whitelinen

Dawkins maybe a scientist but he is also an author so he makes big statements in order to be the subject of TV programmes and in order to publicise his books etc.

Having just read an interesting Spectator article quoting Dawkins
saying ¨A serious case could be made for a deisitic God.........¨

Apparently John Lennox who is both a scientist and a Christian is more interesting than Dawkins.

bricwood

when I was a kid and people and were dowsing for water and cables it was always said people with a touch of arthritis did best, we had a foreman called John Bookey who was mustard at dowsing I always assumed it was to do with crossing the line where the pipe was , as for talking to the dead its nonsense my grand mother worked for arthur conan doyle who was going to send messages from the other side after death and obviously failed ,my gran who did dabble in spiritualism said the same thing, we are still waiting and she died in 1953, but flying saucers that's something else!

cricketman

He may be more interesting, but that doesnt make him right.

The theory of evolution is a theory that is as correct as the theory that the world is round, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

What made you believe in those two indisputable facts?

In a way I dispair of Dawkins publicising himself to the masses, his work is so much better and important than that, but in a way he believes he should communicate to everyone not just the elite, but in doing so he becomes misunderstood because the people he is talking to are too ignorant to understand

whitelinen

Proof positive that he is just in it for the money and will say anything to publicise his books.

Dick Dasterdly

Bit of a harsh statement.
Maybe on the one hand he would like ppl to have a better understanding of his beliefs and what he's all about, whilst on the other hand maybe those helping or controlling his affairs might see it as a lucrative gravy train.
Who knows ?

Sally Redux

The Vatican is quite wealthy, too.

bil

Could you please demonstrate precisely how that is proof? Say anything? So far he has only said what he has put into his books, so isn't that kind of like integrity?

Better get Biggus Dickus to say it, 'cos that's the gold standard round here.

You know, I truly despair. On here we have a man with a flying bed (he's presumably off to see Ranji, who will make him a millionaire providing he can get over that teeny weeny little hurdle called proof, a dowser who proclaims his word as proof of anything he says, and a woman who declares there is a link between political leadership and gullibility.

Who knows? Maybe the fact that they have voted for the tories is proof positive of generalised gullibility in the population.

So it's kind of like a bizzare version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks vs the scientific elite who can only rustle up a few useless theories.

It makes you want to weep for poor old Einstein, doesn't it. I bet he wishes he had spent his time dowsing for angels instead of being a nobody with just a lousy theory of relativity to his name.....

Dick Dasterdly

Hmm, Bad Hair day Bil, or some Wicked Tory conspiracy ?

I fear if Matt ever returns, he could well find himself relegated to the subs bench.

bil

Sorry, couldn't resist the Biggus Dickus tag after the 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' remark.

I know exactly how Dawkins feels. Here we are after a fantastic flowering of scientific knowledge that has opened up the whole universe to us for study, and all we get are complaints that some of the theories didn't pan out, and how come we don't know everything about everything right now.

Be honest, didn't that comment from Bedknob strike you as a tad silly? His remark that science hadn't manage to stop earthquakes really amazed me.

That's sillier than telling an ant to stop a Centurian tank from rolling over its nest.

Beyond even that, look at it like this.

What have two thousand years of christianity done for us? Well, apart from some pretty artwork and a book of dubious provenance, we have had the Inquisition and the joys of burning people alive when they dare to disagree with your particular flavour of Sky Pixie. We were allowed to speculate on how many angels could dance on a pin head, but not permitted to think that the earth went round the sun.

Now let's look at science. In four hundred years, we went from Isaac Newton to placing a man on the moon. Our scientific knowledge exploded out from under the church which had sought to stifle all knowledge that didn't support its position of power.

We went from blind, unchallenging faith and belief in mystical mumbo jumbo to demanding hard facts that could be held up to public scrutiny, and scientists whose every word was available to be challenged, and whose every theory had to be challenged and if necessary reforged over and over again until all the impurities were beaten out of it.

So what happens now? A huge tranche of the population now seeks to go unquestioning into beliefs about crystals, angels and every kind of bullsh*t known to man, without ever taking a good hard look at what they are required to believe.

No claim is too ridiculous for these people, no belief too wacky. Never mind angels and pins, we'll have UFOs, flying beds, and angels to tuck us into bed at night.

jimenato

Personal experience is not a good way to establish the validity of a claim or theory.

So there is no such thing as a dowser then - we can all do it, or maybe even the stick would move on it's own - held in some kind of frame maybe?

bil

Easy to test, just run a trolley over a flat surface and see whethet the twigs move. If not, then there is no force that acts external to the grip. That would back up the idea that if there is something acting, it acts on the nervous system, if at all.

Dawkins said. "Never do anything just because of the three following reasons.

1. We've always done it that way.
2. The Priest says to do it this way.
3. This way feels right."

Always, but always apply critical reasoning, and remember this.

That which you most want to be true, you must question the hardest.

whitelinen

How patronising..............

1. Anyone with half a brain looks for quicker, more efficient ways of doing something

2&3 sound creepy/pervy to me.

Dick Dasterdly

I would imagine that anyone who spoke of walking on the moon or flying around the globe in 600 seater aircraft would have been looked on as a complete nutter or a case for the funny farm two hundred years ago.
Best not to consider anything as totally impossible, just because of lack of personal experience,lack of present day theory or because it seems far too wacky at first sight.
Horizontal thinking is the name of the game, rather than a blinkered one track appoach to life's and the universe's great mysteries.
EMF and it's effects is just one of those things that is not yet fully understood despite huge amounts of scientific research.
Another aspect not mentioned here is the homing instinct of pigeons and the ability of migrating birds to travel many thousands of miles to an exact location.
This is generally believed to be due to the interaction between traces of magnetite in their brains and the EMF, but to prove it beyond all doubt maybe somewhat difficult.
Likewise there are probably a thousand and one theories as to why dowsing works, but the only thing known for sure is that it does work, and has been successfully practised by many people worldwide for a great many years.
I take the point Jimento makes, having thought about it myself a time or two,however I have absolutely no idea if there is any way it can be done remotely

cricketman

Read the Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins

I actually get the feeling noone here has read his science books, but only the God Delusion (which is far inferior).

I'm not surprised because they are difficult books for non-scientists. When the "selfish gene" came out 30 years ago a whole host of academics and journalists were caught out by writing absurd reviews which only showed their lack of scientific knowledge. I found it difficult when I read it while studying my degree.

jackytoo

Yes it says something similar on wiki