Derren Brown & Richard Dawkins

[Jim Maloney]

I just found this six-part interview with Derren Brown and Richard Dawkins, about an hour long in total, over on YouTube:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

-Jim

[Jonathan Townsend]

Nice to see some folks looking into the consequences of pandering to vanity (applied to self deception and social cues).

Can we call it a panda(er) regardless of being black or white?

[Terrence]

Fascinating interview.

I wonder if there are any mentalists who might object to the exposure of cold reading. Darren gives away a lot of method, although the purpose is to enlighten those who might buy into performers claiming genuine psychic power.

(Dr. Dawkins makes the distinction that the subject is about psuedo psychics, not conjuring.)

[David Alexander]

Explanations of cold reading abound on the Internet. The reason why so little of it penetrates the public consciousness is that when you are in the hands of a good pseudopsychic, and by that I mean someone who really knows what they are doing, you are inside and part of the process. Especially if one is a believer as they are the least likely to question the veracity of the experience and the efficacy of the advice.

[Jonathan Townsend]

While you can ride the panda with eyes shut or open - it's still going to lead you to bamboo(zle).

[Terrence]

Un-bearably funny. :D

I think you're right DA.

[Elwood]

Just to put things in context:

Dawkins is a big academic influence on me, a third year BA student of Social Science. He is not, however, a Doctor, Professor or even (as far as I can tell) a graduate of any recognised Social Science (i.e. sociology, criminology, social policy, etc.). Please correct me if I am wrong.

I did ,however, use him as a subject for a short essay as part of my research last year, which you (by which I mean YOU, open minded student of both Magic and Life) are free to read, at the bottom of this post.

Enjoy, and then please feel free to comment. I will tell you the grade I got if you really want to know, but please ask nicely.



Richard Dawkins puts forward his notion of the God Delusion. Discuss this in context of Enlightenment ideologies.








Elliot Watson
BA (Hons) Social Science
Power, Change and Social Theory
Richard Dawkins has for several years been arguing, in his books, via the press and on television the theory that God does not exist. He has written that the vast majority of theological writings assume that God does exist (Dawkins). He goes on to state his God Hypothesis There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. A hypothesis is, in a way, an assumption. Assumptions are ideas or theories, even whole ways of life based on unproven, sometimes impossible notions, and since the Age of Enlightenment many of the most respected thinkers in history have dismissed reliance on faith or feeling as proof of anything. Rationality dictates that something must be physically present to exist, or else it must remain as just a theory, a possibility, not an actual item, event or being. Since the Enlightenment, many people have believed that we live as rational beings in a rational society. Dawkins book is a modern example of rational thinking, in the grand tradition of the Enlightenment.

The concept of rational society can almost be seen as something of an ideological oxymoron. We live in an age of conflicting religious, political, personal and social values morals and ideals. Since the notion of rationalism was introduced into common thinking in the 16th and 17th century by Enlightened individuals such as Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, David Hume and Immanuel Kant, it could be argued that society has become less rational, more fractured and increasingly aggressive and confrontational.
If we are to take the concept of rationality, and enlightened thinking as a whole, as meaning that we, as human beings, are aware of our place in society, the world, even the universe, then the concept of rationalism can be demonstrated to have failed dismally.

Enlightened thinkers, such as the four mentioned above, originally believed, and tried to convince others, that the decline of religion was something to be encouraged: mankind is an autonomous being, governed by the laws of nature, not the rules of religion. Man is in charge of his own destiny, they argued, and technology, industry and entrepeneuristic practices would ensure the future of the human species as the most successful beings on Earth. Compare that with today's society: not since the Crusades of the 13th century have so many battles been fought in the name of religion. And not just organized warfare between nation states, but individual and small group action taken against abortionists, infidels, ethnic minorities, even those who believe that as humans we have the right to use lesser species as a means to ensure our survival through research and testing. Surely this goes against rational belief? Dawkins writes in The God Delusion that the God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser. Surely this same description could be applied by Christians to any of the people they have fought against in Holy Wars, from the Crusades through to Iraq and Afghanistan? That cannot possibly be seen as rational, can it? Fighting against people who you believe are, even if you deny it, no different to the God in whose name the war is being fought?

The increasing spread of creationism, surely one of the first beliefs that rationalism should have eradicated, could be seen as proof that society is regressing, moving back to a Dark Age mentality, where science and technology is not only treated with suspicion, but is treated with out and out contempt, and is actively stamped upon. As society moves closer to being nothing more than one big commercial venture (albeit one that is increasingly failing to deliver any goods or services of any value or reliability), the belief in a fair and just God, who will deliver us from evil, and guide us along the right and honourable path should, surely, be seen as a false belief. However, a Gallup poll in June 1993 found that 47 per cent of Americans believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years (Wheen, 2004). And yet these are the same people who invest time and money in stocks, shares and bonds, enjoy the trappings of a modern lifestyle, eat at McDonalds, drink beer and drive cars: all things invented by humans as a means to show technological superiority, achievement of wealth and, in some cases, the unashamed pursuit of hedonistic pleasure, a peculiar and particularly human trait. Surely if there was a God, then he would have created these things for us? And we wouldn't be using oil based fuels, which science has pretty much conclusively proved are many hundreds of thousands of years older than the 10,000 years that some people believe is the maximum age of Earth. Where is the rationality in that?

Rationalism can be described as any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification (Lacey). Reason can be described as a chain of thought that is employed to discover what is true, or for the common good. But what is reasonable about walking into a crowded public place with a bag full of explosives on ones back, or the murder of a man who helps under-privileged women abort children they cannot afford to keep, or even the taunting of vivisectionists who are doing nothing more than striving to find cures for life-threatening illnesses and diseases? If it is reasonable to suggest that it is all because God says it should be done, then surely it is just as reasonable to suggest that Santa Claus exists. And given the fact that every year we see visual representations of Santa Claus on TV, in the press, and on the cards we send to each other, then reason suggests that he must exist, because we know what he looks like. And following this logic, the prophet Muhammad cannot have existed because no one is allowed to make any pictorial likeness of him, which in turn suggests that no one ever saw him, so therefore he was never real. The implications of this are enormous: the religion that is used as an excuse for atrocities all over the world is false, because the man who it revolves around was never real. And further on down this theoretical road, we must be able to discount Jesus, Moses, Yahweh, Ra and countless other gods and holy figures as never ever having existed, because there is no empirical proof of them ever having walked the Earth! And yet, everyday, countless millions of people talk to these mythical characters before going about the simplest and most mundane of tasks, in the belief that they are increasing their chances of going to a better place after they die, a completely irrational activity, because there is no proof of there being an afterlife either! And amongst these people are world leaders, captains of industry and media giants: people who have massive power over normal people, some of whom are able to get on with life, and indeed be successful in their own way, without talking to imaginary friends of mythical creatures.

Another example of the irrationality of modern life which the Enlightenment and the Renaissance should have put an end to is the continuing (and perhaps even increasing) popularity of horoscopes, fortune tellers, psychics and other new age beliefs. Science and art were once intertwined, and figures such as Da Vinci, Galileo and Vesalius pushed forward the boundaries of human thought and understanding so much that they were a threat to the religious status quo, and were derided (even persecuted) as heretics. However, as society developed, and common knowledge, education and understanding became more advanced, not only were they believed to be making true and accurate observations, but they were proven to be correct. How is it, then, that we can look back through time, using radio telescopy, and witness the births of stars millions of years ago (a proven fact, since it is established and believed the world over that the speed of light is a constant and measurable value), and yet thousands of people the world over every day consult their stars in the daily papers? It is documented fact that Ronald Reagan, former US president, consulted his astrologer before making any important decisions. And yet Reagan was instrumental in the US becoming the key nation in the bid for man to conquer space, including the setting up of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars, as it became known). Surely the man who held the purse strings for such an important scientific and social development must have been aware of the maths and physics behind the technology needed to put men (and indeed women) into space. How could he have reconciled the rational logic behind space travel with the need to consult an astrologer before making any major decisions in life?
Perhaps we should be suspending our disbelief in Him, and looking towards God for a definition of rationalism. According to the online edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, rationalism is a term used to describe revealed truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12652a.htm). By revealed truth, the authors are meaning that It has become connected in the popular mind with the shallow and misleading philosophy frequently put forward in the name of science . . .confusion has arisen, in which questionable philosophical speculations are taken for scientific facts.
By this, it can be presumed that the church (or the Catholic Church, at least) takes the stand that rational means revealed by God rather than proven by science and research. Given that figures for 2003 from the Church of England show that more than 1.7 million people attend church and cathedral worship each month while 1.2 million attend each week and one million each Sunday (source: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr0106.html)
then that is a lot of people who are forgoing rational thought for what could be described as indoctrination.
If rationalist thought can be described as any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification, then the world today is irrational, and is becoming more so by the day. And as a self proclaimed rational thinker, one has to take Dawkins seriously in his notion, or even wholeheartedly embrace his theory as correct.



Word count:1553 (minus quotations) 1729 (including quotations).

Bibliography:
Dawkins, R., 2006, The God Delusion, London: Bantam Press
Lacey, A. R., 1976, A Dictionary of Philosophy, London: Routledge
Wheen, F., 2004, How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World, London: Harper

Internet References:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr0106.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12652a.htm

[Jonathan Townsend]

Perhaps more like rational as in rationalization. The serious student of the sciences learns in their first or second year of college that most of what appears obvious or self evident actually rests upon both leaps of faith and limits upon credulity.

As to Dawkins' position regarding using the supernatural to justify disrespect to others... not going to argue.

[David Alexander]

Just to put things in context:

Dawkins is a big academic influence on me, a third year BA student of Social Science. He is not, however, a Doctor, Professor or even (as far as I can tell) a graduate of any recognised Social Science (i.e. sociology, criminology, social policy, etc.). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Scant seconds on the Internet brings up the following:

Dawkins studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford under Nobel Laureate Nicholas Tinnbergen and received his MA and D.Phil (PhD in Philosophy) in 1966.

From 1967 to 1969, Dawkins was an Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley.

He wrote several books, coined the term "meme."

Dawkins is a Fellow of the Royal Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, an ethologist (a sub-topic of zoology), a Neo-Darwinian biologist.

In 1970 he returned to Oxford as a Lecturer, term used differently in the UK than in the US. In 1990 he became a Reader which denotes an appointment for a senior academic with a distinguished international reputation in research or scholarship. This would be similar to a professorship in the US.

In 1995 he was appointed to the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science a chair at Oxford that was created by Charles Simonyi for Dawkins. He held this post until his retirement last year.

[Elwood]

Last time I looked, zoology wasn't a social science, and anything similar to a professorship isn't actually a professorship.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Yes Doctor Doolittle, there's nothing social about science and there's much science in the social sciences. And one may confidently explore the record of experimental data to find that's not a "theory".

[Richard Stokes]

I was lucky to have Richard Dawkins as a personal tutor at New College.
He was about to become famous for his best-seller The Selfish Gene.
Dawkins helped popularise (and extend) concepts developed by characters like William Hamilton, Maynard-Smith and that oft persecuted American genius Robert Trivers.
On a personal level, I thought Dawkins was a really nice guy. Intimidating only to the extent that he was so bright and articulate, that you felt a bit like a dunce in his presence.
In his follow-up book, The Blind Watchmaker, he demolished the creator hypothesis - the so-called argument from design.
He also argues (rather convincingly, I'm afraid) that natural selection is incompatible with theistic beliefs. In the UK, you still get some batty clergyman claiming that the two systems can be logically reconciled and that God invented natural selection. Pure Darwinists would find this last ditch defence rather amusing.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Richard you lucky guy.

If one posits an evolution of social institutions and their organs of social control... well the picture snaps into focus.
Not that most want to explore much less bring up and lay bare creatures from so far down in the depths of denial. Magic old and dark there. Effect and method.

I'm fine with folks having inner worlds where gardens have fairies and gnomes.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Did folks enjoy the discussion about expectation and belief?

IMHO there's both the Wub and the rub.