Against the Reductive Materialism Dogmatically Espoused by the Scientific Establishment

"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 material world.

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.

Well said......where to from there though......it seems so well entrenched....
Though its possible that the new discoveries of quantum physics and electric universe cosmology, to name two....may tear down those walls you speak of....
Some new kids on the scientific block may help as well,,,,

Sorry, but at the exact point where you could show how materialism isn't everything that is, you kind of dodge it.

Your first point: Mind is not material? Okay. This seems to me quite open for debate, as it is a very objective thing, everyone experiences his/her mind in a different way to others. I guess. Philosophers to the front, please.

Your second point, and I would like to quote

because the small shreds of evidence we do have about the underlying fabric of reality seem to lead away from reductive materialism.

What small shreds? Please don't mention quantum dynamics, as (1) this point is used in about every esoteric doc I have seen the last years and this simply is some kind of fashion right now and (2) quantum dynamics are the very, very hard core of materialism. There is nothing at psychic powers or such which can be attributed to QD.

Therefore, this seems not like a fact-based critique of materialism, but an elaborate kind-of rant. Against scientific organizations, critique against "free-thinkers" coming from scientists and so on. It lacks substance for me.

Science these days seems like democracy to me....
everbody gives it lip service, but it doesn't function as advertised..........
Certain basic parameters have been undermined.....

I think it has become a political tool .It probably always was to a certain degree but more so lately .We seem to have two ways of looking at things but the hard truth is somewhere in between Science and Religion . a reply to: stirling

Perhaps religion is not the right word exactly here.....
Religion seems just as flawed as science to me....

I think that both would like to have a more perfect understanding .The trouble is that neither will ever get to the ultimate truth .Both are tools of the ruling elite and can be coursed and manipulated . a reply to: stirling

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Sorry, but at the exact point where you could show how materialism isn't everything that is, you kind of dodge it.

Your first point: Mind is not material? Okay. This seems to me quite open for debate, as it is a very objective thing, everyone experiences his/her mind in a different way to others. I guess. Philosophers to the front, please.

Your second point, and I would like to quote

because the small shreds of evidence we do have about the underlying fabric of reality seem to lead away from reductive materialism.

What small shreds? Please don't mention quantum dynamics, as (1) this point is used in about every esoteric doc I have seen the last years and this simply is some kind of fashion right now and (2) quantum dynamics are the very, very hard core of materialism. There is nothing at psychic powers or such which can be attributed to QD.

Therefore, this seems not like a fact-based critique of materialism, but an elaborate kind-of rant. Against scientific organizations, critique against "free-thinkers" coming from scientists and so on. It lacks substance for me.

Actually the observer does affect the outcome, so this shows the mind directly interacting with the universe. The universe is not the nuts and bolts job Newtonian physics assumes.

I have to say the OP is your standard 'how dare science study everything they can and then say they can't find any proof of something someone just knew was true when they was high'. Better written than most, but still your standard rant of someone faith based against the fact based world of science.

OP, if, despite searching for it, science can't find evidence of a thing it's not okay to have a hissy fit at scientists for not believing in, and pointing out the evidence against:

God (whichever)
Creationism
Fairies
Angels
Ghosts
Telepathy
Aliens building pyramids
That cannibis cures all cancers
That all autism is caused by vaccines
That the CIA is behind all Islamic terrorism

Etc etc.

originally posted by: stirling
Science these days seems like democracy to me....
everbody gives it lip service, but it doesn't function as advertised..........
Certain basic parameters have been undermined.....

I'm a scientist, I do research.

You don't know what you are talking about. Scientists constantly check other scientists work, and there are many well documented instances of scientific frauds being routed by.. science!

The problem is, make something up/lie and you will eventually get caught. Stephen J Gould accused one scientist from the 19th century of fudging data, but when they went back and remeasured it turned out Gould had made it all up. That's science in a nutshell. Someone with a vested interest can claim they've discovered something all they want, but science will always, eventually, uncover the fraud through its constant verification processes. It's why most scientists don't fudge data without massive cash incentives. You WILL eventually get caught and bang! There goes your reputation and your job, and you are a pariah.

However, large drugs companies hiding research they don't want to see is so common it's unremarkable.

I'd read it. send me a PM when you finish please?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I think it has become a political tool .It probably always was to a certain degree but more so lately .We seem to have two ways of looking at things but the hard truth is somewhere in between Science and Religion . a reply to: stirling

Obama nor any politician controls the scientific community, that's just ridiculous. The fact is people ( like the OP) just don't like it when science discovers things contrary to there personal belief system. Weather esp or Jesus, people want so badly for there beliefs to be true they shoe horn what they wish were true into any unknown part of science they think makes sense to them....


There could be no conspiracy involving all or most of science. That would require buying off every MIT student every year..... Now science makes mistakes, but then they fix them.

originally posted by: Antigod

originally posted by: stirling
Science these days seems like democracy to me....
everbody gives it lip service, but it doesn't function as advertised..........
Certain basic parameters have been undermined.....

I'm a scientist, I do research.

You don't know what you are talking about. Scientists constantly check other scientists work, and there are many well documented instances of scientific frauds being routed by.. science!

The problem is, make something up/lie and you will eventually get caught. Stephen J Gould accused one scientist from the 19th century of fudging data, but when they went back and remeasured it turned out Gould had made it all up. That's science in a nutshell. Someone with a vested interest can claim they've discovered something all they want, but science will always, eventually, uncover the fraud through its constant verification processes. It's why most scientists don't fudge data without massive cash incentives. You WILL eventually get caught and bang! There goes your reputation and your job, and you are a pariah.

However, large drugs companies hiding research they don't want to see is so common it's unremarkable.

