Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi had a solid story about a new PBS ban on religious programming. Basically the board decided to forbid member stations from airing new religious programs but permitted those that already carry “sectarian” shows to continue to do so. It was a compromise from a proposed ban on all religious programming such as local church services or religious lectures.
The story is interesting and discusses five of the member stations that carry religious programming. It also explores an interesting local angle:
The vote also means that WHUT, operated by Howard University in the District, won’t be required to drop its telecasts of “Mass for Shut-Ins,” a weekly Catholic Mass that has aired on the station since 1996 and locally in Washington for more than 50 years.
But, warned by PBS of the upcoming review, WHUT put the program’s producer, the Archdiocese of Washington, on notice that it would drop the program if the PBS board voted to ban religious programs. The archdiocese then made alternative arrangements, negotiating a contract with WDCW (Channel 50) to pick up the half-hour program on Sunday mornings.
Moving the program, which is broadcast free by WHUT, will be disruptive to viewers, said Susan Gibbs, the archdiocese’s spokeswoman, and expensive — the contract with WDCW will cost $60,000 per year.
I never knew that PBS affiliates broadcast masses or other local religious programming but the thing that surprised me the most about this story was that it doesn’t mention the religious figure I most closely associate with PBS: Deepak Chopra, the New Age spiritualist author and periodical host of programs on PBS. What happens to the Chopra programming? Or what about Eckhart Tolle? I caught one of his PBS specials a year or so ago and was shocked that it was considered appropriate for public broadcasting.
The bottom line: Does the PBS board think that New age lectures are fine but liturgies aren’t? Is this another sign of the whole “spiritual” vs. “religious” divide in the culture?
 | Posted at 12:35 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (57) |
June 18, 2009, at 1:07 pm
The whole PBS/NPR ban on religious programs is a sham, designed only to outlaw Christian broadcasts. Meanwhile, I can watch New Age, hear secularist, and wake each morning to a “clear voice for science.” There is increasingly little “Public” in BS or NR.
Here in Arizona, an NPR broadcaster fired a Christian to get rid of his Christian music show on Sun am. His other non-Christian shows also got the ax, never mind that he was the only producer who brought in _any_ non-govt revenue to the station.
June 18, 2009, at 1:13 pm
What interests me most is what the ramifications of this ban on religious programming are going to be for how PBS and especially how NPR will cover the Obama presidency.
June 18, 2009, at 1:44 pm
Part of the reason (but not the main part) KQED in San Francisco took away members right to vote for the board was fear that special interests, including religious people, might run a slate and get elected to the board, thereby taking control of the most listened to NPR station in the country.
June 18, 2009, at 1:44 pm
Webster, that is very funny!
June 18, 2009, at 1:50 pm
Hey, cut PBS some slack: they use the THREE PRIESTS for pledge drives. Cheez.
On a more serious note, PBS and NPR are decidedly anti-Christian and have been for a number of years. Even the Abernathy program on Religion and Ethics is solidly new age and mainstream liberal Protestant in its orientation. As for news coverage, listen (and you don’t have to listen carefully) to hear the slant on stories dealing with abortion, gay “rights”, Catholicism and evangelical religion to get their drift. They spin as wildly as O’Reilly, Olbermann, Maddow, and Fox News. Local PBS and NPR stations have adopted a pledging strategy which has them doing the on-air solicitation at least a week every month (or so it seems) and now one station in our area says its will be giving a portion of its new pledges over and above what it normally gives to NPR because their financially situation. Given that their begging never ceases to let everyone know that NPR and PBS listeners are
more intelligent, morally sensitive, and generally superior in every way to the ignorant masses who don’t share their views, it surprises me that they are in such financial trouble.
June 18, 2009, at 1:57 pm
The articles don’t give a reason for this, we are left in the dark. The only thing I can see is that the ban is on local religious programming, not national, but the articles don’t go into that either. Either PBS was not very clear or the reporter didn’t report.
PBS did decide several years ago to drop national broadcasting of any NeoPagan documentaries or other information. During PledgeWeek some local stations show Burning Times and a few other programs, but nothing new is allowed. Maybe it dawned on PBS, that if they ban NeoPaganism they need to ban all religions.
As far as I know, or care, Deepak Chopra is a New Age FluffBuny. What is so offensive about Eckhart Tolle? When I see the words Oprah and spirituality I stop reading right there.
June 18, 2009, at 2:02 pm
Dan,
I think your statement:
should read:
Discussions frequently require a certain level of respect for the participants.
June 18, 2009, at 2:06 pm
Actually, dalea, I see no need for the the scare quotes in either case.
Guys, take the slams elsewhere.
June 18, 2009, at 2:27 pm
Now I have to google Eckhart Tolle.
June 18, 2009, at 2:31 pm
tmatt,
My point is that ‘slams’ are not conducive to discourse.
June 18, 2009, at 2:34 pm
[…] Hemingway asks the original state-run television network (at least prior to 2008) to “Define religious programming:” Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi had a solid story about a new PBS ban on religious […]
June 18, 2009, at 2:46 pm
Check out the link to Eckhart Tolle at the end of Mollie’s post - he describes himself as a spiritual teacher.
And there has been a re-evaluation of claims made in The Burning Times film which is also shown on PBS according to dalea. Here’s one analysis of the era of witch burnings:
http://www.bede.org.uk/decline.htm
author: James Hannam
I am a historian of science specialising in the relationship between science and Christianity in the Medieval and Early Modern eras. I took my Masters (2003) from Birkbeck College, University of London and have a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from Pembroke College, University of Cambridge (2008).
June 18, 2009, at 3:11 pm
Point of confusion. Googling for stories on this subject, there are a lot of links to NPR radio where it appears to be a regular topic. Some are national, some might be local, I can’t tell. The article refers to televised programs, not radio. Is this the actual case or does the ban include NPR radio? Is NPR a separate entity from PBS? This might clarify the subject.
June 18, 2009, at 4:42 pm
I think Wikipedia does a good job of defining the difference between NPR and PBS:
NPR - National Public Radio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio
PBS - Public Broadcasting System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Service
June 18, 2009, at 6:02 pm
[…] Get Religion asks how will PBS treat Deepak Chopra and similar New Age gurus who regularly air specials during those obnoxious […]
June 19, 2009, at 8:07 am
After having defined the problem; religious discrimination and lack of inclusion, what’s to be done to overcome the attitude
June 19, 2009, at 9:46 am
I am curious about the author’s bottom line. Although I am not a board member, I think they would respond “yes” to your first question. To me, there is a big difference between a best-selling author discussing his spiritual beliefs and a liturgy from the church down the street. The whole issue is about the rationale for using air time to broadcast local church services. For those opposed to the ban, what is your rationale for broadcasting local religious services? Remember that PBS has “grandfathered” those services being previously aired. So you cannot argue all liturgies are prevented from airing on PBS.
Your second question is quite confusing to me. What great “divide” are you referring to? There are similarities between the two constructs but there are also stark differences. Is this what you mean by “divide”?
June 19, 2009, at 9:51 am
Under a consistent definition of religion Chopra and Tolle would be grandfathered in along with existing Christian content. But does PBS analyze it that way?
June 19, 2009, at 10:43 am
dalea, while The Burning Times is riveting to Pagans I wouldn’t classify it with a broadcast Mass. It’s more akin to scholarly broadcasts like From Jesus to Christ. (Discussion of the quality of scholarship belongs in another venue.) If there actually was a PBS ban on Pagan content it was probably under pressure from the former administration, to judge from the latter’s track record, and may be rescinded under the current one.
June 19, 2009, at 11:29 am
Spiritual people believe there is a God or Higher Power, but religious people believe that their specific interpretation of God or a Higher Power is right and others are, if not wrong, then merely tolerable. A characteristic of most strongly religious people, and organizations, is that they are always against others, if not overtly then in the back of their minds. If religions want to be on PBS then they ought to embrace the sweet, loving, ‘all inclusive’ truth that has been obscured but is nevertheless present at the core of most religions.
June 19, 2009, at 12:57 pm
Dave: Good question. From what I have read, it appears that PBS is more concerned about stations that clearly prescribe to one religious affiliation and broadcast weekly religious services. Chopra does have a weekly show, but it’s on Serius radio. So it’s not that PBS has a problem with having religious shows on their station. It’s when stations broadcast one specific religious liturgy every week. Can you imagine how upset people would be if a PBS station broadcasted a program every week of Chopra or Tolle preaching their beliefs? No interviewing or any type of reporting, just them standing in front of a camera every week talking about how their spirituality can help improve your life.
June 19, 2009, at 12:57 pm
That’s a nice, strong religious viewpoint, Patrick. It is fairly represented on many local PBS/NPR stations. But let’s not discriminate by preferring only one religious view.
June 19, 2009, at 1:03 pm
Deb - Arizona PBS does broadcast a religio-spiritual-psycho-self-help guy twice a week. He tells you how to tap into the spiritual streams of all great religions and philosophies to become the better self you want to be.
June 19, 2009, at 1:44 pm
From what I have read, it appears that PBS is more concerned about stations that clearly prescribe to one religious affiliation and broadcast weekly religious services.
If this is the case then why wasn’t the proposal to not allow a stations religious programming to not consists of only one religious affiliation. If diversity is the problem, banning all religious programming seems like a strange solution.
To me, there is a big difference between a best-selling author discussing his spiritual beliefs and a liturgy from the church down the street. The whole issue is about the rationale for using air time to broadcast local church services. For those opposed to the ban, what is your rationale for broadcasting local religious services?
I’m going to go out on a limb here but the rationale for broadcasting “Mass for Shut-Ins” is that it helps shut-ins participate in Mass in some form. What’s the big difference between a show about an author’s spiritual beliefs and a liturgy? What’s the big difference between broadcasting local church services and broadcasting some other local event? Religious ideas should be as freely expressed in the public square as non-religious ones - that’s why we have freedom of religion in this country.
June 19, 2009, at 2:53 pm
Brian Walden asked, reasonably:
The former informs your mind. The latter, done well, grabs you at a deeper level.
The big difference arises if it’s a government-funded broadcast like PBS or NPR. Then it verges on government support for a particular religion, potentially in conflict with the First Amendment. I don’t know of any case law on this particular matter but it sets off clear alarm bells.
June 19, 2009, at 4:41 pm
blestou: Wow. Totally killed my example. Do you know the name of the show?
Brian Walden: The point being missed is that PBS has identified itself as “nonsectarian, nonpolitical, noncommercial”. This is not about covering all religions fairly. It’s about preventing PBS from becoming a channel for religious worship.
PBS is not supposed to be used to help those who cannot attend their religious services. Although I believe such stations should exist, it is up to the religious community to fund such efforts.
June 19, 2009, at 5:30 pm
I don’t know the name of the show. I usually catch a bit in the middle, decide I’m still not interested and flip to something else.
But even a few years ago in Kentucky, the Louisville PBS station ran a series about progressive parenting. The crux of the show was that the “religious method” (as the host defined it) of child raising was all wrong. Responsible parents needed to chuck their pre-modern religious preconceptions and learn how to scientifically parent. This kind of thing is regular fare for PBS in every market I’ve experienced and is every bit as “religious” as the Christian programming they’ve banned.
June 19, 2009, at 9:31 pm
blestou: A spiritual view is not necessarily a religious view. That’s the whole point. Our society in becoming aware of this, and when they hear someone like Tolle speak via PBS, he is stating the common sense view that humanity is one with God, which is becoming more and more obvious to everyone in our society but religious people, apparently. They always have to be ‘against’ something because they imaging God is ‘against’ something. So thy are against PBS, against Tolle, and anyone who doesn’t share their view. Who wants to be around people like that, or watch them on TV?
June 19, 2009, at 10:45 pm
Patrick, you’ve perfected the fine art of self-contradiction. You don’t want to be around people who don’t share your view, because… you don’t share their view. But of course, conveniently, your view is the “common sense” one.
Deb: “Remember that PBS has ‘grandfathered’ those services being previously aired.” But why? If there genuinely is an ethical or constitutional conflict with the airing of sectarian religious content on public broadcasting (and I think there needn’t be), then shouldn’t all shows be discontinued forthwith? It’s superficially gracious, but comes across like a disingenuous attempt to defuse immediate controversy by throwing a bone to the sectarian viewers. The end result will eventually be the same.
June 20, 2009, at 12:48 am
Is non-sectarian distinguishable in practice from religious indifferentism or religious Universalism?
