Deepak Chopra: Which is Real, the Moon or God?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Abrahamic Religions
  3. » Deepak Chopra: Which is Real, the Moon or God?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

johannw
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 04:39 pm
Has anyone heard about or read about his article called "Which is real? The Moon or God?" Here's the link:

Deepak Chopra: Which Is Real, the Moon or God?

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this. I wasn't exactly sure where to put this thread, so here it is.

Let me know what you think about this!
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 05:00 pm
@johannw,
YouTube - ABC Nightline Debate Commentary - Does God Have a Future?

here is a decent review of the ABC nightline debate(mentioned in the article).....at least from a Christian perspective
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 05:04 pm
@johannw,
johannw;153295 wrote:
Has anyone heard about or read about his article called "Which is real? The Moon or God?" Here's the link:

Deepak Chopra: Which Is Real, the Moon or God?

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this. I wasn't exactly sure where to put this thread, so here it is.

Let me know what you think about this!



And the moon? It exists as an event in consciousness, first and foremost. Because you are also conscious, you not only see the moon, but you participate in the field from which the moon arises.

I wonder whose consciousness Chopra means. But, in any case, if the Moon "exists as an even in consciousness" then that means that the Moon is an event in consciousness. And, if the Moon is an event in consciousness, then that means that without consciousness the Moon does not exist. But scientists are agreed that the Moon existed way before human beings existed, so either Chopra is wrong or scientists are wrong. I think I'll go along with the scientists. They are the one's who have the evidence on their side.
 
johannw
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 12:47 pm
@johannw,
I really like your reasoning, kennethamy! I'm wondering: is Chopra just trying very hard to rationalize his belief in god or a "higher consciousness" (and if so, is he wrong in that belief) or is he merely taking the wrong approach to his overall belief in god and should he be seeing it differently (in your opinion, of course)

Anyone else, jump in, please! I want to know what everyone is thinking about this!
 
Emil
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 01:00 pm
@johannw,
Why would anyone bother with this lunatic?

Deepak Chopra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 01:02 pm
@johannw,
johannw;153626 wrote:
I really like your reasoning, kennethamy! I'm wondering: is Chopra just trying very hard to rationalize his belief in god or a "higher consciousness" (and if so, is he wrong in that belief) or is he merely taking the wrong approach to his overall belief in god and should he be seeing it differently (in your opinion, of course)

Anyone else, jump in, please! I want to know what everyone is thinking about this!


I think that his premise that the Moon exists as an event in consciousness is obviously false. The Moon is not an event to start with. It is an object. And, in the second place, it is an object in space, and not in consciousness. Why Chopra says such a thing I do not know. I expect he is confused.
 
johannw
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 01:22 pm
@johannw,
That excerpt from the wikipedia article was interesting! Granted, wikipedia should sometimes be taken with a grain of salt, but in watching the Nightline debate between Chopra/Houston and Harris/Shermer, I am not very surprised that Chopra has been confronted by both the scientific and the religious community as someone who's views are rather... unorthodox and even unreasonable. I think Chopra, like many people who's ideas are generally viewed as lunacy has some valid points sprinkled in his views, but it seems to me, that he is confused, as kennethamy has said.

In the Nightline Face-off of "Does Satan Exist" (if you haven't seen it, youtube that right now, it's very interesting), Chopra says that belief is the mark of insecurity. This is brilliantly countered by a man in the audience who simply says "do you believe that?" and Chopra answers "yes" and the man says "Thank you" and sits down. Chopra seems to have taken an idea he had about spirituality and science and ran with it without some clear, concise thinking about what exactly he is preaching. Watch the Nightline Face-Off video and if you haven't seen the "Does God Have a Future" face-off versus Sam Harris and Michael Shermer, watch that as well. There are definitely some interesting ideas being talked about there.
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 01:43 pm
@johannw,
I think he is entertaining. But he is not God. So I don't truly listen to him.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 02:59 pm
@johannw,
johannw;153635 wrote:
That excerpt from the wikipedia article was interesting! Granted, wikipedia should sometimes be taken with a grain of salt, but in watching the Nightline debate between Chopra/Houston and Harris/Shermer, I am not very surprised that Chopra has been confronted by both the scientific and the religious community as someone who's views are rather... unorthodox and even unreasonable. I think Chopra, like many people who's ideas are generally viewed as lunacy has some valid points sprinkled in his views, but it seems to me, that he is confused, as kennethamy has said.

