Deepak Chopra and Intent

Deepak Chopra and Intent

God Is the New Physics

posted by Admin

When spirituality and physics started to be linked, many scientists called it the use of metaphor. It couldn’t literally be true that there was a Tao of Physics that linked quantum mechanics to ancient Chinese philosophy. At best there might be a weak link–God and the new physics–the way one might say God and DNA. With a little imagination, the two could be joined, but there was no possibility that God could intrude into hard science. There might be a gene for faith (so the speculation went), yet physics is couched almost purely in the language of mathematics, and no matter how you cut it, God isn’t numbers.

 

In the past decade the picture has radically altered. It’s no longer a matter of metaphors. Some problems in physics are beyond mathematics–the universe is no longer a numbers game, either. If that’s true, then God and the cosmos stand on a level playing field. The day may not be far off when God is the new physics.  For that day to arrive, both sides of the traditional religion versus science stand-off must change their value systems and beliefs.

 

Religion must step down from fixed dogmatic views that long ago were shattered by science, such as the creation myth in Genesis. Images of God must be jettisoned next, since a bearded patriarch sitting above the clouds has never been anything but a metaphor. Finally, and hardest of all, religion must abandon its claim to the supernatural. As long as there is one reality for science (Nature) and another for religion (the mystical supernatural), a unified understanding of reality will be unreachable.

 

Science has cherished beliefs it must give up also. The first is exactly the same as for religion. The belief that all spiritual experience is supernatural and therefore invalid prevents a full understanding of the universe and our place in it. The division between objective and subjective, along with rational versus irrational, must be abandoned, because it’s a false duality. All experience is subjective, including the experience of doing science.

 

Having gotten this far, as quite a number of spiritual seekers and scientists both have, there is a goal that unifies the two sides even further. This is the search for a single explanation that encompasses reality as a whole. Physics realizes that Nature can’t be comprehended within the accepted bubble of time and space. Too many advanced theories (such as superstrings, the multiverse, and eternal inflation) point toward ultimate answers lying beyond the quantum horizon. At the same time, religion can’t convince us that rationality is the enemy of faith. God must be subject to rational understanding just as much as quarks and the Higgs boson.

 

If the two camps agree that a unified understanding of reality is their shared goal, only two possibilities exist. Either the unified theory is materialist or it isn’t. If it’s materialist, which is the preferred route for 99% of scientists, we have a long, long wait ahead of us. Materialism promises to explain how life began, the relationship between mind and matter, the origin of consciousness, where thoughts come from, how memory works, and the process whereby the firing of neurons in the brain creates the three-dimensional world, even though the basic elements of that world (sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell) quite obviously don’t exist in or among neurons.

 

Despite the self-evident failure of materialism, belief systems have a way of holding on for many decades past their expiration date, and there is stubborn resistance in science to any other mode of explanation beyond the tried and true. Do neurologists really believe that by jiggling brain chemicals one arrives at Shakespeare and Mozart? Yes. Do cosmologists believe that they can delve into the pre-created domain before the Big Bang, even though the human brain is obviously bound to linear time and finite space? Yes. These and other false trails are likely to seduce investigators for awhile.

 

But a loose cadre of scientists, seekers, philosophers, and open-minded thinkers have already arrived at an agreement that a unified understanding of reality will never be materialist (or physicalist, to use the preferred term). What will work instead? Something else.  The best candidate for “something else” is consciousness, but that’s not really an answer so much as an open door. How to explore consciousness using a method as valid as the current scientific method raises all kinds of contentious issues. It is almost as difficult to explain how mind turned into matter as how matter turned into mind.

 

Yet in that “almost” lies the edge of the wedge. If you take all the toughest questions and filter them through a consciousness-based universe, the answers are at times inconceivable, but there’s one great advantage over materialism. In a purely physical cosmos, the most difficult questions lead to answers that make no sense whatever. Molecules can’t think, end of story. Therefore, if there is a cosmic intelligence that exists beyond time and space, which under the old terminology was called God, it is the most likely basis for the universe and our place in it. God is the new physics, because every other alternative has either failed or is getting ready to.

