Dawkins's new "Enemies of Reason" is online

[EGarrett]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763&hl=en-GB

It was posted by the TV station itself, so I feel it is kosher to watch.

If this is a repost, I apologize.

[AgeGap]

Thanks EGarrett, I missed the first half hour.
Love the chant at start.
"Numb your hole, Ring the cure.
Numb your hole, Ring the cure." Much more catchy than "Harry Crishner".

[brodski]

Thanks EGarrett, I missed the first half hour.
Love the chant at start.
"Numb your hole, Ring the cure.
Numb your hole, Ring the cure." Much more catchy than "Harry Crishner".

that would be "nam yo ho renge kyo" the mantra of the Nichiren Buddhists, I'm surprised that yrreg hasn't commented on this yet...

[JonWhite]

that would be "nam yo ho renge kyo" the mantra of the Nichiren Buddhists, I'm surprised that yrreg hasn't commented on this yet...


Or in full "nam yo ho renge kyo - I want a Ferari/new dishwasher/insert material desire of choice - nam yo ho renge kyo" etc. "Ding!".

It's the Buddhist equivalent of The Secret, but to be fair they did get there first.

[rymdman]

The double-blind test of all the dowsers was great.

[Mark A. Siefert]

I heard the Monkees use that silly chant on an episode of their TV show.

The look on Richard's face during that scene was priceless.

[articulett]

I was an accidental Buddhist of the nom yo ho variety once by someone I refer to as a "Buddha pest". I was invited to get this scroll at this special ceremony, and suddenly started getting congratulations at joining the sect. (I wonder if it washes off? Am I still Buddhist or what?)

[Eos of the Eons]

I like the psychic's claim that "stomach condition" is not vague. What the heck is specific about "stomach condition"? He doesn't get many hits at all. Then we find out the accident scenario has been explored before. Hilarious.

[AgeGap]

I like the psychic's claim that "stomach condition" is not vague. What the heck is specific about "stomach condition"? He doesn't get many hits at all. Then we find out the accident scenario has been explored before. Hilarious.
And then he tried to pass it off as if he couldn't remember. What a fool. Derren Brown proved to be better at cold reading though.
Loved the bloke with the cards, "lots of cats", too specific dude, you needed to say, "Is there something with a cat". Love or hate you then get a hit. Even "not really" could be turned into a hit. Amateurs.
Why does every member of the Woo Patrol turn out to be a camp bloke or a fat woman. Has it got to do with repressed sexuality? Serious Question.

[Big Les]

Difficult to answer without resort to generalisations, but firstly I think for some men the camp thing is an affectation or at least emphasised for effect to make them appear more sensitive and non-threatening. In fact I think those two things are key - it's not that all psychics are either camp men or big women, but it might be that they tend to garner the most success. You can mull on other factors such as the women having self-esteem issues and/or too much time on their hands (if not full-time workers), but like I say, risky generalisations.

[Q-Source]

The enemies of reason? I suppose fundamentalist atheists are also enemies of reason, aren´t they?
What does he expect to achieve calling others who don´t think like him "enemies"? Somebody should ask him to go back to Oxford and open his mouth only to teach Biology.

[Darat]

Have you watched the programme in question?

[Q-Source]

Just by the title you can see that he is doing the same again. Calling "enemies" anyone who doesn´t believe what he believes is idiotic and calls for trouble.
Can you just for ONCE in your life be neutral?

I will watch the programme later anyway.

[T'ai Chi]

can a person for the public understanding of science also be the person for the misunderstanding of religion?

Probably.

[Big Les]

Anyone criticising the programme without having watched it, please have the courtesy to do so before commenting further.

Now, in what way has he "misunderstood" religion? He seems to have a damned good handle on it to me.

[JoeEllison]

You know... I feel sorry for people who are embarrassed when their silly beliefs are exposed by people like Richard Dawkins. Does anyone have any ideas of how we can better console them, and help them get through the trying time known as "growing up"?

Seriously, it is just sad how adults can be so gullible and foolish, and how difficult it is for them to come to terms with their mistakes. They start by attacking the messenger, of course. How do we get them to move past that, and into a space where they understand that they can admit their mistakes? Heck, we'll be proud of them if they joined the ranks of the rational... how can we help them get there?

