Science vs. Spirituality: Deepak Chopra And Leonard Mlodinow Discuss 'War Of The Worldviews'

The debate between science and spirituality is framed as a knock down fight for truth with winner take all. But does it have to be that way? Deepak Chopra is a physician and one of the most highly regarded spiritual teachers in the world; and Leonard Mlodinow teaches at Cal Tech and co-authored, along with Stephen Hawking, "The Grand Design." Chopra and Mlodinow wrote "War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality" to help start an intelligent and civil conversation about this very hot subject.

In this hour long video, Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow debate science and spirituality moderated by Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, Senior Religion Editor for The Huffington Post. This conversation was streamed live on Oct. 4, 2011 on the date of the publication of "War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality" by Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow.

Comments

[DAE]

10:35 PM on 11/06/2011

The difference between Deepak Chopra And Leonard Mlodinow is the difference between astral traveling and space travel.

[yach333]

03:13 PM on 11/01/2011

For exmple when we judge it wrong to murder we are expressing our disire that people should not murder, which is equivalent to saying yuck to murder. Since desires are neither true nor false. My entire expressions only amout to reveal something about myself. What then becomes our notion of morality? Unavoidably ther are relegated to merely personal and unreasoned prejudice. logically what follows is moral nihilism. This reality hides the fact that moral judgments are nothing other than the expression of personal preference or socially imposed rules without God as the Locus and paradigm of morality

[yach333]

03:07 PM on 11/01/2011

Not saying im for religion but there is a problem if you get rid of it. David Hume encapsulates this problem with respect to morality with the following in A treaties of human nature. "Take any action allow'd to be vicious: wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is not other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You can never find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, twoards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but tis the object of feeling not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. In any given situation where one is deducing a moral judgment continued

[Antikytera]

08:52 AM on 10/12/2011

This false dichotomy between science and "spirituality" really pisses me off.
I have my subjective life and interests that give me great pleashure and feeds my "spirituality", but as a fellow human in a complicated word, I feel it's my responsibility to be objective and try to use the same toolsbox as science do.
This highjacking, from supernaturalists, of our fantastic organ, the brain, is a crime against humanity. Saying that scientists have no spirituality sounds for me like lack of some basic understanding. Who is really openminded?
"God is just a consept" -John Lennon.

[Giantevilhead]

04:51 AM on 10/12/2011

You didn't need to be a physicist to know that Deepak's understanding of physics was all wrong. Anyone who's taken high school AP physics/chemistry or first semester college physics/chemistry would have spotted the simple physics mistakes Deepak made.

The problem with Deepak's argument, and I'm surprised that Leonard didn't call him on this, is that he has failed to operationalize his terms. He's just throwing out words like "consciousness" and "mind" without concretely defining what they are.

When scientists want to study vague concepts or ideas, they define it in concrete measurable terms so that it can be understood in terms of empirical observations. For example, different colors are operationalized based on the spectrum of wavelength that produce them. So the color yellow is operationalized as light between 590 to 560 nm wavelength. Different people will obviously have their own definitions of what they think the color yellow should be. However, the whole point of operationalization is to eliminate subjective judgments so that the term can be useful for conveying and analyzing information. Having an operationalized definition means that everyone is on the same page. So that a physicist in India could talk about the different colors of the spectrum and another scientist in Russia would know exactly what they're talking about.

The fact that Deepak didn't define any of his terms gives him a ton of wiggle room to make up crap since it allows for multiple interpretations.

[CressonStreetBlues]

12:00 AM on 10/12/2011

Some of the TOP Scientists in the world believe in a higher Power or GOD if you will....here are a list of some of them.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

[researcher]

02:46 AM on 10/11/2011

One side gives us the drop in an ocean Hindu advaita teachings and the other gives us the dust to dust materialistic we are here by chance even tho the probability of that is nil to none and that chance thing means there is no meaning and purpose to life other than being a robot of a selfish gene.

Neither side has done their research into the afterlife outside their cherished beliefs but the new age and materialism folks will run out and buy their books thinking they are getting an expert’s opinion.

Dust or ocean take your pick with these two.

The human ego finds much comfort in reading and researching into only that which it already believes. Research has revealed that often; important research data is missed that does not agree with the scientist’s paradigm.

This missed data was not on purpose it just did not find a path into the researcher’s mind.

[kenkingery]

08:52 PM on 10/10/2011

Yet Chopra does make a very valid point, early in the discussion, that the seductiveness of "hard science" as being a dispenser of "facts" is absurd when you consider the context of the innate limitations of human perception, enhanced though it may be through technology.The notion of an "objective fact" emanating from the subjective nature of human consciousness is the core flaw of all scientific statements on the "nature of the universe". Science does not know the "nature of the universe". Science knows the nature of repeated observation of "the universe" as seen through the human mind. As George Santayana once said. "Life is judged with all the blindness of life itself."

