Various interesting point came about from the panel discussion titled, “Does God Have a Future?” Deepak Chopra; new age guru and endocrinologist (can you imagine if he married Oprah Winfrey? She would be Oprah Chopra—for info on Oprah see here and here). Jean Houston; scholar, philosopher and researcher.
Michael Shermer; editor of Skeptic magazine.
Sam Harris; the pseudo-neuroscientist and atheist Buddhist mystic (who does not like the terms “atheist,” “Buddhist” or “mystic”).
One point of interest is that Christian need to make sure to not argue for the existence of a generic “G” “o” “d.”
Consider the report by ABC News that states1,
A whopping 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God or a universal spirit… But believers see God coming under siege in this country. Some Americans see religious belief as outdated, even destructive. And they aren’t hesitating to say so.
Now, consider the statement that preceded these points:
Many “American Idol” contestants, like Jermaine Sellers, say they look to God for strength. Oscar winners give him thanks in their acceptance speeches. Football players point to the heavens to give God credit for scoring a touchdown.
Indeed, with such characterizations one could not help but state that religious belief as outdated, even destructive, as millennia of religious belief in general and two millennia of Christianity is broken down into North American sentiments via American Idol, Oscar and touchdowns. Forget trivialities such as the USA having a government that is premised upon protecting our God given and unalienable rights. Forget the fields and methods of science being premised upon the belief that there is a God and that God is a rational being who created a rational creation; which makes science possible. Forget millennias worth of charitable deeds. Forget the recognition of extrinsic human worth/value/dignity.
92 percent of American religious belief comes down to American Idol, Oscar and touchdowns. Ok, they may have a point! But do you get my point?
So what about the generic “G” “o” “d”? Well, you do not want to think that you are defending the faith in the one and only God, the God of the Bible, only to have Deepak Chopra high five you because you were merely referencing a generic “G” “o” “d” with which he could agree. Consider this statement:
“At the atomic level, all objects are revealed as 99.999 percent empty space,” Chopra says in one of his DVDs, “How to Know God.” “Electrons are vibrations that blink in and out of existence millions of times per second. Therefore, the whole universe is a quantum mirage, winking in and out of existence millions of times per second. In other words, we are being created over and over again all the time. Genesis didn’t happen just once. Genesis is now.”
Does this describe the doings of the God of the Bible? This is Chopra’s Genesis but not the Bible’s which states that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Consider it this way: “In the beginning [time] God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].” Or consider it this way: “In the beginning [time] God [a preexisting timeless, immaterial, infinite being] created [volitionally brought about] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”
This is not a quantum mirage that is being created over and over again but is a scientific prediction of that of which the universe consists. A further scientific prediction is the First Law of Thermodynamics found in Genesis 2:1 which states that God was active in creation but then ceased from His creative works. Thus, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and while it changes form there is no more being created. For more details on these issues see: On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al. and First Commandment of Thermodynamics.
Since Michael Shermer appears to enjoy spending the majority of his time engaging in arguments to ridicule, arguments to embarrassment and arguments to, well, nothing, he puts down Deepak Chopra by referring to him as “Dr. Woo Woo…the very embodiment of woo-woo” woo-woo being his childish playground bully term for “believers in what he calls junk science.”
“Deepak is the very definition of what we mean by pseudoscience,” Shermer told ABC News. “He uses a lot of jargon and terms from science but in a very unscientific, very unclear, undefined way and mixes it up with religion and spirituality such that to an outsider it sounds good.”
There is something to be said about someone who sees themselves reflected in others but does not recognize it. This is so because Shermer is the very definition of a façade of scientific respectability which hides an emotional rejection of God. Shermer uses a lot of jargon and terms from science but in a very unscientific, very unclear, undefined way and mixes it up with materialism and anti-Christian sentiments such that to an outsider it sounds good.
Shermer stated that “Things that God used to explain are now explained through natural forces.” Indeed, things that God used to explain are now explained through natural forces; which is why we must distinguish Deepak Chopra’s “God” from the Christian one since the Christian one created a universe in which material cause is followed by material effect: this is chronological and reliable sequence is what makes science possible. Both Shermer and Sam Harris commit an ad hominem aka genetic fallacy and hold to absolute agnosticism.
Belief in God and the kind of God you believe in and the sort of religion you adhere to depend very much on where you happen to have been born and in which century you happen to be born. That alone tells us that there’s a strong cultural component.
Sam Harris made reference to humanity having had 4,000 years of people telling each other that one book is divinely inspired and that others are not. Yet, the others claim the same for themselves and reject the others, etc.
Firstly, indeed, there is a strong cultural component and people claiming that their holy book is the divinely inspired one. Yet, these are ad hominem/genetic fallacies since they are appealing to the source of an argument and concluding that they have discredited the argument but they have not. If one theology is correct and it is promulgated in a certain nation/culture then it would be no refutation to claim that it is being promulgated in a certain nation/culture.
If one holy book is the divinely inspired one then it would be no refutation to claim that it is being claimed to be the divinely inspired one. On this view we can refute the atheist’s references to the wonders of European countries where the majority population are atheists; simply state, “Sure, but that is just because they were raised as atheists in an atheist country and in this century.” These pseudo-arguments amount to “If one culture claims that 2+2=9, claims that 2+2=57, claims that 2+2=349, claims that 2+2=4 then we cannot know which, if any, is true or that they all must be false,” etc. This is absolute agnosticism.
Oh, but 2+2= is an empirical mathematical truth and can be thus discerned and verified? Well, the example still stands and moreover, the same sort of research can be conducted on the various holy book.
Also, note that according to the pseudo-arguments Harris and Shermer should be Christians since they are Americans. But Shermer is an ex-Christian so he has evolved oh so far beyond Christians that he was able to conquer his nation/culture. Sam Harris is very much the product of his upbringing as he had a “very secular upbringing.”2 He also spent many years traveling the globe in search of spiritual experi¬ences which included the consumption of various hallucinogenic drugs.
Shermer then went into some of the neuroscience behind belief. “We do tend to look at the world and find meaningful patterns and impose on those patterns intentional agency,” he said. “And so, the intentional agents are things like ghosts and Gods and demons and angels and aliens and so forth. And God is another version of that. It’s a projection of what our brain is doing to try to understand and make sense of the world.”
This really boils down his entire worldview in two ways: he should consider whether we find meaningful patterns because they are there. Also, he too sees the patters but replaces terms such as “ghosts and Gods and demons and angels and aliens” with “natural selection, evolution, Darwinism,” etc. He does not seem to consider that our brains are like hardware and that there is software running it, behind it, acting through it. Also of interest is how even when they are not dealing with Christians, their atheism is motivated by anti-Christian prejudice comes through loud and clear and they simply cannot help themselves. For example Michael Shermer is asked about what he would think if God does exist and makes a grimacing face were he to find out that God is Yahweh.
Shermer states that if he were to come face to face with God after death then he would say words—sans transcript—to the affect of you created me with this brain which is curious and skeptical and I used it on you. Indeed, use it all you want but the fact that is that natural theology/general revelation; the best that philosophy and science can infer from the universe is that there is a creator and that we can even discern some of the creator’s characteristics (find details here).
Sam Harris essentially makes a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence in answering “Does God have a future?” by stating, “Yes, as a fictional character.”
Indeed, atheism is a façade of intellectual and scientific respectability which very thinly hides an emotional rejection of the God of the Bible.