I wrote this response to an article as part of an assignment for a book study I am doing (Turek/Geisler, "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" Curriculum).
Comments are always welcome!
“Why Do You Exist?”, by Dr. Robert Lanza
(Dr. Lanza's full article can be found at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201111/why-do-you-exist?collection=81244)
Even though the questions the author poses are a few of the most important questions in life, he doesn’t seem to answer them; at least not in this article (I did read some of his other material where he exposes his ideas clearer). The title of the article is “Why do you exist?” And he adds “Where did it all come from? Why are we here?” as well. Midway through the text Dr. Lanza expresses some ideas bordering (probably exposing) what I think is his extreme skepticism. When he says “We've looked at the world for so long that we no longer challenge its reality,” I wonder what he really means by that. Is he really challenging the reality of the universe, or raising a few questions on the way we examine (look at) the world? He doesn’t seem clear; in any case, to challenge the reality of the world, or to challenge our basic sensorial perception (if that is what he is doing here), is an incredible claim, for which he doesn’t appear to give reasons—why should I doubt what my eyes see; what I feel?
The article is full of unclear, unsupported statements, embellished with poetic writing, but that at times reveal some of the author’s beliefs. In the sentence, “It seems likely that we're the center of our own sphere of physical reality, connected to the rest of life not only by being alive at the same moment in the Earth's 4.5 billion year history, but by something suggestive — a pattern that's a template for existence itself,” does he believe the universe had a beginning? In spite of vague statements (we are connected to the rest of life . . . by something suggestive — a pattern), is he affirming that we create our own reality (“we’re the center of our own sphere of physical reality”)? If yes, anybody can create whatever they want; anybody can see/feel/hear whatever they want; but that doesn’t seem to fit reality.
He also seems to agree with what he says is usually taught to us as kids, that “the universe can be fundamentally divided into two entities—ourselves, and that which is outside of us.” I am not sure that this is the usual division of the universe taught in schools. I don’t think that this is what we are taught since childhood; at least not when defining the word/concept ‘universe’. That seems more a definition of ‘self’ than a physical entity. In any case, he seems to agree with the claim that “’Self’ is commonly defined by what we can control.” Does he agree with that? Personally, I believe we are more than biology. We’re a soul; although he wrote before: “We're more than we've been taught in biology class. We're not just a collection of atoms — proteins and molecules — spinning like planets around the sun,” he seems to contradict himself with the previous phrase. Even when I don’t move a thing in my body (or if I lose control of my limbs, say) I still get a sense that I exist, that I am a consciousness.
By reading Dr. Lanza’s other writings, one quickly finds out that he is a major proponent and defender of biocentrism. In this article he defines it only as the “view of the world in which life and consciousness are bottom-line in understanding the larger universe — biocentrism,” and that this view “revolves around the way our consciousness relates to a physical process.” There is more to that when you read his other articles, but in these few chapters he doesn’t go much further. I personally agree that life and consciousness are extremely important in understanding the universe — for it to come into being, there had to had existed a conscious life who decided to create. But he adds that, “According to biocentrism, you're not an object — you're your consciousness. [agreed, to a certain extent!] You're a unified being [?], not just your wriggling arm or foot [OK], but part of a larger equation that includes all the colors, sensations and objects you perceive [I am a large equation that includes the sensation I perceive?].” Here he seems to affirm (again, always evasive) that we are our perception. I am not sure what he is affirming (and, it seems, neither does he in this article), but, if I’m right, he says that we are everything we perceive—colors, sensations; we are even the objects we perceive. That’s seems to me to be a form of pantheism, where we and everything else are the divine (or at least, for Dr. Lanza, we and everything else are the same).
He also asserts, oddly, that “Our consciousness is why they [life and the universe] exist.” Does he believe that we (or the sum of our beings/consciousness) ‘created’ the universe? Did I create the universe before becoming conscious of it? Or I have been always conscious but my state won’t permit me to remember what I thought billions of years ago? Again, those are serious claims presented without any support (as Greg Koukl would put it, this is a roof without walls; and I believe these walls are rather week and cannot support the roof).
He concludes saying that our consciousness (however he defines it) is what “unifies the thinking and extended worlds into a coherent experience and animates the music that creates our emotions and purposes — the good and the bad, wars and love.” Our consciousness animates the music that creates our emotions? Are we the sole responsible for our emotions; or rather, its creator? Does our consciousness create our emotions and purposes? We create our own purposes? Even if that happens, our purposes would be utterly false, specifically because WE created them. Also, according to him, do we create the good and the bad? Again, like some Eastern religions, he seems to affirm that evil (and the good) doesn’t really exist; the bad is all what we create it to be. Does he believe that I can physically hurt him and that would only be a product of his consciousness? And that it wouldn’t be evil at all; since both of us are unified, part of the same consciousness?
Finally, Dr. Lanza doesn’t seem to answer the main question of the article, “Why Do You Exist?” He basically provides his explanation of what existence is, without providing any support for his claims. But he does not answer what seems to be the point of the title: what is our meaning or purpose? Does he believe that nature is all that is? He does provide his opinions for one of the questions posed earlier, “Where Did All Come From?” But not to the following question, “Why Are We Here?” Dr. Lanza’s apparent scientific spin on Eastern religion/philosophy is presented without arguments; with some contradictions (if the universe had a beginning, as he apparently presumes, where did it come from? From the unification of our consciousness?); and full of unlivable claims (if my consciousness creates evil/good, nothing is really ultimately evil; I can do whatever I want, to whoever I want, and that wouldn’t be really evil, just an expression of my consciousness, which ultimately is unified with yours). A very confused article and view, indeed.
Comments are always welcome!
“Why Do You Exist?”, by Dr. Robert Lanza
(Dr. Lanza's full article can be found at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201111/why-do-you-exist?collection=81244)
Even though the questions the author poses are a few of the most important questions in life, he doesn’t seem to answer them; at least not in this article (I did read some of his other material where he exposes his ideas clearer). The title of the article is “Why do you exist?” And he adds “Where did it all come from? Why are we here?” as well. Midway through the text Dr. Lanza expresses some ideas bordering (probably exposing) what I think is his extreme skepticism. When he says “We've looked at the world for so long that we no longer challenge its reality,” I wonder what he really means by that. Is he really challenging the reality of the universe, or raising a few questions on the way we examine (look at) the world? He doesn’t seem clear; in any case, to challenge the reality of the world, or to challenge our basic sensorial perception (if that is what he is doing here), is an incredible claim, for which he doesn’t appear to give reasons—why should I doubt what my eyes see; what I feel?
The article is full of unclear, unsupported statements, embellished with poetic writing, but that at times reveal some of the author’s beliefs. In the sentence, “It seems likely that we're the center of our own sphere of physical reality, connected to the rest of life not only by being alive at the same moment in the Earth's 4.5 billion year history, but by something suggestive — a pattern that's a template for existence itself,” does he believe the universe had a beginning? In spite of vague statements (we are connected to the rest of life . . . by something suggestive — a pattern), is he affirming that we create our own reality (“we’re the center of our own sphere of physical reality”)? If yes, anybody can create whatever they want; anybody can see/feel/hear whatever they want; but that doesn’t seem to fit reality.
He also seems to agree with what he says is usually taught to us as kids, that “the universe can be fundamentally divided into two entities—ourselves, and that which is outside of us.” I am not sure that this is the usual division of the universe taught in schools. I don’t think that this is what we are taught since childhood; at least not when defining the word/concept ‘universe’. That seems more a definition of ‘self’ than a physical entity. In any case, he seems to agree with the claim that “’Self’ is commonly defined by what we can control.” Does he agree with that? Personally, I believe we are more than biology. We’re a soul; although he wrote before: “We're more than we've been taught in biology class. We're not just a collection of atoms — proteins and molecules — spinning like planets around the sun,” he seems to contradict himself with the previous phrase. Even when I don’t move a thing in my body (or if I lose control of my limbs, say) I still get a sense that I exist, that I am a consciousness.
By reading Dr. Lanza’s other writings, one quickly finds out that he is a major proponent and defender of biocentrism. In this article he defines it only as the “view of the world in which life and consciousness are bottom-line in understanding the larger universe — biocentrism,” and that this view “revolves around the way our consciousness relates to a physical process.” There is more to that when you read his other articles, but in these few chapters he doesn’t go much further. I personally agree that life and consciousness are extremely important in understanding the universe — for it to come into being, there had to had existed a conscious life who decided to create. But he adds that, “According to biocentrism, you're not an object — you're your consciousness. [agreed, to a certain extent!] You're a unified being [?], not just your wriggling arm or foot [OK], but part of a larger equation that includes all the colors, sensations and objects you perceive [I am a large equation that includes the sensation I perceive?].” Here he seems to affirm (again, always evasive) that we are our perception. I am not sure what he is affirming (and, it seems, neither does he in this article), but, if I’m right, he says that we are everything we perceive—colors, sensations; we are even the objects we perceive. That’s seems to me to be a form of pantheism, where we and everything else are the divine (or at least, for Dr. Lanza, we and everything else are the same).
He also asserts, oddly, that “Our consciousness is why they [life and the universe] exist.” Does he believe that we (or the sum of our beings/consciousness) ‘created’ the universe? Did I create the universe before becoming conscious of it? Or I have been always conscious but my state won’t permit me to remember what I thought billions of years ago? Again, those are serious claims presented without any support (as Greg Koukl would put it, this is a roof without walls; and I believe these walls are rather week and cannot support the roof).
He concludes saying that our consciousness (however he defines it) is what “unifies the thinking and extended worlds into a coherent experience and animates the music that creates our emotions and purposes — the good and the bad, wars and love.” Our consciousness animates the music that creates our emotions? Are we the sole responsible for our emotions; or rather, its creator? Does our consciousness create our emotions and purposes? We create our own purposes? Even if that happens, our purposes would be utterly false, specifically because WE created them. Also, according to him, do we create the good and the bad? Again, like some Eastern religions, he seems to affirm that evil (and the good) doesn’t really exist; the bad is all what we create it to be. Does he believe that I can physically hurt him and that would only be a product of his consciousness? And that it wouldn’t be evil at all; since both of us are unified, part of the same consciousness?
Finally, Dr. Lanza doesn’t seem to answer the main question of the article, “Why Do You Exist?” He basically provides his explanation of what existence is, without providing any support for his claims. But he does not answer what seems to be the point of the title: what is our meaning or purpose? Does he believe that nature is all that is? He does provide his opinions for one of the questions posed earlier, “Where Did All Come From?” But not to the following question, “Why Are We Here?” Dr. Lanza’s apparent scientific spin on Eastern religion/philosophy is presented without arguments; with some contradictions (if the universe had a beginning, as he apparently presumes, where did it come from? From the unification of our consciousness?); and full of unlivable claims (if my consciousness creates evil/good, nothing is really ultimately evil; I can do whatever I want, to whoever I want, and that wouldn’t be really evil, just an expression of my consciousness, which ultimately is unified with yours). A very confused article and view, indeed.