Deepak Chopra and New Age Nonsense

In response to noted atheist Richard Dawkins' new book "The God Delusion," Deepak Chopra has penned a series of responses at the Huffington Post, in an attempt to rebut Dawkins' main points regarding religion. In reading through some of these essays, I was once again reminded of exactly why I have come to loathe the kind of pseudo-scientific, mystical nonsense that characterizes virtually all writings on New Age "spirituality," especially Chopra's.

One of the central ideas in Chopra's writings is that human consciousness cannot be described or adequately quantified in material terms (i.e. by science), and that this leads to the realization that the universe itself is (or is permeated by) some sort of "God" -- although one that is decidedly different from those of the major religions. What annoys me about Chopra's ideas has nothing to do with the fact that he posits the existence of a God of some sort, but rather that he dresses up his beliefs, which are unquestionably not materialistic or rational, with catchy, scientific-sounding words in an attempt to sound like he's creating some great fusion between "arrogant" materialist "skeptics" on the one hand, and "fundamentalists" (meaning followers of the major religions) on the other.

As an introductory example of his style of pseudo-scientific blather that is, in the most literal sense, completely meaningless, take this gem of mystic insight:

"...why should God be what Dawkins imagines--a superhuman Creator making life the way a watchmaker makes a watch? Let's say God is closer to being a field of consciousness that pervades the universe. Let's say that this field keeps creating new forms within itself. These forms swirl and mix with each other, finding more combinations and complexities as time unfolds. Such a God couldn't be imagined because a field is infinite, and there's nowhere it isn't."

At first glance this may seem like a somewhat valid and interesting idea. Chopra seems to be proposing a "middle path" of sorts between hard materialism and traditional conceptions of God. The trouble arises if you actually think about what Chopra is saying, and attempt to extract some sort of real meaning from his words.

Chopra says, "God is closer to being a field of consciousness that pervades the universe." This invokes a mental image, most likely of some sort of ephemeral connective element that extends through space. Chopra's choice of words -- "a field" that "pervades the universe" -- is obviously meant to invoke the concept of a field (as in a magnetic field, a gravitational field) from mathematics and physics. The problem arises when you look at how Chopra tries to throw together completely unrelated concepts in a manner that quite simply cannot have any meaning.

On a basic level, a gravitational field is a representation of the distribution of forces throughout space caused by the presence of mass. Vector fields in general, of which gravitational fields are a type, associate a value in the form of a vector with every point in a given space. There are other types of fields, more basic and more complex, but they all work according to this same basic principle. Consciousness, on the other hand, is "a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment." (Wikipedia)

One of the most basic concepts of modern philosophy (and logic) is that words serve as references to objects (whether concrete or abstract) and that often these references can be combined in ways that sound and seem meaningful at first glance, yet have no possible meaning. An example of such a combination would be if someone talked of an "invisible apple." Since an apple is defined by a number of characteristics which include visibility and having some color (though an apple could be many different colors), the very idea of an "invisible apple" is nonsensical and logically absurd. While it may seem that one could imagine an apple that cannot be seen, if it was truly invisible there would be no way to identify it as an apple, since an apple cannot be identified without reference to its visual characteristics. Thus it would not truly be an apple at all.

Now, is there any conceivable way that these two concepts of "field" and "consciousness" could be combined to refer to something meaningful? It turns out that, just like the invisible apple, the idea of a "field of consciousness" is inherently contradictory since consciousness is not something that could possibly comprise a field, any more than you could fill a bucket with intelligence. The two concepts of "field" and "consciousness" simply cannot be combined to form anything meaningful.

So we are left with the conclusion that Chopra is simply using scientific-sounding terminology in order to construct "ideas" that are meaningless on the most basic level. Some may counter that Chopra was simply using those terms to suggest an idea, an did not mean the words literally. However, if this was the case, Chopra's beliefs would be essentially the same as anyone else who believes in God, except he would be guilty of attempting to legitimize his beliefs with pseudo-scientific jargon, while drawing false distinctions between his allegedly more advanced beliefs and those of other religious people.

Chopra contrasts himself and his beliefs with "fundamentalists" who believe that humans have spirits, that there is a creator God, etc. In reality, the only difference between Chopra's "God" and that of Christians, Jews and others is that, unlike Chopra, other believers honestly state that their belief in God is a matter of faith. Chopra, on the other hand, concocts fancy, scientific-sounding phrases -- about "swirling, mixing forms" of a "field of consciousness" -- that are completely devoid of meaning.

Essentially, Chopra's ideas, and his attempt to differentiate himself from traditional religion as if his beliefs were somehow more valid than them, are comparable to someone who mocks those who pray for healing while touting the "healing energies" of some New Age gem or trinket. A thin veil of nonsensical scientific-sounding jargon (and a need to deny that his beliefs are based on faith, not reason) are all that separates Chopra's beliefs from the traditional religions he seems to denigrate.