Two bestselling authors first met in a televised Caltech debate on “the future of God,” one an articulate advocate for spirituality, the other a prominent physicist. This remarkable book is the product of that serendipitous encounter and the contentious - but respectful - clash of worldviews that grew along with their friendship.
In War of the Worldviews these two great thinkers battle over the cosmos, evolution and life, the human brain, and God, probing the fundamental questions that define the human experience.
This extraordinary book will fascinate millions of readers of science and spirituality alike, as well as anyone who has ever asked themselves, What does it mean that I am alive?
From the Hardcover edition.
©2011 Deepak Chopra, Leonard Mlodinow (P)2011 Random House Audio
“We need a worldview grounded in science that does not deny the richness of human nature and the validity of modes of knowing other than the scientific. If we can bring our spirituality, the richness and wholesomeness of our basic human values, to bear upon the course of science in human society, then the different approaches of science and spirituality will contribute together to the betterment of humanity. This book points the way to such a collaborative endeavor.” (His Holiness the Dalai Lama)
"Deepak Chopra did an excellent job explaining why the all-embracing holistic quantum field suggests a dynamic, alive cosmos. This is an interesting and provocative book which will be read and talked about for a long time to come.” (Hans Peter Duerr, Director Emeritus, Max-Planck-Institute for Physics and Astrophysics)
"Bravo! This delightful book is bound to be the Gold Standard by which all other books on science/spirituality will be measured. Bold, refreshing, lucid, and insightful, this thoughtful collection of essays seeks to unveil the mysterious of our very existence. Is there a purpose to the universe? What is our true role in the cosmos? This book dares to ask some of the deepest, most profound questions about our very existence, and comes up with some surprising, even shocking answers." (Michio Kaku Prof. of Theoretical Physics, City Univ. of NY. Author of the New York Times best sellers Physics of the Future, and Physics of the Impossible.)
I'm not sure what I was thinking when I bought this book, maybe a chance to hear some new perspective on big questions.
I left this one feeling disappointed on both sides, Mlodinow for not putting the hammer down harder, and Chopra for dwelling on his straw man arguments and offering up the incessant lists. When Chopra starts on a list, he really loses me, the book is no longer about world view, its a textbook for his brand of snake oil.
Chopra also falls into the trap of arguing against himself repeatedly throughout, using examples that clearly illustrate Leonard's point, then twisting them around to support magical thoughts that are clearly unrelated.
Mlodinow does too much floating around, it seemed like he doesn't want to really tear down Chopra's arguments as directly as Chopra does his. Maybe to keep the book moving along?
Mlodinow often rushes his reading, and Chopra's often wanders into a droning attempt at hypnotism, as far as I can tell.
It's not terrible, it was interesting to hear another point of view from where I stand, I just expected a little more from both sides.
Find somebody else to represent the spiritual world. The views that Chopra presents are so incredibly dull and full of obvious mistakes and arguments that have been torn apart for years by many authors. It is really painful to listen to his chapters. The mix of naivety and just obnoxious ignorance makes it unbearable for any listener. There is nothing interesting or creative that he has to offer just a bunch of irrational opinions backed up by nothing and I wasn't expecting scientific evidence for the spiritual side but at least a coherent in itself logical argument.
I really liked the drunkards walk from L. Mlodinov and I will stay clear of D. Chopra
Deepak Chopra actually made a good argument for consciousness preceding matter, using Quantum Theory as support. This was unexpected and very welcome to hear because I was assuming that Mlodinow was going to "wipe the floor" with Chopra.
In contrast, I thought that Leonard Mlodinow only had a few good moments. He spent most of his time decrying the notion of a deity, even though Chopra did the exact same thing in his argument. Even more damning was Mlodinow's insistence on experimental proof, except, conveniently, where we are technologically incapable of experimentation in regards to several key concepts in physics.In other words, throw this theory out, but keep this other one, even though neither can be proven and both are accepted by different parts of the scientific community. Overall, Mlodinow only supports a few of his points with evidence. The rest is conjecture.
When Chopra stated that religion has failed human civilization, and that spirituality requires one to embrace science.
Thought Chopra made an excellent argument, and supported it with sound scientific theories and experimental proof.
Thought Mlodinow could have been much better. One shining moment for him was the chapter about physical human brain function near the end of the book.
The NEW discussion about who we are and where we came from.
This book was much better than I expected it to be. I recommend it to anyone interested in science, spirituality, or both.
I would get another book from Leonard Mlodinow.
Getting the different views on the same topics.
I appreciated the fair and respectful structure of the book with each person taking turns and responding to the other without being rude or making personal attacks. Oddly I came to the conclusion that they agree on a lot. I am a scientific minded person but found Deepak's essays compelling. Yet I agreed with Leonard that they are not quite enough. Yet I agree with Deepak that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and sometimes the "materialistic" view allows us to avoid the hard work of self actualization. So I concluded for myself that we need science to be what it is - and we need humans to want more than what science offers. The debate rages on...in this book respectfully.
Civil, Informed, Debate
Absolutely worth the listen.
This isnt a book to convince you one way or the other, but to give insight into the opposing views and perhaps to give some understanding about those who do not share your views.
I liked the back and forth by two leaders in their respective fields.
Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow
Both respectful of each other's views.
It made me think.
Rather than a one sided viewpoint, the issues were given equal time by both a spiritualist and a scientist. Very entertaining and thought provoking. It was also refreshing to hear Deepak Chopra agree with the evolution and genetics and other scientific knowledge rather than speaking of literal interpretations of ancient texts.
I saw Leonard Mlodinow's name and expected a book with a content of corresponding quality. I didn't knew who is Deepak Chopra and that was the biggest mistake. The book is more like the conversation of a science advocate with lunatic or deliberate charlatan. So you will find not much of interesting science.
Seems like Mlodinow tryed to adjust for lower standarts in argumentation, so he didn't did his best. Chopra is a mistery for me - he makes so much logical mistakes with such a pathos, that I was forced to skip much of his part eventually. I've honestly tryed to follow his logic, but seems he do not use it at all.
Do not buy this book if you are interesting in:
* why people believe in dumb things
* spirituality from a rational point of view
* new science frontiers, religion, hapiness, etc.
Buy this book if you are interesting in:
* additional works of Leonard Mlodinow
No, the misuse of words and the ill understanding of the scientific material by Deepak Chopra makes the listening hard.
Leonard Mlodinow stays impressively calm, I liked that.
I would have enjoyed this book more if Leonard hadn't been so defensive and demeaning toward Deepak. He seemed threatened by Deepak and used sophomoric analogies to, I assume, put Deepak in his place, which is somewhere on the order of a silly child. I think Deepak and his views seem to have hit a source of insecurity with Leonard, which is too bad, because his case would have been stronger and more interesting if he simply presented his good knowledge of his field.
Report Inappropriate Content