Well said!!!

originally posted by: Antigod

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Sorry, but at the exact point where you could show how materialism isn't everything that is, you kind of dodge it.

Your first point: Mind is not material? Okay. This seems to me quite open for debate, as it is a very objective thing, everyone experiences his/her mind in a different way to others. I guess. Philosophers to the front, please.

Your second point, and I would like to quote

because the small shreds of evidence we do have about the underlying fabric of reality seem to lead away from reductive materialism.

What small shreds? Please don't mention quantum dynamics, as (1) this point is used in about every esoteric doc I have seen the last years and this simply is some kind of fashion right now and (2) quantum dynamics are the very, very hard core of materialism. There is nothing at psychic powers or such which can be attributed to QD.

Therefore, this seems not like a fact-based critique of materialism, but an elaborate kind-of rant. Against scientific organizations, critique against "free-thinkers" coming from scientists and so on. It lacks substance for me.

Actually the observer does affect the outcome, so this shows the mind directly interacting with the universe. The universe is not the nuts and bolts job Newtonian physics assumes.

I have to say the OP is your standard 'how dare science study everything they can and then say they can't find any proof of something someone just knew was true when they was high'. Better written than most, but still your standard rant of someone faith based against the fact based world of science.

OP, if, despite searching for it, science can't find evidence of a thing it's not okay to have a hissy fit at scientists for not believing in, and pointing out the evidence against:

God (whichever)
Creationism
Fairies
Angels
Ghosts
Telepathy
Aliens building pyramids
That cannibis cures all cancers
That all autism is caused by vaccines
That the CIA is behind all Islamic terrorism

Etc etc.

But that would require admitting your deep seeded belief/religion is wrong!!!!!

Far better to stick your head in the sand and assume all of science is a trick by the devil to confuse us.....

Science is only science when you don't make a RELIGION out of it....
Religion however ,wont ever be a science....
How about a little honesty for once....

Obama like most politicians are controlled themselves and are just mouth pieces .To consider how the climate debate has been settled and derived at by way of consensus is telling .There is a divide within the scientific community where some have spoken out against the status quo like within the Electrical Universe and have come up with a simpler way of looking at our world .There are many that remain silent out of fear of loosing their livelihood .There are secret facilities doing secret research .Science is not just one subject but in most cases is compartmentalized .Sometimes one field of study has the answer to a question posed by another field . Yes sometimes science is corrected but it's usually because the old guard dies off or the cat escapes the bag .

ESP and other things are studied and although they seem to have a certain amount of legitimacy to them , unless someone can quantify them mathematical they get little fan fare and fewer dollars in research funding .I guess it's usually a political decision to do so .Even research into a subject can be hijacked and destined to fail not on the merits of the facts but because of it's political importance to do so . Think the 911 commissions report . Like I said the Truth sometimes is neither hear or there but can be right inside each one to discover on their own ....peace a reply to: ArtemisE

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

What small shreds? Please don't mention quantum dynamics, as (1) this point is used in about every esoteric doc I have seen the last years and this simply is some kind of fashion right now and (2) quantum dynamics are the very, very hard core of materialism. There is nothing at psychic powers or such which can be attributed to QD.

Given the fact that many if not all of the founders of QM had deeply mystical views, I daresay that thinking of QM as the 'hard-core of materialism' is the mere fashion trend.

www.amazon.com...

originally posted by: Antigod

God (whichever)
Creationism
Fairies
Angels
Ghosts
Telepathy
Aliens building pyramids
That cannibis cures all cancers
That all autism is caused by vaccines
That the CIA is behind all Islamic terrorism

Etc etc.

You're lumping quite a bit together there, don't you think? What if you're tossing a baby out with all that bathwater? Who is going to save it? Science?

Behind closed doors, many scientists believe in telepathy i.e. psi. But in public they enforce a taboo against it. I married a scientist, I've seen how it works. Psi phenomena show that materialism is wrong or incomplete. It's time for neutral monism or mental monism to take over for a while, see how that goes.

Either of those can accomodate everything that material monism can, and more. That would probably trigger a scientific revolution, because it would lift the taboo against the body of parapsychological evidence that has accumulated for over a century. Once all that is disseminated, things will never be the same. No.

More.

Secrets.

Now antigod may be on that gravy train that puts food on the table and would be dropped like a hot potato if he was to consider that there was a baby in all that bath water . Here is a simple thing to figure out using math that I am sure all scientist are capable of doing .How many years would it take starting with 4 couples to derive at a population of 6 billion ? Try it using a average of 2 kids or 3 kids per couple . :>) a reply to: BlueMule

a reply to: BlueMule

Two examples that have proven for me that Materialism is wrong:
1 Have had some experience with energy intention healing/calmness tool (for instance Reiki) over distance where we could make a difference on each other in the energy flow.

2 Was able to get a perfect PSI connection by pushing energy in meditation mode at the same time as giving intent on message being sent and saw that it worked flawlessly that time in a blind experiment where the receiver did not know I where making the test.

The problem is not that these abilities do not exists. The problem is that you need people who have sensitive sensors to pick up the information or are open receive/allow the manipulation. How do we maximize the effectiveness of for instance Reiki or PSI?

a reply to: EmperorFaustus

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 material world.

Unfortunately, because something is counter-intuitive does not make it wrong. We once thought the universe spun revolved around the earth, which was intuitive at the time.

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.

The deterministic and mechanistic world view was the view of very theistic and occult men, such as Newton and Galileo. In fact, determinism and the mechanistic view have fallen out of disuse, as they imply that the universe is like a watch, which implies there is a watchmaker. This is not materialistic in any sense.