I Asked Deepak

Weeks ago, The Star Phoenix had an opportunity to ask Deepak a question.  In an earlier post I suggested a couple for Deepak.  On a whim I sent them to The Star Phoenix.  This is what I sent:

Deepak how do you justify speaking and writing authoritatively about topics no one can know for certain? For example, how do you know reincarnation occurs, there is an after life, or God exists.  How can you know that a person’s personal beliefs affect their experience in the afterlife.  Isn’t this just gross speculation and wishful thinking?

Why do you insist on wrapping your metaphysics in a veneer of quantum physics. Physicists have repeatedly told you that your understanding of quantum physics is wrong?  Unlike unknowable untestable topics such as the afterlife you do not get to rewrite physics to match your beliefs. Should this be interpreted as attempting to use legitimate  science to prop up your unscientific ideas and highly speculative propositions?

This weekend they published Deepak’s responses and he sort of answered my first question.

Q: Deepak, how do you justify speaking and writing authoritatively about topics no one can know for certain? For example, how do you know reincarnation occurs, there is an after life, or God exists? -D.B.

A: I don’t justify anything. I write from personal experience, research and study and then share my convictions. People are free to take it or leave it and make their own choices.

Read More

I think his response reflects exactly the problem.  What he is selling is his personal convictions, yet he speaks as if it is true. I have tried listening to one of his audio books a couple of times.  I last about 30 minutes before being unable to stand his misuse of science and rampant speculation.  He picks and chooses science terms that somewhat match his preconceptions.  It matters not that the science does not agree nor support his convictions, he uses the terms regardless.

People know quantum physics is hard.  I have little more than a popular science level understanding, but I know enough to know Deepak’s claims are often misrepresentations.  Deepak does not seem to understand it at even a superficial level, yet he expounds upon it with much implied authority.  If you don’t know anything beyond quantum-physics-is-hard Deepak must seem really smart to understand it so well.

In this interview with Richard Dawkins he admits his use is more poetical than actual.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: