1. Comment #62985 by Janus on August 12, 2007 at 7:19 pm

The interviewers were soooooo annoying. Let the Professor speak, for the FSM's sake!

Kudos to RD for remaining calm and composed. I'm very much looking forward to The Enemies of Reason.

Other Comments by Janus

2. Comment #62988 by maton100 on August 12, 2007 at 7:28 pm

The interviewers *were* the enemies of reason.

Other Comments by maton100

3. Comment #62990 by Ohnhai on August 12, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Richard and Judy (a couple for those that didn't pick up the subtle hints)are just there to fill air time when no one of any import want to watch TV. They are so used to their own voice they feel strange when they cant hear it.

Judy, with her cross on prominent display and a few pointed comments I'm sure wanted to rial against Richard more than she did...

again. Richard was calm and collected, and kept on with the message "Show me the evidence and, I might belive. But not until then"

Other Comments by Ohnhai

4. Comment #62993 by Cartomancer on August 12, 2007 at 7:52 pm

I've never been able to take Judy Finnegan seriously since I saw Jarvis Cocker lobbing small wax-wrapped cheeses at a giant rolling-eyed picture of her face with wobbly musical teeth all those years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0QuG0fuNhQ


Other Comments by Cartomancer

5. Comment #62995 by bwana ndege on August 12, 2007 at 7:55 pm

I thought they (well Richard) were quite reasonable although it is obvious that Judy had some 'issues'. Her xtian symbol of torture seemed to be particularly prominent in this clip.

Other Comments by bwana ndege

6. Comment #62996 by John the Atheist on August 12, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Sign me up for the DVD when it comes out...

Other Comments by John the Atheist

7. Comment #62997 by SMART on August 12, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Kinda ironic that Judy Finnegan was wearing a symbol of religious delusion around her neck!

Other Comments by SMART

8. Comment #63000 by Crazymalc on August 12, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Janus: "...for the FSM's sake"

Ha! Very good!

Other Comments by Crazymalc

9. Comment #63001 by Crazymalc on August 12, 2007 at 8:29 pm

From the clip: "It's been proven to me against my rationality."

Huh?

Other Comments by Crazymalc

10. Comment #63002 by Zaphod on August 12, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Richard(host) seemed more rational than Judy, Judy seemed like she wanted to believe certain things.

Other Comments by Zaphod

11. Comment #63003 by marcdesm on August 12, 2007 at 8:35 pm

James Randi has done a lot of work debunking paranormal claims in the past. He even has a 1 million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate such abilities.

http://www.randi.org/

Other Comments by marcdesm

12. Comment #63005 by Hobbit on August 12, 2007 at 8:43 pm

I'm not sure who is the bigger TWIT, her or him for being married to her?

At least he could see the logical argument being presented. She just wanted to argue "Well my next door neighbors Aunty Muriel had a psychic find water in her loo once, so it must be true".

But then again, she has the sky fairy symbol around her neck so logic is not one of her strong points!

Other Comments by Hobbit

13. Comment #63006 by a-teapot-ist on August 12, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Randi and Dawkins ought to do a book together on this kind of pseudo-science clap-trap.

Other Comments by a-teapot-ist

14. Comment #63013 by MrEmpirical on August 12, 2007 at 11:02 pm

Why do so many people on this site get stuck into the interviewers whenever Dawkins appears on TV? It's almost like some of the board members expect interviewers to be hostile to Dawkins, and they project this expectation onto the interviewers, seeing hostility when it isn't there. Sure, some interviewers have been genuinely irritating or irrational, but on many other occasions they have simply posed counterarguments to Dawkins', giving him a chance to rebut.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

15. Comment #63019 by Bri. on August 12, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Whether the interviewers are annoying or not it's good that the prof. got air-time on the show. Richard and Judy is quite a high profile daytime programme and the interview would have been seen by quite a few people who believe in mumbo-jumbo. It's a pity the slot wasn't longer though.
I'm really looking forward to tonights programme.

Other Comments by Bri.

