Sam Harris Exposes Deepak Chopra's Religious Woo Woo

[Quixote1818]

Talk about a fight over who is the woo!

[MrMickeysMom]

1. Is this some kind of joke?

You take an edited YouTube video depicting several people attacking Deepak Chopra's definition (in part edited out) about science and effect of inter-connectivity?

The audience appears to be right on cue with laughter after Chopra's debaters attack him.

What the hell are you saying here? That Chopra was talking about "religious woo woo"? That's rather an embarrassment, if not an outright untrue statement. Either way, you can't tell what is going on here because it is an edited video of a rather unprofessionally and non-intelligent way of discussing quantum physics or how science is beginning to relate one thing to another thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. It's an excerpt for time.

The main debate is linked right there in the description on youtube if you want to see the whole thing.

[MrMickeysMom]

5. It's not an excerpt for time… it's edited crap

If the OP wanted to make the point, then we'd actually an actual debate. Outside of that explanation, the point was to show off a sophomoric, "wow! he sure told him!" video.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. What are you on about?

Even the subject line indicated it was going to be a specific moment of the exchange. Why are you pissed that it is what it as advertised to be?

Poster didn't offer it as if it was the whole unedited debate.

[Quixote1818]

7. Here is the full debate

In my opinion Deepak does poorly all the way through, but you can decide for yourself.

Here is another video with Deepak and Dawkins

[suzanner]

8. I'm with you on this one.

I understood Chopra, at least the intent. But I don't get why there would be a debate: person who disperses images in common language (possibly an art form, actually) vs person who is smug and holds his knowledge as elite. I'm reading a book about self-delusion. Who is the problem in the video? I dunno. (IMHO)

[MrMickeysMom]

9. Good observation...

Hey, what's the book you're reading, if you don't mind, suzanner?

[Quixote1818]

10. The question was about proof of god

You really think he proved God's existence with his answer? He should have just said he could not do that and then talked about his "belief" in God. They called him on it so he got frustrated and angry then starts lying about Einstein and Hawking the same way the religious right does. Just because it sounds "interesting" does not make it science. This was a scientific debate not a debate on who is skilled at mixing new age philosophy and quantum physics to sound cool.

The other two scientists are not "smug" they were on point and called him on his flashy sales pitch that had zero substance. If they did that to Pat Robertson you would be applauding but because it's a religion that sounds more "reasonable" and mixes science and belief you give him a pass. That is not good logic or scientific reasoning.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Chopra doesn't know the difference between a trillion and a billion.

The human brain contains approximately 100 billion neurons, not 100 trillion. Good grief. Was he trying to account for the entire auditorium?

[longship]

3. Harris nails him but good.

Sam is not my favorite atheist. But he often rises to the task. This is one of those moments. Chopra peddles nothing but woo-woo and Sam Harris takes him down for it.

For those DUers wondering why scientists and skeptics hate woo-woo, this is a prime example. Pseudoscience practitioners do not understand, and totally mischaracterize science.

I would not be so bold to call them liars. I don't know -- and cannot know -- what is going on in their minds. As an advocate of science I would not presume that knowledge. But nonetheless there seems to be something smarmy about about the whole pseudoscience endeavor which sets off all sorts of alarms. Their gross misstatements of science alone condemns their enterprise.

Chopra's deliberate out of context quotations from Einstein and Hawking, claiming support for his position when in context, they do no such thing, is typical.

That is woo-woo.

[2banon]

11. Appreciate the clarification..

I sort of assumed I understood what folks meant by "woo woo" but wasn't sure..

[CrawlingChaos]

12. Let me expose Sam Harris' "woo" for you

He believes in both Eastern spirituality AND torturing Muslims:

http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/sam_harris's_faith_in_eastern_spirituality_and_muslim_torture

[Quixote1818]

13. Did a little deeper next time

My views on Eastern mysticism, Buddhism, etc. (link to here) My views on “mystical” or “spiritual” experience are extensively described in The End of Faith, in several articles available on this website, and will soon be spelled out in a book entitled Waking Up: Science, Skepticism, Spirituality. Nothing I believe in this area is based on faith. There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a result of engaging in disciplines like meditation, and these experiences obviously shed some light on the nature of the human mind. (Any experience does, for that matter). The metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the basis of these experiences, however, are highly questionable. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support the metaphysical claims of others. Several neuroscience labs are now studying the effects of meditation on the brain. I am not personally engaged in this research, but I know many of the scientists who are. This is a fertile area of inquiry that is deepening our understanding of human well-being. While I consider Buddhism to be almost unique among the world’s religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. My criticism of Buddhism as a faith has been published, to the consternation of many Buddhists. It is available here: - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.MhDaj9py.dpuf


http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2


Torture

Snip>The topic of torture surfaced recently in a profile of me published in The New Statesman. The author, Jonathan Derbyshire, concluded his piece with a misleading summary of my views (among other things, he neglected to say that I think torture should be illegal).

Hhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/collateral-damage-torture_b_855546.html

[CrawlingChaos]

14. You are actually prepared to defend this monster?

You do realize that his FEEBLE and WEASLY attempt at damage control came only after the intense scorn and derision heaped upon him after his essay "In Defense of Torture" appeared. That piece of filth was, to say the least, unambiguous. But this is not a one-off aberration for him - far from it! He has been a shameless warmonger in the neocon mold for quite some time, and his relentless attacks on Muslims have been substantively no different that Pamela Gellar's (and predictably, he has no problem with "moral" Israel). THIS is the sort of person you're holding up here as someone we should listen to. Who needs to dig a little deeper again?

And GMAFB on his new age stuff. His actual writings on Eastern mysticism fall WELL into what would normally be termed "woo" by his crowd, unless you apply a massive double standard.