How Bad Can It Be?: Noetic Science Goes to the Movies

howbadcanitbe

That Dan Brown was a terrible writer with a weakness for the sort of pseudohistorical conspiracy theories usually floated by college sophomores stinking of bongwater, we knew from his previous books. But what makes his latest The Lost Symbol truly annoying, as opposed to merely forgettable, is his use of so-called “noetic science” as a major plot point. Brown being inexplicably popular as he is, there’s already a ripple effect; BookScan indicates that Lynne McTaggart’s The Intention Experiment, which gets a mention in The Lost Symbol, is experiencing a spike in sales.

This is good news for Lynne McTaggart, who is, I’m sure, a lovely person — but bad news for those of us with fully-functional bullshit detectors. If noetics really is the next big thing, then we have reason to dread the water-cooler, these days, those of us who are interested in religion, or science, or both, and who resent the cheapening of both that comes of trying to fuse the two. Here’s Brown’s rundown on noetics — what we used to call “mind over matter,” back in the day:

[Katherine’s research] was a scientific tour de force — a massive collection of experiments that proved human thought was a real and measurable force in the world. Katherine’s experiments demonstrated the effect of human thought on everything from ice crystals to the movement o subatomic particles. The results were conclusive and irrefutable, with the potential to transform skeptics into believers and affect global consciousness on a massive scale.

“We have scientifically proven that the power of human thought grows exponentially with the number of minds that share that thought. …. The idea of universal consciousness is no ethereal New Age concept. It’s a hard-core scientific reality… and harnessing it has the potential to transform our world. This is the underlying discovery of Noetic Science.”

(Something about Brown’s prose always sound like he doth protest a wee bit too much.)

Now, Dan Brown knows a good idea when he steals one; the central conceit of The DaVinci Code was lifted wholesale from the conspiracy classic Holy Blood, Holy Grail. A couple of media sensations over the last few years have popularized the pseudo-science of noetics — the movie What the [Bleep] Do We Know!?, and the book The Secret and its spinoffs. It’s via one or both of these that noetic science most likely came onto Dan Brown’s radar. At least, it’s these two that I single out for blame and scorn today.

What the Bleep was a sleeper hit in 2004; it’s been described as a documentary, but it’s more of a manifesto, mixing talking-head commentary, SFX-laden representations of subatomic and biological phenomena, electronic music and dramatic interludes. It’s the same formula as Carl Sagan’s groundbreaking series Cosmos and its various PBS progeny — but populated wall-to-wall with quacks, cranks, grifters, and New Age wackadoos.

The dramatic sequences meander around the story of Amanda (Marlee Matlin), a photographer with an anxiety disorder, body issues, and bad luck in love. Her interactions with her kooky, free-spirit roommate and a series of mysterious strangers eventually bring her to wrestle with the classic big questions about life, love, and happiness.

The less said about these segments, the better, except to say that I felt embarrassed for everyone involved; but however clumsily scripted and horrendously-acted it is, Amanda’s story at least grapples honestly with the alienation and discontent of life. But whereas traditional systems of religious belief, in engaging with those issues, tend to emphasize the importance of the questions themselves — and of the way that pondering, itself, can reorient and stretch the mind — What the Bleep is relentlessly results-oriented. Not only do these eternal questions have answers, the film tells us — they all have the same answer: QUANTUM PHYSICS!

Why am I so miserable? QUANTUM PHYSICS! Why am I here? QUANTUM PHYSICS! Why is the world what it is? QUANTUM PHYSICS! Where does reality come from? QUANTUM PHYSICS!

Here’s the thing: if you’re going to use QUANTUM PHYSICS! as an argument-ender, you’d goddamn well better make a better case for it than the film does, otherwise it’s just New Age-speak for “the Will of God,” which cannot be questioned. Indeed, the film spent more time bulletproofing its ideas (“Well, you really can’t understand it,” says one talking head. “It’s very mysterious,” says another. “Nobody knows why it happens, but it does…” says a third. Shut up and don’t question, okay?) than it does actually explicating them — always a sign of a weak argument.

Here’s a fun drinking game for you. Watch this ten-minute clip of the film.

