A Theory of Everything

Observations are one thing, but putting them together to make a coherent Theory of Everything is another. Regarding the latter, science has failed. Species struggle to exist and, arguably, evolve means to do so. But that says nothing about chemicals on their own strength becoming biological entities. With all the talk of biological evolution being the centerpiece of the puzzle of life, chemical evolution—the theory that chemicals evolve into biological entities—once a well-funded field of research, has gone broke. And on the other end of the spectrum, subjectivity—consciousness—remains very elusive, leaving a physicalist Theory of Everything with an explanatory gap that knows no bounds.

And for that matter, a physicalist worldview really has no justification for being at odds with religion as a made up meaning because in the physicalist worldview all meaning is made up and mere human convention—there is no actual right or wrong act or thought. Nor is there any real meaning to any sense of self-determination. Really, what is the point of debating with someone who “believes” that the outcome of the debate is already determined and there is nothing either side can do to change that?

Yes, modern science looks at the world and interprets what it finds. And so does the Bhagavatam, which in contrast to the dominant materialistic interpretation coming from science, finds purpose, will, meaningful action and rationality, atma, and Paramatma. Neither does the Bhagavatam rely only upon the senses for its conclusions derived from observation. Indeed, it teaches a method of stilling them that gives rise to experience unfettered by them, the experience of the experiencer. Go within or go without.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *