Human despite science

[Matthias]

I hope you are open-minded enough to not mistake me for the typical right-wing christian fundamentalist, and I want to point out that the following writings are not directed against technology or practical scientific knowledge, that has proven valuable to us.

I am opposed to the ideology of science that I believe is untrue and destructive to our self-conception...


Human despite science

The foundation of a humane society without deep understanding of the sublimeness and beauty of the human being, of who we essentially are, is unthinkable. Mankind is in a state of oblivion and unfortunately science is playing its part in this scheme.

Science, we are expected to build our hopes on, is one of the biggest deceivers of mankind, far worse than current religion. Science often speaks of life like it was some sort of trivial subject, an organic mechanism, brain cells emitting impulses, DNA structures arranged this or that way, etc...

In that sense, science doesn't seem to recognize life as a living being at all, even in the many ways it is trying to manipulate it. They focus rather on the physical parts. But the parts don't even function if you look at them isolated. Life isn't a robotic construction. To disassemble a living body means to kill the entity that this organization serves and essentially belongs to.

It seems to me, that science has no understanding that we are foremost spiritual beings in control of our physical appearance in the physical universe.

When we talk to a person, we don't talk to her body, but to the person herself, her spiritual self. The conversation is conducted through our body, organs and senses or further physical mechanisms as they are used in modern technology, but they are merely instruments that we use in the process.

Science confuses cause and effect, as they see the body of the being equivalent to the being itself, reducing it to merely its physical appearance and thereby thinking of it as kind of an organic robot.

They don't realize that the spiritual entity is the real life force behind it and the cause for all the body does and what's going on inside of it. Without it, the body is merely dead meat and will crumble to dust.

The Genesis of science reads: "In the beginning there was nothing and then there was a bang. The Bang brought forth the universe, while comfortably being nothing to speak of, than an event of some sort."

Because science can't accept the existence of a real god, they have to make something up, that has no soul, but at the same time is capable of performing all the things they want it to do. We might as well see it as a depersonalized false god.

Even if the creation of the universe came along with a bang, what does it explain? Does it sound rational, that the real force, that brought us to life and empowered us as sensitive and spiritual beings of free will, would be nothing more than just a mindless event?

Science dodges these issues, by denying troublesome terms existence in the way they are popularly understood. They execute their strategy of demythologization, a seemingly rational approach, that arrogantly casts aside traditional values as naive and outdated.

If it wasn't for the ever so praised rationality of science i would think that it is following a diabolical propaganda meant to destroy the self-esteem in every human being, describing it as merely a random outcome of their beloved concept of Evolution. With revealing self-contempt some have even called the human species an accident.

Evolution is a thesis that has no existing proof and, as for me, can never be proven, because I see it in total denial of the reality of life and its beings. Science seems to look at life forms as universal shape shifters, that only pretend to be what they are until they occasionally decide to "evolve" into some other species. I don't see a reason why a bird, a horse, or a dog should be what they are coming from a pressure of circumstance. Because it's said to take so long, we will never be able to witness. Rather convenient.

Darwinist thinking is to degrade the higher being, first down to the level of animals and then down to dead matter until it ends up at the preferred and final destination of scientifically inoffensive nothingness.

When nothingness is what science wants as the original state, I mean to revert that wicked logic by claiming, that nothingness is nothing but the dead state within the being that is absoluteness and living consciousness.

The lack of spirituality in our current world is depressing and makes a person of faith like myself very sad. How would we found a new and better society, when all that is defining us as human beings is cast aside and trampled upon? Why do we hate ourselves for what we are and refuse to live up to the greatness set in us? Is it because we are frustrated about the way religion put it to us and treated us? Maybe, but that is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water and throw ourselves into an abyss of collective godlessness.

I make no secret of it, that for me, coming from the biblical background, the concept of community relies heavily on the idea of the one being and loving creator. Our relationships, the ability to communicate, inspire and show sympathy comes from this original oneness, the one self, that displays its diversity and facets in the many races, cultures, unique individuals and in the wonders of nature that surround us.

When I think about the basis of our cognitive faculty it has become a thrilling insight, that in order for the universe to be the subject of our minds, it has to be made of the mind itself. What we can experience in the world "out there" is essentially a display of the vast possibilities, dynamics, complexity and harmony that lies within ourselves. It isn't just "the" nature, but our nature spanned out for us. The process of gaining knowledge is rather the growing participation in the consciousness that already exists and in which the universe is carried along together with ourselves and our developing mind-states. Incited and fed by our daily experience, we bring forth more and more of our true self, and by time grow out of the state of careless infancy to become a conscious human being.

The way of the wise man, the low-cost philosophical approach of self-reflection to gain vital knowledge, is often done away as unscientific. Which brings me to the conclusion, that most scientists are overwhelmed with none-empirical studies and mature thinking. They like to study, yes, but only under their narrow assumptions and self-made dogmas they get carried away with, which exposes many as imposters and self-satisfied fools even worse than those of religious sort.

Our struggle for community is also a struggle for essential truth that has been wiped off by careless men, who think of themselves as highly intelligent. As long as we let it happen, that weak-minded people lie to us, deny us our unique status as humans and dominate our self-conception, we will be in lack of love for ourselves and for the beauty of life around us. We will be separated from our true self and from each other.

[DaiBach]

Good morning Matthias.

I'm not sure that science is trying to degrade the human condition or that "Darwinist thinking is to degrade the higher being".

I was educated by in a Catholic school, by nuns who were trained scientists, and who had a profound knowledge of the natural world, and the theory of evolution.

I'd like to think that me and my peers grew up to be good, compassionate and mindful citizens. Exploring and understanding the natural world, and our natural part in it, isn't demeaning, it's empowering. How beautiful to think that we are part of this vast universe, and that we are made of the same stuff as the stars.

