Chopra and Bill O’Reilly join forces, go after atheism and evolution

This is a good chance to see two completely different species of nutjob unite against a common enemy: Richard Dawkins.  It’s WooMeister Deepak and Bill O’Reilly, a match made in hell, joining forces to attack the character of a man of impeccable character.  They also manage to get in a few licks against evolution.

Last month Bill O’Reilly went after Richard Dawkins, arguing that Dawkins’s children’s book, The Magic of Reality, was mere atheistic propaganda designed to brainwash tots. Now O’Reilly has brought Deepak on his show for a show of anti-Dawkins support:

Chopra, who has made the subject spirituality his life’s work, has a new book out called War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality. “So what do you say to a guy like Dawkins?” O’Reilly wanted to know, before asking if Chopra had ever spoken with Dawkins face-to-face. “Oh, yes,” Chopra replied. “He ambushed me when I was at Oxford. He used a subterfuge. Channel 4 called me, said ‘We want to do an interview,’ I went to the interview… and it was him!”

O’Reilly had one question: “Why didn’t you kick his butt?”

I am so looking forward to Chopra’s book (not!).

You can watch O’Reilly’s five-minute interview of Chopra here (I can’t embed it).

On it, Deepak says, “He [Dawkins] uses his scientific credentials to camouflage his bigotry.”  O’Reilly is shocked that Dawkins sees both O’Reilly and Deepak as “idiots,” and points out that many fine scientists are religious.

O’Reilly asks Chopra whether he believes in a deity, and Chopra gives a hilarious answer, asserting that science has shown that “the laws of physics themselves preclude us from intellectually getting in touch with The Source.  You have to go beyond the intellect—you have to listen to the heart. The heart has reasons that reason doesn’t know.”  A deepity!

I guess the laws of physics don’t apply to the heart.

Chopra hedges on God a bit, but affirms that “I think there is an active source —an intelligent source—that is omnipresent. omnipotent, omniscient. . . and that we have a connection to that, and that we have free will, too.”

The topic turns briefly to evolution, and O’Reilly argues that “intelligent design does not contradict science, and science has never been to manufacture one single human cell, have they?” Deepak seems to agree that this is evidence against evolution, and says “whatever has been created comes from intelligence that is connected to the source of intelligence.”

I really have avoided learning anything about Chopra, so unctuous has he been in the snippets I’ve seen. I can’t believe he’s gotten rich on such pap, but such is my country.  If Kim Kardashian can make $18 million for a fake wedding, why can’t Chopra get rich by actually doing something, odious as it is?

121 Comments

  1. adriantate
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    I am sure Dawkins is terrified at the news that this disastrous pair of twits intend to join forces.

    • Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:53 am | Permalink

      I actually feel sorry for Chopra in the video, with O’Reilly talking over him the whole time. Disagree with what he says but first let him say it! Plus he asks questions as if they were rhetorical when they are clearly not. And I can’t believe Dawkins put up with that twice.

      • MorsGotha
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:22 am | Permalink

        Three times, there was the time O’Reilly called Dawkins a fascist too.

        • Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:52 am | Permalink

          Why would O’Reilly complement him like that?

        • Torbjorn Larsson, OM
          Posted November 4, 2011 at 4:26 am | Permalink

          That is like the kettle calling someone black. Dawkins openly tries to put a pin into the wheel of religious totalitarians (no brainwash of youths).

          You will often find that when religious nuts gets hammered to the ground, they start to deflect what is coming to them by imitating it. (“It works for the other guy.”)

  2. Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    If ever there were a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger, this five minutes is it. Two bloviating idiots complaining about others correctly evaluating their idiocy, while simultaneously pontificating on the desires of the imaginary ultimate force that they think created the universe!

    I’m actually amazed I managed to let the video run its whole length….

    b&

    • Posted November 3, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

      Kudos to your fortitude. Just the concept of those two ethically bankrupt trolls-for-cash in the same room, let alone teaming up in some Quixotic attempt to brutalise a straw-Dawkins, is making my skin crawl.

      • Marella
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        Yep, I won’t be watching it, life is too short.

  3. Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    That video is ridiculous. It’s actually embarrassing that my surname should appear together with such claims and down-right arrogance. (good thing it’s a common name and there’s no relation!)
    I had never heard Bill O’Reilly before and I am very glad. That’s not even an interview, not with Dawkins OR Chopra! Just talks over them! How can you actually BE that arrogant! “there you go, there you go” jeeez

    • Janine
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:06 am | Permalink

      Xaali, I am assuming that you never seen the Richard Dawkins interview on The O’Reilly Factor from four years ago. It is less then five minutes long but O’Reilly pulls out a lot of canards. He opines that it takes more faith to be an atheist then to be a believer.

      It is the source of the highly mocked; “The tides come in and the tides go out and never a miscommunication.”

      And their is the claim that the mass murderers of the twentieth century were because of atheism.

      Have fun.

      • Janine
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:08 am | Permalink

        I am sorry. Here is the link.

        • Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:44 am | Permalink

          “Throwing in with Jesus” ? At least some other believers put a bit more effort into actually constructing (albeit without foundations) an argument…

          “When you get it, maybe I’ll listen” CRICKEY
          we have got it, and he sure as Hell isn’t listening!

          (Thanks Janine)

          • Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:45 am | Permalink

            (Just realised my “sure as Hell” remark – sorry, Irish habit of making religious references without religious implications whatsoever!)

            • Microraptor
              Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:28 am | Permalink

              Don’t worry, it’s used just as often here in the US for the same effect.

  4. Laura Carter
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    WHAT a complete load. And how DARE these two (yes, IDIOTS) disparage Prof. Dawkins? Their collective ignorance is appalling and embarrassing.

    Then again, I’m sure Prof. Dawkins isn’t losing any sleep over them. Still, it makes my blood boil ….

  5. Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    “The heart has reasons that reason cannot know.”

    That’s Pascal, actually.

    • Dave
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

      No, even Pscal was not that stupid.

    • Diane G.
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

      Gosh, and I thought it was Celine Dion…

  6. Still learning
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    LOL! “The heart has reasons that reason doesn’t know”… isn’t that a line from The Little Prince by St. Exupery, a children’s story? Is that where Chopra gets his philosophy?

    • Still learning
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:57 am | Permalink

      Oops, Tim Martin beat me to it and with the original quote source too.

      • Laura Carter
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:59 am | Permalink

        Well … it’s SIMPLE … :)

    • jay
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      It may not be accidental. Much woo is based on exhortation to ‘think like a child’

    • Dominic
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:10 am | Permalink

      A very popular book on the continent – I had never heard of it until a couple of years ago.

  7. Ray Moscow
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    You want scary, so soon after Halloween?

    Deepak Chopra is licensed to practise medicine in at least two US states. Yes, you could walk into his office, see his (real) medical degree and certificates, and expect to receive competent medical advice and treatment.

    Let’s just hope most would-be patients see his videos beforehand.

    • jay
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:10 am | Permalink

      There are creationist doctors, fundamentalist Christian, Jewish and Muslim doctors, and many of them do an adequate job.

      The point is, you don’t need to really deeply understand science to treat patients; you need to be able to recognize diseases and apply the recommended treatments

      • Chet
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:50 am | Permalink

        Yeah, I’m with you. If someone thinks that doctors are practicing science, they don’t know enough doctors.

        Doctors are basically witch doctors. And we want them to be. Their job is to cure diseases and improve health, not subject hypothesis to rigorous testing. You want your doctor to make you better, not keep you sick so you can be the control group. If waving the chicken’s foot makes you feel better, doctors should give it a try. Medical researchers are the ones who should be expected to know that alternative medicine is bullshit.

        • Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

          I’d prefer it if the doctor treating me not only stayed away from woo, but understood what makes woo “woo” in the first place.

          There’s no reason a practicing MD can’t adopt a scientific stance.

          • astrosmash
            Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

            “There’s no reason a practicing MD can’t adopt a scientific stance.”

            Holy Shit…They’d better!!! Yikes

            • Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

              Indeed. People seem to be fond, however, of pointing out that actually practicing medicine isn’t necessarily a scientific endeavor. Some comments like this appear above. That may be true, but I’d wager the best doctors approach the administration of medicine scientifically.

              • Marella
                Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

                Indeed, my GP was formerly a PhD scientist, he’s excellent. Most of them however do not practice from an evidence base, otherwise ‘evidence based medicine’ wouldn’t be a thing, it would be the only kind. Unfortunately a lot of doctors think you don’t even need more than one anecdote to equal data.

        • jay
          Posted November 4, 2011 at 9:51 am | Permalink

          Well not necessarily witch doctors, but they (other than researchers, a different breed) are basically skilled technicians; more akin to engineers than scientists.

      • Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:51 am | Permalink

        Yes I agree, there are many medical believers and they are as fine as doctors as atheist medics.

        What’s dangerous is people who advocate that medicine is unnecessary because God’ll sort you out – but I must emphasise that these are NOT of the medical profession.

        If you understand how the body works and have the knowledge of the beasties, etc. that can attack it, I don’t think it makes a difference whether you believe an Almighty created them or not.

        • Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:05 am | Permalink

          I’d still rather have House MD! (Btw, House must be the best-known fictional atheist, no? How does a show with an unreservedly anti-woo protagonist get to be so popular in the US?)

          /@

          • NateHevens
            Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:17 am | Permalink

            Mostly because he is the absolute stereotype of an atheist, and his atheism is used as a catalyst to teach messages of faith *all the time*.

            Which I find odd considering that Hugh Laurie is, himself, an atheist. Why does he allow that?

            • Microraptor
              Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:30 am | Permalink

              Paycheck induced cognitive dissonance?

            • Mark Fournier
              Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

              It’s usually left a little more vague than that so that people can read in what they like. People with faith are shown as happier, but usually wrong, and almost always ineffectual (there are no miracles.) Other characters indulge in the hallmark moments, but House usually gets the last word.

              • NateHevens
                Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

                Eh… I think you need to see the episode from one of the early seasons with the nun. Then the episode with girl who was raped.

                Those are two I can think of off the top of my head while in a rush…

          • Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

            House’s atheism is likely interpreted by most viewers as a tragic flaw. In fact, it’s most likely intended as one.

            “Golly, I feel so sorry for poor Dr. House…”

            • NateHevens
              Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

              Pretty much. It’s part of what’s wrong with him.

              Sadly, the same goes for Bones and almost every other atheist character on US TV and in the movies…

          • Diane G.
            Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

            The US embraces many celebrity atheists. Celebrity trumps all, I guess.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_film,_radio,_television_and_theater

            • Posted November 4, 2011 at 1:20 am | Permalink

              Hmm… but how many of those from the US wear their atheism on their sleves? Let alone being openly critical of religion…

              /@

      • Ray Moscow
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:07 am | Permalink

        Do they let their non-science beliefs influence their medical advice? If not, no problem. If yes, big problem.

        Check out the self-described Chopra Centre ‘medical consultations': http://www.chopra.com/medical

  8. Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    Chopra and O’Reilly teaming up? Well, they admittedly have idiocy in common, but otherwise, this is a little surprising.

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend, eh?

    • Sastra
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      Deep down, all religion/spirituality is the same, relies on the same characteristics of thought, makes the same errors, and uses the same justifications and excuses. Only the details change.

      “It doesn’t matter what you believe about God, as long as you believe.” Belief in belief. This is ecumenism, and it’s what the liberal theists think will unite “all people.”

      • Posted November 3, 2011 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

        You’re absolutely right.  The fungus of faith sends up mushrooms of belief that can appear quite distant from each other, yet are really part of the same organism.

        But I think one of the drivers of idiocy is that idiots are preoccupied with, and content to look no further than, surface detail.  The right-wing christian sees a world of difference between himself and, say, a Muslim. We can see they’re suffering from the same affliction, though.

        You’ll notice Chopra actually tried to get away from O’Reilly’s “intervening, Judeo-Christian” god.  And O’Reilly interrupted, trying to finish Chopra’s sentences, whenever he detected Chopra getting too new-agey, and not mainstream Jeebus-loving churchgoer enough.

        But it’s so nice to see differences can be overcome, when there’s the noble goal of whining about a principled, intelligent truth-seeker. 

  9. dunstar
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    lol. make that a deepakity

    • YourName's notBruce?
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:09 am | Permalink

      +1!

    • ManOutOfTime
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:15 am | Permalink

      Deepravity!

  10. NateHevens
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    The book, BTW, is co-written by physicist Leonard Mlodinow, who co-wrote “The Grand Design” with Stephen Hawking.

    It’s basically a written debate between Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow.

    I’m going to see if FAU’s library has it to read it and review it.

    • Dominic
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:09 am | Permalink

      This is why RD is right to NOT debate with these sort of people – it does not do Science any favours giving equal weight to Wooism.

      • NateHevens
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:20 am | Permalink

        I mean… I don’t know… I kind of like it when Wooism is exposed for the bullshit it really is… I find it funny and entertaining…

        Especially when the Wooists get all tied up in knots trying desperately to save their already-dead arguments. It’s such good fun…

      • NateHevens
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:23 am | Permalink

        Scientist: *pulls out scientific articles and evidence showing explicitly how the Wooist is wrong*

        Wooist: Ad hominem! Look at how he attacks me directly! Why is he so rude?!? Why can’t I be shown some respect?!? *runs crying to mommy*

        • Dominic
          Posted November 4, 2011 at 2:21 am | Permalink

          Yep…

  11. adriantate
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    “He [Dawkins] uses his scientific credentials to camouflage his bigotry.”

    Chopra, on the other hand uses false scientific credentials as cover for grotesque charlatanry.

  12. R.W.
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    Brace yourselves for many more Deepak Deepities.

  13. Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    “If Kim Kardashian can make $18 million for a fake wedding, why can’t Chopra get rich ”

    Hey! Ms. Kardashian looks just bully in spandex so at least she serves some purpose. Chopra: not so much.

    • Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:45 am | Permalink

      Oh no! I can’t get this image of Deepak in spandex out of my mind now…

      *shudder*

      /@

      • Sigmund
        Posted November 4, 2011 at 8:33 am | Permalink

        Exactly. Thanks very much blueollie, excuse me while I go and poke out my mind’s eye.

  14. Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Woopra is the alpha and the omega of premium, top-shelf bullshit. His reputation as a quantum crank exceeds neutrinos by 60 nanoseconds.

    • Still learning
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:59 am | Permalink

      +1 Woopra? Love it!

    • Cents
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      That was brilliant. Three rereads and three belly laughs. Consider a career as a writer.
      +10

    • NateHevens
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      Thank you. I need that. ‘Twas hilarious!
      :D

    • Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      And, with the simple addition of an “h”, we can use the same term to indict his supporter and a huge reason he is so successful: Wooprah. :)

  15. Joey Frantz
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    I can’t reach “The Source”? A pity; I was hoping to meet Helmut Bakaitis and ask him how he maintains that pretentious posture and tone.

    • Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:50 am | Permalink

      DC: “The Source is what gives a Wooist his power. It’s is a quantum energy field created by all conscious beings. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the universe together.”

      /@

      • Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:59 am | Permalink

        *it’s a quantum … 

        Also: Would that make Ceiling Cat a quantum energy felid?

        /@

        • Microraptor
          Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:33 am | Permalink

          ROTFLOL!

        • Posted November 3, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

          What, Up There and Not Up there at the same time? So I can Believe and remain an Aceiling-cattist?

          • Still learning
            Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

            Hey, it’s just another example of Schroedinger’s catechism…

        • Marella
          Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

          ROFL!!

