Robin Ince hosts the alternative Christmas’ show, Nine lessons and Carols for Godless People, for people who do not believe in God but science, ‘believe’ being the key word there!
Ince and friends act as the ‘persecuted minority’ of rationalists in a culture populated by superstitious religious people. It's rather ironic then that our culture is actually a scientific and technological one, where the scientific perspective is the dominant way of knowing and understanding the world.
The game of oppressed minority is thus rather distateful. It reaches grotesque proportions when Ince reads what the audience is supposed to find fascinating facts of scientific discovery whilst saying 'ironically' how boring they are. He keeps on repeating that they are boring to prove his point that they are not. Why bother with being subtle? Robin, dear, science is not boring, but you are!
Brian Cox laments the cutting in funding for physics. Mhm, what could it be? Arguably, funding for university research is not enough, but the largest share has always gone to the natural sciences. It is humanities and social sciences that have been consistently neglected, not physics. There’s also the ‘small’ matter of having to rescue our financial system.
The main problem of the show, however, is the judgemental, intolerant and ignorant attitude towards religion. They all protest (far too much) that they are not anti-religious, but if that were true, why were the acts mostly referring to religion rather than science?
It seems to me that these ‘pseudo-rationalists’ think that religion and science are in competition. They believe in the myth that religion is a pre-modern irrational superstition which explains the world through supernatural causes; that the advent of modern science has opened our eyes to the ‘truth’; and, thus, we don’t need religion any longer. This is what is often referred to as the ‘Walt Disney Theory’. It’s sweet but sucks.
Aside from the fact that being religious doesn’t necessarily mean believing in God or anything supernatural. Belief in God is not irrational because the existence of God cannot be proven. By definition God is beyond physics, beyond scientific discovery. If science troubles itself with God then it’s not being scientific. The object of scientific discovery is the physical world, not metaphysics. Trying to prove the existence of God (or rejecting God on the basis of lack of evidence) implies that one doesn’t understand science.
That is the problem. These pseudo-rationalists believe in science and their prophet is Richard Dawkins. They pick on abstruse elements of religion, such as ‘creation science’, crystals and ‘the bible code’, to say that only science is rational and the only way of knowing. Religion is a way of knowing, and so are literature, art and music. You can shrink religion to fit your prejudice, but that’s all you’re left with: ugly prejudice.
18 comments:
I couldn't agree with you more. The 'new atheists' (who are defined by their religion being atheism rather than by a simple disbelief in God) annoy me to the same extent as Biblical literalists (i.e. Creationists)
Hmm... I am a flatlander, also suspicious of literature art and music..
Why suspicious? If one doesn't get literature, art, music or religion, one simply has no sensitivity towards it. It doesn't mean that there's no truth and/or beauty in them. I don't get sport or mountains. I'm sure there's beauty in both, it's just not for me. It doesn't make me a better or worse person. Although you got to be suspicious of those who don't get chocolate ;)
The difference between science and religion is that science changes it's view based upon evidence. Religion does not.
Scientific rationalism is therefore a way of thinking about the world based upon evidence - the polar opposite of religion.
Science does not claim to have all the answers, admits this whilst valuing using the available evidence as the least worst assumption as to what those answers are.
Francesca, you say that "Belief in God is not irrational because the existence of God cannot be proven". However, the likelihood that God exists is infinitesimally small because there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that he does. It's not a 50/50 shot. This is what makes it an irrational belief.
While I loved the show I am also getting a bit bored of militant atheism. I am an atheist myself and always have been. I like to think of myself as a rationalist but this term seems to have been taken up by people who are being nothing more than irrational.
The show itself mostly came across to me as a celebration of science, though. The really annoying stuff is things like the "Godless bus" campaign which seems to be pretty pointless and most of things Richard Dawkins has said. Atheists are not an oppressed minority and when they lash out they do so with the attitude that they are somehow saving the foolish believers or standing up for the truth. Although I agree that they are speaking the truth, I don't really see how this is any different to the minority of religious people who try to shove it down your throat.
