Is science atheistic?

Roger's last objection is the most modern of all. The answer distinguishes science from the dogma that sometimes speaks in its name.

Roger, intrigued, says: — But Tom, if these investigations exist and are conducted by serious scientists at respected universities and published in leading scientific journals, why are they not accepted by the entire scientific community?

— That is a very pertinent question, Roger, and the reasons are several. First, there is a deeply rooted scientific prejudice — many scientists start from the conclusion that consciousness is a product of the brain and analyse any contrary evidence with that conclusion already formed. That is not science, it is dogma in scientific language. Second, there are religious prejudices — and this may seem surprising, but there are scientists tied to Catholic or Protestant churches for whom reincarnation is a heresy, and this unconsciously influences the way they assess the evidence. Third, there is a career problem — a scientist who publishes investigations on the survival of consciousness risks being marginalised by his peers, losing funding, and seeing his academic reputation compromised. The professional price of going against the dominant consensus is very high. Fourth, there is simply a lack of interest — many scientists consider the subject irrelevant to their fields of investigation and have never studied it seriously. And finally, there is the problem of method — traditional science was built to study the material and measurable world. Phenomena that transcend matter challenge the very instruments and methods of conventional science. That does not mean they do not exist — it means they require broader and more humble methods of investigation.

Excerpt from the work The Great Discovery, by César Manuel Malainho de Oliveira.
Read the full work · Listen to the work