"The science is settled"

"The science is settled" is the modern equivalent to "God has spoken" and is a hollow appeal to authority for people who don't understand an issue enough to make a valid point, in their attempts to shut down a debate that would only embarrass them.

Personal authority and a non-interventionist God

Many individuals struggle to come to terms with the notion of a non-interventionist God. People, in their fear of individual responsibility, look to outside sources to make decisions for them. So they join a church or the military. To take full responsibility for one's own actions is too much to bear for many. As a result we have a political situation where a large portion of the population places their trust in individuals they have little true awareness of. As a result "the wool" is often pulled over the populations eyes.

The ultimate aim for all of us is to become our own authority and to make decisions for ourselves. This is the purpose of creation. We are created to freely decide our own life. There is no God telling us how to live.

There are approaches to life which have more favorable outcomes such as those given by Jesus in his sermon on the mount recorded in the Christian bible.

However, the creator, in its infinite generosity has given us each the greatest gift of all- FREE WILL.  And the whole point of free will is that it is ours to use and the responsibility for its use lies solely with us. No-one else can be held to blame. In this regard we are all students learning how to use our free will in a way that is most pleasing to ourselves

The enemy of the reptilian empire* is the new age movement-

Deepak Chopra

for anything which promotes the truth being found within will be perceived as a threat by authority figures!

Sharka Todd

*illustrated by hierarchical power structures and a top-down management style, where "truth" is delivered by "authorities" existing high up in the pyramid of power.

How science is used to control people (pt.1)

If you wish to control the people you need to control the ideas they are exposed to.  The best way to do this is to control the messages they are being fed by the institutions seen as having the greatest authority.

Traditionally, this was done through religion but now it is science which is the current age’s arbiter of truth. 

Luckily for the elites, establishment science is a hierarchical structure that depends heavy upon funding and so it enables the powerful to influence the scientific institutions through choice of leadership, media pressures and funding arrangements.

Certain lines of inquiry are promoted, both by the leaders of establishment science and the controlled media, and other lines of inquiry are lambasted, ridiculed and dismissed as "pseudoscience".  In this way, scientists are encouraged to only ask the questions that support philosophical viewpoints that promote a controllable, authoritarian society.

The current fad of philosophical materialism (also called "physicalism") is one that suits the elites because it keeps the general population thinking they are small, weak and largely irrelevant.

A alternate philosophy- that we are each spirits, part of a grander whole, of which we are an integral part, immortal, immensely creative, and truly sons and daughters of the most high God, is not one the elites wish to promote.  Instead, the idea that we are purely physical beings with no future and no true creativity is one they encourage and physicalism, as promoted by mainstream science, achieves this end nicely.

See also: Has science taken the place of religion?, Science, authority and the power elite

Sharka Todd

Has science taken the place of religion?

Prophet of Science, Richard Dawkins

Religion, once the tool for social control, has been replaced by institutionalized science

Many people think science and religion are poles apart but to me they are quite close- just "the man" telling you what to think! Both are authoritarian, hierarchical and "cliquey". Science is sold as democratic but is anything but. It is as controlled by the establishment as anything else and it passes on the messages from on high that suits the elites just as religion was once used to do. For now that religion has lost its esteem among the population science is being used to replace it to enable a small elite to get the masses to believe as suits them. The last thing they want is an empowered populace that thinks independently of their masters. Only science has the credibility in the modern age to shape thought in such narrow channels as to have everyone believing alike. And the primary beliefs to be transferred are- you are small and powerless, your life is insignificant, trust the authorities who know what's best for you, and we have the truth so don' t bother to look elsewhere. These are the same thoughts that devilish religion used to push and now science is being used to do the same thing!

Sharka Todd 

See also: Science and religion are both Luciferic

Science and religion are both Luciferic

Any school of thought that says it has the one and only correct way of interpreting reality is Luciferic, in my view.  There is something grandiose and naive in a view which proclaims to be the only right one.  There are an infinite number of ways that we can understand or interpret our experience in this world.  The idea that there is only one way that is correct makes no sense.  Those who attempt to force this idea of one truth down other people's throats are dangerous and clearly unbalanced.  A healthy person comes to their own (always changing) view on life and makes no effort to force others to believe likewise.  Such an attempt would be seen as idiotic in the extreme.  And yet this is what we see among those who belong to the religious and science cults- the desire to make over the world in their own image and have everyone believe as they do.

