Reversing the Copernican Principle

October 20, 2013 | None Yet - Post a Comment

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism, New Spirituality, Scientific Revolution

In his book, Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search of Scientific Truth, Jim Baggott sets out six principles that he believes should serve as criteria to judge a credible scientific theory.  One of these is the Copernican Principle, which he describes as follows: ” The universe is not organized for our benefit and we are not uniquely privileged observers.  Science strives to remove “us” from the centre of the picture  making our  existence a natural consequence of reality rather than the reason for it. ”

In my interview with Jim Baggott on October 21, 2013 (Conversations Beyond Science and Religion) we talked a little bit about the validity of this principle and I want here to expand on a few points I did not have time to make during the show.

As an initial matter, Copernicus did not invent the Copernican Principle.  Rather, he is credited for finding that the Earth revolved around the Sun, rather than the Sun around the Earth.  Metaphorically, Copernicus’s finding has led a long line of thinkers to conclude that what he really showed was that man is not the “crown of creation;” that we are not special in any way, but simply collections of organic molecules roaming around on a random planet circling the sun, which in turn is part of a galaxy that itself circles other star formations out among the vast, impersonal universe.   Where once we were the center of the universe, now we are leftover stardust.

Modern physics has taken this finding and turned it into a working principle of science.  Since Copernicus showed that humans are not the center of the cosmos, the thinking is that science must also be practiced with this principle firmly established. We are to treat the problem of existence as a puzzle that can only be solved if we assume that what we call “reality” is separate from “us,” and only answers using this framework will be considered scientific.

But this approach imposes a handicap upon our thinking that we don’t need and cannot justify.

It may be considered humble to take the position that we are a natural consequence of a reality “out there,” but it also leads to a lack of responsibility if this very same reality instead comes from “in here.”  It also leads to the foolhardy belief where we  imagine the world  – and our bodies — are machines operating beyond our control, when exactly the opposite is true.

The progress of science is steadily showing that the Eastern mystics were right: the world is a product of our internal states, or as Sir James Jeans said 100 years ago, the universe is looking more like a great thought than a great machine.  Quantum theory shows a connection between consciousness and the physical world.  Atoms are not things and have no existence outside of the mind.  To be is to be perceived.  Parapsychology studies show the power of the mind over the body and the external world,  The obvious fine-tuning of the universe and the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” strongly suggest that a mind sits behind creation.  In dreams and hallucinations we witness the mind conjuring up an outside physical world mistaken for the world at large.

As we take a broader view of the evidence, the reality we thought was out-there draws closer to us — and then we realize it is us.

The Copernican principle is not science, but part of the holding pattern we sit in until we have time to study the reality we thought was out there.  We then realize, as shown by the evolving “new thought” movement, that the world is a product of the “in-here.”  The world is a reflection, a dream, of internal states.  It is time we recognize this unavoidable truth and finally accept responsibility for the world.  Copernicus was right about the Earth and the Sun, but wrong about the role of humans in the cosmos.  It will turn that we are the spiritual center — and hence the crown of creation — after all.



Response to Lawrence Krauss and His Materialistic Vision

April 28, 2012 | 4 Comments

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism, Multiverse, New Consciousness, Scientific Revolution

In a recent article on Scientific American’s website, entitled Consolation of Philosophy,, Professor Lawrence Krauss expounds on some of the themes in his book, A Universe from Nothing, and concludes that philosophy has nothing of importance to tell us about the real world, and that only physics can lead us to truth.

Professor Krauss, in rejecting philosophy, fails to acknowledge that he is promoting his own brand of philosophy known as scientific materialism.  So what he really seems to be saying is that scientific materialism is the final truth, and we should not bother considering any other alternative.

But scientific materialism – the view that a real world of matter exists independently of consciousness – has a number of fatal flaws.  Two of them are (1) several great thinkers, such as Bishop George Berkeley, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant, showed that we can never prove that such a real world of matter actually exists outside of the mind; rather, as Hume said, this is a belief humankind takes on faith; and (2) in the scientific realm, quantum theory shows that consciousness plays an unmistakable role in forming the world of experience.  (F. Kuttner & B. Rosenblum, The Quantum Enigma (   Quantum theory teaches that an objective world of particles does not exist.  (D. Lindley, The End of Physics .  The fact that quantum theory gives a role to consciousness in experience may be taken as a sign of a developing convergence between science and other fields of thought, and as evidence that the philosophical idealists were on the right track after all.

It is time for the scientific thought leaders to open their minds to the real possibility that there may very well be a fundamental synergy between mind and the physical world, and that this fact will not destroy science but perpetually energize it.  Science deals only with models, and the evidence, from quantum theory to the placebo effect to the unavoidable fine-tuning of the universe, shows we are due for a change-over  in model lines.

With science unable to bring themselves to accept mind or intelligence in the make-up of the physical world, it is forced to fall back to the multiverse and string theory to explain such things as the physical constants and the conflict between gravity and quantum theory.  But neither of these two theories can be proven or falsified, so their role as “scientific” theories is doubtful.  (See George Ellis,  Does the Multiverse Really Exist?, Scientific American (Aug. 2011) ; L. Smolin, The Trouble with Physics,  So why is all of this important?  Because if consciousness in fact plays a role in the formation of the world, then it is time we take more responsibility for the world we live in, rather than pass off the task to some external force, and fanciful notions of multiple universes and hidden dimensions.

Materialism’s Straw Man — and a New Opponent Rising

April 5, 2012 | 1 Comment

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism, New Consciousness, Scientific Revolution

In books such as The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins), Knocking on Heaven’s Door (Lisa Randall), and The Grand Design (Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow), our modern science writers set up an easy straw man when promoting materialistic orthodoxy.  Modern scientists believe that their only opponent to control the debate over the origin and evolution of the cosmos is organized religion.  They are wrong.  Another opponent is rising, and they will soon have to deal with it.

Materialism is the view that the entire physical universe can be reduced to mindless particles in motion.  It holds to the belief that there is an objective world, independent of perception and independent of mind.

The great mystery of materialism is how this material world sprang from the void and evolved itself into a picture-perfect universe.

Material scientists have the mathematical laws of nature, the scientific method, and a lock on all of the professorships in the leading universities to argue their case.

But their argument is made much easier because they believe they have only one opponent in the debate to control the discourse on the origin and evolution of the cosmos: organized religion.  In the standard religious worldview, God replaces the laws of nature as the source for the universe.  But the physical universe of religion is the same as the universe of modern science: it is a world of dead matter independent of the human mind.  Therefore, materialists ask the obvious question: what is the source of God and through what mechanism does it influence and create the world?

By a wave of the hand?  His daily whims? His great mind?  So religion cites to “God” as the ultimate explanation for the universe, order, and life, but what is the explanation for God?

Most western religions are themselves materialistic in that they accept part of the scientific story – such as the Big Bang, dark matter, and dark energy – but fall back upon God as the original and final cause.

Orthodox religion uses faith to make the final step in the explanation, but this sort of faith has no currency in science.

So modern scientists, propping up organized religion as the “usual suspect,” proceed to treat the religious worldview as a rag doll, beating its head upon the anvil of almighty Science.  Religion, scientists argue, relies ultimately upon childish myths and superstition: creation in 7 days; a 6000-year universe; a bearded father in the sky; a savior walking on water and healing the sick; and great religious texts channeled from God to wandering peasants.

Almighty methodical science vs. a child’s storybook; an MIT PhD vs. a matchbook GED; a Formula One car vs. a horse and buggy; Richard Dawkins vs. Jerry Falwell.

But there is another opponent rising to take up the challenge of materialism and of organized religion.  This opponent is of a different kind and is not so easily dismissed.

This new approach is based upon a radical re-orientation of how we look out at the world.  It treats the external world not as a foreign object created by happenstance in the Big Bang, but as a dream powered by the united unconscious mind; the one mind of what Indian philosophy calls Brahman, what new age thinkers call the Source, and others call God.

We see the same sky not because there is one sky resting independently of ourselves but because we are one mind and are participating in the same dream.  With this viewpoint, we find an explanation for how nothing came from something; the order in the universe; the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants and laws.  We see how reports and studies of the paranormal – how minds talk to each other, foretell the future, and see vast distances without a telescope – become part of our worldview.  We see why, when scientists peer into the core of the physical world, they find not tiny things, but the quivering wave function of quantum theory.

And we also find why, despite the overwhelming intellectual power of science, the mind of man will not easily give up its hold on this great being called God; the reason, in the end, will be because man cannot give up on himself, and the unlimited power we know rests inside. Another opponent is rising to accept the challenge of materialism, and this one will be around until the debate is finally over.

Is God in the Particle, the Heavens, or Both?

March 4, 2012 | None Yet - Post a Comment

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism, New Consciousness, Scientific Revolution

            At the same time cosmologists are looking for God in a particle, quantum theory concludes the ultimate substance of the universe is not a particle, but a wave equation.  As Heisenberg famously said, “atoms are not things.” Stephen Hawking, in The Grand Design, questions whether an objective world of particles even exists independently of theory.  Rather, he says that our view of reality depends upon the governing model.  Today that governing model is materialism, the view that at the core of existence is not spirit or God but tiny things and the elusive God particle.  But what we need is not a new particle (there are already 26-odd fundamental particles in the Standard Model of particle physics), but a new model of reality.  I would guess that when science finally brings consciousness fully into the next worldview, they will no longer be looking for God in a particle, but will instead find him at the same place He has always been: deep inside, and far out among the starry heavens.

Not a War But a Revolution: Materialism is Wrong

December 6, 2011 | 2 Comments

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism, Scientific Method, Scientific Revolution

            In War of the Worldviews, Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow (perhaps best known for co-authoring The Grand Design with Stephen Hawking) debate, through dueling essays, the question of whether a spiritual consciousness should play a part in our current scientific worldview.  Mr. Mlodinow adopts the staunch materialistic standpoint, constantly arguing that only what can tested, weighed and measured is real.   According to him, this invisible spiritual element, advanced by Mr. Chopra, is simply an illusion; a nice thought without scientific credibility.  Taking out his ruler and compass, Mr. Mlodinow finds he cannot measure “consciousness” and therefore concludes it does not exist. 

            One of Mr. Mlodinow’s often repeated attacks in his essays is that metaphysics and philosophy are worthless, too malleable, and of no use for science.  What is real is what we see, and what we see is a world independent of our brains.  Who needs metaphysics?

             He writes that “For while metaphysics is fixed and guided by personal belief and wish fulfillment, science progresses and is inspired by the excitement of discovery.  The scientist’s dream is to make new discoveries, especially when they mean that established theories must be revised.”

             But here’s the problem: materialism itself is a metaphysics.  And, indeed, this metaphysics is fixed for most modern scientists who are guided by their personal belief and wish fulfillment in adopting materialism as their guiding principle.  Scientists do not practice their craft in a rarefied place where no-one engages in metaphysics; instead modern scientists almost uniformly adopt the metaphysics of materialism, and proceed as if no other way of looking at the world, — or being rationale — has any credibility. 

            So let’s first define a few terms.  Metaphysics “is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.”           

            “Materialism” is the “theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.” So the metaphysics of materialism holds that matter wins, mind loses; if mind exists it will some day be found to be an emergent property of matter.  Materialism follows from “naïve realism,” or as its proponents prefer, “realism.”  “Realism” is the position that what appears to exist really does exist in the same manner as its appearance, external to the mind.  Mr. Mlodinow writes that “scientists deal only with phenomena we can see, hear, smell, detect with instruments, or measure with numbers.”  Nobel prize-winning physicists Steven Weinberg speaks directly to this point in his book, Dreams of a Final Theory.  He writes that “Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy.  For most of us, it is rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories.”  (p. 167).           

            And the problem is two-fold: First, scientists, as typified by Leonard Mlodinow and Steven Weinberg, do in fact follow a metaphysics known as materialism or naive realism.  Second, this metaphysics is called naive realism for a reason. 

             The reason naive realism is naive is because, as thinkers have shown for several centuries, not only do our senses sometimes deceive, but we all have experiences, such as dreams and hallucinations, where we do not need our physical senses to experience an outside world: our mind itself is capable of conjuring a real-seeming world as if from nothing.  These experiences put into question not only whether some of the physical world is mind-created, but whether it all is.      

            Naïve realism ignores an entire series of important findings by philosophers in the 17th and 18th century.  In short order, it goes like this: John Locke (1632-1704)  concluded that some qualities of an external object, such as color, taste, and sound, or secondary qualities, are subjective and added to experience by the mind.   If this were not true, then everyone would like the taste of beer and enjoy the same music, and there would be no such thing a color-blindness.   But other qualities of object, such as number and shape, or primary qualities, Locke believed really did exist outside in the world apart from the mind.   This is similar to the view currently held, at least in theory, by modern science, which holds that certain physical qualities in external objects create the experience of reality in our brains. 

             George Berkeley (1685-1753) then took the next logical step.  He reasoned that since color, taste, and sound are inseparable from a physical object (such as an apple), it makes no logical sense to say that some parts of the object are in the mind and rest are actually outside of the mind.  This led Berkeley to conclude that all physical reality resides in the mind of an eternal spirit. 

