Science and Spirituality

By Kayume Baksh

This book provides a fascinating, well-researched, and thorough discussion of the connections between science and spirituality, including religion. It is eye-opening and allows readers to truly redefine how they look at these disciplines while providing, at the same time, a vibrant perspective for those embarking on such an exercise for the first time.

Science investigates the physical world, where space, time, and matter comprise the main aspects of its empirical approach, that is, of physically proving all that there is around us. Spirituality goes beyond the physical. Here, physical quantities become non-existent and so our connections are perceived through seemingly nonrational (but hardly irrational) unscientific means. Religion is rendered useless as a way of explaining how the universe works. Quantum mechanics, an integral part of modern physics, is helping to bring about a closer convergence by showing remarkable similarities between advanced scientific observations and what has been taught for centuries in the wisdom traditions, known as spirituality. This insightful information continues to amaze us like none before.

We, therefore, now have the right combination and evidence to show why the gap between science and spirituality must be bridged so that we can finally embrace the answers to mysterious questions about the universe and life. This thought-provoking book provides the details you need.

We stand on the verge of heralding a new paradigm or, rather, a metaparadigm – the mother of all paradigms – one that unfolds a new vision of reality that includes consciousness for the first time, not excludes it – as science still does.

Whether you belong to a religion or not, are a spiritualist, an atheist, an agnostic, or just curious about the universe and life, this book is for you.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Austin Macauley Publishers
• Release date: Nov 30, 2021
• ISBN: 9781645362791

Kayume Baksh

Kayume Baksh is a former teacher, medical doctor, lawyer (attorney), and the author of a book on religion. He has done courses in science (The Einstein Revolution), philosophy (God, Knowledge, and Consciousness), and the humanities (The Science of Happiness) through online learning initiatives of Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the University of California at Berkeley, respectively.

Book preview

Science and Spirituality

BRIDGING THE GAP

Kayume Baksh

Austin Macauley Publishers

Science and Spirituality

Copyright Information©

Introduction

Chapter One: Cosmological Theories Through the Ages

Chapter Two: The Origin of the Universe: A Scientific Viewpoint

Chapter Three: Consciousness

Chapter Four: Spirituality, Religion, and Science

Chapter Five: Science and Consciousness

Chapter Six: Consciousness and Reality

Chapter Seven: The Origin of the Universe: Natural or Spiritual?

Chapter Eight: How Did Life Begin?

Chapter Nine: Evolution

Chapter Ten: Imperfections in the Living World

Chapter Eleven: A Spiritual Approach to Evolution

Chapter Twelve: Humanity: Significant or Insignificant?

Postscript: The Integration of Science and Spirituality

Glossary

Endnotes

About the Author

Copyright Information©

Kayume Baksh 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher.

Any person who commits any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

Ordering Information

Quantity sales: Special discounts are available on quantity purchases by corporations, associations, and others. For details, contact the publisher at the address below.

Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication data

Baksh, Kayume

Science and Spirituality

ISBN 9781643789965 (Paperback)

ISBN 9781645362739 (Hardback)

ISBN 9781645362791 (ePub e-book)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020925325

www.austinmacauley.com/us

First Published 2021

Austin Macauley Publishers LLC

40 Wall Street, 33rd Floor, Suite 3302

New York, NY 10005

USA

[e-mail]

[phone]

Introduction

It is commonly accepted that the universe emerged from a void or out of nothing. Something in the void or the still unproven nature of nothing gave rise to time, space, and matter, yet the rules that govern these parameters do not allow us to go beyond our natural laws for any further explanation. Something transformed the cosmos into a beautifully operating mechanism with flawless precision for billions of years and counting. This type of precision warrants that the most miniscule variation, were any to occur in any of the governing natural laws that gave rise to the universe, would have annihilated the effects of the Big Bang and us in the process. Yet we do know that we are still here. Something caused life to appear at least in our part of the universe but, even with our highest level of scientific sophistication to date, we are still unable to explain how this happened. Something is responsible for making consciousness an experience that every single one of us is aware of, yet at the same time it remains the most mind-boggling of all experiences. Something else explains evolution, with its intricate mechanisms of operation including the fashioning of the hypercomplex and ultra-delicate DNA, in a way that cannot be adequately explained only by science and chance. Something makes us wonder why we are here, and provides an impetus for us to ponder whether there is a purpose for all of this to make sense, or not.

