Is Richard Dawkins An Arrogant Bully, Or An Honest Truth Seeker?

[PiracyOfTheHead]

My de-conversion was not based on readingbooks or teachings, I lost faith by reading the bible, by witnessing the lies, hypocrisy and distortion, so I do not

know this ma much at all, I am asking a sincere question because I am becoming interesting in this man's work and ideas but out of the few things i have seen of him, I have seen some disturbing things that remind me of the Die hard Xtian, in this case, a Die hard Atheist, and that to me is an absolutism that seems very narrow in its scope for the truth Holding everyting to the light of his version of science, and there are versions, "Science" isnt a unified

body working in absolute synchronicity, and always arriving at perfect absolute truth, it is a process, a field of study, a vehicle humans use to learn, and I am in no way saying that science is merely a humanistic tool with no real answers, much of science holds real answers, science is awesome and wonderful, the little I know of it, as I have not advanced quite as far as I would likein my college career,

I have also been a science type kid, I grew up watching Don Herbert (Mr Wizard) I loved science class from k-12 and began studying higher mathematics so that I could eventually delve deeper into science, hoping one day to be adept in Chemistry, Physics...maybe even Quantum physics!!!! I am the son of an Anthropologist who has devoted his life and career to Archaeology, our family Archaeological Consulting Service excavated a massive Native American burial at the ARCO refinery in CArson, CA during the late 90's http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/11/local/me-52990 We also worked with another company where we unearthed a historical Post office on route 66 where Wyatt Earp had once worked in Rancho Cucamonga, CA in '97 , he was with Dr Kent Weeks in Giza mapping the Valley of the Kings and roaming the pyramids, I remember reading "X-Raying the pharoahs at 10 years of age,

So, i am a scientist at heart, not in the truest formal sense but its part of the blood....

 

I just wanted to point those thigns out before I got into this, to clarify my position a little bit,

thanks for taking the time to read on.

 

Anywyas, I happened upon an interview with Dr deepak Chopra which disturbed me,

 

I dont know a ton of Chopra although I have read some interesting fiction from him as well as listened to some of his Vedic/western scientific theories and teachings.

Mostly for entertainment and every once in a while i glean a nice nugget of info that helps me along the way but I wanted to show this video, and discuss why Dawkins got under my skin, and hear a little more about the man from people who know his work and adhere to his

philosophies.

 

 

The short video is of course narrated by Dawkins, and he immediately refers to dr Chopra as one "who once qualified as a doctor"...if thats not a back handed slap, I dont know what is...he then says things like such and such doctor said "if you think to understand quantum theory, you dont understand quantum theory"...then says "Isnt deepak chopra just exploiting quantum jargon....", I noticed he didn't ask "Is Deepak chopra, who of course is now only referred to as Deepak Chopra, not Dr. Chopra, which would be respectful and accurate....while he made sure to trumpet the title of "The Great American physicist Richard Fineman". About 2 minutes int othe video...all narrated by Dawkins, Dr chopra is heard responding to some question we can only guess at, and immediately pans to an impatient looking Dawkins, sort of half suckin on his lip, with this profound expression of disdain and annoyance, he then posits a question while blinking rapidly as if he is preparing to chastise some small child who is silly enough to think he can speak on Dawkin's level. As Dr chopra begins to answer, Dawkins begins to cock his head to the side as if saying "you poor thing you", it seems quite condascending. He asks a rational question but as the Dr answers he is waiting to pounce, not listen to understand, no pause between response and reply....it seemed very planned out that he would lead Dr chopra down a certain path and then say what he wanted to say no matter what. After this Dr Chopra begins to make a statement that never gets hashes out, saying that Officianados in the scientific field have "hijacked" the word for their own use, I seriosuly doubt he meant to say that he had coined the term Quantum, yet Dawkins immediately goes in for the bitchslap and mockingly assumes that this was Dr Chopras intended meaning, then Dr Chopra is about to make a statement that there are fundamentalists in science, OBVIOUSLY speaking of a personality type and is IMMEDIATELY cut off that that is "Absolutely wrong'...WTF, I didnt even get to hear what Chopra was going to say or explain what he meant bythat, and neithe did Dawkins and he then whips Chopra by basically saying, us scientists are here to weed out people like you and we can prove all that is false and our understanding trumps everything....etc etc. He allows Chopra to make a final statement then the interview is cut, appearing that Dawkins is somehow willing to take the hit, but what he says at the end CleARLY shows why he cut it there, so that he could make the absurd statement that "Chopra wears his sdisdain for western science openly while the rest of us...." and thats that PWNED....

 

If anybody knows ANYTHING of Dr Chopras teaching they know that he in no way disdains western science, that is outright falsehood and the way this interview was portrayed, the way the words are played, the purposeful biasing of what I can only assume was a much longer interview is so one sided and unfair that it makes Dawkins look like a Xtian apologist of the likes of Kent Hovind and Dave Hunt...so we get less than 3 minutes of Chopra speaking, and are left with the conclusion that he has a belief that Scientists really stole his concept of quantum, that he disdains western science and that he does nothing more than pretend to be a doctor.....