By leaving people alone to make up their own minds we are showing our respect for them and this is how the earth will move into the golden age- by each of us respecting the free will of each other, to do, be and believe as they so desire!

Sharka Todd

Religion, science and freedom of belief

Religion and science* both say that out of the infinite number of ways we can look at the world only one of them is right. That is why I see both religion and science as totalitarian, authoritarian and anti-freedom, and not to mention, wrong!

Both science and religion encourage a dull, monotonous kind of group-think that discourages true individuality and creativity and actively opposes those who hold alternative views.  These are "the wrong views" that will lead to either "going to hell" or being labeled as "irrational", "a nut" or "stupid".  This is the price paid for thinking outside the box, the one delivered by those who follow the current dogma in vogue, the dogma that must be right because so many people agree with it!

See also: Science and religion are Luciferic

Sharka Todd

*This is not referring to the scientific method, which is theoretically "value-free", but to how science is practiced in the world today and the materialist world view it had been used to support.

There is nothing wrong with orthodoxy, but...

 
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Orthodoxy but when it uses its weight of numbers to bully alternative views then problems arise.  Tolerance is an essential quality for the civilized being. The ability to accept that not all people think as we do.  Sadly, we often find those that share the most common perception of the world use their force of numbers to attempt to destroy the beliefs or bodies of those who think in other ways.  This is, of course, the sign of a very insecure group at work operating from the lower motive of fear.

Sharka Todd

The extreme position of scientism

Image by Sharka Todd

Article source: Wikipedia Scientism

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that physical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."

The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayekphilosophers of science such as Karl Popper,and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam and Tzvetan Todorov to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable "Scientism" has also been taken over as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge by philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg.

---

Who is attracted to scientism?
by Sharka Todd

Scientism, like fundamentalist religion, appeals to those who require the illusion of certainty in their personal beliefs.   Such people, like the fundamentally religious, place their faith in authorities outside themselves and are distrustful of personal experience.  This makes "scientism-ists" ripe for manipulation by elites that are able to influence the scientific process by promoting one type of inquiry over another by the allocation of funds and the choice of leadership.

The strange world of “skeptics”

When you already know all the answers what's left to talk about?

If you point out to a self-proclaimed "skeptic" that science is unable to answer all the questions that intrigue man and that the only way to answer some questions is to step outside the scientific domain you may be met with great hostility.  Their attachment to the scientific method is fanatical in its passion and zeal and hard for an outsider to fathom.

Because science has proven so successful in helping us understand certain universal mechanisms many people mistakenly conclude that it is able to answer all of our questions.  The questions it is unable to answer are then seen as nonsense or irrelevant.  But to adhere to this perspective (scientism) means that many of the most interesting and essential elements of human life are placed off limits for contemplation and debate.  I believe this limits us as human beings.

Related to this is the notion that there are no valid types of evidence for any given phenomenon outside those gained by the scientific method.  All other ways of gathering information are not just seen as fallible but are seen as completely worthless.  As a result you have one of the high priests of scientism, Richard Dawkins, saying his own personal experiences are completely irrelevant in terms of his understanding of truth.  For him, only things that other high priests of science have agreed upon have any reality, apparently.  I find this strange, to say the least!

Another strange element of the “skeptic” mindset is that if you question the all-seeing, all-knowing ability of science and claim that there are other types of evidence that can be used to understand the world they start to think you are advocating for a belief in every hypothesis and belief mankind has ever held under the sun.  They think you are advocating for flat Earth theory, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and so on.  It is as if, somehow, if we realize science is limited in its ability to describe and explain human experience then we must also lose our rational sense as well.  Of course, this idea makes no sense and it shows just how much skeptics are dominated by emotion rather than by logic. 