[theratman105]

09:49 PM on 10/10/2011

You are correct, but only in the most fatuous sense. Scientists are not concerned with the problem of absolute knowledge of an "objective fact". It is merely enough to say that it is demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt that some truths are objectively determinable -- a physicist has no need of knowing whether gravity appeals to some fundamental, objective "truth", only that it is as real as we could possibly hope for. To do otherwise and demand absolute, objective certainty has two consequences: 1) a surrender to sollipsism, which is not only intellectually bankrupt, it is completely useless as a guide to knowing anything, and 2) turning to theistic "truths", which only pretend to absolute, objective truth, and can easily be seen for what they are: subjective assumptions and guesses.

As a counter, perception and consciousness are clearly not 100% subjective either, for if they were, there would be no facts that anybody agreed on. For observations like gravitation, it does not matter where you grew up or what religion you adhere to (all of which sound exceedingly minute in the context of physics or chemistry). Clearly, our consciousness allows us access to a set of observations which can be shown to be objectively true, with the words "objective" and "true" being defined within reason.

And regardless, modern physics rejects the very idea of true, ultimate objectivity, as Einstein showed that there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference.

[kenkingery]

07:43 AM on 10/11/2011

So, I am being fatuously solipsistic? ;-)

[curiousdwk]

11:39 AM on 10/10/2011

The debate really isn't "Science vs Spirituality". The real debate is whether one can describe reality just with Natural explanations or if one needs Supernatural explanations as well as Natural. Those of us who believe that reality only needs the Natural for explanations are just as Sprititual as those who believe in ghosts, demons, gods, and goddesses from the Supernatural.

[dnptrs]

06:39 PM on 10/10/2011

Phenomenon can be both natural and not comprehensible. There is nothing supernatural.

[Amabod]

08:11 PM on 11/07/2011

You may think so, but you are incorrect. You are for all intense and purposes dead--spiritless--and living in a fallen realm of the flesh. Cursed by Gods. God is the prime mover. God is not comprehensible to our limited minds--that is why in my religion faith is so important. Know that I am and by faith believe.

[karen rose]

06:38 AM on 10/10/2011

At least I know why I love my own company.

[karen rose]

06:35 AM on 10/10/2011

Welcome to the planet of the apes discussing whether the world is flat. Unbelievable to read these comments. No wonder the earth is the way it is with poverty, starvation, crippled banks, universities peddling ignorance, soldiers bombing the limbs off kids... How did I end up here?
Intergalatic mission to the planet of the apes.

[researcher]

12:43 AM on 10/11/2011

Well stated Karen.

My favorite was the “universities peddling ignorance” comment.

Few will state this as universities still have this free pass. Kind of like the supreme court judges with their black robes on making it look like they are unbiased experts and judges of the constitution.

[The Skeptical One]

01:13 AM on 10/10/2011

Deepak Chopra is speaking from a philosophical point-of-view, while Leonard Mlodinow is speaking from from a scientific point-of-view. This is why their debate spins in circles.

[TylerDurdenSays]

02:31 PM on 10/10/2011

Chopra speaks in nonsense that he makes up at the moment. Mlodinow speaks from demonstrated, accepted, scientific theories.

[polystyleneman]

09:48 PM on 10/09/2011

Wow, how is there anyone alive today who would take Deepak Chopra's misinformed gobbledygook seriously? This is a man who has outrightly either misunderstood or misrepresented science in the general, and quantum physics in the specific, for decades now. He has as much credibility in such discussion as Bill Kristol or Dick Cheney do in discussions of world affairs.

[RedDogBear]

09:21 AM on 10/10/2011

So true.

[theratman105]

09:54 PM on 10/10/2011

Thank you!

[Tulka2]

05:21 PM on 10/09/2011

I am very fond of Deepak Chopra, but his insistence that speculation is fact is indefensible.  The Dalai Lama, a Buddhist, would have no problem with the speculation that consciousness is the result of a human brain secretion.  Whether this is a fact or not a fact can only, at this time, be speculation.  Speculation has not a thing to do with human happiness, btw.  Facts are enough to find a path to human happiness. 

There would be no "debate"  between the Dalai Lama and Mlodinow. 

There is only what we know and what we don't know.  Every thing else is speculation.... which is fun.  The Buddha himself talked and talked. Speculation after speculation, but, please,  never defend a speculation as fact. 

Btw....?  If the Dalai Lama would have been here, everyone would have had big smiles plastered on their faces.....  Which would be a fact.

[Indigo1941]

06:04 PM on 10/08/2011

Maybe not but he should.