1. Comment #64940 by ClemIsMe on August 22, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Have I mentioned how much I love the internet?

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

2. Comment #64951 by Tyler Durden on August 22, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Part 2: The Irrational Health Service

Class! :-) Kudos to whomever came up with that title, so simple, yet so true.

As for the piece on homeopathy: I wonder how many "patients" would also use homeopathy for their children/newborns? Or would they be off to a REAL doctor right quick as soon as little Timmy got a cold/infection.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

3. Comment #64955 by corduroy11 on August 22, 2007 at 1:33 pm

RD at a seance to tap into his inner Chakras? Priceless. Excellent documentary... I can't wait for the backlash against it!

Other Comments by corduroy11

4. Comment #64958 by etny on August 22, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Thank you, RD, for exposing, not the king of mambo, but the king of mumbo: our friend Deepak. I read one of his books a while back, in which he mixed quantum physics and reptilian brain with the vista of French cook. Back then already, the overwhelming thought that came to my mind was: "What a bunch of mumbo-jumbo".
That's his trick, which he performs in this 1 minute interview, without missing a beat... and when cornered, retreats behind the pitiful "this is all a metaphor". Priceless!

Other Comments by etny

5. Comment #64970 by BicycleRepairMan on August 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Seriously I cant stop laughing at the part where that loony woman explains the 12-strand DNA from Atlantis to RICHARD DAWKINS, thats so far, far beyond priceless. And that "Oh, Really...?" look on Dawkins face as he patiently listens, you just cant fake that.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

6. Comment #64972 by Steven Mading on August 22, 2007 at 2:13 pm

I do like the fact that he went after Deepak. There's too much of a sense of "if the religious mumbo-jumbo sounds pleasant then that means there's no good reason to speak agaisnt it" about people's reaction to him. Many in the US who find him to be meaningless drivel seem to think it's perfectly safe harmless drivel so let him be.

It is NOT harmless to slander the methods of science with false mischaracterizations of how it works. It's a practice that when widely practiced condemns the next generation to more suffering than they otherwise would have had, as ignorance prevents humanity from finding real solutions to its problems.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

7. Comment #64973 by Steven Mading on August 22, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Is it just me, or did anyone else find that the video and audio were way out of sync, by something like several seconds, giving it the look of a foreign film dubbed in English?

Other Comments by Steven Mading

8. Comment #64974 by Elli on August 22, 2007 at 2:17 pm

I especially loved the musical homage to Monty Python in the closing credits.

I enjoyed this documentary, but was left wondering why Professor Dawkins had been so gentle in his admonition. I was hoping for, dare I say it, a more militant approach to this nonsense. ;-)

Other Comments by Elli

9. Comment #64975 by etny on August 22, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Re: Steven Mading
The problem is that Deepak makes a lot more sense that the medieval religious leaders he often appears with on Larry King and the likes! In their presence, he suddenly sounds like a progressive, tolerant, modernist individual.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king... And boy does he know it and exploits it shamelessly.

Other Comments by etny

10. Comment #64984 by thirdchimpanzee on August 22, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Watching the second episode - dealing with alternative medicine - I was reminded of stories regarding the re-emergence of witch doctors in post-apartheid South Africa, and the devastating consequences of their influence on a population trying to contain one of the world's worst rates of HIV.

Until recently I confess to very much a live-and-let-live attitude regarding my atheism, and others belief. But RD is right to turn attention to new age quackery - because it is nothing more that a return to "witch doctors", and will have a devastating impact on a world that is biologically interconnected in ways that allow the global spread of disease in days.

On a recent trip to Northern Australia, we saw rock paintings stretching back more that 10,000 years. But some of the most poignant were recent, and depicted the arrival of Europeans amongst the aborigines. With the Europeans came diseases that devastated the aboriginal population, often taking the young and active. Without any theory of why they were getting sick and dying, many tribes assumed it was the work of witchcraft, and compounded the impact of disease by warring with each other trying to stamp out the sorcery that was afflicting them. This was recorded on the rocks.

The beauty of going to a place like Kakadu is to realise that we are all little changed in 10,000 years - except by now, thanks to our "wonderful" school systems, supposed to know a bit better.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

11. Comment #64992 by lflcorreia on August 22, 2007 at 3:13 pm

To anyone interested, this YouTube's user:

http://www.youtube.com/user/wigz07

has posted the videos of the 2 episodes of this documentary. Each episode is divided in five parts.
I've already watched both of them and they're ok with the sound in sync.

Other Comments by lflcorreia

12. Comment #64993 by The Buxter on August 22, 2007 at 3:14 pm

@#3

I can't wait for the backlash against it!

I find it strange how many times a review of "The enemies of reason" has started with: "Well of course RD is right about woo woo, it's obvious. BUT that doesn't make him right about religion, and I'll tell you why... " *sigh*

Anyways, I find it perfect timing (perhaps a little late?) for this documentary. Woo woo has much to long been tolerated *way* to much!!

Other Comments by The Buxter

13. Comment #65004 by phil rimmer on August 22, 2007 at 3:45 pm

How does he keep such a straight face!?

I can only imagine the makeup person dashes in before the take to whack a shot of novocaine into each cheek.....

Other Comments by phil rimmer

14. Comment #65009 by Jack Rawlinson on August 22, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Great stuff. I'm particularly interested in the placebo effect and I was glad Richard mentioned that real doctors can produce it too - even if not intentionally. I've certainly experienced it myself several times. You know... you wrestle with a worrying pain or symptom for weeks until your anxiety level peaks and then you go to the doctor and... almost immediately you feel better. Maybe not completely better, but you notice a real improvement. The pain diminishes, or becomes less frequent. I've talked to many friends - skeptics and rationalists all - and they've experienced this too. The placebo effect is real and surprisingly potent, and RD is right to highlight the fact that alternative therapists really play up the factors which might amplify it. The attention. The listening. The sense of caring. The delivery of reassuring words and noises. And so on.

I'm enjoying this series a lot.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

15. Comment #65010 by shaunfletcher on August 22, 2007 at 4:05 pm

I would like to compliment Richard on his, to me, astonishing ability to be excruciatingly polite to all these people. Especially towards the simpletons and fools he is dealing with 75% of the time.

It seems the only ones he cannot in the end stand for are the doctors and scientists who abuse their training. I find that extremely understandable, as listening to the homeopath try to justify (to himself mostly it seemed) that snake oil made me angry in the extreme. The man knows it doesnt work, he knows it's just sugar water for the plebs, and yet he keeps taking the cash and smiling and hoping it either works through wishing or at least does no harm.

Contemptible.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

16. Comment #65017 by Yorker on August 22, 2007 at 4:18 pm

2. Comment #64951 by Tyler Durden

You make an interesting point.

Since homeopathy is clearly a placebo effect, babies could be excellent test subjects since soothing words and mumbo-jumbo bullshit would be lost on them. The ethics of such testing is another matter of course but still, a good weapon to use against woo-woo supporters.

Other Comments by Yorker

17. Comment #65029 by idragosani on August 22, 2007 at 5:06 pm

I've just watched the first few minutes of the second episode... I recognized the woman from the beginning of the first episode and then she starts talking about DNA and then I did a double take... Did she just say Atlantis? Rewind... by golly, she did! I played it over several times, and am still laughing...

I have a lot of neo-pagan friends, too, who talk just like that, all of the time. But boy do they get pissed when you equate what they say to creationism!

Other Comments by idragosani

18. Comment #65060 by agg on August 22, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Hi, everybody. This is my first post here and I want to start by thanking the person who uploaded the videos for those of us around the globe who don't have access to Channel 4. I just hope there aren't any copyright issues with this.

About the episodes: I must say I am a little disappointed. The point is sorely needed to be made, but I expected a bit more rigorous an approach to debunking these weird claims. Some of the things (e.g. dowsing, cold reading, homeopathy) were subjected to evidential treatment but for many (e.g. the scene with the angels or the chakras) it came out as Prof. Dawkins' word against the practitioners'.

Perhaps, RD meant to let them do the talking, assuming that the audience will see for themselves how ridiculous they sound. But that's not a good example for science (which is what's most needed by the people we expect to benefit from these episodes). I am also not sure if it would work -- Unfortunately, I know more than enough people who would actually find (some of) the interviewees perfectly reasonable (You don't have any angels around you? That's because you haven't invited any!) and fail to see why Prof. Dawkins is saying that they're wrong.

So I can see a large part of the audience agreeing with the videos (but who would have agreed even beforehand) and another large part remaining utterly unconvinced. I am not sure if there will be a significant third part who would actually change their opinion (or even think about that for a while). I must say I am not sure exactly what the target audience for these episodes is and I hope I am wrong about this.

I understand that it is not up to Prof. Dawkins to disprove every weird claim but up to those who make the claim to present the evidence for it. I guess my point is that perhaps Prof. Dawkins could have been more insistent on evidence for each grotesque claim and let the person who touts it show that there isn't any.

Oh, well. I should not complain too much. There is only this much one can cram in two hours and it is still a lot better than I would have done...

Anyone else felt the same way?

Other Comments by agg

19. Comment #65106 by LauraD on August 22, 2007 at 11:08 pm

I'm only through about 16 minutes of the first show but it's almost too painful to watch. Not Richard of course, but the way these charlatans blather on and on as if what they're saying has any basis in truth or reality. It's kind of like watching Bush speak where you spend the entire time cringing inside and wanting to hurl something at the screen.

Thanks for the links, I've been wanting to watch the show but I live in the US and had little hope it would ever get aired here.

Other Comments by LauraD

20. Comment #65107 by Rieux on August 22, 2007 at 11:14 pm

I thought the second episode was much better than the first, if only because I think charlatanry in medicine is vastly more destructive than is silly superstition about astrology and the like. I agree that the latter category does denigrate reason and science, but in that respect ordinary superstition can't hold a candle to the far and away world champion in that regard--traditional religion.

Too bad Professor Dawkins has never put together a documentary questioning traditional religion.


(Joke!)


BTW, what was that bizarre music over the closing credits to Episode 2? My first reaction was "Goodness, this is a ridiculous tone with which to end this series." My second was "Wait a minute--is this 'The Universe Song,' from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life? I guess that would be fairly apropos, topically." And then my third reaction was "No, it's not 'The Universe Song,' it's just a bad, cloying synthesizer tune."

So what was going on there (er, besides me talking to myself)?

Other Comments by Rieux

21. Comment #65117 by Axulus on August 22, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Thank you very much for making these available. I know that there often copyright issues with things like this, but I am very happy to see that RD.net is really trying to spread knowledge for free as much as possible. Thank you very much to Richard and the whole support team for making this documentary, I enjoyed it very much.

Other Comments by Axulus

22. Comment #65138 by Prufrock on August 23, 2007 at 2:07 am

I really enjoyed the second part of the series. I was expecting Richard to give Deepak a real tongue lashing quite simply because Deepak has been trained to know better than spout nonsense for cash. In my opinion Deepak's inappropriate use of scientific jargon to justify the seemingly unjustifiable really compromises any professional, let alone the medical profession. This kind of quackery reduces every professional to the level of the dodgier, unprincipled type market stall trader we try to avoid or street hustler, in my very humble opinion.

Other Comments by Prufrock

23. Comment #65194 by gibodean on August 23, 2007 at 5:56 am

Yes, when that woman was talking about DNA and how it was different lengths, I had to pause the TV to say "Oh my God".

Richard, when you filmed that, did she have any idea of who you were, or what your day job is ?
How could you stop from laughing ?

Other Comments by gibodean

24. Comment #65197 by Richard Morgan on August 23, 2007 at 6:12 am

I found the approach most effective : the "cut your own rope to hang yourself with", "shooting yourself in the foot", "own-goal" technique. Just let them talk and act and their quackery will become self-evident.

A more militant approach would have been like using an AK46 to kill a fly.



Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;

and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit.
Reason with gentleness of mind and manner,
Let humility fragrantly perfume your questions,
And take no harsh joy nor solace,
As the quacks and charlatans pitifully shit upon themselves,
In the market place, as in the hidden stench of their consulting rooms.
If music be the food of love,
Then let truth and reason be
The twin suppositories
To the constipated mind
Of the blind and the ignorant...


See what I mean....?


(I suspect that I've improvised a little when quoting Desiderata, but you get my message, don't you?)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

25. Comment #65207 by macros_man on August 23, 2007 at 7:28 am

I wonder if Deepak has ever had a discussion with a real quantum physicist.

For Richard's documentary, it would have been nice to have a relatively prominent (or at least knowledgeable) quantum physicist respond to Deepak's comments - or even for them to have had a discussion.

To anyone that even remotely grasps things like quantum mechanics, and cosmological constructs, like black holes... it's mind-numbingly obvious how meaningless his words are... but I think that most people haven't got a clue about these things, and the little that they do hear about them, from the popular media, are so mis-characterized, that it shouldn't surprise us in the least, that people actually buy into his nonsense.

I know it isn't the job of scientists or physicists to speak out against mischaracterizations of their areas of study - and that's why we have people like Richard Dawkins... whose job it is, truly, to promote an accurate understanding of science (thank you Charles Simonyi!).

But just as Richard speaks on behalf of evolution, I think we need someone who speaks on behalf of physics.

Far too long have we gone without eminent personalities in the areas of physics... (yes - Stephen Hawking is great... but aside from "A brief history...", he's been much too busy to dabble in public relations)

And of course there are many people working in the field - even in areas of active research - but there hasn't been anyone to rouse the public's interest in physics. It's sad that people can't just be interested in physics, for the sake of physics alone... but it's true.

If nothing else, I think we need someone to publicly dispel the myths about things like quantum mechanics... and to give the public a better understanding of the terms, so that they cannot so easily be misused by people like Deepak.

We need more films that actually attempt to explain physics (ie - "Elegant Universe"), rather than ones that only obfuscate it (ie - "What the bleep").

Other Comments by macros_man

26. Comment #65217 by bluebird on August 23, 2007 at 7:54 am

macros_man, agreed, thanks. We think Neil DeGrasse Tyson does a fine job ('Nova' series, running the Hayden Planetarium, new book). Still, doubtful that he, Brian Greene, et. al. are household names; what a shame.

Richard Morgan, thanks for your post-piquant. Had not read 'Desiderata'.


Other Comments by bluebird

27. Comment #65230 by Lionel A on August 23, 2007 at 8:52 am

I thought these programmes quite well done. What surprises me is that these people have not refused to allow them to be broadcast.

Spencer, the astrologer, came across as knowingly devious with most of the others being a joke – that is if the probable adverse outcomes from believing in this codswallop were not so full of risk, in this way the business that these people conduct is both fraudulent and treacherous.

Unfortunately I am getting some stick here from my wife who considers me bigoted and blinkered for considering the truth behind Richard's message and the awfulness and danger these quacks pose.

Some of this stick is because I have talked about it to a sister who has used homeopathic practitioners in the past and her husband is accusing me of being as closed minded as those who believe in this stuff and also about that other question of faith in a god. His usual argument is to scoff at the silly idea of a big bang starting the universe from nothing. I try to point out that this isn't quite what scientists think and that an understanding of the nature of the origin of the universe is still a work in progress.

