Complementary medicine dismissed as “quackery”
Anna:
May 29th, 2007
The panel, made up of the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Steve Jones - a professor of genetics at UCL, and Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, tackled the issues surrounding “alternative medicine” head on. They dismissed many of the treatments touted by homeopaths, considering them on a par with astrological readings and water-divination.
The outburst comes only a few days after the publication of a letter, written by medical professionals describing themselves as “a group of physicians and scientists who are concerned about ways in which unproven or disproved treatments are being encouraged for general use in the NHS.” The open letter asks almost 500 acute and primary care trusts to review their practices with regard to the promotion of homeopathy, and the use of complementary and alternative medicine as a component of healthcare provision. Hillingdon Primary Care Trust spends a not atypical £60,000 annually on homeopathy, and the authors of the letter believe this money would be much better spent on mainstream scientific treatment.
Dawkins’ views, in particular, seem to be in line with the letter. He believes the public is best served by treatments that are based on solid, scientific evidence. Well-known for his atheism, Dawkins compared the belief in ineffective complementary medicines with a belief in God. The suggestion was also made by the panel that our dwindling interest and participation in organised religion was opening the door for ever wackier, fringe faiths and belief systems. Asked what he felt homeopaths and other “quacks” would do if they were no longer allowed to practice “alternative” medicine, Dawkins retorted that he couldn’t care less. The trio are certainly not alone in their views, and concern in the scientific community seems to be growing about the continuing conflict between belief and evidence in modern society.
Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, and his latest book which he is promoting this week at Hay, is likely to add to his list of enemies in religious circles. “The God Delusion” deals with what Dawkins’ asserts is a wholly irrational belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11. Though he admits that much of religion is benign, he does argue strongly that religion fuels war, forments bigotry, and abuses children. For Dawkins, belief in God is not just wrong, but potentially deadly. Hundreds of years after the Enlightenment, the Religion vs Science debate seems hotter than ever.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Oh man, Dawkins is just pure LOL: the kind of stupidity and weakness of argument that depends on spurious appeals to authority (mainly the authority of his mate’s books), bluster and emotive rhetoric and pure insults to get his point across. I have never understood why the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science should be in reality a hack who publishes very dumb books on religion and is little more than Professor in charge of bashing religion.
That said, on the question of alternative medicines, he is probably on the money, both in terms of its effect and the reason for its existence.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I have read Dawkins’ books and I agree with him where religion is concerned. However, as he knows nothing about homeopathy and his views are based on a spurious assumption that homeopathy = religion - why? As a scientist, I would ask him to prove this!
I can only wonder why he is spouting this rubbish? Could it be that these views get him invited to some ‘influential’ dinner parties with all the other weirdos whose ‘religious’ belief is based on self righteous indignation, or is it just a great way of attracting funding? I counter claim that this outraged skepticisms is also a ‘religion’ using Dawkins own definition. Control freakery is a sort of religion too! In the end I feel sorry for him and his wacky friends because they believe they are ’superior’ to us ‘lesser’ mortals, and because they believe that us ‘lesser’ mortals are silly little things who need superior people like Dawkins to tell us what to think, what to eat and how to medicate ourselves.
Personally, I will make up my own mind. I do not believe that every belief not defined by a ‘god’ is ‘wacky’ or ‘fringe’, and even if they are, brilliant! I believe I am in some very illustrious company (Darwin, Einstein, Pasteur etc - were all condemned as such!)
May 30th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
And as somewhat of an expert on religion, I can tell you he know nothing about it.
Dawkins useless all round! Yay!