Reddit reviews Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery

There is zero evidence that something intelligent (nature, and consciousness) can come from something non-intelligent (the big bang). None. Yet somehow millions have been indoctrinated into such a preposterous belief system. It's because they do not think. They hear that scientists say it's true, and blindly believe it on faith alone! Please understand, scientism is nothing but a religion. It is the antithesis of science.

Scientists are largely controlled by two things - the state, and education (which is largely controlled by the state). Any researchers/scientists/universities who don't stick to the program receive no funding. This is why you must obediently preach the bang theory, Darwinism, Newtonian mechanics, the heliocentric model, etc. Questioning any of these dogmas leads to immediate ridicule and ostracism. Scientists are just people. They want to fit in, and make money. Most are not being deceptive. They've just been duped into thinking that certain things are already settled. When something doesn't fit what is "already settled", they invent complete nonsense (e.g. "dark matter" and "dark energy") to make it fit, rather than to question what is supposedly already settled.

Here's a good book on this from a real scientist. Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake: https://www.amazon.com/Science-Set-Free-Paths-Discovery/dp/0770436722

Another good one is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton: https://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwinism-Richard-Milton/dp/0892818840

>I feel like I am coming to my own conclusion that life ends with eternal oblivion and there is no rebirth; that the mind is dependent on the brain, which while containing petabytes of data is still finite, and that karma and sankaras only apply to this life.

There is not one shred of evidence in neuroscience that the mind is a mere epiphenomenon or exclusively the product of the brain. There are gatekeepers in the neuroscience community however, like Paul and Patricia Churchland, Daniel Dennet, Francis Crick (when he was alive) who bully the rest of the field into submission with threats of ridicule and marginalization every time their theories diverge too far from strict materialism. The only "evidence" provided is that they think, even though we still know so little, that the brain is sufficiently complex to produce a "mind," therefore that must be the answer. This is not proof, but simply prejudice (the field cannot even provide a hard definition of "mind" or "consciousness," let alone prove them).

You might also think about the utter ridiculousness and counter-intuitive conclusions forced by a materialistic worldview with regard to free will vs. determinism. Strict materialism demands the preposterous idea of determinism despite: 1. being in conflict with every single person's subjective experience, 2. all of these neuroscientists live their personal lives and manage their careers transgressing what they profess, that is on the basis of assuming free will, and 3. the pragmatic uselessness or perniciousness materialism/determinism offers to people trying to lead happy lives.

You might be mistaking science for a lapse into scientism, a worldview, even religion of sorts, that's not even in agreement with cutting edge science. A scientist that could give you a fresh perspective is Rupert Sheldrake. I think his books and ideas serve as a useful tonic for westerners who have been inundated with a scientistic worldview. A couple of suggestions:

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Delusion-Rupert-Sheldrake/dp/144472794X/ref=la_B000AQ3F38_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417150402&sr=1-7

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Set-Free-Paths-Discovery/dp/0770436722/ref=la_B000AQ3F38_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417150402&sr=1-1

What if atheism said, "There is no evil." Not that atheism is a unified doctrine.

However I know that mankind has existential questions and eternity on his heart and mind.

I would argue that religion has not retreated anywhere even though the "God of the Gap's Fallacy" is quite popular . The house of religion and the house of science are currently separate and apart. Western Civilization has only been around about 2,000 years and science still has a long way to go. Many things that science teaches today will be supplanted by new learning. Eventually I predict the two houses Science and Religion will harmoniously merge together, but not until further into the future when science gets some of the basic fundamentals figured out.

If you are intellectually bright and well versed in science, I recommend this book by Sheldrake:

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Set-Free-Paths-Discovery/dp/0770436722

This is the most difficult book I have ever read and looks at what we believe to be true (dogmas) and takes it through the lenses of multiple ism's (materialism) and asks really, really tough questions.

Here is a link to his censored TED talk: https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

Yes, the enlightened folks at TED took down his talk because it was so provocative in deconstructing what science believes. Basically, the scientific community want apeshit nuts and accused him of spreading lies, misinformation, and unscientific nonsense.

Check out the censored TED talk and reply back.