Does God Have a Future?
by: Be Scofield on March 31st, 2010 | 8 Comments »
If you like the most recent issue of Tikkun Magazine “God and the 21st Century” you might enjoy watching this recent debate called “Does God have a Future?” While heavyweights Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston make the case for God and religion Sam Harris and Michael Shermer try and deconstruct Chopra’s “woo-woo” language to quote Shermer.
While you probably know that Chopra and Houston are not defending the God of Pat Robertson or any particular religion, for Harris and Shermer any talk of God and religion is problematic. They take aim at Chopra when he conflates terms like non-locality and infinity with spirituality. On the other hand sparks fly when Chopra-fueled by a long standing feud with Shermer accuses him of being an extreme scientific reductionist. Houston for the most part avoids the God question and speaks about wisdom, healing and spirituality.
I never get tired of these sorts of engagements as I think they prove useful to furthering the discourse between religion and science. And I often find myself wanting to chime in here and there on both positions, thinking of how each side could challenge the other more. Who do you think won?
I watched the first 5 minutes of the 10 minute segment. I found it useless. Each side presented a caricature of what it was advertised they represented. Changes in brain chemistry measure only changes in brain chemistry and any generalizations from them are beyond the framework of science.
Religion-talk about causing change amounts to superstition. The notion that there is some kind of immaterial force at a distiance that makes a difference is a primitive idea that belongs with belief in ghosts.
The pity is that sincere members of an audience are subjected to these examples as if they were what both religion and science have to offer. Mystification is mystification, whether in the name of science or religion. It is to be treated as entertainment and nothing more.
Okay Passover Quiz – 1. Was J.esus – Je.wish? Or Isr.aelite? 2. Where does the term Je-wish come from? And where does the term Isr-lite come from? 3. What line is from the House of Abraham and Moses? When J.esus spoke out – was it for the poor and against the r.ich? Or was it for the rich and against the Poor? – 4. Now who represented the Poor? The Je-wish people or the Is.ralites? 5. Why has there been a blur between the two all these yrs? 7. Where does the OLd-Man draw the line in the sand – Of living by his words and using his words????
It’s clear that science doesn’t know everything. Nor does traditional religion. Quantum physics shows that mind or intention influences matter.”New Edge” thinking is attempting to take the conversation further and postulates explanations for occurences that science cannot yet explain, such as non-material events like telepathy, clairvoyance, and, going further, the origin of life. No person has yet been able to create something out of nothing. How did life happen? Many people have had experiences of connecting with non-physical beings, being ‘miraculously’ restored to health after serious illness, returning to life after being declared dead, etc. There are just too many strange and wondrous events to simply dismiss them. Metaphysics may provide some answers. Science is based on the belief that only the material world exists. Perhaps it’s time to open our minds to non-material possibilities. Read “Matrix Energetics” by Richard Bartlett for an interesting approach that combines science and metaphysics.
How arrogant of humans–any humans–to think/feel that they-we know more than a modicum of the totality. The breadth and depth sought by those who are not encapsulated by fragmentation cannot be comprehended by those who are encapsulated by the limitations of a single focus.
Humans are subjects, and the varieties of subjectivity out of which we operate is all we have and are at this stage of evolution(sic.) There is either much more to possibilities, or there is not, or…, that discussions such of this always fail. Sadly!
WHAT ,exactly, IS the question here?
Does “my idea of what ‘God’ is” have existence into “my idea of what the ‘future’ is”?
Who is pulling who’s leg?
The Roman Coliseum aspect of this debate–with sides cheering a good toss of the spear–had the same effect of a laugh track, it diminished what was being said. I don’t like to say that both sides are right, but on this particular endeavor they certainly seem to have come up tied. Mr. Chopra was going on about ego while looking all the while very egocentric. The scientists made very good points but never managed to point out how the synapses and neurons create poetry or even very good TV, or the ability to judge what is good TV. The host was a wash. His look, his mannerisms all suggested the Great American Insistence that Intelligence Is Bad, when in fact we were founded by brilliant, and deeply flawed men, and their wives.
It would be nice if PBS could go back to it’s pre-historic, pre-Julia, days and temper it’s modern tendency towards brittle BBC period pieces, dreadful documentaries, and the Antiques Road Show, and rediscover the delightfully dusty realm of academics and philosophers gassing about what they know best, moderated by someone who knows what they’re talking about, and who can keep them speaking in some relatively accessible version of the native language.
“War is the cause of much of humanity’s suffering, and the abuse of religion is the cause of many wars. To eliminate war and establish lasting peace, people must stop the abuse of religion as a pretext for war. Indeed, religious passion that leads to violence and revenge is the greatest offense to religion itself since the fundamental purpose of religion is people’s happiness and well being.”
Shin Yatomi
We are all manifestations of an inherent reality that animates that which we call “life”. In the rush to “figure out” and debate the “truth” we lose sight of the meaning for that truth–respect for life, human equality, and empathy for others. When religion is viewed as external authority rather than a method of self affirmation and the search for truth the tendency for delusion and the subsequent disrespect for life will manifest. To deny the need for a “method” for mankind to develop the inner life is as absurd as the denial for the need for mankind to develop the physical life. “Psychic” health is an important feature os human life. Psychology and pharmaceutics will not “cure” mankind of his inability to live in peace with his fellow man. And that inability is what will ultimately be the end of us all.
I watched most of it. I found it disappointing. I thought Chopra was impolite and, just like Harris and Shermer said, spouted quantum-babble. Harris was the sharpest guy on the stage, but seemed intent only on attacking traditional religion, not exploring evidence for something more than the physical, whether it led in a traditional direction or not. Chopra tried to be an apologist for this evidence, which is where my interests lie, but he did a terrible job of it, I felt. Houston was virtually incomprehensible. Shermer is, in my opinion, a dogmatist. Lots of heat, but little light.