Deepak Chopra and Intent

Deepak Chopra and Intent


War of the Worldviews: A statement on science and spirituality

posted by Admin

by Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow

 

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-crated 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.

http://www.deepakchopra.com

Follow Deepak on Twitter



Advertisement
Comments Post the First Comment »
post a comment

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Naïve Realism, Or the Strange Case of Physics and Fake Philosophers (Part 2)
By Deepak Chopra, MD and Menas Kafatos,PhD   Scientists have assigned  the role of Mister Answer to science, the source of knowledge on every subject. This is peculiar because science does not accept a complete body of knowledge at any one time as final, therefore no answer can be final.

posted 10:14:04am Aug. 18, 2014 | read full post »

Naïve Realism, Or the Strange Case of Physics and Fake Philosophers
In a most unexpected way, physics has started to criticize its own sense of reality. Noted figures are speaking out against other noted figures, and heads are being knocked. A prime example: In the blog section of Scientific American, the highly respected South African physicist and cosmologist Geor

posted 9:54:26am Aug. 11, 2014 | read full post »

Is a Mind-Element Needed to Interpret Quantum Mechanics? Do physically undetermined choices enter into the evolution of the physical universe? Part 3
 By Deepak Chopra, MD and Henry Stapp, PhD Our previous two posts on the role of mind in nature have argued that rational analysis of the empirical evidence entails that the world is not only influenced by ideas, but consists of them. Of course, the everyday experience of a physical reality made o

posted 11:07:52am Aug. 04, 2014 | read full post »

Is a Mind-Element Needed to Interpret Quantum Mechanics? Do physically undetermined choices enter into the evolution of the physical universe? Part 2
By Deepak Chopra, MD and Henry Stapp, PhD The time is ripe for a theory of cosmic mind to be seen by all scientists, not as a speculative notion that conflicts with basic scientific principles, but as a necessary part of a rational science-based understanding of ourselves and nature. The earlie

posted 11:10:54am Jul. 21, 2014 | read full post »

Is a Mind-Element Needed to Interpret Quantum Mechanics? Do physically undetermined choices enter into the evolution of the physical universe?
By Deepak Chopra, MD and Henry Stapp, PhD Pick at random any TV show about the universe, and the visuals will be dominated by a black void sprinkled with billions of galaxies. Such images give the impression of a vast emptiness foreign to human existence. Our bodies would perish within minutes

posted 11:14:45am Jul. 14, 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.