Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Richard Dawkins v. Deepak Chopra
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I have read Dawkins philosophy and whilst I was very much in tune with it when I was a young atheist (it lacks a giving life force), experience of working with my own consciousness and enquiring into the nature of form, matter, space and time has taught me that science will never be able to prove what I know to be true. Especially as it is beyond any scientific explanation, because it gives rise to the language, tools and processes that science is using... but most people don't get that you can't for example see your own retina (it is doing the seeing), let alone know the ground of mind and self-consious awareness (as it is doing the action of being you and representing the world in your very being). After all, the world is only a mental description with which you make sense of yourself and your relationship to the world. Of course the atoms in your mind have consciousness, because they are in a conscious mind, it's so damned obvious!
Makes me chuckle really that people are so lost in their ideas and concepts that they have forgotten what they are doing in the first place... Nothing wrong though with being spellbound by the words they are using to make sense of themselves and their relationship with the world.
...\lol/...
Perhaps this will explain things.
No, as I think Dawkins explained, atoms are just building blocks for the cells which make up the physical structure of the brain. Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of a central nervous system. This is the basic science. There is no evidence whatsoever that atoms have consciousness, it's pure speculation. I certainly don't believe that Chopra has experienced the consciousness of atoms of extended his consciousness billions of light years to the far reaches of the universe, or whatever.
I don't think anyone has ever argued that the suttas don't describe rebirth. Unless I'm mistaken your strongly held position has been that it is to be taken literally. Which, regardless of where it is written is unlikely to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Which is no big deal to me because I don't mind if people choose to believe what they will.
I don't know what documents Chopra uses to back up his claims because I'm not interested in what he has to say.
I'm simply interested in understanding why he is being attacked for spouting nonsense that may be no more outlandish from a scientific point of view than beliefs that many Buddhists take to be true simply because they are written down by someone in the distant past, in a way that resonates for them.
Cosmic consciousness gets some airtime here without raising much ire, btw.
I'm with Fede on this one.
I fail to understand the relevance of the last question, to the topic of this thread.
besides, if he does, I doubt very much that any 'sleep' is involved....
And if you wanna know how much he knows, you're free to pay up for the priviledge. He's not doing anyone, or science any favors. He's stirring a pot and getting paid a lot to do it. High tech rabble rousing.
So? He's doing the same thing as Dawkins. He's selling books.
But there are no building blocks in the universe - there is just the universe. Science has shown that if you cut into what we believe to be solid matter you find that things have form (organs, cells, molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks, and probably smaller things but all are bonded by massive empty space that exists between - it's the same when you go into outer space: stars/planets, galaxies, etc. again with large regions of empty space between them Space is not nothing by the way, but as it has no form and gives rise to form, it cannot be defined using forms... There is form and there is emptiness, which are really the same thing and they interfere with each other in a beautifully harmonious way, to give rise to sound, light, well everything you experience. The world is just the patterns of form clarified by emptiness and vice versa. Now you're making me go into it my ideas - no point, I know where they lead me! ...\lol/...
Whatever. I've explained why I think Chopra is a charlatan, if you disagree with my assessment then please say why.
@SpinyNorman basic science is just that - basic! Doesn't take into account the true complexity, the interdependence and relativity, and dependent origination of all things!
Science is just a diversion, something for people to do, and learn how to find ever increasingly fascinating ways to kill ourselves off...
That's just my humble opinion btw
That's a straw-man in the context of this forum, I don't think there is anyone here who would subscribe to the blind-faith approach that you are describing. People here are more likely to be sceptical about rebirth.
You say you aren't interested in what Chopra has to say, so why would you be bothered either way if he is attacked for spouting nonsense? I don't get it.
I meant basic in the sense of fundamental. What Chopra is claiming is rather like me claiming that I can visit the Andromeda galaxy at will by extending my consciousness out towards it, or that I can communicate with the atoms making up my body.
