Conscious Science

November 2, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Category: Unconscious

Physicists studying the origins and evolution of the universe are often more than a little bit perplexed by the astonishing demands of extremely small things, for example, teeny gravitation degrees that, if different, would make the universe fall apart.  When forming theories of how the universe might be organized, physicists hypothesize and pray that an affordable experiment can support their supposition.  The universe is extremely picky.  We don’t know why.  We’re trying to figure out how we manage to exist.

Praying is not usually part of the equation.  Yet, some folks that pray conduct their own experiments, paying close attention to how exactly they’ve communicated with god on those occasions when he seemed to answer.  Noting when a particular manner of supplication seemed to evoke the desired response, the person praying tried that technique again so that the prayee would continue to positively respond.

Systematic behavior, paying close attention to results, is not the exclusive domain of scientists.

What strikes me as kind of odd is that physicists and evolutionary biologists don’t seem to play with the idea of god when running mental experiments of how the world works.  There is the universe hypothesized to have no god, which is the presuppositional foundation of contemporary theorizing.  And there are human social universes with many variations of deity.  Why not form theories of the universe or theories of evolution with varying features of deity and then look for a god/universe combination that could contribute to our understanding of how things work and offer some predictive power?

In other words, assign a number of features or characteristics to god, assorted in different fashions, looking for a deity that would be complimentary to what we know of macro, micro and biological evolution.  Thinking outside the box would be bringing god into the equation.  Assuming that there is no god when conducting experiments or forming hypotheses seems to me to be conducting research without a thorough examination of founding presuppositions.  God is bad because god influences data arbitrarily or offers explanations with no insight into structure or organization.  Well, get rid of that god.  Try another god with different features.  One that’s not so moody.

I admit that I’m partial to the god that I discover on those occasions that I’m not indulging in being normal.  That god seems to have few features, and my ability to discern them is somewhat compromised by my playing while I’m there.  Nevertheless, I deeply suspect that consciousness will eventually demand participation in our understanding of how evolution unfolds.  Time will likely be the doorway through which these variables emerge.  As we become adept at stepping out of time, we’ll become more facile with cosmological and biological equations, processes that unfold inside and outside the medium of time.

What I’m saying here is that god is useful, not just beautiful.  It’s time we got practical about science and start paying attention to inconvenient truths.  I would begin with a hypothesis that consciousness exists.  I am, therefore I think.


Name (required)

Email (required)


Share your wisdom