  • Every time someone says something evasive, take a drink.
  • Every time someone takes an unjustifiable leap of logic, take ten drinks. Just because.
  • Every time Marlee Matlin sighs, take a drink.
  • Every time an unsourced anecdote is presented as fact, claim to take a drink.
  • Every time the words “QUANTUM PHYSICS!” are uttered, take a drink and do not take a drink, simultaneously.
  • Every time someone says “We can’t explain it,” or some variation thereof, take a drink.
  • Any time somebody actually explains something… never mind, it won’t happen.
  • Any time somebody proposes a violation of Newtonian physics, untake a drink.

(You might want to have a priest and an ambulance handy.)


Are you dead of alcohol poisoning yet? Then YOU’RE NOT DOING IT RIGHT.

What these thinkers have done is to take Heisenberg’s axiom that “the observer becomes part of the observed system,” and, essentially, extrapolate that to “Your thoughts create your physical reality.” Now, getting from Point A to Point B requires, in this case, more than a leap of logic; logic must take a leap, a hop, and a running jump, then catch the crosstown bus for the airport and board the first plane to Crazyville.

Did I mention that the film was funded by the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, which is run by a sixtyish hausfrau who claims to channel the spirit of a 35,000-year-old warlord from the lost continent of Atlantis? (Funny how Donovan never mentioned him.) And that most of the film’s “experts” are affiliated with the Ramtha school — some impolite people call it a cult — in one way or another? And that at least one of the talking heads has disavowed the film, claiming that selective editing make him appear to espouse ideas that he in fact disavows?

There’s some valid science here, but it is degraded by the distortions, half-truths, and inconsistencies. The film’s science and its philosophy are both hopelessly muddled and self-contradictory — at once simplistic and needlessly complicated. One of the first things the film does is dismiss out-of-hand the materialistic, mechanistic electrochemical model of consciousness. All well and good. But then it goes into the mind-body connection, and starts undercutting its own argument. There’s a major thread about “addiction,” in its various forms, being responsible for most human misery. It’s not a surprising stance for the makers to take — New Age spirituality, remember, grew largely out of twelve-step recovery and self-help programs — and there’s a good deal of material about the physiology of addiction, about neuropeptides and drugs rewiring the brain — all, as far as I know, good science, albeit horribly illustrated. Feast your eyes on this slice of nightmare fuel, and feel the dawning horror when you realize that this is someone’s idea of high hilarity:

But that science depends upon the very same electrochemical model of consciousness that the film has already explicitly rejected. There are other traditions of dealing with the same problems — the Buddhist concept of attachment, for instance — but which do so on a pure-spirit level. So why didn’t they lean on one of those instead? Because attachment isn’t a scientific concept, and addiction is. But therein lies the problem: instead of lending the rest of the film an authenticity-by-association, the good science of the addiction material only makes the rest of the film look weaker by comparison. They haven’t just shot themselves in the foot here: they’ve blown the leg clean off.

There’s a similar problem with the sequences on theology and religion. Our God-concept, they say, needs a major overhaul: the “big man in the sky meting out punishments and rewards in the afterlife” model is obsolete and limiting. Fair enough. But the filmmakers don’t seem to have the confidence that the argument will stand on its own, so they wrap it in cheap shots at organized religion, while demonstrating no real knowledge of current theological thought. to watch this film, you’d think we were still living in the fucking Burning Time; to present the Big Daddy idea as the current dominant model means ignoring the work of Reinhold Niebuhr, Thomas Merton, John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong — ignoring everything since St. Augustine, in other words (and great chunks of Augustine, for that matter).

And, y’know, people who obey the channeled spirit of a 35,000 year old Atlantean warlord ranting against the primitive superstitions of Christianity — well. Glass houses, and all.

Anyway. What’s going on here is what theologian Karen Armstrong describes in her new book The Case for God — religion letting science define its agenda even on its own turf, instead of insisting on the primacy of the practice of faith. Now, rationalism and the scientific method are invaluable tools for perceiving and understanding the universe — perhaps even the best tools — but they are not the only tools. Faith is uniquely suited for some tasks of perception. Science is primarily descriptive — it’s all about the how; religion concerns itself with meaning, or the why. And you need both, I think, to get a well-rounded picture of the world.

