Science vs. Religion

Posted by Roberta Grimes • March 04, 2017 • 15 Comments
Quantum Physics, The Source, Understanding Reality

Mad ScientistI often urge my audiences to subscribe to Scientific American. When I add that it’s really a humor magazine, the room will generally erupt in laughter so most people don’t hear my explanation of why I find the magazine so amusing. Scientific American actually is funny, but in a tragic sort of way: more and more, popular science literature is full of articles about enigmas  that scientists still cannot solve, the sad reconfirming of facts that they hate, and quirky investigations into nothing much that they must know will lead nowhere. Even that revered old saw of mainstream science, the replicable experiment, appears to have fallen victim to the sloppy despair of a profession by now so deep in crisis that more than two-thirds of scientific researchers cannot replicate other scientists’ experiments.

The cause of this growing malaise remains the fundamental scientific dogma of materialism that was put into place by scientific gatekeepers a century ago and to this day is enforced. Of course, anything based on a dogma has essentially become a religion, with all the need to enforce orthodoxy and to ignore contrary information that any faith-based system implies. To this day, no one who Max Planck Bustwishes to pursue a scientific career in any western university, or be published in a western peer-reviewed journal, can dream of investigating anything that might hint that reality is not matter-based; and this remains true despite the fact that quantum physicists have known for three-quarters of a century that, as the great Max Planck frankly put it, “There is no matter as such.” He said in 1931, ”I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

Consciousness is by definition not material, but yet those who hope to have careers in science must to this day eschew the investigation of consciousness as anything but an artifact of our brains. They can only conclude that there is something about matter that must inevitably give rise to consciousness. This dogma-based scientific requirement that matter must be primary was proven to be wrong almost a century ago, which is the reason why modern scientific inquiry has by now become so sadly hilarious.

One current example of the flatly non-scientific ends to which all of this must lead was published just last month (I swear!) and cited in Victor and Wendy Zammit’s wonderful Friday Afterlife Report. The article they cite,“Large Hadron Collider Disproves the Existence of Ghosts,” is such a marvel of foolishness that I cannot encapsulate all its nuttiness here. I urge you to read it Consciousness Robotfor yourself. Its core argument is made by a British particle physicist named Brian Cox who asserts that, “We are not here to debate the existence of ghosts because they don’t exist… I would say if there’s some kind of substance that’s driving our bodies, making my arms move and legs move, then it must interact with the particles out of which our bodies are made. And seeing as we’ve made high precision measurements of the ways that particles interact, then my assertion is there can be no such thing as an energy source that’s driving our bodies.”

Media personality and scientific apologist Neil deGrasse Tyson, on the panel where this statement was made, was heard to marvel, “If I understand what you just declared, you just asserted that CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, disproved the existence of ghosts.”

Some of the un-serious attempts that have been made to explain away ghostly phenomena are then cited, but as with all such debunker literature, no attempt is made to examine “ghosts” as an objective phenomenon. Rather, the standard (and telling) false assumption is made that whatever is not scientific must be religious, and that as scientists we are battling the forces of ignorance. First, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is touted as a triumph of international cooperation, where ten thousand scientists from a hundred different countries work together in blissful harmony. But “(r)eligion Chalice With Priestsand science haven’t exactly gotten along over the centuries. And controversies between the two have flared up from time to time. Yet, it seems confidence in science and its principles, at least in the US, has been relatively constant from the middle of the 20th century, up until the last couple of decades or so” when “… science is once again under scrutiny by segments of the population. Evolution, climate change, and even vaccines have been skewered by skeptics.” Oh, those evil religious forces of darkness! “Even the new dean of Harvard Medical School, George Q. Daley, warned in a recent Washington Post interview, that we are moving into a pre-Enlightenment era, where ideology molds reality rather than facts. This announcement about ghosts and CERN may act as a driving wedge, forcing these two camps even further apart.”  

What we are watching here is nothing more useful than a battle between two alternative belief-systems. And since religions and materialism are equally narrow and erroneous ways of seeking to understand the world, there is nothing positive Hourglass-226x300to come from their posturing at one another as if a reality not restricted by dogmas did not exist. And still, the march of folly goes on! Despite all the advances that have been made in the past fifty years by those who have been studying reality without the handicap of any dogma, that scientific need to enforce materialism has blocked any organized study of what might exist beyond materialism’s edges. So yet another sad milestone has been reached. The man who first cryogenically froze a human being in the hope that the man’s body could be resurrected one day has reached the age of eighty. And now he plans to freeze himself as well.

