Chopra vs. Dawkins

[CFLarsen]

I suspect the remark about straw has some validity to it. I am now into the fourth chapter of Dawkins's book

Sheeesh, how long does it take you to read a book?

, and I have yet to find any place in which Chopra has fairly summarized Dawkins's arguments.

On the contrary, it seems to me that one of Dawkins's main points seems to have escaped Chopra: it is a false choice to say "Either there is an intelligence at work or everything is random." There are other possibilities. In the field of biology, natural selection is at work, which is neither intelligent nor random.

Yet Chopra offers this false choice in multiple parts of his essay.

If Chopra had read the book that he's rebutting, I find it difficult to believe that he would have failed to comprehend this point.

Deepak Chopra may be what Julia Sweeney says, but one thing he is not: Stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing.

There's a quote from the judge at a famous Danish trial (the result forced the Conservative government to resign), that fits what Chopra and his ilk are saying:

"We are still confused. But at a higher level."

 

[rdaneel]

I suspect the remark about straw has some validity to it. I am now into the fourth chapter of Dawkins's book, and I have yet to find any place in which Chopra has fairly summarized Dawkins's arguments.

To be honest, I haven't read Dawkins book, but even a layperson like me can spot familiar territory. The "straw" I mentioned mostly refers to his central argument in part 4.

Common sense finds it hard to take this argument seriously, because it leads to nonsense. The brain contains an enormous amount of water and salt. Are we to assume that water is intelligent, or salt is conscious? If they aren't, then we must assume that throwing water and salt together--along with about six other basic building blocks of organic chemicals--suddenly makes them intelligent.

It certainly seems to me that we've been here before with the anti-evolution "can't throw the ingredients of life in a pot and have life emerge" crowd.

I liked what one replies in the comments section said:

A computer contains an enormous amount of silicon. Do you think a bucket of sand could beat Kasparov at chess?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Witness the exchange with Hovind (the guy just outed with the male prostitute) ...

Wrong person.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The last sentence of the Dawkins/Collins debate in Time Magazine
...
Totally sig material

Why would you assume any material written by imprefect humans on god(s) is describing 100% what a real god(s) would be like?

That is why arguments against what people write about god(s) don't even come close to attacking the general notion of god(s).

 

[T'ai Chi]

On the subject of ad homs, it's good to remind that an ad hom takes the form:

You're an idiot, therefore your argument sucks

If the argument takes the form:

You're an idiot, and your argument sucks due to [insert non-fallacious argument here]

it is not an ad hom, but an insult, followed by a non-fallacious argument...

Actually, you're mistaken. An ad hom is replying to an assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

The first example is clearly one. The second example is clearly one too, it just happens to be ad hom followed by a more substantial reply.

In the case of Chopra, most of what was said was not an ad hom, or an insult, but an assertion of reality...

Your subjective opinion of reality, filtered through your senses and brain which often make mistakes, anyway.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your subjective opinion of reality, filtered through your senses and brain which often make mistakes, anyway.

Please inform us of the objective reality wrt Deepak Chopra.

 

[Brown]

Deepak Chopra may be what Julia Sweeney says, but one thing he is not: Stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing.

I suspect that this is correct. The man is not an idiot, but he still might be a fool.

Or, as George Carlin has described them, people can be stupid, full of $#!+, or f***ing nuts. In particular, some highly intelligent people can be incredibly full of $#!+. Thus, while Chopra is not stupid, his position might be untenable for other reasons. Further, it is important that one conclude that Chopra is full of $#!+ based upon the merit (or lack thereof) of his arguments, rather than say that Chopra is full of $#!+, so therefore his arguments must lack merit.

What seems most unusual is who Chopra is trying to persuade. His argument seems to be in favor of a deity that is not accepted by the majority of theists. It would be odd for Bible-believers to come out in support of his position, as he views the Almighty in a manner at odds with their theology.

Which is, of course, perfectly all right. To suggest that either Dawkins is right or that Bible-believing fundamentalists are right would be yet another false choice. Chopra is at liberty to try to show that both are wrong.

And yet, it is troubling in the extreme that, to make his case, Chopra mischaracterizes Dawkins's position, to the point of being deliberately misleading.

That said, I expect Chopra is probably being fairly accurate in part 4 of his essay, saying:

This brings us to another of Dawkins' [sic] major points.

4. The universe is neither intelligent nor conscious. Science doesn't need those ingredients to explain Nature and its workings. Starting with atoms and molecules governed by strict physical laws, we will eventually explain everything.

There may be some disagreement with this summary of Dawkins's position, perhaps quibbling, perhaps not. But having heard Dawkins speak and having read at least some of his work, I expect that he would agree that there is no evidence that the universe is intelligent or conscious, and that such propositions are not necessary to science in any event.

But what is Chopra's rebuttal? It is hardly scientific, and appears designed to appeal only to the uninformed:

Common sense finds it hard to take this argument seriously, because it leads to nonsense. The brain contains an enormous amount of water and salt. Are we to assume that water is intelligent, or salt is conscious? If they aren't, then we must assume that throwing water and salt together--along with about six other basic building blocks of organic chemicals--suddenly makes them intelligent. The bald fact is that Dawkins defends an absurd position because he can't make the leap to a different set of assumptions.

--Consciousness is part of existence. It wasn't created by molecules.
--Intelligence is an aspect of consciousness.
--Intelligence grows as life grows. Both evolve from within.
--The universe evolved along intelligent lines.

A basic course in biology (likely at the high school level, and certainly at the college level) involves a discussions of emergent properties, reductionist analysis, and scientific assumptions. Chopra apparently scorns them all. If a brain is conscious and intelligent, by Chopra's analysis, then the molecules that make up that brain must be conscious and intelligent as well. (It should then follow that the atoms that make up the molecules are conscious and intelligent, as are the protons and neutrons and electrons that make up the atoms, and the quarks that make up the sub-atomic particles, ad infinitum.)

Chopra labels this "common sense." But is it really?

Daily, matter is destroyed by conversion to energy. If this matter is conscious and intelligent, is this conversion tantamount to murder? Do nuclear power plants kill quadrillions upon quadrillions of conscious, intelligent beings every second by converting their mass to energy??

Leaving that metaphysical morass aside, why on earth should Dawkins--or any other scientist--"make the leap to a different set of assumptions" (Chopra's own words) in the absence of evidence supporting such a leap?

Here Chopra wants a free ride. With no evidence at all, he asserts that universal consciousness must exist because "There's no other way to account for it." Although he is careful to distance himself from "Intelligent Design" proponents, Chopra enjoys adopting one of their tactics: identify a real or imagined mystery, then baldly assert that there is no scientific explanation for it. Then claim victory by default.

I expect that if the universe were conscious and intelligent everywhere, this is a scientific assertion that could be tested. I have taken the liberty of trying to evoke some sort of conscious or intelligent response from a pebble lodged in my shoe, but by all the tests I've applied, the pebble is neither conscious nor intelligent. Similar tests could be devised, I expect, for bacteria and plants, and it would be up to the data to demonstrate consciousness or intelligence. In the absence of such data, there is no reason--whether denoted "common sense" or something else--to assume consciousness and intelligence are literally universal.

 

[CFLarsen]

I suspect that this is correct. The man is not an idiot, but he still might be a fool.

Or, as George Carlin has described them, people can be stupid, full of $#!+, or f***ing nuts. In particular, some highly intelligent people can be incredibly full of $#!+. Thus, while Chopra is not stupid, his position might be untenable for other reasons. Further, it is important that one conclude that Chopra is full of $#!+ based upon the merit (or lack thereof) of his arguments, rather than say that Chopra is full of $#!+, so therefore his arguments must lack merit.

What seems most unusual is who Chopra is trying to persuade. His argument seems to be in favor of a deity that is not accepted by the majority of theists. It would be odd for Bible-believers to come out in support of his position, as he views the Almighty in a manner at odds with their theology.

Not odd for some:

A 1990 Gallup poll found that 25 percent of Catholics in the United States believe in reincarnation. And it's not just America. Another recent survey, by the University of London, concluded that 28 percent of the people in France believe in reincarnation, while only 57 percent believe in God.
Source

That's where Chopra gets his support from. NewAgers have no problem holding conflicting beliefs.

Which is, of course, perfectly all right. To suggest that either Dawkins is right or that Bible-believing fundamentalists are right would be yet another false choice. Chopra is at liberty to try to show that both are wrong.

And yet, it is troubling in the extreme that, to make his case, Chopra mischaracterizes Dawkins's position, to the point of being deliberately misleading.

He has to. Because I got a preeeeetty good idea that Chopra knows that Dawkins is right. If Chopra was right, all he had to do was show Dawkins wrong. But he can't do that - and he knows it - so he has to misrepresent Dawkins' arguments.

That said, I expect Chopra is probably being fairly accurate in part 4 of his essay, saying:There may be some disagreement with this summary of Dawkins's position, perhaps quibbling, perhaps not. But having heard Dawkins speak and having read at least some of his work, I expect that he would agree that there is no evidence that the universe is intelligent or conscious, and that such propositions are not necessary to science in any event.

But what is Chopra's rebuttal? It is hardly scientific, and appears designed to appeal only to the uninformed:A basic course in biology (likely at the high school level, and certainly at the college level) involves a discussions of emergent properties, reductionist analysis, and scientific assumptions. Chopra apparently scorns them all. If a brain is conscious and intelligent, by Chopra's analysis, then the molecules that make up that brain must be conscious and intelligent as well. (It should then follow that the atoms that make up the molecules are conscious and intelligent, as are the protons and neutrons and electrons that make up the atoms, and the quarks that make up the sub-atomic particles, ad infinitum.)

Chopra labels this "common sense." But is it really?

Daily, matter is destroyed by conversion to energy. If this matter is conscious and intelligent, is this conversion tantamount to murder? Do nuclear power plants kill quadrillions upon quadrillions of conscious, intelligent beings every second by converting their mass to energy??

Good point.

Leaving that metaphysical morass aside, why on earth should Dawkins--or any other scientist--"make the leap to a different set of assumptions" (Chopra's own words) in the absence of evidence supporting such a leap?

Here Chopra wants a free ride. With no evidence at all, he asserts that universal consciousness must exist because "There's no other way to account for it." Although he is careful to distance himself from "Intelligent Design" proponents, Chopra enjoys adopting one of their tactics: identify a real or imagined mystery, then baldly assert that there is no scientific explanation for it. Then claim victory by default.

That is the irony of it: They - both NewAgers and Creationists - complain that science makes leaps of faith, but they themselves are doing nothing but.

I think that is one of the reasons - perhaps the main reason - why it is so hard for people to let go of their superstitious beliefs: They want and need it to be true, to the effect that they would rather dismiss reality in favor of their own private fantasies. When they start demanding that other people accept theses fantasies as real - e.g., by having homeopathy and other "alternative medicine" viewed as scientific, that's when it becomes dangerous.

I expect that if the universe were conscious and intelligent everywhere, this is a scientific assertion that could be tested. I have taken the liberty of trying to evoke some sort of conscious or intelligent response from a pebble lodged in my shoe, but by all the tests I've applied, the pebble is neither conscious nor intelligent. Similar tests could be devised, I expect, for bacteria and plants, and it would be up to the data to demonstrate consciousness or intelligence. In the absence of such data, there is no reason--whether denoted "common sense" or something else--to assume consciousness and intelligence are literally universal.

That is the question, isn't it? What is Chopra's definition of "consciousness"? I suspect he will fall back on "existence = conscious".

 

[ceo_esq]

Chopra is flatly wrong: the love between parent and child has been validated by science ...

I'm not sure that you're referring to "validation" in the same sense as Chopra. Science may have provided insight into a biological dimension of various forms of human attachment, but how does that furnish anyone with knowledge that Chopra loves his children?

 

[Brown]

He has to. Because I got a preeeeetty good idea that Chopra knows that Dawkins is right. If Chopra was right, all he had to do was show Dawkins wrong. But he can't do that - and he knows it - so he has to misrepresent Dawkins' arguments.

Although I don't disagree with these remarks, I think caution is in order.

It is very common for a person in disagreement with an opponent to impugn evil intent on the opponent's part: "He knows I'm right, but he's just disagreeing because [insert any nefarious motive or character deficit here]."

Indeed, false imputation of bad motive is one of the common causes of distrust, if not outright hatred, of atheists: it is often expressed that atheists KNOW that they're wrong, and they are just being arrogant/divisive/deceiving/disruptive/un-American/pro-immorality/etc.

The general assumption should be that the other side of a disagreement has a sincere point of view, unless there is substantial evidence of insincerity.

It seems to me that CFLarsen's point may be that repeated misrepresentation of another's position, perhaps combined with resort to arguments generally recognized as fallacious, could indicate a lack of sincerity. Those who feel that their views ought to be most convincing ought to argue fairly, and not resort to dirty tricks.

 

[Brown]

To muddy the waters further, Chopra has posted this essay by Candace B. Pert, Ph.D. (introduced by Chopra as an "internationally recognized psychopharmacologist who is a former Research Professor at Georgetown University School of Medicine and Section Chief at the National Institute of Mental Health").

Dr. Pert apparently agrees with Chopra's evaluation of Dawkins:

Richard Dawkins and his ilk of high level technicians, who are claiming the idea of God is unscientific are arrogant and appear to lack life experience as well as the imagination to ask big questions. They are only rebels against the dogma of religion and are uninformed about consciousness and spirituality.

Wow. A pretty big indictment there. "Arrogant." "Rebels." "Uninformed." Upon reading this, I looked forward to an enlightenment from Pert that will humble the arrogance, demonstrate the lack of merit of the rebellion, and educate the uninformed.

I was, however, disappointed.

Instead, I found myself wanting to quote Groucho Marx (from "Duck Soup"), who, when handed a report with hopes he'd find it clear, said, "Clear, huh? Why a four-year-old child could understand this report! Run out and find me a four-year-old child; I can't make head or tail of it."

As best I can tell, Pert rejects the notion that emotions are all in specified parts of the brain, or even that they are located exclusively in the brain. She says emotions extend through the "body-mind" (or "bodymind"; it did not escape my attention that Pert's brief essay includes many misspellings and grammatical errors). This view, as a physiological matter, does not strike me being radical or at odds with anything in modern science. It is well known that emotions have physiological effects beyond the brain, and that the effects beyond the brain in turn prompt emotional effects within the brain. A study of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems--for example--would seem to support such a view.

And as far as I know, Dawkins does not contend otherwise.

But from this premise, Pert makes this jump in "logic":

If mind, and its emanation "consciousness", suffuse the body, and in fact extend beyond it, we may consider the role of our personal choices in the creation of our reality for it is the physicists who have informed us of the primacy of the observer.

I don't see that this leads to a "reduced", scientifically verified, "objective" reality.

Having read these remarks several times, I can honestly say that I can't make head nor tail of them. I'm guessing, but there appears to be an assumption that emotion connotes mind, therefore consciousness (huh?), which extends throughout the body (huh??) and "in fact" extends beyond it (double huh???); and if such an assumption is valid, then perhaps we as observers somehow create our own reality; therefore there might not be any objective reality.

Never mind fetching a four-year-old child. Fetch Penn and Teller. Hey boys, this smells like fodder for your Showtime series.

I'm not sure I've fairly captured what Pert is trying to say, but it would seem to me that I would not want her to treat any schizophrenic patients. By what appears to be her "logic," the delusions of schizophrenic patients are in fact real.

And if the delusions of psychotics are real, would this mean that the delusion of a deity must be real, too? As best I can tell, that is exactly what Pert is saying! Consider the following (and let me urge anyone who can understand the first sentence of this analysis to please enlighten the rest of us arrogant, ignorant, rebellious peons):

And as information seems to be transduced in "non-local", ways, that is not bounded by space and time, "creation" seems instantaneous. By the way, where is information stored? In our books, genes, computers, etc?, and where does it go, when we die? Could this relentless expansion of the noosphere (Telihard), the filed [sic] of our consciousness, be the Living God? Not the old guy on the throne, on Judgement Day, but the field of all our collective hopes, emotions, and thoughts? I'm not making this up, I'm just interpreting what the laws of physics, such as we understand them today, seem to be telling us.

 

[Beelzebubba]

Great analysis and post.

It seems that this psychopharmacologist has taken one too many psychopharmacological substances before writing this "article." And yes, that can be construed as an "ad hom" attack.

My favorite leap in her convoluted argument (I know, I'm giving her too much credit by claiming she makes a valid enough argument for it to be considered an "argument" in the first place) is this little gem:

Darwin himself commented on the shared expression of emotions in humans and animals in his book of that title, and emotions draw us into larger communities. It seems the essential question concerns the ability to choose, which is a product of our expanding capacity for self-reflection. You had to be at least a bony fish to experience anxiety, the ability to hold two or more conflicting ideas at one time. So decide already, and free yourself from fear and stress.

