Enemies of Reason: Channel 4 television show

I've just seen a television show advertised, for all you Brits who may be interested in the subject. Professor Richard Dawkins explores how superstition of the paranormal is taking over science and logic.

Richard Dawkins confronts what he sees as an epidemic of irrational, superstitious thinking...

Source, and more info: Channel 4

The program airs on Mon 13 Aug 2007 8pm; part 2 Mon 20 Aug 8pm

Don't know if I'll be watching it myself, these types of programs usually over-exaggerate the 'problems'. It might be interesting tho...

[edit on 11-8-2007 by DragonsDomain]

Thanks for that i'll give it a look, but i think it'll be a disappointment

Oh Thanks im going to have a watch of that,.

Hopefully we can chat hee about our thoughts on the program,

I will try and keep an eye out for this, Thanks!!!
Hopefully it wont be biased either way.

It's by the fellow who wrote "The God Delusion". Could be quite interesting, sadly I'll miss it........ rats!

Excellent prog!!

Will any real psychics please stand up!!

It was great to see the "psychic" powers escape the believers once again.
The look on Simon Goodfellows face when he failed to get any of his Tarot reading of Dawkins right.

The crushed, dejected look of all those dowsers who genuinely seemed to believe they could find water with some sticks.

And the Spiritualists.. Could anyone not have got something right about that fat woman? The only one he got anywhere near right was a young woman.....whom it turns out he had done a reading for previously....there's a surprise

Personally, I don't think Dawkins was hard enough on them, shame on these people making a living from the confused, bereaved and mentally ill. He was harder on the god delusionists imho.

I was quite amused by his passing reference to those that believe all the daft conspiracy theories...I wonder if he ever visits ATS?

Great to see the money grabbing elitists and charlatans owned. Can't wait for part 2. Keep up the good work Richard

We all have energies, the irrational is what the rational mind cannot understand. Dawkins type people think foolishly that because it is DNA then it will be all protons and neutrons and electrons. But our universe is made of much more material than that has more dimensions than that, quantum entaglement (physic) and that is stuff we cannot rationally comprehend, but irrationally you feel it. edit Why should DNA not spend some of its time interacting with all of this? end edit. The argument between science and religion is one as bad the other, i'll leave religion this time, but it is not up to science to discuss God, rather what we can see that there is or HOPE to see that there is, whether that came from God or not is entirely personal.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by redled]

Oh dammit! I meant to watch it :\

The guy presenting it really irratated me on Richard and Judy because he kept calling Darren Brown a conjuror :\ - I think he should invest in a dictionary.

By equal measure the irrational mind can't seem to get the take of the rational mind.

Quantum theories, M and string have been a godsend to the so called paranormal world.

Just because science don't know where 90% of universal mass is or whether or not there is other dimensionality...doesn't mean that it is has any link to alleged psychic ability. Fact is science can't prove it.

You can't prove thoughts exist either I suppose...but they seem to
At best there is as much real world evidence of "psychic" gifts as there is proof of tooth fairies, leprechaun's, intelligent footballers, Superman and a brain in Prez Bush.

Just face it guys, the so called psychic powers only exist in your minds...that's why you cannot demonstrate them in the real world. You can no more demonstrate psychic powers than you can a thought or dream.

If you people want to believe this delusional nonsense then do. What I find sickening is when the delusion is used to extort monies out of the bereaved, lonely and mentally ill.

Randis money is safe for good I reckon and not because of any shenanigans by him. Its safe because the power does not exist...and he knows it...that's why he put the money up. Even the grand spoonbender himself was shown a fraud.

Hey there's a challenge why don't you all remote view Randis safe combination Oh no it wouldn't work....all that negative energy.
You guys remind me of Oddball in Kellys Heroes

Originally posted by FudgeStix
Oh dammit! I meant to watch it :\

The guy presenting it really irratated me on Richard and Judy because he kept calling Darren Brown a conjuror :\ - I think he should invest in a dictionary.

Hes not much more than a conjuror really though is he? Mr Brown was doing a better job than the real psychics though. I wonder which would make the most money?

Originally posted by something smells

Hes not much more than a conjuror really though is he? Mr Brown was doing a better job than the real psychics though. I wonder which would make the most money?

I don't know what your definition of a conjuror is, but when I think of the term, I think puff's of smoke and doves in sleeves. Darren Brown is a psychologial illusionist. I do agree that he's probably more convincing than the likes of Colin Fry.

Although I did get where this guy is coming from, and agree that a lot of stuff is probably BS, I didn't like his tone at all. (I watched it on 4OD) All he seemed to do was mock people, and also seemed to contradict himself a lot. His example of the bat experiment - he stated that people laughed at this idea until it was proven, but it was, so how can he say 'what your doing is rubbish!' just because it hasn't been proven yet.

I agree blind faith can be a dangerous thing, but then he clearly has a blind faith in science which isn't always right.

[edit on 13/8/07 by FudgeStix]

I think that alot of those shows that set out to disprove paranormal experiences probably will. This is because the psychics they bring on the show are probably actors anyway or those that were being read were fibbing to the psychics.

Originally posted by FudgeStix

I don't know what your definition of a conjuror is, but when I think of the term, I think puff's of smoke and doves in sleeves. Darren Brown is a psychologial illusionist. I do agree that he's probably more convincing than the likes of Colin Fry.

I see where your coming from. I suppose I just see it as mental smoke and mirrors. His tools may be a little different from a genuine old school conjurer and really his mentalist act has earlier incarnations in the old music hall...(although there is the possibility it was planted stooges and gullible people...we'll never know).

Originally posted by FudgeStix
Although I did get where this guy is coming from, and agree that a lot of stuff is probably BS, I didn't like his tone at all. (I watched it on 4OD) All he seemed to do was mock people, and also seemed to contradict himself a lot.

Welcome to the world of Dawkins

Originally posted by FudgeStix
His example of the bat experiment - he stated that people laughed at this idea until it was proven, but it was, so how can he say 'what your doing is rubbish!' just because it hasn't been proven yet.

I did think that too. I thought that was the point...that there is no evidence? If we go round accepting stuff just in case it may be real where will we be? A total acceptance of every loony toon, delusional concept? Nobody would be wrong in anything they do...because evidence has not been found yet, to prove any particular belief or concept right. I mean a child molester would be OK because they believe that they are right in what they do...but the evidence has not proved it yet? Murder is OK because science hasn't proven that the murderer was right because he believed himself to be. The lunatics would certainly then be running the asylum!!

Originally posted by FudgeStix

I agree blind faith can be a dangerous thing, but then he clearly has a blind faith in science which isn't always right.

Mmm a blind faith in science. Yes, science does not have all the answers but the gentleman has had access to many evidence based works..like we all do. Observations and experiments that are repeatable...some in our own homes. We know copper turns a flame green, we can all do that and video it and show the world. We can all attend a lecture and anyone of us could get up and repeat that experiment before the hundreds there. No mind tricks, cameras everywhere recording the event to view for posterity.

That's what Dawkins is basing things on...a lifetime of repeatable experimental observations. It does not rely on a delusional, gullible mind.

Believe me once upon a time I thought I may have a gift but deny it it goes away...it is no more real than a fleeting daydream of what the new secretary looks like in the buff or what its like to be Bill Gates for a day.

I think people should do themselves a favour and deny their gifts...it will soon go away. How real is something that disappears when you deny it?

I think Dawkins had a point though, in that it is quite alarming how many people believe this nonsense. I think in part it is the fault of science. It ain't sexy enough and has not solved all the worlds problems like the sci fi books said it would. People fell away from religion for science and the answers weren't there either, so they try the new kids on the block.

If there were any "realness" to the psychic gig there would be a common thread, a consensus. But there ain't. There are as many loony toon, crackpot ideas as there are people believing in them. Go to a psychic fair, I do quite regularly. It is amazing what the next numpty thing they come up with. These are mostly over 40's who have suddenly decided that white, purple or black is the colour for their menopausal, midlife crisis. They go to Egypt read a few books and "voila" a new healing system is born. Get coked and stoned out of your head and believe they have met some aliens whom gave them a message, "voila" a new religion is born.

There are a lot of charlatans but I do think that some genuinely believe they have a gift. The look on those peoples face when they were owned on the show...looked genuine. Its just positive reinforcement. The selective amnesia of the mind...you forget the failures.

I was skeptic, then believed and now I would say I am a cynic. I cannot see any way that anyone can prove this nonsense real to me. Yes there are things we don't understand...but it is nothing to do with psychic powers.