It’s a matter of matching the tool to the job at hand. Writing about music is, famously, like dancing about architecture — but applying the scientific method to religious questions is like putting a sonnet under a microscope; looking at scientific question through the eyes of faith is like psychoanalyzing a mountain. Per Richard Dawkins, “Why are we here?” is, from a scientific standpoint, not even a question worth asking. And he’s right, as far as it goes. I would venture further that “How old is the Earth, and what’s up with the dinosaur bones?” is not a question worth asking in a religious context.

But religious thinking — process-oriented, poetic, allusive — has become disreputable, even among the religious, and so they take up the hammer of scientific thought — results-centered, descriptive, concrete — and try to apply it to existential questions. Instead of pondering the origins and immortality of the soul, they’re trying to figure its weight in grams. Instead of contemplating the impact of loving thoughts on a single human life, they’re quantifying their effect on the formation of ice crystals. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

The DVD of The Secret, by contrast, is a bit more open about its mystical leanings, if no less embarrassing. Shot on cheesy video, largely lacking in the shiny production values of What the Bleep, The Secret looks like something you’d find late at night on The History Channel — not one of the classy World War II documentaries, but some “History of Sex” thing. There are fewer physicists in the roster of “experts,” and more authors and philosophers, and at least one whose occupation is listed as “Visionary.” (I’d love to see his business card.) It doesn’t make much of an effort to explain away its premise with subatomic particles or the like; it’s down with the magic. And while it pays lip service to personal fulfillment and all that jazz, it’s much more shamelessly materialistic than What the Bleep. Screw changing the world; The Secret is mostly about Getting Cool Stuff.


The Secret takes What the Bleep’s distortion of Heisenberg and extends it even further, into what it calls “The Law of Attraction” — the notion that human beings create their own circumstances by the power of (largely unconscious) thought — which it backs up with scanty anecdotal evidence. There’s no arguing with the premise that if you change your attitude, you can change your life, but The Secret gets cause and effect backwards. A better attitude doesn’t attract success to you — it gives you the strength to go out and find success. It’s self-actualization for people who want to duck responsibility. Ultimate credit or blame must go to the Universe, after all; all I’ve done is be clever enough to game the system. Anyone can do it.

And in both What the Bleep and The Secret, it’s presented in exactly such an obnoxious, triumph-of-the-will way — “Everyone is a god! Well, I am, anyway — me and the people who are clued in, who don’t buy into the paradigm propagated by the mediocracy, the ones who have the courage to stop being sheep and take the red pill!”

But what about those who aren’t clued in? Well, now, there’s the rub. Noetics, and the Law of Attraction, and the highly-selectively-defined QUANTUM PHYSICS! of What the Bleep do fail to qualify as religious expression, I admit, if we take as given that all religion must encompass compassion for the misfortunes of others. The “your thoughts produce your reality” model precludes any compassion; the poor, the sick, the developmentally disabled, the mentally ill — well, no one’s coming out and saying they deserve their fate, exactly. But they have chosen it. And so it is not my responsibility.

And so noetics moves from the realms of the pointless and misguided and into the arena of the truly reprehensible.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



  • http://www.bullz-eye.com DavidMedsker

    “When your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.”

    Fuck, I wish I had written that.

  • http://jackfear.blogspot.com Jack Feerick

    See, here I thought that was an old folk saying. Turns out I was unknowingly quoting Abraham Maslow. Credit where it's due.

  • http://www.myspace.com/radioeclectic Craigory

    The drinking game paragraph is quite hilarious. Thanks for tackling this one with intelligence and wit.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    You can boot Wayne Dyer into this whole “Think it, attract it, be it” philosophy.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Every night I cry myself to sleep, knowing I will never be half the writer Jack Feerick is.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Luckily, he writes for Popdose (versus, y'know, being rich and famous writing for someone else!)

  • David_E

    QUANTAS AIRLINES.

  • http://www.bullz-eye.com DavidMedsker

    Like I said last week, when I grow up, I want to write like Jack Feerick.

  • http://jackfear.blogspot.com Jack Feerick

    Guys, I swear. You're gonna give me a big head.

  • D W

    I'm not saying that Brown is a literary genius, but can we remember please that he's writing fiction? Noetic theory? I'm intrigued, but do I look to Dan Brown as an expert? Of course not. Electromagnetic theories of consciousness is one aspect of these theories, and very interesting. But confusing fact with fiction is silliness on the part of the reader, not the writer.

  • http://mulberrypanda96.blogspot.com rwcass

    I think I just came. Hold me.

