Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism

[Eilonnwy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-cho...73788.html

It's disgusting to read. He has no idea the true nature of skepticism, he just hates us because we won't take his word for it. e_e

Phil Plait wrote a great response to the article: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badast...ing-wrong/

[theVOID]

I hate that quantum-bastardizing douche.

[Pippy]

Hey,

Deepak is a good guy though. And maybe, as the response posed, he is confusing skepticism with cynicism , and perhaps we are... It is a good point about how the modern skeptic has to be a certain thing. I have called myself a skeptic and a free-thinker here before, much to my consternation. I have been told that in essence, only non-believers are skeptic and only atheists are free thinkers. But cannot I be skeptical of the universe as I see it being accidental? Can I not be a free thinker and freely think something different from the norm? Is that not part of the definition?

Deepak's Huffington article was a little muddy, but I think he was trying to respond to the weaker side of modern skepticism, that nothing can exist without "proof" and "evidence", and on a more inter-personal level that we can treat people who are "less skeptical than thou" (when it is not a matter of skepticism but of conformity) as less enlightened than the Modern-Skeptic TM. Like scientific method, skepticism is a process and not a conclusion.

The part about confusing self-righteousness for happiness is fantastic. That the disconnected and lonely thought that you are more right than everyone else, and everyone else is more wrong... Is just unhealthy. We need to be careful how we identify ourselves, with what we identify, and the be the most "right" is dangerous and less than ideal.

It isn't one of his best works, but I think /I get what he meant to say, and I agree. Skepticism is a process, a mind state, and that is why I am a skeptic. I can believe in god, as a skepticism for the random universe. I can believe in the supernatural as a skeptical response to that which we can see. Cant I? Or is it like the "Free Thinker" thing, that I cannot join the Canadian Coalition of Free Thinkers because I am not an Atheist?

Thanks,
Too much devils advocate too early in the morning. And I wouldn't blame you if you already don't like hearing from me Eilo, we have disagreed strongly before. Oh and about that, how's Obama doing? We gave him a trillion dollars, is it change yet? I'm just being picky though, I am smiling when I write this...

The,
-Pip

[theVOID]

Deepak is not a good person, he makes a living lying about Quantum Mechanics.

[Eilonnwy]

Pippy, you are creating a strawman, much as Deepak did. Skepticism is about reserving judgment until proper evidence presents itself. It also requires that you look at all the evidence. It's not waving a sign saying "I doubt it!" for the sake of just disagreeing with people. Skeptics are the first and most willing to change their mind when the evidence presents itself.

Deepak makes a living off of deceiving people, whether intentional or not. The act of demanding evidence for your claims is a bane to the shit Deepak promotes.

He basically promotes pseudoscience by throwing around the word quantum and any other fancy scientific sounding word that the average lay person doesn't understand, so they buy his spiel.

I personally don't think you can be a true skeptic if you believe in god, only because the act of believing on faith is completely in opposition to what a skeptic is. If you're a true skeptic then you must apply it to all aspects of life. Granted, many skeptics would disagree with me, that's an ongoing debate within the skeptic community itself. Many skeptics think religion should be left alone unless it makes specific claims on science (Like healing by prayer). I disagree, but that's another argument entirely.

I don't think you're a skeptic Pippy, not specifically because you believe in God, but during the 9/11 debate you simply ignored the evidence put before you, thinking that by ignoring good evidence you are embracing skepticism. If someone is "skeptical" about the world being round, they're not being appropriately skeptical, they are ignoring good evidence. Much like 9/11 truthers do. Once a claim has met its burden of proof, if you deny it, then you must meet that burden of proof. That's why skeptics mock and take a hard stance against 9/11 deniers, Global warming deniers, holocaust deniers, flat earthers, evolution deniers, etc...

[Pippy]

Hey Eilonnwy,

Skepticism is about reserving judgment until proper evidence presents itself.

I would agree, but I think there is more to it. We may just have slightly different definitions of skepticism. I think honest skepticism is more about reserving absolute judgment, a complete decision, indefinatley. That doubt is the basis, but not the totality of a skeptical view.

I fondly remember the 9/11 debate, and I don't think it went well, in the sense that you came away from it thinking me to be some rabid (drum roll) Conspiracy Theorist TM. I have unanswered questions and strange coincidences about that fateful day, and will until they are answered. That you guys can post a video someone else made, and a third party is hosting, and call it irrefutable, or even evidence enough to expect someone to change his mind is silly. I am far too (more drum roll) skeptical to base my view on such an important subject on the validity of a YouTube video. Anyone who just watches YouTube videos and comes to the conclusion that we are being lied to about 9/11 is just as foolish. You have to look at a much bigger picture than that. You have to take things for what they are worth, that is part of my definition of skepticism.

