I find it interesting that our predominant world view these days, a world view almost exclusively subscribed to by the “well-educated” masses of Western society, one informed by the infinite wisdom and infallible, irrefutable laws of the hard sciences, has come to resemble a modern inquisition not unlike its late religious predecessors. Though nobody has been actually crucified or burned at the stake for their alternative views on some long held beliefs by the scientific community, the irony is not lost on those who recognize that the many tenants of modern science have taken on the same dogmatic qualities as any ancient religion.
A controversy has been brewing over the internet regarding the censoring and removal of two presentations given at the world-renowned TEDx conferences, where prominent scientist, thinkers, and innovators from around the world are given a platform to share their views and expertise. Rupert Sheldrake recently gave a talk entitled the “the Science Delusion” which called out ten very important discrepancies in the modern scientific world view. Apparently his heresy ruffled more than a few feathers, his video was pulled from the official TEDx youtube channel after an “anonymous scientific board” and “militant atheists bloggers” bombarded the TEDx organizers with the usual claims of pseudoscience and quackery.
This has led to quite a controversy, giving rise to great suspicion that advances in the fields of consciousness research by Sheldrake and others are beginning to undermine modern scientific notions on how our brains actually work, and that consciousness maybe “non-local” in nature, something that raises the hair on the back of any self-respecting atheist or scientist. And the only way to stymie the tide is to blacklist “frontier scientists” if their scientific inquiry is deemed too threatening to the established pervading paradigms – or dare I say, dogma.
People in many different disciplines are beginning to realize that the dawn of a New Scientific Revolution is upon us, yet many of our so called bigger minds seem to be more interested in preserving an increasingly irrelevant status quo than examining the data that bolder, braver minds are beginning to uncover.
After all, this threatens the whole belief system the Western world has subscribed to, its “High Priests of Science” being undermined substantially, many of who’s research, funding, and established bureaucracies could be threatened if their theories turn out to be more theoretical than hoped for.
What gives rise to this almost systemic head-in-the-sand syndrome by the academic elite? What is the great fear that’s driving all of this?
Yes, the terrible fear we will all be sent back to Sunday school or worse, told we will burn in hell for letting Copernicus get away with his whole “pssst…the sun doesn’t move, we do!” line. Is that really what studies in non-local consciousness will eventually prove?
I suppose burning early astronomy enthusiasts at the stake has left quite a legacy, and rightfully so. But I fear scientist now are more terrified of, in addition to losing their funding, losing their power over the collective psyche to yet another version of the “God” phenomena – a phenomena that has led to so much human suffering, the many religions of man killing each other for the exclusive rights to his name, all of which prompted a much needed Scientific Revolution in the first place.
But what’s really happening is humans, because we are human, have a terrible time with change. We also extrapolate, A LOT, onto the universe. Hubris galore. I mean lets face it, even Michio Kaku admits we can only measure about 4% of the known universe. Considering that pathetically small number, we make a lot of bold claims as to how and what things are, whether we look at them through a scientific or religious lens. I also think we have a hard time letting go (see previous paragraph).
When Galileo first looked through the heavens with his telescope, he saw and measured things you could never find in a prayer. And when a Buddhist monk merges with his deep unconscious mind in meditation, he uncovers things no telescope, not even a Hubble telescope, is capable of finding. Yet the two are both measurements of the reality of our universe as a whole, from both the subjective and objective point-of-views, and guess what the common interface is between both?
YOUR MIND. YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS.
Hence then, we’ve arrived at a critical point in our evolution as a species. This research into “non-local consciousness” has the implication of evolving our understanding of ourselves and the universe into as yet uncharted territory, with a map that may explain both the reality of spiritual (not necessarily dogmatically religious, mind you) and scientific laws. Is that really so bad? You don’t have to go back to Catholic school, promise. You just have to let evolution happen. And when I say evolution, I mean creation. Confused? You won’t be if this research continues unfettered and is allowed its fair due process.
But unfortunately, many are unwilling to allow this scientific enquiry, because true scientific enquiry threatens their current belief system. What I find amusing is most atheists I know, despite their claims to the contrary, are extremely belief system based, many stuck in an us-versus-them mindset reminiscent of any two religions fighting one another. Their deep-seated fear of being forced to believe in a God as traditionally understood by our historical religions is totally unfounded, and this fear is blocking new attempts by man to understand “GOD” in a modern context. Many atheists assume they’ve stumbled upon some great realization that since religion, with all its glaring contradictions, can’t be taken seriously. Suddenly however, science is being exposed for its own. Perhaps the contradictions are our fault alone, our “limited ability to understand the universe but yet our unlimited ability to be big, unfounded know-it-alls” the flawed common denominator encompassing all our ancient and modern belief systems.
But of course, religion will also have to update its belief structures as well, something that will be terribly difficult, if not outright impossible for some. I liken religion to a mother warning her 5 year old son not to touch a hot stove. Is it good advice? Yes, and necessary. But would she give the same advice to her son at 25? 50 years of age?
Obviously, the use of the stove, and their relationship in general has become more nuanced, just like our relationship to the universe has. Religions around the world were founded by ancient cultures shaped by specific cultural circumstances and the times (often dangerous) they lived in. I do believe they were inspired by “God”, but “God” doesn’t want to talk to 5 year olds anymore. This “non-local consciousness”, whatever it truly is and to whatever it connects to, obviously needs people to expand beyond their limitations and grow into something more expansive. Another inquisition isn’t what’s needed, what’s needed is to allow this so-called “frontier science” to contribute in helping show us the next step in our own evolution, to save both ourselves and the planet from our own institutionalized insanity. Yes science has brought us great gifts in technology, medicine, and the humanities. It also given us nuclear and chemical warfare, a variety of toxic GMO food and pollutants, predatorial capitalism and economic enslavement, and worst of all – apathy and indifference by undermining the truth of our shared, and very real, cosmic connections to each other.
Perhaps the real and unprejuduced study of “non-local” consciousness will change all of that. But like a famous herbalist once said; “There are no incurable diseases, only incurable individuals”.