Science is overvalued

Science has been declared the absolute creed, ignoring spirituality and the creation.

The most important result of the science for us in this time is the existance of the internet.
It makes it possible to discuss here at this moment.


Perhaps it is not science that is eating the lunch of the spiritual. I think that these are both good approaches to understanding the creation.

I find that most people pay little mind to either and what is overvalued are the more trivial aspects, tv…sports tv… etc

1 Like

Yes - both are good approaches for understanding the creation.

But when science is used as dogma and surrogate religion it will estrange people from spirituality.
In the history science always included the creation and spirituality.


One of the things that drew me into the Ra Material is their acknowledgement that the rational mind is an intrinsic and important element in the life of the seeker. A good way to train and improve one’s rational mind is the pursuit of a scientific discipline. Ra says that the mental skills of being able “to structure abstract concepts and to analyze experiential data may be the key to rapid positive polarization”. That speaks to the usefulness of staying grounded and objective in one’s thinking processes.

Science is a tool, and just like any tool, it can be misused/misapplied. An over-imbalance in relying on science to interpret all aspects of the human experience would be limiting. As Ra puts it “without the acceptance by the rational mind of the worth of the intuitive faculty the creative aspects which aid in illumination will be stifled.

However, to completely divorce one’s self from looking at the world from a scientific perspective is also an imbalance. As Ra states, “In your illusion the unbridled predominance of intuition will tend to keep an entity from the greater polarizations due to the vagaries of intuitive perception.

So, the disciplined magician and the innovative scientist need both aspects, the intuition and the rational, for both spiritualism and scientism can become dogmatic without the melding of the two.


That’s correct.
But here (on this planet) the dogmatic science has the clear reason to suppress the spiritual evolution of mankind. It is the work of Orion and all other forces, that wants to keep the unintentional enslavement.
When you want to have Bioroboter, then it is not useful when the roboter is seeking for the creator and to find him as part of itself.

1 Like

I agree here. It is really the dogmatic attitude that pushes not only a spiritual path away, but any other view/approach. However, I would say that this is not so much science being overvalued, rather a specific worldview that one holds. This viewpoint may be formed by knowledge gained from the scientific method, but this (or any) viewpoint itself is not science.

Science a process, a way to journey to knowledge, not a set of facts or statements. I think the word scientism describes this attitude. This is the belief that science is the only path the understanding the creation. Perhaps it is more the scientism belief that is crowding out the spiritual view.

However, my cynical view is the types who are attracted to scientism in the modern world would be that same types attracted to dogmatic fundamentalist religious beliefs in the more primitive world. In either case they wouldn’t approach spirituality as a mode of “seeking the truth” as Ra would say.

1 Like

The german word “Wissen-schaft” (knowledge - created) describes it much better in this case.
Often science is used to create that what people should believe.

1 Like

Is it not the goals of the spiritualist/scientist here really that are in question.

If they are seekers of the truth then like all things a distortion towards any type of thinking better serves the seeking once balanced.

This is also something I found attractive in The Ra Material, and that quote sums it up perfectly. To me the approach taken by Don in his questioning and seeking was I think balanced well between scientific and spiritual. Perhaps this was one of the keys to the unique success the group had with the Ra contact.

Yes we live in a time where the grand narrative of the priestly/political class are woven from the cloth of knowledge gained from a scientific publication. Compare this to the past it was more commonly a religious text that the persist would use to “Wissen-schaft” the masses. The content may have changed the flavour, but the negative intent remains the same. Which you speak of in the quote below.

I just do not see science as a particularly unique tool for this enslavement and suppression of the law of one. Spirituality can, has been in the past, and is still used today to this end in many parts of this planet.

1 Like

Yes - of course.
I only want to remark to be critical with all informations that are presented to us.

On this I could not agree more.

1 Like

I think that science is misunderstood, rather than overvalued. Even by most scientists themselves.


I agree. It seems that the more expert one becomes in a scientific field, the more it is realised how little is known with absolute certainty. You can see this when scientific experts speak, they often come across as non-committal, interpreted as being vague and even unsure of themselves. Then the science reporter comes along and devises catchy titles and attention grabbing scientific claims. This can create distortions in the public of what science really is like.


Most people today do not understand that science is different than rationality

Reason and Logic exist outside the physical world, they are entirely metaphysical

Science itself is also metaphysical – as a branch of epistemology

Metaphysical questions involve a lot of reason and logic. This isn’t the same as “science”

Science, in practice, often rejects reason and logic in favour of crude observations anchored to ad hoc popular concepts. Scientist are poor at handling concepts but good at focusing on material phenomena


I was really influenced on my views about science from thinkers like Kuhn and Dawkins as well as Robert Anton Wilson and Ran Prieur. The latter wrote an essay that really expresses how I feel about all this:

What we call “science,” I call one kind of science, one grounded in the emotion of fear, and the political need to maintain stability. To be fair, so was the science it replaced, medieval Christian theology. And that science was worse in that it was more resistant to direct sense experience overturning established mental models.

But in other ways, medieval Christian theology was not as bad. I call our present science Cartesian science, after one of its founders, Rene Descartes, who got the idea from a non-ordinary experience in which an “angel” told him that the way to conquer nature is through number and measure. This is no different from JHVH telling Moses that the way to conquer other religions is by prohibiting graven images: It’s a suggestion, of esoteric origin, to arrange experience in a specific way to cause a specific deep change in human mental models and human behavior.

Our descendants will marvel, not that Descartes saw an angel, but that he was so twisted that he consciously wanted to conquer nature. And his idea worked: Cartesian science, by focusing strictly on the measurable and quantifiable, calls forth the enormous power of machines, while excluding emotions and values – except the emotion of taking pleasure in turning things into numbers, and the value of wanting numbers to be better.

To add a few notes on the end: I’m really convinced that the mindset of modern science is a powerful tool. I just have a problem with holding it supreme much as a religious fundamentalist would. And at the end of the day the thing that disciplines us to accept a world of dead matter where our only meaning comes from production is capitalism. Sorry to get political, but like it or not it is our economic order that creates the entire mentality we exist in, and part of that order is about doing science in big institutions like universities and government labs. Capitalism is what demands science minimize the pure research it does and maximize things that serve the interests of the funders. So even accepting the value of “cartesian science”, it gets twisted by the power structure. In fact I often consider the idea that our entire scientific model of the universe is defined by the type of research that favors big capital. That’s not how science (as we know it) started in the renaissance; it was much more individually directed, and the peer review was not so self-interested.

OK rant over

1 Like

I come to this topic from a different perspective. To me, the key flaw of scientific orthodoxy is the rejection of consciousness as a valid topic for study. The hammerlock on this has loosened some due to the oddities found by the quantum theorists and experimenters, but the general prohibition holds until now, so far as I can see.

If consciousness were properly studied, understood and taught, EVERYTHING in our experience would be different. Until then, this work is left to the very few. Consequently, the archaic organisation of the conscious apparatus of the remainder leaves their minds murky, clunky and unaware of a brighter alternative. (And by “bright” I do not mean clever, but light-filled.)



I always thought that the logical mind was far too valued in this society, and subjective knowing tends to be placed upon the wayside.

So I believe the logical/intuitive mind is very useful and helpful, but it is only a tool of the incarnation. The lengths that some go to prove things away logically or scientifically is rather embarrassing. As an example, watch any documentary about space exploration and they make statements like “There just might be other life out there.” And I go, “Uh huh. You just realized that now that you spent billions of dollars to take samples off of Venus, which is a burning mess on the surface and keeps melting the cameras after an hour.”

To me that just seems illogical, when subjective knowing can tell you so much more. To me, that is listening to your heart and knowing yourself to the point where logical knowing is only something that could potentially solidify what you already feel within your heart. It’s nice, but it’s not necessary.

1 Like

Yes - that’s it. Let us use this tool as best as possible.

1 Like