Eternal Struggle (Part 1/8)

What Is Science?

  
0:00
-12:57

The history of the meme … shows that it is the expression of a World View, a whole philosophy of life which believes that natural selection is the algorithm that explains not just biological evolution, but emergent order of every kind, Universal Darwinism. (C. Hallpike)

According to the dogma of materialism, everything in existence in the world must be matter in motion, progressing itself toward some economic utopia. It is the belief in Universal Darwinism, a mechanism of evolution and selection that operates on the (sub)atomic level. It is a concept of reality that denies the need for a mind, a consciousness, a soul, a free will, or a God. And this belief is the foundation for what we call modern science.

Having done away with God, scientists now believe an unstable nothingness gave rise to our universe, some 13.6 billion years ago. Scientists consider the universe a strictly material reality governed by the unchanging laws of physics and their fixed constants. They believe these laws apply universally and everywhere, and that trained experts can discover what the laws are. In order words, scientists believe they can uncover our universe’s blueprint, the Theory of Everything.

But why do scientists believe our universe must be a purely physical universe made out of matter in the first place? Why can’t our universe have come from nothing as a mental illusion, a thinking mind? Wouldn’t it be ‘easier’, in a sense, for the nothingness to create the illusion of material reality rather than to produce an actual physical universe? What evidence have scientists found that our world isn’t a mental fiction, a universe governed by changing rather than unchanging laws?

Scientists don’t have the answers because they don’t ask the questions. They capitulate by virtue of physicist Stephen Hawking who wrote in The Grand Design, “There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality.” Hawking meant that any view of reality must rely on unprovable assumptions. Therefore, the logic goes, it doesn’t matter which model of reality scientists choose as long as they all consent to the same one.

If, by definition, the natural sciences cannot know what reality is, then what is science? What is the value of a science that cannot assess the true nature of the reality whose secrets it supposes to unlock?

The problem is that a mental or spiritual universe that can think for itself may behave qualitatively differently than a strictly material and mechanical universe. The scientific universe, the laws of physics are real and unchanging. In a spiritual universe, the laws of physics themselves keep evolving, namely a universe advancing itself through a process of trial and error, constantly imagining and reimagining itself.

Having free will matters. Indeed, it is up to modern scientists to proclaim rather than to discover their grand design of the universe. By relying on proclamation more than on observation to prove themselves and their theories right, scientists ignore that they have created a self-reinforcing consensus, a gigantic circular argument.


Until very recently, for example, scientists had no clue what gravity was. In 2012, CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, announced they had found proof for the existence of a certain particle called the Higgs boson, or the “God particle” that supposedly makes gravity possible. Data from the Large Hadron Collider, a device used to detect the Higgs boson, showed “the footprint and shadow of the particle, even though it has never actually been glimpsed.”

Really? Note that ‘glimpsed’ still means seen by the measuring instrument, and only indirectly, not directly. No scientist, no human being, has ever seen the Higgs boson. The human eye cannot see anything smaller than large molecules. We are, therefore, told to “trust the science” and to assume the Large Hadron Collider has indeed detected the existence of a certain particle.

The question I pose is: Did CERN staff members really observe a new particle and concluded it was behaving as the hypothetical Higgs boson? Or did they, at best, first hypothesize a specific particle’s desirable existence, then built a machine around their desire that happened to produce a fitting observation?

Yes, that’s exactly what I believe happened. Research staff went looking for an observation to prove a particular theory right; they didn’t, however, develop a theory in response to an observation. And so, the scientists at CERN have had to sidestep the scientific method in order whip up the illusion of a result that exists only in their own imagination.

There’s a reason why the so-called discovery of the Higgs boson is believed to be of such great importance. And that is precisely because time, space, and movement appear not to be qualities of any physical universe at all, but rather mental projections or mental interpretations. Is time, for example, a physical particle? Is movement somehow controlled by a particle?

