Chopra's latest attempt to critique Dawkins is as lame as his first. I summarized that first one as "Well, you can't see love in your fancy microscope, now can you, Dr Smarty Pants?"; this one is the Incredibly Agile Evasive God trick. He's going to play a game and try to define his god and religion into a kind of vague god he's going to conveniently pull of out his pocket, one fuzzy enough that no one can criticize it, and he's also going to engage in some blatant projection:
But Dawkins has pulled the same trick that he resorts to over and over. This is the us-versus-them trick. Either you think there is a personal God, a superhuman Creator who made the world according to the Book of Genesis, or you are a rational believer in the scientific method.
I begin to have doubts that Chopra has even read the book. Right at the beginning, Dawkins carefully and plainly explains that he is not setting up this false confusion, where everyone who believed in an impersonal 'god' made up of cosmic laws was going to get lumped with the fundies and slapped around with a bible.
By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different
from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the dis-
tinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and
Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only
supernatural gods delusional.
There is nothing comical about Einstein's beliefs. Nevertheless, I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle- wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.
My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse. In the rest of this book I am talking only about supernatural gods, of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.
Notice that Dawkins has already pre-empted Chopra's deliberate confusion.
I guess that since Chopra was getting whomped on for the silliness he was saying before, he felt the need to invent some silliness that Dawkins did not argue so he'd have something to whomp back. Pathetic. He's threatening to have another part to this feeble criticism…it sounds like he's already dribbling off into irrelevant nonsense.
- Log in to post comments
Chopra's latest attempt to critique Dawkins is as lame as his first.
I think Deepak needs to talk to the taser. ;)
Cheapact Dopra's strawman is on a rampage, looking for Dawkins' strawman. \
Doprra's strawman swings --- and Dawkins' strawman is missing.
Dopra's strawman declares victory over a strawman that never existed!!
You can't honestly believe a shaman/guru would not use deception to make a point.
I don't think most of the believers can argue their way out of Dawkins' way... they have to project and build straw men.
And to we non-believers their arguments are as solid as quicksand.
I find it interesting that Dawkins focuses his energy on attacking beliefs about god that are highly relevant to the effects abrahamic religions have had on culture and politics, but these negative reviews focus on beliefs about god that largely irrelevant to most of the religion-inspired actions undertaken by abrahamic believers.
Of course Dawkins doesn't write against an impersonal god, they're too inscrutable and, let's face it, irrelevant. It's basically the "he just doesn't know enough theology" argument again. Nobody cares about your Groovy God. Many younger people believe in one, but aside from that making them crashing bores from time to time, I can abide.
I don't know what Chopra preaches, but he could very well come from a similar pantheistic tradition, where talking about the supernatural god is an allowed crutch - most people cannot relate to the pantheistic god of Einstein.
I think Chopra fails to earn passing marks, not just in biology, but in theology as well. Dawkins makes clear distinctions, and the thing that really frosts Chopra's chaps is that this clarity threatens to lift the fog of self-satisfied, unquestioning assent favored by much of Chopra's readership....SH
There was once a man named Rushdoony.
He was a Sophist. He used circular arguments to he max.
He was actually successful at confusing some emminent academics.
Deepak has succeeded in this same vain, in that he sucks you into his feeble arguments.
PZ, why would you allow this to happen is beyond my comprehension. You continue to validate his arguments. you are a pitiful excuse for a reasonable academic. If you continue to validate his arguments, you will be as suspect as he is, because, as you should know, if you argue with a fool, it is hard to tell the difference between the two of you.
He is succeeding in his efforts to engage you in your attempts to discredit him.
If I were a christian fundamentalist, I would say he is kicking your ass. Every time you respond to him you negate your position.
You academics are prone to this and it is not only pathetic, but it is a pox on the cause.
Rushdooney is dead, and Chopra is dead too.
You teachers are so pathetic. You make ne sick to my stomach that you would actually validate this horseshit by responding to it.
Go play with your little cephalapods like a liitle girl with her dolls. You post your pretty little pictures.
You seem to posess a lot of knowledge, yet you squander it on idiotic arguments with inane characters such as Chopra.
Perhaps you two have made a deal to perpetuate this deal to uphold your itelligence and create discordance to sell your next book. Whatever. You and Copra may be best friends as it seems. You could never be a real scientist and that is why you are dabbling with philosophy with the most inarticulate rushdoonyite on the face of this earth.