Originally Posted by DaiBach

I'm not sure that science is trying to degrade the human condition or that "Darwinist thinking is to degrade the higher being".

It may be the case that evolutionary biology is compatible with spirituality and ultimately... humanity. Compatibility would be possible if it turned out that organic molecules are attracting and confining spirits. That could be the case if spirits are a kind of quantum field and organic molecules are attracting and confining these "ghost fields".

[Katheryn]

Hi All,

What an interesting topic! I must say that I agree with some of the things Matthias has said, and disagree with some others.

Firstly, I agree absolutely with Matthias that when we speak to a person, we are speaking to the soul or consciousness of that person, and not their flesh. I would also say that all souls (both human and animal), must needs elicit our respect and love.

I would hesitate to agree that science in general, or evolution in particular, would take this away from us. I can see absolutely no reason why the mechanism of evolution would dehumanise us or take away our respect for human life. The fact that we are a complex species that took millions of years to develop makes me respect and cherish each human life even more. I cannot agree with Matthias that there is no evidence for evolution...one is the many different species of finch on the Galapagos islands. It is fairly plain to see (through phylogenetic analysis) that there was one "prototype" finch that found its way to the Galapagos islands and diversified into the many types there today via natural selection. I think personally that anyone who doesn't like the idea of evolution likely had it explained to them very badly. With genetic techniques today, it is so much easier to see the truth of Darwin's ideas than it was in his lifetime.

I personally see evolution as our Creator's way of making us. I believe that He made the laws of Physics first and then stuck to them. Spontaneously generating people wasn't possible after that, so He had to make us slowly, by altering environmental pressures over billions of year to select for our kind. I am sure He made every kind of life-form on Earth, but slowly, by allowing mutations to arise and selecting for them...i.e. via evolution. This fills me with even more awe for Creation and the Creator than any seven-days-of-creation story ever could.

[Visitor]

Who is to say that evolution is not an inherent capability of lifeforms to adapt, - sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly. That the actual evolutionary part is the willingness to change. Why does it have to be either a God job or natural selection.

I agree with Katheryn.
There is also a moth species and a samurai fish that has evolved within our lifetimes.

Matthias science doesn't say anything about god. Which science textbook did you read that says there is no god?
Some scientists may offer an opinion on an atheist position, but some are religious or spiritual some are Buddhist.

You don't seem to have a problem spreading your message with your science machine on the science enabled internet.

Why do you want science to just assume a priori that god exists and go from there? That's what the Roman Catholic church did in 1200A.D. But that's not what science is. Science is just a word for a process, you make predictions, test your ideas, look for errors etc.. If you just said "ok God exists so maybe dark energy is God pushing on space-time" it wouldn't be science.

If you say "humans are obviously spiritual beings" then someone else can say "Mormonism is clearly the true and only path to God" or "only Catholics go to heaven, I know this because I am in touch with God." So the scientific method just gets away from that mess.

The spiritual intuition you use to decide evolution is wrong is the same intuition and spiritual insight that led past Christian scholars to know that the Earth was at the center of reality and the sun and planets revolved around it. That doesn't mean you are wrong but it shows the need for a more critical way of thinking.

[Dwerg]

Originally Posted by Matthias

The way of the wise man, the low-cost philosophical approach of self-reflection to gain vital knowledge, is often done away as unscientific. Which brings me to the conclusion, that most scientists are overwhelmed with none-empirical studies and mature thinking. They like to study, yes, but only under their narrow assumptions and self-made dogmas they get carried away with, which exposes many as imposters and self-satisfied fools even worse than those of religious sort.

Science is born out of philosophy, and philosophy literally means love of wisdom. Science wouldn't exist if it were not for the sum of HUMANS throughout history who self-reflected and went "outside the box". I'm well aware of how scientists are perceived by their critics, but do the critics ever reflect on the validity of their own beliefs? I only see humans making mistakes, and they make the same mistakes no matter what they believe.

Idiots are idiots whatever they think or believe. A wise man is aware of his own ignorance...

[Katheryn]

I would agree with Dwerg that science is made by people and grows out of a desire for knowledge, and so can't really oppose our essential humanness, because it develops out of our humanness.

I would certainly agree that whatever system we are dealing with - that of science or spirituality - we should pursue it with an open mind. If, as Matthias suggests, people are using science as an excuse for bigotry or callousness, then it is their attitude that needs a serious clean-up! Personally, I have never found anything in my scientific knowledge that would cause me to dismiss or disregard anyone or anything. So if anyone else is doing that in the name of science, then it's their attitude that is wrong, imo.

Recomended reading:
The Biology of Belief – Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter & Miracles

A groundbreaking work in the field of New Biology. Author Dr. Bruce Lipton is a former medical school professor (University of Wisconsin) and research scientist (Stanford University School of Medicine).

Originally Posted by joelr

Why do you want science to just assume a priori that god exists and go from there?

It's avoidable but to presume the existence of God. It all starts with Michelson-Morley back in the 1880's who misled everyone into believing that there was no aether. Thirties years later, quantum mechanics was discovered. Quantum field theory has been around for 80 years; quantum field theory says that every standard model particle has a quantum field. Then in 2013, the Higgs boson was measured. The Higgs field is a quantum field. The only difference between a set of fields and an aether is that scientists don't like the word: aether. But the evidence supports the existence of an aether.

Then there is this problem science has with trying to sell the argument of a universe that came from nothing. It is more reasonable to argue that the universe came from the aether that existed before the big bang. But how were the laws of physics and the physics constants created? Before the big bang, they didn't exist.