Richard Dawkins: The Enemies of Reason

[ParanoiA]

There is criticizing religion, and then there is bashing it. The claim that everyone who believes in God is delusional is just plain wrong. He's attacking everyone who even dares to attempt to derive any philosophical or religious meaning from science, even though he does this himself.

 

I have a friend here in college who is Islamic and we debate about this kind of stuff all the time. But I don't go off claiming he is delusional or dismiss him on the basis of his belief.

 

Ok, but if you believe it's delusional and you have intellectual logic and reason to support that belief, then how do you discuss it without "attacking" your beliefs or "bashing" and dismissing them? I see no way for him to win here, because you are taking his "position" to be offensive, basically.

 

You don't go off claiming your friend is delusional because you don't believe that. Otherwise, if you did believe it, but didn't say it, then you're a liar and a crappy friend. I doubt you're either one of those, so you must just not be of the same opinion as Dawkins.

[Reaper]

Ok, but if you believe it's delusional and you have intellectual logic and reason to support that belief, then how do you discuss it without "attacking" your beliefs or "bashing" and dismissing them? I see no way for him to win here, because you are taking his "position" to be offensive, basically.

 

The problem with Dawkins argument is that he is attempting to use science to support his arguments, when in reality science doesn't give a say in whether or not God exists. In fact, you can't even form a hypothesis on how a deity might behave because there are differing definitions and an "all power" deity is by definition outside of the laws of nature. At least, that's one of the problems. That doesn't mean that you should ignore scientific evidence, but science by itself doesn't really give a say.

 

So he doesn't have adequate grounds, and then he attempts to force it on other people, and anybody who doesn't agree with him, or if some point is inconvenient, they are dismissed as "deluded" or "unreasonable" or "illogical". Basically, what he does is that he slaps labels and uses stereotypes. He doesn't really give any credit to the other side. And this is where you get into trouble when you try to have a discussion about it.

 

If your going to argue about God's existence, you have to learn to put aside your prejudices against the other belief and give the other side some credit. It's just like arguing any other point, it doesn't matter if deities or supernatural elements are in it; if one side brings a point, you have to come up with an adequate counterpoint. It's a fine line, I know, but it can be done maturely.

 

 

 

You don't go off claiming your friend is delusional because you don't believe that. Otherwise, if you did believe it, but didn't say it, then you're a liar and a crappy friend. I doubt you're either one of those, so you must just not be of the same opinion as Dawkins.

 

No, he knows I'm an Atheist. I'm just not in the same line as Dawkins.

[Royston]

Richard Dawkins is the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science', he speaks from authority, and it's perfectly obvious that many people don't have scientific backgrounds, and it's obvious that people who read the 'God Delusion', or who watch programmes such as 'Beyond Belief' are going to make the connection that 'science is against anything that isn't science.' Which is obviously utter BS.

 

I think we're taking for granted, that we know the arguments in this field, people need guidance, I'm yet to watch 'Enemies of reason', but unless the topics involve people / organizations that are a direct threat to the field of science, then they should be left alone. Even then, you can't use science itself to attack peoples beliefs...you merely point out that science has nothing to say on the matter, so science is not a threat to your belief, so don't make your belief a threat to science.

 

 

[ParanoiA]

The problem with Dawkins argument is that he is attempting to use science to support his arguments, when in reality science doesn't give a say in whether or not God exists.

 

Yes you're correct that science doesn't have a say in the existence of god, as it would require evidence and testing, neither of which are possible.

 

That's all Dawkins is saying. Provide some evidence and then it will be reasonable and logical to believe in a deity. Right now, absence of evidence equals an unreasonable conclusion of existence. It is not evidence of absence, and is not a conclusion of science, it's a conclusion of a scientist.

 

He seems to use science for its insistence on evidence. Not a perverse notion of science as stating god doesn't exist. Science doesn't say that and Dawkins has never said that science does say that or anything like it.

 

So he doesn't have adequate grounds, and then he attempts to force it on other people, and anybody who doesn't agree with him, or if some point is inconvenient, they are dismissed as "deluded" or "unreasonable" or "illogical". Basically, what he does is that he slaps labels and uses stereotypes.

 

Could you provide an example of this? The only time I notice him saying something is unreasonable or illogical is when something is unreasonable or illogical. If you believe in god, astrology and other types of spirituallity with zero evidence, then how can that be a reasonable and logical conclusion?

 

Just seems to me that to believe in something with no reasonable evidence or proof is, unreasonable and illogical. I would agree that I believe in some things that require faith - no proof in their existence. And I would also agree it's illogical for me to believe in them too, because there's no evidence or proof of any part of it.

 

In fact, I'm not sure why you have a problem with it. If god works so mysteriously, then of course it's not logical is it? Logic is not a requirement for god's existence.

 

Incidentally, on the subject of labels, I watched a Q&A with him where he criticized religious labels being slapped on children before they're of an age to understand philisophy, or even language for that matter. That telling a child "you are christian" or "you are catholic" or "you are atheist" is irresponsible.

[1veedo]

I think this is a good example of Shadowacct's point. Someone who has believed all his propoganda and fallen into the same unscientific mindset. "One of the greatest scientists alive today", please! What has been his overwhelming contribution to science? Some crap idea about 'memes', hardly revolutionary.

 

I don't understand why the atheist fundies bother coming to this site. It is a science site, and as such promotes free-thinking, not mindless adherence to their high priest's teachings. I suspect they just come to troll.

He kind of invented the ideas of the selfish gene and extended phenotype. He wasn't the first to suggest gene-centered evolution but then again Darwin wasn't even the first to suggest evolution and natural selection. But he was definitely the one who revolutionized modern biology with these concepts. He's also done a lot of research behind altruism and why "people are nice to each other." This was all pre-1990. Sense then he's been a popular atheist trying to promote science and reason. He's done a lot more than just that and memes, but he's mostly known for his work on gene-centered evolution. Before him group selection and other forms of natural selection were favored over the gene-centered view. (btw dawkins describes "gene" in this context slightly differently than just a single allele. If you read The Selfish Gene he gives a formal definition)

The problem with Dawkins argument is that he is attempting to use science to support his arguments, when in reality science doesn't give a say in whether or not God exists. In fact, you can't even form a hypothesis on how a deity might behave because there are differing definitions and an "all power" deity is by definition outside of the laws of nature. At least, that's one of the problems. That doesn't mean that you should ignore scientific evidence, but science by itself doesn't really give a say.

This is an example of the equivocation logical fallacy. You are confusing two similar, but separate concepts here. True science doesn't say anything about God but you can apply science to various claims of the paranormal and "natural claims" made by many religions (eg Noah built a boat and God flooded the planet).

 

You can also take the position that sense God is inherently untestable there's no reason to believe in him, like ParanoiA is saying.

[iNow]

If I told you that I believed in Santa Claus, why would this be any different? There is no proof. No evidence. All indicators point to a mass delusion shared by a great number of people. I fail to see the logic in faith absent confirmation.

 

But, when I became a man I put away childish things...

 

 

 

Tell me, how many voices DO you hear?

[John Cuthber]

Anybody just watched part 2 where he rips into alternative medicine?

Anyway, I think Dawkins has a problem with presentation because he takes a stance that society doen't seem to like. He clearly believes (with good evidence- the difference between fundamentalism and science) that homeopathy is total nonsense. When he is talking to someone who believes (probably because they have personal experience) that homeopathy is true he has two choices. He can either come across as an appeaser and say things like "Well it's OK for you to believe that - everyone is entitled..." or he can say what he clearly believes ie "You are plain wrong; that's what the evidence shows".

Since his point of view includes the observations that the UK national Health service (which is permamantly short of funds) has just spent £10 million refurbishing a homeopathic hospital in London and that a lot of wars and suffering are due to religion and (what is more closely related to religion than most people like to say) xenophobia he plainly does not think it's OK for people to think like that because he sees it as a major source of trouble.

it's no shock that he gets annoyed that people refuse to see sense ie they value superstition over their own eyes.

In those circumstances he is likely to come across as arrogant and argumentative.

What else would he do?

[Royston]

I just caught the second episode of 'Enemies of Reason', and it addressed almost exactly my point earlier. It tackled issues that clearly are a threat to the public view of science, and very importantly public health...I was shocked that UK taxes helped fund a center of Homeopathy, it touched on the MMR scam, and the programme tackled organizations that used 'scientific buzzwords' tenuously thrown in to sell their products, and claims.

 

Also, (close to my heart) it covered the media and science, and how the public are so easily swayed by poor scientific journalism. So all in all, I was impressed, and these are the issues I feel Dawkins should be tackling, rather than the endless debate of the G word, and faith.

 

EDIT: However, I agree with John, that his presentation 'to the unscientifically minded' would of come across as arrogant, and this isn't a quality that should be attributed to the field. I guess it's hard not to laugh, and maybe scoff sometimes, when somebody is claiming research shows that black holes (black holes as we know them) are creating life within your spinning chakras. At least I think that's what she said.

