• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (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

Deepak Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

Deeprok Chopra makes the usual kinds of complaints against Dawkins. By focusing on areas of science that aren't well understood, Chopra is merely making a long-winded God of the Gaps plea.

"Does science tell us why a brave soldier runs in to rescue his buddies under heavy fire? Does science tell us why we want to be creative and why we exalt art? Does science even tell a scientist that he exists? Dawkins fails to admit that some things may not be reducible to data."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-ch ... 04216.html
Last edited by geo on Sun May 26, 2013 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

You can't pin down Chopra on taking a position on anything. He'll just give you some New Age buzzwords and use "quantum" and "consciousness" in there somehow. But he's apparently made a lot of money doing that, so I give him credit.

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
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

There's no way I can comment intelligently on the piece, since I haven't read Dawkins' book. This means I can't evaluate whether Chopra is doing what we've seen a lot of from anti-atheists on this internet forum: imputing views to an atheist that the atheist is not really expressing, but is merely suspected of having. Does Dawkins discount art or human feeling in his book, for example? I'd be surprised if he did, because elsewhere he speaks of how important these are to him. His subject happens to be science, so he would naturally exclude some things, wouldn't he?

Still, though I might be too susceptible to Chopra's eloquence, the piece strikes me as worthy of attention. Dawkins can indeed be dogmatic, both about the state of the art in science and about what it is healthy to believe. Is he willing to consider that there may be more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in his philosophy?
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: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

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.

Can you provide a quote or video clip of Depak claiming that because of this or that mystery, God has been proven to exist?
I mean, yeah, he beleives in God. But you seem certain that his argument is a GOTG.
I think youre just being lazy and just using that over used rebuttle.

Lets see the evidence to back your accusation.
If not, youre nust saying he is because he beleives in God.
Youre being prejudiced against his beleif.
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: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

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.
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: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

Chopra does indeed love quantum physics and brings it up all the time as if its very mystique validates his own art of woo. If we ever do figure out what quantum physics is all about, Chopra will have to move on to something else. But I suppose he's pretty safe with quantum physics for now.

In the chapter on atoms, Dawkins brings up quarks, tiny particles inside protons and neutrons. I would bet Chopra could make something of quarks too. (He probably has.) But in this passage here, Dawkins isn't sounding like someone who claims science knows everything. This is actually the close of the chapter.
Dawkins wrote:. . . even protons and neutrons have an inside. Even they contain yet smaller things, called quarks. But that is is something I'm not going to talk about in this book. That's not because I think you wouldn't understand. It is because I know I don't understand it! We are here moving into a wonderland of the mysterious. And it is important to recognize when we reach the limits of what we understand. it is not that we shall never understand these things. Probably we shall, and scientists are working on them with every hope of success. But we have to know what we don't understand, and admit it to ourselves, before we can begin to work on it. There are scientists who understand at least something of this wonderland of the very small, but I am not one of them. I know my limitations.
Last edited by geo on Sun May 26, 2013 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Geo
Question everything
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: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

saying that Chopra is using a God Of Gaps arguement is an overly simplistic analysis.
Chopra is a scientist by training. He's an MD.
He is giving his perspective as a scientist. His is a holistic approach and one that many people can and do relate to in connection with health, values, and worldview.
He is certainly on the other side of the fence when compared to diehard materialists.

Many of us here are not scientists and have not lived in the profession or mingled with fellow scientists.
Most here are well-read armchair scientists and philosophers. Although it does not mean we are not entitled to an opinion, nevertheless, some of our opinions are blurted out in the most obviously biased style
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

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, and provides all else we need in order to understand who we are, why we're here, to live a good life, etc. To my knowledge, you've never provided any support for that; you just assume they harbor such views. Now's your chance! Some quotes, please.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

Chopra:
It's ironic that Dawkins is addressing "how we know what's really true" when he is oblivious of the fact that we can never know the whole truth.
Really? Dawkins is oblivious to that fact? I think we've seen this strawman before.

Chopra:
Experience remains richer than any scientific model. If I say that I am in love with the most beautiful woman in the world, in what way is a skeptic proving anything when he points out the improbability that I have found one woman out of three billion who is the most beautiful?
And what? You think Dawkins is confused about the state of scientific knowledge here?

Chopra:
Likewise, nothing unconscious, delivered in dreams, produced by a sudden flash of insight, made evident by a chance observation (like the discovery of penicillin) counts as a valid way of knowing the truth, either. The history of science undercuts Dawkins' stance. For instance, Friedrich August Kekulé struggled to understand the structure of benzene until in a day-dream he envisioned it as a snake eating its own tail.
But his insights on the structure of benzene must be consistent with science, and have explanatory usefulness. If Kekule had published a paper merely relaying his dream as evidence, obviously it would be invalid. So what's the criticism? Does Dawkins refuse to acknowledge sudden inspiration? I can't see how that is possible.

Chopra criticizes Dawkins for ignoring some research on genetic mutations, the idea that the universe is conscious, the relationship between consciousness and quantum theory, etc.

If these go beyond idle speculation, then it is part of science. What's the issue?
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: Deeprok Chopra's review of MAGIC OF REALITY

Unread post

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."
Post Reply

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