1. [[#Idol Worship]]
2. [[#Science will save us]]
3. [[#Empirical Science]]
4. [[#Fear]]
5. [[#Rational]]
6. [[#As “instant gratification”]]
7. [[#Scientific terms from a more philosophical aspect]]
8. [[Atoms and Molecules]]

Idol Worship

You can only (truly) love G-d!

Either you love the divine spark in the person you love, or else you desire, i.e., wish to own or possess, the material (corporeal) manifestation of Divine form, which is, essentially, another form of idol worship. Often you would have fallen in love with a reflection of yourself — that is, that which you recognise of yourself in the other, a type of reflection. There are two reactions to this “love” of self. One in which you love (are attracted to) that of yourself that you see in the other. The second, that you reject or hate what you see of yourself in them. This is thus based on the amount of self-love or hate you have. As has been said, you can only love another to the extent that you love yourself.

An insidious form of idol worship is that of believing that the material is the source of everything, i.e. God.

It is time for the truth to emerge out of the paradigm that only sees form in the mysterious spaces of the realms that surround us. This is inevitable — as surely as the sun rises and the seasons come. Even though it is the space of a deep denial, the writing is on the wall — the greater reality of our existence is incontrovertible.

Separated by the rational constraints imposed by the requirement of empiricism that can only function in a closed field, we end up alone and in constant battle with the forces and elements that nourish and support us. The concept that only by investigating, even acknowledging, a limited, essentially tiny, amount of the totality can produce accurate results, is patently absurd. That is, by deriving conclusions from the observations of empirical “reality” alone, that one could arrive at the underlying nature of reality.

There are two types of “facts”. The first is a description of an actual event, the other is a partial description of the event that arises to be the main narrative just by its insistence, by its being constantly repeated until it is accepted as a “consensual” truth, one that everyone agrees upon. Only in a limited sense are these facts “true”. They are not absolute truths; they are relative objects whose birth is related to the time and place, as well as the culture, that they are derived from.

Science will save us

The sheep, without a shepherd, wandering in the wilderness.

You thought the ancient teachings were no longer relevant. That we were beyond slavery. We survived the holocausts in which millions perished, and, despite everything, we had flourished. If we could survive that, we could survive anything. We bred our offspring to embrace the brave cry of “Never again!” And in our pride, we abandoned the old ways, and embraced the new.

Science will save us, became the battle cry, blaming religion for the terrors we had experienced.¹ With science we could “see” the furthest reaches of the universe, and imagine things unimaginable. We had opened the very womb of nature, and could mess with her offspring. We were like gods - or so we thought. Forgetting that this “reality” that we live in was here long before any of us were even a thought, and will be around long after we have been become a distant memory, forgotten for many aeons.

Yes, my children, let us not acknowledge that there might - nay there has to be - a Source of All. Somehow this life that we live and experience fell into place, and we are the conscious result of that. You can convince yourself that it is an “accident” of … nature - a nature that is itself an expression of this very creation that we are exploring.

Empirical Science

We cannot use empirical science to investigate non-empirical realms.

To rely purely on empirical science would be to accept a philosophical/theological view that we would be able to empirically determine the principles upon which the complexity of the universe is built, and that would require a denial of anything or any event that is not empirical

Yet, by embracing the imaginary world of the quantum, which science itself has produced, we have already evolved from the empirical nature science, and entered a world in which we have designed the means with which to look at the mysterious world of the infinite — whether the infinitesimally small, and the infinitely large, our cosmos.

Like Alice peering down the rabbit hole, we see the reflection of our ancestors, those that looked into the same pool, using other tools, that have arisen from human consciousness, rather than the highly complex engineering and high power demands of our current methods of investigation. Not that those were less complex, or required less effort —rather like the difference between acoustic music and electric music.

Rational

Rationality has fallen into the category of a belief system, but one that has a serious flaw. It requires a “closed system”, one in which there is an optimum or ideal state from which to judge and interpret the state of the world that conforms (or not) to this ideal, rational state. This is always based on a set of criteria that deems something rational (or non-rational). However, what if the base assumptions are inadequate, or the rational evaluation brings us to a place of “irrationality”, a self-contradictory position? This is not as absurd as it might seem, as might be seen regarding the contradictory nature of quantum physics – which is derived from the reason of pure science.

A very simple example of this is in geometry. If I have a equilateral triangle that has two sides of length 1, what is the third side’s length? Well, as we know from the Pythagorean equation, it has length of $\sqrt{2}$ , which itself an irrational number.

Fear

In order to embrace our next evolutionary step, we need to broaden our consciousness and acknowledge the 4th dimension - the realm of the imaginary. We have to begin working very consciously with it – just as science is doing, but without admitting it. That we have laced the imaginary with mathematical equations does not make it any more rational. Perhaps the fact that most people cannot understand mathematics is a testament to the fact that this imaginary realm is not really rational to most. The mathematics might be self-consistent, but what it is describing, as can be seen in the realm of quantum mechanics, is not really rational. This is clear when attempts are made to describe this realm in terms that are more human (rather than mathematical). Though it has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt that the imaginary influences the real and vice-versa – that the real is actually a subset of the imaginary. There is a large part of mathematics, and of science itself, that relies on the mathematics of the imaginary, wherein it acknowledges that everything real has an imaginary component.

