Deepak Chopra Apologizes to Richard Dawkins (No, Really!)

Yes, because a YouTube video has so much widespread impact, unlike say, a segment on the O’Reilly Show.

He’s hardly apologizing. 😀 He’s pleading like a truant child..”sir, please sir, one more mark please sir, or else i’ll fail the course”

And Chopra doesn’t use his scientific credentials to peddle his nonsense? I have to admit I haven’t heard or read from him much. But doesn’t he pepper god talk liberally with quantum physical concepts and vice versa to support his spiritual feelings? Granted that would be worse if he were a physicist rather than a medical doctor, but his medical work is suspect too.

Maybe he’s just apologizing because he realizes that he agrees with Bill O’Reilly on something. I mean, what would you do if you prepared to go on the O’Reilly Factor the way anyone who considers themselves rational would- with your war face on and your defenses ready to deal with some grade A loud mouthed idiocy- but instead of him talking over you and putting you down, you found the man’s head bobbing and encouraging what you’re saying the same way he’d treat a Kirk Cameron or a Glenn Beck? I mean, everyone has some sense of human pride right? I mean, even complete quacks.

Chopra lost what little credibility he had years ago. It’s disappointing to me how many people still buy his books or pay to attend his lectures. All he does is regurgitate the same old banal ‘truths’… just like his buddy Wayne Dyer. These guys are the new-age equivalent of prosperity preaching evangelicals. His mansion must have been in need of a mortgage payment for him to appear on O’Reilly.  The man has no shame.

Maybe Chopra is basically a decent person at heart and is doing his best here. Or maybe he discovered that a lot of his followers loathe O’Reilly as much as many of us do, and didn’t like seeing him gang up with O’Reilly on anyone, much less Dawkins. I suspect Chopra’s popularity has as much to do with people who generally accept science along with their mushy spirituality and are able to ignore Dawkins’ views on Chopra for the most part. I also expect these people follow Chopra because they see him as this Western stereotype of an Indian guru: someone who is pure love and kindness, and when he show up as downright angry, petty, and mean in public, he’s likely to lose followers.

Also, I never saw that Dawkins interview with Chopra before, and I have to say that it was stunningly fair. It seemed very much like an honest conversation, and if you were a follower of Chopra, you would likely think he came off fairly well in it. He was certainly allowed to make his point without being interrupted or cut off the way O’Reilly would.

I can understand that Chopra identifies more with Dawkins than O’Reilly. Chopra is a bit whackaloon, but at least he’s not pants-shittingly stupid as O’Reilly. But that said, why would Dawkins need to edit an interview to make Chopra look like a buffoon? I thought that was the point of his (Chopra’s) whole career.

For me it was at 4:20, when Deepak started to say “Evolution does not contradict” and Bill cut him off and redirected it to “Intelligent design does not contradict science”.  I suspect Deepak went back, saw that, and saw that Bill was putting Deepak into the position of denying evolution.

I have replied to Deepak Chopra as follows:

Dear Dr Chopra
As you say, we have different world views, and I fear we are not going to agree. But I am touched by the graciousness of your apology and I thank you sincerely for it.With my very best wishesRichard Dawkins

It’s a borderline “bond villain” name. 🙂

Cynicism is the assumption of the worst motives in someone else before credible evidence is presented.  It is not the proper practice of skepticism. If you’re going to practice skepticism toward assumptions about supernatural beings, you should also practice skepticism toward assumptions about human beings.

I don’t think it serves anyone well to be cynical about Dr. Chopra’s apology, or to speculate what might be his base motives for making it with the tone that one actually knows for certain.

I thought his apology was thorough, and it sounded sincere. He did not need to get bogged down in specific details; he clearly recanted the “mean spirited” tone of his remarks, without excuse, justification, or appeals to mitigating factors. I seldom hear an apology as well executed as that.

Until I see credible evidence to the contrary, I’m going to take it that his apology is coming solely from his own conscience, rather than from outside pressure. In the absence of evidence one way or the other, that kind of initial gracious response has always been my “default setting.”  If someone thinks that makes me naive, well, remember that the fatal error that most cynics make it to assume that everyone else is secretly cynical too.

Yes, what Dr. Chopra says in his books and lectures is woo woo, and he will probably continue to spout it. That is where he and Dr. Dawkins will always disagree. But that does not invalidate this apology.

You know, I know I should reward the dude for coping to having been a douche, but I really can’t bring myself to care about anything Chopra has to say.

Bill O’reilly even interrupts guests he agrees with.

He must be embarrassed about that interview. How hilarious is it to watch yourself criticize someone as “not very scientific” in the middle of an ad hominem attack and an argument from authority?

His persona relies heavily on the “wise sage” act he puts on. I’m assuming it is more difficult to sell “emotional healing” workshops (http://www.chopra.com/) after a display of such emotional imbalance.

its amazing and magnanimous of Deepak Chopra to Offer the apology and respecting Dr. Dawkins’ perspective…though his critics have been glad to take it as him goin back on his worldview…