 

EDIT2: iNow sorry, but that statement is so hopelessly flawed I don't even know where to begin. If P&R comes back, perhaps we can discuss it...despite I'm sick of the subject.

[shadowacct]

My point is not that Dawkins thinks that religion has caused trouble in the past (it did and we should not deny that), but that he is generalizing to a great extent, such that it even becomes absurd and something to laugh at (sadly). Some wars indeed were/are caused by religious differences, but most religious people are peaceful and do not want any war at all.

In my opinion, war is not the result of religion, nor of atheism or agnosticism. It is the result of extremes.

 

Extreme religion (e.g. Taliban extreme 'Islam', Lord's Resistance Army as extreme 'christians' in Uganda) causes a lot of pain and suffering. But I use ' ', because these are not real muslims and real christians.

Also, extreme atheism causes similar pain and suffering (e.g. North-Korea, communism in the recent past in the USSR, Pol Pot).

So, the common thing is not religion, but the common thing is taking extreme positions.

It does not matter whether one is religious or not. It is the extreme position which hurts. And I find it very frightening that Dawkins also takes an extreme position and that so many people are blindly following him. In Dawkins case it is an extreme form of atheism. Of course, Dawkins does not call for a crusade against people who think otherwise. But he does place them in a group of lower-level people. He does not say it explicitly, but you can read it between the lines of all his written texts. Religious people are fools. New age people are fools or charlatans. This kind of thinking is the first step downwards to a more polarized society and to destruction of social cohesion.

 

If the UK would receive a government, which is totally in line with the point of view of Dawkins, would the UK be a good place to live? I'm afraid not. This could become a really suppressive government. It would be immoral to raise your children with your personal faith, so it might even be forbidden. Any other point of view besides the commonly accepted theory of evolution would be forbidden in public life. In the final run we would get thought-police. Such a country would not be better than the current situation of Iran. I think I would prefer Iran.

 

I do not agree with young earth creationists, and also I do not agree with new age points of view. I personally believe that they are not good descriptions of our world, but this does not mean that we should fight such points of view as if we are fighting the plague. We also simply should accept that not all people are thinking scientifically. In fact, the majority does not. Whether they are religious or not, they simply do not think logically and along paths of strict reason. And probably that is good. Some people do and they can become good scientists. Other people don't and they can become good artists (or painters, or whatever..). This line of scientific thinking goes through all groups of people, religious or not. People are different, but not at a lower level.

 

I hope that true scientists, who really want to do good reasoning will open their eyes and think twice about what Dawkins writes and says. He is endangering science, and if many people will follow him, he will even endanger society as a whole.

[ParanoiA]

In my opinion, war is not the result of religion, nor of atheism or agnosticism. It is the result of extremes.

 

I hope most agree with this, I certainly do.

 

And I find it very frightening that Dawkins also takes an extreme position and that so many people are blindly following him. In Dawkins case it is an extreme form of atheism.

 

What is extreme about it? And what makes you think people are blindly following him? In fact, what makes you think people are following him?

 

I'm seeing the same offenses related to Dawkins that I do Rush Limbaugh. People are augmenting and changing his intents and conclusions to seemingly fit their emotionally offended position. It's really quite fascinating. Dawkins doesn't call anyone names, laugh and make fun of them, yell at them or anything, rather quite respectfully, patiently and logcially refutes these superstitions.

 

I wonder why some can't disagree with Dawkins just as respectfully, patiently and logically...

[iNow]

EDIT2: iNow sorry, but that statement is so hopelessly flawed I don't even know where to begin. If P&R comes back, perhaps we can discuss it...despite I'm sick of the subject.

 

I'd be curious to read what you have to say. If you expound on your thoughts, that would help. "Hopelessly flawed" is some pretty harsh criticism, and specifics would be useful.

 

 

Would it have been better had I said the Easter Bunny?

[ParanoiA]

If the UK would receive a government, which is totally in line with the point of view of Dawkins, would the UK be a good place to live?

 

If the UK would receive a government, which is totally in line with the point of view of ANYBODY, would the UK be a good place to live? Hell no.

 

I do not agree with young earth creationists, and also I do not agree with new age points of view. I personally believe that they are not good descriptions of our world, but this does not mean that we should fight such points of view as if we are fighting the plague. We also simply should accept that not all people are thinking scientifically.