             David Hume (1711-1776) adopted Berkeley standpoint in concluding that we have no logical or empirical reason to believe that a world existed independently of the mind; rather, he said, most people, including the “vulgar” and the philosopher, simply take a mind-independent world for granted.  He writes that even though an objective, studied inquiry into the subject shows that nothing is ever present to the mind but its own perceptions and ideas, the belief in a world outside of the mind “has taken such a deep root in the imagination, that ’tis impossible to ever eradicate it, nor will any strain’d metaphysical conviction of the dependence of our perceptions be sufficient for that purpose.” (Treatise of Human Nature, Bk. I, Pt. IV, Sec. II). 

             So why is this little detour into the thoughts of great philosophers important?  Because it shows that the existence of a mind-independent world is an assumption based neither on reason nor empiricism.  In other words, science, using the methods of empiricism, cannot prove a mind-independent world exists; rather this is an assumption that scientists take for granted in developing their theories.

             So what is wrong with this?  A few things. Modern scientists convey an air of invincibility when discussing their theories, as if no other approach to understanding the world will ever have credibility.  But when we look deeper, we find that scientists have based the scientific enterprise upon a metaphysical framework — materialism —that not only can never be proven true but, as scientists themselves know, does not accurately describe the physical world.  (See quantum theory.)   Thus, scientists practice the highest form of intellectual investigation within the most naive of frameworks. 

             Metaphysics is as important to science as a foundation is to a skyscraper.  And yes, our modern scientists do follow a metaphysics, as they have build the scientific enterprise upon the foundation of materialism. 

             It is this foundation that is in doubt, not the scientific method.




Tags: Chopra, consciousness, Deepak, materialism, metaphysics, Mlodinow, philosophy, revolution, spirituality, worldviews

Big Bang or Dream of God? Two Stories of the Universe Compared

January 23, 2011 | 4 Comments

Categories: Big Bang, Scientific Revolution

However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists.  Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.  If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason − for then we would know the mind of God.
                                                            – Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

            A fiery, chaotic explosion of infinite energy, or a great dream of a united mind? A world born in a Big Bang or in the mind of God? Which story better explains our world?  Is one science fiction and the other, science fact?  If so, which one? How do we tell?  Do we count votes? Do we see which story is taught in the most schools or appears in the most textbooks?  Or should we pick the story that explains more? Click here to read more »

Funerals, Thought Leaders, and the Need to Question Authority

November 28, 2010 | 1 Comment

Categories: Scientific Method, Scientific Revolution, The Power of Questioning

German physicist, Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, is credited with observing that “science advances one funeral at a time.”  What did he mean? 

What we call “modern science” is in fact a set of theories advanced by the day’s leading scientists, teachers, authors, and textbook writers.  (Included among this group would be Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krause, Stephen Weinberg, Leon Lederman,  John Gribben, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennet).  These individuals ”control the airwaves” by defining the body of scientific knowledge that they hand down to their students, television commentators, readers, and the public at large.  Boosted by their association with Science, the most authoritative intellectual discipline, these thought leaders direct the course of our worldview and determine  the theories and ideas we are supposed to believe in.   These ideas and theories include the Big Bang (the world was created in a gigantic explosion of matter, space, and time), cosmic inflation (the matter present at the Big Bang expanded by 50 orders of magnitude in the space of a millisecond),  dark matter (most of the matter holding the universe together is actually invisible), dark energy (some mysterious invisible cosmic repulsive force is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate), the multiverse (our universe is actually one of trillions of other universes that sprang from the void), and the big one, Darwinian evolution (life arose from a swamp and evolves according to the mindless, directionless process known as natural selection.)   So these theories filter down to us over the years and we wind up accepting them without so much as a raised eyebrow.   Who are we to question these authoritative figures and who can ever hope to alter these inviolable ideas?  

Well, it’s a bit crude, but if the chief proponent of any leading theory dies, the “head is cut off” and there may be room for a new theory.  That is what I think Max Planck meant. 

