The Atheist Rabbi
I had a really busy day, so of course I spent my free hours tonight trying to understand the goofiness that is Deepak Chopra. I was never really interested in him too much before, but he’s been writing about Stephen Hawking’s new book so I thought I’d give him a read. He wrote two long, long articles about the book and I started with part two. I had to read it three times before I even understood what the hell he was talking about. Here’s one of the more clear passages:
In modern quantum theory, the building blocks of Nature are not static “things,” like pebbles or little billiard balls, but dynamic, dancing interactions of possibility waves. If that is correct, as it is generally agreed it is, then one can assert a transcendent realm. To call something a possibility wave is to call it a “potential.” A potential does not exist in space-time, it is actually the source of space-time. As such, the infinite transcendent presence from which space-time and all waves arise is the immeasurable potential of all that was, is and will be. As such, these waves of possibility allow an infinitely complex set of actualities to emerge.
Thus challenged, I watched the ABC Nightline debate between Michael Shermer and Sam Harris on one side and Chopra and Jean Houston on the other. Shermer called Chopra’s ideas “woo-hoo” and a ridiculous (and arrogant) misuse of scientific concepts that he barely understands. Exactly.
Sam Harris emphasized from his first comment that Chopra’s gobbledy-gook isn’t about any kind of god that is at the heart of modern religion or faith. Chopra said that was a god of the past, not the future. Then more “woo-hoo.”
I’ve been hearing a lot of “woo-hoo” recently. I hear it from all kinds of new age-y types, both religious and just “spiritual.” I consider myself pretty spiritual, too, in that I’m concerned with the welfare of the human spirit of love, creativity and altruism. I don’t need to attribute that to “dancing interactions of possibility waves” and then call it God.
I suppose if this is the future of mystical thinking, it’s a lot better than what the fundies are pushing. I don’t think it’s going to go very far since it’s almost incomprehensible. On the other hand, Sam Harris has often asserted that there is some danger to this type of discourse about God. Chopra and other religious moderates provide cover for fundamentalism because they use the same vocabulary.
Sherwin Wine taught us to say what we mean and mean what we say. I’m going to keep taking that advice.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In