 

If you truly believe such points of view are harmful to the advancement of humanity, then you would fight these points of view...honestly, respectfully, logically...do I need to go on? Plagues aren't fought like that, and this isn't being fought like the plague.

[Royston]

I'd be curious to read what you have to say. If you expound on your thoughts, that would help. "Hopelessly flawed" is some pretty harsh criticism, and specifics would be useful.

 

Sorry about that, it was harsh when I'm not willing to discuss it here...I'm not sure this is the right place. I've just heard that comparison used way too many times, and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not in the same boat as certain versions of (for example) the Anthropic Principle, and the myriad of interpretations that can be attributed to God, which are, putting it mildly, many.

 

Would it have been better had I said the Easter Bunny?

 

Nope

 

(it did and we should not deny that)

 

We really can, it's abuse of religion thats caused conflict...people are to blame, not religion itself, there is a difference.

[iNow]

I'm not sure this is the right place. I've just heard that comparison used way too many times, and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not in the same boat as certain versions of (for example) the Anthropic Principle, and the myriad of interpretations that can be attributed to God, which are, putting it mildly, many.

Fair enough. I appreciate the quick reply.

 

We really can, it's abuse of religion thats caused conflict...people are to blame, not religion itself, there is a difference.

 

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We do, however, tend to protect our own group... our team... our pack... sometimes at the expense of others who fall outside that grouping.

 

 

My God can kick your God's hind quarters.

[1veedo]

My God can kick your God's hind quarters.

Uho this is the makings of another one of those bloody religious wars. Be careful who you taunt iNow.

[AL]

He does not say it explicitly, but you can read it between the lines of all his written texts. Religious people are fools. New age people are fools or charlatans. This kind of thinking is the first step downwards to a more polarized society and to destruction of social cohesion.

Well of course if you disagree with someone, then implicitly and necessarily, you think they are wrong, but that isn't intolerance. I'm not generalizing religious folk and new agers, but there are clearly people out there that are so demonstrably wrong they need to be criticized. To what extent should we look the other way for the sake of "social cohesion?"

 

There are dozens and dozens of videos of Sylvia Browne contradicting herself horrendously, and yet this woman is still raking in millions with bestselling books and hundred dollar phone calls to talk to the dead. Then you have faith healers like Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff and John of God -- they take money from the terminally ill, claiming to have healed them, and of course the terminally ill die anyway, and thus are no longer around to sue these clowns (and even if they were still around, cultural taboos would discourage them from suing -- after all, you wouldn't sue a servant of God, would you?). And then when Randi or Dawkins or other noted skeptics have the gall to say something to try and stop these atrocities, they get labeled as intolerant bigots (watch John of God's classic crocodile tears video when a newsreporter asks him if he's for real or a scam..."I'm trying to help people and save their lives, and these horrible skeptics say these things about me? Boo-hoo." [obviously not a verbatim quote, but essentially his defense] :-().

 

I know it's a touchy issue to criticize these things because a lot of people are very sensitive to it, but at the same time, I'd have to say it's morally reprehensible to just let these people get away with it.

[Pangloss]

In my opinion everyone is sorta beating around the bush here. Dawkins, the self-proclaimed champion of verifiable evidence and logical deduction, is essentially venturing -- wait for it! -- an OPINION!

 

His opinion, which is absolutely that and not supportable on any other plane, is that religion is harmful to society. That opinion is certainly backed by all kinds of circumstantial evidence, and one could even see minor degrees of verifiable harm on a low level (individuals harmed, etc). But it's not verifiable at the society level. It can ONLY be viewed as opinion. No peer review could possibly pass this off as scientifically valid unless it decided to forgo science and make a political statement.

 

I don't personally have a problem with it, and I have a high degree of respect for 99% of what he's saying. If he wants to selectively ignore the benefits that religion has had on society both currently and historically, well that's the man's right and he's also welcome to share that opinion with others.

 

But to use his own stated "logic", there is also a danger here, and it is two fold:

 

1) That people will mistake his statements as science. (A greater ill.)

 

2) That people will agree with him. (A lesser ill that I mention *only* because it's exactly the same reasoning that he's asking us to use.)

 

In the end, the sad thing is that as entertaining as it is, it is also a perfect example of what's wrong with modern investigatory journalism -- for lack of a better term -- I know he's not a journalist, but he's acting like one. He's acting EXACTLY like one, giving us single, microscopic examples to illustrate macroscopic events, completely contrary to common sense and scientific reasoning. He might as well be a network reporter telling us one day that the stock market is down and Jane Doe, a single mom with 3 kids in Dubuque, is struggling, then the next day telling us that the stock market is up, and Mary Smith, a single mom with 3 kids in Springfield, is succeeding. Of what possible use could this "evidence" really be?

 

In short, he has a point, but that's it. End of story. There's nothing more to see here. Thank you, drive through to the second window please.

[bascule]

In my opinion everyone is sorta beating around the bush here. Dawkins, the self-proclaimed champion of verifiable evidence and logical deduction, is essentially venturing -- wait for it! -- an OPINION!

 

Yes, he is presenting an opinion. His opinion is that science, as a system of mutually supporting evidence, should trump those who can only present anecdotal evidence to the contrary. To quote Dawkins, "We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise, we favor those who would obscure the truth"

 

His opinion, which is absolutely that and not supportable on any other plane, is that religion is harmful to society.

 

This program deals quite little with religion. The religions it does deal with are cultish fringe religions like Spiritualism. The rest is just an exploration of new-age beliefs and other sorts of unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural whose claims fall apart under scientific scrutiny. It's basically the James Randi or Penn & Teller M.O.

 

Indeed a central point of the series seems to be that scientific experimentation can easily debunk these sort of wishy washy supernatural claims. The experiments with dowsers and horoscopes make this abundantly clear, as does James Randi's prize for demonstrating paranormal powers under scientific conditions.

[Severian]

To quote Dawkins, "We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise, we favor those who would obscure the truth"

 

That is exactly the problem! He does not follow his own advice. He promotes his own private feelings as if they were scientific fact, when they are nothing more than opinion.

 

I really wouldn't have a problem with the man if he were just some ordinary Joe in the street writing rants about religion, but he is not. He is an Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and as such his opinion carries a weight and a responsibility to not mislead people about science. When presenting a personal opinion he has to be completely clear that it is an opinion and not a scientific statement otherwise a large portion of the public will accept his word as true without thinking. That is exactly the thing he blaims religion for yet he sees no problem with blind acceptance when it is acceptance of his beliefs.

[ParanoiA]

That is exactly the problem! He does not follow his own advice. He promotes his own private feelings as if they were scientific fact, when they are nothing more than opinion.

 

Ok, I'll ask again a little differently... How does one refer to "verifiable evidence" without sounding as if one is promoting private feelings as if they were scientific fact? I don't think they can.

 

I really don't get this. Either take issue with something in particular or give some examples because I keep seeing post after post of basically ad hominem defense rather than any thoughtful or intelligent rebuttal.

 

He is an Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and as such his opinion carries a weight and a responsibility to not mislead people about science.

 

He doesn't have responsibility to squat. That's your expectation being thrust upon him. They do that here in the states too. Some basketball player gets really good, becomes a household name and suddenly he's supposed to be a role model...huh?

 

No, I think he's tending to his self appointed responsibility of pursuing what he believes to be the truth. Good for him.

 

When presenting a personal opinion he has to be completely clear that it is an opinion and not a scientific statement otherwise a large portion of the public will accept his word as true without thinking.

 

Are you kidding? The whole freaking series is opinion, not just a statement or two. You think a handful of dowsers in a tent with bottled water and sand is a scientific testing method? The testing pool alone is contestable, not to mention the interference of plastics being a possible issue and probably a hundred other things I haven't thought about.

 

This is society's problem, not Dawkins'. He's basically doing anecdotal testing on TV. If he presented that silly testing as "scientific" or rigorous, then I'd take issue. But again, I haven't seen that. I've just seen him get people to put their money where their mouth is...and they're failing.

[Royston]

He doesn't have responsibility to squat. That's your expectation being thrust upon him.

 

No offense Paranoia, but what part of these points don't you understand...he really does have a responsibility, that was given to him by Oxford University, to ensure the 'public' have a clear understanding of science, not opinions of faith, it's perfectly obvious how somebody not versed in the two, are going to consider his 'opinions' as the opinion of the field of science...that is what he's representing !

 

Richard Dawkins is the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science', he speaks from authority, and it's perfectly obvious that many people don't have scientific backgrounds, and it's obvious that people who read the 'God Delusion', or who watch programmes such as 'Beyond Belief' are going to make the connection that 'science is against anything that isn't science.' Which is obviously utter BS.

That people will mistake his statements as science. (A greater ill.)

