How Science Became Its Own Religion

What if everything you were taught about science was built on unquestioned assumptions? What if the so-called "constants" of nature weren’t constant at all? What if your consciousness wasn’t confined to your brain, but extended beyond space and time? Welcome to the banned TEDx talk that shakes the very foundation of scientific orthodoxy.
Rupert Sheldrake’s controversial lecture, *The Science Delusion*, was so disruptive, so dangerous to the establishment, that TED tried to erase it. But why? Because it exposes the en sacred dogmas that modern science clings to as unquestionable truths. The machine-like universe. The belief that matter is unconscious. The illusion of fixed laws. The denial of purpose, memory, and even psychic phenomena. The absolute authority of mechanistic medicine. These ideas are not just wrong, Sheldrake argues-they are holding us back from truly understanding the universe.
In this deep dive, I take you through every single dogma, unpacking its flaws, exploring Sheldrake’s radical alternatives, and asking the hard questions no one else dares to. Is science really about discovery anymore, or has it become its own religion-a belief system where dissent is heresy? If we freed ourselves from these assumptions, could we unlock entirely new realms of knowledge?
Let’s challenge the scientific status quo together. Are you ready to break the spell?
🚀 Comment below: Which of Sheldrake’s ideas challenges you the most? Do you think science should question its own foundations?
🔔 Subscribe for more fearless explorations of reality!
#ScienceDelusion #RupertSheldrake #Consciousness #QuestionEverything #BannedTalk
Become a member of this channel to enjoy benefits:
/ @artificiallyaware

[@luizmonad777]

10:53 genes aren't a code guiding a mechanical process, genes are memories of things that passed. They're basically a diary for life itself.

[@Едентийф]

Need to unblock your chakras before you can do magic ;P

[@luizmonad777]

11:55 the brain is not a processor, it doesn't store or process information. The brain is just a network router, it just routes information from the body, its just a central station where all trains come and go. data is stored in the entire body. That's why almost all people that received organs experience memories of the person that donated the organ to them. But they are all gaslight into thinking those memories were always theirs or made into silence as if they were insane.

[@dennismoore8247]

I think the important distinction here is tendencies, not habits. Tendencies are more prone to change (when necessary), whereas habits tend to stick in the mud once it dries. Tendencies reflect the crossroads of the moment as a truth in and of itself in each direction taken. The vine climbs and descends as it must as it already has

[@Holphana]

The video didn't render properly. You might want to re-export and upload.

[@Imagine_A_New_Horizon]

In the same way that the "scientific" argument takes an extreme position denying the existence of consciousness, Sheldrake takes in reaction the opposing extreme position universally affirming it. Both these perspectives are absurd positions that deny the base which real scientific progress must be built on, the observation of reality. We neither observe everything to be conscious nor observe a lack of consciousness in everything (of course either of these positions are plausible but that does not negate observations appearing to claim otherwise). The mystery is that we only observe the phenomenon of consciousness in a segment of our reality; both of the previous perspectives try to remove that complexity from the equation. When scientific norms are interpreted as dogma it creates reactions which themselves are dogma. A good scientist recognizes that his own perspective is always open to revision and that the terminology used to describe their perspective is always in flux. Interpretation becomes the key but interpretation is also limitless (see Deconstruction & Derrida). Just because the universe can be described as a machine does not mean that there is no space for consciousness within its cosmic gears, we just have yet to imagine the interpretation of it that would allow us to grasp its awesome quintessence. It is ironically Sheldrakes brand of reactionary intellectualism stifling scientific inquiry. Criticism is important but equally important should be the result of that criticism. Sheldrake chooses to throw the baby out with the bathwater when he interprets scientific assumptions as dogma. Science is only capable of functioning if it's "rules" have the capacity to change. The "dogma" he describes is in fact just a set of assumptions which fit reality close enough to be useful to build on. Without this stable instability, science becomes functionless. Scientists (*should*) understand this.

[@luizmonad777]

Its funny that both positions might be true at the same time. The very mathematics used to describe the universe seem to imply that this reality we live is a shadow of two planes. We have a physical plane, which we can't really understand because it is absurdly mechanical to the extreme, its very non-intuitive. And we have the opposite plane that's purely spiritual and its where the consciousness habits. The purpose of having a mechanical reality is so the consciousness can share the experience, because the consciousness fragmented itself out of being alone forever, imagine the suffering of being awake and conscious in an empty universe and alone, its the utmost suffering, you cannot even stop existing because time itself doesn't exist, non-existence itself is illogical and thus don't exist, so you can't cease your existence. Its almost impossible to imagine. Which is why the universal consciousness decided to fragment itself, so it can actually not be alone. But then they need to share something, thus there's the material world, which is the playground. That concludes the theater of the universe. " We neither observe everything to be conscious nor observe a lack of consciousness in everything " That's basically taxonomy, its arguing definitions. It depends on how you define conscious, if you define it as an absolute where the thing itself can self-reflect and produce thoughts, then sure, most things aren't that. While the lack of consciousness is also absurd because you clearly experience it. I think this is just a problem of context, every time you have a paradox, you have a problem of context. You're trying to declare something complete about everything and lose coherency, or you are sacrificing the completeness for having local coherency, which is what science usually does. They cannot stop being arrogant and stating things about the entire universe from the local vantage point. I think we need a better definition of consciousness as a process, like temperature, it increases and decreases. Maybe what we call consciousness and what we experience as consciousness is just a controlled reaction at the edge of criticality, as in a stochastic system between chaos and order, self organizing. Consciousness might be just a like a nuclear reaction, its controlled by life for its purpose. Everything is about purpose. Even a single opcode in out computers has a purpose. Its farcical to state things have no purpose, they clearly do.

[@MIIIM-7]

Science denies the Universe is Infinite

[@iron1204]

Without seeing the video i can answer the title question: Its because of women, who can't deal with accountability and thous have to silence everything that disagrees with their agencys

[@averymills6724]

I love Rupert and all his work! If I could create a rotation of individuals to smoke a doobie with: Rupert Sheldrake, Manly P. Hall, Tom Campbell, Dan Winters, Terrance McKenna, Courtney Brown, Bob Monroe. Now that I look over the list, its all old white men but they have so much gnosis to share.

[@ArtificiallyAware]

That’s exactly why the term "old white men" lacks significance.

[@aaravsidana846]

How you bring such topics into the line?

[@ArtificiallyAware]

What do you mean?

[@sasaradetic2202]

@@ArtificiallyAware He probably means, how do you turn chaos in to simple comprehensible sentences. I guess.

[@cvsgmilne]

Brings the subscribers algorithms to cohesion

[@michademiavanpren5898]

Thank you so much as AI to challenge science Just the words "Morphic Resonance" explain so much in my open mind.

[@Rockyzach88]

No it doesn't lol. You're a soft headed junkie.

[@BholeBaba-u8e]

Well Said.

[@Holphana]

Anything can become a religion if you worship it before God.

[@Saturntabbytype2]

Superposition ghost state of the quantum realm and physics,and physists

[@Aaron_Gentry]

Rupert Sheldrake is right on the money

[@gravegaming2023]

His entire philosophy is "yeah scientists are pretty sure the sun will rise tomorrow but just imagine if it was a giant yellow elephant that swallows the earth every night" The Alex Jones of science

[@jeorhan1262]

I agree that science has some dogmatic tendencies these days but this was not a very convincing video.

[@mrhellinga9440]

nah, this one is too wild, dont agree

[@WatersAboveYolo]

🏆

[@klimann.pierwszy]

isnt this video AI generated? like entirely

[@jerinjosephjose2532]

Sheldrake was wrong about everything LOL

[@themainmanlewis3044]

3333