If God exists, the deity must be smiling. For behind the high fives and hoopla over the Higgs boson, there's a growing doubt that we are anywhere near to understanding the nature of reality. These doubts arise from two major sources.
The award of the Nobel Prize in physics generally creates a mental blur for most people, since no one can comprehend the current state of physics without training in advanced mathematics. This year was somewhat different, thanks to a nickname.
We don't need any introduction to recognize the famous physics equations such as F=ma or E=mc^2. However, the Schrödinger wave equation, though more central to the modern physics than these equations, is less popular and definitely more abstract.
The more I learn about science, and the more I learn about religion, the more I feel like the two so beautifully complement each other. The more people debate and argue, the more I see the commonality between the two.
If you propose that Truth with a capital T might return into our lives, like a speck on the horizon that gets bigger and bigger, many would prefer to swat the speck away. For one thing, Truth veers uncomfortably close to God.
All of our conflicts (and suffering) stem from the fact that no two people perceive the same reality with their senses. This is why spiritual practice aims at releasing the human mind from the delusion of separateness caused by sensory interpretation.
Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that religion is the "root of all evil," which became the title of his first big television hit in the UK, broadcast in 2006. Its follow-up, in 2007, allowed me to meet him in person. He invited me to answer a few questions on camera, and I did.
A convincing argument against religion is not necessarily an equally compelling one for atheism. Between religious certitude and atheism lies a more suitable ground for truly open and skeptical minds: agnosticism.
As the uniting factor that sets us free, "consciousness" is a term that is repugnant to many scientists -- mostly from an older generation -- and mysterious to all. But that doesn't excuse blindness and neglect.
Our belief in the value of human aspirations has been often challenged by voices claiming that all these valued aspects of our humanity must be illusions. Can on construct a scientific conception of the world that permits a hopeful view of the human future?