Print
Charles Brooker's screen burn
by Charles Brooker
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2145124,00.html
'This time round Richard Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam'
In the 18th century, a revolution in thought, known as the Enlightenment, dragged us away from the superstition and brutality of the Middle Ages toward a modern age of science, reason and democracy. It changed everything. If it wasn't for the Enlightenment, you wouldn't be reading this right now. You'd be standing in a smock throwing turnips at a witch. Yes, the Enlightenment was one of the most significant developments since the wheel. Which is why we're trying to bollocks it all up.
Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots. Superstitious idiots. They're everywhere - reading horoscopes, buying homeopathic remedies, consulting psychics, babbling about "chakras" and "healing energies", praying to imaginary gods, and rejecting science in favour of soft-headed bunkum. But instead of slapping these people round the face till they behave like adults, we encourage them. We've got to respect their beliefs, apparently.
Well I don't. "Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?
Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb. Buy a pillow. Don't make up a load of floaty blah about energy or destiny. This is the real world, stupid. We should be solving problems, not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies. Everywhere you look, screaming gittery is taking root, with serious consequences. The NHS recently spent £10m refurbishing the London Homeopathic Hospital. The equivalent of 500 nurses' wages, blown on a handful of magic beans. That was your tax money. It was meant for saving lives.
Inevitably, the world of science and logic is slowly fighting back. Hence the recent slew of anti-God books, one of which, The God Delusion, was written by Richard Dawkins, writer-presenter of The Enemies Of Reason (Mon, 8pm, C4). Dawkins has softened his style somewhat since his previous series, The Root of All Evil, in which he toured the globe interviewing religious extremists. Trouble was, their views made him so uppity, he occasionally came off worst. They remained eerily calm, while he huffed furiously. And because he looks and sounds precisely like Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss, the end effect was often unintentional hilarity.
In The Enemies of Reason he's still angry - how couldn't he be? - but this time round Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam, taking on spirituality and superstition in all its forms. The overall tone is less hectoring, more persuasive, and occasionally outright playful. It's more likely to win people over.
The end result is possibly the most important broadcast of the year so far; important because it presents a passionate argument we really all ought to be having right now, if we want to prevent a great slide backwards into mud-eating barbarism. And if you think that's hyperbole, I suggest you pick up a newspaper and see how many of the world's problems are currently being caused or exacerbated by the rejection of rational thought. From fundamentalist death cults to arrogant invasions: a startling lack of logic unites them all.
Cold, clear, rational thought is the most important thing we have; the one thing that can save us. If I was made Emperor of All Media, I'd broadcast something akin to The Enemies Of Reason on every channel, every day, for 10 years. This is an urgent message that must be heard if we want to survive, as a species. Oh. And I'd also broadcast a load of Tex Avery cartoons, just to show off my lighter side. Man, I loves dat Droopy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2145124,00.html
'This time round Richard Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam'
In the 18th century, a revolution in thought, known as the Enlightenment, dragged us away from the superstition and brutality of the Middle Ages toward a modern age of science, reason and democracy. It changed everything. If it wasn't for the Enlightenment, you wouldn't be reading this right now. You'd be standing in a smock throwing turnips at a witch. Yes, the Enlightenment was one of the most significant developments since the wheel. Which is why we're trying to bollocks it all up.
Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots. Superstitious idiots. They're everywhere - reading horoscopes, buying homeopathic remedies, consulting psychics, babbling about "chakras" and "healing energies", praying to imaginary gods, and rejecting science in favour of soft-headed bunkum. But instead of slapping these people round the face till they behave like adults, we encourage them. We've got to respect their beliefs, apparently.
Well I don't. "Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?
Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb. Buy a pillow. Don't make up a load of floaty blah about energy or destiny. This is the real world, stupid. We should be solving problems, not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies. Everywhere you look, screaming gittery is taking root, with serious consequences. The NHS recently spent £10m refurbishing the London Homeopathic Hospital. The equivalent of 500 nurses' wages, blown on a handful of magic beans. That was your tax money. It was meant for saving lives.
Inevitably, the world of science and logic is slowly fighting back. Hence the recent slew of anti-God books, one of which, The God Delusion, was written by Richard Dawkins, writer-presenter of The Enemies Of Reason (Mon, 8pm, C4). Dawkins has softened his style somewhat since his previous series, The Root of All Evil, in which he toured the globe interviewing religious extremists. Trouble was, their views made him so uppity, he occasionally came off worst. They remained eerily calm, while he huffed furiously. And because he looks and sounds precisely like Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss, the end effect was often unintentional hilarity.
In The Enemies of Reason he's still angry - how couldn't he be? - but this time round Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam, taking on spirituality and superstition in all its forms. The overall tone is less hectoring, more persuasive, and occasionally outright playful. It's more likely to win people over.
The end result is possibly the most important broadcast of the year so far; important because it presents a passionate argument we really all ought to be having right now, if we want to prevent a great slide backwards into mud-eating barbarism. And if you think that's hyperbole, I suggest you pick up a newspaper and see how many of the world's problems are currently being caused or exacerbated by the rejection of rational thought. From fundamentalist death cults to arrogant invasions: a startling lack of logic unites them all.
Cold, clear, rational thought is the most important thing we have; the one thing that can save us. If I was made Emperor of All Media, I'd broadcast something akin to The Enemies Of Reason on every channel, every day, for 10 years. This is an urgent message that must be heard if we want to survive, as a species. Oh. And I'd also broadcast a load of Tex Avery cartoons, just to show off my lighter side. Man, I loves dat Droopy.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 87 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #62702 by Kimpatsu on August 10, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Veronique,The problem in the UK is exacerbated by Liz Windsor's gormless son, AKA HRH Prince Charles the Prince of Wales, who is a firm New Age woo-wooer, who actually wrote to the Royal College of Physicians insisting that they include "alternative practitioners" and consider "althernative therapies" in their diagnoses and treatments. And, as any fule no, royalty is never wrong...
Other Comments by Kimpatsu
3. Comment #62707 by Student Grant on August 10, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Brooker is one of reality's few friends in the meeja. I've forwarded the link to Brooker's piece to everyone in my address book. For UK users of this site, I suggest we get a message about the programme out to as many people as possible this weekend. Tell all your friends, particularly if (like me) you have some who are 99% rational but still give braintime to anecdotes that appear to support woo("I know it's probably rubbish but I met this guy once who had chakras realigned/tried herbal medicine/consulted a psychic/etc., and he swore by it....").
Other Comments by Student Grant
4. Comment #62710 by Aussie on August 11, 2007 at 12:19 am
People on this site are so closed minded.It does not follow that just because the concentration of active ingredient in a homeopathic remedy is less that one molecule in a volume equivalent to the water of all the seas of planet earth that it cannot be medically effective.
Only the other day I was told of a woman who had an incurable case of ..........
Other Comments by Aussie
5. Comment #62715 by albacore on August 11, 2007 at 1:18 am
There was a four part series a few years ago (I think on the BBC) on the same subject by Kathy Sykes, another Prof. of the public understanding of science. I remember thinking at the time it ought to be on every school's curriculum.Other Comments by albacore
6. Comment #62717 by JJOneway on August 11, 2007 at 1:35 am
To my shame I hadn't heard of Brooker until reading this. A classic rant with just the right mixture of humour and vitriol, just what I needed to read stuck in work on one of the nicest Saturday's we've had all year!Were I able to grow Fallopian tubes and a womb I would probably bear his children.
Other Comments by JJOneway
7. Comment #62718 by Caeruleum on August 11, 2007 at 1:51 am
VeroniqueYou may be interested to know that the Bristol hospital is not the only one in the UK - there is one in Glasgow as well! The leading light there is David Reilly. Check out http://ghh.info/welcome.htm.
Other Comments by Caeruleum
8. Comment #62719 by epicure on August 11, 2007 at 2:26 am
I must say that my experience of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital - admittedly it was thirty-odd years ago - was of a completely conventional medical establishment, that happened to have a dusty and dark woo-woo library attached to it. My operation entailed normal anaesthetic procedures and a well equipped theatre. No homeopathy...I'm glad to hear that it has been refurbished, and can't see anything sinister about that.
Other Comments by epicure
9. Comment #62721 by HughCaldwell on August 11, 2007 at 2:32 am
The Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital is a fifteen bed unit within Glasgow's Gartnavel General Hospital 'Alternative' treatments are not touted as a replacement for standard medical practice. Is is annoying, though, that they couldn't call this unit by a less contentious name.Other Comments by HughCaldwell
10. Comment #62722 by Not the Messiah on August 11, 2007 at 2:42 am
For all those (non-british/under 25) to whom the reference to Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss was completely meaningless, enlightenment is available:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=70kUVZWokm4
Professor Yaffle is the "very distinguished old woodpecker" who makes his entrance at the 2 minute 30 mark. They don't make TV like that anymore..
Prof. Yaffle's standout quote from this episode? "Delightful story! Absolute rubbish, every word of it, but quite delightful!"
..Perhaps the comparison is quite apt after all!
Other Comments by Not the Messiah
11. Comment #62724 by doodinthemood on August 11, 2007 at 2:51 am
.... trippy. "but what would a rag doll do all day in a rag house"... *mice start dancing* "do do do doooo" And then came the line:"no no no. You are not being serious, and this is a serious question."
Which has me convinced. Maybe Brooker has discovered where Prof. Dawkins got the idea for his look from...
Other Comments by doodinthemood
12. Comment #62725 by jaytee_555 on August 11, 2007 at 2:59 am
Brooker's general assessment may well please hardened Dawkins fans; but if his opinion that the Prof's 'huffing furiously' in previous aprogram was counter-productive and hilarious', why has he 'huffed furiously' himself in this article?It could be by recommending that people who believe in silly superstitions,(i.e. the majority) should be 'slapped around the face until they grow up' could discourage the very people who need to see this program from watching it.
Let's hope I am wrong, and that most are not Guardian readers.
Other Comments by jaytee_555
13. Comment #62728 by monoape on August 11, 2007 at 3:29 am
Excellent stuff. It sadly reminds me of a couple, who were long-time friends, that desperately want to believe "there's something more". He's embraced astrology and she psychic mediums. They're intelligent people, but enthusiastically delusional. One day I could no longer nod politely when talk of "energy" was brought up and my frank assessment of their beliefs went down like a fart in a lift. Hey ho.Another article that should be posted to this site (where do we send suggestions?): http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2135437,00.html
"God must henceforth be played by seasoned bad guys, psychos, nutters, killers and weirdoes." lol
Other Comments by monoape
14. Comment #62736 by Yorker on August 11, 2007 at 4:43 am
Hmm...this guy reminds me of me therefore I must like him. However, had I written the exact same words in a post here, I don't think it would've met with the same apparent approval. I'd love to expand on this but Madagascar beckons. Other Comments by Yorker
15. Comment #62739 by TheDiamondDave on August 11, 2007 at 4:53 am
Oliver Postgate, the eccentric genius behind 'Bagpuss' and other classics of British children's programming such as 'The Clangers' and 'Ivor The Engine', lived in my home town (a small, Kentish seaside town called Whitstable). But that's not why I mention him. He has said that the character of Professor Yaffle was based on none other than Bertrand Russell, who was a regular visitor to his childhood home. I'm sure Dawkins would raise a wry smirk at drawing such comparisons!As for Charlie Brooker, for those who don't know him, he not only pens the wonderfully acerbic TV column from which this piece is taken (The Guardian newspaper's 'Screen burn'), but is one of the brains behind the cult series 'Nathan Barley' (along with that other satiric envelope-pusher Chris Morris). He also presents a TV spin-off from his newspaper column: 'Screen Wipe'. Check out this clip, where he lays into the rash of con-men masquerading as 'psychics' that have appeared in the wake of the digital floodgates being opened on our tiny island: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTGgxQCcvqY
When I first saw it I pissed myself. He is, as my brother says, the funniest man on TV.
Other Comments by TheDiamondDave
16. Comment #62748 by Canuck#1 on August 11, 2007 at 7:02 am
I know how he feels....sometimes you have to take off the velvet gloves....throw away the book on polite....shout rather than the well-modulated whisper.....in other words tell it the way it is and let the chips fall where they may to get the message across. (I realize I have used every cliche in the book... oldies but goldies.) An excellent article.Other Comments by Canuck#1
17. Comment #62749 by bluebird on August 11, 2007 at 7:07 am
TheDiamondDave, thanks for the link! We hadn't heard of C.B.:)www.travelchannel.com 'Most Haunted'. A team travels to Europe's 'spookiest places' "determined to prove the existence of life after death".
Other Comments by bluebird
18. Comment #62750 by Friend Giskard on August 11, 2007 at 7:13 am
Ha ha. I love Charlie Brooker. His Screen Wipe is the funniest thing on TV. The whole tone of the show is exactly like this article. Other Comments by Friend Giskard
19. Comment #62752 by Caeruleum on August 11, 2007 at 7:47 am
TheDiamondDaveMany thanks for the link to Charlie Brooker. I missed this series. I hope he gets a new series.
The RD website is performing a worthwhile service is publicizing this kind of program.
Other Comments by Caeruleum
20. Comment #62755 by Goodwithwood on August 11, 2007 at 8:13 am
monoape Another article that should be posted to this site (where do we send suggestions?):
Click on contact at the top of the page.
Other Comments by Goodwithwood
21. Comment #62774 by beebhack on August 11, 2007 at 11:33 am
For more Brooker on psychics, check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTGgxQCcvqY
I bet the RD show isn't quite this funny.... then again....
Other Comments by beebhack
22. Comment #62776 by darwin2 on August 11, 2007 at 11:52 am
"Spirituality is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?" CHARLES BROOKERI do describe myself as "quite spiritual" and I have no intention of punching myself in the throat until I am "incapable of speaking loud ever again." However I strongly agree with Brooker when he says "Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots." Not all but much of the new age medical treatments and beliefs are BS. Most of the dogmas of organized religion like original sin, redemption, the existence of the devil and eternal damnation are superstitious, ridiculous, illogical and evil. However I do believe that science and religion can be complementary and compatible. If religious people studied science with an open mind, they would acquire a greater appreciation of the magnificence, immensity and infinite power of God and would become more tolerant of those who have different beliefs then the beliefs of their own particular religion. If scientists studied religion more seriously, they would conclude that it is possible for one God to exist and for human self-awareness (THE SOUL) to continue after death.
Other Comments by darwin2
23. Comment #62778 by Quetzalcoatl on August 11, 2007 at 11:58 am
darwin2-you say that you describe yourself as "quite spiritual". What does that phrase mean to you?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
24. Comment #62781 by Corylus on August 11, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Darwin2 said,If scientists studied religion more seriously, they would conclude that it is possible for one God to exist and for human self-awareness (THE SOUL) to continue after death.
There are some scientists who do study religion seriously (although I admit that most do focus on other things!) You might find the following article of interest - I know I did.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,933,God-Is-in-the-Dendrites,George-Johnson
Other Comments by Corylus
25. Comment #62783 by Friend Giskard on August 11, 2007 at 12:16 pm
darwin2:If scientists studied religion more seriously, they would conclude that it is possible for one God to exist and for human self-awareness (THE SOUL) to continue after death.
Why not two gods? Is that not possible? Or three? Or none?
Anyway the question is not "is it possible", but "is it true"? Anything is possible. It is possible that I am a telepathic robot from the future. And perhaps, if scientists were to study the works of Isaac Asimov (PBUH) more seriously, they would see this.
But is it true?
The way to decide whether a thing is true is by studying the evidence, not by looking into fanciful belief systems.
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
26. Comment #62786 by BAEOZ on August 11, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Friend Giskard:Anyway the question is not "is it possible", but "is it true"? Anything is possible. It is possible that I am a telepathic robot from the future. And perhaps, if scientists were to study the works of Isaac Asimov (PBUH) more seriously, they would see this.
A sign! He is the messiah! The long prophesized, telepathic robot has come! A great blessing from the benevolent Asimov (PBUH). The dawn of the reign of divine robots is upon us! Praise be thou, Friend Giskard.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
27. Comment #62787 by mpbrockman on August 11, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Darwin2,The unspoken plaint behind your post is "If only everyone was as open minded as meeeeeeee...". There is such a thing as being so open minded that your brains fall out.
Perhaps you could acquaint yourself with the the numerous scientists who have attempted to treat god and "the soul" as legitimate objects of inquiry (I might suggest V. Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis"). It is my observation, however, that directing serious scientific inquiry towards answering the "god question" is generally about as productive as directing serious scientific inquiry towards the "leprechaun question".
Other Comments by mpbrockman
28. Comment #62788 by steve99 on August 11, 2007 at 12:35 pm
If scientists studied religion more seriously, they would conclude that it is possible for one God to exist and for human self-awareness (THE SOUL) to continue after death.
Just doesn't work that way, sorry. You see, religion *starts off* with the belief that these things are possible, it does not provide any evidence for them being so.
Other Comments by steve99
29. Comment #62794 by mikeofdoom on August 11, 2007 at 1:01 pm
One can only dream of the day when Charlie is crowned "Emperor of All Media".Really pleased to see his stuff appear here.
Enough to sign up, in fact.
Is it possible we're all the dream of a malfunctioning computer at the end of time?
But...possible = true? Eek!!
Other Comments by mikeofdoom
30. Comment #62795 by Nails on August 11, 2007 at 1:01 pm
NHS recently spent £10m refurbishing the London Homeopathic Hospital. The equivalent of 500 nurses' wages, blown on a handful of magic beans. That was your tax money. It was meant for saving lives.
I'm sick of hearing this. It is incorrect, someone has not checked his facts and it is starting to piss me off.
So I'm going to do something about it...
*watch this space*
Other Comments by Nails
31. Comment #62807 by Janus on August 11, 2007 at 2:28 pm
If religious people studied science with an open mind, they would acquire a greater appreciation of the magnificence, immensity and infinite power of God and would become more tolerant of those who have different beliefs then the beliefs of their own particular religion. If scientists studied religion more seriously, they would conclude that it is possible for one God to exist and for human self-awareness (THE SOUL) to continue after death.
Darwin2,
since punching yourself in the throat would do us little good, perhaps it would be better to break all of your fingers instead.
Other Comments by Janus
32. Comment #62812 by sabre_truth on August 11, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I would take issue with the comment about people who describe themselves as spiritual, but I can understand that he is defining that word differently from how I use it, as are many, if not most, of those who call themselves spiritual.I use the term spiritual in distinction to religious or superstitious, but as encompassing a dimension of experience which lies outside the immediate application of strictly rational modes of thought. The spiritual is the dimension of meaning and purpose. I find the enjoyment of music and art to be spiritual in this sense. I do not have to give a rational explanation for why I enjoy and feel enriched in my life by those things, nor do I expect anyone else to. This is not to say that there cannot be scientific investigation into those modes, but when I am admiring the intricate beauty of nature it matters not a whit to me whether or not these feelings have any relation to evolutionary fitness. The experience itself is non-rational, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Does this mean that experiencing the beauty of the starry sky is going to make me believe in astrology, or the drama of a thunderstorm evokes a worshipful feeling towards Thor? Certainly not, but these and other experiences do inspire me and give me a sense of wonder at being alive in this magnificent world. That to me is the truest essence of what it is to be spiritual.
Other Comments by sabre_truth
33. Comment #62817 by EndlessForms on August 11, 2007 at 5:04 pm
"Darwin2,since punching yourself in the throat would do us little good, perhaps it would be better to break all of your fingers instead."
LOL
Other Comments by EndlessForms
34. Comment #62912 by Eureka Step on August 12, 2007 at 9:42 am
I love Charlie Brooker, especially his unapologetic cynicism on 'Screen Wipe'.Brooker and Dawkins make a good team.
Other Comments by Eureka Step
35. Comment #62917 by Benny_Malone on August 12, 2007 at 10:01 am
Great. I really like Charlie Brooker. Maybe Richard can afford to ease back a little and let more of his humour shine through, because that is the main thing fundamentalists lack. Well maybe logic is the main thing they lack, but you get the idea. If Dawkins is 'Darwin's Rottweiller' then some people are 'Dawkin's Pit-Bulls' and are more aggressive on his behalf, so Richard can be a true gentleman and let the arguments and their truth-value do the talking. I think this is what he does anyway but he must find it infuriating listening to the same fallacious arguments over and over, but I suppose being a good teacher is being patient. There is a masive source of humour to be had from pseudo-scientific beliefs as Penn and Teller and Bill Hicks have shown. Brooker would play the Wire on permanent repeat on his TV network too! It is ace you should watch it. Other Comments by Benny_Malone
36. Comment #62926 by Error Gorilla on August 12, 2007 at 10:33 am
"My first name is actually Charlton, which is pretty stupid. I think a lot of people assume my first name is Charles, and that I'm therefore posh, but I'm not. I'm a disgusting comprehensive school commoner."http://theshoyshoyboy.blogspot.com/2006/06/cue-ehh-with-charlie-brooker.html
I've quite possibly been in love with Charlie Brooker for several years, ever since I first discovered his website TV Go Home. I'm delighted to see him stick the boot into this irrational guff.
Other Comments by Error Gorilla
37. Comment #62942 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Comment #62778 by Quetzalcoatl on August 11, 2007 at 11:58 am"you say that you describe yourself as "quite spiritual". What does that phrase mean to you?"
When I use the phrase "quite spiritual," I mean I believe in One God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe. I believe I have an eternal soul. I believe God has a purpose for creating my eternal soul. And, I believe my eternal soul survives the death of my body.
Other Comments by darwin2
38. Comment #62943 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Comment #62781 by Corylus on August 11, 2007 at 12:06 pm"There are some scientists who do study religion seriously (although I admit that most do focus on other things!) You might find the following article of interest - I know I did."
That's an excellent article. I believe the researchers may be correct in concluding that religious ecstasy is an illusion and may be kind of brain damage-temporal lobe epilepsy. If they are correct their conclusion still does not disprove the existence of God. I have never had a religious ecstasy experience. I believe in God strictly through my observations of the universe.
Other Comments by darwin2
39. Comment #62945 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Comment #62783 by Friend Giskard on August 11, 2007 at 12:16 pm"Why not two gods? Is that not possible? Or three? Or none?"
Good point, but my subjective belief is that it factors down to One Supreme Being, the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universes and all universes that may exist.
"The way to decide whether a thing is true is by studying the evidence, not by looking into fanciful belief systems."
I agree totally. One very concrete reality is that we die. If consciousness continues after death we will get the evidence to prove the existence of God. If consciousness ceases after death, we will never know if God exists or is in fact a fantasy.
Other Comments by darwin2
40. Comment #62948 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Comment #62787 by mpbrockman on August 11, 2007"The unspoken plaint behind your post is "If only everyone was as open minded as meeeeeeee...". There is such a thing as being so open minded that your brains fall out."
Examining the question of the existence of God from the strictest objective scientific perspective, a good scientist, even Einstein who stated he was an atheist, has to conclude it is possible for God to exist. Therefore it is scientifically worthwhile to explore the possibility that God might truly exist. And if He does what possible ramifications does His existence have for the human condition?
"Perhaps you could acquaint yourself with the the numerous scientists who have attempted to treat god and "the soul" as legitimate objects of inquiry (I might suggest V. Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis"). It is my observation, however, that directing serious scientific inquiry towards answering the "god question" is generally about as productive as directing serious scientific inquiry towards the "leprechaun question."
If consciousness continues after death, you will find that the "god question" is a very productive scientific inquiry.
Other Comments by darwin2
41. Comment #62949 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Comment #62788 by steve99 on August 11, 2007 at 12:35 pm"Just doesn't work that way, sorry. You see, religion *starts off* with the belief that these things are possible, it does not provide any evidence for them being so."
Analyzing these issues from a strict scientific and logical perspective, you have to conclude that it is impossible at this moment in time to objectively address them. The most brilliant scientist living today can't prove that God does not exist and human self awareness ceases at the death of the physical body and the holiest religious leader living today can't prove that God exists and human self awareness continues after the death of the physical body. The correct objective answer will occur when you die. If you are fortunate when you die and find yourself fully conscious in the after death state, you will learn that the correct objective answer is that human self awareness continues after death and God exists. If human self awareness ceases at the death of the physical body, then you are not fortunate and will never know the correct objective answer to the above issues.
Other Comments by darwin2
42. Comment #62950 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Comment #62807 by Janus on August 11, 2007 at 2:28 pm"since punching yourself in the throat would do us little good, perhaps it would be better to break all of your fingers instead."
I am sure you would have done well during the Inquistion. Your comment helps me understand why our planet is so violent and screwed up.
Other Comments by darwin2
43. Comment #62951 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Comment #62812 by sabre_truth on August 11, 2007 at 3:27 pm"Does this mean that experiencing the beauty of the starry sky is going to make me believe in astrology, or the drama of a thunderstorm evokes a worshipful feeling towards Thor? Certainly not, but these and other experiences do inspire me and give me a sense of wonder at being alive in this magnificent world. That to me is the truest essence of what it is to be spiritual."
That is another aspect of spirituality I agree with.
Other Comments by darwin2
44. Comment #62952 by BAEOZ on August 12, 2007 at 1:01 pm
darwin2:If you are fortunate when you die and find yourself fully conscious in the after death state, you will learn that the correct objective answer is that human self awareness continues after death and God exists.
Hi darwin2. I believe this is called begging the question. Your answer involves that which it is trying to demonstrate. You have to demonstrate that human self awareness continues after death or, at least, that it's reasonable to presume this before you can use it to argue anything else. You then say that if you are fully conscious when you die then you will learn the correct answer that human self awareness occurs. But this is the issue at hand. Very circular. Demonstrate it's reasonable that a human's consciousness (whatever that is), can continue post mortem, before you argue from this premise.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
45. Comment #62977 by Jack Rawlinson on August 12, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I've loved Brooker ever since the glorious and much-missed "TV Go Home". This is classic. Absolutely hilarious. Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
46. Comment #62979 by AntonAAK on August 12, 2007 at 6:04 pm
darwin2:If you are fortunate when you die and find yourself fully conscious in the after death state, you will learn that the correct objective answer is that human self awareness continues after death and God exists.
Fortunate indeed. Except that according to most religious doctrines which I have read the majority of people will, if they wake after death, awake to an eternity of torture. Their crimes could range from murder, rape and theft to loving someone of their own sex, switching on a light on Saturday or dying prior to baptism.
This will have happened to the vast majority of people who have ever lived and is going on right now. Your God is torturing people as we speak.
Sleep well.
Other Comments by AntonAAK
47. Comment #62983 by blasphemer on August 12, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Seems to me darwin2 is trolling and caught lots of fish, including me.Other Comments by blasphemer
48. Comment #63021 by Damien White on August 13, 2007 at 12:02 am
Seems to me that darwin2 doesn't realise the difference between hope and faith.I hope my 'consciousness' continues after death. But I have no proof that it will, and I am unwilling to be a part of the wish-fulfillment that faith offers.
If religites more carefully examined their own motives for beliving in the multitude of gods currently available, perhaps they would decide to stop decieving themselves. As the author of this article says: "You want comfort, suck your thumb."
Other Comments by Damien White
49. Comment #63031 by hungarianelephant on August 13, 2007 at 1:32 am
1. Comment #62697 by Veronique on August 10, 2007 at 10:31 pmThe NHS recently spent £10m refurbishing the London Homeopathic Hospital.
Is this what you were referring to elephant? That certainly is a disgrace. How embarrassing for the UK! Does that mean that the NHS has been subverted into quackery?
Sorry V, been away, but yes that was partly what I was on about.
To be fair, this is only part of the problem. The NHS seems to have lost all sense of its purpose, and attempts to put manners on it seem only to add another level of bureaucracy.
To try to rein in costs, the UK now has NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence, or possibly NHS Initiative for Controlling Expenditure), which is charged with the unenviable task of deciding what can and cannot be done. What actually happens is that the loudest voices prevail.
A few months back, a number of women with early stage breast cancer decided that they wanted to be prescribed the monstrously expensive Herceptin. There's a problem with this. Herceptin doesn't work on early-stage breast cancer. The studies by its own developer prove it. But these women decided that it was their "only hope", since the other treatments aren't much good either. They persuaded a doctor that in his "clinical judgment" they ought to have it, and ran a well-organised campaign to get it prescribed. Result: the NHS backed down. History doesn't relate who was deprived of safe and effective treatments by the resulting hole in the budget.
Another example. When Viagra was first approved, the NHS decided that it wouldn't prescribe. Why not? Er ... it was expensive. More expensive than the other ineffective treatments for erectile dysfunction? Or for the depression often associated with it? No. But you still can't have it. After all, Viagra is about erections, and erections are funny.
Well there's nothing at all funny about being unable to get a hard-on if it happens to you, or your partner. This stuff destroys families and wrecks lives. But the NHS isn't going to pay for it, because it has other priorities.
£20,000 per patient for a drug that doesn't work here. £10m on homeopathy there. Pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
50. Comment #63104 by mikeshin on August 13, 2007 at 5:55 am
I love this line:"If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again."
Other Comments by mikeshin
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain."
Richard Dawkins
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10."
Unknown
"To enslave a man, then dope him to make him content! Do you call THAT a solace? . . . The honest fact is that the greatest hindrance to the progress of the Negro is that same dope that was shot into him during slavery. . . . The slogan of the Negro devotee is: Take the world but give me Jesus, and the white man strikes an eager bargain with him. . . . Another fact — there are far too many Negro preachers. Religion is the most fruitful medium for exploiting this already exploited group. As I said, the majority of the sharpers, who among the whites would go into other fields, go, in this case, to the ministry."
Joel Augustus Rogers
"If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around their necks instead of crosses."
Lenny Bruce
"Sex brought into existence the gene pool, made meaningful the species, and changed the whole ball game of evolution itself."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
Breaking the Spell
Daniel C. Dennett
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #62697 by Veronique on August 10, 2007 at 10:31 pm
It may be better to have a number of 'Dawkin's Rottweilers' out there, at large as it were, while RD's unswerving politeness and capacity to send up BS with ridicule holds sway in the media.
I have no idea who this bloke is, but I like his style.
Is this what you were referring to elephant? That certainly is a disgrace. How embarrassing for the UK! Does that mean that the NHS has been subverted into quackery?
'Emperor of all Media'. LOL. Couldn't you have a hey day?
I must just pop over to the Guardian to see if I can leave an encouraging comment:-).
See you
V
Edit.Just came back. I couldn't see a thread at all. Ho hum. I saw a few of his article headlines - I don't know that he has much clout. Someone please disabuse me.
Other Comments by Veronique