All serious answers to the mystery questions about the origins of the universe and life – and the resulting major questions – must necessarily involve input from both science and spirituality, which come from rather different directions. Scientific facts have to be objectively verified or confirmed by experiment and observation. Spirituality, with its main expression of consciousness being immaterial, imperceptible, and invisible, is subjectively experienced. Both have been around for millennia, spirituality a bit longer.

Spirituality leaps where science cannot yet follow, because science must always test and measure, and much of reality and human experience is immeasurable.

Starhawk

Based on this premise, the purpose of this book is twofold: to present explanations from both scientific and spiritual perspectives, and to strongly add a voice to the continuing discourse for the integration of these two great realms of knowledge.

The palpable divide today between spirituality and science, fortunately, does not seem antagonistic, unruly, or even unfriendly. Rather, it has the potential to morph into a mutual blending of two great realms, notwithstanding the fact that each is seen to be entrenched in its own domain by offering information that is unique and invaluable.

Consciousness is ubiquitous, not only in the sense that it is everywhere in the universe but also that the universe is contained within it as the source of everything. It is the glue that binds all of us, impossible to ignore, and therefore vital to any discussion about the universe and us, although science excludes it as a matter of convenience. This makes it difficult and incomplete to be described exclusively in a single chapter and so, in addition, it is combined with science and with reality in two other chapters respectively.

God has no religion.

Gandhi

Religion continues to be an enduring belief system that has also been around for millennia. However, rationality seems to have rendered it, more or less, useless as a way of explaining how nature works, especially after Darwin’s theory of evolution. It has also run into some serious headwinds against spirituality in the last few decades and seems to have taken a bow for now, with the way ahead clear for spirituality, which continues to build upon momentum.

In this book, an attempt is made to address the questions that conjure up images of the mysteries of the universe and life. We have been able to get to within a whisker of what would seem to represent the creation of the universe, only to realize that science can get no closer. It seems far more rational to accept the role of consciousness, especially where science comes up short, than to deny its significance because science cannot explain it.

And so, spirituality attempts to take over where science comes to a sputter. For example, is there a purpose to all of this in the first place? Are we significant or not? Purpose and significance do not fall under the purview of science, since they involve consciousness. Yet we have never stopped wanting to know the how and the why.

The origin of life remains an enigma: we have hardly a remote scientific chance of ever finding this out, but spirituality takes us further in the direction of a plausible, fuller, albeit nonmaterialistic understanding.

We have accepted evolution as the scientific result of random mutations and natural selection. We are now recognizing that there has always been a creative unfolding of life in terms of ever-increasing diversity and complexity (a decrease in entropy, or disorder, as it were) as an inherent characteristic of all living systems, representing conscious awareness and conceptual thought. (Technically, an increase in entropy is what would normally be expected in a purely scientific world). The inclusion of consciousness as part of the full explanation of the theory of evolution needs, therefore, to be addressed.

The universe, however material it may seem, is a network of inseparable patterns of relationships. Our planet as a whole is a living, self-regulating system. The human body is both a physically operating machine and a mind that are not separate but integrated into the total self-regulation of the body, just like the cosmos.¹ All other living things are also believed to be part of the same system to varying degrees, depending on our extent or lack of understanding of such living creatures. Therefore, whether it is an atom, a living cell, any living organism, our planet, or the huge universe, there is a pattern of similarity and connectedness that defies explanation except from a combined scientific and spiritual approach.

This book also advances the case, chapter by chapter, for the alliance of both science and spirituality. It aspires to a fundamental change in worldview that must include consciousness, not exclude it as at present, eventually making us witnesses to the unfolding of a new vision of reality. The time is right not only for a new paradigm but, rather, a more comprehensive metaparadigm, the mother of all paradigms.

Chapter One

Cosmological Theories

Through the Ages

Brahmanda (Cosmic Egg) Universe

Buddhism

Judeo-Christian cosmology

Islam

Indigenous religions

Anaxagoran Universe

Atomist Universe

Geocentric Universe

Heliocentric Universe

Copernican Universe

Cartesian Vortex Universe

Static (Newtonian) Universe

Einstein Universe

Big Bang Universe

Oscillating (Cyclical) Universe

Steady State Universe

Inflationary Universe

Multiverse

We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the universe. That makes us something very special.

Stephen Hawking

The cosmos (or universe) has always been a topic of intense study throughout history and remains so today. Philosophers and scientists alike – the minds best suited – continue to toil in an attempt to understand just what the universe is, its origin, evolution, and future, providing along the way a bewildering variety of theories and ideas, from the Cosmic Egg to the Big Bang (BB) and beyond. The following is an approximate chronological listing of most of these, starting with some religious views:

Brahmanda (Cosmic Egg) Universe

The Hindu Rig Veda, most likely written in India between 1700 and 1200 BCE – making it one of the world’s oldest religious texts – describes a cyclical universe in which a cosmic egg or Brahmanda, comprising the whole universe, expands out from a single concentrated point or singularity, called a bindu, before subsequently collapsing again into it. The present cycle of the universe was preceded by an infinite number of universes followed by another infinite number.¹ This early concept was in line with much of what was later found in modern scientific studies of the cosmos. It was likely a spiritual concept that had nothing to do with science. In fact, this concept follows the Hindu belief that the universe has no absolute beginning or end but follows cyclically like in reincarnation, a perpetual cosmic creation, dissolution, and rebirth.

Buddhism

Buddhists base the coming into existence of the universe upon the actions (karma) of its inhabitants. The universe has no beginning or end but rather is in a state of flux: it comes into being, survives for a time, is destroyed, and then remade. Buddhism has no creator god to explain the origin of the universe and so this happens naturally, without the intervention of a god. An infinite number of other universes do the same thing. Descriptions other than a singularity, such as free-floating spirits, herald the beginning. Buddhism was founded about 2,500 years ago by Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha (c. 563–483 BCE).

Judeo-Christian Cosmology

The universe of the ancient Israelites was made up of a three-level, flat disc-shaped earth floating on water, heaven above and hell below. In Hellenistic times (after 330 BCE), this trilevel composition was widely replaced by the Greek concept of a spherical earth suspended in space at the center of a number of concentric heavens. Just before the time of Jesus, the Greek idea that God had actually created matter, bringing order to primordial chaos, replaced the older idea that matter had always existed, but in a chaotic state. This concept, called creatio ex nihilo, has been the accepted orthodoxy of most denominations of Judaism and Christianity since the 13th century.² These believers claim that a single, uncreated God was responsible for the creation of the cosmos; they see no connection between this and anything to do with the BB. The Genesis timeline of the universe created literally about 6,000 years ago (Genesis 1–2) differs vastly from the accepted scientific estimate of about 13.8 billion years. Variations of this biblical belief probably allow for some figurative interpretation.

Islam

teaches that God created the universe. The Qur’an does not discount the theory of a BB-like explosion at the beginning of it all.³ The Islamic holy book also supports the idea that the universe is continuing to expand.⁴ These two beliefs coincidentally happen to be science-based. Islam was founded by Muhammad (c. 570–632) early in the 7th century, around 610 CE.

