The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

"I’ve got a personal interest in Buddhism , and I’ve met the Dalai Lama many, many times. Part of it goes back to some research we did where we were looking at the relationship between peace and religion. We were looking at some survey results, and there were only something like 13 countries in the world in which more than 20% of the population didn’t think there was some sort of spirituality or belief around the universe, if you like. That really got me thinking. In the modern age, particularly in the West, there is this massive gulf between science and something spiritual, and the Dalai Lama, in this book, tries to bridge that gap. There are a lot of interesting analogies and the basic Buddhist philosophy really does fit with the age we’re in at the moment, which is why I picked this book. I could talk about this for hours, but I’ll give one example: In Buddhism you have this concept of the middle way. You might think it’s about tolerance and not going to one extreme or the other, but that’s not what it’s about at all… There are two schools in Buddhism. In the first school, there’s an objective reality; in the second one, there isn’t anything that intrinsically exists. Take your hand. You think it’s pretty solid. But actually, it’s made up of bones, of sinews, of blood vessels. At a lower level, we get into atoms and then subatomic particles, and then you move down to wave functions. None of it’s really solid. It’s a hand to us, but to a fly, it might be a dinner plate. It only exists because of its nominal designation. This can lead to thinking that nothing really matters, or what can be called nihilism. Get the weekly Five Books newsletter The philosophical basis of that is very solid. The problem is that we live in the real world and if you pinch us, we will actually feel pain. So, the middle way is not to take one view or the other, but to take both views and use both in the best way, in the appropriate context, when you need them. The analogy to that with science is in relation to quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics . If we look at the principles of quantum mechanics , you break things down into smaller and smaller particles and you get things like synchronicity, where one entangled particle can change, and flip something else somewhere else simultaneously, defying Newtonian physics. You can have something that is a wave function and a particle at the same time, and it’s only really the observer through observing it that determines whether it is a wave particle or a function. Again, if it’s a particle, you can determine where it is, but you can’t determine its velocity or where it’s going; whereas, if it’s a wave function, you can determine that, but you can’t determine where it is. Quantum mechanics breaks all the laws of Newtonian physics, but science accepts both, depending on the way you want to use them. What he’s doing is showing that both are valid forms of inquiry—one using the mind, and the other using empirical scientific techniques. Put it this way: science is a tool. And, like all tools, like a knife, we can use it to cut our dinner and feed ourselves, or we can use it to kill someone. For me, it fits more into that category. Having said that, breakthroughs from science have liberated humanity. We’ve got more free time, we’ve got less to fear, and that then frees us to be more peaceful. The basis of Buddhism is that all human beings are really searching for happiness and that, in the final analysis, our happiness comes through achieving inner peace."