Godmen, get some logic.

[maasikdharma]

Subrata, one of his opponents, Sam Harris, is very familiar with the Eastern approach to "god" (as opposed to Abrahamic) and himself practices some sort of meditation rooted in, I think, Buddhism.

Where Deepak Chopra showed foolishness was that he was throwing out physics terminology out of context and trying to somehow correlate that to "scientific proof" of god's existence.

An actual physicist from the audience told him that the way he was using the terminology was out of context and not at all applicable.

If you watch some of the other videos posted here, Sam Harris and others are not faulting people for choosing to believe that there might be a "higher power" behind the Universe and all that exists, but rather, trying to use the language of science in an effort sound "authentic" to general audiences who do not know physics and therefore are easily swayed.

Sam Harris himself said in the video that BECAUSE HE IS NOT A TRAINED physicist, he does not throw around complicated terms when he does not know if they apply or not. Scienctists in debate are very exact like that. Non-scientists on the otherhand appear to be very liberal when throwing around terms that they have not even studied in depth.

Sam Harris simply asked Chopra to drop the terminology and admit that he "does not know for certain" who or what is ultimately behind the workings of the Universe.

Towards the end, Chopra kind of humbled himself and admitted a few times that he was not entirely in the know when it came to quantam physics.

Sam Harris and other outspoken rational "atheists" usually go easier on Eastern traditions like Vedanta or Buddhism because they do appear to be grounded in a solid philosophy rather than just myth, HOWEVER, they will call out even the practitioners of those traditions when they make outlandish claims that the unknown is completely known by them and then banty around scientific terminology in a haphazard way as "proof".

Their point is: it cannot be proven or disproven.

In order for a theory to measure up according to the scientific method, it has to be able to be proven and simultaneously disproven.

[Nitaidas]

Yeah. I agree with masikadharma here. The point of Harris' first remarks is that in this debate we should understand God in the sense that our neighbors do, as the jealous, peeping-tom God of Abraham, not as an infinite consciousness. This implies that Harris, while deeply opposed to the Abrahamic God, is not so deeply opposed to what might be considered a Vedantic conception of God. Basically, I think the two sides are ill matched. They should have gotten a raving, bible-thumping fundamentalist to be on God's side. God's side, if that is what Chopra and Houston were on, was no more supportive of the Abrahamic god than the atheists. Still, it was hilarious to hear Shermer refer to Chopra's ejaculations as "woowoo." Mostly that referred not to the Vedanta absolute part of his presentation as to the misguided desire to pretend that quantum physics and Vedantic absolutes are clearly the same thing.

I doubt that Chopra knows very much about Vedanta, beyond the tired cliches passed around in the New Age movement.

[Ekantin]

Mar 30, 2010 23:00:53 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Is it really more politically correct to believe in godlessness? Certainly not in the USA. Free thought is clearly thinking for yourself. Not thinking the way you are told to think or the way some ancient (or not so ancient) text tells you to think. Why does that frighten you? Do you doubt the outcome?

Sometimes I come across these arguments often, that the new atheist movement (oh, how I loathe that term) is the current zeitgeist and the proliferation of godlessness now is a little like a mass market for empty-headed sheep looking desperately for something to follow.

It is as if they haven't considered that many people have considered all these things and thought through them carefully, before arriving at a decision as to whether their faith is useful to them and whether they can expend their energy on something else that works for them. "No, this is the zeitgeist and it will pass, and meanwhile you are just a silly sheep." People like this ought to spend some time deeply considering these ideas and learning something new. It may destroy your faith or enhance it, depending on what you are looking for, but at the end it is better to be an intellectually honest person (with oneself before others).

Mar 31, 2010 19:44:52 GMT -6 maasikdharma said:

Sam Harris and others are not faulting people for choosing to believe that there might be a "higher power" behind the Universe and all that exists, but rather, trying to use the language of science in an effort sound "authentic" to general audiences who do not know physics and therefore are easily swayed.

Sam Harris himself said in the video that BECAUSE HE IS NOT A TRAINED physicist, he does not throw around complicated terms when he does not know if they apply or not. Scienctists in debate are very exact like that. Non-scientists on the otherhand appear to be very liberal when throwing around terms that they have not even studied in depth.

Very good points, thanks for making them. Personally I find it extremely loathsome when a religionist uses scientific terms in a bid to sound as authentic as possible, without taking into account that the weight of the history of religion has been decidedly anti-scientific. So it is actually amusing when someone arrogates scientific terms to bolster the fuzzy feelings that warm their hearts, it is as if they have grudgingly accepted that people aren't going to take them at all seriously if they cannot rationally explain their ideas, yet still they cling on (by the teeth of their fingernails) to the tired and worn-out old argument that "there are still things beyond science's ken to understand". No there aren't, but never mind, I'll just sit back and munch popcorn while the show goes on. ;D

Although this debate (videos) has recently been posted online, it took place around 2-3 weeks ago and has been discussed by Shermer at his blog. Interesting essays, and worth a good read:

My Debate Date with Deepak (and friends)

Does the moon exist if there are no sentient beings to look at it?

[Deleted]

And why should we be surprised that Deepak (Oprah Chopra) is not all that knowledgeable of the 6 philosophical systems? After all, he was trained as an MD and supposedly in Ayur-vedic medicine. Also, when Nitai called him a joke, that is not the same thing as calling him a joker, although in that particular debate he was both.