One of your best, Massimo. I will share it with a few Catholic friends, and one Jew, the only smart people I personally know who succeed in mental apartheid.
There are more idiots in politics than there is in science because the political theater is based on a false criteria ie; popularity and greed rather than wisdom and common sense.
Massimo, thanks, yet again, for a great essay, and for taking the time to pick apart poor arguments and poor reasoning. Educational as always, and a very good training to enable us to do the same on our own. :-)
Dawkins and Chopra are strident, polar extremes…but at least Dawkins “knows” something; all Chopra really knows is his market-and at 90 +\- books , and counting, his market is good.
Thank you. I find that this point of view must be more often stated, because some people just take a magical view of the world. However Harris, though not proficient at western philosophy, is very well versed in eastern philosophy: far better than most Americans will ever be. His debate with Shermer against Chopra is classic. Your point that one can be spiritual and rational is one that needs to be developed. It may be our only way out of our immature dependency on the supernatural.
What an amazing rebuttal, Prof. Pigliucci! Your detailed analysis is a pure joy to read (and, well, re-read more attentively)!
There is a passage in Chopra's piece that makes me think: "Psychologically, it is very healthy to identify with a cause greater than yourself." Well, don't scientists pursue something 'greater than themselves' by dedicating their lives to this collective effort we call science?!?
Alessandro, thanks for the kind words! And yes, you are correct, contra what Chopra says, science also can lead us to pursue something "greater than ourselves." Unlike Chopra's pursuits, however, scientific ones are not made up!
Building on the 4 reasons that Chopra list to “denigrate” new (or old) atheism, I also agree that denigration on who believes on the supernatural (reason 1) not only doesn’t work, but it is unnecessary. What is the gain in removing somebody’s beliefs? I am an atheist. My mother in law would find the concept of dying in the absence of god profoundly disturbing. Why taking that from her? As for the second point, denigration of spiritual pursuits. Isn’t pursuing a life worth living at some extent a spiritual pursuit? I don’t need metaphysics and honestly am not too interested on it, to feel well. Number iv is actually stupid. We can be quite social in the absence of religion.
Number iii is interesting. I agree with you, some negatives are very easy to proof. But is the job of those who don’t believe in god to proof that god doesn’t exist? I don’t think so, for the same reason that those those who don’t believe on the Big Bang should not be tasked to show that it never happened. The burden of proof (or on rejecting the null hypothesis, in scientific terms) belongs to those who hypothesize. In the existence of god as well, as you so elegantly.
As for Chopra’s reliance on popular beliefs for validation of assumptions (e.g. god existence), a bit of Socrates could be enlightening, I guess: “Popular beliefs are “the monsters under the bed”—only useful for frightening children with.”
Finally, as a neuroscientist I take particular issue with his statement that the world is not empirical or physical. There is no denial that it is, that is not in question, this is a point where Aristotle and scientists agree. This to me is a cheap argument. It is to call into question what is not (science) to support what is in debate (god, metaphysics, supernatural). It is the arrogance of the “one” at display.
Marcelo, thanks for the kind words and the comment! I'm going to partially disagree only on one point: it is true that your mother in law probably finds belief in god comforting and so why try to dissuade her? I had a similar situation years ago with my grandmother.
Nonetheless, I do think that belief in gods and supernatural are problematic for society and need to be pushed back against. So I'm in favor of teaching evidence-based rational thinking to the new generations.
I also think, at a personal level, that is it unethical to believe anything for which there is no evidence or good reason, in agreement with the famous essay by W.K. Clifford on the ethics of belief. See here: https://figsinwinter.substack.com/p/profiles-in-skepticism-cicero
Hi Massimo. I partially disagree with you as well. I agree that the belief in gods is profoundly problematic for society and would go even further and claim that there is a link behind a return to orthodoxy in religion and the new-fascist movement we see in current times. That is why i often like the “vitriolic” style of Dawkins, although agree that it might be counterproductive.
I also profoundly agree that teaching evidence-based thinking to the new generations is our duty, including about religion, and, at the individual level, to people of older age as well when proper and accepted. If my mother and law was ready to discuss, and was open to it, why not.