In the Nightline Face-off of "Does Satan Exist" (if you haven't seen it, youtube that right now, it's very interesting), Chopra says that belief is the mark of insecurity. This is brilliantly countered by a man in the audience who simply says "do you believe that?" and Chopra answers "yes" and the man says "Thank you" and sits down. Chopra seems to have taken an idea he had about spirituality and science and ran with it without some clear, concise thinking about what exactly he is preaching. Watch the Nightline Face-Off video and if you haven't seen the "Does God Have a Future" face-off versus Sam Harris and Michael Shermer, watch that as well. There are definitely some interesting ideas being talked about there.


I have never seen him or read him. But he seems to be a silly person. Why are you paying any attention to him?
 
johannw
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 05:15 pm
@johannw,
That article was sent to me by someone who I hold a lot of respect for so I read it and watched the video, and I just wanted to hear other people's take on it. And I posted it just to start a conversation, really. Plus, the Nightline Face-off interested me, mainly because I like a lot of Sam Harris's work and ideas.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 05:23 pm
@johannw,
johannw;153737 wrote:
That article was sent to me by someone who I hold a lot of respect for so I read it and watched the video, and I just wanted to hear other people's take on it. And I posted it just to start a conversation, really. Plus, the Nightline Face-off interested me, mainly because I like a lot of Sam Harris's work and ideas.


Well, you were talking about Chopra, so I naturally thought that you were asking about him. As I said, from what you have told me about, I don't think he should be taken seriously.
 
johannw
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 05:36 pm
@johannw,
Well, I was, but what I meant was that the only reason that I paid any attention to the Nightline Faceoff, specifically was because of Sam Harris. The article and this post was intentionally and originally about Chopra's ideas and people's opinions about them. You're right though, he really shouldn't be taken seriously. I just wanted to start a conversation, really. I'm new to this website and wanted to start off with something.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 05:43 pm
@johannw,
johannw;153750 wrote:
Well, I was, but what I meant was that the only reason that I paid any attention to the Nightline Faceoff, specifically was because of Sam Harris. The article and this post was intentionally and originally about Chopra's ideas and people's opinions about them. You're right though, he really shouldn't be taken seriously. I just wanted to start a conversation, really. I'm new to this website and wanted to start off with something.


Some people on this forum have expressed exactly Chopra's view that somehow the Moon in in the mind, and not out in space, and that it existence depend on being thought to exist. So I did come down hard on this silly but prevalent notion. It is not you, it is the notion that annoys me. It is an expression of philosophical Idealism which has, for some reason, become prevalent, at least on this forum. It is expressed in different ways. Chopra's is just a blatant expression of this view.
 
johannw
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 10:47 pm
@johannw,
I gotcha. I do, however, have a question that I just thought about. Chopra's concept of consciousness creating reality, or the idea that for the moon to exist, there has to be a consciousness to perceive it (as silly as it sounds) would make an argument for the existence of a universal, omni-present and time/space transcendent consciousness (or god) because, although humanity hasn't been around for long enough to make this true, that kind of consciousness could manifest these "events in consciousness" that Chopra talks about. Perhaps our consciousness wasn't the one that brought about the existence of the moon or the universe or the Earth itself (at least according to Chopra's views). He claims that for any physical object to exist in space, a consciousness has to perceive it, not that OUR consciousness has to perceive it.

His ideas make sense, but only if a higher consciousness/god figure exists...

Is that right?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 11:06 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;153301 wrote:
YouTube - ABC Nightline Debate Commentary - Does God Have a Future?

here is a decent review of the ABC nightline debate(mentioned in the article).....at least from a Christian perspective


I don't give Veritas all that much credence because he is constantly dishonest and ignores corrections that are given to him. He will ask atheists questions and once they respond he pretends as if he got no responses. Then if he does respond to any they are only to those atheists who are complete morons.

I have watched almost all of his videos and he makes the same mistakes that ever apologetic makes and then some. He wants to make it seem like his channel is about some theistic / atheistic debate but it's really not.

As far as that video goes, abc doesn't actually care about the debate either, they just want to stir people up so they can sell ads.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 08:43 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;153836 wrote:
I don't give Veritas all that much credence because he is constantly dishonest and ignores corrections that are given to him. He will ask atheists questions and once they respond he pretends as if he got no responses. Then if he does respond to any they are only to those atheists who are complete morons.

I have watched almost all of his videos and he makes the same mistakes that ever apologetic makes and then some. He wants to make it seem like his channel is about some theistic / atheistic debate but it's really not.

As far as that video goes, abc doesn't actually care about the debate either, they just want to stir people up so they can sell ads.
well as I said, I didn't watch the debate myself but I remembered seeing this video that gave some commentary on the debate and in that video, at least, he makes some good points. Of course it's much easier to critique and cherry pick from a video that you can watch again and again, but I think it serves it's purpose of exposing the debaters somewhat fallacious assumptions.

As far as Veritas goes, I've watched a handful of his videos and obviously I don't agree with everything he says but that could be said of just about anyone.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 08:48 am
@johannw,
johannw;153833 wrote:
I gotcha. I do, however, have a question that I just thought about. Chopra's concept of consciousness creating reality, or the idea that for the moon to exist, there has to be a consciousness to perceive it (as silly as it sounds) would make an argument for the existence of a universal, omni-present and time/space transcendent consciousness (or god) because, although humanity hasn't been around for long enough to make this true, that kind of consciousness could manifest these "events in consciousness" that Chopra talks about. Perhaps our consciousness wasn't the one that brought about the existence of the moon or the universe or the Earth itself (at least according to Chopra's views). He claims that for any physical object to exist in space, a consciousness has to perceive it, not that OUR consciousness has to perceive it.

His ideas make sense, but only if a higher consciousness/god figure exists...

Is that right?


Why would it be that God's consciousness creates the Moon? I understand that no more than I understand how Man's consciousness creates the Moon.
 
johannw
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 09:00 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;153978 wrote:
Why would it be that God's consciousness creates the Moon? I understand that no more than I understand how Man's consciousness creates the Moon.


Well, according to Chopra, particles that make up the universe (he uses the example of the moon) are "only a superposition of possibility waves until a non-material observer causes them to collapse from one state, a wave, into another, a particle." He says that there needs to be an observer for there to be perceivable objects. Now, as crazy as that sounds, IF that "observer effect" had a shred of truth (hypothetically), then for the universe to exist at all, there had to have been an observer since the exact moment that the universe was created and Chopra calls that observer "god".

To be clear, I don't believe a word this man says. I just think it's interesting that he's been able to justify his belief in god with quantum physics... That's not generally a rationalization that theists use in their argument for the existence of god, so naturally I want to hear other people's opinions about it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 09:03 am
@johannw,
johannw;153981 wrote:
Well, according to Chopra, particles that make up the universe (he uses the example of the moon) are "only a superposition of possibility waves until a non-material observer causes them to collapse from one state, a wave, into another, a particle." He says that there needs to be an observer for there to be perceivable objects. Now, as crazy as that sounds, IF that "observer effect" had a shred of truth (hypothetically), then for the universe to exist at all, there had to have been an observer since the exact moment that the universe was created and Chopra calls that observer "god".

To be clear, I don't believe a word this man says. I just think it's interesting that he's been able to justify his belief in god with quantum physics... That's not generally a rationalization that theists use in their argument for the existence of god, so naturally I want to hear other people's opinions about it.


Well, you are luckier than I am. I don't understand a word this man says.
 
johannw
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 09:16 am
@johannw,
What is it that you don't understand? I can try my best to explain it better, if you're interested. But if not, we can move on to another conversation. =)
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Abrahamic Religions
  3. » Deepak Chopra: Which is Real, the Moon or God?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 02:25:48