Brown has always been a strident defender of religion, and over the years he’s said a lot of incredibly stupid things. But now I have to partly agree with him on this problematic Cult of Dawkins. This is getting embarrassing.
At the RDF website, there is a fundraising page. Fundraising is fine, organizations do have to do that, and so I don’t chide them for having a necessary function on the web; but I do criticize them for two things. What the money is for, and how they are raising it.
Here’s Brown’s commentary on it:
My man in the pub was at the very low end of what believers will do and pay for: the Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like Dante’s Hell, is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak.
When you compare this to the going rate for other charismatic preachers, it does seem on the high side. The Pentecostal evangelist Morris Cerullo, for example, charges only $30 a month to become a member of ‘God’s Victorious Army’, which is bringing ‘healing and deliverance to the world’. And from Cerullo you get free DVDs, not just discounts.
But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’
The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.
First, though, I have to wonder where some of this is coming from: the RDF site does not include those last two “circles”, and searching the web I only find a few sites mentioning them, possibly satirically. But just the Darwin Circle, in which he’s asking $5000 to $9999 annually (and it does imply there are other circles at the $10K and above boundary) is bad enough. If I’m shelling out $5 a month, let alone $420, I want to know what I’m accomplishing with that investment.
For that money, I would get a discount at the Richard Dawkins store, and two tickets per year for an event in which I’d get to meet Richard Dawkins. I’m sorry, I like the guy personally (and I know many here gnash their teeth at that), but I also disagree with him on many issues, and I don’t idolize him sufficiently to find that sufficient inducement to cough up that much cash. There a lot of scientists I like more, and they don’t do the equivalent of selling autographs at meetings. That degree of narcissism is repellent.
Now if I thought this was simply using his reputation in a good cause, I’d be willing to overlook it — if his name can raise buckets of money for a worthy purpose, more power to him. But just try figuring out what the RDF does.
Founded in 2006 by Richard Dawkins, the foundation’s mission is to realize Richard’s vision to remove the influence of religion in science education and public policy, and eliminate the stigma that surrounds atheism and non-belief.
I agree with that! But this is an organization with lots of money. You have to be more specific. What are you doing to remove the influence of religion in science education? Lobbying? Giving science teachers better tools? Scholarships for secular educators? Where does all the Dawkins Circle money go?
The foundation focuses on alarming statistics.
That’s just stupid. Apparently none of the money is going to pay competent copy writers.
The Richard Dawkins Foundation sees its job as nothing less than changing America’s future.
Ambitious! But tell me how. I mean, I write and speak about the perils of religion on no budget and far less of a reputation that Dawkins; I get the impression that the purpose of the RDF is to pay for the travels of Dawkins and his entourage, and that’s not enough.
Ten years ago, I was enthused to have a godless secular organization dedicated to science around — I could imagine that someday I might have enough money to actually donate to a charitable group regularly (my imagination was pretty good, it’s getting less expansive as the reality of the salaries in my profession sink in), and the RDF was a potential site. Not now, though. There are a lot of reasons that I’d put it near the bottom of my list.
At least Foundation Beyond Belief still looks worthy.
Gives a whole new definition to the term “cargo cult”.
(Also, for those like myself who think the article quoted sounds familiar, it might just be: it is from August of last year)
What the ever loving fuck? O_O
For a much more reasonable donation, you can hang out with me, Nitric Acid! Don’t miss out on this amazing opportunity!
If it’s 8 or 9 months old, that might explain why those other levels are missing from the RDF web page.
$420 a month doesn’t sound bad, Mr. Dawkins. But I’m still shopping around. Gonna go see what the church down the road is offering. Do you have a card?
I’m submitting the paperwork for the Nitric Acid Foundation as we speak. It’ll be quite naf.
Hmmm, depends. Are you fuming Nitric Acid or just the run of the mill dilute kind?
Wow. That’s stunning in its arrogance. Dawkins is already floating on a fucktonne of money, most of which he seems to keep tucked in his mattress. Interesting that he thinks he can single-handedly* cure the States – might be nice if he got that done already.
*Well, with the help of other people’s money, of course.
Through a little sloppy and hasty googling,, I’ve found:
The caches are useless because they were all from this April.
Someone remarked on a site that the same upper level circles were no longer there on August 25th, a few weeks after the Spectator article (though I managed to lose the link to the relevant page anyway).
The only mentions of “Evolution Circle” “Richard Dawkins Foundation” I can find on the web are cut and paste jobs of the Spectator article.
So it has hard to tell whether the article writer was full of shit, or the RDF “scrubbed” it’s pages I don’t know.