I don't know if he's a chalatan or not. I dont know if Dawkins is charlatan either. I dont care in either case. Both people are in it for the money, not the truth.
Sorry, I thought I was being clear.
Why do his ideas make him a charlatan simply because they don't stand up to scientific scrutiny, and perhaps aren't described by sutta, when countless others make a living spouting unscientific Buddhist "nonsense", without attracting your disdain?
I'm bothered because his name is being dragged through the mud for doing what many others have done throughout the centuries, and received handouts for doing it. Apparently plenty of folks accept his type of nonsense. Are they any more deluded than the rest of us in the big picture?
Well.,..maybe some of us in the minority who seem to be defending DC are more interested in defending freedom of speech and heck, I just started to read one of his books and have no idea what this fellow is all about BUT upon learning that he's a doctor raised my interest in him.
I personally have no reason to believe he's a total fraud and after taking a gander at his bio and history on Wikipedia, I have a newfound respect for the man, because among other things it says this about him: "Chopra said that one of the reasons he left New England Memorial Hospital (where he became Chief of Staff) was his disenchantment at having to prescribe too many drugs: "[W]hen all you do is prescribe medication, you start to feel like a legalized drug pusher. That doesn't mean that all prescriptions are useless, but it is true that 80 percent of all drugs prescribed today are of optional or marginal benefit."[28]" AND this: "Chopra and Jackson first met in 1988 and remained friends for 20 years; when Jackson died in 2009 after being administered prescription drugs, Chopra said he hoped it would be a call to action against the "cult of drug-pushing doctors, with their co-dependent relationships with addicted celebrities".[34][35]"
But that's not the point of this discussion.
The point of the discussion is the argument between them, and which one sounds more logical, reasonable, thought-out, grounded in common sense, credible..
The fact that both are making money, is utterly irrelevant and pointless, and frankly, off-topic, so again, I don't understand the relevance of your comment with regard to the specified topic of this thread.
So they're being paid.
So - What?
Like who for example? Monks don't make a living out of teaching Buddhism, so who do you mean?
Somebody like Stephen Batchelor for example?
I'm all for free speech, and I have expressed the view that he's a charlatan. There now seems to be a feeling that it's somehow not OK to express that view? I'm confused.
Freeman Dyson was quite religious and clearly this informed his view of the world. Here's something else he said:
I do not claim any ability to read God's mind. I am sure of only one thing. When we look at the glory of stars and galaxies in the sky and the glory of forests and flowers in the living world around us, it is evident that God loves diversity. Perhaps the universe is constructed according to a principle of maximum diversity.
No, you're not (confused). You seem to be pushing mighty hard to have everyone feel the same, believe the same as you do about him, even though you haven't even read any more info on him or try to find out what makes him tick. You know darned good and well, that I'm NOT saying that it's not okay for you to express your views: I just wonder to myself why you seem to have such strong sentiments against the man. Sure...as someone here said, it's good work if you can get it, so I surmise that there's some envy and jealousy that he's seemingly struck it rich by purportedly spouting new age mumbo jumbo in his books, etc. If it's true, he's surely not the first. shrug
All I can respond with is to suggest you learn more about him before passing judgment.
I myself have passed judgment on others in the past without knowing much about them and uh, it's not something I'm particularly proud about.
Sure, I have a low opinion of him and I have explained why, but I am puzzled about where you get the idea that I am pushing everyone else to have the same view. It's a discussion forum and there will inevitably be a range of views.
I'm certainly not envious of his having made lots of money, though I am rather dubious about his motivation. What I particularly don't like about DC is his dishonest use of pseudo-science to try and make his theories sound more credible.
It's also true that I am generally critical of new-agers, I just find them tiresome.
Suffice it to say, that I simply prefer it if people temper their opinions just a wee bit.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
kuhl
Pardon me for asking, but - why should they? In the strict context of it being a discussion/debate, surely that's not a requirement?
So it would seem.
You keep refering to him as a charlatan, but you really haven't made that case. At all. A Charlatan is a fraud. Fraud is deliberate deception. That means he'd have to know that he was decieving people, deliberately, and I see no evidence of that.
It could be that he really believes what he's saying is true. He may actually be mistaken, but being mistaken not the same as fraud. The same can apply to Dawkins. He may honestly believe what he's saying is the truth, but there is still the possibility that he is, in fact, mistaken. This would not make Dawkins a fraud either.
If you want a charlatan, look into a fellow named Marjoe Gortner.
Have a look at the observations I've made in the thread and then re-watch the 2 video clips.
The Buddha himself made his living through alms. While the offerings of food he received may have had little monetary value, they may have represented tremendous generosity from people who struggled to feed their kids.
Or any monk who teaches the doctrine of rebirth and survives from alms or donations at the local temple.
I dont see how Chopra is any different except that you don't accept what he is saying.
We all make a living somehow, and if you are prepared to write a book and discuss the ideas that fascinate you, and get paid for it - then you deserve it, especially if you may be ridiculed for them. I read some Deepak Chopra when I was a student - didn't do it for me, and I'm not sure if I finished the book - but it put some rice and peas in his bowl I'm sure! I've got another book somewhere that was a stepping stone to buddhism - titled something like 'man with no head'
I agree. Even when it is someone right here on this forum!
I do not have time to read everything right now, but @SpinyNorman no, it has nothing to do with creams. I was talking about his promotion of yoga, meditation and nutrition based on the little I have read of his books on the topic (which total like, 2). If you care to look up the evidence that exists for those things extending people's lives and reducing visible effects of aging (which is one thing I care nothing about) you'll find it. I don't mean Deepak Chopra's evidence. I mean all the studies that have been done recently that prove it as such. Like I said, I do not condone all the things he says and does. I hardly could, since I do not follow the man or his work. But not everything he says is ridiculous. I wish everyone understood that no matter who you are investigating you should do so honestly and investigate their claims, it is true that a lot of people have found meditation because of Deepak Chopra, and that itself is a good thing.
Probably from this fellow (the actual 'famous' exercise) starts almost at the 6-minute mark:
(haven't figurd out how to post a video yet...oh, it worked this time.)
Can you show me where I said it was a requirement? I'm trying to nudge in the direction of doing just a tad more research on others before passing (what seems to me) an extreme judgment - y'know, throwing the baby out w/the bath water type of thing.
I think SN and I are handling it ok.
Also, some monks do indeed make a living. They might not be the ones who are controlling the money, but it is provided for their living expenses nonetheless. My teacher is a monk. He doesn't go work at McDonald's during the day. His insurance, clothing, apartment, food, teaching needs and whatever else are provided entirely by donations from the sangha who donate money in exchange for his teachings...
There are also studies that have come out showing that visual imagery (including visualizing communication with your body's cells and other such things) do have a role in healing and treatment, and even high-end hospitals are employing such techniques to reduce stress. That alone has a huge, huge impact on health and healing.
I don't know enough about what he promotes to have an opinion. But, I will say, that science continually comes closer and closer to finding out that what Eastern medicine systems promote does indeed have a provable affect in western medicine. I won't poo-poo something just because it has not yet been proven. There have been innumerable advances in understanding how the body/mind connection works in the past, oh, 30 years even and what we know now is leagues ahead of what people thought was hippie dippie bologna not very long ago.
Can you explain to a hardcore Catholic why meditation has changed your life? Why it has affected your health? Just because they don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.
Could you give some examples? What proof is available?
I'm not sure how this relates to Chopras claims of atoms, cells and the whole universe being conscious.
Ok, cool... don't worry. I'm just observing and noodling.... It's my job, you know.....
