Professor Richard Dawkins - Photo Credit: Alex Folkes/Fishnik Photography, originally uploaded by Liberal Democrats

Author: Michael Austin

My big concern is to look at the foundations of our thinking, because all too often we accept it without thinking! And one of the very interesting things this lets us do is to explore some of the assumptions made about reason itself. This in turn highlights some of the deep dilemmas in Richard Dawkins’ thinking.

I suggest it is fair to say that in The God Delusion Richard Dawkins presents his atheism as a vehement protest against theism. If ‘atheism’ refers to the belief system that denies the existence of the living God of biblical revelation, any reading of his book quickly shows that Dawkins’ atheism is focused. And it is focused on what he most dislikes – biblical Christianity.

Something deep is going on here – Dawkins’ atheism is on the horns of a giant dilemma that he may not readily acknowledge. That when he works to deny theism he assumes the legitimacy of his reason, either without knowing or admitting that it flows directly from the foundational beliefs of biblical theism. A closer look shows that Richard Dawkins’ arguments for atheism – ‘borrow’ is not too strong – their apparent legitimacy from the position it attacks. Dawkins’ atheism defines itself in terms of the theism that it denies.

Atheism is no ordinary sort of belief! It is unable to advance its own independent vision of reality; and instead must always frame its position in terms of the one it denies. Atheism cannot stand-alone, and while it claims to be a final reference point, always sustains itself from its central denial. Atheism must always be the arch-opponent of theism!

You don’t need to be an astute observer of human nature to see that Dawkins’ vitriolic antagonism towards theism is inclined to be obsessive. Perhaps he knows that as an atheist he has no final basis for the validity of his own reason, and ultimately he cannot escape being self-contradictory. Dawkins needs an understandable reality, borrowed from theism in order to deny theism.

When an atheist like Dawkins says that his capacity for reasoned thinking is grounded in chemistry, he jumps way beyond the remit of chemistry in trying to deny theism. Can the microbiology of his brain cells offer evidence to support atheism? Does non-material information just conveniently drop out of whirling molecules? My answer is, ‘No, they don’t’.

There is another very simple explanation for this conundrum. Dawkins is a man in God’s world, who breathes theistic air and who uses the validity of reason that is inherent in his humanity.

But Dawkins knows that if he is going to deny theism, he must reverse all he knows about God and turn it into denials. So, it’s not surprising to see why he gets so passionate about trying to demolish theism. And he must work hard, trying to block out all of the light that shines in God’s wonderful world, including the light in his own mind and conscience.

Atheism is a leaky vessel, and Dawkins has his work cut out in trying man all the pumps and stop up all the fast-leaking holes. But in spite of which, Dawkins still loves life because so much of it is full of the goodness and wisdom of God. Atheists see it everywhere – in their wonder at the marvels of creation, in their joy of friendship and family, and in their strong, one might nearly say, ‘absolute’ preference of honesty, loyalty, to be valued, and understood by others. Atheists breathe God’s air, take the gifts for granted, and somehow learn to survive with the tensions and dark dilemmas.

Deep down, does Dawkins show us a compelling case that atheism is utterly reasonable? Think it through with him and soon most sensible people will cut free from their pernicious nonsense and begin to enjoy the exhilarating air of atheism’s pure reasonableness. Mind you, that’s not his style, and I doubt whether Dawkins is out to convert people to atheism on the basis of its utter reasonableness.

Indeed, from the way Dawkins writes, there is something still deeper going on. He goes for the jugular, and calls the people he hopes to reason with, ‘faith-heads’ and ‘wingnuts’ suffering from ‘a pernicious delusion.’ Is this his last resort at shock treatment before the eminent doctor admits that neo-Darwinian atheism isn’t the wonderful panacea for all the world’s ills that his dreams have cherished?

Dawkins gives away his serious dilemma about the ultimate Identity when he dismisses God as a ‘figment’ and then heaps his invective against Christian theism. Do people usually get so superheated about ‘figments of the imagination’ that don’t fit their worldview?

Besides, does Dawkins offer a plausible reason for such an awesome reality being here in the first place? In the final analysis, Dawkins shows a marked hostility towards the utter realism of the historic Christian position. Do his arguments rationally demolish biblical theism, and sustain atheism, as something you could anchor your thinking upon to make sense of reality? No, they merely tell us he prefers to deny theism, and call it science. Well, which is it to be – science or philosophy? Dawkins is never quite sure.

About the Author:

Michael Austin is a Christian writer, apologist & Gospel worker – he currently holds a Masters Degree in theology & has recently completed a PhD.

Michael Austin is the author of a number of published works in the battle for reason & sound thinking in the wake of postmodernism. His life experience has also covered a variety of other fields – with a background as a Research & development engineer he has a strong regard for science but believes it always demonstrates the greatness of God in creation.

He is also an inventor & mentioned on a number of patents making a contribution to medical science – his work includes improvements & developments in stents – small devices inserted as permanent implants by less invasive surgical techniques – mainly related to a US multi-national Company.

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Dawkins’ Dilemmas Deluded or not deluded? — That is the question!

Reality Films

Title: Science of Soul: The End-Time Solar Cycle of Chaos in 2012 A.D.
Author: John Jay Harper
Director: Philip Gardiner
Media: DVD
Producer: Reality Films
Total time: 62:25

Will humanity experience a quantum leap of consciousness around 2012 or will this be the year of our collective undoing?

