The Great Afterlife: Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra

bit_pattern

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Posts
9,053
Likes
354
Location
Mosman
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #1
The Great Afterlife Debate: Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra

I just read a great debate between Deepak Chopra and Michael Shermer on the validity of an afterlife

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/...afterlife.html

I support Chopra´s interpretation if only for the fact that the Shermer, as skeptics all so often do, dismisses the possibility of Chopra´s concepts a priori and reduces his own arguments down to barely concealed ridicule - a trait I find all to common with avowed sceptics. Still, it´s a great read and I think people from both sides of the divide will be able to get something out of.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ruanaidh

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Posts
2,105
Likes
43
Location
A path less travelled
AFL Club
Richmond
#3
Re: The Great Afterlife Debate: Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra

I support Chopra´s interpretation if only for the fact that the Shermer, as skeptics all so often do, dismisses the possibility of Chopra´s concepts a priori and reduces his own arguments down to barely concealed ridicule
I believe in the afterlife based on my exposure to the science of electromagnetism and personal experiences. If I'm wrong, and I admit the possibility, the loss of sensation will render me incapable of self-examination. But if I'm right........

To make oneself a virtual career out of Skeptisism is an absolutist cop-out and quite possibly one criteria for insanity. Schermer is a fool.
 

DaveW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Posts
16,285
Likes
65
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
QPR
#4
Re: The Great Afterlife Debate: Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra

Deepak Chopra is a complete fraud who likes to dress up his nonsense in psuedo-scientific language.

Richard Dawkins does a good job of showing what a phony this guy is in his Enemies of Reason documentary.
 

btdg

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Posts
3,507
Likes
2,046
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
#5
Shermer is an idiot. By engaging Chopra in a debate he lends legitimacy to his nonsense. By attempting a scientific analysis, he suggests that science and religion are on a level playing field. That is Chopra's realm of expertise - using scientific jargon to make his rubbish sound intellectual.

Its like creationist debates, or flat-earthers, or other peddlers of anti-scientific rubbish (global-warming deniers? Stolen generation deniers?). By even debating them you lend them a legitimacy they don't deserve.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#6
Re: The Great Afterlife Debate: Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra

I believe in the afterlife based on my exposure to the science of electromagnetism and personal experiences. If I'm wrong, and I admit the possibility, the loss of sensation will render me incapable of self-examination. But if I'm right........
Ha! Next you'll be telling me that tantric meditation is a science.

To make oneself a virtual career out of Skeptisism is an absolutist cop-out
Why? Was Hume not right on the money? Many great men have been skeptics, one only has to look at the greek tradition to realise this.

and quite possibly one criteria for insanity.
On the contrary, skepticism is very healthy. According to you Hume and others are insane. :rolleyes:

Schermer is a fool.
He's actually quite smart, he knows alot about the evolutionary process, and I wouldn't be calling him a fool when a certain individual regularly engages in rants about zionist conspiracies. Ahem.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#7
Shermer is an idiot. By engaging Chopra in a debate he lends legitimacy to his nonsense. By attempting a scientific analysis, he suggests that science and religion are on a level playing field. That is Chopra's realm of expertise - using scientific jargon to make his rubbish sound intellectual.

Its like creationist debates, or flat-earthers, or other peddlers of anti-scientific rubbish (global-warming deniers? Stolen generation deniers?). By even debating them you lend them a legitimacy they don't deserve.
Now you're talking. Shermer is an idiot for engaging with this fraud, what he isn't though is an idiot for standing up for skepticism. That is a sign of great intelligence.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#8
I'll put it this way folks, if science can't prove or disprove religion, it sure can't prove or disprove the afterlife, especially as the afterlife is inherently unmeasurable, unscientific, and not of this realm. We can't measure heaven for instance because that's not what heaven is like. Neither can we measure or "view" nirvana and other supposed afterlives. Science does a good job of showing what the sun is made up of. But what this? No.
 

Ruanaidh

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Posts
2,105
Likes
43
Location
A path less travelled
AFL Club
Richmond
#9
Re: The Great Afterlife Debate: Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra

Ha! Next you'll be telling me that tantric meditation is a science.



Why? Was Hume not right on the money? Many great men have been skeptics, one only has to look at the greek tradition to realise this.



On the contrary, skepticism is very healthy. According to you Hume and others are insane. :rolleyes:



He's actually quite smart, he knows alot about the evolutionary process, and I wouldn't be calling him a fool when a certain individual regularly engages in rants about zionist conspiracies. Ahem.
First comment = Rubbish
Second = Pfft. Many more great men were 'dreamers'.
Third: Absolutism is egocentric insanity.

