As we travel around the country promoting our new book, War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality, people are asking about the major points of contention between science (the worldview represented by Leonard Mlodinow) and spirituality (the worldview represented by Deepak Chopra). Do we always disagree or are there some points of agreement? We thought it would be appropriate to summarize the major differences and agreements in a short note.
Our book has four major sections: Cosmos, Life, Mind and Brain and God.
Cosmos:
Leonard describes Einstein's theory of relativity, and quantum theory, and how they are combined to create a scientific theory of how the universe began and evolved. He describes the impressive agreement between the theoretical predictions based on this picture and actual observations of the heavens made by astronomers. Deepak proposes a creative first cause that preceded the infinitesimally brief Planck epoch (10-43 seconds) following the Big Bang. He suggests that since the laws of nature and perhaps space and time emerged after the Planck epoch, any understanding of the pre-created universe remains outside the scope of objective science.
Life:
We describe the cutting-edge ideas of modern genetics. Leonard argues that physical evolution occurs through random mutations and natural selection. Deepak argues that random mutations are not an adequate explanation for the variety and speed of viable adaptations.
Mind and Brain:
Leonard posits that the mind is created by the physical workings of the brain, and that our consciousness can be explained through the same laws of nature that govern the rest of the physical world. Deepak proposes that the brain is the physical instrument of the mind, just as a radio serves to turn invisible radio waves into music.
God:
There is an important point of agreement here. Leonard maintains that "while science often casts doubt on spiritual beliefs and doctrines insofar as they make representations about the physical world, science does not -- and cannot -- conclude that God is an illusion." While not defending God in religious terms, Deepak holds that God is a way of understanding some extremely crucial things: the source of existence, the reality beyond spacetime, the underlying consciousness and creativity in the universe.
Overall:
Leonard suggests that the universe operates according to laws of physics while acknowledging that science does not address why the laws exist or how they arise. Deepak maintains that the laws of nature as well as mathematics share the same source as human consciousness.
WATCH: Science vs Spirituality Debate with Deepak and Leonard
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
War of the Worldviews by Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow ...
"The Influence of Music" | War of the Worldviews with Eric Holmberg ...
There is more religion in men's science than there is science in their religion – Thoreau
until one begins to understand what thoreau understands with this simple quote, they will continue to make such statements about an open mind.
I have never met a scientist or a religious person or indeed myself that had what I would call an open mind. the beginning of the spiritual journey is to become aware of how closed our minds really are; and how our cherished beliefs and our hidden paradigms are controlling our view of reality.
as we become more aware we can begin to view our cherished beliefs and often our paradigms from a distance. it will bring a smile to one's face as we begin to see how we are influenced by these aspects of our mind.
that level of awareness is even beyond consciousness; when we can view our flow of thoughts and begin to see the underlying reality of those thoughts.
I have not met a scientist yet that understands what thoreau has stated here but have read were a few have written about this aspect of their minds and that understand what thoreau meant by this quote.
You can't "equate" science with religion and say it's all just a matter of "belief". I would maintain that you are not then talking about science, but rather about belief in the ontological validity of science or an interpretation of science or you have a story about open minds. Science itself is something much narrower and by definition devoid of meaning or morality.
Religion is a belief system that has no basis of evidence. Compare religion to fortune telling, superstition, delusion and lies - - not to the simple quest to understand that which exists. If by some stretch of the imagination science found that magic existed, then we could compare the two.
Deepak, your reasoned approach to spirituality is as intellectually bankrupt as Harold Camping’s. The world will not end Friday the 21st, and neither will you know the catalyst that kick-started the universe. At least, scientists search with an open mind.
I also doubt his suggestion that since the laws of nature and perhaps space and time emerged after the Planck epoch, any understanding of the pre-created universe remains outside the scope of objective science. How can he be sure of that? What he should have said was that it was human hubris to think that science would be able to figure out how the universe is made if a God made the universe. I have a feeling that the intellectual capacity of such a God would be infinitely more than that of the humans.
He could have questioned LM's claim about the success of the Big Bang model (BBM) when BBM's depressing conclusion is that Physicists know only 4 % of the universe's constituents. How can LM sell the idea that BBM is a success when there is the unknown dark energy and dark matter? Scientists require these to balance the books. The problem is, however, that no one has ever seen dark energy ( no evidence) and dark matter (some evidence: gravitational pull at the edge of the galaxies).
I found Deepak Chopra's other opinions on life, brain and God quite reasonable. They could be right.
Bigger problem with big bang is theoretical, runaway inflation probability, etc. Big bounce is still in the running.
now the drop in the ocean that deepak likes to talk about is advaita religious teachings. our consciousness may indeed when it has evolved to an awareness of perfect awareness may indeed "merge" back into this infinite source of all that is.
believe neither as they know little about the afterlife. do your own research, much more difficult but worth the effort.
my experience has been the more popular the author the less advanced the teachings. books to be profitable must appeal to the masses and most of the masses want to be told what and how to think.
religious beliefs are perfect examples of this phenomenon.
I never met a christian or a muslim that figured out if they were born in a different nation they might be that other religion. no one yet. maybe some day. :o)
There is no evidence that supports it.
I would love to be wrong because I would much rather go to heaven when I die than cease to exist,
but I really don't think I am.
So if you would prefer to believe in an afterlife, why don't you? It hurts no one and makes you feel better. Indeed, if morality studies are accepted, those who believe are kinder to their fellows.
You believe what you choose to believe. I've never met a human who was rational rather than rationalizing. So why not rationalize toward love?
*waits for gravity to turn off*
Deepak is a bit off about not changing your mind from the debate. You won't change your mind in the duration of watching the debate or shortly after. But minds do change over time, usually a few years.
As a science-based atheist materialist, I would never say the self is illusory. (Though may be specific philosophy that says that in a very specific sense and is insightful.) Rather I would say that the self is a function of the material brain. But the function is real! Music may be a function of the radio, but music is still real. I just think the self is a function of matter, not an immaterial something.
Consciousness is part of the evolved mechanism by which the organism responds to its environment. It is a representation by the brain, a kind cinema of the mind, which serves the purposes of the brain in determining our responses. The self is the brain's representation of the body/brain life intentionality inherent in the mechanism. It is intricately entwined with the dance of the organism surviving in the world. But only in consciousness.
To me it is like the difference between hardware and software. Software has no physical existence yet can certainly affect the physical world. Patterns not only exist, but exist across media. Ideas seem to have no existence yet clearly affect things that do exist. How can that be?
Every argument I've ever heard against the existence of God can also be used against the concept of the number zero. Yet those who vehemently reject God use zero on a regular basis. Their hatred for God is perhaps the best proof of His existence, for if He didn't exist, why the hate?
But, my belief in God (however you want to define it, because, to me, God is the first cause and is whatever it is) is unshakable. I realize that God will never be proven objectively and neither will an "afterlife".
When I was young, I believed in a "sky daddy". Overtime, that belief became more refined. I no longer believe in a "sky daddy", but, I do believe in a creative supernatural (beyond the physical realm, beyond the quantum realm) force which has served as a guiding force for the universe to thrive for billions of years.
I think the belief that nothing but the physical universe exists has been thoroughly debunked by quantum physics. To me, believing that "particles pop into" existence is absurd and evidence of "magical thinking". Obviously, there is something preceding that "particle popping into" existence. What is it? I say it's consciousness.
Well what (specifically) is the realm of protocol for science? What realm do you think questions of God's existence and the afterlife occupy?
"You either believe in a "god(s)" or you don't."
I'm confused. You just agreed that the word "god" is poorly defined. And yet you can either believe in a god or you can't. Um... what exactly is one believing or not believing in? How do you believe in a conception that is empty and meaningless?
Until you offer a good definition of the word "god", there is nothing to believe or not believe in. There is nothing to prove or disprove. There is just nothing. The statement "God exists" has no content.
"That's what I've come to believe."
So what?! You could believe something extremely silly. How do you know this is something intellectually reasonable to believe in, i.e. how do you know this remotely has a chance of being factually true? No one is entitled to their own beliefs, not while maintaining intellectual integrity.
"But, my belief in God (however you want to define it, because, to me, God is the first cause and is whatever it is) is unshakable."
I'm even more confused. You have no definition explain what the heck you are believing in. You admittedly can't prove that this thing you believe in actually exists. And yet this believe is unshakable?! This is intellectually dishonest in the extreme!
So you realized belief in a Sky Daddy is ridiculous, so rather than admitting your belief in God is wrong, you engaged in the sophistry of "refining" what you believed into something not so obviously wrong. When you were doing this refining, how did you know your refined notion of God was likely to really exist?
"I think the belief that nothing but the physical universe exists has been thoroughly debunked by quantum physics."
Oh really? And how is that?
"To me, believing that "particles pop into" existence is absurd and evidence of "magical thinking"."
Well, guess what, particles do "pop" into existence. The quantum physicists have mathematical models and experiments that show this. And precisely because they do have mathematical models to illustrate in some sense what is going on and they have experimental evidence to support their claims, this is not magical thinking. Where is your mathematical models? Where is your evidence?
"Obviously, there is something preceding that "particle popping into" existence."
No, that is not at all obvious.
"What is it? I say it's consciousness."
How do you know?
Look, all I am asking you to do is clearly explain what you believe and how you know this is a reasonable belief. It seems by your own admission that you can't answer this question. Do you even know what you believe in?
What science conflicts with is religion and superstition (including new age religion's like that of Chopra's). Science and religion have incompatible approaches to understanding and viewing the world. Also, specific results of science conflict with certain religions (Christianity is incompatible with evolution). But you remove the superstition from spirituality, there's no conflict. Thus I think the subject of the debate is a bit misstated.
It's regrettable that Steven Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's book was taken out of context. Not only was their scientific work misrepresented. Atheists were caught having to explain in the following months why atheists suddenly thought it was okay to take Hawking and Mlodinow's theoretical work as how the Big Bang definitely happened. The thing is, atheists like myself never thought Hawking and Mlodinow's speculation was definitely what happened! As Mlodinow said, they only showed there were explanations for the Big Bang based on science that involved no god. The Big Bang might have happened without a god. But that's pure speculation and there is a diverse array of speculation by physicists on this matter.
The straw gods of theologians bears scant resemblance to the ill-tempered misogynistic Sadist who roams the canons of the Big-3 Monster Theisms -- judaism, xianity, islam.
No theological defense can save "God" from "His” perversity. No need to waste time on pointless theological gamesmanship based on deist or pantheist proxy divinities. Theology is fifth-rate fan fiction.
Only religion and morals easily survive in cultures without well-grounded methods for establishing knowledge claims.
Science and Law operate successfully using a reality principle, a finding of fact beyond a “reasonable doubt.” Beyond reasonable doubts lie unreasonable doubts, beliefs which are neither creditable nor credible.
Morality and religion are cultural atavisms given over to indoctrination, paternalist norms, and crude wish fulfillment.
Without formal systems of rule-governed method and rule-governed review, Science and Law would disappear. Religion openly encourage irrationality, behavioral pathology, and authoritarian ideologies.
Indeed, there are no religions, only religious institutions -- manned by self-anointed god proxies who have no rational methods for discerning false from true. Who offer only illogic (apologetics) and make authoritarian secular demands (an ideology of theo-fascism).
They are those who counsel intolerance and hatred, violence and murder as legal and godly acts. They would persuade us to believe and to do evil.
the anti_supernaturalist
For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent. -- Gödel's second incompleteness theorem
It seems your rule-governed methods are corrupted by the very nature of the universe. Time to start over and rethink.
Its a fascinating subject and I'm so glad that these two brilliant men decided to take on this book together. it will be nice to get away from politics for a while.
In science we form hypothesis and test them against reality. When they don't agree with reality, we reject them. The Big Bang failed the test and should be seriously reevaluated. Keeping it seems to be a religious construct to me. It agrees well with certain creation myths, so we stop thinking. This is not science.
That doesn't mean some modified Big Bang didn't happen, but that it's not an adequate explanation at this time. Reject and start over.
Why state something so obvious? How could science conclude *anything* about nothing?
Love and light!
Becca Chopra, author of The Chakra Diaries
www.thechakras.org
What you are practicing is Scientism. An old label for scientific fundamentalist dogmatism - a dogmatism that continues to cling to world-views that were established over a century ago - but have been shown to be inadequate for many new facts established in the last century. For example, the empirical evidence of an unconscious. Or the empirical evidence of psi.