Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/video/god-future-10186173&tab=9482930&section=1206872&playlist=10185323"]Does God Have a Future?[/URL] 12 part video debate

In one corner Shermer and Harris, in the other Chopra and some crazy bitch.

:woot:

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=RedskinRat;845083][URL="http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/video/god-future-10186173&tab=9482930&section=1206872&playlist=10185323"]Does God Have a Future?[/URL] 12 part video debate

In one corner Shermer and Harris, in the other Chopra and some crazy bitch.

:woot:[/quote]

That "crazy bitch" is Jean Houston, who has 2 Ph.D.'s and has published a number of intelligent and well-received books. I'm not saying that she is right in her claims but she deserves respect.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845087]That "crazy bitch" is Jean Houston, who has 2 Ph.D.'s and has published a number of intelligent and well-received books. I'm not saying that she is right in her claims but she deserves respect.[/quote]

She won't get any from me. A Ph. D in religion? <[I]point_laugh[/I]>

And don't get me started on the Ph.D. in psychology.....

She's the epitome of an intellectual BS artist who is an integral part of the reason the modern world (and by that I mean '[I]Kids today[/I]') is in decline.

Have I mentioned before that I despise hippies?

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

Deepak? He's one of the lamest hucksters on the planet. He is a class weasel on par with gurus and televangelists of the present and the past in selling crap to people for a handsome profit.

There is no sense in arguing with believers about religion because it really boils down to them having faith in something from nothing while being critical of nothing itself.

Two videos that might be of interest...

Dawkins exposes Deepak for the fraud he is:

[yt]Z-FaXD_igv4[/yt]

A must see lecture by the brilliant Lawrence Krauss:

[yt]7ImvlS8PLIo[/yt]

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

Appreciated saden1.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=RedskinRat;845102]She won't get any from me. A Ph. D in religion? <[I]point_laugh[/I]>

And don't get me started on the Ph.D. in psychology.....

She's the epitome of an intellectual BS artist who is an integral part of the reason the modern world (and by that I mean '[I]Kids today[/I]') is in decline.

Have I mentioned before that I despise hippies?[/quote]

Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

Saden, you are correct that it is a pointless argument. Believers will support their arguments with presumptions which are not shared by non-believers. On the other hand, those claiming to use "pure" reason like Shermer not only bring their own set of presuppositions to the table, they also cannot use reason to debunk a reality which by definition is beyond human reason.

The history of Western philosophy is a history of failed attempts to either prove or disprove the existence of God and this debate will do nothing to change that history.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845321]Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.[/quote]

I just want to add that having a Ph. D. in theology is a great accomplishment. At the end of the day though we arrive at what Thomas Paine said:

[quote]The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology#cite_note-66"][/URL]

-The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine
[/quote]

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=saden1;845341]I just want to add that having a Ph. D. in theology is a great accomplishment. At the end of the day though we arrive at what Thomas Paine said:[/quote]

Well done.

Some people think that theologians are all religious people. But you don't have to be a religious person to study religion, just as you don't have to be a rock to study geology.

I know some very un-religious people with Ph.D.'s in religion. They study religion so that they can understand reality in a deep, educated way with perspectives not unlike those of Thomas Paine.

Given the violence that sometimes stems from religion, we need people who understand religion in advanced ways, although some people fail to recognize this need.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=RedskinRat;845083][URL="http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/video/god-future-10186173&tab=9482930&section=1206872&playlist=10185323"]Does God Have a Future?[/URL] 12 part video debate

In one corner Shermer and Harris, in the other Chopra and [SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]some crazy bitch.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

:woot:[/quote]

That uses LSD.

Credibility thrown right out the window....
:laughing2

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;845345]That uses LSD.

Credibility thrown right out the window....
:laughing2[/quote]If there's going to be a relevant debate about the existence of God, I certainly wouldn't be sending up Chopra and Harris.

But again to Lotus & saden's points, this debate has been going on for well over 2000 yrs. with no "winner".

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

Saden and Sammy, I agree with your critiques of Chopra. He bamboozles people with cheap, shallow imitations of Hindu philosophy so that he can make a good living.

