Astrophysisist Says You Can Have “Spirituality” Without Religion
Astrophysicist and author Dr. Bernard Haisch (whom Ian Punnet called, "one of the smartest men in the world.") discussed last night and this morning, on Coast to Coast AM, his theory that the universe is a product of an intelligence or consciousness, and how this is supported by recent astrophysical findings, and to pitch his book on those topics, called "The God Theory." Ian, seemingly to Bernard’s annoyance, asked him so good questions, revealing Haisch’s heretical book to be near worthless.
Ian asked Haisch what he thought o karma, and Haisch implied that when we do bad things that we judge ourselves and so we determine the negative effects that happen to us and so after we die how we lived determines what we next reincarnate as. How convenient for those who are evil! And how obviously false. Since when do those who do evil in this life time get instantly punished? Even the ancient "obsolete" Bible written by supposedly unobservant ignorants says,
trembling seizes my body.
Why do the wicked live on,
growing old and increasing in power?
They see their children established around them,
their offspring before their eyes.
Their homes are safe and free from fear;
the rod of God is not upon them.
Their bulls never fail to breed;
their cows calve and do not miscarry.
They send forth their children as a flock;
their little ones dance about.
They sing to the music of tambourine and harp;
they make merry to the sound of the flute.
They spend their years in prosperity
and go down to the grave in peace.
Yet they say to God, ‘Leave us alone!
We have no desire to know yourways.
Who is the Almighty, that we should serve him?
What would we gain by praying to him?’
But their prosperity is not in their own hands,
so I stand aloof from the counsel of the wicked.
Yet how often is the lamp of a
wicked [people] snuffed out?
How often does calamity come upon them,
the fate God allots in his anger?"
And how many people are so stupid, so mentally darkened, that they don’t know that this is an unfair world? Who doesn’t think this is an unfair world? Who has never complained about corrupt leaders getting away with doing evil and dying in peace like Job complained about over 3000 thousand years ago? How many people don’t know that humans in general are unjust and don’t judge themselves perfectly but make exceptions for themselves? So how can Haisch say that we judge ourselves, in other words, that we give ourselves just punishment and correct rewards?
Ian also asked Haisch what he thought of a God who planned everything out, and Haisch said, "It doesn’t appeal to me." Yet just now (1:08 A.M.) Ian said Haisch was "coming from a purely scientific view." Though some may tell me Haisch wasn’t talking about his feelings, but had scientific reasons as to why it didn’t appeal to him, I know that’s wrong, since, that response is not an accepted as a scientific standard. For example, imagine a scientist, who is a Darwinist, says, "The scientific experiments we performed show that there is no such thing as randomness and that everything is preplanned, and follows physical laws. But that doesn’t appeal to me. So I don’t believe the results of the experiments."
Haisch also said, "In my view God doesn’t interfere in the world. … He creates boundries initially. … That’s the point of it."
Who cares what your view is? What matters is what is, reality. What matters is the evidence, the truth.
First caller: "Where does evil fit into this? …do you feel there is an evil out there somewhere, that manipulates peoples’ lives"
Haisch’s response: "I really don’t believe in any active evil force" … "I think there is a being without any polarity, a perfect being."
The caller was referring to a being like Satan obviously, and Haisch, without any explanation as to why, said, "no". How insightful.
A little while later Haisch said, "Not because he doesn’t care but because it would destroy his own plan to let things arise of it’s own accord. …to let things develop on their own."
Haisch is contradicting himself and saying things not based on evidence:
1) God is obviously perfectly wise and would know the outcome of anything based on how he set up the first laws and first thing or things in motion. So to say that God set the universe up to continue randomly makes no sense.
2) It makes even less sense since Haisch said God set up laws, and clearly these laws have remained, and according to scientists like Haisch, have, at least after the first explosion, stayed almost exactly the same or have stayed the same, as opposed to disappearing or changing due to randomness (unknowable changes due to lack of control by an intelligent being and it’s inability to know the outcome of that control). So, if things were meant to happen randomly after God made the universe or set it’s creation in motion to occur randomly, then his creating physical laws and making the explosion so precise that it ended up with our solar system and all the molecules in it in exactly the place he wanted would have been futile as as soon as he withdrew his control of the laws of the universe, it would have all started to come undone and returned back into a formless void.
3) Haisch claimed that God doesn’t "interfere" in the universe because it would defeat the point of everything happening randomly. What is his evidence for that? None. Haisch is contradicting himself in two ways, and not making sense in a another way:
a) Haisch defines "interference" as God doing anything in the universe, because it would prevent the universe from being random. Therefore Haisch is (and obviously doesn’t clearly realize it) that God knows the future and the consequences of all his actions, even the smallest action. If that is true, then God knew exactly what would happen by his "interference" in the beginning!
b) Even if Haisch defined interference as only being something God does to affect the universe after the first replicating life appeared on Earth, he still would be contradicting himself since Haisch already implied that God was not interfering with the universe while he controlled it up to the point of life appearing or beginning to replicate. So, Haisch is being arbitrary with his definitions, meaning, changing them so that God appeals to his feelings, what he wishes God to be.
Another caller asked Haisch if he believed in divine intervention (and though Haisch earlier said that he didn’t as I’ve pointed out) Haisch, by saying this, has contradicted himself again:
1) By saying that he did believe God participated in the universe indirectly (because he believes that we share God’s consciousness and manipulate reality with our consciousness – he said, "The universe is based on consciousness." earlier in the show), he is saying that God is participating in the universe. He even just now (at 1:50 A.M. about) said, "We are God."
2) What does it matter whether or not God participates directly or indirectly, it would still be "interference" according to one of Haisch’s definitions (definitions which are not compatible). And using Haisch’s logic, God could happily participate all he wanted by simply doing it indirectly by sending angels to do what he wanted, OR, CONTROLLING US INDIRECTLY WITHOUT USING ANGELS. So, Haisch’s logic is contradictory as he said that God doesn’t participate because it would be interference, yet says God does participate indirectly (at least he had meant that God does not manipulating things directly with his Spirit, like moving objects or energy around).
3) Haisch is also contradicting himself in that if we are God as he said, then God is interfering in this universe since we are acting in it and therefore preventing it from being random. Haisch even said that it’s based on our consciousness, so it’s design is based on what we want it to be. Haisch is illogical in his teachings upon God. He even said, after all this:
4) "I certainly haven’t proven anything." Well he has, using false evidence, convinced at least one caller that called late into the show, and so, he couldn’t even define the word "proof" right. Though someone may say, "Well he didn’t think he’d prove anything to anyone," but if that is true, then why is trying to? Why did he write a book and make a website and come on the show to do so? He wasn’t simply giving his opinions as much of what he said shows. If Haisch has said that he isn’t trying to prove, trying to convince anyone of anything, then he’s severely confused because he has shown that he is trying to prove things about God to himself and others.
Haisch’s problem, or dilemma if you want to say, is his not understanding how God can having other beings like himself who are able to choose to do things if God controls everything or anything. Haisch doesn’t understand that God can have self-aware beings who can choose and do choose, that we can be self-aware and choose to do things, and that God can still have his way by having everything turn out the way he wants, by his controlling our emotions, and INDIRECTLY directing our will by doing so. For example, when a donkey or duck is hungry, we humans can imprecisely get either of these animals to go after the food. God, being perfectly wise, is able to get us to go exactly where he wants, both physically, spiritually, and mentally, by precisely controlling whatever we feel, and our bodies and the matter and energy and spiritual things around us (but not our will). Since he can see into the future (or at least is able to calculate the exact outcome of all things by his actions upon them), knows exactly what will happen by any action he takes. If Haisch realizes that the mind of our spiritual head so to speak, is, has thoughts like it’s heart does, but is influenced by the thoughts of it’s heart, he would understand, I think, how God can have a universe with beings that choose, while still getting his way. So, what this all comes down to, his Haisch’s misunderstanding of what the heart and will are, his misdefinitions of those words, including the words God, interference, and control.
What Haisch also doesn’t understand is that the universe can’t exist apart from God’s control of it. The evidence for this, indirectly is what the Bible teaches, but it’s also evidence based on what we can understand apart from the Bible: (I’m working on showing this evidence).
Also during the show, Ian Punnet said, "fundamentalism of any type often leads to violence" which is without evidence and a contradiction: Calvinists are fundamentalists who don’t believe in harming anyone physically unless God commands them too. They believe in obeying Jesus when he said not to curse their enemies but to help them to survive or live well and to get eternal life if they can. They believe in doing that because of what Jesus said was the second greatest law: "Love your neighbor as yourself" and a similar one, "Love one another" which Jesus gave (meaning to show favoritism to other Christians with the same religion, which makes sense since who is closer to you then someone who loves the same God? And everyone instinctively knows to show favoritism to a family member first, (at least if that adult family member is peaceful to their help)).
Ian also contradicted himself by saying that in that fundamentalists "of any type" can also be people who believe that there is no absolute truths to believe and therefore would be against those who believe in truth or certain truths (like Calvinism, whether they believe Calvinism to be true or not; they would be against those claiming it is true). So, Ian was refuting his own statement and own religion, a religion in which the second greatest law, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is unimportant to Ian, and which denies the fact that Jesus called himself, "The Truth" and therefore was saying that everything he said was perfectly true. Ian, during the show, called himself, "an armchair theologian." How true. I hope his schizophrenia towards the Bible leaves him so that he supports it fully and consistently, rather than confusingly and hypocritically, for a show.