Deepak Chopra’s Quantum God

Last updated on: September 22, 2010 at 1:22 am by Jeffrey L. Falick

Deepak Chopra’s Quantum God 2010-09-22T01:22:00-05:00 Jeffrey L. Falick

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I had a really busy day, so of course I spent my free hours tonight trying to understand the goofiness that is Deepak Chopra. I was never really interested in him too much before, but he’s been writing about Stephen Hawking’s new book so I thought I’d give him a read. He wrote two long, long articles about the book and I started with part two. I had to read it three times before I even understood what the hell he was talking about. Here’s one of the more clear passages:

In modern quantum theory, the building blocks of Nature are not static “things,” like pebbles or little billiard balls, but dynamic, dancing interactions of possibility waves. If that is correct, as it is generally agreed it is, then one can assert a transcendent realm. To call something a possibility wave is to call it a “potential.” A potential does not exist in space-time, it is actually the source of space-time. As such, the infinite transcendent presence from which space-time and all waves arise is the immeasurable potential of all that was, is and will be. As such, these waves of possibility allow an infinitely complex set of actualities to emerge.

Thus challenged, I watched the ABC Nightline debate between Michael Shermer and Sam Harris on one side and Chopra and Jean Houston on the other. Shermer called Chopra’s ideas “woo-hoo” and a ridiculous (and arrogant) misuse of scientific concepts that he barely understands. Exactly.

Sam Harris emphasized from his first comment that Chopra’s gobbledy-gook isn’t about any kind of god that is at the heart of modern religion or faith. Chopra said that was a god of the past, not the future. Then more “woo-hoo.”

I’ve been hearing a lot of “woo-hoo” recently. I hear it from all kinds of new age-y types, both religious and just “spiritual.” I consider myself pretty spiritual, too, in that I’m concerned with the welfare of the human spirit of love, creativity and altruism. I don’t need to attribute that to “dancing interactions of possibility waves” and then call it God.

I suppose if this is the future of mystical thinking, it’s a lot better than what the fundies are pushing. I don’t think it’s going to go very far since it’s almost incomprehensible. On the other hand, Sam Harris has often asserted that there is some danger to this type of discourse about God. Chopra and other religious moderates provide cover for fundamentalism because they use the same vocabulary.

Sherwin Wine taught us to say what we mean and mean what we say. I’m going to keep taking that advice.

Blog Entries

Atheism

Liberal Religions and Theologies

New Age

Previous Post

September 21, 2010

The Haggada Says To Kill Gentiles...Or Something Like That

Next Post

September 22, 2010 Shermer Vs. Chopra, Round Two

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog Entries

Select a Month January 2017 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 December 2014 February 2014 December 2013 October 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 September 2012 August 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who prophesied the virgin birth?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Isaiah Daniel Ezekiel Jeremiah