leyton.org

I settled down to watch Richard Dawkins’ new series “The Genius of Charles Darwin” last night with high hopes. Unfortunately, it fell somewhat short of my expectations.

The subject matter certainly demands coverage in this, the 150th anniversary of the publication of his ground breaking work ‘The Origin of Species’. What it didn’t need, in my view, was to be turned into another atheist argument. Channel 4 has done an admirable job over the last few years of representing various world views, it’s the only channel to devote any serious time to the specific subject of atheism. I’m also quite curious about the series “make me a Christian” which starts this Sunday, but – I should add – more for the comedic value I see in the prospect. That said, I fear I’ll get wound up by it in no time.

In my view, the subject of evolution by natural selection could have been dealt with – and been the better for it – if the subject of religion had been left on the side lines. Leave it as an exercise for the viewer to draw what (to me) are solid conclusions. But accept that there are many biologists and geologists who do find a way to allow evolution to sit side by side with their beliefs (Don’t expect me to explain the mental gymnastics that requires). I simply take Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation is most likely true – quite seriously, and evolution to me does a more than adequate job at explaining our place in the world. Gods only complicate it further, and actual demand far more difficult explanations.

Dawkins’ medium is definitely not television. His written works are elegantly written, and in them he deserves his position at Oxford as the Charles Simonyi chair for the public understanding of Science. But in television I feel he comes across as slightly arrogant, smug, distant and, I’m afraid, somewhat grating over the course of an hour. I’m a big fan, so goodness knows how anybody who wasn’t would feel after settling down for an hour of documentary.

Compare this to National treasure, David Attenborough. Attenborough has found a way of reaching out and pulling his audience in to the savanna and rain forest with him, so we all manage to enjoy the splendour and variety of the life about us with him. It’s clearly a tall order to expect Dawkins to become a similar treasure overnight(!), but if he could take on some of the approaches, and manage to find a way to better engage with the audience, it’d make for far more compelling, informative and educational television, especially when dealing with scientific subjects rather than his atheism.

In the core message of the programme it did better, when he wasn’t bringing religion in to it. Evolution is not a complex concept – indeed it’s rather obvious when you look at the selective breeding process we apply to our favourite animals – but it really seemed a bit more mixed up in the life of Darwin than would have been ideal. The budget may have been at play here: The choice of what seemed like aging natural world footage of animals fighting, eating, copulating and fleeing, and the strange metaphore of a piano to explain the relative duration monkeys (and humans) have existed to the entire span of life on earth. Some on-screen graphics really would have been better, and more emphasis on the simply vast stretches of time involved. Geology plays a key part in demonstrating evolution, but it didn’t seem to be applied or explained very effectively. Similarly it was very fleeting (but when it was mentioned, did so very effectively) how horrifically cruel yet wonderful the natural world is. Parasites, eat or be eaten, how the eye has independently evolved multiple times, and how there are some bizarre relics of evolution within our own body.

All said, I’d give the programme 6/10 – Could do (much) better. It fell short of really engaging effectively with a fascinating subject, and Dawkins made atheism a far more a central part of the programme than was necessary. Dawkins perhaps needs to realise that if he had been less up-front about atheism, and focusing on the core concepts he was supposed to be putting across, it might actually have convinced more people to what seems to now be Dawkins’ main role as lead atheist. As it was, a programme that should have been about a stunning piece of science, it became more of a programme about atheism, and as such was much the poorer for it. And I say this as both a Dawkins fan, and an atheist myself.

Via The New Humanist, (itself via The Metro) I’ve just come across this brilliantly subversive seasonal painting, called “A Glasgow Nativity Scene”. The Metro dubs it “The Chavtivity”, but should probably more appropriately called a “Nedivity scene”, given Ned is the term used for, er, Chav up here.

A bottle of Buckie, a box of cigarettes and a satellite receiver of dubious origin are the gifts from the three, er, men. Modern day humble origins indeed.

Absolute genius.

As part of my job I have to think of worse-case scenarios, and plan/consider the response for them. As I’m a full-time computer geek, this is along the lines of “what if this computer fails”, or “how to recover last months reports”, or “can we cope with double the demand”. Disconcertingly, managers always also go on to ask “what if you get run over by a bus?”.

I’m sure they mean well, they’re worried about system passwords and such, but… It’s always a bus.

Do they know something I don’t? They often go as far as suggesting it’ll be red. Never a number-plate though. Oh no. That’d be helpful, and we all know where management stands on that

But I digress slightly. I got to thinking of this when I was reading the news of a tragic death. Such events are always sad and always different. But I’m struck by the similarity of the reporting for such events. The press seem to follow a specific pattern.

