[chp]

Just a note to let you know I have now completed the programme with Channel 4 and Richard Dawkins. It was one of the toughest I have done and I have been up against one of the real sceptical heavyweight....., though I have to admit I liked Dawkins, I agree with some of his arguments, and at least he is a bit better qualified to put an point rather than the usual comedians and conjurers.

I did the demo at Camberley Church. We also filmed an interview with Dawkins and me debating the points in a graveyard. Whether I win or loose the debate will entirely depend on how it is edited... and as the programme is called 'The Rationalists' I suspect it will be edited in favour of the theme of the programme which is that all this New Age mumbo jumbo is a psychological illusion. (People make the messages fit what they hope to hear) Nonetheless I put some very strong arguments and had Dawkins foxed a few times (If they show this of course).

My only regret is that I wish the actual demonstration at Camberley had been stronger. I've done the church a number of times so unbeknown to me some of the people who got good messages on the evening had also had messages from me in the past. This was a shame as it weakens my arguments. The demonstration was okay, but definitely not my best. There were a few weak links that I'm sure they will pounce on. Knowing that every word I say and hesitation I make is going to be dissected by sceptics later is not that conducive to mediumship. I think some of the audience were as nervous about what they say as me!!

The programme will be shown in January 2007 sometime.

I have also suggested that for a balanced programme we really need to have some views from the many scientists who believe in what we do. Unfortunately Rupert Sheldrake, who I was told was to appear and put a view in contrast to Dawkins, has backed off.

[freewilll]

Hi,

I just started reading Dawkins' latest book 'The God Delusion'. Myself being a former, although short-lived atheist, I can appreciate the views he puts forward in his book concerning the more ridiculous religous beliefs and dogma people cling to. Spiritualism stands out profoundly in the sense it is one of the only 'religions' to actually deliver proof of some form of enduring survival after death. I honestly don't understand why science and most of public haven't embraced the proofs coming forward from mediumship. Then again, we have to remember that man psychologically tends to cling to thoughts purely out of a lack of will to change ways of thinking, such as the earth being flat. There seems to be some scientific articles that statistically prove the existance of spiritual/reiki/hands-on healing beyond the placebo effect. Hopefully we can work together to achieve this kind of peer-reviewed proof of the reality of mediumistic communication.

It's through understanding the clear reasoning of a mind like Dawkins', although some of his arguments are sometimes childish or just outright mocking, that we should find counter arguments and methods to prove what we are doing is true.

Love,
Will

[abbondanzieri]

we should find counter arguments and methods to prove what we are doing is true

have an idea then look for proof to support it? why not look at the evidence first, then make a decision as to what's true or not?

There seems to be some scientific articles that statistically prove the existance of spiritual/reiki/hands-on healing beyond the placebo effect.

really? where? Science? Nature? the website of a reiki practitioner? healing or 'yes, thanks, i do feel a bit better, now you come to mention it'?

[Nat]

Read some books on Harry Edwards. There are accounts of him and his spirit helpers producing physically measurable effects on clients that go beyond a matter of just feeling better. Not quite on the same lines coz blatant "psychic surgery" was involved, but "Arigo- Surgeon of the Rusty Knife", by John G Fuller, is another worth gaining a perspective on - whatever that perspective may be.

[abbondanzieri]

accounts in a book? who could ask for more proof than that. i feel so ashamed. ops:
:wink:

[Nat]

Most info is someone elses account of it ...funny that huh? I?m not recalling the part where I said gathering some perspectives meant you had to believe it. Maybe some film footage might help you out tho. :wink:

Your post always crack me up laughing :lol:

[abbondanzieri]

what scientist think becomes of our own energy when we die?

probably something to do with stopping eating at a guess. no energy in - none out.

It is a very sceptical look at Spiritualism (as usual)

most tv progs about anything spiritual or paranormal have a very credulous attitude imho. if this one is skeptical, it'd be one of the rare ones.

Most info is someone elses account of it ...funny that huh? I?m not recalling the part where I said gathering some perspectives meant you had to believe it.

i was on about evidence not opinions. when we're talking about proof it's evidence that counts.

Maybe some film footage might help you out tho.

yep, maybe. with really big subtitles in case i miss anything

[hellee]

So...did the programme air?

[Warwick]

I must say, I quite admire Dawkins from what I've seen of him. His speciality is evolution, and he has engendered the wrath and hatred (and that isn't too strong a word) of demented 'creationists', who rightly see him as a teriible threat to their ridiculous cause. I can understand him striking back when unjustly, rudely and constantly attacked for doing what he does - stating facts, scientifically analysing such facts, and coming to conclusions which make monkeys of Creationists and their absurd, insistent and aggressively and dishonestly promoted beliefs (the word 'theories' is too dignified for their nonsense IMHO).

His criticism of 'religion' is no doubt based on the fact that most of those who attack him claim to be religious (fundy Christians for the most part), people who have closed minds, blinkered outlooks and zero tolerance for the beliefs of anyone who disagrees with them. They would no doubt have butned him at the stake or imprisoned him in silence in the not too distant past, but fortunately we have at last moved on from those days - the 'religious' cat is out of the bag, and will never go back. The crumbling, beleaguered bastions of the Church (and other religions) now has to put up with questions, and to their horror find they have no answers now they can no longer silence critics and questioners with torture, terror and execution - the Inquisition now goes the other way, and they are obviously wanting in almost every respect!

Religion(s) have caused incalculable harm to mankind since they became political, financial behemoths, demanding taxes, tithes and demanding unquestioning obedience, holy wars and respect they had no right to. Little wonder they attract so much ridicule - which I and many others are only too pleased to lavish on them.

I suspect Mr Dawkins, who seems a reasonable, peaceful man, has had his patience sorely tested by the controversy he has (I suspect) unwittingly caused. The thing is, his work on evolution and theories concerning it, are basically sound - as were Galileo's, see what happened to him? The 'traditionalists' who don't like what they hear but have to accept it, have never been good losers or reasonable opponents, and will fight to the bitter end, even when they have lost the argument and end up being discredited, humiliated and turnrd into a laughing stock. I confess I have taken an almost indecent pleasure in grinding their pompous, arrogant faces into the muck many times in the past, with a self-righteousness as bad as theirs - but better founded. A cruel pleasure I am trying to give up for Lent nowadays, having seen another, btighter light than the one of mere truth....

I don't know how closed Dawkins mind is on the issue of religion? He seems to be a reasonable, curious man, and as a good scientist, should never lose objectivity and open mindedness, or abandon reason and logic - that is the privelidge of non-scientists. I would suggest to him that undermining a perceived opponents cause is not the best way to go in argument, however tempting and satisfying it may be.

I would love to have an opportunity ro debate such matters CHP, with anyone from Dawkins and Randi to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury, but would stress the importance and positivity of working together to discover The Truth, using scientific methods and 'religious insights' together. I have been trying to do this for quire a while now, and realise that there is much to be learned from both, and both 'sides' are plagued with closed minded, arrogant fools who insist they are right without being able to prove it. Where are the likes of Sir Oliver Lodge and Conan Doyle these days?

[Kirkland]

I don't particularly like him he has a view on religion but the way he goes about it just seems over the top. In my opinion let someone believe in what they want to believe in instead of telling them its not true like Richard normally does. For instance the god does not exist bus campaign what was the point in that advertisement? In fact they had to change the campaign to god most likely does not exist because the ASA said he had no proof that god did not exist