Friday, January 04, 2008

Troubled Science

Although scientists today are generally against any idea of a transcendental reality, it wasn't always like that.

Pasteur said, "The more I study nature, the more I'm amazed at the work of the Creator." And for centuries, the greatest geniuses considered the ultimate creative force of God fundamental to any understanding of reality.

And then, it all changed.

Today on Thinking with Somebody Else's Head, Troubled Science.

Before we dive into our admittedly heated subject today, let me just say Happy New Year to you, and send you my best wishes for a successful and conscious 2008. And consciousness we will need more of to begin to address our looming environmental crises particularly, but our other social difficulties as well.

I, like many individuals in all countries on the globe, have been personally interested in that for years, but it wasn't until discovering the work of Brazilian/Austrian psychoanalyst, Norberto Keppe, that I began to understand the source of all the problems. Keppe's work outlines very precisely the psychological distortions that have led human society away from its true purposes, and caused us to erect social structures that actually make it impossible to live to our human potential.

I started this radio program to begin to talk about these foundational discoveries because ... well, this is my medium. But there are other ways to find out more. Write me at and I'll steer you in the right direction.

My dear friend, Susan Berkley, and I will be starting a special online and teleclass program very shortly based on Keppe's work, so stay tuned for more on that.

Well, today, my colleague, Cesar Soos, and I are going to jump into the heat of the fire again. Seems whenever we try to offer a critique of modern-day science, our arguments hit up against a formidable wall of skepticism and unrepentant commitment to the current dogma that unfortunately characterizes the scientific world view today.

But something changed in science. For centuries, scientists and philosophers were pretty much united in their consideration of God in their scientific understandings. Even Descartes, who was instrumental in the so-called Scientific Revolution that sought to free the human being from what it saw as the repressive superstition of organized religion, was a devout believer to the end of his days.

But the scientific proposals that burst forth from that period of history influence us even today - and not necessarily for the better.

Keep your mind open and join us for a very important discussion.

Click here to listen to this episode.

Tags: , , , ,


sarcastic silly said...

I am disappointed. When I saw some of the reviews on the itunes site I thought I was going to listen to a philosopher with new and exiciting ideas. Your title of your podcast made me expect ideas with a new and different outlook. I also expected something that was researched. I guess I was naive. I ended up wasting my time downloading a cult-like personality with aboslutly no basis. I would understand and respect you if there was a reasoning for your negative outlook on evolutionary science. Instead I got science from someone that no one has heard of because he has been disproved by physical science. You had no basis for your argument and that is the reason that you will have many people that will laugh this off. I went and heard a couple of your other podcasts but all I got in return was nonsensical crap. You ended off sounding like a kook. I understand and agree with the fact that society doesn't get the whole story, but that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and pass it pff as fact. I heard the immune system and aids podcast and it really made me sad because will intelligent people who research what they hear won't believe this there will be thoses people who belive anything they hear and take it as fact. You are doing more harm then good, and going against the very ideals, of the other side of the story, by preaching this stuff. The scientist you bring on sound very uncredible. It sounds as if a 10th grade science students knows and has resaerched more than them. Metaphysical stuff while important and needed for the soul is not physical science. If you going to attack scientific principles then use the science medium not the metaphyscial one. That may be why the scienctist you have been pushing sounds like an idiot. There are people out there who actually want to learn about the real science out there and want question what we have been heard, but you are not one of them. You should research the Dover school case. By the way Darwin's theory has been questioned and tested for over a hundred years. Darwin didn't even want to reveal this theory because he was a staunch christian. Greater things have come from simple things all the time: how do you think the 1st civilizations were created, ant farms, coral reefs. Basically every human invention since the beginning of time; the wright's plane to the concordia, the horse carriage to the car. Your argument of immutable metaphysical laws: wrong. Metaphysical theories are completely different eveywhere look, and everyone thinks there's is right. There is no such thing as an immutable metaphysical law.
I also completely and utterly believe in God, and science has only strengthened that belief!

Richard Lloyd Jones said...

Hi Sarcastic Silly,

Thanks for listening and commenting. Judging from the emotionalism of your comment, I would conclude that our Podcast on Trouble Science struck a deep chord indeed.

Just a couple of points to make here to hopefully give you something to think about. Norberto Keppe’s work, upon which we base these programs, has not been developed on “absolutely no basis”, as you suggest. Quite the contrary. He has synthesized ideas from the greatest thinkers in human history and added considerably to understanding them through his own studies in human psycho-socio-pathology. This means it is extensively researched and documented, as well as backed up by over 50 years of clinical practice on three continents.

Now, specifics. Well, first of all, I’m not surprised that the aspect of our critique of science you most object to is our criticism of the theory of evolution. Somehow, this unproven theory is like some holy writ you can never approach critically without being burned at the stake. Surely, if evolution is as sacred as you suggest it is it can withstand a little criticism from an Internet radio program. As Shakespeare said, “Methinks you doth protest too much” – and Shakespeare understood that over-reaction is a defensive posture, as do I.

Now you said something interesting about how metaphysics is not physical science. Well isn’t that something! That’s exactly what we’re pointing out. And we’re also trying to help people see that the focus on strictly physical science is limiting our understanding of reality and the Universe substantially. THAT’S something you might want to try harder to understand. Just because it doesn’t fit within the restricted limits of your physical science mindset does not mean it’s invalid. There is a whole world of cogent, well argued metaphysics out there for all who want to find it.

One final point: you, like so many who argue for the sanctity of physical science, have completely misunderstood what we are talking about when we explore metaphysics. This is not the world of healing crystals and finding your inner yogi, but a significant philosophical science dating back thousands of years. This metaphysics we are talking about studies the being and considers the human purpose of life, and has proposed substantial theories to explain the origin and continuation of things. Just wanted to clear that up.

As for our talking about the metaphysical law that states that the greater can never come from the lesser, your examples show that you don’t understand this either. We’re not suggesting that a 747 came before the turbo prop, but that ALL aircraft fly because of the principles of flight, those pre-existing conditions which are pre-established by an intelligence much superior to human intelligence. That’s the Greater in our point of view, not a physical one. Human beings can only exploit those (Greater) conditions to make (lesser) craft that can stay aloft – but only within specific parameters. Step outside those and your craft is doomed to stay on the ground. So the “greater” we are referring to is not material, and it’s interesting that your examples to refute our arguments are material ones that don’t have anything to do with what we are talking about – showing once again the rigidity and intransigence of physical science in understanding the totality of reality.

Hope that clears up a few things for you.