Debunking 'The God Delusion,' Part 1
In this six-part series, Deepak Chopra exposes what
he considers the illusion of Richard Dawkins' book
'The God Delusion.' By Deepak Chopra
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/212/story_21237_1.html

Debunking 'The God Delusion,' Part 1
In this six-part series, Deepak Chopra exposes what he considers the
illusion of Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion.'
By Deepak Chopra http://www.beliefnet.com/story/212/story_21237_1.html


In the fall of 2006, mind-body and consciousness expert and author
Deepak Chopra, M.D. debated the existence of God with atheist author
Richard Dawkins on British television. In this six-part series, Chopra
takes on Dawkins in even more detail, specifically addressing each
major God-related claim by Dawkins, whose books include "The God
Delusion," "The Selfish Gene," and "Unweaving the Rainbow." -- Ed.

Recently there has been a spate of books about God from scientists
responding to the debate over intelligent design that flared up last
year. These books raise a chorus of skepticism that God exists, most
in no uncertain terms. Science stands for rational thought, faith for
superstition and unreason. The latest bestseller in this vein is
Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion," and since I had the chance to
debate Dawkins on channel 4 in England, I wanted to pick up the
subject here.

Dawkins has written extensively on evolution, holds a chair at Oxford
University, and speaks out loudly against any possibility that God is
real. He makes many points to support his claim that religion is
nonsense and that there isn't the slightest shred of rational proof
for God, miracles, the soul, etc. Since this is such an important
issue, I want to argue against him point by point in some detail.

1. Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge. Nothing about God
is needed to explain the world. Eventually science will uncover all
mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist.

This is the bedrock of Dawkins' argument, as it is of most skeptics
and scientific atheists.

position with deep disdain for those who disagree, and his poisonous
tone weakens his argument.

advances in genetics and brain research, scientists have more
confidence than ever that mysteries are being unraveled as never
before. By the same token, something as primitive as faith in God
looks more and more pointless and misguided.

of personal belief, at worst a superstition that blocks progress (in
the way the Bush Administration uses theology to block stem-cell
research).

The unfairness of this argument is that it squeezes God into a corner.

Dawkins makes it an us-versus-them issue. Either you are for science
(that is, reason, progress, modernism, optimism about the future) or
you are for religion (that is, unreason, reactionary resistance to
progress, clinging to mysteries that only God can solve). He goes so
far as to tar anyone who believes in God with the same brush as
extreme religious fanatics.

erasing the truth, which is that many scientists are religious and
many of the greatest scientists (including Newton and Einstein) probed
deep into the existence of God.

you don't have to go to church, or even belong to a religion, to find
God plausible.

But let's leave Dawkins' heated and unfair rhetoric aside. Is science
the only route to knowledge? Obviously not. I know that my mother
loved me all her life, as I love my own children. I feel genius in
great works of art. I have seen medical cures that science can't
explain, some seemingly triggered by faith.

millions of other people. I know that I am conscious and have a self,
even though Dawkins--along with many arch materialists--doesn't
believe that consciousness is real

chemical illusion created in the brain.

A materialist could conceivably analyze the brain functions of a
Mozart or Beethoven down to the last synaptic firing, but that would
tell us nothing about why music exists, why it is beautiful, where
great symphonies come from, why inspiration uplifts the listener, or
in fact any relevant thing about the meaning of music.

general has meaning, deep meaning at times. This cannot be dismissed
as a delusion, an artifact of chemicals. The same analogy comes to
mind whenever one hears that brain research will eventually explain
all human thought and behavior. If a scientist could map every
molecule in a radio as it was playing the Beethoven Fifth, there would
be a complete diagram of the symphony at the level of matter. But the
radio isn't Beethoven. It isn't his mind, and a diagram of Beethoven's
brain, which would also be at the level of matter, is equally futile
to explain what his mind was like except in the crudest terms.

For thousands of years human beings have been obsessed with beauty,
truth, love, honor, altruism, courage, social relationships, art, and
God. They all go together as subjective experiences, and it's a straw
man to set God up as the delusion.

or beauty itself.

you think truth and beauty (along with love, justice, forgiveness,
compassion, and other divine qualities) can never be perfect, to say
that they are fantasies makes no sense.

