Science is the undisputed world champ, when it comes to exploring and understanding the material world. I’ve known that since I was a kid… and throughout the first half of my life, science was always my best source and always had the final say in my writing.
Things shifted once I became immersed in spiritual research (around 1990), and science began to present more and more challenges for me.
While I still regard science as the final say in worldly matters, I’ve come to see that the physical universe accounts for just the tiny tip of a massive, living iceberg that is reality. As humans, we see only the tiny tip, while the massive bulk flourishes beneath the surface… beyond the perception of our senses and sciences.
My current research in ITC and the afterlife is regarded by the science community as fringe science or pseudoscience. (read more here… or here…)
And I have to say, in all honesty, that if my work is an example of pseudoscience, then modern science is an example of pseudo-reality.
I’m not saying that in a huff, as it may sound, but only after two decades of struggling and grappling with science while trying to understand the true nature of spiritual existence and to present spiritual research in a way that’s evidential, believable, and convincing.
Unfortunately, the spirit worlds don’t conform easily to modern scientific methods of observation, measurement, and replication of results… leaving spiritual researchers such as myself in something of a quandary.
I’m not in bad company. There are brilliant minds out there today exploring the spiritual frontiers, who face the same challenges with science.
History books of the future will view brilliant modern minds in science and medicine like Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra as pioneers who helped forge the foundation of a new science based on the bigger picture… spiritual reality. Meanwhile, these two guys are relegated to the realm of pseudoscience. (Read more here… and here…)
Chopra last year suggested that “militant skeptics” are busy editing Wikipedia to prevent frontier sciences and scientists from being fairly represented.
Think about that for a moment. Wikipedia has become the most widespread global source of information in history, and if Chopra is right, it’s being tainted in a way that keeps humanity trapped in a modern dark age of narrow vision.
I believe he’s right. While I use Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and hold it in the same high regard as science as a tool for exploring the material world, I know I can’t trust it in matters of spirit. I’ve felt that way for a number of years… ever since I posted an article on Wikipedia about ITC research, based on my years of experience. In a matter of days it was replaced with a more scholarly article, stripped of all things spiritual.
That’s the moment I gave up on Wikipedia as a source of spiritual information.
The “militant skeptics” are as obsessed about spreading their narrow views of the world as are Evangelical Christians or the Koch brothers and their political and media hucksters.
Until that shifts, I’ll extract from God and other good spiritual sources what is of God, and from Wikipedia what is of the world… and of pseudo-reality.
I am often amused when debunkers refer to something as unscientific, because I know that they are counting on the public’s ignorance of how science really works, and that much of what is held true by science has never been proved and may be unprovable. Conventional science is, after all, simply another field of inquiry with certain established parameters, which some feel compelled to protect by all means. It won’t work though. The parameters will always change. They can play ‘my science is better than your science’ as much as they like, but from within and without their ranks, those who seek, who want to understand, and venture into the unknown are continually pushing against those parameters. Keep on pushing, Mark, because it is the seeking that makes true science, not the parameters.
Tosca, I couldn’t have said that better myself…! “It is the seeking that makes true science – not the parameters”.
I’m in complete agreement! Our modern-day scientists may have “boxed” themselves into a set of parameters that will never allow for the discovery of our multidimensional nature.
I haven’t heard it said any better than that.
Thanks a million, Tosca,