Theos-Talk Archives (November 2007 Message tt00058)

I thought this might be of interest...

Bernard Haisch is an astrophysicist...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Haisch
http://www.shiftinaction.com/discover/luminaries/bernard_haisch


>     To: SPACETIMEandCONSCIOUSNESS@yahoogroups.com
>     Posted by: "hucklebird@aol.com" hucklebird@aol.com  
> dr_stephen_p_smith
>     Date: Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:29 am ((PST))
>
> The following is my Amazon review of Bernard Haisch's "The God  
> Theory".
> Enjoy!
> Sincerely, Stephen
> ----------------------
>
> Beyond Intelligent Design!
>
> Bernard Haisch's "The God Theory" is required reading for anyone  
> interested
> in the religion versus science debate. Haisch (page xi) notes the  
> modern-day
> dilemma: "you cannot get away from the preexistence of something,  
> and whether
> that is an ensemble of physical laws generating infinite random  
> universes or an
> infinite conscious intelligence is something present-day science  
> cannot
> resolve, and indeed one view is not more rational than the other."  
> But Haisch's God
> is very real. We are God's expressions, and we labor to bring God's  
> experience
> to an otherwise meaningless world. Haisch (page 18) writes: "One of  
> the
> oldest of religious teachings is that `The One who became many is  
> becoming one
> again.' That is how I view what we are doing right now." Haisch  
> (page 20) writes:
> "Under the God Theory, the requirement that you treat others with  
> respect and
> compassion is, for all practical purposes, a moral absolute, since  
> all beings
> participate in the infinite consciousness that created them."  
> Haisch (page 24)
> writes: "I am pretty certain there is nothing within our modern  
> corpus of
> scientific knowledge that contradicts the God Theory."
>
> Haisch is critical of oppressive dogma coming from both religiosity  
> and
> scientism. He (page 25) writes: "While scientific orthodoxy boasts  
> no churches, it
> is nonetheless a faith - a faith whose ritual is skepticism. Indeed  
> those
> skeptics who scoff loudest at all things spiritual hold  
> professional gatherings
> that bear an ironic resemblance to revival meetings, at which they  
> pump up the
> faithful to go forth and combat anything that smacks of non- 
> reductionism."
>
> Haisch believes that we live in a reality that holds many  
> polarities. And
> what gives its support to the polarity is a filtering of the  
> infinite potential,
> it is a forgetting. Haisch (page 31) writes: "Creation is not  
> capricious or
> random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The  
> implications
> of this are profound. If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if  
> creation is the
> process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite  
> potential to
> manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the  
> stuff that is
> left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe,  
> and ourselves
> included."
>
> Haisch thinks that Darwin's theory of evolution is consistent with  
> the God
> Theory. Haisch (page 44) writes: "In fact, the random mutations and  
> natural
> selection proposed by Darwin ultimately allow an infinite  
> intelligence to
> experiences its own potential. To accomplish the goal of  
> experiencing the outcome of
> his own potential through the adventures of incarnating and living  
> in a
> diversity of life forms (including us), purely Darwinian evolution  
> via random
> mutation and natural selection would essentially serve the  
> purpose." Haisch misses
> the fact that his translation of Darwin's theory comes with a  
> precondition:
> life's experience given as incarnated divinity. Therefore, Darwin's  
> theory cannot
> explain the precondition, and this is life's experience that has been
> continuously present for the last 3.5 billion years of evolution.  
> Darwin's theory
> explains functionality and forgets about experience. Haisch  
> unwittingly turned
> natural selection into a tautology, whereas Darwinists continue to  
> assume that
> functionality explains life's experience; evolutionary psychology  
> provides an
> example.
>
> Haisch misses the contradiction in Darwin's theory, yet he turns to  
> Teilhard
> de Chardin to provide the missing ingredient to an otherwise  
> directionless
> evolution. Haisch (page 45) writes: "Although evolutionary  
> biologists clearly
> prefer to leave things at that, I confess that I prefer to modify  
> the rules - a
> preference which, as far as I can tell, is not experimentally  
> differentiable
> from the spirit of orthodox Darwinism, given the present state of our
> knowledge." Haisch then points to the missing teleology, and the  
> pull to Teilhard's
> Omega Point. Haisch did not see that intelligent design implicates  
> teleology, he
> misses the point that evidence brought by intelligent design  
> theorists supports
> his very own God Theory. Haisch (pages 45 and 46) writes: "Although
> Teilhard's solution may suggest a teleological view of evolution,  
> it does not posit
> intelligent design. It does not deny the capabilities of evolution;  
> it just
> reinterprets its driving force. Evolution, Teilhard suggests,  
> occurs through a kind
> of coaxing of life forms toward future perfection, not just through  
> random
> mutation." Intelligent design theorist stop short of declaring the  
> nature of
> intelligent causation, whereas Haisch goes beyond and points to a  
> God that cannot
> be separated from God's creation.
>
> Haisch (page 55) returns to his idea about filtering infinite  
> potential, and
> writes: "Just as creation can be viewed as a process of subtraction  
> from the
> infinite rather than as an event in which something pops up of  
> nothing, your
> personal consciousness can be viewed as a brain-filtering remnant  
> of the
> infinite consciousness rather than as a chemical creation of the  
> brain." Haisch then
> defeats the functionalism that Darwinists love, and writes: "The  
> danger, which
> is clearly evident in the world today, is that you mistake restricted
> consciousness and its attendant limited reality for a complete  
> explanation. As a
> result, you completely misinterpret your own nature."
>
> Haisch (page 67) writes: "The challenge for science is to free the  
> tools,
> experiments, observations, and logic of the scientific method from  
> the shackles
> of reductionist ideology, which cannot tolerate the concept of a  
> real and
> primary, and therefore non-epiphenomenal, consciousness. The  
> challenge is to think
> like a scientist without being trapped in the assumption of the  
> present-day
> physical model of reality that matter is all there is and all there  
> can be."
>
> Haisch (page 71) hints that the zero-point field (the quantum  
> vacuum) relates
> to awareness: "The fact that the zero-point field is the lowest  
> energy state
> makes it unobservable. We can only perceive it, as we perceive many  
> things, by
> way of contrast. Your eye works by letting light fall on an  
> otherwise-dark
> retina. But if your eye were filled with light, there would be no  
> darkness to
> afford the contrast." Haisch (page 116) reminds us that there is no
> justification for saying "God is the zero-point field", but he does  
> make a connection by
> writing - "... perhaps the zero-point field is some greatly scaled- 
> down echo of
> ayin [term from Kabbalists] within the confines of our space-time  
> universe.
> The light of ayin creates the realm of the relative - a universe of  
> things that
> are always defined in terms of their opposites: light and darkness,  
> hot and
> cold, positive and negative, male and female, good and evil."  
> Opposites like
> the electron and positron emerge from the quantum void, there need  
> only be
> light.
>
> Haisch (page 119) writes: "Einstein's special relativity theory  
> tells us that
> light propagation defines the properties of space and time. I argue  
> that
> light propagation may actually create space and time. The zero- 
> point field inertia
> hypothesis implies that the most fundamental property of matter,  
> namely mass,
> is also created by light."
>
> Haisch notes how the fine-tuned constants of physics (constants  
> that are
> necessary for life) have lead scientists to a vision of an infinite  
> collection of
> universes (the multiverse), a vision that is necessary to protect the
> accidental world that is unable to hold purpose. This is not unlike  
> the reaction
> caused by the quantum measurement problem that gave us the many worlds
> interpretation of quantum mechanics. Haisch (page 136) writes about  
> the many worlds
> interpretation: "To put it bluntly, some scientists are willing to  
> `create' a
> veritably infinite number of alternative universe to avoid  
> admitting the
> consciousness plays a role in the operation of our universe. These  
> infinite alternate
> universes, populated by infinite alternate duplicate beings are,  
> they think, a
> small, or at least acceptable, price to pay for maintaining their  
> belief that
> nature is devoid of genuine consciousness or purpose."
>
> Concluding, Haisch (page 15) writes: "The life you experience is  
> divine
> exploration, in and through the physical, of the power of infinite  
> creativity. And
> experience cannot be had without imperfection. Imperfection is  
> absolutely
> necessary to experience... You do have the power to set aside the  
> unhealthy dogmas
> of both religion and scientism. You can open your mind and use  
> reason and
> intuition in roughly equal measure to figure out what you truly are."



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]