel He gave a provocative talk in which he suggests that modern science is based on ten dogmas, and makes the case that none of them hold up to scrutiny.

The talk is based on his book The Science Delusion

What a great title for the book clearly a red flag challenge to Richard Dawkins.

I only have the talk to go by as I have recently heard of him.
But will most certainly get the book as well (with the other 600 books I need to read by the end of today)

I also listened to this: Interesting Interview on morphic resonance and parapsychology

And this: Personal Story and consciousness at Hollyhock Lifelong Learning centre, Aug. 5 - 9, 2015.

I was, of course, thrilled to find a first class example of the very kind of person I was describing above.

Having said this I must add, I was not at all surprised by this because I am well aware that there are a growing number of these fascinating characters in the world of science who are standing up and declaring that the Emperor in actual fact has no clothes on and indeed hasn't had any for a considerable period of time.

Talks from Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock given at the TEDx Whitechapel event titled “Visions for Transition: Challenging Existing Paradigms and Redefining Values” were both banned following recommendations from a faceless “Science Board,”

Now isn't that incredible? censorship in the 'democratic' world of free scientific enquiry . . .why?

Is this what it means to Challenge Existing paradigms? How Ironic can you get?

Over at the TED Blog Sheldrake responded to each criticism leveled by TED’s science board. And TED moderators opened up the blog to community discussion, with mixed results. TED’s curator, Chris Anderson, even voiced his disappointment with criticisms against Sheldrake’s talk: “Maybe I’m expecting too much for this forum, but I was hoping scientists who don’t buy his ideas could indicate WHY they find them so implausible.”

taken from www.tricycle.com (very interesting blog dedicated to teaching Buddhism)

Rupert Sheldrake outlines 10 dogmas he has found to exist within mainstream science today. He states that when you look at each of these scientifically, you see that they are not actually true.

1. Nature is mechanical or machine like

2. All matter is unconscious

3. The laws or constants of nature are fixed

4. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same

5. Nature is purposeless

6. Biological heredity is material

7. Memories are stored inside your brain

8. Your mind is inside your head

9. Psychic phenomena like telepathy is not possible

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works

You have to ask if they did not ban this talk, what's the worst thing that can happen? Maybe an interesting line of discussion that can lead to new ideas and discoveries. . . thats about it!

Whats the bottom line here? Science is closed to any line of enquiry that doesn't reinforce and agree with the current paradigm because as far as they are concerned, there IS no other acceptable view on reality
Instead the ban is in fact completely in line with Sheldrake’s view that, aside from the creativity of its methodology, science is often practiced hand in hand with deeply held and unexamined assumptions that are no more provable, and no less ideological, than other systems.

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

The Materialist Religion part 1