Dawkins trashes sCAM

[Blue Wode]

Just a heads up on the forthcoming 2-part Channel 4 documentary ‘The Enemies of Reason’ presented by Richard Dawkins. It’s scheduled to be broadcast on Monday, 13th August, and Monday, 20th August:

http://richarddawkins.net/event,173,Channel-Four

Good preview here:

New age therapies cause ‘retreat from reason’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/05/newage105.xml

[Physiotherapist]

Might be an interesting programme to watch, but I have to say that I really can't stand the guy. Every time I have seen or heard him speak, he comes across as being so bloody arrogant, it is unbelievable!!

[Zep]

I think we should be his henchmen! ;)

[Blue Wode]

I have to say that I really can't stand the guy. Every time I have seen or heard him speak, he comes across as being so bloody arrogant, it is unbelievable!!


Maybe it would be better for you to limit yourself to reading what he has to say. You can find another good preview here:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2198063.ece

Snippet –

As Dawkins says: "There might be bad scientists, but that does not mean the methodology of science is bad." For him the acid test is forever and always: "Test it!" This is a principle totally lacking, he charges, at the Royal London Homeopathic hospital, recently refurbished to the tune of £20m, including £10m from the cash-strapped NHS, and with a plaque certifying the endorsement of the Prince of Wales. (His title for episode two of The Enemies of Reason is The Irrational Health Service.)

[Safe-Keeper]

I have to say that I really can't stand the guy. Every time I have seen or heard him speak, he comes across as being so bloody arrogant, it is unbelievable!! He's not exactly polite and warm and tactful, no. His rudeness is a bit too much for me, too, sometimes. I still really like the guy, though.

Edit: He's 66 years old. Wow. I had no idea.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Might be an interesting programme to watch, but I have to say that I really can't stand the guy. Every time I have seen or heard him speak, he comes across as being so bloody arrogant, it is unbelievable!!
Overlook his personality and watch the program anyway.

Just a suggestion.

~~ Paul

[Big Les]

I'm nor sure that he's ever really rude. Depends on how justified you feel his confrontational approach is. There's still a lot of residual "don't talk about religion and politics" taboo faux-politeness in British society, he just ignores that. Rightly so in my opinion, "no free ride" and all that.

There's another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89238) about this (started later than this one).

[T'ai Chi]

Rather it is Dawkins who should tone it down so as to get his message across more effectively. Heck, even Tyson told him this face to face fairly recently.

[JoeEllison]

I always get the feeling that there's a personality defect in people who dismiss Dawkins because of his personality. I wonder why that is?

[Graham Jackman]

Rather it is Dawkins who should tone it down so as to get his message across more effectively. Heck, even Tyson told him this face to face fairly recently.

Unfortunately, he has realised that putting the point politely has little effect on the committed. I suspect, that the forceful approach has not much more effect but it might get more attention. Atheists and agnostics don't have popes, bishops etc and the message is hardly likely to fill a church on Sundays, so the public profile is less. At least Dawkins' arguments are for enlightenment and not for crusades or the persecution of those with different opinions. It's always seemed curious that religion is such a taboo topic and that people are reluctant to criticise, maybe because such criticism causes you to see the weakness of your own beliefs. If pushed, I'm happy to discuss religion's weaknesses but otherwise I can find more profitable uses of my time.

[Beady]

It's been my experience that it's far easier to persuade friends, or at least those who are not hostile toward you, that you might have a point than it is enemies. Seems counterproductive to use language calculated to raise resentment and hostility, which is exactly Dawkins' style.

Actually, that's my whole problem with the "skeptical movement." There's far too much "You're deluded, I'm not, and I'm going to save you from yourself." The way I see it, that is how the Sylvia Browne's of the world manage to do so well in the face of rationality; it's their "bedside manner" and feigned sympathy.

It might help skepticism if skeptics were just a little more understanding and accepting of human needs and human failings. The brain may be a supercomputer, but no computer can be reprogrammed with a hammer.

[JoeEllison]

The brain may be a supercomputer, but no computer can be reprogrammed with a hammer.
The problem, as I see it, is that if, as you say, a computer cannot be "reprogrammed with a hammer"... how much more effective will a gentle brushing with a feather be? A hammer will at least have some effect... and might force the owner to replace a couple of defective parts(to stretch the metaphor about as far as it will go)

[Jekyll]

Rather it is Dawkins who should tone it down so as to get his message across more effectively. Heck, even Tyson told him this face to face fairly recently.

Awesome response from Dawkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

[Physiotherapist]

I always get the feeling that there's a personality defect in people who dismiss Dawkins because of his personality. I wonder why that is?

I don't actually think that this is a very helpful thing to say. I have not dismissed Dawkins and have read quite a few of his books. I have not dismissed him on personality grounds either. All I said was that I can't really stand the way in which he appears rude and arrogant when trying to put his point across during the course of interviews and lectures. This kind of behaviour is a good way to allienate people.

As for personality defects - everyone has them and nobody is perfect including you Joe!!

[Beady]

The problem, as I see it, is that if, as you say, a computer cannot be "reprogrammed with a hammer"... how much more effective will a gentle brushing with a feather be? A hammer will at least have some effect... and might force the owner to replace a couple of defective parts(to stretch the metaphor about as far as it will go)

That's my point: You have to use the right tool for the job, and neither a hammer nor a feather are the right tools.

A hammer will have an effect, all right, but the odds of it having the desired effect are vanishingly small.

[Big Les]

It certainly can provide an excuse for both unintentionally and wilfully ignorant people to dismiss the argument. "He's shrill!" "He's just plain mean!" etc. Shouldn't detract from the truth of what he's saying, and you can argue that the short sharp shock might make a stronger long-term impact on a given person than a softly-softly approach that might not even make it through the shield of woo.

In other words what people say in response to a strong criticism is not necessarily what they go away thinking, or come around to thinking on their own later on. I know I've often responded defensively to being called on something I was wrong about, but after I'd cooled down realised I was wrong, regardless of how stridently I'd been pulled up on it. As long as it's not outright offensive, I think it can be an effective method for all but the most entrenched.

[Beady]

Shouldn't detract from the truth of what he's saying, and you can argue that the short sharp shock might make a stronger long-term impact on a given person than a softly-softly approach that might not even make it through the shield of woo.

Odds are, though, that the first impression will be the most lasting. It certainly seems to have been the case, so far, and your argument to the contrary doesn't appear valid.

Otherwise, this particular conversation wouldn't be taking place and you wouldn't find it necessary to make the assertion.

[Ginarley]

I personally think the only reason people think Dawkins is "rude" or "arrogant" is that he is an assertive public figure in an area which we have a historical tradition of not speaking up against. As Dawkins himself has said several times, his approach and language would seem rather unremarkable in a political or sporting arena.

I very much look forward to this documentary, it will be very interesting to see what he brings to these issues.

[Rolfe]

I have to say, when I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was, oh no, I wish he wouldn't.

You don't get more anti-SCAM than me, but I feel we could do without the support of someone who is so good at alienating people. Sigh.

Rolfe.

[Big Les]

Odds are, though, that the first impression will be the most lasting. It certainly seems to have been the case, so far, and your argument to the contrary doesn't appear valid.

Otherwise, this particular conversation wouldn't be taking place and you wouldn't find it necessary to make the assertion.

That's a little circular, don't you think? Aside from the vocal (woo-championing) minority who cry foul at what he says, where's the evidence that he has either no effect, or a detrimental effect vis scepticism or atheism? Just because you say it and feel that way yourself, doesn't make it true. This is what I mean when I say it's tough to quantify. On the one hand, some sensitive fence-sitters or mild woos might be turned away, but on the other, many less invested or thicker-skinned types might actually have their eyes opened.

What about all the people who really hadn't thought about religion (or scepticism) enough to be invested either way until they heard about Dawkins? How many of those have been led down the path Dawkins intends?

Also, we (and the woos, and the press) tend to highlight his more controversial stuff. What about the rest of his positive contributions? I suppose you could argue that he's "jumped the shark" in that respect and focusses too much on the aggressive debunking of religion. I don't agree.

[fls]

I will readily concede the idea that sensitivity and avoidance of alienation is useful for garden-variety persuasion. But do we really know whether or not sensitivity simply allows someone to remain complacent about their beliefs when it comes to persuading someone to make a major alteration?

Linda

[Physiotherapist]

There are ways and ways of getting a valid point across though. Assertiveness without rudeness is one and laying out scientific evidence in an understandable way that allows people to become interested and think. If people are allowed to think for themselves, sometimes the 'penny drops'. I know this is not the case with all, but definitely some.

The problem is that the more people are alienated, the more they are not interested in listening, so the message then falls on deaf ears. It is my feeling that Dawkins has a rather unfortunate manner in this respect - many might feel patronised and if people feel patronised, there is a good chance they will not listen. It is like that old addage "If you want your opinion, then I'll give it to you" and not many people like that!!!

[Complexity]

I don't want Dawkins to change a thing.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think that Dawkins chap could learn a lot from me about the art of persuasion.

[Lonewulf]

The problem is that the more people are alienated, the more they are not interested in listening, so the message then falls on deaf ears.
Which is why his book is a bestseller, right?

If you think that his speech is bad, then the greatest way to combat it is better speech. The thing is, it's not his speech that you disagree with; it's him talking bad about religion.

What he says is true. His points are meaningful. He tears apart religion.

But everyone ignores that. They always will.

Why is it that whenever people bring up Dawkins about anything, everyone has to go and whine and whine and whine about how rude he is? Seriously. Get a life, people. The message is out there. You don't like Dawkins' message. Guess what? We know already! That message is broadcasted in every frikkin' thread on this forum. Get over it already; you don't like his message, we get it, please move on.

He's going to appear on a program. That's great. That's what the thread was about. If you don't want to watch, then please don't.

Sheesh.

[Complexity]

I lost all interest in trying to persuade others many years ago.

It isn't my responsibility.

Education is an active and solitary endeavor.

It has little to do with the baby-sitting, hand-holding mess that we call 'school'.

Dawkins puts out a well-founded view of reality as he understands it. That is enough, and it is a great gift.

Anyone who truly wishes to learn will take that as a starting point and educate himself / herself.

Anyone who cries, "Persuade me.", is lazy, is not interested in learning, and is asking to be entertained.

[Physiotherapist]

If you think that his speech is bad, then the greatest way to combat it is better speech. The thing is, it's not his speech that you disagree with; it's him talking bad about religion.


How dare you pressume to tell me or assume that you know what it is about Dawkins that I disagree with.

You have made a massive assumption here and you are in fact, completely wrong. It is not his talking about religion that I disagree with in the slightest.

I myself am not religious and do not belong to any kind of organised religion and I am in agreement with a lot of what Dawkins has written about religion.

Now Lonewulf, sheesh!! How about you go and get over yourself heh!!!!!

[Gurdur]

Which is why his book is a bestseller, right?
Crappy argument. The Bible outsells Dawkins. You really want to go down that road? What are the sales figures overall for Mein Kampf?

[Big Les]

Good argument. Both the bible and Mein Kampf have had a significant effect that's related to their consistently high sales. A similar high volume of sales for Dawkin's output suggests that there is strong interest in what Dawkins has to say. How the readers feel about what he writes and what they take away intellectually are harder to establish of course (as both unbelievers and non-Nazis buy the two books you refer to). Depends how you define an "effect", which Beady still hasn't done.

Besides, all of this is, as Lonewulf pointed out, off-topic.

[Lonewulf]

How dare you pressume to tell me or assume that you know what it is about Dawkins that I disagree with.
Yeah yeah. I'm sure that if he said the exact same things about any other subject, you'd still hold the same opinion.

I rather doubt it, though.

But you're right, it was rather presumptous of me. I'm just tired of all the whining. The first thing people respond with is, "WAH! Dawkins is rude!" in a thread about him making a new program. Seriously.

I see it in every single thread. We get the picture. Seriously. You don't like how Dawkin says what he says. That's what anyone talks about. You'd think that he had no actual *content*, because no one ever talks about it!

It's rather tiring.

Crappy argument.
On it's own merits, yes. But it's not the only argument.

The Bible outsells Dawkins.
The Bible's had thousands of years to spread. Dawkin's book was best-selling within the few few years it went out the door. That's a crappy counter-argument.

You really want to go down that road? What are the sales figures overall for Mein Kampf?
That argument... fails. Really really fails. Seriously.

If you want to bring up the best-selling figures of Mein Kampf and then argue that Mein Kampf wasn't influential, go ahead and do so; I'll laugh in your face.

The fact is, Mein Kampf WAS influential, as was Hitler's speeches. Hitler was very influential.

It doesn't make him right.

The thing is, Dawkins is right. But the argument isn't whether he's right or wrong, but the claim that no one is listening because they dislike Dawkins' speech. Yet, here they are, lining to buy his books!

