Hi Glenn,
Your comments are generally on target, but Dawkins is probably not the best
guide in this area.
I strongly recommend 'Quantum Questions', edited by Ken Wilber, in which the
major physicists of the Twentieth century speak on this issue. Wilber, in
his preface, begins thus
"The theme of this book, if I may briefly summarize the argument of the
physicists presented herein, is that modern physics offers no positive
support (let alone proof) for a mystical worldview. Nevertheless, every one
of the physicists in this volume was a mystic." (p xi)
"To attempt to bolster a spiritual worldview with data from physics - old or
new - is simply to misunderstand entirely the nature and function of each."
(p 3)
"The central mystical experience may be fairly (if somewhat poetically)
described as follows: in the mystical consciousness, Reality is apprehended
directly and immediately, meaning without any mediation, any symbolic
elaboration, any conceptualization, or any abstractions; subject and object
become one in a timeless and spaceless act that is beyond any and all forms
of mediation. Mystics universally speak of contacting reality in its
'suchness', its 'isness', its 'thatness', without any intermediaries; beyond
words, symbols, names, thoughts, images." (p 5-6)
"The physicist ... is not looking at 'things in themselves' ... Rather, the
physicist is looking at nothing but a set of highly abstract differential
equations - not at 'reality' itself, but at mathematical symbols of reality
... Sir James Jeans was specific ... 'our studies can never put us into
contact with reality' ... Eddington ... put it most trenchantly ... 'We
have learnt that the exploration of the external world by the methods of
physical science leads not to a concrete reality but to a shadow world of
symbols, beneath which those methods are unadapted for penetrating.' " (p 6)
This is just a sample from Wilber's introduction. I found the essays by the
scientist's themselves (Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie,
Jeans, Planck, Pauli, and Eddinton) interesting and compelling.
For further reading on the new physics, Wilber suggests that Heinz Pagel's
'The Cosmic Code' is the best available, and the only book he can
unreservedly recommend on the topic.
Wilber is relatively kind to Capra, calling him 'one of the most careful of
the new-age writers', but insists his biggest fault is reductionism,
something which Steven Jay Gould also asserts.
You quote Dawkins as follows "Quantum mechanics, that brilliantly
successful flagship theory of modern science, is deeply mysterious and hard
to understand. Eastern mystics have always been deeply mysterious and hard
to understand. Therefore, Eastern mystics must have been talking about
quantum theory all along." If this is the standard of his argument, it's not
worth reading. This is a total travesty of, for example, Capra. I have great
respect for Dawkins as an outstanding theorist in evolutionary theory, but
his abrasive style and silliness in his exaggerated comments make him a poor
guide to anything, in my view.
Regards,
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:58 BST