We know that this cannot go on forever. I give it another ten years at most. Once good electronic communication with those that we used to think were dead is in common use by the public at large, both of these sets of false belief-systems that still between them enforce human ignorance will be shamed into following lay researchers into investigating the by now obvious fact that what we think of as human consciousness is the source of everything. And meanwhile, there are some encouraging signs that the bravest and the best among mainstream scientists are finding ways to seek the non-material truth without being banished. Dr. Donald D. Hoffman’s eventual, inevitable Nobel Prize is going to be well deserved.

Roberta Grimes
Latest posts by Roberta Grimes (see all)

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

15 thoughts on “Science vs. Religion

  1. Some minds are expanding (and cooling) like the universe in (of all places) Arizona!

    Center for Science, Gods, Tomorrow at Arizona State University:

    The 2017 Theme of Frankenstein
    No work of literature has done more to shape the way we imagine science and its moral consequences than Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818), an enduring tale of creation and responsibility written in the midst of a global climate crisis with illuminating parallels to the global challenges we face today. Two centuries after its publication, Frankenstein remains a ubiquitous narrative for exploring complex relationships among science, technology, the arts, and society, and a rich source of inspiration for exploring alternative futures.
    School for the Future of Innovation in Society
    Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts
    Center for Science and the Imagination
    Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering
    College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
    School of Earth and Space Exploration

    1. This is interesting, Mary. You always come up with the most off-beat ideas! There are indeed some hopeful signs that the young generation of traditional scientists are beginning to chafe at their materialist yoke; and many of them will be ready, I think, to embark upon the adventure of attempting to understand a true reality that is vastly more complex and amazing and beautiful than anything their fathers ever imagined.

  2. I am happy to report that I have experienced an NDE. It was very illuminating and I was never afraid at any point. I think it was scarier coming back into my body and resuming my life. For those who do not believe, you are missing out on the finest part of life.

    1. Thank you, Winnie! It’s lovely that you are sharing such an extraordinary experience. And you’re absolutely right in saying that those who never have had an amazing spiritual experience are sadly missing the height and depth of what is possible for a human life!

  3. Good blog post, Roberta.

    I also read that asinine statement by physicist Brian Cox in several places and in the Zammit’s newsletter. What Cox and others of his ilk don’t tell you is that many CERN observers are convinced that some top secret research is being done there and that “particle research” is just a cover story.

    Also, it’s been pointed out that how can anything CERN spokespeople say be taken as “truth” when there’s no way to replicate and verify it. I’ve read where the Chinese and Russian governments feel this way and are planning on building even more powerful “particle accelerators” than what CERN has and see what they come up with.

    Keep up the great work, Roberta!

    1. Michael, I’m really sorry that I seem to have overlooked your comment! I have taken to saying that my life is overwhelming, but of late it seems to be getting worse – although in the best way. I haven’t even introduced my latest book with a blog post, and already I am deep into writing another one!

      The whole notion of “particles” is amusing, when in reality even the tiniest are just vortices of energy. There actually was a scientific meeting last summer organized around their need to determine whether it was okay to still call them particles when it is known now that they aren’t – you know – actually particles. The outcome was a decision to still use the term, apparently for tradition’s sake.

      It is an artifact of the scientific dogma of materialism that scientific inquiry has centered of late not so much on overarching theories of physics, but rather on the investigation of the infinitesimally tiny. After all, when you are missing something major, ultimately no big theory is going to work! They can’t unify physics when their understanding of physics is based on an altogether false premise.

      Thank you for your kind words, Michael! I wish I could find the time to blog weekly, especially since I have topic ideas stacked up a dozen deep at this point. Next up – in a few days – will be what to some will seem to be a departure from my usual schtick of the afterlife, the greater reality, and science-vs.-religion. But I think it may be the most important book that I ever will write….

    1. John, there is no judgment by anyone but yourself. The dead consistently say this, and in fact Jesus also says it in the Gospels. You are likely to judge yourself harshly, though, if you have fallen far short of what you planned for this lifetime, so to say there is no judgment really isn’t accurate. What is accurate is that God loves you perfectly, no matter what you do, so the kind of cold and judgmental God that religions talk about really doesn’t exist at all. Which is a great relief!

  4. Roberta,

    This sounds like a public, objectively testable prediction!

    “We know that this cannot go on forever. I give it another ten years at most. Once good electronic communication with those that we used to think were dead is in common use by the public at large, both of these sets of false belief-systems that still between them enforce human ignorance will be shamed into following lay researchers into investigating the by now obvious fact that what we think of as human consciousness is the source of everything.”

    If your prediction were not to come to pass, would you take that as evidence against your belief system? Logically speaking, if some result confirms your hypothesis, its absence is dis-confirming. At least in science.


    P.S. You misunderstand the meaning of the quote from Brian Cox. May I clarify? If the quantum field theory (the most successful, exquisitely verified theory in physics) is correct, any new forces cannot be arbitrarily powerful. Their magnitude is constrained by the theory. So if you postulate that ghosts can interact with matter, there are no possible forces of sufficient magnitude to explain how ghosts could move a chair, for example, consistent with the quantum field theory.

