• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Deepak Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

#120: May - July 2013 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Deepak Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

I'm not sure what Deepak Chopra wants from Richard Dawkins. Does he suppose we should stop assuming materialist explanations in science?

I wonder if Chopra could find a single sentence in MAGIC OF REALITY that is actually not true. The primary complaint is that Dawkins doesn't pay homage to spirituality. Buy why should he? This is a book about science.
Chopra wrote:Dawkins, like other staunch materialists, believes that all subjective experience, being a product of the brain, must come down to a physical process, leaving no possibility that the physical processes of the brain maybe correlates to something happening in the mind. How microvolts of electricity and neurochemicals flying across synapses produce the entire world is a deep mystery, often referred to as the hard problem in consciousness research. This Dawkins doesn't even consider.
I suppose Chopra equates "deep mystery" to God. But does he expect scientists who are in the business of finding material explanations to start looking for supernatural explanations? How do you do research for that?

Here's a question. In our entire history, has any scientific discovery ever been attributed to supernatural explanations?
The answer is no. And, yet, Deeprok Chopra is having an apoplectic fit that Dawkins assumes material explanations in a field that naturally does and must assume naturalistic explanations.

It must be disheartening for woo peddlers to accept that they cannot contribute to the body of knowledge. But as we have discussed here on BT, that's not what religion is for. You cannot expect science to provide spiritual meaning just as you cannot expect religion to provide real world knowledge.

What I can't get over is Chopra's general snarky tone. It really is over the top. He makes several grand indictments like "This book tries to kill the legacy of faith in human culture." And "Dawkins is a one-man society for the suppression of curiosity." Good Lord, really?
Last edited by geo on Sun May 26, 2013 8:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Deepak Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

Dawkins interviews Deepak Chopra about his use of the term "quantum theory." I get lost trying to follow the man's train of thought. Sounds like a bunch of bullcrap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4

Also, I wanted to correct the spelling of Deepak's name.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
etudiant
Masters
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:33 pm
14
Location: canada
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

ant wrote:Chopra is actually a physician. So if he never got in to the book and public speaking business he still would have or could have made "a lot of money"

Im not certain how much zoologists make, are you?
certainly Dawkins has made a killing of his preaching. probably more than he ever would have made studying the crapping habits of birds.

Let's be realistic here fellows. Chopra is a businessman. He makes his money by keying into the perceived (accurately it would seem) spiritual needs, desires, and fantasies of those today that are intellectually constrained, emotionally in need, or perhaps simply bored with existence, and hoping that there was going to be more. His is the discourse of the used car salesman, one that seems to offer hope and benefit, but when deeply analyzed, a couple of days after the encounter, one finds skilled language, but little substance.

His marketing skills are beyond question, and my guess is that he is doing what he is doing because his medical skills are slightly less so. In the land of opportunity, one does what brings in the reward, not necessarily what is most desirable for the community at large. And rewarded he has been. There is nothing like seeing one's name in print, in shop windows about the planet, to boost self-confidence, and reinforce one's employment and income strategies.

In fact, all the above items in question, that have been offered as being outside the scientific realm, are in fact in it, at least on a tentative basis. The question is not whether there may be some natural explanation for these things, but, in this case, whether those explanations are as desirable, as psychologically reinforcing, as trendy, as exciting, or........as marketable, as the theories expressed by our master salesman. It is a sad fact today, that so many will lunge at the quick and easy, rather than do the duller work of reading and checking facts.
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"
— JBS Haldane
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Deepak Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

Let's be realistic here fellows. Chopra is a businessman. He makes his money by keying into the perceived (accurately it would seem) spiritual needs, desires, and fantasies of those today that are intellectually constrained, emotionally in need, or perhaps simply bored with existence, and hoping that there was going to be more. His is the discourse of the used car salesman, one that seems to offer hope and benefit, but when deeply analyzed, a couple of days after the encounter, one finds skilled language, but little substance.
I think there is a psychological quirk at play, the same quirk found in nearly everyone. The way many people assess the truth is through the words that embody concepts. At some deeper level, the words themselves are the holders of truth. Whatever our assessment of the truth is, that assessment is attached to the words themselves rather than the correlation between the words and reality.

I have no doubt I'm failing at explaining this. But I've had the thought burning on the backburner since debating with Stahrwe a few years back. In some people's minds, the words used are able to supercede the reality they are supposed to refer to. So by mincing and combining words in new ways, you can alter the Truth. It's as if some people are lacking that second internal awareness of when the words aren't matching up to reality. To them, internal consistency is the gauge for truthfulness, and checking for a correlation to something objective is done only when convenient.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Deepak Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
I think there is a psychological quirk at play, the same quirk found in nearly everyone. The way many people assess the truth is through the words that embody concepts. At some deeper level, the words themselves are the holders of truth. Whatever our assessment of the truth is, that assessment is attached to the words themselves rather than the correlation between the words and reality.

I have no doubt I'm failing at explaining this. But I've had the thought burning on the backburner since debating with Stahrwe a few years back. In some people's minds, the words used are able to supercede the reality they are supposed to refer to. So by mincing and combining words in new ways, you can alter the Truth. It's as if some people are lacking that second internal awareness of when the words aren't matching up to reality. To them, internal consistency is the gauge for truthfulness, and checking for a correlation to something objective is done only when convenient.
This made much more sense the second time I read it, and actually you explain it very well. Put another way perhaps, language can corrupt our thinking. And language can be used to manipulate others. Politicians use words and phrases with certain connotations they know will excite their constituents. Like "welfare state" or "corporate state." People can react viscerally to these phrases without taking the time to analyze what is actually being said. Chopra is well known in the skeptic community for using scientific-sounding words, but as Dexter said, it's hard to figure out what he's actually saying. Indeed, he's very good at the manipulation game.

Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" is a good primer on this subject. One cannot change the inevitable decay of language, Orwell suggests, but "one can at least change one's own habits."

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

etudiant wrote: Let's be realistic here fellows. Chopra is a businessman. He makes his money by keying into the perceived (accurately it would seem) spiritual needs, desires, and fantasies of those today that are intellectually constrained, emotionally in need, or perhaps simply bored with existence, and hoping that there was going to be more. His is the discourse of the used car salesman, one that seems to offer hope and benefit, but when deeply analyzed, a couple of days after the encounter, one finds skilled language, but little substance.
Just to say. etudiant, in what I hope is fairness, that people on both sides of these questions are making money, and I don't think it's easy to fault them on that basis. Talent will sometimes pay off in that way, and whether we believe these public figures are exploiting the public for profit or doing them a valuable service often depends on our receptivity to their message.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

ant wrote:
But what about the passage above that geo quoted? You complain about others not supporting their claims, but you're constantly stating that Dawkins et al preach that science has solved all mysteries,
What about it?
That is not a claim that because there is mystery, God must exist. Perhaps you and Geo believe that is what is being implied. But again I say that is a simplistic analysis of his argument, which in this particular case is in fact not an argument at all for the existence of God, but rather serves as an exemplar that certain questions Science can not address - PERIOD.

I don't "complain." I direct it to the attention of those that try to pass off opinions as FACT, including some of Dawkins work.

Please show me where I've said that Dawkins has claimed "science has solved all mysteries."
"Maybe his point is simply that Science does not have all the answers; something that men like Dawkins make a lot of money preaching that it can."

I think having all the answers is reasonably close to solving all the mysteries. The Dawkins passage showed some proper humility about what science has made known. You puzzle me with your interpretation of why I asked you about the passage. Of course no one would take it as a claim that God exists, only that if one wants to feed on mystery, science can be as good a place as any.

Doesn't the heart of your objections to Dawkins have to do with taboo violation? I understand this; it's natural to react with alarm to violation of the taboo against expressing disbelief in God. But what else can explain the fact that presenting or arguing for religious world views is seen as merely par for the course and unexceptionable, while expressing or arguing for a non-religious worldview is singled out as an arrogant attack?
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Deepak Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

Chopra is a charlatan. His claim that "chemicals flying across synapses produce the entire world" is a myth that illustrates the constructivist idealism at the heart of faith. Faith says we can invent our world. By dressing up religious faith in scientific language Chopra taps into a constituency who recognise that spirituality is central to human identity.

That constituency is sincere, but Chopra promotes an unhealthy disrespect for science. A brief internet search turned up the fact that Chopra gives moral comfort to campaigners against vaccination. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rat ... al-fallaci This is the pointy end of Chopra's deluded attacks on Dawkins - Chopra promotes irrational stupidity. If you "create your world" in which vaccines cause autism, you promote the spread of measles.

I do not respect Chopra. He fails to see that it should be philosophically possible to understand the psychological need to construct a world while also respecting the scientific understanding of reality. These are not exclusive as Chopra presents them.

Dawkins by contrast provides a coherent foundation for real understanding. I do disagree with Dawkins on some matters of interpretation, regarding his own scientific construction of the world, and will come back to those later. But unlike Chopra, Dawkins presents a solid foundation to understand reality, and any discussion of Dawkins' work should be within a framework of respect.

Last edited by Robert Tulip on Mon May 27, 2013 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Deepak Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

Doesn't the heart of your objections to Dawkins have to do with taboo violation?
Actually it doesn't, if I understand what you're asking here.
And if I do, it's utterly flabbergasting as to how far off base you are.
It's a conversation killer as well.

I'm surprised.
User avatar
etudiant
Masters
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:33 pm
14
Location: canada
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

DWill wrote:
etudiant wrote: Let's be realistic here fellows. Chopra is a businessman. He makes his money by keying into the perceived (accurately it would seem) spiritual needs, desires, and fantasies of those today that are intellectually constrained, emotionally in need, or perhaps simply bored with existence, and hoping that there was going to be more. His is the discourse of the used car salesman, one that seems to offer hope and benefit, but when deeply analyzed, a couple of days after the encounter, one finds skilled language, but little substance.
Just to say. etudiant, in what I hope is fairness, that people on both sides of these questions are making money, and I don't think it's easy to fault them on that basis. Talent will sometimes pay off in that way, and whether we believe these public figures are exploiting the public for profit or doing them a valuable service often depends on our receptivity to their message.
I disagree DWill. I believe we can and should fault those whose intent is to make money by exploiting the credulous, the vulnerable, and those intellectually or emotionally unprepared. Or course, we could inject some subjectivity here, but I put it to you directly: which message may present the most potential harm to the adherent? Which the least? Which one would seem to be more about personal gain, and which about sincere conviction, given your knowlege of human nature?

Chopra has decided to make his living in this fashion, and he is pursuing it to a degree of corporate effeciency that would make the Buddha, or other true spiritual figure, be tempted to gloat over their relative volume of karma accrued in comparison. It is flash an bling, and difficulty later coherently explaining things in front of an astute interviewer, as we had a taste of the above clip. In a sense we can say that this is talent, one that Barnam and Baily might have admired, but I'd say not the sort of talent that enriches the human experience. Take a look at those two faces in the clip. You have, I believe DWill, some professional experience in human behavior, yes? I can tell you what I saw: sincerity and defense.

Dawkins, on the other hand, has already had a succesful career in science, and also lives in a country where having a bucket of money is not essential for wellbeing, although I'd guess he isn't a pauper. If he wanted to just be rich, then playing to the masses would be the way to go. Most people, in fact, profess some sort of metaphysical/religious belief. So by writing books that debunk this, it seems to me that he is actually taking rather a risk, and certainly not assembling the formula to get rich.
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"
— JBS Haldane
Post Reply

Return to “The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True - by Richard Dawkins”