There are far too many similarities with religion here for coincidence. A nested set of “circles of membership”? Social activity that emphasizes personalities (charismatic or otherwise) over substance? Not to mention the increasing similarity between creationists and the other side of the rift in terms of tactics.
It’s more another data points justifying a low priority for words like “religion” and “atheism” in figuring out social problems. It’s about the instincts related to authority and social structure, here examples of things that reinforce and reward rank hierarchy based off of personality instead of substance. It’s also about what an established power structure does as a collective when it feels that it is threatened in terms of bad reasoning.
The very fact that they say they want to emphasize how religion affects society while they take on the trappings of religion says it all.
Anteprepro @ 9:
It wouldn’t be the first time RDF has been scrubbed clean of something or other. Even without those particular circles though, it’s bad enough. The one thing Dawkins has proved to be seriously good at is making a whole lot of money from followers. For those of us who have been around since before anyone knew who he was, to the furor over The God Delusion and everything that followed, it has been watching the formation of a cult, and it’s frightening just how easy it is to form one, and get very grand ideas about your own status.
Um, why are the quotes in that unreadable pale grey again? /OT
Well, I got to meet both RD and PZ in Oxford last year, both of whom I respect a lot for several reasons. However only one of them treated me with respect back and actually engaged in conversation. I’ll leave you to guess which one…
This fundraising effort reminds me of the “Dinner with Randi” event at TAM, where for a nice dump of cash you get to have a relatively intimate dinner with Randi and some of the other JREF luminaries and ask questions and banter stories. Presumably. I’ve never gone — but I’ve never considered it problematic, either. It’s not ‘worship’ to want to sit next to a speaker you admire and listen to them talk shop and respond to your own wisdom. That just sounds like social bonding. There are worse ways to waste money in Las Vegas.
As to what the RDF actually does — well, I don’t know. It’s a little bit less than it used to do, in some minor and not terribly significant areas, maybe.
This doesn’t remind me of religion at all.
It reminds me of $cientology.
This is exactly why I don’t donate to RDF.
Rather, I donate to the JREF for educational goals.
The 990 form is a bit vagueish too. Apparently about $80,000 goes to one board member for salary, some is given to other organizations to help put on events.
Uh oh. What did I say this time, Steven Bowen?
What does the RDF do? Ironically, wikipedia has the answer while the RDF website has vague non-answers:
So what does it do? Fund other charities and scientific organizations. Troll Templeton. Provide a chat room for ex-clergy members. The Out Campaign and most recently “Openly Secular”, which basically appropriates language from the gay rights movement to do something something something atheist discrimination.
So……basically they don’t do a hell of a lot. Marketing. PR. Branding. Thought Leading. Money Funneling. That’s basically what it boils down to.
OK, but at least that’s something.
Also, in terms of where RDF money goes, remember this one?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/10/24/richard-dawkins-sues-josh-timonen/
Yes, at very least I don’t suspect that the RDF exists exclusively to give Richard Dawkins fancier robes, shinier scepters, and more gold to sleep on. It’s just a money siphon with nebulous goals that are approached through half-assed means.
In terms of cults, I would say less Jonestown or even Scientology, and more Oprah or Deepak Chopra.
red flag:
Translation: “The foundation watches, takes action: none.”
Maybe that’s not their intent, but, RDF, tell us what what actions you take and plan to take. You know, tell us what you do, not just what you ‘watch out for’.
Oxford, that almighty teacher of usage of English language, wants to have a word with you Dawkins.
…now, if folks could pay $85 a month for Dawkins to give up Twitter, that might be worthwhile. <_<
@Sastra 14
It is social bonding, I agree. These things are not bothersome on their own.
The problem is what they mean in terms of their social context. What are the moral and ethical priorities of a group of people? Finding out requires looking at what they do in terms of what they say. As individuals and in official communications and activity in the name of the group. I find this particular set of behaviors (a social reward structure in the same general category as well known ones in religion) disturbing given the behavior of RDF and associated persons.
Otherwise I can understand someone wanting to meet and talk with someone they look up to. I’ve gone to meet Ed. Brayton, and recently saw PZ talk about bet evolution personally.
Er…, that would be bat evolution above.
What with my long hair and shaggy beard, I actually get people hopping out of their cars and stopping me on the sidewalk to tell me that their church not only has lots of fine people to hang out with for “fellowship” but they emphasize that there’s lots of good, free food too.
They’re willing to PAY me with free food to hang out with them. Is there can atheist organization that can beat that offer?
(I can’t decide if its because they figure with the long hair I must be homeless, or if I remind them of someone…)
#14: I agree, the social bonding part is an essential part of the movement. Where I find it problematic is when it is commodified in this way, in which the impression is given that it is now gated by money.
