Home Business & Finance Markets U.S. U.K. Europe Asia Markets News Hot Stocks Bonds News Gainers & Losers Most Actives Indices Calendars Deals Small

* EU finance ministers back reform of financial supervision

* Britain against loss of supervisory sovereignty

* Commission to draft outline proposals by mid-May

* EU's McCreevy said tough talks lie ahead

(Adds news conference, Steinbrueck)

By Huw Jones and Anna Willard

PRAGUE, April 4 (Reuters) - Britain clashed with its European Union partners on Saturday over an ambitious reform of financial supervision that would erode its sovereignty in regulating the bloc's biggest financial centre.

The UK is fiercely protective of its City of London financial sector which is a major tax contributor, but France and Germany want stronger supervision of large financial institutions operating across EU borders to prevent a future banking crisis that could damage the 27-nation bloc.

"We agreed we have to reinforce the European supervisory structure but there will still be a very demanding discussion on the final model to be adopted," said Miroslav Kalousek, finance minister for the Czech EU presidency.

Britain was largely isolated because of its two fundamental reservations over reform while the bulk of member states said they wanted to push ahead based on a plan from former Bank of France governor Jacques De Larosiere.

There is no sign of Britain being outvoted for now.

"We need to find a common front, a common solution, because we cannot leave Britain outside the system. London plays too important a role in the financial arena to be left to one side," French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde told reporters.

TWO TIER

De Larosiere has proposed a two-level approach that would curb national sovereignty by creating a new pan-EU council chaired by the European Central Bank to monitor system-wide risk and plug a big gap in the current framework.

The pan-EU risk council could formally ask the bloc's finance ministers to take action against a member state whose response to a risk warning from the council is inadequate.

"We are fully in support of the macro prudential body but we don't believe that it should necessarily always be chaired by the president of the ECB," a British official said.
(Reuters)

US believers going green, hold media fast for Lent

WASHINGTON (AFP) - From giving up their cars to abandoning their Facebook pages, many US Christians are being called on to help reduce global warming and turn their backs on Internet distractions over Lent.

"It's an insult to God, it's a sin to spoil the environment, to hurt creation," said Episcopalian pastor Reverend Sally Bingham, who is coordinating "The Regeneration Project," an interfaith group of some 4,000 congregations looking for a religious response to global warming.

During Lent, which began this year on February 25 and will end on April 11 the day before Easter, Christians are called to observe sacrifice and penance marking the time Jesus endured temptation when he wandered for 40 days in the desert.

The idea of a "green" Lent was launched last year by two British Anglican bishops, who called for a "carbon fast," Bingham told AFP.

"We sent an email to the 30,000 people on our mailing list and we suggested tips to try to be as environmentally friendly as you can be," she said.

Among the tips: giving up your car, turning down the heat or buying local.

"This year, I gave up meat. Last year, I turned off my heat. I had to wear a ski parka inside my house. My children would not visit, they thought I'd gone crazy," Bingham said.

Another Catholic group, the St Paul Newman Center in Fresno, California, is organizing a "Lent program on global warming."

"Lent is a time we focus on how we can really connect to God's presence in our life and do something that is sacrificial. For us, it's a look at how we care for the environment while sacrificing some comforts for ourselves," said Mary Hetherington, who helps teach the program.

©AFP/File / Francois Nascimbeni

Reims cathedral standing in darkness after its spotlights were switched off for 5 minutes

The courses promote a "low-carbon diet" to reduce carbon emissions by 5,000 pounds (2,268 kilograms) in 40 days.

Among the lessons: dry your clothes on a clothesline instead of in a dryer, thus saving the equivalent of 100 pounds (45 kilograms) of carbon emissions.

"Try a media fast," suggests The Regeneration Project. "It can be very rewarding to turn off TV, computers and radios a few nights a week and sit down to a board game with your family."

An Italian bishop in Modena has called for giving up texting during Lent in order to "detoxify from the virtual world and become one again."

Across American universities, students are also giving up social networking websites like Facebook.

"The fundamental idea is to say if something is a distraction from prayer and fasting then to the extent possible, it should be given up," explained Paul Griffiths, a professor in Catholic theology at Duke Divinity School.

"It's not a sin, it's a distraction," he told AFP, adding that cyber asceticism is part of the traditions of the Catholic church, even though the Vatican has a YouTube channel and a website in eight languages.

The online discussion group "Give up Facebook for Lent" gives tips on how to avoid going online without missing virtual visits by "friends" on the 75 million-strong social networking website.

Nola Bozeman, a 42-year-old housewife in Apex, North Carolina, used to log on to Facebook every morning.

"It was becoming an obsession," she acknowledged. But she has now decided to deprive herself of the Internet.

"I thought if I spent half the amount of time I spend on Facebook in prayer or service, it would draw me closer to God."
(AFP)

Button storms to F1 pole position in Malaysia

SEPANG, Malaysia (AFP) - Jenson Button pushed his Brawn GP to a second successive pole position on Saturday, topping the times during qualifying for the Malaysian Grand Prix.

The Brit swept around the 5.5 kilometre (3.4 mile) Sepang circuit in one minute 35.181 seconds ahead of Toyota's Jarno Trulli (1:35.273) to burn off his rivals in an eventful hour-long qualifying.

It was his second straight pole after Australia last weekend which he went on to win in Brawn's maiden race, and only the fifth in his nine years as a Formula One driver.

But while Button was ecstatic, there was despair for last year's pole sitter Felipe Massa, who only managed 16th in his Ferrari during hot and humid, but dry, conditions.

And McLaren's miserable weekend continued with world champion Lewis Hamilton starting from 12th on the grid and his teammate Heikki Kovalainen 14th.

Third fastest was Sebastien Vettel in his Red Bull but he is carrying a 10-place grid penalty from the Australian Grand Prix after his collision there with Robert Kubica and so lines up Sunday in 13th.

Button's teammate Rubens Barrichello was fourth quickest but he too has a grid penalty - five places for changing his gearbox - so is relegated to ninth.

Therefore, Timo Glock in the other Toyota will be third alongside Nico Rosberg in his Williams.

Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen, last year's winner, is behind them alongside another former world champion, Fernando Alonso in his Renault.

"It is not easy to get one pole position but to have two on the trot, I've never done that before," Button said after raising the bar on his final flying lap.

"It shows that the car works on different circuits in all conditions. On Saturday we struggled a bit with the balance of the car and it was difficult but we made changes overnight and it improved a lot.

"I feel very comfortable in the car and I'm excited about Sunday."

©AFP / Roslan Rahman

Formula one driver Jenson Button of Brawn GP

Italy's Trulli is looming as his chief threat in the Toyota, which, like the Brawn and Williams, is using the controversial rear diffusers to make the car more aerodynamic.

Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull and BMW Sauber claim they are contrary to the rules, giving a lap-time benefit of up to 0.5 seconds, and have appealed a stewards' hearing in Melbourne that ruled them legal.

"The car is good but I didn't expect to be where I am," said Trulli.

"The team have done a great job and got everything spot on."

The big surprise was the failure of Massa to reach the third and final stage of the knockout qualifying format.

The Brazilian, who was third in the morning's final free practice session, was well off the pace when it mattered, managing only 1:35.642 having completed just four laps.

"The team thought it was enough to be inside the top 15 and maybe I thought as well, to be honest, because when I got back to the pits I was fourth," he said.

"I stayed in the top seven for a while, but then when I started to drop it was impossible to go out again because there was no time to do another lap."

Hamilton also had a day to forget as he comes to terms with the scandal last weekend in Australia in which he was forced to apologise for lying about Trulli overtaking him during the Australian Grand Prix.

"Nothing has changed since the last race and it was as tough as ever," he said.

Qualifying took place with only McLaren and Toro Rosso using the same engines they had in Melbourne as all the other teams elected for new ones.

Drivers are allowed to use eight engines over the course of the season.
(AFP)

Google sees voice search as core

By Maggie Shiels
Technology reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
Google has said it sees voice search as a major opportunity for the company in building a presence on the mobile web.

The company's vice president of engineering made the comments during a wide-ranging discussion at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco.

"We believe voice search is a new form of search and that it is core to our business," said Vic Gundotra.

SearchEngineLand editor Greg Sterling agreed: "If done right, it could be a valuable strategic feature for Google."

Mr Gundotra acknowledged to the audience that "voice recognition in the early days was a nice trick but not very usable".

There were early complaints that Google's offering could not understand accents other than American and that results were often garbled.

"Look how far we have come. I get the advantage of looking at daily voice queries coming in and it's amazing. It's working. It's reached a tipping point. It's growing and growing very, very fast and we are thrilled about it," said Mr Gundotra.

He declined to share figures about just how many queries the company deals with via voice search.

However, Mr Gundotra did say: "It's one of those technologies we think gets better with usage.

"We launched it on the iPhone and have seen a 15% jump in accuracy because, as more people use it, we collect more data and our accuracy gets better."

'Queen's English'

In 2002, Google Labs introduced a service that allowed users to search with a simple phone call. The company admitted it "wasn't very useful because the results were displayed on your computer and Google discontinued it".

Six years later, the search giant introduced an improved feature under the Google Mobile App for the iPhone.
Vic Gundotra
Vic Gundotra says "voice search is core" to Google's future mobile plans

It is also available on the Android based T-Mobile G1 and last month was introduced on the BlackBerry as a free download. The New York Times's Gadgetwise blog rated the BlackBerry version the "App of the Week" earlier this week.

Early iterations that worked best with North American accents had problems understanding other accents, including British. BBC technology cCorrespondent Rory Cellan-Jones reported in November last year that his attempts to use it were "pure gibberish".

For example, his query about the next train, West Ealing to Paddington "delivered some useful information about 'neck strain' - but no train times".

Those problems have since been largely ironed out and Google said it was continuing to work on improving the accuracy of the service. This, Mr Sterling said, is crucial if the company wants it to give them the edge in the marketplace.

"My view is voice search could be a strategic differentiator if it works well. It depends on how much better Google's system is compared to, say, Yahoo's or Microsoft's.

"If they come up with a really great version that is really accurate, it could retain users and likely increase search usage for Google," said Mr Sterling.

"Stay tuned"

At Web 2.0, Mr Gundotra also talked about a web-based version of Google's e-mail service, Gmail.
Gmail app
Google's "technical prototype", coming soon to the public

He demonstrated a "technical prototype" on the iPhone and the G1 and said "Stay tuned" for a release date.

Mr Gundotra said the prototype used HTML 5, an as-yet incomplete version of mark up language of the world wide web.

He revealed that Google would create a whole suite of offline apps using HTML 5 and that "we are going to be leaders in taking advantage of HTML 5".

Mr Gundotra also said that engineers were working hard to bring the Chrome browser to the Mac and that while there was no date for delivery, "we are making progress to get it out as fast as we can".

Twitter purchase

During a question and answer session, Mr Gundotra was quizzed on rumours circulating in the blogosphere that Google is looking to buy the micro-blogging service Twitter.
Twitter
Google said "no comment" on rumours it may want to buy Twitter

"I'm a big fan of Twitter but we don't as a policy comment on rumour or speculation," he said.

Meanwhile, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone has said that he has been "flooded with requests for a response to the latest internet speculation about where Twitter is headed".

In a blog entitled Sometimes We Talk, Mr Stone wrote: "It should come as no surprise that Twitter engages in discussions with other companies regularly and on a variety of subjects.

"Our goal is to build a profitable, independent company and we're just getting started."
(BBC)

Gene defect clue to male pill

A male contraceptive pill could be a step closer after US researchers identified a gene flaw linked to male infertility.

The study of Iranian families found mutations in the CATSPER1 gene which controls a protein determining sperm movement.

Researchers say the finding could lead to treatments for infertile men - and potentially to a new contraceptive.

Condoms or a vasectomy are still the only male contraceptive choices.

UK researchers from the Medical Research Council Reproductive Biology Unit in have previously carried out surveys showing that men would be willing to take a contraceptive pill if one was available.

Hyperactive

In this study, the researchers were looking at a population with high rates of disease-causing gene mutations to investigate genetic causes of deafness.

However, while they were collecting genetic information, the scientists discovered that two families had different DNA mutations in the CATSPER1 gene.

The affected men's infertility was diagnosed using standard semen analysis. There were no other identifiable causes for their fertility problems.


This may also provide a new target for a revolutionary male contraceptive
Dr Allan Pacey, University of Sheffield

Both mutations would likely lead to either a much shortened, non-working version of the protein the gene controls, or no protein at all.

Neither mutation was found in the DNA of 576 Iranian individuals who were also screened.

Tests on mice have previously found CATSPER1 mutations cause infertility because they affect sperm "hyperactivation" - the ability to move with the required energy and speed to enter the female egg during fertilisation.

Dr Michael Hildebrand, who led the research, said: "We have identified CATSPER1 as a gene that is involved in non-syndromic male infertility in humans, a finding which could lead to future infertility therapies that replace the gene or the protein.

He added: "Identification of targets such as the CATSPER1 gene that are involved in the fertility process and are specific for sperm - potentially minimising side effects of a drug targeting the protein's function - provide new targets for a pharmacological male contraceptive."

'Much work to be done'

A potential approach is to target CATSPER1 is immunocontraception, where antibodies are developed that bind to a targeted protein and block its function.

But the researchers stress that immunocontraception is still in the early stages of development and that, in order to be useful, it will need to be proven effective, safe and reversible.

Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: "Hyperactivation is important both to get sperm to move along the oviduct toward the egg and also in giving them sufficient power and thrust to be able to fertilise it.

"The fact that this study now suggests similar CATSPER mutations may also occurred in humans could explain why some men are unable to father a child naturally, in spite of having apparently normal semen quality."

But he added: "The authors are correct that this may also provide a new target for a revolutionary male contraceptive, although there is much work to be done in order to prove that approach would be both effective and safe."
(BBC)

OECD names and shames tax havens

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has published its blacklist of non-cooperative tax havens.

Costa Rica, Malaysia, and the Philippines are the countries listed as not having agreed to tax standards.

Uruguay had originally been listed too, but later protested that it had been wrongly included.

After listening to its arguments the OECD said it was happy the country had agreed to its tax transparency rules.

The list is part of efforts agreed at the G20 summit to clamp down on havens.

There is also a list of 38 places that have agreed to improve standards but not yet done so, such as Gibraltar, Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino.

'Willing to co-operate'

On Thursday, G20 leaders agreed to take sanctions against tax havens using the OECD list as its basis.

In their communique, they agreed, "to take action against non-cooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens".

"We stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems. The era of banking secrecy is over."

Uruguay had objected to its inclusion on the list, published earlier on Friday.

The South American country sent a letter to Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the OECD, from its finance minister Alvaro García.

He informed the OECD that Uruguay had formally endorsed the body's standards on transparency and exchange of information.

"I am pleased that Uruguay joins a growing number of nations willing to co-operate in fighting tax evasion and other tax abuses," said Mr Gurria.

Pressure

Angel Gurria, secretary general of the OECD, said that the G20 summit had helped to focus minds on the issue of tax havens.


There were frosty negotiations between France and China over the inclusion of Macau
Paul Mason, BBC Two Newsnight economics editor

The tax haven that vanished

"We've had more progress in the last two weeks on this matter than we've had in the last 10 or 12 years," he told the BBC.

He added that the progress had come despite the leaders not specifying what sanctions they would take.

"[Non-cooperating countries] will move because they know the question of sanctions, however ill-defined that was, is going to affect them somehow."

The Philippines is already reported to be taking steps to remove itself from the blacklist.

"The Philippine government would take the necessary steps to ensure we meet their expectations," Trade Secretary Peter Favila told the Associated Press news agency.

"It is really up to us to prove them wrong."

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said that his country should not be on the blacklist at all.

"We should not be in that category as, in practice, we have been committed to OECD requirements," he said in a statement.

Russia to unveil spaceship plans

By Anatoly Zak
Science reporter

The Russian space agency is expected to unveil development plans for a next-generation manned spacecraft on Monday.

Roscosmos should name the ship's prime developer, which has competed to win government funds for the project.

