.
Just watching a pro gay fest on Nicky Campbell’s “Big Question” programme on BB1. This was a great opportunity to bash any Bible believing Christian whilst embracing the notion that gays uber alles. The panel and audience were loaded with those who believe the answer is YES to the question “Is homosexuality a cause for celebration”? Listen, I have no problem with anyone exercising their free choice to live as they wish, but as a poor Christian surely to God I have a right to hold my opinions without the BBC relentlessly ridiculing me and those that have similar views? Tell you what – maybe Nicky Campbell should have a follow on programme with an invited audience of Muslims and see how he gets on? Mocking those of us who actually believe The Bible gets cheap laughs on the BBC, an organisation that prefers to worship David Attenborough.
I didn’t see it but did he have lots of ‘Moozlums’ telling the world how great being gay is and how Islam embraces them?
DV,
Whatever you wish to believe in within your home is your choice, and I empathise about the perceived attacks on religion by the BBC.
Yes, religion should not be denigrated by a State broadcaster, but then neither should it be given free air time as it is.
So, why do you go on to indirectly attack Attenborough?
Do you disgaree with the BBC using atheists?
Do you disgaree with the BBC scheduling several programmes on Darwin?
Do you disagree with the BBC for showing any programme that refers to the facts of evolution?
I am intrigued by how you justify the statement that the “BBC prefers to worship David Attenborough”, in particular given that the concept of “worship” applies only in a religous context. I do not think Attenborough sees himself as a living deity.
GBS
I don’t often agree with the BBC but why should I have any respect for people that claim to follow the bible. A totally implausable book. Especially when most of them ignore the akward bits like as one of the contributers pointed out not eating prawns or the nasty bits like having your children stoned to death if they are cheeky to you. And saying I follow the New Testament is not a get out clause.
‘I come not to overturn the law….’
Why do you watch such drivel David? Now that’s the BIG question.
Great post GBS, supported well by Ron.
If the BBC is at fault at all here it is in allowing biblical literalists on a programme and allowing them several minutes of airtime. Of course you can take a Christian view on any issue you like David but as there is as much proof of God’s existence as that of the celestial teapot or the flying spaghetti monster then the holy book is irrelevant to this discussion.
Unusually for the odious BBC I don’t think there was any particular bias in this programme today.
Having said which; of course homosexuality is not a cause for celebration any more than heterosexuality, bestiality, paedophilia, autoeroticism or any other sexual proclivity or behaviour. Homosexuality just is, that’s it. The whole debate was a big waste of time.
Dick,
Masochism!
GBS,
I chose my words carefully. Over the past week, I have heard at least two interviews on the BBC with Attenborough which were all about the alleged triumph over Darwinism over Christian teachings. I do not for one minute wish the BBC to block out the views of atheists, agnostics or any other faith group but why should Christians come in for SUCH mockery, as was the case in this programme? I posit because the BBC reckons Christians are a soft-target and the average Church of Englander is unlikely to strap on an explosives belt and head across to Broadcasting House to make an impact. It’s how they single out one group for ridicule that bothers me!
David,
As much as i understand why you reply to tossers like Richard Edward.
All you do by replying to them is giving them the power to get under your skin. Don’t bother as no reply will ever be good enough for them.
Carry on posting articles which asks the questions the bBC should be asking and not what they think we should be hearing.
As most know I have little time for religion. However, David’s point is a good one. The BBC only ever ridicules Christianity and gives a free pass to a vile religion like Islam and its lunatic followers.
As DV points out, your average C of E Sunday flock are not likely to charge off to the BBC and behead some beeboid or detonate a few pounds of explosives on a tube train because some beeboid dissed their religion. The BBC went out of its way not to show the Danish Cartoons. Why? I thought they were really funny and very truthful. Free speech at the BBC?
Again, the BBC bangs on about homosexuality and the Christian church and it’s so called split over gays. But what the Christian church does or doesn’t do about gays is nothing to what the Muslim world does, yet this is given a complete free pass at the BBC. Why?
DV,
I also agree with you that there is a BBC agenda to “protect” Islam and attack Western Christianity.
I agree there is also an active agenda to promote all minority groups (except Christianity). It’s the mainstream political philsophy that elevates the group above the individual.
However, it is the undue power of organised religion and their leaders that should be rightly challenged since they attempt to bring religion out of the private home and private mind where it belongs, into the public realm to influence personal morality, the law and public policy.
I differentiate between organised religion and private religious belief for this purpose of identifying the enemy to life, reason and rationality.
Organised religion deserves to be challenged over its reliance on known and well documented irrationalities inherent within the “good” book and within those leaders who chose to subjectively interpret its meaning.
We have seen the appalling impact of the use of faith in science over recent years with the rise of environmentalism and the fund grabbing “scientists” who chose to ignore or pervert facts to fit in with their own pre-conceived notions as to what is happening in reality.
Computer climate models indeed are the modern-day equivalent of the oracle and bible – they should not be questioned or disobeyed and anyone who challanges their output is someone who should be verbally attacked and denigrated as equivalent to a Nazi.
Ironically, today, a major threat to science is not only religious creationists, but also those phd scientists who also pervert philosophy and facts and who have simply become fiction writers, most notably Stephen Hawking.
So, when it comes to Evolution (and Attenborough) religion has no answer as is evident from the absurdly false claims of creationists. It’s when this latter group attempt to influence state education that religion needs to be vehemently and unreservedly challenged in the name of protecting education and reason the latter being the survival mechanism for all human life (whether believers or not! Now that’s irony)
So, please keep your faith, but within your own walls, and I will defend your right to your own mind.
Regards
GBS
I call Godwin.
I think the more interesting point is that the BBC is usually very keen to include the Islamic viewpoint, or even to round the houses to get the various ethnic and religious minorities’take on issues. However in this instance it was only the Christians in the frame.
Which looks like a bit of a set up.
nrg,
Exactly right.
I feel that all religion should be taken off the telly. Religion is a cancer of the mind.
I’d just like to say what an excellent exchange of intelligent opinions this has been.
What a shame we never hear anything like it on the BBC!
DV
I agree. Nothing illustrates the hypocrisy of the slimey BBC more than the contrast in the way it abuses and ridicules Christianity and the way it fellates radical Islam.
Nothing? Well perhaps only its hypocrisy on race. Has anyone else noticed how the vile BBC manages to keep its own senior management as spotlessly white as a BNP cell (and of course public school and Oxbidge) but crams its crappy, didactic dramas with as many black surgeons, MPs, Prime Ministers and judges as possible?
Do and think as I say, not as I do.
Tossers.
Dr Michael Jones: I think this was pointed out a while back by someone at the BBC that the white senior management of the BBC stick a few ‘darkies’ on kids TV or employ a few as cleaners to satisfy their liberal PC minds.
As I’ve pointed out numerous times leftists want the ‘sacrifice’ to be made by the white working class ‘scum’ whether it be in terms of jobs, not flying, giving up the car and so on. Oh and taxes of course.
I’ve yet to hear or see one beeboid have a go at George Moonbat for the fact He now owns a car yet has spent years berating the population of this Country for being in love with the car.
Socialism is the biggest evil on the planet next to Islam.
But in BBC view, socialism and Islam are progressive ideologies that we need to at least give a chance..it’s only fair…
The position of leftists on issues relating to personal behaviour is deeply hypocritical. They destroy grammar schools which provide ladders for highly intelligent children of poore backgrounds yet they, the leftists, send their children to private schools.
However, the biggest hypocrisy concerns charities where rich lefties demand that ‘people’ i.e. poorer people, give more money to Africa. The uppermost tranche, say 10%, of wealth-owners account for well over 80% of the nation’s wealth even taking into account Brown’s trashing of the economy, yet they (the rich) demand that we (the poor or middle classes) give our money to help ‘wherever’ when they (the rich) have enough wealth to actually fund whatever it is that they appear to want done. Check out those who are on any BBC appeal and ask who has the money – us or them?
I suggest reading ‘The End of Faith’ by Sam Harris. Fantastic book.
One thing the Socialists at the BBC forget is that after the formation of the Islamic republic in Iran, its first victims, either killed or forced into exile, were its former allies :- the Socialists!!!
It could be that we have a responsibility that we have to respect minorities – which I think we do. However, the question is pants.
I stay away from audience participation shows – they just scare the hell out of me. QT is fun because it’s engineered to make the audience member convince a hostile viewer. Shows like ‘the big question’, jeremy kyle, kilroy etc is engineered to get the viewer involved and 98% of the time I may have an opinion but it stops very quickly.
Ch4 did some ace debates for the Iraq War where they got in experts and peppered the audience with normal people. The same goes on with Frank Lunz when elections are coming up.