    Therefore, if you continue to claim that ghosts can interact with chairs, you are implicitly seeking to overturn the quantum field theory. To do that with intellectual integrity, you ought to propose an alternative which is equally successful. Otherwise, you are just waving your hands.

    Cox’s claim is a specific, nuanced statement about consequences from mainstream science. Quantum field theory is not obviously materialist to me. How do you think it is? Cox’s claim is not some generic religious claim.

    I hope that helps you understand. It’s a little more nuanced than just calling something “a religion”. Physics offers and tests many, many predictions. Perhaps we can test your prediction above in ten years.

    Are there any other predictions we can test on your world view that take less than ten years to confirm or disprove? That would be interesting.

    1. Michael, the very fact that Dr. Cox talks about “ghosts” indicates the vast un-seriousness of his work. What is a “ghost,” anyway? He is just one more in a century-long series of scientists who have no interest in actually investigating reality, but who rather are trying to dismiss whatever evidence is presented to them that might possibly disrupt their cozy little theories (which are materialist in that they do not allow for the possibility that consciousness might be the source of matter rather than an artifact of it). It’s tragic, really. Because of closed-minded folks like him, humankind continues to wallow in absolutely unnecessary fear and negativity. Tragic! Physics – which is the core science, and should be an open-minded search for the truth – has reduced itself to navel-contemplation like this fellow’s “exquisitely verified” quantum field theory. Who on earth even cares about these theories, and whether they stand or fall? It is obvious from the quoted article that the Standard Model of Particle Physics and whatever can be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider must in his mind be the entire definition of what is real, so if some demonstrated phenomenon doesn’t fit, then by definition it is not real.

      Dear friend, it has been the great tragedy of the past hundred years that because of the closed-mindedness of people like our friend Cox, those who care about learning what reality actually is are stuck by default with trusting business lawyers as scientists :-(.

      I have re-read this post twice, but I think I’ve missed something. Where did I propose that “ghosts can interact with chairs”?

      To be frank, I have no interest in the Quantum Field theory, either way. Let it stand or let it fall. The theory doesn’t matter, and trying to defend it against anything that might possibly disrupt it is the very antithesis of genuine science. What matters is discovering what is true! And since everything is energy, and this entire universe is less than five percent of what even scientists know exists, and there in fact never will be a way to unify the two competing physics models, I think it may be time for scientists to climb out of their colliders for a moment and reconsider what it is that they are trying to do.

      To answer your question, ten years is not a prediction. It’s a guess. Where those that we used to think were dead are now, there is no objective time, and they have been predicting good electronic communication within a year or two for maybe half a decade now. It’s getting closer, but since they don’t have calendars they can’t really tell us how long it will take.

      Thank you for posting!

  5. Roberta,

    The reference to chairs was from another post you wrote describing a seance. Perhaps if everybody used the word spirit you would be happier?

    The truth is, you have no idea whether Cox and other physicists are close minded, because you don’t know them, don’t speak with them about their research, and because it seems clear you don’t understand the scientific project in which they operate. I strongly suspect Cox could more easily and openly discuss the implications of the existence of spirits, and what that would entail, and how to test for it, than you could about spirits not existing. I haven’t seen the smallest crack in your intellectual armor being open to that possibility.

    The problem, I think, is that science has found your preferred method for testing the existence of spirits (namely, listening to you inner voice, or the inner voice of other so-called psychics or mediums) as less reliable than the proven methods of mainstream physics. It comes down to that. Listening to inner voices isn’t what determines which drugs are effective, or which antenna designs are most efficient, or which wings work. Real science does that.

    So perhaps you could, one and for all, drop your phony war on science and scientists. Your conclusions are supported by your poor methods for discovering truth, and your poor methods have been rejected for being consistently and predictably flawed.

    Sure, if only Cox and other physicists would listen to you, and your revealed truth from Thomas Jefferson, they would have a competing model to test. Let’s say they did that. What is a prediction of your model that could be tested? I don’t think you can name one. You have just walked away from the only prediction I am aware you have made, namely that electronic communication will be possible in a decade.


    1. Michael, this has nothing to do with me. I am the least in a coterie of many hundreds of open-minded researchers who have lived and died in pursuit of the genuine and complete truth about reality, and it is from their experience as well as mine that I speak. You reason from current mainstream science as the genuine researchers, so by default we must be the supplicants who have to use their language; but we have tried that. For many decades we have tried that. Ever since materialism was established as the “fundamental scientific dogma” early in the last century, the scientific gatekeepers and the peer-reviewed journals have resolutely enforced it. The result has been that for a century mainstream scientists have treated anyone attempting to study the afterlife and the greater reality just as Dr. Cox has done, and as you have done. You both already know all about it, don’t you? No need to investigate anything. You can reveal your utter ignorance of what many people have spent their whole lives studying by referring to ghosts and seances and chairs, and yet you expect me to be embarrassed by what you say? We are not the ones conducting a war on scientists, sir, but rather for a hundred years the reverse has been true, and the gatekeepers have striven with might and main to find a way to get rid of uncomfortable truths whenever researchers who aren’t in their tribe have tried to present them.

      To be utterly frank, most of the leading researchers in my field have long since stopped even paying attention to most scientists, except – as I have done in this post – occasionally to laugh at their resolute cluelessness. From our viewpoint, what Dr. Cox said was as ridiculous as you imagine my words to be! And even more so, since we don’t claim to know more than they do, and in fact we have tried to accord them respect where they have shown any disposition to be more than partisans and they actually have cared about trying to understand what (if anything) is objectively real.

      But there have been a few GENUINE scientists whose work we respect. Open-minded, genuinely curious, and not trying to protect their precious but rather trying to serve the truth. I’ll quote two of those who are most respected in my field:

      MAX PLANCK: ”I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

      PLANCK again: “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

      ALBERT EINSTEIN: “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”

      EINSTEIN again: “Our experience of separation may be an illusion of consciousness.”

      And again: “The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”

      If these GENUINE scientists were on this earth today, there would be no more scientific obsession with ignoring meaningful evidence to the point where neither you nor Dr. Cox even cares to wonder what that evidence might be! Both of these worthies are working on the communication problem now, which is one reason why many of us are confident that the world really is about to change.

      Just imagine this for a moment. Here is a hypothesis that you and I can test together! If there were suddenly an app made available to everyone on earth for free that would allow anyone at any time to ring up great-aunt Mildred and ask for her eggnog recipe, how do you think the world (and mainstream science) might change?

  6. Roberta, it is perfectly clear to me now what Albert Einstein and Max Planck were trying to tell us. I am happy that you brought up this subject in your Blog. Reflecting on your Blog and their statements, I came to the conclusion that there is only one true science — and that is the science of Astrology — the oldest science known to mankind. I feel it is tightly aligned with your teaching of the afterlife. Astrology is the science you cannot see, there is no physical proof, but it exists — you can only experience it. It is based on the energy in the Universe, and the heavenly bodies (the stars and planets) diffuse this energy. Instead, today, Astrology is being defined as hogwash or blasphemy. This science should be taught in universities. It is a valuable tool to help us make our life choices and better life decisions. If correctly understood and followed, perhaps we would live in a better world. Of course, it does not diminish all of the other sciences, which are employed to serve specific purposes, but not as a fundamental science. Do you agree with me?

    1. Hi Annelore! I’m sorry, but I don’t agree – after all, Astrology is yet another ancient belief-system. It’s not “hogwash or blasphemy,” but neither does it present us with the whole truth. How could it? Even if its bases were in truth, the people who assembled the system could not possibly have understood what they were seeing!

      We live now at the start of a glorious age dawning when we are increasingly able to free ourselves of ALL belief-systems! We have access to the truth, insofar as we are able to understand it with our limited earth-minds; and that is glorious. As Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” He certainly was right about that!

      1. Hi, Roberta: Thank you so much for giving me your feedback. I sincerely and gratefully appreciate this discourse with you, since you are a pioneer in the exploration of the afterlife. There is not much credible research material available, such as yours, to satisfy my curiosity, and I am desperately trying to find the answers to the many questions in my prying mind.

        I do understand your explanation about science. I realize that scientists are not searching beyond their limits of what the earth-mind is comfortable to accept. Yet, they do provide us earthlings with things we need to know and what to do to make our life easier, such as with electricity, technology, medical science, etc. I accept that. However, I believe that many scientists consider themselves to be the ultimate authority in their “field,” and often with a certain complacency. They understandably refuse to delve deeper into a subject for which they have no answer; perhaps, out of fear for disproving themselves.

        My reference to the subject of astrology in my previous comment was brought about by the fact that I first learned of you last October when I watched the astrologist, Maxine Taylor’s, YouTube session with you, “The Fun of Dying.” This was absolutely an awakening experience as well as thought-provoking. It gave me many answers to questions in my mind. And I became your fan. Because of your appearance with an astrologist, I assumed that you also had a connection to astrology with your studies, and I was curious to find out what it was. I have been studying astrology on my own for many years, and Maxine has been a wonderful teacher during the past few months.

        Roberta, this is your “Big Weekend.” Good Luck and much fun. If you have something to share with the public, I am looking forward to find out about it.

        Fondly, Annelore

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *