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

[PiracyOfTheHead]

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

 

I stated in the beginning my inquiry had nothing to do with the validity of either chopra or Dawkins beliefs, i was, whether Dawkins is 100% correct or not was not my concern, it was how he handled this interview and the way he presented himself, I was looking for insight into the man from others here that know more of him and wanted opinions on his character, more than anything

 

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.

 

If you want to get to the nitty gritty of it, yes Dawkins does claim that what he says and believes cures, whether it be his notion of curing the mind of beliefs in anythign he hasnt put his stamp of approval on, to stating that others methods CAN NOT cure anything at all, in fact he is taking on a great burden in denouncing any and all types of belief in any cure but the knife and the pill....thats quite a lot of responsibility for one man to be running around the world with.

 

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.

 

That is in question, do his books only promote critical thinking, or do they promote "the Universe according to Dawkins"...I am not seeing that he solely promotes critical thinking and a healthy skepticism, but as I learn more of him that may not be exactly the case.

 

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.

 

I sure hope there will be room left in the world for imagination, hopes, dreams, metaphor, symbolism and the chance for anything beyond what the lab coats and secular professors declare for us to be true if this is to be the new world. Yes, healthy skepticism is obviously wonderful, so please dont take that out of context, my meaning is that there is a grey area, and to declare the grey is no longer allowed until it is stamped for approval by the likes of Dawkins is equally vile.

 

And I would be hard pressed to lump all adherents to religion and spirituality into one group whose viewpoints are as you said, that is not a very fair statement.

 

And you sum it up with "Pushing back against over-emotionally thinking idiots isn't a bad thing" ? Is this another all out reference to anyone religious or spiritual?? If not who are you addressing? I think Chopra, no matter what your view on his beliefs is a far cry from an idiot, and I dont see him as overly emotional, this isnt Benny Hinn or Jan Crouch we're talking about.

 

Your post was vague in many respects, it actually seems more emotional than anything, you seem to be fueled by emotion towards the "spiritual and religious idiots" and your opinions. I do know what you are getting at though, that was more facetious than anything but youve goosed me a few times a while back anyways.

[Antlerman]

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."

OK, it's how it impressed you. From your perspective on it. I would however argue that they aren't viewed as ephemeral beliefs. Those sorts of things, those ways of seeing things are much deeper than some temporary toke on the crack pipe. It's a world view, its a framework of perspective. Much like a materialist world view is likewise a framework of perspective. One sees the world through a photograph, the other sees it through a painting of impressionism. Each is a representation of reality, neither is reality. One finds value and meaning in an attempt to portray things through a realism, the other through non-realism. Each offers meaning to the viewer depending on their preferences. Yet even within the medium of photography, the artist attempts to capture an ideal, and ideal that exists solely in the human perspective. So even there realism is tainted by myth. Humans are myth makers because of being human.

 

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.

Translation: "if they want to be stupid, and believe dumb ridiculous things as long as it keeps them under control I don't have a problem with that. I respect them."

 

Who is disrespecting who?

 

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.

Are you assuming he is saying you need to follow his path of finding meaning in life? Can you show me where he says everyone should?

 

So, do you think I'm waving a white flag?

[woodsmoke]

So, do you think I'm waving a white flag?

No, I think I'm being the slightly arrogant cynical "old codger" I've always been, and you're calling me on it.

 

For the record, I never said I respect people who believe dumb ridiculous things, merely that I don't have a problem with it if doing so keeps them out of my hair.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

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.

 

I only want to address this anectdote because it jumped out at me......

 

Florduh, there are many documented cases of what is known as the placebo effect, I know that you HAVE to know this, to debate it would be pointless, clinical trials all over the wold attest to the fact that in many cases people who think "something" is or may be happening to them can experience the same effects as those who are receiving the actual treatment, not to mention the countless reports of psychosomatic illnesses, where people wind up suffering symptoms or even manifest illnesses based on their thinking patterns. You admitted yourself there is a mind/body connection.

 

So are you just bothered by the fact that this topic is the main focus of this man's life's work?? That to me seems your main concern, that and that hes become wealthy from teachign about it, but you're throwing it around like it is true, isnt true, its ok to accept the phenomena as a reality but to delve deeply into it is wrong, im really trying to see your point.

 

Would he pass muster with you if he was a financial flop??

 

You say everything he does is baseless, yet you admit to the mind/body connection, thats a contradiction, have you loked into wheher his adherents have manifested better lives, healed from illnesses, become more affluent after knowing the teachings??

 

I am being sincere, Im not stating my position in one way or the other, and therefore am not claiming to be correct about anything, I am honestly interested, since I myself and my wife suffer both physical and mental illnesses and are poor, we are being forced to look into alternatives...and yes i do see a lot of bullshit out there, and I try and steer clear, I am just getting into Chopra, I had read a couple books heard a few things before but never dug deep, now I am trying to sepeate the fact from fiction myself.

[Neon Genesis]

This thread reminds me of something Austin posted in his atheist blog recently: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotry...TomAtheists.htm According to him, anyone who disagrees with the New Atheists are "Uncle Tom" atheists who are kowtowing to religion and if you don't bow down and worship Dawkins and Harris, then you're "apologizing" for being an atheist. I don't know about anyone else, but I find this kind of attitude to be irritating. If you agree with the New Atheists, I'm ok with that as the wide variety of opinions is one of the things I love about ex-c and I find this an interesting subject to debate. But I just don't get people like this who act like if you don't agree with the New Atheists, then you're not a "true" atheist. Because obviously Dawkins is the founder of the religion of Atheism and anyone who doesn't worship him isn't a "true" atheist and isn't following the dogma of Atheism that says the New Atheists are the only ones with the "one true way".

[Onyx]

Years ago on EXC, I learnt something about the bell-curve. Dawkins and his ilk is the on the radical end of the atheism spectrum, that is - they are the loudest atheists. Slightly down the road, there are slightly less radical (but radical nonetheless) atheists like George Carlin and Douglas Adams which still manages to be likeable and doesn't offend too many Christians. Mid spectrum are us on sites like EXC, Internet Infidels and in real life - the Slob Atheists. On the other end of the spectrum, you get the more spiritual and accepting of religion atheists.

 

What is my point? The middle and the more softer atheists have the role of moderating the radical atheists' bullfrog antics and the radical atheists have their roles too. That's where people like Dawkins come in. They shout at the radical Christians and try to fight them (as well shouting for respect and rights) while the moderate and liberal atheists are free to make the dialogue with their counterparts and correct whatever bad impressions the radical atheists may create and explain what atheism is to them. They will clinch the respect and rights that the radical Atheists are demanding. So when the great majority of Christians decides to respect atheists - the radicalism of either side will be either insignificant or dwindle.

 

As for my personal impression of Dawkins - he seems to be a polite English professor when he doesn't talk about religion.

 

My own atheism? Apathetic towards religion, no need for too much spirituality and let and live who doesn't try to make me live their life.

[Kuroikaze]

OK, it's how it impressed you. From your perspective on it. I would however argue that they aren't viewed as ephemeral beliefs. Those sorts of things, those ways of seeing things are much deeper than some temporary toke on the crack pipe. It's a world view, its a framework of perspective. Much like a materialist world view is likewise a framework of perspective. One sees the world through a photograph, the other sees it through a painting of impressionism. Each is a representation of reality, neither is reality. One finds value and meaning in an attempt to portray things through a realism, the other through non-realism. Each offers meaning to the viewer depending on their preferences. Yet even within the medium of photography, the artist attempts to capture an ideal, and ideal that exists solely in the human perspective. So even there realism is tainted by myth. Humans are myth makers because of being human.

 

I think this gets down to the crux of the matter for me. Here is what I see. To me the photograph represents an attempt understand reality as correctly and accurately as possible. It isn't perfect, but one is trying to see as much as they can, and view it clearly and concisely. The impressionist painting on the other hand, just seems pointless. ( I've never much cared for actual impressionism either ), it seems as if instead of seeking clarity one seeks a lack of clarity as if that is something to value.

