Are beliefs what produced our universe?

IS IT TRUE THAT YOU SEE WHAT YOU BELIEVE, NOT SEE AND THEN BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE?

Ozodi Osuji

     Science is a methodological approach to phenomena. It insists that the world is outside us, human beings, and that it operates according to its laws (that we can learn about) and that what each of us thinks about that external world and its laws are irrelevant.   The world is external to us, and we can see it. We all can agree on what we see as outside us, observe its existence, verify it, experiment to make sure that it is there, falsify it to ascertain that what we perceive as out there is indeed out there.

     Science accepts an idea if anyone who wants to verify that it is there, following the scientific method, can verify it. For example, it does not matter what the individual thinks, water is out there. We all can see it. About 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water (and about 70% of our bodies are made of water, probably indicating that we evolved in water).  We all can see water as external to our eyes.

     Chemists have studied the nature of water.  They have established that water is composed of two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen (water is H2O).

     Hydrogen and oxygen are atoms with different internal arrangements of the particles that form atoms. Hydrogen has one electron and one proton in its nucleus (some of its isotopes have one or two neutrons in its nucleus); oxygen has eight electrons, eight protons and eight neutrons.  Different elements are composed of different configurations of electrons, protons, and neutrons. 

     Electrons are directly made from light (electrons are light with some mass). Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. Quarks are made from light.

     Hydrogen and oxygen and the other 116 elements in the universe are made from light. Light came from the Big Bang,13.8 billion years ago; it came out of nothing and nowhere, shattered into particles, called photons, and expanded and later recombined the photons of light into quarks and used quarks to form protons and neutrons. A minute after the big bang, protons and neutrons combined to form nuclei.

     Matter was formed; anti-matter was also formed; matter and anti-matter attacked each other but instead of annihilating each other and returning the nascent universe to radiation, some matter survived to continue the formation of our matter-based universe.

    400, 000 years later, nuclei captured electrons to form the first atom, hydrogen. Thereafter, the universe is a sea of hydrogen atoms.

     Millions of years later, hydrogen separated into clumps and each clump was acted on by gravitational forces and in its core, ignition took place; that is, fusion occurred, and stars were formed.

      Stars are hydrogen gas in whose core heat and pressure lead to the formation of helium (an element with two electrons, two protons and two neutrons) and give off heat and light. Those heat and light walk their way to the surface of the stars and escape, and we see them as star light.

      Our sun’s light takes about nine minutes to reach us on earth (93 million miles away; light travels at 286, 282 miles per second).

     On earth star light is absorbed by trees and through photosynthesis is transformed to green leaves. Animals eat green leaves and breathe in the oxygen that plants give off to stay alive; plants take in the carbon dioxide that animals breathe out to stay alive; plants and animals have a symbiotic relationship, they need each other to stay alive.

      Plants and animals, human beings included, came into being because of light from the sun (their immediate star; there are trillions of stars, galaxies, and planets).

      Stars exhaust their hydrogen stock, fuse other elements and when the fusion process, nucleosynthesis, gets to iron the star expands in size and explodes in supernova. In the explosion all elements beyond iron are formed and shattered into space.

      Those elements, aka star dust, in time, gather into medium sized stars, planets, asteroids and comets. Our star and its nine planets, asteroids and comets were formed from dead massively huge stars 4.5 billion years ago.

     Our star has enough hydrogen to live another five billion years, expand and explode and all life on earth dies with it. 

      The entire universe of galaxies, stars, planets is expanding. It is speculated that at some point in the future the galaxies will be too far away from each other, and the stars will lose heat and explode and die. In a few trillion years all stars will explode and die and planets and us will be dead. A universe that began in hot explosion dies in cold death (Big Chill). 

     An alternative perspective on how the universe will die is that everything will collapse to everything and return to the point of light that began the universe, and may be, rebound to another universe.

     All these ideas seem observable, and scientists accept them as working hypotheses on how things are.

      With scientific empiricism, mankind, since Nicolas Copernicus began modern science in 1543, has made quantum leap forward; we have created amazing technologies and use them to improve our lives. For example, our understanding of general relativity and quantum mechanics and the discovery of electrons by J.J Thompson in 1897, is what made it possible for me to be doing this typing into a computer and for the reader to read it over the Internet.

      There is no doubt about it, science, and the technology based on it, is mankind’s best endeavor; anyone who disputes science must be insane. That is the contemporary belief structure of educated mankind.

NEW AGE’S ANTI SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE, WHAT SOME CALL RETURN TO SUPERSTITION

      Last night, I was listening to a video tape.  In the video, a guy called Charles Bruell Anderson, the founder of the Endeavor Academy at Wisconsin, USA, said that the world we see as outside us is not there before we see it and believe that it is out there. He said that our beliefs produce the world we see as out there. That is to say that he reversed the scientific principle that the world is independent of our thinking by saying that our beliefs, thinking, wishes would create the seeming external world that we see. 

     Mr. Anderson concluded his discourse by saying that to be a human being is to be existentially sick; sick because we are separated from our real self; he said that our real self is the Christ, the one shared son of God; in Christ we love each other but in our present separated ego states we  hate each other; mental health lies in jettisoning the ego, separation, to regain the awareness of our true identity, Christ, the son of God who is as his father created him, not the ego separated self he made as a replacement self.

     What the man said is part of the New Age compendium of beliefs. Most scientifically trained people dismiss New Age religious beliefs as rubbish and do not give them more than a second of attention.

      For some reasons, I decided to think about what the man in the video said. Is the world that I see a function of my beliefs and thinking? That is, does the world exist because I want to see it exist but is not independent of my beliefs, my wishes? Common sense tells me that the world exists whether I desire it or not. But is common sense always true?

DID MY WISH MAKE THE SICK PERSON I SEE SICK OR IS HE SICK DESPITE MY WISHES?

      If you see a person as sick is that person’s sickness independent of your wishing to see a sick person or is he sick because you want to see a sick person?

     Is perception what you want to see, or do you see what is out there regardless of your wishes?  Is it the case that if you want to see healthy people you project out healthy people and see them and that the sickly humanity that I see reflects my wish to see people as sick, is my projection?

     Racist white Americans are, for example, extremely sick.  Is the sickness of racism independent of my wishes or does it exist and warp and stunt many racists minds because I want to see some people as these unfortunate human beings; racists are folks who instead of having love for all creation hence live peacefully and happily, hate people hence live drugs and addictions addled lives.  Is it the case that if I did not want to see racists they would not exist?

      Is it the case that if I wanted to see healthy humanity, I would only see healthy people?

     Similarly, do I occasionally become sick because I want to be sick and if I wanted to be healthy, I would only be healthy?  Is it the case that it is my wish for sickness that makes me and other people sick and that if I have only wish for wellness I would be physically and psychologically well and people in the world would be well?

SICKNESS AS THE PRODUCT OF SPEC IALNESS AND SEPARATION

      And what is the sickness that we are talking about? Mr. Anderson, in accordance with A course in miracles, said that the sickness is my belief that I am special and separated from God. In union (sameness and equality) I am healthy.

     Originally, God and his sons are united; they shared oneself and one mind. In their eternal union they are healthy. Thereafter, the idea of specialness and separating from their father and each other entered their minds.

      Each son of God wished to seem superior to God and to other sons of God and could not realize his wishes in heaven (state of oneness).  As it were, we cast a spell on our spiritual eyes and went to sleep and in our sleep created the universe of separated things, from the Big Bang to the present.

      In the present, each of us uses light, that we collectively transformed to matter, to form our bodies and now seem to live in a body and walk around in space and time.

     Our universe seems real but A course in miracles said that it is not real. It says that the universe of space, time, and matter that we see and the people in bodies and seeming separated selves is not there. The universe we see is delusional; it is not there but we wish it to be there and believe it and it comes into being to give us perception of what we first wished to see.

      The physical universe we see is a delusion disorder, what we see is hallucinatory and is not there; the universe is our thoughts, wishes, beliefs, projected into forms and seen in a dream. If we did not wish for specialness and separation, the physical universe would not exist.

     We are sick because we wished for separation and see separated people and a world that does not, in truth, exist.

     To return to health we must eliminate the wish for personal superiority and power and give up the desire for separation; we must overlook what people do on earth for they are done in dreams; when we do so the physical universe disappears from our perception (perception is projection) and we regain the awareness of a unified self, oneself and its infinite sons, called God hence return to health.

DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED WORLD VIEWS, SCIENCE AND RELIGION

       As you can see, what New Age religionists believe is diametrically opposed to what physical scientists believe. 

      Psychical scientists are our age’s heroes; they affirm our egos wish for the world to be external to us to make separation real for us and for us to seem to exist apart from a nondual, unified God.  Scientists are the age’s super men, and we celebrate them.

    Scientists see people who see the world as the product of our thinking, new agers and spiritualists, as insane, mad, and lunatic.

      New age religionists deny the independent reality of the physical universe, our bodies and egos so to our separated ways of living they must be abnormal, they seem insane; these folks, like Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and adherents of Zen want to negate our separated egos, the physical universe, and escape from it and return to a place that they call God and his heaven (in Samadhi, Nirvana, Satori).  

     I once saw Isaac Asimov speaking on Television and he said that new age religion is a new superstition, an anti-science that wants to return people to primitive conceptions of reality.

      Psychiatrists, the high priests of the religion of science, say that people who believe in New Age ideas are eccentric and odd and have a personality disorder called schizotypal personality disorder; they believe what normal people do not believe; in extreme cases they have psychosis, such as schizophrenia, mania, depression, delusion disorder in which people believe and see what is not there as there.

     Physical science sees new agers as mad and new agers, in turn, see scientists as mad because they see a world that is not there as there, a world that came into dream state because we want to see it, not a world that exists independent of us and we then see it. 

DISCUSSION

     So, who exactly is correct, scientists or new agers?

     Please be advised that many scientists are, by the criteria of psychiatry, mentally ill. Thus, we could say that both scientists and new agers are equally ill.

      Richard Dawkins calls religion a delusion disorder because it makes people believe that what is not there, God, is there.

      New agers call him the deluded one because he believes in a seeming external world that is not there or seems to be there because of his beliefs.

     Sigmund Freud, long ago, wrote a book called the future of an illusion. It turns out that Freud was full of it and was a cocaine addict. He was not exactly the symbol of mental health even though he wrote volumes on mental health and mental disorders (much of his writing is fairy tales, mythology).

      Who exactly is correct in this debate?

CONCLUSION

  What do you think, can you prove that what you think is true and not just a belief? Can you demonstrate the reality of your beliefs outside the frame of reference, science, or religion, that you accept as true approach to reality? Does science represent reality as it is; does New Age religionists represent reality as it is, or is it the case that we do not know what reality is?

     Before you offer a flippant opinion, you may want to read Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of scientific revolutions and Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations.

     Agnostics, true thinkers, are only persuaded by philosophically sound arguments, not just proved arguments; this is because you can prove what takes place in a dream as taking place if you accept the parameters of dreams as real.

Ozodi Osuji August 21, 2022

Comments are closed.