The ethical dilema at the individual level for those who might be closer to death and who dont want to discuss i find problematic to buy. Who is being unethical here? The person who doesn’t force the discussion? Should a doctor who knows the fatal and painful outcome of a disease, totally evidence-based, just inform immediately? Or should the doctor wait until the patient ask and therefore is prepared to have the discussion? There are those ready to discuss, those that could go either way, and those that dont want to have the discussion, and ultimately I think they need to be respected as well.
Marcelo, let me clarify what I meant. I think there are two issues here. First, the case of the physician who thinks that one of his patients can't take the news. This is sometimes how physicians think but, frankly, I find it rather condescending toward the patient. We are talking about an adult human being, not a child. I don't think it's the place of the physician to play psychotherapist with the patient.
Second, the issue of whether each one of us, individually, ought to believe something without evidence. On that, as I said, I'm squarely on the side of both Cicero and Clifford, for the reasons I explained in the essay linked above. Clifford's own essay is well worth reading, in my opinion. William James's response--the famous "Will to believe"-- by contrast, is a poor example of rationalization of religious faith. Again, in my opinion.
😆 Great! Simply great! Deeply hacking and chopping away at Chopra. All that’s found is petrified crap! 😂 Love it! (And you nail it with proving negatives, natural selection, and the myths on the current state of the economy. 👍)
Very well put. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Chopra is a failed MD. If there was no California there would have been no Chopra. His ideas are cherry picked from Hindu Philosophy more specifically the Maharishi Mahesh the Beatle Guru. Fortunately this became a big money churner & I can guess like most things in the US he has a marketing machine behind him. I had read some of his earlier stuff but don’t read it anymore as it was total nonsense but if it makes money why not keep publishing.
Naresh, Chopra has definitely been able to channel Hindu-inspired notions into a gigantic money making machine fueled by American gullibility. Someone ought to call him on it, at least once in a while.
One of your best, Massimo. I will share it with a few Catholic friends, and one Jew, the only smart people I personally know who succeed in mental apartheid.
Thanks Steven, appreciated!
There are more idiots in politics than there is in science because the political theater is based on a false criteria ie; popularity and greed rather than wisdom and common sense.
Massimo, thanks, yet again, for a great essay, and for taking the time to pick apart poor arguments and poor reasoning. Educational as always, and a very good training to enable us to do the same on our own. :-)
Daniel, it's part of the job! Glad you enjoyed it.
Dawkins and Chopra are strident, polar extremes…but at least Dawkins “knows” something; all Chopra really knows is his market-and at 90 +\- books , and counting, his market is good.
Agreed.
As usual, brilliant. Thank you, Massimo.
Much appreciated!
Thank you. I find that this point of view must be more often stated, because some people just take a magical view of the world. However Harris, though not proficient at western philosophy, is very well versed in eastern philosophy: far better than most Americans will ever be. His debate with Shermer against Chopra is classic. Your point that one can be spiritual and rational is one that needs to be developed. It may be our only way out of our immature dependency on the supernatural.
Ron, exactly, I don't see spiritual and rational as being in tension, so long as one doesn't go mystical on the spiritual side of things.
What an amazing rebuttal, Prof. Pigliucci! Your detailed analysis is a pure joy to read (and, well, re-read more attentively)!
There is a passage in Chopra's piece that makes me think: "Psychologically, it is very healthy to identify with a cause greater than yourself." Well, don't scientists pursue something 'greater than themselves' by dedicating their lives to this collective effort we call science?!?
Alessandro, thanks for the kind words! And yes, you are correct, contra what Chopra says, science also can lead us to pursue something "greater than ourselves." Unlike Chopra's pursuits, however, scientific ones are not made up!
Awesome piece, Massimo, thanks for it.
Building on the 4 reasons that Chopra list to “denigrate” new (or old) atheism, I also agree that denigration on who believes on the supernatural (reason 1) not only doesn’t work, but it is unnecessary. What is the gain in removing somebody’s beliefs? I am an atheist. My mother in law would find the concept of dying in the absence of god profoundly disturbing. Why taking that from her? As for the second point, denigration of spiritual pursuits. Isn’t pursuing a life worth living at some extent a spiritual pursuit? I don’t need metaphysics and honestly am not too interested on it, to feel well. Number iv is actually stupid. We can be quite social in the absence of religion.
Number iii is interesting. I agree with you, some negatives are very easy to proof. But is the job of those who don’t believe in god to proof that god doesn’t exist? I don’t think so, for the same reason that those those who don’t believe on the Big Bang should not be tasked to show that it never happened. The burden of proof (or on rejecting the null hypothesis, in scientific terms) belongs to those who hypothesize. In the existence of god as well, as you so elegantly.
