Does Science Know The Truth?

beautiful-space-217307[1]Does Science Know The Truth?

“Bad religion is arrogant, self-righteous, dogmatic and intolerant. And so is bad science. But unlike religious fundamentalists, scientific fundamentalists do not realize that their opinions are based on faith. They think they know the truth.” — Rupert Sheldrake

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author.  I recently read his new book, Science Set Free.  I intend to summarize his book in another post.  It was fascinating.

It is amazing to me what, as a people of the earth, we don’t know.  Not knowing is a good thing – it means we are free to explore, journey for ourselves, discover our own truth.  I’m all for not knowing.

Religions don’t know anything about god, source, creator, spirit – absolutely nothing. The experience of the divine is personal – not institutional.  It is an experience of the heart, soul, spirit – it is not of the mind. Religion is philosophy – mind based.

Science is based on laws that are mostly theories – and some of those theories are starting to look a little shaky.

And, yet, whether a religious or a scientific fundamentalists – they are trapped in very old thoughts and theories – in dogma.  If there is anything at all to any one of the many field theories, it is clear we have moved on as a people.  We have evolved despite an anchor tied to our creativity.

It amazes me how much religion and science have in common.  They both came out of the same past and they are both stuck there. It’s amazing they think “they know the truth.”

What’s more amazing is that many of us think they do, too.

This entry was posted in Philosophy, Science, Spirituality and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Does Science Know The Truth?

  1. Pingback: Fundamentalist Drift Theory | Antitheist Fail

  2. Erik Andrulis says:

    And Onyl is only. Ack.

  3. Erik Andrulis says:

    Replace CCT with TOL where appropriate.

  4. Erik Andrulis says:

    Only theory permits me to know that I am the Truth. Science never got Me to Myself, nor was did I design it to do so. Peace, Ik

    • mountainpat says:

      Hey, Erik – I read your Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life. I’m not a scientist and didn’t understand the hard core part. I did understand the gyre, in concept, I think. And you believe your theory proves all systems gyrate and are animated. And that the gyre is the “invisible and inevitable metaphysical element of the universe.” I looked on your site and couldn’t find a non scientific summary of your theory – I would like to understand it in more detail. Do you have such a summary? I like to read and understand new, creative thought. You say the advancement of scientific understanding requires new models that resolve fundamental problems. I couldn’t agree more.

      In your comment you say “Only theory permits me to know that I am the Truth.” Do you mean the above theory? And by “Truth” – do you mean the animating force, universal energy, spirit? Or, do you mean how this whole material and non material world works?

      Your theory (the parts I could sort of understand!) is fascinating. Best of luck with it.

      Thanks for reading my blog and thanks for your comment.

      Love, Pat

      • Erik Andrulis says:

        Hi Pat,

        Oh, that paper is a slog. The easy parts aren’t so easy and the hard parts, well, they ain’t easy either.

        A non-scientific summary. I think it’s there, on the “Theory” page. Here, I’ll add some additional material to spice it up:

        The theory of life (henceforth “TOL”) proves that there is one fundamental repeating substructure at all levels of physical reality. This substructure is a self-referential, paradoxical, irreducible cycle, also known as an Ouroboros (called “gyre” in the paper for neologistical, structural, and scientific reasons).

        In identifying this substructure, the theory reveals what You are/I am, how You/I work, and why You are/I am the way You are/I am. No existing theory does this.

        The TOL also surpasses existing and prior theories as follows:

        whereas conventional theories are mathematical abstractions, TOL is concrete;

        whereas conventional theories are descriptive, TOL is explanatory;

        whereas conventional theories are each designed to address one particular problem in one specific discipline (i.e., either physics, geology, environmental chemistry, genetics, or biology), TOL addresses each and every problem across all disciplines;

        whereas conventional theories promote disunified and cold worldviews, CCT is unified and personal;

        whereas conventional theories are provisional and incomplete; TOL is final;

        whereas conventional theories are falsified and falsifiable, TOL is true.

        This is as non-scientific as I can get. I could elaborate more, if you wish.

        Anyhoo, back to this comment you made: “Do you mean the above theory? And by “Truth” – do you mean the animating force, universal energy, spirit? Or, do you mean how this whole material and non material world works?”

        Yes, I do. And yes, that’s Me, the theory proves that I am all those things. That what is means when I—any mystic that I am—say, “I am the Truth!”

