Both men started out in conventional science but found that did not even explain some of the most basic aspects of their work let alone the deeper questions of consciousness and our existence.

Rupert Sheldrake Ph. D. is a biochemist and plant physiologist that has proposed the theory the Morphic field and Morphic resonance as an explanation of morphogenesis. His research has involved studies of parapsychology and provides a real scientific explanation of various phenomena that conventional science is totally unable to deal with.

Bruce Lipton Ph. D. is a cell biologist who was cloning stem cells long before the general population was even aware of the concept.  He proposes that it is environmental stimulus and not predetermined genetics that is responsible for every aspect of our existence and life experience, and that we are ultimately in control of our environment through our beliefs. He was ardent atheist and believer in laws of Newtonian physics but it was actually his work that planted the seeds of doubt in his mind and has taken him down a path that reconciles science with spirituality.

As expected the talk was extremely interesting but towards the end Rupert Sheldrake made a comment about Richard Dawkins that really caught my attention.   I recently reviewed The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and expressed dismay at the failure of the books to even consider other alternatives.

The contention of the book is belief in a God is delusional but really the book is primarily just an attack on organized religion and in particular the three major world religions.  After providing numerous examples of the inherent hypocrisy and illogical aspects of the beliefs of organized religion he concludes that atheism and the theory of evolution is the only logical alternative to organized religion and accordingly anyone that does not agree is delusional. I took exception to his arrogance and his dogmatic approach which seemed to my mind to go against the principles of scientific enquiring mind.

When Rupert Sheldrake  referred to “extremely dogmatic skeptics like Richard Dawkins “ saying “these people are absolutely certain they are right” and that they “attack other peoples beliefs, what they don’t do is look at their own” this echoed the impression I came away with after reading the God Delusion.

I realize there are now three main camps.

Camp one is the religious people with their belief in an external God that created everything.

Camp two is the self proclaimed Atheists with their belief in a Newtonian Universe that propose we are here by an accident of evolution in some primeval soup. To my mind they are nihilist s and do not provide any better explanation of our existence than the religious camp they feel so intellectually superior to.

Camp three is the new kid on the block composing of those that reject both conventional religious beliefs and the view of a Newtonian Universe.   Many diverse beliefs and ideas fall within this camp but most interesting is the theory of quantum physics.  New Age pseudo science ideas are often mixed with theoretical quantum mechanics making it confusing to most.

The first two camps are engaged in an argument that has remained unresolved since Descartes proposed the separation of religion and science providing an uneasy truce between the two camps.

The religious camp are for the most part unaware of the arrival of the new camp and do not make any distinction between them and their long time enemies (or as some would believe disciples of the devil) the atheists.

The Atheist camp seems to feel threatened by the new kid on the block with its totally new paradigm and vigorously rejects and opposes any such new ideas.  The irony is the Atheists have become as much a closed and dogmatic belief system as the religious camp.

The reality is that none of the camps can provide the ultimate answer to the meaning of life we all search for and for many. Let’s look at some of the general beliefs from each camp:

Camp 1:    You are mere mortals created by God and cannot hope to even understand God.  He has provided with a set of rules for life – don’t worry about trying to understand the big stuff.  Just have faith and get on your life following the rules and you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Camp 2:    You are a mere machines created by an accident of evaluation governed by natural physical laws of the Universe.  There is no God and no ultimate purpose to life.   Everything can be understood by reducing it to its most basic component.  There is no afterlife when you die – you simply cease to exist.

Camp 3:  You are not your physical body and your perception of the physical world is an illusion.  The physical laws of the universe seem to exist but there are subordinate to other laws or forces we as yet do not fully understand. There is some greater force that we can give the label of God to but it is not separate to us – in fact we are not separate to anything else in the universe.

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

Sam Harris cranks out blunt, hard-hitting chapters to make his case for why faith itself is the most dangerous element of modern life. And if the devil’s in the details, then you’ll find Satan waiting at the back of the book in the very substantial notes section where Harris saves his more esoteric discussions to avoid sidetracking the urgency of his message.

Interestingly, Harris is not just focused on debunking religious faith, though he makes his compelling arguments with verve and intellectual clarity. The End of Faith is also a bit of a philosophical Swiss Army knife. Once he has presented his arguments on why, in an age of Weapons of Mass Destruction, belief is now a hazard of great proportions, he focuses on proposing alternate approaches to the mysteries of life. Harris recognizes the truth of the human condition, that we fear death, and we often crave “something more” we cannot easily define, and which is not met by accumulating more material possessions. But by attempting to provide the cure for the ills it defines, the book bites off a bit more than it can comfortably chew in its modest page count (however the rich Bibliography provides more than enough background for an intrigued reader to follow up for months on any particular strand of the author’ musings.)

Sam attacks the prevailing premise that Religion is such a great force for good that it should be immune from the rational criticism we apply to other social institutions. He is particularly critical of the religious moderates who are the force that defend and have propagated this premise to the point where it is an accepted norm and criticism of any religion considered a social taboo.

He asserts that religious fanatics have more intellectual integrity than religious moderates. The religious fanatics actually seek and provide more “proof” or “evidence” to support their beliefs while religious moderates refer only to principles.

In the current climate a religious belief, no matter how ludicrous and devoid of any rational foundation, is considered sacred, not to be challenged. Doing so is akin to denial of a person’s basic human rights yet many of these beliefs are increasingly encroaching into world politics where they perpetuate human conflict and result in real human rights abuses.

He also attacks the assertion by religious moderates that all religious beliefs are somehow considered equal and mentioning any differences a social taboo. He talks about the violent and intolerant nature of Islam that advocates subjugating and either converting or enslaving all infidels. His appraisal of Christianity is not that much better. In contrast Buddhism is  far less violent and at the end of the spectrum is the Jain religion of India where the most fanatical adherents will place a cloth of their mouth so as not to risk accidentally inhaling an insect such is their belief in non-violence.

One of the scariest aspects of his talk are the statistics he quoted about the percentage of the American population that have a literal belief in the scriptures, such as a belief in the end of time and that Jesus will come down from the clouds within the next 50 years.

Sam has great reverence for Eastern philosophy and its empirical nature. Towards the end of his talk the topic moved to espousing the superiority of Eastern religious beliefs and what western culture can learn from them. I feel this last part of his talk was lost on much of the audience and as I have not read the book I can only speculate that this was due to limited time.

His talk made it clear that it is the religious moderates that are allowing the minority of fanatics more legitimacy and providing a smoke screen for them to operate behind. He calls for more honest dialog and intellectual honesty by religious moderates and those that should and do know better.

I already understood that SETH was a non physical entity channeled through Jane Roberts and recorded by her husband Robert Bretts. I have an open mind when it comes to this concept having already listened to Ramtha channeled by J.Z. Knight and Abraham channeled by Ester Hicks, both of which I found interesting and positive.

We are first introduced to the idea that we are a multidimensional personality that creates our own reality. Nothing new here but well presented.  The book moved on to reincarnation and how we do not have to fear death. We then get a detailed explanation of the process that occurs after death and how our beliefs in this world will determine how easily we can pass through to our next reincarnation and ultimately a spiritual being without any fixed form.

If we have a strong belief in concepts like heaven and hell then we can expect to experience those for a period of time after our death.  It therefore seems that SETH is suggesting that not only do we create our own reality here in this earthly existence but also in the afterlife!

It was also explained that if we carry a lot of negative emotions such as hatred then we can expect to deal with that again in our next reincarnation until we learn to release them.

Next SETH moved on to religion and this was interesting to start with but, when he launched into a conspiracy theory about Jesus Christ not really being crucified but another guy was in his place and how this was misunderstood by his followers, he started to lose me fast. Not because I have any strong attachment to any particular version of a Jesus story – very much the opposite.

Had SETH said that the entire story of Jesus was a myth it would have given him more credibility for me but I just could not buy this detailed conspiracy story about Christ. He went on to say that this was actually already the second coming of Christ, with the first being the appearance of the Buddha and that he was due again soon and destined to first destroy and then rebuild the Christian religion.

The final part of the book introduces the idea of Reincarnational Civilizations and tells us about one that existed prior to Atlantis that is connected to our own.  We learn how our ancestral civilization developed sound wave based technology and lived in man made caves deep under the ground.

We started off learning we were multidimensional personalities that created our own reality but we were next told that we are linked to past civilizations and locked into various “Dramas” beyond our control…  ‘SETH Speaks’ just did not resonate with me.

In my youth I did read two of his works; ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ and ‘The AntiChrist’ and both made a deep impression on my thinking.  He was an amazing thinker, greatly misunderstood and maligned.

