Posted by Roberta Grimes • December 15, 2014 • 2 Comments
Afterlife Research, Human Nature, Understanding Reality
Edward O. Wilson, a world-renowned expert on ants, is the idol of a certain intellectual class that holds to a version of the scientific dogma of atheistic materialism that is softened by lofty and optimistic ideas. Human beings are alone in a clockwork universe, just the random products of evolution, but nevertheless we are unique random products. Wilson’s latest book is apparently entitled The Meaning of Human Existence, which seems to sums up his philosophy: we are random dust, true, but we are what you might call a higher class of random dust.
I wish I wanted to read his book. He has given it such a wonderful title! But one quotation from a review in Scientific American lets us know that Wilson’s ideas sadly still are based in the Luddite thinking that investigating only part of the evidence so we can preserve our scientific dogmas will nevertheless give us sufficient knowledge to let us grandly pontificate. Apparently Wilson says:
“Hope and wish for it otherwise as we will, there is no evidence of an external grace shining down upon us, no demonstrable destiny or purpose assigned us, no second life vouchsafed us for the end of the present one. We are, it seems, completely alone. And that in my opinion is a very good thing. It means we are completely free.”
Now, any writer who pens those words – and I take them from a review, so I preserve some small hope that they did not actually come from Wilson – is proclaiming his adamant adherence to ignorance. It is impossible for any western human being in the twenty-first century not to have encountered near-death experiences (NDEs), out-of-body experiences (OBEs), deathbed visions, afterlife communications, and all the enticing bits of evidence that the brain does not generate the mind. For Wilson to be aware of these phenomena, as certainly he must be aware, and still blithely to state that “there is no evidence” is the clearest testimony I have seen in awhile that orthodox science is dying before our eyes of self-inflicted wounds.
The problem that scientists face as they continue to refuse to consider evidence that is highly relevant to their work because that evidence does not fit their dogmas is that a picture painted with beliefs-based paints is not a picture of much of anything. Using the purely materialist approach to trying to understand reality is like attempting to figure out why the floor is wet by earnestly examining the walls while refusing to admit that the state of the roof might also be relevant to our inquiry. Science that is based in adamant materialism is exactly that limited and that foolish.
Apparently Wilson even approaches some evidentiary areas, but then because his focus is so limited he has no clue what to do with them. Scientific evidence is abundant now that on a conscious level we seem to have no free will. Our bodies begin to move before our brains are shown to register them directing those movements. So scientists conclude that we must have no free will. Now, anyone whose intellectual reach was not hobbled by scientific materialist dogma would know immediately that since our movements are not random flailings, but are instead the deliberate acts of sentient beings, someone or something must be directing them. And indeed, the evidence is strong that much of our eternal minds are what we might call a “superconsciousness” while we are in bodies, and most of our less important decisions are made there so we don’t have to be constantly distracted by thinking about moving our feet, blinking our eyes, typing, chewing. But for Wilson and his ilk, apparently deep thinking in areas where there is the remotest risk of inadvertently finding God must give way to airy-fairy waffling.
“So does free will exist?” he asks. “Yes, if not in ultimate reality, then at least in the operational sense necessary for sanity and thereby for the perpetuation of the human species.”
For anyone who loves scientific inquiry, watching the floundering that has been going on in mainstream science for most of a century is heartbreaking. During some parts of human history, when Christianity held state-supported power, for scientists to erect a wall against that power did make considerable sense. But when in the first part of the twentieth century universities began to consider it necessary to make atheism a “fundamental dogma” – and yes, you can find that term in print – Christianity was no threat at all. The motive then seems to have been to protect current scientific theories from complications that might arise if they had to incorporate into their field of study evidence derived from the afterlife communications that then were being produced in abundance.
Reportedly Wilson also cheerfully says, “We have enough intelligence, goodwill, generosity and enterprise to turn Earth into a paradise.” A hopeless and pointless paradise, mind you. One that Wilson himself admits lacks “destiny or purpose,” since from the materialistic science point of view, human existence is an altogether random and inevitably terminal condition.
The harm that is caused by this sort of bastardization of what should be an open-minded pursuit of the truth is manifold and tragic. For now, please only be glad to know that mainstream science has chosen to limited itself to the lesser role of mere belief-system. Therefore it is safe to say that its pronouncements about humanity’s randomness are ignorant garbage, and can be ignored. When all the facts are considered, including a lot of solid evidence that mainstream science now sees as taboo, it is obvious that you are an eternal being and you are infinitely loved.
photo credit: <a href=”https://www.flickr.com/photos/indykethdy/2674610197/”>Indy Kethdy</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/”>cc</a>
photo credit: <a href=”https://www.flickr.com/photos/ugardener/3004315947/”>UGArdener</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/”>cc</a>
2 thoughts on “Terminal Orthodoxy”
Over the weekend, I saw “The Theory of Everything” and found myself irritated at Stephen Hawking’s insistence there is no God. If ever there was to be found a divine hand in someone’s life, the assurance that in tragedy, we are connected on a deep level, it’s Hawking’s life story. Near the end of the movie, Hawking is asked about God and offers one of those “I believe if you set your mind to it you can do anything!” kind of responses, ignoring that he had help. Enormous, supportive help that comes from love and compassion. And where does love come from? Scientists should be grounded in a variety of evidence – beyond the chalkboard and mathematical theorems in Hawking’s case, and beyond the “adamant materialism” of Wilson.
Wonderfully said, Brook – Thank you for commenting! Stephen Hawking is another victim of the rigid enforcement of scientific materialist orthodoxy, actually, since he was once an open-minded seeker but he was too prominent and respected a scientist to be allowed to have such views so eventually he was beaten down. Here is Hawking from an earlier, more open-minded day:
“What is it that breathes fire into equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
Both are still wonderful questions! And still waiting for scientists to return to being scientists and help us answer them….