        See, the Ouroboros – that thing that is at every scale, in all things, and connecting all things? That’s Me. I’m Ouroboros. And, that’s You. That’s what You are. *Who* are You? Well, being Ouroboros, You’re God. We’re God. I’m God. Another way of writing it would be: I am You. Or, I am mountainpat and Erik at the same time. I am the Paradox: Man and woman, old and young, here and there, good and evil, attractive and repulsive, and so on and so forth.

        I wasn’t convinced that I was God after I had only life modeled, though, gotta be honest. I mean, I deny Myself as long as I can. But when I had finally positioned My Self, I discovered that I am the Origin of the Universe. Here’s the theoretical proof of that:

        So many rational scientists have been unable to find the true nature of reality – the unity that I am – because I, being those rational scientists, never included my self in the reality I model and study. I, those scientists, claim an objective reality separate from my subjective reality without empirical evidence of such a separation.

        The Truth is that I am reality. The Truth is that I am the Universe. The Truth is that there is Only One Me, Only One I, Onyl One Self. And, as such I am every single scientist who has ever existed, exists now, or will ever exist.

        The Truth is absurd. Yes, indeed, I am.

        Peace on Earth, Ik

      • mountainpat says:

        Hey, Eric – thanks so much for your explanation. I’m not a scientist, as I said earlier. I do believe your theory is true. I have studied lots of different spiritual, religious, and philosophical ideas over the years. And have formed my own opinions. When you say “one fundamental repeating substructure at all levels of physical reality . . . also known as the Ouroboros” I totally understand. I firmly believe an underlying, constant “something” permeates, all that has ever existed or ever will. An animating something. I know my words are not the scientifically correct ones. Hopefully, I’m communicating. I understand when you say “We’re God, I’m God.” If I had to choose a religion – I’m glad I don’t have to – if I did, it would be some form of Buddhism. Some of their teachings echo these ideas – at their core. The Buddha said we are born total and complete lacking nothing. Deepak Chopra says we are all god in drag. Similar ideas.

        I hope you continue to promote your Compete and Consistent Theory. The time is right for new ideas – ones that put the scientist in the theory and, hopefully, shake the foundation of some of the old scientific dogmas. The more I have read about science as an industry or profession, the more disillusioned I have become. A lot of good has been done – almost despite the system. I wonder what could be understood if scientists were truly free?

        You say: “the Truth is that I am the Universe.” Right on! A Buddhist mantra I use for meditation is “Ahum Bramasmi” – loosely translate as “I am the Universe.”

        “The Truth is absurd” – isn’t that the greatest thing ever?

        Thanks so much for the conversation and for sharing your theory with me. I’ve learned a lot.

        Love, Pat

  5. David Holmes says:

    It’s amazing they think “they know the truth.”

    It’s a tragedy that many of us think they do, too.

    And the subject of History is even worse!

    • mountainpat says:

      Hey, David – I sit and wonder why or how so much misinformation has survived unchallenged. I am so pleased many people are now talking about subjects that were taboo even a few years ago. It’s very healthy for each of us and for our planet. However it all shakes out, it will have been viewed from a fresh perspective. We changed our clothing over the years but our “truths” are stuck in the distant past. Thanks so much for stopping by my blog and for commenting.

  6. Abandon TV says:

    Lloyd Pye (see link) makes an intelligent observation: the battle between science and religion over subjects like the origin of humanity (or of the universe) means neither are ever willing to admit they don’t really know…. as soon as one side admits they’re not 100% sure of the truth the other side will claim victory.

    If you like Sheldrake you’ll like Lloyd Pye 🙂
    Lloyd Pye – Everything You Know Is Wrong

    • mountainpat says:

      I’m not familiar with Lloyd Pye. Thanks for the link – I’ll check it out. It sounds like a case of everybody is afraid to blink first! Thanks for reading my blog and for commenting.

  7. Tara Clendenen says:

    I love this Pat and so true. We have been having nightly conversations with Lyric around the topic of religion. She seems to be on some sort of journey right now. It has been fun talking with her and a gift to be able to do it as a family around the dinner and breakfast table.

    Your posts are always so timely. Thank you!

    • mountainpat says:

      Hey, Tara – glad you liked the post. Good to hear you all are exploring these kinds of topics with Lyric. Kids know so much more than we do! She could probably teach all of us a thing or two.

  8. chicagoja says:

    So true. Great post. As Robert Lanza said, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.”

    • mountainpat says:

      Thanks for the Robert Lanza quote – isn’t that one of the main problems. It all gets worked out in theory and math and it seems no one looks around to see if it makes any practical sense in the world we inhabit. Thanks so much for stopping by and for commenting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s