The Enemies of Reason

[mada88]

Did anyone watch the enemies of reason just now presented by Richard Dawkins? If so what did you think?

[hagbard_celine]

I'll have to see that one because I've watched all Dawkins' other stuff.

I disagree with his views on God, but he's right when he talks about religious indoctrination.

[mada88]

Heres the website of the show http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/E/enemies_of_reason/index.html I'm sure that the show will be on the internet soon. During the last part of the first show he was talking about "paranoid conspiracy theories" and I'm sure I saw a picture of David flash up lol.
It would be cool if someone could reasearch Mr Dawkins and put there findings up.

[hagbard_celine]

It's on Googlevid:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5636384407718655465&q=richard+dawkins+enemies+of+reason&total=17&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

Dawkins has lost it!:mad:

Does he really think that the horoscope column in a newspaper is all there is to astrology!? He hasn't got a clue about Spiritualism either! Anyone can pop along to one service and reckon that they've got the medium sussed as a conman. how about when you attend regularly? It's very different picture then! It gets to me that he sees science as more than just a way to see the world. for him it's the only way! That sounds to me like the doorstep to tyranny.

I knew Chris French would be in it. Do you want to bet that Susan Blackmore will be in next week's? I'm offering 4-1 on James Randi! How do you explain the certainty of spiritual awareness to people like them?

I always post something about Alister Mcgrath whenever I discuss old Dawky:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626&q=alister+mcgr ath&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plind ex=0

McGrath has challenged Dawky to face him in the Oxford Union, but so far dawky has declined.:cool:

[adamadam]

I'm no fan of Richard Dawkins. I don't know much about him except that his wife suffers from chronic depression.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZiNWFhZGEzMzg5YjA4OTgyNzlkNzk1YjliOWNjOTc=

Dawkins, however, appears to be utterly indifferent to the spiritual and emotional difficulties that his writings cause for many of his readers. He mentions one reader for whom The Selfish Gene initiated a “personal crisis.” Its apparent debunking of any higher purpose in nature caused this person “a series of bouts of depression” lasting over a decade. In another case, a teacher wrote to reprimand Dawkins for his book’s effect on a young student who was driven to tears after concluding that The Selfish Gene teaches that life is “empty and purposeless.”

[lydia78]

Matt Ridley's, 'Origins of Virtue' book, puts the selfish gene right into context, by explaining the paradox of the selfish gene which relies on cooperative chromosones for its survival, he explores that cooperation and 'helpful' genes are in fact keeping the selfish gene alive and overide it's selfishness lol!! Great book would recommend it to anyone!!

[hagbard_celine]

I'm worried that dawkins is suffering from Certainty Disease. It's a nasty affliction!

I'm not really bothered by Dawkins' views, I'm concerned at his level of certanity. He is abolutely convinced that his way is The Right Way and no others. He continualy uses the words "truth" and "nonsense" in the programme.

It's dangerous to think like that because it leads you into the temptation of going as far as to say: "Well, I'm so sure I'm right and that poeple who disagree with me are wrong that maybe they shouldn't be allowed to disagree with me. I want to pass laws banning paranormal and spiritual belief and force everyone to be a Skeptic." It's scarey how easy it is to slip into that mindset. Watch this; it lights up the issue very well: http://tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/5043

[hagbard_celine]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047&q=richard+dawkins+enemies+of+reason&total=20&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

In this second part, Dawkins puts alternative healthcare under the Skeptical eye. This reminds me of the debate I had on the James Randi forum about the banning of psychics in Philadelphia. Alternative health practitioners will claim that their methods have been scientifically tested, Skeptics will say they haven’t been. It’s up to the public to educate themselves; hear both sides of the story and make up their own minds. But any attempt to take that choice away from the consumer creates a dictatorship, and science becomes just another religion. Dawkins laments about how the NHS is funding homeopathic medicine, but why is this wrong? It would be wrong if Skeptics were the only ones who paid tax, but they don’t. Woo’s like me also do and to try to force the exchequer to fund things only Skeptics approve of would be undemocratic; again, making Skepticism itself no better than a religious cult. I personally use a Spiritualist hands-on healer who has cured me of backache, predicted a future back problem, and cured me of aching hips, toothache and anxiety. Skeptics will say that this doesn’t constitute a scientific test and they’d be correct, but the fact is I walked in ill and came out healed. As long as it keeps working, I’m going to keep using it… And (this bit is really going to piss off the Skeptics) the treatment is free.

I think old Dawky really needs to look into the discoveries of Maseru Emoto before dismissing homeopathy altogether.

Dawkins position of the binary choice between reason and superstition is not a universal absolute, it is strictly cultural. It is only in the West that we’ve developed this obsession with the material. EG: In Western culture there’s a clear distinction between an astrologer and an astronomer. Some might even call them opposites and claim that you can be only one or the other, but not both. However in many cultures, like ancient Egypt, there is no such distinction. The Egyptians actually have a single word in their language that translates as both “astronomer” and “astrologer”. For them there is no cultural necessity to distinguish between and separate mystical beliefs with exact scientific knowledge. In fact a modern Westerner would have a difficult time trying to explain the difference between astrologers and astronomers to an Egytian. Was ancient Egypt in any way backward or atrophied because they didn’t adopt the rational-purist view of Dawkins’ ideal? Of course not! They were one of the most advanced and rich cultures ever seen. They lead the world in all the attributes we recognize as the fruits of civilization. If they’d survived long enough they may well have invented all the wonderful things modern science has given us that Dawkins repeatedly emphasizes. They could have done it without abandoning their non-material worldview too

[seanx]

In this second part, Dawkins puts alternative healthcare under the Skeptical eye. This reminds me of the debate I had on the James Randi forum about the banning of psychics in Philadelphia. Alternative health practitioners will claim that their methods have been scientifically tested, Skeptics will say they haven’t been. It’s up to the public to educate themselves; hear both sides of the story and make up their own minds. But any attempt to take that choice away from the consumer creates a dictatorship, and science becomes just another religion. Dawkins laments about how the NHS is funding homeopathic medicine, but why is this wrong? It would be wrong if Skeptics were the only ones who paid tax, but they don’t. Woo’s like me also do and to try to force the exchequer to fund things only Skeptics approve of would be undemocratic; again, making Skepticism itself no better than a religious cult. I personally use a Spiritualist hands-on healer who has cured me of backache, predicted a future back problem, and cured me of aching hips, toothache and anxiety. Skeptics will say that this doesn’t constitute a scientific test and they’d be correct, but the fact is I walked in ill and came out healed. As long as it keeps working, I’m going to keep using it… And (this bit is really going to piss off the Skeptics) the treatment is free.

I think old Dawky really needs to look into the discoveries of Maseru Emoto before dismissing homeopathy altogether.

Dawkins position of the binary choice between reason and superstition is not a universal absolute, it is strictly cultural. It is only in the West that we’ve developed this obsession with the material. EG: In Western culture there’s a clear distinction between an astrologer and an astronomer. Some might even call them opposites and claim that you can be only one or the other, but not both. However in many cultures, like ancient Egypt, there is no such distinction. The Egyptians actually have a single word in their language that translates as both “astronomer” and “astrologer”. For them there is no cultural necessity to distinguish between and separate mystical beliefs with exact scientific knowledge. In fact a modern Westerner would have a difficult time trying to explain the difference between astrologers and astronomers to an Egytian. Was ancient Egypt in any way backward or atrophied because they didn’t adopt the rational-purist view of Dawkins’ ideal? Of course not! They were one of the most advanced and rich cultures ever seen. They lead the world in all the attributes we recognize as the fruits of civilization. If they’d survived long enough they may well have invented all the wonderful things modern science has given us that Dawkins repeatedly emphasizes. They could have done it without abandoning their non-material worldview too
__________________

Great post, hagbard_celine

Also, I saw a documentary recently on the Eron scandal ..
and guess what?

The main man behind the scandal of Eron - his name escapes
me right now credits one book with changing his life - and his
VIEW of how to conduct business - Dawkin's book The selfish
Gene!

It's probably impossible to calculate the damage Dawkin's 'negative,
life is meaningless' books have on people.

[hagbard_celine]

Great post, hagbard_celine

Also, I saw a documentary recently on the Eron scandal ..
and guess what?

The main man behind the scandal of Eron - his name escapes
me right now credits one book with changing his life - and his
VIEW of how to conduct business - Dawkin's book The selfish
Gene!

It's probably impossible to calculate the damage Dawkin's 'negative,
life is meaningless' books have on people.

Cheers, Sean. :)

To be fair to Dawkins, I don't think he's a "law of the jungle, every man for himself" guy, although no doubt the Enron fraudsters could have interpreted him as one. Dawkins supports Darwinian evolution, but there's a great difference between that and social hyperDarwinism. If anything, Dawkin's views are very anti-hyperDarwinist. In a Horizon episode from a long time ago (which was on google video, but has now been taken down) called "Nice Guys Finish first" he explains how kindness and caring make good evolutionary sense.

Most politicians are influenced by hyperDarwinism and many are obsessed by it. The theory for it though come mostly from John Nash and his social modelling games. See here: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8372545413887273321&q=the+trap&total=7710&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[adamadam]

Hagbard,

That was indeed a good post!

I'm in agreement with sean about Dawkins having a widespread negative effect. Though I'm sure if you invited him to dinner he'd be graceful socially and appear to be pleasant.

[hagbard_celine]

Hagbard,

That was indeed a good post!

I'm in agreement with sean about Dawkins having a widespread negative effect. Though I'm sure if you invited him to dinner he'd be graceful socially and appear to be pleasant.


He is apparently. He also seems to form close working relationships with people would think he'd never touch with a barge pole. Here he is bonding with Reverend Richard Harries, the bishop of Oxford: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2367986806557811071&q=richard+dawkins&total=1366&start=30&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7 I think this is because Harries is the leader of a very tolerant and liberal faction of the Church; he voted for women priests and refuses to discrinimate against homosexuals. Dawkins is clearly enraptured to meet a Christian who's not as bad as he thinks Christians all are!