Closely following his book Tranceformers: Shamans of the 21^st Century, Dr. John Jay Harper’s Science of Soul: The End-Time Solar Cycle of Chaos in 2012 A.D. asks this and other compelling questions.

Science of Soul’s innovative graphics and hip soundtrack set the mood for an exploration into the mythic symbol of the axis mundi (world axis) and possible links among human DNA, psi and global transformation.

This DVD should sit well with those embracing the philosophy of natural pantheism, where the universe is taken to be God and therefore conscious.

By way of contrast, believers in theism (where God and creation are seen as ‘wholly other’) might find it challenging.

Regardless of one’s core beliefs, Science of Soul carries an ethical message that few would dispute: To love and live peacefully among ourselves.

It’s probably just a matter of time before Science of Soul’s integral approach is embraced by the equally opinionated gatekeepers of both science and religion.

But a comprehensive gelling of Big Science and Big Religion might take a little longer than most of us would like, given the deeply entrenched historical biases that continue to inform our 21^st century worldview.

We shouldn’t be discouraged, however.

As a catalyst for this much-needed dialogue, Science of Soul is a definite step in the right direction.

–MC

Alternative energy gift guide - Solar, wind, fuel cell, biodiesel and more...: pt / phillip torrone

By: Edward Hunter

Alternative energy is defined as energy that comes from a natural source and is renewable or naturally occurring. Alternative energy typically does not produce pollution and comes from such sources as the sun, wind, and water.

There have been many recent innovations to alternative energy as a result of expanding alternative energy technologies.

Alternative energy technologies have made it possible to do much more research on how to use the alternative energy sources that we have more effectively to generate the most power out of the various sources.

Alternative energy technologies have also been instrumental in discovering new ways to produce heating fuels, such as bio-diesel, methanol, and ethanol from bio-mass for energy consumption.

It is imperative that companies who are dedicated to alternative energy options continue to develop their alternative energy technologies to keep up with the demand to make alternative energy more readily accessible to a larger amount of people as the dwindling supply of fossil fuels and concerns over our dependence on foreign oils drives many more people towards considering alternative energy sources.

In recent years alternative energy technologies have propelled bio-mass and bio-deisel into the fore front of the alternative energy movement. Biotechnology has become an extremely important area of research and development as a result of the record high gas and heating fuel prices.

Biomass is organic material made from plants or animals that originates from agricultural and forestry residue as well as municipal and industrial wastes and terrestrial and aquatic crops. Through the use of alternative energy technologies bio-mass has been able to be transferred into usable fules such as methane, ethanol, dio-deisel, methanol and biocrude.

These products are viable and readily available alternatives to pertroleum and gasoline. Through the use of alternative energy technologies bio-mass has also been found to be a source of biopower. Biopower uses biomass to produce electricity using alternative energy technologies such as direct firing, co-firing, gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion.

The direct firing method biomass is burned to produce steam. The steam drives a turbine that turns a generator to convert power into electricity. Without alternative energy technologies it would be much more difficult to develop new ways to use the resources that are available naturally.

Alternative energy technologies also make it possible to discover new ways to develop alternative energy and make it more user friendly and efficient in usage and installation.

Alternative energy technologies truly are changing the face of the alternative energy movement and creating more innovative ways to use natural resources as well as providing new products that rely on alternative energy as their source of power.

About the Author:

Learn more about alternetive energy at Energy4Freedom.com

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Biotechnology in Renewable Energy Resources

ze New Atheism: ~C4Chaos ~C4無秩序

By: Richard Aberdeen

No one knows for certain who designed Stonehenge or the pyramids of Egypt or, exactly how they were constructed. Yet, no archaeologist or historian has ever proposed they appeared on their own, without input from designers or builders.

Such universal assumption is the most likely conclusion given the known evidence and, much of what science “believes” is based on similar assumptions. Even though people can create things that can repair and even create other things by themselves, all known evidence indicates no finite living being or object can exist without a creator.

Descartes first principle of philosophy, science and reason states: “Accept nothing as true that is not self-evident”. The history of science tracing prior to ancient Greece on into the present, is a history of the most likely conclusion based on the current known evidence.

Just as all evidence indicates for every action there is a re-action, likewise all evidence indicates nothing can be in motion by its own volition. All known evidence indicates a universe filled with “zillions” of complex parts within ever greater complexity of parts and, containing intelligent finite beings of conscience and conscious awareness, requires Creative Intelligence. Thus, the correct postulate of true science is “Eternal Creator(s)” until proven otherwise.

Pretending that “science” is somehow different than belief in God is an obvious lie. Just as scientists “believe” in black holes and invisible light based on mirrored evidence, much more so, mirrored evidence of a Creator(s) is overwhelmingly self-evident. And, just as if someone claims the earth is cube-shaped or, A2 + B2 does not equal C2, the burden of proof remains on atheists, because all known evidence indicates the opposite conclusion.

According to Jesus, as well as many historical scientists and sages of note, basic to wisdom, education and survival itself, is to attempt to sort out what is actually true, from whatever fiction the cultures and religions we are born into claim is true. As Jesus implied, if we do not know what is true, we have no hope of being free.