16. Comment #63023 by automath on August 13, 2007 at 12:21 am

Judy reminds me of my next door neighbour, who always likes telling me about the bible she keeps in the kitchen and how all the changes to our life have been because of the loss of religion. (such a wonderful and quaintly old english attitude to the world)

I noticed that Judy managed to drop in the idea that the rise in superstition is due to the loss of faith (belief) in God. Well ignored btw :)

I agree with the other comments that say this is a good interview especially for targeting the market segment that are most likely to be superstitious. The Richard and Judy format is one that is very popular over here with middle England, and is quite a good wind down program of popular chat.

I feel so lucky that I stumbled onto the search for truth at an early age instead of fostering the will to believe.

Other Comments by automath

17. Comment #63027 by RobertlewisIR on August 13, 2007 at 12:32 am

Not a bad interview. But in answer to the Uri Geller question: he's tampered with the spoons in advance. That's how he does it.

Wish I could see the program when it airs. Guess I'll just have to wait for a DVD.

Other Comments by RobertlewisIR

18. Comment #63028 by Sigmund on August 13, 2007 at 12:42 am

Lets see, they are married, work together, live together, do everything together and spend almost 24 hours a day in each others company and yet occasionally have very similar dreams.
Its a miracle ! There can be no other explanation!
(Mind you, why is it that when I heard them say this the very first thought that went through my head was "yes, of course you do, its probably the nightmare realization of 'Aaaaaargh, I've married Judy Finnegan/Richard Maddley'" ?)

Other Comments by Sigmund

19. Comment #63030 by arthurmee on August 13, 2007 at 1:15 am

I agree with Bri above. I wouldn't normally dream of watching Richard and Judy but millions do, and that's good for getting Richard's views and his programme publicised, which is, I'm sure the very reason that he agreed to appear.

Other Comments by arthurmee

20. Comment #63039 by TeapotTheist on August 13, 2007 at 2:11 am

I wouldn't normally dream of watching Richard and Judy but millions do

How many miracles is that!

Other Comments by TeapotTheist

21. Comment #63040 by Darwin's badger on August 13, 2007 at 2:14 am

That was worth watching just to see Judy spitting her dummy out. "But you believe that Uri Gellar bends spoons!" :)

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

22. Comment #63045 by nothing on August 13, 2007 at 2:45 am

I noticed that Judy managed to drop in the idea that the rise in superstition is due to the loss of faith (belief) in God. Well ignored btw :)

I agree that it was well ignored.

However Judy unintentionally has made the point that people have replaced one kind of superstition with other kinds of superstition.

It seems a fair hypothesis that people who are no longer able to hold onto the first kind of superstition (blind faith in dogmas) have sought out other sorts of superstition (the wishy-washy ideas of the "New [Dark] Age".)

All in "a search for meaning" perhaps?

Other Comments by nothing

23. Comment #63047 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on August 13, 2007 at 2:48 am

It looked like Judy was hating every minute of it, not because she believes in woo-woo but because she realised that if you're criticizing paranormal bunkum for lack of evidence then the same can be applied to the symbol of torture worn around her neck.

It was good to see RD hammering home the point about evidence - every other sentence contained something along the lines of "show me the proof". Good for getting in the "it's not about what I believe" line in too. A lot of people don't seem to understand that.

Richard seemed to be enjoying himself, as if this whole reason thing was a new enlightening experience (/irony). I hope RD took him aside after the show and explained how that con-man Geller does his spoon bending shenanigans. Any one know if he's a commited xtian?

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

24. Comment #63055 by Chris Walsh on August 13, 2007 at 3:21 am

Man - Judy looked like she couldn't get the interview over with fast enough. She really seems unsettled by Richard's assertions on God.

Other Comments by Chris Walsh

25. Comment #63064 by aoratos philos on August 13, 2007 at 3:41 am

na Judy is always nervous on TV, even after all the years she has been broadcasting. Richard was bearable this time, he's often patronising to his guests.
Which is why I've dubbed them "Jitter and Rudy" :)

Other Comments by aoratos philos

26. Comment #63068 by aleprechaunist on August 13, 2007 at 3:59 am

Of course, we should be careful not to generalise that 'Richards are more rational that Judys'... controlled tests need to be conducted!

Other Comments by aleprechaunist

27. Comment #63069 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 4:07 am

Ahhh.... Richard and Judy, something I do NOT miss about my native land.

I'll say one thing for the good 'ole US of A, no women as old and ugly as Judy would get a show over here.

Adieu!

Other Comments by USA_Limey

28. Comment #63071 by tieInterceptor on August 13, 2007 at 4:17 am

so, Is it tonight at channel 4?

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

29. Comment #63072 by Ilovelucy on August 13, 2007 at 4:18 am

Richard Madley is a comedy god. We get two moments of greatness in this clip

1.Richard Madley- Do you believe that any palm reader, any gypsy rose, any of that lot...

2. Judy- We're losing our belief in God
Richard M- (gesturing towards Dawkins) Well, that's because of him!

Judy had a face like a smacked arse throughout the whole interview, her cross was very wonky by the end.

They finished the show with a segment about dancing dogs. Fantastic.

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

30. Comment #63075 by nickthelight on August 13, 2007 at 4:27 am

Would I be an enemy of reason if I punched Richard Madley in the face as hard as I could?

Other Comments by nickthelight

31. Comment #63086 by Steve19 on August 13, 2007 at 4:48 am

I noticed that Judy managed to drop in the idea that the rise in superstition is due to the loss of faith (belief) in God. Well ignored btw :)

She is obviously ignorant of the fact that no matter how many people leave religion for these wacky beliefs, there will be no net increase in superstition.

Other Comments by Steve19

32. Comment #63094 by ksskidude on August 13, 2007 at 5:24 am

What I want to know is; will the show be put on RD's web site? If not I hope its Youtubed because I really am excited. Maybe I'll check my horrorscope....:)

Other Comments by ksskidude

33. Comment #63098 by hungarianelephant on August 13, 2007 at 5:32 am

22. Comment #63045 by nothing on August 13, 2007 at 2:45 am

It seems a fair hypothesis that people who are no longer able to hold onto the first kind of superstition (blind faith in dogmas) have sought out other sorts of superstition (the wishy-washy ideas of the "New [Dark] Age".)

That may very well be true, but in my experience, the two usually live together in the same people's heads (though not usually fundamentalist ones). Here in Ireland, I doubt that Cathlolicism would ever have caught on if it couldn't have been bolted onto pre-existing Celtic mysticism. Devout churchgoers still believe in fairy trees, the banshee and tarot readers advertised with sandwich boards, at the same time as moving statues, holy water and pilgrimages to Lourdes.

It's evidence and reason versus the rest, which is not an encouraging thought.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

34. Comment #63101 by Mango on August 13, 2007 at 5:39 am

This TV program I'm not familiar with (I'm American) but it seems like something people who believe in New Age quackery would watch. And perhaps this is what Dawkins intended -- to spread his message in the quarters where it is most needed.

Other Comments by Mango

35. Comment #63109 by Corylus on August 13, 2007 at 6:08 am

Oh my, that was hilarious...

Good cop / bad cop with Judy as bad cop :)

Hardly 'The Shield' was it?

Other Comments by Corylus

36. Comment #63113 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 6:17 am

Corylus,

Yes, Good cop/bad cop went through my head for second; but I finally settled on just dumb and dumber.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

37. Comment #63125 by JohnC on August 13, 2007 at 7:16 am

Being on the other side of the world, I've never seen this dynamic duo before, but I'm familiar with the genre. Seems the perfect demographic.

I have no doubt that if you cumulated from the audience all those who believed just one of the quackeries mentioned (astrology, dowsing, mediums), you would probably have a strike rate of near 90pc.

What difference it will make is altogether another question - I am somewhat pessimistic, on two grounds.

There really does seem to be a need for "magic" in people's lives (JK Rowling is not the richest author in history for nothing). Second, most people are educationally/intellectually unable to grasp what RD is talking about when discussing the wonders of astronomy or biology (same applies to literature and art, btw) so the need for wonderment is fulfilled in other, simpler, ways.

Finally, for instance, though I loathe astrology with a passion, it is not clear to me that it does any significant damage in the Western world. One's horoscope does not dictate attitudes towards women or Israel or condoms, or indeed anything much. Astrologers are not given a place at the table when issues of import are discussed, and while people from Hitler to Nancy Reagan indulged in such nonsense, you would have to be very naive to believe there has ever been any effect on actual decision-making in the real world.

Other Comments by JohnC

38. Comment #63138 by phasmagigas on August 13, 2007 at 8:12 am

i imagine that giving people the option to see woo as woo is like a little training ground for rational thinking. when judy (and yes, she always has had a rather nervous edge)mentioned that half the population subscribes to woo it reminds me that an argument from popularity (not that her point was that specifically) is a great one to throw at the religious (just to change the subject) as according to somebody somewhere EVERYBODY but them is gong to hell but not to heaven, so we must all be going to hell!! i'll let the religious argue that one out amongst themselves.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

39. Comment #63139 by matt1986 on August 13, 2007 at 8:13 am

I agree with MrEmpirical. I couldn't see much wrong with the way the interview was conducted. To be fair, Richard and Judy often play devil's advocate, probably purely because it makes the interview more interesting. And it's not as if Dawkins' argument cannot deal with criticism.

I don't think its helpful to say things like "Judy had a face like a smacked arse throughout the whole interview" or "I'm not sure who is the bigger TWIT, her or him for being married to her?" Good on them for dedicating part of their show to an important subject.

(Incidentally, He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy, I think Richard is an athiest, and Judy a Christian. I remember a piece they did on a news story a few months ago about the claim that someone had found the bones of Jesus (or something like that). They made their views clear there.)

Other Comments by matt1986

40. Comment #63140 by phasmagigas on August 13, 2007 at 8:14 am

as for the R & J show generally, their audience would later in the day watch oprah and montel (who between them perhaps promote more woo nonsense that any other individuals), so by comparison R&J were VERY reasonable.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

41. Comment #63151 by dmshinty on August 13, 2007 at 9:07 am

I agree with matt1986 and MrEmpirical. The interview seemed fair and balanced. RD seemed quite at ease with the questions being asked. We've all seen him go through far worse!

I'm far from being an expert, but it seems to me that an interview on a daytime show in America would have been intensely hostile. This was more like a quiet chat among friends in a pub.

Other Comments by dmshinty

42. Comment #63152 by edwaltthespisactor on August 13, 2007 at 9:07 am

3 Cheers for R & J!

Richard D seemed to be having a splendid time, and I agree that Richard M made his usually comic stabs at Judy!

"Lost their Faith in God!"

"That's because of him..." (Gesture to RD)

For any new initiates into Richard and Judy land you have to understand that they are basically a middle class couple in their 'living room' talking mostly with each other and some light entertainment guests - they do a brief bit of topical debate before more entertainment or cookery.

By default Ricahrd M represented the average joe's point of view - "oh that's interesting Professor, how bout this? Really? Good stuff! Keep it up, now what's next...?"

For alot of people this interests them for a two part mini series then back to watching Heroes.

And in the end that kind of viewership is a mark for rationality. For the 'on the fence' believers, the last thing you want to do is make it more doom and gloom, drawn out and wooly as a sunday sermon...

Other Comments by edwaltthespisactor

43. Comment #63166 by automath on August 13, 2007 at 10:39 am

Just showed this to my other half, they've been an avid Richard and Judy viewer for many years now, although they missed Fridays. The first thing they said about this clip was - "Judy wasn't herself there, she was a bit hostile..." I thought that was interesting in light of several comments on this here, and particularly this one.

14. MrEmpirical
Why do so many people on this site get stuck into the interviewers whenever Dawkins appears on TV? It's almost like some of the board members expect interviewers to be hostile to Dawkins, and they project this expectation onto the interviewers, seeing hostility when it isn't there.

Maybe some people are better at reading the affective state of others? Rather than using the word hostile, I'd have gone for defensive and on edge. There again I think that most people would be on guard when confronted by the monster (lovable rogue) that certain people and the popular media have distorted the image of Richard into. People then only come to see what they have been programmed to expect.

So yes, I think there is a point to be made here, but in this case I think most are on the money with their perceptions. Always safe to ask yourself if you're sure; measure twice - cut once as they say. Especially since some people don't tend to read the emotion of others very well, for instance passion can easily be mistaken and misrepresented as aggression. Since people do not encounter the concept of passion much in western life, they come only to see it as aggression. Such a sad and reductionist existence some of us in the west live. :(

Learn to question and experience something of life!

Other Comments by automath

44. Comment #63170 by automath on August 13, 2007 at 10:57 am

Judy- We're losing our belief in God
Richard M- (gesturing towards Dawkins) Well, that's because of him!

lol, I heard Judy but missed Richard M's reply, as I was probably wondering how Richard D was going to answer that one :p

After listening to it several times now, it actually gets better.

Judy - That's because We're losing our faith in God

Richard M - (gesturing towards Dawkins) Well, that's because of him and his book!

(not word perfect, done from memory!)

Other Comments by automath

45. Comment #63176 by doethcaru on August 13, 2007 at 11:59 am

Channel 4 do provide the opportunity to watch programmes live online. http://www.channel4.com/
Not sure it's available outside the UK.

Other Comments by doethcaru

46. Comment #63240 by fallenone on August 13, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Can't wait to watch the series...

Other Comments by fallenone

47. Comment #63257 by mmurray on August 13, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Thanks for the link to channel 4 online but it doesn't seem to work outside UK/Eire. It also doesn't work on the officially approved Dawkins brand of computer :-) I will have to get teenager to show me how to tune into Channel BitTorrent.

Am I confused or was this a Channel 4 programme (Richard and Judy) advertising a Channel 4 programme (Enemies of Reason) ? Just wondering if maybe RD wasn't Judy's first choice of interviewee but it was a higher up decision.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

48. Comment #63295 by MrEmpirical on August 13, 2007 at 8:20 pm

automath,

C'mon, mate, do you really think that R&J were unreasonably defensive, edgy, or whatever you want to call it?

Richard looked relaxed throughout, and was definitely getting into the sceptical spirit (as evidenced by his referral to tricking people by reading them the wrong horoscope, and his referral to flipping a coin 10 times), while Judy was perhaps a little edgy, but not unreasonably so. She has the right not to be enthused by all of her guests. As for Dawkins, he looked relaxed too; he smiled throughout the interview, his brow was not overly furrowed as it has been in previous interviews (e.g. his Hardtalk interview), and he got more than enough opportunities to present his views. Further, R&J generously played not one, not two, but three clips from Dawkins' TV show.

So I stand by my original assertion that many members of RD.net are prone to see anti-Dawkins attitudes when they aren't there. Indeed, Richard Dawkins himself recently commented on a thread that the board members were being overly harsh towards a writer who had written an article about how religion can seem like a butterfly being broken on a wheel under Dawkins' criticisms. The board members mistook the writer's comments as a criticism of Dawkins, when really the writer was actually drawing attention to the strength of Dawkins' arguments and the sneaky way in which religion can seem to be weak (when really it is strong and dangerous).

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

49. Comment #63317 by JohnC on August 13, 2007 at 9:59 pm

I think it's a good thing that such an interview has someone like Judy who asks exactly the sorts of questions that are on the minds of credulous viewers - as long as RD gets to answer, which he did. In that sense it's good television.

My two favourite moments, btw, are around 6:50 when Judy is giving RD a look that would etch glass; and the perfunctory conclusion - "thank you Richard, very interesting" (now get out of my studio!). Hopefully, equally discomfited viewers will find themselves tuning into the programs as a result.

Other Comments by JohnC

50. Comment #63326 by dgcoulson on August 13, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Dear Richard,

You looked so pleased on the show. Finally, someone in the media (Richard M) you could get through to. Presumably he is influential with the viewers (perhaps even his wife), so perhaps this was one of the more profitable shows you have done. I know you have to go on a lot of shows and talk to some very uninformed people, and I do admire your persistence and good will. Please keep up the effort. We need to return some measure of sanity to this world.
Best wishes,

Other Comments by dgcoulson