Dawkins on paranormal

[MRT]

'Slaves to Superstition' Channel 4, 20.00 on 13 & 20 August - just in case anyone didn't know...

[Dr B]

Cheers maurice

I did not know - but will now be watching out for it.

With Dawkins the message is vital - though the messenger can be over-emotional about the subject matter (though that does not make him wrong of course) from time to time.

A must watch I would say.

[median]

I've got that listed as the program 'The Enemies of Reason'. I presume that it the one?
Thank God (no pun intended) something on terrestrial for once

[Zaira]

I don't watch TV guys so fill me in on your views of this. My mum was a slave to superstition... no hats on the bed, no shoes on the table, salt over the shoulder, knock on wood the lot...

[Garth]

Thanks - marked in diary.

If anyone's interested, the Root of all evil (2 Dawkins documentaries)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F

can be found on Google video-

1. The God Delusion.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...245697942053&q

2. The Virus of faith.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...22903232438954

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Dawkins was on Richard Judy on Friday night!

Came across quite well, although Judy was being an idiot, but Richard seemed relatively skeptic-like.

[Allo Allo]

In one of his posts Dr B said “I think the important point to keep in mind here (about skeptics) is that skepticism is not a belief system as many people think - as it does not force any particular opinion or view onto the individual - it is merely a tool.”

As one who is still learning, it seems to me that skeptics, Randi, Shermer and others of the same ilk DO have a belief system which is almost canon so that it is possible to hear repeated the litany of THAT kind of Skeptic preaching it. They are forcing their opinion and if you listen to them speaking you can recognise phrases that they have picked up from each other. So, it might be true, in theory, to say skepticism is not a belief system and it certainly sounds balanced, alluring even, but in practice, to an outsider, it does not appear so. I find it unattractive and I would be embarrassed to be thought of as that kind of skeptic.

But as an atheist, I would be more embarrassed to think people might put me into the Dawkins category of atheist. I found this article below expressed much of what I feel. I sort of cringe to listen to him sometimes. Dawkins has a kind of messianic fervour that makes me uncomfortable and reminds me of Icke.

I am a Dawkins fan in every way EXCEPT when he is being an atheist missionary….


This is an interesting article even if you don't agree - "Dawkins's declared interest in making atheism more publicly acceptable - exemplified by the sale of 'A for atheism' T-shirts on his website - demonstrates that this phenomenon is not simply about philosophical debates concerning the existence of God. The sheer ferocity of many of the atheist critiques of religion also suggests that we are not in the territory of reasoned debate, but witnessing the birth pangs of a new, anti-religious cultural identity.


We are now seeing a concerted effort being made to validate an atheist cultural identity through media and consumer products, just as evangelicals have already used these resources to consolidate their form of Christian identity in the modern world."

[Mojo]

Charlie Brooker previewed it yesterday.

[Admin]

I remember chatting to someone from the production company (rather nice sounding Scottish woman) last year when this was in the planning stage.

They were looking to do something a little different to the usual debunking type programme as they've been done before and they don't really have much of an impact.

My suggestion was that rather than simply tackle head on the old favourites of homeopathy, faith healing, etc., that they give a brief explanation of why these things don't work and then look at the psychology behind why people do believe these things.

Then, from a new informed position, people can then make their own minds up as to whether they're getting value for money from things like homeopathy.

I think that, at least, it would give a new slant to this type of programme. I don't think it's enough to say certain things don't work or aren't real and then just look at people who believe these things with incredulity (which is often the stance of such programmes). It would be far better to explain how and why people fall for such things.

It will be interesting to see how they tackle it and I hope they've managed to come up with a new angle to tackle these issues from.

[Admin]

As one who is still learning, it seems to me that skeptics, Randi, Shermer and others of the same ilk DO have a belief system which is almost canon so that it is possible to hear repeated the litany of THAT kind of Skeptic preaching it. They are forcing their opinion and if you listen to them speaking you can recognise phrases that they have picked up from each other. So, it might be true, in theory, to say skepticism is not a belief system and it certainly sounds balanced, alluring even, but in practice, to an outsider, it does not appear so. I find it unattractive and I would be embarrassed to be thought of as that kind of skeptic.