 

If this is a good taste of Richard Dawkins then I am truly unimpressed and I see nothing more than a brilliant mind cloaked with its own superiority and fanatacism about its own beliefs, this smacks at an ideology of "the universe according to dawkins" type of mentality that he appears to own...if hes going to hold interviews, this must be an instructional on how not to do it.

 

Whether he is right or wrong is only one issue.....the way this was handled is what I have a problem with.....can anybody give me some more info on Dawkins that I may know more about the man, if its worth spending money and time reading his books and listening to his lectures.

 

Thanks in advance

[babysealclubber]

I've never read any of his books. He also strikes me as being arrogant, but he usually makes good points. I don't really care for chopra's line of spiritualism either, what little I know about it.

 

When I listen to Dawkins speak, it's difficult for me not to compare him to a christian fundamentalist, and when I listen to Chopra it reminds me of new-age christianity. I'm not saying that the actual agenda, intelligence or reasonableness of their arguments are the same, just that they seem to have a similar thought process. Dawkins draws a very hard line in the sand as to what is truth and what is not truth, and Chopra mostly spouts off metaphoric bullshit (IMHO). That's the similarity that I see.

 

I can agree in spirit with much of what Dawkins says, but overall, I'd rather not follow either one of these characters too closely.

 

As a side note, I don't really care for the 'meme' concept, or for Dawkins appeal to physicists and cosmologists to apply biological principles to their fields of study. So that's another strike against him from my perspective.

[Hammurabi]

PiracyOfTheHead, the clip you linked to is from the two part documentary: "The Enemies of Reason". Part one dealt with superstition and part two (where this clip is from) deals in health care type pseudoscience. I bring this up because it is a really good documentary, and when viewed in context, Dawkins' interview with Chopra makes more sense.

 

Ok, that much aside, I agree with you that Dawkins can be a bit hard to listen to sometimes. I think part of that is a cultural thing, it seems to me that the English are much more accustomed to direct confrontation and more frank dialogue, where as we Americans tend to go out of our way to soften the blow of our words. However, I think the majority of people's dislike of Dawkins (including your own, gathering from your post) is his dogmatism when it comes to science. He simply doesn't leave any gray area when he is talking to these types of people about science. (For a different perspective, watch some of his interviews with other prominent scientists on youtube, very informative, very interesting) While I find this to be a hard pill to swallow, I don't fault him for his approach and in fact I am glad that he is the way he is.

 

I think that Dawkins has exactly the right approach when it comes to debating and interviewing these pseudoscience types. I think that the reason why proponents of homeopathy, psychics, dowsing rods, "intelligent" design, creationism, astrology, and any other type of nonsensical garbage have gained so much favor is because scientists and educated laymen in society have been handling these people with mittens on our hands. Engaging in open debate is a healthy, essential thing for science to advance, and there is most certainly no single theory or principle that doesn't have very well educated, respected, experienced scientists debating over. Unfortunately, these scammers see the open debate about these topics and use it to exploit people using scientific terms. It's kind of a "God of the Gaps" approach to pseudoscience. It goes like this:

 

"Scientists can't agree on (X theory or phenomenon), therefore we may have it all wrong. My (treatment, ointment, herb supplement, spiritual approach, energy control powers, etc...) take advantage of these principles that are yet unknown to science."

 

When an average scientist comes to debate or discuss an issue with these types they come as an open book, eagerly admitting what is unknown, what is in contention, and even divulging the missteps along the way, as any good scientist should. However, these pseudoscience types turn this against them, turning a small section of unknown into a giant bubble of unassailable conjecture and unproven (even unprovable) assertions.

 

"So what?", you might ask. "People have been spewing nonsense since our species could speak." This is true, all too true, but the issue I personally have with this type of exchange (a displeasure Dawkins and I share) is that these charlatans use the language of science to peddle their decidedly unscientific wares. These people are exploiting the general populations ignorance of science (there is just too much science to know...) to tie their quackpottery to legitimate science and therefore lending the full weight of the scientific establishment to their nonsense. This debases science, deceives the public, and ultimately damages the public image of science and scientists. What Chopra peddles is not "Quantum Mechanics" it is completely unrelated and it is egregiously dishonest of him to use that language to entice the populace into his teachings. If he wants to sell that to the general public, he is certainly free to do so, but he should be taken to task by all scientists and science loving people for is incorrect and dishonest use of science terms. And that goes for anyone who tries to pass their unprovable, untestable dogma as science. To paraphrase a quote from the documentary; "Alternative medicine is called such because it is untested and unproven, if it was proven to be effective, it would just be called Medicine."

 

Anyways, I've gone on long enough. To summarize:

• Dawkins is brilliant and has a lot of great things to say
  
• He regularly debates and interviews anti-science types
  
• These anti-science types use the "gray areas" of science to peddle their wares
  
• Dawkins forceful approach can be hard to listen to, but is necessary to close the loopholes these types are exploiting
  

 

If you want to see Dawkins at his best, check out these interviews. 1 2 As a starting point. He's significantly less caustic when talking to another scientist.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

PiracyOfTheHead, the clip you linked to is from the two part documentary: "The Enemies of Reason". Part one dealt with superstition and part two (where this clip is from) deals in health care type pseudoscience. I bring this up because it is a really good documentary, and when viewed in context, Dawkins' interview with Chopra makes more sense.

 

 

OHhhh...OK because I searched for another clip that would tie it together with something and didnt find anythign with the same name....so I believed this to be some shoet excerpted from a larger story, but it still seems cut in a way that yes its from a larger picture but that was all the Deepak we were going to get.

 

So thanks for pointing that out, I had no way of knowing, as I said I searched for other parts with the same title and came up short.....funny i started watching the Series you speak of and couldnt stand the voice after about 30 seconds...so for tonight at least had to turn it off.

 

Thanks for pointing that out, I will be happy now to view it in its entirety.

 

But even then, its not whther Chopra is right or wrong or does speak mumbo jumbo, or whether Dawkins is right or wrong, its in the way he acts and the way he treated Chopra....

 

I will post more in the morning.

 

Thanks

[Legion]

POTH, I have mixed feeling about Dawkins. I thought his books The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene were good. But I think he still has a lot of biology to learn, as we all do. And I think in order to continue forward in science we must have a nearly equal measure of audacity and humility. I am almost certain he has plenty of the former. I don’t know if he has enough of the latter.

 

If I were to have the opportunity to speak with Dawkins then I would meet him in his own domain of evolutionary biology. I would point out that while there is widespread agreement among biologists that evolution has occurred, there is still a great deal of disagreement about its nature. And I would ask him if he handles disagreement among his peers as he handles disagreement within society at large.

[florduh]

Dawkins is obnoxious, no doubt. But, he is one of the best critical thinkers. I don't like his style, but the substance is there.

 

Dr. Chopra (I believe I also have all of his books and some CDs) is very pleasant in his delivery, but his New Age ideas are baseless. Here is a medical doctor who believes that if you don't know you have cancer, it won't hurt you. There is a mind-body connection, but DAMN!

 

So Chopra wins on delivery, but Dawkins wins on content.

[Neon Genesis]

My thoughts on Dawkins are mixed. My only experiences with him have been with reading The God Delusion and I've seen a couple of documentaries about science and religion with him in it. I enjoyed reading his arguments against the existence of God and how he explained evolution in a way that makes sense to lay people. I'm still far from being an expert, but thanks to The God Delusion, I at least know enough to hold my own in a debate against a creationist. I at least know more about evolution than what I ever learned in public school, which I think is sad. But I think Dawkins does get a lot of facts wrong about religion and mischaracterizes people's beliefs to prove his point. One example is Dawkins claims Paul invented original sin and bashes all of Christianity for creating that doctrine. While I agree with Dawkins that original sin is a horrible doctrine, it was in fact invented by the Catholic church and not something explicitly referenced in the bible, nor do all Christians believe in original sin. Rather than trying to have a dialog with liberal Christians, he just paints them as being dishonest cherry pickers that are fundie enablers and insist that fundies are the only true Christians and everyone else who isn't following the Pat Robertson types are not true Christians, which I think is a bit ridiculous to say as there's no such thing as a "true" Christian.

 

Without any evidence as to what the life of Jesus was like or what teachings he intended for Christianity to follow, one Christian's interpretation is just as likely to be true as any other. It's just as likely that the Jesus Seminar could have gotten the bible right as it is a fundie. To say that one group of modern 21st century Christians are following the bible exactly the same as 1st century Christians who didn't even have the bible back then and that they are the only true Christians out of 35,000 other denominations in existence seems almost as foolhardy as it is for fundies to claim they have the one true way and everyone else is going to hell. I also think Dawkins is too easy on his criticisms of the teachings of Jesus. He'll gladly criticize the OT and bash Paul, but he gives Jesus a free pass and acts like his teachings are perfect and were just hijacked by Christianity. While Jesus had plenty of positive teachings, he also had many negative teachings, such as the fire and brimstone hellfire, his approval of slavery, and not to mention his hardcore absolutist stance on divorce. Again, without any evidence as to what Jesus' life was like and what he actually believed, we have no idea how much of the bible he actually intended for us to follow and how much was made up by his followers. So, to me Dawkins is still clearly looking at the bible through a fundamentalist view, just on the opposite side of the coin.

 

And while I agree with his criticism of fundamentalists and that fundamentalism is certianly a dangerous threat to society, I also still don't understand how liberal Christians are fundie enablers as Dawkins does not back up this claim with any evidence at all. I also still don't get how how evolution is incompatible with religious belief as Dawkins claims. I can understand how evolution can be incompatible with creationists' narrow views of the bible, but I don't see how it's incompatible with people who don't believe Genesis is literal. And if Dawkins thinks that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis is a modern invention by those evil cherry picking liberal Christians and that evolution is responsible for the debate on how to interpret Genesis, he needs to read up on history and learn about St. Augustine as this debate has been going on since Christianity was practically first formed and is not some modern invention created by "fake" Christians. In any case, I guess you can say I respect Dawkins as a scientist, but he's clearly not a philosopher. And yes, I'm aware of his apologetic excuse that you don't need to be a fairylogist to disprove the existence of fairies, but that still doesn't mean you don't have to read up on fairy mythology to discuss it with readers of fae lore. It'd be like me reading up on Greek mythology and getting it confused with Roman mythology and insisting that it's all the same nonsense, so who cares if I get my history correct on it anyway.