First they find neighbours (or is it the other way around?) and get some sound-bites, usually along the lines of “he was popular in the local community“, “he’ll be greatly missed“, or (if the person in question is suspected of something dubious) the more implicitly sinister “he kept himself to himself“. Always wonder why that’s viewed as abnormal in London, where I rarely knew any (and liked even fewer) of my neighbours.

Secondly they seem to find a local politician (or is it the other way around?), who talks in generic terms about the “sad loss for the community“, and that they’ll make sure “we get to the bottom of it“, and other such vague assurances.

Finally they seem to find the local priests (or is it the other way around?). This is what really bugs me. There’s an implicit assumption that the priest has a right to get involved. Maybe they do check the views of the affected, but I’m suspicious given the ubiquitous dog-collar-at-sad-event. Can I put it on record that, if ever I get hit by a bus and it makes the news (Probably something along the lines of ‘weblogger predicted own death by bus‘. Deary me, no broadsheet coverage for me…): Don’t get priests involved. I’m an atheist, and don’t even like most priests. Far too sanctimonious for my liking.

Interesting aside is that “The State” always appears to insist on religious “memorial” services for the great and the good, even when the subject of the service was a Humanist. Ronnie Barker is a case in point. Well loved. Has a Humanist funeral. Gets a religious memorial service from the state. Go figure.

The other thing is my tongue-in-cheek “or is it the other way around?”. Where do they find the people? The press turn up to record some event for the news, do they then start knocking on doors, or do they grab the rubber-necking neighbours and ask for a sound-bite. Do the neighbours then get all excited back at home when they appear on TV, despite the sad event they’ve commented on? Strange combination of emotions, I’m sure, if they are genuinely sad about what happened, but genuinely excited to be on TV (as I think most people are… right? Certainly judging by the frequent looning going on behind the “live at the scene” reporter)

News reporting with too much self-selection is worrying as it skews the event. Perhaps not that dissimilar to the thing so many programmes do of ensuring “balance”. Giving equal weight to alternative arguments paints a false picture. Global warming is a great example: Massive science behind it, but it’s reported “fairly” by ensuring the few scientists who disagree frequently get equal airtime, making it appear to be more “uncertain” than it is in reality.

Similarly, is the BBC on an anti-alcohol moral campaign right now? Sure too much alcohol is bad for you, but I count three major news items that featured prominently on their flagship news programmes, in the last 3-4 weeks: Labelling of alcohol; Youth binge-drinking endemic; Middle-class drinking the real problem. All fair enough, but I’m detecting a particular morality focus from the BBC news editorial team at the moment.

But to try and bring this ramble to a close, wouldn’t it be funny if I did get hit by a bus. OK, maybe not… Just don’t invite any priests to comment on it. Unless they were Pastafarians of course. Preferably dressed as pirates. Now, that would make me laugh.

Some helpful advice for anybody who’s not quite sure how to behave when confronted with somebody who posits a rational view of the world. This one seems to be from objectiveministries.org, which has a whole suit of toe-curling characterisations to help children.

To be honest, the fewer people that try to “witness” me, the better for all concerned.

Goodness. I am sounding crotchety. Who’d have thought it?

There is a strange assumption in much of the press that ‘community leaders’, especially those ‘representing’ many minority groups must in some way be religious. As if these terms are directly interchangeable, and as if all views within a community are uniform. None more so than the Muslim council of Great Britain, which seems to have a special place in the “in our studio to discuss this…” slot of so many debates.

Good news then is that the Council of Ex-Muslims of Great Britain, launched last month (Guardian coverage here), is seeking to give a public voice to the growing numbers of ex-Muslims, and to help those who may otherwise feel trapped (Muslim apostates face death in many countries, and even here may find themselves cut off from their family and friends). Surely in this country everybody has a right to live their life freely, with respect, and as they chose, regardless of their beliefs or preferences?

The councils spokesperson, Maryam Namazie, is a prominent activist on many issues, and has her own weblog, which is well worth checking out.

Imagine the situation where a young child finds themselves being abused by an authority figure. If that authority figure was a child carer, a relative, or a public figure of some sort there would – when it was discovered – be outcry and almost certainly criminal prosecution.

Yet if that public figure is a religious authority figure different rules apply, as this current example demonstrates. Listening to ‘Today‘, we had the pathetic bleatings and script-reading/question avoiding from Pearl Luxon that ‘Robust polices are in place‘ and ‘it wouldn’t happen today‘. Hardly the reassuring statements I would expect, and demonstrating, to me at least, that these organisations are so far up themselves with their own inflated sense of importance and demands of special treatment, that they really aren’t to be trusted. There seems to be an endemic historical and organisational attitude problem that they are above the law and appropriate practice.

Supposedly the church is “committed to the safeguarding, care and nurture of the children within the church community“. I have great difficulty with this. Quite simply they should, on discovery of crimes such as this, notify the appropriate authorities – police and social services would be a good starting point – rather than naively attempt to forget all about it. They certainly don’t seem to be in a position to claim they are safeguarding the children in their ‘protection’. Needless to say, I have grave concerns about the ‘nurturing’ too.

The argument against this is that ‘not all Priests are bad’ and this sort of thing is a ‘rarity’ (Although Irish priests don’t help such a claim. 3% of priests in a region?). Indeed, generally, they’re not bad people. I actually have fond memories of the village vicar when I was a child. But in a wider setting not everybody is a criminal, but we have a set of rules that are supposed to apply to everybody. Churches, and the people who hold authority within them, should NOT be exempt from the rules and practices that every other member of society is required to adhere to, especially when the welfare and safety of the vulnerable is concerned.

And these are sorts of organisations this government is encouraging to run schools… Worried? I certainly am.

Some old 1979 interview tapes with Douglas Adams have been rediscovered and published, and anybody who’s ever enjoyed Doctor Who, H2G2, or any of the other products of his extraordinary imagination and comedy talent will no doubt enjoy this article.

The Radio version of Hitchhiker’s remains one of the funniest programmes ever put out by the BBC, the books are just as good, the TV version remains a classic BBC Sci-Fi effort (dodgy special effects and running about in quarries compliment the humour wonderfully), and whilst the recent film left a lot to be desired, it still had enough of the original (including plenty of references) to be an enjoyable few hours.

Reading the interview, it’s very sobering and sad to remember that he died so suddenly, and so young, with so much more to no doubt offer on the various causes he was passionate about. This ranged from conservation of the natural world (long before it became fashionable), to humourously speaking up for atheism in novel and challenging ways, and generally living life to the fullest possible extent. He certainly remains one of the real inspirations in my life.

I followed the build up to the Trident vote with interest. It’s a big issue up here in Scotland, with the main base from which the submarines sail here, and the forthcoming Scottish Parliament election here makes it a key election issue.

Also because, curiously, it’s a subject I’ve not really given enough thought to before.

So I thought I’d air my thoughts here and, perhaps, start to try and work out where I stand, because I think I’m in an awkward ‘fence sitting’ position which just annoys everybody.

The asides…

But first a number of unrelated asides, brought about because I know this is a divisive subject which I’m sure will come up over a beer at some point in the future.

Before delving in to intractable politics, it’s worth saying to folk who might be considering sending me an e-mail, that one of the odder aspects of maintaining a weblog is the strange cathartic process ’serialising’ a particular viewpoint has. By which I mean to try and lay out the logical steps between facts A, B and C, and your conclusion, Z. It’s surprising when – perhaps even here – you don’t quite come to the conclusion you perhaps felt at first, when you’ve exampled the facts and then committed them to, er, the screen. It’s that last step of committing your arguments, for others to look at and examine. Your innermost thoughts exposed for all to critique, often without feedback.

Which leads me on to the very strange effect, when airing your views (warts and all) to people, often that means family and friends whom I’m going to meet up with in the not too distant future. It can result in strange, sometimes awkward, encounters where your opinions are well known to them, but not reciprocally. Almost like they’ve been listening to every word you’ve said and then tapped you on the shoulder, catching you completely by surprised, and not a little embarrassed.

And one last thing, before I finally ‘get to it’. This one’s relevant too! I should add that I’ve sat on this post – much as I probably still sit on the fence – for a couple of weeks now (BBC link above is from the 15th March). I wanted to see if I had come to a conclusion by ’sleeping on it’, but I’m still not sure I have. I’ve added a bit at the end which I think hints at a conclusion, and I’ve surprised myself there a little, but more than ever I’d be interested in any readers views, links, suggestions on this most important of topics. I very much doubt I’m alone in my angst.

But anyway, I digress… On to the main event… Read the rest of this entry »

Roger Darlington was very gracious in awarding me a ‘Thinking Bloggers’ award and passing on the meme. Because I like shiny things, I also get to put up the little icon. My site, my rules

Anyway, I’ve not been tagged with a meme before, so figure it’s only fair to actually pass it on as the idea requires, so my list of five blogs that make me think are:

So, those are my five ‘Thinking blogger’ nomination/awards/memes. Hope there’s something of interest there for readers.

This appeals to the geek in me (memories of GCSE Computer Studies, and my special IT stencil), the science geek in me, and the atheist. It succinctly captures both the scientific method, and the fundamentals of religion in one easy picture:

Science vs Faith – the flowchart

Enjoy. Found via boingboing.