Mof's done a fair job of sticking up for all right-thinking atheists today, chief of whom at least in the popular consciousness at the moment seems to be Richard Dawkins. I thought, as a Spiritualist and therefore one of the people in Dawkins' direct line of fire, I might put the opposite point of view. Before you scroll on past to the next post, or click to another page, let me explain that this won't be a fundamentalist religious rant. I'm well aware that much of organised religion, popular culture and the other fish in that barrel into which Dawkins was shooting deserve to be shot, but Dawkins' alternative "religion" - science - is not so lily white or perfect.
Dawkins' insistence that, as Mof put it, "belief in the paranormal and superstitious thinking impedes human progress and impoverishes our culture. Science gives; religion, astrology and spiritualism only takes away" is just as dangerous a credo as that which Dawkins attacks. To suggest that either science or religion is exclusively positive or negative is far too simplistic a view, and one which a true scientist would not be peddling. Science gives us Thalidomide, and a culture based entirely on science and reason (leaving aside the simple truth that such a society, if it ever could exist, is still many hundreds of years away) would be so dry and mirthless as to be entirely self-defeating.
First off I should declare that as well as a Spiritualist, I am a scientist. Not only in the sense that I've studied science at various times in my life, but also that I'm familiar with the scientific method. I've read The Red Queen, Vital Dust and even some of Dawkins' own works (The Blind Watchmaker; The Selfish Gene) so I'm thoroughly familiar not only with the principle that life is a cosmic imperative (i.e. that the state of the universe more-or-less dictates that life will arise given the right planetary conditions) as discussed in Vital Dust, but also why that is, and how it happens.
I've read the treatise on how the evolution of the eye, far from being a "miracle of God's engineering," is actually only the natural reaction of biological tissue to external influences, and an event that has actually occurred many times over during the course of the history of life on this planet, taking, as it does, only a few hundred thousand generations to perfect - a relatively short time evolutionarily speaking.
But understanding these things is a long way from understanding the universe and everything in it. Modern science is barely 300 years old and yet in his arrogance Dawkins is as happy to dismiss things he can't explain as primitive man would have been to dismiss the concept of radio or television. In a 14 billion year old universe, isn't there a quite staggering mathematical certainty that there will be some explanations that, in those 300 years, we have been unable to uncover?
Take, for instance, homeopathy. A subject Dawkins would no doubt love to lambast if he hasn't already. Reason dictates that homeopathic remedies are so extremely diluted that there cannot possibly be any active ingredient left. Yet the remedies work, at levels that cannot be explained by simple placebo effects. Homeopaths maintain their solutions retain a "memory" of the active ingredient; science scoffs at the notion which cannot, as yet, be proven. My point exactly. Armed with the science available in the early 1400s, we would have been utterly unable to explain how the Earth orbits the Sun (even if we had believed such an incredible notion). If some forward thinking individual had suggested the possibility of unseen forces holding Sun, Earth and Moon in predictable patterns of movement, a 15th century Dawkins would have been waiting to call him a nut job (or, more likely, burn him at the stake). And with 21st century science we are unaware of any physical, biological, chemical or molecular property that would support or explain homeopathy.
Dawkins talks in measured, scientifically credible and weighty tones of the "dangers" inherent in people's "belief" in alternative medicines. And yet figures published in the Lancet reveal that orthodox doctors are only right 48% of the time. Another way of looking at this is if there were two medical diagnoses for your symptoms, statistically you would be better off guessing which was the right one, rather than depending on your doctor. Alongside well-publicised cases of misdiagnosis, drug side-effects and deaths in clinical trials is it any wonder people turn to alternative therapies?
Almost everyone now has either personal or anecdotal experience of doctors who treat symptoms rather than causes. Modern complaints such as RSI are treated with anti-inflammatories and pain-killers by orthodox medicine, rather than trying to find the root of the problem. "Alternative" therapies involving massage, posture training and attitudinal therapies attack the origin of the inflammation which will then not only dissipate without the need for chemical treatments, but is far less likely to recur.
The "dangers" of organised religion (especially fundamentalism) are splashed across our headlines daily, fuelling Dawkins' agenda. Rather trivially for such an important subject, Dawkins expressed concern over the level of belief in horoscopes. An easy target but one which, again, relies on there being no demonstrable scientific proof of the influence of other worlds on character or chance events (for which I refer you to the arguments above).
Dawkins' reference to Spiritualism being "a darker world" might have been offensive had I been at all bothered by his opinion. Unfortunately as with so many of his targets the ground has been befogged in the past by charlatans and those out to exploit the masses. While it is undoubtedly true that this area is ripe for a rip-off, it is also true from personal experience that a Spiritualist reading from a legitimate medium is much more than a linguistic trick. Far from being asked general questions like "does someone know a Charles?" I have, without even so much verbal prompting as yes or no answers to specific questions, had events described to me of which I was the sole witness. I would welcome Derren Brown's explanation of how a linguistic trick can allow a medium to describe in detail what I did on one particular afternoon, alone and unobserved, and which I had never discussed with anyone, and how she could do that without me ever opening my mouth or moving my head in a nod or a shake.
Dawkins may well find the notion of talking to the dead ludicrous, but many people draw comfort from knowing they will see their loved ones again in the future. This is why there are more questions about Charles than there are about conditions in the afterlife. But if that's the kind of information Dawkins wants, it is available, most popularly in the writings of Silver Birch.
Mof says he doesn't like religion and I would have to agree with him, in the large. The history of religion is like a microcosm of the history of man - littered with half-truths and control freakery on a massive scale and guilty of some of the worst atrocities against some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human race (against, it has to be said, most religions' supposedly most fundamental tenets).
But Dawkins' crusade, like all crusades, throws the baby out with the bath water. He doesn't search for the nugget of truth in the thousand-year-old myth; he simply dismisses the entire edifice as "unscientific." It's a laugh that, really, since the true scientist would be more open and willing to search for the truth, rather than approaching with a closed mind that refuses to believe the possible. The ultimate logical conclusion to Dawkins' argument is that human thought is merely a result of biological, chemical and electrical impulses. There is no "you" in your skull. Those thoughts that you believe to be yours are nothing more than the random firings of your neurons and that essence of you is not a soul but an ephemeral nothing that will blow away like dust as soon as you draw your final breath.
"Yet the remedies work, at levels that cannot be explained by simple placebo effects."
Oh really? Where's the documented, peer-reviewed proof of this statement.
At what point does science dictate mirthlessness?
What a bucket of tosh.
Rational people do not dismiss that which is unknown. The unknown provides impetus for further research and investigation. It is fallacious to argue that because full and complete understanding of a particular issue is not yet achieved that science has failed. To suggest that what is unknown by science is ipso facto thew result of myhtical beings and supernatural forces is a philosophy of despair. To suggest that there is that which is arbitarily deemed unknowable and therefore it should not be attempted to understand it is a complete abdication of the opportunities our intellect affords us to see beyond the veils of mystery that the weak-minded would have us live behind.
The whole problem with this 'debate' is that is based on the lie that there is an equal and balanced conversation happening between the two sides of a false dichotomy. The truth is that the "debate" is not equally balanced. The mythmongers and god-botherers are accorded far too much space and too high a platform from which to peddle their fantasies, and it's about time proportionate restraints were put on those who make unfalsifiable assertions about supernatural powers. Like removing their charitable, tax-exemptions and expelling them from their reserved niches in the body politic. It's time lazy-arsed journos stopped dragging them up at every opportunity, as if their opinions were actually informed by anything other than wishful thinking and judgemental bigotry.
Thanks for your refreshing perspective. The body of evidence for homeopathy, including clinical trials, laboratory trials, and its 200+ history of successes, remains unknown to most people. Sadly, there are many people who are skeptical of homeopathy, though I have consistently found that such skeptics are amazingly ignorant of homeopathy and its body of evidence. Strangely, they maintain a very unscientific attitude towards homeopathy, even though they assert that they are "defenders of science." A classic case of chutzpah!
Dawkins proves that atheists are far more arrogant and bigoted than the religions they decry!
It's not arrogant to point out that shysters and quacks walk amongst us preying on the vulnerable.
quack quack quack
Well done lisatheiconclast! I think your comment adequately demonstrates the principle of projection. Only a truly arrogant bigot would make such an asinine comment. At what point did you think that your vicious self-description, thinly disguised as an attack on we unbelieving filth, really added to a rational debate?
Also, I wonder quite how you justify your abuse of the English language. Your are not iconoclastic, nor does your use of the word "prove" add any weight to your unfounded assertions. Considerd as either a legal or scientific argument, you have completely failed to provide evidence of anything other than your own silliness.
The article is well wriiten and befittingly blasts the criticism which is not based on research but on bias .Most of the articles and blogs against the homeopathy reveal the shallowness of the knowledge of these persons about homoeopathy and more an intent to spit venom out of jealousy against its gaining popularity. But Homoeopathy knows to turn venom into remedies.So as a layman but admirer of the system my request to Homoeopahts is dont be bothered about criticisms. Let them call Homoeopathy by any name. We are least bothered. Let your system grow and flourish by leaps and bounds and benefit the mankind.
An unscientific attitude towards homeopathy...
HELLO!! there is no evidence for water memory
quack quack quack
"To suggest that there is that which is arbitarily deemed unknowable and therefore it should not be attempted to understand it is a complete abdication of the opportunities our intellect affords us to see beyond the veils of mystery that the weak-minded would have us live behind."
I have at no point suggested that anything should be "deemed unknowable." I seek to highlight that at any given point, our view of what is rational and what irrational (or "mythical," "superstitious," whatever) is bounded by what we know and what we hypothesise. I neither wrote nor implied that we should not seek after the truth. I merely hinted that the truth after which we seek may turn out to be something other than that which we currently comprehend. History is littered with examples that prove my point. You cannot, from a position of unknowing, claim that the thing you do not know is "impossible" - only that it is unknown or unproven.
As to the statement "there is no evidence for water memory" - you succinctly make my point for me. Thank you. There was no "evidence" that the earth orbited the sun until we learnt to (a) observe the universe and (b) interpret those observations correctly.
We exist in linear time and expect everything to behave linearly with respect to the timeline. Just because we have no experience of time in any other behaviour doesn't mean it doesn't have those behaviours. QED.
Let me know when your Native American friend discovers water memory at your next seance
So water must have a memory, we just haven't found the evidence for it yet?
Of course homeopathy works. Its purpose is to transfer money from vulnerable, deluded victims into the pockets of cynical, ignorant charlatans. It has an extremely high success rate.
Oh dear, what tosh.
This is the best the 'spiritulist' side can dredge up? The usual banal, tired jibes? Science cant explain everyting, therefore it explains nothing? Yes, it is young - and look what it has achieved in that short time. Astrologers still cant agree how their subject works after thousands of years. Remember, the same science that created the technology you are using to view this, and a million other things you take for granted every day, is the same science that says all this is bunk. bad news guys - science works. It proves this every second of every day. Do you believe magic pixies run the internet? No? So why cordon off your area of interest as suddenly being above scientific enquiry?
And isnt it amazing that the self-proclaimed 'open minded' are the first to lash out in vicious ad-hominem attacks against anyone who dares to question their immature world view.
That's the second time you've accused me, anonymously, of using an ad-hominem attack (once explicit, once implicit) after performing the feat yourself. Where does the suggestion that I think pixies run the Internet come from? If that's not a direct attempt to discredit my standpoint rather than my argument then I *am* a pixie.
Try reading what I write instead of reading the first sentence and then assuming that I'm like every other spouter of nonsense you've ever come across and attacking what's in your mind rather than what's on the page.
I haven't suggested science "explains nothing" - that is an extension you have supplied for yourself. Neither have I suggested any area is above scientific enquiry.
My point is, and if you follow your usual pattern you won't have read this far, so you'll miss it for a third time, that even though science has undisputedly learned a lot and proved a lot in 300 years, it is a universe away from learning and proving everything, and therefore to suggest that anything that can't be proved by science doesn't exist is fallacious. Just as fallacious as a 14th century scholar suggesting gravity doesn't exist.
Oooh!
Dear me, Martin!
So the fact that I dare to say Dawkins doesn't have the last word on everything touches a raw nerve, does it?
As it happens, iconoclast is quite appropriate, as I am blasting at the secular idolatry of Dawkins, whose self-righteousness is, frankly, as bad as anything the religions can come up with
I'm an agnostic BTW
"If some forward thinking individual had suggested the possibility of unseen forces holding Sun, Earth and Moon in predictable patterns of movement, a 15th century Dawkins would have been waiting to call him a nut job (or, more likely, burn him at the stake)."