I guess people line up to buy books that they aren't listening to or something. :rolleyes:

[Beady]

That's a little circular, don't you think? Aside from the vocal (woo-championing) minority who cry foul at what he says, where's the evidence that he has either no effect, or a detrimental effect vis skepticism or atheism? Just because you say it and feel that way yourself, doesn't make it true.

Where's the evidence that he has a positive effect? It seems to me (and apparently to others who have posted here) rather self-evident that his style offends his allies; I see nothing unreasonable in extending that offense to his opponents or to those in the middle. As for circularity, why is it circular? That we're having this conversation at all is evidence of the controversy, since it also seems rather obvious that non-controversy does not have two or more sides.

This is what I mean when I say it's tough to quantify. On the one hand, some sensitive fence-sitters or mild woos might be turned away, but on the other, many less invested or thicker-skinned types might actually have their eyes opened.

I think your adjectives are misplaced. I would say that most people are woos and fence-sitters, and that your "many" with the thick skins is far outnumbered by the "some." Sensitivity is part of being human, and most humans are sensitive about their beliefs. Even at a 1:1 ratio, sensitive to non-sensitive believers, I have to ask just how many people are you willing to write off merely for a personal preference of style? Near as I can tell, Dawkins either doesn't consider the question at all, or considers those driven off as acceptable collateral damage.

An offensive style of argument will drive off the easily-offended. You appear to agree. I would suggest that a more sensitive argument will drive off neither the easily-offended nor the more reasonable.

BTW, I looked up religious affiliation in the 2000 United States census not long ago, and 87% of the population profess some sort of religion, whether organized or not. At roughly 250 million people, therefore, this means a split of 217,500,000 believers to 32,500,000 non-believers (you can quibble about the exact numbers, but they're good enough for back-of-the-envelope calculations). If 10% of those 217.5 million are "reasonable," and if, say, 90% (you said many, not all) of those reasonable people stay and listen, but no one else does, you have written off any chance of reaching 197,925,000 people for the sake of reaching, but not necessarily persuading, less than 219,000.

Bottom line, you have intentionally discarded, out of hand, 91% of your potential audience. Why would you do such a thing?

How many of those have been led down the path Dawkins intends?

How many have been driven off? I contend this number is vastly larger than you are willing to admit.

Also, we (and the woos, and the press) tend to highlight his more controversial stuff.

Well, that seems to include just about everyone. There's no one left.

What about the rest of his positive contributions?

As you seem to say, yourself, no one is listening. Dawkins has drowned himself out.


I don't agree.


How did you put it, above? "Just because you say it and feel that way yourself, doesn't make it true."

[Beady]

Which is why his book is a bestseller, right?

Irrelevent. The God Delusion is #71 on Amazon; Kevin Treudeau's The Weight Loss Cure They Don't Want You to Know About is #16. There are too many editions of the Bible to find a meaningful figure.

Do you really want to base your argument on sales figures?

[T'ai Chi]

Unfortunately, he has realised that putting the point politely has little effect on the committed. I suspect, that the forceful approach has not much more effect but it might get more attention.


It gets more attention the same way preaching to the choir does.

I suspect it turns off believers, and in fact widens the gulf between believers and non-believers though. Logically that has to be the case when someone tries to shove their beliefs down your throat.


At least Dawkins' arguments are for enlightenment and not for crusades or the persecution of those with different opinions.


If someone like Dawkins can show us how he, or people like him, are "englightened", I'm all for it. Until then, it just seems like he's called believers dumb, something which isn't too productive or convincing.

[Lonewulf]

Irrelevent. The God Delusion is #71 on Amazon; Kevin Treudeau's The Weight Loss Cure They Don't Want You to Know About is #16. There are too many editions of the Bible to find a meaningful figure.

Do you really want to base your argument on sales figures?

See above. I already pointed out how this was a stupid counterargument. I'm glad that someone is paying attention. As I said, if something is a bestseller, then it's influential and obviously lots of people are reading it. It doesn't matter if the book is right or not, merely that it is popular. If it is popular, then many people are reading it and being influenced by it. Get it now, Beady? Let me draw a diagram:

Lots of books.

Not many books.

Lots of books -- Lots of readers.

not many books -- Not many readers.

Shall I draw a picture? I can include a horsie!

It might behoove you to actually read what I was responding to when I made that post; because you are failing to actually refute anything I argued.

Unless you're actually going to argue that the Bible is not influential? If so: :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

You would make me laugh all day long.

Anyways...

Yes yes, Dawkins is terrible, Dawkins is the devil, OMG Dawkins says so many evil nasty dirty things.

I mean, THE GOD DELUSION! OMG!

Of course, if he called it The Astrology Delusion, that would be just fine, but the GOD delusion! OMG, he actually includes RELIGION!

:rolleyes:

Why don't you go and whine to someone who actually gives a ****, Beady? I really don't.

I'll go back to talking about the program. I wonder if they air it on German television.

[Beady]

Why don't you go and whine to someone who actually gives a ****, Beady? I really don't.

You spend an awful lot of writing on things you don't care about.

[Lonewulf]

If someone like Dawkins can show us how he, or people like him, are "englightened", I'm all for it. Until then, it just seems like he's called believers dumb, something which isn't too productive or convincing.

All of what you said there is obvious proof that you have yet to actually read or watch what Dawkins has said.

He's done a very good job of putting forth his argument in The God Delusion. But certain people seem to yet not be able to actually muster the strength to actually read his stuff.





Hmm, I'm really hoping that this program is on German TV... but I hope it's not in German. Sigh...

[Lonewulf]

You spend an awful lot of writing on things you don't care about.

And you spend an awful lot of time dragging someone through the mud while ignoring all that he has to say.

Anyways... back to the original topic. Go onto one of the other many Dawkins threads and continue to spout your gibberish, where they have been spouted again and again and again and again and again and again and again, as if you'll change everyone's minds THIS ONE TIME. I'm honestly very very tired of it.

[Big Les]

Sorry Beady, I think this is a mainly subjective thing. I like his approach, as do many others. If people are so willing to be offended to the point where it influences their world-view, that's their look-out, and I doubt you'd sway them with some sort of insincere, condescending approach either. Arguably Sagan was the best compromise, but how many people have even heard of him? Based on the God Delusion alone (and Sagan being dead and all), I would suggest that Dawkins has a far higher profile at least at present. He's spreading a worthwhile message, and I see nothing wrong with his methods.

I for one will look forward to Dawkin's TV programme.

[Ivor the Engineer]

The suffragettes offended quite a lot of people and successfully persuaded them their opinion was "right".

[Physiotherapist]

You spend an awful lot of writing on things you don't care about.


Wow! I couldn't agree more and Lonewulf, you walked straight in to that one!!

[qayak]

Rather it is Dawkins who should tone it down so as to get his message across more effectively. Heck, even Tyson told him this face to face fairly recently.

You assume Tyson is right. Likely he isn't. And if I recall correctly Dawkins had a reply that the audience quite liked.

[qayak]

It seems to me (and apparently to others who have posted here) rather self-evident that his style offends his allies; I see nothing unreasonable in extending that offense to his opponents or to those in the middle.

Can you explain to me how you make an argument that proves someone wrong without them realizing that you have just shown them to be wrong so they won't be embarassed or offended by the fact that they were wrong and you have just shown it?

Can you then go over all Dawkins' arguments and clean them up so they meet your standards of sanitized non-offendability and still have them remain clear, concise and beautiful to read?

Yeah, . . . well I doubt Dawkins can either. His style may not be perfect but he has gotten more people to speak out and stand up to religious backwardness than anyone else. And he is an equal opportunity offender. Whether your particular woo is religion, homeopathy, dowsing, . . . he will be just as clear, concise.

The fact that religious people are offended, apologists disgusted and weakkneed allies embarassed by his bluntness means he is on the right track.

Some people got it with Feynman, some with Sagan, some with Hawking, some with Hitchens, some with Shermer, and some get it with Dawkins. Whining isn't helping your cause, try reading someone else.

[newlyfound]

Dawkins is the most gentle, sensible, honest, and down to earth guy in the face of the planet. As a scientist, as a responsible citizen, it is his duty to share with the rest of us what he knows about this and that. If some can't deal with the truth, then they can always go back to their holy books and stick with them. He is not forcing anything on anybody, he is just sharing, and rather extremely generously, what he knows with the world. He has the right to get pissed off at the fat greedy clergymen since 90 % of them are very dishonest, cunning and exploitative. The guy is pissed and that's very understandable, but he is in no way rude whatsoever.

[newlyfound]

His brutal honesty should be embraced not attacked and mis-interpreted since it, for a change, serves to balance out the prevailing phonyness and hypocrity that religion has been working to spread and promote for millennias.

[luchog]

I see it in every single thread. We get the picture. Seriously. You don't like how Dawkin says what he says. That's what anyone talks about. You'd think that he had no actual *content*, because no one ever talks about it!

The clue is right there in front of your face, but you keep refusing to see it.

There's a reason that people talk about his delivery, rather than his content. Content is irrelevant if your delivery alienates the people you seek to convince. I am not convinced, myself, that Dawkins really cares if people believe him or not. If he did, he wouldn't be as dismissive and demogogic.

The fact is, Mein Kampf WAS influential, as was Hitler's speeches. Hitler was very influential.

It doesn't make him right.

Again, the clue just keeps coming at you, and you keep dodging it. Whether one is right or not is almost entirely irrelevant when it comes to human behaviour and human nature. People will believe anything, even something they know to be untrue, simply because they want it to be true, because they're afraid it might be true, or because they have been raised to believe it to be true -- tradition is a powerful force.

To convince someone of something, truth or falsehood is irrelevant. It is extremely difficult to change how people think. Doing so requires charisma, something which Dawkins lacks. It requires understanding why people think what they do, and finding common ground upon which to start. Human nature has it's own form of inertia. One cannot overcome that inertia by getting in front of it and pushing. There's a huge weight of not only personal inertia, but the inertia of years, decades, even centuries of tradition behind it.

To claim that such people are stupid, and that any tactic besides a sledgehammer-like bludgeoning is wrong, is itself a quasi-religious dogmatism. The fact is that it's much easier to turn a great mass by gently applying force tangentially, causing it slowly swing around in a circle, and back toward the direction you want it to go; than it is to try and forcibly stop it's progress, and force it back in another direction. More often, you'll simply be shoved out of the way, or even crushed underneath.

Understanding why people believe what they do, and knowing how to appeal to that underlying motivation, is the key to persuading and convincing people of the validity of your assertions.

It's very idealistic to claim that truth will win out in the end, that eventually people will beleive the truth if you hit them over the head with it enough; but history has proven that wrong far too many times.

The thing is, Dawkins is right. But the argument isn't whether he's right or wrong, but the claim that no one is listening because they dislike Dawkins' speech. Yet, here they are, lining to buy his books!

I guess people line up to buy books that they aren't listening to or something. :rolleyes:
Are you familiar with the phenomeon known as "preaching to the choir"? Yes a lot of people are buying Dawkins's books. But is that because they want to learn something they don't already know? Or is it because he affirms what they already believe? Is it religious fundamentalists and New Age Woos buying his books? Or is it people who already consider themselves skeptics and rationalists?

People are more interested in what reinforces their beliefs, not what challenges them. Self-described skeptics are no better at this than anyone else. Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal; and often accepts only that "proof" which supports what he already believes. Look at any thread here on gun control, circumcision, or economics for overwhelming evidence of that. They key isn't to convince them they are wrong. The key is to get them to convince themselves they're wrong.

Dawkins, although I disagree with him on religion, is right about a great many things. But humans are not entirely rational animals, and expecting them to be so will only result in a lot of frustration, and very little effectiveness.

[Asolepius]

Crappy argument. The Bible outsells Dawkins. You really want to go down that road? What are the sales figures overall for Mein Kampf?Reductio ad hitlerum:)

[Asolepius]

OK, I have scanned this conflagration and here's my take on it. Yes, to the ignorant Dawkins may appear arrogant. In `The Root of All Evil?' he said to a creationist "The reason you are saying that is that you don't know anything". This was simply a statement of fact. It was patently true, the creationist knew nothing at all about science. Dawkins just states the facts with more objectivity than anyone I know.

If you have read The God Delusion you will know that he covers the reasons for religious belief in detail. He is not just telling people they are wrong, he is analysing why they have the beliefs they do. I have never found any of his writings to be excessively didactic. I am not saying that he is 100% right on all his speculations, but at least they do make me think, and I always finish one of his books with a much deeper understanding of the way in which the universe works, and often of the way in which humans think and interact.

Resisting the tide of unreason needs an army composed of diverse fighting units. Dawkins, with his cut and thrust style, has done vastly more good than harm in this effort. Others with different styles also make valuable contributions. Let's face it, Dawkins is not going to change his style now, so let's be grateful that someone influential is not prepared to treat lying and deception with kid gloves and political correctness.

