What's the problem with Chopra?

[John Maguire]

I have read a couple of his books.
Those that are mostly on the subject of spirituality are quite good and I can see why they have become best sellers.

"Quantum Healing" is baffling. He speaks as if he had full understanding of all intricate physiological and psychosomatic aspects of all illnesses.
He makes an unprecedented mishmash of facts, speculations and baseless claims that made my head spin for a while. Some parts of the book are irritating and it's difficult to distillate the good out of it because of all the interspersed nonsense.

I bought the book over 10 years ago and I promised myself I would never, ever buy another one with the word "Quantum" in the title, unless it's written by a physicist :)

p.s. = one thing is for sure: the guy is a marketing genius, he even released console videogames with his brand a couple of years ago.

This about nails it. I feel I can argue quantum mechanics better than Chopra can, and that's pretty sad.

However, to label him a "enemy of reason" and try to crucify him like Dawkins and others have done is downright bullshit. It's actually pretty dangerous/scary to delineate between the "good guys" and the "enemies" like that. Clearly those like Dawkins/Coyne do not understand the dangers and biases associated with the use of such language. Or maybe they do, which makes it even worse.

They appear to have zero self-awareness. They think his ideas are "dangerous", but they don't see any inherent danger latent in their belief systems. Ultimately it's base demagoguery being perpetrated by the most "rational" and "intelligent" among us. Their appeal to emotion (i.e. hate) is pretty sickening.

However, I do wish his name didn't appear on every other genuinely interesting book on consciousness or one that questions materialism, etc. because people have a knee jerk reaction to it. I suppose if you're trying to preach to the choir that's a fine marketing tactic to adopt, but if you want "mainstream" credibility its asking for trouble.

Ultimately, in a free-market of ideas, Chopra has his place.

 

[David Bailey]

Actually this thread has just reminded me of an exercise we did years ago in a Psychic Development circle I was in. The exercise contained the teacher cutting out from magazines and photos, people's eyes... so that all we saw when doing a reading was the person's eyes. We then had to individually go through and pick up what we felt about each person just by looking into their eyes.. and you had no idea who it was until the end.

It was everyone from Michael Jackson to Mother Theresa to mass murderers and rapists. Deepak Chopra was one of the people she had in the experiment... and you had to put down traits such as whether you would trust this person, whether they were a good person or evil person... what they did etc.

What was interesting is that everyone pretty much nailed the personality type of each person once it was revealed.... if it was a murderer the feelings people got were not good... if it was someone who brought joy... people had feelings of being safe and happy when looking into their eyes. When we got to Deepak Chopra though... nearly everyone in the circle said he was untrustworthy and gave them an uneasy feeling.

When it was revealed that it was Deepak Chopra most people were shocked... as they obviously was expecting someone completely different... but I always remembered that. I don't half wonder if that has something to do with why people do not trust him. What are the eyes giving away that we can't see?

That is fascinating. I have always assumed I may be slightly Asbergers because I don't normally look into people's eyes! If it is really possible to read off something of people's character from an image of their eyes, I almost feel that is a ψ result in itself - very hard to explain materialistically.

Did you ask the teacher if she used the same set of eyes for each group she taught - did she get consistent answers?

David

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

However, to label him a "enemy of reason" and try to crucify him like Dawkins and others have done is downright bullshit. It's actually pretty dangerous/scary to delineate between the "good guys" and the "enemies" like that. Clearly those like Dawkins/Coyne do not understand the dangers and biases associated with the use of such language. Or maybe they do, which makes it even worse.

They appear to have zero self-awareness. They think his ideas are "dangerous", but they don't see any inherent danger latent in their belief systems. Ultimately it's base demagoguery being perpetrated by the most "rational" and "intelligent" among us. Their appeal to emotion (i.e. hate) is pretty sickening.

Yeah, I think they might find they are turning all but the true believers from their ideas, but the addiction to religious indignation probably fuels a lot of the materialist evangelical movement at this point.

Definitely seems like at least some people who share the same paradigm really dislike their style of persecution.

As Nagel points out, those of us who end up being atheists and agnostics simply don't have a particular inclination toward faith in God. That doesn't make us "brights" or chosen ones in any other way. Trying to use disbelief as a way to seem intellectual superior is a crutch for the lazy IMO.

 

[Iyace]

As Nagel points out, those of us who end up being atheists and agnostics simply don't have a particular inclination toward faith in God. That doesn't make us "brights" or chosen ones in any other way. Trying to use disbelief as a way to seem intellectual superior is a crutch for the lazy IMO.

