Why 99% of Scientists are Unscientific in Their Approach
How Most Conventional Scientists Carry an Unscientific Approach as Their Foundation
The reason conventional science will never find God, or a Source element, is because God (if we define God as the source of all things) is consciousness itself. Consciousness is the Source element. It is the Father of all perception and knowledge, and therefore, it is the essence of what we call “the world” or “existence.”
All perception—everything known, without exception—is based in and dependent upon consciousness. You will never find a world apart from experiences, and you will never find experiences apart from consciousness.
No instrument within perception (aka a secondary or tertiary means of observation) can observe consciousness (the perceiver) itself.
At best, instruments of observation existing within perception can observe indications of consciousness, but never consciousness itself, because consciousness is the root of all instruments and is the primary means of all knowledge. And what is the world but a collection of knowledge? Have you ever found a world apart from what you know? Neither have I. Neither have the million top-level scientists in this world. Never have, never will.
Without making blind assumptions (which is the unscientific approach by definition) we can only conclude that the world is perception. In fact, we’ve never experienced the world—we’ve only ever experienced perception. We only know experience itself.
The only way to know God, or Life—and indeed the true nature of all phenomena—is to become intensely conscious of consciousness itself. In order to know the most primary element of perception, you must use the most primary element of perception to investigate itself. In order to study life assumption-free (and therefore as scientifically as possible) we must use the primary, and indeed the only, means of knowledge: consciousness.
In truth, there is no other means of knowing anything; we just assume there is. In other words, only God can know God. Only consciousness can know consciousness.
This type of self-investigation is not typically classified by current-age humans as being of a scientific nature, because most conventional scientists are quite religious/imaginative in believing in the existence of an unproven, external, objective world, and therefore, worship the secondary type of means: the senses and the instruments and tools we have built within perception.
Virtually all scientific efforts are dedicated to the study of things rooted in a major assumption: the unscientifically concluded notion of an independently (from consciousness/knowledge) existent world. This assumption, when not addressed or taken into consideration (and it rarely is), makes 99.99% of all scientific endeavors fundamentally unscientific in their approach.
In the relative world of assuming the assumption, the conventional scientific approach may be considered scientific in its approach (as long as it acknowledges that it is all based on belief and assumption, not on evidence or reality), but at the very root, almost every scientific study is completely oblivious to, or ignorant or negligent of, making this major assumption: that things have an independent (from consciousness) existence.
If we define the scientific approach as an attitude of observing without falling prey to bias and assumptions to the best of our ability, then the art of consciousness exploring itself directly (and questioning the nature of perception itself) is—when performed right—in essence the most scientific approach of all because it is the only science that investigates the root assumption of all perception (which almost all other scientific projects neglect) directly, without the major (and rather unscientific) assumption of a reality independent of perception.
Conventional scientists, in their (mostly innocent) hubris, often seem to classify the art of Self-Realization as belonging to the self-help, philosophical, spiritual, or even fiction/imagination category. But if we are rigorous in applying the definition of scientific approach, and we don’t overlook this basic assumption that most scientists seem to be OK with or simply entirely unaware of, then we could conclude that spirituality (not all forms of it, but the more direct Self-Realization paths) should be revered as the purest, least ignorant or least assuming, form of science.
In other words: some forms of spirituality (Self-Realization, mainly) are less fictional in their approach than what is conventionally regarded as “scientific” by current-age humans, when most conventional science could more accurately be described as “poetry” or “fiction,” or perhaps as the art of proliferating ignorance, assumption, and exploring the components with the realm of imagination.
I enjoy imagining a parallel reality where spirituality is called science, and science is called spirituality or religion. This seems in many ways more accurate to me. Of course, I’m being a bit of an ass here, and I’m generalizing, but I hope that some will consider my point. Through my seeming arrogance here, I hope to diminish actual arrogance in the world and establish greater respect for some forms of spirituality as being a very direct form of science.
Perhaps this loosens up or humbles some scientific minds out there, which will make this post and its tone worth writing.
“All we ever know is perception itself. Hence, to believe an actual world is responsible for causing perception is a major and biased assumption, fundamentally contradicting the scientific approach.”
PS: I actually love conventional science and fully encourage its continuation. However, beware of scientific pride rooted in the belief of a material, independently existent world. There is literally zero proof of its existence, yet 99% of science is concerned with the study of this assumption and its components, without truly questioning if it’s even really out there.
In my opinion, the purest and least religious scientists are ironically those who are often seen as “religious” by what current-age humans consider to be scientists; those genuine practitioners of the science of Self-Realization, for they deeply investigate the assumption of reality and perception.
I guess my point is that we should respect practitioners of Self-Realization at least as much as we respect conventionally validated scientists, if we wish to advance our understanding of life. And isn’t that the overall aim of science—to understand life more accurately? How can we do that if we don’t question more rigorously the very means of all knowledge, without which, none of our secondary and tertiary observations and conclusions could even be made?
_______
Do you want to hear more about Bentinho’s perspectives on science and spirituality? Watch Mirror Talks Episode #06 - Why True Spirituality Is Science on YouTube.