Indigenous Beliefs

vary widely among aboriginal peoples, as there is no circumscribed, definitive indigenous religion as such. One legend describes only bare land without any life existing in the beginning; the Creator produced our ancestors, comprising men and animals, from within Earth and life began. Some legends tell how the Creator walked on Earth and created everything from rivers and mountains to plants and animals. Legend also has it that the Creator was not one god but many gods. Then there were gods coming from the sky and creating humans. Indigenous spiritual beliefs go back tens of thousands of years, well before the dominant religions in the world emerged.

Anaxagoran Universe

Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (c. 500–428 BCE) was the first to formulate a molecular theory of matter and to perceive the physical universe as orderly, not chaotic. According to him, everything is assembled out of existing matter and then dissolved, and each molecular interchange occurs according to rule. His universe was, therefore, thoroughly rational. He introduced a causal agent (mind or nous) – infinite and absolute – that is the initiator of the origination process⁵ and which is analogous to what was later termed the laws of nature. He thus postulated the mind as the initiating and governing principle of the cosmos.

Atomist Universe

Greek philosophers Leucippus (5th century BCE) and his more well-known student, Democritus (c. 460–370 BCE), founded the school of Atomism. They were the first to theorize that the universe was composed of tiny, indivisible, and indestructible particles called atoms, which formed different arrangements, combinations, and shapes, in an infinite void. Their ideas anticipated modern science in quite a striking way even though these were more in the realm of speculative metaphysics and not true science.

Geocentric Universe

It was Aristotle (384–322 BCE) who first described a geocentric theory of the universe which placed Earth – fixed, spherical, and finite – at the orbital center of the concentrically arranged celestial bodies (planets and stars). His other theory of the elements held that matter was a mixture of four elements: fire, air, earth, and water, and these were acted on by two forces, gravity (the tendency of earth and water to sink) and levity (the tendency of air and fire to rise). He later added a fifth element, aether, to fill the region of the universe above the terrestrial space.⁶

Ptolemy, who lived in Rome around 100 CE, developed a version of the geocentric theory that more accurately described the motions of the heavenly bodies, and this became the model for understanding the structure of the solar system. The geocentric theory (and the Ptolemaic model) held sway for a very long time until challenged by the likes of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, in the 16th century.

Heliocentric Universe⁷

The argument for a heliocentric universe, placing the Sun, not Earth, at the center of the universe, was first put forward by Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus (c. 310–230 BCE). Even though the idea never really caught on until revived and elaborated upon centuries later by Copernicus, it did have some measure of support. Greek astronomer Seleucus, born around 190 BCE, utilized his knowledge of tides to explain heliocentricity and the influence of the Moon. Indian astronomer and mathematician, Aryabhata (476–550 CE), advocated an astronomical model, in which Earth rotates on its axis, and described elliptical orbits around the Sun. In the ninth century, Arab astronomer Ja’far ibn Muhammad Abu Ma’shar al-Bhalkhi (787–886) developed a planetary model which some interpreted as heliocentric.

Copernican Universe

In 1543, Polish astronomer and polymath Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) proposed that, with the Sun positioned near the center of the universe, Earth rotates on its axis once daily and revolves around the Sun once a year. He also suggested that the other planets rotate around the Sun in circular paths modified by epicycles and at uniform speeds. This Copernican model revived Aristarchus’s heliocentric concept. It was, in addition, a fully predictive mathematical model which stimulated further scientific investigation that led to the study of cosmology as a science rather than a branch of metaphysics. Copernicus’s observations were sometimes inaccurate, including his assumption that planets’ orbits occurred in circles. German astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), best known for his laws of planetary motion, would later prove in the 17th century that planetary orbits are actually elliptical in shape.

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), Italian philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician, made supporting observations with the telescope confirming, along the way, his own longstanding belief that the Sun is the center of the universe and that Earth, like all planets, revolves around the Sun, as Copernicus had argued. These confirmations revolutionized astronomy and paved the way for the acceptance of the Copernican heliocentric model. Galileo’s advocacy of that system, however, eventually resulted in an Inquisition process against him, with the Catholic Church condemning his views as heretical and sentencing him to house arrest for life in 1633. He died nine years later and was pardoned by the Church in 1992! Yes, 1992.

