Good luck to Dawkins. But isn't it a bit like proving that Hitler was evil or Moll Flanders was a tart?

E Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

google

cfi nostradamus usa

center for inquiry

to see how we stopped randi's million dollar challenge

Dennis Johns, Montreal, Canada

Pete from Canterbury.

"Even worse things done in the name of atheism"? Do not be absurd.

Either you are deliberately trying to mislead people or spectacularly missing the point. No atrocities have been committed in "the name of atheism". Firstly it is a dubious leap of faith call all those on your list atheists (Especially including, as you say, "all their henchmen" when we consider that you are including very religious countries such as Germany and Russia!!) . Secondly even if they are all atheist, they didn't commit the atrocities because they had no belief in some supernatural deity they did it for a whole host of other in-excusable evil reasons.

They are many ways to group people, for example those on your list were all megalomaniac sociopaths. I think this is a more of a driving force than their disbelief in such an absurd concept as the Christian god. They are also all men with a "T" in their name, does it follow that all men with this characteristic will commit atrocities?

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Dawkins has disdain for what he considers unproven, yet maintains a touching belief in unproven theories like evolution.

Natural selection as a process is merely shorthand for wishful thinking as to how evolution works because no one has observed it. Evolution – the word itself means from a wish or desire, implying some hidden will at work – as a process in nature is based upon conjecture and the idea that life came into existence by mere chance is too improbable to have any substance.
Atheism is a belief system based upon the absence of God, and some of its adherents showed scant regard for humanity (Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler with all their henchmen) and if a few crackpot religious folk are to be blamed for the ills of the world, so also should a few mad atheists be blamed for the even worse things done in the name of atheism. Dawkins attributes woes to society from religion and is blind to the woes to society caused by its absence… that is the sign of a man of faith who doesn’t want facts to intrude upon his a priori conclusion that God is a figment of man’s imagination.

Peter Hollander, Canterbury, Kent

Are you sure the consciousness that you are does not have an effect?

How do you know on a subtle level?

Would the moon exist from your first person perspective if you did not exist?

Is not life one interconnected whole?

Are you referring to the Schrödinger's cat principle?


Much respect

James Parker , Jersey , UK

James Parker , Jersey , UK - "The belief in empirical evidence is pretty much un-testable because of the observer and observed principle. The observer changes that which he observes and therefore nothing can be objectified on a relative level. "

Ehhh - I think you are confused at the quantum level - me looking at a hole in the ground does not have any effect on the hole at all or the moon or the sun or the stars. So, therefore, you clearly don't understand what you are saying. - You may want to read a little more on the subject including cats.

Kevin F, Edinburgh, UK

The belief in empirical evidence is pretty much un-testable because of the observer and observed principle. The observer changes that which he observes and therefore nothing can be objectified on a relative level. Modern physics show that matter acts more like a conscious, intelligent whole being rather than inanimate particles. If one looks beyond concepts about matter and witnesses the actuality of life then one will see that life is clearly a miracle and that (whatever word you like to use) god is clearly the miracle and intelligence of life itself. Can life ever be truly known and put into a concept either by religion or science? Does there need to be a concept? Going beyond belief whether cultural, religious, scientific, national, racial etc, is going beyond security and therefore living in an utter unknowable mystery. To live in this absolute mystery while at the same time using science and the intellect as a utility to help and understand the process of life is the way to true religiousness that doesn’t need to be believed but lived in each moment.

James Parker , Jersey , UK

This book is written beautifully and has many good points.

It is about beliefs in religion, however are any beliefs real, whether religious or not?

The human mind has an amazing ability to use mental conditioning to imagine and create allsorts of 'ideas' about the world which are not based on reality... This book examines many of these primitive ideas and delusional mental programming and thus exposes the ignorance of them.

However this book is already out of date since humanity is moving beyond rational thinking. The understanding of non-duality and non-locality in Quantum Physics, direct observation/awareness and holistic understanding has moved beyond the dualistic thinking mind of western philosophy. There are a growing number of people who see beyond conceptualisations and beliefs and are looking at wisdom that transcends unquestioned conventional thoughts.

Although so called atheism tends to be wiser than religious fundamentalism (who are totally closed off from reality), they still create their own materialistic beliefs and ignore the spiritual dimension of oneness which is becoming increasingly obvious among scientists, philosophers, ecologists and builders.

Atheists have become the very thing that they are attacking and many lack an open mind in order to see beyond their own conventional conditioning and egoic thinking...

Read J Krishnamurti, Professor David Bohm, Professor Fritjof Capra, James Christopher, Eckhart Tolle, Douglas Harding, Genpo Roshi and many other Modern physics and non-dual/Zen/perennial teachings...

James, London, UK

Hello,
I have just watched the channel 4 documentaries “The enemies of reason.” I thought they were brilliant, however I feel that it did not go far enough in that they did not indicate that what was once considered hocus-pocus has indeed been shown to have scientific trials to back it up with reliable evidence to show that treatments such as acupuncture and various herbal remedies are effective and that it is important that the general public be made aware that there are things like Capsaicin which have been shown to be more effective than their synthesised equivalents.