[qayak]

The clue is right there in front of your face, but you keep refusing to see it.

There's a reason that people talk about his delivery, rather than his content. Content is irrelevant if your delivery alienates the people you seek to convince. I am not convinced, myself, that Dawkins really cares if people believe him or not. If he did, he wouldn't be as dismissive and demogogic.

Again, the clue just keeps coming at you, and you keep dodging it. Whether one is right or not is almost entirely irrelevant when it comes to human behaviour and human nature. People will believe anything, even something they know to be untrue, simply because they want it to be true, because they're afraid it might be true, or because they have been raised to believe it to be true -- tradition is a powerful force.

Your whole argument is that of religion: "Whether it is true or not doesn't matter, only that it is presented in a polite way and it makes me feel good!"
To anybody with a brain the only thing that matters is that the content is correct.

That's the difference between science and religion, You don't need a brain for religion just a fancy suit, a lot of jewelrey, and the ability to pretend to be nice to the flock while you drain their bank account.

[Beady]

Sorry Beady, I think this is a mainly subjective thing. I like his approach, as do many others. If people are so willing to be offended to the point where it influences their world-view, that's their look-out, and I doubt you'd sway them with some sort of insincere, condescending approach either.

Yes, it's subjective, ie I don't like his approach as don't many others. There is absolutely no reason to assume, however, that compassion and understanding equal insincerity and condescension.

Arguably Sagan was the best compromise, but how many people have even heard of him?

1st, Sagan is not a comprimise, and never was. I believe him to be far more knowledgable about humanity than Dawkins ever will be.

Second, if yours is a valid argument, then Kevin Treaudeau, Sylvia Browne and the Pope are each better proponents than Dawkins.

I for one will look forward to Dawkin's TV programme.

So will I, if it ever shows here.

[Beausoleil]

I have to say, when I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was, oh no, I wish he wouldn't.

You don't get more anti-SCAM than me, but I feel we could do without the support of someone who is so good at alienating people. Sigh.

Rolfe.

It's not a question of alienation, I think.

Dawkins is something of a touchstone for me. When I find I have an opinion in common with him I immediately examine it carefully to be sure I've not overlooked some banal mistake*. He comes across as someone who will not carefully examine an argument that supports his position.

You know, maybe there is something in this homeopathy... ;)

[Big Les]

Compromise in terms of style and delivery Beady, I'm not doing the man down at all. I also don't understand your problem with the argument of profile. Of course Browne et al are good proponents of what they do, that's the whole problem! To have a figurehead with anything like their profile and mainstream audience that even hope to help stem the tide of magical thinking is an achievement, not something to be embarrassed about.

I suppose I've just felt that everything I can remember him saying or writing has been justified, or at least that anyone taking offence would have to be looking to do so, either because of their own woo beliefs, or on behalf of the woo audience because they're terrified of "losing them".

[JoeEllison]

What I find most telling is that Dawkins comes off as rather gentle and witty in a dry way when you hear him speak. Every televangelist, TV psychic, and other fraud I've seen comes off as loud, brash, and obnoxious. So why is Dawkins, who is barely offensive at all, accused of being a cross between Don Rickles and Roseanne Barr?

As far as I can see, there is a cultural respect for religion. Dawkins breaks that taboo. The fact that he does so calmly, rationally, and in an intellectual manner only makes it worse for people.
Because he isn't joking, for instance, he can't get away with the profanity and fury against religion that George Carlin has made a career of. He doesn't use the tone of a preacher, so there's not that emotional recognition. He sounds like a professor... and the anti-intellectualism of current western culture, especially in America, seems to be the main reason he's such a target. He's considered "rude", because he's unabashedly smart and doesn't hide it.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have to say, when I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was, oh no, I wish he wouldn't.

You don't get more anti-SCAM than me, but I feel we could do without the support of someone who is so good at alienating people. Sigh.

Rolfe.

Changing one's core beliefs is going to be an unsettling emotional process. There is NO way to sugar coat it. In my experience not many people can have their belief's changed by pure argument anyway, even with a mathematical proof!

In fact it has been demonstrated that by presenting a weaker argument first, which the recipient can more easily refute, makes it even harder to convince them with a stronger argument presented afterward.

And let's face it, Dawkins' message that we're on our own, magic does not exist and we are not born "good", cannot be sugar coated.

[Beady]

I suppose I've just felt that everything I can remember him saying or writing has been justified...

His message is not the problem; it's his method of delivery.

...or at least that anyone taking offence would have to be looking to do so, either because of their own woo beliefs, or on behalf of the woo audience because they're terrified of "losing them".

You're missing the mark here. No one is looking to take offense (at least, assuming that they've never encountered Dawkins before). However, everyone is sensitive and protective of their particular sacred cows, including you and me. Example: Lonewulf's and Quyak's knee-jerk hostility (above) when they encounter anything less than praise for their own sacred cow (Dawkins).

What it boils down to is tact and diplomacy. People take to them much more kindly than they do to being run over by a steam roller.


Ivor: "In fact it has been demonstrated that by presenting a weaker argument first, which the recipient can more easily refute..."


Diplomacy does not require weak arguments.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Please give an example of an argument of Dawkins that you think could be improved or give an example of an argument you or someone else on this site has made that has convinced a large number of people to change a core belief.

Everyone's an expert apart from the poor bugger who's doing the job...

[newlyfound]

He's considered "rude", because he's unabashedly smart and doesn't hide it.


I think they accuse him of being rude because he is supposed to 'get down on his knees' b4 addressing or talking about the phonies! What he earned as far as expertise, he has going the good old fashion way, which means if there a just god, he'd love Dawkins for his honesty, hard work, audacity, knowledge etc. Theologeans, clergy and the rest of those categories got to where they got by blowing smoke at people faces.


Dawkins is not rude, they and their sheep are the ones that need to wake up and smell the coffee. We entered new age where everybody is the same so long that they demo and back up their claims. He does, they don't. Their robes are no longer going to save them as the french rightfully say "L'habit ne fait pas le moine" translating to "The robe doesn't establish the monk."

[newlyfound]

Example: Lonewulf's and Quyak's knee-jerk hostility (above) when they encounter anything less than praise for their own sacred cow (Dawkins).


What makes you think that Dr. Dawkins is someone's sacred cow? To all that know him, he is A professor, an evolutionary biologist who is demonstrable verifiable via his work and the many books he published, in other words, he is as authentic as they come.

What it boils down to is tact and diplomacy. People take to them much more kindly than they do to being run over by a steam roller. The only thing you are sore and sour about is that your smoke blowers are no longer going to get away with continuing to blow smoke at good honest people.

Diplomacy does not require weak arguments.

Apparently to your smoke blowers it does. Because here's a guy who clearly evidently has something to share, yet he is constantly being attacked regardless of the weight of his arguments simply because some are too weak to be able to absorb and process his arguments for what they are. And now his honesty is not honesty but rudeness...

[Beady]

QED

[JoeEllison]

I think they accuse him of being rude because he is supposed to 'get down on his knees' b4 addressing or talking about the phonies!

That's pretty much it. The believers expect to be treated with kid gloves. When their beliefs are treated like any other belief, they pretend that it is some sort of exceptional rudeness. It seems to go hand in hand with the persecution complex that so many of those folks include in their overall worldview.

[mijopaalmc]

That's pretty much it. The believers expect to be treated with kid gloves. When their beliefs are treated like any other belief, they pretend that it is some sort of exceptional rudeness. It seems to go hand in hand with the persecution complex that so many of those folks include in their overall worldview.

I think that you're missing the point that Dawkins is speaking way out of his depth when it comes to the psychology and sociology of religion.

Dawkins likes to compare his criticism of religion to restaurant and theater criticism, but what he neglects to note that if he were to take up restaurant or criticism and use his cachet as an evolutionary biologist to effect trends in those industries, people in those industries would cry foul.

Why is it so hard to believe that the religious would do the same when someone vastly underqualified to comment on religion does so negatively using his prestige as a well known academic?

[Asolepius]

Why is it so hard to believe that the religious would do the same when someone vastly underqualified to comment on religion does so negatively using his prestige as a well known academic?In what way is one underqualified to comment on religion? Am I underqualified to comment on fairies? Your statement automatically elevates religion to the level of demanding respect, which it doesn't justify.

[JoeEllison]

In what way is one underqualified to comment on religion? Am I underqualified to comment on fairies? Your statement automatically elevates religion to the level of demanding respect, which it doesn't justify.
It is just another bogus criticism to avoid having to face the substance of what Dawkins has to say. As far as being "unqualified" to talk about religion? Well... it isn't as though they have any new information to share, new research to keep track of, or very much in the way of new evidence.

[newlyfound]

double post.

[newlyfound]

QED

Please read couple of his books first b4 you jump to conclusions, I read TGD, it literally blew me away having been a stubborn hopeless theist/layperson. They say he preached to the choir in that book, I am no choir, yet it didn't take me more than the book's 3rd chapter to be deconverted. The rest of it was a re-inforcement of what its beginning introduced. Right now I am reading The selfish gene. And the selfish gene is 50 times better than TGD. It goes quantum breaking down how evolution occurs through the complex shiftings, adaptations, modifications, expansions or mutations of different organisms on a molecular/atomic level leading to or generating evolution. I just started it. Dr. Dawkins is an honest man that needs to be listened to because he has much to say.


It seems to go hand in hand with the persecution complex that so many of those folks include in their overall worldview.

You hit the nail right on the head with this one, I absolutely agree, everybody hates them and want to exterminate them because they are all so right and everybody is all just so wrong! so the "persecution" continues. One either has no other alternative but to bow down to their junk regardless of what refutes it or they are being persecuted. Thank Dawkins and his contemporaries I myself snaped out of that. Now I know what I used to sound like.

[mijopaalmc]

In what way is one underqualified to comment on religion? Am I underqualified to comment on fairies? Your statement automatically elevates religion to the level of demanding respect, which it doesn't justify.

It is just another bogus criticism to avoid having to face the substance of what Dawkins has to say. As far as being "unqualified" to talk about religion? Well... it isn't as though they have any new information to share, new research to keep track of, or very much in the way of new evidence.

There is a huge field of study knows roughly as Religious Studies which studies religion without assuming the existence of the supernatural. You would do well to avail yourself of some information in that field before you criticize religion.

Also, Dawkins does not have an advanced degree in religious studies. So what makes his opinion on religion anymore important that any other person who is moderately well-read is in religious studies?

[JoeEllison]

There is a huge field of study knows roughly as Religious Studies which studies religion without assuming the existence of the supernatural. You would do well to avail yourself of some information in that field before you criticize religion.

Also, Dawkins does not have an advanced degree in religious studies. So what makes his opinion on religion anymore important that any other person who is moderately well-read is in religious studies?So, do you automatically assume that all people who criticize religion are ignorant, or are you specifically being insulting towards me and Asolepius? Further, are we supposed to assume that no one without an advanced degree is fit to discuss anything at all, or are you singling out religion for special protection?

What areas do you have an advanced degree in? I can assume that you refuse to comment on any and all areas in which you do not have such a degree?

[mijopaalmc]

So, do you automatically assume that all people who criticize religion are ignorant, or are you specifically being insulting towards me and Asolepius? Further, are we supposed to assume that no one without an advanced degree is fit to discuss anything at all, or are you singling out religion for special protection?

What areas do you have an advanced degree in? I can assume that you refuse to comment on any and all areas in which you do not have such a degree?

Wow, such defensiveness seems to imply that your arguments don't really have any substance to them.

My point was that when the supporters of Dawkins get together and discuss his views on religion, they seem to forget that he is not an expert in the field, which is vast in itself even if theology is excluded. They seem as if they wouldn't accept the opinion of and expert in religious studies on the plausibility of various competing theories of evolution (e.g., phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium) or what the units of selection are (e.g., genes, organisms, or groups), but they parrot Dawkins' views on religion. Furthermore, it seems that Dawkins supporters justify their acceptance of his views precisely because he is a "brilliant evolutionary biologist". That is why I say that Dawkins is using his cachet as an evolutionary biologist to criticize religion; it is a classic appeal to authority ("I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV").

[newlyfound]

There is a huge field of study knows roughly as Religious Studies which studies religion without assuming the existence of the supernatural. You would do well to avail yourself of some information in that field before you criticize religion.

Also, Dawkins does not have an advanced degree in religious studies. So what makes his opinion on religion anymore important that any other person who is moderately well-read is in religious studies?



The bottom line is what purpose does religion serve? you'd say this and that. If it's that primordial to one's existence, how come there are people out there (Dawkins is one of them) that are fully fulfilled on any level one would cares to bring up yet don't have any known religious practiced rituals?

And beside, the main underlying base to religion and god is its supernatural claims, you take those out and it basically goes out in smoke.

[JoeEllison]

*yawn*

Do you have a point? Or is it just bashing for its own sake from you? Do you have an opinion on any specific points that Dawkins has brought up? Do you even know any of the points Dawkins makes? You don't answer any questions, you don't post anything of substance, you just seem to be attacking instinctively and emotionally.

Just posting "no one should listen to him because he's not a professor of theology or religious studies" is not only illogical, but points towards hypocrisy as well.

[newlyfound]

My point was that when the supporters of Dawkins get together and discuss his views on religion,they seem to forget that he is not an expert in the field,

You mean he is not an expet in the field of smokyness? because that's all religion is, bunch of smoke.

which is vast in itself even if theology is excluded. They seem as if they wouldn't accept the opinion of and expert in religious studies on the plausibility of various competing theories of evolution (e.g., phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium) or what the units of selection are (e.g., genes, organisms, or groups),

Why would one bother to listen to someone who believes a virgin gave a birth to a boy after having been raped by an invisible being? and this boy just so happened to be the invisible being himself. etc, etc, etc. If that stuff really did take place, what stopping it from re-occuring now? what is the problem with today? the problem is back then people had nothing to work with, so they believe anything, now it take more than a good fairy tales relating skills to be believed, it take the ability to prove them.

You all act like smart pets, but when one asks a single pet trick performance, you act insulted. Clearly if Dawkins isn't above reproach, neither are you.

but they parrot Dawkins' views on religion.

You clearly are not perroting your smoke blowers believing and taking their word for it without any verification of the fact whatsoever, but anybody who dares to read what Dawkins has to say based on the hard core researches he has accomplished throughout his career, and happens to agree with him based on the evidence they've encountered throughout their lifetime, they are "perroting"???


Furthermore, it seems that Dawkins supporters justify their acceptance of his views precisely because he is a "brilliant evolutionary biologist".

That put to the side, Dare to read one of his books. Did you do that? There are aall out there.

That is why I say that Dawkins is using his cachet as an evolutionary biologist to criticize religion; it is a classic appeal to authority.

Your smoke blowers do the same and much much worse and expect a special deference without any justification for it whatsoever. He at least has done His Homework. In other words he did honestly earn the notoriety that known to him.

[mijopaalmc]

*yawn*

Do you have a point? Or is it just bashing for its own sake from you? Do you have an opinion on any specific points that Dawkins has brought up? Do you even know any of the points Dawkins makes? You don't answer any questions, you don't post anything of substance, you just seem to be attacking instinctively and emotionally.

Just posting "no one should listen to him because he's not a professor of theology or religious studies" is not only illogical, but points towards hypocrisy as well.

You know, I tend not to respond to people who deliberately misrepresent my positions, which is a surprising number of people who both self-identify as "skeptics" and unquestioningly support Dawkins on this board. You are no exception, Joe, as far the misreprersentation goes.*

I did not say that Dawkins couldn't hold an opinion on religion or that we shouldn't listen to him at all because he is not an expert in religious studies. I merely pointed out that Dawkins' supporters seem to be taking Dawkins' word as authority in subjects in which he is not one when they simultaneously refuse to take word of anyone on evolution except for that of an evolutionary biologist, or someone with a related advanced degree.

Do you see how that could possibly be considered inconsistent, even if one doesn't agree with what critics of evolution say?**

*I am responding to you on the off chance that the misrepresentation was accidedntal and only repeated because I did not address it in a earlier post.

**For the record, I don't believe what the critics of evolution say. Nonetheless, my point is that Dawkins is an inappropriate authority on religion so appealing to him as a primary source on religion is as fallacious as appealing to Dembski or Behe as a source of any sort of accurate information on evolution.

[Jekyll]

**For the record, I don't believe what the critics of evolution say. Nonetheless, my point is that Dawkins is an inappropriate authority on religion so appealing to him as a primary source on religion is as fallacious as appealing to Dembski or Behe as a source of any sort of accurate information on evolution.

Religious studies is the comparative study of religion. It does not try to answer the question "Does god exist?"

[Asolepius]

There is a huge field of study knows roughly as Religious Studies which studies religion without assuming the existence of the supernatural. You would do well to avail yourself of some information in that field before you criticize religionWell let me think about that. I suppose you will say that I should not have opinions about English literature as I don't have a degree in it. But neither Jane Austen nor Charles Dickens claimed that every word they wrote was true. Are theology and religion the same thing? I imagine you can be a theologian without being religious, and vice versa. Look, I and others here are criticising religion, the belief in something with not a shred of evidence to support it. We are not arguing about whether St Francis of Assisi was a historical figure who really existed. I am reasonably sure he did, but I just don't see anything mystical about him. Let's get this straight. It is the obligation of anyone making a claim to provide evidence to support it. Anyone, whatever their academic prowess, is entitled to object if that evidence is not forthcoming. Dawkins is just rather good at asking for it.

[SusanB-M1]

Blue Wode

Many thanks for posting about the TV programmes. I could easily have missed them.

[qayak]

I think that you're missing the point that Dawkins is speaking way out of his depth when it comes to the psychology and sociology of religion.

Dawkins likes to compare his criticism of religion to restaurant and theater criticism, but what he neglects to note that if he were to take up restaurant or criticism and use his cachet as an evolutionary biologist to effect trends in those industries, people in those industries would cry foul.

Why is it so hard to believe that the religious would do the same when someone vastly underqualified to comment on religion does so negatively using his prestige as a well known academic?

Dawkins' main thrust of argument is against the improper teaching of science used to either discredit it or to support the belief in a god. He is emminently qualified to speak on that.

Dawkins doesn't use his prestige as a well known academic to debunk skyfairies, He uses his knowledge and reasoning ability. He uses his prestige and academic position to get books published.

[Lonewulf]

Example: Lonewulf's and Quyak's knee-jerk hostility (above) when they encounter anything less than praise for their own sacred cow (Dawkins).

Y'know, Beady? **** you. Seriously. **** you.

It has nothing to do with a goddamned "sacred cow", nor do I mind Dawkins being questioned. But EVERY THREAD, THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IN THIS FORUM HAS SAID THE EXACT SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. But, you seemed to have missed that with your particular brand of reading comprehension.

No one gets it. They like repeating themselves over and over and over and over again.

Oh, but I'm sure THIS time you'll win converts, right?

*********** proselytizers. They're all the same. If you don't immediately buy into their BS, they'll just keep shoving it down your throat, and then complain that you're protecting a "sacred cow" because you're sick and tired of them.

What's next, Beady? Going to come to my house, ring my doorbell in the morning, and sell me "Dawkins is Evil!" pamphlets?

Please. Do. Because then the only thing that would make you different from a Jehova's Witness or door-to-door Mormon is that they're less obnoxious.

[Lonewulf]

Do you have a point? Or is it just bashing for its own sake from you? Do you have an opinion on any specific points that Dawkins has brought up? Do you even know any of the points Dawkins makes? You don't answer any questions, you don't post anything of substance, you just seem to be attacking instinctively and emotionally.

What else is new? When people can't give a good refutation, they'll always end up making stupid arguments that has nothing to do with the main topic. Red herrings and non sequitors become par for the course.

I, for one, am tired of it. People on this forum continually call themselves "skeptics", yet continually fall into the same logical potholes that they keep accusing everyone else of committing. I've never met a forum with so many self-loving hypocrites in all of my days.

They're quick to say, "Stupid argument!", and then put forth a counter-argument that can be refuted by a 6 year old.

I'm tired of this forum. I'm somewhat addicted to it, because for some reason I like the thrill of the argument, but it's draining too much of my time and emotional energy.

There's just too many idiots to make it worthwhile. "OH! They don't immediately buy my viewpiont, therefore they must worship X, because if you don't immediately agree with me and yo udon't like hearing the same thing over and over and over again, you MUST blindly worship it!"

Pfah.

Anyways, I'm out. This forum is just not for me. I'll stick to forums where the members actually are intelligent...

[Asolepius]

Lonewulf - I agree that some of the posts here have been excessively heated, on all sides. Don't go. Let's try to argue objectively. I don't think anyone here is running a Dawkins personality cult. For myself, I respect what he says because it's clear and totally untainted with the sort of emotional claptrap that attends most debate these days. With a lifetime's experience in assessing evidence for evolution, he is admirably qualified to ask whether there is evidence for anything else.

I am reminded about what we mean by science. The word originally meant knowledge, but it is far more than that now. It is a way of thinking, and a way of assessing whether a hypothesis is true (actually the only way we know). Once one has a deep understanding of that, and how science works, there are no barriers to the questions one can ask.

If you can't take that, then I suppose you'll have to do what Dawkins said on that Youtube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik[/nsfw).

[Roboramma]

To give Dawkins a chance to defend himself:
nh1IkjictJY

[luchog]

Your whole argument is that of religion: "Whether it is true or not doesn't matter, only that it is presented in a polite way and it makes me feel good!"

That's what it says if you are doing what you're accusing me of, and arguing from an ignorant basis. Try reading what I'm actually saying, instead of what you want to believe I'm saying. Apparently, presentation is important, and truth won't automagically convince people.

To anybody with a brain the only thing that matters is that the content is correct.
See, this is precisely the sort of rabid and counterproductive elitism that I'm talking about.

"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." -Sir Isaac Newton.

It is possible to critique something without being arrogant, rude, or dismissive.

The fact is that there are a lot of highly intelligent people who beleive some pretty far-out things; particularly with regard to religion. Dismissing them as brainless says absolutely nothing about their intelligence or lack thereof, or the quality of their beliefs. A huge number of the most promient scientists in history have been religious; as are many now. It does, however, say quite a lot about your intelligence and interpersonal skills, or lack thereof, when you cannot communicate your views in a tactful and effective way.

You've correctly observed that a thing doesn't have to be true to be convincing, and that people will believe what they believe. You have, and Dawkins has, failed to make the obvious conclusion. It may feel good to you to sit in your little ivory tower, surrounded by your self-congratulatory clique, looking down on everyone who holds beliefs different from yours, issuing pronouncements of your superiority and their inferiority; but it is a pretty shallow and useless way to live, and certainly does nothing to convince others of the validity of your worldview. You simply marginalize yourself, and uphold the negative stereotype of atheists and skeptics.

[luchog]

Because he isn't joking, for instance, he can't get away with the profanity and fury against religion that George Carlin has made a career of. He doesn't use the tone of a preacher, so there's not that emotional recognition. He sounds like a professor... and the anti-intellectualism of current western culture, especially in America, seems to be the main reason he's such a target. He's considered "rude", because he's unabashedly smart and doesn't hide it.
The problem is that you cannot force people to think. There is definitely a strong anti-intellectual undertone to western culture; and that is very difficult to overcome. It cannot be overcome by berating your audience and treating them as if they were defective children, whether they act like it or not.

But it's not just anti-intellectualism, that would be hard enough on it's own, but not overwhelmingly so. There is also a strong anti-authority streak (particularly in "frontier" cultures like the US and Australia), People, westerners in particular, do not like to be told what to do.

You cannot force them to think, you can merely persuade, convince, or trick them into it. You may not like that state of affairs, you may think it wrong, stupid, whatever. But that's human nature. Once you can convince them to take that step, to start questioning what they believe and why, natural human inertia will often carry them down that road without any further prompting.

[luchog]

Changing one's core beliefs is going to be an unsettling emotional process. There is NO way to sugar coat it. In my experience not many people can have their belief's changed by pure argument anyway, even with a mathematical proof!

There is an old saw that you cannot change anyone, all you can do is convince them to change themselves.

In fact it has been demonstrated that by presenting a weaker argument first, which the recipient can more easily refute, makes it even harder to convince them with a stronger argument presented afterward.

It's not a matter of weak vs. strong arguments. Even the most stridently asserted argument can still be a very weak one. It's a matter of enbaling people to see the weaknesses in their own arguments, and guiding them to make the appropriate conclusions from there.

Understanding why people believe what they do is important, but ultimately not that useful if they don't understand why they believe what they do.

[luchog]

The believers expect to be treated with kid gloves. When their beliefs are treated like any other belief, they pretend that it is some sort of exceptional rudeness. It seems to go hand in hand with the persecution complex that so many of those folks include in their overall worldview.

I'd agree with this, but extend it to include everyone, not merely the religious. No one likes having their beliefs questioned or challenged; and nearly everyone is prone to responding to such challenges emotionally, regardless of how rationalist they claim to be. It's clear from merely a cursory reading of this board that many atheists also have a strong persecution complex, with their ranting about how the "stupid" religious masses are oppressing and seeking to silence them.

The highly defensive and dismissive responses by many, if not most, of Dawkins' supporters in this thread is ample evidence of that. Tact and diplomacy are arts that are in short supply on nearly all sides of the debate.

[Gurdur]

.......
The fact is, Mein Kampf WAS influential, as was Hitler's speeches. Hitler was very influential.

It doesn't make him right.