[Antlerman]

Dawkins is to questions of religion, as Rush Limbaugh is to questions of politics, except he is even less knowledgeable about religion than Limbaugh is about politics. My opinion of him is quite low at this point. He accuses this person of "exploiting science" for his own promotion, yet pray tell me isn't this exactly what Dawkins is doing; using his credentials as a scientist to sell books of himself as an opinionator about areas beyond his field of expertice? Show me Dawkins' degrees that pertain to these areas. He is no philosopher, that much is certain and I disagree that he is a critical thinker. If he were, he wouldn't speak so black and white about complex issues in his rhetoric. He's really more a scientist/popular entertainer, IMO.

 

Here's an interesting article from an atheist scientist who knows Dawkins about his ideas that are NOT "New Age" fluff stuff: http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2008/1...fman/index.html It's a good read, but I wanted to quote what he says about Dawkins here as an Atheist Scientist in an interview with him:

 

Most scientists talk about the origins of the world strictly through naturalistic means. Why are you so determined to invoke "God"?

 

"God" carries with it a sense of awe, reverence and wonder that no other symbol carries. It's a choice. Can we give up the creator God -- the all-powerful, omnipotent, all-loving God who confronts us with the problem of evil -- and instead find reverence for a ceaseless creativity in the unfolding of nature? I think we can.

 

I also feel parts of the religious person's sense of awe. I sense the solace that prayer to a transcendent God brings. But I don't believe in a transcendent God. I do believe in this new scientific worldview.

 

Forget the "God" word for a second and just try to feel yourself as a co-creating member of the universe. It changes your stance from the secular humanist lack of spirituality to a sense of awed wonder that all of this has come about. For example, I was sitting on my patio and started thinking about the trees around me. I thought I'm one with all of life. If I'm going to cut down a tree, I better have a good reason. It's not just an object. It's alive. Then I thought about the river I'm sitting next to. I can dam the river if I want to. But I'm going to change the ecosystem downstream from it and change the planet.

 

So even without talking about God, this new scientific worldview brings with it a sense of membership with all of life and a responsibility for the planet that's largely missing in our secular world. In a materialist society, being spiritual is -- if not frowned upon -- what you do in the privacy of your own mind because there's something flaky about it for those of us who don't believe in God.

 

<snip>

 

You don't accept traditional beliefs about God. But are you carving out a different space from atheists, especially the scientists who are atheists?

 

I absolutely am. Take Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." It's a very good book. And I know Richard, and he lays out the atheist case well. It appeals to the billion or so of us who do not believe in a supernatural God, and who've hidden in the corners, particularly in the United States, where religion is so widely adhered to. But it will do no good whatsoever in bridging the gap between those who do believe in some form of God and the secular humanists like Dawkins and myself who do not. We need something else.

Well, Dawkins does not want to bridge that gap. He wants to convince those religious believers that they're wrong.

 

Absolutely. But I think Richard is wrong. Not that there's a supernatural god. I think that there's something else. I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it's God enough for me, and I think it's God enough for many of us if we think about it. You see, Richard's view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else. Whereas I hope what I'm saying may help create a new kind of sacred space."

This pretty much aligns with the approach I've been taking, and what I as a non-theistic humanist see. There is something about the richness of language, about the symbolism, about the aesthetic qualities to life that reductionist, determinist, rationalist materialist popular neo-atheism like Dawkins fails to acknowledge, respect, or consider in their criticisms. This is where they fail miserably, and why unlike atheist philosophers of the past like Sartre and Camus, they don't garner respect in my eyes as genuine thinkers in the sense of that word, no more than Limbaugh can be considered a political expert. To not account for these things, or to simply scoff it away, sounds exactly like the dismissive attitudes of the ultra-religious who scoff away science because they can't fit it into their world-view.

 

So to respond to the question, 'is Dawkins an honest truth seeker'? I don't know, but anyone who can dismiss something as complicated and integrated into all of human societies as religion with a single swipe of the rationalist wand, doesn't impress me as having actually dug too deeply into it. That the story of the Exodus, for one example of many, is not historically factual, scientifically "true", most certainly does not qualify it to be automatically dismissed out of hand as primitive superstition, or out-dated thinking. That is only one, and a very narrow one, way of looking at it. In fact, mythologies, being "supra-historical" can actually have far greater value as metaphor communicating often greater and more profound truths than anything that can come from knowing "fact". This is something that Dawkins fails to even evaluate in his rhetorical skepticism, and he in fact comes across as quite arrogant. If he were to move beyond the "facts on the ground" criticism to a deeper level, then I'd consider him differently. Of course at that point he would loose appeal as a popular critic/author as his rhetoric would loosen from clear cut lines to less spectacular serious evaluations.

[Legion]

Nicely said as usual A-man.

 

Bastard.

[Antlerman]

Nicely said as usual A-man.

 

Bastard.

