Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer

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.

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.

Science is wonderful but let's recognize its limits.

But ... But ... IT'S Science!!!

(you must understand Kowalski in Penguins of Madagascar, to fully appreciate the sentiment)

PoM - Kowalski - I Am A Scientist - YouTube

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.....

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:

Z-FaXD_igv4

A must see lecture by the brilliant Lawrence Krauss:

7ImvlS8PLIo

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

Please post an example of religion and science agreeing on something that isn't a Natural Law? Thanks.Here is a list of some famous Christian thinkers who made great contributions to science (this doesn't include those from other religions who also made great contributions while holding to their beliefs). Some pretty smart folks who obviously believed there was a harmony between science / religion.

List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science)

There are obviously flaws/faults that can be found within each religion or its followers (there are also scientific theories that have flaws). But, to completely dismiss religion as "woo-woo", comparable to a "witch doctor", or in contradiction to science is a mistake, but to each his own.

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!

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 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/#TowSciWitMet) in science.


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

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.

It's one thing to study religion as a sociological construct, quite another to espouse belief. I'm as atheist as they come and I've taken quite a few religion courses... mainly as a means to understanding the craziness that comes out of people's mouths.

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.

All legitimately good points. Let's also recognize that proponents of religion have consistently clung to that which science does not yet know as proof that their outlandish claims are possible. Evangelists are like cockroaches, they live in the dark spaces not yet touched by the light of reason.