Rick DeLano’s Terrific Quantum Science Film Tainted by Catholic Nonsense |454|

Alex

Administrator
#1
Rick DeLano’s Terrific Quantum Science Film Tainted by Catholic Nonsense |454|
by Alex Tsakiris | Jun 30 | Consciousness Science
Share
Tweet
0SHARES

Rick DeLano’s movie, The End of Quantum Reality makes a strong case against scientific materialism, but then there’s the Catholic thing.
photo by: Skeptiko
[Clip 00:00:00- 00:00:34]
That’s South Park talking about what it’s like to go back to Catholic Church today. It has a connection with today’s interview with Rick DeLano, who has a really outstanding new science movie out called The End of Quantum Reality, about the work of Dr. Wolfgang Smith. Well, the connection is that even though it’s a great science film, with beautiful cinematography, I can’t stop laughing about the Catholic thing.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:01] You did a great job of educating us on something that we always know, and that is how solid quantum physics is, because one of the tricks that’s been done here to get away from the philosophical implications of quantum physics, is to make it sound woo-woo or fluffy.
You just don’t get it, Rick. I mean, you don’t understand why non-Christians like me, are just stunned how any really bright, intelligent person that you are, can buy into such a wacky cosmology.

Rick DeLano: [00:01:40] There is no remote point of congruence between the straw man on your screen and the actual content of Christian revelation. Any Christian knows that instantaneously.
 
#2
Bloody hell.

That was quite an uncomfortable listen.

I'm not sure it's fair to attack lay people's faith with such ferocity. It's not like the guy's a preacher or a theologian. And the inclusion of Wolfgang's Catholic conversation in the film sounded fair enough.

Reminds me of when you attacked David Ditchfield, who is basically just a nice guy reporting events, and you leapt on him about Jesus not being historically accurate.

I'm not sure what you expect people to say in response to that.

But Rick Delano certainly gave as good as he got, which was to his credit.
 
#3
I'd like to suggest that when interviewing the guest speaker that you politely suggest to them to adjust their camera so that they are facing their audience face on. To me it's a bit unnerving to be looked down at or as in the case with this recent interview, having to look up the nose.
I could just opt to listen without the video, I know, but it's not my preference. Thank-you Alex, I love your shows.
 

Alex

Administrator
#4
Bloody hell.

That was quite an uncomfortable listen.

I'm not sure it's fair to attack lay people's faith with such ferocity. It's not like the guy's a preacher or a theologian. And the inclusion of Wolfgang's Catholic conversation in the film sounded fair enough.

Reminds me of when you attacked David Ditchfield, who is basically just a nice guy reporting events, and you leapt on him about Jesus not being historically accurate.

I'm not sure what you expect people to say in response to that.

But Rick Delano certainly gave as good as he got, which was to his credit.
yes it was quite an exchange :)

I actually have a lot of respect for what Rick has accomplished and all my comments about is excellent film were sincere.

I hope we have a good conversation in this thread about "respecting religious beliefs." because I don't see why we should... I mean, this is one area I think the atheist got right... they're just ideas in the court of public opinion... kind of like political beliefs.
 

Alex

Administrator
#5
I'd like to suggest that when interviewing the guest speaker that you politely suggest to them to adjust their camera so that they are facing their audience face on. To me it's a bit unnerving to be looked down at or as in the case with this recent interview, having to look up the nose.
I could just opt to listen without the video, I know, but it's not my preference. Thank-you Alex, I love your shows.
thank you George... I did this multiple times with rick... so much so that he got a little frustrated with me and finally said that was the best he could do :)
 
#6
Hi - I've only dipped into the show though I have rented the movie on Vimeo (watch tomorrow I think). I just wanted to say that I think you should get Klee Irwin on.


And Jim Carrey certainly is a believer in those tetrahedrons! I have a weird thing starting in 2009 and, you know, right at the beginning there were tetrahedrons. You will also note that Nick Bunick had tetrahedrons...(in his book).

 
#7
yes it was quite an exchange :)

I actually have a lot of respect for what Rick has accomplished and all my comments about is excellent film were sincere.

I hope we have a good conversation in this thread about "respecting religious beliefs." because I don't see why we should... I mean, this is one area I think the atheist got right... they're just ideas in the court of public opinion... kind of like political beliefs.
Maybe a better way to deal with this meeting Jesus issue would be something like this:

G: I went into this bright light and met Jesus!