Religion is not dangerous. This idea in itself is irrational. There are very good reasons why it can be seen as dangerous and seemingly a lot of evidence. But what militant atheists often fail to see is the big picture philosophy behind it all. Religion is an ideology which acts like any other ideology. The prejudices and violence that can occur from people having extreme beliefs are the same that would occur among people with any kind of extreme beliefs. Were it possible to make religion disappear I really don't believe anything would change. There would simply be another ideology in its place that would act in the same way.
I haven't been convinced yet by anything either a religious person or a hardline atheist has ever said. I don't believe there is a God but I don't believe there's anything wrong with disagreeing with me either. Though I am open to argument and if a "rationalist" can change my mind (very sorry, don't think a religious person could swing me their way) then I'd reconsider. Just haven't heard anything compelling enough yet.
Gosh, have you met Sarah Palin? I'm sure you'd be great friends.
Belief in God is a very small part of religion and is not present in all religions.
The point I made is that there is no competition between science and religion. Science explains the physical world, how the world exists. Religion delves into the meaning of existence and thus how to live (and doesn't necessarily involve any dogma).
To think that religion and science are in opposition means one doesn't understand science nor religion.
"Aside from the fact that being religious doesn't necessarily mean believing in God or anything supernatural."
Out of curiosity, and I mean this absolutely sincerely, how are you defining religion? My understanding is that it does indeed mean believing in something that cannot be proven nor disproven (unless it actually happens reliably often). As you say, this would be something beyond science's realm of understanding... which is how my dictionary defines "supernatural."
religion includes a multiplicity of phenomena (e.g. laws, community, beliefs etc.). Different sociologists focussed on different aspects: for Vico religion was a legal system ordering a community and guaranteeing its welfare; for Durkheim religion was a projection of society, its structures and hierarchies; Weber was interested in how certain religious beliefs and interpretations had an impact on behaviour; for Geertz is a meaning system etc. Sociologists and psychologists of religion today do not provide a tight definition because they are aware of the multifaceted aspects of religion and its various phenomena. Belief is one of many and many times it's belief about morals which is not 'supernatural'. See my post on 'what is religion'.
Thank you. I've now read http://paswonky.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-religion.html too, which makes your perspective a little clearer.
As far as I understand, scientists are not against art or morals or anything else like that. They just want to work out what's objectively true and what isn't. The scientific method tells us how the universe works, and why it works that way, but it doesn't tell us what we ought to do. Obviously, science on its own would make for a very incomplete society! I agree with you that we also need to keep in touch with our more emotional, dare I say "human" side.
The only time scientists ever seem to object to this, in my experience, is when people base their morals on ideas that are dependent on them believing in something they can't prove to exist. Actually having morals themselves and creating art are perfectly natural things that all people do in one way or another, and all scientists want to do is understand how and why people are moral and make art, not to stop them doing it.
I think I'll respond with a post on science, so stay 'tuned'. Ta.
What's all this hyperbolic talk of 'Militant Atheism'? Were the people in the show armed and in uniform? I don't think so; that phrase is meaningless and pure provocation.
This worrying idea that the absence of belief is itself a belief is a red herring and illogical.
All supernaturalism should be under suspicion. Respect has to be earned and what we're seeing is the inability of the religious to earn the respect of the irreligious, since 9-11 this scrutiny has intensified and rightly so. To accuse the show of having a 'judgemental, intolerant and ignorant attitude towards religion' is to demand undeserved respect on behalf of the religious mentality; this notion has to be fought wherever possible.
To throw down Christopher Hitchen's challenge to believers; name an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer?
Fought with argument and not guns obviously ;-)
Being an oppressed minority is not a 'Game'. I have lived my whole life afraid to tell the truth about my non-belif in any god, in case I am accused of being intolerant towards religious people. I find they take offence very easily, but don't seem to care that their own intolerance towards my non-belief causes great offence. I am a pensioner now, and at last I feel I have the backing - from Dawkins, Cox etc. to speak my mind.
without any specifics one cannot comment, but it doesn't make much sense. Dawkins is a good example of someone who is intolerant. Being an atheist is not about trashing religion and people of faith. If you behave like Dawkins I can see why they would think you're intolerant.
That aside, disagreement with people and people telling you off is not discrimination.
Yes, Chris, there's lots of bad in 'religion', but there's lots of diversity too. The programme was gratuitously anti-religious.
Post a Comment