I received an interesting letter recently about the TV programme I made with Richard Dawkins. I think it would make an interesting topic for debate. What are your views: Is Richard dawkings taking an ballanced view or is he blided by his own science?

You can see a clip of the programme here:

http://www.psychictv.co.uk/richard-dawkins-debate.html


A BIASED VIEWPOINT?
Richard Dawkins edits TV to suit his own agenda?

A number of Spiritualists were angry at the fact that at the event Richard Dawkins conveniently ignored important proofs of life after death. A few wrote to Channel 4 to complain. One angry spiritualist who did this wrote to me to say:

"You came to me first, and this was the first time I had seen you. When we have has readings we only ever answer yes and no during the reading and this time was no different.

"You started off with saying that you had a female, and that she was having trouble speaking, she had a lispy voice, and you could barely hear her, and you felt it was my mother, my mother had her throat cut twice in operations and did have a lispy voice, and she did have trouble projecting her voice.

"You then became confused because you said she was doing a stirring movement and you said you did not understand as she was saying over and over 'the treacle's mine', 'the treacle's mine,' this was an outstanding amazing statement as the area which I lived all through childhood was fondly known as the treacle mines.

"You gave many other factually correct details, but the most amazing of all was that you said my mother came out of her door and saw two Morris Minors, she said they were black, I said no - (They had black roofs and the man restored them but they were gray), you then mentioned the neighbours name, which was correct, later my husband reminded me that although the Morris's were originally gray he had the doors and wings replaced with and they were indeed black.

"The whole reading was accurate and could not be interpreted to be made to fit or desperately misunderstood as Richard dawkins implies to those who seek spiritualists, and we were interviewed by him after where we told him your reading was 100% accurate and even about the Morris minors changing colour.

"How can Mr Dawkins whome should be, as a man of science open to things that may not be able to be understood because we cannot physically prove these things blatantly deny that he found any proof or evidence that evening?There have been many examples in the past and present of things that may not have a concrete basis to provide evidence of proof such as 'string theories, and black holes' - did eminent theologians and scientists just ignore these things because of the inability to give concrete proof? Or were they just better men than he?

"To summarise what i found the saddest of all was that on the programme he said that he found no evidence of proof of mediumship or s?ance as he referred to it, and yet in my interview with him he clearly was given acknowledgement of evidence that was true, yet he chose not to show any of this on the programme, and was selective, perhaps because it did not fit with the whole ethos of his programme. Surely such a professional should have had the integrity and honesty when making such a programme to show all sides and not just make the evidence fir for the glory of a television programme!

"I want to thank you once again for your outstanding reading and the evidence that you provided."

Suzie D. - Camberley

Well I'm not going to knock the guy for being so disbelieving, ... I not only got a pile of readings that had me intrigued coz the info was right, I could see and hear spirits yapping myself and just couldn't accept it was what it was for a long time, ... even if people took the info I would just scratch my head and wonder if they were just 'body snatchers' agreeing with me ...lol, ...but I think not being able to accept it is a different matter (and yes, I'd agree it may be about being intellectually/spiritually lopsided in the face of evidence) to choosing to edit supportive evidence out of a program in attempt to publicly paint a perception of someone as a cold reader.

If certain distinct things are said in a reading, if someone confirms they are accurate, ... then fine still disbelieve it, but why not show it and let the viewer decide what to make of it themselves? Is it coz it would be a little hard to explain away specifics as cold readings and might leave them lost for an alternative explanation? Is it coz it might in fact support an opposing view point? Is it coz they believe so strongly mediums are preying on people they are going to do their utmost to save people from them by portraying them as dodgy by any means neccessary? Hmm?

Definately an agenda there.

Nat xxx

i watched the programme - and i thought that you , craig, came across very well - i still ( a few months after the programme was aired ) remember the quiet yet compelling way you admitted your beliefs - i felt this was more of a proof than any amount of wonderful honest readings - to me they are the butter to the bread of our beliefs.

it doesn't matter how many readings we give - or how perfect they are - it is our simple belief in spirit that dominates the readings - if we didn't believe in spirit then it would effect the readings ( if we gave any !) .

the people who come to us for readings want so much to know that their loved ones are safe and cared for - and it is our ability to calm their fears that is papramount , it matters not a jot if they share our beiefs or if in the course of our demonstrations we can we can sway their beliefs to ours. what to me is the most important part of my ability is the part which can alleviate their natural fears - and promote the love which all of relatives and friends find themselves eventually.

i feel that Mr Dawkins as a scientist has every right to his disbeief - but when confronted with experiences which run contrary to those beliefs - should not dismiss them out of hand - his attitude , to me , smacks of very bad research capabilities. if one is conducting an experiment - one should always consider the negative or "false" responses - as they may very well indicate a mis-directed or even wrong base line of experimentation.
this being said - where any form of media is involved - there are many factors to consider - Mr Dawkins may not have been in charge of the final edit - he may have only wanted to promote his particular agenda - or it may even have been more for entertainment than factual discourse.

Over the years i have had many discussions and even arguments about life after death and continuation of the spirit - and i always try to end all rows with this single comment - how i would love to pass it on to Mr Dawkins !

in the end it boils down to I believe in life after death and the god figure - and you dont .................. when we die - one of us will be prooved right - and whne i am prooved right - i shall pop by and say i told you so !

love n light
pam

Quote:

in the end it boils down to I believe in life after death and the god figure - and you dont

Actually enna this is the whole point where Dawkins falls over. He rages about the fact that people put their beliefs first and science second. But I think Dawkins does exactly the same to us. His beliefs about science do not allow him to form a true judgement. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

As I have pointed out before I like Dawkins the man but he and the other rationalists seem to be employing here what maybe we could call COLD SCIENCE!

Craig

I didn't see the programme unfortunately and I feel it is a great shame that your comments were edited out. I am wondering if there has ever been any unbiased yet scientificly based research into mediumship?

I find it hard to believe that some people can be so closed minded and have so little faith. Why does something have to be scientifically proved before it can be believed?

Science has only evolved as far as man. Every year it evolves that bit further and we get to prove that much more. Scientists were convinced that the atom was the tiniest particle not so long ago and if you suggested anything else to them they would have laughed?.. until science evolved and the atom was split. If some of the things that we know now as scientific fact had been suggested just 20-30 years ago then the scientists then would have laughed and disregarded it.

Maybe one day Science will evolve enough to prove Spirits are real and that there is life after death? Until then I have my faith.

Richard Dawkins as a scientist he will look at all sides of the equation and finally reach a conclusion. Scientific tests are controlled under strict conditions, double blind tests etc are done to test hypothesis. The very fact that someone as intelligent as Dawkins with his incredible knowledge of biology does not believe in either God or in Spiritualism as there is no evidence for either should lead most people to at least consider his thinking.

Faith is faith, and is based on what exactly? It's gerneally based on a belief system that you have been brought up to believe in - most people in the UK believe in the Christianity simply because they have been born here. This doesn't make it real or better than Hinduism which they don't belive in because they weren't raised in India. Faith is basically a belief in something which cannot be proved - yet science constantly tests it's theories against what it knows and challenges itself to disprove theories. This has increased our knowledge manyfold in the twentieth and 21st Centuries.

If science did not do this then we would still be living with the diseases of the past, smallpox, measles etc Not only which science has given us the vastly increased life expectancy that we all have, the vastly reduced infant mortality rate. Ask yourself which you should place your real faith in....

One day science might evolve and be able to prove that spirits/the afterlife exist - until then it would be great to get a least a smidgen of hard evidence to help the spiritualists case along. For example there is a very easy technique called the Cube, which most people can learn and complete. The questions that are asked - size of cube, ladder, flowers and a horse (sounds strange doesn't it) are asked to an idividual and the asnwers are then interperted in terms of ego, how they view themselves, their ambition, their friends, and their ideal partner. Now this is something that I have done, without difficulty and the responses that I get are fantastic - it's simply a very easy piece of cold reading - I'm as psychic as my toothbrush, but people rate what I have said as generally 9/10. It's an interesting thing to show people (in the right circumsatances) that I've never met before.

There is a whole raft of books on the subject of faith itself and most of which make fascinating reading. Teh God Delusion - Richard Dawkins, End of Faith - Sam Harris, Why God is not Great - Christopher Hitchens, and for balance the very excellent book by Dinnesh D'Souza - What's so great about Christianity - which makes some excellent points about why Dawkins isn't right in everything he says. My advice is to read them and make up your own mind.

We all know that TVis edited in certain ways to achieve certain results. Part of the problem that spiritualists have is confronted with a well thought out and scientific based show, such as Dawkins has produced, the types of shows which illustrates exactly how spiritualists work revolve around the likes of Colin Fry and Derek Accorah. Now the question really needs to be asked is who has the greatest amount of credibilty? Personally I'd go for the Oxford professor every time.

On the subject of whether any scientific test have been done on Pyschics the answer is yes. The results can be read in the book 'Pyschology of the Psychic' This book is about Uri Geller.

Just some food for thought

Mark

markpearce wrote:

Richard Dawkins as a scientist he will look at all sides of the equation and finally reach a conclusion. ..... The very fact that someone as intelligent as Dawkins with his incredible knowledge of biology does not believe in either God or in Spiritualism as there is no evidence for either should lead most people to at least consider his thinking.

Don't disagree with most of your post, ... and no problem with people considering his thinking, just what a shame that when a serious scientist comes along and wants to do a program he comes at it from his own predetermined angle and does not really give anyone anything to consider when he edits out anything lending weight to the other side of the equation. If he feels so strongly in his view being the correct one, then why edit Craig getting direct hit's out?, ... what would have been better to support his stance imo, would have been him taking those direct hits and using them as examples to explain why he was able to cut them down rather than just not allowing the public to realize that they even happened.

imo

Nat xxx

For another book about the testing of mediums please refer to 'The truth about Medium' - written by Gary Schwartz from Arizona Uni about the testing of Allison Dubois. Cant comment more about it at this stage as it is still in shrinky dink wrap waiting to be read. 'Is there an afterlife' by Proffessor David Fontana is also one well worth people getting their hands on.