That said, Shermer is not a whole lot better. He often fails when it comes to an either/or fallacy. That is, he will say that his answer is right and the other answer is wrong, when in fact deep logical thinking reveals that both perspectives could be correct. Religion and science are not always an either/or; sometimes they agree and are a both/and, and Shermer regularly neglects this angle.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845412]Religion and science are not always an either/or; sometimes they agree and are a both/and, [/quote]Agree 100%.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845321]Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.[/quote]

I've met the crazy bitch (and lots like her), listened to her debate people who are science based which is why I regard her as yet another of intelligentsia's smoke and mirrors crew. Use some big words and wow the crowd. 'Woowoo', as Shermer put it.

[quote=Lotus;845321]Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?[/quote]

No, I wouldn't 'ignorantly' dismiss it, it's as valid a Ph. D. as a Ph. D. in Plate Spinning. We can discuss this further if you'd like?

[quote=Lotus;845321]And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.[/quote]

You misrepresent my argument nicely, but please allow me to correct you. If I'm Pro-Shermer/Harris (my idea of true intellectuals) how can you extrapolate an anti-intellectual bias?

My gues is you're an argument re-framer. Try again.

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845412]Religion and science are not always an either/or; sometimes they agree and are a both/and, and Shermer regularly neglects this angle.[/quote]

Please post an example of religion and science agreeing on something that isn't a Natural Law? Thanks.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=RedskinRat;845418]I've met the crazy bitch (and lots like her), listened to her debate people who are science based which is why I regard her as yet another of intelligentsia's smoke and mirrors crew. Use some big words and wow the crowd. 'Woowoo', as Shermer put it.



No, I wouldn't 'ignorantly' dismiss it, it's as valid a Ph. D. as a Ph. D. in Plate Spinning. We can discuss this further if you'd like?



You misrepresent my argument nicely, but please allow me to correct you. [B]If I'm Pro-Shermer/Harris (my idea of true intellectuals) how can you extrapolate an anti-intellectual bias?[/B]

My gues is you're an argument re-framer. Try again.

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.[/quote]

You have an extremely narrow and impoverished idea of what a "true intellectual" is. I feel sorry for you on this point.

So far in your posts you have broadly dismissed a Ph.D. in religion twice (calling it the same as plate spinning is hardly a compliment). You have also broadly dismissed all Ph.D.'s in psychology. Statements such as yours could be in the dictionary as examples of anti-intellectualism. If you don't see this, oh well. I'm re-framing nothing; you just aren't recognizing the nature of your arguments.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=RedskinRat;845419]Please post an example of religion and science agreeing on something that isn't a Natural Law? Thanks.[/quote]


I am interested in the answer to this question too. As far as I am aware science deals with matters of science involving discovery and evidence, and religion deals conjectures about our origins and the teaching of morals based on ancient books. If we dig deep enough one will realize religion is no closer to the truth than a which doctor.

BTW, Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation" is a wonderful read that highlights the difference between religion and science...very short and easy to read.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=RedskinRat;845419]Please post an example of religion and science agreeing on something that isn't a Natural Law? Thanks.[/quote]

Since science only works within the purview of laws of nature, it only makes claims in terms of "natural law," so it is impossible to mention a point of agreement outside of "natural law" because of the restrictions within science itself.

With this caveat in mind, I could mention a million things in terms of the agreements between religion and science.

But to mention JUST ONE, quantum physics unhinges the solidity of the universe as understood in the Newtonian paradigm. The quantum notion of the universe is one where the universe is soft and fluid, without "objective" hard edges, and reality is mutliple rather than singular. Quantum physics teaches us that to say that matter exists is problematic but to say that it does not exist is also problematic.

Likewise, Hindu Vedanta philosophy (as well as some Christian mystics such as Meister Eckhart) teaches us that the material universe is soft and fluid, consisting of multiple realities rather than a singular "objective" reality. Vedanta teaches that matter is an illusion, a sacred true reality appearing as an illusory material reality. From the standpoint of Vedanta, just as with quantum physics, to say that matter exists is problematic but to say that it does not exist is also problematic. Here science and religion agree.

Since you posed the question, perhaps you should try reading <The Dancing Wu Li Masters> or <The Tao of Physics>. Basic stuff that is now decades old.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=saden1;845436]I am interested in the answer to this question too. As far as I am aware science deals with matters of science involving discovery and evidence, and religion deals conjectures about our origins and the teaching of morals based on ancient books. If we dig deep enough one will realize religion is no closer to the truth than a which doctor.

BTW, Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation" is a wonderful read that highlights [B]the difference between religion and science[/B]...very short and easy to read.[/quote]

Yes, Harris's book is short and easy to read. But Harris aims his work at fundamentalist Christians and the world of religion is much, much bigger than just that group of people. Harris's claims are therefore somewhat limited in application.

Please notice that my claim is not that religion and science have no differences. My claim is that they ALSO have many points of agreement.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845433]You have an extremely narrow and impoverished idea of what a "true intellectual" is. I feel sorry for you on this point.[/quote]

That is your opinion, you are basing your opinion on a statement you either misunderstood or chose to incorrectly interpret. Intellect should hold up to the scientific method, if not it's pseudointellectual posturing (as displayed by Chopra and the crazy bitch). You may be a groupie for coffee house poseurs but I'm not.

[quote=Lotus;845433]So far in your posts you have broadly dismissed a Ph.D. in religion twice (calling it the same as plate spinning is hardly a compliment). You have also broadly dismissed all Ph.D.'s in psychology.[/quote]

If you don't understand the obvious analogy of plate spinning then the issue is with your abilities not my statement. Psychology is an extremely subjective topic, lots of hypotheses, few established theories and much that is disputed. This doesn't make it bad per se but compared to a more easily measured, agreed upon field it's not what I'd class as admirable.

[quote=Lotus;845433]Statements such as yours could be in the dictionary as examples of anti-intellectualism. If you don't see this, oh well. I'm re-framing nothing; you just aren't recognizing the nature of your arguments.[/quote]

According to your logic I must hate Football as I hate the Cowboys. You clearly attempted to set my position as one of anti-intellectual, which it is not.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=RedskinRat;845452]That is your opinion, you are basing your opinion on a statement you either misunderstood or chose to incorrectly interpret. [B]Intellect should hold up to the scientific method, if not it's pseudointellectual posturing[/B] (as displayed by Chopra and the crazy bitch). You may be a groupie for coffee house poseurs but I'm not.



If you don't understand the obvious analogy of plate spinning then the issue is with your abilities not my statement. Psychology is an extremely subjective topic, lots of hypotheses, few established theories and much that is disputed. This doesn't make it bad per se but compared to a more easily measured, agreed upon field it's not what I'd class as admirable.



According to your logic I must hate Football as I hate the Cowboys. You clearly attempted to set my position as one of anti-intellectual, which it is not.[/quote]

Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

Some of you have indicated that you think that science gives certain knowledge while other disciplines (like psychology) are "subjective."

Please realize two things:
1) Werner Heisenberg won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that all scientific experiments involve the researcher and thus are, in a sense, "subjective." Thomas Kuhn demonstrated that scientific paradigms are not "objective" but reflect cultural configurations. As a result, no current philosophy of science describes science as purely objective.

2) Physics studies the properties of matter yet physicists cannot tell us precisely what matter is. Biology studies the properties of species yet has no accepted understanding of what a "species" is. Chemistry depends on the properties of atoms yet we have no finished concept of the atom.

Science is wonderful but let's recognize its limits.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845466]
Science is wonderful but let's recognize its limits.[/quote]

But ... But ... IT'S Science!!!

(you must understand Kowalski in Penguins of Madagascar, to fully appreciate the sentiment)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOb8f7sMcvk&feature=player_detailpage]PoM - Kowalski - I Am A Scientist - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845459]Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) [COLOR="Red"]You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means[/COLOR], as I said before.

Your call.[/quote]

That may be the best veiled way I ever saw someone call another a moron.
wow.....

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=saden1;845307]Deepak? He's one of the lamest hucksters on the planet. He is a class weasel on par with gurus and televangelists of the present and the past in selling crap to people for a handsome profit.

There is no sense in arguing with believers about religion because it really boils down to them having faith in something from nothing while being critical of nothing itself.

Two videos that might be of interest...

Dawkins exposes Deepak for the fraud he is:

[yt]Z-FaXD_igv4[/yt]

A must see lecture by the brilliant Lawrence Krauss:

[yt]7ImvlS8PLIo[/yt][/quote]

that chick at 1:58 of the first video had some pretty big tatas.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=RedskinRat;845419]Please post an example of religion and science agreeing on something that isn't a Natural Law? Thanks.[/quote]Here is a list of some famous Christian thinkers who made great contributions to science (this doesn't include those from other religions who also made great contributions while holding to their beliefs). Some pretty smart folks who obviously believed there was a harmony between science / religion.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science"]List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

There are obviously flaws/faults that can be found within each religion or its followers (there are also scientific theories that have flaws). But, to completely dismiss religion as "woo-woo", comparable to a "witch doctor", or in contradiction to science is a mistake, but to each his own.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845459]Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.[/quote]

Conveniently you left off the rest of the statement in brackets, yet again reframing an argument.