But it does not have to be this way.  Another way to change a theory, according to the methods of science, is to come up with a better theory, rather than wait for the proponent of the old theory to die.  What makes such a theory “better” would be that it explains more, is more logically consistent,  operates with fewer assumptions, and is testable.  The late Harvard professor and evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr, once wrote that what separates science from religion is science’s “openness to challenge.”   What distinguishes these two fields of thought, Mayr wrote, is science’s “willingness to abandon current accepted belief when a new, better one is proposed.” (E. Mayr, This is Biology: The Science of the Living World).   But science today is far removed from practicing any such openness.  Rather, the bookstore shelves are filled with volumes denigrating any belief or thought that departs from the current scientific worldview. Is every sentence written by a member of the intelligent design movement hogwash? Does the new age (or new spirituality) movement have absolutely no useful contribution to make in the development of an improved worldview? Are all religions outright false and all their followers, delusional?   Is today’s scientific worldview the only possible way to view the world rationally?

In logic, the “appeal to authority” is considered a fallacy to the extent the argument is accepted as true simply because someone — even an authority figure – said it.  Put differently, people become authorities because what they say is shown to be more plausible than competing theories, if not true; their beliefs are not accepted as  true simply because they said it.   Although the opinion of a prestigious scientific figure is entitled to a degree of deference, it is contrary to the spirit of science to give undue weight even to the opinions of experts.  As one philosophy professor put it, “It is in the spirit of science to reject views of the old masters when new evidence sheds doubt on established views.  A prominent example in [the past]  century is the rejection by the majority of physicists of Albert Einstein’s interpretation of certain aspects of quantum physics. Einstein never accepted the now prevalent interpretation of the intrinsic indeterminancy of certain characteristics of elementatry particles between measurements.” (H. Byerly, A Primer of Logic).

Science is supposed to be the open-source search for truth, not a fortress of  untouchable theories to be protected at all costs. 

What does this mean?  It means that to change our worldview on a faster timetable than the one Planck envisioned, we need to dispense with any inhibitions preventing us from questioning the thought leaders of science.  Where did all that matter come from in the Big Bang?  What evidence is there that the very early universe inflated trillions of times in the blink of an eye?  Must we really accept these notions of dark matter and dark energy or is there a better way to explain the positioning of galactic bodies?   If quantum theory actually tells us that there is no “real world” independent of consciousness (as many physicists believe), then why does science base its theories about such an illusory independent world? Doesn’t science’s inability to reconcile gravity with quantum theory  tell us something is wrong with the standard scientific model? Do we have to imagine trillions of other universes to account for the strange fit between the conditions of the cosmos and life?  Did God hand Darwin’s The Origin of Species down from the heavens or is there a small chance Richard Dawkins is in some way wrong?     

Perhaps all of these theories will withstand questioning. Perhaps some will fall by the wayside and be replaced by something better.  But we will not be carrying out science if we simply accept them as Truth without even raising our hands and asking a  question or two.  And, of course, there is always the alternative for those who are extremely patient: we can wait for the funeral processions, and then try again.

Comments, questions, great thoughts?

Tags: Questioning authroity; thought leaders;

Seven Reasons Why We Must Question Scientific Materialism

October 18, 2010 | 4 Comments

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism, Scientific Revolution

The majority of people accept the teachings of scientific materialism without question.  If a Nobel prize-winning scientist tells us the universe was created in the Big Bang, it was; if he tells us the early universe inflated trillions of times in the blink of an eye, it most certainly did; if he tells us the picture-perfect universe evolved from chaos of the Big Bang with no intelligent guiding force we believe that too; if a Harvard professor tells us life arose from a primordial swamp and then evolved from primitive bacteria to the structured order of the DNA molecule and all life forms, we buy into that as well.  And we buy in with such commitment that anyone who disagrees with these established truths is misguided, if not ignorant. 

Here are seven reasons why we must question these teachings of scientific materialism:

1.   Modern science has avoided, but never answered, the basic question of how something came from nothing, or more specifically, how all the matter necessary to form the trillions upon trillions of galaxies in the sky miraculously sprang from nothing at the Big Bang.   Since scientific materialism cannot get off the ground without answering this question,  we should pin material scientists down and make them answer this question.  It turns out they cannot do so without assuming something, whether a force-field, light rays, or matter, at creation.  This is an assumption, not an explanation.  

2.  Modern science has no answer for how the mindless, chaotic matter conveniently available at the Big Bang immediately started operating according to the laws of nature.  What power infused this dead and dumb matter with the clockwork precision of scientific laws?

3.  The conditions of the universe are perfectly tuned to allow life to prosper on planet Earth.  Modern science’s latest explanation for this stunning coincidence is that not just one, but 10E500 (10 with 500 zeros) universes, sprang from the void at the Big Bang.  In one of these multiverses, they say, the laws of nature would have turned out just so life could exist.  This seems like a bit of a stretch.