A: Did he actually say he was Jesus? I mean, people of other faiths often report that they meet someone else - Mohamed for example - and that puzzles me.

That way you don't have to set up any friction with your guest, AND we get to learn whether he was actually told he was meeting Jesus - something I often wonder about.

Likewise, I'd like to know how many people who say they met God, are actually told that by whoever they meet.

David
 
#8
God got mad at the human race for eating a piece of fruit in Armenia 6,000 years ago. He got so mad that he condemned everybody to internal damnation, except he kind of felt bad about this afterward, so he sent part of himself down to have it tortured to death, which somehow made it all right. Except not really, because if you don’t buy the story, you’re still going to fry forever. Does that make any sense? Of course it doesn’t
I love that quote, and I feel Alex nailed Rick on that. The only reason Rick did not explain why that is wrong (at least up to the point I stopped listening), is that he didn't have a decent answer. Smoley's quote is in an obvious one-to-one correspondence with a precis of the bible story.

I suppose a more agile opponent would have said that the story is obviously allegorical, but Christianity endlessly dances between which parts of the bible should be taken literally,and which should be treated as a metaphor.

What I would like to discover, is what exactly Wolfgang Smith is saying. Here is a discussion that reveals something:


(I changed this video, because I think this one is better.)

Ideally it would be nice to find a gently mathematical version of this talk - I can stand a little math, but I am sorry to say that too much math overwhelms me, but without any math any discussion can become a bit vague.

David
 
Last edited:
#9
I hope we have a good conversation in this thread about "respecting religious beliefs." because I don't see why we should... I mean, this is one area I think the atheist got right... they're just ideas in the court of public opinion... kind of like political beliefs.
Can we start by defining "religious beliefs"?
 

Alex

Administrator
#10
Hi - I've only dipped into the show though I have rented the movie on Vimeo (watch tomorrow I think). I just wanted to say that I think you should get Klee Irwin on.


And Jim Carrey certainly is a believer in those tetrahedrons! I have a weird thing starting in 2009 and, you know, right at the beginning there were tetrahedrons. You will also note that Nick Bunick had tetrahedrons...(in his book).

I'd love to, but I don't think they're reachable.
 

Alex

Administrator
#11
IThe only reason Rick did not explain why that is wrong (at least up to the point I stopped listening), is that he didn't have a decent answer. Smoley's quote is in an obvious one-to-one correspondence with a precis of the bible story.
agreed. His answer really threw me off. I never expected him to say that smoley's quote was not biblical. I still can't wrap my head around that response.
 
#13
I hope we have a good conversation in this thread about "respecting religious beliefs." because I don't see why we should... I mean, this is one area I think the atheist got right... they're just ideas in the court of public opinion... kind of like political beliefs.
I don't think there is a moral imperative to respect religious beliefs other than basic manners in polite company. If the other party is agreeable to a thorough dissection, analysis, and critique of their beliefs or if the other party is opening themselves up to such attack by proselytizing, then I see no reason to feign respect.

The main question for me is: what is the best way to guide and structure society? Does the "Noble Lie" work? What is the psychology of the Guardians?

The majority of people are either not interested in or not capable of pursuing the esoteric truths behind religious myths. Chicken/Egg: Is this because they are not developed enough or are they not developed enough because religion has held them back?

The exoteric dogmas serve as carriers for the estoeric truths. Religion can be a cocoon of protection leading to metamorphosis, but once the cocoon is shed, what then? Does the "enlightened" individual return to their religion as a reformer tweaking the old myths to be relevant to the new generations or does this person leave their religion altogether and try to affect meaningful change as a maverick outside of any structure of authority?

Most people need a structure of authority. Most people are not equipped to face life without it. If they don't have religion they will replace it with something else... something new which has not survived the test of time and which doesn't have its sharp edges rounded off yet.

So what do we do? Do we keep hammering people with the data until they get it? Are they ever going to get it? Or do we cloak truth in myth and create Plato's Noble Lie and build a structure of authority around the esoteric truths so that it becomes a self-replicating organism circulating among humanity providing humanity with order and subconsciously guiding humanity so that the few lucky souls who are willing can make these truths conscious and rise above it?

And those few lucky souls who are willing to rise above it, we can induct them into separate secret societies and teach them that they are above the exoteric myths and provide them with the keys to decoding the symbolism and they will become the ones who run things and guard the Noble Lie. But then these Guardians may come to despise the sheeple and instead of perpetuating the Noble Lie for the better development of humanity, they may turn instead to the pursuit of power and pleasure and justify this since they are after all above the myths and above good and evil.

The Soviet Union abandoned religion and Communism took over and destroyed the country. So they reacted to that and rediscovered religion. The same thing will happen here.

What's the solution? Is it time for a new religion?
 
#14
The majority of people are either not interested in or not capable of pursuing the esoteric truths behind religious myths. Chicken/Egg: Is this because they are not developed enough or are they not developed enough because religion has held them back?
Why the assumption they aren't "developed enough"? Sort of oozes with hubris doesn't it?
 
#15
Why the assumption they aren't "developed enough"? Sort of oozes with hubris doesn't it?
Take offense if you wish, but it is the reality.

It is also a reality that I'm not tall enough or interested enough to be an NBA player. Most aren't. Is that offensive? Is that hubris?

I get it... mental capacity is a lot more multivariate than physical and esoteric "truth" is not as objective as making the cut in the NBA. But the analogy is still valid.
 
#16
yes it was quite an exchange :)

I actually have a lot of respect for what Rick has accomplished and all my comments about is excellent film were sincere.

I hope we have a good conversation in this thread about "respecting religious beliefs." because I don't see why we should... I mean, this is one area I think the atheist got right... they're just ideas in the court of public opinion... kind of like political beliefs.
It's a reasonable question.

My objection is not because I think religious beliefs should have special dispensation. Rather, people's personal faith is not usually amenable to rational argument. I mean, faith is an emotional (and of course spiritual) thing. You can't argue somebody out of it by firing facts at them.

It's like demanding someone explain why they love their partner even though by objective measures their partner might not have many lovable characteristics.

For this reason I think it's an unprofitable line to take.



With theologians and preachers etc, who are versed in apologetics, and for whom it's not so personal, I think you're more likely to get a decent argument.
 
#17
Why the assumption they aren't "developed enough"? Sort of oozes with hubris doesn't it?
If you asked someone to translate Chinese into English (more accurately than GOOGLE can achieve), or solve a differential equation, would it be so arrogant if you or he decided he was not sufficiently developed (i.e. educated) to complete your task?

Why pick pointless arguments?

David
 
#18
It's a reasonable question.

My objection is not because I think religious beliefs should have special dispensation. Rather, people's personal faith is not usually amenable to rational argument. I mean, faith is an emotional (and of course spiritual) thing. You can't argue somebody out of it by firing facts at them.

It's like demanding someone explain why they love their partner even though by objective measures their partner might not have many lovable characteristics.

For this reason I think it's an unprofitable line to take.
Well I half agree, but people like him wear their religion in such a public way, it is reasonable to assume that they have something to say in response to a question like that. I once was a Christian (up to age 20), so I started thinking what I might have said in reply back then. First I would have laughed, and then said that nowadays Genesis is considered to be allegorical.

The other barb in that quote is harder to counter - the outlandish punishments that the loving Christian God is supposed to hand out - might have given me more difficulty. Indeed, one of the reasons why I left was the idea that God could not just forgive people, he had to send his son to die on the cross in order to make it OK!
With theologians and preachers etc, who are versed in apologetics, and for whom it's not so personal, I think you're more likely to get a decent argument.
Alex has provoked materialists to explode even more spectacularly - notably Patricia Churchland!

Sometimes interviews like this may still supply some interesting ideas - Wolfgang Smith looks interesting.

David
 
#19
If you asked someone to translate Chinese into English (more accurately than GOOGLE can achieve), or solve a differential equation, would it be so arrogant if you or he decided he was not sufficiently developed (i.e. educated) to complete your task?

Why pick pointless arguments?

David
I didn't think it was pointless. I think the default position that a religious person isn't "developed enough" to have considered their own position is ridiculous.

I don't dismiss a Christian/Muslum/Jew/Buddist's intellect or intellectual development a priori.
 
#20
It was an uncomfortable listen.

Perhaps the various religions are just “secularized metaphysics” with an understanding that the physics/metaphysics split some 400 years ago was wrong across the board.

Some people desire the “woo-woo” and will intuitively seek the metaphysical via whatever vehicle gets them there.

IMO - Slamming someone’s chosen “secularized metaphysics” is just rude - and pointless.

I take it that his profound understanding of physics has led him to the metaphysical with Catholicism as the vehicle.

It doesn’t sound like the Greek Orthodox of your youth had much in the way of metaphysics - but that isn’t to say that others aren’t getting a rich, metaphysical experience from the same religion.
 
Top