I haven't seen this film, but having tripped over it in a separate list on the subject of QT and consciousness (both interests of mine), I see that I'm going to have to order the DVD when I put in that Amazon order for the new Harry Potter for my grandson's collection. Besides, I'm inordinately fond of indie films even if they don't get booked into the single regional art-house theatre.
Captured Light Industries presents a Lord of the Wind film starring Marlee Matlin and narrated by 14 scientists [5 physicists, 6 neurologists, anesthesiologists and physicians, a molecular biologist and a couple of mystic/scholars], entitled…
Just to offer a few of the reviews coming in so far – so readers might grok my semi-amused interest – check out some of these blurbs…
Bleep This! David Schneider column in the Johnson City Record-Courier [Johnson City, Tennessee] -
"God said, 'Let there be . . . and there was . . .'" so we read in the book of Genesis. The gospel of John starts, "In the beginning was the Word, ["logos" in the Greek] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." What is a spoken word but a vibration?
Quantum physics tells us that everything is made of insubstantial vibrating packets of energy, having no mass, that flash in and out of existence at a rate of 10 to the 23d power every second.
Does all this mean that everything exists as the voice of God and that the voice of God is the only thing that does exist? Is every word we speak a creative, godlike act? Do we create our own reality? Is this why Jesus said that not what goes in the mouth but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles a man? What have you created lately? Did it defile you?
We are also told that "Life and death are in the power of the tongue." Did the ancient Biblical writers anticipate Quantum Physics? Did you exercise the power of life today?
…No wonder they call Theology the Queen of the Sciences.
What the Bleep' creating a buzz with its blend of mysticism, science, Phil Kloer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
[R. Royal Craft, executive director of the Regional Council of Churches of Atlanta]: "There's been a debate for hundreds of years about this antagonism between science and religion. This movie raises the question: Are science and the origins of religion – the original teachings of spiritual leaders – much closer together than we had thought?"
[Rev. Paul Gonyea, pastor at Atlanta's Church of Religious Science]: "What we're doing here is combining spirituality with science with psychology with philosophy and looking at all those things in relation to religion. To me it showed that we are using science now to catch up to what the great spiritual truths of all the great traditions have been telling us… Everything is a process. We are all part of that same process and if we extend that from our cellular level to our human level to our community level to our world level to the universal level, that process is what we call God. It's intelligence, it's interconnectedness, it's all knowledge and it's all potential."
[Rev. Gilbert "Bud" Friend-Jones, senior minister of Atlanta's Central Congregational United Church of Christ]: "A very early understanding of God is that he is absolutely unfathomable and unknowable by us. If god overflows and the overflow is creation, then all of creation is an expression of the benefit of the overflow of God. This movie is quite compatible with that view, and that view has persisted as a minority voice down through the ages, mainly through the mystics."
Now, let me say right up front that I'm no big fan of New Agers in general or 5,000 years dead guys from Mu in particular. I feel about those folks probably much the same way die-hard Darwinists feel about Bill Dembski and the gang. But since I am not personality-prone to utterly disregard what other people believe (when it's an issue of discussion), I'll sure see the film. Stu Hameroff contributed, as did Amit Goswami. Both of whom were teachers of mine at a graduate course in Consciousness Studies I took some years ago.
And I also understand a certain amount of human psychology. By training, in practice, and from experience. It is pretty much impossible to completely disconnect one's inner belief system from the science one studies/practices. Anyone who claims this to be a strict requirement of the sciences is lying. All that counts in the sciences is if your research is well-designed, your methodology well-ordered, and your conclusions well-presented. Everything else is deafening criticism from jealous litter-mates [colleagues]. Always tempered heavily by THEIR own inner belief systems and how THEY join it to their science.
[One might note that the above disclaimer would also explain how it is that I find myself to be a supporter of an ID paradigm formalized primarily by evangelical, arguably "creationist" Christians, even though I don't subscribe to that particular belief system either].
I have a couple of questions for critics, participants and readers. 1) Has anyone seen this film? If so, what did you take home with you from it? This film is a not-so underground indie phenom and it's apparently affecting an awful lot of people. So, 2) Is there an organized or semi-organized scientific/atheist/materialist backlash? If so, where do we go to explore the rhetoric?
I'd guess the Brighties are up in arms about this film if they know it exists. Given their commitment to atheism and anti-design, where the subject matter here is completely opposed to that. Mike has asked fairly regularly why Dawkins and the gang aren't up in arms about the Animal Rights movement, and has a good point. I would like to know if they're up in arms about mixing physics with cosmic enlightenment, what they're saying about it and where they're saying it.