Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
Here's a link to a piece by Deepak Chopra, entitled "The God Delusion? Part 1." Chopra takes issue with Richard Dawkins's conclusions in "The God Delusion." Let us visit Chopra's arguments, shall we?
Let us also set aside--temporarily, at any rate--the wisdom of Julia Sweeney, who after evaluating some of Chopra's assertions about reality in some detail, opined that "Deepak Chopra is full of s#!+!"
In the interest of full disclosure, I shall declare that I have not yet read Dawkins's book "The God Delusion" (although I have ordered it from Amazon.com). Although I have not read Dawkins's book, I find credible Chopra's assertion that Dawkins shows disdain for those who disagree. Having met Dr. Dawkins and having heard him speak, I can certainly understand that those who hold to certain beliefs might find his criticism of those beliefs to be belittling. After summarizing Dawkins's position--at least as Chopra sees it, Chopra says:
Take Newton and Einstein, for example. Although Chopra lumps Newton and Einstein together, the "deities" envisioned by Newton and Einstein were at best at extreme ends of the spectrum. Neither would have recognized the other's "god" as legitimate. Newton adhered to church dogma, and spent considerable time and effort trying to "prove" the legitimacy of the church's claims. (This expense of time and effort was a total waste, as it resulted in no increase in scientific knowledge.) Einstein, on the other hand, did not adhere to church dogma, or even to the basics of what is now called the Judeo-Christian system. Einstein, as he himself explained, viewed the Almighty in a pantheistic sense, as a poetic representation of all natural phenomena. By most accounts, this would be considered a "scientific" view, rather than a "religious" one.
But Chopra suggests both men were religious, because they considered the existence of God. Like I said, fast and loose.
Further the observation that many scientists are religious is a superficial observation. Here, the slippery term is "religious." Do most scientists believe that they acquired knowledge in their specialized fields through, say, revelation or study of ancient texts? Or do these scientists hold instead that the scientific knowledge the acquired was advanced through the principles of science rather than religion? If scientists were to be polled on these questions, is there any doubt as to what the results of such a poll would be?
Would any true scientist--other than one living in fear--defer to on any scientific question to the opinion of a pope, pastor, rabbi or imam? Would any true scientist ever consider announcing a discovery based upon unverifiable information from a divine source? Where it comes to acquiring bona fide knowledge, are these scientists really "religious?" Fast and loose, fast and loose.
But then Chopra goes off the deep end:
Chopra seems to think that science can't explain why a Beethoven symphony is beautiful, or why it exists, or what meaning it has. But wait, weren't we talking about knowledge rather than taste? I know quite a few people who think that Beethoven's music was not "beautiful" in any sense, and they would rather listen for hours on end to compositions that I consider to be painful. Chopra and I may share an admiration for some of Beethoven's work, but that does not mean that we "know" Beethoven's work is beautiful or meritorious.
And as for the assertion that he has seen "medical cures that science can't explain, some seemingly triggered by faith," one has to wonder what this means. The average reader would assume that it means that Chopra claims to have witnessed miracles, that is, supernatural interventions that completely eliminated medical conditions. Others have made assertions similar to Chopra's, however, and when pressed, clarified their views by saying that science can verify that some therapies do work even if the precise mechanism by which they work is not fully understood. In other words, they took a purely rational stance that science was a valid learning tool even if science had not yet yielded the answer to a particular question. One wonders whether Chopra, if pressed, would opt for a "miracles" position or a "God of the gaps" position, or a position somewhere in between.
After a few paragraphs of double-talk (I've given up trying to understand what Chopra means when he says "the radio isn't Beethoven"), Chopra swings his illogic into high gear:
It is wrong to suggest that something experienced as a purely "subjective experience" is "knowledge." "God," however defined, may be experienced subjectively, but so are ghosts and dreams and illusions and deliberate deceptions perpetrated by others. "Subjective experience," expecially subjective experience that is based upon ignorance, is not equivalent to--or on par with--knowledge.
Further, if Chopra intends to suggest that religion is a valid route to knowledge (he doesn't say so explicitly, at least not in this piece), then we can only hope that he will enlighten us as to the great discoveries that have come to humankind through religious rather than scientific routes. As for myself, I cannot think of a single one.
Let us also set aside--temporarily, at any rate--the wisdom of Julia Sweeney, who after evaluating some of Chopra's assertions about reality in some detail, opined that "Deepak Chopra is full of s#!+!"
