posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:20 AM
"It is self-evident to any right-thinking person who has dabbled in occult practises, taken hallucinogenic substances, or made a serious study of the
paranormal world, that we are not alone. There are unquestionably entities in existence the like of which are incomprehensible to our crude attempt at
science, rooted as it is in the veneration of the material world and the acceptance of conformity-before-all-else as a social commandment. Indeed, the
greatest scientists have often been victims of an inquisition mounted not only by the religious authority of their time and place, but by their
alleged brothers in arms: those fellow scientists who sought to uphold the dogmatic traditions of the academy.
Some, like Nikolai Tesla, have been fortunate enough to receive recognition after the event, as their bodies lie rotting beneath the earth and the
danger they pose to the scientific establishment has diminished. Others, like Wilhelm Reich, are demonised as pseudo-scientists and hacks long after
their passing. And make no mistake, the most interesting scientists alive today, men like Rupert Sheldrake and James Lovelock, are equally persecuted
– pushed out from serious scientific discourse for one reason above all others: their work challenges the stale and insane approach of mainstream
scientists to our understanding of reality.
The reductive materialist position – that matter alone is the fundamental building block of reality, and mind, if it exists at all is nothing but an
emergent property of the same – is incorrect. And it is clearly and overwhelmingly incorrect. The very fact that it can be regarded by so many as an
obvious truth is a testament to this species ability to deceive itself, and will be seen with the hindsight of history as no less a misconception than
those other great blunders of reason once guarded so closely by the scientific elite: that the earth is flat, or that we should drill holes in the
heads of the mentally ill to free evil spirits. Of course, ridiculousness is not an inherent property within some ideas and not others – it can
exist only in context.
It is not stupid to believe you can fly unaided if you are a bird. But my guess is that the reader is not, and therefore belief in one’s ability to
fly without recourse to planes helicopters or some other contraption must be rendered ridiculous.
So it is with all blunderous thoughts. Certainly, assuming the earth was flat made sense at a certain point in history. The belief becomes ridiculous
only in the light of changing contextualisation.
Materialism, the philosophical assumption that lays the foundation for scientific thought as we know it today, has become an equally blunderous idea.
The claim that matter is the only fundamental property in existence is an extraordinary one, and to paraphrase Carl Sagan – a man who, despite
having a prodigious intellect, managed to contribute criminally to scientific dogmatism and the suppression of free thought – it requires
extraordinary evidence. Why is it an extraordinary claim?
First, it is extraordinary because it is counter-intuitive. We may claim publicly to be materialists or idealists (the opposite philosophical pole to
materialism, idealism claims that mind, not matter, is the fundamental building block of reality) but in the privacy of our own thoughts, we are all
dualists. That is, we are all aware of ourselves from day one as beings with a physical existence and a mental existence. It is utterly bizarre to
make the claim that we have no mind. It is almost as bizarre to make the claim, unsupported by any strong evidence, that our mind emerges from matter
spontaneously, and occupies a less fundamental position in the grand scheme of things than the fleshy vehicles through which we interact with the
Second, it is extraordinary because the small shreds of evidence we do have about the underlying fabric of reality seem to lead away from reductive
materialism. The materialist theory that underpins modern science and New Atheism is a clanking old Newtonian machine that presents the universe as a
well-ordered construct with no maker – the pocket watch of the teleological argument (the classical argument for the existence of God that equates
the world to an ordered mechanism and postulates that it, like a mechanism, has a designer) without a watchmaker. Today, high-end physics is a world
of abstruse and irrational speculation about the ultimate nature of existence that deals with quantum uncertainty and only speaks the language of
complex mathematics. To anyone who is interested in the refutation of New Atheist thought and reductive materialism, I strongly recommend The
Devil’s Delusion by David Berlinski, and to any that sometimes feel as though the scientific establishment overstate their authority on matters all,
I recommend The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake with equal vigour. Things are not as simple, cut and dried, and conclusive as they are being
presented to the layman.
This is not new. Authority has always over-reached itself, claiming as much territory as it can, whether in the guise of a feudal monarchy, a
privileged priesthood, a military ruling structure or any other iteration. Any intelligent person with the ghost of an understanding of history,
politics or philosophy should be pathologically distrustful of authority, however it is presented. The reason we should distrust authority is simple:
people naturally hoard power. The impulse that compels a young parent to thoughtlessly make up the answer to a question that has them stumped is, in
essence, exactly the same impulse that has convinced the world’s eighty five richest people that they deserve the same amount of resources as the
world’s poorest three billion. Power is an inherently positive quality and we seek to embody it unconsciously in whatever form is natural to us. (Of
course, as with all unconscious responses, we’re not as a rule very good at it. Those who really wield power tend to be born to it, gifted with it,
or dedicate themselves to its study at the cost of a normal life). This natural tendency infects every group into which it is introduced
The scientific establishment is no different.
An individual scientist can be honest – the celebrated Nobel Prize winner Peter Higgs, for example, who criticised Richard Dawkins recently for
intellectual dishonesty in equating atheism with science, and admitted that he had numerous colleagues who purported to hold religious faith, despite
being an atheist himself – while the establishment itself can still be dishonest and dogmatic. This, of course, is no different from any other power
structure, be it political, social, financial or what-have-you. We all know pleasant people who work in banking; but few of us can justify the
immensely unethical and unwieldy banking system within which they exist. We can at least believe in the concept of an honest politician, but a
trustworthy government is a rarity indeed.
So, bearing in mind these two reasons that we find the premise of reductive materialism to be an extraordinary one (that it runs contrary to the
empirical data we have of the world, and that cutting edge research is far less supportive of reductive materialism than the scientific establishment
would have us believe) we might be forgiven for asking where the extraordinary proof for it is?
Well, frankly, there isn’t any."
An excerpt from a book I'm writing. I'd welcome opinions.