The "God Theory"

E

earl

?
Messages
1,623
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Location
Kansas
I don't do physics-I don't understand physics. I sometimes think "New Agers" get a little fuzzy with poorly understood physics in trying to apply them to spirituality...But then there's physicist Bernard Haisch who has an interesting hypothesis about "God," conciousness, zero-point energy fields, etc. which he put into his recent book, "The God Theory." Here's an interview with him re his views:

God and Physics — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement

have a good one, earl
 
earl said:
I don't do physics-I don't understand physics. I sometimes think "New Agers" get a little fuzzy with poorly understood physics in trying to apply them to spirituality...But then there's physicist Bernard Haisch who has an interesting hypothesis about "God," conciousness, zero-point energy fields, etc. which he put into his recent book, "The God Theory." Here's an interview with him re his views:

God and Physics — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement

have a good one, earl
Click to expand...


Thank you earl...I could only read about half of it (will finish it later) but I had a growing sense of recognition as I read what I did, and an aha! moment of "I know God because I am!" Not that I am God, but since I am, God must BE.

cheers,
luna
 
Another random thought as I read more of the article. It seems very logical and consistent with what we know about our universe to think that behind the creation of the universe is consciousness...like gives rise to like. Certainly the cause behind a universe that eventually evolved consciousness could not lack consciousness itself.
 
This guy's views pretty much mirror my own. What got me interesed in Buddhism so many years ago was that it essentially focused on experientially studying "concsciousness." However, throught all my time studying it and other related fields I've never been able to dismiss the notion that underlying all individual "quanta" of consciousness is a supraordinant "consiousness field-" i.e. what some would term as "God." Buddhists simply dissuade others from even contemplating such and from the Buddhist perspective, as a famous teaching from the Buddha put it, doing so may be largely irrelevant to learning how to liberate oneself from the many shackles that blind and bind consciousness. But, especially when one considers the vast literature on near death experiences, one cannot dismiss the likelihood that there is a supreme sentience, a supreme field of consciousness beyond the veil of ordinary daily awareness, extending well beyond individual consciousness and a human's ability to understand it-can only experience it, (why I've occasionally referred to myself as a "theistic Buddhist":)). Genesis seems to have had it right when it spoke of "in the begining was the Word".. but via Haisch perhaps it is better worded "In the begining was the thought." have a good one, earl
 
I thought it was a great article- thanks very much for posting it, earl. I also will have to look up that novel by Huxley- sounds interesting and I enjoyed Brave New World so I would probably enjoy other novels by him.

I like the idea of the brain as the filter of consciousness, not the seat of it. I've long thought that there are times my brain is the problem, not the root, of expanding my consciousness. Never went the drug route (though I know those who did), but I can see how meditation, fasting, etc. all lead to cracking that filter a bit, opening up doors between God/the One Big Something and our individual consciousness. There's a necessity to be cautious, because if you fling those doors open too wide and too fast, it's nearly impossible to integrate it into ordinary life and that tends to drive people insane. But to never open the doors, "crack the filter" as he'd put it... seems to keep people in a fog of limitation.

I also like his concept of God. My experience of God is what cracked my preconceived notions, because it is so different from the generic humanistic concept of a monotheistic God. Ultimately, I couldn't hold on to concepts that didn't come close to adequately reflecting my experience (and even my experience is still limited).

Many Christians would still have a difficult time with conceptualizing God and Jesus in the way he describes. In some circles in Christianity, there is a constant fear of letting go of any of the church-endorsed beliefs, thinking that Satan is just waiting 'round the corner to deceive you.

But the more we overcome the hurdle of believing in basic tenants that may not be true, open ourselves to experiencing a different kind of reality, the more we have this new perception of reality verified (in my experience). Once you open yourself up to any new and "impossible" experience- communicating with animals, for example- and I mean really get beyond your prejudice against the possibilities... it is confirmed that you can do much more than you were taught you can do. You can experience a different world than society taught you to experience. I don't think it has much to do with Satan or evil or self-worship, but rather an openness to reconnecting with God through all other beings and reality itself. I don't worship myself, but I recognize God in me and do all I can to become a better vessel.

But one has to take the first scary steps of letting go of so many assumptions- about God, about oneself, about the world we live in and other living beings. One has to trust that if one seeks after God in an open and honest way, that one will not be led astray... that God will come to that space and meet you there.
 
I have for a long time used the term "God" as a convenient marker to denote some sort of supreme sentience or all encompassing consciousness. Lately I think that "God" has too much anthropomorphic baggage and just leads to confusion, especially when conversing with those of an Abrahamic orientation. I'm talking about "God", they're talking about God, but we're not really talking about the same thing and it's confusing. So I've been trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to avoid using that term.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I have for a long time used the term "God" as a convenient marker to denote some sort of supreme sentience or all encompassing consciousness. Lately I think that "God" has too much anthropomorphic baggage and just leads to confusion, especially when conversing with those of an Abrahamic orientation. I'm talking about "God", they're talking about God, but we're not really talking about the same thing and it's confusing. So I've been trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to avoid using that term.

Chris
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

Yes, that seems to be a most common occurrence.

