Dawkins

One of my all time favorites. It's not Dawkins, but Sunsara Taylor, the head of "World Can't Wait" [Sunsara's blog].

I award this one squarely to Bill O'Reilly [wikipedia entry].

O'Reilly actually has two guests on, Taylor and Ron Luce [wikipedia entry], the head of "Battlecry USA". O'Reilly ostensibly acts as the moderator between the two. However, he expertly uses his position to slant the debate to Ron Luce, whom he obviously favors.

There is a saying: "If you want to make money from gambling, own the table." In the same way, the way to significantly influence public opinion is not to get on TV, but to own the TV station. Since O'Reilly is able to determine the terms of debate, he is able to make it a walk home for Luce.

His Holiness Kavicandra Swami wrote recently about Battlecry and their agenda. In this clip we get to hear what Battlecry are all about, and Luce even manages to get his website into the conversation.

Luce is clearly an expert in dealing with the media. He remains smiling and positive throughout the exchange. People will remember this. They may not remember what he said, but they will be left with a favorable impression of a smiling, upbeat, and positive person. For the same reason it is important for devotees to always smile on harinam. People may not understand what the heck is going on, "but it sure looks like they're having fun, so it can't be bad".

Luce also continually restates his position. He has a number of points that he wants to get across, and he just keeps making them. O'Reilly is easy on him and doesn't really ask him any hard questions. Taylor, on the other hand, gets the "slanted table" treatment from O'Reilly.

Rather than allowing her to speak on the basis of her platform, O'Reilly puts her on the defensive by questioning the tone of her dialog: "Why the name calling?"

Taylor has allowed herself to be put into a corner. At a strategic level, unfortunately, her position is defined as being "anti-Battlecry". This immediately adds more authority and weight to Battlecry's message. It got her onto television, but not on her terms. O'Reilly then turns the focus of the debate to the form of her dialog, rather than the substance.

In this way he appears to be neutral, but by defining the terms of the debate he is able to "put Gajendra in the water" (a reference to this pastime in the Srimad Bhagavatam that means put her onto an unfavorable battlefield).

Taylor could have escaped from this killing zone by simply saying: "Yes, I admit that we lowered the tone of the debate, and I apologize for that..." and then gone on to continually restate her points. She could have said that "people used those words because they are very upset, for the following reasons..."

This would have had the effect of neutralizing O'Reilly's positioning, which he uses throughout the debate to corner Taylor. Of course, Taylor might lose some of her internal support by doing this. The troops who used those slogans, perhaps even contributed to by Taylor, would feel that they had been betrayed.

She might have tried the weaker option of: "I acknowledge that...", and then gone on to state her position.

Instead, Taylor is made out to be a petulant, childish personality unable to come to an adult level of dialog. O'Reilly frames her message as naive, emotive, and irrational.

This is an important point for moderators and maintainers of meta-frameworks. You can cut people down without disagreeing with their message, by attacking the appropriateness of their dialog. As an example, the GBC could have undercut Caitanya das' blog by pointing out that a 20-something year old brahmacari has no credibility to speak about women's issues, and that such speech is inappropriate for that ashram.

They could have hammered on this point to the extent that it isolated him, without having to "take a side" in the issues that are under discussion.

This would have had the flow-on effect of deprecating his arguments, just as O'Reilly puts Taylor's position down the gurgler, but it would have been done in an overtly "clean-handed" way. It's overtly about "raising the tone of the dialog", and enforcing proper behaviour in ashrams. You can't demand proper behaviour in the grhasta ashram (which women belong to in all phases of life, according to Srila Prabhupada) while simultaneously displaying improper behaviour in the brahmacari ashram. Pointing out this inherent contradiction should have been enough. Reward rational presentation, punish bad behaviour.

O'Reilly maintains a metaframework that accommodates diversity of opinion and the right to expression. At the same time he clearly takes Taylor out and promotes Luce. There is a valuable lesson for moderators everywhere in this exchange.

Key Points:

• Keep smiling - no matter what
• Know what your main points are, continually restate them
• Do not define your position in opposition to the other guy's, but have a coherent platform that you promote
• Cast a positive vision and a positive spin
• If the moderator corners you, slip out. Acknowledge his point (you don't have to agree with it), then restate your position yet again
• If you get inextricably caught in the kill zone make like Gajendra and remember the lotus feet of the Lord
• If you are moderating, slant the table without getting involved in either side - "put Gajendra in the water" and then let them have a "fair fight"
• If you are moderating, keep the tone of the conversation high - it's actually a valid aspect of the role, and one that O'Reilly discharges well

Further to Richard Dawkins vs Al-Khattab, one work colleague gave his analysis to me today (speaking of Al-Khattab):

He's living in an adolescent power fantasy. He's full of hormones and afraid of women because he thinks they are like him. In another setting he'd be a Superman fan-boy. He'd be a geek sitting in a basement arguing online about whether Superman can beat up Thor. Same dynamic, different story. This one has more street cred because there are people running around with real guns, otherwise it's essentially the same thing.

This gives you some idea of how a contemporary western audience perceives this kind of proselytizing.

This is Dawkins at his finest. A flawless victory without a doubt. The crowd gives him a wild ovation after a 70 second response to "the simplest question" from an audience member at Randolph Macon Women's College in Lynchburg, Virginia.

The question is: "What if you're wrong?"

Dawkins delivers his stunning oratorial tour de force by enveloping the question using a rhetorical cultural relativity argument that sweeps his opponents legs from under her. Again he wraps his opponent in a metanarrative. He doesn't address the question itself, but rather goes on the offensive, and attacks the questioner and their frame of reference.

This is a prime example of Dawkins at his best - he is playing to a live audience of the public. Remember that he is the sitting chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a populist orator. He knows how to play to the crowd, and this crowd of Americans cheers him on like he were Hulk Hogan and this were a Friday night Smackdown at the WWE.

In a previous post I explained that a scriptural tradition that is not accepted by another will be interpreted by them as cultural tradition. Dawkins plays to this to present any religious belief as cultural conditioning. He is also playing to the audience's fear of religious fanaticism. This is where religious and cultural groups violently proselytize on the basis of "I am right. You are wrong."

This is a recurrent theme in Dawkins' work, and one that strikes a chord with his global audience. He uses this sympathy to push his own agenda of atheistic science as the answer.

Classical Krishna Conscious preaching, and in fact the Vedic method of harmonization and assimilation rather than cultural negation, more closely maps to Dawkins' method than to the exclusive proselytizing of many contemporary religions.

Consider this excerpt from a classic speech by His Holiness Visnujana Maharaja, delivered in Portland, Oregon, in 1975 (the event that is the opening scene of Radha-Damodara Vilasa):

So this is the warm invitation of Krishna Consciousness. It has nothing to do with black or white, young or old, or believe me, Christian or Jew or Hindu or anything like that. We consider these to be as much a part of false ego—Christian, Hindu, Jew—as we do black, white, young, old, man or woman. Because they were delegated to this body—I'm born in a Christian family, I call myself a Christian; I'm born in a Hindu family, I call myself a Hindu—so because of this body I'm a Hindu, because of this body I'm a Jew, and if I was born a million years ago would I be a Hindu, Christian or Jew? No. But I'd still be a servant, I'd still have my consciousness. See? Suppose you're born a hundred thousand years from now? Are you going to be a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? No. But you'll still have your consciousness, you'll still have to serve, and you'll still want to be happy.

Visnujana Maharaja uses exactly the same argument that Dawkins does. We have more in common with Dawkins than may be apparent on the surface.

Dawkins uses the cultural relativity argument to dismiss the question. Another example of this tactic in play is when a person said to Srila Prabhupada: "There are so many paths..."

Srila Prabhupada replied to him: "So you choose one, and follow it."

This is a good response. However, it requires an additional layer to deal with the contemporary concern about religious extremism and inability to coexist with other understandings. Dawkins always chooses the most extreme examples to underscore his point.

