Chopra: If The Universe Didn’t Have Imagination, Neither Would We.

Deepak Chopra is on to part seven of his review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, but has yet to provide any signs that he ever read the book. If he did, he certainly doesn’t understand any of it. Previously we “learned” from Chopra that we can prove the existence of God from the existence of yellow flowers and that “we are in god as a fish is in water.” In this installment, which he claims will be the second from last , we learn that “if the universe didn’t have imagination, neither would we.”

To Chopra, the universe really is a conscious entity with imagination. To attempt to put this installment’s absurdity into context, attempt to make sense of the full paragraph:

Nature is constantly remembering. Nature is constantly creating, exercising imagination, discovering quantum leaps. When hydrogen and oxygen combined, the result wasn’t another inert gas. It was water, and water represents a huge imaginative leap on the part of the universe. The reason one can say this with confidence is simple: if the universe didn’t have imagination, neither would we. That’s what it means to be imbedded in the field. Nothing we know about ourselves can be separated from what Nature displays.

Which finally, at long last, breathes new life into God.

Of course there is more in the post, and PZ Myers sums it all up:

Shorter Deepak Chopra: “I don’t know how DNA works, so there must be an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God-field who does.”

To that I would add that Chopra writes as iff human knowledge has hit a barrier and we will never learn more about what he finds mysterious. The things which Chopra finds to be a mystery today, such as how DNA works and how consciousness works, will inevitably be better understood as a result of scientific examination. At that point, Chopra finding God in human consciousness will be shown to be as absurd as finding God in storms, earth quakes, or other natural phenomenon as ancient humans did.

Related posts on Deepak Chopra

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Comments

  1. 1
    Cardozo says:

    Thanks for the insight on Chopra.

    Did you read the debate in a recent Time magazine between Dawkins and Dr. Collins, a philosopher and Christian? I thought the debate was fascinating, and ultimately came down to semantics. What do you call that “incomprehensible” force that set the universe (or multiverses) going?

    Dawkins clearly answer this question scientifically, but neither can he disprove the idea of God.

    I put it to you, Ron. D’you think science will ever be able to fully explain the origin of matter?

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Dawkins has often admitted he is not attempting to totally disprove the existence of God. It is awfully hard to prove a negative. Instead he demonsrates that it is a very implausible hypothesis, and poor explanation for the natural world.

    I suspect that science will some day explain the forces which set the universe(s) in motion and the origin of matter, but regardless of whether science ever does, Chopra’s explanations remain absurd.

Leave a comment