Mainstream Science is a Religion

Science Religion

Makia Freeman, Contributor
Waking Times

Science is a religion. Mainstream science, despite all its claims of objectivity, and despite the fact it attempts to lay claim to the truth, is itself a religion. Science places itself on a pedestal and assures everyone it has dispassionately arrived at its conclusions. Meanwhile, however, it is full of assumptions, denials and limitations, and makes the serious mistake of presenting its theories as facts. The errors of mainstream science are gladly seized upon by technocrats, eager to use science and technology to further their own ambitions of control, and include forcing the vaccineGMO, surveillance, manmade global warminggeoengineeringSMART and microchipping agendas onto an unsuspecting public.

The planned New World Order has a massive technocratic aspect. Materialism, the driving force behind mainstream science, has been shown again and again to lack the capacity to explain the world around us, especially in relation to idealism or other theories that account for the energetic nature of reality. Yet, despite this, we remain collectively bedazzled by materialism, because science is a religion that has induced a certain faith in us.

Up until recently, it has still been difficult for society at large to accept the fact that the unseen energetic realms are more powerful and more primal than the material realms we can see and touch … but that is starting to change.

Science is a Religion Going Back to Athens – Materialism vs. Idealism

This is certainly not the first time we have struggled with the debate of whether the world can best be described by materialism. The ancient Greek philosophers and scientists thought long and hard about the issue. Materialism vs. idealism is really the philosophical battle between the ideas that matter exists independently (and that consciousness doesn’t exist or is secondary), as opposed to the idea that consciousness, thought and energy are primary (and that matter is secondary). Democritus championed the first viewpoint (and his ideas were taken further by Aristotle), whereas Plato proposed the second with his famous theory of the World of Forms or World of Ideas. According to Plato, our materialist reality is an inferior copy of a more perfect world. This is exactly in alignment with what various cultures, shamans, religions and spiritual traditions have been saying about the preeminence of energy and mind over matter.

Even many distinguished mainstream Western scientists over the last 100+ years have grasped the point that matter is not solid. Here are the very best and brightest of them alluding to the fact that energy is preeminent to matter:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – Nikola Tesla

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” – Nikola Tesla

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” – Werner Heisenberg

“We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense … there is no place in this new kind of physics for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality.”Albert Einstein

“The field is the sole governing agency of the particle.” – Albert Einstein

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

Plato also wrote that the entire universe can be explained mathematically by numbers. This exactly aligns itself with the idea that we live in a holographic universe – a kind of computer simulation with digital numbers at its foundation.

Tesla Meme
The Renaissance: Reinforcing the Left-Brain Materialist View

The Renaissance was heralded as a golden age for humanity, and in many ways it was, but it also further cemented the left-brain materialist view of the world, which can be found in the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Newton. Copernicus and Galileo famously proposed heliocentrism over the existing geocentric model, but as the recent rise of the flat earth movement has shown, there is a copious amount of evidence to suggest that the heliocentric theory is far from being complete and foolproof. It was Descartes who famously claimed “I think, therefore I am” and gave birth to the falsehood that thinking, reason and logic is the base of our existence, when in fact being or consciousness is. There is no brain to think without a consciousness that animates it.

Newton, for all the great work he did for physics, came up with a set of abstract, mathematically-based, mechanical formulae which he called “the laws of nature”. Though he was to live several centuries after Newton, genius inventor and true scientist Nikola Tesla made a very telling comment regarding the tendency of mainstream science and scientists to get stuck in a rut with their abstract mathematical theories. This statement could most definitely be applied to Einstein, who despite his brilliance in proposing the theory of relativity, worked for 3+ decades afterwards and could never come up with a more complete theory. Tesla said:

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” – Nikola Tesla

Darwinian Eugenics and Evolution

Charles Darwin, for those of youth didn’t know, was part of an elite family who favored eugenics, and it is not surprising that his theory of evolution emphasized dog-eat-dog competitiveness, survival of the fittest and might is right – all habits and values of the psychopathic ruling class. Those who insist that the idea that “science is a religion” is false may be hard-pressed to explain why someone like Darwin chose to focus on those elements of Nature in this theory, instead of focusing on the incredible symbiosis and cooperation which is also widespread in Nature – and to a greater extent than competition.

Science is a Religion Today: The Insane and Never-Ending Search for the Smallest Particle

Fast forward to today, and it seems science is a religion like never before. What’s happening at CERN with the Hadron Collider’s search for ever smaller and smaller particles seems like materialistic mainstream science desperately trying to justify itself and its outmoded theory, like a dog forever chasing its tail in vain. Recently in November 2014 Dr. Brian Whitworth published a paper which contrasted the materialistic and idealistic views, which he framed as physical realism and quantum realism. When he matched them to data, he found the quantum realism (simulation) model fit the observations and facts much better. He writes:

“The Higgs boson is the virtual particle created by an invisible field to explain another virtual particle created by another invisible field to explain an actual effect (neutron decay). Given dark energy and dark matter, it explains at best 4% of the mass of the universe, but the standard model needs it, so when after fifty years CERN found a million, million, million, millionth of a second signal in the possible range, physics was relieved. There is no evidence this “particle” has any effect on mass at all, but the standard model survives.

By piling fields upon fields, the standard model now has at least 48 point particles, 24 fitted properties, 5 overlapping invisible fields and 14 virtual particles that pop in and out of existence on demand, anywhere, anytime. And it isn’t finished yet, as each new effect needs a new field, e.g. inflation needs an inflaton field. If this approach, founded on physical realism, is preferred, it isn’t because of its simplicity, as it is hard to imagine anything more complicated! Chapter 4 suggests that while the fitted calculations work, their interpretation is a mythology on a scale not seen since Ptolemy’s epicycles.”

ElectromagneticScience is a Religion: We are Basically Blind to The Electromagnetic Spectrum

Materialism places so much stock in what we can apprehend with our 5 senses, especially sight, since it is the dominant sense for most people. Yet, of what we know exists in the full electromagnetic spectrum, we can only see a tiny range from approximately 700 nanometers (abbreviated nm) to 400 nm, between the infrared and ultraviolet rays. According to this short video clip, if the electromagnetic spectrum were a reel of film 2500 miles long (stretching from California to Alaska), then the band of visible light would be around 1 inch! According to my calculations, if these numbers are correct, that means that we only perceive 0.00000000631313% of what is really there. So why does mainstream science place so much faith in our 5-sense reality and disregard the unseen as fantasy or imagination, when we are so blind?

Mainstream Science – Bogged Down by Fraud and Fakery

So far, I have discussed the reasons why mainstream science is ideologically or theoretically on the wrong track. I haven’t even begun to touch the ways in which science is horribly misguided and mistaken on a practical level. Sad to say, science has been totally corrupted by special interests who fund and determine the outcome of much of the research. They can pay for whatever “scientific result” they want for their agenda, not only because one’s very act of observation determines one’s reality, but also because they can slant, distort and omit data in line with their goals. Simply put, a scientist discovering the “wrong” result will be quickly rejected and defunded.

This fake and fraudulent science, which is not true science at all but rather corporate junk science which passes under the rubric of science, is all pervasive. See my articles The Massive Flaw with the Scientific Hierarchy of EvidenceThe Top 10 Tricks Used by Corporate Junk Science and Most Scientific Research of Western Medicine Untrustable & Fraudulent, Say Insiders and Experts for a fuller discussion of this point. As Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), had to say about the pervasive fraudulent scientific research:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines … I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Happily, there are many true scientists standing outside of the fakery and putting forth alternative evidence to consider (e.g. with the political manmade global warming agenda). The truth cannot be hidden forever.

Conclusion: Science is a Religion Which Requires Faith

Mainstream scientists will probably feel aghast to hear it, but the truth is that science is a religion with its own high priests – they just wear white coats rather than black gowns. It requires belief (faith) in its theories (doctrine) which can never ultimately be proven (Evolution, Relativity, Big Bang) because they are full of assumptions and contradictions. There is always at least one question that can never be answered, and constantly redefining terms, omitting numbers or inventing new factors becomes, at a certain point, like twisting facts to suit theories, rather than twisting theories to suit facts, as the fictional character Sherlock Holmes liked to say.

Terrence McKenna humorously put it like this:

“Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” – Terence McKenna

Materialist science has tried to convince us that everything can be explained with solid atoms, but as various experiments have proven, only theories which account for consciousness, energy, non-locality and other phenomena make sense. Particles are probability distributions, not little hard things. Materialism falls short again and again in describing and predicting our world. We actually live in a holographic universe – a computer simulation which looks and feels real but which is composed of stuff which is not solid.

Mainstream materialistic science is a religion – and the time is long overdue to give up the faith.

About the Author

Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com (FaceBook here), writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance

**Sources embedded throughout article.

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

This article (Mainstream Science is a Religion) was originally created and published by The Freedom Articles and is re-posted here with permission. 

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with friends and family…

  • OldeSoul

    You are basing your entire argument on the Oxford dictionary definition of religion, which is, in fact, wrong. Religion defined anthropologically is “faith in a higher power.” In the case of science, the higher power is mathematics. In the wacky world of education, we are given basic math, then told that all the assumptions of science are based on mathematics very few people can even begin to grasp. The really hard math is handed over to computers and we are told over and over, “You can’t understand this so you’ll have to take our word for it.” = Religion.

  • Dcrypter .

    Science gives us a way to understand the universe. It gives us the tools to ask the questions, and even ask again. Is anything in science 100%? No. It does however give us as close to 100% as we can get.

  • Dcrypter .

    Your graphs that you used end in 1922 and 1910 respectively. A full scale world wide vaccination took place during the 1960’s-70’s. What is the current data show you?

    • Veri Tas

      Small pox, like many ‘infectious diseases’ were on a sharp declining curve before any widespread vaccination campaigns. This was due to ever more people being lifted out of poverty and the resultant better living conditions (food, sanitation, etc).

      That’s why you still have so-called infectious diseases rampant in the poor countries around the world, while in the West chronic diseases are the major scourge.

      Vitamins, not vaccines or drugs, are the answer.

      For example:

      “Severe measles is more likely among poorly nourished young children, especially those with insufficient vitamin A, or whose immune systems have been weakened by HIV/AIDS or other diseases.”

      “All children in developing countries diagnosed with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This treatment restores low vitamin A levels during measles that occur even in well-nourished children and can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%.”

      – World Health Organization http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

      And that’s just ONE vitamin.

      Cellular immunity requires specific nutrients in adequate amounts; people are not vaccine-deficient.

      D. N. McMurray, “Cell-Mediated Immunity in Nutritional Deficiency,” Progress in Food & Nutrition Science, 1984, p. 193.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6396715

  • Michael Sherry

    I think that statement is incorrect.
    There are far more scientists today who disagree with evolution than agree with it.
    He says in his conclusion, that there are three theories(doctrines) of science i.e. evolution, relativity and the big bang.
    Evolution is not a science because it is not subject to experiment, only observation, and MOST scientists disagree with it. Darwin was NOT a scientist in any modern type of understanding, he was an observationalist at best. He was lazy in his studies and did not complete any technical degree whatsoever. He only espoused a philosophy which many adhered to in his day, namely, uniformitarianism, and so they popularised him.(Uniformitarianism has been shown by qualitative and quantitative studies to be total codswallop).
    I have seen 2 VERY highly qualified astrophysicists speak against the big bang, and they are far from alone.
    In regard to the theory of relativity, it has never been proven wrong, even with everything they have available today; and they have tried VERY hard to disprove it, because einstein believed in a designer, God. Hawking hates it but cannot disprove it.
    The world system DOES portray science as a way to relieve one of religion, but MOST scientists do not see it as such.
    There are many “christian” scientists who I have found VERY helpful in speaking to deceived people about scientific facts. Just on Thursday night I spoke to a 10 yo who has an interest in dinosaurs. I asked him if he had seen the one with flexible cartilage and blood. He said, words to the effect of, “That is impossible, because after 70 million years, the blood and everything would be fosilised.” Next Thursday, I hope to send him links to the “That is impossible”. “Christian” scientists gave me that information.

  • Rob Bright

    I believe what the article is warning about is “scientism” (which really is a religious perception of science as infallible.)

    More importantly, though, science is rarely (if ever) 100% objective. To suggest science is not distorted through politics, or personal ambition, greed and avarice would be quite naive, indeed.

