Why Do Most Scientists Reject The Idea of a Supreme Intelligence?

By Bernard Haisch in Mystery on January 25th, 2007 / 2 Comments

Much of the hostility of science toward God is a reaction against religious dogmatism and outright persecution of rational thinkers in centuries past, such as Galileo and Giordano Bruno.

But there is also a sense in science that understanding of the ways the world and the Universe work has been one of steady progress, systematically replacing mythology with genuine knowledge. It becomes tempting to extrapolate these successes to an ultimate understanding of everything using the tools and methods of science. Next time you read a science-oriented book for the general public, note how frequently “triumph” or “triumphantly” is used to describe a discovery.

There is a degree of arrogance and hubris at work: we, the sophisticated scientists, are smarter than the less educated masses who cannot appreciate the complexity of science and have no need for the superstitions of the hoi polloi. Indeed, a mind set can arise in which it becomes virtually impossible to conceive of any reality other than the reductionist, materialist perspective.

The community one is immersed in does determine and reinforce a consensus view, and that is true of the scientific community. One can easily find the view expressed that since science has found no evidence of God, there cannot be a God. This overlooks the fact that science has neither the tools nor even the concepts to actually search for evidence of a supreme intelligence. If you loose your keys in the dark, but look for them under the lamppost because that’s where the light is, you won’t find any evidence of your keys.

How Does Consciousness Arise out of Matter?
Well, actually, I don’ believe it does. I think that ultimately it is the other way around: that the origin of this universe and all others that may exist lies in the will of a supreme consciousness, a consciousness that we all possess, in varying degrees. Somehow that consciousness created a physical universe. I think we will discover in this century that we shape our reality via consciousness to a much greater degree than is presently acknowledged. The study of consciousness will, I believe, take center stage in science in the decades ahead, and I do not mean simply neurobiology explaining, and thereby in effect explaining away, consciousness.

Is There a Purpose for My Life?
Definitely. Our purpose in life is to create God’s experience of his own infinite potential. We are, each one of us, tiny mortal flames of an infinite benevolent immortal consciousness seeking experience. God comes into this world through each of us. Some people do bad things. How can they still be manifestations of God? The answer is that unlike some infinite perfect realm of bliss, a real world comprised of matter and living beings capable of novel experience requires polarity.

You can’t experience light without the contrast of darkness. Heat is only hot in comparison to cold. So there has to be the possibility of “not good” to allow good to exist in the created universe. Factor in that the key to having a genuinely novel experience is free will. Free will plus the necessity of having some “not good” alongside the good can lead to some individuals creating great evil. To reconcile that with justice takes us into the concept of karma.

But all in all, life is quite an adventure and that is the purpose of it. God participates in our life adventure because we really are him made manifest. We just had to forget that to make a novel, free-will based life experience possible.

Can Science and Spirituality be Bridged?
Not only can they, they must if science is to evolve. I think that the major discovery of this century will be the recognition that consciousness is endowed with unknown (at least to reductionist, materialist science) creative potential. Our consciousness is tightly leashed when it comes to literally creative abilities, and by and large for good reason.

If we could easily manipulate reality with pure conscious intent, the world would be in utter chaos. But ultimately I suspect that consciousness does have that capability and that the rigorous study of that will become a part of science and may in fact become the dominant concern of science. So I see science moving into the spiritual realm not to debunk it or explain it away, as tends to be the case today, but to open a new vista that extends much further into new territory than most scientists even imagine nowadays.

Question & Answers taken from ‘The God Theory’ by Bernard Haisch

Share/Bookmark this article

Link to this article
Found this article useful? Please consider linking to it. Simply copy and paste the code below into your web site (Ctrl+C to copy).
It will look like this: Why Do Most Scientists Reject The Idea of a Supreme Intelligence?

2 Responses to “Why Do Most Scientists Reject The Idea of a Supreme Intelligence?”

  1. Herb Says:

    I donít think that non-duality precludes God any more than it precludes me. You didnít know me before, but that doesnít mean I didnít exist. You know of me now, but you donít know everything I think. Maybe some day you will, especailly if I tell you and He has told us. Information seems to make for a sense of community. If someday we find something coming out of nothing, the void, will we think that it was there because of us. Is their no end to arrogance. I donít mean that in a hateful way, itís just in astonishment in the wonders on earth. Just another wonderment.
    I will say though that most seekers after truth will have been a Democrat, a Republican, an Atheist or something at some time in there life. You must “Try all things and hold fast to what is fine.Ē Why do we obey what we want? Who said that was just a suggestion. Sounds like a command to me, but just for the wise of course.

  2. Fred Distefano Says:

    Thank you for your most beautiful and eloquent insight! Fred

Add Your Comments: