Jonathan Entero Posted over 2 years ago 'Further to Our Last Conversation Here Concerning the TED Treatment of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx Talk' When a position in argumentation is based by a lack of understanding on the topic, that is the foundation of dogma. Psychology exposes that we are not free thinkers as we would like to be, critical thinking skills do help but we always suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance. I have read the god delusion and it's not your typical pseudoscience theist novel without references at the end, no this book is almost all backed up by peer review journal articles, however I have never seen it properly debated, what i see are logical fallacies that atheists tell theists about. Extending outside the ted talk many I discussed fall into the trap of not judging the arguments on a case by case basis, instead disproving one of his hypothesis is the same as disproving all of his hypothesis. Now I am not implying that Sheldrake is always right, yet I have gained a different perspective towards mainly the scientific method, and while nobody takes him on a case by case basis without straws and ad hocs I am not agreeing with the atheists simply because I am one but because I am not satisfied with the arguments, but I am open to change my views, isn't this what dogma is not about? A debate with Krauss and Sheldrake would be interesting.