 

I realize a lot of this may just be my own personal temperament. I'm an INTP after all, but I honestly don't get it, even though I have tried to get it. I tried thinking this way when I was a christian and it just left me feeling unfulfilled and confused.

 

If you ask can I respect these people despite my disagreement, well I do respect their right to free speech and full protection of their civil rights under law. I don't go out and harangue them for having stupid ideas. But if you ask me to respect their beliefs, I'm afraid I cannot, because their beliefs appear silly to me. I would be dishonest if I pretended otherwise.

 

 

As far as Dawkins is concerned, I think he is right about a lot (though I agree his language often groups Christians together into one group) I personally think he comes off as too abrasive at times, one can still state their views plainly without being rude, and sometimes he oversteps the lines. However, it should be noted that the types of people he usually debates (fundies for instance) tend to over step those bounds far more often than Dawkins does, so perhaps his abrasiveness is more a reaction to them than anything else.

[agnosticator]

I think your bell curve adds an interesting way of getting the big picture. I appreciate Dawkins' books, but am glad not all atheist writers are like him.

 

I'm one who always loved nature, but found that after my deconversion, my awe for it increased. One reason is that contrary to the bible, we are not separate or over and above all other lifeforms. We are related to all life, and we are formed from stardust rather than dirt. We are different than other animals in degree, not type.

 

I find the religious term "spiritual" distasteful, so I prefer the secular term "aesthetical", which refers to art and beauty. As with the religious term "evil", I try to replace it with "bad" or "harmful".

[Dhampir]

I think your bell curve adds an interesting way of getting the big picture. I appreciate Dawkins' books, but am glad not all atheist writers are like him.

I think this is the point. Someone has to do it, but not everyone can, or should. I don't find Dawkins to be bigoted at all frankly, his style is similar to my own debate style. As I've grown as a student of logic and debate, I find that to allow every viewpoint the validity of every other, slows down drastically the progress of a discourse. Maybe certain philosophers are content to circle the same damn drain for 1500 years, but the acquisition of understanding is just as important as the quest for it, IMO.

 

AM, I would assert that Dawkins is not trying to eliminate the "languages" that people have used to communicate. I would suggest that the language you speak of is not inextricable from religion itself. I'm reminded of a certain episode of TNG, where Picard is introduced to a society that speaks only by gestures, and by relating pieces of their myths and legends.

 

Bottom line is, if no one was being forceful in this arena, this discourse would never make any progress. It's up to the more moderate among us to fill the spaces left behind by more aggressive people such as Dawkins. I absolutely agree that the realm of religious belief has never been fair ground for the level of scrutiny that other ideas have been put to. Being that they are based on ideas that cannot be proven to come from anywhere other than the minds of the believers, being that those believers demand the respect generally only afforded to ideas that have survived scrutiny, and being that those beliefs are the basis for so many stupid and harmful laws, and so many flawed morals, and so many abominable practices, religious belief should always take the lead of subjects worthy of scrutiny and dismissal.

[florduh]

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.

 

I only want to address this anectdote because it jumped out at me......

 

Florduh, there are many documented cases of what is known as the placebo effect, I know that you HAVE to know this, to debate it would be pointless, clinical trials all over the wold attest to the fact that in many cases people who think "something" is or may be happening to them can experience the same effects as those who are receiving the actual treatment, not to mention the countless reports of psychosomatic illnesses, where people wind up suffering symptoms or even manifest illnesses based on their thinking patterns. You admitted yourself there is a mind/body connection.

 

So are you just bothered by the fact that this topic is the main focus of this man's life's work?? That to me seems your main concern, that and that hes become wealthy from teachign about it, but you're throwing it around like it is true, isnt true, its ok to accept the phenomena as a reality but to delve deeply into it is wrong, im really trying to see your point.

 

Would he pass muster with you if he was a financial flop??

 

You say everything he does is baseless, yet you admit to the mind/body connection, thats a contradiction, have you loked into wheher his adherents have manifested better lives, healed from illnesses, become more affluent after knowing the teachings??