The proposed new spacecraft should enter into service sometime towards the end of the next decade.

It will replace the venerable three-seat Soyuz capsule, which has carried Russian cosmonauts into orbit for more than four decades.

Although Roscosmos has remained tight-lipped about the upcoming presentation, the agency has quietly released its requirements for a future manned transport system to the Russian space industry.

In doing so, the agency has shed some light on the ship's likely design and its possible missions.

The spacecraft, currently known only by the Russian abbreviation PPTS, for Prospective Piloted Transport System, would be able to reach low-Earth orbit or to enter orbit around the Moon.

Several configurations

The Earth-orbiting version of the ship would have a mass of 12 tonnes, carry a crew of six, along with no less than 500kg of cargo; while its "lunar cousin" would weigh 16.5 tonnes, have four seats and be capable of delivering and bringing back 100kg of cargo.

The unmanned cargo version of the vehicle would be required to carry no less than 2,000kg to Earth orbit, and return at least 500kg back to the planet's surface.

Roscosmos has reserved the option of making the crew module of the spacecraft reusable, reckoning that a cone-shaped capsule could fly up to 10 missions during its 15-year lifespan.
Soyuz "lifeboat"
Soyuz also acts as the "lifeboat" at the International Space Station

In providing the technical specifications for the new spacecraft, the agency has also given a glimpse of its vision for the future of the Russian space programme.

Although the most capable version of the ship is meant to support expeditions to the Moon, "intermediate" configurations are intended for a variety of other tasks.

For example, the agency wants the future developer to evaluate the possibility of sending the ship into high-inclination orbits extending towards Earth's poles, usually frequented by Earth-observation and spy satellites.

While in Earth's orbit, the new spacecraft would have to be able to fly 30-day-long autonomous missions; or stay no less than a year in space when it is docked to the International Space Station, or to a possible future Russian space station. (Currently, Soyuz spacecraft, which serve as "lifeboats" for the International Space Station, have to be replaced roughly every six months due to potential deterioration of some of their systems, such as batteries and propellant).

Martian possibilities

In addition to docking to the station, the spacecraft would have to be able to conduct servicing of unmanned vehicles in space and even remove pieces of space junk from their orbits, as well as conduct unspecified military tasks.

The lunar version of the ship would be capable of flying no less than 200 days in space when docked to a space station in orbit around the Moon.

A number of Russian reports have described recent studies looking at the possibility of a lunar orbital station, LOS. Such an outpost would also serve as a hub for lunar modules, which would deliver crews from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon.
Concept system (Astrium)
Europe will now pursue its own plans, but incorporate Russian technology

The 200-day mission requirement probably provides some hint about Russian plans to eventually build a permanently occupied lunar outpost, similar to Nasa's lunar base developed under its Constellation programme.

In a recent interview with the ITAR-TASS news agency, Aleksei Krasnov, the head of the manned space flight directorate at Roscosmos, said that the future spacecraft could serve as the "core" technology for a future Martian mission.

This apparently referred to the role that the vehicle might play as a delivery and return craft for the large complex that would be needed to raise a manned assault on the Red Planet.

By the time the new Russian spacecraft could enter service around 2018, the Soyuz family will have logged more than half a century in service.

In recent years, Russia and Europe did look at the possibility of developing the next-generation vehicle together, but the two parties could not agree on the work share. Europe will now separately pursue the possibility of upgrading its robotic ATV space freighter to a manned ship, but still using some Russian technology.

Powerful launcher

As reported by BBC News last month, Roscosmos has already completed a tender for the new rocket that would carry the future manned vehicles into space.

Although the agency has delayed the announcement of the winner until at least 6 April, many unofficial sources in Russia maintain that TsSKB Progress, based in Samara, will lead the development of the new rocket.

It is believed that the launch vehicle will feature a three-booster first-stage, each booster equipped with powerful RD-180 engines, burning a mix of liquid oxygen and kerosene.
Angara-7 launch (Anatoly Zak/Russianspaceweb.com)
Russia will also introduce a new fleet of launchers in the next few years

The engine was originally developed by Moscow-based NPO Energomash for the US Atlas 5 rocket and its performance to date has been impressive.

Ironically, Russian officials rejected a design of the yet-to-be flown Angara rocket that featured the RD-180. Now, the power plant, which has earned such a fine reputation across the Atlantic, could return vindicated to its native land

The second stage of the new manned rocket would probably sport a pair of RD-0124 engines, currently in use on the Soyuz-2 rocket. Thus, both stages of the future launcher would be equipped with the newest existing power plants, greatly reducing the cost and the risk to the overall project.
(BBC)

N Korea skips first launch chance

The first window in North Korea's five-day satellite launch plan has passed with no sign of a blast-off.

A South Korean expert said conditions in the launch area were not ideal, with "somewhat strong" winds and cloud.

Neighbouring states suspect the launch of the rocket is a cover for a long-range missile test and have urged North Korea not to go ahead.

North Korea has said the launch will happen between 4-8 April, during windows from 0200 to 0700 GMT.

Observers say North Korea is very likely to stick to this commitment, firing the rocket at the first sign of good weather during the given times.

Preparations for the satellite launch were complete and lift-off would take place "soon", North Korean state media have reported earlier on Saturday.

But conditions were "not ideal", with "somewhat strong winds" and partial cloud at the launch site in north-eastern North Korea, said a South Korean Meteorological Administration spokesman.

North Korea has said its rocket will pass over Japan. The first stage is expected to fall into the sea west of Japan, and the second stage dropping into the Pacific.

South Korea said it had convened a meeting of a special task-force, while security chiefs in Japan were said to be on stand-by. The US, Japan and South Korea have deployed warships with radar to seas off North Korea to monitor the launch.

Japan's government at one point said that North Korea was believed to have launched a rocket, but later retracted the statement saying the information was incorrect.

'Stern response'

"Preparations for launching Kwangmyongsong-2, an experimental communications satellite, by carrier rocket Unha-2 have been completed at the satellite launching ground in the east coastal area of the DPRK (North Korea)," KCNA said.

"The satellite will be launched soon," it added.

An undated photo of North Korean missile test

North Korea's missile programme

In recent days satellite images have shown activity at the Musudan-ri site and the rocket positioned upright on the launch pad.

North Korea says it is pursuing peaceful space development, but its neighbours believe it could be planning to test a new long-range weapon.

They suspect the launch is a cover for a test of the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile, which could put parts of the US within reach of the communist state.

Washington, Seoul and Tokyo have all criticised the launch plan, which would violate UN resolutions.

Earlier this week, US President Barack Obama and his South Korean counterpart Lee Myung-bak said a "stern, united response" would follow any rocket launch by North Korea.

Japan, meanwhile, has said it will shoot down the rocket if it misfires and endangers Japanese territory. It has sent two destroyers equipped with missile interceptor technology into the Sea of Japan (East Sea).

North Korea's military has threatened immediate retaliation if "even the slightest effort" is made to intercept its rocket.

The secretive country first test-fired a Taepodong-2 missile in July 2006. The missile failed shortly after launch and crashed into the sea.