[florduh]

"That the story of the Exodus, for one example of many, is not historically factual, scientifically "true", most certainly does not qualify it to be automatically dismissed out of hand as primitive superstition, or out-dated thinking. That is only one, and a very narrow one, way of looking at it. In fact, mythologies, being "supra-historical" can actually have far greater value as metaphor communicating often greater and more profound truths than anything that can come from knowing "fact"."

 

While that is a valid point, in reality very few people, especially the religious Christians that Dawkins addresses, think there is any mythology or allegory in the Bible. You see it, but they don't. Mythology can make people think, and religion generally doesn't make that demand.

 

Understanding the fact that there was no actual exodus should be the first step to one realizing that the story might have a mythological purpose. I think it's important first to realize that the Bible is not factual history.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Very, very interesting points of view, I am very pleased with the turn out this time.

 

And yeah Legion, what a bastard hah?? LOL

 

I have to admit when I saw the A-man had replied to one of my posts, I was like "Now I'm in the big time here at ExC"

 

Good to see you again Florduh....however, I have 2 questions:

 

1) What do you mean "His new age ideas are baseless"?? What exactly does that mean, there are many definitions of "New Age", and with Chopra they are ALL baseless? Please explain further.

 

2) I doubt that Deepak Chopra believes that if you dont believe you have cancer it isnt there, isnt that an oversimplification of a greater truth or belief he is trying to express??

[PiracyOfTheHead]

POTH, I have mixed feeling about Dawkins......

 

If I were to have the opportunity to speak with Dawkins then I would meet him in his own domain of evolutionary biology. I would point out that while there is widespread agreement among biologists that evolution has occurred, there is still a great deal of disagreement about its nature. And I would ask him if he handles disagreement among his peers as he handles disagreement within society at large.

 

I see very easily how you could have mixed feelings!!!!

 

And I will be addressing the other postsw as I go along here...you sor of brought up a lot of what i heard in a nutshell....

 

Why is this man an expert in one field, knowledgable in others, not so knowledgable in others and flat out ignorant about the rest, why is he walking the earth with such authority (in his own mind) on anything and everything? A-man echoed my sentiments about it as well, I would have way more respect for someone who could embrace and have respect for more that is out there whether it be Scientific or Religious, rather than getting the best of theism by his knowledge of evolutionary processes or other biological phenomena and then wearing that as a badge to swagger in to any ole discussion and arrogantly wipe away the rest of the world's thinking across the entire spectrum, Xtians used to do this all the time with me, and I bought into it to save my own beliefs but I KNEW in my heart is was wrong to be somewhat of an expert on the Bible, watch a little biology 101, then go into debate with non-creationists and try to smash evolution (or any other theory not supporting the 6 day creation I held), smash Islam, smash Catholicism, smash smash smash anything and everything simply because i thought I had a handle on the truth of the origins of life in the world and therefore by knowing that truth I really didnt have to know much about the rest, except that it HAD TO BE FALSE. So all I had to do was learn enough lingo, sample the basics and be ready to cite any old quote off the net to support my theory......

 

I had Creationism in my bag and I would have swore to you I would be able to destroy evolutionary thinkers to a man at that point in my life....you know the bible quotes "Casting down imaginations and every perverse thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of god.." I was a damned warrior for Jesus and I knew everything....shit, at 24 years old even.

 

It seems to me Dawkins is the other side to that coin.

 

tsk tsk

[woodsmoke]

Personally, I love Dawkins. 'Course, that will come as no surprise to those who know me, as I have somewhat of a weakness for slightly arrogant, blunt-nearly-to-the-point-of-caustic people like myself.

 

Conversely, the talk of a sort of spiritual reverence for the natural universe that always arises whenever someone mentions Dawkins leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Someone like Dr. Kauffman always comes along waving the white flag and suing for peace with theists, and while I respect and appreciate his efforts, I resent his painting me with the "not God, but like it" brush.

 

I do feel a sense of wonder at the complexity and beauty of the natural universe. As long as I can remember, I've always preferred to watch a Nature documentary or Nova over the Simpsons or Family Guy. While growing up, I seriously considered becoming a biologist for years, and though my interest in a career has waned, I still love to learn about the field. However, that's all it is. A feeling. There's nothing transcendent or spiritual about it. I value the natural universe, but I don't grant it some near-god status in lieu of the genuine article. The universe is a fascinating thing, to be certain, but it's still just a thing. There's nothing supernatural or deistic about it.

 

Some people are religious, some people are spiritual, and some people are neither. I identify with the latter, and I don't appreciate those in either of the other two camps trying to broad-brush me as one of theirs who just "doesn't understand."

[Skankboy]

:whs:

[Vigile]

That's me in a nutshell Woody, must be why we agree on so much

[Legion]

Oh, I didn’t know those quotes Antlerman used were from Stuart Kauffman. I have spoken with Kauffman. He was the one who turned me on to Robert Rosen.

 

In my opinion Kauffman is twice the man that Dawkins is, and three times the scientist.

[florduh]

1) What do you mean "His new age ideas are baseless"?? What exactly does that mean, there are many definitions of "New Age", and with Chopra they are ALL baseless? Please explain further.

