The Tangled Bank

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

PZ Myers's avatar

In which I envy the British

In my house, we have one 19" television, which is relegated to the basement. We have basic cable (it's part of our deal to get high speed DSL to the house), and we get 40 or 50 channels. We get TBN and PAX, I can watch Benny Hinn and John Hagee just about any hour of the day (not that I bother), and even our local public access channel is clogged with broadcasts of church services. I can safely predict, though, that I will never see this show on my cable.

The Root of All Evil

Professor Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist, whose atheism has earned him the nickname of 'Darwin's Rottweiler', takes a personal journey through the world's three great monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Dawkins thinks it is time for science to stop sitting on the fence. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence that, he believes, shows a supreme being cannot exist, and in a world in which religious conflict and bigotry are increasingly centre stage, Dawkins argues that for the good of humanity, religion needs to be challenged and disproved. Never one to shy away from a debate, Dawkins meets leaders from the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions to find out how their beliefs fit with modern science's extraordinary knowledge of our world and the wider universe.

In The Root of All Evil Dawkins accuses the religious establishment of preying on people's desire to believe in a greater being; abusing reason and humanity in the process. Ultimately he asks how they can defend what religion has done, and is doing to us?

Can you imagine the shrieks if PBS put that on?

There's a bit of a review in the Sunday Herald.

If this piece of work gets those kinds of results [shaking the middle ground into thinking about the issue], it will be as much because of its tone as its content. Television, like the society from which it broadcasts, has found it expedient to display ever greater tolerance, indulgence and relativism in regard to lifestyle choices, particularly matters of faith. For this reason, Dawkins's eminently reasonable argument may come across as almost radical in its forcefulness.

That's just the thing: the arguments against the nonsense of religion are reasonable and rational, plain common sense, yet people get the trembly vapors in reaction to any criticism of religion. Even those who don't believe get all anxious, worrying that we might alienate that herd of sheep who happen to have the vote over there.

Ophelia Benson is all over it, of course, with quotes from the program. A new blog gets off to a bang with an excellent review of the program (someone who actually watched it last night! I am so jealous.) Dawkins boldly strolled into the lion's den, interviewing an evangelical pastor, Ted Haggard, and showing him up to be an ignorant fool.

One depressing aspect of this programme was watching Dawkins try to talk to the religiously devout. In the US, he meets up with an evangelical pastor, a staunch Republican who claims to have weekly telephone meetings with Bush, himself devout, and who has also hob-knobbed with Blair and other dignitaries. The pastor raises the issue of evolution, and ridicules the notion that the eye happened by "accident". Poor Dawkins must have feared his head would bust, as I did, when he heard this! He replied, incredulously, "Accident?! I've never heard any evolutionary biologist describe evolution as an accident!". The pastor carried on, unfazed, saying that if only Dawkins had read the books that he'd read, spoken with the scientists that he has spoken to, then he might see things differently. To his credit, Dawkins was forthright and said, essentially, that it was clear that the pastor knew nothing about biology, at which point the pastor adopted a slow, deliberate, patronising tone, and told Dawkins not to be arrogant - having just claimed that the bible is correct and unchanging and has the all the answers. He later chased Dawkins off the premises of his religious megaplex, threatening to call the police and accusing Dawkins of calling his children animals (presumably because Dawkins believes in evolution). Words fail me.

Nobody should ever call Dawkins arrogant. On the scale established by American televangelists, by Christians in general, he is a timid model of bashful humility. Pit a man who works for his knowledge, who willingly tests and reviews it continually, against a mob who trusts in revealed knowledge dogmatically, and I'll tell you who the arrogant ones are.

So, anyone know where I can get my hands on a DVD of this program, in NTSC and playable in Region 1? Also, who can I contact about getting the rights to show it—you know that local access channel that shows the Morris church services? I'd love to walk into the city hall and fill out the forms to get this show on the cable.