John Finlayson, Brechin, Scotland

Russ, Reading

You and I might be comfortable in the belief that there is no grand design and that our existence is the result of a series of unplanned events, but that just isn't good enough for a lot of people. (the majority, the minority, who knows)

And what if Richard Dawkins gets his way and everyone suddenly agrees with his assertions? Would we all be better off? A world consisting of pure scientiific thought, scares me a little, don't know why it just does.

Jonathan, London,

The comments here certainly show the importance of Richard's efforts, as well as the size of the task that remains.

I was particularly amused by the one assertion that the medicinal benefits of plants constitutes proof of a benevolent Creator. Cute, until you check the premise: so-called 'medicinal' herbs are not actually trying to heal human ills; they're an attempt by the plant to avoid being eaten. All true plant-derived medicines have in common the fact that they crash appetite - by sedation, overstimulation, gastric upset, emesis or other methods.

Hardly a gift from God - except in German.

C. Davis, Newbury, UK

Jonathan, London, "Until science answers the question "Why are we here?" how can it ever replace religion (or mysticism),"... edit for space.

Science as far as my limited mind can see will never answer the ultimate question, but this does not mean that we should start inventing reasons willy nilly. Theology may seem elegant but it is not, it is full of holes and certainly not clear, it's full of interpretations masquerading as truth.

"Trouble is, if the answer is that we are not here due to a plan or for a purpose, then the ego's that have developed as part of natural selection to ensure our survival may never allow the majority of us to believe that we are not 'special' or 'chosen"

I don't think you have any trouble there. I would have said that there are plenty of people that believe that they are "special or chosen". Why should there be "a plan or purpose"? Natural selection (evolution) is not concerned with ego(s) and never has been. Who are the "majority of us"?

Russ, Reading, UK

Why is Richard Dawkins so grumpy, just look at his picture! Compare that with the average christian, or the christans I know, they are always smiling, because they know something he doesn't. The proof that God exists is everywhere, but under the surface. One example not considered before is the makeup of plants, many of which contain huge health benefits for humans - the vitamins, enzymes, MSM, chondroitin, glucosamine, the list of complex chemicals is endless. Does this not prove the existence of an intelligent creator?

phil stilliard, twickenham, middx

Don Robinson: Dawkins points out that religion is a poor substitute for philosophy. He offers a pro-science philosophy (not literally science itself) as a substitute for religion's supposed comforts (God Delusion, chapter 10).

I note that philosophy and religion used to be inextricably entwined (centuries ago), and now philosophy has struck out for independence, which is certainly vital to the rise of atheism.

SC, London: falsifiability is exactly what belief in God (in the form it is presented by religion) lacks; and what is critical rationalism if not a philosophy, opposed to the philosophy of divine revelation?

Felix, Nottingham,

"Dawkins can’t hide his frustration at people’s gullibility"

Yet he believes in the Darwinian myth!!!

Actually I am with Dawkin's in his attack on a lot of the spiritual mumbo-jumbo that is around today... but it is a little frustrating that he appears to have no sense at all of the way in which modern science has created its own myths and fables. Darwinism is the most obvious example. Its huge edifice is built upon a few scientific facts that most people accept, but from then on in it is too often pure speculation and conjecture.

Andrew Brown, derby, UK

Having seen the experiment conducted on the program on monday, i object on the televised manner in which it was conducted, a true scientific test would have required more results over time, and the use of controls (for example Dawkins trying himself to Dowse). From the published information the true "enemies of reason will not appear on the program due to "legal considerations" Any theory should be subject to test (acording to the arguement Dawkins puts forward) if the results do not match the hypothesis then the hypothesis must be in doubt. even if it is the one Dawkins supports. But science these days has more of the feel of a religion, the academics in thier ivory towers dispense the accepted knowlege, and we the masses must accept. When the spirit of inquiry is returned then maybe this rationality will be more comonplace

Ben, folkestone, uk

Nice to see Dawkins having a go at a softer target after being mauled for his attempt on religion. I haven't laughed out loud at a news item more than him trying to justify the last series on Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show - absolutely hilarious. This is easy stuff though taking on pretty obvious charlatans and the occassionally sincere but bizarre practitioner. I am glad he also thought the spiritualist was genuine as I agree his heart was in the right place. I agree with most of what Dawkins says/does in this series -unlike the last - but he still comes across as a bitter man angry that science has such low "sex appeal".

Benjamin, Gloucester,

It always depresses me to read the comments following any story on Dawkins, as they are almost all vitriolic rants about subjects their authors know little about. It may help if the anti-religion crowd understand that this applies to many followers of the major religions as well as themselves. Theology and God are not the same as religion. The latter is an attempt to organise the masses in such a way as to maximise those 'saved', and is far from ideal. Organised religion as we see it today is certainly not what Jesus had in mind. For most followers however, it is beneficial in their personal quest to find God. (The deity who created the physical universe and then largely left it to run according to its own rules, making His existence extremely difficult to prove. )

Incidentally, has anyone ever heard of Dawkins acting in his role as Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, rather than simply attacking religion? If I was as distracted from my job, I'd be fired!

Dave B, Manchester, UK

Rob from Croydon - what on earth are you talking about?

What "invisible support network"? Why is the sort of embarrassingly woolly thinking that Dawkins is attacking in any way "feminine"? That strikes me as quite insulting to women, who are just as capable of intelligent and rational thought as men. All Dawkins want is for people to examine the evidence for their beliefs and abandon them if they are shown to be wrong. The dowsing part of the programme was particularly interesting, as it showed people's tendency to cling to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Is that what you describe so patronisingly as "feminine"?

I'm regretting writing this, as I suspect your utterly vapid comment was a deliberate effort to get a rise out of someone. How shameful that it was me who took the bait. If you have criticisms, make criticisms, don't waffle on meaninglessly about "support networks" and "orthodoxy".

Tom Chivers, Oxford,

Belief and superstition are not confined to the human species. Other animals do it too. Its a way of trying to make sense of the world and gain (an illusion of) control. Belief or at least the capacity for it therefore evolved well before we (humans) did. It could indeed confer an evolutionary advantage - eg. children believe what their parents tell them and this may help them to avoid danger.

To answer Mr Featherstone. Rational, rigorous science is in its infancy and so, obviously, hasn't had any time at all to be coded into the human genome. But just as obviously science confers a survival advantage on us all not just the people who can "do it".

Just because we are genetically programmed to believe (emotionally) doesn't mean we have to do it. We can think rationally too, it's just that little bit harder. Finally, Einstein said: "Held up to reality all our science is both clumsy and childlike but it is the most precious thing we have."

D Williams, Rotherham, South Yorks

Er, logical fallacy there M.d. Shorthouse. If I insist that there are pixies and leprechauns in my kitchen and elves and goblins dancing in the garden and if I wish this to be believed by others, it's not up to anyone else to disprove their existence, but up to me to provide real, verifiable objective evidence of them rather than expecting people to accept it's true on my word alone. In the same way, it's up to religious and mystical believers to provide real, verifiable objective proof of the existence of their deities and powers if they wish others to believe them, rather than up to the non-believer or sceptic to disprove their existence.

Rose , Hawalli, Kuwait

I understand that, using brain imaging techniques, certain ares have been found to be associated with religious feelings (and to be more developed in monks, for example). There is therefore probably a natural human ability to experience a spiritual dimension in life. For all of us there is both the external physical world and the inner world we inhabit when we close our eyes. The significance we attach to our feelings, intuition, dreams, and so on, is our own individual choice, and we naturally adopt a mind-set with which we are most comfortable. Having had such success with the understanding of the physical world, I would now like to see Science studying this "inner" world as well. This is what really motivates people anyway - either for good or for ill. As a scientist myself, I think Dawkins does Science a disservice by ignoring the reality of the perception of an inner world and by denouncing any actions based upon that experience with the simple word "irrational".

Dr Graham Wilson, Cardigan, West Wales

Does the return of Luddism in the last 20 years or so, as exemplified by these sharmans/charlatans, wi-fi mania, big green and so many others, demonstrate that we are sinking rapidly into a new Dark Age?

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece

Sir,

"I am a scientist. Dawkins is a know-it-all, who has no understanding of the epistemology called science. Guess
what? Science is just a set of consistent observations, If you think its a philosophy or a substitute for religion, you're wrong.
Don Robison, riverside, CA/USA"

Well said.

The philosopher Karl Popper examined scientific empiricism, and proposed the theory of Critical Rationalism with the concept of falsifiability as the mark of "true" science.

SC, London , United Kingdom

Until science answers the question "Why are we here?" how can it ever replace religion (or mysticism), which answers this question clearly and sometimes quite elegantly.

Trouble is, if the answer is that we are not here due to a plan or for a purpose, then the ego's that have developed as part of natural selection to ensure our survival may never allow the majority of us to believe that we are not 'special' or 'chosen'.

Science is clearly the only truth, but until it can provide and prove the answers to the big questions a million other 'truths' will always exist. One day who knows?

Jonathan, London,

Clairvoyants, priests, bishops, mullahs, mediums, whatever. They are only in it for the money and the easy living.

They have discovered or developed a talent which will allow them to live without getting their hands dirty or having to sweat.

Best of luck

Bill, Watford,

I don't believe Science and Religion should really be mixed too much. Sounds like a bit of a cop out, but they are looking for different things when you get down to it, Science seeks to discover how something happens, while Religion is far more bothered with why something happens.

While I believe Richard Dawkins to be generally right, I also believe the guy who reads the football reults to be right, it is more often than not stating the obvious. I would class myself as pretty much agnostic, however I don't see any reason to really disagree with Religion, yes people can become idiots by following Religion, but similarly it can happen with Science.

As for the charlatans involved with all the new age stuff, been around for centuries, will be around for a lot longer, but usually interesting to see another take on it

Bill, Birmingham,

I'll try and be straight forward about this Mr. Dawkins in case you ever happen to read this. I am not as in love with science as you appear to be. I do find it fascinating and some of it quite beautiful, but i feel there is even more beauty in some of the New Age beliefs. I would really like to see you Mr. Dawkins really atempt to understand some of the New Age beliefs from within. I wish you would expose yourself to their mystery and beauty.

