Wow

Will Storr’s new book The Heretics is not widely available in the United States, but after reading about it online, I decided to order a copy from a UK bookstore, the Book Depository (via Amazon Marketplace). It came yesterday, and naturally I started off by reading the parts that interested me most – Storr's ruthless demolition of Holocaust denier David Irving, who has been discussed previously on this blog (see the comments thread at the link), and his investigation of parapsychology and its skeptics.

To be honest, I wasn’t expecting a whole lot from the book, at least as far as parapsychology was concerned, because I figured I had already read the juiciest quotes. And I guess I had, but nevertheless I found the book’s treatment of this subject exquisitely fair, doggedly persistent, and exceptionally well-informed. It is probably the best short examination of all sides of the psi controversy – paranormal researchers, professional skeptics, loopy true believers, and honestly befuddled laymen – that I’ve seen.

I had intended to excerpt the best parts, but after a while I discovered that this was a hopeless undertaking because it consists of pretty much nothing except “best parts.” The colorful little tags I was inserting to mark significant passages began to bristle like a peacock's plumage. Since I can hardly quote the entire two chapters (60 pages) covering parapsychology and skepticism, I’ll just give you some highlights. I really do recommend tracking down a copy of this book, and I hope it becomes more readily available in the USA before long.

First we have some surprisingly acerbic comments from the usually mild-mannered Rupert Sheldrake. Here’s Sheldrake on his longtime bête noire Richard Wiseman:

“Wiseman's a stage magician. A conjurer. A skilled deceiver … He's a huge asset to the materialist movement. He's their hitman.” [p. 318]

Sheldrake on James Randi:

“Randi is a liar,” says Sheldrake. “He's a man of very doubtful character indeed – a rude, aggressive, dogmatic Skeptic who knows nothing about science. He's taken seriously by people like Dawkins – they worship him – because they see themselves as engaged in a war against unreason and religion. And if you're in a war, you want to have thugs on your side.” [p. 319]

Storr, by the way, always capitalizes the words Skeptic and Skeptical, a neat way to subtly convey the quasi-religious overtones of the organized debunking movement. I may start doing this myself. 

After talking to Sheldrake, Storr next pays a call on Richard Wiseman, but comes away less than impressed, noting:

Wiseman's career as a celebrity Skeptic is predicated on there being no such thing as paranormal phenomena. He admits to never having had any “interest in investigating if it’s true because I’ve always thought it isn’t”. [p. 325]

Fascinated by Sheldrake’s characterization of Randi as a liar, Storr goes to considerable lengths to track down documents that might settle the issue one way or the other. This quest leads him first to Guy Lyon Playfair, who is initially not able to produce an old affidavit disputing Randi’s account of experiments performed with Uri Geller many years ago. He proceeds to an encounter with Veronica Keen, widow of respected afterlife researcher Montague Keen. This vignette serves, I’m afraid, as comic relief, as the voluble Mrs. Keen instructs Storr on postmortem materializations, mystical portals, Egyptian pyramids, and the Illuminati. The episode comes to an unfunny close when Mrs. Keen is quoted as implying that afterlife researcher Gary Schwartz is a member of the Illuminati, because “he’s a Jew and a scientist.” (Full disclosure: I’ve had a couple of telephone conversations with Mrs. Keen, and while I found her to be charming and friendly, she is decidedly not someone I would seek out for a sophisticated, critical interpretation of psychic phenomena, nor would I put much credence in her characterization of any particular individual.) 