    In fact, two of your examples above (vaccines and GMOs) are driven by corporate ambition (eg, profits) and not humanitarian or altruistic motives. Indeed, the more one looks into the questionable ‘science’ of the agrochemical/biotech industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, it becomes even more apparent that corporate science is not actual science at all — more like corporate propaganda or corporate advertising.

    The writer makes some good and valid points.

    • Dcrypter .

      Don’t get me wrong the science isn’t 100% objective, because it’s not and you make a good point of what can affect that. Vaccines usually are started in a research lab in most universities, later capitalized on by Pharma and the university. GMO’s originally had a humanitarian beginning, but then quickly got mutated into the monster that it is today.
      But the author giving the perception that science emulates a religion shows nothing more than trying to project religion on to science to give it a level playing field. Which it isn’t.

  • Sylvan Moir

    Wonderful article. And the writer understands science only too well. Churchill said science should be ” on tap but not on top”. Now everywhere and always it is on top. Anyone who’s opinion is considered unscientific is laughed at and often ridiculed; everywhere commentators and even politicians witter on about “the evidence” and having “evidence-based” policies. No-one seems to have any common sense any more and the prestige of the final authoritative voice is the scientific one, who is indeed the modern priest in our times – very similar to the position occupied by priests in the middle ages.
    Any demurral is instantly met by voices castigating you for being ignorant or backward, or not understanding science- as here, and the internet is now full of zealous science-theologian types describing not this time the true God, but the truth as determing by science – comments which would be embarassingly reminiscent of middle age theological debates for anyone who cares to look into it.
    It might be possible to identify some of the problems, for those whose care is to clean up science. Kuhns’ work of scientific paradigms still seems relevant to me . The bias in favour of materialistic explanations and modes of thought is so strong and all-powerful that the constant denial you get that there is any such bias is laughable. Victor Schauberger is one person who has tried to open the terrible intellectual and spiritual prison that is modern science, and another, from a completely different perspective, is Rupert Sheldrake.There are others : usually they are ignored or pilloried.
    One issue that seems to me to be full of vitiating superstition is the way so-called “anecdotal evidence” is conceived of and the way the notion is used. A little real solid honest effort should convince anybody that the term is perhaps useful in a regulatory sense but does not and cannot describe an ultimate category (and yet it is always used as if it can and does) .

  • BrianFraser

    Here is another one that will keep some of you awake at night:
    “An Atom or a Nucleus?” at http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ATMORNUC.html

  • J James

    Science is because religion is – the physical world and the metaphysical world – a duality of the human condition and the human mind. Ultimately, neither is “right” and neither is “wrong.” Yet, both attempt to disprove the other, which is the purest example of conflict there is. And since both are essentially the same aspects of an infinite reality humanity understands a tiny fractal of, such conflict is symbolic of the inner conflict we all experience to a greater or lesser degree.

  • Rachel Thompson

    I’m sorry but you are wrong on so many levels I don’t know which to point out first. Mixing apples and oranges doesn’t make everything into apples. However, there are beliefs within science. But a good scientists will reject the older believed to be true semi-fact when more accurate facts show. The less than hard sciences like sociology and archeology are more dynamic and sometimes won’t budge from a dominate theory without overwhelming evidence, true, but that doesn’t constitute a religion. The slow or none-change in new ideas has more to do with politics than religion–scientists’ careers are built on discoveries but if something new doesn’t fit the old dominate theory, that can affect one’s funding and of late, displeasing the corporation that controls the science is also bad for one’s career. The main thing wrong with science is the human element, driven by corporate greed and individual need of survival. It is a fact that new discoveries are not accepted widely until the older guard dies out–I call this generational shift. Money and ego stalls science ( unless it can be quickly monetized,corporate greed again) but science marchers on. Better facts, more refined always unseats what came before once people get out of the way. Religion, on the other hand, only culturally changes via different cultural expression, but the basic rudiments is always the same. Believe in things as fact that are not in fact, facts. Religion believe in things it can’t understand while science tries to understand so it can believe, or trust and understand, what is real. On top of that region is a con job, always was and always will be, science is going after truth.

  • Linda

    A brilliant and much needed article!! Thank you Makia..

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to friend