Humanism in the media
Posted by: Richard in BBC, Media, Personal, Radio, Ramblings, Rants, Thoughts, UKI joined the British Humanist Society for a variety of reasons, not least that I think it’s important to become involved with an organisation that strives to promote a rational and caring agenda without resort to superstition.
One campaign they run had me initially thinking that it was a bit of a lost cause, but the more I became aware of the automatic privilege and deferential nature much of the media accord the religious, for no other reason than they have a particular type of belief, I came to feel that the campaign was actually a very important one. How is that different from the opinions I, and other humanists, hold about our existence? The blunt answer is it isn’t, and it’s unfair to deny humanists the same opportunities, especially given the fact that Britain is a secular society with ever declining church attendance, and - ironically - increased acceptance of a humanist view point.
Perhaps the most easily identifiable campaign for equality by the Humanists is Radio 4’s “Thought for the day”, a slot that is there from what I can recall against the wishes of many involved in the Today Programme during which it is broadcast. It is always a religious slot, and no consideration is given to Humanism (despite some experiments and attempts to redress this). It’s Reverend this, or Guru that. Occasionally Professor/Doctor somethingorother, but usually Professor somethingorother is a Theologist, which negates the point somewhat. Don’t read this that I think the slot should be scrapped, I do actually enjoy much of “Thought for the day” from some of the contributors. But it’s exclusion of those without superstitious beliefs demonstrates, whether the BBC want to or not, that they given an automatic preference to belief in the supernatural, rather than a rational approach to the nature of our existence. Their justifications for its pure religious basis are facile and self-referential, refusing to accept that a humanist or atheist view somehow implies an inability to hold moral views.
Last night on Channel 4, a supposed quest for spirituality. Whilst I didn’t watch the programme, Jonathan Edward’s is a committed Christian (having, if I recall correctly, once refused to compete on a Sunday). It struck me as altogether bizarre that - from what I could tell - a woman “seeking spirituality” was not exposed to a little bit of rationality. An overview of Darwinism perhaps? A discussion on the formation of planets? Done well, it can inspire wonder and awe every bit - if not more so (for it is based on reality) - than any religious comment or opinion about the nature of our existence. Ok, so done badly it’d be little more than a return to the dry atmosphere of a classroom, but it’s important here to find committed Humanists who can present to the public in a lucid and enjoyable way.
The British Humanists are - despite their growing membership - a quiet voice, as they have no vested interests or blind backing of complicit believers who will exercise their votes based on opinions preached from the pulpits. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that: People are entitled to their beliefs, however they are formed (although I’d reverently hope some thought and consideration is applied!). But because there isn’t a large and active political movement, the politicians and media producers will ignore them. You’re also not going to see Humanists lined up outside of theatres every time there’s some implicit criticism of some particular aspect of their views of the world (Using the wold “Belief” and atheism are something of an irony).
It’s this deferential and unfair distinction between sets of “beliefs” in the nature of our existence that is the problem, and until programmes such as Today on Radio 4, and “religious” programming on television addresses the imbalance, I’ll continue to support the Humanist campaign for a more balanced participation in any “religious and ethical programming”.
Entries (RSS)
June 8th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
I received an e-mail from a friend, who said:
To which I respond:
My point is that, when you look at the nature of life, the universe and everything, it’s pretty hard - I think - not to be somewhat awed by the sheer scale of it all, and what has been “achieved”.
“Directed” implies outside control, and that’s just not evident or necessary to get us where we are, as natural selection is the filter process and mutation is the engine.
Granted, it’s equally possible to take a pessimistic view on the nature of reality as you suggest. We are, in an utterly objective sense, entirely insignificant clumps of chemicals in the universe as a whole. But that doesn’t mean by any stretch that we should simply sit back and give up about the pointlessness of it all.
Far from it. I, personally, revel in our achievements, our ability to understand, and to do something inherently good. I’m keen to understand as much as possible, and to try and give something back where possible to those around me, and to society as a whole.
“Bad” traits are a nonsense. They’re there because they evolved at some to put some creature at an advantage to others. “They” are fiddling about, sure, but it doesn’t necessarily cause problems. To be honest I’m not sure where I stand on genetic engineering or eugenics t(sidenote: Have you read Brave New World?). On the face of it, it’s remarkable what we can do. On the other hand, it could be rather ghastly. Aldus Huxley tackles this well.
We can’t remove our ability as creatures to mutate and evolve. That’s inherent in the DNA inside every cell in our body, which was - and continues to be - formed by those processes. There’s the interesting situation that because we are now so spread out, and able to overcome natural obstacles (which were necessary for new species to emerge), we may not see much in the way of evolution by natural selection. However, we might see different processes driving evolution. Will we all end up as short-sighted, bald, large-headed super-intelligent animals, or tall, noisy, arrogant and knuckle-dragging Neanderthal throwbacks, or just stay the same? It depends on how offspring appear on the scene.
All that said that, a bloody great meteor would drop us right back to evolution by natural selection. We’d probably almost all die out through hunger. Cockroaches will inherit the earth…. Remember, we’re just one particular species of monkey, and monkeys are just one of millions of creatures. Introduce ruddy great meteor and the process will carry on, just as it has for billions of years beforehand.
But we are uniquely able to think about the future, and do something about it. Which gives me a huge amount of optimism (in between my bouts of pessimism about how fucked we are, most often after hearing George W Bush speaking) about what a remarkable type of monkey we actually are, and what a wonderful place we actually inhabit. It’s all because of understanding the processes.
r.
June 9th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Humanism was a term I first came across as the philosophy of President / Dr Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia in the 70s and 80s.
He was a good man surrounded by corrupt behaviour around him eventually.
January 13th, 2006 at 9:18 am
[...] I’m a regular listener to the Today programme, but a continual source of puzzlement (previous comments here ) is the refusal by the BBC’s department of “Religion and Ethics” to allow humanists and atheists to contribute. [...]