4.  After assuming that matter burst from the void and rushed toward a world of perfect order, material scientists next assume that these mindless particles assembled themselves into the precise forms necessary to create life — specifically, the DNA molecule.  How did mindless bits of dust teach themselves the language of the genetic code?

5.  Darwin’s theory of evolution is mindless, and without purpose or direction.  Life, according to these materialists, evolves through random mutations – copying mistakes – that are passed on from generation to generation. If so, why did the living world turn out to be a zoological garden rather than a freak show? How did bacteria mindlessly evolve toward the form of Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley?  Why does the genetic code  solve any challenge the natural world throws at life, from fur to large beaks, to the opposing thumb?  Why are the parts available to adapt life to the needs of the environment? Assuming that some form of evolution did occur, is Darwin’s mindless, random variety, the only possible kind? 

6.  Several hundred years ago philosophers agreed that the mind can only know itself.   Therefore, we must assume that something exists outside of the mind, what Kant called the “thing-in-itself” and what modern scientists call realism.   If the mind can only know itself, then how do we know that the world we experience is the product of the Big Bang, rather than the  product of the united mind of humankind?

7.  If the world is really a dream, but we assume it is not by blindly following the teachings of modern, materialistic science, then we have unwittingly turned a dream world into a prison with no escape, for a mind can only  build a dream with the thoughts and beliefs it holds deeply inside.  

We question the car dealer about the frequency of oil changes; coaches about player substitutions; dentists about toothbrushes; and teachers about grades, but we remain silent when material scientists build a worldview that determines our lives and our world.

In the end, we must question scientific materialism because it will turn out to be wrong.

Radical Worldviews

September 27, 2010 | None Yet - Post a Comment

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism, Scientific Revolution

A radical idea is one ”marked by considerable departure from the usual or traditional.”  The thought that the world is really a powerful dream-in-progress of the one mind of God — synonymous  with the united mind of humankind – is indeed radical, as it is a departure from “the usual or traditional” worldview of modern science, which is based upon materialism.    But the real question is whether this new thought is a departure from the truth; it could be that what we now call the “traditional and the usual”  is the  radical viewpoint, and this new thought, the truth. 

This explains why we must be careful not to use labels to control what we think about, particularly if the label-maker is an advocate for the unexamined “traditional and usual.”  

Now the thought that the world is really a dream is radical when compared to modern science’s current worldview.  Under modern science’s theories, the universe emerged from the Big Bang approximately 14 million years ago and then with the help of the  laws and forces of nature managed to transform itself into the picture perfect world we see outside our windows.   Modern science says matter –the hard stuff of world — came first and then mind and life emerged from matter.  If the world is a dream exactly the opposite would be true: matter, or rather, the appearance of matter, the earth, the sky, and other people, emerged from the mind as in any other dream, but with one big difference.  In this instance the source of the dream is not one person but the united mind of humankind; the forceful presence of what we call  reality would be a result of the power of the united dreaming mind, also known as God.  

So the dream perspective is indeed radical as compared to modern science’s perspective.  But, on the other hand, the material science worldview is radical when compared to the dream perspective.   Imagine you are dreaming at night and someone in your dream tells you that it really is not a dream at all; some force outside of your mind planted the dream-vision in front of you for you to experience.  Would not you think that this person in your dream is off his rocker?  After all, it’s your dream coming from your mind.

A modern scientist can say the same thing about someone who believes the world is really a dream.  Modern scientists believe the world came at us via the Big Bang, not from us; the world of nature controls us, we do not control it.  They effectively tell us God’s dream is the result of unknown, mysterious “scientific” forces born in the far-off void of the early universe.

So we have competing viewpoints, both radical to each other, but with one difference:  the world of the dream is logically prior to science’s Big-Bang materialism.  What do I mean by that?  I mean that it is more likely the world is a dream rather than a place born in the chaotic frenzy of the Big Bang.  We know in our world dreams are possible; no one has ever experienced a Big Bang, science has no answer for where the matter and energy supposedly present at the Big Bang came from, or how this mindless matter ever managed to begin following the mathematical laws of nature.

All these questions are answered in the big dream;  the mind can always determine the course of its own dream but only if the individuals dreamers (i.e., the people of the world) unite to control the dream along a common path.

Tags: radical;worldview;revolution;dream