Three months later it carried out a nuclear test. Talks between North Korea and five other nations - China, Russia, South Korean, the US and Japan - on an aid-for-disarmament deal are currently stalled.
(BBC)

Mere Christianity (1) :Preface

By
C.S. Lewis
Contents:
Preface
Book I. Right And Wrong As A Clue To The Meaning Of The Universe
1. The Law of Human Nature
2. Some Objections
3. The Reality of the Law
4. What Lies Behind the Law
5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy
Book II What Christians Believe

1. The Rival Conceptions of God
2. The Invasion
3. The Shocking Alternative
4. The Perfect Penitent
5. The Practical Conclusion
Book III. Christian Behaviour
1. The Three Parts of Morality
2. The "Cardinal Virtues"
3. Social Morality
4. Morality and Psychoanalysis
5. Sexual Morality
6. Christian Marriage
7. Forgiveness
8. The Great Sin
9. Charity
10. Hope
11. Faith
12. Faith
Book IV. Beyond Personality: Or First Steps In The Doctrine Of The Trinity
1. Making and Begetting
2. The Three-Personal God
3. Time and Beyond Time
4. Good Infection
5. The Obstinate Toy Soldiers
6. Two Notes
7. Let's Pretend
8. Is Christianity Hard or Easy?
9. Counting the Cost
10. Nice People or New Men
11. The New Men

Preface
The contents of this book were first given on the air, and then published in three separate parts as The
Case for Christianity (1943), (*) Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1945). In the printed versions I made a few additions to what I had said at the microphone, but otherwise left the text much as it had been. A "talk" on the radio should, I think, be as like real talk as possible, and should not sound like an essay being read aloud. In my talks I had therefore used all the contractions
and colloquialisms I ordinarily use in conversation. In the printed version I reproduced this, putting don't and we've for do not and we have. And wherever, in the talks, I had made the importance of a word clear by the emphasis of my voice, I printed it in italics.
[*] Published in England under the title Broadcast Talks.
----
I am now inclined to think that this was a mistake—an undesirable hybrid between the art of speaking and the art of writing. A talker ought to use variations of voice for emphasis because his medium naturally lends itself to that method: but a writer ought not to use italics for the same purpose. He has his own, different, means of bringing out the key words and ought to use them. In this edition I have expanded the contractions and replaced most of the italics by recasting the sentences in which they occurred: but without altering, I hope, the "popular" or "familiar" tone which I had all along intended. I have also added and deleted where I thought I understood any part of my subject better now than ten years ago or where I knew that the original version had been misunderstood by others.be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian "denominations." You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist,a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic.
This omission is intentional (even in the list I have just given the order is alphabetical). There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially "high," nor especially "low," nor especially anything else. But in this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. I had more than one reason for thinking this. In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history which ought never to be treated except by real experts.
I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others. And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son. Finally, I got the impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial matters than in the defence of what Baxter calls mere"hristianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.
So far as I know, these were my only motives, and I should be very glad if people would not draw fanciful inferences from my silence on certain disputed matters.
For example, such silence need not mean that I myself am sitting on the fence. Sometimes I am. There are questions at issue between Christians to which I do not think I have the answer. There are some to which I may never know the answer: if I asked them, even in a better world, I might (for all I know)be answered as a far greater questioner was answered: "What is that to thee? Follow thou Me." But there are other questions as to which I am definitely on one side of the fence, and yet say nothing. For I was not writing to expound something I could call "my religion," but to expound "mere" Christianity, which is what it is and was what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.
Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But surely my reason for not doing so is obvious? To say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions. And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this. The Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake.
It is very difficult so to dissent from them that you will not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic. And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of all Monotheism whatever. To radical Protestants it seems that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is imperilled: that Polytheism is risen again. Hence it is hard so to dissent from them that you will not appear something worse than a heretic—an idolater, a Pagan. If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about "mere" Christianity—if any topic makes utterly unprofitable reading for those who do not yet believe that the Virgin's son is God—surely this is it.
Oddly enough, you cannot even conclude, from my silence on disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant. For this is itself one of the disputed points. One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements. When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point "really matters" and the other replies: "Matter? Why, it's absolutely essential."
All this is said simply in order to make clear what kind of book I was trying to write; not in the least
to conceal or evade responsibility for my own beliefs. About those, as I said before, there is no secret.To quote Uncle Toby: "They are written in the Common-Prayer Book."
The danger dearly was that I should put forward as common Christianity anything that was peculiar to the Church of England or (worse still) to myself. I tried to guard against this by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic)and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the
Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed. I did not have the remaining books similarly "vetted" because in them, though differences might arise among Christians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denominations.
So far as I can judge from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or "mere" Christianity. In that way it may possibly be of some help in silencing the view that, if we omit the disputed points, we shall have left only a vague and bloodless H.C.F. The H.C.F. turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which
the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all.
If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited. Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.
So much for my omissions on doctrine. In Book III, which deals with morals, I have also passed over some things in silence, but for a different reason. Ever since I served as an infantryman in the first world war I have had a great dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line. As a result I have a reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed. No man, I suppose, is tempted to every sin. It so happens that the impulse which makes men gamble has been left out of my make-up; and, no doubt, I pay for this by lacking some good impulse of which it is the excess or perversion. I therefore did not feel myself qualified to give advice about permissable and impermissable gambling: if there is any permissable, for I do not claim to know even that. I have also said nothing about birth-control. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I did not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers and expenses from which I am protected; having no pastoral office which obliged me to do so.
Far deeper objections may be felt—and have been expressed— against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said—so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully—"Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?"
They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)
A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.
It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense.And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at
Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no
question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have.
There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions—as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.
It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.
In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular doorkeeper?"
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those Who have chosen different doors and to
those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

Blessed Assurance

Music composed by Phoebe Knapp (1839-1908)
Lyrics written by Frances Crosby (1820-1915)


(1)
Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!
O what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
Born of his Spirit, washed in his blood.
This is my story, this is my song,
Praising my Savior all the day long;
This is my story, this is my song,
Praising my Savior all the day long.
(2)
Perfect submission, perfect delight,
Visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
Angels descending bring from above
Echoes of mercy, whispers of love.
This is my story, this is my song,
Praising my Savior all the day long;
This is my story, this is my song,
Praising my Savior all the day long.
(3)
Perfect submission, all is at rest;
I in my Savior am happy and blest,
Watching and waiting, looking above,
Filled with his goodness, lost in his love.
This is my story, this is my song,
Praising my Savior all the day long;
This is my story, this is my song,
Praising my Savior all the day long.

SOME SIMPLE RULES OF INTERPRETATION...

I.
1. Who is speaking?
2. Who is being spoken to?
3. What is being spoken about?

II.
1. WHO? WHAT? WHEN? WHERE? WHY? HOW? HOW MANY?

III.
1. What does it say?
2. What does it mean?
3. How do we apply it?

IV.
1. “SPECS”...things to look for:

S = sins to forsake
P = promises to claim
E = examples to follow
C = commands to obey
S = stumbling blocks to avoid

V.
1. If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.
2. If the literal sense makes NO sense, seek another sense until it makes good sense.
3. If the literal sense seems to make good sense, but appears to be in contradiction to other
parts of the Word, use cross-references, check original Hebrew or Greek, check
context, tenses of words, arrangement of contradictory words and see other translations.

Problems in interpreting in the Holy Bible

One of the chief reasons why so many religions, denominations and cults have arisen that use the Bible to justify their false religions, is the fact that many of these groups have leaders who are “natural men”. That is, they are not born-again, blood washed believers. They profess to be Christians, but they have never been regenerated.

Because they are not true believers, and are still in the “natural man” state - the state of sinful Adam, not possessing the Holy Spirit - the Bible teaches that such “natural men” are INCAPABLE of understanding the spiritual things in the Bible, and as a result, WILL and MUST misinterpret the Bible:

“But a NATURAL MAN does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he CANNOT understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” 1 Corinthians 2:14

Natural men almost always take only “parts” of the Bible for their religion, usually ignore the context - what is said before and after any particular passage - and twist most other parts of the Scriptures to conform to what a particular denominational beliefs, that can’t be found in the Scriptures.

However, things are quite different with a TRUE believer who has been regenerated and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit, Who is from God, THAT WE MIGHT KNOW THE THINGS FREELY GIVEN TO US BY GOD, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those TAUGHT BY THE SPIRIT, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” 1 Corinthians 2:12 & 13

A true believer, according to 1 Corinthians 2:12 & 13, has the capacity to UNDERSTAND and KNOW the revealed things in the Scriptures given to us. But even the true believer has to be TAUGHT BY THE SPIRIT indwelling him, how to understand spiritual things.

A believer is likewise required to STUDY the Bible and meditate on it in order to properly and spiritually discern its message (2 Timothy 2:15; Psalm 119:148). In addition to this, God expects a Spirit-led Christian to know his OWN written and spoken language, in how it is grammatically constructed, and how it is used. God expects the Christian to know all figures of speech (such as analogy, metaphor, symbolism, allegory, etc.) used in their own language and, of which, are also used in the Bible. It is surprising to see many Christians trying to understand their Bible, WITHOUT having a grasp of their OWN language with its own construction, figures of speech and rules of sentence structure.

No doubt some blame can be laid at the doorstep of the schools that no longer stress or drill their students in grammatical analysis and sentence diagramming, but God expects the Christian to KNOW these things. Thus, for some believers, for those lacking in a strong educational background, it may be necessary to review what may have been forgotten, or learn, on one’s own, the rules of grammar and figures of speech.

This little booklet intends to be a helpful supplement in showing the Christian how even the Holy Spirit, Who is the Divine Author of the Bible, uses and follows the rules of grammatical construction and many figures of speech. This, His Own Book, is the greatest piece of literature ever produced or ever will be produced on the face of this planet, and we as Christians need to study it diligently to gain the utmost from it.
www.gnbcbible.com

Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

An interview with Amit Goswami
by Craig Hamilton
Before you read any further, stop and close your eyes for a moment. Now consider the following question: for the moment your eyes were closed, did the world still exist even though you weren't conscious of it? How do you know? If this sounds like the kind of unanswerable brain teaser your Philosophy 101 professor used to employ to stretch your philosophical imagination, you might be surprised to discover that there are actually physicists at reputable universities who believe they have answered this question—and their answer, believe it or not, is no.

Now consider something even more intriguing. Imagine for a moment the entire history of the universe. According to all the data scientists have been able to gather, it exploded into existence some fifteen billion years ago, setting the stage for a cosmic dance of energy and light that continues to this day. Now imagine the history of planet Earth. An amorphous cloud of dust emerging out of that primordial fireball, it slowly coalesced into a solid orb, found its way into gravitational orbit around the sun, and through a complex interaction of light and gases over billions of years, generated an atmosphere and a biosphere capable of not only giving birth to, but sustaining and proliferating, life.

Now imagine that none of the above ever happened. Consider instead the possibility that the entire story only existed as an abstract potential—a cosmic dream among countless other cosmic dreams—until, in that dream, life somehow evolved to the point that a conscious, sentient being came into existence. At that moment, solely because of the conscious observation of that individual, the entire universe, including all of the history leading up to that point, suddenly came into being. Until that moment, nothing had actually ever happened. In that moment, fifteen billion years happened. If this sounds like nothing more than a complicated backdrop for a science fiction story or a secular version of one of the world's great creation myths, hold on to your hat. According to physicist Amit Goswami, the above description is a scientifically viable explanation of how the universe came into being.

Goswami is convinced, along with a number of others who subscribe to the same view, that the universe, in order to exist, requires a conscious sentient being to be aware of it. Without an observer, he claims, it only exists as a possibility. And as they say in the world of science, Goswami has done his math. Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics, and leaning heavily on the ancient mystical traditions of the world, Goswami is building a case for a new paradigm that he calls "monistic idealism," the view that consciousness, not matter, is the foundation of everything that is.

A professor of physics at the University of Oregon and a member of its Institute of Theoretical Science, Dr. Goswami is part of a growing body of renegade scientists who in recent years have ventured into the domain of the spiritual in an attempt both to interpret the seemingly inexplicable findings of their experiments and to validate their intuitions about the existence of a spiritual dimension of life. The culmination of Goswami's own work is his book The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. Rooted in an interpretation of the experimental data of quantum physics (the physics of elementary particles), the book weaves together a myriad of findings and theories in fields from artificial intelligence to astronomy to Hindu mysticism in an attempt to show that the discoveries of modern science are in perfect accord with the deepest mystical truths.

Quantum physics, as well as a number of other modern sciences, he feels, is demonstrating that the essential unity underlying all of reality is a fact which can be experimentally verified. Because of the enormous implications he sees in this scientific confirmation of the spiritual, Goswami is ardently devoted to explaining his theory to as many people as possible in order to help bring about what he feels is a much needed paradigm shift. He feels that because science is now capable of validating mysticism, much that before required a leap of faith can now be empirically proven and, hence, the materialist paradigm which has dominated scientific and philosophical thought for over two hundred years can finally be called into question.

Interviewing Amit Goswami was a mind-bending and concept-challenging experience. Listening to him explain many ideas with which he seemed perfectly at home, required, for me, such a suspension of disbelief that I at times found myself having to stretch far beyond anything I had previously considered. (Goswami is also a great fan of science fiction whose first book, The Cosmic Dancers, was a look at science fiction through the eyes of a physicist.)

But whether or not one ultimately accepts some of his more esoteric theories, one has to respect the creativity and passion with which he is willing to inquire. Goswami is clearly willing to take risks with his ideas and is fervently dedicated to sharing his investigation with audiences around the world. He speaks widely at conferences and other forums about the exciting discoveries of the new science and their significance, not only for the way science is done, but for society as a whole. In India, the country of his birth, he is actively involved in a growing organized movement to bridge the gap between science and spirituality, through which he is helping to pioneer a graduate institute in "consciousness studies" based on the premise that consciousness is the ground of all being.

Goswami is considered by some to be a pioneer in his field. By attempting to bring material realism to its knees and to integrate all fields of knowledge in a single unified paradigm, he hopes to pave the way for a new holistic worldview in which spirit is put first. In fact, as far as we know, he is the only new paradigm scientist who is taking a clear stand against the relativism so popular among new age thinkers. At a time when the decay of human values and the erosion of any sense of meaning has reached epidemic scale, it is hard to imagine what could be more important than this.

And yet, for all the important and valuable work he seems to be doing, in the end we are left with serious reservations as to whether Goswami's approach will ultimately lead to the kind of transformation he hopes for. Thinkers such as Huston Smith and E. F. Schumacher have pointed to what they feel is an arrogance, or at least, a kind of naiveté, on the part of scientists who believe they can expand the reach of their discipline to somehow include or explain the spiritual dimension of life. Such critics suggest that the very attempt to scientifically validate the spiritual is itself a product of the same materialistic impulses it intends to uproot and, because of this, is ultimately only capable of reducing spirit, God and the transcendent to mere objects of scientific fascination.

Is science capable of proving the reality of the transcendent dimension of life? Or would science better serve the spiritual potential of the human race by acknowledging the inherent limits of its domain? The following interview confronts us with these questions.
interview

WIE: In your book The Self-Aware Universe you speak about the need for a paradigm shift. Could you talk a bit about how you conceive of that shift? From what to what?

Amit Goswami: The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents—building blocks—of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is the belief—all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation." So in this view, what human beings—you and I—think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm.

Now, the opposite view is that everything starts with consciousness. That is, consciousness is the ground of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes "downward causation." In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal potency—it does not deny that there is causal power from elementary particles upward, so there is upward causation—but in addition it insists that there is also downward causation. It shows up in our creativity and acts of free will, or when we make moral decisions. In those occasions we are actually witnessing downward causation by consciousness.

WIE: In your book you refer to this new paradigm as "monistic idealism." And you also suggest that science seems to be verifying what a lot of mystics have said throughout history—that science's current findings seem to be parallel to the essence of the perennial spiritual teaching.

AG: It is the spiritual teaching. It is not just parallel. The idea that consciousness is the ground of being is the basis of all spiritual traditions, as it is for the philosophy of monistic idealism—although I have given it a somewhat new name. The reason for my choice of the name is that, in the West, there is a philosophy called "idealism" which is opposed to the philosophy of "material realism," which holds that only matter is real. Idealism says no, consciousness is the only real thing. But in the West that kind of idealism has usually meant something that is really dualism—that is, consciousness and matter are separate. So, by monistic idealism, I made it clear that, no, I don't mean that dualistic kind of Western idealism, but really a monistic idealism, which has existed in the West, but only in the esoteric spiritual traditions. Whereas in the East this is the mainstream philosophy. In Buddhism, or in Hinduism where it is called Vedanta, or in Taoism, this is the philosophy of everyone. But in the West this is a very esoteric tradition, only known and adhered to by very astute philosophers, the people who have really delved deeply into the nature of reality.

WIE: What you are saying is that modern science, from a completely different angle—not assuming anything about the existence of a spiritual dimension of life—has somehow come back around, and is finding itself in agreement with that view as a result of its own discoveries.

