War of The Worldviews: Where Science and Spirituality Agree and Disagree.
When your mind and heart are truly open abundance will flow to you effortlessly and easily.
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.
I am ready, excited and thrilled to dive into this essence that is me. It is time now. I needed to share that, as I can no longer keep it in. How may I be of service? I trust. I love. I am. We are.
The reason I don`t like the `Big Bang` model is because cosmologists refer to it constantly as common knowledge instead of theory. Cheryle is correct in saying the scientists need funding to operate. They also have to fall in line with conventional thinking. There is a price to pay when a young researcher pushes a theory that goes against conventional scientific dogma. What upsets me is the way that high-browed scientsts can scoff at one`s preference for a religious understanding of the universe, when in fact their own reasoning is so small-minded. I have seen how religious thinking folks have been smugly belittled by these "enlightened" beings. The plain fact is that even if a scientific notion is reasonable and goes against religious thinking, it is mean-spirited to ridicule those who take solace in them.
Well there is one way that the big bang theory could be true. If the original point of singularity is actually a firecracker in the universe one level up. If this is the case, then cosmologist need to start looking at our universe as the inside of an atom.