 

2) I doubt that Deepak Chopra believes that if you dont believe you have cancer it isnt there, isnt that an oversimplification of a greater truth or belief he is trying to express??

 

 

1) The term "New Age" encompasses a variety of superstitious beliefs, none of which are actually new, but very old indeed. Any spiritual idea from ancient India or the Far East is easily incorporated under the New Age umbrella. I suspect the psychology of that may be a "grass is greener" hope or a protest against Western philosophy and science. The myth of the "Noble Savage" probably plays into it as well. Many people believe that ancient societies knew "secrets" and were somehow more advanced than we are today. Oddly enough, the impoverished, overpopulated and chronically ill societies that gave birth to what we now call New Age ideas have seen improvements in their condition only when Western medicine and scientific farming methods have intervened.

 

Dr. Chopra (who is a real medical doctor, btw) has carried the Ayurvedic torch resurrected in the 1980s by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Ayurveda is ancient folk medicine dating back about five thousand years in India. As a proponent of ayurveda he believes in treatments that use superstition, charms, spells and mantras. Ayurvedic medicines (derived from the native plants and herbs) have caused dozens of known deaths due to lead poisoning. A trained medical doctor who endorses such practices is off the deep(ak) end.

 

He promotes the idea of a universal consciousness and claims that with "enlightenment" the body will not age. He heavily endorses meditation, which is a valid tool in my opinion, but it does not create miracles. He knows how the universe works, in detail, and presents his ideas as fact, but of course without evidence.

 

2) One of Dr. Chopra's favorite lessons is in the form of a story he claims happened while he was working at a hospital. It seems a co-worker looked at his recent x-rays and found a small tumor on his lung. He fretted over that, and died within six months. Dr. Chopra discovered that the tumor had appeared in some much older x-rays and concluded it didn't bother the man until his conscious mind became aware of it, then it killed him.

 

My conclusion is that Deepak Chopra is a learned and likable nutjob, but he makes a lot more money from books and lectures than he could as a regular MD, so maybe he's not so nuts. He knows his audience and plays to their hopes and fears. Not unlike a TV evangelist.

[Vigile]

Oh, I didn’t know those quotes Antlerman used were from Stuart Kauffman. I have spoken with Kauffman. He was the one who turned me on to Robert Rosen.

 

In my opinion Kauffman is twice the man that Dawkins is, and three times the scientist.

 

He may be, and he may be the type of guy who feels spiritual about things. I don't and feel no need for it. In fact, spiritualism in any form repulses me. It all just feels very oogidy boogity to me no matter how it's framed. I'm sure some of that has to do with being uber spiritual in my younger years and then going through a great deal of disillusion.

[woodsmoke]

My thoughts exactly, Vigile. 'Course, it must also be said (and I'm sure you'll agree with me) I harbor no ill will for those inclined toward spirituality, anymore than I do for those inclined toward organized religion. As Grandpa Harley used to say, if it helps them get out of bed in the morning and not kill anyone before going to bed at night, more power to 'em, and I'm glad it's there for 'em (even if I do sometimes wish it would take a less ubiquitous approach to Life, the Universe and Everything). It's just not for me.

 

My universe, such as it is, is truly secular, and I like it that way.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

I can undestand woodsmoke's sentiments, I think it's patently true for anyone who enjoys thinking for themself, that nobody wants to be painted by anybody's brush, so far as it concerns the mentality that "you're in my camp, and I'm in yours, now let me speak on your behalf and tell you what is really going on", whether this is an atheist speaking to matters that concern beliefs within the camp of atheism, or the Catholic church telling its members exactly what they can and can not believe. If one wishes to join a group and deliver up their mind to the leaders and doctrines of that group so as to meld into perfect synchronicity then that is one's choice, but most of us want enough autonomy to make decisions within a field of study, set of religious beliefs, or a group's concerns to be able to adhere to a fundamental set of points that define our views or beliefs but maintain one's own opinions concering the rest of life.

 

For example, to be Atheistic is to not be theistic, so all Atheists of necessity are a group, now if someone is to say that "All Atheists must be male", then what has been created is a false sub-group within the larger, a female can be an Athiest by not being Theistic, yet would not meet the criterion for particular male Atheists who would claim such a thing.

 

All that is needed to be Atheist, is to not be Theistic and once that standard has been met and maintained, any other views on life are simply opinions that don't necessitate any group adherence in order to continue being an Atheist unless it contradicts Atheism.

 

I wish I could word it better than that, I sound like a cheap book on logic and philosophy but hey,I'm learning.

 

Shit, have you tried to understand Bertrand Russell?? Check out his Set Theory.......

 

I guess the joy of being an ExC is that I am free to believe what I choose and to allow others the same freedom, I may by default fall into some camp or group but I am not bound to a body of doctrine that must be believed along with whatever criterion was met in order to fall into that group.....to be labeled as anything and told what I believe and dont believe certainly would be annoying.

 

Dawkins seems to infringe upon this as well as his pal mentioned above right back at him....all in all it's too head spinning to "follow" people like this, it seems more fruiful to continue to think for oneself even if a particular person or group holds certain truths......

 

I am still thinking my way out of cult mentality, so believe it or not this is very healthy for me to be in this discussion, its opening my eyes and freeing up my twisted brain.

[Antlerman]

"That the story of the Exodus, for one example of many, is not historically factual, scientifically "true", most certainly does not qualify it to be automatically dismissed out of hand as primitive superstition, or out-dated thinking. That is only one, and a very narrow one, way of looking at it. In fact, mythologies, being "supra-historical" can actually have far greater value as metaphor communicating often greater and more profound truths than anything that can come from knowing "fact"."

 

While that is a valid point, in reality very few people, especially the religious Christians that Dawkins addresses, think there is any mythology or allegory in the Bible. You see it, but they don't. Mythology can make people think, and religion generally doesn't make that demand.

While the people Dawkins addresses do miss the value of mythology by trying to make it on the level of scientific fact, I don't see them in the majority. Granted it does get rather murky as to what level people take it symbolically only, and those who see it as fact. I struggle a bit with my thoughts here but will at some point here being able to express it better. For now, what I see is that your average "believer" just simply responds to the myth on the symbolic level and never really evaluates it as being "scientifically true" or not. That's not how I see it speaking to them, and they for the most part see it as an issue of "factuality". It's the fundamentalist, in his direct opposition to science that makes myth debate science head-on, and what comes out is some sort of nonsense pseudo-science. You're average Joe sort of believer when confronted with this question will say that his myth is "true", but honestly I see the question being more a source of confusion to them as it's not how it operates for them. It's the fundi's that really are the ones that Dawkins is attacking, and on that level he in fact does have good arguments. I won't slight him that.

 

Again where I slight him is the broad brush dismissal of all religious belief looking like that of the fundis, whereas it simply is not. Thanksgiving. That's a myth too. Yet should we solicit Mr. Dawkins expertise to debunk it as such and then push for it's elimination in our cultural traditions?

 

Understanding the fact that there was no actual exodus should be the first step to one realizing that the story might have a mythological purpose. I think it's important first to realize that the Bible is not factual history.

I do tend to agree that it might not be a bad idea for people to understand mythology in the world along side of science. I do think that education and belief in the face of open-eyed awareness is better than Ostrich-style belief protecting it's existence by hiding from knowledge. At the same time, I don't think that eliminating belief itself is realistic, or even necessarily a good idea. Opening up an understanding for the basis of belief is far healthier and more viable an option in my opinion than simply ripping away "faith" by attacking it. What pray tell is the replacement? Science? Reason alone is not the way most humans live, as is clearly evident, yet it's what Dawkins appears to be preaching they should. And at that issue, I'd like to know his qualifications to make that assumption. Being a biologist doesn't indicate depths of awareness of areas that do delve into issues of religion, society and humanity. To me its at this point that argument starts making Science and Reason a religious belief, and not a tool of discovery. I'm all for science, but not to the exclusion of all other ways of being human; just as I'm against religion being against science and reason.

 

By all means, inform people of facts, but be sensitive and aware that myth has and does play an important and often vital part of their lives on healthy levels, as well as bad. I believe there is a way to bridge that divide we seem to have created as a society. To simply destroy a cherished belief, to smash their icons without regard for consequence is irresponsible, IMHO.

 

Since I mentioned the Exodus, what is the alternative to understanding factually it never happened? It's a metaphor of deliverance. In fact many Jewish authors and Rabbis going way to the BCE time, recognized it as such. The uneducated rural folk may have taken it as literal history because they didn't know better, but my argument again is that its meaning was not about it being factual history, but about the symbol of national identity and belief in the power of the little guy triumphing over even a great empire if they believed in who they were. That's the message most took from it, as I'm seeing it, and realistically the power of the myth is destroyed by those who move it off that level into a scientific debate.

 

 

Personally, I love Dawkins. 'Course, that will come as no surprise to those who know me, as I have somewhat of a weakness for slightly arrogant, blunt-nearly-to-the-point-of-caustic people like myself.

I'll grant he does appeal to me on certain cynical levels. Those areas where I scoff at the absurdities of the fundamentalist's arguments against scientific knowledge.

 

 

Conversely, the talk of a sort of spiritual reverence for the natural universe that always arises whenever someone mentions Dawkins leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Someone like Dr. Kauffman always comes along waving the white flag and suing for peace with theists, and while I respect and appreciate his efforts, I resent his painting me with the "not God, but like it" brush.

White flag of surrender? You see trying to build bridges, trying to understand and find common ground for dialog and moving forward together as race of human beings in a modern world to be capitulating and surrendering to religious belief? How so? Should we just shut out any idea other than ones that follow the modern scientific method and drive out the non-scientists among us?

 

Would you likewise accuse me of doing this; that I am flying a white flag of surrender because I don't see a reason for open warfare with everyone who adopts a religious system?

 

I do feel a sense of wonder at the complexity and beauty of the natural universe. As long as I can remember, I've always preferred to watch a Nature documentary or Nova over the Simpsons or Family Guy. While growing up, I seriously considered becoming a biologist for years, and though my interest in a career has waned, I still love to learn about the field. However, that's all it is. A feeling. There's nothing transcendent or spiritual about it. I value the natural universe, but I don't grant it some near-god status in lieu of the genuine article. The universe is a fascinating thing, to be certain, but it's still just a thing. There's nothing supernatural or deistic about it.

