Why science is a religion, and spirituality needs experiencing.

Some discussion points on the current polarization between science and spirituality, and how to transcend it . . .

 

As the philosopher Carl Popper realized . . . just because a scientific experiment produces the exact same results a million times in a row is no reason to say that it will necessarily produce the same result the time after that. One can assume that it might, and that’s all, scientifically speaking.

The concept of a “belief” is where you assume a datum to be correct, while considering that it is not possible to know for sure it will match reality.

Thus the only thing that can exist in real science, is beliefs. Certainly not “facts” as most people believe (and I do mean “believe”).

Physics has plenty of simple theories, that are easy to demonstrate. Most other areas of reality are not like that. For example, from my own experience working in medical statistics (as part of the team doing the administration for miner’s lung disease claims in the UK), the leading respiratory specialist in the UK at the time stated that a 30% correlation between theory and results is the best that one can hope for (and that the usual correlation is far lower than that).

Another example is current economic theory which is based on an assumption of 100% rational decisions by all humans, all the time. Then there is psychology, which doesn’t even accept the possibility of a rational human and has no theory that includes a description of one (only descriptions of reasons for irrationality). So either one or the other (or more likely both), is clearly incorrect, yet both are widely believed to be “scientific facts” and widely used in practice (often by people who say that spirituality is “unproven”).

Most people believe some areas of “scientific facts”, while believing things which totally disagree with currently accepted scientific theory in other areas. For example, school teachers were given a simple quiz with questions such as “draw the path of a small weight on a string, when spun around on a horizontal plane, then released”. What was found in practice was that almost none of them used Newtonian Physics in their reality at all, they believed the earlier theories (now considered 100% disproved by physics). And that’s school teachers, presumably “better educated” than the majority of the population.

Correlation between theory and practical results does not “prove” the theory . . . a well-known example being those old gray naugahide chairs (one of the early types of plastic chairs), who’s material was made using theory based on billiard-ball model of atoms (now shown to be very far from the truth).

Another example being that Quarks cannot be observed directly in any way, yet their theory fits other observations, and so is accepted as correct (often by the same people who say they cannot accept spiritual theory because it cannot be seen directly in this reality).

A system of beliefs is called a religion. Science is currently the biggest religion on earth.

Currently accepted scientific theory says that consciousness affects reality.

One of the challenges with this concept is that it means that you can disprove anything that this theory is relevant to, by choosing to do so. And it’s not only the person who appears to be doing the experiment who’s consciousness matters . . . a lab technician at the other end of the room (or even someone elsewhere on earth) might disbelieve that consciousness can affect reality, and thus that belief can have an effect on the outcome of the experiment.

If the concept of “consciousness” affecting reality (as accepted by science) exists, then it would be rational to assume that experiments in relevant areas would NOT produce consistent results, because it is easy to intend to disprove any relevant experience (whether consciously or sub-consciously . . . the sub-conscious being a lot more causative than the consciousness, according to typical experimental results).

To get consistent results in such a reality, one would need to address ones current intentions, both conscious and sub-conscious (and intentions from other beings, and Morphic-fields etc.), and from spiritual theory we can say that doing so is a LOT of work (although certainly possible with currently available methods).

One can see the same phenomenon in the miracles of Yeshua (I use that word to try to distinguish the reality, from the myths about “Jesus”). He consistently performed two different types of miracles depending on the type of observers present. When in presence of non-believers he would do miracles that are only observed after they have happened, such as the loaves and fishes or water into wine. When only in the presence of his disciples (who accepted his ability to control matter) he could to miracles observable at the time such as walking on water.

Simple empirical experiments can easily demonstrate spiritual effects :

One example is the changes to Kirlian fields (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography) from energy-healing action . . . the Kirlian field of the healer is strong before the healing action, and weaker after, and that of the person healed was weak before, and stronger after. This can be demonstrated consistently (for some humans) using well-understood electrical and photographic techniques, although one of the famous results from this research, which is the field of the half of a leaf that has been thrown away still being visible for some minutes, has been shown to be mainly due to residual moisture. As most energy-healing methods, require acceptance by the receiver, this is obviously subject to the concept of intentions influencing the results, thus one would expect it NOT to work on everyone.

Another experiment (also described in the Lyall Watson books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyall_Watson)) was growing seedlings. Three sets of identical seedlings were grown, one set had no intentions done to them, the second set had the intention to grow better done to it, and the third had the intention of whatever is best for all, done to it. The second set grew better than the first, but the third set far better. Of course, it is also possible to “disprove” this by having the intentions “done” by someone who has beliefs (whether conscious or sub-conscious) that intentions have no effect, and the experiment will show no difference in the growth, exactly as would be expected from a clear understanding of the reality of “consciousness” affecting reality (actually it’s not consciousness, as can be shown from the fact that “sub-conscious” intentions also affect reality, but that’s another discussion).

In areas such as spirituality and medicine, reality is very complex, and many of the factors are currently unknown by even the “experts” (in medicine at least. There are a small number of humans on earth at this time who do know well enough how spiritual effects work). Thus the results from experiments would be expected not to be consistent, as is found in practice.

Spirituality is in very poor condition in general on this planet at this time. Few people on earth are able to use spirituality to produce consistent effects on matter, although it’s use on ones own body is much easier to demonstrate (for example by using EFT (http://emofree.com/), which is used by leading US hospitals, because according to the same scientific method they apply to other treatments, “it works”).

There is a lot of false and fake “spirituality” and most of the information available on the subject is very incomplete, and often at least partially incorrect. It would have been very easy to say that science is wrong most of the time (and cannot produce any consistent results in the material universe), a few hundred years ago, and even easier to say, correctly, that what is said to be “spirituality” on earth at this time, is incorrect most of the time.

The origins of most current science were at a time when the Christian Church had most of the power in society. Science was allowed to investigate, only if they agreed to avoid anything related to spirituality. This was an obvious contradiction to the early scientists at the time, who, as is well-known, were equally interested in subjects such as alchemy, magick, and any available spiritual data as well as science (since to them it was obviously the same subject), but avoiding spirituality was the only option at the time, and thus became what science did.

The fact that this polarization (between science and spirituality) has now become “sub-conscious” (or more accurately, fully accepted and thus not easily seen, in the relevant Morphic-fields) only makes it all the stronger.

Morphic fields are another interesting subject. One of Lyall Watson’s examples was a substance that chemists had been trying to crystallize in two different labs (on opposite sides of the world) for more than a decade. When the substance first crystallized in one lab, the other lab reported that they had also achieved crystallization, within a fraction of a second. No time for seed crystals to travel the circumference of the earth, or any such physical explanation.

Thinking intellectually about subjects such as “love” is nothing like experiencing them, yet they are an obviously consistent reality for almost all humans. Just because something needs to be experienced to be grasped, does not mean it is not a consistently experienced part of human reality (even the reality of some scientists :).

If you ask someone who has never touched a piano “can you play the piano?”, the only rational answer is “I don’t know”. But they don’t say that, they say “no”. This is an example of the fact that people already have a lot of beliefs in action, whether they are aware of them or not. A human, even at birth, is very far from a neutral state.

Same for spirituality . . . it is not correct or rational to say that it would be necessary for you to believe that it works before you try using some spiritual processes. What that really means is that you currently dis-believe it. A neutral lack of belief would have zero resistance to trying something, but humans are far from neutral, they tend to be polarized on most subjects (and a lot of emotions and pseudo-rationalizations invested in making their polarized views feel “right”).

Amusingly, the same people who say that they refuse to try spiritual processes because to do so would require a belief that they worked, will sometimes also say they refuse to try them in case they might cause harm 🙂

There are huge vested interests in current “science”, such as almost all medical research being paid for by drug companies, and patents on alternative energy being bought by oil companies.

Vested interest in spirituality include existing powers on earth wanting to be very sure to preventing the likelihood of real spiritual abilities being commonly available (since someone who could blow up a nuclear power-station or kill any man instantly anywhere in the world by decision would be a weapon that they would want to prevent the existence of, at any cost), and of course there are plenty of existing profits and power derived from what might be termed “non-ideal” versions of “spirituality”, one reason being that people who are told they can become free, but not given a way to actually get fully to that goal, continue pay a lot more money than those who have actually got free from the need to believe anyone else.

The observation of one person producing consistent results and others not doing so from spirituality, is what would be expected from current scientific theory in this area (since intentions affect the results), and is similar to medicine where the effects from a drug depend on large numbers of other factors, many of them not known at this time.

Taking this into consideration, the consistency of results from certain spiritual experiments would be far higher than those from current western medicine. So any lack of acceptance of spirituality by someone who considers medicine to be a science, is not really about consistency of evidence.

Personally, I started from a scientific perspective, but wanted more than that. Using an incident-running technique that removed “spiritual charge” from incidents, I was able to open up my willingness to look at the past, back to my birth, then all the way back to conception. At that point I had a choice . . . I could use the “scientific” belief that oneself does not exist before conception, or I could let go of that and look for myself. I chose neutral observation (despite the fears of the unknown that it brought up) instead of belief in current accepted scientific theory, and I had a look for myself.

People in ancient Greece who wanted to know whether oil congealed in cold weather would read through the works of Aristotle to try to find what he said in the subject, and would never consider leaving some oil in a cold place and observing the result. Many people, when questioning spirituality today, fall back on their current beliefs, or read about the subject hoping that will “prove” it (or dis-prove it), rather than simply taking some action and observing some results for themselves.

Beginners at spiritual technology often make the mistake of believing the non-ideals that they find when using it. For example “EFT doesn’t work on me”, is something to apply EFT to, not to believe. Same for dis-beliefs in spirituality . . . apply processes to erase them, and thus become more of a neutral observer. One will tend to assume certain things in an area when one starts learning about it, but Deep-Clearing is about erasing any and all beliefs (and other non-ideals) and thus increasingly being able look directly.

To put it another way, a false guru will tell you what to believe, thus keeping you in need of him, but a true guru will give you a process whereby you can see for yourself, thus freeing you from the need to believe (or disbelieve) anyone. Many people are being false-guru’s to themselves, reading and thinking about what others say, rather than experiencing for themselves.

Ones ability to look (“spiritually”) is not difficult to demonstrate . . . one can toss a coin, catch it in a closed hand, then use “spiritual ability” to determine whether it is a head or tail. On the other hand, it is, of course, even easier to “disprove” by using intentions that block such ability. Exactly as would be expected by the currently accepted scientific theory that “consciousness” affects reality, and from the typical spiritual condition of most humans on earth (which has plenty of room for improvement, to say the least).

But for one to be willing to admit that one might be able to see reality “spiritually” requires more responsibility than declaring that one “cannot see”. It is much easier to just read about what other people say. This is common in both science and religion . . . for example anyone who actually reads the bible will know that there are many gods (since Yeshua said they his followers were forbidden from worshiping any of the other ones, and only later started saying “I am the only one”), and that Yeshua’s definition of “faith” is the ability to spiritually command matter and have it instantly obey.

While it’s easy for anyone to learn EFT, apply it to any limiting beliefs relevant to the effectiveness of EFT, and thus get obvious experienced results, it would be a mistake to assume that EFT can fix everything . . . (it mainly changes feelings about stuff, not the stuff itself. Other more advanced processes can change the stuff itself).

So EFT is a good starting-point but there are far more advanced processes and realities after that, if one chooses to use effective spiritual-technology. Luckily, we have very effective methods available currently, and although considerable work is still needed to get to advanced levels this can now often be done in decades rather than tens of lifetimes.

One final point . . . fixed-data (such as beliefs in science) are of use in that they enable one to avoid facing the fears related to chaos and lack of awareness that one might otherwise experience. So if one finds such a fixed-datum, one can choose to let go of it, experience the fear of its absence, and instead of replacing it with a different fixed-datum just accept the fears for a while (without resisting or disliking them), and have a look at what reality seems like in the absence of that fixed-datum.

There are processes for more fully erasing such fixed-data (thus opening up ones ability to see reality “spiritually”), as one progresses, but for now, try the above suggestion, or use EFT to remove some reactions on that subject, and experience the difference for yourself. And you will find that by doing so you’ve already had a “spiritual” experience (however small this start is), and might want to continue in that direction . . .

Note that there are many pages of relevant data on this site, including suggestions for advanced self-development / spiritual-progress, on this website, see the index for more details.