That Sunday Herald review makes a big deal about the polarizing effect of this kind of thing, and wonders if it is mere preaching to the converted. I don't think so. The thing is that most people are never, ever exposed to this sort of thing in this country—there's a kind of voluntary self-censorship going on—and confronting the issue head-on is exactly what we need. We don't need to convert people to atheism, but we do need to wake them up and let them know that there are legitimate arguments with their unquestioning acceptance of Christian dogma.

If nothing else, it would be good to make more people aware that sneaking into hearing rooms to annoint chairs is embarrassingly insane behavior for the religious to condone.


I just saw the program myself, thanks to BitTorrent. It's very good—especially since I've rarely seen anything that spells out the problems of religion so clearly shown here.

I must also say…Ted Haggard is extraordinarily creepy.


Trackback url: http://tangledbank.net/index/trackback/3697/2lxIvXQZ/

Comments:
#57181: coturnix — 01/10  at  09:20 AM
I agree. The non-thinking middle needs a jolt. That may turn them into (temporarily) a thinking middle. Many would, I bet, agree with Dawkins if they could only see this. They are afraid to voice their doubt because of the atmosphere here, soooo silk-glovey with religion.



#57184: Tony — 01/10  at  09:34 AM
Had to promise to do two minutes of Buddhist chanting in order for me to get all my flatmates watching this but it was worth it. Even better than the US pastor, Dawkins managed to dig up a Jew who had moved to Gaza as a settler and became a Muslim. The guy was convinced that Dawkins had no moral values because 'he allowed women to dress in bikinis'. I can't wait for the virus of faith next week!



#57188: Stephen Brophy — 01/10  at  09:44 AM
Channel 4 is usually guilty of showing nothing but endless reality TV, but this show really made me glad that it is broadcast in Ireland, a country that is still overwhelmingly Catholic. I don't mean to pimp, but my most recent blog entry is a response to a letter in the Irish Times last week about religion.
If only religious people would listen with open minds to Dawkins - he was so damned reasonable and as utterly persuasive as he was to me when I first read The Blind Watchmaker. I honestly have never heard a reasonable response to the arguments he advanced on TV yesterday.



#57189: Andrew — 01/10  at  09:45 AM
I wish I'd seen this when I was back in the UK over the holidays. Bear in mind also that the UK is a country with an established state religion, yet in a glorious quirk of Britishness the people generally are fine with this kind of thing being aired.



#57190: — 01/10  at  09:45 AM
Actually I have a friend recording the show for me in the UK. Will send it to you when I'm done...



#57192: — 01/10  at  09:46 AM
I think I have a new hero. Darwin's Rottweiler - I love it. From the time I was old enough to be chastised for asking too many questions in catechism class, I've been constantly astonished that people believe all this religious drivel and can’t see how they are being used and manipulated. Guess these people don’t know or care a great deal about the history of the human race, either. I have concluded that most people need religion to believe that they are significant. If God cares about me, I must be important. God has a purpose for me, so whatever happens to me is God’s will. What a load of malarkey. I honestly feel sorry for these people. I just wish they’d stop pushing all of their hypocritical ideals on everyone else.



#57194: — 01/10  at  10:01 AM
I watched it and, while not exactly terrible, it really wasn't as good as it could have been. Also, as someone who gets far fewer than one phone call a day on average and only even attempts to watch seriously about one programme a day on average, it was depressingly predictable that someone would ring me during that one programme. It's like they do it deliberately or something. Anyhow, I cut them off quickly and they went to watch it themselves - with them afterwards being disappointed that they had missed most of it.

So not all UK people take proper advantage of being in the UK. Plus any non-UK people who can't get hold of a copy can take some comfort in it not being the best ever TV that they missed.



#57195: — 01/10  at  10:04 AM
If you have Bit Torrent (and the bandwidth) you can download part 1 of the series here. Although if you are going to air it on the local cable access channel you'll want the DVD and the broadcast rights and all that. But if you are really anxious to check it out then try getting it through Bit Torrent.