I do not think you are talking much of a risk by taking on the dowsers of the world. I would much rather have seen a tv programme where instead of testing weak ideas, you exposed yourself and tried to open yourself to the more powerful ones out there. For example the idea that Intuition or "divine guidance" is a more appropriate guide than rationalism, scientific skepticism, or the scientific method; a guide to living your life Mr. Dawkins. Science is a blunt tool, as much as it can be sharp.

Graham Bennett, oslo, Norway

How do you stop a rumbling belly whilst doing nothing all day while the rest of the tribe run around chasing animals with pointed sticks? Easy, read the future from the entrails of the animals. If you can paint your face and wear a few feathers all the better. This seems to have been a good survival strategy as these jokers are still around today! I think Richard Dawkins is right but is up against one of the basic laws of the tribe i.e. there's one born every minute.

mike mines, London, UK

Rob, Croydon - "Scientific means separated: Dawkins is actually raging against the feminine principle - connection: ..."

As much as I like your inane drivel I have to take exception with your definition of 'Scientific'. Words along the lines of "Scientific means conforming with the principles or methods used in science, i.e. the logical and structured analysis of something to understand it better." would be more accurate.

So yes it is the 21st century and do now have 'science' which means that we look objectively at nonsense like: Talking to the dead, fortune telling, medical superstitions and individual's special powers; we then analyse them and see there is absolutely no evidence of any of them having any validity whatsoever.

To believe otherwise is wishful thinking at best but more likely harmful self-delusion.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Dawkins smawkins. I'll settle for a snippet of old house wives and superstitious mumbo jumbo any day. Where would science be today if there had never been people who wanted to make gold from cow dung? The oldest civilisations - most of which lasted longerv than our paltry self centred destructive western one - all place their beliefs in local gods and witch doctors. The answer may well be 42 and if it isn't I say we find out why not?

Toby, London,

As an athiest with a degree in a scientific discipline I don't like Richard Dawkins that much based on what I have seen of him on TV. He puts his points far too aggressively and his overall demeanor is not one that will produce a real questioning from the person he is interviewing, more like hosility. However, I will applaud him for his efforts.

His books, web page etc are excellent. He is much better explaining with the written word than verbally. The more the public around the world are exposed to people like him such as James Randi, the rational response squad (even Penn and Teller!) the more they will come to question their beliefs and those that teach them.

Showing astrologers, psychics, dowsers, homoeopaths as charlatans is like shooting fish in a barrel but great entertainment!

Russ, Reading, UK

Dawkins in nothing more than exclusively masculine, being a primary exponment of the separation principle: of course most of us would fail when separated from our invisible support network.

Scientific means separated: Dawkins is actually raging against the feminine principle - connection: much 'new age' therapy is conducted in relationship, with the client actively participating for maximum benefit.

This is what Dawkins cannot stand - sharing he kudos: he wants heroic intervention where the hero takes all the glory.

How utterly orthodox, conventional and boring. Solmeone remind him it's the 21st century.

Rob, Croydon, uk

I'd love to see the clip that they had to cut out "for legal reasons" on U-Tube. Forget the lawyers, go for it! Let them sue you. I'm sure a judge and jury will find publication in the public interest and therefore justified.

Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK

"Taking on religion is an easy fight. For religion requires faith and faith cannot be proven, otherwise it's not faith. Even Douglas Adams knew that". (Tom Roberts)

But if it cannot be proven, how on Earth can you know or accept that your "faith" has anything to do with reality? Do you really think that that is a meaningful way of looking at life? If so, you are to be pittied, because you have lost the plot, forever.

Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK

"If Mr Dawkins is so sure of his ground then I would expect he would give astronomical odds against anyone providing proof of immortality". (Patrick John Feehily)

Mr Dawkins doesn't have to do so, because that challenge has already been issued by James Randi, well-known illusionist and hard-core skeptic. Read about his One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge:

"http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html"

The challenge has run for more than ten years. Until now there have been no (serious) takers.

Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK

Dear Reader's,
Last nights show was very interesting,however dawkins is still lacking scientific proof that proves religions and mysticism are false beliefs.
It appears to me that Prof Dawkins is trying to recruit students for scientific studies has numbers have fallen.
Come on professor put religions and mystics out there mind by proving there beliefs are false..Just like you did with the dowsers.
Keep up the good work Prof

M.d.Shorthouse, wednesbury, west midlands

Also in reponse to Mr Featherstone. I imagine Prof. Dawkins response would be something similar to his response to the question of why the tendancy to believe religion has survived. To paraphase him in The God Delusion, it may be a backfiring of another, genuinely useful trait, i.e. that of childhood credulity.

It is indeed very useful to believe at face value your parent's or local shaman's word unquestioningly during childhood since their knowledge/experience is often invaluable - it wouldn't do to go testing their assertion that jumping off a cliff is a Bad Thing.

But it can backfire if carried into adulthood, since the local shaman can also impart stupid things like "sacrificing a goat on the second tuesday after the full moon will bring a full harvest".

The first case is really useful (no dead children at the bottom of the cliff) and the second is only slightly damaging (one less goat to milk) so on balance the trait is useful and survives.

Of course, it's only a guess.

Jordan Neill, Belfast,

The jump from 'some non-scientific beliefs are untrue' to 'all non-scientific beliefs are untrue' is as illogical as the inference from 'some scientific beliefs are untrue' that 'all scientific beliefs are untrue'.

There has to be some meta-concept behind rationality, because rationality cannot prove itself. This meta-concept is faith, whether it is faith in a purely mechanistic Universe or not.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

In response to Mr Featherstone, I think you have misunderstood evolution here. By your argument, the desire to commit murder, or rape say, MUST hold some 'evolutionary advantage.' I think we can all agree they do not!

Daniel Edwards, London,

I agree with Richard Dawkins basic arguments.

However, if peoples gullibility is so harmful, as Dawkins suggests, then why is it that over the course of human evolution it not been selected against.

As it is so prevalant in the human species then it would appear to be an evolutionary advantage i.e. there must be some reason why we are not totally 'slaves to reason' as Dawkins suggests we should be. It seems that a degree of irrationality (call it 'gut feeling') has survived in the human genome

Can Richard Dawkins explain this might be the case?

Paul Featherstone, Lerwick, Shetland

Dawkins makes more sense than the years and years of unsupported drivel i had drilled into my head by RI and the hippy religious and spiritualism's and all that guff.But in th end whatever floats your bot and makes you beleive you are "happy" is what you will defend whether you can prove its truth or not.

We need more Prof Dawkins around because agree or not he sets the cat amongst the pigeons and challenges people to actually think for themselves for a change ,and maybe stops the obsessing over celebrity gossip for an hour or so.He reminds me of Ayn Rand which for me is a big compliment.

M McGregor, Tunbridge Wells, UK

Millennia of different religions slowed down scientific progress and human development. Religious orders controlled knowledge and held power over the ignorant masses, including the ruling classes. Scientific facts were distorted or simply banned so that the nonsensical worldview could be promoted.
Dawkins’ books, however readable, do not reach those whose only source of information is London Lite or Big Brother. Thought provoking programs such as The Enemies of Reason are of paramount importance if we are to teach people to question and evaluate available information. It is shameful that religious zealots are allowed to bully the “politically correct” governments and public into granting rights to “faith schools” which will not only deepen the divide between different religious groups but will promote the belief in supernatural instead of knowledge and science. Those who care about the truth and fairness should insist that if any form of religion is permitted to be thought then an equal amount of time should be devoted to present an opposing point of view.

Ewa Robertson, London, UK

I have read Dawkin's God Delusion and I must say it has made me a happier person and removed the weight of religion off my shoulders.

I think that the reason why people want to believe in all that is spiritual is that it is easy and comforting. Science is built on hard work and understanding; hypotherising, testing proving and refining. With religion, all you need to do is believe. Ignore and positively discourage in trying to find facts.

Well done Richard. Shame you fellow scientists don't have the courage to back you up.

Paul, Birmingham, UK

Ah the "Dawkins Revolution". So New World Order, and he talks like Blair. Dawkins has said that Hitler was Catholic not atheist, and atheism was irrelevant to the evil USSR. He ignores atheist Communist China and Korea. Admittedly, Dawkins is a professor of popular science, not of history but his arguments though articulate are wrong and repetitive. Watch him again on Google.
Admiring Dawkins won't change the world. If you hate religions and old things: your heritage, churches, temples, parents, grandparents etc. you'll have to fight to destroy them or support those who will. Most materialistic, classless, supermarket-goers are not going to fight anyone, and neither is the wealthy Dawkins. He's scared of Islam and feels he can mock Christianity instead. Lenin had a plan. Dawkins is a windbag and ultimately childish and foolish.
Actually I feel a little sorry for those anti-Christian New-Agers who enjoyed “The Root of Evil” only to find themselves now under attack. Who’s next?

Paul, Taichung, Taiwan

Life is what you make of it. If you are looking for it to not be true thats what you will find...

Chris Boman, Fargo, north dakota

It seems to me much of his so-called proofs are simply
selected anecdotes, so unscientific. These are neither proof nor results of serious study, but are one belief system pitted against another. And yes he does ignore history where
convenient; all ancient chemists were alchemists. All
ncient astronomers were astrologers. The thing he proposes as evidential warrants the elimination of the personal and
the ethic of responsibility. Even so this very thing is reentering science, tested and verified by way of advanced physics.
And there are numerous double blind tests on homeopathy.
But he's selective. If he can't accept it, it must be false. Reminds
me of the person who proposed closing the US Patent Office
at the end of the nineteenth century. Of course there is a problem with all religion, revealed truth is not tested science.
On the same note the theory of evolution as it stands
hasn't been undeniably proven. What the evidence does
point toward neither wants to see.

E Baranosky, Toronto, Canada

Richard Dawkins' greatest service to society is that he goads sanctimonious self-styled intellectuals like Roger Pearse into revealing themselves. "Those of us who actually love science...." What rank pomposity!

adrian leitch, Lira, Uganda

Dawkins is correct of course, but educatioon is the only possible answer...if it tried harder to help children to understand the difference between fact and fantasy, what is real and what is imagined, while they are still young.
Along side this article on the web is an advert for 'active pro collegen, formulated with SPF 15', which refers to 'collagen biosperes' and 'bio assimilated molecules' and so on. Fact or fiction?
Someone mentioned advertising earler, and it is playing a role certainly. i don't believe the claims made for face creams and other beauty products and more than I believe in fairies or reiki 'healing' or gods. But obviously many people are not so sure. Education, education, education.

Libby Monk, Worthing, UK

What is science? I think science is really god objectively understanding itself. Because for most spiritualists and mystics, everything IS god. Ultimately all are unified, all are one.

I mean, what do physicists long for? A Unified Theory. But there is a vital component to understanding removed from modern science. That is Subjective experiences.

There is no Hard Evidence that I was flying in a lucid dream last night. There is no Hard Proof of the sesations and states of conciousness I experience during meditation.

I do not condone manipulating people or purporting subjective experiences as objective proof of anything, as in the case with some of the phychics or charlatans.

But exploring the inner cosmos is far from irrational. And exploring the outter cosmos is far from irrational as well. What is irrational is pretending that things are continually separated.

We are all discovering the Unified therory, and it will be experienced both objectively and subjectively.

Sterling, Goleta, CA

Actually I would consider Dawkins to be more an anti-theist than an atheist. I define anti-theism as the position which states that God probably doesn't exist, but if he does, I don't like him.

He's clearly on a "crusade" for his position and has now taken on the New Agers. He may run into some trouble here, since there does appear to be a fair amount of empirical data for at least some paranormal beliefs. The problem is that these effects, such as clairvoyance, though manifesting at greater than chance for any given group of "average" subjects, seem to manifest at more culturally significant levels only for select individuals or for those trained in "remote viewing," and then not always consistently.

The real problem with "proving" such beliefs is that, unlike most conventional science, the theoretical basis for such occurrences has yet to be defined in a fully comprehensible and universally acceptable fashion. Teleological causality would be just one example of such ideas.

John P. Shea, Houston, USA

I don't think that teaching children that many of their friends and family members are going to be tortured in Hell for eternity because they don't have the right kind of religious beliefs has anything to do with being "excellent to each other." When I was a Christian, I was constantly terrified by the idea that many of those I loved would suffer this fate, delivered to them by my supposedly "loving God." As you read through the Bible, you find that this God of love exhorts slaves to faithfully obey their masters, orders the murder of women and children, and punishes sons and daughters for the "sins" of their parents. Thankfully, there is not a shred of good evidence to believe in any of that retched book. But the idea that Christianity, or any of the other major religions, are about teaching brotherhood and peace is ridiculous. Most religions are transparently about control and indoctrination.

Fredrick Marsden, Jupiter, Florida

A great man. Keep going Richard!

AndyC, Rowlands Castle,

If Mr Dawkins is so sure of his ground then I would expect he would give astronomical odds against anyone providing proof of immortality.
This would reinforce his confidence in his beliefs and who knows I just might take him up on a wager.
Patrick, (senior)

patrck john feehily, paddock wood, england

I am a scientist. Dawkins is a know-it-all, who has no understanding of the epistemology called science. Guess
what? Science is just a set of consistent observations, If you think its a philiosophy or a substitute for religion, you're wrong.

Don Robison, riverside, CA/USA

Is the Dawkins who is "scared of Islam" and the same Dawkins who went into the Islamic temple in Jerusalem (in The Root Of All Evil) and told them their religion was nonsense? If I were Dawkins I'd be mighty peeved at someone telling me I "pick on Christianity instead" after I had gone to such lengths to demonstrate I wasn't!

Carlton B Morgan , Newport, Gwent

dawkins at it again

ace, munster, on

Dawkins mentions astronomy's elegance in fact but fails to mention that Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and practically every other scientist astronaut who ventured into space or visited the moon either was religious or became so after their expeditions.

These were men who were scientists in the every sense, and far stricter about facts than any best selling popular science author is allowed, for their errors allow are fatal.

Taking on religion is an easy fight. For religion requires faith and faith cannot be proven, otherwise it's not faith. Even Douglas Adams knew that.

Tom Roberts, Tokyo, Japan

Good on you Richard.

Robert Bennett, Ennis,

There are too many things that cant be validated. We havent even come up with the cause of gravity. Every day there are new things discovered. A lack of eveidence does not prove anything.
I think there ARE many, many, many people in the world, who do prey on peoples need for belief. I wouldnt dispute that for one second, but, to say my belief in anything spiritual is wrong, well thats as bad as missonaries coming to my front door and telling me that im going to hell.
Harry Houdini already went on a witch-hunt and he did a great job. He went EVERYWHERE to debunk so called psychics and spiritualists. People listened, and many places made it illegal, but it continued on, and is now more popular than ever.
If people want something to believe in, I dont see the harm. All of these beliefs-all of them- are about being excellent to each other. We miss it time and time again.

Jess, Santa Monica, CA

Dawkins seems to be setting his sights rather low. What does he think about the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, which is set to cost mankind billions without any scientific proof of its validity?

Frank Adey, Wolverhampton, UK

Ah the "Dawkins Revolution". So New World Order, and he talks like Blair. Dawkins has said that Hitler was Catholic not atheist, and atheism was irrelevant to the evil USSR. He ignores atheist Communist China and Korea. Admittedly, Dawkins is a professor of popular science, not of history but his arguments though articulate are wrong and repetitive. Watch him again on internet video.
Admiring Dawkins won't change the world. If you hate religions and old things: your heritage, churches, temples, parents, grandparents etc. you'll have to fight to destroy them or support those who will. Most materialistic, classless, supermarket-goers are not going to fight anyone, and neither is the wealthy Dawkins. He's scared of Islam and feels he can mock Christianity instead. Lenin had a plan. Dawkins is a windbag and ultimately childish and foolish.
I feel a little sorry for those anti-Christian New-Agers who enjoyed “The Root of Evil” only to find themselves now under attack. Who’s next?

Paul, Taichung, Taiwan

Keep it up Prof Dawkins.Keep at em.hammer it home! I am waiting for educated people and scientists who were brought up in the Islamic faith to announce they are now doubters/atheists/agnostics, then we know we are making progress.As yet no word from them. I am sure they exist. I am already doing my bit with jehovahs witness when they have to cheek to visit my home {Uninvited}, now expressing my opinions quite forcibly on their beliefs and christian beliefs in general,In Future I will be taking into consideration all Politicians and Businesses I have dealing with if they show any outward attempts at being christian, Moslem and for that matter any faith that follow fairy stories,The afterlife, superstitions,supernatural "Pie in the sky" beliefs, most of which have been discredited in recent years.

Ray Dickinson, Perth, western Australia

If it is considered how many people have a false worldview because of this believes and the flight from reason it implies, then it is long overdue to scrutinize these claims and reveal it for the scams it is, even if it might be that they first have to delude themselves before they delude all others. The false hope it gives to those whose in need is a shame and hearbreaking if it is considered how many of this is consumed out of pure desperation.

Thanks.

wouter, Pretoria, South Africa

The strange thing is that this sort of irrationality is widespread amongst Asians so it´s doubtful that a scientific education will change much. I have known Indian scientists who swear by astrology, and others who would only marry people born on certain days and certain times. The Chinese, even after decades of dialectical materialism, are notoriously superstitious about everything from numbers and colours to cleaning the house.
It would be extremely interesting to see Dawkins confront Asian scientists on the issue.

Francis Tuttle, Madrid,

I used to think along the lines of Dawkins. But does a good come out of dispelling people's beliefs, if those beliefs (however false) brought hope or belief where there was none before? Being human is about more than mere science, I'm beginning to believe as I grow older.

Steve Mead, Dunstable, Beds

Dawkins is great, I've read a couple of his books.

I wish we could see his programs here in Canada.

Keith Terrence, Winnipeg, Canada

I wonder when Dawkins will realise that the urge to find answers outside of the physical senses is so all-pervading in every time and culture that there must be a biological basis for it.

On the contrary, the human mind seems geared towards trying to explore other levels of existence. The fact that religions have largely fallen into decay, thanks to the human tendency to resist giving up power does not detract from the significant fact that all the major religionsbegan from individuals born in a space of perhaps one thousand years--extremely short in terms of evolution and indicates some biological component.

It may be that people today only have a few crumbs of spiritual hope available to them, but a very real hunger prompts their ongoing search. It is as if Dawkins wonders why a starving man accepts crumbs. Not content with mocking, he proceeds to step on the man's hands, perhaps for his own good.

Iain Carstairs, Bedford, Bedfordshire

I'm in total agreement with just about everything everything Richard Dawkins says or writes and my immediate recaction tends to be, "I couldn't have put it better myself".

My only tiny reservation is that Prof Dawkins does tend to be rather intolerantly aggressive about what actually amounts to harmless fun in some of the practices he criticises, when even the followers of such practices don't run their lives by them.

On the whole though, more power to you Richard!

Brian Freeman, London,

Benjamin Alvares writes...."It pains me so much that so much time and energy is wasted on illogical religious beliefs instead of enjoying the gift of life." Benjamin... a gift requires a Giver. From whom did you receive the gift?

Dan Fennell, Jakarta, Indonesia

Protestant worshipers here in the States continue to recognize that a substantial number of their very own congregation are ignorant and recalcitrant to a degree that prevents any hope of redemption. Thus, yet another denomination is born. We have about 2000 One True Faiths now, and the number is growing rapidly. Each new denomination is a fresh expression of arrogance.

But of course the real venom is reserved for those of radically different traditions. If only the faithful could recognize that their own sacred text is as transparently human in origin as the sacred texts of foreign faiths they delight in mocking.

