|
For most people today, the truce between science and religion is an uneasy one. They don't want religion in their science; they don't want science in their religion. So upon learning that Casey Blood's Science, Sense, and the Soul purports to define "the mystical-physical nature of human existence" in terms of quantum physics, most people, I suspect, would quickly insert the book back on the bookstore shelf and move on, pretending they hadn't been in that aisle at all. Physics? And mysticism? Yeah, right!
Actually, however, Dr. Blood puts forth a pretty interesting thesis. He
argues that quantum physics, rather than being an empirical science, can
actually best be understood by using a mystical mindset. And this being the
case, the reverse may also be true: spirituality may affect the physical
world as well. It is his contention that the place where the physics and
spirituality cross may be the human brain.
Dr. Blood's book is not good bedtime reading. It demands concentration, and - if you really want to make sure you're following every thread - a highlighter wouldn't hurt. But his interweaving of physics, neurology, and mysticism is well worth the effort. At any rate, I guarantee you'll never look at physics quite the same way again.
High Opinion of Dr. Casey Blood's ' Science, Sense & Soul, June 7, 2002
Reviewer: SARAH VANKEUREN from Lansdowne, PA United States
Being an artist rather than a physicist I am in no position to refute Donald Cooley's criticism of Casey's view of quantum mechanics but I can say that careful reading of his book was most rewarding to me as a seeker. Casey's lucid prose leads the reader into an understanding of the ways of the mystic that I found notable for its linking of science, sense & soul. This is a book that I'd want to have on a desert island to read over and over again — a real keeper.
Mixed Bag, May 26, 2002 Reviewer: from Fremont, CA USA
I have very mixed feelings about this book. Let me say what I liked about it first. Casey writes in a very clear, friendly and readable style. It is clear Casey wants to help people! And I think his lifestyle advice and meditation practices will help anyone who reads his book. And despite using terms (used so much in less scholarly New Age books) like "Physical Plane" and "Djinn Plane," I found his discussion of mysticism very thought provoking in places. Casey is a student-practioner of Sufism (a mystical variant of Islam) as well as other forms of mysticism, and it is in discussing mysticism I think Casey is at his best and most helpful and interesting. These parts of the book are very worth reading.
Unfortunately, I can't say that about his whole book. Now let me say what I don't like about this book. Although Casey has a Ph.D in Physics (from one of the Universities I studied physics at!), his interpretation of QM (quantum mechanics) is extremely un-orthodox, I'd even say bizarre. I would bet fewer than 1% of physicists support his interpretation of QM. Casey appears to be driven to his strange metaphysics, which denies reality of particles (electrons, protons, atoms) and perhaps even space and time, to fit physics to his mystical worldview. Unlike Casey, I think the vast majority of physicists, consciously or unconsciously, opt for critical realism. Critical realism is a philosophical view which asserts that our knowledge of the world refers to the way things really are, but in a partial and sometimes metaphorical fashion which will be revised as knowledge develops. So almost all physicists would say elementary particles like electrons are real, but cannot be described using EITHER classical notions of particles OR waves, but only as BOTH particles AND waves (a quantum field). Reality often requires a "BOTH/AND" metaphorical description, instead of a simple "EITHER/OR" literal description. But Casey only takes waves (QM wavefunctions) as real, I guess because he is in passionate opposition to those materialists who only take particles as real. I think most physicists would say both are wrong. Both are being literal and employing EITHER/OR thinking where physics (and describing reality) demands a BOTH/AND metaphorical thinking be used. I think this applies to not only physical reality (electrons), but also ultimate reality (God).
A world view that satisfies many of Casey requirements, but takes a view consistent with critical realism is described in recent books by David Ray Griffin, a follower of the famous process philosopher Charles North Whitehead. Also see the books by the three most famous critical realists (and all recent Templeton Prize winners): John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke and Ian Barbour.
|
|
