Sam Harris, if you watched the TED talk, is a very thoughtful speaker who never fails to make a great point. Michael Shermer is a founder of Skeptic magazine and he is constantly nonplussed by the arguments of the other side. Deepak Chopra, as you may know, is a metaphysics self-help guru and his bullshit is on full display here. Jean Houston is hardly a part of this debate, which is for the best, because she has evidently indulged in her fair share of peyote over her lifetime.
Neither side of this debate advocates the practice of Abrahamic religions. It was actually ironically refreshing to hear the cuckoo spiritualists putting all of that aside and aiming at a more humanist goal. My issue with them is that for their honorable intentions, they still cannot resist the urge to include some mysticism in their interpretations of the world. Deepak, in particular, constantly rattles off streams of hoity-toity words and then claims that his opponents do not understand the vocabulary of his expertise and therefore are not qualified to pass judgment. Jean constantly goes off on unrelated tangents about one love and rainbows and shit.
Deepak Chopra is a very charismatic speaker. He constantly makes claims about "upgrading" science to include the realm of the metaphysical. He insists that experiences, conscience and emotions have some mystical value, but he makes these claims to the face of Sam Harris, a PhD in neuroscience, who can only diplomatically dismiss the notion. Deepak then tries to use a quote from Stephen Hawking to enforce his own argument, which is a horrible tactic that the atheists jump on immediately.
The atheists make their points along the lines of the TED talk featured in my previous post; that science, as it is, can answer questions of morality without including god. Obviously, this grates on Deepak, because he insists on adding another layer of complication (despite even invoking Occam's Razor) to the idea of science. Jean, meanwhile, simply pleads for the worth of spirituality without really impacting the discussion.
When the audience is brought into the discussion, things get more interesting. A quantum physicist who actually works with Stephen Hawking calls out Deepak and offers to teach him about quantum physics. Deepak tries to graciously accept the offer, but he cannot resist throwing out a barb at the physicist. The resulting exchange is amusing, as the audience member becomes amused at the outlandish claims of the so-called expert. Another audience member later challenged Deepak on the lucrative business of metaphysics. This sets Deepak off on an arrogant rant about the evil science that is much more lucrative. In my opinion, this is what exposes Deepak as a complete fraud; he cannot say a word to defend himself but instead tries to deflect the argument toward a different target.
The topic of "god's" future is rarely breached throughout the entire debate. When everything settles down for the conclusion, the atheists simply accept that the spiritual kooks aren't their most urgent opponents. Everyone is grateful that nobody is advocating Christian or Muslim morals and that is as far as we get.
From my own perspective, the question itself (What is the future of god?) is telling of the bullshit that surrounds belief. God is constantly being re-worked in every culture that believes in one. The lack of any consistency was the very point that set me off on my realization of my own atheism. Deepak Chopra is very clever for trying to attach god to science, but his brand of god is only useful to people who don't know anything about science. He uses words that try to sound complicated and special, but he fails to impress the people who actually know what they're talking about.
To give you an example of how crazy metaphysics are, I would like to bring up a book you may have heard about: The Secret. This book is about the "Law of Attraction" that states that if you think positively, metaphysical forces in the world will draw positivity to your life. The book was joined by a video titled "What the (bleep) do we know?" Within this video, several "experts" are seen giving their testimony on this Law of Attraction and it is all dressed up to look nice. The hilarity starts when you dive into the origin of this. It is all published by a front for the cult of Ramtha. These people believe that the soul of a 35,000 year old warrior has inhabited the body of a middle aged woman. Enough said.
Metaphysics are sold in the following fashion: "Is the real world not special enough for you? Now you can walk around and imagine a hidden world of mystical forces that drive the physical world around you!" Obviously, this approach is not for anyone remotely interested in the truth. It boils down to what any old religion is about: assuaging fear. Metaphysics assert that individuals have more control and awareness than they actually do. In the end, it is just a security blanket. It may be a waste of money, and it may possibly interfere with someone obtaining actual help for a real problem (see: homeopathy), but its not our biggest problem these days. By far.
0 nibbles:
Post a Comment