#57198: — 01/10  at  10:23 AM
It was sweeeet! I love the smell of secularism in the morning (now if we can just disestablish the damn church of england). My favorite bit was when the american jewish muslim defended 9/11 by saying that atheists fornicate in the street! I must have been elsewhere at the time.



#57200: Ocellated — 01/10  at  10:32 AM
Ah Pz... Ever the interesting read. No doubt about it, there are some sick religious folks around the world. But I must say that in my humble opinion, you are too harsh and gleeful of anything opposed to religion. Just like not all scientists fake their work on stem cell research, not all Christians (or people of from other religious traditions) sneak in to annoint chairs.

As a Christian, I respect people like yourself you just don't want to believe and find no reason to. I just think you strike too harsh a tone in condeming anyone that has religious faith, and I wish you would take a kinder stance of agreeing to disagree, particularly with reasonable religious people. There are a lot of us. But somehow being reasonable just hasn't struck the fancy of the media like chair annointers, etc.



#57204: — 01/10  at  10:44 AM
I watched the programme last night and it was so refreshing to see religion approached from an atheist viewpoint. Even though the UK is less religiose than the US such shows are few and far between.

The weakest part of the programme, I thought, was Dawkins's use of the "Mount Improbable" metaphor to illustrate the process of evolution through natural selection. While it's familiar to those interested in the subject, I wonder if it would make any impact on a lay audience.

He also touched the appeal of religion but only in passing and I wondered whether he really understands it. He might go into more detail in the next show though.

One story that I found interesting, because it was new to me, was how the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is not mentioned in the Bible and doesn't appear in Christian writings until several hundred years later so it was probably made up. Dawkins argued that it gained authority purely through repetition until it finally became official Catholic dogma. The obvious implication is that the same might be true of other religious beliefs.

The strongest parts of the programme were the interviews with the Jew-turned-Muslim fanatic in Jerusalem and evangelist Ted Haggard in which the bigotry and dogmatic ignorance of both were exposed. Although the Muslim fanatic's virulent hatred of anything - in his view - un-Islamic was scary, he was at least completely open. It was Haggard who, if anything, was more alarming.

He welcomed Dawkins initially with the smooth affability of a car salesman. Dawkins, to his credit, was unimpressed and commented almost immediately that the slick showmanship of the services reminded him of the Nuremberg rallies and Goebbels. As you've heard, things went downhill after that. The mask slipped completely in the way he ordered Dawkins and the crew off his property.

Dawkins then went to one of the meetings held quietly by a local group of atheists and free-thinkers. They told of the pressure from the religious right, of how openly declaring atheism could cost someone their job and make it very difficult even to find an apartment. The similarity to McCarthyism could not be ignored.

Far from being arrogant, Dawkins came across as a calm, rational and humane man who is, nonetheless, vehement in his opposition to the unreason of religious belief. What was noticeable, though, as another reviewer has pointed out, was how Dawkins appeared shaken by coming face-to-face with the fanatic's hatred and the blatant bigotry of Haggard, the rationalist baffled by such impregnable irrationality.



#57205: Nurse Riches — 01/10  at  10:45 AM
I saw part 1 last night, and I strongly recommend everyone to see it if they can. Dawkins is a brilliant mind, and he shows the interviwees for what they really are, over and over again.

We are left slightly unsatisfied, I agree, because when he is criticised with astonishing ignorance and untruths by his interviewees, Dawkins doesn't make any attempt to tear their illusions down with cold, hard reason and fact.

Instead he limits himself to asking pointed questions and letting the subjects rant and rave, and in so doing gives them enough rope to hang themselves.

This is a must-see program. Part two is next Monday here in the UK.



#57207: — 01/10  at  10:50 AM
I missed it, but all the strident atheist friends I've asked about it said it was disappointing: Dawkins doesn't come across well on television and there was too much haranguing obvious nutters rather than addressing the equally ludicrous claims of "moderate" religionists.

Here's a better reason to envy the British: Chimp Week.



