A thoughtful attempt to link Science and Spirituality. But it makes a lot of (non-justified) assumptions.
This is a book which refers to a lot of different ideas and tries to link them into a coherent whole. However, I was surprised that there were no footnotes, citing evidence for the claims which it makes. And where there were references, they were relatively vague. For example, Chapter 2 opens with a quote from Max Planck. I would have liked to look it that quote and see it in its original context, but there is no reference to enable readers to look it up.
This means that the style of the book is more like a sermon which unfolds a viewpoint, preaching a message, rather than presenting an argument to convince.
One of the problems in the book is that there is a tendency to just make assumptions, and then assume that readers will accept those assumptions. For example, chapter 1 establishes the existence of a god (or spiritual force) in just a few paragraphs (6%). There is an assumption that there must be a cause for what there is. And then there is an assumption that there must be a designer for what we find. Those briefly stated assumptions are queried at length by Atheists. But there is no argument in the book (or even reference to other sources) to justify assumptions that atheist critiques can be rejected.
The author assumes that ‘trying to find the ‘truth’ from a single religion’s scripture is not a wise idea’ (2%) although he also seems to cite Hinduism as being less bad in that regard (3%). The rejection of all Scriptures is justified by saying that messages can get confused when they are transmitted through oral traditions (as most scriptures have been transmitted). But that is an odd reason, which faiths do address and give arguments to reject. In any case, books can make mistakes too. Is that a reason for rejecting this book out of hand? Arguments cannot just jump from a possibility of error to an actuality. They need to cite evidence and reasons to justify their claims.
Here are a few other examples of unjustified assumptions:
The book states that ‘most contemporary religions hold a somewhat distorted view of God’ (9%). But how does the author know better than the billions of people in those other religions?
We are told that ‘Science has recognised certain laws, such as the law of…Karma, the law of attraction and the law of vibration.’ (9%). Really? Those laws are rejected as pseudo-science by many scientists. So the book cannot just make assumptions about them, without citing evidence to justify its view.
The book states: ‘Space research suggests that humanity is not alone in the universe.’ (9%). Really? Which research? What is the evidence for that bold claim?
We are also told that ‘according to quantum mechanics there is no reality until it is observed.’ (21%). But that claim is not correct. Yes ‘some interpretations of quantum mechanics’ make that claim. But there are other interpretations which argue differently. If the author has a preferred interpretation then he needs to present an argument to justify what would otherwise be an unjustified assumption about which interpretation to take.
The book states that other dimensions exist, which cannot be perceived by our senses (23%). What is the evidence for that claim?
We are also told that science does not explain why apes have stopped evolving into humans (25%). Arguably evolution does explain precisely that point, as it typically shows that evolution is a continuing process which affects all living things.
The book states that reincarnation occurs (28%). Again, why does the author assume that that is true? Different religions cite different scriptures on the matter. What is the author’s evidence base, for his view on the matter?
The book also states that humans have ESP (39%). Again, that is a view that has been investigated by scientists and there is (as yet) no accepted indisputable evidence to justify it. This means that it is sometimes described as Pseudo-science. What is the author’s reason for assuming it to be true?
And we are also told that the Hindu theory of Rays (koshas) and Chakras is true (42%). But again, Chakras have been dismissed by some scientists as unevidenced pseudo-science. So what is the authors’ evidence base to justify an alternative viewpoint on the issue?
Overall, this book just makes too many assumptions, and it offers too many unjustified opinions. It reads (arguably) in places as an example of pseudo-science because it does not justify its claims. And so it cannot be recommended.