"There is no matter, as such"and....
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds the most minute solar system together"and...
"We must assume behind this force the existence of conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Okay. Really? Really!?!? There is no matter? And what else?... we must assume that whatever "force" is responsible for all matter(which he just said didn't exist), it has a cosmic enforcer that is "intelligent"?
Do you know what this is? It is a bunch of unfounded "spiritual" hocus-pocus with some "scientific" jargon sprinkled in. Lacing "woo"-based philosophies with scientific terms..e.g..."quantum", "energy", etc., doesn't make those philosophies credible or scientifically plausible.
Let's start from the top:
We should believe that "matter doesn't exist" because said matter presumably comes from an invisible, disembodied *"Mind".
*upper case "M", because we know that what they really mean is "God" as a personal being, the being they used as a model when they project themselves onto the Universe.
What's being argued here, is that, since the "force" behind all matter is immaterial(nonphysical), then whatever emerges from this force is also immaterial(nonphysical), or at best, it is some sort of illusion. For practical purposes(AKA useful purposes), can we assume that you're really reading this right now? Assuming "yes", then for practical and useful purposes, matter exists. Yes, regardless of how/where/when matter emerged, matter exists. Now, if someone wants to be impractical and live as though matter is just an illusion? Fantastic; great! They are free to do so. But he or she cannot live impractically, 24/7. If they disagree, idk...then I guess they should try going without the material compound known as "H2o" for a week.
And particles of an atom vibrate, do they? Cool....and very interesting. But what should we conclude from that? I'm certainly no physicist, but the little research I've done tells me that there are two kinds of vibrations: 1) forced, and 2) free. Even if particles in atoms are examples of forced vibration(e.g..the plucking of a bass string), why must we conclude that what has caused the vibration has a "mind" and is "intelligent"? Entire galaxies are "vibrating" in such a way that they colliding into one another as I type this sentence. Now, are colliding galaxies an example or sign of "intelligence"?
Moreover, if the universe, in all its vast complexity, requires a "Mind" to exist, then surely that "Mind" is more complex than that which it brought into existence, which then begs the question, where did this "Mind" come from? If said "Mind" is self-existing and doesn't require a creator, then how/why are we so god-damned certain that vibrating particles haven't always existed and therefore require a creator?
Here's another quote along the lines of the previous ones, straight from this whole "New Age" movement....
"Its(sic) Consciousness…And there is an ocean of pure vibrant consciousness in every each one of us."The evidence that is available to us via science and modern medicine tells us that "consciousness" requires a physical brain. The above quote, while colorful and poetic, seems to be suggesting that consciousness is something that exists independently of a physical brain - or more in line with what they are proposing - some non-thing that exists independently of a physical brain.
Just because something is made up of vibrating particles doesn't mean it has "consciousness". Consciousness, while not a "thing", but a process, is still a process of a material, bodily organ..i.e..the brain. Similarly, "digestion" isn't a "thing", either, but also a process. But surely none of these New Age gurus would minister, "There's an ocean of pure, vibrant digestion in each and every one of us!". No, that would be ridiculous.
More...
"Oscillating a wine glass by playing sound at its resonance frequency, will cause it to move, change and liquefy its structure and eventually even break it."Cool, and interesting. But again, what does it say or prove when it comes to the bodily process of being "conscious"? What does it say or prove when it comes to an afterlife or everything being interconnected?
and....
"Everything around us owns its existence to sound. Sound it’s a factor that holds all together. In the beginning there was a sound of a Great Cosmic Designer…"Yes, we waited for it, and lo and behold, there it was..i.e..the "Great Cosmic Designer", which is an attempt to get "God" in under the radar---or at a minimum, it's the New Ager's attempt to divorce their conception of "God" from that of religion and all its baggage. And BTW, anyone....... to what does this "Great Cosmic Designer" owe its own existence? What is more likely/more plausible, a) the idea that the most complex, most intelligent "Mind" has always existed and just decided to "create" everything at one point in time(before time existed?), or b) the idea that particles, gases, and atoms have always existed?
To chose "a" is to employ special pleading. If complexity requires a cause, then the New Ager's "Great Cosmic Designer" argument caves in on itself. If we're going to learn science, then we first need to know the difference between how real scientists think, and how pseudo-scientists think.
13 comments:
The book (Wayne Dyer?): "Oscillating a wine glass by playing sound at its resonance frequency, will cause it to move, change and liquefy its structure and eventually even break it."
You: "Cool, and interesting. But again, what does it say or prove when it comes to the bodily process of being "conscious"? What does it say or prove when it comes to an afterlife or everything being interconnected?"
Whoa... what happened here? Where did the whole sound bit come in?
Was your question answered? (Besides the fact that there was some Mind responsible for "sound" (and probably more)...)
Does it answer my question? No...it doesn't even scratch the surface.
The point I am/was making is that New Age guru, Dr. Wayne Dyer, and many of his peers, e.g...Deepok Chopra, are constantly spewing out spookie-sounding bits of information meant to impress the reader, but, unless I've missed something, none of these spookie-sounding soundbites ever confirm their premise - specifically, that behind the forces of the universe lies a "consciousness"; an "intelligence", AKA, a Mind.
You actually read those books by Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra?
"You actually read those books by Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra?" ~ L
No, but I've seen the latter in numerous debates, and I've seen the former when he used to lecture on PBS back in the 80s. IOW, I'm familiar with each of their philosophies on life and how they believe the world operates.
But I'm curious. Why do you ask, exactly? Is it because you believe that I cannot possibly know what either of them espouse until/unless I read their books, and therefore, I shouldn't be rejecting it until/unless I do? I have a sneaky suspicion that's where this going, and if I'm right, I ask----do I first need to read "Dianetics" cover-to-cover before I reject L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy on life? Do I need to read the "Book of Mormon" cover-to-cover before I reject LDS's philosophy on life? Or am I misreading you?
“… I've seen the former when he used to lecture on PBS back in the 80s.”
What was your opinion back in the 80s? Was it different from now or the same?
“But I'm curious. Why do you ask, exactly? Is it because you believe that I cannot possibly know what either of them espouse until/unless I read their books, and therefore, I shouldn't be rejecting it until/unless I do? …Or am I misreading you?”
Yes you are :-). It’s actually the opposite. I’m surprised to find out time and again how well informed you are about a number of things. You seem curious, while critical at the same time. All in all, I get the impression more and more, you want to know about stuff, before stating your opinion. I’m not talking about knowing things in detail (although when it comes to the Bible you seem to have done quite some studying/digging), but at least more than enough to know what you are talking about. I’d say that’s a pleasant surprise.
"What was your opinion back in the 80s? Was it different from now or the same?"
I was still a Christian in the 80s, albeit, I thought that what Wayne Dyer had to say on "God" made more sense than Christianity. I can see how someone transitioning out of Christianity might adopt a view like Dyer's. It's very alluring, and, at face-value, it seems to make "sense".
"It’s actually the opposite. I’m surprised to find out time and again how well informed you are about a number of things."
Well, it's not a ruse. I am genuinely curious and interested in learning about how the world operates and in finding as many answers as I can to life's greatest questions.
“Well, it's not a ruse. I am genuinely curious and interested in learning about how the world operates and in finding as many answers as I can to life's greatest questions.”
Could it be I’m as curious and interested as you are? That, just maybe, I’ve encountered someone who can show me another side to things?
"Could it be I’m as curious and interested as you are?"
There's no objective way to measure one's curiosity, so that only leaves evaluating it based on what we can observe about each other. If I encounter someone who harbors beliefs held on "faith", or at best, really flimsy evidence, then this tells me that this person is likely incurious.
Can you be just as curious as I am? I guess so. We can both claim that we're really hungry, too. But knowing who the hungrier of the two of us is can best be determined by how much we are observed to eat, not how hungry we claim to be.
“If I encounter someone who harbors beliefs held on "faith", or at best, really flimsy evidence, then this tells me that this person is likely incurious.”
I do not agree with you. One can still be curious, while at the same time viewing things from a different perspective. It could even be optional that, even coming from a different background, the end result can still be the same. And even with the route being different, as the possible moment of arrival, would this mean one would be less curious, or even worse incurious, just because the point of origin was different? Isn’t it about the journey itself and what’s being discovered while on this journey?
"I do not agree with you[...]" ~ L
Fine.
"One can still be curious[....]"
It should be noted right here that when I say "incurious", that I mean regarding life's greatest questions..e.g..purpose, how we got here, and where we're going, etc. If, hypothetically, "faith" provides the answers to every single one of those questions(and more), then, in a practical sense, I'm being reasonable to conclude that individuals who believe they *already* have those answers aren't going to be looking for other ones.
"[....]while at the same time viewing things from a different perspective."
Yes, and as I still contend, it is precisely this perspective that determines one's level of curiosity. We're talking about information, how it's acquired(methods), and to what degree people desire to acquire it. As I just stated, at a fundamental level, people who think they already know the answers to the above-listed questions are not going to be curious about or interested in other answers.
"And even with the route being different, as the possible moment of arrival, would this mean one would be less curious, or even worse incurious, just because the point of origin was different?"
It's a moot point. The route can vary, yes, but taking the initiative to get en route is the common denominator here, and that is what is required if views - or, a word you like to use, "mindsets" - are to be changed. The "point of origin" is one of agnosticism(by default). There's no good reason for any of us to believe that an incurious mindset can be changed until/unless the person first at least entertains the idea that he or she could be wrong about what he or she currently believes, next, choosing(or not) to get on "the path".
"Isn’t it about the journey itself and what’s being discovered while on this journey?"
I can only say what it's "about" for me. For me, it's about acquiring as much accurate info' as I can, and scrapping as much inaccurate info' as I can. It's not "about" nice Vs annoying; it's not about feeling good Vs feeling bad; it's not about "I'm right and you're wrong".
It's about one thing: Truth.
“It should be noted right here that when I say "incurious", that I mean regarding life's greatest questions..e.g..purpose, how we got here, and where we're going, etc.”
OK. This explains a lot.
“If, hypothetically, "faith" provides the answers to every single one of those questions(and more), then, in a practical sense, I'm being reasonable to conclude that individuals who believe they *already* have those answers aren't going to be looking for other ones.”
Yes. Sounds logical.
“Yes, and as I still contend, it is precisely this perspective that determines one's level of curiosity. We're talking about information, how it's acquired(methods), and to what degree people desire to acquire it.”
Even with a different perspective people can still be curious, have questions, even doubts. But I’d agree with you that depending how others are dealing with these questions, people will be stopped in their tracks or not. Like you recently said to me (not literally), others are stopping me from researching /thinking about other options, saying I already know what’s true, which is not doing me any favour, at all, in the long run.
Fortunately with the internet, information is way more accessible. This should change a lot of (at least young) people’s perspectives.
I am surprised though how many people from my generation are not willing to change their views at all. They know, talk about it, but seem loyal to their church/faith not to question things. And then there are those who are not specifically bound to any religion, but just do not seem to care.
As far I can tell only very few people are actually "curious". Or everyone has an excellent way of hiding, they are thinking about this question.
“… but taking the initiative to get en route is the common denominator here, and that is what is required if views - or, a word you like to use, "mindsets" - are to be changed.”
Agreed. Most people are afraid to question things and with it change their mindsets. For some reason it seems safer to stay in the current (often uncomfortable) situation. If this already is true for the “simple” things in life, just consider how hard it is for anyone to deal with these kind of questions.
“The "point of origin" is one of agnosticism(by default).”
Never thought about it like this.
“There's no good reason for any of us to believe that an incurious mindset can be changed until/unless the person first at least entertains the idea that he or she could be wrong about what he or she currently believes, next, choosing(or not) to get on "the path".”
True.
“I can only say what it's "about" for me. For me, it's about acquiring as much accurate info' as I can, and scrapping as much inaccurate info' as I can.”
Sounds like a good strategy.
“It's about one thing: Truth.”
I agree with this.
Just wanted to add something to what you last said:
“It's about one thing: Truth.”
Finding out what this is, is the hard (as in challenging) part. It’s a pity that something which should be so simple, is actually the hardest question to answer. Sometimes I wish we could go back and take a look at different moments in the past, just to see how things were back then.
"Fortunately with the internet, information is way more accessible."
Yes. But unfortunately, some people evidently think that this information exists in a vacuum. 'Annoying as all hell.
Post a Comment