's avatar #57208: Ken Cope — 01/10  at  10:55 AM
Thanks for the Bit Torrent link, Jason. I doubt that Dawkins would mind if my computer's purpose, for a time, is to exist as a means for the replication and dispersal of his latest (not quite viral, but ought to be) meme.



's avatar #57211: Hank Fox — 01/10  at  11:01 AM
Yeah, PZ, why don't you be kinder and gentler to the people who live their lives by unexamined irrational "beliefs"?

You meanie.

If we'd only let those poor people exist, after all these thousands of years of them being the downtrodden minority, we could all live together so much more happily.

If you were the teeniest bit nicer, I'm sure they'd agree to allow, say, stem cell research to proceed unimpeded. Heck, they might even give up control of the White House and both houses of Congress, and maybe even allow a crack or two to appear in the fawning regard with which the media views them.

PZ, this is all your fault.

If you were only nicer, the full-page-of-free-publicity Church Page which appears in every large U.S. newspaper every Saturday would probably be the Church and Science Together page.

... Or maybe not.

Ocellated, I hope you're writing equally nice letters to express your opinions about, oh, say, Brother Pat Robertson recommending the assassination of a South American leader, or Pastor Fred Phelps saying that those miners were killed because West Virginians are all faggot-lovers.



#57217: — 01/10  at  11:20 AM
Is there any way to order this show on DVD?



#57220: Jonathan Badger — 01/10  at  11:31 AM
Does the show address the one response that theists always bring up whenever the sad history of religious warfare and persecution is brought up? Namely "Yeah, Yeah, religions killed a lot of people. But the godless Commies killed more. Take that you heathen!"



#57223: — 01/10  at  11:37 AM
A reviewer at the Guardian has a less-flattering view of this show. I think she makes some really ridiculous points, to wit:

Let's leave the political scientists to point out the absurd simplification of these political struggles over land, rights and resources, but take a wider point. Human beings develop collective identities - ethnic, nationalist, religious or political - and find in them a sense of belonging, of personal identity and solidarity; the problem is how, at points of competition and threat, those identities flare up into horrible violence. Pinning all the blame on religion blindly ignores the evidence; the Rwandan tragedy was about ethnicity, the Holocaust about a racist political ideology. Crucially it fails to grasp the modern phenomenon of fundamentalism and how religious identity is being mobilised in an attempt to carve out positions of power within a rapidly globalising world; this kind of violent religion is a political product of rapid social and economic change.


I think that's basically just wrong.

Anyway, more here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1681235,00.html

I'll leave it to the clearer thinkers here to tear this article to shreds.



#57224: — 01/10  at  11:44 AM
I haven't seen the show, but I have to ask about the coverage quoted above . . .

<blockquote>Dawkins thinks it is time for science to stop sitting on the fence. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence that, he believes, shows a supreme being cannot exist, and in a world in which religious conflict and bigotry are increasingly centre stage, Dawkins argues that for the good of humanity, religion needs to be challenged and disproved.</blockquote.

Is Dawkins really claiming that there is "scientific evidence<em> that a supreme being <em>cannot exist"? There may be logical, or philosophical, arguments one can make, but scientific evidence? That would seem to me to either be poor journalism or a dubious claim by Dawkins. There are plenty of reasons to doubt the veracity of any specific religion, especially the biggies he so rightfully goes after, but I'm skeptical of the above quotation.



#57225: — 01/10  at  11:49 AM
note to self<-use "preview". Sorry.



#57227: — 01/10  at  12:02 PM
MikeM:

The overall review was not well thought out, and not well written. However, the snippet which you quote is painfully true. Many conflicts which appear to have religion as a proximal root have deeper ultimate roots. The reviewer mentions 2 well known conflicts: Northern Ireland and Palastine. A large part of both these conflicts are about land, history, and cultural identity. In both cases, invaders came in, engaged in terrorist tactics to subdue the native populace, made portions of the native culture illegal, removed job opportunities for the natives, etc. There are other examples, eg, Muslim/Hindu clashes in northern India. Can you tell me why you would disagree that suppression of a collective identity is a lesser root of conflict than religion?



#57230: — 01/10  at  12:10 PM
I think there are going to be a lot of complaints about this program in the UK, although im sure Channel 4 were hoping for that as the more complaints it gets this week the more people will watch it next week. Section 4.2 of the broadcasting code states
The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive treatment


And im sure creationists would argue that it also breaks section 4.5
Religious programmes on television services must not seek recruits. This does not apply to specialist religious television services. Religious programmes on radio services may seek recruits.


And a possible reason there aren't many televangelism programs on British TV
4.7 Religious programmes that contain claims that a living person (or group) has special powers or abilities must treat such claims with due objectivity and must not broadcast such claims when significant numbers of children may be expected to be watching (in the case of television), or when children are particularly likely to be listening (in the case of radio).


I thought it was interesting to see Dawkins act with genuine surprise and concern rather than hostility to the people he was interviewing. I especially liked the former jew turned muslim who seemed to blame atheism for the problems in the middle east.


there was too much haranguing obvious nutters rather than addressing the equally ludicrous claims of "moderate" religionists

There was another program on the BBC a few weeks ago about religion presented by Professor Robert Winston (who is jewish)where he interviewed Dawkins, who said that he thought most scientists who were religious were really just following in the traditions of their families. Ill put it online if its ever repeated again, there was also a short debate with Ken Ham.



#57231: Daniel Morgan — 01/10  at  12:13 PM
I commented on this yesterday and early this morning. I think we must be careful not to play into the "wedge strategy" of the DI and make people feel there is a dichotomy between science and their beliefs. Let them come to their own conclusions, as we have, and hopefully they will adopt a rational worldview, regardless of whether or not it includes a deity. Mine does not, and I disdain dogma and fundamentalism as much as Dawkins, but to achieve what we all hope for (nonexistence thereof) will require an honest approach. We will not be able to use science to convince people god doesn't exist. We can use science to help them learn to think based on evidence, reason logically, use ockham's razor, etc, and from there they ought to be able to make their own conclusions.



#57233: — 01/10  at  12:19 PM
MikeM: I haven't yet read the full article, but I don't see why at least the first part of what she said is ridiculous or wrong. (but see below)

Many conflicts in this world are land disputes or ethnic clashes, "us" vs. "them" stuff. Some of those are wrapped up with religion, some are not. So to this extent I wouldn't pin it all on religion either. But religion can and is a cause of violence in the world, one of several different main drivers.

Also, often a few factors are intertwined and it is often hard to get a clean example of "just religion" or "just land dispute" as a driver. Perhaps the Basque separatist movement may be a good one to remove religion as a variable since the Basques are Catholics in one of the most Catholic countries in the world and still some of them want to separate and are willing to blow people up over it. That's a group identity (language, culture, land) dispute.

I would fault religion but try to equally fault other groupthink phenomena. It's as if there is a common mechanism of obeisance and shutting off one's mind that both relgion and some states and some movements tap into, a condition necessary for the sort of ugly violence and debasement of human dignity that history is rife with.

Her second point doesn't strike me as quite right, though, and maybe this is the beef you had with her? I think violent religious actions crop up for any number of reasons, not as a product of economic change necessarily. My sense is that once you believe things you have no good reason to believe, all bets are off in terms of behavior. You know, Voltaire's, "if they can make you believe absurdities, they can get you to commit atrocities." (though Voltaire may have never said quite that).



#57234: — 01/10  at  12:22 PM
Is Dawkins really claiming that there is "scientific evidence that a supreme being cannot exist"?

Not in this program, all he said was:
There is no well demostrated reason to beleive in god



Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Previous entry: Nicotine, the bad guy?

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
About The Tangled Bank...
Search

Members

Login | Register | Members

Syndicate

RSS 2.0

Recent articles