What do you think?
Rate this book
The God Theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields, and What's Behind It All
Is it possible for there to be a purpose in a Universe born in a Big Bang and filled with evolving life? Can the multiverse and superstring theories of cosmology be rendered consistent with an infinite intelligence? Might our human consciousness transcend physical matter? Is our existence and the life we live the means whereby God experiences God's own potential?
A remarkable discovery has gradually emerged in astrophysics over the past two decades and is now essentially undisputed: that certain key physical constants have just the right values to make life possible. Most scientists prefer to explain away this uniqueness, by claiming that a huge, perhaps infinite, number of universes must therefore exist, each with unique properties, each randomly different from the other, with ours only seemingly special because in a universe with different properties we would never have originated.
Haisch proposes the alternative that the special properties of our Universe reflect an underlying intelligence, one that is fully consistent with the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution. At this time both views are equally logical and equally beyond proof. However exceptional human experiences and accounts of mystics throughout the ages do suggest that we live in a purposeful Universe. Haisch speculates on what this purpose might be and what that purpose means for our lives.
This is not incompatible with science. Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans wrote that "the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine" and Sir Arthur Eddington, who proved that Einstein's general relativity was correct, wrote about "science and the unseen world." Cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle called the Universe "an obvious fix."
Haisch also discusses the popular, but often misrepresented, topic of zero-point energy from the perspective of a multiyear NASA-funded study he led at Lockheed Martin
A remarkable discovery has gradually emerged in astrophysics over the past two decades and is now essentially undisputed: that certain key physical constants have just the right values to make life possible. Most scientists prefer to explain away this uniqueness, by claiming that a huge, perhaps infinite, number of universes must therefore exist, each with unique properties, each randomly different from the other, with ours only seemingly special because in a universe with different properties we would never have originated.
Haisch proposes the alternative that the special properties of our Universe reflect an underlying intelligence, one that is fully consistent with the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution. At this time both views are equally logical and equally beyond proof. However exceptional human experiences and accounts of mystics throughout the ages do suggest that we live in a purposeful Universe. Haisch speculates on what this purpose might be and what that purpose means for our lives.
This is not incompatible with science. Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans wrote that "the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine" and Sir Arthur Eddington, who proved that Einstein's general relativity was correct, wrote about "science and the unseen world." Cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle called the Universe "an obvious fix."
Haisch also discusses the popular, but often misrepresented, topic of zero-point energy from the perspective of a multiyear NASA-funded study he led at Lockheed Martin
163 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 1, 2009
213 people are currently reading
776 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews
January 25, 2013
I love this passage from the book:
"Our lives are the exact opposite of pointless. It is not matter that creates the illusion of consciousness, but consciousness that creates an illusion of matter. The physical universe and the beings that inhabit it are the conscious creation of a God whose purpose is to experience his own magnificence in the living consciousness of his creation. God actualizes his infinite potential through our experience; God lives in the physical universe through us. Our experience is his experience because ultimately we are him, that is, immortal spiritual beings, offspring of God, temporarily living in the realm of matter."
Whoa. I didn't know scientists (especially really, really, really smart pocket-protector wearing astrophysicists like Haisch) thought that way. And, in fact, he acknowledges that most of them don't. They treat any talk of the spiritual and supra-/supernatural as complete idiocy. But Haisch presents some really interesting perspectives on the "big questions" that don't at all compete with science, but in fact are supported by it. Don't be scared: there's no math in this book. But at the same time, I have to admit that his discussion of zero-point fields left me a bit perplexed. I kind of got it, but not completely. Come on, my physics and calculus days are way behind me. I have to Google how many ounces are in a quart now.
All in all, Haisch presents a fascinating theory that human consciousness is not something that can be broken down entirely into chemicals and particles, but rather something vast and, in a sense, God filtered. Intriguing stuff.
"Our lives are the exact opposite of pointless. It is not matter that creates the illusion of consciousness, but consciousness that creates an illusion of matter. The physical universe and the beings that inhabit it are the conscious creation of a God whose purpose is to experience his own magnificence in the living consciousness of his creation. God actualizes his infinite potential through our experience; God lives in the physical universe through us. Our experience is his experience because ultimately we are him, that is, immortal spiritual beings, offspring of God, temporarily living in the realm of matter."
Whoa. I didn't know scientists (especially really, really, really smart pocket-protector wearing astrophysicists like Haisch) thought that way. And, in fact, he acknowledges that most of them don't. They treat any talk of the spiritual and supra-/supernatural as complete idiocy. But Haisch presents some really interesting perspectives on the "big questions" that don't at all compete with science, but in fact are supported by it. Don't be scared: there's no math in this book. But at the same time, I have to admit that his discussion of zero-point fields left me a bit perplexed. I kind of got it, but not completely. Come on, my physics and calculus days are way behind me. I have to Google how many ounces are in a quart now.
All in all, Haisch presents a fascinating theory that human consciousness is not something that can be broken down entirely into chemicals and particles, but rather something vast and, in a sense, God filtered. Intriguing stuff.
January 5, 2010
In his “God Theory” book, Haisch takes issue with “reductionism”. I think he rejects it as an oversimplification. The apparent belief of many scientists, the reductionists, that you can reduce everything to its working parts by disassembling it and then reassembling for a complete revelation on how it works. He says, “In its most extreme form, modern reductionism - the assumption that nothing can be greater than the sum of its parts – precludes any meaningful engagement with a spiritual worldview, because all substantive elements of spirituality are regarded as pure fantasy.” In fact, spiritual perceptions from beyond local experience provide intuitive insights that often drive the inception of scientific inquiry. Einstein’s special theory of relativity was intuitively driven while the later general theory was constructed by “mathematical bestiary” according to an Einstein biographer, Jeremy Bernstein. Einstein was part reductionist because he believed to his dying day that all the laws of the universe could eventually be combined to explain the totality. But, he never denied the influence of a God force that brought this magnificent firmament into existence. He referred to God as “the Old One”. Haisch describes the hard reductionists as those who work to extract productive meaning in this life and afterwards are content to disappear into oblivion. I’m not sure where Einstein stood on this final resolution.
Haisch has moved on further in “The God Theory” to talk about human perception as one of subtraction. We are presented by the divine source (why can’t we call it divine?) with pure all encompassing white light. In order to create our vision and material constructs, we extract reds, greens, blues etc out of the white light just as a prism does. The spectrum that is visible to us is not all that the light contains. We are way short of the total picture but with our extracts, we construct a visualized material environment. Intersecting wave forms appear to us as objects such as electrons, protons, neutrons and other defined constituents of matter. They combine to form larger objects in our view. We influence their formations by the waves we personally create and, at times, actually demonstrate to ourselves the personal influence of sentient beings on material events (the experimenter effect). Newton’s second law of gravitation, F = ma, envisioned objects with mass but even though we can measure mass, it is only an intuitive concept, a postulate in Newton’s “Principia” of 1687. The equation has never been derived (until recently perhaps and on a different basis), Newton provided only a means to an amazingly accurate coherent estimate within the way we do our measurements. Another mass-like view lies outside an object and offers external resistance that has the same influence as the current definition of mass. This is the zero-point-field exerting a resistive force on the viewed object and imparting to it a degree of mass-like “heaviness”. The zero-point-field permeates the entire universe as a web-like visualization which, according to some, is holographic in its formation. That is, any event occurring in this web is instantly detectable and “influence able” everywhere and provides available instantaneous connections across the Kosmos. Einstein was aware of this and called it “spooky action at a distance”. He was also uncomfortable with sometimes undeniably observed events that ignored the restrictions on the speed of light. There is much more to this than what merely “meets the eye”. Bernard Haisch suggests that sentient beings have detected and approximately expressed these Kosmic relationships and interconnections in their religious and spiritual creations throughout history. He says, “And, although it may not be evident from within mainstream science, it does appear that the idea that consciousness may be fundamental and matter secondary is gaining ground.” He states further, “of particular value in this regard” is “The Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley published in 1944” and others.
Haisch has moved on further in “The God Theory” to talk about human perception as one of subtraction. We are presented by the divine source (why can’t we call it divine?) with pure all encompassing white light. In order to create our vision and material constructs, we extract reds, greens, blues etc out of the white light just as a prism does. The spectrum that is visible to us is not all that the light contains. We are way short of the total picture but with our extracts, we construct a visualized material environment. Intersecting wave forms appear to us as objects such as electrons, protons, neutrons and other defined constituents of matter. They combine to form larger objects in our view. We influence their formations by the waves we personally create and, at times, actually demonstrate to ourselves the personal influence of sentient beings on material events (the experimenter effect). Newton’s second law of gravitation, F = ma, envisioned objects with mass but even though we can measure mass, it is only an intuitive concept, a postulate in Newton’s “Principia” of 1687. The equation has never been derived (until recently perhaps and on a different basis), Newton provided only a means to an amazingly accurate coherent estimate within the way we do our measurements. Another mass-like view lies outside an object and offers external resistance that has the same influence as the current definition of mass. This is the zero-point-field exerting a resistive force on the viewed object and imparting to it a degree of mass-like “heaviness”. The zero-point-field permeates the entire universe as a web-like visualization which, according to some, is holographic in its formation. That is, any event occurring in this web is instantly detectable and “influence able” everywhere and provides available instantaneous connections across the Kosmos. Einstein was aware of this and called it “spooky action at a distance”. He was also uncomfortable with sometimes undeniably observed events that ignored the restrictions on the speed of light. There is much more to this than what merely “meets the eye”. Bernard Haisch suggests that sentient beings have detected and approximately expressed these Kosmic relationships and interconnections in their religious and spiritual creations throughout history. He says, “And, although it may not be evident from within mainstream science, it does appear that the idea that consciousness may be fundamental and matter secondary is gaining ground.” He states further, “of particular value in this regard” is “The Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley published in 1944” and others.
November 1, 2023
I'm one of those weirdos who has thought a lot about what happens when we shed our mortal coil, and as such, I have read my share of metaphysics and theology trying to find answers which, of course, I'll never get. But I have come up with a system of ideas which I can live with. Bernard Haisch has joined the ranks of writers such as Maurice Maeterlinck, Richard Swinburn, Aldous Huxley, C.S. Lewis, and Fyodor Dostoevsky who have helped shape my own philosophy regarding the purpose of our lives, where consciousness comes from, and where individual consciousness goes after we have retired from our brief tenure on Earth.
Most philosophers and experts in physics and psychology seem to gleefully revel in their conclusion that God is dead. Those thinkers with a very materialist bias seem not only content but excited that everything can be boiled down to mathematical rules that govern down to the subatomic level, and as such, see no consciousness or purpose beyond what the computers in our skulls devise of reality. Beneath their cold logic, however, I have always detected hot emotion. Somewhere they reveal a deep anger or disappointment in religion, and feel a sense of power that they can debunk those silly articles of cultural faith found in religious dogma. Human brains will eventually uncover the secrets to all there is, and so this endows them with power traditionally associated with God. But what they fail to take into account is that their conclusions are often matters of faith in themselves. If you can logically assert that mind is not separate from matter and that there is no such thing as a soul, or that multiple universes are possible, you still haven't provided any proof. They seem to forego spirituality in lieu of dealing religion a death blow, and as such have created their own religion based on quantum theories or metaphysical logic. Rather than being open to further scientific inquiry or philosophical debate, their true colors show when you read reactions to dualist thinkers or scientists who provide new evidence that challenges materialist conclusions. Some of them are quite nasty and unprofessional.
So while Bernard Haisch has received some criticism from these same intellectuals, his work in zero-point fields, light, and Newton's postulate on mass has raised what should be some exciting questions about our creation that are worth exploring. In this book, he describes his theories on a surprisingly accessible level to the lay person unfamiliar with quantum physics, astrophysics, and metaphysics. An though it can be argued that his extrapolations on what his work may mean about the nature of God, he does paint a picture that is awe-inspiring and scientifically based while still not contradicting sacred doctrine of multiple religions.
You have to read it for yourself to see what I mean and draw your own conclusions. But essentially, he believes that God is "the One who became Many and became One again." The act of creation is a cyclical process of an infinite intelligence breaking itself into infinite pieces to know itself, and that we are all part of that cosmic intelligence. The experience and wisdom we collect from our brief lives return to God after death. In a sense, everything is part of God, and that creation is still happening.
I must stress that this is not a work of theology, and I do highly recommend this book whether you are religious or not, whether or not you are a physicist, and whether or not you believe in a God. It may help put another piece in the puzzle of your own existence and your personal relationship with the universe.
SCORE: 4.5/5 rounded up
Most philosophers and experts in physics and psychology seem to gleefully revel in their conclusion that God is dead. Those thinkers with a very materialist bias seem not only content but excited that everything can be boiled down to mathematical rules that govern down to the subatomic level, and as such, see no consciousness or purpose beyond what the computers in our skulls devise of reality. Beneath their cold logic, however, I have always detected hot emotion. Somewhere they reveal a deep anger or disappointment in religion, and feel a sense of power that they can debunk those silly articles of cultural faith found in religious dogma. Human brains will eventually uncover the secrets to all there is, and so this endows them with power traditionally associated with God. But what they fail to take into account is that their conclusions are often matters of faith in themselves. If you can logically assert that mind is not separate from matter and that there is no such thing as a soul, or that multiple universes are possible, you still haven't provided any proof. They seem to forego spirituality in lieu of dealing religion a death blow, and as such have created their own religion based on quantum theories or metaphysical logic. Rather than being open to further scientific inquiry or philosophical debate, their true colors show when you read reactions to dualist thinkers or scientists who provide new evidence that challenges materialist conclusions. Some of them are quite nasty and unprofessional.
So while Bernard Haisch has received some criticism from these same intellectuals, his work in zero-point fields, light, and Newton's postulate on mass has raised what should be some exciting questions about our creation that are worth exploring. In this book, he describes his theories on a surprisingly accessible level to the lay person unfamiliar with quantum physics, astrophysics, and metaphysics. An though it can be argued that his extrapolations on what his work may mean about the nature of God, he does paint a picture that is awe-inspiring and scientifically based while still not contradicting sacred doctrine of multiple religions.
You have to read it for yourself to see what I mean and draw your own conclusions. But essentially, he believes that God is "the One who became Many and became One again." The act of creation is a cyclical process of an infinite intelligence breaking itself into infinite pieces to know itself, and that we are all part of that cosmic intelligence. The experience and wisdom we collect from our brief lives return to God after death. In a sense, everything is part of God, and that creation is still happening.
I must stress that this is not a work of theology, and I do highly recommend this book whether you are religious or not, whether or not you are a physicist, and whether or not you believe in a God. It may help put another piece in the puzzle of your own existence and your personal relationship with the universe.
SCORE: 4.5/5 rounded up
February 24, 2012
This was an interesting if not entirely fulfilling read, I know the clue is in the title but this really is only a theory. The author was raised in a strict catholic family and even spent a year in the seminary before moving on to study astronomy and astrophysics. In this book he attempts to rectify the pull of his belief in a higher power and an intelligent designer of the universe with the mainstream view of the physics community that all life in the universe is a quirk of fate.
The book is intriguing and the purely physics based chapters were interesting if nothing new. The part that I found most interesting was not in fact a discovery made by Haisch himself but by a Spanish Physicist named Rueda who managed to derive Newton’s second law of motion. F=MA (Force = Mass x Acceleration). As stated in the book this may seem trivial to a layman but is not supposed to be possible and has all sorts of knock on effects to do with the manipulation of mass and even gravity. Also even though I have read about it previously the chapter setting the scene for this discovery ‘The Zero-Point Field’ was also very interesting.
The problem I had with this book is the leaps of faith (excuse the pun) we are constantly expected to take in regard to Haisch’s quoting of spiritual texts that back his theories. To say I had a problem is not strictly true because the points made do indeed make you think and at no point does Haisch claim them to be proof of the existence of God, but what they effectively amount to is purely conjecture and as open to interpretation as the religious texts themselves.
The science of mainstream physics is neither discredited nor proven but simply offered up in a different light that doesn’t jar so much with the spirituality of religion. It is a commendable effort from Haisch but will in no way dissuade either side of their firmly held belief in a designed or random universe. To me all this book will succeed in doing is confirming the strongly held beliefs of each side which will just give slightly more ammunition to argue with for.
Unfortunately you aren’t going to walk away from this book with an equation that proves the existence of God. It is still very much maybe….but then again maybe not.
The book is intriguing and the purely physics based chapters were interesting if nothing new. The part that I found most interesting was not in fact a discovery made by Haisch himself but by a Spanish Physicist named Rueda who managed to derive Newton’s second law of motion. F=MA (Force = Mass x Acceleration). As stated in the book this may seem trivial to a layman but is not supposed to be possible and has all sorts of knock on effects to do with the manipulation of mass and even gravity. Also even though I have read about it previously the chapter setting the scene for this discovery ‘The Zero-Point Field’ was also very interesting.
The problem I had with this book is the leaps of faith (excuse the pun) we are constantly expected to take in regard to Haisch’s quoting of spiritual texts that back his theories. To say I had a problem is not strictly true because the points made do indeed make you think and at no point does Haisch claim them to be proof of the existence of God, but what they effectively amount to is purely conjecture and as open to interpretation as the religious texts themselves.
The science of mainstream physics is neither discredited nor proven but simply offered up in a different light that doesn’t jar so much with the spirituality of religion. It is a commendable effort from Haisch but will in no way dissuade either side of their firmly held belief in a designed or random universe. To me all this book will succeed in doing is confirming the strongly held beliefs of each side which will just give slightly more ammunition to argue with for.
Unfortunately you aren’t going to walk away from this book with an equation that proves the existence of God. It is still very much maybe….but then again maybe not.
December 12, 2011
Haisch is an astrophysicist with a discomfort regarding the idea of a meaningless universe, and a gift for explaining scientific theory in simple terms. He was raised a strict Catholic, but lasted through only a year of Seminary, after which his interests turned to science.
Although he outgrew fundamentalist Christian beliefs, he’s never been able to embrace the impersonal universe pictured by most of his fellow scientists. Science today is based on the premises of materialism (the belief that reality consists solely of matter and energy), reductionism (the idea that complex things can be explained by breaking them down into constituent parts) and randomness (the conviction that all natural processes follow the laws of chance). Haisch begs to differ, arguing that the only logical conclusion of these assumptions is that an infinite number of universes exist, which he finds nonsensical and “morally repugnant.” He accepts current scientific theory as a given—such as the Big Bang, a 4.6 billion-year-old-earth, and evolution—but simply feels the evidence argues against random universes, and leans more toward an “infinite conscious intelligence.” This intelligence he labels God, for lack of a better name.
The God Theory, then, is Haish’s attempt to answer fundamental questions about human nature in the light of modern science. It’s based on the simple premise that we are, quite literally, one with God, and God is, quite literally, one with us. His discussion leads to some fascinating and important corollaries:
[1] The God of his theory cannot require anything from us for his own happiness.
[2] The God of his theory cannot dislike, and certainly cannot hate, anything that we do or are.
[3] The God of his theory will never punish us (forget about heaven and hell) because that would ultimately amount to self-punishment.
Haish touches on cosmology and the inflation theory, the consciousness debate, the implications of quantum mechanics, the “zero-point field inertia hypothesis” (that one’s a mouthful) and more, but never treads where an inquisitive non-scientist can’t follow, as he lays out his argument for a purposeful universe.
I found the book thought-provoking and a lot of fun.
Although he outgrew fundamentalist Christian beliefs, he’s never been able to embrace the impersonal universe pictured by most of his fellow scientists. Science today is based on the premises of materialism (the belief that reality consists solely of matter and energy), reductionism (the idea that complex things can be explained by breaking them down into constituent parts) and randomness (the conviction that all natural processes follow the laws of chance). Haisch begs to differ, arguing that the only logical conclusion of these assumptions is that an infinite number of universes exist, which he finds nonsensical and “morally repugnant.” He accepts current scientific theory as a given—such as the Big Bang, a 4.6 billion-year-old-earth, and evolution—but simply feels the evidence argues against random universes, and leans more toward an “infinite conscious intelligence.” This intelligence he labels God, for lack of a better name.
The God Theory, then, is Haish’s attempt to answer fundamental questions about human nature in the light of modern science. It’s based on the simple premise that we are, quite literally, one with God, and God is, quite literally, one with us. His discussion leads to some fascinating and important corollaries:
[1] The God of his theory cannot require anything from us for his own happiness.
[2] The God of his theory cannot dislike, and certainly cannot hate, anything that we do or are.
[3] The God of his theory will never punish us (forget about heaven and hell) because that would ultimately amount to self-punishment.
Haish touches on cosmology and the inflation theory, the consciousness debate, the implications of quantum mechanics, the “zero-point field inertia hypothesis” (that one’s a mouthful) and more, but never treads where an inquisitive non-scientist can’t follow, as he lays out his argument for a purposeful universe.
I found the book thought-provoking and a lot of fun.
January 1, 2014
I'm really torn on giving this book three stars as I am not sure I would rate it that high. The book definitely had some interesting stuff in it, but I felt more like this was a book about a man who was raised Christian and went to seminary school for a year trying to justify all the contradictions between what religion teaches and what science has discovered. Far be it for me to say his conclusions are wrong, but a lot of this did not resonate with me. He did state this was just a theory, but the connections weren't strong enough to convince me of being plausible.
May 23, 2015
Bernard Haisch worked on a ground-breaking theory that explains inertia in terms of the resistance from the trace energy of the zero-point field. It is a fascinating theory, and one that has some interesting spiritual connotations, which Haisch draws out in this fantastic work of scientific theology. Rather than try to summarize, I will provide a few choice quotations that will give you a good sense of the book:
A little further he writes:
In the closing section he writes:
And just after this section:
Modern science, especially in the United States, fights a pitched intellectual battle against religious fundamentalism, most notably in the arena of evolution and creationism. As a professional scientist, I understand the necessity of discrediting unsupportable alternatives to the evidence for evolution. The problem is that mainstream science has itself become dangerously dogmatic and dismissive of evidence that does not accord with its philosophical beliefs.
In its most extreme form, modern reductionism— the assumption that nothing can be greater than the sum of its parts— precludes any meaningful engagement with a spiritual worldview, because all substantive elements of spirituality are regarded as pure fantasy. Reductionists, who unfortunately represent the majority view of science today, may be comfortable in a limited scientific-spiritual dialogue, but only if the spirituality is reduced (in the true spirit of reductionism!) to moral and ethical codes of conduct. Likewise religious practices, in this dialog, are interpreted as mere social and cultural events, as if there were no ontological difference between a Saturday night rave and a Sunday morning church service, both merely serving the roles of community rituals.
There are some dissenting voices, however. Incisive recent books by biologist Kenneth Miller and theologian John Haught, for instance, make a compelling case for the compatibility of Darwin and God. For myself, I have no problem accepting evolution, a fourteen-billion-year-old universe, a Big Bang, and a creator. What I cannot accept is fundamentalism in the guise of scientific inquiry.
A little further he writes:
It is acceptable today, even fashionable, to publish scientific papers that propound theories of invisible universes that may be adjacent to our own in other dimensions. Some have even postulated universes right on top of our own, interpenetrating the space we inhabit, supporting their claims with impressive mathematics that invoke, for example, opposite chirality particles and interactions. These theories, called superstring and M-brane theories, are among the most exciting and prestigious frontiers of modern physics. They have served as foundation for many coveted reputations and many successful academic careers. I myself have had postdocs working for me who are experts in these areas.
If a religious person talks about transcendent spiritual realities, however, he or she is scoffed at. For some reason, the eleven- or twenty-six-dimensional string worlds of scientific theory are plausible, but the supernatural realms of mysticism are judged to be mere superstition. The word “supernatural” has been pretty successfully discredited by the reductionist guardians of the scientific world (meaning the world of particles and fields). For some reason, the hypothetical multiverses and hyperdimensions of modern physics, which remain purely theoretical, are accepted by science, while the experiential reports of mystics throughout the ages of transcendent (i.e. supernatural) realities are dismissed or ignored. As an astrophysicist, I am partial to observations: I cannot ignore those experiences. Indeed, it seems to me that there is better empirical evidence for the existence of God than there is for the many dimensions of string theory.
In the closing section he writes:
Science is driven by a spirit of inquiry and methodical investigation and analysis. It is a highly successful enterprise for the investigation of the physical world. But to claim that investigation of the physical world rules out inquiry into anything spiritual is both irrational and dogmatic. To reject evidence simply on the grounds that it cannot yet be measured with instruments in a laboratory is contrary to the scientific spirit of inquiry. It is time to move beyond this fundamentalist science model.
