Deepak Chopra Baits Atheists
Via Deepak Chopra's twitter feed (from which I am hilariously blocked), a selection of recent snippets with added commentary:
Question for atheists: Does your brain make you an atheist or do you have choice in the matter?Last I checked, my brain and its inherent interactions/chemical processes are what I use to make all decisions. The lack of any sort of proof or evidence for god(s) is what made me an atheist. Let's try to pay attention to the language we've all agreed upon, alrighty?
No one knows enough to be an atheistWhat does this even mean? Granted, I could say this about 89% of what comes out of Chopra's mouth/keyboard, but still. Is he saying that no one knows everything about everything, therefore you can't say there's no god(s)? Does he realize that the sentence, "No one knows enough to be an agardenfairyian" holds exactly as much weight as his tweet?
Since atheists believe in a mechanistic brain they have no choice.A "mechanistic" brain, as opposed to a "metaphysical" brain? What is Chopra saying here? That the brain does not work by chemical/physical processes? He's a doctor, right? What sort of brain does he believe in, exactly?
A mechanistic universe would make everyone a zombieSure. Just like how a "metaphysical" universe makes everyone an annoying, blathering, quantum-abusing, woo-peddler. "Zombies"? Come on, man, are you really saying that atheists are zombies? I can hope to at least be a Walking Dead-type zombie, I guess....
I'm not an atheist because militant dogmatic atheism has low standardsI love the phrase, "militant dogmatic atheism". I find it hilarious. What do we do that is "militant"? We maybe disagree with people who say there's an invisible man in the sky. Perhaps we refuse to say that homosexuals are "evil" because some 2000 year old book says that a man who lays with a man is an "abomination" (nevermind that King David might have been a smidge light in the leather sandals). Sure, we will likely scoff when people say things like, "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual", but we're hardly deserving of the "militant" label.
I also love how he throws "dogmatic" in there too, just to mirror the religious folk. Here's an education point: most atheists, if they're worth their salt at all, are open to being convinced of just about any idea if the evidence is there. We'll change our mind - most of us have abandoned a religious upbringing and confronted family, friends, and our inner biases towards what "feels good" to come to the evidence-based conclusion that there are likely no god(s). We'll change back if the evidence shows its head, but it won't. It's not there. And no amount of special pleading by Chopra about "consciousness" or "quantum theory" is going to change that.
In my opinion(no need to believe me) both dogmatic #atheists and fervent believers have a relatively low standard for understanding realityAnd from his YouTube video of December 5th entitled, "Why I Am Not An Atheist, A Theist, Or An Agnostic", some quotes to which I'd like to briefly respond:
...I don't believe in the god that atheists are attacking...In my experience, atheists don't "attack god(s)" because we don't think they're real. It's the same thing with, say, bridge trolls. If someone believed in bridge trolls and told me that the trolls know the way to everlasting life and that I should join them in Troll Worship at the local Trollagogue, I would attack their reasoning and logic, not trolls...because they're not real. See the difference?
Today, science has replaced belief, and science is all about empirical evidence, but I believe that empirical evidence is also basically replacing reality with an image of reality. Because what we call "empirical evidence" or facts are not really attributes of the universe, but as I've said before, descriptions of modes of perception and knowing in a human nervous system to human questions asked in consciousness.Where to begin, where to begin...? How the hell is science, "replacing reality with an image of reality"? What does that even mean? Poppycock, I say! Poppycock!
...I also believe that if you go to the ground of being and our identity shifts to the ground of being then we see ourselves as one with the Source of all that exists, and this is the Source of our intuition, insight, imagination, creativity, free will, choice making. Also the Source of atomic values such as truth, goodness beauty, harmony, evolution, and forgiveness, and tolerance, and love, and compassion, and joy, and equanimity.If you gave the Dalai Lama a kilo of ecstasy and a nice back massage, he might come up with this level of flummery.
...the truth is we are neither the observer nor the observation, but the pre-existing consciousness that splits in every moment into observer and observed and processed, and because this is an infinite universe, there is room for everyone in the infinite mind because it is the infinite mind that is the atheist, the theist and the agnostic as well.It's nice that he wraps it up by including everyone under the umbrella of wooery. You can tell that he's taking the information from quantum mechanics (the "splitting" of "pre-existing" stuff into changing entities) and ignorantly applying it to the macro-world as if it is transferrable. It's not. Sure, observing can change the outcome of an experiment, but is that really worth bringing in the weirdness of an "infinite mind"?
How about, "No", Scott.