As you ponder the "non-local" argument mention by Brown, backtrack a little in her article and take a gander at the above paragraph. And, after some reflection, the next time you're out fishing, ask the caught fish (a member of our shared emotional community) what he/she is thinking. Is he/she anxious? Or, has he/she chosen and resigned himself/herself to the reality of the frying pan or baking dish, freed from fear and stress?

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Am I mistaken, or you all are guilty of the same sin of which you accuse Chopra and others? Has any of you read "How to know God" by Chopra? Maybe what he says is crap, but at least you would understand what he is about, instead of carping about you not understanding it.

Not impressed by the general level of "critical thinking" displayed, I'm afraid.

30 posts and nobody picked up the "fast and loose" statement
"But Chopra suggests both men {Newton and Einstein] were religious, because they considered the existence of God. Like I said, fast and loose." when (as quoted by the poster) Chopra said clearly
"many scientists are religious and many of the greatest scientists (including Newton and Einstein) probed deep into the existence of God." (my emphasis). Where is causality implied in this dichotomy?

Both Chopra (if I understand correctly) and I feel that a "person" (read anthropomorphic) god is an insult to intelligence. The rest of what he says is esoteric babble, but the idea of an all pervasive consciousness (Schroedinger, Einstein) as the underlying basis of the universe appeals to me. Chopra calls something like it god. I don't think this means that I am a theist according to the common definition of the word, but certainly I am not religious, and even Chopra would not call me religious, for trying to acquire further knowledge in this field.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually, you're mistaken. An ad hom is replying to an assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

The first example is clearly one. The second example is clearly one too, it just happens to be ad hom followed by a more substantial reply.



Your subjective opinion of reality, filtered through your senses and brain which often make mistakes, anyway.

I disagree; an ad hom takes on one of three forms:
Abusive
P1: A claims B;
P2: A is a C;
C: Therefore, B is false.

Circumstantial
P1: A claims B;
P2: A is in circumstances C;
C: Therefore, B is false.

Tu Quoque
P1: A claims B;
P2: A practices not-B;
C: Therefore, B is false.

Whereas Megalodon's 2nd example was
P1: A claims B;
P2: A is a C;
P3: <insert actual debunk of claim B here>
C: Therefore, B is false.

P2 may be completely superfluous to the discussion, but it is not an ad hom.

 

[Brown]

Am I mistaken, or you all are guilty of the same sin of which you accuse Chopra and others? Has any of you read "How to know God" by Chopra? Maybe what he says is crap, but at least you would understand what he is about, instead of carping about you not understanding it.

I have not read Chopra's book. It is important to point out, I think, that I am not responding to Chopra's book but rather to what he has published at the linked sites. I've been very clear on this point. I've never purported to respond to any of Chopra's books (although it is likely that there is some overlap between his books and the linked essays).

Chopra, by contrast, has published essays specifically to rebut Dawkins's "The God Delusion." To be taken seriously, he should be able to demonstrate that he has read the work. Among other things, he should summarize Dawkins's points fairly and not attribute arguments to Dawkins that Dawkins did not make.

If we assume that Chopra feels there is a pervasive universal consciousness, and that we may call that consciousness God, then he has not made his case, at least not in his essays. One could, for example, assert that the Sun is god (not an unreasonable proposition, as many have done so in human history), and because the Sun exists, God exists.

Leaving aside the curious notion of a human being having the power to "define God" as one thing or another, we return to a point I made earlier: "His [Chopra's] argument seems to be in favor of a deity that is not accepted by the majority of theists. It would be odd for Bible-believers to come out in support of his position, as he views the Almighty in a manner at odds with their theology." In other words, what about a pervasive universal consciousness would make it godlike? Such a consciousness is not necessarily omnipresent, and it is a huge leap of illogic to suggest that it must be omniscient. There is no indication that such a consciousness would have any creative capacity, that it would be able to manipulate physical laws, or that it would hear or respond to prayers. Assuming such a thing exists, then, in what sense would it be God any more the Sun would be God?

And of course, assuming such a thing exists is effectively assuming what we're trying to prove. If there is a pervasive universal consciousness, then that proposition ought to be, in principle, scientifically testable. We have several scientific tests for determining the consciousness of people. Could those tests be adapted to things other than people, such as the pebble in my shoe? And if the pebble in my shoe displays no indication of consciousness, then the notion of pervasive universal consciousness could be invalidated, couldn't it?

 

[Thinktoomuch]

I have not read Chopra's book.

If we assume that Chopra feels there is a pervasive universal consciousness, and that we may call that consciousness God, then he has not made his case, at least not in his essays.

Yes, hence my suggestion to read the book.

"His [Chopra's] argument seems to be in favor of a deity that is not accepted by the majority of theists. It would be odd for Bible-believers to come out in support of his position, as he views the Almighty in a manner at odds with their theology."

Yes, I believe you got this right.

In other words, what about a pervasive universal consciousness would make it godlike? Such a consciousness is not necessarily omnipresent, and it is a huge leap of illogic to suggest that it must be omniscient. There is no indication that such a consciousness would have any creative capacity, that it would be able to manipulate physical laws, or that it would hear or respond to prayers. Assuming such a thing exists, then, in what sense would it be God any more the Sun would be God?

And of course, assuming such a thing exists is effectively assuming what we're trying to prove. If there is a pervasive universal consciousness, then that proposition ought to be, in principle, scientifically testable. We have several scientific tests for determining the consciousness of people. Could those tests be adapted to things other than people, such as the pebble in my shoe? And if the pebble in my shoe displays no indication of consciousness, then the notion of pervasive universal consciousness could be invalidated, couldn't it?

No point asking these questions here. No other poster sufficiently qualified seem to have read Chopra and be able to describe his answers adequately. If I tried a layman's synopsis it would be easily dismissable because of my incompetence in this field. If you are interested in Chopra's theology, reading his book seems again to be the best bet. To all posters: if you would like me posting excerpts (if there are any) that address specific points, let me know. Disclaimer: quotation does not imply agreement.

 

[articulett]

Your subjective opinion of reality, filtered through your senses and brain which often make mistakes, anyway.

Oh no....it's hammy's creep wink of "superiority" recreated from Thai. They think they are given us higher wisdom in inane platitudes that seem only to make sense to them. What is their motivation? Why do they post over and over to preach their woo and slam those who desire evidence for that which they believe. What makes your truth to be any more likely to be true than Scientology, Thai. And what do you imagine you are accomplishing with your posts other than masturbatory self congratulations on your ability to keep your brains from absorbing an iota of new information.

Sure, science and reason make mistakes...which only helps narrow the correct answer further. Science also correct it's mistakes. You pound the same dead horse--never seeming to evolve in thinking or avoiding all questions, thoughts, and conjecture that threat sully your faith.

Sure it's great if people you want to control believe that faith is noble. But as a method of finding out the facts, it can't be beat. Reason is far more useful. What has faith brought humanity. Can it make amputees walk? Can it heal broken bones? Can it predict hurricanes. Can it make you fly? Can it build things like computer? Faith loses in every competition I can think of when it comes to science, and though it seems to make some people feel good...it can make them ignorant in unpenetrable ways. Yes, it IS child abuse. You shouldn't teach the kiddies that something is a fact when it as likely to be as factual as what any other religion believes. And that is extremely unlikely.

 

[Brown]

Here are links to part 5, part 6 and part 7 of Chopra's essay. It's basically more of the same. From part 5:

That's why Dawkins will never find God. He's looking in the wrong place. The physical world can't deliver God, not because God doesn't exist, but because the solid, physical world is an illusion--as quantum physics proved long ago--and one must look inside consciousness itself to find what God is about. If God is a universal intelligence, that will turn out to be a fact. It won't be superstition. It won't be derived from the Bible or the Koran.

It is dicta like this that prompted Julia Sweeney to make her evaluation. This is, at best, a load of metaphysical double-talk. I can say, with all honesty, that I have really, really tried to understand the points that Chopra is trying to make, but it seems to me to be outlandish gibberish. With one hand, Chopra muddies the water, saying nothing physical exists, while with the other hand, he assumes that we can somehow look inside consciousness to find facts, which we for some reason haven't done yet (I wonder why?), because we still don't know whether God's existence is factual or not. But when we do know, we will know.

By the way, those of you with science backgrounds may want to read Chopra's little bit about thought experiments in part 5. Einstein did thought experiments, Chopra points out, so experiments done in one's head are "completely valid as science." Can anyone see the logical missteps here?

Those of you who know a little bit about quantum physics may want to read Chopra's discussion of wave functions and the generation of "inner and outer worlds." I cannot tell whether this discussion is insane or merely stunningly ignorant. I do not mean to be insulting about this: Chopra's remarks are indicative of one who either lacks a grasp on reality, or one who is an enormous dope.

After laying a bunch of nonsense on us, Chopra has the nerve to say:

That covers the basic and I think most convincing refutation of the anti-God argument.

This is an old tactic: throw out a bunch of gobbledygook and call it a convincing refutation of the anti-God argument. Euler did it earlier and better.

Perhaps strangest of all is that Chopra--why concluding that Dawkins is wrong--seems to go out of his way to argue that Dawkins is actually right! In other words, there is no physical proof of God's existence! (This is because the physical world itself does not exist! Man, are we deluded or what??!)

There is one thing that Chopra says in part 5, apparently as an insult, but it seems to me to be something of a compliment:

When Einstein said that he wanted to know the mind of God, he was pointing us toward the field, which quantum physics continues to explore. Crude skeptics like Dawkins lag far behind.

Ah, but Deepak, Einstein was a fellow who understood that if reality didn't fit the theory, then the theory--no matter how beautiful or elegant--would have to change. He was forward-thinking, all right, but he was also wrong about some things, and it was "crude skeptics" who showed him that he was wrong.

"Crude skeptics" do indeed lag behind the dreamers and the fantasizers and the lunatics and the others who don't really have the time or the discipline or the intellect or the desire to understand reality. They lag behind because they require evidence and reasoning to back up their assertions. They lag behind because they don't make a series of wild-ass guesses like teapots in the sky or inner and outer worlds.

 

[Brown]

Moving on to part 6.

Chopra actually speaks like a proponent of creationism here, although not necessarily Bible-based creationism. No Chopra's creationism is more dilute, that there had to be a creator of some kind:

Genetics, like evolution itself, proceeds by increments, and we mustn't leap to embrace an intelligent designer just because so many things around us seem, well, intelligently designed.

The fact that the world appears to be so perfectly knit, so stunningly precise down to the millionths of a degree, so beautiful, and in the end so meaningful to anyone who can appreciate these qualities, is a problem for materialists. For centuries one of the strongest proofs of God has been the inference that nothing less than a supreme being could have created life. Unfortunately for Dawkins, refuting this claim isn't nearly as easy as he thinks.

For those unfamiliar with Dawkins's position on this issue, Dawkins uses the argument from improbability--a favorite of creationists--against the creationists. Creationists argue that the existence of the cosmos as it exists is so improbable that there must have been one or more conscious decisions by a creator to bring it about. Dawkins turns this argument against the creationists by, first, pointing out that a series of not too unlikely (if not probable) events can combine to result in an event that is highly improbable. And second, Dawkins asks, "Who created the creator?" If you're going to argue from improbability, you have to take it all the way. If there is a creator, then the existence of the creator would be even more improbable than the creation itself!

Chopra thinks Dawkins's use of the argument from improbability is wrong. Why?

God, on the other hand, is merely inferred. He's an invisible supposition, and who needs one when we have fossils? The flaw here is subtle, for Dawkins is imagining God in advance and then claiming that what he imagines has little chance of existing. That's perfectly true, but why should God be what Dawkins imagines--a superhuman Creator making life the way a watchmaker makes a watch? Let's say God is closer to being a field of consciousness that pervades the universe. Let's say that this field keeps creating new forms within itself. These forms swirl and mix with each other, finding more combinations and complexities as time unfolds.

There is some validity in Chopra's assessment. Dawkins does indeed talk about God as a supposed superhuman creator rather than a universal consciousness. But he does so--and he explains this quite clearly--because this is the model of the creator that so many in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (as well as other religions) embrace.

Nevertheless, Dawkins's improbability argument still holds! Moreover, Chopra seems to concede this! If we assume for argument's sake that Chopra's "God" is something very simple, something not very creative (certainly not omnipotent!), something not very improbable, then perhaps "God" could indeed come about by natural means. But then, so could everything else, God or no God. And in any event, Chopra's "God" would not be the Almighty in any sense. As far as I know, no major religion embraces this notion of such an infinitesimally potent deity.

Although Chopra abhors ad hominem attacks, he apparently reserves his abhorrence for attacks directed against him. He sees no difficulty in making personal remarks against Dawkins. He also sees no difficulty in being a lousy, stinking, filthy liar while doing so. But I digress.

Chopra asserts something parenthetically. Hold onto your hats. This assertion--if true--seems to me to be the most fantastic piece of information ever discovered. Yet Chopra treats it as a throwaway bit of trivia. Here it is:

(there's not the slightest doubt that the universe has an invisible source outside space and time.)

Sorry folks, no details about this source follow.

Once again, Chopra returns to sounding like an avid creationist:

A field that can create something new and then remember it would explain the persistence of incredibly fragile molecules like DNA, which by any odds should have disintegrated long ago under the pressure of entropy, not to mention the vicissitudes of heat, wind, sunlight, radiation, and random mistakes through mutation.

Dawkins falls prey, not to the delusion of God, but to the delusion of an all-mighty chance acting mindlessly through matter. He cannot admit the possibility of an ordering force in Nature.

This is a variation of the same old eye-rolling paean to ignorance we have heard before, and I will not dwell on it. I will only point out that even if a universal consciousness does exist, it would in no way "explain" (Chopra's word) the persistence of information encoded in DNA.

And this universal consciousness, which we might call God, really exists, right? Well, apparently--maybe--not.

Until we have a credible explanation for mind, it's pointless to argue about God as if we understand what's at stake. Religion and science are both operating with incomplete concepts.

 

[Brown]

All right, on to part 7. This is, it would seem, the last in the series of Chopra's essays. It starts with an uproariously funny joke, although it probably was not intended as such:

Ultimately, Richard Dawkins can fight with religion all he wants and it will be only a sideshow. He is a color commentator sitting in the bleachers, not a player in the game. Skepticism offers critiques, not discoveries.

Chopra goes on to mention that religion likewise is not a "player," offering only criticism and no discoveries.

Part 7 is a criticism of science (no, make that a "discovery" about science) and its future. Dawkins optimistically takes the view that science provides the tools to answer questions that are currently unanswered. Balderdash, says Chopra:

Unfortunately, the Theory of Everything has hit a brick wall. Quantum physics lacks the power to cross the border into the invisible world that lies beyond subatomic particles, the so-called virtual domain. Not only is this the realm of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'--mysterious shadows of the matter and energy we see around us--but all possible universes also lie across the same boundary, as well as the "zero point" where space and time are born.

Genetics seems to be riding higher, but behind the display of public triumph, biology has not solved the existence of mind, and therefore the same obstacle faces both fields. An invisible world lies sealed off from investigation, leaving us to trace its footprints and echoes.

Science will never understand the virtual domain, the invisible world, things beyond the borders. These are things we cannot sense, cannot test, cannot enter or leave, cannot interact with, cannot affect us and cannot be shown to exist or not to exist. But these intangibles are better off than the physical world, which science has (via quantum theory) shown does not really exist.

I have a relative who talks this way. He is in a mental institution and takes a lot of medication.

Chopra asks a series of questions that he deems to be in the "virtual domain." Personally, I think he is wrong that all of these questions are beyond the reach of science. But one of his questions is so absurd that it is hard to believe that an educated man could say such a brashly stupid thing:

--Why is the universe so amazingly hospitable to human life?

Perhaps this was a misprint or a typo. Surely, he meant "inhospitable." Considering the size of the universe, there is only one place that we know for sure will support any form of life: Earth. The vast majority of the universe evidences conditions far from hospitable to life. Indeed, away from the Earth every other known location has conditions that are fatal to life in general and to human life in particular. Even on our own planet, most of the surface area is inhospitable to human life.

After several paragraphs of rambling and several amusing non sequiturs, Chopra finally returns to the issue. Nature, Chopra says, is the key. Nature remembers, Nature discovers, Nature remembers:

Which finally, at long last, breathes new life into God. Dawkins is absolutely right to declare a requiem service over the God of organized religion and to warn us about the dangers of superstition, dogma, and pseudo-science. ... But what Dawkins tragically misses holds far more optimism for the future than he ever could: the universe is renewing itself through us. Science is God explaining God to God using a human nervous system. Or as one wit put it, God created scientists to prove that he doesn't exist--and failed.

Chopra again pitches his field of consciousness idea which he feels is god-like or sufficiently so.

In a final shot of irony, Chopra ends his essays--which included several mischaracterizations of arguments he sought to rebut, along with personal attacks--with these words of wisdom:

This discussion will be more productive if we all grant each other the respect we would like to receive.

Love, Deepak