In order to make the universe appear perfectly material, scientists had to somehow invent a particle to represent gravity, and therewith, motion and time. Without a Higgs boson, the universe simply isn’t physical.

As proper materialists, then, the researchers at CERN first assumed all reality has to be material in nature. But since gravity, or motion, appears to be some ephemeral force, a cheat had to be invented. How can planetary gravity relate to a strictly material world? Scientists not in the mood to question materialism postulated the existence of a material particle representing gravity, the Higgs boson. And next, they built a machine around this belief system with the preconceived intention of proving the existence of such a particle by generating the required observation.

The scientists at CERN knew precisely what the missing boson was supposed to behave as, even before it had ever been observed. They had theorized about it for decades. And so, scientists built an instrument, the Large Hadron Collider, to generate a certain observation needed to prove the theory.

As long as the LHC machine was producing undesirable outcomes, the data could be dismissed as ‘errors’. As long as the machine couldn’t detect a Higgs boson, it was believed to be ‘malfunctioning’ or ‘miscalibrated’. But when, one day, the apparatus finally produced the desired observation, it was, all of a sudden, working ‘properly’, the specific calibration was ‘correct’, and the data were ‘just what we expected’!

I am of the opinion that the staff at CERN have committed a gigantic fraud by having built a machine that produces desirable outcomes but doesn’t actually prove the existence of anything. Scientists have come to believe in the existence of a God particle through the arbitrary inference of their data, of interpreting random noise.

This is what I call the science deception, for it stems from a teleological approach, namely: with the end in mind, and to generate observations that fit one’s theories, instead of fitting better theories to one’s observations!

That’s not how objective science is supposed to work. Objective science starts with observations, not with men theorizing about the existence of desirable particles to verify a materialist worldview. The construction of the Large Hadron Collider was a religious ritual no different from constructing a cathedral in order to prove God must have had a hand in its design.


I ask: What if our universe isn’t some giant physical machine ruled by laws and constants, but rather a thinking mind that makes itself up? The laws would no longer be unchanging, and the constants no longer fixed. It wouldn’t need a perfect plan, a Theory of Everything to get started. Rather, we would need to look for a Personality thinking itself up.

Why, then, do scientists believe the laws of physics relate to a material reality at all? When have scientists proven that our universe is physical by nature, and not rather spiritual or mental? Why do scientists say everything in existence is matter in motion? Well, scientists don’t know why. Their physical instruments and science’s methods cannot be used to prove the universe is either material or spiritual.

Instead, scientists have, since the mid-nineteenth century, merely been proclaiming the unproven assumptions of universalism. Science is based on the mental gymnastics of the scientists, on inference and extrapolation—on belief—and not necessarily backed up by any observation or measurement. So, modern science receives the hallmark of a religious belief system.

Scientists around the world will continue to ignore anomalies in their data for as long as possible, namely to maintain a certain consensus and to protect their careers. Scientists never question their most fundamental assumption, which is the dogma of materialism. Scientists don’t know what time and space and movement are. They assume.

What does it say about the true nature of reality that it does not disclose itself to physical instruments? It says that reality isn’t strictly physical. Scientists don’t know whether reality is material or spiritual or a mix of both because their physical instruments can only measure the physical. In a spiritual world, the laws of physics would soon appear to be no more than temporal illusions, a Fata Morgana.

Restricting one’s scope of reality down to its strictly measurable components (space and time, matter and motion), while disregarding spiritual realities (soul, will, consciousness, God), has undoubtedly increased our economy’s efficiency.

In more than one sense, our species has gone the way of Goethe’s Faust. We have arrived at the age of material wellbeing but have neglected our spiritual lives in favor of wealth and profits. The transformation of mother earth into a giant gas station for human consumption is nearing completion.

It is time to assess and reassess the known limitations of scientific research, namely that science is an exclusively materialist way of looking at the universe, and that its methods cannot be used to determine whether a spiritual dimension might exist.


Links AmazonYouTubeFacebookTwitterDiscordTelegramApple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info