Chris


 

You may also like

7 Comments

  1. Having been brought up in a certain society one may not be aware in which condition it is, because one inherited its conditions for ones personal life. This unawareness of its conditions finds its way into understanding concepts like politics, philosophy, science, etc. This is a human triangle, btw, which animal do not live out, neither do spirits.

    As an example what science once meant, and that was just research from the effect side, and what it is today.
    Science was based on observing what is there to be seen, and that undenyably was that what was going on.
    Not so today. Today big companies want to sell masses of what they can produce cheap for a price as high as possible. So you as a scientist have the job to find something which sells. And that is what you learn to find out when you get educated in university.

    Just as in the example what the meaning of science was and now is, you will also find this in all other concepts like religion,spirituality,economy,intelligence, culture,technology, resources,etc, etc,etc.

    It is possible to determine instantly what one is into, It is the lifestyle oneself and others have. The lifestyle REFLECTS IN the meanings a society has for said concepts and even what life, observation,love,etc is.

  2. Yes, your point is a significant one, the Morphic-fields that own a person are a major effect on their assumptions etc. and most people never really see or question these.

    1. Yes, indeed.
      Once getting interested in things beyond the horizon of the mf`s one is part of, one has to find a balance between what one still wants to be part of, what one wants to get into, and what one is able to change in said fields.

      1. Good point . . . when processing MF’s, in general one needs to disconnect from some less ideal ones, and also connect to more-ideal ones (such as ones which accept a wider range of options).

  3. On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 6:35:48 AM UTC-7, Chris wrote:

    http://awareness-based-clearing.com/2017/why-science-is-a-religion-and-spirituality-needs-experiencing

    Some discussion points on the current polarization between science and spirituality, and how to transcend it . . .

    This article is highly inaccurate.

    Karl Popper did, indeed recognize that verifications do not decide the truth or falsity of a proposition. Popper refuted the
    claim that there was a process of “inductive logic” occurring. Popper’s position was that “induction is not logic” because
    pure induction can give you the wrong answer. We do, indeed, make inductive inferences, but these inferences yield testable
    hypotheses, that are then sorted out through falsification. We need only a single counter example to disprove a proposition.

    Popper was also rebelling against the claims that there is “no metaphysics in science” that came from the logical positivist camp.
    Popper pointed out that there are metaphysical notions, such as “causality” that we cannot prove, but if they were not true would
    be disproven immediately. The notions of objectifiability

    This is particularly true of the simplest of such descriptions, which are “laws”. Such laws are codifications and simplifications of a large
    enough suite of observations that we would be able to see where the law would fail, if real phenomena behaved differently.

    Science gives us “theories” which are structures that organize and explain our laws, and generate testable (i.e. falsifiable) hypotheses.
    A good theory carries us beyond what we already knew, into a world of new testable hypotheses an new phenomena.

    The author apparently comes from the medical profession where the phenomena are weak and the financial incentives for selling drugs lead
    to the hacking of statistical p-values.

    As the author moves away from his area of expertise into particle physics, he fails to recognize that the physics community has a vastly higher
    standard of statistical significance than those in his medical studies. Yes, we accept that quarks are real because the physics community published
    peer reviewed results that can be studied by third parties. He would have us believe that we must take “spiritual theory” as being on the
    same level. Yet, where are the “spiritual theories” that fit Karl Poppers’ criterion of falsifiablity? Nowhere to be found.

    The author also incorrectly claims that “consciousness affects reality” and makes the bold (and patently false) statement that “accepted scientific theory”
    supports this false claim. His discussion descends into the rabbit hole of Deepak Chopra-esque assertions which are all false, regarding the
    effect of “consciousness” and the experimenter’s mental state in doing experiments. He even invokes Rupert Sheldrake’s bullshit “morphic
    field” hypotheses. No, just because some things appear spooking in quantum mechanics does not give you a free pass to believe every bit of newage codswallup that
    comes down the pike.

    The author then gives as examples of the long ago discredited “Kirlian photography” which is all about electrical charges and the dampness of the surfaces
    being photographed. http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html

    He also mentions Lyall Watson, known for his “Supernature” which is the source of many old saws of pseudoscience.

    Of course, Chris cannot help but end with the appeal to a “conspiracy theory” claiming that all of this stuff is suppressed. It’s not suppressed. It hasn’t become
    mainstream because these items simply don’t work.

    -John

Leave a Reply

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