Apart from simplistic and very diverse pictures of God that all religions give for popular
appeal, at the esoteric core, all religions agree that apart from material interactions, there
is another agent of causation in the world; and this is what they call God. Religions also
agree that apart from the material level of reality, which we experience outside of us,
there are other subtle levels of reality that we experience when we look inside. Religions
also agree about a third very important aspect of divinity: We must try to manifest divine
qualities—love, beauty, justice, truth, and good, for example—in our lives.
When not so long ago, the philosopher Nietzsche declared, “God is dead,” he was
lamenting that the popular religious renditions of God are so simplistic that they can no
longer guide people to move toward Godliness. This is true. Yet to this day, many
scientists beat a dead horse by trying to disprove the popular pictures of God. This is
beating around the bush and not at all useful. The real questions, and these are all
questions of science, are: (1) Is there causation in the world apart from material
interactions? (2) Are there subtle non-material levels of reality? And (3) is there any
scientific justification of ethics, which compels us to pursue Godliness in our lives?
Most scientists today squarely say “No,” in answer to these questions because they
contradict their metaphysics of scientific materialism according to which there is only
matter and its interactions, nothing else is real. In my book, God Is Not Dead, I give
answers also, and they are all in the affirmative. Yes, there is God. Because (1) there is
an agent of causation apart from material interaction; (2) what we experience internally
are subtle non-material worlds; and (3) not only should we pursue Godliness in our lives,
our evolution is taking us toward better and better manifestations of Godliness. In my
book I back up these assertions with both scientific theory and empirical evidence.
Believe it or not, one of the most well known mathematical equations of science proves
the existence of God if examined within the new context that we have set. It is called the
Schrödinger equation named after one of its discoverers, and it is the fundamental
equation of quantum physics. Physicists apply this equation for the study of many
objects and many events; under these circumstances, the equation predicts (statistically)
deterministic results and so most physicists miss God in the equation. The right question
to ask is how does this equation apply to a single object in a single event, as it must?
You see, the problem is that the Schrödinger equation depicts objects not as “determined
things” of Newtonian vintage but as waves of possibility for consciousness to choose
from? How do we know this? Because whenever we look at a quantum object, an
electron for example, we don’t see possibilities—an electron in different places all at
once—but an electron in one actual place, an actuality. So we must be choosing where
the electron actualizes!
Let’s go deeper. If we (our consciousness) are able to convert possibility into actuality,
our consciousness cannot be a brain product or any other material object since all
material objects obey quantum physics and must be possibilities only. So consciousness
as a nonmaterial agent of choice is a causal agent! Have we discovered God?
No, say the scientists, and they are right up to a point. The above raises the paradox of
dualism if we think of the choosing consciousness or God, an agent separate from us, as
popular religions do. To see this, ask the simple question, how does a nonmaterial God
interact with the material world? It can’t without a mediator. But a mediator signal
requires energy. And the energy of the physical world is a constant; energy never passes
from the material world to a God world and vice versa.
In the esoteric core, the masters of the various religions understood the situation
perfectly. God is not separate from the material world, they declare at various places,
times, and cultures. God is both transcendent and immanent. But what do they mean?
Until recently, scientists and ordinary people alike, have not been able to penetrate the
wisdom of these words. So scientists ignore them and ordinary people go on thinking
about God as a dual agent of causation. Proper understanding of quantum physics
resolves the logjam.
The quantum concept that is truly radical and that is changing our world view is called
nonlocality—signal less interaction. Matter consists of waves of possibility within
consciousness, which is the ground of all being. Consciousness chooses one facet out of
the multifaceted quantum possibility wave and converts possibility into the actuality of
that chosen facet, but there is no dualism because consciousness does the choosing
nonlocally without signal. It is choosing from itself.
Is it like Waiting for Godot: We have been looking for God and it is us? It is each of us
who chooses his or her own reality. Alas! This, too, is too simplistic, which is why your
wishful thinking about manifesting a BMW for yourself does not usually work.
There is a paradox here. Suppose you and your friend are approaching from
perpendicular directions a “quantum” traffic light with two possible facets, red and green.
Being busy people, you both want green, but who gets to choose? If you both get to
choose, obviously there would be pandemonium. Or perhaps you are like the Hollywood
woman who meets a friend on Sunset Boulevard and takes her to a coffee house to “catch
up.” Over coffee, she starts talking and after an hour says, “Oh my God, I have been
talking about myself all this time. Let’s now talk about you. What do you think of me?”
To this woman, the only consciousness in the world is hers, and she is always the
chooser. Such people are called solipsistic.
But solipsism is obviously not the answer to our paradox. It has shifted the question,
“Who gets to choose?” to, “Who gets to be the solipsistic head honcho of the situation?
No more than that. The paradox remains.
The authentic solution is this: The choosing nonlocal consciousness is not us in our
ordinary ego, but a “transcendent” consciousness that is both us and beyond us, both
transcendent and immanent.
Makes sense, doesn’t it? And more. This nonlocality of our choosing consciousness is an
experimentally verifiable idea. In fact, this nonlocality has been verified by five different
experiments by five different groups at five different laboratories all showing the direct
transfer (without signals) of electrical activity from one subject’s brain to another when
the subjects are correlated through meditative intention. This is reported in God Is Not
So the scientific evidence for God and God’s causal efficacy is already here. The
evidence is definitive because nonlocality can never be simulated by material interactions
that always occur via the intermediary of signals.
This is not the only evidence. God’s choice is creative and manifests in our creative
experience through discontinuous quantum leaps akin to electron’s leap from one atomic
orbit to another without going through the intervening space. Creative experiences are
subjective, you say. Not when such leaps heal a person from a life threatening disease, a
phenomenon called quantum healing for which plenty of evidence exists.
Objective evidence for such creative quantum leaps also show up in biological evolution
and explains the puzzling phenomena of the fossil gaps (or missing links) which
Darwinism cannot explain.
How about subtle bodies? If matter consists of waves of possibility for consciousness to
choose from and conscious choice leads to our experience of sensing, then it makes sense
to posit that our internal experiences are also due to conscious choice from subtle
domains of quantum possibilities. As the psychologist Carl Jung first codified, we have
four kinds of experiences: sensing, feeling, thinking, and intuiting. In this way there must
be four different compartments of conscious possibilities; the physical we sense, the vital
energies we feel, the mental meaning we think, and the supramental archetypes—love
The empirical evidence for subtle bodies abound in health and healing, in dreams, in the
phenomenon of biological morphogenesis, in survival after death and reincarnation, just
to name a few.
Again, scientific evidence for God is already here, so what should we do about it? For
one thing, we should take the religious masters seriously and pay attention to ethics. The
values—love, beauty, justice, truth, and goodness—that ethics talk about are what we
intuit. And plenty of evidence exists (for example, in the phenomena of dreams,
creativity, and reincarnation) for the importance and validity of ethics as discussed in
God Is Not Dead.
And more. When we recognize that Darwin’s theory of continuous evolution is
incomplete and complement it with the creative discontinuous quantum leaps, we
discover an astounding thing. Biological evolution’s direction from simple to complex
organisms can be explained. We evolve from simplicity to complexity to be able to
manifest our experiences of the subtle domains of possibilities better and better. In
particular, right now we are evolving toward manifesting better and better Godly
Someday, said the Jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin, we shall harness . . . the
energies of love.” Teilhard was right. That day is not very far away.
In his private life, Goswami is a practitioner of spirituality and transformation. His forth
coming book, The Everything Answer Book: How Quantum Science Explains Love,
Death and the Meaning of Life will be published by Hampton Roads Publishing
Company in April 2017.