Richard Dawkins Would Like to Trip on LSD

Professor Richard Dawkins is best-known as a vociferous critic of religion and a champion for the cause of science. So much so that he is often attacked for being dogmatic himself, in believing only his own preferred worldview should triumph. Some thought his latest book, The Magic of Reality - aimed at children, and explaining the scientific truth behind primitive mythologies - had gone beyond the pale in preaching literalism as the 'one true way'.

More than a few times I've heard people say "what Richard Dawkins needs is a good hit of LSD". Surprisingly, Richard Dawkins appears to agree with that view. Late last year, Dawkins visited the British city of Bath to promote his most recent book, doing a reading at the city's library. In the question and answer session that followed, local resident Graham Hancock - best-selling author himself on topics including 'alternative history' and shamanism - asked if Dawkins would be prepared to take a hallucinogenic drug.

Hancock framed his query in terms of how ancient cultures believed in a spirit world through their use of psychoactive plants for shamanistic purposes, and whether Dawkins - as a scientist, and critic of religious and mystical views - would be interested in using such substances to give him direct experience of the worldview he so often attacks. "As a scientist," Hancock asked, "have you ever seriously engaged such techniques to have first-hand experience of what they're talking about, and perhaps even to challenge your own concept of what is real?" He suggested that Dawkins might want to try the (DMT-containing) shamanic brew from the Amazon, ayahuasca.

To his credit, despite some laughter from the audience as the question was asked, and the usual pressure for a stock answer from a respectable public figure, Dawkins unflinchingly replied that he actually *would* like to try a hallucinogen. "I would be very curious, I must say, to take, perhaps not that drug, but something like LSD or mescaline," he responded. "I would be prepared to do that under proper medical supervision, if I were absolutely convinced that it would do me no lasting harm. And I would actually like to do it."

Dawkins, however, left no room for doubt about how he would view the experience. "I think it very unlikely that, whatever happened to me, I would interpret it as indicating anything supernatural," said Dawkins. "I would on the contrary interpret it as a manifestation of what a wonderful thing the brain is, and how the brain can see and can experience even more things, under the right kinds of chemical stimulation..."

Well I surely would like to see Professor Dawkins' opinion on a high-dose DMT trip. Can we do a Kickstarter for this or something?

Full transcript follows.

Graham Hancock: Dr Dawkins, many traditional hunter-gatherer cultures believe there are other realities, spirit worlds, and so-on and so-forth, and concrete techniques, such as the use of psychoactive plants, to access them. For example, the visionary brew ayahuasca, used for thousands of years by indigenous culture throughout the Amazon basin. As a scientist, have you ever seriously engaged such techniques to have first-hand experience of what they're talking about [*audience laughter*], and perhaps even to challenge your own concept of what is real? If not, would you consider doing so, and when would you be ready to begin [*audience laughter*]? If you would not consider doing so, then please explain why not.

Richard Dawkins: I would be curious, I must confess. I mean I've read some of the accounts of drug-induced trances and things. There's a lovely one in Redmond O'Hanlon's book about going up the Amazon [In Trouble Again], which you may have read...and he visits the Yanomami tribe, who are sometimes described as 'the fierce people'. They have a drug which they take by shooting it up the nostril with a great long blow-pipe, and I think he tries that.

I would be very curious, I must say, to take, perhaps not that drug, but something like LSD or mescaline. As Aldous Huxley describes it in The Doors of Perception, he felt when taking mescaline that his eyes were opened, the doors of perception were cleansed, and he saw things that were, in some strange way, beyond reality. I would be prepared to do that under proper medical supervision, if I were absolutely convinced that it would do me no lasting harm. And I would actually like to do it.

I did once take part in an experiment in Canada, where a neurobiologist had developed a technique of passing magnetic fields through the brain, using a modified helmet - a motorcycle helmet - with magnetic coils. And in about 80% of subjects, this does induce some sort of trance-like state, some sort of feeling of one-ness with the Universe, in some cases in people who have a religious faith it tends to induce visions of whatever particular religion they've been brought up with...Virgin Marys if they're Catholic, and so-on. I did this as an experiment - I was taken by the BBC as an experimental subject - unfortunately I turned out to be one of the 20% who are completely unaffected by this technique, much to my regret. I was not expecting to see any angels or Virgin Marys; I was expecting, and hoping, to have some sort of feeling of transcendent wonder. And it's my loss that I didn't.

The control in that experiment was a local vicar who they thought would be an interesting control. He also claimed that it had no effect. But his EEG record, which the scientist Dr Michael Persinger was monitoring, showed that actually he was a prime subject, one of the 80%. And Dr Persinger suspected that he wasn't telling the truth, when he said that he didn't have any trance-like state. Surprisingly - I wouldn't have thought he would have wanted to...dissemble on that. I showed the classic EEG pattern of somebody who was not going to be a subject.

So I would like to undergo some-such experience. I think it very unlikely that, whatever happened to me, I would interpret it as indicating anything supernatural. I would on the contrary interpret it as a manifestation of what a wonderful thing the brain is, and how the brain can see and can experience even more things, under the right kinds of chemical stimulation - or other things can do it, like meditation, or starvation/fasting. [*audience applause*]

(via @LevitatingCat)

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
6 min 43 sec

Once again we have here an example of a basic misunderstanding about what the brain may be. People like Dawkins tend to reduce the brain to utter materialism and wrongly conclude that changing the state of the brain has no effects "outside" the brain, but it may very well be that that changing the state of the brain with drugs for instance has consequences outside the brain. The brain may have powers to direct events in the physical world. There is copious evidence of psychokinesis which appears to have been prompted by changes in the brain. Regarding the brain as a vessel from which nothing escapes into the outer world is the fundamental bias of people like Dawkins.
I love the idea of getting him to take an hallucinogen. These armchair academics are distinguished by their reluctance to have physical experiences - they are like prisoners who love the padded cells of their overstuffed armchairs - so anything we can do to get them out of their armchairs and actually use their nervous systems more fully would be welcomed.

bricology's picture
Member since:
14 August 2012
Last activity:
2 years 2 weeks
emlong wrote:

Once again we have here an example of a basic misunderstanding about what the brain may be. People like Dawkins tend to reduce the brain to utter materialism and wrongly conclude that changing the state of the brain has no effects 'outside' the brain, but it may very well be that that changing the state of the brain with drugs for instance has consequences outside the brain. The brain may have powers to direct events in the physical world. There is copious evidence of psychokinesis which appears to have been prompted by changes in the brain.

The only misunderstanding that I can see is that you're conflating "may well be" and "appears to" with "is". It "may well be" leprechauns. It "appears to be" unicorn magic.

emlong wrote:

Regarding the brain as a vessel from which nothing escapes into the outer world is the fundamental bias of people like Dawkins.

Dawkins, like most scientists, does indeed have a bias -- a bias for observable, repeatable evidence rather than a bias for flights of fancy that "may well be" something. There's an infinite number of "may well bes" but it's absurd to try to pass any of them off as anything more substantive than simply that, unless you have compelling evidence to support them. Do you? Nope. If you did, you could make a quick million bucks from the JREF.

Get back to us when you have anything resembling hard evidence. Until then, it's silly to go casting aspersions on scientists for being...well, scientific. It's what they *do*, and lucky for us that they do it.

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
2 hours 40 min
bricology wrote:

There's an infinite number of "may well bes" but it's absurd to try to pass any of them off as anything more substantive than simply that, unless you have compelling evidence to support them. Do you? Nope. If you did, you could make a quick million bucks from the JREF.

You must be new here... ;)

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-...

Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
@DailyGrail

raptorshaman's picture
Member since:
30 June 2010
Last activity:
1 day 7 hours

I have a suspicion the Daily Grail is being visited by a pair of "Guerrilla Skeptics" with throwaway accounts, quoting the "skeptical" playbook down to the letters (MDC, JREF) and rallying behind atheist icon Dawkins no matter how many times he's been shown to be intellectually lazy and dishonest. Carry on though, maybe the fundamaterialists will stick around long enough to learn something new. I'm skeptical of this but happy to be proven wrong. :)

http://www.dailygrail.com/Guest-Articles...

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
2 hours 40 min
raptorshaman wrote:

I have a suspicion the Daily Grail is being visited by a pair of "Guerrilla Skeptics" with throwaway accounts

Visited by about 6000 actually, courtesy of a link to this article on Richard Dawkins' website:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/64675...

Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
@DailyGrail

bricology's picture
Member since:
14 August 2012
Last activity:
2 years 2 weeks
raptorshaman wrote:

I have a suspicion the Daily Grail is being visited by a pair of "Guerrilla Skeptics" with throwaway accounts, quoting the "skeptical" playbook down to the letters (MDC, JREF) and rallying behind atheist icon Dawkins no matter how many times he's been shown to be intellectually lazy and dishonest. Carry on though, maybe the fundamaterialists will stick around long enough to learn something new. I'm skeptical of this but happy to be proven wrong. :)

http://www.dailygrail.com/Guest-Articles/2008/1/Richard-Dawkins-Comes-Call

...I'm not a "guerilla skeptic". I'm just a person who happened upon this blog through a link from an article I read on Dawkins. I don't have a "throwaway account", and the only acronym I used was the JREF's own, which is a very useful shortcut from the actual title.

As for "learning something new" -- I'm always happy to, so long as it's not just another silly paranormal claim with zero reliable evidence. Got any? I'll be happy to examine them. In the meantime, can I tell you about "body Thetans"?

raptorshaman's picture
Member since:
30 June 2010
Last activity:
1 day 7 hours

There are serious reasons to doubt the honesty and objectivity of skeptics like Dawkins, Randi and organizations like CSI. Have you researched literature critical of the modern "skeptical" thinking? You might start here:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/h...

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/ps...

http://www.psicounsel.com/starbaby.html

http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsf...

PSI research:

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_...

It's late for me here, but maybe someone else can point you in the right direction for further study. If you don't find the present evidence for PSI "reliable", at least articulate why, with actual examples, rather than hiding behind strawmen like Scientology. The research is there if you actually look for it, no excuses.

bricology's picture
Member since:
14 August 2012
Last activity:
2 years 2 weeks
Greg wrote:

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

Nice. You're linking to another DailyGrail post from 2008 -- apparently one that you wrote -- rather than to a primary source. Not very scientific of you, Greg. Nor do you bother to correct the fact that the JREF is STILL offering its $1 million prize.

I also think it's a pretty silly appeal to authority to quote Dr. Michael Sudduth as an "expert" on the relative validity of the JREF Challenge. Sudduth is a philosophy professor at a mediocre university (in my hometown) who somehow manages to subscribe to both Christianity and Hinduism. Believers gotta believe, apparently.

Some people are critical about the protocols of the Challenge but it's interesting how few of them happen to be scientists. Most of the critics of the testing are those in the fringe world. With Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne lined up against the JREF, I don't think it's exactly a slam-dunk.

I think it's just laughable that people cling to this notion that there's something paranormal going on out there when the best they can muster to support such claims are tiny statistical edges over random (if that). Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to put any weight upon something so weak. Shouldn't the so-called paranormal be just a *bit* more impressive than say, a .5% increase over chance in dowsing? But then I also don't believe in the existence of "body Thetans" or "chemtrails", so what do I know?

Ultimately, there are countless OTHER venues for people who believe in "woo" to prove their powers, even if the JREF Challenge didn't exist. Have they done so? Nope. Never. If they had, we would all know about it and have ample proof to shame Randi into hiding. You know as well as I do that this has never happened.

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
2 hours 40 min
bricology wrote:
Greg wrote:

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

Nice. You're linking to another DailyGrail post from 2008 -- apparently one that you wrote -- rather than to a primary source.

Er yes. That would be the joke in the preceding words "You must be new here...". Apparently.

Quote:

Not very scientific of you, Greg.

Where does science come into it? Just as much as it does into Randi's Million Dollar Challenge.

Certainly paranormal/psi subject areas are filled with rubbish, and they are yet to clear the high bar of accepted science. But let's be clear here: Randi's MDC is nothing but a PR stunt, and any science-minded person that cites it in attacking paranormal topics is just as guilty of poor scientific standards.

Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
@DailyGrail

catherwood's picture
Member since:
20 April 2012
Last activity:
29 weeks 2 days

The brain is technology that receives input and creates images -- no wait, that's a television. If I tweak the magnetic field inside my telly by turning some dials (it's an old TV), it produces different pictures. It must be magic, because I can't see any changes in the air around it or the cables leading into it, therefore the imagery cannot be real, it's only a reality inside the television. *wink* Is that what Dawkins thinks is happening inside our minds when we alter the brain's chemistry? The brain is a wonderful bit of wetware, capable of imagining and dreaming and also taking sensory input and interpreting it as a model of reality. Just because we cannot see the source of an input (using sensors tuned to a different range of input?) doesn't mean our brains aren't picking up something that only brains know what to do with. Maybe his brain is lacking in either the receptors or the interpretive neural paths -- it's only an analogy but it leads to some interesting thought experiments.

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
6 hours 31 min

Dawkins submitted himself once to Persinger's 'God helmet', and it didn't cause anything on him.

Which leads me to suspect you may be right, and if he actually dared to take an LSD trip, maybe the only thing he'd feel would be a hell of a headache.

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
6 min 43 sec

I used to be a knee jerk skeptic on a lot of so called woo woo topics, but after my aura got blasted open with some lithium quartz about 8 years ago things changed for me. I became expandedly aware of more out there, Same thing could happen to Dawkins at some point, but he has to get off his duff and shilly shally around. Whether he would admit to anything happening is another matter.

compilable's picture
Member since:
14 August 2012
Last activity:
2 years 2 weeks
emlong wrote:

I used to be a knee jerk skeptic on a lot of so called woo woo topics, but after my aura got blasted open with some lithium quartz about 8 years ago things changed for me. I became expandedly aware of more out there, Same thing could happen to Dawkins at some point, but he has to get off his duff and shilly shally around. Whether he would admit to anything happening is another matter.

Being a scientist and a prof. of public understanding for many years, Dawkins has gained ample experience about things people who call 'super natural'.

"emlong", Use your, common sense and critical thinking so it will be a normal phenomena too.

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
6 min 43 sec
compilable wrote:
emlong wrote:

I used to be a knee jerk skeptic on a lot of so called woo woo topics, but after my aura got blasted open with some lithium quartz about 8 years ago things changed for me. I became expandedly aware of more out there, Same thing could happen to Dawkins at some point, but he has to get off his duff and shilly shally around. Whether he would admit to anything happening is another matter.

Being a scientist and a prof. of public understanding for many years, Dawkins has gained ample experience about things people who call 'super natural'.

"emlong", Use your, common sense and critical thinking so it will be a normal phenomena too.

Actually, Dawkins is like a lot of knee jerk skeptics. Once you really delve into them it is striking to find how little they have actually looked especially into modern phenomena. I am always struck by how little these staid professional academics have familiarized themselves with the best modern cases. they all tend to cherry pick weak cases and them hold them up to inspection as if they were really important examples when they are not at all. Many of them are stuck in a sort of yesteryear, and that is probably by design. it bolsters their preconceptions.

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
Neils Bohr

bricology's picture
Member since:
14 August 2012
Last activity:
2 years 2 weeks
emlong wrote:

Actually, Dawkins is like a lot of knee jerk skeptics. Once you really delve into them it is striking to find how little they have actually looked especially into modern phenomena. I am always struck by how little these staid professional academics have familiarized themselves with the best modern cases. they all tend to cherry pick weak cases and them hold them up to inspection as if they were really important examples when they are not at all. Many of them are stuck in a sort of yesteryear, and that is probably by design. it bolsters their preconceptions.

I defy you to demonstrate how Dawkins is "knee-jerk". If anything, his views about being willing to take hallucinagenics demostrate exactly the opposite.

I find it laughable that people on the one hand accuse skeptical scientists of being "knee-jerk", "cherry-pickers" and full of "preconceptions" while at the same time relying upon scientists to use the scientific process (and skepticism) to do everything that scientists do. It's like creationists who claim that scientists are all part of a global conspiracy to perpetrate the "fraud" of evolution, while at the same time trusting scientists with their lives in using the same process to develop jets that keep them alive at 40,000 feet, performing open-heart surgery or developing medicines.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either scientists are appropriately skeptical of things that are unproven or they're not.

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
6 hours 31 min

Is there incontrovertible proof to all the little annoying things Dawkins & his 'brights' like to pick on?

No.

Is there compelling evidence supporting the case that despite all the hoaxes, disinformation & misinformation there are still real phenomena behind these mysteries?

Yes.

Should we then go and believe unquestionably into the claims and anecdotes reported by witnesses & researchers?

No.

Should we nevertheless listen to what they have to say, seeing how most of the time they are honest people who have nothing to gain by coming forward with their stories?

Yes.

Should we support honest scientific inquiry to try to slowly uncover the truth behind them?

Hell Yes!

These are the guidelines that we try to follow here @ TDG. If you bother to stick around long enough, you'll find out most of us are neither doe-eyed 'true believers', nor cynic 'debunkers'. We advocate for the excluded middle around here ;)

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 12 weeks
bricology wrote:

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either scientists are appropriately skeptical of things that are unproven or they're not.

Bricology

Scientists are people and all of them are unique in their own ways! They are not clones. I think that the majority of scientist are appropriately skeptical of things that are unproven. Some scientists are not appropriately skeptical of things unproven. For example, I'm old enough to remember Doctors doing cigarette commercials for filter cigarettes on television. The Doctors were claiming that filter cigarettes would not cause cancer. And, other scientists fall somewhere in the middle. So, in actuality, I can have it atleast three ways.

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

PVtheMad's picture
Member since:
14 August 2012
Last activity:
2 years 2 weeks

I will admit that I've done more than my fair amount of LSD in my life and will admit that it was fun and yeah, visually stunning, but there was nothing remotely close to a religious experience. Ever. A person only has a "religious experience" when that's what they're looking for. Even those that went into their trip as a pleasure seeker and came out a spiritual being probably had it in the back of their mind that's what would happen.

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
6 hours 31 min

Even those that went into their trip as a pleasure seeker and came out a spiritual being probably had it in the back of their mind that's what would happen.

Agreed.

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie

Rick MG's picture
Member since:
2 May 2004
Last activity:
4 days 15 hours

Then wouldn't this also apply to those who go into the trip expecting nothing but a pretty light show? Whether our beliefs colour the experience, I don't know; it's all subjective, deeply personal, and neither experience is more valid than the other in my opinion.

But as I've never taken any psychedelic, I'm really not in a position to give an opinion on what's a valid experience and what's not -- and that's the point Graham Hancock is making, which Dawkins agreed with, albeit on different levels.

LSD is very different to psilocybin mushrooms or ayahuasca. I'd much rather Dawkins make a trip to the Peruvian Amazon; but considering what became of Francis Crick's LSD experience, who knows what a bright mind such as Dawkins could come up with after licking a tab or two! Iboga might be a wee too much for him though. ;-)

I enjoyed the exchange between Hancock and Dawkins -- wildly different worldviews, but there's a visible respect for each other's opinions.

~ * ~

@levitatingcat

Serpentharper's picture
Member since:
21 December 2011
Last activity:
1 year 27 weeks

LSD, wouldn't be any good for Mr Dawkins, Ayahasca would be the job, done with dieta, multiple tiimes in proper ceremony. Scientists always do many tests/experiments, and this is why a one off experience would be no good. Also, ayahuasca sometimes doesn't 'work' until its been taken over a long period, it depends on the person. Sometimes those who desperately crave the visionary aspect of ayahuasca are the ones who have the most difficult time achieving it. I suspect, to his surprise, that Mr Dawkins might end up in hyperspace very quickly!

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 12 weeks

To Whom It May Concern,

Atheism is, in my opinion, an unnecessary belief system! I don't really care about what other people believe or don't believe; as long as, people can live and let live and don,t cause trouble for other people. I don't have a belief system; because, I don't believe in anything. So, I don't need a belief system. Personally, I'm an unprincipled pragmatistic thinker that thinks that principles are cheap excuses for not thinking! Why do people need a belief system to not believe? It makes no sense to me!

As for LSD {ACID}, that is Dawkins' business!

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

bricology's picture
Member since:
14 August 2012
Last activity:
2 years 2 weeks
cnnek wrote:

Atheism is, in my opinion, an unnecessary belief system! Why do people need a belief system to not believe?

There is no belief necessary to NOT believe.

How much "belief" does it require for you to NOT believe in Xenu and "body Thetans"? How much belief does it take for you to NOT believe that there's a teapot in orbit around the sun?

Well, that's exactly the same amount of "belief" that it takes for me to NOT believe in Yahweh, Thor, Vishnu, Zeus and every other claimed god.

Think about it some more and try again.

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 12 weeks
bricology wrote:

There is no belief necessary to NOT believe.

How much "belief" does it require for you to NOT believe in Xenu and "body Thetans"? How much belief does it take for you to NOT believe that there's a teapot in orbit around the sun?

Well, that's exactly the same amount of "belief" that it takes for me to NOT believe in Yahweh, Thor, Vishnu, Zeus and every other claimed god.

I simply don't believe anything that I can't cross reference myself! I don't need any belief system to not believe. You are obviously not a cynic! With cynics, not believing comes naturally!

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
6 min 43 sec

For goodness sakes it is, believe it or not, quite possible to embrace the speculative edge of thought while still adhering to the scientific process. An open minded interest in say, spirit phenomenon does not imply that one has abandoned the scientific process. However, there are and have always been areas of inquiry that were at first unamenable to scientific procedure because the procedures had not caught up to the ideas. There is a good movie on this sort of impasse pertaining to Einstein's theories on relativity and his difficulties in proving it to anyone's satisfaction until an accurate method for observing solar eclipses had been worked out. The movie is also good at portraying the general scientific hostility to any leading edge ideas, and the manifest faults of a staid scientific establishment when confronted with anything that upset orthodoxy.
I would offer that we are at the same juncture now with regard to "spirit" phenomena though actually the instrumentation is catching up with such techniques a Electronic Voice Phenomena. However, one does have to dare stoop to watching its application in the better ghost busting shows on the telly these days, but the average stuck up conservative scientists will not dare lower themselves to watching something on the telly I think mainly because it is so immediate and in your face. It is hard to debunk this stuff in its better manfestations and is therefore threatening to hidebound types.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_an...

Rick MG's picture
Member since:
2 May 2004
Last activity:
4 days 15 hours

I would pay good money to see PZ Myers experience La Purga.

~ * ~

@levitatingcat

Woo Way's picture
Member since:
17 August 2012
Last activity:
2 years 2 weeks

The pseudo-skeptical comments above regarding the paranormal - ESP, PSI and other parapsychological phenomena exist - the tiny variations in statistical probability often equate to expectations beyond chance of 100s, 1000s and 100,000s to 1. The data exists, clearly you are too lazy to study it. Also, the conflation of this constituting the "paranormal" is another example of lazy thinking. Nobody knows what PSI or ESP is, because nobody really understands what consciousness is. Probably it can be explained naturalistically, but not without a big shift in what naturalistically means. ESP and PSI do not have to be paranormal - they are parapsychological phenomena. Open-mindedness is not a characteristic of many mainstream scientists; misoneism permeates the scientific paradigm. It is considered a quality, not a feature, that everything has to have hard evidence. ESP and PSI are phenomena that may be beyond conventional science's grasp given that consciousness can barely be defined, let alone understood. And I hope Dawkins does try a hallucinogen - I'd suggest Shrooms, not LSD though. More fun. And he needs a laugh.

Keep it unreal.

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
6 min 43 sec

The thing bugs me most is the demand that the paranormal be lab replicable at any moment in time when we all know that the phenomena are ephemeral and appear to be subject to acoustical, aeronautical, allegorical, alphabetical, analytical, anarchical, anatomical, anthropological, antihistorical, antithetical, archeological, arithmetical, astronomical, autobiographical, bibliographical, biographical, biological, botanical, canonical, categorical, chronological, cubical, cyclical, cylindrical, economical, ecumenical, electrical, elliptical, eremitical, evangelical, geographical, geological, geometrical, graphical, hermeneutical, hierarchical, hypothetical, ideological, ironical, lexicographical, liturgical, logistical, lyrical, maniacal, mathematical, metaphorical, morphological, mythical, neurological, nonmathematical, nonnumerical, numerical, parasitical, parenthetical, pathological, pedagogical, philosophical, physiological, poetical, problematical, prototypical, psychological, quadratical, sabbatical, semantical, spherical, stereotypical, stoical, symmetrical, syntactical, tautological, technological, teleological, theatrical, theological, theoretical, topological, tragical, typical, typographical, tyrannical, umbilical, uneconomical, zoological ...

influences.

Inannawhimsey's picture
Member since:
14 April 2009
Last activity:
51 weeks 3 days

excellent Detournement/General Semantics extension series :3

---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.

--William Blake

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
6 min 43 sec

Not to mention that a lot of the lab coated knee jerk skeptics act and think like neotonous children. It is very tiring fooling around with some of these people. They aren't really serious, and they are too often appallingly immature. They have never really represented the scientific community in general in my opinion, and they spend a lot of their energy frantically defending their biases and preconceptions just as children do. When I think of a lot of the more abrasive and loud knee jerk skeptics I think of children having tantrums. It is really difficult to take them seriously or give them much time. A lot of then just need to grow up.

Inannawhimsey's picture
Member since:
14 April 2009
Last activity:
51 weeks 3 days

"I think a particular god like Zeus or Jehovah is as unlikely as the tooth fairy, but the idea of some kind of creative intelligence is not quite so ridiculous."

--The Great Toothfairy Agnostic Hisself in Playboy

---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.

--William Blake

MDMAok's picture
Member since:
5 February 2013
Last activity:
1 year 29 weeks

good for him

That ecstasy, immersion in the Istigkeit, awe, wonder and the astonishing bliss of being Here Now is not the preserve of the supernatural but a perfectly normal chemical reaction that every one of us shares without years of sitting cross legged chanting at the feet of the Shamen-du-jour was such an important lesson for me.

He will return re-invigorated to the struggle against superstition. (not sure about the "medical supervision" - a Shpongle album, a nice soft settee, and someone he loves would be better company)