Does God Have a Future?

[_Ray A]

Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston on the future of God. Towards the end there's a surprising agreement on one point (brought up by Shermer).

Nightline Face-Off:

Does God Have a Future?.

You'll hear their views on past religion, tribalism and tribal gods, mythology, what science can and can't prove, neuroscience and theoretical physics as they relate to consciousness and the infinite, and the future of organised religion.

It's twelve parts and quite long, for those interested. Make sure autoplay is on.

(For the academically inclined three of them hold PhDs, and Chopra is an MD specialising in endocrinology.)

[_Buffalo]

I'll be listening to as much of that as possible this afternoon - thanks for the link!

[_keithb]

All I can say is that, as someone who IS a physicist, has attended scientific conferences, and does interact with and present to other scientists on a regular basis, the statements of the two scientists in the panel discussion are 100% on the money. I just can't believe the misinformation that Chopra is spreading about science, the scientific process, quantum mechanics, and physics in general.

Wow.

[_The Nehor]

Wow, interesting.

I prefer the shorter version though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbjpwyesk0

[_Ray A]

All I can say is that, as someone who IS a physicist, has attended scientific conferences, and does interact with and present to other scientists on a regular basis, the statements of the two scientists in the panel discussion are 100% on the money. I just can't believe the misinformation that Chopra is spreading about science, the scientific process, quantum mechanics, and physics in general.

So have you solved the problem of origins? My clear impression is that neither side "won". These are questions that at present we have no answers for. Both Harris and Shermer admit as much (the abiogenesis problem), and Chopra and Houston are going on faith and "yearnings". It all comes down to beliefs. Shermer said he can't prove there's no God, but he doesn't believe there is one.

[_keithb]

All I can say is that, as someone who IS a physicist, has attended scientific conferences, and does interact with and present to other scientists on a regular basis, the statements of the two scientists in the panel discussion are 100% on the money. I just can't believe the misinformation that Chopra is spreading about science, the scientific process, quantum mechanics, and physics in general.

So have you solved the problem of origins?

To me, this is a question without a well-defined meaning. In one sense, we already understand how the universe came into existence (the big bang) as far as can be understood at the present time. So, I would say that yes, to the limit of our technology, we understand how the universe got here.

In a second sense, the universe exists, however it got here. The place of science is to study the workings of the universe, regardless of "how" it originated. Thus, I don't really see any problem here, at least from a scientific perspective.

My clear impression is that neither side "won". These are questions that at present we have no answers for. Both Harris and Shermer admit as much (the abiogenesis problem), and Chopra and Houston are going on faith and "yearnings". It all comes down to beliefs.

There will always be limits to knowledge obtainable from science, particularly when you are talking about non-falsifiable ideas, such as the existence of God. I think that the Harris-Shermer team convincingly demonstrated that there is no objective, scientific evidence for the existence of God and that the parts of religion that are falsifiable have been falsified. If you want to the next level of abstraction, like Chopra was doing, and basically say that, "Okay, all of the religions practiced in the world have provably wrong ideas encapsulated in them, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a God," how could any scientist really argue against that point?

Shermer said he can't prove there's no God, but he doesn't believe there is one.

[/quote]

He probably can't "prove" that pink leprechauns and werewolves don't exist either, but is that a valid reason to believe in them?

[_keithb]

I also find it interesting that, despite what the sides thought about the existence of God, both sides seemed to agree that the future of organized religion was a bleak one. I don't think either side seemed prepared to defend the bad ideas and cruelty found in most of the world's religious traditions.

[_Ray A]

To me, this is a question without a well-defined meaning. In one sense, we already understand how the universe came into existence (the big bang) as far as can be understood at the present time.

Which is? The Big Bang explains the Big Bang?

So, I would say that yes, to the limit of our technology, we understand how the universe got here.

Which is the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang just "happen"?

In a second sense, the universe exists, however it got here.

However it got here? Wasn't that the Big Bang. But what created or initiated the Big Bang?

The place of science is to study the workings of the universe, regardless of "how" it originated. Thus, I don't really see any problem here, at least from a scientific perspective.

Neither do I, but it doesn't answer the question of origin.

There will always be limits to knowledge obtainable from science,

Agreed.

particularly when you are talking about non-falsifiable ideas, such as the existence of God.

Does that mean God doesn't exist?

I think that the Harris-Shermer team convincingly demonstrated that there is no objective, scientific evidence for the existence of God and that the parts of religion that are falsifiable have been falsified.

We are not talking about "religion", or "tribal gods". Tell me where you see Shermer saying he knows that "God doesn't exist" (not even Dawkins has said that), or that we have scientific proof that God doesn't exist.

If you want to the next level of abstraction, like Chopra was doing, and basically say that, "Okay, all of the religions practiced in the world have provably wrong ideas encapsulated in them, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a God," how could any scientist really argue against that point?

But what does that mean? That God doesn't exist? If they can't argue against it, then it's still an open question, isn't it?

He probably can't "prove" that pink leprechauns and werewolves don't exist either, but is that a valid reason to believe in them?

Shermer doesn't believe in UFOs/aliens either, and he, like Carl Sagan, deliberately chooses to ignore hardcore evidence staring him right in his face, uttered by competent professionals for over 60 years now. Their willingness to turn a blind eye to these mountains of evidence tells me a lot more about their bias, than their objectivity. They will write off as "nutballs" and "crazies" anyone who doesn't agree with their "rational and scientific views", and Deek Chopra hit the nail on the head when he said that they are like "Jihadists" for materalism.

Do look into the thought of Robert Anton Wilson someday, "obviously" another "crazy".

With all the benefits we have gained from science, and I fully acknowledge them, we still have cartels of dogma-driven bigots in science, whose minds are about two inches open in a virtually unlimited universe.

[_moksha]

(For the academically inclined three of them hold PhDs, and Chopra is an MD specialising in endocrinology.)

Ray, those academically inclined folks might futher specify that the Ph.D must be in a Middle Eastern language to have maximal validity.

[_Ray A]

Ray, those academically inclined folks might futher specify that the Ph.D must be in a Middle Eastern language to have maximal validity.

My apologies for not specifying that, Mok. Thanks for the correction.