Chanting to some earth mother god or burning candles in your ear won't get you better. I suppose it has some benefit in that it gives the patient positivity but that's all. But that ain't paranormal its common sense. If everyday we walked about thinking "Oh well I am gonna die anyway!!" we wouldn't watch the road when crossing.

Some weird pagan spell may give you positive thought but it won't cure that cancer. You need science for that...and sometimes that fails too.

Dawkins and science ain't perfect, nor am I. But I'll take science over superstitious mumbo jumbo anyday.

Can't wait for part 2....



FudgeStix I like the av.. a personal fav




[edit on 14-8-2007 by something smells]

Originally posted by ShadowedRedemption
I think that alot of those shows that set out to disprove paranormal experiences probably will. This is because the psychics they bring on the show are probably actors anyway or those that were being read were fibbing to the psychics.

Sorry friend no. The Goodfellow bloke is supposed to be a top flight geezer I understand...nearly had a reading from him myself some time back...when I believed.

Ok I accept that editing could show bias, perhaps we saw that, in that the only success at the spiritualist church was someone who had, had a previous reading. Not so much a spiritualist medium as a memory man!!

Shows that set out to disprove the paranormal will do so, not because of loading the project with plants and actors but because the paranormal is parabollix. They don't need to load the show.

Time after time the "gifted elite" fail and still they say it is the fault of someone else. Its like a child not accepting responsibility for its actions..."Its not my fault Dad!!"

I believe that there is some sort of inter-dimensionality going on and that we do not know all that there is to know but to associate the mysteries of the universe with psychic ability is bunkum.

People know that magicians and illusionists like Derren Brown etc are fooling them but that don't stop people believing at the time of the event. If you suspend the "How did he do that!!" you have a basis for a belief. His abilities in times gone by could have made him a magician at court or some ash by a stake...depending on the beliefs and gullibility of those around.

According to the show something like 40% of the adult population have some spiritual belief. But I believe that this is no more significant than following your favourite football (US=soccer) team and no more beneficial to your life imho.

I have no such beliefs. I do not follow football, do not believe in god. My only belief is that we die and get eaten by worms....

We are stardust and eventually we shall be again that's the truth of it. If belief in the paranormal helps you get through this crap world then good on yer.

Look there is enough of the "psychic elite" making money out of delusional fools. The industry is worth millions...why don't you all get together and prove science wrong......James Randi heres a million dollars if you can do this under control conditions. I won't hold my breath!!! It will never happen because ultimately the psychics know you can't prove it....and their vested interest..a nice little earner....would collapse if they tried. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas as they say!!

If you cannot manifest your gift outside of the mind...that is in the real world people, then you have no proof of its existence imho. All you have is belief...thats the same as all religions, followers of football teams and little boys who think their Dad is great.

Originally posted by something smells
I did think that too. I thought that was the point...that there is no evidence? If we go round accepting stuff just in case it may be real where will we be?

What I was trying to say with my point before was, that we couldn’t detect sonar in bats until we discovered how to use it ourselves – how can he be so sure that psychic ability doesn’t exist just because a fancy machine hasn’t been invented yet that can detect this.

I don’t believe in a lot of psychic/paranormal stuff, nor do I believe in god either – but then I would find it hypocritical to shout people’s faiths down, simply because I have no evidence to really back it up either way. I’d rather keep an open mind, rather than see the world in black and white – surely some of the best scientific discovers where made because of an open mind?

I’d be quite happy to sit through a program and feel like I was watching a balanced debate, but I found his program to be very much like the rest of channel 4 viewing (very one sided). I agree, he showed a lot of very good evidence to show that some things where rubbish – but what he didn’t mention was the fact that there ARE unexplained thing that happen in this world. These things may not turn out to be paranormal at all when we can finally test them properly – they might have a perfectly logical, natural explanation – but they still happen.

I agree that many people use their ‘gifts’ or ‘powers’ to exploit others for personal gain. This is when belief in the paranormal becomes dangerous – if these people truly have a belief why not see individual’s for free, surely that is not the ‘Christian’ way (I say Christian, since many of the ‘medium’ I’ve encountered are part of that faith).

What I’m trying to say is that, although I agree on most levels with Dawkins, I do not agree with his method of presentation.

Well it was part two tonight all about healing!!

Splendid stuff, I wonder how many takes it took to get the look of disbelief and smirky smile removed from edit?

I thought on the whole he was fair and I would say that the enemies of reason, were really the enemies of their own particular beliefs.

Some guy who always uses his skills in association with quantum theory, backed down and said it was just a metaphor when Dawkins asked him about it.

I think he hit the nail right on the head...placebo. I suppose if making someone feel good about themselves and believe its working its kinda OK...but please don't claim its science... and charge exhorbatant wedges for the privilege.

These people go round saying that science proves it works and when Dawkins said no it doesn't the response was kind of....who needs science this idea has been round for hundreds of years...priceless

Something smells,

Do you believe in this?

LOL ha ha ha. Yes, well mm.

1) I would say that there is some truth to that. Although not qualified for professional diagnosis my life observations would suggest indeed that there is an element of mental illness involved.

2) Sounds about right to me.

3) Totally believe that one.

4) LOL yep can't argue with that.

5) I think there is a thin line between open minded and total gullibility. The bit about buying a PhD, I immediately thought of Doreen Virtue.

The bit at the bottom mentions how to profit from the paranormal. I liked the BB under the skin idea and I am working out how to get colonic irrigation and Hopi Ear Candles into one process LOL

Bit of an old website that!!

Seriously though, my viewpoint has come about from life experience. Once upon a time I scoffed at new agey, paranormal bollix. Then after a few severe and nasty "life experiences" I did seek answers. I have had odd wee things happen throughout my life but blank them as daydreams. But seeking these answers I approached the paranormal types, went to friends that had such beliefs, attended fairs tried a few courses, meditated, burnt Nag Champa and started getting images, voices and sensations/feelings. But found that when you go from open minded to believer that things got stronger. Being an inquisitive type I tried it the other way and found it goes. Therefore, it is the brain, you create that reality, as much as the deluded create a fantasy world. Fantasy world delusions are fine for a novel but in real life we should be getting on with real issues, accept what we are....don't immaturely hide behind a delusional belief. I think we are all special and unique, we don't need elitist paranormal bull-shine to aspire to.

Do I think science has all the answers? No Is there more to know? Yes. But when something manifests only as thought within the human mind then that is the only place it exists. All that mankind has manufactured, written and sculpted started as a thought. The difference with those are that they have a tangible existence. We can all look, touch, taste, smell and hear
these thoughts as a physical experience. They do not rely on like minded toadying and simpering acceptance by "enlightened" individuals.

Thanks for your explanation. Although I don't agree with everything (also based on my own experiences) I find it very interesting.

I watched that programme, it's rare that you see something so biased. At the start of the show Darkwins criticises the media by saying there is "no evidence" that the MMR vaccine cause autism. Really…
1. 85% of children with autism have virus used in MMR
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/05/28/wmmr28.xml
2. Cover Up by Vested Interests: www.express.co.uk...'covered-up'
3. MMR Link has been proven long ago (former government scientists) www.dailymail.co.uk...
4. Further reading: www.truefacts.co.uk...

Well I think that’s enough evidence. I don’t know if know if the MMR vaccine causes autism or not, but to say there is “no evidence” is total bias. Whenever you are told there is “no evidence” for something be aware that there is evidence for almost everything (true and false).
Darkwins has produced a documentary which makes a lot of bold statements about the paranormal without ever showing two sides of the argument.
His “documentary” is a non documentary designed to pull in the viewers, by being completely outrageous and drawing as little attention to this is possible.

He says there is no evidence for homeopathy, and cries shame for it’s NHS funding.
Ok…
Study shows 70% report positive health changes after treatment….
news.bbc.co.uk...
He then later in the documentary conceives that homeopathy might help due to placebo. Great!!!
Can’t this arrogant angry old man see that regardless of whether or not it’s placebo the point is it works with few side effects?

In fact it’s about 2.45 times more effective than placebo
www.homeopathyheals.com...

In my humble opinion this makes sense as homeopathy should be far more effective at deceiving the mind into curing it’s self than say a chalk tablet. It does after all appeal most to the very, very gulerable (open able minded).
The point is it works; and Richard Darkwins is a real deceiver for misrepresenting the truth but not just failing to show the other side of the argument, but actually boldly denying that much of it even exists.

Perhaps through nothing more sinister than the desire to make money through biased TV, Darkins has at least added to the evidence for their being a conspiracy against the paranormal (itself), (another topic in itself).