Science knows about objective reality, the mask of matter that our
five senses detects. But the mind goes beyond the five senses,

does Dawkins no good to lump the two worlds of inner and outer
together. In fact, insofar as brain research can locate centers of
activity that light up whenever a person feels love or pleasure or
sexual arousal, these subjective states leave objective traces behind.
That makes them more real, not less. In the same way, the brain lights
up when a person feels inspired or close to God;

getting closer to the connection between inner and outer states, not
further away.

This is only the outline of an argument against science as the only
valid route to knowledge. Before going on to Dawkins' other points,
let's see what you have to say.

In the fall of 2006, mind-body and consciousness expert and author
Deepak Chopra, M.D.

1. Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge. Nothing about God
is needed to explain the world. Eventually science will uncover all
mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist.

The unfairness of this argument is that it squeezes God into a corner.

But let's leave Dawkins' heated and unfair rhetoric aside. Is science
the only route to knowledge? Obviously not. I know that my mother
loved me all her life, as I love my own children. I feel genius in
great works of art. I have seen medical cures that science can't
explain, some seemingly triggered by faith. The same is true of
millions of other people. I know that I am conscious and have a self,
even though Dawkins--along with many arch materialists--doesn't
believe that consciousness is real or that the self is anything but a
chemical illusion created in the brain.

This is only the outline of an argument against science as the only
valid route to knowledge. Before going on to Dawkins' other points,
let's see what you have to say.

Debunking 'The God Delusion,' Part 1

Debunking 'The God Delusion,' Part 1
In this six-part series, Deepak Chopra

Debunking 'The God Delusion,' Part 1
In this six-part series, Deepak Chopra exposes what he considers the
illusion of Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion.'
By Deepak Chopra http://www.beliefnet.com/story/212/story_21237_1.html

Debunking 'The God Delusion,' Part 1
In this six-part series, Deepak Chopra exposes what he considers the
illusion of Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion.'
By Deepak Chopra http://www.beliefnet.com/story/212/story_21237_1.html
1. Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge. Nothing about God
is needed to explain the world. Eventually science will uncover all
mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist.

At best God is a matter
of personal belief, at worst a superstition that blocks progress (in
the way the Bush Administration uses theology to block stem-cell
research).

The unfairness of this argument is that it squeezes God into a corner.
Dawkins makes it an us-versus-them issue. Either you are for science
(that is, reason, progress, modernism, optimism about the future) or
you are for religion (that is, unreason, reactionary resistance to
progress, clinging to mysteries that only God can solve). He goes so
far as to tar anyone who believes in God with the same brush as
extreme religious fanatics.

Sadly, the media often follow his lead,
erasing the truth, which is that many scientists are religious and
many of the greatest scientists (including Newton and Einstein) probed
deep into the existence of God. Not to mention the obvious fact that
you don't have to go to church, or even belong to a religion, to find
God plausible.

For thousands of years human beings have been obsessed with beauty,
truth, love, honor, altruism, courage, social relationships, art, and
God. They all go together as subjective experiences, and it's a straw
man to set God up as the delusion. If he is, then so is truth itself
or beauty itself.

Science knows about objective reality, the mask of matter that our
five senses detects. But the mind goes beyond the five senses, and it
does Dawkins no good to lump the two worlds of inner and outer
together. In fact, insofar as brain research can locate centers of
activity that light up whenever a person feels love or pleasure or
sexual arousal, these subjective states leave objective traces behind.
That makes them more real, not less. In the same way, the brain lights
up when a person feels inspired or close to God; therefore, we may be
getting closer to the connection between inner and outer states, not
further away.

This is only the outline of an argument against science as the only
valid route to knowledge. Before going on to Dawkins' other points,
let's see what you have to say.

Debunking 'The God Delusion,' Part 1
In this six-part series, Deepak Chopra exposes what he considers the
illusion of Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion.'
By Deepak Chopra http://www.beliefnet.com/story/212/story_21237_1.html

Debunking 'The God Delusion,' Part 1
In this six-part series, Deepak Chopra

Recently there has been a spate of books about God from scientists
responding to the debate over intelligent design that flared up last
year.

These books raise a chorus of skepticism that God exists, most
in no uncertain terms.