Biochemist and genuine science fiction kook, Isaac Asimov, wasn’t much on intuition. “If intuition is as important to the world as reason [as science],” he observed, “and if Eastern sages are as knowledgeable about the universe as physicists are, then why not take matters in reverse? Why not use the wisdom of the East as a key to some of the unanswered questions in physics? For instance: what is the basic component making up subatomic particles that physicists call a quark?”
Now, how many sages know anything about subatomic particles and quarks? Well, about as many scientists who know anything about profound intuitional wisdom.
Asimov was a self-important asshole, obviously, not to mention nuttier than squirrel guano. Even so, he was a renowned scientist. One who didn’t think too highly of intuition and the spiritual realm, which really means he didn’t think very highly of God. He said so:
“What nonsense all this supposed intuitional truth is, and how comic is the sight of the genuflections made to it by rational [scientific] minds who lost their nerve. No, it isn’t really comic; it’s tragic. There has been at least one other such occasion in history, when Greek secular and rational thought [scientists and science] bowed to the mystical aspects of Christianity [and God], and what followed was a Dark Age. We can’t afford another.”
“Now, these were heated words,” wrote famed novelist and scientist himself, Michael Crichton. “And, reading them, I began to sense there was more at stake [for the science community] than the dispassionate assessment of questionable data.”
It is to say, science wasn’t approaching the intuition phenomenon, a potential spiritual realm, with its normal sense of unemotional scientific inquiry. It was hostile toward it, instead. The question is why? Science isn’t hostile toward other unexplained phenomena. It seeks to explore and understand the rest of the world’s mysteries. That’s the function of science. Only here, with intuition, it’s not just averse, but truculently so. Being so pugnacious and defiant, clearly something is at stake.
Crichton:
“Asimov himself had implicitly drawn the comparison between science and religion as competing ways of viewing the world.” In other words, either God is the basis for the universe, or science is the authority, which presents a problem for science. “That, of course, opened the door to the possibility that science [itself] was a religion—a heretical position few scientists would accept. But, in reviewing the essays of [science and scientists], I began to see science and battling for supremacy against perceived threats from other modes of perception.”
The threat being: the spiritual realm and God.
And according to Asimov and science, God doesn’t exist, and the lab coats are in charge.
Authority—that’s what is at stake.
Of course, Asimov and his fellow scientists would indeed be aghast at the “religion” charge, claiming science is merely a way of getting answers about the universe—a universe in which exists no God but science, mind you. Hence, science deserves the praise and accolades and worship, not God. For example, science says climate change will incinerate the earth. Only, God says the earth is his, its daily existence and destiny under his command and control. One can see clearly the doctrinal conflict. In a world without God, however, there is no conflict. Science is the authority; its ideology the only ideology.
But wait. Ideology? Why, that seems to imply religion, does it not?
Indeed. Science has its doctrine and subsequent beliefs which it offers the world to be accepted and believed. So that, just like every other religion, human beings will become, yes, both believers in science and the religion’s devoted disciples. Only, God says otherwise; that only he controls the earth’s climate and its catastrophes, for example, which the flooding of the entire earth would certainly verify, if you believe that sort of thing.
So what we have is an old-fashioned doctrinal disagreement and religious war.
Science versus God.
You can’t get something from nothing, wisdom with which science agrees. So then, along with humankind, the universe must have origins. In regard, God said he is responsible. Knowing full well something cannot come from nothing, science created the Big Bang and human evolution theories. Okay, but what about the matter and material that was already present? The stuff that “banged” around the universe, and the elements that allowed for human evolution via primordial stew?
Where did that stuff come from?
Who is responsible for that something, which could not come from nothing? For the existing matter that gives science’s theories legs and allows it to exist?
It would appear someone predates science—someone Supreme, er, more Supreme.
This is the point at which science becomes angry and starts spouting esoteric terms and phrases to intimidate their opponents. When you can’t defend a simple point, you start barking complex, scientific terms and phrases, which is telling because science is supposed to be the search for answers and truth. When theories and data fail, the search is supposed to begin fresh, with new data and a new hypothesis, which is what occurs in every other scientific quest but climate change, apparently, and with every other religious scientific tenet that brings in the research grant dough.
It’s not just about the dough, however. It’s also about notoriety. These scientists might know a few things about quarks and biochemistry. But, like everyone else, they can’t keep their marriages together and their kids off drugs and out of trouble. They can’t keep themselves out of rehab, either. Ask them to build or repair something, and they don’t know the difference between a screwdriver and a circular saw. Mention screwdriver to scientists and they think it’s cocktail hour.
That’s why the scientific notoriety feels pretty good; that’s the scientist’s limited field of expertise, is what they know, is the pathway to feeling better about their averageness. A member discovers a new star or galaxy, and then names it after him or herself. Of course, there sits God, half-eyed and sighing: “Oh sure. Bob’s Galaxy. Charming.” Then the entire religious cult swings by to congratulate Bob on his scientific discovery, before Bob goes on television to tout his keen eye and scientific acumen to the world. “There the galaxy was, just sitting there, unbeknownst to everyone but me, via my exquisite calculations.”
Where would humankind be without its scientific gods leading the way?
Drawing an implicit comparison between science and religion as competing ways of viewing the world, Asimov stepped in it, let the proverbial cat out of the bag—not that he was the first, or that he will be the last. Of course, we must temper our criticism toward those who associate a screwdriver with cocktail hour. Using all those scientific terms and phrases, they just seem more “brilliant” than they truly are, a truth to which ex’s, marriage counselors, and rehabbing progeny would surely all attest.
Even so, make no mistake. Science is a vitally important enterprise, one responsible for much human progress and health. It’s just that the people who constitute it have an over-inflated opinion of themselves, their work, and of their meaning and value to the world. Clearly, they have developed not only a god complex, but a corresponding religion, science, to support their deity. Orthodoxy and supremacy that they peddle in public education, too.
What do young impressionable minds study in school?
Big Bang and evolutionary theory.
What do students subsequently come to perceive and believe?
That science is God. Or rather, that ordinary human beings are gods—grotesquely fallible and inept though they are.
Who is then replaced as the universes’ authority?
The real God. The Creator of All Things.
So. One can then understand why the Science Cult, which is just a collection of leftist liberals, gets so angry when someone demands that God, the real God, be given his proper authority, and that the corresponding doctrine be taught to young impressionable minds in educational institutions. Someone such as Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, who issued a directive to integrate the Bible into the public-school curriculum. And it wasn’t that Walters was directing daily church sermons to take place, either.
“[The Bible, God,] it’s part of our history,” Walters said. “It’s crystal clear: you go back to American history. You look at the pilgrims. You look at the Mayflower Compact. You look at Thomas Jefferson talking about our rights coming from our Creator [in the Declaration of Independence]. You look at Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, where he references the Apostle Paul and multiple biblical references as examples. The reality is the left and these radical, woke [education] administrators want to indoctrinate and lie to your kids, and act like there was no role that the Bible and Christianity and the Judeo-Christian faith [and ultimately God] played in American history. Well, that’s a lie. And that is, frankly, pushing a left-wing agenda on kids to try to get kids to hate this country, by saying, look, there was no morality; there was no belief in God.
“Well, look,” Walters concluded, “the primary sources are crystal clear. Here in Oklahoma, you will see the Bible in its historical context. You will see when individuals throughout history reference the Bible, cite the Bible. Again, it’s part of our history, the rights. The left-wing activists can be offended; they cannot like it. But we will not allow them to rewrite our history.”
Rather, We will not allow liberals and their science deities to replace God.
That’s the core of all this scientific rancor. Via science, and replacing religion for religion, liberals can teach their religion—which is undoubtedly a religion, one that denies the existence of God—to young impressionable minds in the nation’s classrooms. But Christians can’t teach theirs, which, along with God, undoubtedly defines not just America’s founding and history thereafter, but the universe’s existence.
Muslim studies in the classroom? No problem.
Greek mythology? No education is complete without it.
The role of the Creator of All Living Things in the world?
“Separation of church and state!”
Science and scientists might be outraged by the religious characterization of themselves and their enterprise, but that is precisely what it and they are, a religion—complete with gods and doctrine and disciples and zealotry. Worse, via the classroom they are encouraging America’s and the world’s youth, and really every earthbound human, to abandon God and to join their religion.
Some may ask: why can’t God and science coexist?
Answer: because good and evil can never and will never occupy the same space.
And this is where we are in the world currently: a religious war, a foundational war, between good and evil. Science can’t explain the intuitional/spiritual realm. It can’t explain how mothers sense something has happened to a child or loved one while not in their presence. It can’t explain human premonition that comes to fruition, or how people sense unseen danger. It can’t explain how people suspect a cheating spouse without evidence, or how scientists themselves have all these same intuitive sensations. And rather than confess to the personal sensations, and to the phenomenon’s clear validity, and then explore the phenomena, as is science’s actual purpose and duty. Science dismisses it all as “nonsense” and “comic.”
Clearly, the spiritual realm is every bit as real as the physical realm, a point Crichton plead to the scientific community in an intended speech, one he never gave. And why didn’t he speak?
Because, evidently science didn’t want to hear it.
Because hearing it would validate its nemesis, God: “The Spirit of Spirits,” and not only end science’s authoritative reign, but expose their evil, God-denying cult. Legitimate and personally experienced phenomenon or not, it’s wise to keep challenges to your authority tamped down, excluded from public discourse.
As Marcello Truzzi, former editor of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) journal once noted, “Scientists are not the paragons of rationality, objectivity, open-mindedness and humility that many of them would like others to believe.”
Well, okay. But then, gods aren’t beholden to normal standards of human nobility. An idea that surely bleeds over into the god’s personal lives, to be attested to by ex’s, marriage counselors, and deistic progeny—and probably more than a few lab assistants.
©JMW 8/2024
All Rights Reserved
JMW’s latest: New Rules: Relationship Logic for the Darkside.
John Mark Warren 
nice!!