  16. AlT
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    jerry is the knight fighting the woo and the knight that does his job very well

    it makes me very sad that jerry’s energy are consumed by the woo that multiplies much faster than reason wins a head here and there

    i hope the people of reason realize tvery soon that even touching the goo, not to mention trying to “convert” is a doomed effort simply because the time is not on our side

    very very soon it will be irrelevant because the planet will go from damaged to unlivable

    i still maintain that people of reason would be more effective in the long run if they mostly look to consolidate around “how can people of reason take ‘the government’ away from woo” isted of “lets first trasform woo into ‘mass of reason’ and then we will automatically have ‘good’ government”

  17. Circe
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    “….the laws of physics themselves preclude us from intellectually getting in touch with The Source. You have to go beyond the intellect—you have to listen to the heart. The heart has reasons that reason doesn’t know.”

    I am sure the neuro-* faculty at AIIMS (the medical school in India Chopra got his degree from, and which apart from this blot on its alumni list has the reputation of being one of the best medical schools and hospitals in India) would like to take issue with that assertion.

  18. Dominic
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    “whatever has been created comes from intelligence that is connected to the source of intelligence.”
    In that case why is the source of intelligence capable of creating such utter nonsense?!

  19. Jacob van Beverningk
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Unlike Prof. Haught who doesn’t want anyone to see anything that HE had to *suffer* through …
    I read this .. and now I have this perverse desire to make all of you suffer through it too:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/dawkins-magic-of-reality_b_1004216.html

    *keep blood pressure lowering pills handy*

  20. ManOutOfTime
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    I love how he disowns the idea of a personal god – wouldn’t want to offend the faitheists and New Agers who buy his malarkey! Reminds me of when Ricky Martin was evasive about his sexuality (until he either had a sudden gust of dignity or was no longer concerned it would affect record sales).

  21. David Galiel
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Deepak Chopra and his New Age Woowoo peers are as big, if not bigger, a menace than traditional religion.

    As more young people become disenchanted with and deprogrammed from the religious cults of their parents, they are sucked up by Big Placebo, Big Self-Help and Big Bullshit before they have a chance to be exposed to rational approaches to reality and skeptical thought.

    Chopra is a veteran professional con man. He used to sell high-priced, contaminated Ayurveda crap he imported from virtual slave labor in India.

    Now he sells his fountain of youth cures, and his perverse notion of wishful thinking that leads people to think that if their acne doesn’t magically clean up or they don’t find the love of their life, it is because they are a failure and haven’t tried hard enough.

    He aggressively threatens to sue any reporter or newspaper that publishes a critical article, and has intimidated enough of them that they largely avoid exposing his flim-flam.

    He and his anti-Enlightenment, anti-science ilk are responsible for much of the current decline in support for evolution, science funding & science teaching in the US.

    There is a whole machine promoting “purposeful evolution”, a new stealth kind of intelligent design, accommodationist nonsense that incorporates quantum misrepresentation, relativistic distortion & conspiracy theory to promote the notion that cold, objective scientism and authoritarian scientists are trying to keep The Truth about the universe from The People.

    You would do well to become more informed about Deepak Chopra. He and his buddies are, sadly, far more influential – and far, far more visible – than scientists are in the public discourse.

    • Laura Carter
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      Can you recommend somewhere to go to learn more (truthful) things about Chopra?

    • AlT
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:45 am | Permalink

      there is only one counterbalance to woo

      scientists organize around science and take science into government to _impose_ it on the rest of the society

      it takes time and effort and a chance of proper early childhood to graduate to scientific method – it does not happen automatically

      with time the woo multiplies faster than science and because democracy is the rule by the majority the woo rules

      this is the fact of the life

      scientists have a higher resposibility to the organism-whole (the species at large) to face this truth and organize

      but it is in our nature to waite until others do our job for us

      soo not organizing will mean peril in the chaos of social unrest when the government will finally breakdown because the planet cannot sustain the overpopulation and overconsumption

      scientists have no other choice but organize and move into politics

      the more they delay doing just this the more impoverished gets the planet and the less people it will be able to sustain at steady state that will ensue when scientists finally organize

      this is what we should focus ion as the matter of first priority

      • astrosmash
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

        I entirely agree. I have though about this often. Science (writ large) is the only institution capable of self policing, simply because it deals in demonstrable and replicable “truths”. if a scientist were to make the claims that many politicians do, their careers would be over. bam. There is NOTHING like that kind of culpability required of politicos…We simply must get to a point where there is…And a culpabilty not attached to indiot unprincipled voters.

  22. Chet
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    science has never been to manufacture one single human cell, have they?

    Maybe somebody would like to ask Henrietta Lacks about that? Now that we’ve manufactured about ten thousand times the number of cells that were ever in her body. Henrietta Lacks is probably the most successful post-human species we’ll ever create.

    • Torbjorn Larsson, OM
      Posted November 4, 2011 at 4:36 am | Permalink

      Very good point!

      intelligent design does not contradict science, and science has never been to manufacture one single human cell, have they?

      First, _ID_ has never manufactured a cell. It hasn’t done anything but manufacturing empty claims on evolution, combined with Axe’s and Dembski’s pitiful support of – evolution – published in peer review. Funny how that later worked out, despite A&D a priori claims of attacking evolution.

      Second, we could mention manufactured IV and stem cells as well. This is an old field.

  23. Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Needless to say, it is completely untrue that Chopra was ‘ambushed’ by Channel 4. He was told, right from the outset, that it was I who would be interviewing him. The interview didn’t last three hours, it lasted about half an hour, and the tone was courteous and civil on both sides.

    The most heinous part of this O’Reilly interview is the way Chopra at the end hijacks the good name of Leonard Mlodinow and, vicariously, that of Stephen Hawking. Mlodinow must surely be kicking himself for allowing himself to be used. Chopra will no doubt continue to crow about having a real scientist as co-author, even though the book is an adversarial debate. This is why we have to be so cautious before agreeing to any sort of cooperation with these people.

    Richard

    • JBlilie
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:11 am | Permalink

      Wow. These people are so dishonest. And the atheists are supposedly the ones with the bad manners?!

    • JBlilie
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:12 am | Permalink

      Dr. Dawkins: Your display of evidence is strident and offensive!

      • Jacob van Beverningk
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 11:56 am | Permalink

        .. and shrill! You left out shrill!

        • Jacob van Beverningk
          Posted November 3, 2011 at 11:57 am | Permalink

          Oops, didn’t mean to ‘embed’ that … just wanted to post the link. Is there a way to just post links?

          • Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

            WordPress embeds videos by default now. It’s annoying. It took me a while, but I finally realized that the only way to avoid the embedding is to do it in html format, instead of just pasting the YouTube link onto a new line, i.e.:

            a descriptive word

            (With the extra spaces removed, of course.)

            • Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

              Aw crap, WordPress actually read my html as html, even though I used the extra spaces. Sigh. Anyway, I was trying to point out that you have to use the

              a href = “YouTube link” “descriptive word” /a

              format, instead of just pasting the YouTube url.

              I realize that looks ridiculous now, but if I don’t leave out the other characters, WP will turn it into html, it seems.

              • Notagod
                Posted November 4, 2011 at 10:24 am | Permalink

                I’m not very good at this but, I’ll give it a try.

                This here:
                <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aVQTVDm4_i4″ rel=”nofollow”> Dawkins on shrill and strident </a>

                Produces this here:
                Dawkins on shrill and strident

                If you ignore the youtube URL and the link description the actual html code isn’t bad:
                <a href=”Your link”rel=”nofollow”>Your Description</a>

                Just be sure your tags are closed with the “/” and keep the quote marks as shown. The “rel=”nofollow”” is intended as a spam reduction measure.

              • Notagod
                Posted November 4, 2011 at 10:55 am | Permalink

                Also, it looks to me like WordPress is automagically including the “nofollow” tag, so it probably isn’t needed and the general format is even easier:

                >a href=”Your link”>Your Description</a>

              • Notagod
                Posted November 4, 2011 at 11:06 am | Permalink

                Sorry, the first symbol was pointing the wrong way. This is corrected:

                <a href=”Your link”>Your Description</a>

              • Notagod
                Posted November 4, 2011 at 11:40 am | Permalink

                And one last sorry. mirandaceleste, when you want to show your html code replace your “” with “<” and “>”. That will print the symbols instead of having the interpreter recognize the symbols as code.

              • Notagod
                Posted November 4, 2011 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

                And another last sorry!

                Just replace the < and > with “& lt;” and “& gt;” (but remove the space after the &).

    • Insightful Ape
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:59 am | Permalink

      It is most risible that Chopra takes the “ambush journalism” complaint to O’Reilly, justified or not. O’Reilly does that all the time, without any advance notice to his victims that they would be “interviewed” before his thugs show up.

      • Microraptor
        Posted November 3, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

        O’Reilly’s been a rank hypocrite for a long time, but I am surprised that Chopra would team up with him, since O’Reilly’s only slightly less hostile to New Age stuff than he is to atheism.

        • Posted November 3, 2011 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

          Don’t forget that Chopra was there to hype his book.

    • Doc Bill
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

      Thank you Richard (saw you in Houston, third row your left, I waved, remember?) for providing the evidence I hypothesized would be there. As soon as I heard Chopra’s bullshit story, like all his bullshit stories, I knew it was bullshit. Rather, suspected than knew.

      But, I knew it! Ha!

    • Kieran
      Posted November 4, 2011 at 12:37 am | Permalink

      Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Isn’t that the motto of Fox news?

      • Posted November 4, 2011 at 8:25 am | Permalink

        It’s the title of a song by Gaelic Storm at least :)

  24. JBlilie
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    I can’t believe he’s gotten rich on such pap, but such is my country. If Kim Kardashian can make $18 million for a fake wedding, why can’t Chopra get rich by actually doing something, odious as it is?

    Dr. C.: P.T. Barnum, in this case, has the natural law figured: “there’s a sucker born every minute”

    (Even if he didn’t actually originate the phrase or say it exactly, he was happy to own it.)

  25. Posted November 3, 2011 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Although Bill is a childish thug (who, at 62, still says things like “Why didn’t you kick his butt?”) and a master of deceit and spin (and of claiming that there’s no spin allowed on his “no-spin” zone of a show, or whatever), I think that Chopra is far more dangerous and far more of a threat to science education, etc., simply because he’s somehow managed to fool quite a few otherwise intelligent people into swallowing the bullshit that he’s selling and then eagerly begging for more.

    In other words, while O’Reilly is, for the most part, dismissed by anyone with even a shred of intelligence, many smart people take Deepak seriously. Chopra wields a great deal of influence, and that’s really really scary.

    (And Sigmund, if you’re reading this, can you please use your mad Photoshoppin’ skillz to make some sort of O’Reilly & Chopra Superhero/Dynamic Duo-esque graphic? That would be the best thing ever :) )

    • madamX
      Posted November 3, 2011 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

      Put their heads on the body of a Lernaean Hydra. It would be most befitting.

    • Sigmund
      Posted November 4, 2011 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      I’ll see what I can do.

  26. Posted November 3, 2011 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    I think Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels will star in the motion picture adaptation.

    “War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality”. They are creating a false dichotomy and pretending that science is in contention with spirituality rather than superstition. I’ve found plenty of spirituality in the reality of the universe without any superstitious or supernatural elements or the modern verbal salad that is Choprah’s brand of woo.

  27. truthspeaker
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    I listened to my heart. It told me to lose weight and eat more fiber.

  28. Posted November 3, 2011 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    These two reminded me of one of Chargaff’s quotes: “That in our day, pygmies cast such giant shadows only shows how late in the day it has become.” It also struck me that despite the public alignment of O’Reilly with Catholicism and Chopra with {???], they are obviously Lutherans since Luther was pretty clear about reason: “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

  29. Posted November 3, 2011 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    When two idiots get together, its one hell of an interview.

  30. Posted November 3, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    “Two completely different species of nutjob.” Another phrase deserving a Coyne trademark.

  31. Posted November 3, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    “He [Chopra] uses his pretend scientific credentials to camouflage his idiocy.”

    FTFY!

  32. Anonymous
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    reddit has a copy of Chopra’s new book.

  33. Marella
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    O’Reilly is not stupid at all, he merely plays to an audience for the monetary rewards. He is a con-artist of the finest sort. Bernie Madoff would bow in awe at Bill’s ability to suck in the gullible. Tell the idiots what they want to hear and you can name your own price. Chopra likewise will do or say anything, so long as it pays. It has nothing to do with anything but money.

  34. Posted November 3, 2011 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    Holy freakin’ mother of the FSM!

    Two world-class jackasses takin’ jive shit and beatin’ up on a cosmos-class intellect. I thought I saw everything, but this takes the freakin’ cake.

    HOLY SHIT!

  35. Ichthyic
    Posted November 3, 2011 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    On it, Deepak says, “He [Dawkins] uses his scientific credentials to camouflage his bigotry.”

    IOW…

    He blinded me, with SCIENCE!

  36. Kharamatha
    Posted November 4, 2011 at 2:26 am | Permalink

    Please don’t feed the Chopra. It’s the Hegel of our time. An embarrassment for primates.

  37. Torbjorn Larsson, OM
    Posted November 4, 2011 at 4:23 am | Permalink

    A fart-artist fascist* and a frivolous flim-flam man foments a friendship. We are fairly fucked now.

    ——————-
    * Not my original characterization. It was the description in an interview on US politics over here [Sweden].

    I assume it refers to O’Reilly’s push for a totalitarian fundamentalist state. Taking a good long look at it, I have to agree.

  38. Jim Mauch
    Posted November 4, 2011 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    It is unique that two angry men who claim to be the smartest men around are railing at the arrogance that Richard Dawkins has in presenting his children’s book to the public. The men who in order to maintain their faith must deny reality supported by solid evidence, impugn the reputation of the messenger and criticize the idea that this book could be a tool that could help families educate their children.
    No amount of derision by these two men can hide the fact that this in a very important book; a book that allows the reader to have a special understanding of how the world works. Children as well as adults will learn that the Magic of Reality need not be feared.

  39. Matt Bowman
    Posted November 4, 2011 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    Well Dawkins got the best of Chopra in his documentary “Enemies of Reason.” I love the look on Chopra’s face at 3:44 when Dawkins tells him he is “absolutely wrong.” LOL! Priceless!

  40. s r das
    Posted November 7, 2011 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    god or no god this universe is doing very well.
    chopra and/or dawkins with or without them universe has maintained its sanity perfectly well or better. if you ask me this universe would be better without the humans & with/without god. what a mess they have created .(each religion has his own god with different attributes)
    i would strongly suggest, our consciousness is legitimate. extend it … all consciousnesses put together can we say universal consciousness,,
    can be named god to please chopra,or or just all pervading energy field affecting inanimate and animate entity,,, to please dawakins would perfectly fit the bill. peace will prevail. we have other things do and ponder about.malignity towards none.

    • Notagod
      Posted November 9, 2011 at 10:27 am | Permalink

      As soon as you bring the word god in, you have created a problem. Each use of god is an attempt by the user to lift their opinion above the opinions of others, It(god) is an attempt to give the christian unjust power.

  41. s r das
    Posted November 7, 2011 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    these so called authorities on god or no god making lot of money because of our fear of god
    programmed in our mind and soul(a very debatable matter )during our formative years,
    we are to be blamed for this because of our paralytic obsession/ fear of dying . we feel at peace if some body says god is there protecting us.for dawkins .. why deny god when that is non existent ? denial could mean acceptance , is he not laying trap for himself ?

    • Notagod
      Posted November 9, 2011 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      Each christian has their own individual god, there is a one to one mapping. That is, one christian one god, two christians two gods, x (number of) christians x (number of) gods. The problem isn’t that any actual gods exist, its the power that societies give to the god delusion. The people of reason (including Dawkins) are against the corruption of societies due to the delusions held by christians.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] last week, Professor Ceiling Cat posted about this, and, in the post’s comments section, I asked Sigmund if he would perhaps “use [his] […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30,619 other followers

%d bloggers like this: