Slaves to Superstition
Screening UK Channel 4 on Monday 13 August 2007 at 8pm
Part 2 will be screened on Monday 20 August 2007 at 8pm
In his last Channel 4 series, Root of All Evil?, the evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins explored how organised faith and primitive religious values blight our lives. But the fault line runs deeper even than religion. There are two ways of looking at the world – through faith and superstition or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence – in other words, through reason. Reason and a respect for evidence are precious commodities, the source of human progress and our safeguard against fundamentalists and those who profit from obscuring the truth.
Yet, today, society appears to be retreating from reason.
Apparently harmless but utterly irrational belief systems from astrology to New Age mysticism, clairvoyance to alternative health remedies are booming.
Richard Dawkins confronts what he sees as an epidemic of irrational, superstitious thinking...
He explains the dangers the pick and mix of knowledge and nonsense poses in the internet age, and passionately re-states the case for reason and science.
The ever wonderful Charlie Brooker devoted his Screen Burn column from The Guide in yesterday's issue of The Guardian** to it....
Charlie Brooker's screen burn
'This time round Richard Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam'
Charlie Brooker
Saturday August 11, 2007
In the 18th century, a revolution in thought, known as the Enlightenment, dragged us away from the superstition and brutality of the Middle Ages toward a modern age of science, reason and democracy. It changed everything. If it wasn't for the Enlightenment, you wouldn't be reading this right now. You'd be standing in a smock throwing turnips at a witch. Yes, the Enlightenment was one of the most significant developments since the wheel. Which is why we're trying to bollocks it all up.
Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots. Superstitious idiots. They're everywhere - reading horoscopes, buying homeopathic remedies, consulting psychics, babbling about "chakras" and "healing energies", praying to imaginary gods, and rejecting science in favour of soft-headed bunkum. But instead of slapping these people round the face till they behave like adults, we encourage them. We've got to respect their beliefs, apparently.
Well I don't. "Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?
Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb. Buy a pillow. Don't make up a load of floaty blah about energy or destiny. This is the real world, stupid. We should be solving problems, not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies. Everywhere you look, screaming gittery is taking root, with serious consequences. The NHS recently spent £10m refurbishing the London Homeopathic Hospital. The equivalent of 500 nurses' wages, blown on a handful of magic beans. That was your tax money. It was meant for saving lives.
Inevitably, the world of science and logic is slowly fighting back. Hence the recent slew of anti-God books, one of which, The God Delusion, was written by Richard Dawkins, writer-presenter of The Enemies Of Reason (Mon, 8pm, C4). Dawkins has softened his style somewhat since his previous series, The Root of All Evil, in which he toured the globe interviewing religious extremists. Trouble was, their views made him so uppity, he occasionally came off worst. They remained eerily calm, while he huffed furiously. And because he looks and sounds precisely like Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss, the end effect was often unintentional hilarity.
In The Enemies of Reason he's still angry - how couldn't he be? - but this time round Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam, taking on spirituality and superstition in all its forms. The overall tone is less hectoring, more persuasive, and occasionally outright playful. It's more likely to win people over.
The end result is possibly the most important broadcast of the year so far; important because it presents a passionate argument we really all ought to be having right now, if we want to prevent a great slide backwards into mud-eating barbarism. And if you think that's hyperbole, I suggest you pick up a newspaper and see how many of the world's problems are currently being caused or exacerbated by the rejection of rational thought. From fundamentalist death cults to arrogant invasions: a startling lack of logic unites them all.
Cold, clear, rational thought is the most important thing we have; the one thing that can save us. If I was made Emperor of All Media, I'd broadcast something akin to The Enemies Of Reason on every channel, every day, for 10 years. This is an urgent message that must be heard if we want to survive, as a species. Oh. And I'd also broadcast a load of Tex Avery cartoons, just to show off my lighter side. Man, I loves dat Droopy.
I'm looking forward to this.
I don't know who Charlie Brooker is, but this article is hilarious! Give that man / woman a medal !
Charlie Brooker is god.
Do a search for him on YouTube to find clips of his TV Show, Screen Wipe.
Why don't we have media people like that in Australia? WHY?
i hate these people, i really do. with all of my heart.
how can they so royally miss the point? how do they not see the gaping flaws in their 'logic'.
god damn it.
Ha ha! Nice one seamonkey.
this summer. one scientist corrects everything. with a graph.
Seamonkey, stay the hell away from Glastonbury =] (the town, not the festival) i don't think you'll like it much,
i got soinging advice the other day from a ''witch''. She told me to open my throat more so i can release more positive energy from my chakra.
my dead grandmother appeared to me this morning and told me not to watch this.
More fundy brain washing :)
no, i hate ricahrd dawkins. basically, his whole model of the universe is flawed, yet he is too arrogant and happy living in a palais of ego to realise it.
maybe it's all the drugs, but i have definately first hand experienced things that contradict a materialistic world view. so have millions of others.
Yup! Must be the drugs, seamonkey. Hate to be the one to break it to ya.
Now pass me the ergot!
:)
First hand experience is exactly why science is a necessary tool to work out how things work. Because first hand experience is the most unreliable account of pretty much any phenomenon you wish to name.
Richard Dawkins' model of the universe is far more useful than any superstition. I sure hope you don't go to the doctor when you're ill.
I'm just waiting for the parody thread:
Richard Dawkins - Enema Of Reason
superstition? science is a measuring stick, that's all it ever has be or will be. it's no good at filling in the gaps between facts, it usually fails. a spiritual science would be a great thing mankind, and haha no, not scientology etc, but one that acknoledged the bizaare nature or eveything, the powers that exist outside of the realms of measurement. i don't really get that vibe off dawkins, i get intellectual arrogance. the bid to understand the human mind/soul 'scientifically' to me is just as fucked up as religion and spirituality is to a hardnutted dawkinish scientist. it just doesn't work. viewing the meaning of human life as simply 'fucking/dying/carrying on the species' is such a violent case of reductionism, so many of the details of life simply get washed away.
i'm used to reading articles in the paper ala 'scientist explains art' 'scientist explains humour' etc etc, taking fundamental, beautifull and complicated human traits and basically just reducing them to the narrow and quite frankly depressing world view of the evolutionary psychologist.
the problem to me is not the art of science, but the unwillingness of science and scientist to investigate the source of these 'delusions' and 'superstitions' with an open mind. i'm sure this is the way in which the world is heading,
i can't wait for day.
I think that's why Dawkins made this show, because he is concerned that is the way things are heading.
Headlines like you described are the result of fuckhead journalists, more than hard headed scientists. All good scientists know that everything is always far more complicated than it first appears.
I wish a lot of people would stop thinking of humans as some kind of superspecies with a special purpose, might make them pull their heads in a bit and stop fucking up the rest of the universe.
Maybe we should wait until we've actually seen the show?
Fair call, HEB.
I was thinking the other day that science wasn't invented to disprove any of the superstition or religion or spiritual belief, it was invented to figure out ways make life a bit less painful and fucked up in the physical world we all share. I think people forget that.
the tv spots give the impression he's just out to stir and reiterate the God Delusion/Root of All Evil line.
wish he'd write another proper science book ...
View Comments 20 to 317
We've limited the amount of comments shown in these larger topics to allow for faster viewing, simply click here to load all the missing comments ...
''I don't believe in a personal God''. That conclusive enough?
Yes, but I was referring to the misquoting aspect.
''the idea of a personal god is a childlike one''
'' I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being''.
I think those comments are fairly conclusive. Either way, even if he was a fundamentalist Catholic I wouldn't jump on that ship because he had an IQ of 180. One person's view is hardly definitive.
hey like i said i was splitting hairs - and i only do it to one as knowledgeable as yourself - but the actaul quotes as i understand it are:
and
My main problem was with ''The misquotes come from the God camp''... the misquotes come from everywhere! And i also do agree about your last point.
oh and just to be a complete tool, here's the quote god botherers love to quote:
Yes, they use that quote over and over again. He (and other atheist scientists) use the word 'religion' metaphorically. He certainly didn't believe in anything supernatural.
Suits: that quote is completely out of context; in context, ''religion'' means ''the search for truth'', more or less.
yeah i know that hillsongs- i was saying that's the quote god botherers love to quote bro. like i said anyway, i was splitting hairs. I actually don't think Einstein believed in God anyway... just saying it's inconclusive either way ;-)
No, it's not inconclusive.
Actually the quotation is as I wrote it, from a letter dated 1949. And there is nothing inconclusive about it, he is clearly stating, in no uncertain terms, that he does not believe in god.
link contest haha
You complete and utter fucking idiots.
Einstien really is beyond the comprehension of simpletons such as yourself at the end of the day.
Fucking morons.
Count Fucking Idiot- No, he is stating the idea of a personal god is immature, and then goes on to state that:
''I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being''
He prefaces this with:
''You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervour is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.''
Fucking hell, YOU POSTED THE QUOTE BUT DIDN'T read it.
What he is saying, in a nice way, that atheists are cry babies rebelling against being told not to fuck before marriage.
As he says ''You may call me agnostic, but don't call me an atheist because I'm not a fucking idiotic spoilt little brat.''
For fuck's sake.
You people are genuinely fucking stupid.
No he's not, cockbrain. He's saying that his atheism doesn't share the crusading spirit of the professional atheists whose fervour is etc. He's not saying he's not an atheist.
He's not a fence-sitting pants-wetter like you.
I don't think I'd have called him an atheist or an agnostic.
I'd have gone for ''Herr Einstein'' or possibly ''Albert''.
raven- You're a fucking idiot. Try learning to fucking read you moron, then try and wake the fuck up, if possible, which I doubt IS possible for you because you're statment shows that you probably didn't even scrape through fucking primary school you fuckwitted moronic dicktwitch.
As for him not being like me, you fucking retard. His personal views and mine are fairly in accord..only...wait for it....
Mine are a fuckload more advanced and way ahead of his.
Choke on that, however you fucking will failcake. It's no skin off my shin, and someone so stupid as to not even have basic reading comprehension probably isn't worth conversing with.
Especially when they are so remarkably fuckwitted as to not consider that someone may have said more than one thing, and that when you take that into account, basing your opinion of their belief structure on ONE quote, is the mark of a true fucking moron, which you so clearly fucking are.
Whatever you say countfuckwitted.
Weak.
I tend to base my opinion of someone's belief structure on as wide a range of source material as possible, combined with the over-arching philosophy of their work, their personal life, their interaction with others, and the opinions of those who knew them.
Then I screw it up in a little ball and throw it in the trash, because it doesn't really matter what I think of someone else's belief structure.
But my favourite part of that particular quote was this: ''I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being''.
I'd love to meet someone who was a fuckload more advanced and way ahead of his humility.
That film with Walter Matthau and Tim Robbins was amusing. Who knew Einstein's niece was like Meg Ryan when she was still cute?
You stupid motherbitcher.
This statement:
''I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being''.
Combined with the preceeding one about ''not being an atheist'' Translate into chimp english as.
''I'm not so fuckwitted as to claim that I comprehend all aspects of the universe, I'm also not a fucking sook. Which is why I'm not a crusading atheist, as those dicks are just having a crai about the religious upbringing they've had. Fucking retards. Oh yes, see all my other comments I've made over my life about the nature of life the universe and everything you fucking idiots next time you accuse me of not being religious. Oh yes. Hillbong? You don't have the slightest idea of what the term religion means you fucking dickbag.''
Now in a box set with his recent three-parter on Charles Darwin...
IQ2 debate the other night titled ''Would the World be Better Off Without Religion?''.
Predebate poll: 55% yes, 33%no
After the debate, 54% yes, 34% no.
I think it went to show that no argument you can have within the attention span of a human is going to sway people one way or the other when it comes to religion.
I wish I was at that debate.
Do you think there's a transcript available?
try hunting around the SMH or Radio National sites; they both streamed it live