It is my view that all linguistics are for convenience purposes and at best are conceptual in nature by definition and are limited in describing spiritual things. The actual experience of 'God' is subjectively experienced and beyond the confines of languaging. Therefor it seems to me that the problem you speak of will remain with us as long as we attempt to communicate in words that which is beyond the conceptualization of the mind. Nevertheless, it doesn't stop us from trying to conceptualize. :) Neither does it stop us from experiencing the presence of God.

Love and Peace,
JM
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I have for a long time used the term "God" as a convenient marker to denote some sort of supreme sentience or all encompassing consciousness. Lately I think that "God" has too much anthropomorphic baggage and just leads to confusion, especially when conversing with those of an Abrahamic orientation. I'm talking about "God", they're talking about God, but we're not really talking about the same thing and it's confusing. So I've been trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to avoid using that term.

Chris
Click to expand...

I use 'god' in this way. If I say/write 'God' I mean a specific god. Or at least, that's the system I try to remember to use :p All somewhat complicated by the fact that I don't believe in an encompassing consciousness.

The book looks very interesting, MrK might be interested.... Unfortunately I'm having a marshmallow for brains day (or is it week/month?) and will have to read the article on a clearer day.
 
What a great link Earl, thank you. Definately food for thought, I am off for a think now. ;)
 
In my current (rather intense) internet study of Shin Buddhism ran across this piece by a particular Shin Buddhist leader of a group in the northeastern US that puts Shin Buddhist thought into more contemporary and unique word usage. In 1 section he coins the term "panendharmism-" interesting take on a theological term, "panentheism," though, of course, Buddhists are not "theistic." What interested me about the piece was in that section how he spoke of this concept and his related notions so closely mirrored the position I put forward earlier in this thread relative to my take on "God." Also had an interesting way to relate "nembutsu" practice to the eucharist in Christianity. So, for those here, like me,who enjoy comparative and/or interfaith means of viewing things, thought I'd share this.

BUDDHIST BELIEFS AND PRACTICES

have a good one, earl
 
flowperson said:
Hi...Slowwllly but surely it seems that some pillars of the "old disbelief" are falling to the truths of new knowledge.

flow....:)

Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God | LiveScience
Click to expand...

Thanks Flow I needed a good laugh

{MW rolls around the floor clutching her sides, laughing like a hyena}

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."


Yeah okay then. He is my big athiest hero but now believes in G-d, yep no big deal. ;):D
 
earl said:
I don't do physics-I don't understand physics. I sometimes think "New Agers" get a little fuzzy with poorly understood physics in trying to apply them to spirituality...But then there's physicist Bernard Haisch who has an interesting hypothesis about "God," conciousness, zero-point energy fields, etc. which he put into his recent book, "The God Theory." Here's an interview with him re his views:

God and Physics — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement

have a good one, earl
Click to expand...

Among other things, Haisch says:

So, all these things [strange facts about our world] could have been totally different—there’s nothing in the laws of physics that says that these things have to be this way.
Click to expand...

But of course, that's not true!!! For each of these peculiarities there are laws of nature that specify what will happen.

Haisch continues:



So this then raises the question, why is our universe “special”? Now of course the scientists hate that. They don’t want to see anything special in the universe because that might imply that there is intelligence behind it. So the explanation is: “well ok, if our universe looks special, that’s an accident.” It means that there are lots and lots of other universes, maybe an infinite number of other universes that are totally different from ours and that we’re just not in those universes because we couldn’t be—ours only looks special because we’re in it and couldn’t be somewhere else.


You can accept that as an explanation. However, I’m saying that it’s equally defensible to assume that ours is special because there is thought that went into it. I’m just pointing out that there are two equally likely possibilities at this point in time. One does not lean over another by virtue of any kind of evidence. Except, perhaps, if you take the evidence of intelligence from mystics and people who have had prayerful or spontaneous experiences, who have experienced it with their consciousness. Now of course scientists will say, “That evidence doesn’t count, we don’t believe that kind of evidence because we can’t measure it with our telescopes or microscopes.” So I say, fine, you want to discount that evidence, there is still a zero on both sides; therefore, believe whichever side you want.
Click to expand...

This line of reasoning is very peculiar. In effect it claims: The laws of nature don't explain why the laws of nature are the way they are. Therefore there must be some reason, cause, purpose for the way the laws of nature operate. Therefore there must be, or, it is reasonable to suppose that something made this world with its laws.

This is a special case of the ubiquitous argument: We don't understand how X happened. Therefore God must have made X. Therefore we do understand why X happened. In this form the argument is patently spurious. Why is it less spurious in Haisch's form?:


Empirical science can only investigate what happens in this observable world. People can speculate about other, non-observable worlds. But that speculation is not science.
 
DrFree said:
Empirical science can only investigate what happens in this observable world. People can speculate about other, non-observable worlds. But that speculation is not science.
Click to expand...
Modern physics reveals that the overwhelming majority of this Universe can not be observed by any scientific method whatsoever... ever. Even within the surface area of the planet where people live the majority of it is non-observable by any scientific method whatsoever. Of what can be observed only a small, small fraction can be observed simultaneously... by any scientific means whatsoever. Of what can be observed, the act of observing it always alters it. Of what can be observed scientifically the majority of it must be taken with Faith in someone else who observed it. For example someone might tell me what an atomic clock would do when moved through different inertial reference frames... but I will never repeat the experiment.

The overwhelming majority of science taught in school is taken on faith from a book... and it is NOT achieved through scientific experiment. How different then is religion and science?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top