Some would categorize a guru who says all religions lead to enlightenment as non-sectarian, others would categorize him as part of a Universalist sect.
June 20, 2009, at 12:16 pm
danr, opposing points of view are beside the point, and that IS the point. And to say so, right now, is not being against anyone, it’s simply stating a spiritual fact. Everyone naturally has a point of view, but some have come to realize, on a higher level, we are already one in God and have no opposition toward each other. In light of that, it is realized that points of view are nice to have but are not all that important anymore.
Now, you could respond back to what I just said by saying it’s “only my point of view”. And yes, that’s true, but what I’m saying can also be verified and proven. If you give your attention 100% to God, without egoic, or mental opinions of ‘for’ and ‘against’, but let God have you, your entire being, and you sustain an intense passion and love for God, 24-7, with no room left over in your heart and mind for anything else, you will eventually discover that the illusion of separation between you and God, and you and others, starts diminishing. You can verify if what I am saying is true, or not, by trying it and seeing if it effects your perspective.
June 20, 2009, at 1:19 pm
Patrick - you have written the most religious comments on this thread. Your special pleading for your own position is not compelling.
June 20, 2009, at 1:52 pm
blestou: What I say is merely an opinion, so it’s not really all that important for the reasons I mentioned above. But if someone wanted to verify for themselves if the opinion has merit, or not, they would have to investigate it with an open mind. But to merely react ‘against’ an opinion, mine or anyones, does not familiarize them with the possibility of a natural communion that may already exists between us, it does the opposite. It produces opposition, which the egoic mind thrives on.
June 20, 2009, at 2:22 pm
All right, Patrick, that’s not actually what you’re saying, but it’s a fair summary.
June 20, 2009, at 2:43 pm
Has anyone found follow up to this reporting? I can’t, and find the issue still unclear. The reporting does not clarify the issues, nor does it provide context. Why is PBS dropping televised services? It would seem like part of local reporting to cover them.
June 21, 2009, at 1:08 pm
Hi Dave,
If I were to claim to be ‘right’ then I would also be trying to make you ‘wrong’, and that would create more of the opposition that I have been talking about. I am not right, and you are not wrong. We merely have different points of view. Can that be OK is the question?
The media doesn’t ‘get’ religion perhaps because religion often comes across not as a spiritually inspired point of view but rather as a fix, absolute dogma that you are suppose to be either for, or against. And nobody wants friends like that, parents like that, employers like that, or TV programs like that.
The religious person who truly loves God with their whole being, and their neighbor, does not object to, or hold resentment about, who is, or is not, on TV because it would contradict their knowing. And they would most likely have no ambition or desire to be on TV themselves.
That’s merely my opinion.
June 21, 2009, at 3:52 pm
“A spiritual view is not necessarily a religious view”
From where I am sitting, it looks suspiciously like the “spiritual-but-not-religious” catchword is just another way of saying We are better than Them. We have “spirituality”, They only have “religion”.
One may profitably read Socrates’ comments in the APOLOGY, when he was accused of “atheism”.
June 21, 2009, at 4:13 pm
Patrick:
Thanks for your expansion of your ideas. It puts them in a different, and much more pleasant, light.
Will:
I read the “spiritual not religious” trope not as coming from above the “religious” but from down the path. I think people who say that have had bad experiences with churches, want nothing to do with anything like that, but still have a metaphysical side to them that they don’t intend to ignore just because of their toxic upbringings.
June 21, 2009, at 5:05 pm
Hi Will,
Some, no doubt, believe that being ‘spiritual’ makes them somehow better than others who are ‘religious’. And visa-versa. But using a label to make oneself feel superior to others is just more egoic thinking that prevents the deeper commonality from emerging.
And I would agree with Dave. The two words are just indicators of different experiences and perspectives that people have. Dave said it perfectly.
June 21, 2009, at 7:39 pm
Patrick, that sounds fine, I suppose. But, from your remarks above, I had the idea that you think PBS could reject religious programming, but consider Tolle to be non-religious, on the basis that his spirituality is on some higher plane and therefore is “inclusive.” That is a completely untenable position.
June 22, 2009, at 1:36 pm
Hey MJBubba,
I suspect PBS may reject religious programming primarily because it doesn’t have a broad public appeal, and also it has a reputation (justifiable, or not) of subtly, and sometimes overtly, soliciting membership, and proselytizing.
Perhaps not you, but many Christians think PBS should air their religious programming, but they would never watch, let alone support, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu religions programming on PBS, even though they are no less ‘religious’.
Neither religion nor spiritually are inherently higher or lower. But it seems to me that ‘inclusiveness’ is a natural characteristic of a ‘higher plane’. Ultimately, wouldn’t the most ‘inclusive’ experience be oneness of all in God? In this regard, Tolle’s message is inclusive therefore it is on a higher plane than one that would be exclusive.
But any religion could be inclusive or exclusive, too. The evidence would be to what degree it must be ‘against’ (or tolerate—same thing) other people, life styles, belief systems, interpretations, nature, and each other.
Tolle’s message is spiritual but not religious, though he makes clear in his writing that there’s no point in being ‘spiritual’ if that becomes just another identity to justify opposition to others.
June 22, 2009, at 3:23 pm
“many Christians think PBS should air [only] their religious programming”
Zero Christians I know would say PBS should air our programming but no one else’s (perhaps you should meet more of us?). We’d have no problem with the airing of any other religion’s services - including the inclusivist/universalist religion of Tolle. To the contrary, we’d advocate for their equal access rights.
One could counter (perhaps wrongly) that it’s mostly people who are either spiritually “inclusive” or secularist/athiest who appear to object to religious programming.
“Ultimately, wouldn’t the most ‘inclusive’ experience be oneness of all in God?”
Except that you can’t get around the fact it excludes everyone who has a specific (“sectarian”) view of “God” (whatever you mean by that), or believes in multiple gods, or believes in no god(s).
June 22, 2009, at 6:05 pm
Danr,
All Good points, however I did not say or suggest that the Christians you know want PBS to air only their programs.
There is no religion of Tolle, he is merely a spiritual teacher who presents his ideas and people can consider them as they wish. And it just so happens that right now in our society many people are interested in what he is saying. How is that ‘against’ Christians?
Why do Christians care about what PBS does, or doesn’t do? Can you not know complete fulfillment in God without PBS? (Joyce Meyers has addressed this topic beautifully in her ‘not PBS’ but powerful TV programming).
Today our society is interested in spiritual ideas and less in religion, that’s simply a fact. But are you now going to fight against spiritual ideas because you can’t be on TV?
You feel unfairly treated by PBS. Ok, so if you are an exemplification of Christianity, and if I wanted to become a Christian now because of meeting you, would I have to feel unfairly treated by PBS too, or could I just be happy?
Who cares if others have different views of God, believe in multiple gods, or no God? That means nothing compared to the one thing that has true meaning, and that it your relationship with God.
The “Christians” who spend their time opposing others rather than living in peace, love, and in Christ, are exactly why they are not particularly liked by others.
June 22, 2009, at 11:31 pm
Patrick, I am one of those Christians that thinks PBS is too sectarian to continue to be supported by tax dollars. I am entirely happy to live in peace amongst people of other religions. I get along with neighbors and colleagues of other faiths and no faith; I have friends who are atheist and who are Muslim. I do not spend my time opposing others.
However, the situation is different when it comes to the media, especially with a network that is known for educational programming for children. It is awfully hard not to oppose any public subsidy for PBS, when I have seen so much of their content carries subtle and un-subtle messages that oppose the traditional Christianity that I try to teach my sons. The sons thankfully have no interest in watching Edward Tolle or Deepak Chopra, nevertheless I find their teachings to be in opposition to basic core beliefs of orthodox Christianity, and so I find your opinion that they are somehow “above religion” to be nonsense. I am even more irked by other programs, especially Nova, that sneak in anti-Christian messages in interviews with scientists or historians. I do not actually mind Tolle or Chopra, since it is easy to note what they teach and avoid them. I am convinced, however, that if PBS is to get rid of all religious programming, then they must go also, along with about ten percent of all of their programming.
June 22, 2009, at 11:37 pm
Patrick, some good points interspersed with strawmen and non-sequiturs. If you (and anyone else) want to continue this increasingly off-topic discussion, may I suggest migrating to the coffeeshop set up by the getreligionistas for that purpose? Don’t want to test their patience.
June 23, 2009, at 4:26 pm
MJBubba, could you expand on that? (I assume this is still discussing the media.)
June 23, 2009, at 11:23 pm
Actually, I confess that this is an old complaint; it has been several years since we doused the TV in our house, and I cannot recall any specific infractions. I do recall watching programs, and then having to review with my sons how to spot the spin and how to tell when you are getting unexpected messages. In history programs, for example, PBS programs repeat all of the same tired misconceptions of pop revisionist history that get cited here at GetReligion, but that seems to be exceptionally poor for an “educational network.” I once thought I could expect more knowledgeable editing from them than from the Associated Press, but they repeatedly disappointed. The rolodex that their producers use to find “experts” is no better than the tired old journalists’ rolodex that Professor Mattingly has been complaining of for two decades. They had many programs similar to the big networks’ Easter specials, with the same silly interviews of long-discredited Jesus Seminar members. Any Nova program that involved physics seemed to include some disparaging comment about miracles or Genesis, just to let viewers repeatedly hear their condescension.
June 24, 2009, at 10:14 am
MJ, science by its very nature cannot accept miracles, in that it must probe as far as it can for a naturalistic explanation of an unusual event. The alternative it to hang up its gloves, to say contrary to its basic premise that there are things that cannot be explained.
Science, to be true to itself, also cannot accept Genesis as a literal, accurate account of the origins of things. To say something like, “You’ve heard what the evidence says, but Genesis is actually the way it happened and the evidence is illusory,” would once again be to hang up its gloves.
Neither is inherently disparaging or condescending. Each is a different but not necessarily disrespectful interpretation of the human record. Miracles are reports of unexplained phenomena. Genesis is a poetic description of creation by people at no more than a Bronze Age level of technology, with the roots of the narrative(s) probably going back earlier. Neither is inherently disrespectful, not does it make science a sect. Those who want to take offense on behalf of their faith are of course free to do so, but that does not create a sectarian dispute.
June 24, 2009, at 3:51 pm
I would agree with Dave, science is a field of objective human inquiry and therefore not inherently anti-religious.
I would say that, while some sectarians may be anti-religious, sectarian society, as a cultural demographic, is not anti-religious, it is just not religious, in the same way that vegetarians, or sports fans, are neither for, nor against, religion.
Anti-religion only exists where the egoic mind insists upon having enemies.
Nova could only be seen as an enemy, or a ‘subtly subversive element’ by someone who is attached to his or her own opinions as if they were Ultimate Truth, and Nova was not properly conforming to them.
(Genesis: literal or poetic? I am not opposed to anyone’s interpretation, but here is ‘another’ (but not ‘anti’) way of looking at it. Viewed literally the story of Genesis is a concretized event that happened in the past, for which there is no scientific proof. But understood metaphorically, the implications of the story of Genesis may become a portal in consciousness that opens into a vast spiritual dimension that is here and now, and not in the past. This dimension is beyond all scientific categorization, the opinions of public broadcasting, and the opinions of the religious. However this is merely a point of view that anyone could explore for themselves to see if it is true, or not).
June 24, 2009, at 4:19 pm
Patrick, you used “sectarian” here where I suspect you meant “secular.”
June 24, 2009, at 4:36 pm
Oops. Yes, of course. Thanks for pointing that out.
June 24, 2009, at 11:31 pm
Dave, I agree that science should be agnostic with respect to God, and especially with respect to Genesis. However, I have no patience for the reasoning that says that since “science cannot prove the existence of God,” then people who do believe in God or in miracles are stupid. The fact that there is real evidence that may be legitimately interpreted as indicative of unknown processes and unknown causes leads some folk to conclude that such evidence is supportive of the theory of the existence of God. I lose patience when anti-Christian science educators call such reasoning “unscientific,” which is something heard routinely in PBS programs.
I have read up on the theories of paleogeology that are derivative of the prevailing views on evolution, and see the gaps and holes in the backwards-extrapolations necessary to make up a coherent story of the history of rocks and continents. PBS frequently presents programs that tell a seamless story of paleogeology and do not include the scientists who are willing to say how much is not known and how much is pure conjecture, and how much of the paleogeology in lower level texts is whipped up by “consensus.”
You say science “cannot accept miracles, in that it must probe as far as it can for a naturalistic explanation of an unusual event,” and science “cannot accept Genesis as a literal, accurate account.” OK, I am willing to go so far as that with no problems. However, you continue with “Neither is inherently disparaging or condescending.” Well, that is exactly my problem with PBS, because I heard disparagement and condescension many times through their programming. That, combined with their periodic Bible-debunking garbage, has convinced me that PBS is actively anti-Christian in ways that are detrimental to honest science and honest history.
June 25, 2009, at 9:36 am
MJ, I completely agree with you about what constitutes proof of the existence or non-existence of God. If physical evidence cannot by its nature establish the existence of God, neither can it disprove it. Calling belief “stupid” just shows that some atheists/agnostics are as irrationally dogmatic as some believers.
Backward extrapolation is a legitimate part of geology and biology. Gaps and holes are unavoidable; we cannot demand that the earth provide a piece of evidence the way we can demand that a student who botches a problem try it over. If PBS science programs provide an unrealistically smooth picture, recall that they are mass-media popularizations. (BTW there are gaps and holes in astronomy and physics, too, where there are no religious implications.)
Calling theological reasoning “unscientific” is not inherently insulting. It means it’s outside the realm of science. Love is unscientific, too, but we all do it and need it.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree about disparagement and condescension. I don’t watch enough PBS science programs to actually form a judgment, because I know a 30- or 60-minute treatment of any science is necessarily incomplete.
June 25, 2009, at 10:52 pm
Dave, my problem is not with anyone describing theological reasoning as unscientific. I have a big problem with those who say that any logic that supports ‘an indication that God might exist’ must be unscientific. And, that is commonly heard on PBS programs explicitly or implied, usually by science educators (and not much by researchers).
Regarding the incompleteness of one-hour shows for mass media, I agree that I do not expect completeness. What I object to is the condescension of the implicit dismissal of believers in God as unintelligent.
June 26, 2009, at 11:06 am
Since science cannot develop an implication that God exists from physical evidence, any such logic must a priori be unscientific. That’s not the same thing as “wrong” or “stupid;” it just classifies that logic as outside the limited idea-set that is science.
Of course, if it turned out that a portion of the human genome spelled out I AM THAT I AM in DNA codons, that might give folks pause, but afaik nothing like that has turned up.
Are you sure you’re not projecting the implication that belief in God is unintelligent? As I said, I don’t watch these programs, so I’m not in a position to give an opinion.
June 27, 2009, at 11:49 am
Dave, you say “Since science cannot develop an implication that God exists from physical evidence, any such logic must a priori be unscientific.” Why is that? Since Intelligent Design is the most widely debated topic where this has been covered in the media, let’s review. One of the ID positions lays out several sets of physical evidence from biology, and then shows how they could not have developed through the mechanisms of natural selection, discarding random mutations and catastrophic mutations by careful reasoning, and after considering all the known and theoretical processes of evolution, declares that none of them could have produced the result that exists. Concluding that this might be evidence for the existence of a designing influence is in no way unscientific, and requires a much lower level of credibility than does the Theory of Evolution.
I have heard the topic of Intelligent Design dismissed as unscientific and intellectually dishonest before, on PBS and NPR, with nodding approval of the host/interviewer, so much so that it seems to be a mission of our public media to keep ID out of any consideration for reasonable discourse.
June 27, 2009, at 12:12 pm
The problem with intelligent design is that that logic is wrong. Those impossible-to-explain features of nature have been examined and explained. At the, in essence, trial of ID in a public school curriculum, the plaintiff’s lawyer barricaded Michael Behe on the witness stand behind a stack of books investigating what Behe said nobody was looking at.
I agree with the conclusion that ID is both unscientific and intellectually dishonest, but for different reasons. It’s unscientific because of the foregoing. It’s intellectually dishonest because it was ginned up to be a constitutionally acceptable flavor of creationism in an effort to slide the God of Genesis back into public school science curricula. The one has to do with the internal logic of ID, the other with the motives of its sponsors.
I therefore cannot find any basis to criticize the nodding approval of PBS and NPR (setting aside the question of how a nod registers on the radio
) at that characterization of ID.