 

I am being sincere, Im not stating my position in one way or the other, and therefore am not claiming to be correct about anything, I am honestly interested, since I myself and my wife suffer both physical and mental illnesses and are poor, we are being forced to look into alternatives...and yes i do see a lot of bullshit out there, and I try and steer clear, I am just getting into Chopra, I had read a couple books heard a few things before but never dug deep, now I am trying to sepeate the fact from fiction myself.

 

I was just trying to address the questions you asked me. I take it you're not yet too familiar with Chopra's religion. The main messages of his teachings that sell books are based on superstition and wishful thinking. People buy hope. That's how religions survive.

 

Obviously no one is wrong about everything. Dr. Chopra sees the sky is blue, water is wet, and there is a mind-body connection. That connection, which is firmly established, is between the mind and the body it is in. Chopra thinks that a person's mind can have effect outside the body. To me this notion has been clearly proven to be false, but I realize many people need to believe it's possible for the "real person" to be independent of a physical body so we don't have to face mortality.

 

I can't tell you where he relates the cancer story, but if you keep reading you will find it. His position was that the man had cancer for years but didn't suffer from it and die until he was made consciously aware of the condition. That is a very stupid thing for a doctor to say, and has nothing to do with mind-body or placebo effect. In effect it's saying that what you don't know won't hurt you. Additionally, a proponent of Ayurveda loses credibility with me, especially if it's a medical doctor who knows better. That makes me suspect his motives just a little. It wouldn't be the first time someone sold the public what they wanted to hear rather than an unpopular truth. The man knows that Ayurveda is stone age superstition compared to modern medicine, yet he still pushes it as a viable alternative.

 

I don't doubt that some of his followers have improved their lives and health. Following his advice to meditate will lower stress and thereby eliminate or reduce many physical ailments. Most other doctors also know the benefits of meditation to improve mental and physical health. It's not a mystical or spiritual thing. Wealth, health and happiness have come to followers of Chopra, Wayne Dyer, Jesus, Voodoo and Scientology. That doesn't mean any of those things followed are the Truth™. People get sick, get well, get rich, get poor regardless of their religion or superstitious beliefs.

 

A positive attitude will be of benefit to anyone. It doesn't have to come in a bottle of snake oil.

[Asimov]

I stated in the beginning my inquiry had nothing to do with the validity of either chopra or Dawkins beliefs, i was, whether Dawkins is 100% correct or not was not my concern, it was how he handled this interview and the way he presented himself, I was looking for insight into the man from others here that know more of him and wanted opinions on his character, more than anything

 

Right. I did not, however, see what you were talking about and I was looking for it. I think it has a lot to do with the stigma associated with Dawkins that a lot of people contain. It's funny that they (not necessarily you) contain such a bilious opinion of a man who has a very hard-lined skeptical opinion of spirituality...it's almost like they're being hard-lined against him for being hardlined.

 

His approach is as it should be. You make a claim that is ridiculous or extraordinary you should expect a large degree of skepticism and demands for serious evidence.

 

 

If you want to get to the nitty gritty of it, yes Dawkins does claim that what he says and believes cures, whether it be his notion of curing the mind of beliefs in anythign he hasnt put his stamp of approval on, to stating that others methods CAN NOT cure anything at all, in fact he is taking on a great burden in denouncing any and all types of belief in any cure but the knife and the pill....thats quite a lot of responsibility for one man to be running around the world with.

 

Ok, you have a very slight point there but let's look at the track record of science and its problem solving ability and let's look at the holistics and its verifiable problem-solving abilities.

 

That is in question, do his books only promote critical thinking, or do they promote "the Universe according to Dawkins"...I am not seeing that he solely promotes critical thinking and a healthy skepticism, but as I learn more of him that may not be exactly the case.

 

I don't think they promote anything of the sort. Again I attribute that kind of thinking to the stigma associated with him.

 

I sure hope there will be room left in the world for imagination, hopes, dreams, metaphor, symbolism and the chance for anything beyond what the lab coats and secular professors declare for us to be true if this is to be the new world. Yes, healthy skepticism is obviously wonderful, so please dont take that out of context, my meaning is that there is a grey area, and to declare the grey is no longer allowed until it is stamped for approval by the likes of Dawkins is equally vile.

 

Um...nobody is even remotely proposing that. You're treading on a slippery-slope fallacy.

 

Religion carries a special place in the world as a fantasy that governs the way we are able to live our lives, who is placed in positions of authority and what is considered good over evil socially.

 

It's used to justify war, genocide, and political maneuverings, including the stifling of critical thinking and imagination.

 

You're confusing the fact that Dawkins isn't stating that none of these are allowed. It's that it shouldn't be considered reality a priori and beyond judgement.

 

And I would be hard pressed to lump all adherents to religion and spirituality into one group whose viewpoints are as you said, that is not a very fair statement.

 

And you sum it up with "Pushing back against over-emotionally thinking idiots isn't a bad thing" ? Is this another all out reference to anyone religious or spiritual?? If not who are you addressing? I think Chopra, no matter what your view on his beliefs is a far cry from an idiot, and I dont see him as overly emotional, this isnt Benny Hinn or Jan Crouch we're talking about.

 

Personal religious belief and spirituality is fine by me. You want to think that every rock has spirit in it go right ahead. You want to claim that putting a specific rock on a chain around your neck will obscurely prevent you from getting sick and then sell it without providing any proof? Expect to be harshly criticized.

 

I'm sure that Chopra is a very intelligent person, but there's a difference between using massage and meditative techniques to increase the quality of life and transposing that into concepts like eternal life and miraculous restorative techniques beyond the actual abilities of the body.

 

It's assuming something a priori before rigorous testing has determined its validity. The "idiot" thing is a generalization and refers to the general public who lap it up like honey without questioning because it feeds to their emotional desires.

 

Your post was vague in many respects, it actually seems more emotional than anything, you seem to be fueled by emotion towards the "spiritual and religious idiots" and your opinions. I do know what you are getting at though, that was more facetious than anything but youve goosed me a few times a while back anyways.

 

I'm not arguing emotionally. I'm not saying that spirituality is false because I don't like it. I'm pointing out the fact that its unregulated, untested, unverified, vague and very jargon heavy.

 

If there's no reason to believe something is true, why give it any more thought until there is reason to believe it is true?

[Vigile]

So, do you think I'm waving a white flag?

 

I know this question is to Woody so I hope you don't mind if I step in. TBH, I really kind of liked Woody's white flag comment. I thought it was snappy.

 

That said, I've learned something from you AM. Reading and debating with you over the past couple of years I've learned that people are just wired in varying ways. Quite often I see people read your comments and then write responses about how eloquent and gifted your writing is. I'm sure it is as obviously you are quite intelligent, but personally none of what you write about symbolism and bridge building and understanding strikes a cord with me in any way shape or form. In fact, when I see you writing about symbolism and such I generally have the same response that I have with my father when he lectures me about how electricity works; I know he's intelligent, I know the subject is interesting to him and completely valid, but to me the convo is almost like getting my teeth pulled.

 

I don't say this to be offensive and I hope it doesn't come across this way. I say this to point out that some are wired like you and appreciate the types of thoughts and perspective you offer and some of us are wired differently and find value and inspiration and comfort in what you might call cold hard unfeeling science and who have no need for the woo woos even if the woo woos are valid on some psychological level.

 

So, when I say I've learned from you, I've learned that I probably won't be able to empathize very easily with those like you. I don't see this as something to be judged, I just see it as a phenomena that is worthy of a shoulder shrug and a thoughtful "hmmm."

[Vigile]

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.

 

Absolutely. You should always think for yourself. I've never read Dawkins or any of the new atheists myself. From what I can gather, I'd probably agree with a lot of Dawkins but no one should ever be elevated to guru status in one's mind. Critical thinking is always important no matter what you read.

[woodsmoke]

I'm not saying that spirituality is false because I don't like it. I'm pointing out the fact that its unregulated, untested, unverified, vague and very jargon heavy.

 

If there's no reason to believe something is true, why give it any more thought until there is reason to believe it is true?

Damn it, Asimov, stop saying everything I wanna' say, but better!

[Vomit Comet]

Dawkins is like Noam Chomsky. Chomsky was one of the foremost linguists in the 20th century and one of the star scholars at MIT, but unless you're in linguistics or in a field that draws from it, you would hardly know that. He's famous for his extracurricular activities into political commentary. Chomsky makes no pretensions at being a political scientist, a political philosopher or social theorist, or a sociologist. Dawkins is the same kind of creature as far as I can see.

 

At least Dawkins isn't like Herbert Spencer, who specialized in nothing and was basically a rich guy who gleaned his shit off of scientists and scholars that he hobknobbed with at frou frou Victorian house parties. "Yeah, so what?" Spencer's theories influenced several shitty schools of thought (such as what we now call "scientific racism") that informed some of the most fucked up social policies of the 19th and 20th centuries. This was largely because he positioned himself as a legitimate scholar regardless of which field he was drawing from.

 

Then again, Voltaire was the same way. He was a journalist and a popularizer rather than an original thinker, who in true French fashion, didn't cite the (mainly English/Scottish) scholars (Locke, Hume, etc.) that he got his arguments from. But Voltaire was a mouthy little asshole and his words had power to change the world. Fuck yeah!

 

As for being "nice" to religious people. Ehhhhhh... I generally refrain from being an asshole to them beyond the confines of this forum, unless they try to fuck with me. But Dawkins helped me when I was on the fence prior to my deconversion. His articles were something of a secret guilty pleasure for me, and deep down inside I knew he was right. Yes, he's an asshole, but that doesn't mean that what he's doing is wrong. I like how he is a scourge on the ass of religious bullshit, and he certainly helped make a positive difference in my life, so there you go.

[Asimov]

I'm not saying that spirituality is false because I don't like it. I'm pointing out the fact that its unregulated, untested, unverified, vague and very jargon heavy.

 

If there's no reason to believe something is true, why give it any more thought until there is reason to believe it is true?

Damn it, Asimov, stop saying everything I wanna' say, but better!

 

[PiracyOfTheHead]

While Asimov, Woodsmoke and a couple others keep patting eachother on the back for their views, thank you Vomit for YOUR OPINION ON HOW DAWKINS ACTS....which is what I asked for, and not a labyrinth of views and opinions on whether or not religion, folk medicine, alternative medicine or spirituality are valid or not.

 

The only problem I am having is that people are saying its ok to be an asshole if you think the other person is wrong, since we're trying to form a civilisation MINUS religious trappings, how do we go about being civil, where do we define our standards for what is right and wrong?

 

Some are saying that Dawkins is the scourge to absurdity and lies in the world, so its ok to be as fucked up as he wants to be...well, where does that stop, do we begin secular Inquisitions now, shall we hold tribunals from a secular standpoint and begin imprisoning, torturing and executing those we believe are "wrong" in the eyes of science, I'm seeing a trend here that may result in a frightening outcome if continued.

 

If men like Dawkins begin creating the standard for the world, what will restrain them from doing exactly what religion does internally to its so called "heretics", are those that follow alternative practices, holistic methods, new age spirituality going to become the new "heretics", not of Xtianity, within Xtianity, but of the world???

 

"heretical" as far as being human???

 

Why does Dawkins havce any right to act like a prick in the name of making a better world??

 

Why doesnt he start with the most dangerous threats to humanity that are in the world then work his way down, it seems very easy and profitable to go after someone like Chopra, but should Chopra's teachings be eradicated before the teachings of Radical Islam or "Satan Worshipping Demon Lovers" who preach violence head on??? if Dawkins is so tough and so concerned for the good of humanity why is he wasting his time on people who teach love, peace, goodwill, oneness with humanity, healthy living, charity, kindness and other virtue, just because he doesnt believe all the claims of Chopra, so friggin what Chopra isnt destroying humanity like many other people and groups that are out there......

 

Like i said it seems VERY easy AND profitable, I am sure he speaks on these other people and denounces them as well, but my point is, why not devote most or all your time on the biggest problems and when those are eradicated, then worry about new agers and folk medicine peddlers????

 

I hope that all made sense, I have a screaming headache but I wanted to address this while it was on my mind, if i'm not clear about something please point it out and I will try and clarify.

 

P.S. I watched somehting on NASA the other day and I saw a "Vomit Comet", LOL, that is where you got the idea for your name, correct?????

[Vomit Comet]

Dawkins has every right to be an asshole as long as his weapons are words. "The pen is mightier than the sword" as they say, a sentiment that goes back to the Enlightenment. And if the civil secular society entails that we must all be genteel and mellow... well, fuck that. I would prefer the world of today to that lame-ass humanist paradise.

 

Mind you, the Enlightenment led to the French Terror and all sorts of other shit, although whether this bad shit is the logical outcome of Enlightenment (Horkheimer and Adorno) or a perversion of the Enlightenment (Habermas) is an ongoing debate. But one thing that can be agreed on, there was Enlightenment thought, and then there was its implementation by the people who had the power.

 

As long as Dawkins doesn't advocate political repression, reeducation camps, coercion, and whatever else, he's okay in my book. He's doing a great job so far as being a scourge of reason upon the flabby ass of unreason, especially when unreason tries to pass itself off as reason. Yeah, binary modernistic thinking with the potential for repression... but really, there comes a time to stand up and call "bullshit!", and that's what he is doing. Do you really think Foucault or Lyotard would shed a tear for the fundamentalists being skewered by Dawkins?

 

Now, Sam Harris of all people comes close to overstepping his place. I read an interview with him in Wired where he suggested that perhaps the state should intervene in religious households because the indoctrination of children is child abuse. So, 1) he advocates state repression of a singled-out group that's at #1 on his personal shit-list (that would be fundamentalists), 2) and he equates raising your kids with religion with the act of beating them or sexually penetrating them. Yeah, there's emotional/psychological abuse... but do we really want to go there with this? Some of you resent that you were indoctrinated as children, but can you imagine the state sending in jackbooted thugs to rescue you from your own family when you were still in the single-digit age range? I mean, c'mon... really....

 

Edited to add: yeah, that's where I got my name. Now, I'm not a space buff or anything, it's just that I had to think of a name and it was the first thing that flew through my head.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Don't get me wrong, I think its great when someone calls Bullshit on true Bullshit, let me narrow my statements and questions a bit.......how do we know its bullshit??

 

If its a spoonbender that claims to bend spoons, but cant do it in front of a live audience and people there to make sure its not slight of hand......great BULLSHIT!!

 

If its a psychic who can never get it right under scrutiny or refuses to be examined, great, BULLSHIT!!

 

My problem with the interview I posted about was that it was absolutely one sided, Dawkins discredited the man as being a doctor when he is an actual doctor, we werent allowed to hear a couple answers for clarification, the man was then labeled as a disdainer of western science which he is not...

 

THIS WAS AND IS MY PROBLEM...not if its great that Dawkins is a hard ass, or how wonderful it is to wipe the earth clean of fairy tales and lies.......but is conduct in the interview and his statements, in all honesty he

 

1) Lied....Chopra is a doctor, to make it sound as if he isnt is a manipulation that is the same as lying

 

2) Misrepresented Dr. Chopra's viewpoint on science

 

3) Created a Straw Man......He did not allow clarification on things stated by Chopra and then ran with it in his narrative

 

And these things beg th questions:

 

A) Did he absolutely prove what he was saying about Chopra to be false or did these shenannigans only "prove" what Dawkins and others "believe" about Chopra already in the first place making it Ok to do so, instead of being sincere, actually listening and TRULY TRULY geetting to the heart of the matter, NOT acting like a Xtian apologist and scoring a win with SOPHISTRY??? and

 

If he did do these things, THEN we can discuss what is and isnt proper behavior, if it is or isnt "cool" to be a dick to people who believe other than we do....

 

This is the problem I am finding in this thread, that people believe Dawkins' POV and dismiss his methods as being acceptable when the interview itself DID NOT DISQUALIFY CHOPRA'S CLAIMS OR TEACHINGS which is the crux of the matter I have presented, they are jumping from point A to point C...A being the belief that Chopra is absolutely wrong for whatever Dawkins was claiming, and C using dirty tricks and "exposing him" and denouncing him........

 

Whereas B stands for actually finding the truth, proving the man to be in error or to have lied, and then illuminating these things...then and only then moving on to point C.

 

I did not see point B occuring in this interview, where is it???

[Asimov]

Well I think you're placing far too much emphasis on one interview.

 

It was heavily edited, how are we to know the context?

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Well I think you're placing far too much emphasis on one interview.

 

 

Uhhhh...start reading at the beginning, it covers that.

 

It was heavily edited, how are we to know the context?

 

now you're gettin' it

 

[Asimov]

Well I think you're placing far too much emphasis on one interview.

 

 

Uhhhh...start reading at the beginning, it covers that.

 

I know it does, and I'm telling you what I think. You asked if this is what Dawkins is usually like and I responded. He didn't lie, he might have done a little misrepresentation but it's not generally representative of Dawkins. I haven't seen the whole documentary so I can't comment on the context of the youtube video within the documentary.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Well I think you're placing far too much emphasis on one interview.

 

 

Uhhhh...start reading at the beginning, it covers that.

 

I know it does, and I'm telling you what I think. You asked if this is what Dawkins is usually like and I responded. He didn't lie, he might have done a little misrepresentation but it's not generally representative of Dawkins. I haven't seen the whole documentary so I can't comment on the context of the youtube video within the documentary.

 

He did lie, willfull misrepresentation is lying, hes not stupid, he knows that calling a doctor "someone who used to be a doctor" is not the truth, when its not the truth, its a lie.

 

Im sure if you were a world reknown author, lecturer and teacher....and got shot down in one little interview that got broadcast worldwide and on the net, you would understand that a whole hell of a lot of damage can be done in just one interview, so I think minimizing its impact is just your way of dealing with the fact that you like Dawkins and the fact that you've engaged in conversation on 3 pages of this thread before coming up with that kinda speaks for itself, are you just going to keep giving your opinion? Youve given it, thank you. If you feel it doesnt need to be talked about any longer then dont reply, move on to a different post. I am not yet done with it.

 

I have my reasons for aking what Ive asked, and I find it important, I wanted to hear more from other ExC's who have had exposure to him, thats a very intelligent way to glean information, not only do I form my own opinions, i value the input of others' and in that way I allow my mind to open to a broader spectrum of thinking and it challenges me, makes me re-think and helps me to not be so narrow-minded.

 

As far as finding the context, well that was the problem........when I originally posted, I did not know there was a larger series this had been taken from, I thought it was a snippet possibly done to be used as a short on the web.

 

Then as time went on I realized that the broader context didnt really matter as i found that Dawkins had used some dirty tactics in that single interview ...the series is called Enemies of Reason or something...and the interview and statements about Chopra by themselves are a problem that still concern me based on statements made in this thread, e.g. Dawkins going from A to C, that is what I would like answered now, the new questions that I have formed.

[Vigile]

Don't get me wrong, I think its great when someone calls Bullshit on true Bullshit, let me narrow my statements and questions a bit.......how do we know its bullshit??

 

Ah, so we get to the reason you are ranting here. It's not that you don't like his attitude, it's that he has encroached on what may or may not yet be for you a sacred cow. Is that right?

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Don't get me wrong, I think its great when someone calls Bullshit on true Bullshit, let me narrow my statements and questions a bit.......how do we know its bullshit??

 

Ah, so we get to the reason you are ranting here. It's not that you don't like his attitude, it's that he has encroached on what may or may not yet be for you a sacred cow. Is that right?

 

How does that foot of yours taste?? hope its mmm mmm good.

 

I know quite a bit about vedic science, studied it in college, read the Upanishads, Vedas and Bhagavad Gita.......I am not going to become a Chopra follower, how the hell did you get that out of what I said???

 

LOL....you just PWNED yourself pal......thanks for playin' though.