Like other fundamentalist religions, scientism is an emotion driven belief system which just happens to place establishment science as its arbiter of truth, where other religions may place a holy book, or more accurately, the interpretation of that holy book given by its priests.  For “skeptics” their priests are the public figures of establishment science, who can do and say no wrong.  And if they do suddenly disagree with a key pillar of scientific dogma then they are excommunicated, seen as heretics, and called pseudo-scientists, a title held for those who fundamentally disagree with prevailing scientific dogma.

Sharka Todd

Fanatics vs allowers

Her (film)

Fanatics come in all shapes and sizes.  Their main goal is to make over the world in their own image and they have religious zeal in doing so.  Some identify with religions, some with political philosophies and others are scientific materialists.  What these people have in common is that they hate alternative opinions that contradict their own and they will do what they can to shut other people down from expressing them.

"Allowers" represent the complete opposite of fanatics.  They include people with strong opinions and those with weak opinions about a particular matter, but who are united in their respect for the rights of other people to hold contrary opinions and to express them freely.

The fanatics are fear driven because they believe opposing views represent a real threat to their own views and unless they attack and destroy dissenting views their own beliefs may be in danger.

Allowers take a more trusting stance towards life.  They respect the right of individuals to form their own views and don't demand that others share their beliefs.  They believe that an open marketplace of ideas is the healthiest way for a society to move forward and feel no need to attack or destroy those views which they do not share.

Sharka Todd

Earthly authorities as God's representatives

We are taught obedience to authority figures early in life- in schools, at home and through the media. The obedient child is said to be the good child and the child society and God will reward. By obeying earthly authorities we will get good grades, have a good life and go to heaven.

Authorities are sold to us as God's representatives on Earth. That is the message that is promoted early in life. They are not to be questioned or doubted as they are so much more knowledgeable than we are.  Instead, we are supposed to see ourselves as subservient to them.

It's hard for many people to see beyond this conditioning and to begin to view authorities as human and therefore, fallible, and whose will is not the will of God. 

This is a form of maturity that not everyone is capable of. Instead, many still cling to childish notions of unassailable authority, which they must obey or expect punishment in this life or the next.

See also: Personal authority and a non-interventionist God

Sharka Todd

The pernicious nature of “totalitarian" belief systems

Image: Equilibrium (film) edited by Sharka Todd

“Totalitarian" belief systems are those which claim to contain the one and only truth.  They claim that other viewpoints are not only wrong, but are in fact, evil.  This can lead to the persecution of people who hold onto alternative beliefs. 

Such “totalitarian" belief systems tend to be created by those who wish to have power over others.  By claiming their truth as the only truth and all other viewpoints blasphemous, they set up divisions in society and provide rationale for the persecution of others.  

We find this feature in political philosophies, mainstream religions and fringe cults.   In each case those inside the movement are taught that their way of looking at the world is not only the best way, it is in fact the only right way, and that all other views are not only wrong, but evil.  Often the concept of "the will of God" is invoked.  Those belonging to these "cults of belief" are told that their view is the only view that God approves of.  All other views are taught to be not only against God's will, but in actual opposition to God, and therefore, evil.
  

This is an effective way of creating an "us and them" mentality.  This can help with group bonding but has the effect of isolating the group from outsiders who sense the disrespect and intolerance these cultish groups hold for their views.  Also, insiders to the cult begin to fear and loathe outsiders because of their "evil" beliefs and behaviors and their fear these may "infect" them.  This sets the scene for future conflict.

These cultish belief systems deny the individual the inborn right to hold their own unique perspective on the world.  Such independence of thought is seen as a great threat to totalitarian belief structures as it makes people uncontrollable.  Therefore, independent thinkers are vilified by such "cults of belief" and independent thinking in general is labelled as evil by such groups.  

This kind of attempt to control people's thinking is clearly the effort of fear-laden people with control issues and only by seeing it as such can we free ourselves from their efforts to enslave our minds!

Sharka Todd

The danger of "values-based" politicians

The role of the politician is ideally to serve the wishes of the public, not to impose their own agenda upon them. Sadly, many people attracted to public life seek to make the world over in their own image. It is these “values based” politicians we need to be wary of.

