Deepak Chopra: Are We an Accident?

I do not believe we are accidents.
If I take my reasons from personal experience I will be trusting my most knowing source.
Science has a way of pointing to that which living things become as adaptions to the survival of that species. We have exhibited the trait of being religious or spiritual or having a relationship with a being we generally refer to as god. All cultures for as long as can be studied have had this being as an important and central focus in their existence. Why? Are we so silly as to create this "story"? Why? It makes no sense. I think the creator hard wired us to know who we are if we only pay attention and find this written in knowledge.
In my personal experience, amazing inexplicable things happen easily when I interact with this being. There are way too many and they happen way too often for me to ever unbelieve that there is an interconnected source which is sympathetic with me. eg: When I ask for something, I receive it, sometimes faster than I can form the desire as a request in my linguistic mind. This can happen several times a day. Astounding! I love it. Jeannie

Hello Deppak

First of all, what is an accident? something that happened, and wasnt supposed to happen? then who did the accident? Nobody? Nothing? OPS! that is definitely a new perspective for me.
Things happen for no reason??? so why do you think, you have a reason? in beliving so???
We are ONE, enjoying ourself, that doesn´t mean we cant wake up!!!

Love

Dear Dr. Chopra,

From the perspective of philosophical scholarship, both atheism and theism are merely differing philosophical viewpoints. Atheism cannot be spoken of in generalized terms any more than theism can be. It seems there are many schools of thought among atheists just as there are among theists. It is not necessarily reductionist; not all atheists postulate unequivocally that we are "accidents"; and biology is a science not a philosophy. Being atheist does not necessarily mean that one is automatically antagonistic toward theism or any other more abstract, esoteric or mystical philosophies. In many cases, it doesn't even mean that one doesn't believe in God, however one might think of God. Deists and agnostics also might be considered atheists in that they personally reject theistic dogma.

Anti-theism or New Atheism as it's become more widely known, however, seems a very different animal. It is entirely political, actively hostile and appears as egregiously authoritarian as its dogmatic, theistic counterpart: religious fundamentalism. Despite all the socio-political wrangling between the absolutists of either side, however, there is still a wide and varied spectrum of existential thought ranged between them.

As far as this relates to science: Both sides of the political debates appear to be far overstepping their bounds. The sciences pertain to physical reality, what it's made of and how it works whereas philosophy pertains to the meaning of existence and how it relates to the value we confer upon our lives and those of all others. On the political front, while creationists attempt to slip religion in the guise of science into our nations' classrooms and are correctly challenged by biologists aware that what they are peddling is not a scientific theory, few notice that Anti-theists, in their eagerness to promote atheism, themselves manage to postulate an untestable hypothesis, which is hardly scientific.

The mistake opponents on both sides make, I think, is that they fail to differentiate religion from spirituality. The human soul or the essence of our metaphysical selves (if one prefers the secular term), which might be defined as the combination of mind, emotion and will, is not a physical entity though it may arise from physical processes. In criticisms of the harm organized religion is capable of doing, Anti-theists further manage to attack any and all forms of personal spirituality with the result being that their arguments generally reach only other atheists.

Religion is an institution -- a social construct -- which, like all our social institutions, suffers primarily from the temptation to power over others that appears to be inherent in merely being human. Many people identify so strongly with their particular religion due to the fact that it is rooted in social traditions, that they are unable to separate it in the mind from criticisms of religion. Some criticisms are legitimate as in the case of the creation/evolution debates. Many others are not and this is by no means confined to the religion/science debates. Partisans of every socio-political persuasion one can imagine seem not nearly as adept at self-analysis and correction as criticism and judgment of the Other.

As Vivekananda noted in his address to The Parliament of Religions in 1893: "That has been the difficulty all the while. I am a Hindu. I am sitting in my own little well and thinking the whole world is my little well. The Christian sits in his little well and thinks the whole world is his well. The Mohamedan sits in his little well and thinks that is the whole world."

One can envision that if human beings ever evolve beyond the fractious partisanship we seem intent upon engaging in as a species, we might just have it made. Unless I'm mistaken, that's what religion was originally designed to help us accomplish.