 

Deepak Chopra, MD is the author of more than 80 books with twenty-two New York Times bestsellers. He serves as the founder of The Chopra Foundation and co-founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing. His latest book is The Future of God 

 

Will God 2.0 Be Indispensable in Ten Years?

posted by Admin

The primary difficult with God isn’t belief–more than 80% of US responders tell pollsters that they believe God exists. The problem is that God is irrelevant, providing few if any practical benefits in daily life. In an age of faith the circumstances were in God’s favor. When people got sick or died, had a run of bad luck, committed immoral acts, received unexpected rewards, or couldn’t have children–the list of situations was endless–God was invoked to explain why. In one way or another, the deity was interwoven into the fabric of daily life.

 

In a new book, The Future of God, my pivotal argument is that God only has a future if he (or she) becomes useful once more. We can think of this as God 2.0. Such as shift would have to happen on a level different from faith. Modern secular society isn’t going to reverse history and return to prescientific ways. A new avenue has to open, and it has. We are facing unprecedented circumstances in which God suddenly becomes relevant. These new circumstances extend into many areas of our existence.   For example,

 

— Millions of people have experienced a lack of meaning in a lifestyle devoted to money, career, and success.

— Isolated individuals are unable to resolve the enormous problem of climate change, despite their best intentions.

— Organized religion is losing the hearts and minds of its followers, while skepticism keeps hammering away at time-honored doctrines and dogmas inherited from the age of faith.

— Science finds itself unable to explain the nature of consciousness but finds that it must, in order to adequately explore the brain-mind connection.

–Cosmology has reached the frontier of spacetime, with no explanation for how the seeming void that underlies the physical universe somehow created time, space, matter, and energy.

— Physical explanations for the contents of the universe (i.e., molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles) have been totally undercut by the mysterious existence of “dark” matter and energy.

 

In short, modern society has been based on a mindset that is starting to show serious weaknesses and flaws. The promise of a better life through materialism alone has proved to be hollow. Ignoring the existence of subjective experience is no longer viable, even within “hard science” itself. And looming catastrophic climate change, not to mention over-population, pandemic disease, terrorism, and income inequality, is forcing everyone to re-examine how the human family can exist in comity and cooperation. The arrival of a new paradigm, fervently predicted and hoped for, seems no longer to be a fringe idea. If the human race can’t learn to redefine itself, all the way down to our core values and self-conception, the future looks bleak.

 

Which is not the same as saying that we should fall to our knees and beg for divine mercy. God, as traditionally conceived, is woven into our problems. The deity has always been a reflection of human identity. In fact, most believers who were born into the Judeo-Christian tradition envision God as a human being writ large, with emotions, whims, and judgments familiar in everyday life, only on a cosmic scale. Seeing a benevolent God when times are good and a vengeful or indifferent God when times are bad has been the norm. We will continue to use God as a mirror, no doubt, but the reflection must change if God is to prove useful.

 

A new conception of God might look something like the following:

— God would represent the essence of being human, which is conscious awareness.

— We would seek God by going deep into our own awareness.

— On this inner journey, there would be a resolution of conflict, turmoil, hostility, and fear within each person.

— We would begin to center ourselves in a more evolved state of awareness.

— This evolved state would be more expanded than the ego state, with its narrow, selfish concept of self-interest.

— A sense of shared humanity would emerge, based on the experience of higher consciousness.

— As walls of separation begin to crumble, so would the divisiveness of warring faiths and nationalism, tribalism and racial identification.

— Once enough people recognize that God, absolute consciousness, and Being transcend the visible world, science would find itself with answers to mysteries that can only be resolved by introducing these new terms.

— The existence of consciousness as the pre-created state of the universe would become consonant with the existence of God.

 

These themes are already quite strong in certain minds, including scientific minds, and the trend is upward. No one can predict that God will actually be redefined and become a useful part of how we live and think. But the possibility is open and the potential is limitless. Once we envision an enlightened future for ourselves, God acquires at future at the same moment.  Believe it or not, God 2.0 could be indispensable ten years from now, for all the reasons just outlined.

