Wednesday, August 15, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Good luck, Dawkins!

by Sue Blackmore, Guardian

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2007/08/good_luck_dawkins.html

Superstitions like astrology, Tarot reading, crystal-gazing and mediumship may be fun, but they are not harmless.

I enjoyed Richard Dawkins' first episode of his new Channel Four documentary, Enemies of Reason, but then I would, wouldn't I?

He's taken on the role I used to call "rent-a-sceptic" - the one who goes on TV, talks to all those nice, cuddly, "spiritual" people, and tries to point out that they are making false claims, deluding themselves and others, and profiting out of other peoples' suffering. It's a tough job because you always seem to be on the side of the misery-guts, debunkers and kill-joys.

You always seem to be telling well-meaning, sincere people that they are not only wrong but bad. It's not fun, and after a while it gets you down. I know because I did it for the best part of 25 years and eventually I couldn't stand it any more.

Why does he do it, then? And why did I? Richard claims that superstitions like astrology, Tarot reading (I used to be a pretty good Tarot reader myself before I became so sceptical), crystal-gazing, and mediumship impoverish our society and harm both individuals and their families. So someone needs to stand up to them. And I think he is right.

I didn't always think so. Indeed as a student I was blown away by what I saw as a more spiritual way of looking at the world, full of exciting new (or terribly ancient) theories that "establishment" scientists rejected, and rich with opportunities for understanding myself and changing the world for the better. I embraced all sorts of whacky theories and decided to devote my life to studying them. A few years of research changed my mind completely and I went from being a believer in just about every New Age phenomenon, through totally rejecting it all, to something far harder to sustain - an open-minded scientist trying to disentangle the grains of truth from the mass of superstition, deception and ignorance.

There are some grains of truth in there. Out-of-body experiences happen, even though nothing leaves the body, sleep paralysis happens and is terrifying if you don't know what it is, mystical experiences can change people's lives for the better, and some alternative therapies can be wonderfully relaxing and enjoyable, even if their underlying theories are completely false. Even so, these grains are hidden in a vast mass of delusion.

During the programme Richard asked: "Am I taking all this too seriously?" I'm sure some viewers will think he is, and that it's all just harmless fun. But it's not.

To give one example I've never forgotten, I was once in the London audience for the Jimmy Young television programme with the famous medium Doris Stokes. Appearing to be a kind, and caring granny type, she "communicated" with the spirits and brought messages to their loved ones here on the lower planes.

I sat next to a bereaved couple from Manchester who travelled to London every week to visit Doris who, they said, gave them comfort and hope. Between takes they told me that one of their three young girls had been playing near an upstairs window and fell out, impaling herself on the railings below, and dying of horrific wounds. It must have been appalling and I could only imagine their sorrow. But above all I was angry at what Doris Stokes was doing. This couple were spending money and time they clearly could ill afford, leaving their other children at home, and being deluded into thinking they were talking to their dead child. This is no way for either them or their other children to come to terms with grief.

Doris Stokes died a few years later and the critics revealed how she had used all the same old shoddy tricks, even using accomplices to make her séances more impressive. Yet many people still remember her warmly as the best medium of her generation.

Among all the hundreds of mediums, psychics and Tarot and I-Ching readers I met, I think the vast majority were sincere, and honestly believed that they were doing more than cold reading or using their intuition. Nevertheless this does not change the fact that they are making false claims, defrauding people of vast sums of money and convincing people that it's all right to believe something just because you feel deeply that it's true.

I met people addicted to their favourite psychics - people who would not make decisions without consulting their astrologer, and people who were terrified because of false predictions some reader had given them. In a stressful and unpredictable world it's understandable that people turn to those who can offer them false guidance but I've seen too many horrible outcomes to think it's just a bit of harmless fun.

After all those years of research I try not to get involved any more. I find it too upsetting. It's amazing how unpopular you become by trying to tell the truth, and how little effect experiments and evidence have on the exploitative and money-making New Age world. So good luck, Richard! I hope you won't get too depressed by it all.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 47 of 47 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #63773 by monkey2 on August 15, 2007 at 8:32 pm

I've seen too many horrible outcomes to think it's just a bit of harmless fun.

Perhaps it's about time the Police got involved.

Other Comments by monkey2

2. Comment #63778 by jefft0 on August 15, 2007 at 9:43 pm

In a democracy, it's impossible to head down a road that supposes people might not be able to make reasonable decisions based on available facts. Otherwise, this could be used as an argument that their votes don't count. So, since all the facts are freely available that astrology is a bunch of bunk, there is no way to outlaw it or protect people from it because they are purported to be rational citizens that must be able to decide for themselves. To start "protecting" them from their own bad decisions is to head down the road of "protecting" them from the burden of deciding who to vote for. It won't happen.

Other Comments by jefft0

3. Comment #63791 by eric.malitz on August 15, 2007 at 11:40 pm

There should be a law that makes all these people have some statement/disclaimer or permit upon entering or somewhere near simply stating; entertainment only.
churches should have the same thing.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

4. Comment #63793 by PopeStig on August 15, 2007 at 11:50 pm

Jefft0,

I would think that you can still go after the fraudsters that make money and claim this is working and not extend the same protection to all of these weird beliefs that we (wrongly) extend to religion.

By opposing superstition in every arena you can and constantly go after people who make wrongful claims, it will fall out of favour. Whether in online forums, newspapers, blogs and reporting wrongful woo woo claims to the proper ombudsman.

Perhaps if enough people complained to their paper about horoscopes being wrong, we could force disclaimers in that say the horoscopes are 'just for fun', perhaps a step in getting them removed?

Anywhere where city councils or govermental bodies give grants or support to woo woo organisations, you can register your displeasure with your local councilman or mp.

If you go after the people that make all the silly unverifiable claims, they won't be around to spread their nonsense and thus won't infect the rest of us with silly superstition.

In the UK you made a stand against facism and nipped it in the bud early on. Perhaps a similar (although less violent) stand can be made against woo woo and religion.

'They shall not pass'

I am just glad I am a Gemini, as we don't believe in superstition.

Other Comments by PopeStig

5. Comment #63795 by Russell Blackford on August 15, 2007 at 11:52 pm

I'm not a big fan of paternalistic laws, though I don't think it's true that they can be ruled out entirely on principle. Anyway, I think the main thing is to expose this sort of stuff, not think that the state has to get involved with every issue.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

6. Comment #63801 by MartinSGill on August 16, 2007 at 12:30 am

Yes, the information is out there; the problem is that people just don't give a rats arse.

They'd rather read toilet paper like The Sun and be fed nonsense than read a newspaper with articles that actually cut to the heart of the matter.

The fact that nonsense like religion is given so much respect doesn't help either. If the superstitious nonsense religion comes up with is acceptable then why not all the other idiocy like astrology, tarot cards and so forth; it's all the same stuff after all.

People are raised to be stupid and placid (and I don't think it's a conspiracy, just a failing). People leave education bored to tears with it and unable and certainly unwilling to learn anything. They forget the primary rule that learning is fun, or more likely have have it bored out of them by government targets and incompetent teachers. If we paid teachers more, we'd actually attract more competent ones, instead of rejects that can't get jobs in industry or take on the role to push (brainwash) a political or religious agenda (yes, there some genuine, dedicated, convinced and excellent teachers out there, but I consider them the minority).

The result is that people would rather just "feel" their way through life than think their way through life.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

7. Comment #63802 by NakedCelt on August 16, 2007 at 12:52 am

Appearing to be a kind, and caring granny type, she "communicated" with the spirits and brought messages to their loved ones here on the lower planes... This is no way for either them or their other children to come to terms with grief.

The most offensive example of this I've seen has got to be the 1999 "prophetic interview" with River Phoenix, then six years dead, published by The Family — the hippie/Christian offshoot sect that Phoenix's family had left when he was a child. Phoenix had in life described The Family as "disgusting", saying they ruined people's lives. The interview portrayed him as regretting ever leaving, reproaching his parents for taking him away, and asking readers to pray for his brother Joaquin's return to the fold.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

8. Comment #63803 by SteveN on August 16, 2007 at 12:53 am

Although I agree that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, I do think that many of the New Age and other woo-woo practitioners should be liable for prosecution for fraud. It's one thing to claim to be able to speak to the dead, but another to accept money from the desparate and bereaved for providing a 'service' which is clearly fraudelent. The reluctance of society to impose the same levels of testing and evidence to pseudoscientific nonsense that are mandatory for all other products and services just gives it all an air of respecitibility that is unwarranted.

I find the situation with homeopathy particularly galling. The majority of people here in Germany seem to accept homeopathic remedies as being safe and proven treatments. Very few are aware that the 'medicines' they spend so much money on are nothing but pure water. If it's on sell in the local pharmacy, it must be effective, right? Can you imagine the scandal that would ensue if a large pharmaceutical company bypassed all that inconvenient research and costly clinical testing and simply started packaging water as a treatment for cancer, high blood pressure or AIDS?

If we're going to have standards and regulations for products such as drugs, they should be applied to everything, not just those produced by 'evil big pharma'.

Other Comments by SteveN

9. Comment #63805 by Ohnhai on August 16, 2007 at 12:58 am

My memory might be going, but didnt Sue rip Richard a new one for criticising the falsehoods and irrationality of religion? But now she is all for tearing down the silly false ideas and superstitions that 'other people' hold, so long as her religion is not targeted for criticism...

The blindness of faith creating un-intended hypocrisy...

Other Comments by Ohnhai

10. Comment #63806 by infidel_michael on August 16, 2007 at 12:58 am

This campaign should be considered as a last warning from scientists. If people don't understand that they are deluded and they stubbornly want to give money to charlatans, I think RDF should start to sell water as homeopathic remedy, take money from these stupid people and use them for scientific research and education. (Of course, it must be done under a different name, RD hasn't the right reputation to do this :)

Other Comments by infidel_michael

11. Comment #63807 by Flagellant on August 16, 2007 at 1:11 am

Is it too much to hope that we will, after all, see RD's 'medium' who purported to put Richard in touch with his father? (For those who don't know, Richard's father is still alive.) Apparently, this clip will not be shown 'for legal reasons'.

I just don't get it. Did the Channel Four lawyer make the decision? There is no sensible legal reason for withholding this. One of the objectives of 'junk-busting' programmes like The Enemies of Reason must surely be to induce a purveyor of nonsense to sue. It would be a win-win situation for reason if a case ever came to court. My guess would be that no 'medium' would ever dare to risk it.

So please, RD & Channel Four, get it out there.

Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

12. Comment #63809 by mmurray on August 16, 2007 at 1:18 am

My memory might be going, but didnt Sue rip Richard a new one for criticising the falsehoods and irrationality of religion?

Doesn't ring a bell to me. Can anybody find this ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

13. Comment #63810 by Clappers on August 16, 2007 at 1:36 am

Here's Sue's website

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

She used to study and test paranormal claims, but got fed up since once proper controls were put in place nothing ever happened.

Like Sam Harris she believes that meditation can calm the mind.

Steve

Other Comments by Clappers

14. Comment #63815 by Prufrock on August 16, 2007 at 1:54 am

I liked Sue Blackmore's article in spite of its rather depressing tone. It's a message I can empathise with. I am an unashamed fan, not just of Richard Dawkins, but of clear and evidence based thinking, as most people I have read on this site are as well. Richard Dawkins as a result of his courage, intelligence and high profile has done a magnificent job of not just clarifying the inherent complexity behind scientific concepts, but has played a major role in leading the retort against all too pervasive superstitious thinking, both in ourselves as individuals and in the institutions which we allow to drive our lives. I watched enemies of reason and was left a little flat as many of the things he quite rightly pointed out had provided much mirth and creative debate when I was in sixth form a while ago - ok I'm old, 30+ years ago. I have had my run ins - and still find myself vocally debunking their myths and magic - with the spiritual and mystical. Nothing but nothing seems to change their minds and nothing but nothing changes the minds of the people who believe their palpable, distasteful and possibly criminal nonsense about New Age fantasy or Old Age delusions. At best I feel I am simply point scoring and at worst feel I am simply wasting good drinking, ehm, I mean socialising, time arguing against people who are not going to listen to reason, no matter what I, the evidence or Richard Dawkins says. I really hope Sir Richard, his contributions to truth and life should be knighted, can somehow change the illusion that mankind cannot very much bear reality and show that it is imperative that we not only bear it but celebrate it. As I am sure someone else will have pointed out, Evidence based reasoning should completely dominate the meme pool, the rest should simply be entertainment and imagination as it is. I fear the opposite will be made true and it is Richard's work which may be seen as interesting entertainment, while the poor deluded believing sheep get fleeced. I fear Edward de Bono may be right when he stated that logic and reason cannot change beliefs and perceptions. I really hope not!

Other Comments by Prufrock

15. Comment #63817 by seanjw on August 16, 2007 at 2:02 am

Ohnhai,
you can check out an article on religion by her here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2007/06/we_of_little_faith.html
She certainly doesn't think faith is rational.

Other Comments by seanjw

16. Comment #63820 by heathen2 on August 16, 2007 at 10:07 am

It's amazing how unpopular you become by trying to tell the truth, and how little effect experiments and evidence have on the exploitative and money-making New Age world. So good luck, Richard! I hope you won't get too depressed by it all.

I admire RD's ability to be gracious and his patient responses in the face repeated stupid questions by interviewers. I don't know if I could be polite like he is. I would have lost it long ago, after the tenth time "Stalin was an atheist..." was brought up.

I assume he will do the round of interviews for "Enemies of Reason" and be subjected to the same. He will suffer the abuse to get the word out and raise consciousness. Thank you, Richard.

And I saw the small part about astrology from the documentary. It was so good, especially when RD interviews the astrologer. The astrologer, it is quite clear is squirming under questioning, and says RD would be up to "mischief" (I think that is the word he used) in running experiments to test the veracity of horoscopes!

Other Comments by heathen2

17. Comment #63821 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 10:08 am

Here's the thing:

In so many area's we expect and demand extraordinary accuracy and verifiable truth before we grant someone our credence and accept their ideas or follow their advice: medicine, politics, which college to attend, which car to buy, which insurance to buy, which route to take on the highways.

BUT, we accept fantastically incredible claims to truth and accuracy in "mystical" areas (with a profound impact on who we are and how we live our lives, and how we spen our time and money) like astrology, mediums, and religion. To do this, we disregard the abundant evidence of fallibility. WTF??? Someone needs to study this bizarre "credibility" paradox.

I watched a Darren Brown special last night (on [EDIT: Scifi Channel] - in the states). People are so easily fooled into believing absolutely incredible things. My conjecture is that it has something to do with cultivating magical thinking in youth, and the more it is promoted, the more it persists into adulthood .

Tell your kids enough about the existence of Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and God enough, and they'll be gullible as the day is long as adults... teach them to question information and authority, and you get a much less gullible kid and adult. (RD's letter to his daughter comes to mind…)

I never filled my kids with magical notions, their lives were no less enriched and wonderful than the lied to kids. I read to them, fostered their imaginations, etc. around ideas and information I knew to be true. And when we read a fantasy book, I didn't have to explain often, that no, such and such are not "real." Despite their mom's deep religious faith and attempts at indoctrination, they are free thinkers, and don't believe in magic (religious or otherwise) as mature teenagers. Perhaps this is a component to the problem…

Other Comments by sane1

18. Comment #63823 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 10:16 am

To take it a step further - Perhaps the fostering of "make-believe" nonsense as real to gullible children learning how the world works explains why they are so susceptible to it as adults. It is not just the direct indoctrination about the local god that leads to believing in the local god - It is a lesson to believe unbelievable things in general and why RD has to make a documentary to address the problem... …

Other Comments by sane1

19. Comment #63826 by heathen2 on August 16, 2007 at 10:30 am

And when we read a fantasy book, I didn't have to explain often, that no, such and such are not "real."

I think you are absolutely right, sane1. Sounds like you did a wonderful job with your kids and it is no surprise they are free thinkers.

I recall reading the children's bible stories at the dentist's office as a kid. This was my first exposure to bible stuff, since my parents are not christian. I loved the stories, they are so interesting and just good stories. Never thought they actually happened though, any more than the hindu myths and fables my grandma told me about. Nobody had to tell me that these are not true, normal common sense told me that even back then. And luckily, nobody was there to push these as true.

Other Comments by heathen2

20. Comment #63830 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 10:42 am

heathen2 - thanks for the compliment and for seconding my motion.

I remember a disagreement with a client of mine, way back when my kids were very young, at a bar after work where I said that I didn't tell my kids that santa, the easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc were real because I taught them that they must be truthful. Obviously to me, it would be lying on my part to tell them otherwise about santa. He was appalled - arguing that it was not lying, but fostering their imaginations. I cautiously and quietly thought he was wrong then, and 15 years later, I am convinced.