The other thing he brings into play is the Flying Spaghetti Monster [wikipedia entry]. You should be familiar with this. It is a satirical story used to present the argument that if creationists are allowed to demand that their story be taught in schools with no evidence to support it, then any old story should be allowed.

Underlying this is a dismissal of scripture as pramana (valid evidence), and the presenting of empiric evidence as the only valid and acceptable pramana. This trend has been accelerated in modern cultures due to the clash of cultures with different scriptures, with different and sometimes contradictory cultural prescriptions. As most people can only evaluate things on a cultural basis, especially if they have not studied the scripture in depth, they see only confusion and contradiction as a result.

Dawkins throws this into the mix, as his audience are already familiar with it. He doesn't need to explain it, he just draws on it as an argument by the previous acaryas that supports his position.

Key Points:

• You don't have to speak to the question, you have to speak to the concerns of the audience
• Again, you win by winning the audience, not by defeating your opponent
• Know your audience's frame of reference. By throwing in "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" Dawkins establishes a rapport with them and at the same time draws extensive context and argument support into his 70 second speech, with only a few words
• Show how Krishna Consciousness simultaneously transcends and unites all religions to address the concerns of contemporary Western audiences
• Whatever you do, don't allow yourself to be cornered on cultural relativity. Srila Prabhupada, when explaining the dress of devotees would talk about its utilitarian value in helping them to identify themselves to the public, and reinforce their own sense of self identity. In the same way, be able to justify and explain cultural elements of Krishna Consciousness on a rational basis

This is the (in)famous encounter between Richard Dawkins and Pastor Ted Haggard [wikipedia entry], then mega-church pastor and head of the American Evangelical Union.

Ted Haggard's subsequent fall from grace and dismissal from his church and para-church leadership have lead to this encounter being mercilessly spoofed.

I award one point each way to Dawkins and Haggard in this encounter and call a tie.

Dawkins baits Haggard, barely hiding his outraged sensibilities as he makes observations comparing the church service to a "Nuremburg rally".

Haggard responds well, maintaining an air of humor. He is used to speaking in public, playing to the camera / audience, and controlling the external display of his emotions.

Remember, in public debate it's about winning the audience, not defeating your opponent. When you win the audience you defeat your opponent. On the other hand, if you defeat your opponent but lose the audience, you lose the debate.

Haggard plays the same game to Dawkins, baiting him in response. The two men, both powerful thought leaders who seek to occupy the same social position - that of setting the value system for society at large, circle each other with their teeth, in Haggard's case literally, bared. The tension is palpable in the room throughout the interaction, and you can almost hear the sparks crackling.

Haggard plays an epistemology gambit. Epistemology [wikipedia entry] refers to "the nature of knowledge and knowing". Haggard challenges Dawkins on the ability of the scientific method to provide conclusive knowledge.

First of all, and this is important to note, he states that he "fully embraces the scientific method". In this way he seeks to envelop Dawkins position. It's the good ol' "embrace and extend" - "Yes, I fully accept your position, and I also contribute this beyond it..."

This is a good angle to come from. He is wrapping Dawkins' position in a metanarrative, which is essentially Dawkins' own strategy.

He then comes up with a knock-out punch. After baiting Dawkins' into an overly emotional response, Haggards chastises him in a powerful monologue to "not be so arrogant". Haggard makes use of his ability to deliver a powerful flow of authoritative, improvised speech, honed through his experience as a communicator in his role as the pastor of a church. Al Khattab also tried this, but with less expertise and impact.

The particular angle that Haggard has chosen for this blow is well chosen. The Richard Dawkins Rap - Beware the Believers video on YouTube demonstrates that many people are threatened by Richard Dawkins' intellectually superior positioning, which is necessary for the delivery of his metanarrative:

Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D - he's smarter than you, he's got a science degree
Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D - he's still smarter than you, he studied biology.

Haggard constructs his metanarrative and delivers his blow by assuming a superior position on the basis of personal qualities, chiefly personal humility. This relates to his epistemology, which rests on acknowledging human limitations and the need to hear from the Supreme Authority through scripture.

The weakness of his stance is the appearance of arrogance on his part. Intellectually he has it, but in his own character he is missing something vital to pull this off 100% successfully. The later revelation of the lack of integrity in his personal life unfortunately bears out this impression.

Having delivered a successful on camera knock out punch, Haggard then reverses his own victory. He loses control of his temper and pursues Dawkins and his camera team, threatening them and yelling at them.

If he had control of his mind and senses then his gambit would have been so much more effective. The character of the preacher is as much the preaching as the words he says. The medium is the message.

Acar (action) and pracar (preaching) must be integral and aligned.

For Krishna conscious preachers it means that while we cultivate knowledge we must also work on refining our personal character. Humility is important. It was through a lesson in humility that Haggard knocked Dawkins down. It was through a lack of personal humility that he fell down himself.

Key Points

• Remember: it's about winning the audience over to your point of view
• Control your emotions and keep it good humored
• "Embrace and extend" made Bill Gates the most successful man in the software business - put it to work for you
• Your battle doesn't begin when the camera starts rolling, it begins every day when you wake up. Your personal character is one of your chief weapons, and it's a product of your daily activities
• Don't rely on your own strength - remember that your strength comes from relying on the person who is source of all strength, power, and intelligence

I give the point to Richard Dawkins in this excerpt from "The Root of Evil?".

Here he speaks with New York-born Joseph Cohen, child of a secular Jewish family who moved to Palestine as a Jewish settler, only to convert to Islam and move to Gaza with his family as Josef Al-Khattab.

The thing to bear in mind is that in public debate you are speaking primarily to the public, not to the person you are debating. The goal is to win public opinion to your viewpoint, and all rhetorical devices are utilized with this aim in mind.

Richard Dawkins is speaking to the Western public who are the intended viewers of his documentary. Al-Khattab, on the other hand, appears to be speaking with other fundamentalist Muslims in mind. His comments will win approval and favour from them for being "preaching it as it is", however, they are unlikely to influence the public that Dawkins is chasing.

If Al-Khattab had spoken with Dawkins' audience in mind he might not have provided Dawkins with such a clear cut example of the "demon of religious extremism" that Dawkins' metanarrative rests on. The editor of a documentary will always have the power to selectively edit and contextualize, so anyone with an opposing viewpoint is at a disadvantage. Still, there are things you can do to more or less play into their hands.

Khattab seems unconcerned with influencing Dawkins' audience. He is simply interested in stating his position forcefully. Unfortunately Dawkins' presentation rests on characterizing religion as forceful and unreasonable.

Full respect to Khattab for being hardcore and representing without any self-doubt. This is probably the mentality you need to survive when you live in a city under siege inside an occupied land, however I don't recommend this approach for preachers living inside Western societies.

Instead I would recommend using a more rational approach that acknowledges Dawkins' valid concerns, and extends them further. Choosing to speak on divisive social and cultural issues is not a good idea.

Dawkins' angle relies on the fear of Western populations of the clash of cultures - of foreign cultures which fanatically insist on retaining their values as they come into contact with other cultures.

The Vedic paradigm is one of cultural assimilation, rather than one of rigidly promoting a static culture. This ability to adopt and adapt to local culture has lead to the rich Vedic tradition with its plethora of forms of religious and cultural expression.

In his book Krishna Samhita Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura explains the Daksa Yajña as the recounting of the assimilation of the worship of Lord Siva into the Vedic civilization. At the time that it was happening Daksa represents an Aryan who is "racist" - he won't have any Deity of an aboriginal black race get a share of the sacrificial offering. However he is suitably punished and the moral of the story is - "Siva is in" (conveniently rendered as a white Deity now, with the ash on him).

At the beginning of Krishna Samhita and throughout its narrative, Bhaktivinode Thakura writes that he is speaking especially to fit within the framework of Western academics, and he apologises to the followers of Siva, who, he points out, is glorified in the Bhagavatam as the greatest devotee of Visnu.

We should remember that while it is an offense to consider the demigods to be equal to or independent of Visnu, it is also wrong to be offensive to the demigods, who are all devotees of the Lord.

