Although science prides itself on objectivity, it has some cherished articles of belief. If you question them, however reasonably, you can expect ire and raised hackles. Bruce Lipton has discovered this after posting "Has Modern Science Bankrupted Our Souls?" In it he challenges basic assumptions of modern science, such as the pre-eminence of a Newtonian physical universe and the conception of evolution through random mutations for being flawed. Natural selection and random mutation no doubt played a part in getting us where we are now, but they won't carry us into the future. The controversy being stirred up is old and, so far as Darwinists are concerned, completely settled. On one side is the light of reason, on the other darkness and superstition. The fact that Bruce Lipton is a cell biologist doesn't mean that his credentials protect him. People don't take kindly to having their faith questioned.
But the issue here isn't about bringing Darwin down, but rather about expanding his theory. Lipton's post reflects the urgency of future evolution, or where we grow from here. He poses the potential threat of mass extinction and the ruin of the planet (very real threats, even if you don't push as hard as he does). After painting a doomsday portrait of the future, Lipton offers hope, saying that humans will make exciting breakthroughs if we face our hour of crisis by evolving to the next stage of consciousness. As the author of a book titled The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Lipton stands at the forefront of a growing movement. Some cutting-edge scientists belong to the movement, although it has roots in the new spirituality as well.
The basic premises that are able to cross the line between science and spirituality are these:
There are precincts of science where any of these statements would be considered outrageous. I know from experience, since one of my first posts at The Huffington Post addressed the future of evolutionary theory. My argument involved pointing out the holes in classical Darwinism, which turned out -- quite unintentionally -- to be the most inflammatory way to begin. True believers came out of the trees (apologies to any non-Darwinists for that image) with the usual cries against superstition and my presumed ignorance. Lipton takes a more palatable route, holding out exciting openings for the future (a carrot) and the dismal prospects if we don't go through those openings (a stick).
One could also appeal to personal interest, however, and the best way might be with the last premise on the list: "The future of our own evolution will be based on conscious choice." A person can be left at peace with randomness, natural selection, a universe where the only conscious beings are us and so on. But most people also gravitate toward the idea of choosing their own future. It's more optimistic than resigning yourself to the mechanical operation of fate, or stand ins like all-controlling genes. Science can also get on board with this, since in the scientific mind, choice includes a support for research, innovation and unexpected breakthroughs. We often hear that humankind is on the verge of a major change in our perception of reality, a paradigm shift as it is called. But there's no necessity for the new paradigm to break into laboratories and smash all the test tubes.
The brightest prospect is for an expanded science, one that takes consciousness into account. This is actually unfolding all around us. Even 10 years ago, a scientist who took consciousness seriously risked career suicide. He was likely to be rebuked with a common Physics slogan, "Shut up and calculate." In other words, stop this foolish speculation and go back to what we trust -- mathematics. But there is no getting around the bald fact that every human experience occurs in consciousness, including mathematics. If there is a reality beyond our awareness, by definition we will never know it. One branch of science after another, starting with the quantum revolution in physics a century ago, has been faced with mysteries that force it to consider consciousness. How does the brain produce thought? Why do genes respond when we interact or have experiences? Is biology a quantum phenomenon? Happily, there are now sizable conferences on these once unthinkable topics.
So is evolution ready to evolve? It would seem so, if we are to judge by the cutting edge. Younger researchers are open to these topics; they won't just shut up and calculate. There are tussles, of course, and angry skirmishes. A war of two worldviews has broken out, in fact. One conception of the universe and our place in it is being forced to yield its supremacy to the new paradigm on the block. What Lipton's post has done is to bring the clash of worldviews down from the ivory tower.
Choosing the future isn't just about government energy policy and technologies to clean up greenhouse gases. We are living on a shrinking planet with bulging population growth and each new arrival wants the good life. If the good life means endless consumption, pollution and waste, if toxic nationalism and war protects the haves from the have-nots, Lipton's darkest scenario may come true. But evolution is a force of nature, and perhaps we will all feel which way the wind is blowing. Lipton's brightest scenario could also come true. There's no final reason why millions of people cannot wake up and decide that the good life is really about a choice to evolve. With that one insight planetary healing can begin.
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
Evolution of Spirituality - WIE.org
The Evolution of Spirituality :: George E. Vaillant :: Global Spiral
I have to say I've been a critic of Bruce Lipton, but I don't think it unreasonable. If somebody uses a misunderstanding of a particular piece of science to advance their argument, surely it's right to point that out?
I have nothing against ignorance. We are all ignorant of many things. We all have some limited knowledge of some things. But I wouldn't try to use a subject on which I am ignorant as the basis for a thesis. Isn't that just common sense?
So if you think your reasonable questioning is being unreasonably challenged, I suggest you try to ignore the "ire" and "raised hackles" and actually address the serious points. Because there are plenty.