 

Deepak Chopra, MD is the author of more than 80 books with twenty-two New York Times bestsellers . He serves as the founder of The Chopra Foundation and co-founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing. His latest book is The Future of God 

Why Physics Needs God But God Doesn’t Need Physics

posted by Admin

Recently I created a brief storm on Twitter by throwing out questions that physicists can’t answer. Twitter allows you to contact famous physicists directly, and it’s predictable that a handful will become irritated and even riled up if you dare to challenge them. “What happens in physics stays in physics” is their motto, apparently. But I’m on tour for a new book, The Future of God, and for decades, ever since the publication of books like The Tao of Physics and God and the New Physics, it’s become evident that physics can’t escape its meeting with God.

 

I don’t mean the clash between belief and atheism. What I cover in the book, and what makes some physicists with famous names turn ad hominem and outright abusive, is something else. They are going to need God to solve some fundamental questions about reality. Even more irritating to them, God exposes the current crisis in physics. After promising us that physics will one day have the answer for where the universe came from, what it’s made of, and where human beings belong in the cosmos, today physics may actually be farther away from an answer than ever. Such is the nature of the crisis.

 

God enters the picture through a word that most scientists heatedly reject: metaphysics. It’s barely an acceptable term and for all practical purposes has nothing to do with the day-to-day activity of doing physics. Metaphysics is about an invisible reality. It can be considered the domain of God or the gods, the soul, angels and devils, heavens and hells, life after death–the whole panoply of beliefs that science isn’t concerned with and supposedly protects us from if we consider ourselves rational beings.

 

But there is metaphysics that has none of these things in it–no personal God or gods, no soul, no angels, etc. Instead, going back to the ancient Greeks, metaphysics is a higher order of explanation, which is something we use every day. If you look at cars on the road, at one level they are physical objects randomly turning left and right, arbitrarily stopping at various buildings, only to start again at unpredictable intervals. But at a higher level of explanation, each driver has a purpose in mind; therefore, the turns, starts, and stops aren’t random but purposeful–they mean something. The cars they drive are a means to an end, and if you don’t understand the end, learning about the means has limited value.

 

No matter how much you learn about the physics of cars, not a single fact will tell you which car on the road is heading for the emergency room and which is heading home for Thanksgiving. We “go meta” quite naturally when we want to know “why” instead of “how.” Physics recognizes this distinction, and for a long time it stayed out of the “why” business. Isaac Newton was profoundly Christian, but he kept his religious beliefs out of his physics. God and gravity, metaphysics and physics, were not necessarily related.  Yet from the beginning this was a shotgun separation, because eventually certain issues involve both. These issues concern the origin of the universe, the nature of time and space, the relation between mind and brain, and so forth.

 

Physics feels assured, for the most part, that even these questions can be walled off from metaphysics–except they can’t. Using its best efforts to offer explanations that remain entirely physical, physics has offered no credible explanation for where the universe comes from, how mind works, where time and space originated, and what the basic “stuff” of the cosmos is. Physics has every right to keep God out of its high-speed particle accelerators, but metaphysics–a higher order of explanation–is the only way to answer some questions that can’t be unriddled any other way. The biggies are

 

What does it mean to exist?

How do we know things?

What makes reality real?

 

These are issues where “why” and “how” start to merge. “Why am I here?” is the same question as “How did I come to exist?”  In The Future of God I argue that there is a version of the deity that isn’t a patriarch sitting above the clouds but rather a God defined as the source of consciousness, and as such, the deity isn’t a myth, a matter of faith, a divine Father or Mother–in fact, such a God cannot be captured in words or images. God is pure “meta.” Physics needs such a God in order to find the higher order of answers that will rescue it from crisis.

 

Pointing this out–or even beginning to by asking hard questions–creates temper tantrums on Twitter. But there are many physicists who are willing to concede that science has reached a point where consciousness is crucial. There are no experiments that can prove what came before the Big Bang, or what dark energy and matter actually are, or why evolution appeared in the early universe, or how the mind is produced by the brain, if that is actually the case and not the other way around.

 

And where do you and I come in? People tend to agree that what happens in physics stays in physics. Except that asking “Why am I here?” is intimately related to “why is anything here?” whether you are referring to quarks, galaxies, or the universe itself. “Where is my life going?” is intimately related to “Why does anything evolve?”  The “meta” level of existence is freer than the material level. If my purpose is to get home for Thanksgiving, I can choose any means of conveyance–walking, driving a car, riding planes, trains, and buses. But the opposite isn’t true. If you walk, drive, or ride with no purpose, your feet, car, bus, or train only wanders randomly. Physical means can’t evolve into ends. How you do something will never tell you why.

 

Physicists who scorch with tweets don’t bother me. They only expose their isolation, arrogance, and self-willed blindness. The big questions about existence aren’t shop talk for mathematically savvy professionals working in arcane specializations. Existence is everyone’s business. That’s ultimately why physics needs God, and if God in fact is the source of consciousness–transcendent, immutable, without beginning or end, timeless, a field of infinite possibilities–it’s obvious that God doesn’t need physics. The beauty of this realization is that this field of infinite possibilities exists in us. It is here, now, and always. It is our very essence.

Deepak Chopra, MD is the author of more than 80 books with twenty-two New York Times bestsellers . He serves as the founder of The Chopra Foundation and co-founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing. His latest book is The Future of God  

Why God Makes More Sense than Atheism

posted by Admin

After two centuries of the tug-of-war between science and religion, it’s clear science occupies the dominant position. It has passed the “So what?” test, meaning that science as applied to practical daily life has been immensely more important to modern people than God. This has given atheism, both casual and militant, the upper hand. As much as belief in God has deep human significance, he (or she) doesn’t pass the “So what?” test. If you put a video camera on the shoulders of an atheist and a believer, without knowing which was which, it’s hard to claim that the believer will have a better life because of his belief. Atheism therefore looks like just as good a choice.

 

I’ve always felt that this lopsided advantage we automatically give to science, and therefore to atheism, is unfair. In a new book, The Future of God, I turn the tables, proving as best I can that God isn’t just a humane, comforting, or moral choice but the most practical source of well-being.  This will certainly come as surprising news to millions of the faithful who have been leading divided lives. Their practical affairs are secular, taking advantage of technological advances, while in their hearts they leave a privileged space for God. Rarely do we hear that God is actually more rational than science and more practical than technology.

 

To accomplish this turn-around, first the playing field needs to be leveled. A few basic assumptions need to be cleared up. Let me do that in abbreviated form, since I don’t have space to elaborate at length, as I do in the book.

  1. Science isn’t by definition anti-religious.
  2. Atheists have a point when they accuse organized religion of a litany of gross failings, including crusades, jihads, and the Inquisition. But religions are human institutions prone to every human failing. Religious history is about us, not about whether God exists.
  3. God can be approached without resorting to the cultural mythology of a humanized Father and Mother watching over us from Heaven. Atheists largely attack this myth, but smashing a myth doesn’t mean you’ve smashed reality.
  4. There is a rich tradition, both East and West, of an impersonal God. This God is the source of consciousness and all that we associate with consciousness: self-awareness, intelligence, creativity, evolution, etc.
  5. The experience of God is found inside our own consciousness, not “out there” in a supernatural realm.

 

Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins seem convincing when they cloak themselves in rationality and science while portraying God in terms of irrationality and superstition. This makes for nice rhetoric, pitting an absolutely good side against an absolutely bad one, but Dawkins and his crowd know little about spirituality and less about consciousness. Everything they say, once you winnow out the freight of arrogance, dismissiveness, false representation, chop logic, and bad faith (there’s a lot to discard, believe me), the basis for modern atheism is a materialistic belief that nothing except physical objects and processes can be real. This stance is known as “naive realism,” and it has served atheists well because we all live our lives as naive realists.

 

That is, we believe the information brought to us by the five senses. What we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell can be treated, for all practical purposes, as reliably real. We navigate through the day using the mind at its common-sense level. Emotions, both positive and negative, influence us all the time, even if we wish they wouldn’t. The world “in here,” a domain of introspection and unseen forces, is largely unexplored.

 

The problem with naive realism is that, although workable, it’s not scientifically valid and it can’t possibly lead to God. This is where the level playing field comes in with a vengeance. On the one hand quantum physics has totally dismantled the validity of the five senses when it comes to understanding the “real” reality that defies not just our eyes and ears but our common sense and our reliance on such appearances as linear time and three-dimensional space. On the other hand, the mystery of the “real” reality is intimately tied to understanding our own consciousness. This double whammy more or less flattens Dawkins-style atheism intellectually, which is why science and consciousness have become strange bedfellows if you are bamboozled into believing that atheism is more valid than spirituality.

 

In truth, all experiences are subjective, including the experience of doing science. Before we can be completely sure of any fact, science must account for something more basic: How do we know the world? What is the connection between objectivity and subjectivity? What is consciousness to begin with? At first blush these questions don’t seem to pass the “So what?” test. They appear to belong in the ivory towers of the academy. But if you do nothing more than accept the new level playing field that now prevails, immense practical consequences result. Again, let me abbreviate the main points.

 

  1. If all experience is subjective, going inward is a valid means of exploring reality.
  2. In this exploration, new levels of consciousness reveal themselves.
  3. At deeper levels of consciousness, perception changes radically.
  4. As perception changes, so does reality itself, since nothing is real for us beyond what we can perceive in some way.
  5. The conjunction of the individual mind with the source of consciousness is where God lives.

 

In short, God is a journey in consciousness, and because that’s so, whatever benefit we gain from being conscious is increased once we obtain direct access to God. Needless to say, atheists don’t even begin such a journey, because they dismiss it outright in advance. But the benefits of being more conscious will appeal to any rational person. If there is indeed a source of creativity, intelligence, power, love, truth–pick any divine attribute you want–the choice between God and atheism suddenly becomes radically revised. Atheism becomes the choice not to look into God, to passively accept second-hand opinions about the non-existence of God, and to judge spirituality worthless without question. As my example of putting a video camera on the shoulder of an atheist and a believer showed, there’s no reason to doubt that being an unbeliever can lead to a satisfying practical life.

 

But the video camera doesn’t show the inner effect of expanding one’s awareness, and I would venture–as argued at length in the book–that God brings the highest state of well-being no matter how you define the term. As the great quantum pioneer Max Planck observed, there is no getting behind consciousness. The mystery of realty can only be solved there. Which means that the mystery of personal realty, yours and mine, can only be solved there, too. This is the strongest incentive to find God, and the possibility that God will have a future that’s crucial to human happiness and survival.

 

Deepak Chopra, MD is the author of more than 80 books with twenty-two New York Times bestsellers. He serves as the founder of The Chopra Foundation and co-founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing. His latest book is The Future of God 

Previous Posts

God Is the New Physics
When spirituality and physics started to be linked, many scientists called it the use of metaphor. It couldn't literally be true that there was a Tao of Physics that linked quantum mechanics to ancient Chinese philosophy. At best there might be a weak link--God and the new physics--the way one might

posted 10:54:59am Dec. 15, 2014 | read full post »

Will God 2.0 Be Indispensable in Ten Years?
The primary difficult with God isn't belief--more than 80% of US responders tell pollsters that they believe God exists. The problem is that God is irrelevant, providing few if any practical benefits in daily life. In an age of faith the circumstances were in God's favor. When people got sick or die

posted 1:58:33pm Dec. 08, 2014 | read full post »

Why Physics Needs God But God Doesn't Need Physics
Recently I created a brief storm on Twitter by throwing out questions that physicists can't answer. Twitter allows you to contact famous physicists directly, and it's predictable that a handful will become irritated and even riled up if you dare to challenge them. "What happens in physics stays in p

posted 10:19:20am Dec. 01, 2014 | read full post »

Why God Makes More Sense than Atheism
After two centuries of the tug-of-war between science and religion, it's clear science occupies the dominant position. It has passed the "So what?" test, meaning that science as applied to practical daily life has been immensely more important to modern people than God. This has given atheism, both

posted 10:39:29am Nov. 24, 2014 | read full post »

How Richard Dawkins Lost His Battle with God
When he wrote his 2006 best-seller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expected to accomplish two aims that have proved to be remarkable failures. The first aim was social. He wanted to attract a horde of doubters, fence-sitters, and agnostics to gather their courage and join the atheist ranks. This

posted 11:50:49am Nov. 17, 2014 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.