There is nothing wrong with people having values- this is inevitable- but it is important that such people are not chosen to lead when their desire is to usurp the free will of others, forcing them to live according to the values of the leaders.

Such political candidates seek to outlaw behaviors they find objectionable, often on supposedly "moral" grounds.  In this way they seek to overthrow the free will of the individual.  This results in a kind of imprisoning of the public- by limiting their choice of behaviors- by their elected officials so that the officials and their supporters can feel comfortable.

Those who value freedom need to be on guard to ensure they don't vote for such individuals, discouraging their attempts at muzzling human behavior.

Sharka Todd

The aims and dangers of science and religion

At their core, both science and religion represent the search for truth- science the physical truth of existence and religion the psychological or spiritual truth.

Problems arise when those with fearful motives use these endeavors to create a fear-based world view that seeks to punish and control others. This explains the development of religions into political systems that attempt to control and limit the actions and beliefs of its followers. When science turns into “the scientific establishment” a similar process tends to occur. We find an elite is created which seeks to gain and maintain control over those who view them as "authorities".

Those not driven by fear do not seek to control the thoughts and actions of others and such people do not use science or religions as a weapon to attack others with. A powerful person is one who allows the freedom of others and enables them to find their own path to truth and knowledge.

Sharka Todd

Science and religion potentially disempower

Science and religion battle for authority in the human sphere but both are ultimately dis-empowering because they place authority for the truth outside the individual.

Similar people are attracted to both- those who want someone else to tell them: what is the truth?

Science may come to some conclusions about the "outer" or "objective" nature of physical reality, but when it comes to a broader, more inclusive view of life it is empty handed.

Religions, on the hand, are institutions often led by those who seek to control others and gain worldly power. Their "truths" are often self-serving and are not universal in scope. Because of the mixing of truth with fiction it leaves many followers confused and misguided!

Sharka Todd

The evolution of religion begins with-

“love and obey your divine self”,
and ends with...


“obey the book”!

Sharka Todd

Religion, fear, control

Religion is a creation of the priests in an endeavor to raise themselves and subject others to their influence. To this end they create a fictional god who is full of judgement and wrath. Ironically, the God Force or Central Atom is totally accepting and loving of its creation, having no judgement for any of us whatsoever. Instead the Central Atom upholds our very being allowing us the freedom to do as we wish.

It is only our judgement which exists and when we cease judging ourselves we not only become free but we also begin to act in a more benign and magnanimous way.

Sharka Todd

A response to James Randi's call to ban psychics

 Watch a video of James Randi expressing his desire to outlaw the promotion of supernatural beliefs here.

Well known "skeptic" James Randi believes supernatural ideas are promoted by the media to please sponsors. But he fails to mention that the sponsors like having people watch their ads and that TV and radio are programmed to draw an audience to increase advertising revenue. In other words, psychic matters are discussed because people are interested in them and it therefore draws an audience with the resulting advertising revenue. This is democracy in action in the marketplace.

What Randi seems to be suggesting is some kind of elitist or totalitarian approach to remove from the media those things that a select "knowledgeable" few believes promotes untruths or "pseudoscience". But who gets to choose what is banned and what would this mean for a supposedly "free" society?

Randi seems unable to realize what he is promoting. He is certainly un-American in his thinking. Instead, he is more aligned with the Communist Chinese Government who seek to control what the public has access to, to protect the government's interests. Why any free society would wish to move closer to such a repressive regime remains unclear and highlights the shallowness of thought entertained by James Randi.

Sharka Todd

Science=dogma, religion=dogma

For science the dogma is whatever theories are currently in vogue, generally these are grouped around a central belief- such as the primary reality being matter, not mind, and the belief that mind is purely a creation of matter.

For religion the dogma is whatever interpretation church elders place upon their "holy books".

Both are subject to change but generally at a glacial pace, particularly in the case of religion.

In both "cults of belief" dogmas are almost impossible to crack for you must first sign up to believe in the dogmas before the cults will even allow you a voice. And even then any sign of disagreement will most likely get you thrown out of the club!

It is the rare person that can go through the indoctrination machine and come out the other side with a mind free enough of dogma to be able to challenge it!

Sharka Todd