And last:

The evolutionary process is the way all dimensions are created. It and the 'afterlife' are not mutually exclusive. As for the 'Zionist' remark I suppose you believe the Palestine open-air Gulag's are just 'conspiracy theories' :rolleyes:
 

Ruanaidh

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Posts
2,105
Likes
43
Location
A path less travelled
AFL Club
Richmond
#11
I'll put it this way folks, if science can't prove or disprove religion, it sure can't prove or disprove the afterlife, especially as the afterlife is inherently unmeasurable, unscientific, and not of this realm. We can't measure heaven for instance because that's not what heaven is like. Neither can we measure or "view" nirvana and other supposed afterlives. Science does a good job of showing what the sun is made up of. But what this? No.
Translation: I'll put it this way folks my debating standpoint is disingenuous because although I have been arguing in support of a Skeptic zealot I would like to take this opportunity to have an each-way bet.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bit_pattern

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Posts
9,053
Likes
354
Location
Mosman
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #12
I knew at least someone would appreciate this Ruan...

How many people ere dissing Chopra actually read the whole article, rather than relying on Dawkins dismissal without ever having rerad a word he has written?
 

Hemi

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Posts
5,948
Likes
5,915
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Adelaide
#13
What is going on here? Are these elusive creatures and mysterious phenomena in our world or in our minds? New evidence indicates that they are, in fact, a product of the brain. Neuroscientist Michael Persinger, in his laboratory at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada, for example, can induce all of these experiences in subjects by subjecting their temporal lobes to patterns of magnetic fields. I tried it and had a mild out-of-body experience.
Interestingly enough I saw a documentory a couple of weeks ago on out of body experiences which included Neuroscientist Michael Persinger's tests. He tested multiple people with his magnetic field machine to try and replicate an out of body experience. One of the tests was a person who had died and had an out of body experience, the person said it had mild similarities to the experience but could not be descibed as anywhere the same. I would suggest that this is inconclusive evidence and would wonder about the credibility of his Michael Shermer's other examples. The documentory was also inconclusive and suggested that to date noone can ascertain what these experiences are.
 

bit_pattern

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Posts
9,053
Likes
354
Location
Mosman
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #14
Interestingly enough I saw a documentory a couple of weeks ago on out of body experiences which included Neuroscientist Michael Persinger's tests. He tested multiple people with his magnetic field machine to try and replicate an out of body experience. One of the tests was a person who had died and had an out of body experience, the person said it had mild similarities to the experience but could not be descibed as anywhere the same. I would suggest that this is inconclusive evidence and would wonder about the credibility of his Michael Shermer's other examples. The documentory was also inconclusive and suggested that to date noone can ascertain what these experiences are.
Indeed. Chopra makes the point that the subjects he refers to had OBE´s once the brain was already not functioning, obviously trying to recreate those conditions by using electrodes on a lving brain isn´t replicating the same experience.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#15
Re: The Great Afterlife Debate: Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra

First comment = Rubbish
It's a fair point, just because you don't get it.

Second = Pfft. Many more great men were 'dreamers'.
Tell that to Hume and Empiricus. Just because you're a skeptic doesn't mean you reject religion, it means you're hesitant about it. Many skeptics are agnostics.

Third: Absolutism is egocentric insanity.
Skepticism is not absolutism! It is the opposite! Oh dear. :eek:

And last:

The evolutionary process is the way all dimensions are created. It and the 'afterlife' are not mutually exclusive. As for the 'Zionist' remark I suppose you believe the Palestine open-air Gulag's are just 'conspiracy theories' :rolleyes:
For you. The notion of a self carrying onto an afterlife is no way philosophically or scientifically set. Large groups such as the Buddhists reject Chopra's view of this self moving onto other realms. Science has no place trying to prove an afterlife.

And Ruanaidh, you're little shtick about being bullied about your rambling beliefs is getting old.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#17
Translation: I'll put it this way folks my debating standpoint is disingenuous
disingenuous? That we have an immortal soul that transfers to an afterlife is any less disingenuous?

because although I have been arguing in support of a Skeptic zealot
Contradiction in terms as evo said.

I would like to take this opportunity to have an each-way bet.
Effectively, Shermer is doing the same, Shermer is saying wait Chopra, you claim that science proves the soul and the afterlife, but it doesn't.

I'm still waiting for the likes of ruanaidh and BP to address emptiness which seems to be the main argument against Chopra. Anyone? Or can't you?
 

DaveW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Posts
16,285
Likes
65
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
QPR
#18
I knew at least someone would appreciate this Ruan...

How many people ere dissing Chopra actually read the whole article, rather than relying on Dawkins dismissal without ever having rerad a word he has written?
Why should we bother with someone who is so brazenly anti-science? Just another shifty religious nutter.

Here's the footage I referred to earlier:

[youtube]Z-FaXD_igv4[/youtube]
 
Top Bottom