The insult washes off, you're obviously too emotionally involved in the discussion to stay on point. I get that a lot from people who imagine they're intellectually superior, particularly those of a religious bent (not to say that you are, Lotus, but I typically talk with moslems and christians on these kinds of topics).

I do appreciate your responses though and would be interested in continuing to explore our differences after the weekend.

Thanks for your time and efforts!

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845459]Then either:
1) Sartre, [B]Voltaire[/B], Camus, Plato, [B]Aristotle[/B], John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.[/quote]


Huh? Aristotal didn't use the scientific method, he developed the fundamental princpile of it...empiricism. As for Voltair, he championed [URL="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/#TowSciWitMet"]elimination of metaphysics[/URL] in science.


Intellect means wisdom...science is the pursuit of wisdom in all domains, in religion it is the wisdom of God.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845321]Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.[/quote]

It's one thing to study religion as a sociological construct, quite another to espouse belief. I'm as atheist as they come and I've taken quite a few religion courses... mainly as a means to understanding the craziness that comes out of people's mouths.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=Lotus;845466]Some of you have indicated that you think that science gives certain knowledge while other disciplines (like psychology) are "subjective."

Please realize two things:
1) Werner Heisenberg won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that all scientific experiments involve the researcher and thus are, in a sense, "subjective." Thomas Kuhn demonstrated that scientific paradigms are not "objective" but reflect cultural configurations. As a result, no current philosophy of science describes science as purely objective.

2) Physics studies the properties of matter yet physicists cannot tell us precisely what matter is. Biology studies the properties of species yet has no accepted understanding of what a "species" is. Chemistry depends on the properties of atoms yet we have no finished concept of the atom.

Science is wonderful but let's recognize its limits.[/quote]

All legitimately good points. Let's also recognize that proponents of religion have consistently clung to that which science does not yet know as proof that their outlandish claims are possible. Evangelists are like cockroaches, they live in the dark spaces not yet touched by the light of reason.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;846354]It's one thing to study religion as a sociological construct, quite another to espouse belief. [B]I'm as atheist as they come[/B] and I've taken quite a few religion courses... mainly as a means to understanding the craziness that comes out of people's mouths.[/quote]


I thought you were an avid believer a while back...so much so that you wanted to quite the site. What happened?

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=saden1;846369]I thought you were an avid believer a while back...so much so that you wanted to quite the site. What happened?[/quote]

I was never a believer, in any way shape or form. When I was tempted to quit it was because I felt there wasn't exactly equal footing as far as discussion was concerned, specifically in the off-topic forum. I was wrong, end of story, so I came back. And that's really it.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=saden1;846369]I thought you were an avid believer a while back...so much so that you wanted to quite the site. What happened?[/quote]I remember that, but I don't think it was BB. Can't think of who it was though.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=saden1;845638]Huh? Aristotal didn't use the scientific method, he developed the fundamental princpile of it...empiricism. As for Voltair, he championed [URL="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/#TowSciWitMet"]elimination of metaphysics[/URL] in science.


Intellect means wisdom...science is the pursuit of wisdom in all domains, in religion it is the wisdom of God.[/quote]

Yes, Aristotle did develop the principle of empiricism which is the foundation of modern scientific technique. But he did so using a philosophical, not experimental, method, and in that sense he talked about science but did not practice it. He established his arguments through rhetoric, not through scientific experiment. The question above was about scientific practice or method.

Same argument for Voltaire. He was a philosopher more than scientist. The claim above was strictly about scientists.

Re: Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer
 

[quote=RedskinRat;845532]Conveniently you left off the rest of the statement in brackets, yet again reframing an argument.

The insult washes off, you're obviously too emotionally involved in the discussion to stay on point. I get that a lot from people who imagine they're intellectually superior, particularly those of a religious bent (not to say that you are, Lotus, but I typically talk with moslems and christians on these kinds of topics).

I do appreciate your responses though and would be interested in continuing to explore our differences after the weekend.

Thanks for your time and efforts![/quote]

I did not reframe your argument by leaving off the brackets. The counterpoint I made works with brackets included. I have stayed right on topic.

And this is not an emotional argument for me. I am in no way an evangelical Christian.

However, above I presented you with a logical either/or which resides in your arguments. You have not yet told me which side is true.