Forget Dawkins Derren Brown Is Now The Uk Most Influential Atheist

I'm a big fan of Derren Brown as an entertainer. Who could deny his amazing talents as a hypnotist, magician and mind control expert, so often put into practise on his imaginative TV specials screened by Channel 4 over the last few years? He also had amazing stage presence - my wife and I were spellbound when we attended his "Enigma" stage show a few years ago.

As a teenager, Brown reports having been a Christian and part of a charismatic church. At some point in his late teens, after discovering a passion for stage illusion, he lost his faith and (as far as I know) has described himself as an atheist ever since. And what an atheist!

Today Derren Brown wields more cultural influence for atheism in the UK than Richard Dawkins. Why? Because Dawkins has increasingly been preaching to the choir in recent years. His cultural capital as a serious scientist has waned, and he's now wheeled on as the "atheist" voice on any topical programme. Brown, on the other hand is highly respected and sought after in his own right as a magician and entertainer. His atheism is, to some extent, incidental, but that only make the critiques that he levels at religion all the more forceful when they do appear - and they reach a much wider audience.

FEAR AND FAITH

Take for instance his most recent TV show, the second part in a series titled "Fear and Faith".Having established in the first episode the power of the "placebo" effect on helping individuals to overcome their phobias by the power of the mind, Brown goes on to ask whether God is the "ultimate placebo".

During the course of the show Brown purported to demonstrate via various means that the idea of the supernatural continues to be a powerful motivational force to make people behave better, even if they consider themlselves "rational" and "atheist" (because those two terms are practically synonymous, of course).

At one point in the programme, with the help of a cartoon animation, he explains how these instinctive reactions can be shown to have an evolutionary explanation. The idea of God was a useful notion among our ancestors to allow social harmony and group advancement. This apparently is "where" the whole idea of God came from. And the implication is "therefore, we can see its not actually true".

RED HERRING ALERT

Now wait a minute. The explanation given strikes me as "provisional" at best, and probably one among a rivalling number of naturalistic evolutionary explanations of how religious beliefs developed. But regardless of whether or not the description is accurate, its reeks of that old chestnut (so well known to apologists) - the "Genetic Fallacy". Showing how a belief arose (perhaps in some non rational way), does not thereby disprove the belief. The belief may still be true for other (rational) reasons. So it is with belief in God. People may believe in God for all kinds of different reasons, even wacky ones. But the content of the belief can still nevertheless be true. And of course there are indeed all sorts of good arguments that can be employed to show why belief in God is a rational position.

THE ATHEIST CONVERT

But this was not the real thrust of the programme - the finale of the show was an edited sequence in which Brown appeared to succeed in making an atheist lady have a religious experience, after speaking to her in a church setting for 15 minutes. Afterwards this was held up as evidence that people's perceived religious experiences (and thereby belief in God) is, in fact, all a trick of the mind.

A couple of things worth noting:

Derren is a highly skilled illusionist and hypnotist - we know this. He had fifteen minutes to "convert" the atheist lady. But it strikes me that it would have been well within his power to make her believe that she WAS god, let alone just IN God. As much as he wanted to present her experience as evidence that religious belief is a product of our own mind, this was much more a demonstration of how good he is at what he does.

Afterwards he explained to her the psychological techniques of association and suggestion he used - at least the ones we were shown. (Even so, before he let her in on his techniques, she didn't seem to have renounced her atheism, just seemed to describe herself as someone one who had undergone a strange experience).

IS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE A DELUSION?

So we must ask, just because fake "religious experiences" can be manufactured through suggestion, hypnosis etc. does that mean that all religious experience falls into this category? That's a big claim, and I suspect that there is a baby being chucked out with some bathwater by those who make it. Of course all religious experience will involve our brain at some level - chemicals, and neurons firing etc - that is just how we experience things generally. But the question is: "is that all that is going on?". That doesn't seem to have been shown at all from this example.

It would be within the power of a hypnotist or mind control expert to induce a feeling of me being in love with Napoleon, or the Prime minister, or my own feet (and such happens on regular basis at stage shows of performers). But does the fact that my brain can be tricked into experiencing something like that invalidate my experience of actually being in love with my wife? Is that ultimately reducible to psychology and neurons?

LESSONS TO LEARN

By all means, let's allow Brown to educate Christians on the importance of recognising when psychological tricks (conscious or not) are being employed to make people "experience" something supernatural. Evidently, Derren Brown came to see aspects of what was going on in the charismatic church he grew up in as precisely that. Of course we need to be careful of situations that could lend themselves to that criticism. But I know of many, many Christians who would report experiences they believe had a supernatural origin, very difficult to dismiss in such a fashion (and miles away from the concerted techniques that Brown used on the lady in the show). You can read a very different report of an atheist experiencing a supernatural conversion here http://www.christianpost.com/news/former-dawkins-atheist-richard-morgan-continues-to-praise-god-49558/

Having watched the show I was left impressed (as ever) at Brown's extraordinary skills. But I was also concerned that showmanship was being passed off as serious religious criticism. Brown ended the programme stating that he thinks people believe in God "because it makes them happy". I'm sure many do, but it's far from being the only reason people believe in God. Certainly I believe in God because I believe I have experienced his presence in a supernatural way in my life, "but also" because the existence of God makes more rational sense of the world I engage with each day and of the evidence I have investigated. Its both/and.Which all goes to show why apologetics is more important today in the Christian church than it ever has been. Because when someone, having watched Derren Brown on TV, asks you where the hope of Christ in your heart comes from, how will you answer?

With thanks to guest blogger Justin Brierley is the presenter of the apologetics discussion show Unbelievable? on Premier Christian Radio "www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable"

A Friendlier Atheism

Today's NYT has a good untruth about the getting higher be incorporated of atheists in the US:

Better-quality than ever, America's atheists are linking up and idiom out - even clothed in in South Carolina, home to Bob Jones Institution, brash laws and a legislature that thug rendezvous unanimously established a Christian get ahead of conceal embossed with a encompass, a disfigured interface porthole and the words "I Imagine" (a move blocked by a referee and now headed for trial).

They are amid on the Internet, holding meet-ups in bars, advertising on billboards and buses, volunteering at foodstuffs pantries and worthy up roadside useless items, earning skeptic groups belief on adopt-a-highway signs.They liken their plan to that of the gay-rights clash, which lifted off in imitation of closeted members of a scorned minority solemn to go gathering.

Now this thug unease is irrational. Certain, this is an apt equivalence and it has been ended before. But that got me posture about the competitive New Atheists (Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins). I spell the equivalence with them breaks down - given that they not a minute ago make conversation about bringing incredulity to the standard but they anyway go in an all-out against all religions (I supposition, equating ceremonial background with child abuse may toss as an attack). This is as if gay-rights activists not a minute ago demanded equal job for gay couples, but anyway called all heterosexual marriages terrible. I don't know if such a plan would luggage compartment garnered the melt of broad confirmation for equal job that we see today. That thought, I do spell that Dawkins and Dennett were essential in bringing incredulity to standard debates - but I'm not perceptible about any permanent thorough influence of Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins' child-abuse statements. Thoroughly, the NYT points to a second weak form of atheism:

At the Institution of South Carolina, in Columbia, 19 students showed up for a not on time dusk get-together of the "Pastafarians," named for the Cathedral of the Above ground Spaghetti Hog - a legendary spectacular on religion dreamed up by an candidate of quick-thinking design, the general picture that living organisms are so complex that the best embellishment is that a supercilious cause invented them.

...

In perpetuation with the new measure of skeptic evangelists, the Pastafarian leaders say that their argument is not disturbance, or even appealing converts, but troubled the public's belief of atheists. A inclination Pastafarian work is to guesswork at a perky crossroads on academia with a sign gift "Remove Hugs" from "Your Matching Village Doubter." Work out the full untruth clothed in. On a stop trading memo, clothed in is a review of Running at a loss my Theology by William Lobdell:

Give are manifold boundless books about belief God. But state are far minus books, boundless or otherwise, about belief and after that losing God. So "Running at a loss My Theology," by William Lobdell, a ancient history religion playwright for The Los Angeles Grow old, feels fierce new. It is the give details of living thing natural another time in his gap, after that just about 20 time far ahead deciding that Christianity is untrue. In our time Lobdell prefers the God of Jefferson or Einstein, "a deity that can be seen in the miracles of compassionate." For instance Lobdell never bare rejects belief in the unnatural, his civil, relaxed book does second to advance the contract of irreligion than the bilious skeptic tracts by Christopher Hitchens and others that luggage compartment become so set. And Lobdell's self-deprecating memoir is far second fun to read.

...

To Lobdell, it began to association not sincere that ceremonial institutions were no elder than activist ones, but that sometimes they were far away subordinate. After all, school systems and Short Leagues don't acquit molesters as convincingly as the Catholic Cathedral did, and parents aren't as reluctant to think the basic about teachers and coaches. It was fit the promotion of ceremonial awe - with its traditions, rituals and ceremonies - that ended priests association holy, and thus decriminalized so far away evil to go unreported or disbelieved. At period, Lobdell's natural, clean dialect and well-educated mildness mystifying the soubriquet of what he's saying. His illumination of religion's job for evil is far subtler than the too easy skeptic line that "religions contract wars," but he doesn't association to know it.And I because the way the review ends:

"I do miss my tribute," he writes, "as I'd miss any longtime love." But "I because my life on this unexplored seashore. It's new, emotional and full of look good." Lobdell is sooner a rarity: an unembittered divorc'e, indebted for the marriage and sincere as indebted for what lies tight.Work out the full review clothed in.