At Big Questions Online, a John Templeton Foundation publication, Michael Shermer discuss the use of « quantum flapdoodle » as the basis of Deepak Chopra’s effort to update medieval theology.
I think Shermer lost the main part of the target: the John Templeton Foundation itself. Too close to perceive it?
They do exactly the same thing and their 2009 JTP winner, Bernard d’Espagnat is a perfect illustration of the use of « quantum flapdoodle » to support the idea of a veiled reality where gods may conveniently hide out of reach:
In his nomination of d’Espagnat for the Templeton Prize, Nidhal Guessoum, Chair of Physics at American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, wrote, “He has constructed a coherent body of work which shows why it is credible that the human mind is capable of perceiving deeper realities.”
These perceptions offer, d’Espagnat has said, “the possibility that the things we observe may be tentatively interpreted as signs providing us with some perhaps not entirely misleading glimpses of a higher reality and, therefore, that higher forms of spirituality are fully compatible with what seems to emerge from contemporary physics.”
I asked the question, addressed to Shermer, in the comments under his post, but knowing how the stuff of the Templeton Foundation deal with moderation of comments (and I refer to the way Gary Rosen dealt with one of my comments in the past) I reproduce it here and
maybe I should I e-mail[ed] it to Shermer directly.
I have a question for Michael Shermer (but all opinions are welcome): why restrict the « quantum flapdoodle » comment to Deepack Chopra’s God and not extend it to the various ‘flavors’ of spiritualities based on it?
The 2009 John Templeton Prize winner, Bernard d’Espagnat, use much of the same « quantum flapdoodle » to support his view of a ‘veiled reality’ from where the God of Ken Miller or Francis Collins ‘operates’.
What would be the difference, if any, of the use of « quantum flapdoodle »?
wOOt! it did go through the moderation.