Posted on 02/13/2015 8:58:43 AM PST by Jack Hydrazine
Rupert Sheldrake is a fascinating member of the scientific world. The video below is of his TED talk where he covers “The Science Delusion.” This TED talk was controversially censored by the TED community after being aired.
If you have studied any area of science on your own or in school, you may have noticed or have come across the fact that there are many differing beliefs in the scientific world. While this statement seems impossible given that science is supposed to be based on evidence which produces theory, it is a delusion not to realize that much of what is strictly believed in the scientific world is only believed due to the common acceptance that is put into mainstream ideas — much like what takes place within religion. That is not to say that there aren’t amazing scientists out there coming up with profound findings and adding powerful contributions to all fields, it’s to bring light to the fact that in a mainstream sense one could say science is “stuck” or more accurately put, we have put a freeze on certain areas of science.
“How can science be stuck? You are missing the point of science! Science is not a thing it’s a method!” While I totally agree that science is a method, what I am alluding to in this article is that many of the theories we have come to believe that science has produced have been scientifically proven to be incorrect yet we continue to go along with them. The reason this happens is because in many cases we are no longer using the scientific method as it is meant to be used. The stage in the method where we are supposed to go back and a re-develop a hypothesis after evidence proves the the initial theory wrong, we instead get stuck in maintaing our belief because of the money, fear, ego and pride that get in the way.
I have been researching many areas of science, world events, health etc. over the past 5.5 years. I did not learn what I know in school as I left before completing any degrees. Something I whole heartedly belive is that in some ways I feel my lack of formal education has been a gift. Very often we can get stuck on the idea that what we have learned in school is absolute. It’s prestigious, it can’t be wrong. Heck, we paid thousands of dollars for it so it MUST be true. Yet the more I look at the people who are making scientific discoveries in the world the more I see educated people becoming livid about the fact that these new findings must not be true. It simply can’t be. I have heard the statement “It’s pseudo-science” just about anytime a belief is challenged. A new finding requires many peer reviews for it to be taken seriously, but pre-existing mainstream beliefs require none and can be written on a cereal box yet it’s still absolute fact. We have a major challenge on our hands in that we have a very hard time keeping our emotions out of how we view and perceive our world. This is not our nature, but simply our ego’s taking hold of the situation.
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
And what Sheldrake is pointing out is that scientists have settled into a Scientistic ideology that in many areas of “science” disallows questioning or even use of the scientific method to test the beliefs of this ideology via experimentation.
He’s right on that point.
Not sure what you mean.
He is presenting a new age belief that does reject materialistic science.
It’s very similar to old time pagan pantheistic beliefs where everything that exists has a spirit.
Sure, but the materialist philosophy is that nothing has a spirit because the material world is all that there is.
As a Christian I believe in the spiritual, obviously — therefore I cannot be a [philosophical] materialist.
So, when does he get to ether theory ?
His large point that science (modern) no longer investates but tends (a key word in real science) decide then make a proof text is quite true.
Is failure is that in a system with finite resources they must be used to best solve problems, the mechanistic scientific view TENDS to produce the most VERIFIABLE results.
Yes. But Christians do not believe inanimate objects have spirit, or everything has a spirit or soul. That is pantheism.
Rejection of materialistic philosophy Is not the issue with Sheldrake. It is the rejection of materialistic science.
Christians are fine with materialistic science. It comes from our world view as set forth in Biblical understandings. Christianity gave birth to materialistic science.
It is science, not philosophy or religion.
I know there is a new trend toward using science as a materialistic philosophy, which is a conflation - purposeful to my mind - by the likes of Richard Dawkins and acolytes.
I think you are responding to that. But Sheldrake is not any sort of guard or opposition to the New Atheism, but rather a competing brand.
“His large point that science (modern) no longer investates but tends (a key word in real science) decide then make a proof text is quite true.”
This has always been a criticism of science and always will be and will always have validity.
Sheldrake, though, is using it to sell his snake oil, and has a conflict of interest in over-condemning all science.
And, it is in fact Sheldrake who decided in advance, and then looks for
proof.
Much of what Sheldrake is saying is true. He just doesn’t know how to prove it.
“Much of what Sheldrake is saying is true.”
I’m interested in hearing the true things he is saying.
Lots of similarities with Jung and more so Reich.
TED? You mean that foul mouthed teddy bear who came to life in that grade B movie?
I didn't say that I believed everything has a spirit, I didn't even say whether or not I agreed with him — just that it sounded like he was questioning the materialistic philosophy.
Rejection of materialistic philosophy Is not the issue with Sheldrake. It is the rejection of materialistic science.
Christians are fine with materialistic science. It comes from our world view as set forth in Biblical understandings. Christianity gave birth to materialistic science.
It is science, not philosophy or religion.
And, in about the first eight minutes he's addressing this: many people treat science as a religion.
Many people embrace the materialist philosophy in the name of science
as a portion of their religion.
I know there is a new trend toward using science as a materialistic philosophy, which is a conflation - purposeful to my mind - by the likes of Richard Dawkins and acolytes.
I think you are responding to that. But Sheldrake is not any sort of guard or opposition to the New Atheism, but rather a competing brand.
I think we're in agreement: there has bee a purposeful conflation of science/materialism/atheism.
Well, the [re]defining of the meter in terms of the speed of light.
Christians should not be “fine with materialistic science”. That position denies the existence of our creator, God. They posit that there is no spiritual world and work overtime to build models which obscure the evidence of His existence.
I would suggest this video:
http://www.meta-library.net/cosmcrea/newcosm-frame.html
Stephen Myer gives a history of cosmology and how Einstein and Hubble concluded that the conjecture of an infinite universe is wrong. He also talks about how scientists railed against that finding since it left them unable to exclude the possibility of a created universe.
How about on Wednesday?
Dr. Douglas Groothius, Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary specializes in apologetics. He suggests that enlisting those outside the realm of the Christian world view is sometimes appropriate in order to dislodge the naturalists from their perch. However, it sounds to me that this guy may be beyond the pale.
Sounds like a good idea — after all, even Paul co-opted the surrounding ideas to preach. (Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
)
However, it sounds to me that this guy may be beyond the pale.
Possibly.
Good post!!
I’d add: Science doesn’t do “God”. Among the base assumptions of science is methodological naturalism. That is, material effects must have material causes. The methods of science simply do not work otherwise. Supernatural causes cannot be falsified, they do not follow natural laws. God can’t be limited to following the lakes of nature. Science by design must be agnostic, not atheistic but agnostic. Questions outside the realm of science, in addition to the existence of God, include values, aesthetics and moral judgements.
“Christians should not be “fine with materialistic science”.
Science can only be materialistic only material things can be quanitatively measured
“That position denies the existence of our creator, God.”
Wrong. Studying the material world, God’s creation, in no way denies God.
You are mixing up the attempt to use science to promote a materialist atheistic philosophy with science which cannot and does not address God directly in any way.
This actually is what the liberals want you to do. They want to set faith vs science and vice versa. When in fact, science is ours. It is one of the many triumphs of Christian history.
Science is the attempt to try to explain how God works. The two are not incompatible. Of course mortal man will never find all the answers.
I demonstrate many of these concepts he is promoting in front of academic groups. It freaks them out. I show that thoughts are physical objects. All matter exists in consciousness. What is true at one level of consciousness is not necessarily true at other levels. Memories are not stored in the brain (I read people’s stored memories all the way back to conception just by walking up to them.) Your consciousness manifests the physical body, not the other way around. (Nothing can destroy the soul or spirit, not even an atomic bomb exploded on a person’s head) Telepathy is a simple concept once you raise to higher levels of consciousness. (It’s how Jesus knew the thoughts of everyone around Him.) These things become your perceptual reality when you grow spiritually.
I’ve had people start shaking as what they were seeing with their eyes in my demonstrations created a paradigm shift that they were not ready for. I do not dispute science, just take it to a higher level of understanding.
I even explain the science supporting the demonstrations. I’ve noticed for example that higher levels of consciousness exhibit the same characteristics that the Danish atomic theorist Neals Bohr discovered in electrons when they go from higher orbitals to lower levels, they give off light! It’s the reason that the Holy Spirit is seen as Light and that God is often referred to as Light in the scriptures.
Two souls in a relationship merge very similar to the way covalent bonds merge elements. Growing spiritually for a single individual is similar to an ionic bond. These are simple observations I have made since being able to perceive consciousness as physical. It’s easy to see the thought forms in the soul or spirit that manifest illness. To see and feel guilt from someone who violates their purity of soul. Everyone will soon be able to do these things as we are entering a period of global warming. Global warming that is being caused by the increased presence of the Holy Spirit. It’s the reason Peter said what he did in Acts 2 when he quoted the prophet Joel. It’s happening and it’s wonderful.
The earth would appear flat until you perceive it from a higher perspective of understanding. The same is true for everything in religion, psychology and medicine. What something appears to be from one level is not necessarily true from a higher level of understanding.
Science has missed one great variable that opens doors they never imagined. Even Einstein touched on it but failed to utilize it in his equations.
The variable that scientists missed is the operational frequency of consciousness which is a key factor in perception, speed of processing and the quantity of data the mind can hold in current operations at any one point in time. As you raise your operational consciousness, other people’s thoughts become physical objects to you. That in a nutshell is the secret to understanding all religions.
I’ve done a demonstration many times where I will have a person imagine an object many feet from their body and then close their eyes. I will push the imaginary object with my hand and their physical body will move in the same direction, often knocking them off their feet even though they are many feet away from me. Once you understand thought storage and the interaction between the physical body and the soul or spirit where they are actually located, this stuff is all child’s play. It explains personality development, mental illness, learning disabilities in children, ........
This is why Einstein said “A problem is not solved at the level of consciousness at which it was created.
For example, time is not just a function of the speed of light. Time is a function of the operational frequency of consciousness divided by the speed of light. To the extent that we cleanse our soul or spirit thus decreasing its mass and increase it’s operational frequency to approach or surpass the speed of light, one immediately has the ability of prophesy.
It’s why Jesus taught what He did. The same is true of Buddha, Krishna and all the other “enlightened” teachers.
Thanks. Yours as well.
See my post right after this one I am responding to.
Intellectually honest atheist scientists, even evolutionists - Stephen Gpuld for example - acknowledge science does not do God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.