And just after this section:
The challenge for the institution of modern science is to be true to its fundamental commitment to examine evidence. Scientists must resist the temptation to explain away evidence like neardeath experiences, simply because they contradict the reductionist paradigm. The analogous challenge for religion is to replace dogma and revealed truth with a genuine, unfettered search for an experiential truth. Ironically, religion may put itself out of business if it successfully elevates humanity to a level of consciousness that no longer requires a spiritual middleman. In my view this would be a good thing given the many unspiritual factors that have influenced organized religion. On the other hand, I think we will practice some form of science forever— provided that science can evolve beyond the constraints of its reductionist ideology. Curiosity is, after all, an essential trait of human consciousness.
August 19, 2024
This book was totally my jam. I love how so many scientific discoveries seem to agree with the mystics. It’s really beautiful how all the dots connect.
January 12, 2025
Anything that gets me thinking in different directions is useful. And if you find religious dogma unappealing, but have interest in "spirituality", you may find this useful too.
Many interesting ideas that will take me a while to digest.
Many interesting ideas that will take me a while to digest.
November 30, 2020
Was it a primordial instinct, when I was a child, to want to be shrunk down to fit into the buildings I built with my wooden blocks and play inside them? With the creation of computers and working software, I got a step closer by being able to virtually hop into an F-15 Strike Eagle and dog fight against Migs. While I didn't write the software for the F-15 computer game, someone did and perhaps they had a similar instinct to imagine something and want to experience it. Today, software developers write thousands of lines of code and then get to play their own game. Film writers and directors think of ideas, and then get to re-create them with live actors. Designers dream up ideas and then find ways to make it a reality.
At the core of creation is the idea and desire to experience it. While some mediums may prohibit the creator from the full experience, many creators attempt to arrive close to their idea, and then fill in the gaps with imagination. Virtual Reality and the headsets and immersive experiences being created today are a frighteningly real experience.
Haisch proposes this is what "God" has done (and don't fall into the dogmatic thinking that "God" is an old human, with white hair who lives in heaven). "God" is a conscious being who creates a cosmos and then infuses itself into it to experience it. Haisch then proceeds to explain how.
I'm not a scientist, physicist or astrophysicist, so many parts of the book, while explained in some laymen terms, were nonetheless over my head. Indeed it seems to make sense while I listened to it on audiobook, but don't ask me to try to explain it in much detail!
I came to read this book as part of a course I'm taking dealing with Stoic physics. Much of what Haisch describes can be found in ancient Stoic physics. From what I could tell, the big themes that overlap are: the notion of the cosmos as God (not a white-haired man throwing thunderbolts down from heaven), the notion of some kind of rebirth and recurrence of the universe, God infused in its creation - that humans have a part of God living within them and guiding them, that life's purpose is experience, active versus passive (pneuma & matter), that consciousness creates and that matter did NOT create or give rise to consciousness, creation is an on-going process.
Besides explaining his theory of God, Haisch also endeavors to fill the void after God was declared dead and after countless years of war, based on dogmatic, religious ideas. It seems that "scientism" has so profoundly rejected religion and swung hard the other way, that "scientism" won't admit any room for spirituality. And both the dogmatic religionists (think fundamentalists / terrorists) and "scientism" adherents are making atheists of us all, which is causing people to have a dim perspective on what life is about - leading to, an amoral landscape not dissimilar to a Soviet bloc-era wasteland of lawlessness, lacking all hope - a world where only the strongest rule and survive, leaving desolation in many. We see it still in 2020 in America - the utter restlessness, lack of caring, lack of morals and lack of civility. It seems that Haisch wants to find a happy ground, in which both spiritualists and scientists can find common ground.
I recommend this book for those who have left religion and who still have the itch to find deeper meaning in life. Since I came to this book via a class on Stoicism, let me end by sharing a quote from an ancient Stoic. Haisch could have easily inserted this quote in his book.
But God has introduced man, as a spectator of himself and of his works; and not
only as a spectator, but as an interpreter of them. It is therefore shameful for a man
to begin and end where irrational creatures do. He is indeed to begin there, but to end
where nature itself has fixed our end; and that is, in contemplation and understanding,
and in a scheme of life harmonious with nature.
Epictetus, Discourses, Book 1.6
At the core of creation is the idea and desire to experience it. While some mediums may prohibit the creator from the full experience, many creators attempt to arrive close to their idea, and then fill in the gaps with imagination. Virtual Reality and the headsets and immersive experiences being created today are a frighteningly real experience.
Haisch proposes this is what "God" has done (and don't fall into the dogmatic thinking that "God" is an old human, with white hair who lives in heaven). "God" is a conscious being who creates a cosmos and then infuses itself into it to experience it. Haisch then proceeds to explain how.
I'm not a scientist, physicist or astrophysicist, so many parts of the book, while explained in some laymen terms, were nonetheless over my head. Indeed it seems to make sense while I listened to it on audiobook, but don't ask me to try to explain it in much detail!
I came to read this book as part of a course I'm taking dealing with Stoic physics. Much of what Haisch describes can be found in ancient Stoic physics. From what I could tell, the big themes that overlap are: the notion of the cosmos as God (not a white-haired man throwing thunderbolts down from heaven), the notion of some kind of rebirth and recurrence of the universe, God infused in its creation - that humans have a part of God living within them and guiding them, that life's purpose is experience, active versus passive (pneuma & matter), that consciousness creates and that matter did NOT create or give rise to consciousness, creation is an on-going process.
Besides explaining his theory of God, Haisch also endeavors to fill the void after God was declared dead and after countless years of war, based on dogmatic, religious ideas. It seems that "scientism" has so profoundly rejected religion and swung hard the other way, that "scientism" won't admit any room for spirituality. And both the dogmatic religionists (think fundamentalists / terrorists) and "scientism" adherents are making atheists of us all, which is causing people to have a dim perspective on what life is about - leading to, an amoral landscape not dissimilar to a Soviet bloc-era wasteland of lawlessness, lacking all hope - a world where only the strongest rule and survive, leaving desolation in many. We see it still in 2020 in America - the utter restlessness, lack of caring, lack of morals and lack of civility. It seems that Haisch wants to find a happy ground, in which both spiritualists and scientists can find common ground.
I recommend this book for those who have left religion and who still have the itch to find deeper meaning in life. Since I came to this book via a class on Stoicism, let me end by sharing a quote from an ancient Stoic. Haisch could have easily inserted this quote in his book.
But God has introduced man, as a spectator of himself and of his works; and not
only as a spectator, but as an interpreter of them. It is therefore shameful for a man
to begin and end where irrational creatures do. He is indeed to begin there, but to end
where nature itself has fixed our end; and that is, in contemplation and understanding,
and in a scheme of life harmonious with nature.
Epictetus, Discourses, Book 1.6
July 3, 2020
To astronomer Bernard Haitsch the fundamental consciousness that underlies reality is God. Not the God of traditional religious dogmas, but the God of the mystics. A conscious intelligence beyond space and time that contains all possibilities. All possible worlds. One way of creating something is by filtering a realm of unlimited possibilities, so only a few are allowed to be instantiated. By an act like that, this intelligence created a specific spacetime containing matter (our reality), as a project, or work of art. A interesting universe of 'maximum diversity' (as Freeman Dyson said) in which conscious creatures would be generated through whom he could experience this reality, without being aware of his own consciousness. So we are all actually part of God, without knowing it as long as we embody our earthly forms.
Haisch makes connections between modern physics, like his own team's discovery that the quantum vacuum, or zero point field, is responsible for the mass of particles, and mystical traditions like the Kabbalah and eastern religions. The universe might be something comparable to a hologram that is continually created as a whole at every moment, or rather 'sustained' or 'projected' from the quantum vacuum, from beginning to end. And it's not made of 'matter' but of consciousness, which contains an element of purpose and meaning that stays out of reach of physical law.
Like Teilhard de Chardin, Haisch suggests that the evolution of living things is a combination of deterministic physical laws and a tendency towards order and information dependent on the 'wiggle room' provided by chance and contingency. This leads to the self-creation and self-organization that is frequently observed in nature.
Haisch's and similar ideas of others might very well approach the real ultimate truth about reality better than does the meaningless materialist, mechanistic reductionism also known as scientism that is prevalent today. The mysticism is not so much to my taste, being a rather analytic, left-brain kind of person, but for people who like the coming together of science and spiritualism this is a nice book.