The thing is, Dawkins is right. But the argument isn't whether he's right or wrong, but the claim that no one is listening because they dislike Dawkins' speech. Yet, here they are, lining to buy his books!

I guess people line up to buy books that they aren't listening to or something. :rolleyes:

Take a deep breath and calm down, Lonewulf.

1) The argument about whether people are "listening" or not depends on just what people you're talking about.

If you want to tackle that particular argument, the fact is you missed its central point (made by others; I'm simply reporting/repeating/clarifying their argument); to wit, the people who you WANT to listen may well not be the people who are.

The central argument was that Dawkins turns people off. You tried countering that by pointing to the sales of his books. It's still a crappy argument, because you've utterly failed to address if those people actually buying his books are in fact converted / persuaded by Dawkins, or is Dawkins simply preaching to the choir?

Next off, you also fail with your argument of "influence can be judged by booksales".

Another really crappy premise of yours, and one that is common.

E.g.
stoning witches is no longer SOP, despite appearing in the Bible, despite the Bible STILL being a best-seller.

Many buyers of Mein Kampf are not in fact neonazis, they are in fact people concerned with stopping neo-/naziism, who want to study how it began.

[JoeEllison]

What else is new? When people can't give a good refutation, they'll always end up making stupid arguments that has nothing to do with the main topic. Red herrings and non sequitors become par for the course.

I, for one, am tired of it. People on this forum continually call themselves "skeptics", yet continually fall into the same logical potholes that they keep accusing everyone else of committing. I've never met a forum with so many self-loving hypocrites in all of my days.

They're quick to say, "Stupid argument!", and then put forth a counter-argument that can be refuted by a 6 year old.

I'm tired of this forum. I'm somewhat addicted to it, because for some reason I like the thrill of the argument, but it's draining too much of my time and emotional energy.

There's just too many idiots to make it worthwhile. "OH! They don't immediately buy my viewpiont, therefore they must worship X, because if you don't immediately agree with me and yo udon't like hearing the same thing over and over and over again, you MUST blindly worship it!"

Pfah.

Anyways, I'm out. This forum is just not for me. I'll stick to forums where the members actually are intelligent...
Trust me, I'm here because the level of intelligence in other places was MUCH LOWER than here. I'm not saying that I agree with people here more, just that at least a few of the people who disagree with me(we can call them "the wrong ones")... at least a few folks will present the occasional thinking behind the disagreement.

I doubt you'll find much better elsewhere, but good luck to you!

[JoeEllison]

I'd agree with this, but extend it to include everyone, not merely the religious. No one likes having their beliefs questioned or challenged; and nearly everyone is prone to responding to such challenges emotionally, regardless of how rationalist they claim to be. It's clear from merely a cursory reading of this board that many atheists also have a strong persecution complex, with their ranting about how the "stupid" religious masses are oppressing and seeking to silence them.

The highly defensive and dismissive responses by many, if not most, of Dawkins' supporters in this thread is ample evidence of that. Tact and diplomacy are arts that are in short supply on nearly all sides of the debate.

I'm going to have to ignore you now... the "everybody does it" position drives me insane.:confused:

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's not a matter of weak vs. strong arguments. Even the most stridently asserted argument can still be a very weak one. It's a matter of enbaling people to see the weaknesses in their own arguments, and guiding them to make the appropriate conclusions from there.

Understanding why people believe what they do is important, but ultimately not that useful if they don't understand why they believe what they do.

So how would you go about convincing someone that infant circumcision is wrong i.e. inconsistent with their normal behaviour toward children?

This, from my experience in the circumcision thread, appears to be a very resistant belief to reasonable argument and examples of equivalent behaviour that is seen as unacceptable.

I think many people put religion in a similar 'container' such that reason does not contaminate it.

[Spiro]

Perhaps this will be seen as relevant, perhaps not. Whenever I visit the USA these days I'm impressed with how bland people have become: and I'm talking about people who have a very real claim to be intellectuals. The idea of saying anything that might offend someone has been eliminated from everyday discourse. So-called freedom of speech has been castrated by a concern to respect everyone else's beliefs, however daft. Yet here we are, discussing whether Richard Dawkins' style is offensive therefore unsuccessful in persuading people. I submit this is a reflection of what has become the normal cultural view in the United States that everyone has to be treated with deference, regardless of their ability to think their way out of a paper bag, in the interest of never causing anyone offence. This is a viewpoint that encourages blind E-quality over quality of reason in every corner of human endeavour. It allows the psychics, faith healers, UFO adherents and the rest to claim equal time and equal opportunity with those genuinely capable of examining their universe with objectivity and dispassion. Try to listen to WHAT people are saying, regardless of whether you happen not to like the body-language or presentation style of that person.

[qayak]

However, everyone is sensitive and protective of their particular sacred cows, including you and me. Example: Lonewulf's and Quyak's knee-jerk hostility (above) when they encounter anything less than praise for their own sacred cow (Dawkins).

Hostility? Please don't project your reaction onto me. If you're upset because your sacred cow is religion and it is being attacked, don't think that I am upset, that my sacred cow is being attacked, or that Dawkins is that sacred cow.

My reaction was not to the fact that people attack Dawkins, I have seen him tear people a new one, he doesn't need my help. My reaction is to the idiocy of people who think that presentation is more important than substance. However, my reaction is pretty mild because I realize that religious people HAVE to believe that. It's the only way they can keep their faith. Call it a defence mechanism.

Like him or not, what Dawkins says about religion is true. That you can't argue against it and instead resort to ad homs, is your petty issue.

[ponderingturtle]

Crappy argument. The Bible outsells Dawkins. You really want to go down that road? What are the sales figures overall for Mein Kampf?

And both are highly negative books that do not soft sell things. So why are they popular and not regarded as being so rude?

[luchog]

So how would you go about convincing someone that infant circumcision is wrong i.e. inconsistent with their normal behaviour toward children?

I've never thought about it sufficiently to formally develope any useful approaches; but it's clear that the dismissive tactics, such as lableing proponents "child abusers", used by many in the circumcision thread is not even remotely effective.

[luchog]

And both are highly negative books that do not soft sell things. So why are they popular and not regarded as being so rude?

Neither one are negative, that's your first mistake. In both cases, regardless of the style, they are both very positive works. Not that they are "upbeat" or pleasant; but because they provide clear and unambiguous answers to common and difficult problems, instead of an ambiguous or outright nihilistic -- negative -- view.

Because they tell people what they want to hear. In the case of Scripture, it provides a great deal of comfort and certainty regarding one's position of the world and existence after death. Regardless of what one may believe about its accuracy, it very obviously fulfills an inherent human need.

Mein Kampf was popular for a similar, though different, reason. It provided a convenient justification and excuse for the problems it addresses. One of the factors that made it so popular was that it completely absolved a particular group of people for responsibility for their own failures -- it wasn't their fault, but the fault of the Jews, Blacks, and other "inferior" races interfering. Eliminate the interference, and live will improve far beyond what it is now.

That principle is also the basis for a whole lot of other popular "New Age" and similar religious/philosophical belief.

[Blue Wode]

Update:

‘Slaves to Superstition’, part 1 of The Enemies of Reason, will be broadcast on Monday 13th August on Channel 4 (UK) at 8pm.

More in this weekend’s newspapers:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2216595.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/08/11/nosplit/bvtvtalkingtv11.xml

[Blu]

He laments the fact that half the population claims to believe in paranormal phenomena and more than eight million have consulted psychic mediums, while the number of students sitting physics A-level has fallen 50 per cent and chemistry by more than a third in the past 25 years.


I have to say that this fact of his is... now what's the word, we're not allowed to use swear words any more... erm.... rubbish.
The fact that students sitting physics and chemistry A levels has dropped so dramatically has been put down to (according to the government) the growth in the IT industry. It bears no relation to how much of the population believe in paranormal phenomena.


Prof Dawkins visits Elisis Livingstone, a £140-a-day faith healer who treats patients - including some with terminal cancer - with meditation, spiritual healing and recorded chants at her Shambala Retreat in Glastonbury, Somerset.


I've stayed at that retreat (if you're gonna critisize it's even better if you can say you've tried it!), but I have to say, even as an open minded person who looks into both science and "alternative" therapies, Isis (as Elisis likes to, cornily, call herself) came across as only interested in her business and money. Compared to other "serious" alternative therapists I've dealt with, she seemed to have little care for the wellbeing of us as clients. Even during our free guided meditation (all guests get this apparently on their first evening) the phone rang in her office and she said "oh excuse me, I'm expecting an important call" and left the room with us all sat there, eventually giving up on the meditation and being a little p'd off. Not professional by anybody's standards, alternative therapy or otherwise.


He appears bemused as she intones: "Smile your very best smile, swallow the smile with some saliva into the heart and let the heart smile back at you… and the golden glow that comes from the heart, comes from a golden flower and use the gold light from the centre of the flower like a sunbeam and beam it on to those petals and wake them up…"


That's the free meditation they're referring to. I didn't finding it very chill-out to have her suddenly mention the saliva bit.


But yesterday, Miss Livingstone hit back. "I have a 100 per cent success record with people at some level," she told The Sunday Telegraph. "Richard seemed to enjoy it while he was here. He was smiling and he didn't want it to stop.


100% success rate eh? Not so. There was another "treatment" given by her, or was supposed to have been, but she just stuck a tape on to listen to and walked out the room. Long story, but let's just say no treatment took place and she still wanted the money for it.


The professor reserves some of his most scathing criticism for homeopathy, used by 500 million people worldwide, and which, in the UK, benefits from taxpayers' money even though it requires no qualifications.


Well, not strictly true. I know a homeopath, and she had to study for 3 years (say what you like, I'm just telling the facts) to become qualified before she was permitted to treat the public. Yes you can just go down the shop and buy a book on it and self-treat, but you can also go down the shop and buy a book on pharmaceuticals and try and treat yourself medically too.

Blu

[Big Les]

He's not saying that the uptake of physics and chemistry courses is a result of belief in the paranormal. At least I hope he isn't.

Or are you saying that his 50% statistic is incorrect? Sounds about right to me, given the wide range of irrational things that the word "paranormal" encompasses. Many here would have numbered among those people at some stage of their lives (I used to believe in ghosts as a child, and dowsing until perhaps 2 years ago).

[Hapexamendios]

One of Dawkins' intervewees gets his retaliation in first

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2146775,00.html


Neil Spencer is the Observer's resident astrologer and seems to have been playing a game of woo bingo when he wrote this piece...

"Astrology, check.... homoeopathy, check.... dowsers, check.... big pharma=evil, check.... quantum theory, check.... WOOHOO! What's my prize? A weekend with David Icke! Cool. ALL HAIL OUR REPTILIAN OVERLORDS!!"

[Mojo]

One of Dawkins' intervewees gets his retaliation in first

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2146775,00.html


Neil Spencer is the Observer's resident astrologer and seems to have been playing a game of woo bingo when he wrote this piece...


Evidently hoping to prove astrologers are know-nothings, Dawkins' interview started with a lengthy grilling about astronomy - the precession of the equinoxes, sidereal and tropical zodiacs, Kuiper Belt objects. There was the usual objection to astrology dividing people into 12 Sun signs, and my usual reply: that's eight more than the Myers-Briggs personality test used by commerce. Actually, astrology's basic personality types number 1,728.


Let's see what else he had in today's paper: http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/experts/neilspencer/story/0,,2145510,00.html

1,728 basic personality types? Riiight.

[Big Les]

Why does the Observer even have an ass-trologer? (Oh yeah, I'm on fire today! Beat that, Dawkins!).

[Blue Wode]

Just to whet your appetites for tonight (Channel 4, 8pm), here's Richard Dawkins discussing The Enemies of Reason on the Richard & Judy Show last week:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1521,Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins-about-The-Enemies-of-Reason,Richard-amp-Judy-Richard-Dawkins#63019

[aries]

A study done by Danish scientist has revealed that our feelings are more involved in our decions that we know. The neck has an area where it attaches to the spine. This area is involved with our decision making more thank we think (or feel?)

Also, a recent publicized study show that the placebo effects atucally heal people (sorry, the link I have is in Danish, but I''ll dig it up, if you want) depending on how the doctor (or physican) gets the patient to believe that the medicine works. This is further proof that our feelings, not only our reasons and logical minds guide us and help us in decisions - as well as heal us.

Dawkins seems to be more like a man scared of his own feelings than anything else...

edit:
Dawkins also seems to be like a man who denies the existence of feelings in humans altogether and denies every aspect of religious or spiritual worship - at all. And also perhaps not quite understanding why people have religious and spiritual beliefs in the first place. Lashing out at anyone who believes somethings he perhaps fears...

[JoeEllison]

Do you ever get the feeling that people project an entire false persona onto Dawkins, based on their own emotional issues? The folks who seem pretty emotionally or intellectually weak create all these bizarre things that Dawkins "seems to be", that don't appear to have much relation to real life.