Are gays a cause for celebration? Dun’t care. Can they put on a show? Yes.
I’ve noticed that Victoria Derbyshire comes up for a fair bit of vitriol – never listened to her so wouldn’t know. I’ve heard Steve Wright, Simon Mayo and a bit of Nicky Campbell (gone downhill since wheel of fortune) and they are pretty stupid so I thank the honourable gentleman for his answer.
It’s above and beyond the call of duty.
Next week – are lezzers Tory? No they’re not but virtually everyone’s mum votes Tory – what’s that about?
What’s Campbell’s e-mail address?!?!
GBS
You wrote (to DV):
“Do you disgaree with the BBC scheduling several programmes on Darwin?”
No, I [David A] don’t disagree at all.
“Do you disagree with the BBC for showing any programme that refers to the facts of evolution?”
Not at all, except that the “facts” of evolution (as you put it) are contested. There are alternative views which the BBC does not air (as far as I am aware).The point is, I think, that the BBC mostly gives only one side of any argument – and that side is invariably socialist. As far as I understand it, only very few people question the validity of “natural selection” though many question “evolution” brought about entirely by chance. The two concepts, “natural selection” and “evolution” are often confused. For anyone to make an informed choice about virtually anything at all it is essential to have good-quality information. There is (in my opinion) a good article in PRAVDA about the concept of intelligent design”, at the following link: http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/21-01-2008/103536-intelligent_design-0
Article entitled: Understanding intelligent design by Babu G. Ranganathan: “…Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won’t be by chance so it still wouldn’t help support any argument for evolution…What about natural selection? Natural selection only comes into operation once there is life. Also, natural selection is not a creative force. It is a passive force in Nature. Natural selection has no ability to design or generate new genes or new biological traits…Natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are produced and which have survival value.”
It has come to something when I regard PRAVDA as more authoritative than the execrable British Brainwashing Corporation. Apart from its obvious (and easily discernible) left-wing bias – which I am not forced to pay for – PRAVDA does at least give free reign to alternative non-leftist views. As far as I can determine, PRAVDA does allow some mainstream right-wing views to be expressed without any obvious censorship or disparagement or ridicule.
Here’s another article from PRAVDA: http://english.pravda.ru/society/anomal/01-05-2008/105048-prayers-0
“Prayers indeed heal diseases, scientists say: People indeed can recover in temples when they touch holy relics or sanctuaries. St. Petersburg scientists have proved it and discovered the “material” mechanism of divine phenomena.”
It’s a pity that the BBC’s wonderful investigative journalists [sarcasm intended and richly deserved] couldn’t investigate the efficacy (or otherwise) of prayer.
Still, I have to admit that PRAVDA is still left-wing on the subject of so-called “global warming”. They haven’t
realised that global temperatures have been either flatlining or dropping for the last decade: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/11-12-2008/106823-russian_winter-0 “The traditional Russian winter with snow and severe frost is gone forever, meteorologists say… Even the all-mighty prime minister is absolutely unable to solve the problem. When Putin talked to the nation in his televised conference last week, someone asked him when it was going to snow. “When God gives some,” the former KGB professional responded, having openly acknowledged the littleness of his earthly powers.”
You wrote:
“So, why do you go on to indirectly attack Attenborough?” and also: “I am intrigued by how you justify the statement that the “BBC prefers to worship David Attenborough”, in particular given that the concept of “worship” applies only in a religous context. I do not think Attenborough sees himself as a living deity.”
David Attenborough is portrayed by the BBC as an infallible authority figure whose words cannot ever be questioned. For example, when David Attenborough says that the population of the cuddly polar bears (aah bless) is decreasing to catastrophic levels, this is taken by the BBC to be holy writ when in actual fact, over the last fifty or sixty years or so the number of polar bears has changed from about 5,000 previously to about 25,000 now. There is a (roughly) fivefold increase and not a decrease as claimed in the polar bear population. These (approximate) numbers have now been well established. How can he possibly not know this?
Someone wrote (H. L. Mencken, perhaps?): “People who start to treat animals like humans end up treating humans like animals.”
David Attenborough is a member of the Optimum Population Trust “an academic group which wants to put population
reduction at the heart of government policy”. Here’s a link: http://www.mnforsustain.org/pop_england_reduce_englands_population.htm
“SIR David Attenborough, the eminent naturalist, is backing a campaign to have population controls introduced in
Britain with the aim of halving the number of inhabitants.”