Granted I don't see it as supernatural, but in its naturalistic splendor it does inspire. That some choose to put a symbolically rich word like "God" on that for themselves offends you? Why? Not everyone who does this takes "God" and believe it to mean some tribal deity with a list of demands. But the greater point is this: that response of awe that you describe, is that rational? What is that? Is that scientific? Do you experience it and recall it with a scientific or rational explaination, or exactly how? Do you see somethings as inappropriate to examine rationally at time? Is there something to life beyond raw examination? Like the aesthetic? Like beauty? Art, poetry, music, love, romance, hope, belief, faith, etc, etc, etc. All these "human" qualities? From what you described, many people, myself included describe that "sense of wonder" as "transcendent or spiritual". It's the aesthetic. That's what I say is not experienced using rational means. That's how see most all of so-called "religious" experience.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying someone falls short of any standard of humanity if they don't experience responses to life in these ways. Honestly, not everyone does. But my point in bringing them up is that those who chide those who do who, for reasons of culture and language, express them with such symbolically rich words as God and heaven, love, hope, faith, community, peace, etc, are experiencing exactly the same things as what you just expressed. Is the criticism on word choice? Let the word "angel" be accurate scientifically or not used? If God isn't real, don't call it that? Is this the complaint? If so, should we tell our loved ones later on tonight that, "I feel a rise in endorphin levels in response to my observing you tonight," as opposed to "I love you"? What is love? A symbolic word?

 

This is where I see science and religion having something in common - human beings and being human. Is that a white flag of kissing ass on my part to recognize this, or am I seeing that there is a reality here that goes beyond how we choose to call it, one which I have faith that if understood could bring understanding and a greater sense of ourselves as a whole if it were realized? I don't see religion as the answer for us, nor do I see science as the answer either. I see understanding and awareness of our rational and "religious" self in some system that speaks to both without retreating to some either/or scenario as a better option.

 

Some people are religious, some people are spiritual, and some people are neither. I identify with the latter, and I don't appreciate those in either of the other two camps trying to broad-brush me as one of theirs who just "doesn't understand."

I've never accused anyone who doesn't see the world in the ways I described as "just not getting it", or they just "don't understand". Where I say they don't understand is when they are dismissive out of hand because something doesn't fit into their world view. That's how I define religious dogma, whether it comes from a theistic or non-theistic belief system.

 

To disagree with someone like Dawkins doesn't impugn him for not seeing the world as everyone else does. It does criticize him however for his being so vocally dismissive of those who differ from him, and while not having the scope I see as important to have in making such a charge for someone of his stature.

[Asimov]

Don't see anything wrong with Dawkins and his skepticism towards non-methodological approaches to healing people.

 

Dawkins may make lots of money off his books, but he isn't a snake-oil salesmen telling people that they need to take his product and they'll be cured of anything.

 

His books promote critical thinking, skepticism and seeking to understand the world in a more realistic approach that veers from the hard-lined holistic approach.

 

Criticizing spiritualism and religion has been too-long considered a taboo "subject" and the viewpoints towards non-believers is vitriolic and prejudiced.

 

Pushing back against over-emotionally thinking idiots isn't a bad thing.

[Dhampir]

All that is needed to be Atheist, is to not be Theistic and once that standard has been met and maintained, any other views on life are simply opinions that don't necessitate any group adherence in order to continue being an Atheist unless it contradicts Atheism.

That's about as well put as it can be.

[woodsmoke]

Criticizing spiritualism and religion has been too-long considered a taboo "subject" and the viewpoints towards non-believers is vitriolic and prejudiced.

 

Pushing back against over-emotionally thinking idiots isn't a bad thing.

Exactly.

 

For better or worse, when I hear "spiritual," I inevitably think "emotional." You (AM) and others may not agree with that, but that's how it's always seemed to me, so that's how it parses in my head. When people have told me in the past they're not religious, but they are spiritual, it's almost always meant "I don't like the rigid structure and rules imposed by organized religion, but the idea of a benevolent creator and/or there being some overarching purpose to Life, the Universe and Everything gives me the warm fuzzies, so I'm going to ditch the pew-sitting on Sundays but hang on to the ephemeral beliefs."

 

That's not to imply I necessarily think there's anything wrong with that. I don't. As I said to Vigile, if believing there's some magical sky being out there who loves them or some conscious order to the universe helps these folks get out of bed in the morning, go to work, provide for their families and not kill anyone before going to bed at night--in short, if it helps them be better people, I think that's great, and I'm glad that belief is there for them. The only problem I have with such an outlook is when someone like Dr. Kauffman comes along and proposes those of us who don't feel any need for such an emotional element to our lives are missing out on something or somehow the less for it. I tried it his way for the first 18 years of my life, and I can confidently state I've never been happier with who I am since I realized the whole emotional bundle of religion and spirituality just isn't something I need. If he does, or if he finds value in it, great, more power to him. Just don't go assuming because that's the case for him, or even for the majority of people, that's necessarily the case for everyone, as demonstrably not true.