Creation: Sherman Tan

Believing the earth is square doesn’t change the reality of the shape of the earth. What is true about the earth remains the same, regardless of what we believe or, fail to believe. Whether we categorize something as “science”, “religion”, “history” or anything else, what is actually true remains the same.

Someone can’t just assume a steel ball and feather will fall at the same rate of speed and call it a “scientific theory”, without significant supporting evidence. There is nothing more unscientific and irrational than pretending there is no God, because all known evidence indicates the opposite conclusion.

If someone says they do not know if there’s a God, perhaps they just need to get out and smell the roses once in a while. However, if someone says there is no Creator, they are by all scientific and other rational default, plainly a liar, because there is no evidence to support such an absurd position.

Is atheism scientific? You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article:
http://www.freedomtracks.com/500/atheism.html

About the Author:

Richard Aberdeen

Nashville author, songwriter and homeless advocate.

www.RichardAberdeen.com

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – IS ATHEISM SCIENTIFIC?

Spine: filipe ferreira

By: Andy Pakula

Before I became a Unitarian minister, I was a scientist – a Ph.D. biologist. Ministry and science is an interesting combination – two fields that sometimes conflict and sometimes make for the most wonderful of synergies. I know a great deal about how living things work – about the chemistry and mechanics that life uses to sustain itself. I know a lot about how living things interact with one another.

The fact that this is in my background may make you feel that you can trust what I say about the world a bit more or it may make you feel more distrustful. The confidence we once had in scientists and science has vanished. Hostility and fear have largely taken its place.

There was a time when society was enraptured with the potential of modern technology. As we saw diseases cured that had for millenia brought human misery, there was a sense that we – through the intelligence of humanity – could be our own saviours – we imagined that our science and technology would allow us to create a world of universal peace and prosperity. The horrors of the 20th century shattered this vision as we saw our technology turned to more and more effective means of killing and oppression.

The pendulum seems to be swinging to the opposite extreme now. Science and technology are often seen as evils today. As West argues, many of us have adopted a sense that what is natural is necessarily good. Anything else is bad. The word “unnatural” has come to mean wrong, dangerous, and perverted. West would clearly like to refute this extreme notion that identifies natural as good and anything that does not occur without human intervention as bad.

So would I.

To quote author and fellow Unitarian Kurt Vonnegut “If people think that nature is their friend, then they sure don’t need an enemy.”

Vonnegut’s take is a bit extreme. Nature is not our enemy. It is filled with beauty and wonder and our tradition has long understood the natural world to contain the image of the sacred, perhaps more than anywhere else. And yet, there can be no doubt that nature is not entirely benign.

As a scientist, I learned about thousands of dangerous natural substances. One of the most potent cancer-causing agents in the world is a chemical called aflatoxin. It is not produced in some shiny chemical plant. It is not a by-product of industry. It is produced by a naturally-occurring kind of fungus that likes to grow on grain. Eating food contaminated the natural fungus that makes natural aflatoxin causes cancer.

Aflatoxin is a particularly extreme example, but it is not at all unique. Many plants, mushrooms, and animals are, of course, toxic. Even some foods we eat regularly, such as parsnips and potatoes produce their own toxins – probably as a way of protecting themselves from insects or microorganisms.

And finally, I must mention comfrey. You may know comfrey as a tall perennial plan with lovely little flowers. It is commonly used as a vegetable and made into a tea. For more than 2,000 years, comfrey has been used as an herbal medicine. It has been used to treat broken bones, ulcers, congestion, inflammation, and wounds. It is just the sort of thing that is popular today, where natural remedies tend to be trusted over something the doctor would provide. 2,000 years of experience – that has to count for something.

Well, whatever else comfrey may or may not do, it also damages your liver and contributes to the development of cancer. Comfrey is natural and it has a very long history of use. It is not, however, safe.

Synthetic drugs are tested using an incredibly exhaustive and expensive serious of chemical, animal, and human studies. Synthetic drugs are pure and guaranteed to be almost exactly the same every time you take them – no matter who makes them or which chemist you buy them from. Natural drugs are complex mixtures that can be very different in every batch. They undergo almost no testing.

I am very concerned about the natural food and medicine phenomenon. Sometimes, it is harmless to take a herbal medicine. Sometimes, though, we do irreparable damage to ourselves either because of side-effects of these natural potions or because we forgo a synthetic drug that could really help us because we have been led to be afraid of anything “unnatural.”

It is appealing to believe that natural is necessarily good. I understand myself to be a part of the natural world and I have a strong sense that all life is connected in some deep way. I sometimes find myself thinking that, because of this great communion, nature would not be in any way threatening. Indeed, it should be nurturing and restorative. It should provide a remedy for all of my ills. It is a comforting and deeply spiritual notion.

If we believe a traditional religious story of the origin of the world, God would certainly have made plants to suit our needs. In a more scientific world view, we might imagine that we would have a special relationship with plants that were around as we evolved. They might have adjusted to suit us and we to suit them. Mutually beneficial relationships do occur in the natural world. Some insects and flowers have developed such intricate and interdependent relationships that neither can live without the other! The plant could not be pollinated without its special insect and the insect would starve without its special plant.