Haisch makes connections between modern physics, like his own team's discovery that the quantum vacuum, or zero point field, is responsible for the mass of particles, and mystical traditions like the Kabbalah and eastern religions. The universe might be something comparable to a hologram that is continually created as a whole at every moment, or rather 'sustained' or 'projected' from the quantum vacuum, from beginning to end. And it's not made of 'matter' but of consciousness, which contains an element of purpose and meaning that stays out of reach of physical law.
Like Teilhard de Chardin, Haisch suggests that the evolution of living things is a combination of deterministic physical laws and a tendency towards order and information dependent on the 'wiggle room' provided by chance and contingency. This leads to the self-creation and self-organization that is frequently observed in nature.
Haisch's and similar ideas of others might very well approach the real ultimate truth about reality better than does the meaningless materialist, mechanistic reductionism also known as scientism that is prevalent today. The mysticism is not so much to my taste, being a rather analytic, left-brain kind of person, but for people who like the coming together of science and spiritualism this is a nice book.
May 31, 2020
This is a departure from my usual subject matter, but it is an important subject (the meaning of life), so I consider it a worthwhile diversion. This is a book about God, written by a very accomplished and well-respected scientist — an astrophysicist, to be precise. The God Theory of the title is that all of us are created by God in order for God to experience himself. There is a ton of science in this book, and, let me tell you, this guy can make science accessible even to readers with decidedly non-scientific brains. Physics was a nightmare for me in high school and I have loathed it and most of the related sciences ever since, but this author can actually explain very complex scientific subjects in a way that makes me feel not totally lost — quite an accomplishment.
Do I believe his theory? Who knows? He knows a lot more than I ever will about religious traditions, spirituality, and the actual laws that govern the universe than I ever will, and his theory is much more believable than any of the various religious doctrines I’m acquainted with. There are worse theories out there is all I’ll say!
In summary, this is a thoroughly readable book with some ideas that should make anyone think a little more about what’s underneath the everyday experience.
Do I believe his theory? Who knows? He knows a lot more than I ever will about religious traditions, spirituality, and the actual laws that govern the universe than I ever will, and his theory is much more believable than any of the various religious doctrines I’m acquainted with. There are worse theories out there is all I’ll say!
In summary, this is a thoroughly readable book with some ideas that should make anyone think a little more about what’s underneath the everyday experience.
August 22, 2023
Spoiler alert: This is taken from a blog post I wrote over 10 years ago, so it's not exactly a cut-and-dry book review, but more of a discussion of the book:
I am very up front with my non-belief in "book-based" religions. And I'm completely against all the hate and horror that these religions have dealt our world over centuries and even today. It's a never-ending disaster that seems to have very few upsides.
That said, I do believe in God.
I just believe in something different, not a fatherly lord of all who judges us. "Book based" religions make no sense whatsoever and seem to me to be nothing more than a fantasy to assuage our fear of dying -- it's not logical at all. But if we know anything about the Universe, we know that everything makes sense if we just know how/where to look for it and if we are capable of understanding it -- it's all logical.
Thus, I give you my perspective on what God might be -- rather I give you someone else's idea that I really think is smart, a brilliant book that puts into words what I was already thinking:
It didn't take me too long to finish this book, despite what the title suggests -- lots of astrophysics. I did get a little distracted in the middle, but nevertheless, it was a good read, and I highly recommend it to everyone. What Bernard Haisch has done is bring his unproven theory of what God is to the masses. And you might think that this would be very difficult considering the fact that he is an astrophysicist, but this book DOES NOT read like rocket science.
There is "rocket science" though -- how else could he explain how God works with regard to the Universe and proven universal law.
Haisch brings you along slowly, initially explaining his credentials – it’s not everyday you hear from an astrophysicist, and then introducing you to some very complex, but simply explained, terms and theories in astrophysics. It is essential that you have some understanding of things like quantum physics and zero-point fields in order to understand what it is he’s trying to say about who he thinks God is. So, go with it. It doesn’t hurt, and it’s not dry. It’s infinitely (pardon the pun) interesting if you are, as I am, on a journey of discovery, looking for the meaning of life and the possibility of God.
Admittedly, having been a Catholic, Methodist, Southern Baptist and Christian Scientist in my childhood, I have rejected religion in my adulthood. I have no faith in religion. I don’t trust those people who put their trust in religion. I’ve had enough of evangelists that commit adultery and mullahs that send children to their deaths. And I know enough about the horrible things done in the name of religion (jihad, the Crusades) that I won’t ever be part of a religious community. Instead, like so many other people today with the same views and experiences, I choose instead to figure out who God is on my terms. Rather than totally reject the idea of God, I have preferred to find my own way to understanding what I think God is. Oddly enough, an unexpected stroll through the science section of Barnes & Noble in the Inner Harbor in Baltimore led me to a book that would give me exactly what I needed: a logical explanation of what God might be.
What Haisch did was take me exactly where I wanted to go. He broke physics down, then he showed me that God is in there. Along the way, he debunked reductionism, tossing out the idea of fundamentalist scientists that consciousness is simply a quirk of our existence, a coincidence, an odd phenomenon that means nothing special and can be somehow broken down into simple biological and chemical processes. Instead, he tells us that consciousness is in fact the part of God that is inside us all -- we are an extension of God, nothing more.
At the same time, he discounts “religionists”, who refuse to see creation as anything other than simply a spectacular act of God which cannot be explained by science; that is, “Let there be light” is taken literally, and light cannot possibly be interpreted as anything other than visible light. Instead, Haisch uses proven scientific fact to show why Genesis' version of the creation of Heaven and Earth is nothing more than a fairy tale.
Haisch presents logical arguments against these “all or nothing” extremists, taking the middle road and in a way that I can really appreciate, he demonstrates that neither argument alone can stand.
According to Haisch, God is us, and we are God. God is, in theory, a being of unlimited potential, able to do anything. God, however, is missing one thing: actualization of this potential. To do this, to experience this ultimate potential, God creates a universe based on specific rules (quantum physics) and experiences everything that is possible through this universe and through extensions of him – human beings. As Valentine Michael Smith put it in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land: "Thou art God."
Every wonder why we have this thing called “consciousness”? Ever wonder why everyone is virtually the same but oh so very different, how every person on Earth is unique and his experience and life is unique, too? Ever wonder what happens to us when we die? Read this book, and all of these topics are addressed. Think of consciousness as our direct connection to God and each other. Our uniqueness allows God to experience everything possible. When we die, we become one with God again, and we venture out again to experience more (reincarnation?). This and more is available is just over 200 pages, a drop in the bucket of his full theory, no doubt, but enough to make a believer out of me.
So, no, I’m not starting up my own church. I’m not becoming a Haischist. I am, however, saying that this “theory” falls right in line with own – that there’s a logical explanation for God and everything else, that the universe indeed is an amazing creation, that there is something behind consciousness, that there’s a reason for being. We are not an accident. We are more than we think we are. And if we could understand what we are, we might actually find our way back to where we came from. This book, I think, is a good start on figuring out that path.
I am very up front with my non-belief in "book-based" religions. And I'm completely against all the hate and horror that these religions have dealt our world over centuries and even today. It's a never-ending disaster that seems to have very few upsides.
That said, I do believe in God.
I just believe in something different, not a fatherly lord of all who judges us. "Book based" religions make no sense whatsoever and seem to me to be nothing more than a fantasy to assuage our fear of dying -- it's not logical at all. But if we know anything about the Universe, we know that everything makes sense if we just know how/where to look for it and if we are capable of understanding it -- it's all logical.
Thus, I give you my perspective on what God might be -- rather I give you someone else's idea that I really think is smart, a brilliant book that puts into words what I was already thinking:
It didn't take me too long to finish this book, despite what the title suggests -- lots of astrophysics. I did get a little distracted in the middle, but nevertheless, it was a good read, and I highly recommend it to everyone. What Bernard Haisch has done is bring his unproven theory of what God is to the masses. And you might think that this would be very difficult considering the fact that he is an astrophysicist, but this book DOES NOT read like rocket science.
There is "rocket science" though -- how else could he explain how God works with regard to the Universe and proven universal law.
Haisch brings you along slowly, initially explaining his credentials – it’s not everyday you hear from an astrophysicist, and then introducing you to some very complex, but simply explained, terms and theories in astrophysics. It is essential that you have some understanding of things like quantum physics and zero-point fields in order to understand what it is he’s trying to say about who he thinks God is. So, go with it. It doesn’t hurt, and it’s not dry. It’s infinitely (pardon the pun) interesting if you are, as I am, on a journey of discovery, looking for the meaning of life and the possibility of God.
Admittedly, having been a Catholic, Methodist, Southern Baptist and Christian Scientist in my childhood, I have rejected religion in my adulthood. I have no faith in religion. I don’t trust those people who put their trust in religion. I’ve had enough of evangelists that commit adultery and mullahs that send children to their deaths. And I know enough about the horrible things done in the name of religion (jihad, the Crusades) that I won’t ever be part of a religious community. Instead, like so many other people today with the same views and experiences, I choose instead to figure out who God is on my terms. Rather than totally reject the idea of God, I have preferred to find my own way to understanding what I think God is. Oddly enough, an unexpected stroll through the science section of Barnes & Noble in the Inner Harbor in Baltimore led me to a book that would give me exactly what I needed: a logical explanation of what God might be.
What Haisch did was take me exactly where I wanted to go. He broke physics down, then he showed me that God is in there. Along the way, he debunked reductionism, tossing out the idea of fundamentalist scientists that consciousness is simply a quirk of our existence, a coincidence, an odd phenomenon that means nothing special and can be somehow broken down into simple biological and chemical processes. Instead, he tells us that consciousness is in fact the part of God that is inside us all -- we are an extension of God, nothing more.
At the same time, he discounts “religionists”, who refuse to see creation as anything other than simply a spectacular act of God which cannot be explained by science; that is, “Let there be light” is taken literally, and light cannot possibly be interpreted as anything other than visible light. Instead, Haisch uses proven scientific fact to show why Genesis' version of the creation of Heaven and Earth is nothing more than a fairy tale.
Haisch presents logical arguments against these “all or nothing” extremists, taking the middle road and in a way that I can really appreciate, he demonstrates that neither argument alone can stand.
According to Haisch, God is us, and we are God. God is, in theory, a being of unlimited potential, able to do anything. God, however, is missing one thing: actualization of this potential. To do this, to experience this ultimate potential, God creates a universe based on specific rules (quantum physics) and experiences everything that is possible through this universe and through extensions of him – human beings. As Valentine Michael Smith put it in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land: "Thou art God."
Every wonder why we have this thing called “consciousness”? Ever wonder why everyone is virtually the same but oh so very different, how every person on Earth is unique and his experience and life is unique, too? Ever wonder what happens to us when we die? Read this book, and all of these topics are addressed. Think of consciousness as our direct connection to God and each other. Our uniqueness allows God to experience everything possible. When we die, we become one with God again, and we venture out again to experience more (reincarnation?). This and more is available is just over 200 pages, a drop in the bucket of his full theory, no doubt, but enough to make a believer out of me.
So, no, I’m not starting up my own church. I’m not becoming a Haischist. I am, however, saying that this “theory” falls right in line with own – that there’s a logical explanation for God and everything else, that the universe indeed is an amazing creation, that there is something behind consciousness, that there’s a reason for being. We are not an accident. We are more than we think we are. And if we could understand what we are, we might actually find our way back to where we came from. This book, I think, is a good start on figuring out that path.
Currently reading
April 13, 2012Just getting started, but it is clearly a refreshing work that attempts to discuss both science and theology, in the same breath!! Some will think that this kind of work is without merit or even silly. The voices of scientists that speak (and write) loudly that science has made religion and theology irrelevant are being heard just about everywhere. Bernard Hirsch is one of just a few accomplished scientists exposing the flaws in a science-only viewpoint. His words and creativity are certainly welcomed by me!
But, there's more to the story. In a discussion group that I meet with once each week, we have just finished a book titled, The Universe from Nothing. The author of this text makes it very clear that there is no place in his professional (and personal perhaps) life for God. With confidence and sound argument he tries to convince the reader that science and, in particular, cosmology, there is no room for God.
I will try to add comments as my reading progresses.
But, there's more to the story. In a discussion group that I meet with once each week, we have just finished a book titled, The Universe from Nothing. The author of this text makes it very clear that there is no place in his professional (and personal perhaps) life for God. With confidence and sound argument he tries to convince the reader that science and, in particular, cosmology, there is no room for God.
I will try to add comments as my reading progresses.
September 20, 2020
Excellent synthesis of non dualistic philosophy well written and interesting worth your time though I did not learn much new info, the zero point discussion was fascinating.
Excellent synthesis of non dualistic philosophy well written and interesting worth your time though I did not learn much new info, the zero point discussion was fascinating.
Excellent synthesis of non dualistic philosophy well written and interesting worth your time though I did not learn much new info, the zero point discussion was fascinating.
October 12, 2016
Fantastic Read...
If you are at all concerned about how science's uncovering of the material world can be integrated with what individuals can intuit from the spiritual world, then this book is for you.
If you are at all concerned about how science's uncovering of the material world can be integrated with what individuals can intuit from the spiritual world, then this book is for you.
January 6, 2021
Although I broadly agree with the big ideas here, a lot of the specifics aren't quite in line with my thinking. Still, it's interesting to get the perspective of a scientist on this topic
September 7, 2021
I really liked the line of thinking presented, but its more like conjecture than a theory.
May 1, 2019
Bernard Haisch performs a signal service, as an accomplished astrophysicist, by providing highly rational justifications for a spiritual worldview that completely transcends the reductionist-“scientific”-materialist worldview that dominates most of modern Western science and philosophy. Haisch fully accepts the fact of the incredible accomplishments of modern science, but declares that reductionist philosophy of science misses out on the possible insights into the true nature of ultimate reality.
I will quote a few passages from Haisch’s enlightening book. On page 128 Haisch says this:
“For neuroscientists, the challenge is to discover how the brain and its chemistry give rise to consciousness. This direction from the inanimate to the conscious is taken essentially as an unquestionable fact governing the respectable research agenda. The mystics also have observations to report on this topic, however. From every time and place, they point in the opposite direction. Matter does not create consciousness, they tell us; consciousness creates matter.
“I maintain, therefore, that the age of exploration is only beginning. Modern science is not at risk of exhausting its field of research; it has simply, by and large, failed to notice the vast possibilities for discovery outside the well-explored field of reductionism. Science denies that there is another world beyond its borders and treats the reports of travelers in that realm as delusions and imaginings. Real discoveries lie ahead if we can learn to integrate the vast physical knowledge accumulated by science over three centuries, with the spiritual awareness embodied in our own consciousness.”
With respect to the Many Worlds interpretation of the nature of physical reality, Haisch makes the following cogent observations (page 136):
“The Many Worlds interpretation of reality reduces human beings to choiceless, splintered automatons. I cannot believe in a theory that relies on an infinite number of dichotomous existences just to satisfy the requirements that all must be random and purposeless, with all outcomes possible. Indeed, I think it is fair to ask: Isn’t the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics more outrageous than even the most spiritual worldview?”
And on page 141 Haisch observes:
“While there are certainly scientists with spiritual beliefs, the de facto dogma of modern science is clear: The physical, material world of matter and energy is all there is and all that possibly could be. Everything you see around you and everything you think or feel can ultimately be explained in the terms of physics, chemistry, biology, or genetics. All spiritual knowledge is, ultimately, no more than outdated mythology and superstition….
“This ethos, says Davies [Haisch quoting physicist Paul Davies] in his book, ‘The Mind of God’, relegates us to ‘an incidental and seemingly pointless role in an indifferent cosmic drama.’”
My final quote from Haisch is from page 152:
“The challenge for the institution of modern science is to be true to its fundamental commitment to examine evidence. Scientists must resist the temptation to explain away evidence like near-death experiences, simply because they contradict the reductionist paradigm. The analogous challenge for religion is to replace dogma and revealed truth with a genuine, unfettered search for an experiential truth.”
I do not agree with all of Haisch’s views as expressed in “The God Theory”, but his book still does a great service to human society, especially for the scientifically-minded, by emphasizing that true science (the genuine, honest, unbiased search for truth, wherever it may be found) does not conflict with true spirituality or right religion. Dogma, whether religious or “scientific”, needs to be transcended by honest and objective searching for ultimate reality. The book being reviewed here is valuable service toward that goal.
I will quote a few passages from Haisch’s enlightening book. On page 128 Haisch says this:
“For neuroscientists, the challenge is to discover how the brain and its chemistry give rise to consciousness. This direction from the inanimate to the conscious is taken essentially as an unquestionable fact governing the respectable research agenda. The mystics also have observations to report on this topic, however. From every time and place, they point in the opposite direction. Matter does not create consciousness, they tell us; consciousness creates matter.
“I maintain, therefore, that the age of exploration is only beginning. Modern science is not at risk of exhausting its field of research; it has simply, by and large, failed to notice the vast possibilities for discovery outside the well-explored field of reductionism. Science denies that there is another world beyond its borders and treats the reports of travelers in that realm as delusions and imaginings. Real discoveries lie ahead if we can learn to integrate the vast physical knowledge accumulated by science over three centuries, with the spiritual awareness embodied in our own consciousness.”
With respect to the Many Worlds interpretation of the nature of physical reality, Haisch makes the following cogent observations (page 136):
“The Many Worlds interpretation of reality reduces human beings to choiceless, splintered automatons. I cannot believe in a theory that relies on an infinite number of dichotomous existences just to satisfy the requirements that all must be random and purposeless, with all outcomes possible. Indeed, I think it is fair to ask: Isn’t the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics more outrageous than even the most spiritual worldview?”
And on page 141 Haisch observes:
“While there are certainly scientists with spiritual beliefs, the de facto dogma of modern science is clear: The physical, material world of matter and energy is all there is and all that possibly could be. Everything you see around you and everything you think or feel can ultimately be explained in the terms of physics, chemistry, biology, or genetics. All spiritual knowledge is, ultimately, no more than outdated mythology and superstition….
“This ethos, says Davies [Haisch quoting physicist Paul Davies] in his book, ‘The Mind of God’, relegates us to ‘an incidental and seemingly pointless role in an indifferent cosmic drama.’”
My final quote from Haisch is from page 152:
“The challenge for the institution of modern science is to be true to its fundamental commitment to examine evidence. Scientists must resist the temptation to explain away evidence like near-death experiences, simply because they contradict the reductionist paradigm. The analogous challenge for religion is to replace dogma and revealed truth with a genuine, unfettered search for an experiential truth.”
I do not agree with all of Haisch’s views as expressed in “The God Theory”, but his book still does a great service to human society, especially for the scientifically-minded, by emphasizing that true science (the genuine, honest, unbiased search for truth, wherever it may be found) does not conflict with true spirituality or right religion. Dogma, whether religious or “scientific”, needs to be transcended by honest and objective searching for ultimate reality. The book being reviewed here is valuable service toward that goal.
March 24, 2025
Voxa txt • R348
Bernard Haisch este un fizician și autor cunoscut pentru lucrările sale în domeniul științei, în special în astronomie și cosmologie, dar și pentru explorarea unor teme legate de spiritualitate și religie. Haisch este cunoscut pentru încercările sale de a conecta știința cu concepte spirituale, fiind un susținător al ideii că știința și religia nu sunt incompatibile și că există o legătură între principiile fizicii și înțelegerea spirituală a universului.
Una dintre cele mai importante lucrări ale sale este „The God Theory: Universul ca Minte” (Teoria lui Dumnezeu: Universul ca Minte), în care Haisch propune o abordare unificată a științei și spiritualității. În această lucrare, el sugerează că universul este guvernat nu doar de legi fizice, dar și de un principiu divin sau conștient. Haisch susține că fizica modernă, în special teoriile despre câmpurile cuantice și natura materiei, poate oferi o bază științifică pentru o viziune spirituală despre univers. El explorează ideea că, dincolo de legile fizicii, există o „conștiință” universală care influențează și susține realitatea pe care o experimentăm.
Printre ideile cheie ale lui Bernard Haisch se numără:
1. Conștiința universală – Haisch sugerează că universul este mult mai mult decât un conglomerat de particule fizice; el propune o viziune în care conștiința este un aspect fundamental al realității și că această conștiință ar putea fi legată de originea și structura universului.
2. Teoria câmpului cuantic și spiritualitatea – Haisch argumentează că, în lumina fizicii cuantice, conceptele de câmpuri cuantice, probabilitate și interconectivitate pot fi privite ca indicii ale unei ordini universale mai profunde, care ar putea reflecta un principiu divin sau o „minte” universală.
3. Reconcilierea științei și religiei – Haisch încearcă să dovedească faptul că știința și religia nu sunt antinomice, ci pot coexista. El subliniază că multe dintre ideile moderne din fizica teoretică pot fi folosite pentru a înțelege concepte spirituale, iar înțelegerea profundă a universului poate conduce atât la cunoașterea științifică, cât și la o înțelegere spirituală mai profundă.
4. Căutarea unui sens mai profund al universului – În lucrările sale, Haisch este preocupat de explorarea sensului profund al existenței și de relația dintre umanitate, cosmos și conștiință. El consideră că știința nu trebuie să fie văzută doar ca un instrument de descoperire a legilor fizice, ci și ca o modalitate de a căuta înțelegere și sens într-un univers vast.
În concluzie, Bernard Haisch este un autor care îmbină fizica cu spiritualitatea, încercând să adâncească legătura între știință și religie, și propune ideea că universul are o dimensiune conștientă sau divină, care poate fi înțeleasă prin prisma științei moderne. Teoriile sale sunt o încercare de a răspunde la întrebările fundamentale ale umanității despre origine, sens și natura realității.
Bernard Haisch este un fizician și autor cunoscut pentru lucrările sale în domeniul științei, în special în astronomie și cosmologie, dar și pentru explorarea unor teme legate de spiritualitate și religie. Haisch este cunoscut pentru încercările sale de a conecta știința cu concepte spirituale, fiind un susținător al ideii că știința și religia nu sunt incompatibile și că există o legătură între principiile fizicii și înțelegerea spirituală a universului.
Una dintre cele mai importante lucrări ale sale este „The God Theory: Universul ca Minte” (Teoria lui Dumnezeu: Universul ca Minte), în care Haisch propune o abordare unificată a științei și spiritualității. În această lucrare, el sugerează că universul este guvernat nu doar de legi fizice, dar și de un principiu divin sau conștient. Haisch susține că fizica modernă, în special teoriile despre câmpurile cuantice și natura materiei, poate oferi o bază științifică pentru o viziune spirituală despre univers. El explorează ideea că, dincolo de legile fizicii, există o „conștiință” universală care influențează și susține realitatea pe care o experimentăm.
Printre ideile cheie ale lui Bernard Haisch se numără:
1. Conștiința universală – Haisch sugerează că universul este mult mai mult decât un conglomerat de particule fizice; el propune o viziune în care conștiința este un aspect fundamental al realității și că această conștiință ar putea fi legată de originea și structura universului.
2. Teoria câmpului cuantic și spiritualitatea – Haisch argumentează că, în lumina fizicii cuantice, conceptele de câmpuri cuantice, probabilitate și interconectivitate pot fi privite ca indicii ale unei ordini universale mai profunde, care ar putea reflecta un principiu divin sau o „minte” universală.
3. Reconcilierea științei și religiei – Haisch încearcă să dovedească faptul că știința și religia nu sunt antinomice, ci pot coexista. El subliniază că multe dintre ideile moderne din fizica teoretică pot fi folosite pentru a înțelege concepte spirituale, iar înțelegerea profundă a universului poate conduce atât la cunoașterea științifică, cât și la o înțelegere spirituală mai profundă.
4. Căutarea unui sens mai profund al universului – În lucrările sale, Haisch este preocupat de explorarea sensului profund al existenței și de relația dintre umanitate, cosmos și conștiință. El consideră că știința nu trebuie să fie văzută doar ca un instrument de descoperire a legilor fizice, ci și ca o modalitate de a căuta înțelegere și sens într-un univers vast.
În concluzie, Bernard Haisch este un autor care îmbină fizica cu spiritualitatea, încercând să adâncească legătura între știință și religie, și propune ideea că universul are o dimensiune conștientă sau divină, care poate fi înțeleasă prin prisma științei moderne. Teoriile sale sunt o încercare de a răspunde la întrebările fundamentale ale umanității despre origine, sens și natura realității.
July 8, 2019
This is worth reading if you're a true seeker, as I have been since I was about 13 (now in my 70s). Because of that, I've read and thought a lot about consciousness, too, so I was intrigued that consciousness is a core topic in this book.