Playing God, perhaps? Eugenics, anyone? Surely this is at least a little bit alarming and warrants some non-socialist, non-BBC (i.e.thorough) investigation? Recently, on this wonderful site of David Vance’s, there was a thread about abortion. Here’s an article in PRAVDA about abortion. They even quote Ronald Reagan!!! http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/28-11-2008/106760-abortion-0 Ronald Reagan: ‘Everybody that is for abortion has already been born’ “I commend the authorities in the southern Russian city of Novorossiysk for scheduling a “week without abortion” in an effort to combat the country’s extremely high abortion rate. Abortion violates every human instinct… Biology clearly tells us that full human life begins at conception with the formation of a genetically complete, self-directing human entity, the embryo. This was established 120 years ago by Wilhelm His, the father of human embryology. Major theologians also agree that it is at the instant of conception that a person acquires his or her soul.”
Several B-BBC posters have commented that the BBC is like PRAVDA. I disagree. PRAVDA is better than the BBC in that, whether or not you agree with the views expressed, at least PRAVDA does allow opposing views to be aired: there is often enough information to make an informed choice.
Why should we all celebrate “gays”? I for one do not think it is natural – and nor, I believe , would Darwin. Call me what you like but I was brought up to respect the family and the church. What people do in private is up to them, but I don’t have to accept it.
The BBC are on a mission to bring down a thousand years of Christianity in this country and they will use anything from Islam to homosexuality to do it.
David A | 01.02.09 – 8:52 p
There is no dispute in science about evolution
through NS. There are huge debates within. But I’D is not science and not a view that should get an airing on science programmes.
David’s lead piece gives rise to a number of emotions. i’m really sorry I didn’t see the programme, but i’m sure David is warping something again to pursue his own agenda. “gays uber alles” though is a hilarious notion. Sounds like a niche gay porn film or a Dead Kennedys b side. Tragically, I think David said it with feeling! And worshipping David Attenborough!? Well any natural born englishman should in my view. But methinks David has exposed himself as a creationist.
If homosexuality was normal then your arse would not be a “one way valve” and you would drown every time you had a bath.
There is no dispute in science about evolution
through NS.
Rubbish. There are many disputes.
Scientists disagree about how much variation is down to NS and how much can be attributed to genetic drift. Then there’s the whole epigenetics thing.
There are still many questions left unanswered • even though Stephen Jay Gould’s “Punctuated Equilibrium” doesn’t seem to have been right, it was at least an attempt to answer why the fossil record’s main characteristic is stasis, not change.
At a slight tangent, but an interesting example of how the BBC distorts science with its partial reporting, a recent discovery of primitive axes in Indonesia shunts the earliest known date for hom. sap. back by a possible 200,000 years.
The explosive aspect is that if the carbon dating currently under way confirms the period, it casts significant doubt on the ‘out of Africa’ theory, to which so many are romantically attached.
Darwin’s Granny | 02.02.09 – 11:12 am
Yes, but that’s within science. ID is not science
To mikewineliberal:
The point that I am trying to make is that the BBC does not even allow any alternative points of view to be aired, if those views contradict the BBC’s left-leaning mindset. Whether those contrary views are objectively correct or incorrect is not the issue, in my view. The BBC figuratively views the world through (politically) rose-coloured and tunnel-vision spectacles. All left-leaning BBC opinions are given as ‘facts’ and all opposing facts (or opinions) are either ignored entirely or are given as simply the ‘opinions’ of right-wing fascist pigs, racists, homophobes, bigots etc. etc.. As George Orwell might have written, “Left=good; right=bad; left=good; right=bad” (repeated indefinitely).
The BBC position on all non-socialist issues is summed up admirably by the following passage taken from the BBC’s favourite left-leaning think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research. The passage applies to the BBC’s sole position on “anthromogenic global warming” (now metamorphosised conveniently into “climate change” after the planet started cooling).
“To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now
need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply
behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.”
How DARE these left-wing so-and-sos tell me that I am not even allowed to question their left-wing hypotheses.
You wrote to me: “There is no dispute in science about evolution through NS.”
In reply to Darwin’s Granny: “Yes, but that’s within science. ID is not science”
In other words, on the HYPOTHESIS of evolution occurring entirely through the process of natural selection, you are copying the IPPR’s similar position with regard to climate change: the science is settled; there can be no possible dispute. You are (effectively) saying that “science” is whatever you personally say it is and there can be no possible argument. Real science is never settled. Real science is a refining process and progresses by debate and argument and forever-questioning assumptions.
DV wrote: “Listen, I have no problem with anyone exercising their free choice to live as they wish, but as a poor Christian surely to God I have a right to hold my opinions without the BBC relentlessly ridiculing me and those that have similar views?” Well said, sir. It is the BBC’s duty to uphold their charter and at least allow opposing views to be aired on sensitive issues. Could they not emulate PRAVDA and allow dissenting views to be given without derision?
Phew ! Just reading the comments here
for the first time on this thread.
Maybe I should declare an interest as an atheist with a degree in Zoology.
My understanding of David Attenborough’s position through the decades that I have followed his career, is that, although an atheist, he is not personally hostile to religious people.
He has also done as much as anyone in the BBC to educate the public about science and nature which is meant to be part of the BBC’s remit. I confess that he is a personal hero to me.
However, the point is well made by posters above, that any hostility by the BBC to religion, seems to be confined to Christianity for reasons which are too perverse for me to understand.
Maybe the BBC should be banned from covering religion and politics and concentrate on Nature programs, so long as Bill Oddie is not the presenter.
Showing programs on evolution is not at all the same thing as openly ridiculing religious belief. Airing alternative viewpoints is not the same as pointing out certain religious beliefs as being wrong or rendering a person unfit to hold public office.
The BBC should do one and not the other. Yet they criticize anyway, but only when it comes to certain Christians, and certain beliefs. And it’s not like it would be okay if they criticized all religious beliefs, either. They’re not supposed to be equal-opportunity offenders.
The BBC is not South Park, even though at times it does seem to be full of foul-mouthed children.
MWL:
“David’s lead piece gives rise to a number of emotions. i’m really sorry I didn’t see the programme, but i’m sure David is warping something again to pursue his own agenda.”
Nice to know that, as a good liberal should, you can maintain the old certainties even in the absence of any evidence – nice one Mike!
The BBC keeps in with the Umma by having a 2- out- of -3 panel bash the ‘Crusades’.
Channel 4 is running a series on Christianity,(Sunday nights) which included, last night, ex-Beeboid, and now one of the Islamic TV station Al Jazeera’s Muslim reporters, Rageh Omaar,in which he denounced, without criticism, the Christian Crusades.
So too, BBC Radio 4 has just had on its ‘Beyond Belief’ series (4:30 pm today) which is another biased bash at the Crusades. The two- out- of -three panel on Christianity included an inevitable Muslim, and an inevitable guilt-ridden
Western liberal. The minority voice was that of Jonathan Riley-Smith who has writtenan interesting book on the Crusades:
http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1688/The%20Crusades.htm
I look forward to all the series on ISLAM which the BBC will put out where non-Muslims, ex-Muslims and critics of Islam will get their own uninterrupteed slots, people such as Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Hugh Fitzgerald, Geert Wilders,Mark Steyn, Hirsi Ali, Bat Ye’or, Diana West, Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller,etc.
Of course, I’m kidding. The BBC is scared of Islam; and adopts the role of a dhimmi.
“Real science is a refining process and progresses by debate and argument and forever-questioning assumptions.”
Indeed, But I’D isn’t science. AGW is different: the science there isn’t settled. But the BBC should not be expected to balance issues where there is scientific concensus – such as the basic tenets of evolution through natural selection – with creationism/I’D.
RR | 02.02.09 – 5:41 pm
I have plenty of evidence David spins and warps programmes and articles to suit his agenda. john simpson on khomeni was a recent example. I’m extrapolating that he’s doing similar here. i’m confident i’m right. But willing to consider evidence to the contrary.
mikewineliberal:
You wrote: “Indeed, But I’D isn’t science. AGW is different: the science there isn’t settled. But the BBC should not be expected to balance issues where there is scientific concensus – such as the basic tenets of evolution through natural selection – with creationism/I’D.”
“…the BBC should not be expected to balance issues where there is scientific concensus”.
The BBC frequently says that there is a consensus on Anthropogenic Global WARMING, and that that WARMING is due mostly to the increasing proportion of man-produced carbon dioxide appearing in the atmosphere. Therefore, according to your argument, the BBC does NOT need to balance their consensus-view with “skeptical” points of view.
You also say: “AGW is different: the science there isn’t [is NOT] settled.” Do I take it that you disagree with the BBC’s supposedly consensus view and that the science is NOT settled and that, to restore balance, the BBC should present alternative views? Do you think that the BBC shows bias in its reporting of Anthropogenic Global WARMING?
I am certainly no expert (and I don’t claim to be) on creationism, on intelligent design, or on evolution entirely through natural selection but at least I would like to be given the opportunity of making up my own mind after being presented with the information currently available to experts in each of these fields. Surely it is not too much to expect, that the BBC informs the license fee-paying public on the various issues involved however “unscientific” you deem them to be. I don’t think it is too much to expect information rather than constant brainwashing.
Grant:
I see that you have found that discussions on this forum can get a bit heated! I used to think that the theory of evolution due entirely to natural selection had been established as “fact” but now I am not so sure. Having a degree in Zoology – and therefore being a much cleverer chap than me – have a look at the article by R. Webster Kehr at the following link. This article persuaded me to re-evaluate my assumptions on this issue.
http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Brain.html
I am not asking you to agree or to disagree with the arguments he puts forward for and against evolution, I am asking whether, in your opinion, his arguments are “sensible” (for want of a better word) and worthy of being aired. Are they thought-provoking even if, in your opinion, they are wrong?
DA,
I agree that alternative viewpoints to evolution and natural selection should be aired, so long as they are approached with strict scientific independence – applying the fundamental prinicples of science to highlight, for example, the non-scientific basis to Inteeligent Design.
Finally, I must add that evolutuion is backed by so many facts of reality that it is not a hypothesis.
PS GBS=GFBS!
GFBS – Quite. But there are no alternative viewpoints to evolution and natural selection. There really are not. There are debates, fierce debates, within biology, and some variants (eg socio-biology) are on shakier ground. But ID is not an alternative. It’s a nonsense. And all scientists worthy of the name, wherever they sit on the political specturm, agree.
AGW is different; and the concensus less clear. Is the BBC balanced ? I don’t know. But a quick Google revealed this article, which seemed to give sceptical views an decent airing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm
I’m pretty sceptical myself, but decreasingly so as the evidence tips the balance. But i thought Stern was overdone (i enjoyed Lawson’s counterblast).
i really dont get the gay agenda…
my best friend , whom i have know since school, is gay – he “came out” in his late 20s..
but he fully understands that his lifestyle is something i dont agree with or support or encourage.
but i dont DIScourage it either. we have a happy neutrality on the issue and we can have a pint with each other. and we’ve been having pints with each other for a rather long time by now.
as it should be. he’s human, i’m human – we just disagree on ONE topic. but its not the be all and end all of EVERYTHING…
but then government and left wing activists always seeks to fuck up this naturally human way of coming to an agreement to get on with each other.
i really dont get the gay agenda…
my best friend , whom i have know since school, is gay – he “came out” in his late 20s..
but he fully understands that his lifestyle is something i dont agree with or support or encourage.
but i dont DIScourage it either. we have a happy neutrality on the issue and we can have a pint with each other. and we’ve been having pints with each other for a rather long time by now.
as it should be. he’s human, i’m human – we just disagree on ONE topic. but its not the be all and end all of EVERYTHING…
but then government and left wing activists always seeks to fuck up this naturally human way of coming to an agreement to get on with each other.
and then you have to ask yourself – why are gays on a BBC pedestal?
Why isnt the Unionist tradition of Northern Ireland respected? A tradition that has lasted hundreds of years longer than the far recent whipper snapper that is the BBC. And hundreds of years longer than their favourite ideology, Marxism.
The answer is , is that the Unionists of Northern Ireland are not their favourite endangered species – for they have a two lists of people – ones they favour and ones they would rather go extinct.
And Unionists are definitely on the extinct list as far as the BBC goes.
which is a bit sad to say the least.
And I say that as a Republican.
in our insane P.C. UK , the sectarian bombast of the Lambeg Drum is a breath of fresh air to be bloody honest with ya.
might do a 12th for the first time sometime – in solidarity… and just to get up the BBC’s noses..
ack – sorry for the double post.. haloscan is acting up..
GBS and mikewineliberal:
I am not yet convinced by the points you make, but thank you for taking the trouble to reply. I’ll think it over!
David A – more food for thought here on the estimable Mick Hartley’s site; this time on the wider issue of whether science and religion are NOMA.
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2009/01/no-need-of-that-hypothesis.html
DA,
Re: BBC agendas
I am very far from agreeing with AGW as a fact, and I’m a convinced atheist, but even I am embarrassed by the shoddy arguments put forward by the humanist type of atheist (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al) and by many of those who are opponents of AGW theory.
And the BBC inherently puts forward bad arguments on matters it favours; without actually challenging the fake arguments of those favouring the BBC position.
As I mentioned above, I want to hear the proper use of science and the proper use of argument, not propaganda from either side.
The problem, however, is not only bad science, but *fundamentally*, bad metaphysical philosophy.
It is bad metaphysics that is the ultimate determinant of cultural progress (or rather what we are experiencing, cultural decline).
The essential question that most get wrong is whether existence (reality) or consciousness has primacy. (The answer is the former).
And the right (reality based) or wrong (reality evasive) answer to that question dictates ones theory of what is knowledge (epistemology) – fundamentally factual and provable or flawed (based on feelings, wishes, hopes, whims, and political agendas, not reality).
GBS
The BBC did an entire show as part of the 200 series on Darwin with Attenborough and Darwin’s Tree of Life.
Presented as undeniable fact and perhaps Darwin’s greatest achievement.
But there is no evidence that the tree of life exists at all.
In fact due to crossbreeding proven empirically by testing we know this is false and science has known this for some time.
Even the ‘BBC in print’ the Guardian covers this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life
Perhaps the BBC has Attenborough and the Darwin’s theory of evolution as a religion after all.
By the way evolution is a fact, even the most ardent creationist accepts it, that is a red herring.
They argue with the theory of evolution not evolution itself.
In fact most ‘young earth creationists’ advocate extreme evolution at rates that most scientists think impossible in the natural world.
But then you would know that if you had genuinely looked at their model and rejected it on scientific grounds wouldn’t you.
Bron,
I am not sure what you are trying to claim with your point, re “Young creationists” so I can only put that to one side until I receive some clarity.
As I mention, the BBC inherently puts forward bad arguments on matters it favours, as do scientists.
The tree of life narrative is a useful thinking tool, and does not deny cross-breeding. As Darwin himself admitted, it was more a “thicket” than a purely branched tree.
Crossbreeding simply means more branches to the tree and does not in itself contradict the embryonic facts that we are all related back to micro-orgnaisms way back in time.
Rgds
GBS
To GBS:
You wrote: “It is bad metaphysics that is the ultimate determinant of cultural progress (or rather what we are experiencing, cultural decline).”
I am not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that cultural decline is caused by bad metaphysics? (I agree that our culture is declining, and in my opinion, declining rapidly). To say that cultural decline is caused by bad metaphysics rather begs the question of what is “good” metaphysics, or even, is there such a thing as “good” metaphysics. (The advert saying, “Good food costs less at S*****ury’s” rather begs the question, “What does bad food cost at S*****ury’s?” Maybe I’m just an old cynic!)
According to Wikipedia: …metaphysics is [also] the study of that which transcends physics.” If one thinks of religious thought and religions as representing the current mainstream thinking of metaphysics (and I am not even remotely competent to judge if this is the case) then I think it is fair to state that great physicists of the
past thought of Christianity (in particular) as highly-advanced science rather than superstitious nonsense. Generally speaking, most modern scientists think that there is little or no link between science and religion. A scientist tries as much as possible to remain apart from his experiments in order not to affect the results. On the other hand, the metaphysician (as far as I understand it) accepts that we are all a small part of “The Great Experiment” and that the Universe is “a Great Thought of God”.
You wrote:
“The essential question that most get wrong is whether existence (reality) or consciousness has primacy. (The answer is the former).”
If one thinks of God as “Universal Consciousness” and that that Universal Consciousness has the property or attribute of “creativity” and creates the Universe as “Divine Sport” (I think this is the Hindu/Vedantic way of looking at creation),
then, from that point of view, consciousness would precede physical existence. In my view, these are incredibly difficult concepts!
To GBS, mikewineliberal and Bron:
In PRAVDA (of all unlikely places) there is a new article by Babu G. Ranganathan entitled “Modern Science versus Darwin.”
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/107046-2/
I think you might just possibly be able to guess from the title that the author refutes the various tenets of Darwinian theory and, in my view, gives a good broad outline of mainstream creationism and intelligent design. The author says
what he thinks is right with creationism/ID and opposes it mwith what he thinks is wrong with macroevolution.
I linked, above, to a chapter of an e-book by R. Webster Kehr:
http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBe…/ War_Brain.html
The author (R Webster Kehr) says that viewpoints (in any subject) need to be balanced, and with reference to creationism/ID in particular, in order to make an informed decision one way or the other one needs to know (at least) the following four categories of viewpoint:
(1) pro-evolution (from the evolutionist side),
(2) anti-creation (from the evolutionist side),
(3) pro-creation (from the creationist side),
(4) anti-evolution (from the creationist side)
The only viewpoints that are allowed to be expressed in the mainstream media are (1) and (2).
To make an informed choice and for balance you also need categories (3) and (4).
(For an example of Mr Kehr’s thinking, with reference to AGW, the skeptical argument (e.g. The Great Global Warming Swindle) argues the pro-skeptical points of view and the anti-warmist points of view. A recent BBC documentary argued, broadly, the pro-warmist versus the anti-skeptical POV.)
To GBS and mikewineliberal:
If you are too adamant on your views of Darwinian theory, then, in my view, you are likely to come a cropper! You are not leaving ANY room for ANY possible doubt. History has dealt unkindly with famous scientists (e.g. Lord Kelvin) who were too certain of what is possible or impossible. It seems to me that you simply refuse to “look at” any conflicting evidence. Probably the most famous example of this (and the subsequent re-writing of history) occurred in the famous “The Galileo Affair”. It was the mainstream scientists of the day who were proved wrong. Most of, (but not all of) the churchmen were perfectly happy to look through his telescope at the moons of Jupiter. It was most of, (but not all of) the natural philosophers of the day who were averse to looking. Most, if not all of the physicists of the day believed in the self-evident geocentric theories of Aristotle – that the Sun and stars revolved around the Earth. It was high heresy against the religion of Science to believe otherwise. At the instigation of a group of natural philosophers, led by Ludovico delle Colombe, it was suggested to the very religious Grand Duchess Christina that the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun was against religious orthodoxy and against the scriptures: in fact, it was the geocentric orthodoxy of the Aristotelian physicists of the day that was under attack. The churchmen of the day were persuaded by these followers of Aristotle that Galileo’s (and Copernicus’) heliocentric view was heresy, and the rest is history, as they say: Galileo was put on trial by the Church and had to recant his heretical anti-Aristotelian, anti-physicists’ views. During his trial, Galileo wrote to the very religious Grand Duchess Christina – the one whose mind was poisoned by the followers of Ludovico delle Colombe. Here is the beginning of Galileo’s famous letter.
To the Most Serene Grand Duchess Mother:
Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors – as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the increase of known truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts; not their diminution or destruction. Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes…
…They pretend not to know that its author, or rather its restorer and confirmer, was Nicholas Copernicus; and that he was not only a Catholic, but a priest and a canon.
Learn a lesson from history; at least “look at” (as opposed to “look through”!!!) such contrary evidence that is freely available.
DA,
Your answers to the follwoing quesitons are the province of metaphysics—the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle’s words, of “being qua being”—the basic branch of philosophy.
Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws and, therefore, is stable, firm, absolute—and knowable?
Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp?
Are the things you see around you real—or are they only an illusion?
Do they exist independent of any observer—or are they created by the observer?
Are they the object or the subject of man’s consciousness?
Are they what they are—or can they be changed by a mere act of your consciousness, such as a wish?
The nature of your actions—and of your ambition—will be different, according to which set of answers you come to accept to these questions.
To clarify, meta-physics is not the study of that which “transcends” physics (or anything else). It is the study of reality/the physical universe. “Metaphysics” was a book written by Aristotle, who first wrote a book on physics – the second book was simply called “after [the book of] physics” or “metaphysics”. To use the word “trasncendent” is to wholly misrepresent the study of metaphysics.
DA,
Indeed, the concepts of existence and consciousness are difficult to comprehend and understand but for adults it is essential study to arrive at an appropriate basis for identifying what is knowledge, what is morality, and what is a proper social system – hence my comment that it all begins to go wrong with bad metaphysics.
You cannot evade reality (the BBC try hard mind you)- it cares not a jot what you think about it and kicks hard those who attempt to ignore its primacy.
Good premises
GBS