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.

Huh? Have you even read any Dawkins? If not , let me sugest The Selfish Gene, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Blind Watchmaker and The Greatest Show On Earth. Perhaps you’re only aware of the God Delusion, but don’t be mistaken. Dawkins’ contributions to the scientific community far outweigh his one Atheistic title.

I wonder if Mlodinow had anything to do with that.

Good on him to at least realize the damage he did by attacking one of the great modern benefactors of life on this planet.  Perhaps this is the first step to his jettisoning the notion that his gobbledegook makes any contribution whatsoever to science, philosophy or any person, place or thing that’s bought his snake oil – himself included.  He’s made a good living off of the verbal gymnastics that foolish people take as essentially divine revelations.  It’s meaningless and he should grow up and just stop it already.  Oh and Julia Sweeny has got to be chuckling at this.

“Finally, he says he’s more aligned with Dawkins’ thinking than with O’Reilly’s, despite their differences. (I find that hard to believe, but that’s besides the point.)”

Heck, I’m a politically and theologically conservative Roman Catholic, and I consider myself more aligned with Dawkin’s than with O’Reilly.

I’ve never heard of this guy, but am I the only one who thinks Deepak Chopra is a badass supervillian name?

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

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.

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.

“Dawkins used his scientific accomplishments to appear “more credible” than he really is.”

… HAHAHAHA!! Oh, man. That made me laugh like Snoopy. Irony. *wipes tear from eye*

very happy to hear it. chopra is great at what he does, and i personally don’t mind his loose grip on some of the science because a) he presents it as somewhat speculative and b) it’s quite inspiring and, because of this, c) it can be helpful in practical ways.

i unhesitatingly side with shermer and dawkins

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?

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…