The point here is that we do not have to proselytize on unpopular or incompatible cultural issues, but neither do we have to cede that "anything goes". Hindus and Muslims lived alongside for generations by respecting each others right to live within their own boundaries according to their cultural tradition.

At the same time a lot of our presentation does rely on challenging culture - a prime example is meat-eating. However, we are able to do this on the basis of rational explanation, in addition to scriptural injunction. Scriptural injunction is interpreted as cultural tradition by those who do not accept the same, or any scriptures. When speaking to an audience we should take into account their valid pramana, or source of authority. For modern Western audiences this means anumana, or reason. Demonstrating the value of scripture using reason is effective to such an audience. Flatly demanding that they accept another pramana will look like fanaticism to them.

As Srila Prabhupada put it, succinctly: "Religion without philosophy is fanaticism".

For example, Srila Prabhupada while discussing devotees' clothing with the public would give rational explanations, and would make it clear that devotees adopted this mode of clothing because they rationally understood and accepted it and wanted to do so - not because they were under duress to do so. Nor is anyone under any duress to accept it if they do not want to.

While we can agree with Dawkins that cultural inflexibility is the cause of severe problems in the flattening world of the 21st century, there are still some things that are more favorable than others, according to the Vedic science of consciousness - especially an analysis according the Vedic understanding of the three modes of material nature. Scripture is not unreasonable. It is reasonable as far as reason goes, and it goes further. It does not do away with reason, rather it informs reason right up to the point that it leaves it behind.

So we are willing to sit down and rationally discuss it, without resorting to rabid slogan-reciting and childishly blocking our ears. At the same time, we would like the freedom to live the way that we want to live, and to offer the opportunity to others to adopt our modes of lifestyle, if they wish.

What could be objectionable about that?

Key Points:

• Participate in the meta-narrative ("Yes, how different cultures and faith traditions interact is a concern in a globalized world")
• Be prepared to establish and defend your positions using the pramana of your audience (Use rational explanations and quote statistics for Westernized audiences)

These two points demonstrate to the audience that your faith is not irrational in its nature, and that you are not using it as a psychological crutch because you can't interact with other people as a normal human being.

• Avoid being boxed in on cultural issues (Remember that culture is a supporting element for spiritual practice - if your audience has no spiritual practice, there is little point trying to establish supportive elements)
• Public presentation means giving people enough that they can digest it and move forward with interest and enthusiasm (Don't try to give people the entire philosophy and value system in five minutes)

Last night at Krishnafest we had a "Tribute to Richard Dawkins".

Throughout history the Vaisnava brahmanas have faced different competitors to provide the metanarrative of life to human society. In the past they have faced the Karma-mimasa school, the followers of Buddha, the followers of Shankaracarya, and more recently sahajiya followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who mix bhakti with tantra, and proponents of a vitiated system of entitlement to spiritual position by virtue of birth alone (caste system).

Today one of the most prominent of our honored opposition comes in the form of scientist and culture warrior Richard Dawkins [wikipedia entry] and followers of his ideological narrative, based on science and especially evolutionary biology.

He weaves a powerful metanarrative around religion in general, using it to encourage people to believe in science and the scientific method. This is part of his function as the sitting chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

I believe that Mr Dawkins has many valid points and identifies many of the failings of current religious systems and their adherents. However, I feel that he misses an important point and overstates his case. In this way he fails to distinguish between religious extremism or fanaticism, and bonafide spiritual experience leading to transcendental realization. His aggressive preaching leads to the general public missing out on the opportunity to experience this.

At the same time the system that he promotes as an alternative, rational empiricism, while in some aspects superior to religious extremism, especially in today's global community with advanced technology, is still not sufficient to bring about the global harmony and personal satisfaction that he hopes to achieve.

For these reasons, I have studied his presentations and will over the next period present to you some of my findings and conclusions. If, as I have, you find yourself in a public discussion with someone who holds these ideas, you will find these thoughts useful. Being a practical person, I'll give you the breakdown of how he powerfully presents his ideas to a general public audience, and how we can present our ideas to combat them.