Cartesian Vortex Universe

Rene Descartes (1596–1660), French philosopher and mathematician, described a (heliocentric) model of the universe in which the vacuum of space was not empty at all, but was filled with ethereal or fine matter. This matter settled into a system of whirlpools swirling around in large and small vortices (that is, spiraling masses of rotating or whirling fluid) that would later be described as gravitational effects. The vortex theory continued to receive arbitrary support in France for nearly one hundred years even after Newton showed it was impossible as a dynamical system.

Static (Newtonian) Universe

Isaac Newton (1642–1727), in his Principia published in 1687, described – among other things – a static (neither expanding nor contracting), self-sustaining, steady state, and infinite universe in which matter is uniformly distributed, and the universe is gravitationally balanced but essentially unstable. This model supposes a self-sustainable universe because if, at a local level, stars or galaxies are dying, then at a global level this is balanced with the birth of other stars or galaxies in another place, allowing the universe to remain homogenous (the same throughout) and isotropic (uniform in all directions). Also, the quantity of matter and energy is conserved, being recycled during the evolutionary process of the universe,⁸ thus retaining a steady state and structure.

Einstein Universe

Albert Einstein’s model of the universe was similar to Newton’s in that it was static and stable, neither expanding nor contracting. In sticking with this view, which was also the prevailing view at the time, Einstein (1879–1955) introduced a cosmological constant to his general relativity equations to counteract the effects of gravity in order to achieve a static universe. Gravity would otherwise have caused the universe to either contract or expand. He later abandoned the concept as his biggest blunder after Hubble demonstrated in 1929 that the universe was not static but was in fact, expanding.

From 1929 to the 1990s, the cosmological constant was assumed to be irrelevant until the introduction of the theory of an accelerating universe in 1998, when a positive cosmological constant was revived as an explanation for dark energy. Dark energy is currently thought to be the explanation for the universe expanding at an increasing rate. It is believed to exert a force opposite to that of gravity, hence it causes expansion or repulsion instead of attraction. Had Einstein’s original equations not been altered (by him), they might have shown that the universe could not be static but is actually expanding. Einstein, therefore, did not commit a blunder after all!

Big Bang Universe

All current evidence points to the BB theory as the prevailing cosmological model that gave rise to the universe. Until the early 1900s, most people had assumed that the universe was fixed in size. This idea began to change when, in 1915, Einstein’s famous theory of relativity – describing the nature of space, time, and gravity – allowed for the expansion or contraction of space. In 1922, Aleksandr Friedmann (1888–1925), a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, produced some solutions to Einstein’s equations that raised the possibility of a dynamic universe that changes in size over time. He even introduced the expression expanding universe⁹ and showed that our cosmos could have begun in a singularity – just what the current BB theory predicts. Georges Lemaitre (1894–1966), a Belgian mathematician and astronomer, reached the same conclusion in 1927, even before Edwin Hubble (1889–1953) showed definitively, in 1929, a continuously expanding universe.

The BB theory describes the universe as originating from an infinitesimal volume, or singularity, with extremely high density and temperature about 13.8 billion years ago and expanding ever since. It does not explain the initial conditions of the universe; instead it explains the general evolution of the universe forward from that point. Crucial evidence in support of the BB model came from the discovery in 1965 of the cosmic microwave background radiation (see later).