You are a pox on science education. I wish that your armpits will be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.
Best wishes/ d
Why you obsess about this one crank is beyond my comprehension.
PZ.,
I bet you rub little squids on your dick to get to sleep at night. You are way over the top, buddy.
You do, so very much like those pathetic little pictures of thos squidies. You act like my daughters when they were ten years old.
Dale, have you ever tried to use the UCLA libary's computer center without an ID?
Give it a shot. It's your right, you know. I think you'll be shocked at how much fun you have.
"So at bottom, the real question is this: Do we need an all-pervading intelligence to explain the universe?
Absolutely not!
"1. The universe is random. It operates entirely through physical laws. There is no evidence of innate intelligence."
What is random about physicial laws?
Oh, sorry, I thought that this non descipt associate professor in a non decript university was the the world's foremost authority on the theory of everything. Man, I'm sorry I didn't fall under his "spell" earlier on.
Can dale be disemvoweled? Please?
MTran
If you strip away the philosophical arguments that PZ poses, and give him credit for his knowledge, you come up with exactly zero.
He is teaching what we learned twenty years ago.
No wonder that Copra mystifies and ellicits his reponses.
PZ has no where to go beyond his littledick rubbing on his little ceph stuffed dolls.
A reasonable person could argue that Dr. Myers should just ignore this Chopra person (though I don't happen to agree with that position), but why the vitriol, dale?
Actually, Dale is rather funny -- I'm going to let him hang himself a little longer.
It'll get boring soon, never fear. He doesn't seem to have much to say.
STH,
I was just practicing to discredit those who claim to have a superior view of the morality/ value system of people beyond PZ's scope of influence.
Whoaaaaa. PZ!
I am in total ecxtacy that the real PZ has resonded to my "vitriol," as stated by another blogger.
Perhaps my arguments do resonate within your system of values.
You state that I am rather funny. I really didn't mean to be funny, but if that is what you want to characterize my prose, then, well accepted!
Being funny is an accepted mechanism for leadership. Maybe you should go back to school and learn about it.
It is obvious that you have no sense of humour beyond you squidiness ten year old little girl humour.
I am hanging myself. My face is turning blue.
Just because you make these pronoucements of yours, I hope you don't think that we actually believe them. Hey, just a rweality check, you dickhead.
You are a pox on science education. I wish that your armpits will be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.
Best wishes/ d
Well, at least he should get points for imagery.
PZ meyers is a quack of some kind of professor in some kind of "school of higher learning," yet he engages in debates with kindergaten personalities.
PZ says:
Actually, Dale is rather funny -- I'm going to let him hang himself a little longer.
It'll get boring soon, never fear. He doesn't seem to have much to say.
You are correct, PZ. What does pz mean anyhow is what I would like to know.
I would love to know why you don't get out there an do some meaningful research youself, rather than leaning on all those that do. You are like a parrot. Polly want a cracker type professor.
As you can see, the great and wonderful PZ has nothing to say. He is merely smoke and mirrors.
PZ is much ike the jesus myth, elevating himself to some godlike authority. Sad and pathetic. He only gets away with it with these young and impressionable kids. Stop PZ now.
Dale, I'm not sure whether to laugh at you or cry, because it's sad that you have to spam someone's blog for...
Man, I don't even know what your motives are, but I'd bet good money they're idiotic. (Also, if you're going to spam, at least try to spell right. Please.)
Wow, criticism of Chopra really brings out the crazies. Sure sign of a cult leader.
PZ,
f crs hv nthng t sy. Y r th nly ntllgnt lf n th fc f th nvrs tht hs ny ntllctl sttmnt tht wll b ccptd.
K. cpt tht.
Tll m hw y wld hv m bhv. wll d whtvr y sy.
My lst thr cmmnts hv bn thrwn t n mdrtn.
Tstng 1-2-3-4-
I think I have to sign up to MTran's petition. We are a lot better off without Jason.
"May your armpits be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels."
That is the funniest thing I've read in a very long time! I never get good trolls like this at my blog [pout].
plcky pnk,
Y rqrd t py fr rlly gd trlls lk m. Th sm wy tht sm ppl tht spprt sm sychcphnts d t. Knd lk sm prfsrs lkw knw d t. Y knw wht mn
Man, someone's mad about something...
You know, dale, there's nothing stopping you from condensing your writing in to a single, large post, rather than a string of one-sentence posts. The comments look much less cluttered that way.
"The comments look much less cluttered that way."
The comments would look less cluttered, yes, but dale would also look like he hadnt put his head inside a nuclear reactor for an hour. Remember the first commandment of trolls: "Thou shalt always acteth as if thou art high on LSD."
Sprezzatura 2? Can we get an IP trace?
I second the suggestion that dale condense his posts.
After all, I've certainly found writing long single posts effective. In fact, I have a tendency to respond to multiple other posts point by point, particularly of opponents who prove themselves interesting enough and creative enough to be worth my time. [Notice how I'm not doing it here? But I digress.] So, yeah, I've written posts that can be two or even three pages on this blog, in 1600x1200 full-screen.
Now, I'm building up to a point here. A point which you, dale, judging from the level of your commentary on PZ and his career, will no doubt find absolutely devastating at both the rhetorical and personal levels:
Mine's bigger.
Regards, AFW
Poor Spiritual Guru! a poem
.
IF HE'S PHONEY AFTER MONEY
.
poor spiritual guru!
his followers are
leaving him,
bidding him goodbye
it was fun
so long it lasted,
everything finally
comes to an end
if he's phoney after money
they decry him,
but if he's simply stupid
they pity him
but leaving him en masse
simple folks with pure hearts -
his followers he deluded most -
have now read Richard Dawkins
those who still stick around
are blind as he is
or greedy as he is
or stupid as he is
they'll flock together
till they find the true path,
the path of science and reason
not his path of blind religion.
~white wings
http://whitewings.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/11/if-he-s-phoney-after-mo…
"May your armpits be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels."
That is the funniest thing I've read in a very long time! I never get good trolls like this at my blog [pout].
Actually, that whole armipts infested with the fleas of a thousand camels is quite old. I specifically remember it from no later than 1988. We came out to our car and found a fake ticket ("Your parking sucks, we can't give a ticket but if we could we would" type) on the windshield, and that was one of the phrases on it.
So anyway, no, not original in any way.
A Note of Appreciation
.
SCREWED-UP SPIRITUAL GURUS
.
hats off to Myers, Alex and
to you too Skep for
helping the guru
understand
(if he can!)
what Dawkins says
and helping his lollipop
soul sucking followers
see some light of the day
men of science must
serve humanity stopping
screwed-up spiritual gurus
propagating their foolishness.
~White Wings
http://whitewings.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/11/screwed-up-spiritual-gu…
The trouble with both Dawkins and PZ is that they refuse to consider the Lilly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgSn7VG5Odc
Aaaaaahhhhh!
Manchester (UK) Central Library 1980s a card on a reading desk demanding silence bore this graffiti: "Ayatollah Khomeini has fleas in his beard.' On the God question, now that cameras have been invented His personal appearances seem to have dried up. Funny that.
MartinC,
Thank you so much for that clip. Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh
"May your armpits be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels."
That is the funniest thing I've read in a very long time! I never get good trolls like this at my blog [pout].
----------------------------------
Actually, that whole armipts infested with the fleas of a thousand camels is quite old. I specifically remember it from no later than 1988. We came out to our car and found a fake ticket ("Your parking sucks, we can't give a ticket but if we could we would" type) on the windshield, and that was one of the phrases on it.
So anyway, no, not original in any way.
-------------------------
It's a Karnac (Johnny Carson) joke from the '70s.
And a corollary commandment of LSD users: "Thou shalt not act as if thou wert a troll, for it giveth a bad name to druggies."
I'd like to apologize to everyone for breaking dale. He could have been a great new toy, but my polite request to spell correctly apparently overheated him. It's kind of like the time I took my Furby out in the cold, and it messed up his speakers and made his voice really, really high-pitched, making him even more annoying than he was already.
WTF do you mean, *you* broke him? :P
While I think the first chapter does pre-empt Chopra's comment, I don't see how the section you outlined demonstrates this.
Einsteinian religion is simply parsing atheism in religious terms non-pejoratively. The pantheism he refers to is the same.
Did I miss something?
ps. I love your blog & the evolution reading list you put together has been super helpful to me!