God 2.0

[Pardalis]

I thought this was an interesting post by shermer, following the ABC debate (http://bit.ly/a2KkiL), where he posts a funny chart made by one of his friends about Chopra's new take on science and religion.

http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2010/04/12/deepaks-upgrade-to-god-2-0/

Deepak of course throughout that debate tried to distance himself from the main religions and tried to ******** his way out of the argument with quantum mumbo-jumbo. But as Harris from the very beginning tried to point out, and constantly throughout the debate, that those three omnipresent monotheistic religions are the very reason why we're having debates about religion in the first place, and that new age stuff is just a cop-out.

As for the debate, I thought Shermer did well, but as his friend said in the link above, to most people he will seem like the bully. Deepak acted like a flailing idiot, and Harris was concise as usual. As for Jean Houston, well, she was in a world of her own, I skipped most of her gibberish, as it had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

 

[Hokulele]

I thought this was an interesting post by shermer, following the ABC debate (http://bit.ly/a2KkiL), where he posts a funny chart made by one of his friends about Chopra's new take on science and religion.

http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2010/04/12/deepaks-upgrade-to-god-2-0/

Ha! That chart is pretty funny, I particularly like the Apostles = String Theorists entry.

But yes, it is a good point that the language of physics can be off-putting in a debate as many people have as many misconceptions as to what they mean as they do with religious terms.

Deepak acted like is a flailing idiot...

Fixed that for you.

 

[Pardalis]

And the use of the word "woo-woo" right off the bat by Shermer might be perceived as aggressive (even though accurate), to some people.

 

[Richard Masters]

And the use of the word "woo-woo" right off the bat by Shermer might be perceived as aggressive (even though accurate), to some people.

Yes. I saw the entire debate just now, and he really should avoid using that term, it comes across as a personal attack even though it isn't.

I have to say I had heard of Sam Harris, but had never listened to him. I think he was outstandingly clear and particularly civil. He even clarified what everyone else was saying.

Shermer made me cringe slightly at times, but not nearly as much as Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston.

 

[Richard Masters]

Deepak of course throughout that debate tried to distance himself from the main religions and tried to ******** his way out of the argument with quantum mumbo-jumbo.

That was mildly frustrating. I was really hoping for a higher level of discourse on his part.

But as Harris from the very beginning tried to point out, and constantly throughout the debate, that those three omnipresent monotheistic religions are the very reason why we're having debates about religion in the first place, and that new age stuff is just a cop-out.

Yes.

... As for Jean Houston, well, she was in a world of her own, I skipped most of her gibberish, as it had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

It was very non-sequitur.