Honestly, Storr could have been forgiven for abandoning his interest in parapsychology at that point and concluding that the skeptics must surely be right. To his great credit, he persists in getting to the bottom of things. Along the way he presents a clear and well-thought-out explication of the so-called “hard problem” of neuroscience – the emergence of consciousness from matter – and discovers a paper trail that serves to discredit at least some of Wiseman’s and Randi’s claims. In Wiseman’s case, he had insisted to Storr that he began his experiments with the so-called “psychic terrier” Jaytee (a dog who knew when his owner would be coming home) at the same time as Sheldrake himself. Sheldrake, on the other hand, said he began the experiment’s months before Wiseman got involved, and that, indeed, Wiseman actually borrowed some of Sheldrake’s equipment. Storr writes: 

Later I find a paper co-written by Wiseman in “reply” to some of Sheldrake's criticisms. It confirms that Sheldrake “kindly invited [Wiseman] to conduct his own investigations of Jaytee”, and that they took place thirteen months after Sheldrake's experiments began.

I decide to look up the Schmidt meta-analysis that Wiseman talked about, which he said excluded Sheldrake's work because “it's just not good enough quality”. I am surprised to find it concludes that there is a “small but significant effect” of the sense of being stared at. But I am more surprised yet when Sheldrake tells me that he was excluded from it, not because his work was deemed sloppy, but because it is an analysis of experiments that separated starer from staree using CCTV – something that Sheldrake has never done. [p. 324] 

The old affidavit regarding the Uri Geller tests also turns up, courtesy of Guy Lyon Playfair. It does indeed contradict Randi’s account in his book Flim-Flam. Somewhat flummoxed by all this, Storr is no longer quite sure what to believe. He points out:

Sheldrake defended himself easily against many of Wiseman’s attacks. It was the opposite experience from that which I had been led to expect. [p. 330] 

Seeking an independent opinion, Storr contacts brain researcher David Eagleman, whose nuanced position struck me as a great relief from both the intransigence of Richard Wiseman and the credulity of Mrs. Keen. Eagleman is quoted as saying:

“But it is perfectly possible that materialism will not be a solution and that our science is too young to recognize something else that’s going on. So I think it’s appropriate to have some intellectual humility and skepticism about whether our current physics and biology are sufficient.… I wouldn’t want to get quoted saying that I support Sheldrake’s theories, because I’m not familiar with them,” he says. “But I’m a supporter of people proposing wacky ideas because every single major advance started off as a wacky idea. We are at a very young point in our science right now. We need ideas. What doesn’t make sense is to pretend that we know the answers and to act as if we’re certain that materialism is going to bring us all the way home, because we have no guarantee of that.” [p. 329] 

This brings Storr to the climax of his investigation – an interview with the Amazing One himself, the redoubtable James Randi. First he recounts Randi’s biography, a suspiciously hagiographic account that contains more than a few inconsistencies. Obviously a bit doubtful, Storr nonetheless reports with a straight face that Randi, having been granted permission to leave school because he was just too smart to learn anything from his teachers, managed by the age of 12 to teach himself “geography, history, astronomy, calculus, psychology, science, mathematics and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.” [p. 334] Many more spectacular accomplishments in the fields of escapology, skepticism, and science are duly recounted. Summing up, Storr tells us:

He is a record-breaking, toaster-inventing, hieroglyphics-reading, jail-cell-escaping, helicopter-dangling, crook-baiting, doctor-defying, fear-baiting certified genius. No wonder they call him amazing. [p. 337] 

We are, however, given grounds to doubt at least some of these impressive claims. Storr observes: “It is common for Skeptics to claim that they are truly open-minded, even when their behavior suggests that they are anything but. James Randi, though, takes this phenomenon to a fascinating new level.” [p. 337] And he mentions a 1974 Toronto Sun news clipping about a conspicuous failure on Randi’s part. As excerpted by Storr, the clipping reads:

“Randi – The Houdini Who Didn’t. The Amazing Randi, magician by trade, almost died of embarrassment yesterday – not to mention a lack of oxygen – while bound and locked in The Sun’s office safe. The world-famous magician was pulled unconscious from the safe nine minutes and thirty five seconds after he entered it while horrified staffers looked on … Suddenly from inside, came the shout: “Oh, oh … Help me … Get a drill … Hurry it up …” [p. 346] 

In any event, it is clear that Storr is not quite sold on Randi’s reputation (among skeptics) as a man of sterling honesty and dazzling intellect. The most he will say about Randi is that he is “a clever man who is often right, but who has a certain element to his personality, which leads him to overstate ... And sometimes lie. Get carried away.” Randi, hearing this characterization, answers surprisingly enough, “Oh, I agree. No question of that. I don’t know whether the lies are conscious lies all the time … But there can be untruths.” [p. 368]

Randi’s interview with Storr is marked by obvious inconsistencies. Here’s Randi talking about his relationship with his father. In this quote, I’ve added italics to emphasize the contradictions.

“I didn’t really speak to my father at all. We only spoke seriously twice in our lives. I remember both of them almost word for word.”

“What were they?”

“I don’t recall one of them.”

“Can you tell me about the other one?”

“It was about sex, as a matter of fact. He had doubts about my sexuality. He tried to have a talk about it and I fluffed it all off and got out of it somehow. I don’t remember the exact defense. But it was awkward,” he says with a nod. “It was awkward.” [p. 361] 

As you can see, Randi goes from “remember[ing] both of them almost word for word” to not recalling one of them at all and apparently having only a hazy recollection of the other one. Immediately after this passage, Storr writes:

He claims that he didn’t take any exams at school, and then a little later says that he did. (It is not the only time he seems to abruptly contradict himself. At one point he manages to do so within the same sentence: “I didn’t go to grade school at all, I went to the first few grades of grade school.”) [p. 361] 

Storr rather aggressively confronts Randi about an old controversy in which he allegedly said that a supporter of Uri Geller had shot himself after Randi debunked Geller. The person in question actually died of natural causes. Randi has always said that his remarks, which appeared in the Japanese press, were mistranslated. But Storr has found a 1986 article in an English-language paper, the Toronto Star, quoting Randi as saying the same thing: “One scientist, a metallurgist, wrote a paper backing Geller’s claims that he could bend metal. The scientist shot himself after I showed him how the key bending trick was done.” Randi attempts to get out of this by claiming that the Canadian journalist misquoted him, and that what he really said was “that is what we call shooting yourself in the foot”.

Storr writes: 

He has offered this explanation in the past – but that time, it was for the Japanese quote.

“So it was just a coincidence that the same error happened in Toronto and Japan?” I say.

“Yes,” he replies. “But it happened.” [pp. 362-363]

Storr proceeds to the notorious incident in which Randi dismissed Sheldrake’s dog experiments by claiming he had performed similar experiments that disproved Sheldrake’s thesis. In the ensuing controversy, Randi eventually had to back down to the extent of saying that the experiments were purely informal and that the data (which he had previously offered to share) had been lost. 

In the interview, Randi at first hedges on the question of whether he said he had performed experiments:

“I must admit to you that I don’t recall having said that these tests were even done. But I’m willing to see the evidence for it.”

“I have these emails.”

“Oh.”

When I ask for a second time what prompted him to do these tests, his memory stages a sudden recovery. “Curiosity,” he says. “I’m an experimenter.” He remembers the name of the dog and its breed and that the experiment was “very informal. I napped most of the time.”

When I press him about his treatment of Sheldrake, he insists that he didn’t lie because when he made the offer to send the information, the data hadn’t yet been lost. But he says that they were swept away in Hurricane Wilma, which happened in 2005 – four years before he stated that the data was available. And in the email, he tells Sheldrake a different story still – that the flood took place in 1998. [p. 364] 

Then there is the dispute that Randi had with Gary Schwartz, in which Randi said he had assembled four experts, among them Stanley Krippner, to serve as neutral investigators of Schwartz’s claims. When an associate of Schwartz, Pam Blizzard, publicly stated that Krippner had never agreed to play such a role, Randi angrily attacked her on his website. Yet it turned out that Blizzard was right, as Krippner himself confirmed to Storr. Storr zeroes in on this altercation. 

“You called this woman a liar,” I say. “But you were the one who was telling the lie.”

“I don’t know,” he says. “I’d have to look over the whole sequence.”

“Might you have been telling a lie?” 

He turns a little on his seat.

“I’m not denying it,” he says. “I’m not denying it.” [p. 365] 

No doubt feeling badgered by this point, Randi loses his composure when yet another controversy is breached – the famous episode in which a team of Greek homeopaths led by George Vithoulkas spent years arranging to participate in the Million Dollar Challenge, only to have Randi change the terms of the agreement at the last minute, making it impossible for the Greeks to continue. Storr confronts Randi: 

“You agreed with his protocol, he waved the pilot study and you told him the test could go ahead.”

“But he didn’t sign the document,” he says. “They backed out when they would not fill out the form.”

“But you and your team had already agreed to the protocol,” I say.

Suddenly, Randi is furious.

“We agreed with the protocol, yes!” he shouts. “Okay! Now you sign the document and we’ll go ahead with it. But he will not sign the document.”

“They were ready to go, and you wrote to them and said everything was starting from scratch.”

“I decided to tell them that until we received the application forms signed they were not applicants.”

“Why do you need a signature on a document after five years, just when everything was ready to go?”

“I needed it! That’s the rules! Vithoulkas says he’s too important to do it.”

“That’s not what he saying.”

“Oh,” he says, sarcastically. “That’s not what he’s saying.” [pp. 365-366]

Randi concedes that he can see why the Greek homeopath would be angry, given the years of effort that went into the project. Storr asks: 

“So why did you change your mind at the last minute, just when they were ready to go?”

“He won’t sign the f—-ing document! Will you get that through your skull? He wants out of it and that’s the way he’ll get out of it. When Vithoulkas signs the document we will go ahead with the test as agreed. End of discussion. I will not talk about it any more.” [p. 366] 

Hoping to shift to safer ground, Storr brings up some comments Randi made about drug legalization – specifically, that he would be fine with drug users killing themselves with overdoses so as to weed them out of the population. Storr expects Randi to distance himself from his remarks, but instead Randi doubles down on his position, leading Storr to say:

“These are quite extreme views.” ...

“I don’t think so.”

“But it’s social Darwinism.”

“The survival of the fittest, yes,” he says, approvingly. “The strong survive.”

“But this is the foundation of fascism.”

“Oh yes, yes,” he says, perfectly satisfied. “It could be inferred that way, yes. I think people should be allowed to do themselves in.” [p. 367] 

Interestingly, once this part of the interview became publicly known, Randi tried to mitigate his position by saying that he was unfamiliar with social Darwinism and its history. (This from someone who taught himself “geography, history, astronomy, calculus, psychology, science, mathematics and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics” by age 12!) Yet in the remarks quoted above, he does seem reasonably familiar with the term and its political implications.

To me, however, the most telling part of the interview comes at the end of Storr’s account. He writes: “During our conversation, I asked Randi if he has ever, in his life, changed his position on anything due to an examination of the evidence.” The question prompted a long, thoughtful silence and then a rather weak admission that Randi had been wrong about how some magic tricks were performed. Storr pressed:

“So you’ve never been wrong about anything significant?”

“In regard to the Skeptical movement and my work…” There was another stretched and chewing pause. He conferred with his partner, to see if he had any ideas. “No. Nothing occurs to me at the moment.” [p. 368] 

Wow.

Comments

[steve em]

I knew Randi was a fraud and an egomaniac however this really drops him into the category of a sociopath.thanks for this Michael.

[someone]

The one thing that sets apart the skeptical movement and the actual paranormal research, is that in the skeptical movement, everybody knows everybody. You see a famous skeptic, changes are they are affiliated with JREF and such. But with serious paranormal researchers, you see something that you don't see with these guys, which is genuine autonomy (aside from the general sharing of ideas and such.

[Roger Knights]

Storr, by the way, always capitalizes the words Skeptic and Skeptical, a neat way to subtly convey the quasi-religious overtones of the organized debunking movement. I may start doing this myself.

I've been doing this myself for years. I've also referred to them as "capital-S Skeptics." Also, "scoftics": scoffers posing as skeptics.

Here’s Sheldrake on his longtime bête noire Richard Wiseman: “Wiseman's a stage magician. A conjurer. A skilled deceiver … He's a huge asset to the materialist movement. He's their hitman.” [p. 318]

My characterization: A slimy turd.

[Paul]

Great review.

[Roger Knights]

Tonight on Coast to Coast AM radio at 10PM Pacific:

Consciousness & the Afterlife
Sat 03-16
Filling in for John B. Wells, Dave Schrader (email) welcomes Mark Anthony the 'Psychic Lawyer,' who'll discuss the nature of consciousness, and how this relates with death and the afterlife.

[Herb Solely]

I am finishing a book by Deborah Blum, titled GHOST HUNTERS, WILLIAM JAMES AND THE SEARCH FOR SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH. It is about all the members of the SPR as much as William James.

The most amazing thing to me is how little things have changed in 100-150 years. The Skepticism of the mindless sort seems to be just as bad then as now.

An open mind appears to be a most rare occurrence, probably somewhere around the frequency of honest politicians.

[Ray]

"The most amazing thing to me is how little things have changed in 100-150 years. The Skepticism of the mindless sort seems to be just as bad then as now."

Herb I completely agree. It is almost as if all of the same players have reincarnated to continue the epic battle in the psi wars. Rather than having Williams James, James Hyslop, Oliver Lodge and Frank Prodmore( thought much more skeptical than the former) we have Dean Radin, Loyd Auerbach, Deryl Bem and Rupert Sheldrake. Houdini is not reincarnated as James Randi. I have grown wary of this battle and all these players will be replaced by a new generation and struggle will continue. It really comes down to us lay people doing our own investigation and seeking personal experience and sharing these on truly sceptical arenas like Michael's blog to form an honest opinion on this topic, IMHO.

[Ray]

Houdini is not reincarnated as James Randi

I meant Houdini IS reincarnated as James Randi. Disclaimer I dont actually literally think this is the case I was just making a point.

[Michael Prescott]

If Randi were a reincarnated Houdini, he would have gotten out of that safe!

:-)

[Kevin W]

Even if Randi had escaped the safe, he'll never escape the truly obvious nature of his own personal character.

[Dash]

I'm new to your blog, linked here by a friend. Good review. My friend wants to buy this book now.

of all sides of the psi controversy – paranormal researchers, professional skeptics, loopy true believers, and honestly befuddled laymen

I just wanted to add that this isn't "all sides" -- there are also people like me who happen to be psi and who are just going about our ordinary lives, not caught up in any "controversy" about our existence, and not "loopy." I've always experienced thought transference -- I started writing about it in my diary at the age of seven -- and it never ceases to both amuse and amaze me the lengths some people will go to to deny our existence, the degree of time, energy, fervor and even dishonesty they will put behind their need to act as "gatekeepers" of reality.

The most amazing thing to me is how little things have changed in 100-150 years. The Skepticism ... seems to be just as bad then as now.

This, this as well! The twentieth century brought many social and ideological changes to Western culture, but the "psi-denial" narratives that began in the 1870s or thereabouts somehow remain well-rooted in even many "mainstream" contexts. Although in my (self-conducted) research, I've found that these narratives only became fully accepted and "mainstreamed" in the US after WWII. It was a long process to get to that point, not a self-evident conclusion from the start. It's hard work to convince a society that a group of people (who everyone knows exists) does not actually exist and never has.

[steve em]

A very small man Jewish kid illegitimate, at a time there was much prejudice. Randi a lot of inner hate directed at others. He is crying out for a psychologist to do a patho biography.

[road waffle]

Really enjoyed this book, the chapter on "Morgellons" stood out for me as I'd never heard of the subject before. The story about the young woman who became convinced that her parents were Satanists was deeply sad and disturbing, too.

I was somewhat amused by that moment when Storr was at Guy Lyon Playfair's place, and was a little dubious upon seeing a copy of the UFO magazine Saucer Smear - not realising that the cover blurb was actually satirical, as the magazine always had a humorous tone.

[Frank Matera]

To the person at "The Sun" who went and picked up the drill and decided to use it to get Randi out... I question.. WHY!

On a serious note.. I would think twice myself but I would still save Randi's life. Unlike Randi I don't believe in Social Darwinism... because if it did exist they would have been burying Randi in with that safe.

[JR]

Hi,

While I appreciate the quality of this blog, I think that labelling and condemning personalities, rather than what they have done, is a serious transgression - which I'd be circumspect to avoid even when angry. As far as I can see it's in no one's interest, and regularly does a psychological harm to those involved the judge, the judged and the witnesses. Whether a successful defense for Randi or Irving could be summoned or not is of negligible importance here.

I wish you'll keep the blog's elevated perspective, and possibly improve it.

[MitiL]

All I wanna say - the best deceiver is a self-deceiver!

[alanborky]

Michael as magicians both Randi and Wiseman seem to be convinced the technique of deflection's justified even in science. If they can manage to confuse the issue of what sort of experiment was done what results were produced or what they're significance is then as far as they're concerned the facts no longer count.

Wiseman who actually has a first rate mind when addressing anything but this particular bee in his bonnet is also the living proof statistics can be massaged to say anything you want and in many regards the pair of them remind me of the types who believe it doesn't matter how wrong your arguments are only that you appear to win the argument ie born politicians.

[Anthony McCarthy]

One of the most telling aspects of the "Skeptics" is their complete inability to apply any skeptical techniques to the heroes of "Skepticism". Especially James Randi, who is deified by "Skeptics" in a way I've never seen any parapsychologist regarded. He is the center of one of the more absurd cults, held to be above criticism, even above close inspection. He is a fraudster more complete than all but one of those I'm aware of him criticizing, the fake faith healer.

[Paul]

A very interesting read - thanks for the recommendation. Apart from the vignettes of the individuals, there were some good insights into the way people deal with information that conflicts with their beliefs and pre-conceptions.

At £1.75 on the Kindle you can't argue it's not good value for money either :)

[Ray]

Sorry I don't know where to appropriately put this but for those of you who are stuck next to a computer all day or on the road the Forever Family Foundation has TONS of great interviews with mediums, scientist, parapsychologist and paranormal investigators. It sure beats what is being played on the radio nowadays!

http://www.foreverfamilyfoundation.org/signsofliferadio.htm

[Joel]

Thanks Ray - great!

[Matt Rouge]

Great post, Michael!

[Art]

"What is it that makes Randi so nasty to behold? Is it his undeserved arrogance? His completely transparent misleading Million Dollar Challenge as a “scientific” statement about psychic ability? His slimy demeanor?"- MU
---------------------------------

You know I've thought about this. Why is that so many materialist/skeptic/atheists always seem so angry and why do they so readily resort to belittling and demeaning language while debating or arguing with those of us who are believers? It's like they never learned how to be nice?

I come from a dysfunctional family. Growing up there was a lot of anger and we never really learned how to communicate in a pleasant non-confrontational way.

So later on in life I "married into" a Christian Church of Christ family. Even though I am a "believer" I am not a typical western Christian type Christian when it comes to doctrine. I have my own beliefs.

But one thing I will say is that by attending church with my wife's family I learned how to be functional. I learned how to be pleasant and nice and kind, loving, compassionate, and communicate without sarcasm and tossing barbs at people.

Perhaps this is what atheist lack is any kind of love for others? They alienate themselves and live in a world where they are the center of their Universe and perhaps they don't really care that their anger and language makes other people want to avoid being around them?

I don't know. I've seen Mr. Randi on TV and he seems like a very angry and sad person. I wonder what kind of support group he has around him? Does he have family? Loved ones? Wife? Children? People who honestly love him unconditionally? Or is he only what we see on TV? Is there something more to him?

[Michael Prescott]

"I wonder what kind of support group he has around him? Does he have family? Loved ones? Wife? Children? "

Randi, who is gay, has a longtime life partner who faced serious legal trouble not long ago (he's an illegal immigrant who had been using a stolen Social Security number). He seems to be surrounded by sycophants who belong to the organized Skeptic movement. He strikes me as deeply unhappy, but I think this is the inevitable result of an ego-centered life. The same thing happened to Ayn Rand in her later years. In fact, the parallels between Rand and Randi are interesting, and go beyond the similarity of names.

[Art]

My best friend happens to be gay so I certainly don't hold that against Mr. Randi but when he is on TV at least he seems to be angry at those of us who are believers. I have another friend that is an atheist and when he gets wound up debating or arguing her resorts to those same belittling and demeaning tactics that Mr. Randi uses. Comparing belief in a Creator and life after death to belief in the Easter Bunny and/or Santa Klaus, trying to make those of us who believe sound like idiots because we believe in something greater than ourselves? I can almost see him sneering while he says it.

On the aside I don't see how anyone who reads about and studies death bed visions can't be moved. I'm just here to tell you - death bed visions are awesome! I find them incredibly uplifting and comforting.

[Rupert McWiseman]

As I have mentioned on another forum, I think Randi has his good points. He was a necessary corrective to the more extreme pro-psi claims that were being made some years ago, and has done good work in exposing out-and-out frauds.

That said, I agree that he seems an extraordinarily angry and bitter individual. In this context I found Storr's discussion of Randi's childhood quite revealing; Randi seems to have had a very poor relationship with his father.

This ties in perfectly with the work of psychologist Paul Vitz, who wrote a book about atheism entitled "The Faith of the Fatherless". Vitz makes a strong case for dogmatic atheism being common amongst people who lacked a strong father-figure in their formative years.

The person's father could be "absent" through death or divorce, or he could be "absent" through weakness or indifference.

Vitz suggests that the person then rejects their father altogether, and remains angry with him throughout life. If the father has died or is not around anymore, the person takes out their resentment on the ultimate father-figure - God.

Randi's rage and bile certainly seem to fit the bill here; another factor might be his sexuality. If Randi was raised in a religious-fundamentalist milieu, then not only would he feel abandoned by his own father, but abandoned by God as well - at least according to literalist Christianity and its attitude to homosexuals.

The more I think about this the more I feel sorry for Randi; he probably felt pretty lonely as a child and had no faith in anyone but himself.

I do remember seeing Randi demonstrating some card tricks on TV many years ago. Just for a moment he was detached from his "skeptic" persona and his inner need to rage against God, and just for once he came across as a nice, gentle, loveable old guy - a "favourite uncle" kind of figure.

Perhaps we should all be a bit more charitable toward Randi and perhaps think twice before judging him.

[Bruce Gerencser]

The skeptic community is much larger than James Randi. I, for one, am a part of this community and I know very little about Randi, having never met him or read anything he has written.

To the commenter who suggests what atheists lack is love for others. Please come to my blog and read the comments I get from blood-washed Jesus loving Christians. The lack of love for others club has plenty of members, and most of them are Christians.

[Michael Prescott]

Bruce, Randi is a pretty big deal in the community of skeptics of the paranormal. He's one of the very few whose names would be known to the average educated person. But if you're talking about skeptics of religion, then I'd say people like Dawkins, Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens are much bigger figures.

As far as lack of love is concerned, I think it can be a problem for anyone, regardless of belief system. One of the interesting things about near-death experiences (specifically the life review) is that most people report learning that their beliefs were unimportant; what mattered was how they had treated other people. Most NDErs become less committed to organized religion and more committed to personal spirituality and acts of kindness.