MGM, Fair question, though it has been answered well enough by Ed T and Stim and others. Bill D also made a valid, though not directly related, point about Dawkins.

Basically, though Dawkins is a scientist. His arguments about religion are very unscientific. Yet he veils them in pseudo-science debases his scientific credibility when he presents them. Chopra, misuses scientific terms to describe his own non-scientific thoughts and theories. I find the "debate" between these to be amusing, but not at all enlightening.

I find Musket's arguments to be more on point and reasoned than Dawkin's for that matter Little Hawk makes more sense than Chopra.

These are two men, Chopra and Dawkins, who are just BSing to sell books. They are doing a wonderful job of that.