In the interest of full disclosure, I shall declare that I have not yet read Dawkins's book "The God Delusion" (although I have ordered it from Amazon.com). Although I have not read Dawkins's book, I find credible Chopra's assertion that Dawkins shows disdain for those who disagree. Having met Dr. Dawkins and having heard him speak, I can certainly understand that those who hold to certain beliefs might find his criticism of those beliefs to be belittling. After summarizing Dawkins's position--at least as Chopra sees it, Chopra says:
This tactic is what is often known--in polite company, anyway--as being "fast and loose" with the facts. The fastness and looseness comes about from the naked assumption that everybody knows what "God" means and what "religion" (or "religious") means. In actuality, it is difficult to find two human beings on the planet whose views on these issues are in complete harmony.
Take Newton and Einstein, for example. Although Chopra lumps Newton and Einstein together, the "deities" envisioned by Newton and Einstein were at best at extreme ends of the spectrum. Neither would have recognized the other's "god" as legitimate. Newton adhered to church dogma, and spent considerable time and effort trying to "prove" the legitimacy of the church's claims. (This expense of time and effort was a total waste, as it resulted in no increase in scientific knowledge.) Einstein, on the other hand, did not adhere to church dogma, or even to the basics of what is now called the Judeo-Christian system. Einstein, as he himself explained, viewed the Almighty in a pantheistic sense, as a poetic representation of all natural phenomena. By most accounts, this would be considered a "scientific" view, rather than a "religious" one.
But Chopra suggests both men were religious, because they considered the existence of God. Like I said, fast and loose.
Further the observation that many scientists are religious is a superficial observation. Here, the slippery term is "religious." Do most scientists believe that they acquired knowledge in their specialized fields through, say, revelation or study of ancient texts? Or do these scientists hold instead that the scientific knowledge the acquired was advanced through the principles of science rather than religion? If scientists were to be polled on these questions, is there any doubt as to what the results of such a poll would be?
Would any true scientist--other than one living in fear--defer to on any scientific question to the opinion of a pope, pastor, rabbi or imam? Would any true scientist ever consider announcing a discovery based upon unverifiable information from a divine source? Where it comes to acquiring bona fide knowledge, are these scientists really "religious?" Fast and loose, fast and loose.
But then Chopra goes off the deep end:
Chopra is flatly wrong: the love between parent and child has been validated by science, as has the existence of genius in art as well as other endeavors. A simple review of standard college level science textbooks or a perusal of recent issues of "Scientific American" would have told Chopra so. And the validation is far more detailed than Chopra's superficial analysis.
Chopra seems to think that science can't explain why a Beethoven symphony is beautiful, or why it exists, or what meaning it has. But wait, weren't we talking about knowledge rather than taste? I know quite a few people who think that Beethoven's music was not "beautiful" in any sense, and they would rather listen for hours on end to compositions that I consider to be painful. Chopra and I may share an admiration for some of Beethoven's work, but that does not mean that we "know" Beethoven's work is beautiful or meritorious.
And as for the assertion that he has seen "medical cures that science can't explain, some seemingly triggered by faith," one has to wonder what this means. The average reader would assume that it means that Chopra claims to have witnessed miracles, that is, supernatural interventions that completely eliminated medical conditions. Others have made assertions similar to Chopra's, however, and when pressed, clarified their views by saying that science can verify that some therapies do work even if the precise mechanism by which they work is not fully understood. In other words, they took a purely rational stance that science was a valid learning tool even if science had not yet yielded the answer to a particular question. One wonders whether Chopra, if pressed, would opt for a "miracles" position or a "God of the gaps" position, or a position somewhere in between.
After a few paragraphs of double-talk (I've given up trying to understand what Chopra means when he says "the radio isn't Beethoven"), Chopra swings his illogic into high gear:
The mind boggles. Even given that God stands for the perfection of truth and beauty, in what sense does this contribute to the existence or non-existence of God? One might just as well argue that the devil stands for sum of maximum evil, or that Uncle Sam stands for the greatness of the United States, or that that Lady Justice stands for the beneficence of law and equity; but even a child can distinguish symbolic existence from actual existence.
It is wrong to suggest that something experienced as a purely "subjective experience" is "knowledge." "God," however defined, may be experienced subjectively, but so are ghosts and dreams and illusions and deliberate deceptions perpetrated by others. "Subjective experience," expecially subjective experience that is based upon ignorance, is not equivalent to--or on par with--knowledge.
Further, if Chopra intends to suggest that religion is a valid route to knowledge (he doesn't say so explicitly, at least not in this piece), then we can only hope that he will enlighten us as to the great discoveries that have come to humankind through religious rather than scientific routes. As for myself, I cannot think of a single one.
