Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
The Perils of Skepticism by Deepak Chopra.
Chopra doesn't like skeptics. He really doesn't. And he lets them have it:
Before going further, I should mention that I have written about good old Deepak before. Here's a link to Chopra vs. Dawkins, in which good old Deepak rips apart Dawkins's "The God Delusion" without apparently bothering to take the time to actually read the book. Good old Deepak gets rather pissy with Dawkins in the above-quoted passage, saying that skeptics in general, and Dawkins in particular, "are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God." Apart from the apparently intentional insult to the effect that "skeptics KNOW they are wrong about the Almighty, but they just won't admit it" (which was the justification in days past for making atheism a crime, and a capital crime at that, but that's another story), what good old Deepak neglects to mention is that HIS view of "God" is inconsistent with that of most major religions:
The most celebrated scientific discoveries were made by people who questioned the authorities (or the widely accepted dogma of what was true). The authorities held that the Earth was flat, that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, that planets moved in circular orbits (or with epicycles), that the Earth is at the center of all there is, that the known universe is infinitesimally smaller than we now know it to be, that continents do not move, that there was a flood a few thousand years ago that wiped out nearly all life on Earth, that the genetic structure of creatures does not change over great lengths of time, and so on.
Many of these authorities had no real evidence to support their dogma. But they held to it because it seemed right to them and they were smart people.
Kinda like good old Deepak. He's smart. And he don't need no stinkin' evidence!
And skeptics never have a sense of wonder, he says. Apparently he never listened to Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov or Phil Plait (well, that one's probably understandable) or for that matter, Richard Dawkins.
As I've noted before, Julia Sweeney concluded thusly: "Deepak Chopra is full of ****!"
This means he is not credible. He is not credible because he does not do his homework, he deliberately mischaracterizes the points of his critics, he is--to be blunt--willfully ignorant about a number of things, and worst of all, he is unwilling to educate himself. Yet he is quick to judge others as closed-minded. He therefore also suffers a serious blow to his credibility by being a hypocrite.
Chopra doesn't like skeptics. He really doesn't. And he lets them have it:
Well! That certainly puts me in MY place.
Before going further, I should mention that I have written about good old Deepak before. Here's a link to Chopra vs. Dawkins, in which good old Deepak rips apart Dawkins's "The God Delusion" without apparently bothering to take the time to actually read the book. Good old Deepak gets rather pissy with Dawkins in the above-quoted passage, saying that skeptics in general, and Dawkins in particular, "are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God." Apart from the apparently intentional insult to the effect that "skeptics KNOW they are wrong about the Almighty, but they just won't admit it" (which was the justification in days past for making atheism a crime, and a capital crime at that, but that's another story), what good old Deepak neglects to mention is that HIS view of "God" is inconsistent with that of most major religions:
The assetion that "No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others." This says nothing about science, but it sure says a lot about good old Deepak. His "knowledge" is pitiful. At best, he has not done his homework.
The most celebrated scientific discoveries were made by people who questioned the authorities (or the widely accepted dogma of what was true). The authorities held that the Earth was flat, that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, that planets moved in circular orbits (or with epicycles), that the Earth is at the center of all there is, that the known universe is infinitesimally smaller than we now know it to be, that continents do not move, that there was a flood a few thousand years ago that wiped out nearly all life on Earth, that the genetic structure of creatures does not change over great lengths of time, and so on.
Many of these authorities had no real evidence to support their dogma. But they held to it because it seemed right to them and they were smart people.
Kinda like good old Deepak. He's smart. And he don't need no stinkin' evidence!
And skeptics never have a sense of wonder, he says. Apparently he never listened to Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov or Phil Plait (well, that one's probably understandable) or for that matter, Richard Dawkins.
As I've noted before, Julia Sweeney concluded thusly: "Deepak Chopra is full of ****!"
This means he is not credible. He is not credible because he does not do his homework, he deliberately mischaracterizes the points of his critics, he is--to be blunt--willfully ignorant about a number of things, and worst of all, he is unwilling to educate himself. Yet he is quick to judge others as closed-minded. He therefore also suffers a serious blow to his credibility by being a hypocrite.
Edited by Locknar:
While ok in 2007, cursing (masked or otherwise) is against the current Membership Agreement.
Last edited by a moderator:
What a prat.
