Blog #1

I find that many of the ideas presented in chapters 1-3 of “The Field” are very exciting. Take, for example, these lines, “The idea of The Field might just offer a scientific explanation for many metaphysical notions, such as the Chinese belief in the life force, or qi, described in ancient texts as something akin to an energy field. It even echoed the Old Testament’s account of God’s first dictum: ‘Let there be light’, out of which matter was created.” (24) Think of it, science and religion might be reunited. Or, at least, they won’t be seen as so much at odds with each other as they have been in recent years. It might be exciting if the ideas of religion, which stand to give human life meaning, could be combined with the proofs and “harder” facts of science.

If you ask me, the ideas of Darwinism (which say that man is the result of random events) seems to put us in a rather dismal state. It doesn’t feel very good to be told, “there’s not really any purpose for your life, it just happened on accident.” If these newer ideas about a Zero Point Field are actually true that then there seems to be more purpose to human life. To quote the book again, “mass was not equivalent to energy; mass was energy.” (33) If the main energy source is the Zero Point Field, and if all mass (which we are a part of) is energy, then doesn’t it follow that we come from something greater than ourselves? It might be said that we are a part of the Field and not just the result of random mutations.

Now, as exciting as this sounds, I am still skeptical. As far as I understand, the newer ideas of quantum physics are not proven scientific facts, but hypotheses. It’s not good to jump to all kinds of conclusions about what the ideas in the book could mean when it hasn’t even been proven that all the ideas are correct. McTaggert even states somewhere in her book (I believe it’s in the prologue) that some of the results of different scientists had not been recaptured by other scientist. One of the criteria for scientific validity is that results should be able to be repeated, so it raises a big red flag when this is not the case for some of the ideas presented within “The Field.”

This also brings me to my second complaint. Why doesn’t McTaggert present any of the views of opponents to these new ideas? In most scholarly articles I’ve read there has always been a section in which the writers explain what their opponents have to say about their ideas or test results. Why hasn’t McTaggert provided this? As interesting as the ideas she presents are, I feel as if we’re only getting half the story.

In conclusion, I’ll reiterate that the ideas in chapters 1-3 are exciting. However, I don’t want to let my enthusiasm run ahead of me. I also realize that at this point all she has presented are ideas. Perhaps some of them are more accepted scientifically than others, but as a whole the possibilities she suggests will remain, at least for me, nothing more than ideas.