That is exactly the problem! He does not follow his own advice. He promotes his own private feelings as if they were scientific fact, when they are nothing more than opinion. I really wouldn't have a problem with the man if he were just some ordinary Joe in the street writing rants about religion, but he is not. He is an Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and as such his opinion carries a weight and a responsibility.

The recent programme aside, as Bascule pointed out, it's not attacking religion, but primarily pseudoscience and the use of scientific buzzwords to sell products / claims, there's nothing wrong with that...because you can use science to debunk the claims...you can't say the same for belief based on faith. For the umpteenth time, logic and science can not be applied to faith.

 

Meh, I've been sucked into this type of discussion again me/ sighs

[ParanoiA]

No offense Paranoia, but what part of these points don't you understand...he really does have a responsibility, that was given to him by Oxford University, to ensure the 'public' have a clear understanding of science, not opinions of faith, it's perfectly obvious how somebody not versed in the two, are going to consider his 'opinions' as the opinion of the field of science...that is what he's representing !

 

No offense taken, I respect your opinion. I can understand this responsibility when he's operating in the capacity of "scientist". But when he's doing his little opinion flicks, an anecdotal spin-off, I don't see how he's bound by his scientist position.

 

Unless there's something I'm not understanding about his duty to Oxford University...

 

I akin this to my employer who states in the code of business conduct that I'm not allowed to engage in any activity outside of work that would be a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest. Yeah, they can write that down in any pamplet they want but I could give a crap less how something appears to them.

 

In the same way, I could give a crap less about Dawkins' supposed "responsibility" imposed on him in the capacity of opinion based journalism.

 

Just my opinion...

[Sisyphus]

My tangential 2 cents:

 

I haven't read the God Delusion or any other work of Dawkins, so this is admittedly uninformed speculation, but it strikes me that, just based on the title, that isn't necessarily an unscientific opinion. In other words, whether God exists is definitely not a scientific question, but what causes the belief in God, and whether that belief negatively affects other aspects of thinking, are scientific questions. If Dawkins thinks that belief is a pathological delusion, and he has reasonable arguments to back it up, that's hard to criticize. He's guilty of insensitivity, perhaps, but if religion is a plague, then I suppose fighting that plague is more important than sparing feelings.

[1veedo]

No offense Paranoia, but what part of these points don't you understand...he really does have a responsibility, that was given to him by Oxford University, to ensure the 'public' have a clear understanding of science, not opinions of faith, it's perfectly obvious how somebody not versed in the two, are going to consider his 'opinions' as the opinion of the field of science...that is what he's representing !

The difference is that the British population isn't made up of a bunch of religious fundies. He's been voted like "britains top intellectual" for several years in a row now, usually receiving over twice the number of votes that second place gets. Over hear in America where people don't respect science and reason people likewise don't like Dawkins. In other words Dawkins fits in just fine over in Britain as a "public figure" simply because the british population respects reason, while the US population does not.

[Pangloss]

This program deals quite little with religion. The religions it does deal with are cultish fringe religions like Spiritualism. The rest is just an exploration of new-age beliefs and other sorts of unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural whose claims fall apart under scientific scrutiny. It's basically the James Randi or Penn & Teller M.O.

 

Indeed a central point of the series seems to be that scientific experimentation can easily debunk these sort of wishy washy supernatural claims. The experiments with dowsers and horoscopes make this abundantly clear, as does James Randi's prize for demonstrating paranormal powers under scientific conditions.

 

I agree that that's what he focuses on primarily in the show, but he definitely tackles mainstream religion as well, and the "harm" issue from mainstream religion is stated right up front as his premise for the entire show. Watch the opening segment again and note this quote:

 

There are two ways of looking at the world' date=' through faith and superstition, or through the rigeours of logic, observation and evidence. Through reason.

[/quote']

 

As a scientist I don't think our indulgence of irrational superstition is harmless. I believe it profoundly undermines civilization. Reason and a respect for evidence are the source of our progress. Our safeguard against fundamentalists, and those who profit from obscuring the truth.

 

The direct assault on mainstream religion may not be actually there in so many words, but it's hovering just beneath the surface. After all, from his stated point of view, how can a few occultists possibly compare with the vast power and authority of the Roman Catholic Church? And, again from his viewpoint, aren't the two *exactly the same*?

 

All of this is summed up in the very title of his book: "The GOD Delusion". Not "The Tarot Delusion". Not "The Astrology Delusion". Just god. All by himself. Last time I checked, tarot, palm reading, and psychic abilities aren't (for most of these delusional idiots) even related to belief in god.