Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

That "crazy bitch" is Jean Houston, who has 2 Ph.D.'s and has published a number of intelligent and well-received books. I'm not saying that she is right in her claims but she deserves respect.

She won't get any from me. A Ph. D in religion? <point_laugh>

And don't get me started on the Ph.D. in psychology.....

She's the epitome of an intellectual BS artist who is an integral part of the reason the modern world (and by that I mean 'Kids today') is in decline.

Have I mentioned before that I despise hippies?

[saden1]

Deepak? He's one of the lamest hucksters on the planet. He is a class weasel on par with gurus and televangelists of the present and the past in selling crap to people for a handsome profit.

There is no sense in arguing with believers about religion because it really boils down to them having faith in something from nothing while being critical of nothing itself.

Two videos that might be of interest...

Dawkins exposes Deepak for the fraud he is:



A must see lecture by the brilliant Lawrence Krauss:

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by saden1

Deepak? He's one of the lamest hucksters on the planet. He is a class weasel on par with gurus and televangelists of the present and the past in selling crap to people for a handsome profit.

There is no sense in arguing with believers about religion because it really boils down to them having faith in something from nothing while being critical of nothing itself.

Two videos that might be of interest...

Dawkins exposes Deepak for the fraud he is:



A must see lecture by the brilliant Lawrence Krauss:

that chick at 1:58 of the first video had some pretty big tatas.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

She won't get any from me. A Ph. D in religion? <point_laugh>

And don't get me started on the Ph.D. in psychology.....

She's the epitome of an intellectual BS artist who is an integral part of the reason the modern world (and by that I mean 'Kids today') is in decline.

Have I mentioned before that I despise hippies?

Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.

[Lotus]

Saden, you are correct that it is a pointless argument. Believers will support their arguments with presumptions which are not shared by non-believers. On the other hand, those claiming to use "pure" reason like Shermer not only bring their own set of presuppositions to the table, they also cannot use reason to debunk a reality which by definition is beyond human reason.

The history of Western philosophy is a history of failed attempts to either prove or disprove the existence of God and this debate will do nothing to change that history.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.

I just want to add that having a Ph. D. in theology is a great accomplishment. At the end of the day though we arrive at what Thomas Paine said:

The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.

-The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by saden1

I just want to add that having a Ph. D. in theology is a great accomplishment. At the end of the day though we arrive at what Thomas Paine said:

Well done.

Some people think that theologians are all religious people. But you don't have to be a religious person to study religion, just as you don't have to be a rock to study geology.

I know some very un-religious people with Ph.D.'s in religion. They study religion so that they can understand reality in a deep, educated way with perspectives not unlike those of Thomas Paine.

Given the violence that sometimes stems from religion, we need people who understand religion in advanced ways, although some people fail to recognize this need.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

I've met the crazy bitch (and lots like her), listened to her debate people who are science based which is why I regard her as yet another of intelligentsia's smoke and mirrors crew. Use some big words and wow the crowd. 'Woowoo', as Shermer put it.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

No, I wouldn't 'ignorantly' dismiss it, it's as valid a Ph. D. as a Ph. D. in Plate Spinning. We can discuss this further if you'd like?

Originally Posted by Lotus

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.

You misrepresent my argument nicely, but please allow me to correct you. If I'm Pro-Shermer/Harris (my idea of true intellectuals) how can you extrapolate an anti-intellectual bias?

My gues is you're an argument re-framer. Try again.

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I've met the crazy bitch (and lots like her), listened to her debate people who are science based which is why I regard her as yet another of intelligentsia's smoke and mirrors crew. Use some big words and wow the crowd. 'Woowoo', as Shermer put it.



No, I wouldn't 'ignorantly' dismiss it, it's as valid a Ph. D. as a Ph. D. in Plate Spinning. We can discuss this further if you'd like?



You misrepresent my argument nicely, but please allow me to correct you. If I'm Pro-Shermer/Harris (my idea of true intellectuals) how can you extrapolate an anti-intellectual bias?

My gues is you're an argument re-framer. Try again.

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

You have an extremely narrow and impoverished idea of what a "true intellectual" is. I feel sorry for you on this point.

So far in your posts you have broadly dismissed a Ph.D. in religion twice (calling it the same as plate spinning is hardly a compliment). You have also broadly dismissed all Ph.D.'s in psychology. Statements such as yours could be in the dictionary as examples of anti-intellectualism. If you don't see this, oh well. I'm re-framing nothing; you just aren't recognizing the nature of your arguments.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You have an extremely narrow and impoverished idea of what a "true intellectual" is. I feel sorry for you on this point.

That is your opinion, you are basing your opinion on a statement you either misunderstood or chose to incorrectly interpret. Intellect should hold up to the scientific method, if not it's pseudointellectual posturing (as displayed by Chopra and the crazy bitch). You may be a groupie for coffee house poseurs but I'm not.

Originally Posted by Lotus

So far in your posts you have broadly dismissed a Ph.D. in religion twice (calling it the same as plate spinning is hardly a compliment). You have also broadly dismissed all Ph.D.'s in psychology.

If you don't understand the obvious analogy of plate spinning then the issue is with your abilities not my statement. Psychology is an extremely subjective topic, lots of hypotheses, few established theories and much that is disputed. This doesn't make it bad per se but compared to a more easily measured, agreed upon field it's not what I'd class as admirable.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Statements such as yours could be in the dictionary as examples of anti-intellectualism. If you don't see this, oh well. I'm re-framing nothing; you just aren't recognizing the nature of your arguments.

According to your logic I must hate Football as I hate the Cowboys. You clearly attempted to set my position as one of anti-intellectual, which it is not.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That is your opinion, you are basing your opinion on a statement you either misunderstood or chose to incorrectly interpret. Intellect should hold up to the scientific method, if not it's pseudointellectual posturing (as displayed by Chopra and the crazy bitch). You may be a groupie for coffee house poseurs but I'm not.



If you don't understand the obvious analogy of plate spinning then the issue is with your abilities not my statement. Psychology is an extremely subjective topic, lots of hypotheses, few established theories and much that is disputed. This doesn't make it bad per se but compared to a more easily measured, agreed upon field it's not what I'd class as admirable.



According to your logic I must hate Football as I hate the Cowboys. You clearly attempted to set my position as one of anti-intellectual, which it is not.

Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.

[Lotus]

Some of you have indicated that you think that science gives certain knowledge while other disciplines (like psychology) are "subjective."

Please realize two things:
1) Werner Heisenberg won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that all scientific experiments involve the researcher and thus are, in a sense, "subjective." Thomas Kuhn demonstrated that scientific paradigms are not "objective" but reflect cultural configurations. As a result, no current philosophy of science describes science as purely objective.

2) Physics studies the properties of matter yet physicists cannot tell us precisely what matter is. Biology studies the properties of species yet has no accepted understanding of what a "species" is. Chemistry depends on the properties of atoms yet we have no finished concept of the atom.

Science is wonderful but let's recognize its limits.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.

That may be the best veiled way I ever saw someone call another a moron.
wow.....

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.

Conveniently you left off the rest of the statement in brackets, yet again reframing an argument.

The insult washes off, you're obviously too emotionally involved in the discussion to stay on point. I get that a lot from people who imagine they're intellectually superior, particularly those of a religious bent (not to say that you are, Lotus, but I typically talk with moslems and christians on these kinds of topics).

I do appreciate your responses though and would be interested in continuing to explore our differences after the weekend.

Thanks for your time and efforts!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.

Huh? Aristotal didn't use the scientific method, he developed the fundamental princpile of it...empiricism. As for Voltair, he championed elimination of metaphysics in science.


Intellect means wisdom...science is the pursuit of wisdom in all domains, in religion it is the wisdom of God.