But the reality is that we don’t benefit the plants and they did not evolve to benefit us. All of the drugs found in nature, such as penicillin, aspirin, some anticancer and cardiac drugs – are made by plants that evolved to produce them for some other purpose – usually to repel or kill some kind of invader – and we are just lucky that they have beneficial effects for us.

Just as natural materials are not necessarily good, unnatural ones are not necessarily bad. Synthetic medicines, as West points out, have extended our lives dramatically. They have literally transformed the nature of human life. Unless we are walking naked through an untouched primordial forest –we are making use of something or many things that are unnatural.

Patrick West says that we worship nature. He claims that we do so because we can no longer worship the traditional God and because we no longer trust scientists and doctors implicitly.

There is some truth to this claim. Human beings crave a simple organising principle. The world is immensely complex and becoming more so every day. Scientists and engineers dream up new things faster than we can keep track of them, much less know how to evaluate their safety. In response to such a complex and dynamic reality, some turn to fundamentalist religion and use scripture or religious dogma to help sort the things into categories that are easier to manage. Others turn to different simplifications, including the notion that nature is pure and good.

The duality of natural and unnatural is applied not only beyond us, but within us. Is the human character innately good or evil? This is a question that has been argued for centuries.

Today, a common notion has emerged that our character is intrinsically good – that it is by nature pure and true. Evil comes in only by that which is artificial and imposed upon us. As long as an aspect of our character is natural, this thinking would say, it is good.

I am reminded of when my son Jacob was very young. My wife and I were absolutely determined to keep him free from the contaminating influences of our culture’s violence and shallow values. There would be no telly in our home. The toys would all be wood – no artificial plastic stuff for this child. And most of all, there would be no weapons of any kind.

It was not long at all before our darling, pure, innocent Jacob was making anything and everything into a weapon. “We don’t have weapons in this family” we said, as we confiscated the toast he had bitten into the shape of a gun. “We don’t have weapons in this family” we said as he shaped his fingers into a gun and blasted away at us. “What are you going to do” he countered, “take away my finger?” At that point, we realised we were fighting a losing battle – not just against him, but against something that is hard-wired into us.

Human nature, I am convinced, is not purely good. Nature does not bestow upon us infinite goodness. Just as in the world beyond us, nature provides a complex mix of harmful and helpful, good and bad, constructive and destructive attributes and impulses.

It is human nature to be compassionate. It also appears to be human nature to fight one another. I believe that a sacredness, a goodness exists within each of us – call it dignity, call it soul, call it Atman, call it God – whatever you call it, it is there to be found in every heart. But the goodness is not all there is. We are innately capable of good and evil.

There will be no simple measuring stick for us to show us good from bad or right from wrong. Categories such as natural or scriptural that create simple black and white dualities will not be adequate signposts to show us the way.

Mary Oliver, in her poem, “At the Lake,” speaks rapturously of a natural event – a fish leaping through the air. She speaks of holiness and identifies it with the natural world.

The point is not the simple one that everything natural is holy and everything unnatural is not. It is more subtle. She writes:

“This is, I think, what holiness is:
the natural world,
where every moment is full of the passion to keep moving.”

The holiness of the natural world lies not in its naturalness alone, but in its motion. It is in the process of life – its exuberance and energy, its determination – that holiness is found. Goodness is to be identified in everything that shows us our unity, brings us together, creates understanding, and grows the living force of love in the world.

Dualities are for the solitary and untrusting. It is when we are alone that we must measure and determine for ourselves – when we turn to simplistic categories to guide us. It is when we can not trust others to carry out their roles responsibly that we must suspect everything and turn to simplifying dualities.

In community, we turn to one another. It is here, inspired by vision and bound together by love, that we learn what creates understanding, what creates trust, and what reveals our unity.

It is here that we begin to create the world we long to see.

About the Author:

Andrew Pakula is the Minister of the Newington Green and Islington Unitarians, a rapidly-growing, radically-inclusive, spiritual community in north London. He directs UKSpirituality.org, a not-for-profit association of quality providers of spiritual events, programmes, and workshops.

With a Jewish background and influences from many other religious traditions, his is a particularly open and eclectic approach to spirituality. Andrew believes that authentic spirituality provides a way of living deeply, meaningfully, and with connection, and that it offers an essential antidote to the busy, individualistic, materialistic culture in which we live.
http://www.ukspirituality.org
apakula@gmail.com

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Why natural is not necessarily good but you are sacred

self portrait: mc

Ever since I can remember, I have been fascinated with two topics, Zen and quantum physics. Along the way there have been many things that have caught my fancy, from writers, film makers, philosophers and psychologists. But I always come back to Zen and physics, especially quantum physics.

I don’t pretend that this essay is original, many have written on the topic with much more authority than me. Even though I have no scientific background, I will try and delve a little more deeply than books like The Secret with the topical quotes from ‘international coaches and speakers’ like (I am paraphrasing) “new discoveries in quantum physics prove that our thoughts create our realities” or from Ig Nobel prize winner Deepak Chopra for this brilliant piece of writing, which I found on Wikipedia,

“Quantum healing is healing the body mind from a quantum level. That means from a level which is not manifest at a sensory level. Our bodies ultimately are fields of information, intelligence and energy. Quantum healing involves a shift in the fields of energy information, so as to bring about a correction in an idea that has gone wrong. So quantum healing involves healing one mode of consciousness, mind, to bring about changes in another mode of consciousness, body.”