He has demured at my offer of loans of the many books on quantum mechanics, evolution and related topics that I have, many aimed at the lay reader.

What can one do with such people?

I have just been reading Matt Ridley's book on Francis Crick – good stuff.

Other Comments by Lionel A

28. Comment #65238 by Rtambree on August 23, 2007 at 9:55 am

The very opening sentence of Program 1 is incorrect - we have never sent orbiters to Neptune. Voyager 2 flew past Neptune, but it never orbited any planet. No other probes have been to Neptune.

I know it's pedantry - but it's a bit of a howler to open a program on exposing misunderstanding of science, with an erroneous statement about science.

[btw, the second part of the sentence, about eradicating smallpox is not technically true either].

Other Comments by Rtambree

29. Comment #65239 by kuberE on August 23, 2007 at 10:06 am

what makes me really sad is that the believers here aren't fanatics or extremists. they're not nut-jobs. almost any CAM or new age group you attend these days speaks all the same stuff as casually and openly as anything.

good programme.

Other Comments by kuberE

30. Comment #65248 by jakelovatto on August 23, 2007 at 10:35 am

Did anyone catch the bit near the end of episode 2 when richard is talking to the woman outside and as he is talking to her he looks to the left then a squirrel runs up a tree to make it look like dawkins attention was caught by the squirrel.

lol

Other Comments by jakelovatto

31. Comment #65265 by WhoIsThisGodPerson on August 23, 2007 at 11:56 am

Great stuff! Particularly enjoyed the look on RD's face when the Atlantis person was 'fixing' his DNA.
Question: Was anyone else puzzled by the deliberate blurring of faces in the scenes of kids & adults playing in the park? Is this now a legal requirement? Did the people concerned request that it be done?

S

Other Comments by WhoIsThisGodPerson

32. Comment #65384 by pewkatchoo on August 24, 2007 at 1:54 am

I actually found the series a bit boring. There were a couple of amusing bits and the Atlantis lady was a total hoot, but all in all I did not think it really had much bite. Perhaps if they had been able to include the invocation of Prof Dawkins dad it might have been more interesting.

I just thought that it was all a bit flat.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

33. Comment #65387 by PopeStig on August 24, 2007 at 2:11 am

I'd agree with pewkatchoo in his assessment of the show. Although I agree with Prof. Dawkins and am a fan of his writing, as a tv-show it was dull.

The missus (not having read any of the books) was so unimpressed with the first episode she avoided the second. Do we have any other feedback from people that aren't fans? Did they like it.

Other Comments by PopeStig

34. Comment #65391 by Corylus on August 24, 2007 at 2:38 am

Was anyone else puzzled by the deliberate blurring of faces in the scenes of kids & adults playing in the park? Is this now a legal requirement?

I wouldn't be surprised whoisthisgodperson. Puts me in mind of those news reports concerning how fat people are getting - they always cut to pictures of the general public wobbling down the road. You never see the faces of the individuals concerned, just their torsos.

I personally view this as quite an incentive to stick to my diet - I live in terror of seeing my own rear end on the evening news.

Other Comments by Corylus

35. Comment #65404 by WhoIsThisGodPerson on August 24, 2007 at 4:25 am

Further to the Elisis Livingstone thing...
I discovered this website :)

http://www.dnaactivation.org/index.html

I particularly enjoyed the
"New! Instant transmission by GOD"

How convenient! Saves all that messy ftp business.

Steve

Other Comments by WhoIsThisGodPerson

36. Comment #65406 by Rational_G on August 24, 2007 at 5:07 am

Thank God (oops!) I mean thank the Enlightenment! for Richard Dawkins!!!

Can't complain enough about that pseudo-scientific New Age BS !

Other Comments by Rational_G

37. Comment #65466 by Arcturus on August 24, 2007 at 10:15 am

Excellent documentaries! Thanks!

There is one disturbing issue, the placebo effect. Most of the health care systems don't care about that. I remember back in my home country (somewhere in eastern Europe), the hospitals were really bad, overcrowded and very unconfortable. Even if you go there for a sickness that needs treatment, you might come out very depressed and mentally ill. Most of the people preferred to go home as soon as possible, in an "healthy" environment.

So I guess that there is always something we can improve on, not only medical procedures and drugs, but also work a bit on the "placebo" effect.

Other Comments by Arcturus

38. Comment #65477 by Lana on August 24, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Thank you for providing this. I thought it was very well done. But I don't understand people who think RD is strident and rude. He's a gentle, thoughtful man and far more polite than I would be faced with such nonsense.

I definitely would have smacked Deepak.

Other Comments by Lana

39. Comment #65568 by Cato on August 24, 2007 at 9:03 pm

Deepak Chopra is a profoundly negative person. If you read his books, you have to wonder, where else could he have found the inspiration to write all that nothing?

Other Comments by Cato

40. Comment #65646 by Mercurius on August 25, 2007 at 10:08 am

I swear if I had been interviewing Deepak Chopra my abiity to be polite would have been severely tested. How has this utterly ridiculous man developed such a following with his pseudoscientific gobbledegook?

Other Comments by Mercurius

41. Comment #65658 by NLi10 on August 25, 2007 at 11:32 am

After the show I went to the government petitions site to see if they had any anti-homeopathy ones. And I found one!

Thought you might be interested in this petition which appears to have been started just after the 'enemies of reason' program on a similar subject.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/anti-homeopathy/

It is encouraging the government to stop funding for unproven homeopathic treatment.

Thanks,

Other Comments by NLi10

42. Comment #65692 by sabre_truth on August 25, 2007 at 4:44 pm

I did learn something about homeopathy from this program of which I was not aware before, and which has led me to finally dismiss it where I had given it the benefit of the doubt before. I had been under the impression that homeopathic remedies actually contained a very small amount of the active substance at sub-toxic levels, and that the practice was based on basically the same theory that explains the efficacy of vaccines. That is, I thought that something was actually being introduced into the body in very miniscule amounts to induce an immune response.

The only way I could conceive of that water could retain any information about a substance which had been diluted out of it would be if the dilution process was conducted while keeping the water in a coherent quantum state like a bose-einstein condensate. Of course, the water would have its memory washed out once it was brought out of thermal isolation, which of course it would need to be in order to be used medically. Any information that was encoded in the vibrations of such a coherent state would be for all practical purposes erased as soon as the temperature was raised that miniscule amount higher about absolute zero to cause irreversible decoherence.

This is of course overkill in refuting the ridiculous theory of homeopathy, but I wanted to demonstrate how little specialized knowledge of physics is needed to rule such hogwash out beyond a vanishing probability.

Other Comments by sabre_truth

43. Comment #66082 by MrDarwinist83 on August 28, 2007 at 12:35 pm

It's a bit similar to Penn&Teller's "Bullshit". Even some of the material from the 1st episode was presumably from the same study done with sand and water. I strongly think that both styles are important to cover these subjects. I would love to see Dawkins in P&T Bullshit some time. Don't know if they even make it anymore though =S

Other Comments by MrDarwinist83

44. Comment #66091 by Robert Maynard on August 28, 2007 at 2:36 pm

A fun documentary which should reach a wide audience. I updated my userpic to celebrate one of the one-liners in it.
It also featured many echoes of the chapter "Hoodwink'd By Faery Fancy" in one of Dawkins' older books, Unweaving the Rainbow. Because of this, I'm relieved he didn't try to articulate the petwhac in spoken words, even though it's a fun discussion about coincidence. :P

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

45. Comment #66156 by j.martin on August 29, 2007 at 4:55 am

I would just like to say that I think it's rather sad that so many people find the need to attack spirituality, religion and the mystical with such vigour.

