Ben Hay had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Haisch about his theory. This fascinating interview is presented below.
What is The God Theory?
The idea goes back to one of the founders of modern astrophysics, Sir James Jeans, who wrote that the universe seemed to him to be more like a great thought than like a great machine. Well, whose great thought might that be? So I start with the concept of a transcendent intelligence that has to be completely consistent with the Big Bang, evolution and other scientific knowledge. The God Theory then includes a very logical and compelling reason for why such an intelligence would create universes in the first place: to transform infinite potential into experience. The experiences of the life forms (such as human beings) possible in the many different universes become the experience of the intelligence. We are all sparks of God, experiencing his/her creativity. This has nothing to do with intelligent design: God does not need to micro-engineer or micromanage the evolution of life forms. The ideas of God are the basic laws of physics and the associated physical constants.
So the God you are proposing isn’t necessarily at odds with science?
Not at all. Whether our universe originated by some random process or out of the ideas of a transcendent intelligence cannot be determined by present day science. Since both lead to the same “Big Bang” origin of our universe, it does not affect science one way or the other. Science very accurately describes the Universe as it is. But science has no special claim on the ultimate origin of our universe and the myriad of others that may exist in the current view of astrophysics and its multiverse inflation theories. Science has no way of knowing the ultimate origin of our universe and whatever others may exist. I suggest however that spiritual human experiences do open a door to knowing.
Many people still believe that spirituality and religion are inextricably linked. How should spirituality be viewed?
I propose that spirituality should be viewed as a branch of knowledge alongside biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc. It is a branch of knowledge concerning an essence of our being and our consciousness that transcends physical matter. Many scientists would simply deny that there is such a thing, but that is opinion and dogma masquerading as fact. Since present day science does not study anything other than the physical, it has nothing valid to say about whatever non-physical realities may exist which can be called spiritual.
One can study spirituality without religion, and indeed I propose that ultimately one will not need the “middleman” of religion to study the laws of spirituality (whatever they may be) any more than one needs a religion of physics to study physics. Both the historical legacy and the present day practice of religion have a mixed record. Religion has often been used to exploit, conquer and slaughter, which of course is grossly contradictory to genuine spirituality.
What are the biggest problems with organized religion?
There are several major problems that affect, or have affected, most religions to some degree or other. The worst is intolerance, denying the legitimacy of beliefs not in accord with a given religion, claiming sole authority and in the worst cases outright persecution and suppression of dissent. Just consider the Inquisition. Intolerance is unfortunately still a major problem in some branches of religion. The fairy tale nature of some of the beliefs is also a problem, teaching notions of heaven and hell that rational people cannot accept. If you actually try to imagine a never ending state of anything, that can become pretty horrifying. Something that truly never, ever ends, no matter how good it looks at the outset, would become a nightmare eventually. Remember, Woody Allen said, “Eternity is very long, especially toward the end.” Heaven cannot be what most religions teach. Then there is the depiction of a God who is capable of hate and anger, as if he were a petty tyrant out to judge and punish. This is a dreadfully limiting view of a benevolent transcendent consciousness. Lastly there is the frequent misuse of religion for political and economic ends. None of these things make any sense, and that is why many intelligent people have turned away from religion.
Why do most scientists reject the idea of a supreme intelligence?
Much of the hostility in science toward God is a reaction against religious dogmatism and outright persecution of rational thinkers in centuries past, such as Galileo and Giordano Bruno. But there is also a sense in science that understanding of the ways the world and the Universe work has been one of steady progress, systematically replacing mythology with genuine knowledge. It becomes tempting to extrapolate these successes to an ultimate understanding of everything using the tools and methods of science. Next time you read a science-oriented book for the general public, note how frequently “triumph” or “triumphantly” is used to describe a discovery. There is a degree of arrogance and hubris at work: we, the sophisticated scientists, are smarter than the less educated masses who cannot appreciate the complexity of science and we have no need for the superstitions of the hoi polloi. Indeed, a mind set can arise in which it becomes virtually impossible to conceive of any reality other than the reductionist, materialist perspective. The community one is immersed in does determine and reinforce a consensus view, and that is true of the scientific community. One can easily find the view expressed that since science has found no evidence of God, there cannot be a God. This overlooks the fact that science has neither the tools nor even the concepts to actually search for evidence of a transcendent intelligence. If you lose your keys in the dark, but look for them under the lamppost because that’s where the light is, you won’t find any evidence of your keys.
Does consciousness arise out of matter?
I don’t believe it does. I think that ultimately it is the other way around: that the origin of this universe and all others that may exist lies in the will of an infinite consciousness, a consciousness that we all possess, in varying degrees. Somehow that consciousness created a physical universe. I think we will discover in this century that we shape our reality via consciousness to a much greater degree than is presently acknowledged. The study of consciousness will, I believe, take center stage in science in the decades ahead, and I do not mean simply neurobiology explaining, and thereby in effect explaining away, consciousness.
Is there a purpose for my life?
Definitely. Our purpose in life is to create God’s experience of his own infinite potential. We are, each one of us, tiny mortal flames of an infinite benevolent immortal consciousness seeking experience. God comes into this world through each of us. Some people do bad things. How can they still be manifestations of God? The answer is that unlike some infinite perfect realm of bliss, a real world comprised of matter and living beings capable of novel experience requires polarity. You can’t experience light without the contrast of darkness. Heat is only hot in comparison to cold. So there has to be the possibility of “not good” to allow good to exist in the created universe. Factor in that the key to having a genuinely novel experience is free will. Free will plus the necessity of having some “not good” alongside the good can lead to some individuals creating great evil. To reconcile that with justice takes us into the concept of karma. But all in all, life is quite an adventure and that is the purpose of it. God participates in our life adventure because we really are Him made manifest. We just had to forget that to make a novel, free-will based life experience possible.
Do you think we’ll see an increase in science being bridged with spirituality in the near future?
That must occur if science is to evolve. I think that the major discovery of this century will be the recognition that consciousness is endowed with unknown (at least to reductionist, materialist science) creative potential. Our consciousness is tightly leashed when it comes to literally creative abilities, and by and large for good reason. If we could easily manipulate reality with pure conscious intent, the world would be in utter chaos. But ultimately I suspect that consciousness does have that capability and that the rigorous study of that will become a part of science and may in fact become the dominant concern of science. So I see science moving into the spiritual realm not to debunk it or explain it away, as tends to be the case today, but to open a new vista that extends much further into new territory than most scientists even imagine nowadays.
As far back as written records go, there is a unifying theme among mystics and shamans of having an experience with the divine, of tapping into something “fundamental.” Is there anything fundamental in your view or do these experiences merely reflect complexity and evolution having advanced to a certain level?
I do take these experiences as evidence that there is more to reality than the particles and fields of physics. I do not think that the Near Death Experience, for example, is a mere matter of brain chemistry under extreme stress. There is even empirical evidence against such a simplistic interpretation: when people report a near-death out-of-body experience in which they can see people and events that could not be perceived from the perspective or location of their bodies, the “brain chemistry delusion” is plainly invalidated. There is simply more to it than that.
I’ve always believed that if people began to see themselves as part of the world rather than separate from it, there would be a lot less suffering. How would you respond?
An important message of my book is that if we recognized our nature as being one with God, literally as individualized incarnations of God, and that our destiny is governed by some kind of law of karma, we would treat each other far better and with more compassion than we do now. The insanity of murdering and destroying in the name of God would, I hope, disappear if we recognized our true nature.
Vol 27 Issue 2 Page 22