I think he was really burning the midnight oil, (and maybe some other substances) when he wrote that one. It is extremely easy to fall into ridiculous clichés when discussing these topics, but by doing so they lose all their mystery. Somehow, the subatomic world of quarks, photons and electrons is as wonderful as the Big Bang and Black Holes, Haikus and the Bodhidharma.

While classical physics, and even Relativity are understandable, if vaguely sometimes, the quantum mysteries are still mysteries for even the physicists themselves, and that I find very appealing. The key mystery for each human being is the origin and destiny of their own essence and what is our essence other than our consciousness? Consciousness, personal and impersonal, is the key to Zen. To become enlightened is to leave your personal consciousness and enter the universal consciousness. You realize you are not a pinky, but part of an entire body. Easy to conceptualize but very, very difficult to feel completely.

In quantum theory subatomic particles exist in probability waves, and are only defined when “something conscious” observes them. Otherwise they are everywhere and nowhere. This may be a simplification, but it captures the essence of the enigma. The famous phrase from Einstein about God not rolling the dice comes from this mystery. Einstein wanted a deterministic universe, but unfortunately, he didn’t get it. Schrodinger summed it up in his famous thought experiment about whether the cat is dead or alive. The thought experiment helps us to focus on the mystery of state. What state is the cat in before someone observes? It’s not clear.

Schrödinger, one of the founders of quantum theory, wrote:

“One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks”

Basically, the cat is neither alive nor dead till someone observes it. I love the last sentence. It captures the essence of quantum theory. The theory is clear, but the laws are ‘murky’ as Schrodinger puts it.

Applied quantum theory works wonderfully; it has enabled much technological advancement from microchips to lasers. There is no debate about whether it works or not. It is real. Most scientists spend their time on the practical applications and leave the “spooky” part to others. What has fascinated me is the idea that our consciousness plays an active role in creating reality. No one imagines the world will end when they die. It clearly continues once our consciousness disappears in death (I will assume here it does).

As a young history student, I was always fascinated by Calvin’s concept of pre-destination. I found it disturbing that we had no choice in the final outcome. God was all knowing, hence he knew before he created us whether we would be saved or not. In a sense, Einstein was a Calvinist, and the Niels Bohr, the principal figure in quantum theory, was a Catholic. The Catholic Church disputed the predestination theory, arguing the sacraments allowed a person to ‘choose’. A photon can be a particle, or it can be a wave. What converts it from wave to particle is some ways appears to be conscious observation.

The riddle of Zen is a different one. By ‘being’ the conscious observer, we ‘lose our consciousness’. The greatest obstacle to enlightenment is the ego. Zen also has its own thought experiments, Koans in the Rinzai tradition. A Koan is something that one meditates on, with the hope that at some point, the conscious egoic mind tires and breaks down and the truth hits you, but not through the thinking mind. The most famous Koan and the first one given to many students is Mu.

“A monk asked Zhaozhou, a Chinese Zen master (known as J?sh? in Japanese): “Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?”, Zhaozhou answered: “Wú” (in Japanese, Mu).”

Students will spend weeks, months, even years looking for “Mu”. But they will never find it with logic, they must transcend the logic.

One of the great axioms of Buddhism is Form is Emptiness, and Emptiness is Form. Try to imagine a circle drawn perfectly on a white piece of paper, in black ink. What is inside the black line is the form, the black line is the emptiness. Not easy? Does it remind you of the cat being alive and dead? To feel alive and enlightened I must fully realize that I don’t exist. Niels Bohrs said “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.”

Einstein said, “I can’t accept quantum mechanics because it involves spooky actions at a distance.” For example, two electrons from the same hydrogen atom fly out into space in different directions and they are millions of light years apart. Each has a ‘spin’, up or down let’s say. One must be up, and the other down, but we don’t know which is which until we measure. And once we measure one, the other one “somehow knows”. Einstein’s spooky action. Communication faster than the speed of light, or maybe some sort of movement back in time as some have suggested.

I wish I could offer the great unifying theory of Zen and Quantum Physics, but that would be like finally sleeping with my great unrequited love, and at this point, I prefer to maintain the mystery and keep her at a “spooky distance.”

CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE ROBERT BONOMO’S NOVEL, CACTUS LAND ON AMAZON

Read Robert’s blog CACTUS LAND BLOG

About the Author:

Robert Bonomo is a 42 year old novelist and internet marketer. He has lived and worked in Madrid, New York, Buenos Aires, San Francisco, Valencia, Miami, and Kamchatka among a few other not so remarkable places. He has worked as a land surveyor, car salesman, spice salesman, transportation salesman, English teacher with a few other not mentionalbe gigs in between.

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – The Zen of Quantum Physics

Marlee Matlin: Sharon Graphics

What The Bleep Do We Know!? has already been talked about. TIME Magazine called it a “sleeper hit.” Patricia F. Hare’s Consciousness Commentary highlighted it years ago. Several other notables have described it as “compelling” and “absorbing.” So I realized I had to see it.

Early in the film a divorced photographer, Amanda (Marlee Matlin), begins to see herself in double, actually triple, and we suddenly realize we’re in for a subatomic joyride reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

While Alice in Wonderland satirizes Victorian society, What the Bleep!? targets organized religion, God as wholly other, the anticipation of heaven and fear of hell, along with more issues bound to irritate some and delight others. The film’s dominant theme is about creating your own reality through focused intent and increased knowledge while jettisoning the old, allegedly oppressive ideas of providence and belief.

We hear a lot in the film about paradigms and, especially, enlarging existing paradigms. Yet ironically the familiar “old-and-fat is out, young-and-thin is in” bigotry runs throughout. This might be the film’s biggest flaw. Aside from that, What The Bleep!? provides a visually rich account of human neurology in relation to memory, thought, emotion, behavior and sexual arousal. Its complicated science is made simple with excellent commentary and above average graphics.

Some viewers might be offended by the use of coarse language. But I felt this was kept in balance and made the film convincing, especially when coming from a person like Matlin who obviously has her heart in the right place.

What the Bleep!? is a bit slow in places (I would have edited the wedding scenes) but on the whole Matlin and the supporting cast make this more than just another new physics, gee whiz documentary. As the film indicates, it’s not about agreeing with everything; it’s more about thinking.

And surely we need more of that.

—MC, August 31 2006 (with a few edits made today)

Reality Films

Lloyd Pye is no ordinary researcher. In Alien Origins he proposes that human beings were in part created by extraterrestrial intervention.

The two presentations in this DVD differ from most due to Pye’s persuasive style of argumentation, backed by well-researched claims.

Agree or not with his conclusions, this DVD compels us to look again at several of the assumptions passed on by Darwinian theorists.

To touch on a few points, Pye questions the glossy magazine recreations of Mankind’s supposed forerunners, along with the very notion of a “missing link.”

For Pye, there simply is no missing link, and the whole idea is a clever fabrication developed and reproduced by those hell-bent on believing in Darwinian theory, and who wish to keep Creationists at bay.

While Pye agrees there’s convincing evidence for microevolution, he says it’s invalid to extrapolate these findings to support the myth of macroevolution.

And while he concedes that we possess incomplete fossil records, Pye counters that this, alone, is not enough to account for the many gaps – not exactly popularized by Darwin’s believers – in the alleged evolution of species.

Next, Pye argues that standard evolutionary theories attempting to explain the jump from quadrupeds to bipeds don’t make sense.

As an adult I’ve always questioned Darwinian theory, not because I wanted to believe in the Creation story outlined in the Jewish and Christian traditions, but because I probed on more than one occasion the mind of a respected zoologist who admitted just what Pye is saying–there are gaps and counterexamples in Darwin’s theory, and not too many people know about it.

Not only that, the zoologist agreed that the whole taxonomic scheme of Biology is really quite arbitrary. Sure, taxonomy is usually in Latin and sounds impressive. It has an authoritative ring and associated legitimizing effect. But the question remains–just because something is in Latin, does it reflect reality?

To get at truth means throwing away the assumptions we’ve been taught as children and reassessing in the light of reason, careful study and, when possible, direct observation. This often leaves us with more questions than answers but, to my mind, it’s better to admit uncertainty than to fall victim to regimented, authoritarian or facile thinking.

Along these lines, Pye touches on the idea that the Sumerians were somehow genetically engineered by the Annunaki or some other such beings, and duly notes ancient cuneiform passages that some believe support this view.

Part 2 of the DVD gives a detailed account of Pye’s passion, this being the 900 year old Starchild Skull, discovered in a cave in Mexico and brought to Pye’s attention by its inheritors.

Here we find a fascinating glimpse into a mysterious being with unusual eye sockets and half the skull thickness and weight of a normal human adult skull.

Pye outlines other anomalies about the skull, noting that at some places it appears more like hard tooth enamel than regular bone tissue. Moreover, odd fibres seem to exist within, almost like today’s fiberglass but with strands not nearly as dense and on a much smaller scale.

Whether one sides with Pye’s conclusions or those of his critics, the value of this DVD lies in its tendency to shake the cage and question conventional thought.

How often we forget that theories are just theories. Be they Darwinian or Einsteinian, popular theories are still just theories.

For those interested in the backstory and considerable details of Pye’s argument in support of Intervention Theory, Alien Origins is a must. Meanwhile, scientific studies on the intriguing Starchild Skull continue, as do debates about the meaning of their results.

–MC

• “Starchild Project Research Coordinator Lloyd Pye briefly covers the most unusual features of a 900 year old skull undergoing extensive scientific investigation since 1999″ (This YouTube video is not in the DVD, Alien Origins).

insomnia by Jonathan Jacobsen

Copyright © Michael Clark 2009. All rights reserved.

If you can’t sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there worrying.
It’s the worry that gets you, not the lack of sleep.

–Dale Carnegie

It’s 2:42 a.m.

A short while ago I was awakened by two cats howling outside my window. Unable to get back to my slumbers, it seemed like a good time to write about the social construction of sleep.¹

Sleep is a wonderful restorative. The ancient Greeks extolled its virtues as a sacred salve releasing mankind from diurnal cares. And Sigmund Freud called dreams the “royal road to the unconscious.”

Freud’s brightest student, Carl Jung, was equally interested in dreams. Jung felt that our nighttime productions compensated for and guided daytime activity toward a greater, integrated sense of meaning.

Sleep Deprivation and Snake Oils

The Indian mystic Sri Aurobindo had another view. He said sleep is a sluggish, inferior form of consciousness that is best conquered through intense meditation. In fact, Aurobindo claimed to have overcome the need for sleep. Similarly, Christian monks tend to get less sleep than the average layperson.

But on a physiological level, sleep is important. The body synthesizes proteins faster in the cerebral cortex and retina during sleep hours, enhancing growth and restoration.² Sleep deprivation actually impairs the functioning of the cerebral cortex, the newest portion of the brain in evolutionary terms.

It’s been repeatedly demonstrated that sleep deprivation has harmful effects on memory and contributes to anxiety and even paranoia. Keeping people sleepy is a great way to brainwash, manipulate or indoctrinate. No wonder cult leaders and political interrogators use sleep deprivation to weaken subjects into compliance.

In National Geographic a Harvard neuroscientist claims that US society (and by implication other so-called developed nations like Canada) is “tremendously sleep deprived.” If we don’t sleep well during the night, it’s usually recommended to nap, rest or meditate sometime during the day.

As for the latest sleep-inducing herbs and wonder-drugs, this is a clear case of buyer beware. Scammers more concerned with making money than helping others often have a clever sales pitch (one which postmodern deconstructionists would have a field day with).

For instance, if you don’t get a solid eight hours every night these unscrupulous sellers say you have an illness.³ Then you’re informed that substance X (which they happen to market) is just the thing for you, this being supported by a host of quasi-scientific claims. Your saving medicine may be an extract, a herb or perhaps some other costly snake oil–all to make you healthier, happier and more productive.⁴

This, of course, is an extreme scenario, one facilitated by cheesy web marketing. On the other hand, there is solid scientific research in support of the responsible use of some herbs and extracts. Healing with herbs is also advocated in the Old Testament (Sirach 38: 1-15) and many people swear by their benefits.

At the same time, however, a CBC Marketplace documentary suggests that we usually don’t know the full long-term side effects of many herbs (the idea of ’side effects’ arguably being a euphemism for unhealthy effects).

To ingest herbs and oils merely on the reassuring word of an absolute stranger seems unwise. Hopefully mass media marketers of herbs and wonder-drugs will soon be integrated with reliable health officials to avoid some illnesses that may be aggravated by their products. A definite step in the right direction here seems to be the Adverse Drug Reaction Database.

Concerning the normative allopathic sleep medications available today, their use is often a compromise situation due to their oft-downplayed unhealthy and addictive effects. But in certain situations their use can be more positive than negative, providing these drugs are taken responsibly.

The red flag should go up, however, whenever anyone tries to make a fanatical religion out of any kind of treatment–those unimaginative perhaps fearful souls who cling to existing therapeutic frameworks while closing their minds to new possibilities.

New Age Fancies

Many leading New Age figures say the electric lights and general hubbub of modern society have disrupted our natural biorhythms, often called the Circadian rhythm. These pundits of the soul lament that we’ve severed some kind of sacred connection with the natural environment and our distant ancestors.

All this calls to mind romantic myths of the natural man, the natural woman and the noble savage.

But who can really say what’s natural and what’s not?⁵

Anthropological research suggests that Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals weren’t all that different from contemporary mankind. And they probably awoke in the dead of night much like we do in the 21st century.

Instead of fretting about money or health our ancestors likely worried about ambushes, wild beasts, storms and seasonal climate change.⁶ Indeed, this BBC story about Neanderthal violence seems to indicate that life in prehistoric times was no cakewalk.

To say that primitive mankind lived in some kind of stress-free, golden age replete with undisturbed nights seems more like New Age fiction than responsible history.

Transpersonal Connections

As to why we awake in the dead of night, in some cases this could be due to transpersonal connections.

The Catholic saint, Faustina Kowalska, for instance, wrote in her Divine Mercy Diary that she rose in the middle of the night in response to distressed souls in need of her prayerful intercession.

During the night, I was suddenly awakened and knew that some soul was asking me for prayer, and that it was in much need of prayer. Briefly, but with all my soul, I asked the Lord for grace for her.⁷

For some people this kind of scenario is difficult to understand. By way of analogy, it might help to imagine an intern always on call. Suppose there’s an emergency in the middle of the night and she is awakened by her cell. Again, many people today just cannot imagine let alone appreciate this dynamic. It’s far too subtle for the ordinary person steeped in conventional wisdom and a historically relative vision of the universe and beyond.

In many folks’ minds saints like Sister Faustina would be a fanatic or ill. And the tormented souls for whom she intercedes are just figments of her imagination or hallucinations. Sadly, this kind of thinking seems to have crept into certain corners of the contemporary Catholic Church too, a place where a bona fide mystic such as St. Faustina could at one time be just what she was called to be–a contemplative saint.⁸

Most, however, must hold 9 to 5 jobs to maintain a desired standard of living for themselves and perhaps their families. These people are necessary to industrial society and it’s probably in their best interest to do everything possible to maintain a nighttime sleep pattern.

But let’s not suppose for a minute that this is the natural way when arguably it’s just a choice to participate in a highly conditioned social order, one relative to certain historical moments and locations.

Consider, for instance, India or South America. In these cultures a daytime nap is largely built-in to the fabric of life. In the afternoon stores close down, shutters are drawn and most everybody sleeps.