You always say what I'm thinking. If you're ever in California, I'm buying you a bunch of beers.

Here is the problem with new atheism. It's a cultural fad of intellectual elitism. Those that can't ( who arent very intelligent ) compensate for it by putting on the 'clothes'. How many times on do you hear people say " Well, as an atheist "? Who the hell cares if you're an atheist? You see it on reddit all the time. : " Well, I'm an atheist so..." "As an atheist..." People think that their minority beliefs give them some sort of credence.

 

[MysticG]

You see it on reddit all the time. : " Well, I'm an atheist so..." "As an atheist..." People think that their minority beliefs give them some sort of credence.

I've noticed this on Reddit, particularly on the threads where people are sharing some paranormal event that happened to them. The stories tend to follow a template:

"Well, to start off I'm an atheist, so I don't really believe in any of this...BUT...(insert phenomenal story, sometimes with veridical information)...so that's what happened to me, but since I'm an atheist, I'm sure there is some other explanation." Because you know, the belief system always comes before direct experience...

Then half the comments will be skeptics coming up with what are often the most absurd ways to explain away the person's story. The majority will jump on one of these explanations and say "yep, that's definitely what happened" even though none of them have enough information to actually draw that conclusion. Repeat ad infinitum.

 

[Bucky]

I've noticed this on Reddit, particularly on the threads where people are sharing some paranormal event that happened to them. The stories tend to follow a template:

"Well, to start off I'm an atheist, so I don't really believe in any of this...BUT...(insert phenomenal story, sometimes with veridical information)...so that's what happened to me, but since I'm an atheist, I'm sure there is some other explanation." Because you know, the belief system always comes before direct experience...

Then half the comments will be skeptics coming up with what are often the most absurd ways to explain away the person's story. The majority will jump on one of these explanations and say "yep, that's definitely what happened" even though none of them have enough information to actually draw that conclusion. Repeat ad infinitum.

Exactly, lol :)

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

You always say what I'm thinking. If you're ever in California, I'm buying you a bunch of beers.

Here is the problem with new atheism. It's a cultural fad of intellectual elitism. Those that can't ( who arent very intelligent ) compensate for it by putting on the 'clothes'. How many times on do you hear people say " Well, as an atheist "? Who the hell cares if you're an atheist? You see it on reddit all the time. : " Well, I'm an atheist so..." "As an atheist..." People think that their minority beliefs give them some sort of credence.

Where in Cali are you?

On Chopra, I get the feeling he started off as kind of a hack hawking some bizarre wares - or perhaps more charitably communicated Truths using buzzwords - but over time he's managed to carve out an important safe space for parapsychology and spirituality that stands against the shaming tactics of skeptical evangelism.

He seems like the opposite from Randi, who perhaps wanted to start off exposing frauds before realizing he could profit from the cottage industry of materialist ideas on "critical thinking", but I wouldn't purchase anything from either of them or give too much credence to their views on reality.

 

[Frank Matera]

That is fascinating. I have always assumed I may be slightly Asbergers because I don't normally look into people's eyes! If it is really possible to read off something of people's character from an image of their eyes, I almost feel that is a ψ result in itself - very hard to explain materialistically.

Did you ask the teacher if she used the same set of eyes for each group she taught - did she get consistent answers?

David

No I didn't ask her about consistent answers from other groups... but I have done it myself with another group and found it was pretty consistent.

There is definitely PSI involved... because after 3 years of being with the same development circle of people you get to know who is extremely Psychic and who is weak psychically... and it's the people with ability that are usually good at getting characteristics. I think it would make a good study.

 

[Boo boo]

I can't abide that man. I've vowed not to visit his blog anymore. It only succeeds in raising my blood pressure, lol.

I've vowed not to go there either. It only succeeds in giving me an urge to flip the kitchen table. I don't want to wake anybody up and it's too expensive.

 

[Roms]

You always say what I'm thinking. If you're ever in California, I'm buying you a bunch of beers.

Here is the problem with new atheism. It's a cultural fad of intellectual elitism. Those that can't ( who arent very intelligent ) compensate for it by putting on the 'clothes'. How many times on do you hear people say " Well, as an atheist "? Who the hell cares if you're an atheist? You see it on reddit all the time. : " Well, I'm an atheist so..." "As an atheist..." People think that their minority beliefs give them some sort of credence.

Though this thread is about Chopra, reading ppl digressing a bit abt atheists made me want to post the below video.
Dane Cooke really is bang on how some atheists come across.... Enjoy :)