AG: That's right. And this is not entirely unexpected. Starting from the beginning of quantum physics, which began in the year 1900 and then became full-fledged in 1925 when the equations of quantum mechanics were discovered, quantum physics has given us indications that the worldview might change. Staunch materialist physicists have loved to compare the classical worldview and the quantum worldview. Of course, they wouldn't go so far as to abandon the idea that there is only upward causation and that matter is supreme, but the fact remains that they saw in quantum physics some great paradigm changing potential. And then what happened was that, starting in 1982, results started coming in from laboratory experiments in physics. That is the year when, in France, Alain Aspect and his collaborators performed the great experiment that conclusively established the veracity of the spiritual notions, and particularly the notion of transcendence. Should I go into a little bit of detail about Aspect's experiment?

WIE: Yes, please do.

AG: To give a little background, what had been happening was that for many years quantum physics had been giving indications that there are levels of reality other than the material level. How it started happening first was that quantum objects—objects in quantum physics—began to be looked upon as waves of possibility. Now, initially people thought, "Oh, they are just like regular waves." But very soon it was found out that, no, they are not waves in space and time. They cannot be called waves in space and time at all—they have properties which do not jibe with those of ordinary waves. So they began to be recognized as waves in potential, waves of possibility, and the potential was recognized as transcendent, beyond matter somehow.

But the fact that there is transcendent potential was not very clear for a long time. Then Aspect's experiment verified that this is not just theory, there really is transcendent potential, objects really do have connections outside of space and time—outside of space and time! What happens in this experiment is that an atom emits two quanta of light, called photons, going opposite ways, and somehow these photons affect one another's behavior at a distance, without exchanging any signals through space. Notice that: without exchanging any signals through space but instantly affecting each other. Instantaneously.

Now Einstein showed long ago that two objects can never affect each other instantly in space and time because everything must travel with a maximum speed limit, and that speed limit is the speed of light. So any influence must travel, if it travels through space, taking a finite time. This is called the idea of "locality." Every signal is supposed to be local in the sense that it must take a finite time to travel through space. And yet, Aspect's photons—the photons emitted by the atom in Aspect's experiment—influence one another, at a distance, without exchanging signals because they are doing it instantaneously—they are doing it faster than the speed of light. And therefore it follows that the influence could not have traveled through space. Instead the influence must belong to a domain of reality that we must recognize as the transcendent domain of reality.

WIE: That's fascinating. Would most physicists agree with that interpretation of his experiment?

AG: Well, physicists must agree with this interpretation of this experiment. Many times of course, physicists will take the following point of view: they will say, "Well, yeah sure, experiments. But this relationship between particles really isn't important. We mustn't look into any of the consequences of this transcendent domain—if it can even be interpreted that way." In other words, they try to minimize the impact of this and still try to hold on to the idea that matter is supreme.

But in their heart they know, as is very evidenced. In 1984 or '85, at the American Physical Society meeting at which I was present, it is said that one physicist was heard saying to another physicist that, after Aspect's experiment, anyone who does not believe that something is really strange about the world must have rocks in his head.

WIE: So what you are saying is that from your point of view, which a number of others share, it is somehow obvious that one would have to bring in the idea of a transcendent dimension to really understand this.

AG: Yes, it is. Henry Stapp, who is a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, says this quite explicitly in one of his papers written in 1977, that things outside of space and time affect things inside space and time. There's just no question that that happens in the realm of quantum physics when you are dealing with quantum objects. Now of course, the crux of the matter is, the surprising thing is, that we are always dealing with quantum objects because it turns out that quantum physics is the physics of every object. Whether it's submicroscopic or it's macroscopic, quantum physics is the only physics we've got. So although it's more apparent for photons, for electrons, for the submicroscopic objects, our belief is that all reality, all manifest reality, all matter, is governed by the same laws. And if that is so, then this experiment is telling us that we should change our worldview because we, too, are quantum objects.

WIE: These are fascinating discoveries which have inspired a lot of people. A number of books have already attempted to make the link between physics and mysticism. Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters have both reached many, many people. In your book, though, you mention that there was something that you felt had not yet been covered which you feel is your unique contribution to all this. Could you say something about what you are doing that is different from what has been done before in this area?

AG: I'm glad that you asked that question. This should be clarified and I will try to explicate it as clearly as I can. The early work, like The Tao of Physics, has been very important for the history of science. However, these early works, in spite of supporting the spiritual aspect of human beings, all basically held on to the material view of the world nevertheless. In other words, they did not challenge the material realists' view that everything is made up of matter. That view was never put to any challenge by any of these early books. In fact, my book was the first one which challenged it squarely and which was still based on a rigorous explication in scientific terms. In other words, the idea that consciousness is the ground of being, of course, has existed in psychology, as transpersonal psychology, but outside of transpersonal psychology no tradition of science and no scientist has seen it so clearly.

It was my good fortune to recognize it within quantum physics, to recognize that all the paradoxes of quantum physics can be solved if we accept consciousness as the ground of being. So that was my unique contribution and, of course, this has paradigm-shifting potential because now we can truly integrate science and spirituality. In other words, with Capra and Zukav—although their books are very good—because they held on to a fundamentally materialist paradigm, the paradigm is not shifting, nor is there any real reconciliation between spirituality and science. Because if everything is ultimately material, all causal efficacy must come from matter. So consciousness is recognized, spirituality is recognized, but only as causal epiphenomena, or secondary phenomena. And an epiphenomenal consciousness is not very good. I mean, it's not doing anything. So, although these books acknowledge our spirituality, the spirituality is ultimately coming from some sort of material interaction.

But that's not the spirituality that Jesus talked about. That's not the spirituality that Eastern mystics were so ecstatic about. That's not the spirituality where a mystic recognizes and says, "I now know what reality is like, and this takes away all the unhappiness that one ever had. This is infinite, this is joy, this is consciousness." This kind of exuberant statement that mystics make could not be made on the basis of epiphenomenal consciousness. It can be made only when one recognizes the ground of being itself, when one cognizes directly that One is All.

Now, an epiphenomenal human being would not have any such cognition. It would not make any sense to cognize that you are All. So that is what I am saying. So long as science remains on the basis of the materialist worldview, however much you try to accommodate spiritual experiences in terms of parallels or in terms of chemicals in the brain or what have you, you are not really giving up the old paradigm. You are giving up the old paradigm and fully reconciling with spirituality only when you establish science on the basis of the fundamental spiritual notion that consciousness is the ground of all being. That is what I have done in my book, and that is the beginning. But already there are some other books that are recognizing this too.

WIE: So there are people corroborating your ideas?

AG: There are people who are now coming out and recognizing the same thing, that this view is the correct way to go to explain quantum physics and also to develop science in the future. In other words, the present science has shown not only quantum paradoxes but also has shown real incompetence in explaining paradoxical and anomalous phenomena, such as parapsychology, the paranormal—even creativity. And even traditional subjects, like perception or biological evolution, have much to explain that these materialist theories don't explain. To give you one example, in biology there is what is called the theory of punctuated equilibrium. What that means is that evolution is not only slow, as Darwin perceived, but there are also rapid epochs of evolution, which are called "punctuation marks." But traditional biology has no explanation for this.

However, if we do science on the basis of consciousness, on the primacy of consciousness, then we can see in this phenomenon creativity, real creativity of consciousness. In other words, we can truly see that consciousness is operating creatively even in biology, even in the evolution of species. And so we can now fill up these gaps that conventional biology cannot explain with ideas which are essentially spiritual ideas, such as consciousness as the creator of the world.

WIE: This brings to mind the subtitle of your book, How Consciousness Creates the Material World. This is obviously quite a radical idea. Could you explain a bit more concretely how this actually happens in your opinion?

AG: Actually, it's the easiest thing to explain, because in quantum physics, as I said earlier, objects are not seen as definite things, as we are used to seeing them. Newton taught us that objects are definite things, they can be seen all the time, moving in definite trajectories. Quantum physics doesn't depict objects that way at all. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves. Right? So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality? Because, when we see, we only see actual events. That's starting with us. When you see a chair, you see an actual chair, you don't see a possible chair.

WIE: Right—I hope so.

AG: We all hope so. Now this is called the "quantum measurement paradox." It is a paradox because who are we to do this conversion? Because after all, in the materialist paradigm we don't have any causal efficacy. We are nothing but the brain, which is made up of atoms and elementary particles. So how can a brain which is made up of atoms and elementary particles convert a possibility wave that it itself is? It itself is made up of the possibility waves of atoms and elementary particles, so it cannot convert its own possibility wave into actuality. This is called a paradox. Now in the new view, consciousness is the ground of being. So who converts possibility into actuality? Consciousness does, because consciousness does not obey quantum physics. Consciousness is not made of material. Consciousness is transcendent. Do you see the paradigm-changing view right here—how consciousness can be said to create the material world? The material world of quantum physics is just possibility. It is consciousness, through the conversion of possibility into actuality, that creates what we see manifest. In other words, consciousness creates the manifest world.
WIE: To be honest, when I first saw the subtitle of your book I assumed you were speaking metaphorically. But after reading the book, and speaking with you about it now, I am definitely getting the sense that you mean it much more literally than I had thought. One thing in your book that really stopped me in my tracks was your statement that, according to your interpretation, the entire physical universe only existed in a realm of countless evolving possibilities until at one point, the possibility of a conscious, sentient being arose and that, at that point, instantaneously, the entire known universe came into being, including the fifteen billion years of history leading up to that point. Do you really mean that?

AG: I mean that literally. This is what quantum physics demands. In fact, in quantum physics this is called "delayed choice." And I have added to this concept the concept of "self-reference." Actually the concept of delayed choice is very old. It is due to a very famous physicist named John Wheeler, but Wheeler did not see the entire thing correctly, in my opinion. He left out self-reference. The question always arises, "The universe is supposed to have existed for fifteen billion years, so if it takes consciousness to convert possibility into actuality, then how could the universe be around for so long?" Because there was no consciousness, no sentient being, biological being, carbonbased being, in that primordial fireball which is supposed to have created the universe, the big bang. But this other way of looking at things says that the universe remained in possibility until there was self-referential quantum measurement—so that is the new concept. An observer's looking is essential in order to manifest possibility into actuality, and so only when the observer looks, only then does the entire thing become manifest—including time. So all of past time, in that respect, becomes manifest right at that moment when the first sentient being looks.

It turns out that this idea, in a very clever, very subtle way, has been around in cosmology and astronomy under the guise of a principle called the "anthropic principle." That is, the idea has been growing among astronomers—cosmologists anyway—that the universe has a purpose. It is so fine-tuned, there are so many coincidences, that it seems very likely that the universe is doing something purposive, as if the universe is growing in such a way that a sentient being will arise at some point.

WIE: So you feel there's a kind of purposiveness to the way the universe is evolving; that, in a sense, it reaches its fruition in us, in human beings?

AG: Well, human beings may not be the end of it, but certainly they are the first fruition, because here is then the possibility of manifest creativity, creativity in the sentient being itself. The animals are certainly sentient, but they are not creative in the sense that we are. So human beings certainly right now seem to be an epitome, but this may not be the final epitome. I think we have a long way to go and there is a long evolution to occur yet.

WIE: In your book you even go so far as to suggest that the cosmos was created for our sake.

AG: Absolutely. But it means sentient beings, for the sake of all sentient beings. And the universe is us. That's very clear. The universe is self-aware, but it is self-aware through us. We are the meaning of the universe. We are not the geographical center of the universe—Copernicus was right about that—but we are the meaning center of the universe.

WIE: Through us the universe finds its meaning?

AG: Through sentient beings. And that doesn't have to be anthropocentric in the sense of only earthlings. There could be beings, sentient beings on other planets, in other stars—in fact I am convinced that there are—and that's completely consonant with this theory.

WIE: This human-centered—or even sentient-being-centered—stance seems quite radical at a time when so much of modern progressive thought, across disciplines from ecology to feminism to systems theory, is going in the opposite direction. These perspectives point more toward interconnectedness or interrelatedness, in which the significance of any one part of the whole—including one species, such as the human species—is being de-emphasized. Your view seems to hark back to a more traditional, almost biblical kind of idea. How would you respond to proponents of the prevailing "nonhierarchical" paradigm?

AG: It's the difference between the perennial philosophy that we are talking about, monistic idealism, and what is called a kind of pantheism. That is, these views—which I call "ecological worldviews" and which Ken Wilber calls the same thing—are actually denigrating God by seeing God as limited to the immanent reality. On the face of it, this sounds good because everything becomes divine—the rocks, the trees, all the way to human beings, and they are all equal and they are all divinity—it sounds fine, but it certainly does not adhere to what the spiritual teachers knew. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says to Arjuna, "All these things are in me, but I am not in them." What does he mean by that? What he means is that "I am not exclusively in them."

So there is evolution, in other words, in the manifest reality. Evolution happens. That means that the amoeba is, of course, a manifestation of consciousness, and so is the human being. But they are not in the same stage. Evolutionarily, yes, we are ahead of the amoeba. And these theories, these ecological-worldview people, they don't see that. They don't rightly understand what evolution is because they are ignoring the transcendent dimension, they are ignoring the purposiveness of the universe, the creative play. Ken Wilber makes this point very, very well in his book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.

WIE: So you would say they have part of the picture but that without this other aspect that you are bringing in, their view is very—

AG: It's very limited. And that's why pantheism is very limited. When Westerners started going to India, they thought it was pantheistic because it has many, many gods. Indian philosophy tends to see God in nature, in many things—they worship rocks sometimes, that kind of thing—so they thought it was pantheistic and only somewhat later did they realize that there is a transcendent dimension. In fact, the transcendent dimension is developed extremely well in Indian philosophy, whereas the transcendent dimension in the West is hidden in the cave of a very few esoteric systems such as the Gnostics and a few great masters like Meister Eckhart. In Jesus' teachings you can see it in the Gospel according to Thomas. But you have to really dig deep to find that thread in the West. In India, in the Upanishads and the Vedanta and the Bhagavad Gita, it is very much explicit. Now, pantheism sounds very good. But it's only part of the story. It's a good way to worship, it's a good way to bring spirituality into your daily life, because it is good to acknowledge that there is spirit in everything. But if we just see the diversity, see the God in everything, but don't see the God which is beyond every particular thing, then we are not realizing our potential. We are not realizing our Self. And so, truly, Self-realization involves seeing this pantheistic aspect of reality, but also seeing the transcendent aspect of reality.

WIE: In addition to being a scientist, you are also a spiritual practitioner. Could you talk a little bit about what brought you to spirituality?

AG: Well, I'm afraid that is a pretty usual, almost classic, case. The ideal classic case, of course, is the famous case of the Buddha, who recognized at the age of twenty-nine that all of his pleasure as a prince was really a waste of time because there is suffering in the world. For me it was not that drastic, but when I was about thirty-seven the world started to fall apart on me. I lost my research grant, I had a divorce and I was very lonely. And the professional pleasure that I used to get by writing physics papers stopped being pleasure.

I remember one time when I was at a conference and all day I had been going around, beating my own drums and arguing with people. Then in the evening when I was alone, I felt so lonely. And I realized that I had heartburn, and I had already exhausted a full bottle of Tums and still it would not go away. I discovered suffering; I discovered suffering literally. And it is that discovery of suffering that brought me to spirituality, because I couldn't think of anything else. I couldn't think of any other way—although I had given up the idea of God entirely and had been a materialist physicist for quite some time. In fact, when my young children asked me one time, "Are you an atheist?" I said something like, "Yeah." And, "Is there a God?" And I said, "No, I don't believe in God." That kind of thing was quite common for me to say. But in that era, around thirty-seven, that particular world—where God didn't exist and where the meaning of life came just from brain-pursuits of glory in a profession—just did not satisfy me and did not bring happiness. In fact it was full of suffering. So I came to meditation. I wanted to see if there was any way of at least finding some solace, if not happiness. And eventually great joy came out of it, but that took time. And also, I must mention that I got married too, and the challenge of love was a very important one. In other words, I very soon discovered after I got married for the second time that love is very different than what I thought it was. So I discovered with my wife the meaning of love, and that was a big contribution also to my own spirituality.

WIE: It's interesting that, while you turned to spirituality because you felt that science wasn't really satisfying your own search for truth, you have nevertheless remained a scientist throughout.

AG: That's true. It's just that my way of doing science changed. What happened to me, the reason that I lost the joy of science, was because I had made it into a professional trip. I lost the ideal way of doing science, which is the spirit of discovery, the curiosity, the spirit of knowing truth. So I was not searching for truth anymore through science, and therefore I had to discover meditation, where I was searching for truth again, truth of reality. What is the nature of reality after all? You see the first tendency was nihilism, nothing exists; I was completely desperate. But meditation very soon told me that no, it's not that desperate. I had an experience. I had a glimpse that reality really does exist. Whatever it was I didn't know, but something exists. So that gave me the prerogative to go back to science and see if I could now do science with new energy and new direction and really investigate truth instead of investigating because of professional glory.

WIE: How then did your newly revived interest in truth, this spiritual core to your life, inform your practice of science?

AG: What happened was that I was not doing science anymore for the purpose of just publishing papers and doing problems which enabled you to publish papers and get grants. Instead, I was doing the really important problems. And the really important problems of today are very paradoxical and very anomalous. Well, I'm not saying that traditional scientists don't have a few important problems. There are a few important problems there too. But one of the problems I discovered very quickly that would lead me, I just intuited, to questions of reality was the quantum measurement problem.

You see, the quantum measurement problem is supposed to be a problem which forever derails people from any professional achievement because it's a very difficult problem. People have tried it for decades and have not been able to solve it. But I thought, "I have nothing to lose and I am going to investigate only truth, so why not see?" Quantum physics was something I knew very well. I had researched quantum physics all my life, so why not do the quantum measurement problem? So that's how I came to ask this question, "What agency converts possibility into actuality?" And it still took me from 1975 to 1985 until, through a mystical breakthrough, I came to recognize this.

WIE: Could you describe that breakthrough?

AG: Yes, I'd love to. It's so vivid in my mind. You see, the wisdom was in those days—and this was in every sort of book, The Tao of Physics, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Fred Alan Wolf's Taking the Quantum Leap, and some other books too—everywhere the wisdom was that consciousness must be an emergent phenomenon of the brain. And despite the fact that some of these people, to their credit, were giving consciousness causal efficacy, no one could explain how it happened. That was the mystery because, after all, if it's an emergent phenomenon of the brain, then all causal efficacy must ultimately come from the material elementary particles. So this was a puzzle to me. This was a puzzle to everybody. And I just couldn't find any way to solve it. David Bohm talked about hidden variables, so I toyed with his ideas of an explicate order and an implicate order, that kind of thing—but this wasn't satisfactory because in Bohm's theory, again, there is no causal efficacy that is given to consciousness. It is all a realist theory. In other words, it is a theory on which everything can be explained through mathematical equations. There is no freedom of choice, in other words, in reality. So I was just struggling and struggling because I was convinced that there is real freedom of choice.

So then one time—and this is where the breakthrough happened—my wife and I were in Ventura, California and a mystic friend, Joel Morwood, came down from Los Angeles, and we all went to hear Krishnamurti. And Krishnamurti, of course, is extremely impressive, a very great mystic. So we heard him and then we came back home. We had dinner and we were talking, and I was giving Joel a spiel about my latest ideas of the quantum theory of consciousness and Joel just challenged me. He said, "Can consciousness be explained?" And I tried to wriggle my way through that but he wouldn't listen. He said, "You are putting on scientific blinders. You don't realize that consciousness is the ground of all being." He didn't use that particular word, but he said something like, "There is nothing but God." And something flipped inside of me which I cannot quite explain. This is the ultimate cognition, that I had at that very moment. There was a complete about-turn in my psyche and I just realized that consciousness is the ground of all being. I remember staying up that night, looking at the sky and having a real mystical feeling about what the world is, and the complete conviction that this is the way the world is, this is the way that reality is, and one can do science. You see, the prevalent notion—even among people like David Bohm—was, "How can you ever do science without assuming that there is reality and material and all this? How can you do science if you let consciousness do things which are 'arbitrary'?" But I became completely convinced—there has not been a shred of doubt ever since—that one can do science on this basis. Not only that, one can solve the problems of today's science. And that is what is turning out. Of course all the problems did not get solved right on that night. That night was the beginning of a new way of doing science.

WIE: That's interesting. So that night something really did shift for you in your whole approach. And everything was different after that?

AG: Everything was different.

WIE: Did you then find, in working out the details of what it would mean to do science in this context, that you were able to penetrate much more deeply or that your own scientific thinking was transformed in some way by this experience?

AG: Right. Exactly. What happened was very interesting. I was stuck, as I said, I was stuck with this idea before: "How can consciousness have causal efficacy?" And now that I recognized that consciousness was the ground of being, within months all the problems of quantum measurement theory, the measurement paradoxes, just melted away. I wrote my first paper which was published in 1989, but that was just refinement of the ideas and working out details. The net upshot was that the creativity, which got a second wind on that night in 1985, took about another three years before it started fully expressing itself. But ever since I have been just blessed with ideas after ideas, and lots of problems have been solved—the problem of cognition, perception, biological evolution, mind-body healing. My latest book is called Physics of the Soul. This is a theory of reincarnation, all fully worked out. It has been just a wonderful adventure in creativity.

WIE: So it sounds pretty clear that taking an interest in the spiritual, in your case, had a significant effect on your ability to do science. Looking through the opposite end of the lens, how would you say that being a scientist has affected your spiritual evolution?

AG: Well, I stopped seeing them as separate, so this identification, this wholeness, the integration of the spiritual and the scientific, was very important for me. Mystics often warn people, "Look, don't divide your life into this and that." For me it came naturally because I discovered the new way of doing science when I discovered spirit. Spirit was the natural basis of my being, so after that, whatever I do, I don't separate them very much.

WIE: You mentioned a shift in your motivation for doing science—how what was driving you started to turn at a certain point. That's one thing that we've been thinking about a lot as we've been looking into this issue: What is it that really motivates science? And how is that different from what motivates spiritual pursuit? Particularly, there have been some people we have discussed—thinkers like E. F. Schumacher or Huston Smith, for example—who feel that ever since the scientific revolution, when Descartes's and Newton's ideas took hold, the whole approach of science has been to try to dominate or control nature or the world. Such critics question whether science could ever be a genuine vehicle for discovering the deepest truths, because they feel that science is rooted in a desire to know for the wrong reasons. Obviously, in your work you have been very immersed in the scientific world—you know a lot of scientists, you go to conferences, you're surrounded by all of that and also, perhaps, you struggle with that motivation in yourself. Could you speak a little more about your experience of that?

AG: Yes, this is a very, very good question; we have to understand it very deeply.

The problem is that in this pursuit, this particular pursuit of science, including the books that we mentioned earlier, The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters, even when spirituality is recognized within the materialist worldview, God is seen only in the immanent aspect of divinity. What that means is: you have said that there is only one reality. By saying that there is only one reality—material reality—even when you imbue matter with spirituality, because you are still dealing with only one level, you are ignoring the transcendent level. And therefore you are only looking at half of the pie; you are ignoring the other half. Ken Wilber makes this point very, very well. So what has to be done of course—and that's when the stigma of science disappears—is to include the other half into science. Now, before my work, I think it was very obscure how this inclusion has to be done. Although people like Teilhard de Chardin, Aurobindo or Madame Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophy movement, recognized that such a science could have come, very few could actually see it.

So what I have done is to give actual flesh to all these visions that took place early in the century. And when you do that, when you recognize that science can be based on the primacy of consciousness, then this deficiency isn't there anymore. In other words then, the stigma that science is only separateness goes away. The materialist science is a separatist science. The new science, though, says that the material part of the world does exist, the separative movement is part of reality also, but it is not the only part of reality. There is separation, and then there is integration. So in my book The Self-Aware Universe I talk about the hero's journey for the entire scientific endeavor. I said that, well, four hundred years ago, with Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and others, we started the separatist sail and we went on a separate journey of separateness, but that's only the first part of the hero's journey. Then the hero discovers and the hero returns. It is the hero's return that we are now witnessing through this new paradigm.