Thoughts on the Unusual

Ruminations about topics heard: on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory and Art Bell; on Dreamland with Whitley Strieber, Anne Strieber and William Henry; and any where else, including ourselves, where wild ideas come from.

Monday, December 06, 2004

Matthew Alper

On Sunday, Dec. 5 Matthew Alper was a guest on Coast. He has been a guest before and I have listened to his argument that God exists only in our brain. I have written elsewhere just where I think he has gone wrong. http://users.dls.net/~palfano/alper.htm Perhaps someone more clever than I would like to evaluate my rebuttal to Matthew and point out any flaws in my thinking.

posted by Pat @ 1:30 AM  

3 Comments:

  • At December 6, 2004 10:37 PM, Blogger Nancy said…

    As a fervent listener of C2C this is one program that I don’t listen to. I have listened to other Matthew Alper programs on Coast but as of late he hasn’t had anything new to add, but how would I know if I haven’t listened. So if any of you have please post if Sunday’s program was any different.

     

  • At December 8, 2004 12:19 PM, Blogger Pat said…

    I liked your challenge of Mathew Alper. I personally believe that our brains somehow do work to experience certain types of phenomena in a way that people call spiritual/mystical and I don't know if that is different from what we normally consider emotional experiences. I tend to think it is simply another type of emotional experience. As for God, I am of an open mind. I don't believe he/she/it is a personality of any sort, but I might be wrong. I sometimes think I have had an experience that suggests a contact between me and he/she/it. I also tend to think there is intelligence behind the universe, but except for the above noted exception, I doubt that it (the intelligence) concerns itself with anyone's individual life. But, again, I think there is no reason to take a hard and fast stand: I believe ______ because I feel I have some evidence to support it. I tend more toward Kirkegaard's position, that I make a choice as to what I want to believe--in the abscence of anything I would consider proof in a scientific sense. I have a strong disagreement with Bill Powers on this. His position--also very supportable I think--is: What's wrong with saying, "I don't know.?" in regard to all the things that one finds lacking the grounds for scientific type conviction. I don't find that position aesthetically satisfying, even though I concede its logicality.

    Finally, I would say that I find the Field the closest to making sense to me about how the universe works. But whether that would mean I think God IS the field, or the intelligence that made the field--that's beyond me right now.
    Dick

     

  • At August 20, 2005 6:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is a pitiful excuse for an out of control ego. Ill-informed, vastly over simplified; the work of someone who obviously delights in nothing more than using the word "I" 10,000 X more than could ever be useful in this insipid " I'm smarter than all you people with degrees" piece of masturbation.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home