I can’t believe that Dawkins will now ask you for a ticket before he permits you to talk to him at an event…but this ‘circles’ nonsense makes it sound like he would.
It’s also quite common to have a speaker’s dinner at a conference, at which you pay a bit above the standard admission price to have a catered meal with a group of people. No problem with that, either. That’s a good way for a con to cover costs by charging those who can afford it a little more, while (I would hope) keeping registration fees a little lower for everyone else.
I’ll also note that while having such an arrangement, Randi was also good at milling about with the audience and being personal with them. Dawkins is … not so good at that, and this arrangement just reinforces the idea that he’s out of touch. It is the worst thing he could do — he’s weak on the socializing side, and now he’s set himself apart even further.
#7- if you want me to be fuming, we can hang out at the local farmers’ market, where there’s a guy who sells “orgonite” (cheap plastic with bits of gravel in it, supposedly a powerfully magical substance).
This seems an awful lot like Scientology… if you’ve missed seeing the documentary “Going Clear” or reading the book it is based on, they’re worth checking out.
The other part of the cash-grabbiness of people like Dawkins that I’ve noted on numerous occasions is the number of different “charitable” groups the same small number of people belong to. That’s what I’m mocking in my log-in name after all. Lots of groups asking for any expecting lots of money, plenty of really high salaries to go around… and not a lot of obvious progress being made. I’ve always by comparison respected the FtB crowd and the Skepchicks for raising specific amounts of money towards very specific goals, rather than asking for huge recurring donations in exchange for vague promises to “focus on” and “devote ourselves to” nonsense.
Speaking of TAM, I didn’t notice Sh*rmer on their list of speakers this year. (Yes, apparently I was still on their
beggingmailing list.)I just realized that I have also gone to see Dawkins talk and chose not to mention it (cue ominous music).
It’s funny the things irrational and/or illogical group bias does to you.
…am I the only one who noticed that $210 a month doesn’t add up to $5000?
Geez.
Imagine having so much money lying around that you could waste $100,000 on meeting Richard Dawkins.
I sure wouldn’t spend any of it on Richard Dawkins. Noam Chomsky maybe. David Bowie for sure. Joan Jett. Robert Crumb.
#31: don’t over-interpret that, though. You also don’t see me on their speaker’s list. Or you.
But just try figuring out what the RDF does
They spent (2010) $1/2 million a year on operating expenses against a million brought in.
Robin Cornwell (Dawkins’ mistress at the time) was the person who cooked up the “Out” campaign and (according to the RDF website) pioneered the “four horsemen” concept. So that was one great big success. Maybe they spent the $400,000 on that.
Amazing how much criticism Anita Sarkeesian got for the money she brought in and how she spent it, but Dawkins … not so much scrutiny.
A lot of perfectly fine organizations, from museums to orchestras to NPR to FreeSpeechTV to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe have membership programs with various levels and suggested contributions and trinkets/rewards to go with each. It’s not a priori a nefarious thing.
They are easy to poke fun at, but apparently they work, because they are ubiquitous.
One can criticize the “touch the hem of his garment” nature of the rewards he, but it’s really just a sign that the RDF doesn’t have a lot else to offer.
And criticism of the lack of specificity in where the money is going and past projects that money has been spent on is of course completely fair game.
Among all of them “circles” I fully expected to see a “circle jerk”; quite the appropriate circle under the circumstances, I think.
@37 latveriandiplomat
Being unfamilair with such things i honestly find it utterly surreal…and given the context in which this is happening, with Dawkins having so many rabidly blind admirers that think the sun shines up his arse, i’m finding it very hard to see it as normal…but thanx for the perspective.
I guess this sort of crap is a tax on hero-worship. It’s a good reason not to have heroes.
This is sad. I enjoyed Dawkins’ books and public appearances (never attended them but saw some on video). I always thought he was honest, intelligent, and witty. Dawkins was not my hero but he sure was an example to me. He kind of lost it since “Dear Muslima”.
Marcus @36
And Sarkeesian only asked for a few thousand dollars. People were outraged at her for other people deciding to keep giving her money.
As anteprepro @19 and Improbable Joe @30 allude, Dawkins is a Thinky Thought Leader (Pat Pending) of the Secular Policy Institute (né Global Secular Council):
BTW, the Secular Policy Institute would also like your money.
For that sort of money to enter Dick Dawk’s Dungeon I’d expect giant dribbly candles to feature prominently in the decor.
Tabby@#42:
Exactly! And Sarkeesian is not a whole ‘foundation’ and she’s produced more useful content than the RDF has in its entire existence, in less time, and on a lower budget. That’s scandalous!!!! And, by “scandalous” I mean that RDF has accomplished so little.
(disclaimer: I do not fund RDF at all; I do fund FeministFrequency)
Well, let’s find out. I’ll be doing a panel at the CFI Reason for Change Conference in June, where Dawkins is the headliner. Maybe I’ll just try walking up and talking to him, assuming he shows up for more of the conference than just his talk. :-)
Perhaps with the title “Richard Dawkins Foundation” they mean it in the structural sense.
or underwear
An observation: this kind of thing is exactly what Paul Elam does over at AVfM: solicits money purportedly for the purpose of activism, without doing or describing any actual activism. In Elam’s case, it’s obvious that the money just goes to line his pockets. It would not surprise me if the same is true in an analogous sense for the money going towards the RDF.
Andrew Brown:
There are plenty of people who are motivated to follow the RDF website and screenshot or webarchive anything suspicious. But there are no screenshots or webarchives of such super duper circles – just a few people making fun of the absurdity of the prices of the circles which do exist. Popular websites that try to scrub unflattering crap get caught that way all the time – why would the RDF be special?
Really, $10k a year is bad enough – anyone who can afford that is quite privileged, and it’s a yet another indicator of Dawkins keeping himself in a bubble as much as possible. And they don’t seem to be spending their money efficiently, or accomplishing much of anything, other than making atheists look like a bunch of jerks.
There’s no need to repeat what appears to be yet another exaggeration by the unreliable “Andrew Brown” in order to convince people not to waste their money on the RDF.
Sili #31 wrote:
Neither did I, and I don’t think there’s ever been a TAM before where he didn’t speak. Make of that what you will.
PZ #28 wrote:
Weak at socializing compared to James Randi? That would include most people, let alone academics. The Amazing One is a professional entertainer and sets a high bar. As for Dawkins, he’s usually surrounded by a small crowd, iirc… when he’s there.
As I said to Ophelia:
I thought only the Church sold Indulgences.
Jebus, if I could ever make it to a conference, I would rather sit with normal folks than those whose nose is up in the air and require payment to condescend to notice you. Even if I don’t say anything, I’m sure the conversation would be more stimulating.
True, But, as far as I can remember, he’s been a speaker at every other TAM.
The levels of commitment are now different from any crowd funding set up. “if you commit $2 you get our thanks, $50 you are a Cadet and get the six steak knives, $1,000 you are a Dark Robed Patron and learn the secret handshake (plus the six steak knives).
I’m pretty sure that’s their model and not hermetic order emulation.
I agree that what is missing is what does RDF do? Back when we had the Josh T meltdown the RDF was paying for JT’s home rennos as I recall. The web site tells you nothing and 50% of the posts are just mirrors of The Friendly Atheist’s stuff.
Dan Dennett and Dan Barker do much better with the Clergy Project. I don’t think RDF is involved with that.
And if we are listing groups that are worth chucking money at don’t forget FFRF.org
Oh, I don’t expect them to have disassociated themselves from him (whoever’s running the show these days). But as Sastra says, he’s usually a headliner to draw in the rubes.
DanDare @ 55,
Hey! Don’t mock the steak knives!
Sili #69
pooh
I don’t need no stinkin’ steak knives, I have a Swiss Army Knife (Camper)
Bring it!
I’m ready.
Prayer?
Seriously, I have no issue with fundraising as such and also not with different levels of rewards. But this is ridiculous. The sums are ridiculous. 85 bucks a month for the lowest level? This shows that either nobody at the RDF has a clue about how much ordinary people earn and can spend on such things or they are simply telling everybody who is not at least solid middle class: fuck you, we’re not for you.
But the biggest issue is, of course, accountability.
I have done lots of fundraising. I have sold “rewards” (usually they were more symbolic than real). Whenever I did, I told people what their contribution was for. Fundraising for specific projects is always much easier than fundraising for “general activism” (and yeah, you need money to pay for the basic operation of an organisation). When you do so, it’s good to have some good documentation of what you’re doing. Not just what your goals are because money->magic->mission accomplished doesn’t work.
Presumably the highest levels are gone from the website because the total uptake was a big fat zero. As for them not being on archive.org, that could be because the archiving is sporadic and will often miss briefly displayed content. Of course it could also be due to Andrew Brown getting information from his usual source.
Meh.
The RDF should of course show full disclosure, but if ol’ Dawky was pilfering funds to buy himself a golden toilet I’m sure that one of his many enemies would have dug that up by now. I also don’t have a problem with Dawkins soaking some rich folks if it helps the secular cause, provided those funds are spent in a sensible manner.
Despite being 39 and not having touched my guitar in over 5 years, I still have punk rock ethics drilled into me, cause all I can think is “Shit, I felt bad when my friends had to pay 5 bucks to see my band play, I can’t imagine charging anyone to talk to me.”