View Full Version : Sheldrake vs. Dawkins

02-06-2014, 01:43 AM
This is a little story by Rupert Sheldrake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake) when he met Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins), and a very good example of why Dawkins is NO BETTER than the religious fundamentalists that he so despises. Oh the irony!

Richard Dawkins Comes to Call

A crusading atheist and author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a Fellow of CSI (The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, formerly CSICOP) and a strong supporter of James Randi. His earlier books were on evolutionary biology, the best known being The Selfish Gene. In 2007, he visited Rupert to interview him for his TV series Enemies of Reason

Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission — the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. Channel 4 TV has repeatedly provided him with a pulpit. His two-part polemic in August 2007, called Enemies of Reason, was a sequel to his 2006 diatribe against religion, The Root of All Evil?

Soon before Enemies of Reason was filmed, the production company, IWC Media, told me that Richard Dawkins wanted to visit me to discuss my research on unexplained abilities of people and animals. I was reluctant to take part, but the company's representative assured me that "this documentary, at Channel 4's insistence, will be an entirely more balanced affair than The Root of All Evil was." She added, "We are very keen for it to be a discussion between two scientists, about scientific modes of enquiry". So I agreed and we fixed a date. I was still not sure what to expect. Was Richard Dawkins going to be dogmatic, with a mental firewall that blocked out any evidence that went against his beliefs? Or would he be open-minded, and fun to talk to?

The Director asked us to stand facing each other; we were filmed with a hand-held camera. Richard began by saying that he thought we probably agreed about many things, "But what worries me about you is that you are prepared to believe almost anything. Science should be based on the minimum number of beliefs."

I agreed that we had a lot in common, "But what worries me about you is that you come across as dogmatic, giving people a bad impression of science."

He then said that in a romantic spirit he himself would like to believe in telepathy, but there just wasn't any evidence for it. He dismissed all research on the subject out of hand. He compared the lack of acceptance of telepathy by scientists such as himself with the way in which the echo-location system had been discovered in bats, followed by its rapid acceptance within the scientific community in the 1940s. In fact, as I later discovered, Lazzaro Spallanzani had shown in 1793 that bats rely on hearing to find their way around, but sceptical opponents dismissed his experiments as flawed, and helped set back research for well over a century. However, Richard recognized that telepathy posed a more radical challenge than echo-location. He said that if it really occurred, it would "turn the laws of physics upside down," and added, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"This depends on what you regard as extraordinary", I replied. "Most people say they have experienced telepathy, especially in connection with telephone calls. In that sense, telepathy is ordinary. The claim that most people are deluded about their own experience is extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence for that?"

He produced no evidence at all, apart from generic arguments about the fallibility of human judgment. He assumed that people want to believe in "the paranormal" because of wishful thinking.

We then agreed that controlled experiments were necessary. I said that this was why I had actually been doing such experiments, including tests to find out if people really could tell who was calling them on the telephone when the caller was selected at random. The results were far above the chance level.

The previous week I had sent Richard copies of some of my papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, so that he could look at the data.

Richard seemed uneasy and said, "I don't want to discuss evidence". "Why not?" I asked. "There isn't time. It's too complicated. And that's not what this programme is about." The camera stopped.

The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.

I said to Russell, "If you're treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it's not irrational to believe in it. I thought that's what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn't interested in taking part in another low grade debunking exercise."

Richard said, "It's not a low grade debunking exercise; it's a high grade debunking exercise."

In that case, I replied, there had been a serious misunderstanding, because I had been led to believe that this was to be a balanced scientific discussion about evidence. Russell Barnes asked to see the emails I had received from his assistant. He read them with obvious dismay, and said the assurances she had given me were wrong. The team packed up and left.

Richard Dawkins has long proclaimed his conviction that "The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans". Enemies of Reason was intended to popularize this belief. But does his crusade really promote "the public understanding of science," of which he is the professor at Oxford? Should science be a vehicle of prejudice, a kind of fundamentalist belief-system? Or should it be a method of enquiry into the unknown?

From: http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/richard-dawkins-comes-to-call


02-06-2014, 03:36 AM
Richard Dawkins is the worst.

Everyone should individually seek out their own truths based on whatever method they think is best. But I suppose raising children like that would be rough. Teachers would actually have to know how to teach...

02-06-2014, 05:13 AM
I have tolerated Dawkins in the past as a necessary opposite to create discussion, but to blatantly dismiss evidence, that has destroyed the little credibility he may have held onto.

I have read many of his books and find them interesting, I just didn't realise they were authored by an Asshole.

That's assuming the above story is true :)

Science is a method of enquiry into the unknown, and if you dismiss any form of enquiry you do not belong in the scientific community full stop, let alone be given a position of Professor in a respected school of study.


02-06-2014, 11:24 AM
It almost seems that people on those extremes (like Dawkins on one and the late Jerry Falwell on the other) have made it their life's mission to thwart/inhibit the advancement of humanity.

Not to get too much into 'conspiracy theories', but I wouldn't be surprised if they are/were on someone's payroll, one way or another...

Neither extreme deserves any attention IMO, let alone respect.

Quoting myself from earlier:

I am neither 'Theist' nor 'Atheist'.
I am 'Alchemist' (for lack of a better/more personalized term)...
'All In All' is a whole different ballgame :)

02-06-2014, 07:12 PM
Yes, at the end of the day, it seems to always come down to a wounded ego, whether that's for an intellectual or 'caveman'. That's the reason, or at least one of them, why I just don't see that without an 'initiatory system' one can be balanced [of mind].

All, or nearly so, high positions, of boards and bodies, are likely hand-selected in Academia. There's just too much at stake to be otherwise. The social conditioning that comes from 'pumping out' victimizing and degrading theories (in Academia) and concepts of self is all-consuming.

But as I'm concerned, it is alright. It is what it is. In terms of what this means to social consciousness, is the sad part.

02-06-2014, 09:05 PM
I don't doubt that the story is true. This is exactly how media works. And Dawkins is a dick.


02-07-2014, 01:10 AM
But in his field he is a fairly educated dick; he just has a warped sense of perspective
and a giant ego.

I saw him on a program on BBC called The Big Question.

The program is an hour long and has three questions which are put to the audience for
discussion; each question given twenty minutes of air time.

They invite people who are educated in the particular subject of a given question, but
they talk on all three subjects.

When Dawkins was talking on subjects outside of his field he was a complete imbecile.

Cole Morton , journalist and author, called Dawkins, in his book, “Is Jesus still an Englishman”,
the Ayatollah of atheism and an atheist fundamentalist.