In the West, leading figures like Mozart, Winston Churchill, Elvis Presley and James Joyce took advantage of the late night hours. Likewise, Jesus Christ prayed through the night.

It’s hard to imagine what kind of world we’d have if these great individuals hadn’t let go of the conventional mores of their time.

By the same token, not everyone is a born artist, politician or spiritual leader. Moreover, it seems only a relative few are able to stand aside and see beyond their culture. In fact, getting a solid eight hours sleep can be quite pleasant. It can be reassuring to fit in with one’s real or imagined status quo, as we did in childhood.

But for most of us childhood is over and it’s time to consider alternatives, especially if our socially constructed understanding of the ‘good night sleep’ isn’t happening any more. Waking up in the middle of the night – or just staying up late – could be seen as an opportunity for productivity and enhanced creativity.

For all we know, it might even be essential to the new global community.

Notes

1. For those unfamiliar with the idea of the ’social construction of reality,’ see Berger and Luckman’s sociological benchmark.

2. It’s conceivable that Sri Aurobindo created these metabolic conditions while meditating, but on this we can’t be sure.

3. Readers interested in the notion of the ‘medical gaze’ are referred to Michel Foucault’s The Birth of the Clinic.

4. Manufacturing and sales departments of allopathic and homeopathic substances tend to downplay the negative short and long-term side effects–side-effects arguably being a euphemism for unhealthy effects. And selling consumable substances on the basis of a partial or skewed reporting of results is scientifically unsound. Along these lines, an internal FDA study suggests that about 2/3 of FDA scientists have lost confidence in that agency’s ability to protect the public from potentially harmful substances. See “Inside the FDA,” CBS.news.com, December 16, 2004:  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/26/health/main638721.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

5. The idea of the natural can be critiqued from sociological, philosophical and theological perspectives. Meanwhile, some maintain that the natural is qualitatively different from the volitional and the spiritual.

6. Ronald Wright’s discussion in A Short History of Progress is worthwhile; part one is freely available in audio here.

7. Divine Mercy in My Soul, p. 319. While the transfer of anxiety may not always be as clear and apparent as with the example of an achieved saint, it seems reasonable to suggest that everyone may be open, in varying capacities, to the ebb and flow of collective emotions and other psycho-spiritual qualities and experiences. In Indian philosophy, this points toward the idea of karma transfer, as outlined by Indologist Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty in The Origins of Evil In Hindu Mythology. C. G Jung and other transpersonal psychologists such as S. Grof similarly speak of syntonic countertransference.

8. (a) Not to ignore the possibility of spiritual deception. Please see ETs, UFOs and the Psychology of Belief and related articles at earthpages.org and earthpages.ca dealing with the idea of discernment. (b) The Church’s organizational structure stresses that the clergy conform (and to some degree laypersons) to a relatively narrow range of officially sanctioned modes of worship and service. And perhaps in an attempt to be ‘modern’ and receptive to the scientific establishment, the Church seems to uncritically embrace some of the more spurious scientific truth claims circulating today. This is no abstract point. In keeping with Michel Foucault’s thinking, giving credence to questionable discourses may have potentially harmful effects on individuals and society.

Reigh's Brain rlwat1 by Reigh LeBlanc

Copyright © Michael Clark. All rights reserved.

Dr. Andrew Newberg is a prominent neuroscientist who appeared in the ‘new physics’ film What the Bleep Do We Know!? and, more recenty, in Bill Maher’s provocative but somewhat sketchy Religulous.

Dr. Newberg says we have a need to believe and when it comes to spirituality, religion and natural aesthetics it apparently doesn’t matter what we believe because the positive inner experiences are all the same.

The brain is a believing machine because it has to be…Spirituality and belief don’t have to equate to religious faith…The feelings of enlightenment and well-being some derive from religion can come to others through from artistic expression, nonreligious meditation, watching a beautiful sunset or listening to stirring music. » http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16842848/

From this it would seem that a beautiful sunset, Tibetan meditation and Catholic contemplation all generate the same kind of feelings because subjects’ observable brain activity are similar.

But studies like these must always look from the outside. Newberg has no reliable way of knowing exactly what different subjects experience–even if they exhibit similar brain activity and choose the same kind of words to describe that experience.

This uncertainly is addressed head on by religion scholars and philosophers, especially in the areas of comparative mysticism, phenomenology and poststructuralism. But neuroscientists like Newberg appear to ignore this rich body of human inquiry and blindly extrapolate their results far beyond any reasonable limits of science.

Having said that, the Wikipedia entry on Newberg claims he is aware of such criticisms and hopes to see further studies exploring “the more complex elements of religious and spiritual phenomena.”

It’s unclear who wrote that entry and we’ll just have to wait and see what the future holds. But something tells me that providence and grace will never be reduced to mere neurological footprints.

Further reading:

• Religion And The Brain Sharon Begley, NEWSWEEK » http://www.newsweek.com/id/79341/output/print
• Science vs. Spirit, The Nassau Guardian » http://www.thenassauguardian.com/religion/297943801640628.php
• Mail Online: Scientists ‘discover’ source of wisdom in the human brain – Commentary on another brain imaging study that confuses the basic tenets of causality and correlation.