Oscillating (Cyclical) Universe

This cosmological model combines both the BB and the Big Crunch as part of a cyclical event in which the universe follows infinite, self-sustaining cycles. The universe expands for a period of time before the pull of gravity causes it to collapse back, ending with a crunch, and then a bounce. Such a model implies that our universe is just one of a long line of universes. Thus, time has no beginning or end, and the beginning-of-time paradox is avoided. This theory was briefly considered by Einstein after he abandoned his own theory in the 1930s. Later models of this theory include the Steinhardt-Turok model (2002), using brane cosmology, which describes a universe exploding into existence, not just once but repeatedly over time, and the Frampton-Baum model (2007), which explains a way to stop the universe from blowing itself apart irreversibly, an end that physicists call the Big Rip.

Steady State Universe

The Steady State theory is a now-obsolete expanding universe model alternative to the BB theory of the universe and its origin. A popular version of the Steady State Universe was proposed in 1948 by English astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Austrians, Thomas Gold (1920–2004) and Hermann Bondi (1919–2005). It asserted that although the universe was expanding, its density remained unchanged with matter being inserted as the universe expanded, maintaining a constant density; the universe had no beginning and no end. Observations produced much evidence contradictory to the steady-state picture and supportive of the BB model. For most cosmologists, refutation of the theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the BB theory.

Inflationary Universe

In 1980, American physicist Alan Guth (born 1947) proposed his inflationary theory to explain how the universe began and also to solve the horizon and flatness problems of the BB model. His theory states that the universe underwent a period of hyper-rapid inflation or exponential expansion lasting for an infinitesimal fraction of a second (only a billion-trillion billionth of a second) before setting in motion the BB.

Multiverse

The multiverse hypothesis is an extension of the cosmic inflation theory first proposed by Alan Guth and later elaborated upon by Russian-American physicist, Andrei Linde (born 1948), and others around 1986. The theory proposes an overarching multiverse (a collection of different universes existing at the same time) that is expanding in a vast sea of space. At some point, regions in this space stop expanding while other regions continue to inflate, thus giving rise to many isolated bubble universes. In some of these bubble universes, the laws of physics and fundamental constants might be different than in ours; we happen to live in a universe that is conducive to our type of life. There are other hypotheses that also suggest we may live in a multiverse, for example, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and the bubble universe theory (see later).

In conclusion, where do we stand? Does the universe conform to any of the numerous theories or hypotheses we ascribe to it? Are we getting closer to fundamental truths? Or have we been conjuring up descriptions in our attempt(s) to make our model(s) work? For sure, science continues to make progress, albeit at a necessarily slow rate, sometimes hardly noticeable, and at other times, enough to raise doubts about science’s own ability to answer the still outstanding questions about the universe and life.

Chapter Two

The Origin of the Universe:

A Scientific Viewpoint

The beginning of everything

Cosmic microwave background (CMB)

Pre-Big Bang

Cosmic inflation

Eternal inflation and a multiverse

Second law of thermodynamics

Black hole

Inflation

Post-inflation

Antimatter

The universe’s earliest pictures

The observable universe

The shape and size of the universe

Motion and expansion

What lies beyond the observable universe?

Multiverse

Reality may not be what we think it is

Conclusion

Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.

Carl Sagan

The Beginning of Everything

The origin or beginning of the universe marks the beginning of everything as we know it. If the universe did indeed have an origin, as science posits, this means there could only have been one such unique occurrence, one true beginning. That would have started everything because there would have been nothing, zip, zero, before then. However, according to spirituality (including some Eastern wisdom traditions), the universe has always existed, with no origin, going through multiple cycles, and resulting every time in a new beginning and, cumulatively, in new beginnings.

We are aware of one beginning at the Big Bang (BB) but only that which occurred within the first moments of the first second of time as we know it. That moment was 10-43 second (a decimal point followed by 42 zeros and a one) after the universe originated or was created, known as Planck time. We still do not know what – if anything – happened or existed before, as current physics does not allow us to go beyond the BB to find out. We, therefore, cannot rewind the clock further back and, so, Big Bang cosmology starts at that moment.

So, does this represent the true origin of the universe (with nothing existing before), that is, its origin only as science calculates it? Or, does the origin go back past this calculated point?