The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Saturday, March 12, 2011


Oddly, at CNN's religion blogs, Deepak Chopra again spills his pseudo-intellectual cup all over the desk, complete with the usual half-understood science leading to unsupported assertions. Shall we begin? Let's.
I'm not thinking of the rather noisy campaign by a handful of die-hard atheists to demote and ridicule faith.
Nicely done, Chopra. Second sentence is a slap against the people who regularly stand up to your nonsense and make you look angry and foolish.
Despite the noisy atheists
Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Vic Stenger are all pretty noisy. Of course, they have all the evidence....
...two trends in spirituality and science have started to converge. One is the trend to seek God outside the church. This has given rise to a kind of spirituality based on personal experience, with an openness to accept Eastern traditions like meditation and yoga as legitimate ways to expand one's consciousness. If God is to be found anywhere, it is inside the consciousness of each person.
I would argue that this has given rise to annoying dreadlocked fellas who talk like "The Dude" and equally annoying women who are vegan and talk about "toxins" a lot. I would also suggest that having an "openness" to "expanding one's consciousness" usually doesn't involve science. Usually.
The other trend is a growing interest by scientists in questions about consciousness.
If you mean in a neurobiological sense, then sure. You, however, will often start talking about where the tuna sandwich you ate for lunch is when you remember it. A decent question, but you come across like you know the answer already. If I may use twitter lingo: #notyourareaofexpertise
When you use words like "intelligence" and "design" in discussing the patterns in nature, immediately you are tarred with the same brush as creationists, who have hijacked those terms to defend their religious beliefs.
Weird, eh? Just like when some older scientists used the word "God" - they were referring to nature, but you don't mind misrepresenting their words and claim Einstein and Hawking are religious. Right? week my foundation is hosting a symposium in Southern California where the gap between science and spirituality will be narrow (sic) somewhat, not on the basis of religion but on the basis of consciousness.
I'm curious how many neurologists, neurophysiologists, and others in related specialties will be in attendance or if Deepak will have the highest qualifications there?
Was mind also born in the same place outside space and time? Is the universe conscious? Do genes depend on quantum interactions? Science aims to understand nature down to its very essence, and now these once radical questions, long dismissed as unscientific, are unavoidable.
And in all likelihood, they'll be answered by scientists whose names you'll never know. They'll win Nobel prizes and awards and live comfortable lives, but those true heros of the world will never know the riches and popularity of a blathering nonsense peddler like you, Deepak. It's really sad to think about...not because those people will live in anonymity, but because of what it says about our society that you live in a mansion and have millions of dollars.
A whole new field known as quantum biology has sprung up, based on a true breakthrough - the idea that the total split between the micro world of the quantum and the macro world of everyday things may be a false split.
This may be true or may not, but Deepak discussing it is akin to Joe Rogan's stoned pontificating on subjects he barely understands. Interesting to listen to if you don't get annoyed at people speculating well beyond their depths.
If so, science will have to account for why the human brain, which lives in the macro world, derives its intelligence from the micro world. Either atoms and molecules are smart, or something makes them smart.
False dichotomy, much? Anthropomorphizing, much? Howzabout we let the smart scientists do their thing and we'll get the results when we do? K? K.
That something, I believe, will come down to a conscious universe.
There it is. He "believes" that a "conscious universe" is real. No proof, no evidence, no real understanding of what he's talking about, just an assertion. I believe we're done here. Oh, no, sorry, there's more...
The real goal of a new science will be to expand our reality so that spiritual truths are acceptable, along with many other subjective experiences that science has long dismissed as unreliable.
Um, no. This is special pleading before the fact. He's saying that whatever direction science goes, it should accept his assertions and other nonsense from years ago...just because. Here's a tip: They're "unreliable" for a reason.
We are conscious beings who live with purpose and meaning. It seems unlikely that these arose form a random, meaningless universe. The final answer to where they came from may shake science to its core. I certainly hope it does.
Conscious beings? Check. Live with purpose and meaning? Some yes, some no, most in a gray area. Random, meaningless universe? Absolutely. My hope is that whatever science discovers with respect to the brain and "consciousness" shakes this flakey spiritualism to its core.

1 Barbaric Yawps:

At 14/3/11 4:22 pm, Anonymous Yojimbo said...

Well, for all his blather, he got one thing right. "If God is to be found anywhere, it is inside the consciousness of each person." He reminds me of the scene in "The Ruling Class" when the Peter O'Toole character is asked why he thought he was god, and he replies "Simple - When I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself"


Post a Comment

<< Home