His book ‘The Anti-Christ’ was written over 100 years ago and completely debunked practiced Christianity.

I did a quick search and found a copy of the work online
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/tkannist/E-texts/Nietzsche/AntiChrist.htm

There is one passage in that book that defines Christianity as

“a revolt of all creatures that creep on the ground against everything that is lofty: the gospel of the “lowly” lowers . . .”

This is a slightly different translation to what I read but the basic meaning is the same and greatly influenced my view of Christianity for many years after.

I viewed Christians as a mass of sheep resentful of anyone that dared to think for themselves and not meekly follow a doctrine designed to subordinate and control the masses.  I understood exactly what Karl Marx meant when he said that “Religion is the Opium of the people”.

Christianity proclaims that the meek shall inherit the earth.  I could not accept that mediocrity should be rewarded above endeavour and achievement.  It did seem like a concept thought up by those resentful of those who were aloft.

I also disliked the images of Christianity with Jesus being crucified on the cross.  In contrast are the images of the beautiful and powerful Greek gods and I wondered why we were asked to worship such a pitiful image.  Of course we are told that Jesus died for our sins, yet the concept of original sin is an idea I disdain.  The focus on the glorification of suffering, and the suggestion that we are put here on earth to suffer and through suffering we will be closer to God, is another idea I still totally reject.

In his ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’, Nietzsche announced to the world that the concept of God is dead and the book is written in parables to mimic the bible.  I read the book twenty years ago and don’t remember the details but Nietzsche suggests man as being at a dangerous crossing with an abyss below and on the other side is the ‘overman’.  What we can evolve to when we overcome ourselves.

This concept of the overman was hijacked by Nazi Germany who adopted and perverted the works of Nietzsche making it the state Philosophy and promoting the idea of the overman as the Aryan.

In the last decade of his life Nietzsche suffered mental illness and was in the care of his sister who had just returned after her husband Forster, an extreme right wing racist, committed suicide in Paraguay where he was trying to establish an Aryan colony.   The sister, influenced by extreme right wing ideology, edited and distorted the last writings of her brother under the title ‘A Will To Power’.

So how do I feel  about Christianity today?   I think for me it was a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water.  There are some very negative things in Christianity but there is much more “good”.

There is also the YOU SEE WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR factor.  If you have an idea or belief you continually look for “proof” to support your idea and if it happens to be a belief in negative aspects of Christianity then that is what you will see in abundance.  If you look for good in Christianity you will find it in even greater abundance.  It’s all to do with what we focus on and I no longer focus on what is negative.  Subsequently my view of Christianity today is far more positive these days.

Despite the positive idea of the overman which was more along the lines of reaching a state of enlightenment, much of Nietzsche’s works and ideas focus on negativity.  I doubt I will read anymore Nietzsche but as an original thinker he is to be admired.

I found a post on a blog by Don Barron that I could relate to and can now reflect back and see how the shit I went through was indeed a gift.

If you have or are going through some challenging times and life seems to be treating you unfairly then reflect upon the following ‘WHAT IF THE SHIT IS A GIFT”.   Maybe its really serendipity in disguise…

What if the shit is a gift?

What if what’s going on right now in your life is the greatest gift you could have ever imagined, however there is no way for you to know it for at least 3,6, 12 or 36 months from now?

What if the heat of your situation is what is needed to hatch your dream?

What if ‘this’ hatches a passion within you that under any other circumstances you couldn’t have seen let alone embraced?

What if ‘this’ was is a game you play with yourself?

What if this become your best way to let go of what you no longer needed?

What if this is all a lesson in learning to trust yourself?

What if all this is simply to have you see what really matters?

What if this is your wake up call?

And what if you woke up? What would you be waking up from? What would you be awakening into?

What if you’ve been so focused on what might happen that you’ve blinded yourself to what is happening that’s great.

What if in truth this is a precious jewel wrapped in crap? Would you be willing to take the chance of getting your hands a little dirty in order to really find and recognize that jewel?

I am reminded of a quote by Nietzsche; ‘ that which does not kill us makes us stronger’ and today I feel like I have risen like the phoenix ,soaring above all the shit that was and looking down upon it and seeing it as something that has made me stronger.

There is still some shit trying to stick to me who goes by the name of Evan Iliadis but he has no idea how naturally repellent my new wings are.   Evan Iliadis is a known Cyber Stalker with many victims before me and many that have come after me.   It is no surprise that he and the psychopath found each other and he has published the most sick and disgusting lies about me.  There is no doubt that Evan has gone through his own shit in his life but the difference being his response was to integrate with it.  I pity Evan and only wish him well, I hope he too can find happiness and peace of mind.

This phrase caught my imagination many years ago and is something I continued to contemplate from time to time.   When I decided to write about it here, the first thing I did was to look up the quote. I found a number of variations going back to the twelfth century but all with the same basic idea.

“We are like dwarfs standing [or sitting] upon the shoulders of giants, and so able to see more and see farther than the ancients.”
- Bernard of Chartres, circa 1130

“Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness on sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.”
- John of Salisbury, Metalogicon, 1159

“A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself.”
- Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, 1621

“Dwarfs on the shoulders of giants see further than the giants themselves.”
- Stella Didacus, Eximii verbi divini CONCIONATORIS ORDINNIS MINORUM Regularis Observantiae, 1622

“A dwarf on a giant’s shoulders sees farther of the two.”
- George Herbert, Jacula Prudentum, 1651

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
- Isaac Newton, letter to Robert Hooke, 1676

“Newton won the race in part because, as he put it, he had stood on the shoulders of giants and in part because he just happened to be the biggest giant of them all.”
- Alan Cromer, Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science, 1993

“In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand.”
- Gerald Holton

It is a metaphor for how we as individuals (dwarfs) can benefit from all those great minds that have gone before us (collectively a giant) by gaining great insight and understanding beyond what our own intellectual capacity and limited resources would enable us learn in a life time.

The quote is most often attributed to Isaac Newton who would be considered by most to be a genius.  He saw himself as benefiting from those that came before him enabling a greater view.

Today my basic understanding of many areas of physics and science would exceed that of Isacc Newton.   Would I profess to be smarter than him?   OF COURSE NOT.   I am a mere dwarf peaking over the shoulder of such giants and my view is only greater by virtue of all those that came after him.

Today we are in a unique position in history.   In the West at least we are no longer compelled to be prisoners of superstition and ignorance.  This is called the information age and there has never been more of it out there.  So much that most of us suffer information overload.

We all crave answers but most of us feel dwarfed by the amount of information and complexity of ideas out there.  It’s easier to live our lives in reactive mode as our forefathers have done before us.   Just go with the flow and do the best you can as circumstances seem to dictate.  This is exactly what most people will do.

If you are reading this far then you are not like most people.  You are searching for answers and will not be satisfied without trying to at least glimpse over the shoulder of giants.  Don’t be shy.   Don’t underestimate yourself or your ability to see further.

Stand on the shoulders of giants and take a look but don’t let anyone put blinkers on you and limit your view.

In a previous post I reviewed the book ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins and mentioned that he argued the case for Darwin’s theory of evolution.   I found it surprising that any scientist and a biologist at that would still be promoting the theories of Darwin which have already been fundamentally disproven by the latest scientific research.

Irreducible Complexity

One cornerstone of Darwinism is that complex structures evolved and by his own assertion in ‘Origin of Species’ he said that if it could be proven that a complex structure could be found in nature that could not have evolved then his theory would be wrong.  This is the concept of irreducible complexity.   Michael Behe is a biochemical researcher and professor at Leigh University in Pennsylvania who has identified a number of such structures such as the bacterial flagellum.  For more information see this article about Michael Behe on the IDEA Center site which promotes Intelligent Design as a scientific theory without any religious affiliations.

Natural Selection

Another cornerstone of Darwinism is the belief in random mutations resulting in natural selection.  The idea being that random genetic mutations are continuously being introduced and those that provide the specie with some benefit or advantage in their environment are kept while those that do not are discarded.

This theory is also out the window with the latest scientific findings showing the real process to be almost the reverse of this.  It is now known that DNA is totally passive and does not have the ability to self activate either intelligently or randomly.  The mechanism for introducing any genetic change is purely environmental.  At a cellular level, receptors on the cell wall detect environmental signals that cause a response in the cell which may involve activating DNA.  There is nothing random about these responses.   Laboratory tests have proven conclusively that when the same environmental stimulus is given to an identical group of cells it will result in an identical response every time.  There is no random mutation and thus no natural selection.

Darwin Is Dead

‘In Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ Neitzsche announced to the world that the concept of God is dead.  It is similarly time to announce the ultimate demise of Darwin and the theory of evolution.

It is said that we stand on the shoulder of giants meaning those that came before us.   Darwin was not the originator of idea of evolution but built on the ideas from Lamarck and Wallace.   Many of the foundations of his evolutionary theory are now disproven but that does not mean that Darwin deserves to be forgotten or ridiculed.

His ideas were revolutionary at the time and helped advance science and our understanding of life.   Science is about testing and adopting working theories and using them until such time that they are disproven or superseded by a better one.   That it has taken so long for Darwinism to be superseded is a testament to how important and influential it has been.  Darwin deserves his place in history and to be remembered for his courage and conviction as a pioneer who cleared a path for others to follow.

In his book ‘The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins attempts to disprove the existence of God and make the case for atheism but actually never really addresses the most fundamental philosophical questions about the meaning of life and our very existence.

When attacking the concept of God, Richard Dawkins confines his definition to the God of the three major religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.   What the book actually does do is dismantle and expose the absurdity of these organized religions and the hypocrisy of many of their proponents.   Much of the book is really just a scathing attack on organized religion with numerous historical examples of human rights abuses carried out in the name of these organized religions.

One of the stated objectives of the book is to offer support for anyone that currently feels trapped within a religious environment letting them know that many others share doubts and confusion and that it’s ok to reject their religious upbringing.  In this regard the book is probably successful.

Richard does try to answer all the arguments the religious camp might present to support their concept of God, such as organized religions are the bases for, or otherwise have a monopoly on, morality and without it the world would be thrown into chaos.   This argument is easily demolished with countless examples showing the majority of  non-religious people share much the same values and principles as espoused by religions people as well as numerous examples of the immorality of organized religion.

One of the most interesting chapters in the book for me was the one dealing with the cargo cults of the South Pacific Islands.  I had seen a few references to these cults in the past but Richard presents the most detailed explanation of how they evolved I have heard.   These were isolated cultures that had their first exposure to the western civilization with the arrival of the US military during WWII.  The military built airfields by which all sorts of supplies arrived from the heavens.  To the people these seemed like visits from the Gods and after the military left they maintained the airfields and built replica bamboo airplanes and the like to try to attract the gods to return and bring more supplies.  They wait in vigil every day for the return of the Gods and have built up a detailed system of beliefs around them.  From an anthropological view point these cargo cults show how quickly a new religion can develop.

Richard’s contention seems to be that Atheism is the only logical and rational conclusion for any thinking person and I totally disagree with this. His book confuses a rejection of organized religion with a belief in God but fails to explore the possibility that there may be many other concepts of God than that of the three major religions.

He presents atheism as the only alternative to organized religion ignoring any other possibilities.  To me atheism is as implausible as the organized religions he attacks.   Atheism is a belief in nothing and no ultimate purpose.  We are expected to believe we are just an accident in the primeval soup in a Universe that just somehow already existed or spontaneously came into being in a big bang.

Richard also argues the case for Darwinism yet the latest scientific research shows that Darwin’s theory of evolution is already fundamentally disproven.  I will elaborate further on that in a separate post.

While I reject many of the ideas in his book I still believe it was well worth the read and recommend anyone interested in the topics discussed add it to their reading list.  Thank God (sorry could not resist the pun) there are voices like Richard Dawkins to counter balance the fanaticism of religious zealots that seem to be getting all the attention these days.

Anyone with a rational, inquiring mind soon discovers that religion, despite having always claimed to have all the answers, does not have any one can call ‘real’. Subscribers to religious beliefs include some highly intelligent people but, for many of them, it is a matter of turning off the logic circuits in the brain. When it comes to religious matters, ‘having faith’, even to them, means ‘just believe without question’.

Equally, those advocating atheism expect us to believe we are an accident in a primeval soup. A soup within a universe that just came into being with a big bang. For me it still misses the fundamental question of where we ultimately came from and the meaning to life and I cannot accept that there is none.

There is an old saying that the ‘Truth is out there’, but if you seek such answers then I believe the real truth can only be found within and discovering it requires effort on your part. Most people want it handed to them on a silver platter and there is no shortage of people out there trying to peddle their ‘answers’.

The answer, I believe, is ultimately not an explanation that you can logically understand, but a knowing and awareness that you have to experience firsthand. Others can guide you but be wary of those that claim to be able to give you the answer. My advice is to search for the Truth Within.