The Divine Matrix - reading

Finished "The Divine Matrix" by Gregg Braden.

I went into the book half skeptical and half open-minded. The introduction tipped that balance in favor of skeptic when it said, "...there are places where I've chosen to focus more on the radical and unexpected results of the quantum experiments, rather than getting bogged down with too many technical details of the experiments themselves." This sentence alone seems to imply mutual exclusivity to these two things, but I don't see a connection. Further, the first half that focuses on radical and unexpected results goes against my belief in what science is. At least for the second half the author promises references to the experiments themselves. I may have to look those up.

After referencing experiments, page 58 goes on to state, "Although we may not be able to prove scientifically why these things happen, we all know that they do." The author tries to inoculate against claims of pseudoscience, yet I am left to believe that is what it is.

Thus far it hasn't gone into the ethics of trying to make changes in ones world. Note also: prosperity preaching.... Okay, page 119 mentions getting permission, and that healing should be in a noninvasive and compassionate way.

When a group mediated for peace, it worked. When they stopped, violence came back worse than before. Is this some sort of evidence that violence is intelligent and patient? Also, the sample size here is very small, as many are in this book.

Page 154 talks about some universal feeling of abandonment demonstrated in the Lord's Prayer, then goes on to offer an alternate translation for the same that removes the abandonment sense in it. What's the point?

The third universal fear of surrender and trust - the author invokes the evening news, but doesn't mention the fact that the evening news skews the information about dangers in the world. This is almost sensationalism to make a point.

In the chapter about mirrors I am amused that the author shared a story about a cat and anthropomorphized the cat, which in itself is a kind of mirror. He considered the behavior of the cat as a mirror for other things going on in his life, but seemed to miss that ascribing human motivations to a cat is a kind of mirror, too.

All in all, I don't put much weight in the author's work here. Even with what I have seen first hand in my life, put me firmly in the "skeptic" column.