Scientific materialism — the form of science predicated upon the belief that dead matter is the ultimate reality — is slowly fading away. My current thinking is that we believe in this worldview not because it is right, logical, or even plausible, but because the leading scientists all operate within a system of thought that assumes it is true. Since science is the most authoritative intellectual discipline, we happily go along with the will of our thought leaders. After all, who are we to question all of these professors and Nobel-prize winners? But it turns out that scientists do not believe in materialism because it is correct, but rather because of an assumption (or fear?) that the very practice of science cannot occur unless “there is a real world out there” (to use Lee Smolin’s phrase from The Trouble with Physics.) The very message of quantum physics, however, is that there is not in fact...
...
In his famous article, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics, physicist Eugene Wigner pondered how it is that mathematics is so effective at explaining the workings of the physical world. This is the same topic of the recent NOVA special, The Great Math Mystery, which offers a very well-done and interesting account of how mathematics governs the universe from the smallest particles to the sweeping spiral galaxies of the heavens. The effectiveness of mathematics in mapping the workings of the universe, however, should also give pause to anyone who believes that materialism is the final word not only on how the world works, but on science itself. Today, in science, we see highly educated people pondering the intricate machine-like precision of physical reality yet science has no mechanism to account for how this is possible. Simply put, since materialists have drained mind, spirit, God, and intelligence from the physical world, they have no...
...
Chasing a failing worldview is like heading down a dead-end street: the signs that the street is coming to an end may be all around you, but bullheadedness keeps your foot firmly on the accelerator; after all, this is where everyone else is going. But then the dead-end comes and, once again, you have this thought that perhaps you should have paid more attention to the warning signs. Social and peer pressure are powerful forces, however, and it is a rare soul who challenges the march of the masses. This brings us to dark matter, which is thought to make up 83 percent of the matter in the universe. But dark matter is not really “matter;” it’s not extended in space; does not resist a force; and cannot be seen. Dark matter (like dark energy) is better thought of as a placeholder concept waiting for a better theory to explain the cosmos. With dark matter, the law of gravity trumps...
...
The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, wrote that “For all men begin . . . by wondering that things are as they are.” A central problem in achieving scientific respectability for the field of spirituality is the words we use to describe what we are talking about. Science uses terms that describe hard, physical objects and forces; things we can touch, see, and measure: subatomic particles, cosmic rays, the electromagnetic force, gravity, neurons, and genes. The field of spirituality or consciousness, however, has not yet come up with a word to describe itself that sounds scientific. The word “spirituality” sounds religious, which is out-of-bounds for science. “Consciousness” is better, but this term itself eludes a clear definition and is likely beyond measurement. A little history, though, helps advance the discussion. What we know as “science” began as natural philosophy, or the study of nature using the mind rather than technology and experiment. As natural philosophy developed, it soon gave...
...
The cover of the new issue of New Scientist highlights the improvements made to the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, not only the world’s most advanced atom-smasher, but the most sophisticated piece of technology ever built by humankind. The cover says, “Forget the Higgs, Now we’re searching for the root of reality.” Meanwhile, at the other end of the scientific spectrum, neuroscientists remain lost in the quagmire of solving the so-called hard problem of consciousness, which, according to David Chalmers is “the question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences.” So with the Large Hadron Collider, the question is whether physicists will find the answer to the mystery of the universe in computer-generated images of colliding subatomic particles. With the hard problem of consciousness, the question is whether neuroscientists will find the secret to the vivid, three-dimensional awareness we call consciousness in the firing interactions between brain...
...