I think most of us read books like this hoping, without realizing it, to finally find something that expresses and affirms what we already believe or at least helps refine it or clarify something that's been only a half-formed idea. To the extent that that's true, a couple of his key beliefs sync with mine, and what he says about the Zero Point and how he explains God or Creator consciousness being the real force that moves mass and matter, not electromagnetic force, are something new and interesting to consider. He offered justification for his his rationale partly through reasonable clear explanations of complex concepts in physics (he's a credible astrophysicist and astronomer, but as he says, that does not make him a physicist).
I loved his "fundamentalist scientism" term for what he calls "reductionist thinking." As he says, it's too limiting and short-sighted to think everything reduces to chemistry or energy or that if science can't observe it or prove it, it doesn't exist, isn't possible. As he says repeatedly, there are some things that science cannot and never will be able to explain, and there's a place for what we call supernatural or spiritual, too. Even so, I think that comes from the part of him that never got beyond his mother wanting him to be a priest and the years he spent toward becoming one before switching to science.
I hate the reviews that say "I really wanted to like this (book, movie), but...." That's the gist, though. I was glad for all he said about consciousness being fundamental to everything, but breath and its role and symbolism needed to be included, too.
What I really couldn't get past, so it was a major distraction and shortfall for me, was one concept he kept repeating with slight variations in wording (=emphasis= mine): "The physical universe and the beings that inhabit it are the conscious creation of a God =whose purpose is to experience his own magnificence= in the living consciousness of his creation." (p 137) That sounds so shallow and juvenile that it reminds me of Beto O'Rourke wanting to be president of the United States.
I think most of us read books like this hoping, without realizing it, to finally find something that expresses and affirms what we already believe or at least helps refine it or clarify something that's been only a half-formed idea. To the extent that that's true, a couple of his key beliefs sync with mine, and what he says about the Zero Point and how he explains God or Creator consciousness being the real force that moves mass and matter, not electromagnetic force, are something new and interesting to consider. He offered justification for his his rationale partly through reasonable clear explanations of complex concepts in physics (he's a credible astrophysicist and astronomer, but as he says, that does not make him a physicist).
I loved his "fundamentalist scientism" term for what he calls "reductionist thinking." As he says, it's too limiting and short-sighted to think everything reduces to chemistry or energy or that if science can't observe it or prove it, it doesn't exist, isn't possible. As he says repeatedly, there are some things that science cannot and never will be able to explain, and there's a place for what we call supernatural or spiritual, too. Even so, I think that comes from the part of him that never got beyond his mother wanting him to be a priest and the years he spent toward becoming one before switching to science.
I hate the reviews that say "I really wanted to like this (book, movie), but...." That's the gist, though. I was glad for all he said about consciousness being fundamental to everything, but breath and its role and symbolism needed to be included, too.
What I really couldn't get past, so it was a major distraction and shortfall for me, was one concept he kept repeating with slight variations in wording (=emphasis= mine): "The physical universe and the beings that inhabit it are the conscious creation of a God =whose purpose is to experience his own magnificence= in the living consciousness of his creation." (p 137) That sounds so shallow and juvenile that it reminds me of Beto O'Rourke wanting to be president of the United States.
April 16, 2025
I really was hoping this was going to be a great read as far as a scientific mind exploring the relationship between God and science. What it ended up being was just bad theology.
Some of the things he says are just completely opposite of truth. Some examples:
"There is no absolute good or bad."
"The god of the theory cannot dislike or hate anything that we do or are."
"We are one with God and God is one with us."
"There is no literal heaven or hell."
"The purpose of life is experience. God wishes to experience life through you."
"Life is god made manifest. Your consciousness can be transformed, but never die."
Why doesn't the author just state that he believes in Hinduism because that's all this is. About the only thing he gets right is that God doesn't exist in space and time because he created space and time and is therefore beyond them. He is infinite.
The parts where he actually talks about scientific information was interesting, but not enough for me to rate this any better.
Some of the things he says are just completely opposite of truth. Some examples:
"There is no absolute good or bad."
"The god of the theory cannot dislike or hate anything that we do or are."
"We are one with God and God is one with us."
"There is no literal heaven or hell."
"The purpose of life is experience. God wishes to experience life through you."
"Life is god made manifest. Your consciousness can be transformed, but never die."
Why doesn't the author just state that he believes in Hinduism because that's all this is. About the only thing he gets right is that God doesn't exist in space and time because he created space and time and is therefore beyond them. He is infinite.
The parts where he actually talks about scientific information was interesting, but not enough for me to rate this any better.
September 19, 2018
Interesting perspective but turned off by science-hating
I love to philosophize about the intersection between science and religion. But instead of taking the peaceful “co-exist” attitude, Haisch condescends science and scientists greatly. It’s as if his theories have been shot down one too many times by colleagues. Also, why must he ramble on about all of his academic accolades, i.e., why does he feel the need to prove to us that he’s credible?
Aside from these things, the actual meat of the book is interesting. His actual theory of god and its connection with physics is beautiful. The book would have been a lot better without all the sweeping biases, though.
I love to philosophize about the intersection between science and religion. But instead of taking the peaceful “co-exist” attitude, Haisch condescends science and scientists greatly. It’s as if his theories have been shot down one too many times by colleagues. Also, why must he ramble on about all of his academic accolades, i.e., why does he feel the need to prove to us that he’s credible?
Aside from these things, the actual meat of the book is interesting. His actual theory of god and its connection with physics is beautiful. The book would have been a lot better without all the sweeping biases, though.
November 22, 2023
Bernard Haisch has basically just restated Hinduism here, particularly the Advaita Vedanta school of thought.
There is some interesting science mixed with "It says this in a particular spiritual text so maybe it's true?" with a dose of nonsense that Haisch should know better than to spew (like the idea that people need religion for moral guidance. As a scientist, I'm sure he knows and works with plenty of very moral atheists).
It kept my interest, it's short, and the actual science was cool so I don't regret the read.
There is some interesting science mixed with "It says this in a particular spiritual text so maybe it's true?" with a dose of nonsense that Haisch should know better than to spew (like the idea that people need religion for moral guidance. As a scientist, I'm sure he knows and works with plenty of very moral atheists).
It kept my interest, it's short, and the actual science was cool so I don't regret the read.
August 19, 2025
Finally! A scientist who isn’t too prideful to admit there is a connection between spirituality AND scientific knowledge (I know he’s not the first, but this is one of the first books I found that made the literal connection between the two ideas). Excellent book for those with an analytical mind that seeks hard proof. This author goes into detail as to how there is always a pursuit of knowledge, yet understanding everything about our vast universe is impossible to our minds due to our own lack of true understanding that we can never truly grasp the infinite that is God.
June 5, 2019
I don't completely agree with Bernard Haich's God Theory but it is a well thought out and theory that will make anyone think seriously about the reality of God. While not all in common language it is understandable even if you may have to re-read some parts a time or two (or more.)
Haich tends to project a bit of his on hapless "life is to live" outlook over a biblical outlook onto his idea of God. I believe, by doing so, he limits his understanding of God and purpose of mankind.
Haich tends to project a bit of his on hapless "life is to live" outlook over a biblical outlook onto his idea of God. I believe, by doing so, he limits his understanding of God and purpose of mankind.
May 9, 2017
I thought Haisch's opinions on the nature of the Universe were well thought out, as well as his discussion on what 'The God Theory' means for morality and how to live life. However, I found his attempts to justify his theory through the Zero-point field a bit lacking, and it took away from the philosophy somewhat in my opinion. All in all a thoroughly enjoyable, thought-provoking book.
June 27, 2019
Haisch makes you think
In his book Haisch reveals ideas that transcend science per se and makes one think that perhaps there is more than the physical world that we can see, touch, smell, hear and feel. Very thought provoking ideas. I recommend that all science geeks read this one.
In his book Haisch reveals ideas that transcend science per se and makes one think that perhaps there is more than the physical world that we can see, touch, smell, hear and feel. Very thought provoking ideas. I recommend that all science geeks read this one.
November 5, 2022
A classic about classical religion and how we as conscious being conscious beings fit into this ever
Bernard Bausch certainly describes with both Witt and wisdom what we all know or can know within in us if we just take time and pause and think about the universe and our place here in this infinite present we call life.
Bernard Bausch certainly describes with both Witt and wisdom what we all know or can know within in us if we just take time and pause and think about the universe and our place here in this infinite present we call life.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews