Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Debater Slayer]

I came across this excerpt from a debate between Richard Dawkins and Deepak Chopra:

That was just painful to watch. You could tell exactly how Dawkins felt from the facepalm he gave Chopra while the latter was speaking his nonsense.

What do you personally think of Deepak Chopra's views in general? Do you believe that he has anything worthwhile to say, or do you share Dawkins's view that Chopra uses scientific jargon to make unscientific and baseless claims about consciousness and mystical experiences?

 

[Revoltingest]

Mr Chopra is one of my favorite lecturers on difficult scientific topics such as advanced quantum laser calculus & telepathic sodium hypotenuse matrix reactions.

 

[Skwim]

 

[gsa]

I think it would help if I could understand what it means to say that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. Is it something like this description of integrated information theory? Or is it something else?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What do you personally think of Deepak Chopra's views in general? Do you believe that he has anything worthwhile to say, or do you share Dawkins's view that Chopra uses scientific jargon to make unscientific and baseless claims about consciousness and mystical experiences?

I think Deepak Chopra is full of new-age nonsense, and that Dawkins' points were spot on. I found Chopra's cheap point-scoring dishonest and distasteful.

 

[Ultimatum]

A single cell has a rudimentary form of awareness...
...Freemon Dyson said an atom has awareness
*Audience Claps*

It's not awareness, you halfwit. It's, micro chemically, reacting to the surrounding environment. There is no magic or intelligence going on here.
If I were Dawkins, I would have ran for the exit door as the audience is obviously uneducated as well...

How do microchemicals produce consciousness?
Hawkins: I don't know.
*chopra sits there with a big fat grin on his face*

Oh my god..
I had to stop watching there

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If I were Dawkins, I would have ran for the exit door as the audience is obviously uneducated as well...

That struck me too. Anyone who understands the science would have laughed Chopra off the stage. The man's a charlatan.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I came across this excerpt from a debate between Richard Dawkins and Deepak Chopra:

That was just painful to watch. You could tell exactly how Dawkins felt from the facepalm he gave Chopra while the latter was speaking his nonsense.

What do you personally think of Deepak Chopra's views in general? Do you believe that he has anything worthwhile to say, or do you share Dawkins's view that Chopra uses scientific jargon to make unscientific and baseless claims about consciousness and mystical experiences?

I don't know much about him. But Dawkins is completely out of his league in the subject of mysticism and theology. He should just go home and collect stamps or something.

 

[Sees]

New clothes on some old ideas, for a new generation of seekers, is what I liked about Chopra early on - but he went out of bounds quite a while ago.

When I read/hear him now it seems he is almost entirely full of "it" and full speed, head-on into quackery.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't know much about him. But Dawkins is completely out of his league in the subject of mysticism and theology. He should just go home and collect stamps or something.

Neither theology or mysticism actually hold any weight when talking about facts. If we are discussing biology and someone quotes things from Harry Potter on the existence of Unicorns it really doesn't help their case.
And something that theists do A LOT is that they ask a question that we obviously don't know the answer to and then do a smug smile when we admit we don't know. But the problem is...neither do they and the fact we don't know doesn't lend any credibility to their arguments.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Neither theology or mysticism actually hold any weight when talking about facts. If we are discussing biology and someone quotes things from Harry Potter on the existence of Unicorns it really doesn't help their case.
And something that theists do A LOT is that they ask a question that we obviously don't know the answer to and then do a smug smile when we admit we don't know. But the problem is...neither do they and the fact we don't know doesn't lend any credibility to their arguments.

Theology is fact. Whether you understand that or not is not my problem. But don't be mistaken into thinking that just because you don't know, no one else does

 

[gsa]

Theology is fact. Whether you understand that or not is not my problem. But don't be mistaken into thinking that just because you don't know, no one else does

And don't be alarmed when people dismiss you out of hand for saying such ridiculous things.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Theology is fact. Whether you understand that or not is not my problem. But don't be mistaken into thinking that just because you don't know, no one else does

Theology exists. But what it studies doesn't necessarily exist. In fact between theologies several must be wrong by simple logic.

You don't know how you have sentience. You simply don't know. If it comforts you to think that you know then its none of my business. At least until you start to tell me that your opinion is fact. Then you get into trouble.

 

[Revoltingest]

I tried watching a little of the video. Chopra is now my least favorite comedian.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Theology is fact

No it isn't, it's just what you believe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But Dawkins is completely out of his league in the subject of mysticism and theology

Chopra is completely out of his league when it comes to science, it's just a nonsensical stream of pseudo-science dressed up to sound clever. It's rubbish, and I'm amazed that anyone falls for it.

 

[George-ananda]

I think Deepak is extremely intelligent but doesn't relate well with the mainstream or non-believers; particularly in conversation. I think there are many, many that can present the worldview of Chopra in a much better way to the layman.

I wonder if Dawkins realizes this and seems to choose to publicly interact with Chopra because Chopra helps Dawkins show what he wants to show. There are others who Dawkins would be more challenged by, but he prefers Chopra.

 

[Koldo]

I think Deepak is extremely intelligent...

I had to stop reading right here.

 

[George-ananda]

I had to stop reading right here.

Bet you didn't...

 

[Koldo]

Bet you didn't...

To be completely honest, I had to read the rest of the sentence to make sure you weren't making use of sarcasm. But that's it.