As for Chopra’s reliance on popular beliefs for validation of assumptions (e.g. god existence), a bit of Socrates could be enlightening, I guess: “Popular beliefs are “the monsters under the bed”—only useful for frightening children with.”
Finally, as a neuroscientist I take particular issue with his statement that the world is not empirical or physical. There is no denial that it is, that is not in question, this is a point where Aristotle and scientists agree. This to me is a cheap argument. It is to call into question what is not (science) to support what is in debate (god, metaphysics, supernatural). It is the arrogance of the “one” at display.
Thanks for a great piece.
Marcelo, thanks for the kind words and the comment! I'm going to partially disagree only on one point: it is true that your mother in law probably finds belief in god comforting and so why try to dissuade her? I had a similar situation years ago with my grandmother.
Nonetheless, I do think that belief in gods and supernatural are problematic for society and need to be pushed back against. So I'm in favor of teaching evidence-based rational thinking to the new generations.
I also think, at a personal level, that is it unethical to believe anything for which there is no evidence or good reason, in agreement with the famous essay by W.K. Clifford on the ethics of belief. See here: https://figsinwinter.substack.com/p/profiles-in-skepticism-cicero
Hi Massimo. I partially disagree with you as well. I agree that the belief in gods is profoundly problematic for society and would go even further and claim that there is a link behind a return to orthodoxy in religion and the new-fascist movement we see in current times. That is why i often like the “vitriolic” style of Dawkins, although agree that it might be counterproductive.
I also profoundly agree that teaching evidence-based thinking to the new generations is our duty, including about religion, and, at the individual level, to people of older age as well when proper and accepted. If my mother and law was ready to discuss, and was open to it, why not.
The ethical dilema at the individual level for those who might be closer to death and who dont want to discuss i find problematic to buy. Who is being unethical here? The person who doesn’t force the discussion? Should a doctor who knows the fatal and painful outcome of a disease, totally evidence-based, just inform immediately? Or should the doctor wait until the patient ask and therefore is prepared to have the discussion? There are those ready to discuss, those that could go either way, and those that dont want to have the discussion, and ultimately I think they need to be respected as well.
Cheers.
Marcelo
Marcelo, let me clarify what I meant. I think there are two issues here. First, the case of the physician who thinks that one of his patients can't take the news. This is sometimes how physicians think but, frankly, I find it rather condescending toward the patient. We are talking about an adult human being, not a child. I don't think it's the place of the physician to play psychotherapist with the patient.
Second, the issue of whether each one of us, individually, ought to believe something without evidence. On that, as I said, I'm squarely on the side of both Cicero and Clifford, for the reasons I explained in the essay linked above. Clifford's own essay is well worth reading, in my opinion. William James's response--the famous "Will to believe"-- by contrast, is a poor example of rationalization of religious faith. Again, in my opinion.
This essay is so elegantly laid out and argued. Thanks so much!
It is very elegant indeed. A point by point discussion/rebuttal.
Antony, thank you, much appreciated!
It takes diligence and patience to deal with the foolish - for which, many thanks Massimo.
Terry, I appreciate the appreciation!
😆 Great! Simply great! Deeply hacking and chopping away at Chopra. All that’s found is petrified crap! 😂 Love it! (And you nail it with proving negatives, natural selection, and the myths on the current state of the economy. 👍)
Mike, thanks for the kind words, glad you enjoyed the essay!
Very well put. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Chopra is a failed MD. If there was no California there would have been no Chopra. His ideas are cherry picked from Hindu Philosophy more specifically the Maharishi Mahesh the Beatle Guru. Fortunately this became a big money churner & I can guess like most things in the US he has a marketing machine behind him. I had read some of his earlier stuff but don’t read it anymore as it was total nonsense but if it makes money why not keep publishing.
Naresh, Chopra has definitely been able to channel Hindu-inspired notions into a gigantic money making machine fueled by American gullibility. Someone ought to call him on it, at least once in a while.
The Pale Blue Dot video says it all. Thanks for sharing it.
Thank you Massimo.And all this time I thought I was the only one who took issue with the man's pontificating.Love the Pale Blue Dot video 😊
Pale Blue Dot is one of my all time favorite. I miss Carl.
🔵