So you are trying to compare a monk living on alms to somebody worth 20 million dollars? It simply won't work.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/deepak-chopra-net-worth/
If you're saying I'm not impartial in my criticism, sure, you're probably right. But then why should I be impartial? I'm a Buddhist, not a new-ager.
My 2 cents is, that's not the parallel @robot is making.
Like I said, I'm a Buddhist and not a new-ager.
Chopra goes too far. Saying that cells have consciousness is on the edge of believability and current scientific theory. But going so far as to say that cells "have a desire for meaning" is over the edge.
Debating about whether or not cells are sentient (whatever that means, exactly) and have self-awareness reminds me of the debates that have raged on this forum re: whether plants are sentient. There's research out there that could support the argument that they are. Is it credible research, definitive research? That's another question. But to say that plants "desire meaning" is in a whole other ballpark. Do cells or plants philosophize? I doubt it. They have mechanisms by which they communicate with each other, but that doesn't mean they have self-awareness or think about their place in the universe.
Plants clearly have some crude awareness of their environment, but suggesting they play chess is rather silly.
Thank you for this bit of research, anataman. I looked up Freeman Dyson, but couldn't get this far. So the question that came up for debate in the video was: whether Freeman Dyson said that "an atom has awareness". Does your quote support that statement, or not? It says "mind is ... inherent in every electron". hmm...
I would say, "awareness of what"? Are cells and atoms aware of the chemical soup in which they're immersed? One could say yes, insofar as cells react to their environment. But what level of awareness is that? Is it cognitive awareness, or only instinct? And is it self-awareness, which is a whole other ball of wax. Chopra went out on a limb to say that cells desire meaning. That's way out there.
It's very clear that Dyson is just speculating here though, almost thinking aloud.
Aha. And isn't he known for blending philosophy with science? So that's what he's doing here--philosophizing, mainly.
You just justified my meat eating since I never saw a cow play chess, either.
Thank you, SN!
Cows are rather private though....https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608014567508607172&pid=15.1&P=0
Cows? Play Chess?
Vinlyn, are you nuts or something?
That's a really idiotic comment.
Anyone knows they prefer Poker.....
It appears as if they prefer strip poker! Never saw a cow fully dressed.
@Silver it was actually the works of Douglas Harding who it appears after a little more research who has inspired the Richard Lang whose video you posted. Douglas Harding has an interesting upbringing, and turned to his own mind for the answers he required to satisfy him: http://www.headless.org/douglas-harding.htm
@Dakini -You are welcome, but I will say that you can see the world with different views and filters. If it's a spititual view then there are muslim, hindu, christian, buddhist, taoist, sufi, christian scientist etc. etc; suffice it to say there is a whole host of spectra and filters you can apply to view the same thing. As I live in a world without atoms, the problem of consciousness and awareness does not trouble me any more, because they no longer depend on the indoctrinated christian mindset I had to endure of a creator breathing life into an inanimate clay construct in his own image - and science is really a branch of knowledge that sets out to look for the ultimate truth of this created thing, but in a verifiable way - but got lost looking at our world and our selves as being created and separate, but infused with the soul i.e. the breath of god within us (I live in a vibrant musical harmony of yin and yang, where I know I am nothing and the source of everything in my universe where, the dance of opposites sets up ripples that vibrate and merge in such a way that, if I can sit comfortably in the middle of it all, and be aware of how fabulously perfect it really is - it makes a perfect sense of the nothing I am. And I don't need to prove it to myself, nor anyone else.
Stop being attached to the ideas you've adopted, and start being what you are, without having to explain anything to anyone - especially yourself!
...\lol/...
Sorry, @anataman, I was just posting for the sake of stimulating the debate. This is a discussion forum, after all. Some people are actually enjoying the back-and-forth here, and the analysis of the arguments without being invested in a particular belief system. The thread isn't about "being what we are", after all. It's about the debate posted in the OP.
Why did you post that Dyson quote, btw?
To stimulate the debate @dakini - but also to stimulate your being! I am nought without you...