But there's a critical difference between this and homeopathy, spiritualism, or astrology: with this there is no question there is an actual phenomenon that requires an explanation. But there certainly is no agreement on the other three requiring any explanation at all, as diluted solutions may have no non-placebo effect, speaking with the dead (I'm assuming that is what spiritualism is, correct me if I'm wrong) may be impossible, and the stars and planets may have no bearing on the future or a person's attributes.
'Homeopaths maintain their solutions retain a "memory" of the active ingredient; science scoffs at the notion which cannot, as yet, be proven. My point exactly.'
But science scoffs at is because there's no evidence for it, and again the existence of any effect at all from homeopathy is greatly in dispute. Don't you think that if it was really effective a simple scientific study could show it absolutely conclusively? The onus in this situation is on the statement before the semi-colon; exactly what methodology have homeopathic advocates followed to arrive at the conclusion that this memory of the ingredient is retained? Experimental observation? Pure hypothesizing at this point?
"It's a laugh that, really, since the true scientist would be more open and willing to search for the truth, rather than approaching with a closed mind that refuses to believe the possible."
Anything's possible, but under what criteria then should science give up this search for the truth? It seems under your criteria a scientist can never say that anything is incorrect; angels, dragons, fairies just might be pushing the planets in their orbits. But it's not arrogant to say that those things are false, regardless of those who might believe that.
"In a 14 billion year old universe, isn't there a quite staggering mathematical certainty that there will be some explanations that, in those 300 years, we have been unable to uncover?"
Of course. But what explanations, those that we accept as true, do we have in this 14 billion year old universe that are not scientific?
Sorry, that anonymous was me, pressed the submit button before I entered a name. But why should that be a problem? Surely your antlantean spirit guide should be able to tell you who I am? (joke.)
"That's the second time you've accused me, anonymously, of using an ad-hominem attack". Sorry, cant claim credit for the first one. Lets look at the evidence.
"in his arrogance Dawkins is as happy to dismiss things he can't explain"
"Take, for instance, homeopathy. A subject Dawkins would no doubt love to lambast if he hasn't already"
As I said, the usual re-action - anyone who dares to question your world view is 'arrogant.'
"Where does the suggestion that I think pixies run the Internet come from?" - If you believe that homeopathy and spiritualism have any credence, how am I supposed to know what strange ideas you might also cherish? Please explain to my why the idea of pixies running the internet is laughable, but someone claiming they can speak to the dead isnt?
Your example about gravity is amusing. It might be that an invisible spirit is responsible for pushing every object down to the floor. I assume you don't believe this, and subscribe to the Newtonian view of gravity. So why is it only in the area where you clearly have a high emotional investment that you suddenly need to lamabast science?
SB: I'm clearly not explaining myself very well. The example of gravity was given from the viewpoint of a 14th century "scholar" who didn't know any better, because science had not yet offered an explanation, and not intended to have any credence in the light of today's understanding. The point was, in a similar way but 600 years on, there are still things that are unexplained (yet) by science, and yet known to exist - observed, documented and readily available to anyone to experience for themselves.
The idea of pixies running the Internet is laughable because the Internet protocols are documented, the servers exist (I've even built some of them), etc, etc. The idea of someone speaking to "the dead" is not laughable because it happens every week in many parts of the world and you could go and experience it for yourself if you had a mind to. In fact, since it is so far removed from the normal everyday experience and so fundamentally UNscientific, experiencing it for yourself is the only way to really understand it. I (as in me, personally) don't expect to be able to convince you it's possible and there is, currently, no scientific explanation. But equally you won't convince me that it's NOT possible because I've experienced it and moreover in a way that cannot be explained away by linguistic tricks, cold reading or any of the other plausible explanations that Dawkins and his guests bring to the table.
""in his arrogance Dawkins is as happy to dismiss..."
As I said, the usual re-action - anyone who dares to question your world view is 'arrogant.'"
I didn't mean to apply Dawkins' arrogance to his questioning of my world view. What I meant was it's arrogant to believe that his science, the science of NOW, explains everything, and anything that can't be explained by it, now, is ergo bunkum, fairy tales or doesn't exist. Dawkins can't think of an experiment to prove speaking with the dead is possible (neither can I, before you ask; I'm nowhere near as good a scientist as he is), therefore it can't be true.
This is what my example of 14th century gravity (forgive the shorthand) was intended to illuminate. They couldn't think of an experiment to prove it, therefore it didn't exist. As soon as someone could prove it, we all "knew" it existed.
Incidentally, and in an uncannily timely fashion, don't you think it's interesting that yesterday everyone "knew" that nothing could travel faster than light? If I'd suggested to Dawkins that something could, he'd have dismissed me as a crackpot. All the evidence, all the theories and their proofs, told us FTL was impossible.
Luckily there are still some scientists in the world who can apply true scientific principles and complete research in areas that all the received wisdom laughs at, for today on Radio 4 comes the news that scientists have been able to send a signal at 2x, 4x and 10x the speed of light, and that their experiments have been recreated successfully by independent groups. I wonder if those guys are available for research into the paranormal? (joke)
Thanks for the response, but you are completely mis-representing the position. I am happy to be corrected, but I am yet to find one reference to Dawkins ever stating that science explains everything now. If so, why does the profession of scientist still exist? What are they doing if every problem has been solved, all knowledge gathered? The truth is, Dawkins like every scientist, is only too happy to admit that we know an infinitesimal amount. As an old quote goes, no one ever won the Nobel prize by affirming the status qou.
The key difference between the two positions is stagnation. To go back to the gravity example, the whole point is that new explanations were put forward, the evidence checked and new theories developed. And it didn’t stop with Newton, eminent scientist that he was. Einstein built on his work, and new ideas and theories have developed, all to better explain the world around us. Science moves on.
Compare this with spiritualism, astrology, dowsing etc. Spiritualism has been studied for over 100 years. And how has the subject developed? Not one jot. Still no credible evidence, still no credible theory as to how the whole thing might work.
You state there is evidence. I really can’t see how you can say this with a straight face. Why is that every physic/spiritualist ever investigated in rigorous conditions (ie they couldn’t cheat) has failed to achieve anything. If we had tested Newton’s theory for a century, but every time we let go of an apple it floated upwards, would you still argue that his theory had any credence? Or would you just accuse ‘the establishment’ of having a closed mind?
I can’t comment on your personal experiences. But you do seem to be falling into a common logical fallacy. I can’t explain it – therefore it proves my pet theory is true. This is simply not the case. I too have seen amazing things, people being given information they were sure could not have been found out any other way. Paul Daniels and Derren Brown made careers out of it. I am not saying this is what happened with you – we can probably never know – but we have to fall back on what is reasonable. Knowing what we do about fake physics/mystics and human nature etc. (John Edwards et al are continually being debunked as con-artists) which is more likely – that, by some process we cant explain and goes against everything we can see in the material world, dead relatives choose to speak, not to their surviving relatives but to someone who charges for the service, OR, there is a more mundane explanation? As has been said about Uri Gellar – if he is using physic powers to do what he does, he’s doing it the hard way.
You have still failed to answer the question I have put to you three times now – why are you happy to accept that science works when you use the internet, turn on your tv, use your car, etc, but then suddenly different rules need to apply to your area of high emotional investment?
I don't think Richard Dawkins is being bigoted or arrogant at all. I think its bigoted, arrogant, narrow minded and ignorant to assert that you know the truth when you have no evidence. You go Richard! About time someone starting talking sense!
"You have still failed to answer the question I have put to you three times now – why are you happy to accept that science works when you use the internet, turn on your tv, use your car, etc, but then suddenly different rules need to apply to your area of high emotional investment?"
There isn't an answer that would satisfy you, or any sceptic for that matter. I know, I was one until a few years ago. I don't even know if I could explain it properly myself. Furthermore the question is badly phrased, inasmuch as I *don't* need to apply different rules. I have attempted all along to describe how there may well be a scientific explanation for some or all of this stuff, but our science isn't yet sophisticated enough to find that explanation or design an experiment to prove it. I have provided examples where this was true in the past and no-one is surprised. Even today, we're on the verge of detecting gravity waves which we were unable to detect before now. These were hypothesised but unproven, just as much of what I'm talking about is.
You asked above why there's not been much progress in investigating this area in the past. How much real hard scientific research into the paranormal has there been? Not much actually. Research budgets are stretched tighter than a gnat's chuff and paranormal investigations are well down the pecking order. Humans would much rather invent better ways of blowing each other up, or, on a more positive note, many other more useful subjects like medicines, power, more efficient engines, whatever. Nothing wrong with that, although IMO too much research is directed at what the investors can make money out of, rather than pure science.
The term "high emotional investment" is inaccurate though. I'm debating here out of mild interest in the debate itself; I have no interest in "converting" you to my point of view even if that were possible. It doesn't work that way. What you choose to believe is up to you, for good or ill. In this respect I totally agree with Dawkins' views on the damage caused by extreme fundamentalism that says "you have to believe what I believe or I'll put you to death." *THAT* is what's crazy, and it's absolutely not what I'm about.
Finally (from me at least)..."dead relatives choose to speak, not to their surviving relatives but to someone who charges for the service"
Two comments on that. First, I'm not talking about people who charge for the service. I have no evidence one way or another how accurate seaside gypsies or other purveyors of pay-for-reading services are, but I know very well that there are plenty of charlatans about. Unfortunately that's one of the downsides of paranormal activity and only serves to muddy the waters. Anyone charging for the service has at least a 50-50 chance of being a fake. The messages I'm talking about are passed on by spiritualist mediums who don't charge. There's no financial gain for them; they do it purely as a service (in the real sense) to others.
Secondly and lastly, and believe me I am aware that this is an easy statement for you to take a pot-shot at, the dead "choose" to communicate through mediums because that's their only channel. If it were possible for them to speak directly to anyone they would do (and we wouldn't need to be debating whether there was any truth in it or not).
Here is my detailed answer to your misinformed and ill-advised post:
http://www.blacksunjournal.com/science/847_atheist-metaphysics-and-religious-equivocation_2007.html
"Dawkins' insistence that, as Mof put it, "belief in the paranormal and superstitious thinking impedes human progress and impoverishes our culture. Science gives; religion, astrology and spiritualism only takes away" is just as dangerous a credo as that which Dawkins attacks."
No it isn't.
"First off I should declare that as well as a Spiritualist, I am a scientist."
No you aren't.
"Not only in the sense that I've studied science at various times in my life, but also that I'm familiar with the scientific method."
Not familiar enough judging by pretty much everything you have written.
"Modern science is barely 300 years old and yet in his arrogance Dawkins is as happy to dismiss things he can't explain as primitive man would have been to dismiss the concept of radio or television."
No he isn't.
"Reason dictates that homeopathic remedies are so extremely diluted that there cannot possibly be any active ingredient left."
Yes, it does.
"Yet the remedies work, at levels that cannot be explained by simple placebo effects."
No, they don't.
"And yet figures published in the Lancet reveal that orthodox doctors are only right 48% of the time."
Any figures to demonstrate how accurate the diagnoses of unqualified and untrained alternative therapists are? Would you go to a homeopath to have chest pains diagnosed? Or a lump in a breast?
"Another way of looking at this is if there were two medical diagnoses for your symptoms, statistically you would be better off guessing which was the right one, rather than depending on your doctor"
Yes, a very simplistic and completely wrong way of looking at it.
"Modern complaints such as RSI are treated with anti-inflammatories and pain-killers by orthodox medicine, rather than trying to find the root of the problem."
The clue is in the name. The root of the problem is 'repetitive strain'.
"While it is undoubtedly true that this area is ripe for a rip-off, it is also true from personal experience that a Spiritualist reading from a legitimate medium is much more than a linguistic trick."
Great. Show us the evidence.
"But Dawkins' crusade, like all crusades, throws the baby out with the bath water. He doesn't search for the nugget of truth in the thousand-year-old myth; he simply dismisses the entire edifice as "unscientific." "
And? He's a scientist. Examining the evidence. Looking for empirical truth. Using the scientific method that you seem to be such a fan of. It's his job as the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science If you want some ill defined 'revelation' or 'mystical truth' go to a theolgoian. Or a medium.
"It's a laugh that, really, since the true scientist would be more open and willing to search for the truth, rather than approaching with a closed mind that refuses to believe the possible."
You really shouldn't criticise Dawkins' use of science when you only have a tenuous grasp of what it is.
"The ultimate logical conclusion to Dawkins' argument is that human thought is merely a result of biological, chemical and electrical impulses. There is no "you" in your skull."
Logical to whom?
"Those thoughts that you believe to be yours are nothing more than the random firings of your neurons"
Random? Really?
"and that essence of you is not a soul but an ephemeral nothing that will blow away like dust as soon as you draw your final breath."
Or that the essence of you is your consciousness that stops at the point of death.
Just been watching Nelson Mandela, a mega-hero of mine...
He could teach Dawkins a lesson or several about humility
Spiritualism is a recognised religion. I find Dawkins' comments about Spiritualism offensive.
He clearly does not understand Spiritualism and should research his subject before making broad sweeping comments.
@kate
what is spiritualism about then?
I find it far more offensive if a spiritual healer claims he can talk to deceased relatives, no respect for that.
He nails it perfectly that people are right to criticize authority and the medical world but do not come up with real answers. There's is an objective truth. For me it is not so important that people like you believe some BS. But when it starts with money going into unproven medication, levelling Deepak Chopra with a normal surgeon then things are starting to get dangerous for public health and common sense.
"Science gives us Thalidomide, and a culture based entirely on science and reason (leaving aside the simple truth that such a society, if it ever could exist, is still many hundreds of years away) would be so dry and mirthless as to be entirely self-defeating."
Why would a reasonable and scientific society be mirthless and dry? Are you implying only believers can be happy? I'm happy in knowing I'm reasonable, and very much happy if the entire society is. The happiness you supposed would vanished if science were to dominate is a false sense of happiness.
"If some forward thinking individual had suggested the possibility of unseen forces holding Sun, Earth and Moon in predictable patterns of movement, a 15th century Dawkins would have been waiting to call him a nut job (or, more likely, burn him at the stake)."
The person suggesting the force exists should then come forth with proof and reason. When Newton's came forth with the idea of gravity, he had rigorous mathematical formula that can be tested, and Dawkins of the 15th century would not call him a nut job.
"Another way of looking at this is if there were two medical diagnoses for your symptoms, statistically you would be better off guessing which was the right one, rather than depending on your doctor."
Yes, but so will the doctor if he's given two choices to choose. But in reality, there are always more than two diagnoses the doctor has to narrow down based on the patient's symptoms, not to mention the patient may not give accurate descriptions of his/her conditions.
"Dawkins may well find the notion of talking to the dead ludicrous, but many people draw comfort from knowing they will see their loved ones again in the future."
People drawing comfort from seeing their love ones in the afterlife does not make the idea any less ludicrous. Just because a person believes he has a high chance of winning the lottery because his astrologer said so does not equate to it being true.
"It's a laugh that, really, since the true scientist would be more open and willing to search for the truth, rather than approaching with a closed mind that refuses to believe the possible."
I think the words of Asimov can aptly be used here,"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Everything is possible, but somethings are more possible than others.
"There is no "you" in your skull. Those thoughts that you believe to be yours are nothing more than the random firings of your neurons and that essence of you is not a soul but an ephemeral nothing that will blow away like dust as soon as you draw your final breath."
Just as television images are nothing more than random firings of electrons in a tube, and you can't even predict the movement of any of those electrons, yet the tv works as predicted every time you turn it on. Clearly there is no "one" in the tube directing those electrons. Secondly, the firings of the neurons are far from being random. The neurons are connected in response to external stimuli.
"I would welcome Derren Brown's explanation of how a linguistic trick can allow a medium to describe in detail what I did on one particular afternoon, alone and unobserved, and which I had never discussed with anyone, and how she could do that without me ever opening my mouth or moving my head in a nod or a shake."
This phenomenon is the same as an astrologer sprouting some general personality descriptions and most people would feel, 'this describes me so well, how did he knows that'.
I have studied homopathy in depth and there is no documentation anywhere showing it works any better than a placebo. From what you have said and evidence you have presented, I could hardly classify you as a "scientist".
What a shame there has been so much bickering rather than debate. Mr Berefords article was open and intellegent and really does not deserve so much lambasting - especially when by doing so anonymously this person thereby suggests he lacks the courage of what are apparently convictions.
I had what I at least thought was an interesting thought with regard to the effect ( whys and wherefores of homeopathy), a sort of abstract parallel reasoning. Part of the argument against was that if water had a memory then it would be remember all it had ever come into contact with and this could be extensive. Bear with me (this may at first seem slightly odd). My thoughts turned to children who achieve amazing recoveries when swimming with Dolphins (often muscular or neurological illnesses). Now the amazing thing is not so much that the children are cured by what is now beginning to be understood as waves that stimulate connections that promote healing, but that the dolphins seek out the sick in the first place (this is well documented). Is it therefore not possible that water (as do the dolphins) gives up from itself what it needed by any individual. 'There is much is heaven and earth not dreampt of in your philosophy Horatio'.