When Great Minds Colide (Dawkins/Chopra)

a reply to: DrunkYogi

Here is a nice article about Dawkins here....

www.spectator.co.uk...

Thanks for posting this! Interesting!

I have heard both of these mens names, but have never watched/listened to them before.

Dawkins so clearly tries to make a fool of Chopra, but it keeps ricocheting. Just watching his body language, I don't like this Dawkins guy.

a reply to: Akragon
Thanks, Akragon
Chopra seemed to know/believe his stuff well enough that he could explain it with fair precision, in Dawkins language, too.
Have only listened to a brief interview of Chopra once or twice in the last 10-or-so years... Have seen Dawkins many times.
That was a pleasant video.

a reply to: Akragon

Well SnF for that, but I don't see where either one was
intimidated. Thank you for introducing me to Dr. Chopra

a reply to: randyvs

Really?

At the beginning of the interview look into Dr.Chopra's eyes...

Perhaps its just me but I see intimidated... but after a few minutes it changes...

Ironically... that's when the Camera man starts cutting after Dawkins has nothing to say...

Kinda like... "Uhhh... ok next question" Lol

a reply to: Akragon

At the beginning of the interview look into Dr.Chopra's eyes...

No that was appalled!

I'm just kidding!
Very intelligent conversation, I did enjoy.

I'm a great admirer of Chopra, but not so much Dawkins, and less so of youtube... what Im trying to get at is there some transcript of this interview you can link me to? I dont really want YT to kill my bandwith but I would still like to read it.

Thanks in advance

ETA: Ok I was trying to find the transcript myself with Google and found this article by Chopra dissing Dawkins. The video in the OP seems to be from last year, but this article is from last month:
www.salon.com... %E2%80%9D/

a reply to: tavi45

Self confidence and faith can bring about miracles. In fact it is the main ingredient of the recipe called success and power. And more. It is all a matter of mindset. Like you are what you eat, you are what you think and believe. It barely scratches the tip of the iceberg though.

Logic limits one's existence. When you think about it where does it come from? Is it inherently there when you are born or.. is it a notion you are inculcated with? Is logic a universal law? Does nature revolve around it? Not quite. Logic only applies in the human matrix aka society. Is it so hard for people to imagine that the basis of their "knowledge" and civilization is made of lies and illusions? When the foundations are rotten can you expect the building to stand for long? The reality is, the human Story is amazingly ridiculous. Can you imagine for a second that after countless generations, humans have lived on false basis without putting them into question, ever? It reminds me of something, ants. Humans are but poor animals that keep repeating things without a second thought. Evolution? Nah, just a poor experiment.

What makes it so hard to see beyond materialism? Logic. Humans cannot fathom what goes against their logic based assumptions because it is the basis of their world. Instead of creativity and infinity. Einstein got it:

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.

Especially that one, thanks destiny!

The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.

Im not saying i like the guy for having participated in the nuclear rotten technology creation which he should have expected considering his sharpness but this above proves he understood the horror of humanity and its limitations.

There are many examples of consciousness above matter especially in life and death situations: Superstrenght

It is not only biological far from it. It is a very good example of what directed focus aka consciousness can do when and only when, the subject temporarily forget logic and the notion of limitations, and everything he thought he knew. Hence why they call it hysterical. In other words, only madness will lead you to the truth!

I don't know much about Deepak Chopra, other than that I'm pretty sure I've heard his name a number of times in spiritual contexts. And I don't know too much about Dawkins, other than that people talk about him as a very hardcore atheist, though I have heard him say some interesting and open-minded things. So, I don't have too many pre-conceived notions going into this video. I have to say, that it seemed like Chopra kept not really responding to what Dawkins was saying and asking, and kind of just avoiding the issue, not acknowledging Dawkin's point. He also made a number of good and perfectly reasonable arguments that could have greater implications than is generally recognized. And Dawkins agreed with these things. But Dawkins just kept making good points, and I was interested to see how Chopra would respond, and many times he just did not even acknowledge the point Dawkins was trying to make.

originally posted by: Bluesma
Thanks for posting this! Interesting!

I have heard both of these mens names, but have never watched/listened to them before.

Dawkins so clearly tries to make a fool of Chopra, but it keeps ricocheting. Just watching his body language, I don't like this Dawkins guy.

I honestly do not know where some of you are getting this impression. Dawkins kept making good points, which Chopra would have either had a really insightful way of responding, or else would have had to switch up his talking points. He stayed on his message, and thereby didn't really address what Dawkins was saying. Dawkins was clearly being very easy-going...he kept just giving up on his points when they weren't being responded to, and just giving Chopra the benefit of the doubt that he didn't believe anything irrational...he was pretty clearly being nice and non-combative, passing up many opportunities to press on certain points and get Chopra to respond to something he didn't seem to want to.

originally posted by: Bluesma


Dawkins so clearly tries to make a fool of Chopra, but it keeps ricocheting. Just watching his body language, I don't like this Dawkins guy.

Exactly my impression. He comes across as a unpleasant Headmaster who is trying to discipline a naughty pupil. Dr Chopra mentioned in one of his books something like... you can tell how close to God one is by the shine in their eyes. I think having to look into the narrow over-blinking eyes of Dawkins was probably why it took Chopra a while to
get used to it, and possibly he felt a little uncomfortable sharing a close space - Dawkins appears to be somewhat
negative and perhaps his energy was felt.

There was nothing awkward about it besides the camera work.

I read Chopra's 'Book of Secrets' and it was a real game changer for me - Recommended.

Thanks for the link

originally posted by: DrunkYogi
Dawkins is a fool. His attitude is a sign of the times when minds are closed and materialism is on the up and up.


"The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing"
Socrates

Chopra is a fool. His attitude is a sign of the times when minds have always been closed and fake spiritualism is on the up and up.

Oh, Socrates was a fool as well, all of these guys are following orders, instructions from those they will not mention, that ensure a slave trap is set for any and all levels of curiousity, and they never EVER will get to the truth, because they are not searching for it.

They only believe they can survive by following the teachings set forth TO THEM, never actually doing any RAW search, just like all Yogis and Avatars, they are just as blinded.

Great interview. I had a dislike toward Richard for a few years now, but this interview actually made me respect him a little more. He doesn't come out as arrogant as much as he has in the past and even though some of his questions served as traps, I like the fact that he didn't push it as much. Deepak was great in explaining what he means by certain terms and crossing the bridge between the scientific and spiritual. I've actually read Ageless Mind, Timeless Body and Quantum Healing years ago and it change how I looked at healing and modern medicine forever.

I am scientifically minded and respect science as the best tool that we have currently at explaining the objective world. I also realize that there are many religious superstitions or myths that are labeled as literal truth by it's followers. But on the same token it is important for us to realize that there are fundamentalists not just in the religious world but in the scientific world as well. Although being the great tool that it is, we must realize that it is also limited in areas which we can't measure or control in experiments.

I especially enjoyed how Deepak explains how consciousness is elusive when looked upon the lens of the scientific materialist. It is by nature something that is subjective, yet universal. And it is not something that can be explained away as processes and reactions of an organic brain. Hopefully when it comes to the matter of the mind and consciousness, people will realize that it is something that isn't hocus pocus and it isn't something that science currently has answers for.

I agree with some of the things that Richard said, and I believe the beauty of this video is somewhat of a common ground which was met even though both see life in a radically different way. Deepak did seem a bit defensive at points especially in the beginning, but that is simply because of the type of reputation of the man he's being interviewed by. Conversely, Richard seemed to stop trying to push a point and actually looked like he listened to and respected Deepak more after the interaction. Thanks for the video!

originally posted by: TheJourney

I honestly do not know where some of you are getting this impression.

There are certain body language that just turn me off, I guess. Tight lips, the upward tilt of the head, eyes small, almost squinting... they give me a feeling of someone with an agenda in mind already, and only taking part in discussion with the intent of trying to trap the other or expose weaknesses they have already decided exist in them.

]Dawkins kept making good points

I don't know, using words like "mumbo jumbo" isn't very sincere or serious, in my mind. Especially when the person has already shown they are communicating in a serious and scientific way. It just seems (again) like not acknowledging the reality and the person in the moment, but instead, stuck in the prejudices and intents he walked in with. It was disrespectful and not at all a "good point", in my opinion.

Calling someones intelligent and thoughtful discourse "mumbo jumbo" makes them seem rather immature, really.