Finally: Scientists, like everybody else, certainly have cherished articles of belief. They're only human. But the main cherished article of belief of science is this:
"There is no place for cherished articles of belief."
Through the history of science we see many instances of scientists forced to abandon cherished beliefs. Perhaps Kepler, with his belief in the "perfect" circular orbits of the planets, is one of the best known. But we must remember they are forced to abandon beliefs by evidence. Not rival beliefs.
The valuable byproduct was learning APL , whose core market is complex financial systems , in the course of groking the essentials of multidimensional geometry .
As some old book says , "in the beginning was the word" , and the creation of computer executable notation capable of implementing such concepts has occupied me since .
I used to be a dogmatic atheist within the confines of materialistic science. The true spirit of science, however, is being open to the implications of new evidence. Breakthroughs in Quantum Physics and the impact of the observer on the experiment, hundreds of replicable studies on telepathy and mind-matter interaction over the last century all point to the implication that our view of how the brain works is incredibly incomplete. Read the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali or The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin, PhD. I agree that evidence is primary in science; similarly, denying newly demonstrated evidence for the sake of maintaining your current world view is unscientific. Read material on both sides of the fence (spiritual science as well as materialistic science) and you might discover an overlap. Science is the pursuit of truth through evidence (wherever it may lead), not simply the defense of a static worldview. Cheers.
My understanding of "materialist" is that it just means "stuff that can be detected (directly or indirectly) by the senses".
"We live in a conscious universe"? And the evidence for this is....?
"Humans are woven into the currents of cosmic evolution" - Anyone care to translate this into English?
Bafflegab on steroids.
You. The evidence for this is you.
And, when you're gone (at least from your perspective) so does the universe.
Indeed the universe only exists in the conscious mind.
I choose to think of the universe as being objective because it's more useful to think that.
i was homless a troubled kid and was uneducated with a year 8 pass.
now im a ceo of an insurance company i made with no experience whats so ever but somehow got the inteligence to make it work if only information.
And also the director of a sales and marketing business for 2 years i was evoling i also have published a book, now tell me that this is not a shift in eveloution before i could not even look after myself evouloution want the proof i am the proof my nueorlogist dont understand why same with my dr's i agree with dr chopra's views now what do you have to say non believers? the evouloutionary shift to spirtiuality made me the man today -:)
of course this is a false statement as false as the christian idea that someone had to die so those christians can get into heaven and be with a god of unconditional love but demands atonement.
accept neither side of this debate it is between two religions and their beliefs in spite of the evidence means nothing to these people as they have become true believers. there are smart and reasoning people on both sides but once a true believer, smart goes out the window. the paradigm effect overwhelms smart 99.999% of the time.
once a true believer the rest is just defensive behavior and personal attacks between these two religions. at least the christians know how to raise billions upon billions of dollars to spread their word. the materialists have to rely on taxpayers money to spread their paradigm paralysis.
neither side sees the limitations of their teachings. how could they they have become true believers. each side can see the paradigm paralysis with the other side but not in their own beliefs. ie human mind thing. like attracts like.
if you want to be a sincere seeker come to believe that you know next to nothing and then do your own research. few do more comfort in belonging to a group. ie human herd mentality.
See? We can agree on something.
That sounds like good common sense advice. The trouble is, no man is an island. We all rely on other people's knowledge. As soon as you start doing that research you're going to start finding that you agree with some other people and not others.
I think the trick is not to accept that you know nothing. That is clearly absurd. But to find some intellectual tools which help you to rationally appraise all the information and opinion in the world with scepticism but not cynicism. And I reckon you could do a lot worse than the scientific method.
Darwin's Evolutinary theory was improved upon by hundreds of researches over a century and a half, with evidence and experiment, all within reason.
Your 'consciousness' gobbledygook has been around for ages, with no evidence and no possible experiment to test it's falsifiability or veracity. There is no reason.
Then again, you make the failed assertion that since we don't know how our minds work or if biology is involved with quantum physics, that we should immediately go to the Ayurvedic notion of the 'soul' and 'consciousness' to explain. Replace the two with 'holy spirit' and 'The Lord God', and you get the same arguments from the nutjobs that run the Discovery Institute and the Creation Museum.
Then you make this wild accusation that there's a war brewing in science over Evolution. Instead of showing any factual evidence for this, you plug your book that says 'Well, I said it and I really wish it were true so people would stop calling me insane, so it MUST be true because my consciousness demands it!". That's not even remotely factual, it's conjecture. And bad conjecture at that.
Please, you can do so much better with your speaking talents if you just gave up these silly notions and do some research.
Chopra believe Occam's Razor is made by Gillette.
We've agreed Newtonian physics is wrong for almost 100 years, since Einstein (for the non-scientists, Einstein became famous for 'relativity theory', which displaced "newtonian physics" and has since been complemented by quantum theory).
If the rest of the book is as newsworthy as that part, I suggest readers save their money.