It is NOT a battle between magic and science. It has become an existential battle between the magic of spirit versus the magic of science. One can perhaps understand this better through the trite, but oft-quoted, statement that any science, sufficiently advanced, would seem like magic to those who are unfamiliar with it. In addition, those who have dedicated their lives to the practice and deep study of magic have often used what might be described as scientific approaches to their explorations. There are also numerous accounts of prejudice and human traits affecting the outcome of an scientific experiment. While this principle is understood in relation to magic, it has emerged in the outer reaches of science, called the observer effect, yet has yet to be fully acknowledged as subjective a process as any magical or mystical exploration.

Nor is it a battle between the rational and the irrational - for any rationality that incorporates the description of a reality broader, longer or deeper than the currently accepted reality will be deemed irrational and summarily dismissed. One needs not look too far to find many unexplained (or is it inexplicable) observations and paradoxes in science, even in some of the more obvious areas. For instance, what is matter, or what is the true speed of light, etc.

Instant gratification

Science is an expression of “instant gratification”. A “scientific fact” is the prize in this process. It could be described as a game of points, scored by scientifically proven facts, and any others are not allowed to be included in the game, expressing and producing the same prejudice and banishment that so-called heretics suffered under religious dynasties.

This is one of the reasons that mathematics stands apart – for it seeks only its own certainty, and is a language that is purely narcissistic and, essentially, self contained. It seeks only mathematical facts, whether existentially correct, or not. Through its disregard for what is real, it has become the premier tool in empirical science.

Thus it hovers between “fact” and "fiction – just as we as humans experience in our existences, a mixture of fact and fiction, truth and story, reality and narrative. Of course, the fiction is just as much a driver as is fact in many of our endeavours to describe and find balance in the world we live in – through our religion and our philosophy, our stories and myths, history, romance, discoveries and explorations.

Scientific discoveries are limited to the context – and thus language and culture – in which it is framed. For instance, a physical law might not apply in non-physical situations, like psychology or economics – though if there is an experimental (or is it experiential) observation that can be expressed in mathematical truths, it gains the status of scientific fact because mathematics is the yardstick by which all such facts are now judged. One could even call it the grindstone upon which each fact is threshed out – whether overtly or covertly.

Thus our science has now reached the level of religious fervour, for its rationalistic, excluded middle, way of describing our world has become the de facto standard for most cultures.

Scientific terms from a more philosophical aspect

#external

This is just a little journey down the rabbit hole of scientific terminology. We apply some of the basic scientific terms, which are described and predicted using laws based on mathematics, to our social understanding of such terms. This creates a social narrative based on science. Whereas before such narratives were based on theological and philosophical ideas, now they are based essentially on scientific “facts”, which makes science the theology of our modern society.

Science is a philosophy in that is a way to look at the world around us, our existence, from a certain perspective. One which stands in contrast to the religious view, a view in which there is an overriding, and unknown, intelligence within, and as a cause of, our universe. Science questions that by looking at the manifestation around us, and by collecting empirical data, trying to find a rational explanation for it, that is useful for predicting empirical events. Its weakness lies in not being able to correctly predict anything that is non-empirical — or not able to be measured.

A fact is an existing structured component of reality that is the truthmaker for a proposition. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
(Wikipedia)

All the examples that follow speak of a fact within a specific framework, presupposing a whole slew of prior agreements, so that within that particular context, it is a fact.

The word fact derives from the Latin factum. It was first used in English with the same meaning: “a thing done or performed” – a meaning now obsolete. The common usage of “something that has really occurred or is the case” dates from the mid-16th century.

Roger Bacon wrote “If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behoves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics.” Whereas, in mathematics, a fact is a statement (called a theorem) that can be proven by logical argument from certain axioms and definitions.

The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge. Similarly, does it not require knowledge to acknowledge any fact is in fact a fact? In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is an attempt to explain or interpret actual events or the results thereof.

The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge. A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence. These are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

Operating system of the universe

#Science is the attempt to crack the program that runs the universe by reverse-engineering it. Instead of trying to understand and asking what the Mind behind this program wants with us; instead of trying—as the mystics through the ages have—to communicate with It, asking It for guidance and direction, we are planning a mutiny. Because we, as a human race have not succeeded, we now believe that the captain has abandoned ship and that our only option is to replace the captain with one of our own. A serious mistake, if you ask me, full of the sin of arrogance.

Footnotes

1. However, we have discovered that science can be used to terrorise a population even more effectively than religion could. As is said, the evil in not in the technology or science or religion, but in the hearts of mankind. ↩︎