Makes me want to write a book in my spare time.

Other Comments by sane1

21. Comment #63831 by monoape on August 16, 2007 at 10:58 am

I've been having an email debate with a friend about "Enemies of Reason". He's (hopefully!) been playing Devil's Advocate and arguing a case for astrology and alternative beliefs. Part of my response included:

"The only thing I find remarkable in astrology, or any of the other 'woo woo' beliefs, is the number of people eager to believe in it when no reliable, reproducible evidence whatsoever has been turned up in the last few thousand years. The triumph of hope over reality is an amazing thing to behold!

I guess real science is too difficult, too mundane and doesn't tell people what they want to hear: "It's going to be alright in the end ... don't worry about how ... it just will, OK"."

Just thought I'd share that bit. :)

Other Comments by monoape

22. Comment #63833 by heathen2 on August 16, 2007 at 11:06 am

sane1,
We actually allowed the Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy myths while they were young. But we also encouraged and promoted judgement, critical thinking, scepticism and that they evaluate ideas for themselves. We discuss and critique belief systems and value evidence. My kids are freethinkers also, I am happy to say.

I understand what you mean though, and as much as I love the santa myth especially, if I had to do it all over again, I'm not sure that I would promote the myths. It is telling lies.

Other Comments by heathen2

23. Comment #63834 by Rieux on August 16, 2007 at 11:11 am

Ohnhai (#63805):

I doubt it. I've read Blackmore's The Meme Machine (with a foreword by some Oxford professor named Richard), and she certainly didn't seem antagonistic to Dawkins' take on religion then.

That was pre-God Delusion, of course, but Dawkins' ideas about religion have been clear to anyone who was paying attention to his work (such as the memetics chapter of The Selfish Gene) since at least the late '70s. And Blackmore, of all people, was certainly paying attention.

Other Comments by Rieux

24. Comment #63840 by VanYoungman on August 16, 2007 at 11:57 am

Ohnhai, I'll be a little stronger. Your memory is going.

Other Comments by VanYoungman

25. Comment #63842 by phil rimmer on August 16, 2007 at 11:58 am

I lie to my kids all the time (in jest only I must add). Po-faced, I tell them interesting stuff that I swear is true. Astonished at first, they'd finally twig that I'm playing a joke on them. Now they try and catch ME out, which they manage frustratingly often.

The lesson they've learned is that grownups are adept at lying and also that grownups are gullible. In other words, grownups can lie and ,unwittingly, pass on lies.

One of the few attempts I make at explicit moral teaching is about the value of truth (somehow ideas of love and kindness took root quite naturally). An attempt at truth, I say, is the very best we can do for all the unknown others who have likewise contributed to the common good of our lives. Anything else is a betrayal.

I wish I had thought of that myself, but it came from my older, much smarter brother.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

26. Comment #63844 by Ophelia Benson on August 16, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Ohnhai, maybe you're thinking of Susan Greenfield? She has at least expressed some skepticism about the value of disputing religion in the manner of Dawkins and Atkins -

"I've sat through many science-religion ding-dongs, and they strike me as a complete waste of time. No one is going to change their views. The Atkins-Dawkins stance treats science almost as though it were a religion, and evangelically try to convert other people. Meanwhile, the religious person can't articulate why they believe what they do: they just do."

http://www.damaris.org/dcscs/readingroom/2000/susangreenfield.htm

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

27. Comment #63853 by Dunc-uk on August 16, 2007 at 12:33 pm

To close the debate on whether Sue Blackmore supports Dawkins...

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2007/06/we_of_little_faith.html

I, for one, do not want to live in a world where religious faith is respected. I do not want more "faith-based initiatives". I do not want more faith schools, and our great universities should continue to teach people to think for themselves, to respect the truth, and to take nothing on faith.

Other Comments by Dunc-uk

28. Comment #63857 by phasmagigas on August 16, 2007 at 12:49 pm

re sane1's points.

I have noticed here in the US that get a group of corporate guys together and they will talk confidently about the technicalities of their job processes, and then the same guys will happily got to church on a sunday, i just dont get them. i single out the US as that happens far less often in the UK, i notice co workers in the UK if not actually in work will be talking about anything but work!! oh and then of course they are far less likely to go to church too.

aside from all this, i do enjoy some supernatural influences. I tend to like period ghost stories, and i enjoyed hp lovecraft too, although the 'gods' in those stories seemed to be purely natural alien entities. When I read a good ghost story i put myself in the shoes of the characters who 150 years ago wouldnt have knows a ghost from a draught so I enjoy their scares!

oh, we seem to be all in italics, spooky, maybe the prayers mentioned in pharyngulas site are taking effect!!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

29. Comment #63865 by Duff on August 16, 2007 at 1:09 pm

The sad difference between Santa and God is that by eight years of age, most sane parents tell their children Santa is not real. No one informs them about God, I'm afraid.

Other Comments by Duff

30. Comment #63866 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 1:10 pm

dunk-uk - did you turn off italics???
I just did for you...

Other Comments by sane1

31. Comment #63867 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Duff: The sadder diffeence is that by the time they get the news about santa, its apparently too late - especially as you point out, that is when religion begins to become even more coercive.

A simpler lesson: "real is real, magic is deception. With sufficient examination, "magic" can be shown to be deception or a delusion" would go a long way.

Other Comments by sane1

32. Comment #63868 by CJ22 on August 16, 2007 at 1:15 pm

I must admit when I saw the name I too thought "isn't that the woman who had a go at RD after TGD came out", so we're obviously both thinking of somebody else.

Other Comments by CJ22

33. Comment #63916 by Ohnhai on August 16, 2007 at 5:45 pm

CJ22: Yup that what I was thinking too, but it seems I was in error.

Apologies to Sue.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

34. Comment #63919 by bluebird on August 16, 2007 at 6:01 pm

This might be the same article that 'peacebeuponme' linked on another thread; anyway, 'tis good to read S.B. again:)

@comment #29, not just Sundays anymore. Some U.S. companies integrate "Prayer in the Workplace" so employees can feel comfortable, or whatever. Makes me wonder if any work gets done (how it affects productivity).

Dr. Benway, thanks for suggesting "Primer" (another thread). The Hubby thought it was good, albiet dry.

Other Comments by bluebird

35. Comment #63922 by fin on August 16, 2007 at 6:19 pm

So... [trying to think hard...]

In the EU, I can sell water in small bottles and claim it is a homeopathic remedy for common cold? Maybe I throw in some salt and sugar to make it look like it has some "real" ingredients.

And this is completely legal? Have I got it right?

Other Comments by fin

36. Comment #63932 by Dr Benway on August 16, 2007 at 7:18 pm

bluebird:

Dr. Benway, thanks for suggesting "Primer" (another thread). The Hubby thought it was good, albiet dry.

Yes. There are a lot of button downs and ties worn around necks outside the workplace. The acting is wooden. Scenes are not entirely in focus and the sound quality isn't Hollywood. The plot has loose ends that don't get fixed.

Still, for the sort who like puzzles and games within games, it can hit a nerve. There's a lot of work on the web untangling the plot. Best not to read any of it until after a first viewing.

I like the beginning, the recorded voice speaking to someone - who? - saying:

Here's what's going to happen. I'm going to read this, and you're going to listen, and you're going to stay on the line. And you're not going to interrupt, and you're not going to speak for any reason. Some of this you know. I'm going to start at the top of the page.

Meticulous, yes; methodical, educated - they were these things. Nothing extreme. Like anyone, they varied. There were days of mistakes and laziness and in-fighting. And there were days, good days, when by anyone's judgment they would have to be considered clever. No one would say that what they were doing was complicated. It wouldn't even be considered new, except for maybe in the geological sense. They took from their surroundings what was needed and made of it something more.

I liked the fact that a couple of guys could make a movie on $7000 that could grip me more than many big-budget blockbusters.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

37. Comment #63933 by Ewan D on August 16, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Sue talks about the grains of truth, hidden among the garbage.

One interesting fact revealed by a reliable double-blind study is that there is, in fact, an above-average correlation between individuals' personalities, as described by themselves in questionnaires, and what would be expected from members of their zodiac signs, based on astrological literature.

On closer examination though, the correlation was only evident among those who'd studied astrology in enough depth to know what their traits are SUPPOSED to be, and this, consciously or otherwise, influenced the kinds of words and phrases they used to describe themselves.

There was zero correlation found in participants who had never read astrology.

Other Comments by Ewan D

38. Comment #63951 by detox on August 17, 2007 at 1:43 am

Watching 'Enemies of Reason', I couldn't help thinking that RD has the patience of a saint. (Why are saints 'patient'?). Every whack-job he interviews continues to believe in the nonsense they are peddling even in the face of the logic applied by Dawkins and in some cases even after they have spectacularly failed to prove their powers (the dowsers). One guy said, I failed because 'God likes a joke'.

The frustration almost brings me to tears. But then I remember that I am a Sagittarian and as Billy Connolly said: "I'm half man, half horse. Licensed to shit in the street."

Other Comments by detox

39. Comment #64036 by slummingangel on August 17, 2007 at 11:42 am

"Among all the hundreds of mediums, psychics and Tarot and I-Ching readers I met"

I-Ching more like ker-ching

Other Comments by slummingangel

40. Comment #64128 by Richard Morgan on August 18, 2007 at 12:04 am

There are some grains of truth in there. Out-of-body experiences happen, even though nothing leaves the body, sleep paralysis happens and is terrifying if you don't know what it is, mystical experiences can change people's lives for the better, and some alternative therapies can be wonderfully relaxing and enjoyable, even if their underlying theories are completely false.

To my mind this is potentially dangerous thinking, because it equates "truth" with subjective experiences. As if the "feel-good" principle had some kind of validity. Which it doesn't.
Reminds me of when I got converted to Mormonism as a teenager in 1961. The missionaries told me that I could "know" that the book of mormon was the word of god by praying and asking god to show me that (not "whether") it was true by giving me a sensation called "a burning in the bosom."
Sure enough, one night as I prayed after having eaten too much chicken curry, I got the required revelation!

Nice feelings and sensations are not "grains of truth" in the context of reason-based research and enquiry. They are grains of......er, feelings and sensations?

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

41. Comment #64130 by Richard Morgan on August 18, 2007 at 1:04 am

Like so many of you guys, I spent many years being really distressed by the number of people who believe things that are quite clearly false.

As a teacher in France, I campaigned against this dreadful pseudo-educational practice called "grade repetition" or "year repetition". Not only was I constantly witnessing the harmful effects of making a pupil repeat a grade, but also ALL the surveys and studies and analyses that have been carried out on this subject, all over the world, come to the same CONCLUSIONS. Grade repetition is NOT a second chance, can be downright harmful to the child, is frightfully unjust and is always an extremely expensive burden for the state. .

But opinion polls in countries that use "grade repetition" (redoublement in French) consistently and regularly reveal that over 90% of parents AND teachers (!!!) consider that grade repetition is an effective tool for helping slow pupils to catch up. .

It's been proven to be false a thousand times over but people still believe in it. Doesn't that remind you of something, somewhere…?.

Many such beliefs belong to the category called "folk wisdom" or "intuitive reasoning". Like the fact that I can see the sun rise over the mountains and set behind the gasworks, so I "know" the sun revolves around the earth. .

If I give a child an extra year to learn something, logically it's going to facilitate the learning process. .
Well, innit?

In fact, er,no. Quite the opposite.

Then one day I chanced to come across an interesting survey, carried out in Quebec, I believe. After having questioned parents and teachers about their beliefs concerning grade repetition, the analysts identified those parents and teachers who has actually studied the question of grade repetition, who had read the reports and analyses, who really had an idea about what it was all about. Amongst this group, not surprisingly, the proportion of people favourable to grade repetition was almost exactly reversed, over 90% being opposed to it. .

Clearly it all comes down to a question of cognitive dissonance - in other words, does it seem to make sense to me. The idea of the sun wobbling around the earth "makes sense" - but only to my uninformed wisdom and intuitions. .

In other words, knowledge (and thus education) is the key factor here. Which means that Richard Dawkins and others of his ilk (you and I for example) absolutely must continue disseminating simple information, be it via programmes like the "Enemies of Reason" or by writing books like "The God Delusion" or by participating in discussions such as this one or, perhaps more importantly, by bringing up our children with reason-based attitudes and lots of love. .

Susan Blackmore was wrong to despair, though it is perfectly understandable. Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to me to be the depressive, despairing type, so I have no worries there. .

As we read in Isaiah chapter 1 verse 18, "Come now and let us reason together" says the Lord….