I agree that organised religion is responsible for a lot of hatred and negativity but it is a part of humanity nonetheless! Surely it has been involved in our evolution for a reaosn. I do not follow an organised religion but I do have alternative beliefs.

Everyone is entitled to their beleifs, including athiests and scientists, as we have free will! Why is there a need to attack those who believe differently?

Eradicating religion, spiritual practices, alternative medicines, etc is not going to automatically make the world a better place. All it does is create a world that a minority see as 'perfect'. And then you are just as bad as the religious folk who want to convert us all to their path in the belief that the world will suddenly be better!

Johnny

Other Comments by j.martin

46. Comment #66158 by Philip1978 on August 29, 2007 at 5:18 am

J,Martin

I think eradicating all religion to the same mythical status as the Norse or Greek gods is the right way forward and it would make the world a better place. Sure, it would never be perfect but at least people would use some form of reasoning that did not involve invoking some form of invisible "it" to back up their words and actions. It is perpetuating a lie if religion or the supernatural is allowed to continue as it is. I don't have all the answers, but I can't see how allowing nonsensical mental slavery to carry on is going to be beneficial.

I don't think anyone here is invoking the total abolition and eradication of religion, not at all. As Professor Dawkins has said, stuff like Shakespeare would be incomprehensible unless you had knowledge of or access to the Bible. What should be eradicated is this illusion that gives religion and superstition its authority, for there is no good reason for people to devote their lives to believe in it all, its a waste of time

I hope that helps,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

47. Comment #66161 by Prufrock on August 29, 2007 at 5:39 am

Yes, j. martin, I believe it beliefs and faith and all the stuff we now know to be nonsense did have a purpose, in fact I would propose that it had many purposes. The thing is that in the same way I do not have the same beliefs and attitudes I had when I was 15, it cannot possibly be true that the things humanity believed in its infancy are true today after much inspection and evidence to the contrary. We grow by postulating and then rejecting what is not true. The attack on the 'spiritual' is that it is retarding the development of individuals and society by spreading deletrious 'memes' the effect of which have been described by the gang of four and attested to by millions around the world, some of whom are on this site. More people than you realise are fed up of being bullied around and lied to because of the false reasoning and plain nonsense perpetrated by those who lead us. I care where I am led and who I am led by. If something is not true then I for one don't want it rammed into my head as though it had meaning. Reducing these things to mere entertainment would be great as a start.

Other Comments by Prufrock

48. Comment #66176 by Roger Stanyard on August 29, 2007 at 7:32 am

Interesting to see Professor Steve Fuller, the advocate of Intelligent Design, in the first of the 2 programmes. I've long suspected that Fuller is a full-blown post-modernist with a gripe against science but nothing to offer as an alternative. Quite why he so detests science is beyond me but it appears to have shown his true colours in the C4 programme. I was not that astonished to hear him claim that we ar going through a sort of reformation about science with the Catholic church representing mainstream science; quite what he considers the new Protestants (apart from Intelligent Designers) to be is quite beyond me. But then, I saw Fuller speak at Royal Holloway College last February and found him desperately unconvincing. He seems to think there is something "new" about creationism and religious fundamentalism.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

49. Comment #66245 by msitua on August 29, 2007 at 12:40 pm

You are my hero Richard

Just think, 3 years ago I was a nut also.

Other Comments by msitua

50. Comment #66344 by Bart Van Bockstaele on August 29, 2007 at 6:09 pm

I have discovered the Enemies of Reason a few days ago by looking for Richard Dawkins on Google Video. I think it is a great documentary. The presentation of homeopathy is beautifully presented. I would have liked a similar presentation on other more or less mainstream quackeries, such as acupuncture, chiropraxis and massage therapy, but I understand that a large overview had to be given and that time was limited.

In all, it is a fantastic documentary. I have copied it to my Archos, and I am enjoying it while traveling with the subway in Toronto. It is a great source of inspiration!

Other Comments by Bart Van Bockstaele