Ship of Fools: Derren Brown's next offering

Thread: Derren Brown's next offering Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024151

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

Maybe this will be meaningful only to those in the UK, but here goes. Last Friday I saw a fantastic TV show where Derren Brown convinced a bunch of people that they had a drug that variously supressed fear, cravings and certain ailments. These subjects were then able to overcome phobias, addictions and minor skin complaints, all through the power of their minds ( for the pill turned out to be a placebo, predictably enough). Very good TV, as always for DB.

BUT THEN I saw the trailer for this Friday's show, it's going to be about religious experience, and presumably, knowing DB's views, will demonstrate that it's all in the mind. I am frightened to watch. Should I face my fear and risk being deconvinced of my faith? Does anyone else feel worried atthe prospect of a sceptic pulling the faith rug out from under their feet? Do we have anything to fear in fact?

[ 12. November 2012, 18:45: Message edited by: angelfish ]

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

DB can be very good on religion, and particularly on the tricks and traps. After all, it's in his background, and one has to say that he's not always entirely wide of the mark on all aspects. However ...

... there are enough threads on this very forum about (or questioning whether) people faking it, the veracity of particular manifestations/experiences, whether a particular theological position (or all of them) is defensible or not. If reading the Ship hasn't made you chuck it in, I doubt something deliberately made to entertain will do, unless you're in a 'doubt' phase and looking for a push ...

Whenever I've seen/read DB on religious stuff I've generally found myself doing the classic "Yeah, but ..." in the sense of "Fair point, but what you're missing/glossing/ignoring is ...".

But ... do what you think's right for you. If you're concerned, skip it. It's only a TV show, after all.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

DB is, from what I have seen, very good at showing some of the sham stuff that goes on. Not a problem. I don't think he actually wants to destroy genuine faith, but he does want to expose some of the manipulation that goes on under the guise of religion.

So watch it if you want to, he will probably enlighten you to some of the tricks that people can use, as he does in his other shows. If your faith relies on tricks, you may have a problem, but, as others have said, is you can cope with the ship, you should have no worries.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So watch it if you want to...

I won't, and I don't.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

He's a self confessed con man who carefully chooses his victims. He's cute without a doubt, but you can't extrapolate anything wider from his shows. I guess he's a modern version of an ancient thaumaturge - a sort a Apollonias of Tyanna type.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish
BUT THEN I saw the trailer for this Friday's show, it's going to be about religious experience, and presumably, knowing DB's views, will demonstrate that it's all in the mind. I am frightened to watch. Should I face my fear and risk being deconvinced of my faith? Does anyone else feel worried atthe prospect of a sceptic pulling the faith rug out from under their feet? Do we have anything to fear in fact?

I'm not frightened of scepticism. Why would I be, considering that I am a sceptic? My scepticism prevents me from being an atheist - I simply don't have the requisite faith to believe the naturalistic explanation for reality (obviously I lack the "naturalism gene"!). So poor hard hearted me has to settle for theism.

As for exposing phony religious experiences: is it logical to believe that if I find a fake pound coin, that that proves that all pound coins are fakes?

IMO, if people want to abandon logic and swallow everything an illusionist claims, then they only have themselves to blame.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I've been watching the series with interest, and when I heard the trailer I put it down as a 'must' to watch. There are two reasons for this:

Firstly, because if he manages to convince me that the God I relate with doesn't exist, then it would have only been a matter of time before someone else did, so I might as well get it over with now.

Secondly, because I want to know his angle, ie who he thinks the god is that he is discrediting. The god sceptics discredit doesn't always, or usually, represent or describe God. It's important imv that we know what the current urban myths are. DB is very popular, & the programme may well influence people ignorant of real deal Christianity.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Whenever I've seen him on the telly (TV to our American friends), Derren Brown is always careful to point out that he's not out to debunk faith itself.

When he did the thing with the bloke pretending to be a US style TV evangelist in order to debunk some of the claims made by huckster Elma Gantry types, he made it clear that he wasn't knocking religion per se.

I saw the programme and the trailer for the next one. I suspect that the trailer was more sensationalised than the programme itself will be. There'll be disclaimers and so on and Brown couching things carefully so as not to offend unduly.

His position on these things is well known. So what? The guy makes some very convincing arguments as to the psychological workings behind some of these things, but in interviews and so on that I've read I get the impression that he leaves it up to people whether they believe in God or not - it's not his remit to do that - but that doesn't stop him exploring this kind of thing from his particular stand-point and hypnotherapy skills ...

That said, I found the last section of the programme rather unconvincing. I'm not sure the girl being hypnotised to overcome her fear of singing in public and then going onto the stage and delivering a show-stopping performance with a full backing band and no rehearsal rather far-fetched. Am I the only one who thought that bit might have been staged? Some of the other incidents struck me that way too - such as the fight in the pub where the lad intervened. The guys in the brawl were acting, of course, but it looked as if the lad himself was too ...

I don't doubt the premise of the programme, but I'm sure some of the incidents were staged rather more than they were letting on.

Anyway, I don't mean to offend, Angelfish, but if your faith is so fragile that it'll take a knock from a TV programme that will suggest what lots of other people have suggested (only in different ways) then ...

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

What's to fear? There has already been a team in the states that were able to stimulate the brain in such a way that it produced a 'religious/spiritual' experience. Frankly I'd be more worried if we didn't have a religious/spiritual bit to stimulate...or even manipulate, which is after all what Derren brown does. And he does it well - but it's trickery in the end. He may believe that all religion is trickery of a sort, but don't be fooled that he isn't using TV trickery to bolster his point.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Jerome Frank published a seminal study in the 1960s, which reviewed the full range of healing mechanisms, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.

The 1993 publication date is a reissue and 3rd edition:
Persuasion and Healing: A Comparative Study of Psychotherapy. JHU Press. 1993. ISBN 978-0-80184636-6

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

Thanks Shipmates, I knew I could rely on you to talk some good sense. I feel as if my faith/doubt has been in a permanent state of tension for about 15 years now, but the main thing that keeps me going on, apart from sheer force of habit is the fact that the believers I encounter radiate far more goodwill and warmth than the humanists.

This is now feeling a bit like it belongs in All Saints, doesn't it? Who on earth wants to hear about my personal faith crisis?

Anyway, i shall watch the show, but will have to catch it on iplayer later, as I have just remembered I will be away Friday night in Eastbourne, getting hyped up on Stuart Townend and Co, at the Mission Worship conference. I will be careful to monitor my responses to suggestion, crowd dynamics and so-on.

I like your viewpoint, Raptor Eye: if it's all rubbish, let's get it over with and find out already.

I am also interested in why I feel afraid of discovering that religious experience is all lies... Is it simply because my entire worldview would have to change and that could be inconvenient? Would it really change all that much? I suspect I would still try to stick to what we believe are Jesus's teachings because they really do lead to greater joy in life. Might be a bit tricky keeping to it, without the Holy Spirit to help though...

How would you change your lifestyle, if you discovered there was no God?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:

I am also interested in why I feel afraid of discovering that religious experience is all lies... Is it simply because my entire worldview would have to change and that could be inconvenient? Would it really change all that much? I suspect I would still try to stick to what we believe are Jesus's teachings because they really do lead to greater joy in life. Might be a bit tricky keeping to it, without the Holy Spirit to help though...

Would the Holy Spirit stop helping just because you stopped believing? If one is trying to stick to Jesus' teachings why shouldn't the Holy Spirit continue to guide?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

We all have faith crises from time to time. It's normal. It's part of having faith.

I sometimes wonder whether my life would really be that much different if I stopped believing in God - which is a bit of an indictment ...

By the way, I think a sure-fire way of hastening a faith crisis if you're feeling the way you are is to get hyped up on Stewart Townsend at Eastbourne.

[Biased]

One of the things that eventually triggered a move away from the more overtly charismatic side of things - although I'd still claim to be open to that sort of thing, only in a more 'informed' way - was seeing this sort of thing happening in Spain - where I wasn't so familiar with the language. Seeing it all done in a different language and setting made me more aware of the crowd dynamics and platform cues ... interesting ...

Don't let Townsend or Derren Brown put you off, though - the reality is much deeper and more complex than either of them.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

Boogie, my hypothesis is that God is proved to be fake, so there is no Holy Spirit. What would you do then? - just hypothetically speaking.

I do not doubt that in reality He continues to help me, even though I am so full of doubt at times (that seems to make absolutely no sense!).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Angelfish - I would suggest that 'discovering' that there 'is no God' is as much a faith position as 'discovering' that there is one.

We're not dealing with some kind of laws of physics/mathematical equation here ... although physicists and mathematicians will no doubt call me on the inadequacy of that statement ...

We're talking about faith not 'proof'.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

What makes you think that we are in any position at this stage in history to 'prove' that? We may have a slightly better grasp of science and have lots of technology at are fingertips that we didn't not so very long ago, but generally speaking, it would seem to me that we in the Western world are dumbing down faster than we are learning.

A more pertinent question would be why Derren Brown thinks so many people in the world are permanently and continuously conned? It's more than a tad arrogant.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

Yes, Gamaliel, I am aware of the dangers. It happened to me last year, where I came away from the conference feeling full of excitement about God and worship, and then within a week I was sitting planning a church service, thinking, "does He really want to hear this rubbish sung at Him on a Sunday morning?". But alas! I had already booked for this year by the time the big downer came along. At least this year I will be wise to it.

I do think that part of the way spiritual life works is that we are often lacking personally in the areas our gifting feeds in others. As a worship leader, my gifting is encouragement, yet I so often feel discouraged in my walk with God.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

angelfish

Thank you for OP - I wouldd not have known, but I shall be watching it!

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said, I found the last section of the programme rather unconvincing. I'm not sure the girl being hypnotised to overcome her fear of singing in public and then going onto the stage and delivering a show-stopping performance with a full backing band and no rehearsal rather far-fetched. Am I the only one who thought that bit might have been staged?

No. I was pretty sceptical about that part too, as much as it made for very entertaining television!

quote:
I don't doubt the premise of the programme, but I'm sure some of the incidents were staged rather more than they were letting on.

Exactly. We mustn't be too gullible about Derren Brown. [Biased]

That said, I do often enjoy watching his programmes.

I will certainly be watching this Friday. I've seen him debunk the 'slain in the Spirit' stuff before. As an evangelical, charismatic Anglican, I think there are counterfeit experiences, and that we must be extremely careful about auto-suggestion and the like ... same goes for the Catholic end of things, which can have a sort of sugary sentimentality about them.

But I also believe in the 'real deal'. [Cool]

I appreciate folk like DB who debunk the psychic charlatans, and who hopefully make the charismatic crowd think more critically and rigorously about some of their beliefs and assumptions.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
By the way, I think a sure-fire way of hastening a faith crisis if you're feeling the way you are is to get hyped up on Stewart Townsend at Eastbourne.

Do you mean Stuart Townend (his name often gets mis-spelt)? Because he's one of those rare charismatic birds who write pretty deep lyrics. I'm not a fan of New Frontiers but Townend is ecumenical: he moves in other circles, from what I can gather, and I like a lot of his songs.

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I do think that part of the way spiritual life works is that we are often lacking personally in the areas our gifting feeds in others. As a worship leader, my gifting is encouragement, yet I so often feel discouraged in my walk with God. [/QB]

One of my favourite hymn writers is William Cowper, who had an extremely traumatic childhood and suffered virtually all his life from terrible manic depression: the poor man was often confined to mental asylums. [Frown]

And yet he wrote the most beautiful, life-affirming, faith-affirming hymns. He wasn't making that stuff up: his faith was genuine. Often great art comes out of great pain. 'Hold them cheap who ne'er hung there', said the great Jesuit poet Gerard Manley Hopkins.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I did not doubt that for a second, SusanDoris!

Gamaliel, what you say about faith v proof is interesting. For me, whilst I agree the can be no proof, my faith is based on evidence: the historical evidence of the accounts of Jesus's life, for which the only plausible explanation to me is that it happened as the writers said it did; the evidence of the experience of millions of other people which cannot simply be waived away; and the evidence of my own experience of something bigger and greater and distant yet more present that anything else, whispering to me in the stillness. So if any of this evidence is shown to have an alternative explanation, where does that leave faith?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I'm going to make a programme that will show you how to forge a £5 note. This will prove that £5 notes don't exist.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Don't misunderstand me, Laurelin, I don't have a downer on Stuart Townsend - despite getting his name wrong!

Angelfish understood the point I was trying to make.
And he's made a very interesting point about own giftings/propensities sometimes helping or 'making up the lack' in others but at the expense of something in ourselves - in his case encouragement for others at the expense of feeling discouraged himself.

I'd say this was pretty normal.

I've known a few actors in my time - including one or two well-known ones - and they are all shy and retiring types in real life ...

Anyway, I'm essentially in agreement with you that the 'real deal' is there as well as the dodgy.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Angelfish - 'where does it leave faith?'

'Some said it thundered.'

There are alternative explanations. There is still faith.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:

Gamaliel, what you say about faith v proof is interesting. For me, whilst I agree the can be no proof, my faith is based on evidence: the historical evidence of the accounts of Jesus's life, for which the only plausible explanation to me is that it happened as the writers said it did; the evidence of the experience of millions of other people which cannot simply be waived away; and the evidence of my own experience of something bigger and greater and distant yet more present that anything else, whispering to me in the stillness. So if any of this evidence is shown to have an alternative explanation, where does that leave faith?

That is a curious interpretation of faith. Or so it seems to me.

Faith means trust. And trust at its best is informed by evidence.

So it's not a case of faith standing in contradistinction to evidence. It's a case of one nourishing the other.

You might be interested in the conference held last your on doubt in a Christian context. In particular I would recommend the first talk by John Lennox called "Doubt and Confidence – A Biblical and Scientific Perspective."

http://www.rzim.eu/doubt-training-day-oxford-audio

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I think we're saying the same thing, Squibs. My point is that faith is evidence-based, so potentially rocked by the evidence being shown, for example, to be faked.I will listen to the John Lennox thing with interest. Thanks.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So watch it if you want to...
I won't, and I don't.

Fine. I, OTOH, have now booked it to record. That is the way life and choice operate.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I think we're saying the same thing, Squibs. My point is that faith is evidence-based, so potentially rocked by the evidence being shown, for example, to be faked.I will listen to the John Lennox thing with interest. Thanks.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I agree that challenges to something you believe can be unsettling - and I've certainly had my moments of doubt and, in all honesty, fear. But ultimately I am of the opinion that what I believe in relation to God (or X, Y and z) is true while also recognising that objections to my beliefs - and some of them are good objections - doesn't necessarily equate to a refutation of them.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Boogie, my hypothesis is that God is proved to be fake, so there is no Holy Spirit. What would you do then? - just hypothetically speaking.

I do not doubt that in reality He continues to help me, even though I am so full of doubt at times (that seems to make absolutely no sense!).

Me too - my doubt is far stronger than my faith these days, 'tho my faith persists, somehow.

So if you stop believing in the Holy Spirit S/he won't stop helping you, as that's not in God's nature. But if God is proved to be fake then it's not a problem, you have survived thus far! You'll be just fine.

(Maybe, deep down, it's the 'explaining to others' bit that bothers you more - loss of face/credibility etc?)

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

There's so much that, as an atheist, I'd like to say! However, the atheists (and humanists) I know are happy, cheerful people, and may I recommend a quick look at myweb site? [Smile]

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(Maybe, deep down, it's the 'explaining to others' bit that bothers you more - loss of face/credibility etc?)

I don't think so. Well, maybe a bit. Mainly, I can imagine the upset it would cause to my family and my church. They would all be so shocked and I think devastated, that it would cause them and me tremendous pain (not meaning to sound arrogant, but that is how I would feel if someone close to me or in my church had such a personal revolution. Indeed, I am still reeling from a close friend merely choosing to move to a different church over a year ago). BUT I hasten to add, to any hopeful atheists reading (SusanDoris), that avoidance of pain to loved ones is not my reason for continuing in the faith - merely the source of the fear of losing it.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Kiddies, it's TELLY!!! Carnie. Hokum. The man BORES me, it's so obvious. Now REAL magic shows, done in front of your eyes, with me staring at the guys hands from a foot away, THAT impresses me.

Gamaliel, five up: you THINK!

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Boogie, my hypothesis is that God is proved to be fake, so there is no Holy Spirit. What would you do then? - just hypothetically speaking.

I do not doubt that in reality He continues to help me, even though I am so full of doubt at times (that seems to make absolutely no sense!).

I doubt DB will be attempting to disprove the existence of God. The programme appears to be aimed at the sensations some people fondly imagine to be 'religious experience', 'feeling the holy spirit', etc. Not the same thing at all.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Kiddies, it's TELLY!!! Carnie. Hokum. The man BORES me, it's so obvious.

Quite so - at least at one level - and there is a tendency for his programs to be trailed in ever more overblown (I nearly said over-egged) ways over time.

Though his earlier programs on the topic have proved to get the dynamics of the charismatic services fairly spot on - which given his background isn't much of a surprise. So in that sense they serve the purpose of being able to watch something like that while being removed from it (because it's tele and because you know it isn't real).

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:

I am also interested in why I feel afraid of discovering that religious experience is all lies... Is it simply because my entire worldview would have to change and that could be inconvenient? Would it really change all that much? I suspect I would still try to stick to what we believe are Jesus's teachings because they really do lead to greater joy in life. Might be a bit tricky keeping to it, without the Holy Spirit to help though...

How would you change your lifestyle, if you discovered there was no God?

In the reverse scenario, having Jesus come into my life and show me the reality of God, my lifestyle changed from one which was self-centred (not selfish I hasten to add!) to one which was God-centred.

The change of habits does take some getting used to, as does 'coming out' to your family and friends (very difficult for me too as they were not religious), but we must be true to ourselves imv.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Having seen the programme, what do you think?

Was the 'religious experience' generated by her own mind or by a connection with God? DB's suggestions of a perfect father figure who gives us unconditional love and of whom we are in awe describe God.

DB's suggestion that we decide to believe in God to make ourselves happy didn't ring true for me. Firstly, we can't simply decide to believe. Secondly, I was happy before I came to believe.

I found his repeated connection between the words 'superstition' and 'religion' irritating. There is no connection imv.

His idea that we invented God in the first place to keep us under control seemed ridiculous when at the same time he was suggesting that communities were keeping themselves under control. Did I miss something?

All in all, interesting mind games, but not convincing.

Posted by Head In Clouds (# 16365) on :

Hello folks, I've lurked for about a year or so, but felt moved to post here after watching the DB show last night. There were some very glib assertions ("Why do we believe in God? Because it makes us happy"!!) but I rather felt sorry for the girl. Sure, she was given a staged 'religious experience' but she was also given a staged - and very public - let-down.

However, her description of her experience was almost word-for-word a duplicate of my own of some 35 years ago. And that was a little unsettling. He seemed to trespass on my own sacred territory there. I don't feel that my faith is threatened though. Nobody talked to me, or planted suggestions in me......it came on purely as a result of reading 'Voyage of the Dawn Treader'!

I knew, and know, just exactly where that feeling came from. It was a wonderful few weeks - before the Big Drop. DB needs to know that a Christian life does have joy, yes, but it can be hard, lonely, empty and demanding. Sometimes it looks so easy to be an atheist!

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

Thanks for that, Head in the Clouds.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I am just watching it, having recorded it last night. There are a number of interesting things that it raises.

1. There are psychological aspects to religious experience. That does not actually prove that there is not also more to it.

2. If you encourage someone to think about their life, the important people in it, some of the important events in it, then they are liable to have a strong reaction to it.

3. If you do this in a setting that has "religious" overtones - whatever that may be - then there will be an association with this.

4. To make this experience something that lasts for years, there is a whole lot more that is needed - as he said, you need to explore life further, and take a far more "scientific" approach. I accept that this will be impacted by you beliefs, but this is always the case anyway.

5. One thing that he did - quite crucially - is alert her to the fact that faith did play a part in her life and work. That in itself is an important development in anyones life.

6. I have done some NLP work - which is what he was using. To have achieved what he did in such a short time, she must have been open to the possibilities. This is even accepting the fact that he is a master of psychological trickery.

7. The initial trial, putting people in a "haunted" crypt, just means that she was not gullible. I would also have had a better time working with her than the others, because of her starting point.

8. A religious experience can be, as he showed, a positive thing. The process of examining your life, of considering where you are and what you believe is a good thing. So where is his problem.

8. He is an entertainer. He is someone who deliberately tricks the audience and the viewers. I have learned to be interested in what he does and says, but I would not trust him for a single moment. We do not know what else he said, or = despite what he said - whether there was anything else of significance in the setting.

So interesting entertainment, but does it change anything? I don't think so. He is a fascinating illusionist, but he is also an irritating arsehole. More importantly, he uses psychological tricks, which provide insights into how the mind works, but - critically - it is not clear how his tricks work yet.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So interesting entertainment, but does it change anything? I don't think so. He is a fascinating illusionist, but he is also an irritating arsehole.

Perhaps it's just me - but I don't actually find him all that irritating. Sure there is a certain amount of showmanship - but in general he actually comes across as almost low-key when he isn't pulling a mask.

In fact, his personality seems to be very much that of the average member of a middle of the road charismatic church - which given his background isn't that surprising.

quote:
A religious experience can be, as he showed, a positive thing. The process of examining your life, of considering where you are and what you believe is a good thing. So where is his problem.

I'm not sure he has a particular problem with it - I suspect he'd even agree that that particular thing may be positive. It's just that taken on it's own it may not necessarily mean a lot more than that - and I'm sure that given his background he probably seen people using such experiences to prey on people.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I just find some of his showmanship irritating. He makes some of his points far too often, far too much.

I think what I meant was, even if the basis of some peoples faith is mistaken (which I would accept that it is), is that really a problem? His beliefs and faith - in his own understanding - is also based on a lack of understanding to an extent.

I don't see the problem of faith if it produces good effect. I do see the problem of faith if it produced bad effect. What the basis of this is seems - in this context - irrelevant, so I am not sure what he has proved or demonstrated.

The think is, I think Derren and I would probably find massive areas for agreement. But for me, this does not discount my Christian faith, whereas for him, it would seem to.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I just find some of his showmanship irritating. He makes some of his points far too often, far too much.

Isn't part of that just by virtue of making a popular TV programme?

quote:

I don't see the problem of faith if it produces good effect. I do see the problem of faith if it produced bad effect.

Well, if you want to put things that way I suspect he wouldn't disagree with you - and from what he's said in interviews he seems more of an agnostic than an atheist. The ultimate claim of the Christian faith though is not that it's useful (in the short term it might actually have a 'bad' effect), but that it's true. I suspect what he disagrees with is the leap from the experience to that conclusion.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I gave him a couple of minutes, what a joke. I mean really.

The fact that's he's right about the charismatic and she easy self-deception we engage in invalidates the gospel and its demands of us how?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I completely forgot to watch last night, but managed to see it on4OD this afternoon. The way he worked was interesting. I don't think I learnt much I didn't know before, but certainly worth watching. They didn't say at the end whether there's another programme in the series; does anyone know?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The fact that's he's right about the charismatic and she easy self-deception we engage in invalidates the gospel and its demands of us how?

It doesn't. It does invalidate 'proving' the gospel based on a liver shiver though. As I said, I think a lot of things are explained based on his background in soft charismaticism.

Posted by recklessrat (# 17243) on :

Interesting (and highly edited, of course) mind games. Nothing faith-damaging for me.

A comment about rational atheists (as opposed to the irrational religious!) was made at one point, which amused me.

Very surprised that the woman who was given the experience was only debriefed a week later when the show was broadcast, which is what was implied. If this was the case, it's pretty unethical.

Comments re the only reason for faith being 'if it makes you happy' were f&@#ing patronising and ignorant imho.

[ 17. November 2012, 21:23: Message edited by: recklessrat ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The ethical implications of what he does worry me. Using these sorts of techniques on someone without their consent or knowledge is as unethical as the religious charlatans that Derren has such a problem with.

The thing is that he proved an emotional response could be generated psychologically. If that is associated with a particular context - that of faith - then this will remain their context of experience. All Derren did was give the context of his own belief structure rather than a religious one.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The ethical implications of what he does worry me. Using these sorts of techniques on someone without their consent or knowledge is as unethical as the religious charlatans that Derren has such a problem with.

That's asuming of course that it's not a trick and she didn't know what was going on.

Consider the following:
Simon Pegg's Present - Derren Brown: Trick of the Mind

For those who can't watch videos. Derren Brown talks repetitively to Simon Pegg about how it's possible to fool someone into thinking the gift you got them was their childhood dream. The room they are in is full of both red and circular objects some of which are in pairs and spinning and resemble the wheels of a bike.

At the start of the day Simon wrote his dream gift down and put it in a sealed, signed envelope.

Simon states that he wrote a red BMX bike on the paper. He upwrapes his gift and is impressed to find the BMX bike he awlays wanted.

Finally Derren repeates his claim that it's possible to make people think the gift you gave them was what they always wanted and tells Simon to open his envelope and read out what he actualy wrote. Simon is bemused to find the words Leather jacket.

Now here's how this works: The "subliminal symbols in the room and Derren's repetive talk is all a smoke screen to make people think he's using the power of sugestion. In fact all he did was use simple magicians slight of hand to swap Simon's envelope with one containig the phrase lether jacket. Notice how the clip cuts away at the end before Simon can state something revealing such as, "That's not my hand writing".

[ 18. November 2012, 11:29: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

He's a very famous man, so EVERYONE involved knows and is deceiving themselves at best and being VERY well paid.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

Oh well, I might not even bother to watch it based on the above reviews.

Incidentally, I avoided the hype at Mission Worship this time, and had a really good refreshing time of encouragement with God instead. You might hear rumours that the charismatics are starting to realise the limits of the Renewal movement, and the value of liturgy and worship rooted in Scripture. I am sure that this is going to help all us poor storm-tossed doubters within the church to get a grip on reality.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

George Spigot - you might have a point, that his performances often have one more level of bluff than most people will spot. His mint smell experiment showed this - he was bluffing with the bottle, but also bluffing with the sound wave.

There were some bluffs, as I noted above, but there might have been the one more that it was all a set up. That does match with my observation that the time he had was not really enough to do what he was trying to do. So she may well have been a stooge.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I don't think he uses stooges. He is on record as aying there would be no point doing these shows with stooges, and I agree and believe him. But I do wonder to what extent the subjects of his shows can seriously not guess that there is something more going on than he tells them. His reputation precedes him, and of course if you want to get on the telly, you go along with it, don't you?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Stooge may have been too strong. But it may be that there was more to what happened than we saw. I would not put it beyond him to have added another layer of deception, which was my core point. We have to accept what he tells us, but we do not know what else he said, or whether there was any discussions previously.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Oh for God's sake people; it's TV. None of it's real. It's carefully edited, angled for best reaction, tinted, played with, messed with, staged. It's how its done. All of cinema and TV is an illusion whether it be real life documentary or fictional film. Even me pointing a camera at something live isn't 'real'. It doesn't convey the feeling thats there, the smell, all thats gone on before, all the people present. It's always selective...illusory. Thats just the way it is; and it can be one hell of an enjoyable ride, but one in which you have to totally surrender yourself to that persons view and eye. You are the prisoner of the maker who is in total control.

Edit:
unless of course you turn it off.

[ 20. November 2012, 12:13: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

fc - yes, of course it is. the point is trying to work out what is actually being portrayed. Especially when someone claims that they are doing something.

The question is, could DB do what he claimed? Did he offer any evidence that he could? And what was it he was claiming anyway?

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
How would you change your lifestyle, if you discovered there was no God?

I don’t think that you can discover there is no God. What you can do is realise that there is no valid reason to believe that there is a god (or gods). For clarity – I do not consider common usage, tradition, unsupported claims, ignorance and hearsay to be valid reasons.

When I discovered that belief in the god I had been taught about was unjustified I gained in many ways. I gained money, time and effort – all of which could be directed (for good or ill) in ways that the system I had followed previously had rendered impossible. I was able to redirect my aim in life from attempting to be righteous to trying to be the best I could be. Instead of being fearful about my post-mortem existence I was able to appreciate more fully the one existence I knew I had. Rather than focussing on my salvation I was able to try to assist with improving the lot of others. By appreciating that the good fortune I enjoyed as a consequence of matters beyond my control was due to luck rather than virtue or god’s will I was more able to value my situation and see others, not as failures/inadequate or “un-saved”, but as people who had potential. What it didn’t do was make me perfect – but had I felt the need for that I would have been better staying in the church – not because I would have been perfect but because I could have kidded myself that I would be once I was dead. Freedom from belief in god is, for me, a mixture of liberation from the fear of being imperfect and the assumption of responsibility for my actions. It means that I take the credit when I’m right, and the brickbats when I’m wrong – which seems more equitable than God getting the glory whilst I still get the agro.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
A more pertinent question would be why Derren Brown thinks so many people in the world are permanently and continuously conned? It's more than a tad arrogant.

Whether you want to accept it or not we are all being conned much of the time – and if you think that an advertisement is rubbish because you don’t feel inclined to buy the product I’ve got news for you – it wasn’t aimed at you. No point in trying to persuade me to buy a new Mercedes (how do you spell Mercedes – a-r-r-o-g-a-n-t – you can’t beat the old ones) not because I’m insufficiently arrogant but I’m not competitive about possessions – perhaps because I’m not rich enough to be so?

Marketing works – advertising is often targeted immensely accurately – packaging colour, for example, is used to attract target customers this sort of analysis* , design is subordinated to marketing (compare the shape of some roller ball-type deodorants for men and some of those aimed at women), features are added/subtracted to appeal to different potential purchasers and branding is ruthlessly pursued to maximise repeat purchasing.

*Guess who gets "Hungers for intensity in life and welcomes opportunity to take on challenges and experience them with intense vitality. Is open-minded, active, and full of initiative. Expects others to share interests and join in enthusiastically. Lets nothing get in the way of or restrict interests and activities. Also pays little heed to conventional prejudices or the timidity and lack of magnanimity of others."

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Angelfish - 'where does it leave faith?'
...........................There are alternative explanations. There is still faith.

Yes but there is also “I don’t know”

quote:
Originally posted by Head In Clouds:
Hello folks, I've lurked for about a year or so, but felt moved to post here after watching the DB show last night. There were some very glib assertions ("Why do we believe in God? Because it makes us happy"!!)

Hi Head In Clouds

“Because it makes us happy” is a little simple – but it applies to most choices we make, whether for ourselves or for an organisation. What makes humans happy is fulfilling needs such as peer approval, recognition, admiration, co-operation, leadership, influence, control and sometimes to be feared. Not all of them for everybody – but an experienced salesman can do well targeting his pitch to support the listener’s goals. Based on my experience of Christianity – the happiness causing areas seem to be around the absolving from blame/negation of imposed guilt, the expectation of a better life post-mortem and, in some areas, the expectation that god will return tenfold the cash you put in the bucket.

quote:
Sometimes it looks so easy to be an atheist!

Actually it often is – and don’t let people tell you that worthwhile things have to be difficult – because they don’t.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I gave him a couple of minutes, what a joke. I mean really.
The fact that's he's right about the charismatic and she easy self-deception we engage in invalidates the gospel and its demands of us how?

I didn’t see the prog but I doubt anyone has claimed that delusion and self-deception invalidates the gospel (like most people I can pick out bits I think are genuinely good) – but knowing that we are all subject to such characteristics raises doubts about the genuineness(?) of convictions - they could all just be wishful thinking couldn’t they?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

As I get older I listen more and more to the spirit and it is telling me load and clear that DB is at best a manipulative “entertainer” feeding cheap thrills and at worst a wicked charlatan who screws with peoples subconscious because he can and because he enjoys the power.

As such I will not watch him, the same way I avoid porn, Jeremy Kyle and the tele-tubbies.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

[ 22. November 2012, 10:26: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

As such I will not watch him, the same way I avoid porn, Jeremy Kyle and the tele-tubbies.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Humour me. Why the teletubbies? (No probs about avoiding the other two ..)

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

As such I will not watch him, the same way I avoid porn, Jeremy Kyle and the tele-tubbies.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Humour me. Why the teletubbies? (No probs about avoiding the other two ..)

Jerry Falwell had a reason

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

You see, there are two reasons why I find him interesting to watch:

1. He is exceptionally good at what he does - he is a performer and presenter who puts together what he does incredibly well. Yes I find him irritating, but I acknowledge that he is fantastic at what he does. David Blaine does big staged events, but he is crap at presentation, and comes over as a bit of a tosser.

2. He has an interesting psychological twist to his work. Significant aspects to what he is doing interest me from a psychological perspective. If I just want brilliant illusions, I go to Dynamite, who does exceptional illusions, but you know that they pure illusion. DB does some interesting mental experiments as well, which makes it a more fascinating challenge.

So yes, he is a manipulative entertainer, but that is why I am interested, because it gives me insight into manipulation, and how it is done, in a safe environment.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0