But I know that is a debate we may never resolve, and I appreciate your right to think anything you want to about modern terrorism and Americana.

I personally don't think you can be a true skeptic if you believe in god, only because the act of believing on faith is completely in opposition to what a skeptic is.

There is that strange separation again. An atheist is not holding a belief, a view, an idea or an opinion. An atheist is by default seeing reality as it must be, full stop, end transmission... To think you are indelibly correct is a fault, and in glaring opposition to an honestly skeptical view. You don't-believe what you want, I will believe what I want, and on that playing field, I am sure to your disagreement, we are level.

I hope I am not being too silly, I appreciate your presence, and again apologize for making you think I am just another crazy person...

Thanks,
-Pip

[binny]

What a putts.

[theVOID]

The honest skeptical view is simply the rejection of any claim until it can be verified to a certain standard, i don't see the need to make the matter any more complicated.

[Eilonnwy]

Skepticism is about reserving judgment until proper evidence presents itself.

I would agree, but I think there is more to it. We may just have slightly different definitions of skepticism. I think honest skepticism is more about reserving absolute judgment, a complete decision, indefinatley. That doubt is the basis, but not the totality of a skeptical view.

Hold judgment indefinitely? So essentially everything is "up in the air"? So in essence are we unsure the earth is revolving around the sun? I don't know...do we have enough evidence?

You have it wrong. There is no such thing as absolute truth and I think it's naive to think you must know absolutely before accepting something as true. We cannot suspend judgment indefinitely, especially when we need to make decisions based on what we know. We need to try to accept things as true that has the most reliable evidence, and should that evidence change and prove false, then we should change our acceptance of something as true. Are think you are muddying the waters of skepticism when you say it's about doubting, and that we must hold judgment indefinitely.

But I know that is a debate we may never resolve, and I appreciate your right to think anything you want to about modern terrorism and Americana.

I guess we should just leave it at that. I don't want to continue beating a dead horse, but simply point out as an example that just doubting for the sake of doubting is not skepticism. We must and have made judgments based on what side has the best most reliable scientific evidence. Prove your case scientifically, and I will change my mind.

I personally don't think you can be a true skeptic if you believe in god, only because the act of believing on faith is completely in opposition to what a skeptic is.

There is that strange separation again. An atheist is not holding a belief, a view, an idea or an opinion. An atheist is by default seeing reality as it must be, full stop, end transmission... To think you are indelibly correct is a fault, and in glaring opposition to an honestly skeptical view. You don't-believe what you want, I will believe what I want, and on that playing field, I am sure to your disagreement, we are level.

Stop creating a straw man. I never once said that an atheist somehow knows everything about reality and is not a belief.

Atheism is a belief, however it is not a belief based on faith. Skepticism demands evidence before accepting something as true, and I don't think you can pick and choose what you accept on faith and what you accept on evidence and claim to be a skeptic. Obviously I think atheism is the logically correct view because there is no evidence for God, this is consistent with skepticism. However I'm not saying atheism is absolutely true and enjoys some special status as not being a belief. It absolutely is. (It's not a religion, however). I have consistently stated I am an agnostic atheist, I accept the fact that I cannot know if there is no God, but based on the lack of evidence (And some evidence in my mind that disproves God) I find it to be more reasonable than not that there are no God(s). I have never once said "I am correct, everything I say is true".

I have only ever said I have based what I believe on the evidence, show me good evidence to the contrary, and I'll change my mind. Your beliefs are based on what you accept as true, and I do the best that I can to base my beliefs on good scientific evidence. That's what makes me a skeptic, not just doubting for doubts sake. I doubt because I want honest inquiry and good evidence before accepting something as true. So please, don't accuse me of something I haven't done and create a straw man out of what I stated.

I also stated this issue about God is a personal opinion and a point of contention with the skeptical community at-large. I did not claim it as something that all skeptics agree on. However my point about believing something based on the evidence, that's a staple of skepticism.

[Purple Rabbit]

Some of the deep shit Deepak teaches us:

“Every person is a God in embryo. Its only desire is to be born.”
Dear Dippy, please accept your mortal self and all your pain will go away. And it will certainly give us a break.

“The physical world, including our bodies, is a response of the observer. We create our bodies as we create the experience of our world.”
Yeah sure, the one legged man just creates his own one-leggedness by observing. Strange though that one leggedness is never repaired with sheer thinking power.

I rest my case. As the king of snakes oil salesmen Deepak's problem with skepticism is only too obvious, why won't the nasty skeptics leave him alone, he's only a creative mind like Einstein, boohoohooo.... Please don't credit the guy any longer with media attention to promote his next book on quantum flapdoodle.