The vast majority of those I've known who believe the Bible to be literal truth- a personal letter to them from God- have never actually bothered to read it. And I believe that speaks to the main factor responsible for the decline in interest and study of science: The faithful can deem themselves instantly enlightened by God. The sciences must actually be read.

Paul Woods, Virginia Beach , Virginia

I'm with Richard all the way, and I totally agree about all the belief superstition and how I believe it harms the world today.
Look at Planet Earth in all its glory and believe in that, not utter nonsense spouted by religions whose prime motive is control and subservience.
Religions are scared by understanding!

Dave Ainsworth, Fotan, Hong Kong

"Reason" has never been the water in which humans voluntarily swim. Mysticism, magic and Guardian Spirits have always seemed more exciting to us. These things are easier on the brain.

To understand the complex set of circumstances that cause lightning to streak across a dark and storm-stirred sky is far more difficult than to say that some "Thing" is angry . .or bowling.

The former is more satisfying and awe-inspiring than the latter, but we do like our fast-brain-food, don't we?

Marc Goforth, St. Catharines, Canada

Ah the "Dawkins Revolution". So New World Order, and he talks like Blair. Dawkins has said that Hitler was Catholic not atheist, and atheism was irrelevant to the evil USSR. He ignores atheist Communist China and Korea. Admittedly, Dawkins is a professor of popular science not of history but his arguments though articulate are wrong and repetitive. Watch him again on Google. Admiring Dawkins won't change the world. If you hate religions and old things: your heritage, churches, temples, parents, grandparents etc. you'll have to fight to destroy them or support those who will. Most materialistic, classless, supermarket-goers are not going to fight anyone, and neither is the wealthy Dawkins. He's scared of Islam and feels he can mock Christianity instead. Lenin had a plan. Dawkins is a windbag and ultimately childish and foolish. Actually I feel a little sorry for those anti-Christian New-Agers who enjoyed “The Root of Evil” only to find themselves now under attack. Who’s next?

Paul, Taichung, Taiwan

He's the most courageous man in the UK. Absolute hero.

J., Richmond, UK

I wish more well educated people would have the courage of Richard Dawkins and speak out against the nonsense of religion and the charlatans who practice all the other alternative unscientific nonsense

Ronnie Scott, Glasgow, Scotland

Ditto!

John Rule, Croydon, Surrey

We seem to be living a time when reason is in regression and doublethink is perfectly acceptable. I think it is something to do with the power of advertising combined with the chilling effect of political correctness.
The media have never been so powerful and seem to be able to impose a set of views, one of which is "my truth is just as good as your truth". Contradictions are not a problem!
For me, Professor Dawkins is a hero, with the courage to say the truth.

Simon, Hong Kong, China

Dr Dawkins has made rather a career of trying to convince people to abandon Christianity and conform blindly to the societal values of the time in which he happens to live. Entertainingly he calls this being "rational", presumably because he's not too clear on how to use a dictionary.

But it seems ungracious of him to complain that the result is absurdly irrational. Conformity is like that. What else did he think he was evangelising for?

Most of us can find reasons to despise what we prefer not to believe; everyone with a hint of self-scepticism knows that. Those of us who actually love science would prefer that Dr. D. not prostitute it in the name of his own hatreds, justified or not.

It is, after all, possible that Science is not a god, and that real scientists do worship God in their off-hours.

It is also possible that conformity to the values of a society like our own is strictly for the unreflective.

Roger Pearse, Ipswich, Suffolk

Don't feel bad. It's even worst in the USA where most kids are automatically indoctrinated into a religion at home,and in the community. So they grow up robotically religious,secure in their belief in the one true God. After which,there's no reasoning with them. There ought to be a law against it.
Instead ,even the Brits are opening more and more "faith schools",(which is really a contradiction in terms.)
The future's looking grim and complicated.

Colin Nicholas, Vernon BC, Canada

"Dawkins is aware that some people see him as a kill-joy"

What "joy" is there is believing ludicrous things? Such solace is pitiful, and somewhat pathetic. When there is so much wonder and awe to be derived from "what is", is it any wonder that Dawkins is riled by people's relative ignorance of it?

This may sound quite militaristic, but the time has come for us, as a species, to evolve one step further, and challenge these ludicrous belief systems wherever they are found. A raising of consciousness is needed, and out-dated notions of political correctness will only afford these superstitions the chance to thrive. The credulous dispostion of many caught in a kind of existential despair may be understandable, but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. Indeed, it is only through education that we will get anywhere. Dawkins, for one, has contributed to this much-needed "consciousness raising" exercise, and for this I salute him.

Chrstopher Eastwood, Belfast, Northern Ireland

I do wish there were many more persons as outspoken as Richard Dawkins. It pains me so much that so much time and energy is wasted on illogical religious beliefs instead of enjoying the gift of life. Most religions thrive on the promise of a better afterlife, but, to date, I have yet to come across any proof of the same. Guys like Richard Dawkins do bring an element of sanity in this generally illogical human race.

benjamin alvares, Mumbai, India

Dawkins rocks and that's all there is to it.

Alexandra Colquhoun, London,