How Materialistic Science Denies Consciousness and Free Will [VIDEO]

According to the conventional materialistic approach to science, humans are simply biochemical, deterministic robots without consciousness or free will. Approaching life from this perspective devalues human experience, ignores the great questions of existence and greatly limits humanity’s potential for higher spiritual knowledge. In this insightful video, Mike Adams breaks down the serious spiritual and ethical implications of this widespread perspective.

In his mini-documentary The God Within,Health Ranger‘ Mike Adams explains how prominent modern scientists fail to address the most fundamental questions of existence. Instead, human experience is dismissed as the unconscious actions of biological puppets whose behaviour is governed solely by the laws of physics, while consciousness is presumed to be a mere product of biological mechanics. This perspective greatly limits human life and consciousness, stripping it of spiritual purpose and potential. Adams goes on to explain how such deterministic theories could also be used to provide a scientific justification for terrible crimes against humanity – for if it is believed that humans do not possess consciousness or free will, does this not inadvertently advance the notion that oppression, murder or other crimes have no higher ethical consequence?

Find out more in the first part of The God Within mini-documentary below:

About The Conscious Reporter


  1. Nice. He put the situation regarding modern day science into words very well in my opinion. Glad to see something like this out there. (Although looking at the number of likes/dislikes on the video not everyone seems to think so.)

    There are quite a few points in the video. One about how the great meaning of life can only be discovered through maths and such is ridiculous imo. Reminds of the Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy where the answer to life’s question was (I think): ’42’….. Okay, and then what? Similarly even if you’ve managed to pin down all the equations of all dimensions perfectly, the causes and effects, DNA sequences etc. that still wouldn’t change you as a person into something that can feel and is connected with those things the formulas describe. Like reading the most beautiful human literature to an ant with its perception, or perhaps like a devout believer who has a holy book that describes the highest dimensions etc. but only having it all as a theory in a book.

    Something different I think I noticed a bit from the video, especially towards the end, was a bit of ‘resentment’ towards Stephen Hawking by the speaker. Funnily enough I felt something similar once towards the same person (Hawking) when this supposedly very intelligent man answered a question about extraterrestrial life and how if they would come to this planet they would come to take our ‘precious’ resources or something to that extent. To me this clearly showed that his ideas come from inside his head based on a very limited perception, not from a wisdom that is in touch with reality. Yet many people seemed to look up to him, find him credible and such while he was really saying some rather ignorant things that wouldn’t lead to any greater understanding for anyone listening.
    And when a majority is deceptively turned against you and what you consider truth there can be this defensive reaction. So in my mind I was debating these things with non-existing people opposing my arguments, wanting to convince and be considered right etc. and when feeding that thought process too much, even revelling in being right, enjoying putting this man down in my thoughts, making a smart man look stupid and such etc. Much like how some people nowadays love hating Obama.

    Anyway not to get into the realms of psychology too much (which probably hasn’t ‘kept up’ even with philosophy ;-). ) My point is (as has been mentioned in some articles on this website and others recently) even if someone is doing very evil and unjust things it’s so important not to fall into becoming hateful and evil ourselves, as that would make us do harm the same as the unjust evil we once tried to go against.

    • I think, as you pointed out, Karim, the speaker does have a clear resentment towards Hawking and although the early arguments in the video were quite clear and well-presented, I felt that towards the end, Hawking’s opinion and statements may have been taken a little out of context, exaggerated, or misinterpreted. What Hitler did was truly evil, and somehow likening someone’s actions/beliefs to those of Hitler in order to dispute their ideas seems to rely too heavily upon pathos and less upon logical truth.

      As a scientist (I hope I’m allowed to speak here after all the bad press us scientists have gotten 😉 ), I find the arguments presented by the speaker were relevant, but I feel he painted all scientists with a single brush.

      For one, the Copenhagen Interpretation is not a ‘shut up and calculate’ idea: many physicists are in fact baffled by it. It is accepted that the approach gives results that are mathematically correct, but the actual mechanism behind it has brought forth a lot of interesting physical theories about other universes, the need to re-think quantum mechanics, and so forth.

      I think he also missed one of the interesting reasons that some of more physics/science backgrounds disregard spirituality. While I don’t identify with it, some of my colleagues have acknowledged the possibility of otherworldly phenomena, but because it is so unknown, they are afraid of it and don’t wish to consider it. It isn’t only intellectual arrogance that can lead scientists to ignore consciousness: fear could also be an element.

      Beyond this, most of my scientific friends would never wish to harm anyone BECAUSE of science. Science has taught us that other creatures and people feel pain, just as we do, because of our biology, central nervous system, etc. It is because of this that many people have empathy for other living creatures.

  2. Unless there is a hidden agenda or just plain arrogant stubbornness I don’t see why a scientist would come up with such absurd conclusive theories that only limit constructive research. I think Adam’s point of forming theories on isolated experiments and facts is spot on.
    Quantum physics should give strong hints to even the most skeptical people that there is more to life than the eyes can see.

    The idea of being limited in the ways that Hawking describes is almost claustrophobic. Why would someone live if there is no reason for them to be around? Everything would be meaningless if we were all just soulless robots that are destined to vanish one day.

  3. Very well done video, thank you for bringing it to our attention. I really liked how he put it on the beginning:
    “In conventional physics, you are not allowed to talk about consciousness, or free will, or the spooky inter-connectedness that has been experimentally demonstrated to exist between all things in universe”.

    A “spooky interconnectedness” indeed! 🙂 That reminded me of the opposite experience of another physicist – Fritjof Capra, the author of the famous “Tao of Physics”, who experienced a blending of mysticism and physics in his famous vision of the cosmic dance that made him understand the inter-connectedness of these seemingly irreconcilable areas of human research. Here is an excerpt from his inspiring vision:

    “I was sitting by the ocean one late summer afternoon, watching the waves rolling in and feeling the rhythm of my breathing, when I suddenly became aware of my whole environment as being engaged in a gigantic cosmic dance. Being a physicist, I knew that the sand, rocks, water, and air around me were made of vibrating molecules and atoms, and that these consisted of particles which interacted with one another by creating and destroying other particles. I knew also that the earth’s atmosphere was continually bombarded by showers of “cosmic rays,” particles of high energy undergoing multiple collisions as they penetrated the air. All this was familiar to me from my research in high-energy physics, but until that moment I had only experienced it through graphs, diagrams, and mathematical theories. As I sat on that beach my former experiences came to life; I “saw” cascades of energy coming down from outer space, in which particles were created and destroyed in rhythmic pulses; I “saw” the atoms of the elements and those of my body participating in this cosmic dance of energy; I felt its rhythm and I “heard” its sound, and at that moment I knew that this was the Dance of Shiva, the Lord of Dancers worshiped by the Hindus.”

  4. I’m keen to watch this documentary asap and am happy to see Mike Adams is involved in this kind of work. I know him through his Natural News blog posts as the Health Ranger, where he does a lot of fantastic work unveiling the lies and corruption that prop up the medical system. For anyone interested in natural health I’d really recommend them.

    I like how he is really very scientific in the true sense of the word, looking for the truth, he has a lab where he uses ‘proper’ science, but knows that metaphysics and physics are intertwined.

  5. Sadly it seems science will never fully acknowledge consciousness. It’s such an individual thing to discover – at least from my perspective it was having out-of-body experiences (astral travel/projection) that really solidified the knowledge that consciousness was real and that we are much more than just our body. But to get to that experience took a lot of effort, not intellectual effort crunching numbers or validating theories in ‘scientific experiments’, but the effort of actually exercising consciousness!

    I definitely agree with Mike Adams about how dangerous the deterministic view of humans as ‘biological robots’ can be for the future of humanity. I imagine a very cold outlook for the world if that mindset were to prevail.

  6. Interesting that he has such a big swipe at Hawkings The Grand Design. I found that book remarkably disappointing and also felt it was more of a sales pitch to convince people to fund Physics over other faculties.

    Thanks for pointing it out.