I know what you're saying and I've come across similar arguments before. Now I won't say that some skeptics aren't overly enthusiastic even to the point of looking like evangelists but let me put a case for the defence:

Skepticism is a method.

Skepticism is a method that's pretty much the same as the scientific method. So, if an answer can be found to an issue it is the scientific method that is used to hone in on the truth. The scientist who uses the method is largely irrelevant as any other scientists who uses the same (tried and tested) method will come to the same answer.

So if skeptics look at an issue they will all come to pretty much the same conclusion on the issue. So yes, this looks like there's a consensus opinion on many topics (á la belief system) but the crucial difference is that skepticism and skeptics rely on evidence to support their conclusions; and if evidence is available, it should lead to the same conclusion.

Skeptics argue from an a posteriori position.

There's a short piece here on what this means: Skeptics are disbelievers.

Skepticism is all about examining issues and forming justified conclusions. What happens, however, is that a skeptic will argue from the position of already having examined the issue in detail but an opponent doesn't always realise this. There's an illusion created when a skeptic opposes an issue as they only seem to be coming from one angle. It can look like the skeptic is a dogmatic disbeliever but the truth is (or should be!!) that the skeptic has looked at both sides of the issue but is only arguing from the point of their a posteriori conclusion.

And, of course, let's not forget that skeptics are human!! (yes, they are ) and no-one's perfect. Some skeptics make me cringe with their arguments and style. It's the method that's really the important thing though - not how people present themselves.

And...

I'd be embarrassed to be described as a non-skeptic. I would not like to think that people thought that I use things like intuition, gut feelings, or mystical and magical ideas to form conclusions on important issues.

[Allo Allo]

Charlie Brooker previewed it yesterday.

This is a seriously “bad” piece! I hope most people reading it will have the savvy to know that.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Dawkins has managed to get himself taken off this cove's Christmas card list:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/revie...146775,00.html

Don't bother trying to count the fallacies, unless you positively enjoy drawing five-bar gates!

[Admin]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/revie...146775,00.html

Wow! A fallacy fest.

Also, I missed the bit where he explains how astrology works. I wonder why he didn't tackle the actual issue?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Wow! A fallacy fest.

Also, I missed the bit where he explains how astrology works. I wonder why he didn't tackle the actual issue?

Right you are, John!

On a side-issue: I notice that Spencer takes a swipe ( well, more a fresh-air shot) at scientism. A generation ago, this word was used by those who respect science to mark foolish attempts to ape the methods of science: computer-generated horoscopes, meaningless equations, the rise of the laboratory coat as a fashion accessory in the snake-oil trade...
Nowadays the word seems to have been snaffled by its erstwhile targets as a catchall term of abuse for the habit of testing assertions against evidence. What happened?

[Allo Allo]

I know what you're saying and I've come across similar arguments before. Now I won't say that some skeptics aren't overly enthusiastic even to the point of looking like evangelists but let me put a case for the defence:
Skepticism is a method.
Skeptics argue from an a posteriori position.
And, of course, let's not forget that skeptics are human!! (yes, they are ) and no-one's perfect. Some skeptics make me cringe with their arguments and style. It's the method that's really the important thing though - not how people present themselves.
And...
I'd be embarrassed to be described as a non-skeptic. I would not like to think that people thought that I use things like intuition, gut feelings, or mystical and magical ideas to form conclusions on important issues.

All you have said is true. Nice reply.

The problem as I see it is that people DO have mystical experiences and DO use intuition and DO flollow gut feelings and DO have an "inner" life, CAN achieve states of altered awareness, CAN be uplifted, inspired, renewed, etc etc because our brains have that capacty. Some people have that capacity more than others.

Science can tell us how it happens - but until it acknowleges this "spiritual" (hate to use that word but can't think of another) aspect of the human animal, those who are sensitive will continue exploring esoteric, mystical or religious ideas, because science, for them, is a wasteland. People who have had genuine and profound mystical experiences simply "know" that science has lost the plot anyway.

Quite a few scientists seem to end up being Zen Buddists. It seems to be one of the more accepted forms of spirituality.

You know I am against commercial new age - it makes me more uncomfortable than the radical skeptics and radical athiests combined! So I do hope the Dawkins programs will do as you suggested. I shall be interested to watch the programme.