The second post comparing the interpretations of the quantum revolution and what is real by respected scientist and writers. The first examined Carlo Rovelli’s Helgoland and his “relational interpretation” of what is real. Here we look at the very different approach of Bernardo Kastrup, including Kastrup’s response to Rovelli’s interpretation.

Both Rovelli and Kastrup have the science credentials that allow them to speak from the high pedestal of science to espouse positions that are philosophical and not purely scientific. Unlike many scientists/philosophers like Laurence Krauss, Steven Weinberg, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, the late Stephen Hawking and Brian…

Part one of an analysis of what two scientist/philosophers have to say about the nature of reality in light of the quantum revolution. One works to preserve some semblance of the physicalist worldview, while the other turns it on its head. Both agree, reality is NOT what we think and what the advocates of the current materialistic worldview are selling.

For some of us it is important to have an answer to the question of what is real. Is the chair I am sitting on made of real stuff? Why don’t I fall through the sidewalk? Do the images coming…

The first in a series of video posts that explore the big questions about what is real. This first video is 4:45 minutes long and introduces the series with the most basic question: Why? Why is the universe here? Why does it feature life? And why are we here? This suggests there are two roads to travel on the journey to find answers –– a road of physicalism in which matter and forces are all there is and all there ever will be, or the road of “something more.”

Video Script

Video 1 Introduction: The Two Roads

How did we get here? What is “here,” this thing…

We are not nihilists by nature. We believe in meaning, in hope, in purpose. But physicalism logically demands a rejection of most everything that makes life worthwhile and even bearable. The greatest tragedy of those selling the physicalist belief system is the harm to those who take its claims seriously and follow them to their logical conclusion. This is the 25th in the Case Against Physicalism series.

There may be some who would question my assertion that physicalism taken to its logical conclusion requires the rejection of all meaning and purpose. First, what do we mean by nihilism? …

What is “natural” and what is “supernatural?” The separation of these two categories of “reality” contributed to the deep divide between science and religion or faith. Science dealt with the natural. Religion dealt with the supernatural. But, since what is natural is all that exists, that means that religion has nothing to say about what is real or the nature of reality.

The distinction as we understand it today is relatively new. Some say that Thales of Miletus was the first “scientist” and in the 6th century BCE he initiated “natural philosophy” by separating the natural from the supernatural. While…

Physicalism says death is the end. Period. Virtually all of humankind, from the very earliest to those living today, disagree. Belief in the afterlife began prior to the emergence of homo sapiens, and despite two or more centuries of physicalist belief, over 90% of Americans continue to believe in life after death or some form of immortality. Is this, most basic intuition of humans wrong? Or, might physicalism be wrong? The 24th post in The Case Against Physicalism.

Death is a scandal. It is wrong, just plain wrong. It offends our sense of justice, our sense of how things were…

Art is uniquely and pervasively human. We know that art has been an important part of human experience from the very beginnings of such experience. But how are we to explain the existence of art and the creative impulse that drives it? This is the 23rd in the series The Case Against Physicalism.

In this series we are considering whether the universe, life and we who experience it can be best understood from a top-down — a transcendent or “something more” understanding, or a bottom-up — an exclusive physicalist understanding. This discussion is part of the series The Case Against…

This is a response to Graham Pemberton’s latest post continuing an ongoing discussion about the resurrection of Jesus. Graham prefers an allegorical understanding and here I respond to this as an alternative to a historical fact understanding.

Hello Graham, once again you have honored me and my thoughts on these issues with an in-depth and thoughtful response. Hearing your answers to some of my questions and issues raised has helped me gain a better understanding of you and where you stand. For example, the reference to circumambulation is quite helpful (haven’t gotten into the book on Jung yet but looking…