Oops, sorry about that, sometimes my previous conditioning rears its ugly head! .

But I presume you've got my message ("gotten my message" for my transatlantic friends).It is worth telling the truth - over and over again. Let me finish with a lovely little anecdote. .

There was a tiny old schoolhouse in one of those country villages where all the children were in the same class. A stranger to the village stopped outside the school and listened through the open window as the jolly old school m'am gave her lesson. .

He was so amazed by what he heard, he waited around to question the school's solitary teacher on her rather surprising teaching techniques. "I listened to you giving that lesson on arithmetic. I noticed you paid particular attention to the sort of dunce of the class, sitting on his own at the back of the classroom. Do you know that there was one long division problem that you explained to him 48 times!!!. Why on earth did you take the time to explain 48 times?".

To which the kindly old lady replied, "Well, I guess it was because 47 times wasn't enough."

Let's carry on explaining. 48 times or more.
You know, in spite of appearances, I think most people now accept that the earth spins around the sun instead of the opposite. Persistence is it's own reward.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

42. Comment #64189 by I'mNotAlone on August 18, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Just wanted to add to the posts about children and santa. I have a 4 yr old girl and a 2 yr old boy. At the moment, my wife is teaching our daughter about santa. Given the comments by sane1 and others, I've pencilled in her 6th birthday as the time to start correcting things!

Other Comments by I'mNotAlone

43. Comment #64199 by heathen2 on August 18, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I asked my kids about their perception of the Santa/Easter bunny/Tooth Fairy as they were growing up. They said they wised up to it at about 6 or 7 years old as they started to reason and figure out the inconsistencies in the stories. The details of the stories just did not mesh with reality.

Other Comments by heathen2

44. Comment #64204 by sane1 on August 18, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Imnotalone:

If you value truth and honetsy, and insist upon it from your kids, I wonder how you can wait until they are 6...If you wait that long, they'll know you lied to them. Just my opinion...

Other Comments by sane1

45. Comment #64222 by Richard Morgan on August 18, 2007 at 5:45 pm

If you wait that long, they'll know you lied to them.

But if they accuse you of having lied to them, you can always tell them that voices in your head ordered you to do so.

If I say : "I lie."
and in so saying, tell a truth,
then I truly lie.
But if I say : "I lie."
and in so saying, tell a lie,
then I tell the truth.

....I'm amazed you're still reading!

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

46. Comment #64502 by I'mNotAlone on August 20, 2007 at 9:41 am

sane 1: "If you value truth and honesty, and insist upon it from your kids, I wonder how you can wait until they are 6...If you wait that long, they'll know you lied to them. Just my opinion..."

I know what you mean. But my wife insists that as young kids, they should have fairy tales, and that telling them the stark truth would be abuse in itself! At least once they get to school, I can say it's because other kids will find out and i dont want them to be teased!
And anyway, havent all parents lied to their kids at some point?? (Sorry son, they didnt have any cakes left!) At least Santa is a once a year lie, not an everyday one.

Other Comments by I'mNotAlone

47. Comment #64669 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 8:27 am

imnotalone: You are just rationalizing the lie, aren't you. Does the thruth matter ot not?

just stumbled across the following from Sagan's Baloney detector essay:

Carl Sagan:

Clement of Alexandria, a Father of the early Church, in his Exhortations to the Greeks (written around the year 190) dismissed pagan beliefs in words that might today seem a little ironic:

Far indeed are we from allowing grown men to listen to such tales. Even to our own children, when they are crying their heart out, as the saying goes, we are not in the habit of telling fabulous stories to soothe them.

In our time we have less severe standards. We tell children about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy for reasons we think emotionally sound, but then disabuse them of these myths before they're grown. Why retract? Because their well-being as adults depends on them knowing the world as it really is. We worry, and for good reason, about adults who still believe in Santa Claus.

On doctrinaire religions, "Men dare not avow, even to their own hearts," wrote the philosopher David Hume,

the doubts which they entertain on such subjects. They make a merit of implicit faith; and disguise to themselves their real infidelity, by the strongest asseverations and the most positive bigotry.

This infidelity has profound moral consequences, as the American revolutionary Tom Paine wrote in The Age of Reason:

Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

T. H. Huxley's formulation was

The foundation of morality is to ... give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge.