Richard Dawkins UNCUT TV Debate with psychic!

This is a clip from the TV debate ‘Enemies of Reason’ with arch-skeptic Richard Dawkins. The first clip shows the original show. The second is the ‘Richard Dawkins Uncut’ rushes. Watch both and you will see how Dawkins cuts a program to make him look good. Further down the page are testimonials from people who took part but were conveniently cut from the evidence. Dawkins is clearly an enemy of Truth.

This is was shown on the original TV Show

Now watch the Richard Dawkins UNCUT version of the debate!

It is a great shame that I am unable to get hold of the uncut footage of the demonstrations. These showed some very strong evidence for the proof of life after death.


The Backstory: Lies and Omissions?

Many scientists and academics are highly skeptical of the existence of psychic powers often dismiss the topic as complete bunk. These include conjurers such as James Randi and Derren Brown who are active members of CSICOP (The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) whose mission is to ‘promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims’.

The psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, and psychologists Richard Wiseman and Elizabeth Loftus all consider psychics as delusional. And of course the skeptic of skeptics – also known as ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’ – is the high-profile evolutionist Richard Dawkins who aggressively questions religious beliefs, spiritual experiences and the alleged reality of ESP.

Craig Takes on Richard Dawkins

Here the Spiritualist medium Craig Hamilton-Parker, the owner of this website, takes on the skeptic Richard Dawkins for a television debate about mediums. Richard Dawkins, DSc, FRS, FRSL is an ethnologist, evolutionary biologist, and writer. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.

You can watch the highly edited debate from the TV program ‘Enemies of Reason’. Now for the first time, you can also watch the UNEDITED Richard Dawkins Uncut version of the debate. This paints a somewhat different complexion to the arguments shown on the TV program.

Please add your points to the comments section at the bottom of this page.

On the program, I suggested that Richard Dawkins also consider interviewing Rupert Sheldrake. Dawkins claimed to have never have heard of him yet Shelldrakes blog suggests that they had indeed met but Dawkin’s was not ready to include this information in the argument.

The solicitor Victor Zammit comments:

“Richard Dawkins is a good theoretician biologist but knows absolutely nothing about what is admissible evidence when it comes to the afterlife or paranormal matters. To my knowledge, he never stated where, when, how and why the afterlife/paranormal evidence presented cannot be admitted as empirical evidence. Or why he thinks the evidence is not valid. He is descriptive… ignoring my research and ignoring the best paranormal research of paranormal professional writers and truly brilliant researchers such as Dr. Dean Radin.”

In the News

The press was surprisingly sympathetic to the people who took up the Dawkin’s challenge. The Daily Mirror said: “As you’d expect, Dawkins puts his case calmly, rationally and politely. So it must have been a bit sick-making when he discovers a perfectly logical, scientific reason some of this hocus-pocus actually works.”

In an interview in the Times Dawkins admits: “So how many of these practitioners are crooks? “The psychics, I think, mostly are,” he says. “But with one spiritualist I couldn’t make out if he was a charlatan or not. It’s possible that they know that they’re cold-reading, but they still think it’s the spirits channeling through them.”

Neil Davenports news column said: “In reality, it was Dawkins who came across as shockingly naïve. The program also showed that he possesses the sense of humor of a wooden chair leg.”


Actually, I (Craig) disagree with the last quote. I may disagree very much with what Richard Dawkins has to say about cold reading etc. but I nonetheless liked Dawkins the man and yes he did have a sense of humor. Off camera, I quipped that Darwin got the idea for evolution from a Spiritualist – Alfred Russell Wallis – and Einstein got his Nobel Prize trying to disprove Quantum Theory. Maybe Dawkins will get his trying to disprove what I do!

The intellect is a good friend but a naïve master. Richard Dawkins is intoxicated with his belief in science to the point that he lives under a sort of delusion by denying intuitive thinking and any possibility of transcendent experience. He’s spiritually lopsided. I have to ask the same question printed in the Guardian TV section: “Why is Dawkins always so cross?”


Richard Dawkins edits TV to suit his own agenda?

A number of Spiritualists were angry at the fact that at the event Richard Dawkins conveniently ignored important proofs of life after death. A few wrote to Channel 4 to complain. One angry spiritualist who did this wrote to me to say:

“You came to me first, and this was the first time I had seen you. When we have has readings we only ever answer yes and no during the reading and this time was no different.

“You started off by saying that you had a female. She was having trouble speaking. She had a lispy voice, and you could barely hear her, and you felt it was my mother. My mother had her throat cut twice in operations. She did have a lispy voice, and she did have trouble projecting her voice.

“It was confusing because you said she was doing a stirring movement. You said you did not understand as she was saying over and over ‘the treacle’s mine’. The ‘treacle’s mine,’ this was an outstanding amazing statement because the area in which I lived all through childhood was fondly known as the treacle mines.

“You gave many other factually correct details, but the most amazing of all was that you said my mother came out of her door and saw two Morris Minors. She said they were black. I said no – (They had black roofs and the man restored them but they were grey), you then mentioned the neighbor’s name, which was correct. Later my husband reminded me that although the Morris’s were originally grey he had the doors and wings replaced with and they were indeed black.

Correct Proofs

“The whole reading was correct and could not be interpreted to be made to fit or desperately misunderstood as Richard Dawkins implies to those who seek spiritualists, and we were interviewed by him after where we told him your reading was 100% correct and even about the Morris minors changing color.

“How can Mr. Dawkins whom should be, as a man of science open to things that may not be able to be understood because we cannot physically prove these things blatantly deny that he found any proof or evidence that evening? There have been many examples in the past and present of things that may not have a concrete basis to give evidence of proof such as ‘string theories, and black holes’ – did eminent theologians and scientists just ignore these things because of the inability to give concrete proof? Or were they just better men than he?


“To summarise what I found the saddest of all was that on the programme he said that he found no evidence of proof of mediumship or séance as he referred to it. In my interview with him, he clearly was given acknowledgment of evidence that was true, yet he chose not to show any of this on the program. He was selective, perhaps because it did not fit with the ethos of his program. Surely such a professional should have had the integrity and honesty when making such a program to show all sides and not just make the evidence fit for the glory of a television program!

“I want to thank you once again for your outstanding reading and the evidence that you provided.”

Suzie D. – Camberley

Is Richard Dawkins cheating by not including all the evidence? What do you think? Comment below.



4 comments… add one
  • Elmadriz Jan 17, 2016, 1:53 pm

    Richard Dawkins debunked mediumship with solid common sense questions. I have divorced my self from religion but always used to say: I find believe in witches but I know the fly. Meaning: there is something out there that I can’t explain. After watching Richard Dawkins rationalize the absurdity of spiritualist claims and have observed of Derren Brown has demonstrated how easy it is to manipulate people I am convince that spiritualism is a bunch a rubbish. And that spiritualist specially mediums are predators that prey on people how are grieving. The arguments on this article are a bad attempt to save face.

  • Ann Sep 2, 2014, 5:33 am

    Craig, I absolutely loved this interview as I felt that it was actually fair to ask his question, and should be asked and responded to amazingly as you did. People are going to have their own perspectives and thoughts about everything. As the saying goes ask 10 people in a room the same exact question. And you will get 50 different answers. The realism of his questions and thor honesty of your replies left me feeling a sense of wonderment. I can only imagine that others would feel the same, yet still baring enough of their own thoughts that perhaps they would do their own investigations. I think this interview is Ana amazing stepping stone for the future of mediumship and how people will relate to the honesty and sincerity of both questions and replies. It was brilliant from both of your parts. Thank you for sharing this interview. 🙂

  • Trevor Baldwin Aug 31, 2014, 1:36 am

    Craig? There is an old saying, “a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.” If Richard were to have a truly open mind and were to truly investigate mediumship and Spiritualism with a purpose of learning the truth, he would not have a career! You did fine, but you were never going to convince him. Like you, I have received indisputable evidence from my father in Spirit and from others in Spirit to give to others. But my own partner remains unconvinced!

    Today, as I write this, there was an article in The Daily Express where a reporter attended AFC and was given evidence. But still her report ended up slanted and skewed. (link in my blog). It is frustrating. But Craig – it has been this way for years and I reckon it always will be until the day global mass takes over.

    Keep up the good work friend.

    Trevor Baldwin

    • Craig Hamilton-Parker Aug 31, 2014, 7:13 pm

      I think with Dawkins the best you could ever hope to achieve is a stale mate. Dawkins attempted a few knock out punches but but most people have said to me that they thought Dawkins didn’t get any solid hits and that I had compelling responses to every one of his attacks. At the end of the day it still comes down to whether you believe or not – which is probably the very best outcome one could have hoped for. Hopefully the case (unedited) didn’t lose any ground for mediumship or it’s credibility. Shame the demonstration and the interviews afterwards were not included – and unedited – as this would give people the chance to make a more informed decision.

Leave a Comment