Is Science the Antidote to Deepak Chopra's Spirituality?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 9:04 AM Page 54 [REVIEWS Is Science the Antidote to Deepak Chopra’s Spirituality? MARK ALFORD an skeptics and scientists learn anything from reading a Deepak War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality. By CChopra book? In this case I think Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow. Harmony they can. It helps that this book is coau- Books (Random House), New York, 2012. ISBN: thored with Leonard Mlodinow, physi- 978-0307886880. 306 pp. Hardcover, $26. cist, screenwriter, and coauthor with Stephen Hawking of the best seller The Grand Design. (He also received the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s Balles Prize for his book on random- ness, The Drunkard’s Walk.) The book is formatted as a debate, each author set- ting out his side and responding to the other. It covers all the big questions: will be “drawn to your side’’ (Chopra, p. ent line, more like a geographical cosmology, life and evolution, the mind 251)? Or does it tell us that under- boundary, that separates science from and brain, and God. Chopra advocates standing one’s essence means “to think metaphysics. Mlodinow steps over this his own brand of spirituality, claiming of myself as a biological machine gov- line when he argues against Chopra’s that the universe is conscious and evolv- erned by the same laws that govern metaphysical castle-building by offer- ing. He presents his spirituality as the Pluto” (Mlodinow, p. 133)? This is a ing a competing metaphysical picture reasonable alternative to the soulless difference of two worldviews, but they that says “No, the evolution of the uni- materialism of his critics. Mlodinow are both metaphysical extensions of verse isn’t guided by a universal con- acts as the spokes man for science, coun- what science itself tells us. sciousness: it evolves through physical tering Chopra’s expansive claims and The proper skeptical answer, I would law, and has no guiding purpose” (p. giving very clear explanations of con- argue, is a third view: “none of the 62). The problem with this is that it ventional scientific knowledge. above.” Science doesn’t tell us deep goes beyond what science tells us. Sci- The title invites us to read the book truths about the world. Chopra goes ence does not measure the amount of as documenting a struggle between sci- beyond science in one direction, using purpose in the universe. I found myself ence and spirituality, but Chopra clearly it as a springboard to launch his inspi- agreeing with Chopra when he de- loves science and vies with Mlodinow rational metaphysics. In his statement scribed such claims as philosophical to explain topics like the history of the quoted above, Mlodinow jumps in an- materialism. By representing metaphys- cosmos and the role of DNA. In some other direction by espousing “philo- ical overstatements as being part of the cases Chopra misstates the content of sophical” materialism, which, as Chopra “scientific worldview,” one puts real sci- scientific knowledge and Mlodinow says, is also a form of metaphysics. The ence in danger of being discredited. corrects him, but in many cases Chopra skeptic rejects both spiritualistic and The proper “scientific” response to and Mlodinow agree on the content of materialistic metaphysics. We don’t Chopra’s spiritualistic metaphysics is to our scientific knowledge of the world. have evidence that there is a universal confine oneself to Laplace’s admirably Their disagreement is over a ques- consciousness with which we can com- minimal comment, “We have no need tion that is not itself scientific: What mune, nor does science tell us the of that hypothesis.” deep truth does science tell us about the “essence’’ of anything. To be fair to Mlodinow, his meta- world? Does it tell us that there is a From this point of view, the crucial physical overstatements are much rarer universal consciousness that we can ac- division is not a battle line between sci- than those of other popular writers cess by going to a special place where it ence and spirituality but rather a differ- such as Richard Dawkins. At various 54 Volume 36 Issue 3 | Skeptical Inquirer May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 9:04 AM Page 55 [NEW AND NOTABLE Listing does not preclude future review. DRIVE AND CURIOSITY: What Fuels the Passion for Science. Ist- points in the book, he clearly states the van Hargittai. Fore ward by Carl Djerassi. A physical chemist and writer examines the careers of fifteen eminent scientists who limits of science. He acknowledges that have made some of the most notable discoveries of the past cen- “science does not address the meaning of tury and uncovers in each case a singular personality charac- life . and science will never be able to teristic, motivating factor, or circumstance that, in addition to explain why the universe follows laws” (p. their extraordinary drive and curiosity, led these individuals to 256). Concerning the soul, he says that make their discoveries. Prometheus Books, 2011, 338 pp., $26. science does not claim to have proved that there is no such thing, only that there is 50 HEALTH SCARES THAT FIZZLED. Joan R. Callahan. Interesting and comprehensive re view of failed health scares from a zoolo- no credible evidence for it (p. 131). He gist and epidemiologist, including AIDS, Ebola, MSG, power lines, nicely summarizes the role of science as and killer bees. ABC-CLIO, 2011, 360 pp., $85. follows: “When [a] particular belief does not lead to conflict with what we observe in the physical world, there is nothing sci- THE LAST MYTH: What the Rise of Apocalyptic Thinking Tells ence says to oppose it,’’ (my emphasis). Us about America. Mathew Barrett Gross and Mel Gilles. An ex- The crucial point, which he doesn’t state ploration of the origin and meaning of apocalyptic thought in explicitly, is that there may indeed be ar- America today, from belief by the Christian Right in the imminent occurrence of events foretold in Revelation to nonreligious wor- guments against it, but rather than being ries about peak oil, global warming, and the end of civilization scientific they will be of a more general as we know it. Prometheus Books, 2011, 255 pp., $18. logical or philosophical nature. Chopra’s central claim provides an im- THE 7 LAWS OF MAGICAL THINKING: How Irrational Beliefs mediate example. What he advocates is a Keep Us Happy, Healthy, and Sane. Matthew Hutson. Most of form of panpsychism, the proposition that us engage in magical thinking to some degree, even when we mind is a fundamental feature of the world don’t think so. Hutson, a former Psychology Today news editor, draws upon cognitive science to discuss seven such “laws”: ob- and exists throughout the universe. There jects carry essences, symbols have power, actions have distant is a lively ongoing debate concerning consequences, the mind knows no bounds, the soul lives on, the panpsychism, not among scientists but world is alive, and everything happens for a reason. Hudson among philosophers. Reputable figures Street Press/Penguin, 2012, 296 pp., $25.95. such as Galen Strawson and Timothy Sprigge argue in favor of panpsychism, THE SCIENCE OF YOGA: The Risks and the Rewards. William J. though not anything like Chopra’s ornate Broad. A veteran New York Times science journalist and longtime version, while others such as John Searle practitioner of yoga presents what he calls the first impartial evaluation of the thousand-year-old practice, celebrating what’s and Colin McGinn refute it (see “Panpsy- real and uplifting and showing what’s illusory, flaky, and dan- chism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos- gerous, while offering a vision of how the practice can be im- ophy, Fall 2010 edition). proved. Simon & Schuster, 2012, 336 pp., $26. Chopra and Mlodinow’s book is a wide-ranging and stimulating read. The STANDARDS: Recipes for Reality. Lawrence Busch. A fascinat- presence of two perspectives, of an insider ing sociocultural and scientific examination of standards: those and of an outsider, gives stereoscopic depth necessary (and sometimes arbitrary) rules by which we meas- to the explanations of the science. But by ure the world, delineating what is acceptable from what is not. framing the debate as “science vs. spiritu- MIT Press, 2011, 296 pp., $35. ality,” I think the book blurs an essential point. The counterpoint to Chopra’s spec- ulations is not science, with its complicated structure of facts, theories, and hypotheses, WHO’S WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR. Richard E. Wackrow. An in- but something much more basic. The an- sightful, skeptical analysis of the American “War on Terror” initiated tidote to Chopra is Occam. n after the September 11, 2001, attacks and its consequences, ex- posing exaggerated warnings, lies, and flawed assumptions in how Mark Alford is professor of physics at Washington the U.S. Government has responded “in the interest of national se- University in St. Louis. His 2011 debate with curity.” Empiricist Press, 2012, 233 pp., $29.95. Deepak Chopra and others on “The Nature of Real- ity’’ was written up in the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER —Benjamin Radford and Kendrick Frazier (May/June 2011) and can be viewed online at http://tinyurl.com/7qf5c4v. Skeptical Inquirer | May/June 2 012 5 5.