[Big Les]

A study done by Danish scientist has revealed that our feelings are more involved in our decions that we know. The neck has an area where it attaches to the spine. This area is involved with our decision making more thank we think (or feel?)

Also, a recent publicized study show that the placebo effects atucally heal people (sorry, the link I have is in Danish, but I''ll dig it up, if you want) depending on how the doctor (or physican) gets the patient to believe that the medicine works. This is further proof that our feelings, not only our reasons and logical minds guide us and help us in decisions - as well as heal us.

Dawkins seems to be more like a man scared of his own feelings than anything else...

edit:
Dawkins also seems to be like a man who denies the existence of feelings in humans altogether and denies every aspect of religious or spiritual worship - at all. And also perhaps not quite understanding why people have religious and spiritual beliefs in the first place. Lashing out at anyone who believes somethings he perhaps fears...

I don't think so. In fact he seems to have a very good grasp of the reasons why people believe in such things, and a degree of tolerance and respect for human feelings, notably the "Einsteinian religion" he refers to as the way many scientists articulate their sense of wonder and insignificance in the world.

Have you actually read "The God Delusion"?

ETA - absolutely what I think Joe. Whether it's the religious types projecting, or some atheist/agnostic/sceptical types fearing such projection!

[JoeEllison]

ETA - absolutely what I think Joe. Whether it's the religious types projecting, or some atheist/agnostic/sceptical types fearing such projection!

Well... I don't know about atheists and skeptics "fearing" anything to do with Dawkins or his critics. I'm just really curious about these sorts of mind-reading games people play with public figures, especially ones they disagree with. It seems to be a way for some people to express their dislike of a person's position without having to actually deal with that position on an intellectual level. They ignore what someone says, and instead make up bogus motives for what the person said it.

I expect someone will comment negatively about how Dawkins wears his hair, or his taste in clothing...

[Big Les]

Beady, for example, may well have a point as to Dawkins' more aggressive approach bordering on the counter-productive, but aside from the truism that people tend to learn better when treated sensitively he seems to be second-guessing how much offence the believers will take. Perception vs reality. Just because a believer
might take offence doesn't mean either that they will, or that they are justified in doing so. I think it's usually just an excuse to avoid facing up to reality, an easy way of dismissing an argument. I would agree that this is reason enough to favour a soft approach, but I've had the "big meany" card played on me umpteen times without my so much as raising my voice (or the textual equivalent) - just for suggesting mundane explanations. Bursting people's bubble, basically; something I don't think you can avoid doing.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Just watched the first show.

Richard Dawkins has my respect for being able to keep a straight face whilst talking to a believer about a rock having the spiritual quality 'rockness', and getting a psychic reading where most of the details provided by the medium were not just meaningless, but flat-out wrong.

I would have just had to laugh.

[Allo Allo]

Dawkins seems to be more like a man scared of his own feelings than anything else...

edit:
Dawkins also seems to be like a man who denies the existence of feelings in humans altogether and denies every aspect of religious or spiritual worship - at all. And also perhaps not quite understanding why people have religious and spiritual beliefs in the first place. Lashing out at anyone who believes somethings he perhaps fears...



No - I don't think so - watch No 4 of the Athiesm Tapes on Google video...(I'm not allowed to post a link here for flip sake :boggled: )

[Dark Jaguar]

Dawkins seems relatively polite compaired to some people I've heard. I think it's the accent. British accents by their very nature are demeaning and rude to listen to. (Note, this is a joke.)

That said, he could be more polite but I'm not sure it's needed. You want a more polite handling of these things? Go for it. Not like he has to be (or is) the only face of rationality out there. Personally I do try to be very considerate when dealing with people and something that strikes me as lacking any evidence. A polite "and why do you think that's the case?" can go a long way.

I have found one thing though. There is a certain personality type that seems to reject all politeness as rude, that seems to see aggression in anything you might say that's contrary to their own opinion, that seems to consider it a challenge to their dominion if you question anything, no matter the tone of how you do it. Further, they see even conversation as a thing that must be "dominated" rather than engaged in. These "A types" as some I've known call them are basically (though I question the validity of that personality classing thing), well I think I know what the "A" stands for. With them, my patience with politeness vanishes rather quickly.

I haven't found Dawkins to actually be insulting them to their face by saying they are idiots. Generally he just makes it very clear what his own opinion is and lists his arguments against this or that. That's direct, more direct than I'd be, but I don't consider it rude.

[bridgy]

Dawkins seems to be more like a man scared of his own feelings than anything else...

edit:
Dawkins also seems to be like a man who denies the existence of feelings in humans altogether and denies every aspect of religious or spiritual worship - at all. And also perhaps not quite understanding why people have religious and spiritual beliefs in the first place. Lashing out at anyone who believes somethings he perhaps fears...

Have you read ANY of Dawkins books? "The God Delusion" certainly does address why people have religious and spiritual beliefs, and "Unweaving The Rainbow" is a whole book devoted to his own "feelings" about the beauty, poetry etc in nature. From all of his books I get the impression of a man with plenty of passionate feeling about science, nature and the arts - certainly not the man you describe.

So honestly, which of his books have you read that lead you to the above conclusion?

[SirPhilip]

The way Dawkins comes across, given his public responsibility (he does in fact, have an important and distinguished function in society to uphold), is actually restrained. Having a respect for unjustified beliefs and traditions is very difficult in the face of the confused, horrific consequences people create over them. Furthering reason is important - if for no other purpose that it makes people evaluate their own lot on their own terms, not those of a cultural institution. Personally, it wasn't until I developed an interest in naturalism that I gained an appreciation for what mythology and religion, at it's core, actually stood for, which I previously held in nothing but contempt and concern.

[SirPhilip]

Have you read ANY of Dawkins books? "The God Delusion" certainly does address why people have religious and spiritual beliefs, and "Unweaving The Rainbow" is a whole book devoted to his own "feelings" about the beauty, poetry etc in nature. From all of his books I get the impression of a man with plenty of passionate feeling about science, nature and the arts - certainly not the man you describe. So honestly, which of his books have you read that lead you to the above conclusion? Problem is labeling a book, no matter how mature and well-intentioned "The God Delusion" is a juvenile tactic that will put anyone but atheists and agnostics off from reading it. Making a case that "God isn't real" isn't something that requires 21'st century scholarly inquiry - the average gardener in a third world country could get the point across of nature's unfairness far better.

[Asolepius]

Problem is labeling a book, no matter how mature and well-intentioned "The God Delusion" is a juvenile tactic that will put anyone but atheists and agnostics off from reading it. Making a case that "God isn't real" isn't something that requires 21'st century scholarly inquiry - the average gardener in a third world country could get the point across of nature's unfairness far better.Where's the evidence for your claim? It seems to be an extremely widely read book. I think the idea is not to get the opposition reading it, but rather the undecided and the silent supporters. It has been extremely successful (I estimate) in getting more sceptics to stand up and be counted.

The title was of course deliberately challenging, epitomising the main thrust which was to stop treating religion with respect. Let's face it, it worked.

[Asolepius]

Problem is labeling a book, no matter how mature and well-intentioned "The God Delusion" is a juvenile tactic that will put anyone but atheists and agnostics off from reading it. Making a case that "God isn't real" isn't something that requires 21'st century scholarly inquiry - the average gardener in a third world country could get the point across of nature's unfairness far better.Where's the evidence for your claim? It seems to be an extremely widely read book. I think the idea is not to get the opposition reading it, but rather the undecided and the silent supporters. It has been extremely successful (I estimate) in getting more sceptics to stand up and be counted.

The title was of course deliberately challenging, epitomising the main thrust which was to stop treating religion with respect. Let's face it, it worked.

BTW are you going to answer the question? Which Dawkins books have you read?

[patrick767]

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the way in which one makes an argument, the style of delivery, is every bit as important if not moreso than what is actually said? Take a debate or public speaking course.

I'm sorry you don't like it and want everything to be based on the substance of an argument and not the presentation, but that's the way people are. You can whine about how "oversensitive" people are, how they just don't want to accept the truth, etc. etc., but it won't alter this "flaw" of human nature. Presentation is vitally important. If you want to do anything but preach to the choir, you have to find common ground with people and learn to use something besides a sledgehammer to get your point across.

You can sit around and tell even people in this thread that if they feel alienated by Dawkins style, too damn bad, but it doesn't change a thing. Clearly his abrasive style rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

[Big Les]

Interesting; I wonder how much of the objection to his "style" does derive from his upper-middle-class accent and style that runs from pleasant and polite through terse, all the way to impassioned and no-nonsense. I don't think he's ever outright insulting (certainly not without provocation), but it's possible that the accent and tone can mislead. Whatever the case, the recent episode was difficult to fault in those terms.

[Asolepius]

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the way in which one makes an argument, the style of delivery, is every bit as important if not moreso than what is actually said? Take a debate or public speaking course.No, that's not at all difficult to understand. And I have taken a good few presentation skills courses. You can sit around and tell even people in this thread that if they feel alienated by Dawkins style, too damn bad, but it doesn't change a thing. Clearly his abrasive style rubs a lot of people the wrong way.I think the disagreement is not really about whether an abrasive style is acceptable. It's whether it's abrasive at all. I don't think it is. It's true that Dawkins has upset a lot of people - and rightly so. That was the idea, not to upset them per se, but to draw a line under this treatment of religion with kid gloves. But it will always take a range of authors to get a point across. Dawkins isn't everyone's preference, but on balance he has done vastly more good than harm.

[SirPhilip]

Where's the evidence for your claim? That the book's purpose is incendiary? If you really require evidence, I suppose I could set a copy on fire.

It seems to be an extremely widely read book. I think the idea is not to get the opposition reading it, but rather the undecided and the silent supporters. Gross exaggeration. It made laughable impact on the public - although primed: Dawkins is at the intellectual public forefront of the issue. The book, however, has nothing to do with life-affirming naturalism - it's anti-religious anti-intellectual rhetoric. The religious right and others simply will use it as propaganda.

It has been extremely successful (I estimate) in getting more sceptics to stand up and be counted. That already happened during the 17'th and 18'th century, and unlike now, they actually knew how to party like you only live once.

The title was of course deliberately challenging, epitomising the main thrust which was to stop treating religion with respect. Won't work. It will simply inspire superficially religious people into decadence and abandon. Let's face it, it worked. You don't get religious laypeople to respect rules of intellectual judgment and discourse that way, though. Religiosity isn't an intellectual deficit. Consider Sagan, Hawking and even Einstein's treatment of naturalism and religious idealism. They did not deliberately antagonize and distinguish themselves as a separate, opposed group.

[JoeEllison]

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the way in which one makes an argument, the style of delivery, is every bit as important if not moreso than what is actually said? Take a debate or public speaking course.

I'm sorry you don't like it and want everything to be based on the substance of an argument and not the presentation, but that's the way people are. You can whine about how "oversensitive" people are, how they just don't want to accept the truth, etc. etc., but it won't alter this "flaw" of human nature. Presentation is vitally important. If you want to do anything but preach to the choir, you have to find common ground with people and learn to use something besides a sledgehammer to get your point across.

You can sit around and tell even people in this thread that if they feel alienated by Dawkins style, too damn bad, but it doesn't change a thing. Clearly his abrasive style rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
You're clearly an expert in rubbing people the wrong way. Nice job showing us how Dawkins shouldn't present his ideas.

[SirPhilip]

No, that's not at all difficult to understand. And I have taken a good few presentation skills courses. I think the disagreement is not really about whether an abrasive style is acceptable. It's whether it's abrasive at all. I don't think it is. It's true that Dawkins has upset a lot of people - and rightly so. No, Dawkins is upset, and in one context, rightly so. The book reflects this more than what he wants people to appreciate and engender - independent judgment. He doesn't accomplish this first and foremost because the title itself is a tabloid declaration. It implies two things he doesn't actually have a new perspective on: God doesn't exist, and that everyone who finds that endearing is not intelligent, or worse, psychotic. Worse still, psychotic people are making less intelligent people psychotic. It wasn't enough to be subjected to life-threatening speeds in interstate traffic to become a Bright, now there's no scientifically visible evidence God wanted people to believe he existed through superficially obvious signs.

That was the idea, not to upset them per se, but to draw a line under this treatment of religion with kid gloves. But it will always take a range of authors to get a point across. Dawkins isn't everyone's preference, but on balance he has done vastly more good than harm. Actually, he's only one bar up from Randi in the futility department with public relations.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You can sit around and tell even people in this thread that if they feel alienated by Dawkins style, too damn bad, but it doesn't change a thing. Clearly his abrasive style rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Or you can accept the reality that no matter how you presented the evidence to certain people, the very fact you were presenting evidence would rub them up the wrong way. They regard any suggestion that their beliefs may be incorrect as "rude", "abrasive" and "aggressive". Therefore the fact that some people are upset may have nothing to do with the style, but the content.

Of course if those people can then divert discussion into whether his style is rude, it avoids them having to address what he says or think about their own beliefs, so perhaps this is a deliberate diversion / defense mechanism rather than any real concern about style.

[simonmaal]

I won't give my life story here but it was Dawkins, along with Derren Brown, who got me thinking, eventually persuading me that religion was a load of bunkum. So whatever we think about Dawkins' communication style, it worked on at least one person!!!

[monoman]

For those, like myself, who didn't get to see it, it's up on google video here:-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763&q=enemies+of+reason+duration%3Along&total=195&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Big Les]

I won't give my life story here but it was Dawkins, along with Derren Brown, who got me thinking, eventually persuading me that religion was a load of bunkum. So whatever we think about Dawkins' communication style, it worked on at least one person!!!

Whilst probably the obvious thing to do from our point of view, getting DB on board was a great move. I think a lot of the fencesitters and casual believers are likely to have followed some of his career but may not have been aware of his sceptical stance or the connection between fake paranormal stuff and stage magic/mentalism. "If DB says it, perhaps there's something in it". And if nothing else he has recognition factor and "street cred".

[simonmaal]

Yes indeed, Brown's presentation style is more digestible. He is also in a rather unique position (among skeptics) in that he is able to demonstrate so-called psychic phenomena, just as good old Randi is able to demonstrate spoon bending etc. It's like "what I am about to show you is absolutely false, but by the time I have finished, you will be absolutely convinced that it is real."

This gives Brown a certain credibility as well as providing us with entertaining viewing!

[Asolepius]

Religiosity isn't an intellectual deficit.I think it may be. Not at all a deficit engendered by nature, but by nurture. I think you underestimate the power of conditioning. Think about it. Why is Morocco Muslim? Why is Italy Roman Catholic?

[luchog]

I think it may be. Not at all a deficit engendered by nature, but by nurture. I think you underestimate the power of conditioning. Think about it. Why is Morocco Muslim? Why is Italy Roman Catholic?

That certainly explains why some of the most prominent scientific researchers and theorists of the past have been religious. They clearly had intellectual deficits created by their mindless conditioning and lack of education.

[Asolepius]

That certainly explains why some of the most prominent scientific researchers and theorists of the past have been religious. They clearly had intellectual deficits created by their mindless conditioning and lack of education.What a curiously inconsistent juxtaposition of concepts. People must be judged by the standards of their times. But even in modern times, brilliant scientists continue to emerge with intellectual flaws. I may even have some myself ;). By intellectual deficit, I mean something that limits their thinking in some respect. It seems to be quite possible to have very deep insights in some areas and amazing delusions in others. I can't explain it, but it happens.

Having accepted that, the vast majority of modern top scientists are not religious. The exceptions don't disprove the rule.

[Asolepius]

No, Dawkins is upset, and in one context, rightly so. The book reflects this more than what he wants people to appreciate and engender - independent judgment. He doesn't accomplish this first and foremost because the title itself is a tabloid declaration. It implies two things he doesn't actually have a new perspective on: God doesn't exist, and that everyone who finds that endearing is not intelligent, or worse, psychotic. Worse still, psychotic people are making less intelligent people psychotic. It wasn't enough to be subjected to life-threatening speeds in interstate traffic to become a Bright, now there's no scientifically visible evidence God wanted people to believe he existed through superficially obvious signs.I agree that Dawkins uses a very passionate style, which I think is appropriate. Some other sceptics might not like it - it takes all sorts.....

He doesn't say they are psychotic. He just uses a dictionary definition of `delusion'. Let me give you an example (OK, an anecdote). Years ago a next door neighbour knocked on my door one dark night and announced that she had been talking to God about personal problems, and God had told her to ask me for help. Hearing voices is a cardinal sign of psychosis, but actually I think she wasn't psychotic. She was just a victim of conditioning. It was clearly a delusion though.

Dawkins doesn't say that believers are not intelligent. He does say that conditioning is powerful enough to overcome rational thought. I agree with this, from personal experience. And I don't mean my neighbour, I mean me.

Actually, he's only one bar up from Randi in the futility department with public relations.Not worth answering such a subjective judgement.

[qayak]

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the way in which one makes an argument, the style of delivery, is every bit as important if not moreso than what is actually said? Take a debate or public speaking course.

I'm sorry you don't like it and want everything to be based on the substance of an argument and not the presentation, but that's the way people are. You can whine about how "oversensitive" people are, how they just don't want to accept the truth, etc. etc., but it won't alter this "flaw" of human nature. Presentation is vitally important. If you want to do anything but preach to the choir, you have to find common ground with people and learn to use something besides a sledgehammer to get your point across.

You can sit around and tell even people in this thread that if they feel alienated by Dawkins style, too damn bad, but it doesn't change a thing. Clearly his abrasive style rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Have you ever heard Dawkins speak? I can tell you that the least of Dawkins' problem is his delivery. There isn't anyone who makes a more concise point that cuts right to the heart of the subject. You will notice that he always allows his opponent to finish talking. He listens to what they are saying, he digests it and then speaks. He does not shoot from the hip.

It isn't Dawkins' delivery that causes people consternation, it is the content. The arguments he uses completely destroy the opponent's position and mostly it is embarassing to watch. And that is the issue. People don't like that Dawkins publicly humiliates wooish people. I look at it differently. Dawkins didn't humiliate them, they humiliated themselves by publicly stating their foolishness without thinking it through.

And through it all, Dawkins is the consummate educator. He explains clearly and concisely how everything works. His books do rebutt religion and creationism but that is just the byproduct. His real goal, and one he achieves, is the public understanding of science. That is the position he holds and seems to take very seriously. After reading his book, The Blind Watch Maker, there is no mistaking that one understands why the creationists' argument is wrong but more importantly one gains a better understanding of how evolution works and why it is a better explanation for life as we know it than Itelligent Design is. All his books achieve this.

And Dawkins didn't run for the position of "Leader" of the skeptic movement. He is in that position because he is head and shoulders above everyone else in the department. Sagan and Gould are no longer with us but regardless, I think Dawkins would have been seen as the leader anyway. At the very least, he would have been co-leader with Sagan.

Whether we like it or not, someone is going to be seen as the leader of this movement. I don't think we could have picked a better one. We got lucky that the one who ascended to the postion was so good. We couldn't have done better but we sure as hell could have done worse!

[Blue Wode]

Bump.

Just to remind UK readers that Part 2 of ‘The Enemies of Reason’ will be broadcast tonight on Channel 4 at 8.00pm:


The Irrational Health Service

Richard Dawkins looks at how health has become a battleground between reason and superstition. A third of us now spend a total of over 1.6 billion a year on superstitious alternative remedies, but 80% of them have never been subjected to properly conducted trials. Richard Dawkins confronts this epidemic of irrational, superstitious thinking.

http://www.channel4.com/listings/C4/index.jsp?offset=0&position=0





After last week’s opening salvo against astrologers, dowsers and psychics, Professor Richard Dawkins turns his steely rationalist gaze on the practitioners of unscientific medicine. He admits that his first visit might seem like a soft target. Elisis Livingstone, a Glastonbury-based faith healer, claims that in our ancient Atlantean past we all had 12 strands of DNA rather than two and that she can restore the missing ten. He meets an Ayurvedic healer and a woman who can do wonderful things to your 12 bodily meridians, but it all gets a bit more serious when he meets an NHS homoeopath. Should the taxpayer fund “medicines” that are merely placebos, Dawkins wonders?

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2280930.ece




And for anyone who may have missed it in last Wednesday’s Guardian, here’s a very timely and topical piece from Professor David Colquhoun:


The age of endarkenment

Why is no one questioning the rise of new-age nonsense in the name of science, asks David Colquhoun.

-snip-

If all we had to worry about was a few potty homeopaths and astrologers, it might be better to shrug, and get on with some real science. But now the endarkenment extends to parliament, universities and schools, it is far too dangerous to ignore.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/15/endarkenment

[Asolepius]

Just finished watching episode 2. You can also get it on demand now I understand. What got me shouting out loud was Peter Fisher's outrageous performance. It's one thing to be deluded, it's quite another to mislead to that extent on national TV. It simply isn't true that we know little about the structure of water. How easy it is to claim that a majority of 100 RCTs support homeopathy, while forgetting any mention of trial quality (which Dawkins might have pointed out). I should make one correction to the script. The homeopathic hospital upgrade cost £20m not £10m. I have the business case for that in front of me. I suspect there has been some gerrymandering of the figures, with the NHS paying half and DoH the other.

Andrew Wakefield is currently up before the GMC for research malpractice. Fisher's distortions of scientific data are little different in seriousness.

[JonWhite]

Just watched part 2 also and can't help feel that it didn't have quite the bite that I was hoping for.

In the first programme it was pretty obvious to anyone that the dowsers or mediums hadn't got a clue and the evidence shown spoke for itself. In this one I thought that he let the likes of Chopra and Fisher off far too easily. Perhaps he didn't want to appear too aggressive or simply expected that the audience will be smart enough to see that they were talking complete b***ocks without having to rip their statements to shreds. I'm not sure that those who fall for such gibberish will get that though.

And only two programmes just aren't enough!

Still, other perhaps than the excellent "Atom" series shown on BBC4 recently, the best TV in a long while none the less.

[Blue Wode]

What got me shouting out loud was Peter Fisher's outrageous performance.

Although he did look very strained. Perhaps he realises that the game might be up sooner rather than later.

The most disappointing segment (IMHO) was where Dawkins had an ‘Activator’ instrument clicked against his neck - presumably by a chiropractor. A great opportunity was missed at that point to mention that some alternative therapies can be harmful, especially spinal/neck manipulation:

http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/100/7/330

Other than that, the programme seemed to flow quite well.

With the two Dawkins programmes now ended, does anyone know if the BBC still intends to do a second series of ‘Alternative Medicine: The Evidence’?

[Soapy Sam]

I felt rather let down at the lack of data presented - particularly re homoeopathy. Also, there seemed to be a lot of filler- essentially meaningless segments of vague visual effects. I liked the deliberate drawing of attention to Prince Charles' role in nonsense peddling, both at the Hom. Hospital and the Hale Clinic.
Maybe , being familiar with more details than the average person, we expect a bit too much. I believe the programmes are made by RDF. Are they self financed?

[cyborg]

I'm guessing C4 probably commissioned them.

[Asolepius]

I felt rather let down at the lack of data presented - particularly re homoeopathy. Also, there seemed to be a lot of filler- essentially meaningless segments of vague visual effects. I liked the deliberate drawing of attention to Prince Charles' role in nonsense peddling, both at the Hom. Hospital and the Hale Clinic.
Maybe , being familiar with more details than the average person, we expect a bit too much. I believe the programmes are made by RDF. Are they self financed?So did I. But to the average viewer data are boring and embarrassing interviews are entertaining. What happened to serious, meaty science series like Cosmos and The Ascent of Man? We really need a decent, long series about medical science and pseudoscience.

[Mashuna]

So did I. But to the average viewer data are boring and embarrassing interviews are entertaining. What happened to serious, meaty science series like Cosmos and The Ascent of Man? We really need a decent, long series about medical science and pseudoscience.

I've not seen the second episode yet, but I watched the first episode with my wife. I enjoyed it, but she found it frustrating that he didn't go into more rigourous testing. Her favourite part was the dowsing section, but even then was irritated by the lack of a control section, to further reduce their opportunity of an 'out'. It seemed like the series would have been better served as a six-parter, half an hour each, where more time was given to explaining and then testing each type of claim. The approach of interviewing people then following up with a voiceover saying that their claims were ridiculous didn't really impress her.

[Asolepius]

I've not seen the second episode yet, but I watched the first episode with my wife. I enjoyed it, but she found it frustrating that he didn't go into more rigourous testing. Her favourite part was the dowsing section, but even then was irritated by the lack of a control section, to further reduce their opportunity of an 'out'. It seemed like the series would have been better served as a six-parter, half an hour each, where more time was given to explaining and then testing each type of claim. The approach of interviewing people then following up with a voiceover saying that their claims were ridiculous didn't really impress her.I agree. It would have been better to hear the claims, and then present the evidence (or lack of it). To be fair he did do this for the execrable Fisher, by citing the Shang meta-analysis. But to do this properly would need say 20 minutes on each `therapy'. Also most of the interviews were so laughably lacking in anything you could grasp in order to test it, that it might have been a futile exercise. Dawkins did manage to screw out of Chopra that his favourite word `quantum' is a misuse.

[plumjam]

hmm.. lets go back to medieval times..

which do you think would be the most likely scenario?
Dawkins would be:

1. a nice pleasant open-minded member of the populace?

or

2. a vain, hectoring, self-righteous, arrogant member of the establishment of that time (the Church)?

awww...was I cruel to poor Dicky? ;)

[fishkr]

hmm.. lets go back to medieval times..

which do you think would be the most likely scenario?
Dawkins would be:

1. a nice pleasant open-minded member of the populace?

or

2. a vain, hectoring, self-righteous, arrogant member of the establishment of that time (the Church)?

awww...was I cruel to poor Dicky? ;)


What are you talking about? Dawkins doesn't represent anything like the Establishment, whatever that means. If anything the opposite is true.

How can you imagine him allied to any church? He's a f***** Atheist!
Have you read anything at all by him?

Dawkins represents the intellectual integrity of rationality and the scientific world view, and is talented enough to do a great job. Judging him on style points is very small minded IMHO. Better to judge him on content, but in this arena you'd be hard put to match him.

My advice to you is to read more and talk less.

M

[Blue Wode]

Part 2 of The Enemies of Reason is now free online (47 mins 48 seconds):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047

[plumjam]

What are you talking about? Dawkins doesn't represent anything like the Establishment, whatever that means. If anything the opposite is true.

the opposite of the Establishment? He's an Oxford Professor, from a family with aristocratic background, and speaks down to most people in a cut-glass accent, from what i've seen.

How can you imagine him allied to any church? He's a f***** Atheist!Have you read anything at all by him?

You're missing my point, which has nothing to do with atheism/theism. His character of someone attracted to establishment positions of power where he gets to berate those he feels superior to. In medieval society my guess is he'd have been attracted to a position in the Church, and would have become a particularly moralistic member of it.

Dawkins represents the intellectual integrity of rationality and the scientific world view, and is talented enough to do a great job. Judging him on style points is very small minded IMHO. Better to judge him on content, but in this arena you'd be hard put to match him.
My advice to you is to read more and talk less.

So that would be the intellectual integrity of espousing a theory, the central mechanism of which he is incapable of giving a single observed example?
(mutations adding information to the genome)
And then attacking anyone who might raise such objections, in the most vehment terms

[Asolepius]

the opposite of the Establishment? He's an Oxford Professor, from a family with aristocratic background, and speaks down to most people in a cut-glass accent, from what i've seen.What Establishment are you talking about? Right now we have an Establishment dominated by cronyism, disregard for evidence, and sucking up to the Royal Family.You're missing my point, which has nothing to do with atheism/theism. His character of someone attracted to establishment positions of power where he gets to berate those he feels superior to. In medieval society my guess is he'd have been attracted to a position in the Church, and would have become a particularly moralistic member of it.Your guesswork is of no more value than anything else you have said here.So that would be the intellectual integrity of espousing a theory, the central mechanism of which he is incapable of giving a single observed example?
(mutations adding information to the genome)
And then attacking anyone who might raise such objections, in the most vehment termsDo try to keep on topic. If you want to debate your own arcane theory, start another thread.

[JQH]

IMO Dawkins was far less "rude" to the sCAMmers than he was to the religious in the previous broadcast. He makes the point that a lot of them are well meaning and the fact that they spend time with their patients and show an interest in them probably helps boost the placebo effect.

[Elaedith]

hmm.. lets go back to medieval times..

which do you think would be the most likely scenario?
Dawkins would be:

1. a nice pleasant open-minded member of the populace?

or

2. a vain, hectoring, self-righteous, arrogant member of the establishment of that time (the Church)?

awww...was I cruel to poor Dicky? ;)


Obviously 1.

He is currently a nice pleasant open-minded member of the populace. He is opposed to the vain hectoring, self-righteous and arrogant dogma promoted by those such as New Age faith healers.

I see no reason to assume that he would have been different in medieval times.

[Big Les]

This is just embarrassing. Your prejudice against the upper/upper-middle class leads you to speculate upon a fantasy medieval version of Richard Dawkins and what life-choices he might have made had he been born 500 years ago. I mean, seriously, what?

I could just as easily make a similarly specious comparison with Galileo, that ill-chosen poster-boy pressed into posthumous service for woo-woos who want the legitimacy of science without any of the hard work and intellectual rigour. People are products of their time, upbringing, experiences, and genetics; alter any one of those and you have a different person. Dawkins also freely points out that his thinking and work is based upon that of many others before him - of course if he'd been born centuries prior to those people existing, he might well think differently. Well, bugger me, really? :rolleyes:

Are you seriously saying that Dawkins can/should be disregarded based upon his background and social status? Are you that oblivious to how much of an ad hominem argument that is?

[fishkr]

No, I think he thinks Dawkins should be disregarded because of his accent.

Plumjam, your proposal here is utterly un-amazing.

And I have a funny feeling you haven't read Dawkins, just seen him speak.

M

[qayak]

the opposite of the Establishment? He's an Oxford Professor, from a family with aristocratic background, and speaks down to most people in a cut-glass accent, from what i've seen.

So, unlike the rest of us, did Dawkins have a choice of parents? Is it his fault he is intelligent and used it to great effect?

I have never heard Dawkins speak down to anyone. He speaks the same way and writes the same way all the time . I assume the people who feel he speaks down to them have low self esteem. Is that Dawkins' fault also?

You're missing my point, which has nothing to do with atheism/theism. His character of someone attracted to establishment positions of power where he gets to berate those he feels superior to. In medieval society my guess is he'd have been attracted to a position in the Church, and would have become a particularly moralistic member of it.

He doesn't seem to be too fond of Blair or Bush so I doubt he is attracted to established powers. Maybe he likes the new Brit in Charge but I don't know.

So, what's your real issue? You seem to be searching desperately for a reason to hate Dawkins. Why not just be honest and admit that you hate Dawkins because he makes you doubt the crap your parents taught you and that you swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

[qayak]

This is just embarrassing. Your prejudice against the upper/upper-middle class leads you to speculate upon a fantasy medieval version of Richard Dawkins and what life-choices he might have made had he been born 500 years ago. I mean, seriously, what?

He reminds me of the jocks in highschool who would harass and beat on those they saw as nerdy, only to graduate and have to spend the rest of their lives working for one of those nerds and resenting every minute of it. He fails to understand that Dawkins would be successful no matter when he was born or what he chose to do.

Plumjam also fails to understand that diminishing the success of Dawkins will in no way make plumjam more successful or secure. :p

[fishkr]

the opposite of the Establishment? He's an Oxford Professor, from a family with aristocratic background, and speaks down to most people in a cut-glass accent, from what i've seen.


I don't know where you're from, but in my country the Establishment are largely right-wing good old boys only interested in preserving their own power at the great expense of virtually every possible thing else, who disregard science unless it can turn a profit for them, turn their back on it when it hurts, are in general a bunch of Born Again culturopathic sycophants.

It's hard to imagine Richard Dawkins fitting into the Establishment here. In the U.S., he would probably visit Texas or Mississippi and some redneck moron would shoot him for writing a book called The Devil's Chaplan.

M

[simonmaal]

I think it may be. Not at all a deficit engendered by nature, but by nurture. I think you underestimate the power of conditioning. Think about it. Why is Morocco Muslim? Why is Italy Roman Catholic?

Because in the past, if you were any other religion you would face stoning or the auto de fe. This is how these religions maintained their iron grip. Since these penalties have been removed and because of the advance of knowledge, I would hardly say that either of these countries is currently defined in religious terms.

But you do have a point about conditioning. Having said that, it is debated whether conditioning involves conscious processes (such as expectation) or if it is relates to unconscious processes. The fact that pigeons and rats (i.e. with very limited conscious awareness or reflective ability) can be conditioned suggests the latter. So I think the claim about an intellectual deficit misses the point.

[Mojo]

Just to remind UK readers that Part 2 of ‘The Enemies of Reason’ will be broadcast tonight on Channel 4 at 8.00pm


It's provoked a "fear-laden reaction (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/press-releases.aspx)" from the Society of Homeopaths. The Society of Homeopaths, Europe’s largest body of professional homeopaths, is concerned at the lengths yet another eminent professor and scientist is prepared to go to discredit homeopathy and patient choice, in what appears to be no more than a fear-laden reaction at the growing popularity of complementary medicine.

Dismissing anything that he himself cannot explain, Professor Richard Dawkins (‘The Irrational Health Service’) leaves the viewer unsure about who the real enemy of reason is as he insists on polarising the debate between homeopathy and medical science.

The real issues of patient choice and integrated health are swept aside as Dawkins unhelpfully pitches Herceptin against homeopathy. And not only does he omit to mention the four out of five meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy which have reached broadly positive conclusions, he also forgets to add that prescribed drugs can have significant side effects and indeed do not work for everyone.

Homeopathy has been around for over 200 years, treating the patient rather than the disease. And in 2000, the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Science & Technology cited homeopathy as one of the five Group One therapies, having “an individual diagnostic approach”(1) along with osteopathy, chiropractic, herbal medicine and acupuncture.

Dawkins et al are right to observe that its mechanism of action has yet to be proven. But nevertheless, the fact remains that it works. And with thousands of people seeing a practitioner and a £38 million pound spend on homeopathy predicted for this year, why would so many return again and again for treatment if it was not effective?

[simonmaal]

It's provoked a "fear-laden reaction (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/press-releases.aspx)" from the Society of Homeopaths.

Yes, this reaction is so laden with fear that they have resorted to telling lies, thus:

And not only does he omit to mention the four out of five meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy which have reached broadly positive conclusions, he also forgets to add that prescribed drugs can have significant side effects and indeed do not work for everyone.This is most interesting, because I am in the process of writing a paper on homoeopathy. I have looked at the meta-analyses, and RCTs consistently find homoeopathy to be no better than a placebo.

[Mojo]

I agree. It would have been better to hear the claims, and then present the evidence (or lack of it). To be fair he did do this for the execrable Fisher, by citing the Shang meta-analysis.


Speaking of Fisher and meta-analysis, in a piece he wrote (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_fisher/2007/05/open_letter_closed_minds.html) for the Guardian's "comment is free" section, he stated that: a review of 119 randomised, peer-reviewed clinical trials of homeopathy at the end of 2005 showed 49% positive results for homeopathy. Only 3% were negative. He didn't give any reference for it, or even the authors' names. I can't find this review on Pubmed; does anyone have any idea where (or even if) it has been published? The 1997 Linde meta-analysis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9310601&ordinalpos=112&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) identified 119 that met its inclusion criteria, but this could just be a coincidence.

I'm not quite sure what he means when he says that 49% were positive and "only 3% were negative". What did the remaining 48% find? Did they only consider studies where the homoeopathy actually did significantly worse than placebo as "negative"? Without seeing the actual study it's impossible to tell.

[Mojo]

Private Eye (UK satirical magazine) has commented in on the programme: NEXT WEEK: Professor Dawkins looks at the bizarre practice of shooting fish in a barrel, concluding that it is deeply unscientific and boring to watch.

[Asolepius]

Because in the past, if you were any other religion you would face stoning or the auto de fe. This is how these religions maintained their iron grip. Since these penalties have been removed and because of the advance of knowledge, I would hardly say that either of these countries is currently defined in religious terms.Have you been to either of these countries? Have you seen the faithful pouring out of the Marrakech mosques after Friday prayers? You are missing the point - there are very few Catholics in Morocco, and very few Muslims in Italy. And how many Muslims had Catholic parents?

But you do have a point about conditioning. Having said that, it is debated whether conditioning involves conscious processes (such as expectation) or if it is relates to unconscious processes. The fact that pigeons and rats (i.e. with very limited conscious awareness or reflective ability) can be conditioned suggests the latter. So I think the claim about an intellectual deficit misses the point.I am not necessarily saying that an intellectual deficit implies brain damage, eg a loss of neurones as in dementia. I am saying it is a training effect. The brain is trained to exclude certain cognitive processes, such that it becomes very difficult to reactivate them. Having said that, it is well known that the brain has considerable plasticity, so I would not be surprised to see conditioning causing neuronal changes, but I haven't seen the evidence.

[simonmaal]

Have you been to either of these countries?

Indeed I have, and Il Dumo in Milan is a beautiful piece of architecture despite what it stands for!

Have you seen the faithful pouring out of the Marrakech mosques after Friday prayers? You are missing the point - there are very few Catholics in Morocco, and very few Muslims in Italy. And how many Muslims had Catholic parents?Yes but this is an artefact of the violent past and can be explained in social, not cognitive, terms.

I am not necessarily saying that an intellectual deficit implies brain damage, eg a loss of neurones as in dementia.I'm glad to hear it!

I am saying it is a training effect. The brain is trained to exclude certain cognitive processes, such that it becomes very difficult to reactivate them. What? I hope you have some evidence to back up this extremely unorthodox claim!

Having said that, it is well known that the brain has considerable plasticity, so I would not be surprised to see conditioning causing neuronal changes, but I haven't seen the evidence.Behaviourism does not concern itself with neuronal changes, it uses behavioural (ie not material) data as its object of study, although it does share the same positivist epistemology as cognitive neuroscience, in that each can be considered scientific approaches.