  • http://jackfear.blogspot.com Jack Feerick

    From the author's note at the front of The Lost Symbol: “All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real.”

    Yes, Brown is a writer of fiction, but one of the things that appeals to people about his work is that it does incorporate a lot of research. How deeply he researches is open to dispute; but he does name-check an awful lot of scholarly work. Obviously, he's using the factual stuff as a springboard to create his fictions.

    Just because a book is fiction, that doesn’t mean that anything goes. If Langdon had escaped from watery death in the later chapters by manifesting a previously-unhinted mutant power and blasting out of his prison with X-Men style eye-beams, you would certainly cry foul, right?

    In this particular case, I think he does the public a disservice by providing oxygen for some very shifty types—giving an appearance of legitimacy to “science” that, at best, fails the basic tests of reproducibility and peer review, and at worst acts as a front for snake-oil salesman and cult masterminds.

    Michael Crichton, in State of Fear, starts from the premise that global warming is a hoax promulgated by a small group of scientists who hate America. It's “just fiction,” of course – but it certainly doesn't help the real-world discourse about the issue. There are also, in all likelihood, self-proclaimed works of fiction that start from the premise that the Holocaust was a hoax; but reputable publishing houses don't publish them, and decent people don't read them.

    Because even in fiction, there’s an implied expectation that the world in the book pretty much resembles the real world – except, as in science fiction and fantasy, where otherwise specified. And playing to the mindsets of those who are inclined to believe in fringe-y bullshit – like Holocaust denial, or global-warming conspiracies, or Noetics – can do a positive harm by implicitly reinforcing their mistaken beliefs, and making it harder to bring them to reason.

  • http://mulberrypanda96.blogspot.com rwcass

    I think I just came. Hold me.

  • http://jackfear.blogspot.com Jack Feerick

    From the author's note at the front of The Lost Symbol: “All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real.”

    Yes, Brown is a writer of fiction, but one of the things that appeals to people about his work is that it does incorporate a lot of research. How deeply he researches is open to dispute; but he does name-check an awful lot of scholarly work. Obviously, he's using the factual stuff as a springboard to create his fictions.

    Just because a book is fiction, that doesn’t mean that anything goes. If Langdon had escaped from watery death in the later chapters by manifesting a previously-unhinted mutant power and blasting out of his prison with X-Men style eye-beams, you would certainly cry foul, right?

    And worse, in this particular case, I think Brown does the public a disservice by providing oxygen for some very shifty types—giving an appearance of legitimacy to “science” that, at best, fails the basic tests of reproducibility and peer review, and at worst acts as a front for snake-oil salesman and cult masterminds.

    Michael Crichton, in State of Fear, starts from the premise that global warming is a hoax promulgated by a small group of scientists who hate America. It's “just fiction,” of course – but it certainly doesn't help the real-world discourse about the issue. There are also, in all likelihood, self-proclaimed works of fiction that start from the premise that the Holocaust was a hoax; but reputable publishing houses don't publish them, and decent people don't read them.

    Because even in fiction, there’s an implied expectation that the world in the book pretty much resembles the real world – except, as in science fiction and fantasy, where otherwise specified. And playing to the mindsets of those who are inclined to believe in fringe-y bullshit – like Holocaust denial, or global-warming conspiracies, or Noetics – can do a positive harm by implicitly reinforcing their mistaken beliefs, and making it harder to bring them to reason.

  • RedEddie

    Playing to the the mindsets of the weak minded is a hollywood art. Smply referencing factual organizations gives his tale implied merit, and therefore sells. Hell I can slap a based on a true story tag on any freebased bullshit and have people thinking that global warming is an effect of Satan coming to earth. Parnormal Activity, Blair witch project, 2012, All of it complete bullshit. Global warming has been debunked the earth is actually getting cooler. Why do you think that california leads the nation in the green movement? These movies come from the same place. People now feel morally obligated to buy hybrids. The best marketing idea since increasing nicotine levels in cigarettes. Noetic science might have some truth, but why bend spoons with your mind when you can mold a whole nation like clay? At least Dan Brown can make me think instead of trying to tell me what to think

  • http://jackfear.blogspot.com Jack Feerick

    At least Dan Brown can make me think

    Are you sure?

  • Dan Brown

    At least Jack Feerick can make me blink.. (as in WTF is this guy thinking???)
    And to think I google Noetic Sciences and this loser pops up.

    You should write a book Jack.

  • http://jackfear.blogspot.com Jack Feerick

    Am I wrong, though? AM I WRONG? Tell me how I'm wrong.

  • Pexter

    “Global warming has been debunked the earth is actually getting cooler.”

    WTF? Show me one independent scientific study disagreeing with global warming? Most likely your red-neck buddies came up with this “conspiracy” on a local church picnic, which obviously for you means more than 99,9% of the long-term research done on the subject.

    With an ingenious comment such as yours, it is easy to think that for you heliocentrism is still an open issue…

  • Bill Chretien

    Your comment relative to the developmentally disabled is accurate and profound. All the self-help, “brightsighted,” bootstrap prescriptions for human beings founder, logically and physically, before the reality of these folks.

  • tongueburner

    your skepticism is just a proof of your total ignorance.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    I don't think you understand how skepticism works.

  • http://www.ricardoze.blogspot.com/ Ricardo Rodrigues

    Hey Jack. I´m not English so bare with me and pardon my writing.

    I pretty much agree with what you say, and your mind seems to be in the right place. But I got to say you sound a bit arrogant and pretentious. I think the only right answer to a question for witch we don't know the answer is “I don't know”. People tend to jump to conclusions that mite seem (and indeed some are) ridiculous. But being close minded and offensive… I mean come on! have we learn nothing…!! It was common belief among scientists in the start of the XVIII century that one would disintegrate if traveling at 60 km per hour (I´m sorry i think in Kilometers) that was 200 years ago… Galileo… Darwin… even the all mighty Einstein have been targets of skepticism, and even mocking. If you discredit an idea you should not say it is wrong with rocks in your and. Just say “I don´t think it works like that… but I can't say for sure cuz I don't know”… One who pursuits reason at all cost… ends up loosing it in the process! I´m not defending any of the them… I´m just saying that fighting over it seems an afoul waste of time and energy. As aggravating as it may be… and I´ve seen the films in question… and it is … very aggravating!! Although I like Dans work… it is fun and refreshing. And it seems armless to me…

    Cheers!

  • http://www.ricardoze.blogspot.com/ Ricardo Rodrigues

    Hey Jack. I´m not English so bare with me and pardon my writing.

    I pretty much agree with what you say, and your mind seems to be in the right place. But I got to say you sound a bit arrogant and pretentious. I think the only right answer to a question for witch we don't know the answer is “I don't know”. People tend to jump to conclusions that mite seem (and indeed some are) ridiculous. But being close minded and offensive… I mean come on! have we learn nothing…!! It was common belief among scientists in the start of the XVIII century that one would disintegrate if traveling at 60 km per hour (I´m sorry i think in Kilometers) that was 200 years ago… Galileo… Darwin… even the all mighty Einstein have been targets of skepticism, and even mocking. If you discredit an idea you should not say it is wrong with rocks in your and. Just say “I don´t think it works like that… but I can't say for sure cuz I don't know”… One who pursuits reason at all cost… ends up loosing it in the process! I´m not defending any of the them… I´m just saying that fighting over it seems an afoul waste of time and energy. As aggravating as it may be… and I´ve seen the films in question… and it is … very aggravating!! Although I like Dans work… it is fun and refreshing. And it seems armless to me…

    Cheers!

  • glenndleton

    So I'm not alone in thinking that movie is total and complete bullshit being served on crackers and called 'caviar'.

  • thio59

    I completely agree. You cannot forbid anyone to make such a movie and write such books, but it's damn annoying that people around you who aren't that well informed start believing this kind of crap.

    Just finished Dan Brown's book. Annoying that the author tries to make you believe this shit.

  • Nobody or Everybody

    Someday you will look back on this article and be a bit embarrassed that you were so bombastic, especially since you got a lot of things wrong. This article is classic regurgitation of current popular scientific ideas. No doubt before Thomas Young came along you would have been screaming at anyone who postulated that light is a wave. After all, Newton proved firmly and convincingly light is a particle. After Thomas you would have ridiculed loudly anyone who suggested light is a particle…until Einstein came along and proved it is a particle. Now we believe light is both a wave and a particle. The real practice of science requires a lot more historical awareness and a LOT more humility than was displayed in this article. The truth is that when it comes to physics, we're not finished with discovering things, so settle down and get to work.

    You could start by reading some of the current science being conducted in a variety of disciplines in Asia. Check out the experiments involving Buddhist practices for example. I have to say if you think Buddhism is only about the spirit and not about the physical world, you got a lotta learning to do.

  • Tongueburner

    you exactly framed it the way i had it in mind. their skepticism is proof of their total ignorance; skeptical enough not to know the current advances in science. open mind is key to expand their learning, and all these narrow-minded people who are very centered on the 'present-day' thinking are no different from the people they despise, i.e. religious people who, on the other hand are believers of 'old-day' thinking and myths.

  • Thio59

    it’s not a debate about ignorance or skepticism or reason, it’s a debate about scientific method. I must agree that if you read Thomas Kuhn, there are scientific paradigms and ideas that do not fit are often rejected until you will observe a “paradigm shift” in science, such has been the case with heliocentric worldview of copernicus and galilei, who were first despised by the church. Evolution Biology, plate tectonis, quantum mechanics, all valid examples. But those were theories proposed by scientists who applied the scientific method and -as the famous Karl Popper described- who conducted falsifiable experiments that could be validated by others.

    I’ll just briefly descibe how scientific method works:
    “If you have the theory that all swans are white, do not look for more white swans, but for the one black swan that will FALSIFY the theory instead”. With other words, the value of a theory is not so much determined by those who actually try to defend it but by the lack of proof against it. And no theory is invincible but as evidence is slowly collected, occasionally a paradigm shift will occur.

    The Noetic scientists now are doing exactly the opposite. They keep talking and talking and come with claims that cannot be verified and shout that everyone who does not take their theories seriously is against them and a skepticist. But skepticism is a healthy, self cleaning routine in science that is a fundamental of the falsifiable methods as described by Popper.

    That is not arrogance at all as you call it! Science is democratic, in its beginnings! Yes, there are trends in science too, yes there is manipulation and politics involved-just have a look at the IPCC scandals. But about validation of results, in the beginning we agree. If someone can PROVE to me using scientific methods that apples do have the ability to escape from earths gravity I will believe it. But I must be able to VERIFY and FALSIFY the results. But all the persons who are so-called gifted with psychic powers such as Uri Geller failed to prove anything in controlled experimental conditions (read: where they are unable to perform their trick or manipulate their environment by using pre-prepared materials, mirrors or other smart things). And the same applies to all the Noetic people around. Claiming that you can make ice crystals look “more beautiful” if a monk in China sends out a “thought of love”. Well, I don’t need to know any mechanisms behind it and will believe just statistical evidence, but please, how do you define “beautiful ice crystal” and “thought of love”? How are experiments verified? Was it a blind experiments? So that the people who checker the ice crystals did not know which crystal belongs to which conditions. That kind of information is crucial to the validity of your experiments performed.

    The difference with Galilei and Newton is that they were fighting against a unreasonable church who didn’t believe in scientific method but only in the Holy Book and refused to be open to any ideas outside this. Well, Science floats on the fundamentals of methodology and will eventually -not in a fortnight, but if you’re patient, it will happen- accept likely ideas that could be proven or falsified using scientific method. So don’t blame science. There are two possibilities: ONE: Noetic science keeps its current attitude and no one in the real scientific community takes it seriously. TWO: they finally start conducting valid experiments that are open to skepticists and outsiders in order to justify their claims. If they can really prove they are right and keep to scientific method, eventually they will be believed. But stop calling science ignorant or arrogant.

    And if you are disappointed that science doesn’t accept the theories right now, please keep in mind that no one forbids you to believe the karmas and spiritual stuff and religions you want. But just keep it outside science. There are many scientists who have a religion. But good scientists don’t mix up science and religion. That’s bad for both. But that does not fit NEW AGE AGENDAS, who claim that everything is united, science, religion, humanity, the human spirit, and the universe is all one. But there is no reason to claim this and by doing this you offend both science and religion!

  • Thio59

    CORRECTION, I made a rather ignorant and harmful typo:

    I meant

    “accept UNLIKELY ideas that could be proven or falsified”,

    of course,
    in the second last paragraph.

  • Paulamayor

    I don’t agree. Your veiws are not related to any facts