[EGarrett]

You know... I feel sorry for people who are embarrassed when their silly beliefs are exposed by people like Richard Dawkins. Does anyone have any ideas of how we can better console them, and help them get through the trying time known as "growing up"?

Seriously, it is just sad how adults can be so gullible and foolish, and how difficult it is for them to come to terms with their mistakes. They start by attacking the messenger, of course. How do we get them to move past that, and into a space where they understand that they can admit their mistakes? Heck, we'll be proud of them if they joined the ranks of the rational... how can we help them get there?Good question. I will put my response in a new thread.

[brodski]

Just by the title you can see that he is doing the same again. Calling "enemies" anyone who doesn´t believe what he believes is idiotic and calls for trouble.
Can you just for ONCE in your life be neutral?

I will watch the programme later anyway.

Can you demonstrate that he chose the title of the program? It's not uncommon for producers to impose program titles on the creativities.

How neutral is it for you to criticize Dawkins for a program which you have not seen? Wouldn't that be a textbook case of prejudice?

[brodski]

The enemies of reason? I suppose fundamentalist atheists are also enemies of reason, aren´t they?
How do you define fundamentalists atheist, and in what way do they reject reason- as those in the program specifically do?


What does he expect to achieve calling others who don´t think like him "enemies"? show where he has done this? And not his producers.


If someone specifically argues against using reason, is it unfair for them to be labeled as enemies of reason? Not enemies of Dawkins, or enemies of "us", but of reason?

If not, why not?
It is a label which certain groups would apply to themselves!

"Put out the lights on the Age of reason!"

[brodski]

can a person for the public understanding of science also be the person for the misunderstanding of religion?

Probably.

Which part of the program dealt with religion?

[Normal Dude]

Brodski,

They don't know; they haven't even watched it, although I suspect they will now that they have been called out on it. :rolleyes:

The look on Dawkins face while he listens is priceless. That guy would stop me dead in my tracks.

[Darat]

Just by the title you can see that he is doing the same again. Calling "enemies" anyone who doesn´t believe what he believes is idiotic and calls for trouble.
Can you just for ONCE in your life be neutral?

I will watch the programme later anyway.

To get back to the question I asked you - have you (or had you at the time when I asked you) watched the programme?

[brodski]

Brodski,

They don't know; they haven't even watched it, although I suspect they will now that they have been called out on it. :rolleyes:

The look on Dawkins face while he listens is priceless. That guy would stop me dead in my tracks.

happy birthday!

[CFLarsen]

can a person for the public understanding of science also be the person for the misunderstanding of religion?

Probably.

Has Dawkins misunderstood religion?

[Normal Dude]

happy birthday!

Thanks. :)

[Civilized Worm]

The enemies of reason? I suppose fundamentalist atheists are also enemies of reason, aren´t they?
What does he expect to achieve calling others who don´t think like him "enemies"? Somebody should ask him to go back to Oxford and open his mouth only to teach Biology.


I agree with those who who don't like the title Enemies of Reason, although it is not as disastrously bad as Root of All Evil was for my previous Channel 4 show. I wanted to call this one The Rational Inquirer, because it conveys the idea of honest and open-minded quest. But, as always, I lost the argument and The Enemies of Reason it shall be.
Richard

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum-orig/viewtopic.php?p=172658&sid=c096f6cf1bce00acc80273f59d637f8f#172658

[Mashuna]

Just by the title you can see that he is doing the same again. Calling "enemies" anyone who doesn´t believe what he believes is idiotic and calls for trouble.
Can you just for ONCE in your life be neutral?

I will watch the programme later anyway.

Good idea. I'm off to write up a review of The God Delusion now. I haven't read it, but I don't like the look of its cover.

[Civilized Worm]

I like the UK cover better.

[brodski]

I like the UK cover better.

That's because it's teh bestest version!

[rymdman]

I don't think Dawkins had much say about the title of the show, that's in the hands of the producers. In the debate concering his previous series, Roots of all Evil, he in fact disowns the title of that series and explicitly though polite puts the blame on the producers of the program.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Just by the title you can see that he is doing the same again. Calling "enemies" anyone who doesn´t believe what he believes is idiotic and calls for trouble.

Do you have a better suggestion for a title that won't hurt the pwoor wittle woo-woo's fweewings?

Can you just for ONCE in your life be neutral?

Sorry, but reality isn't "neutral." Reality has a a definite bias toward the facts. Something either is real or it is not. There is no "other point view" to be sought after for the sake of some mythical concept of "balance."

In short: A is A. A thing that is, IS.

[articulett]

Yes, as much as one might like to compromise and truth and the facts-- reality just won't let you. Wishing it were so just doesn't count on planet reality. Damn those biased skeptics and their biased reality! So different than those fair minded woo and their open minds (open to woo and poo but nothing true).

[EGarrett]

Part 2 is now also online...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4WLWNUj4sY

[brodski]

Do you have a better suggestion for a title that won't hurt the pwoor wittle woo-woo's fweewings? yes, "The Rational Inquirer". ;)

[Niobe]

He isn't neutral because it works as a strategy. People might dub him EXXXTREME, but if he was wishy washy, people might be motivated to buy what he's saying up till the point of wishy washyness.

Now if he acts FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEIST!@!, people might buy it up to the point of rationality but not as outspoken.

[ksbluesfan]

Is it true that Hillary Clinton is a fan of Deepak Chopra? I might vote for my dog in this election.

[brodski]

He isn't neutral because it works as a strategy. People might dub him EXXXTREME, but if he was wishy washy, people might be motivated to buy what he's saying up till the point of wishy washyness.

Now if he acts FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEIST!@!, people might buy it up to the point of rationality but not as outspoken.

Can you point to how he has acted as a "fundamental atheist" or as "extreme", rather than being publicized against his wishes as either of those things?

[Normal Dude]

Is it true that Hillary Clinton is a fan of Deepak Chopra?

Just another reason I have to hate Hillary Clinton. :eek:

[EGarrett]

Google Video link for part II:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1253688620345602908&q=%22enemies+of+reason%22+duration%3Along&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Please check the 38:09 mark. Is it just me, or did the Kinesiology woman give Dawkins a boner?

[monoman]

can a person for the public understanding of science also be the person for the misunderstanding of religion?

Probably.

can a person for the public understanding of science also be the person for the misunderstanding of the tooth fairy?

Probably.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Is it true that Hillary Clinton is a fan of Deepak Chopra? I might vote for my dog in this election.

If so, your dog might be getting some competition at the polls from my cat and his running mate, Mickey Mouse.

[Math Maniac]

Enemy=actively oppose or be hostile to something/someone.

Reason=the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgments by a process of logic (notice it's not faith, belief, or comfort).

Does anyone believe that purveyors of psychic phenomenon or homeopathy or one of the many other types of woo-woo ideas are not very strongly against logic (by and of scientific standards) when it comes to testing/evaluating their claims? The lack of claimants for Randi's million dollar challenge is a testament to just as much.

It's pretty clear, then, that "The Enemies of Reason," like it or not, is appropriate.

Who claims that religious materials should not be so biased when titling their books so as not to offend? Not me, at least...

[Niobe]

Can you point to how he has acted as a "fundamental atheist" or as "extreme", rather than being publicized against his wishes as either of those things?
Absolutely nowhere and I used those terms with the fullest of sarcasm. Keep in mind that religion has always been a sacred cow (hurr), and actually saying the emperor has no clothes would be perceived as disrespectful.

[Thing]

Stephen Russell, the fraudulent quack who used to pollute the Observer, and calls himself "The Barefoot Doctor" because he's a pompous ass writes in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2158067,00.html

He's a very entertaining guy, but he suffers from existential insecurity: everything has to be proven before he'll believe it.
As opposed to Russell, whose view is that a thing only has to be financially profitable or make him feel important before he'll believe it.
It's so self-limiting: Dawkins must be very unhappy in himself. We've progressed beyond that. Look at the miraculous realms being explored by quantum physicists. We have to suspend disbelief for a while, and see where they'll take us.
Words fail me to describe the level of smug stupidity necessary to make someone capable of writing that. By the way, Mr Russell doesn't seem to have a wikipedia entry. Alas I haven't time but...

[Big Les]

Those would be the miraculous realms of quantum physics that are no sort of refuge for his brand of evidenceless mindless feelgood pap.

I wish people would just be honest and say "look, we know there's no reason to believe any of this, but we'd like to pretend to anyway, if it's all the same to you. We enjoy it, and it makes some of us rich".