The New fundamentalists

[John Jackson]

Dispatches - Saturday 20.10

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/fund.html

This programme, which was firdt shown on 6th March is shown again on Saturday.

_________________________________________________

The New Fundamentalists
Rod Liddle investigates the evangelical Christians who tell teenagers that contraception won't protect them and that homosexuality is wrong – and discovers what children are taught in the state schools they run. Julia Bard reports

The mainstream of the Anglican Church, comfortably familiar to Radio 4 listeners and those who pray only at Christmas and Easter, is in decline. But the evangelical wing is growing. It is targeting and recruiting young people and, says and middle-of-the-road Christian Rod Liddle, could make up half the congregation of the Church of England within five years.

In this Channel 4 Dispatches film, Liddle investigates the ideas and activities of Britain's fundamentalist Christians, whose churches buzz with music, dance and American-style preachers who teach that every word of the Bible is literally true.

They campaign to censor artistic works they consider blasphemous, like Jerry Springer, The Opera; they outlaw homosexuality and urge young people to pledge that they will abstain from sex outside marriage. To encourage celibacy, says Liddle, they give teenagers misleading information, telling them that condoms do not offer protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Statistics from the USA, though, show that 88% of young people who have taken the pledge to abstain from sex fail to keep it; they are then left in ignorance about contraception and safer sex.

He visits the state schools run by the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (endowed by fundamentalist Christian Sir Peter Vardy): Emmanuel College in Gateshead, The Kings Academy in Middlesbrough and the most recent addition to the stable, Trinity Academy in Doncaster. All three are academies – an arrangement greatly encouraged by the Government, where private organisations or companies pledge £2 million and the taxpayers add a further £25 million to create state-of-the-art buildings and facilities. And though these are state schools, the sponsors are free to adapt the curriculum, are not bound to have a comprehensive admissions policy and have control over the land and other assets.

As Rod Liddle discovered, these three schools teach evolution, for which there is a mass of evidence, as if it were a 'faith position', giving equal weight to the Bible story of the world being created in seven days. The schools are also very strict – parents and former teachers have described them as 'totalitarian'. The parents of children at the Doncaster academy are furious that this extreme religious sect has been handed the job of running their local school and say that students are subjected to humiliating treatment, such as girls being refused permission to leave the classroom to change their sanitary towels.

These parents are not alone in believing that the schools' good exam results are attained, in part, by potential 'low achievers' being expelled on flimsy pretexts. For example, in the first year of its existence, the rate of permanent exclusion at The Kings Academy was 16 times higher than that of any other school in the area.

Those at the evangelical extreme of the church are militant and growing. Rod Liddle argues that, by replacing doubt and debate with simplistic certainty, they are in conflict with Britain's liberal democratic traditions. And while they are entitled to believe whatever they like as individuals, they should not be handed money to run state schools.

[Eddiesilence]

Rod Liddle's approach reminded me of Richard Dawkins' in his documentary 'The Root of All Evil?'

While I agree with both Liddle and Dawkins in deploring the creeping inroads being made by fundamentalists and magical thinkers, theirs is the crusading, confrontational approach which doesn't work. It does demonstrate to the viewer that we are viewing a fundamentalist, but it also makes skepticism look 'intolerant'. Now, personally, I think we should not go around tolerating stupidity, but because 'intolerance' is a cultural shibboleth in these 'reasonable' times, from a liberal perspective Dawkins and Liddle come across as a little unsporting!

In an interview with Barsamian, 'Liberating the Mind from Orthodoxies,' Chomsky says that to effectively counter propaganda, we must try to bridge the chasm between orthodoxy -- the accepted wisdom -- and reality, which is evidenced by our senses. He acknowledges that this is problematic: 'nobody is going to pour truth into your brain'. Douglas Adams put the same concept beautifully, in 'So Long and Thanks for All the Fish':

"...If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give 'em a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves..."

Which is wonderfully put, but impractically reductionist. People will invent reasons to disbelieve reality as fast as you show it to them. Dawkins and Liddle were both confrontational, and trying to do exactly what Chomsky and Adams prescribe, which found no audience or even empathy with the fundamentalists they were interrogating. This approach just doesn't work, as Admin pointed out in the thread 'Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die.' People are far more complex than we'd prefer; a proverbial picture of a hedgehog and a mirror cannot work, which is perhaps largely why we have such wilful insanity and irrationality that we do in this world. People ordinarily have many more reasons for their silly beliefs than it being a simple matter of exposure to incorrect data; this of course means that exposure to correct data rarely cures the problem.

Liddle's approach reminded me of my own ineffectiveness when faced with true believers. In spite of a subjective understanding of fundamentalism, I am still guilty of rolling my eyes and impluying ridicule. I find it absurd, ad annoyum, that people cling to ridiculous superstition with the sheer tenacity that they do, and it doesn't take long for me to become exasperated, and moreover, I sound like I am exasperated. This undoes what good I could do by measuring my response. Yes indeed, I sometimes hear the carping tone of the crusader in my own voice, and in spite of the knowledge that it is totally counter-productive to ridicule or confront, I have difficulty moderating my reactions to such absurdities...

[Muse]

Eddie - I entirely sympathise. How often have any of us tried to have a discussion with someone so entrenched in their beliefs that no matter what evidence was put before them you just knew that in the end it would make no difference.

I think what you've just described there goes for much of skepticism in whichever area you choose to look - creationism v. science, belief in psychics, alien abductees etc. Skeptics are very good at coming across as intolerant and disapproving know-alls even when they have made excellent points with all supporting evidence. I learned a long time ago that the media's representation of skepticism (and science to some extent) turns every skeptic into a grizzly old cumudgeon whose thoughts and ideas are unwelcome, unwanted and spoils the game.

I seem to remember Dawkins on Horizon's 'War against Science' recently stating something to the effect that the very act of scientists engaging with ID proponents or discussing their ideas somehow lent unmerited credibility to their cause. In 'Root of all Evil' I see he did tackle his subject head on but his confrontational approach blinded many to his thinking and only his approach was memorable to some, sadly for the wrong reasons.

So what do we do to try and engage the masses in critical thought on the big questions? Do we try Dawkins suggestion ie., ignore the fundamentalist/pseudoscientific camp and hope they go away (only to find that one day they're in Number 10 or the Whitehouse) or try to re-invent our approach and tackle the subject in an imaginative and engaging way?

Personally I hope that the latter approach is forthcoming....and soon.

[Jocky]

ignore the fundamentalist/pseudoscientific camp and hope they go away (only to find that one day they're in Number 10 or the Whitehouse)

You mean they're not there already? :scared:

I didn't see this programme unfortunately - I hope I'll get a chance to see a repeat. It seems to me that the best way to stop creationists getting their grubby hands on taxpayers' money is though local politics. Aren't the LEAs politically accountable for the farcical waste of public funds which seems to be happening in these schools?

Unfortunately, fighting them on the basis that their beliefs are irrational and unscientific will probably not work. Fighting them on the basis that they are spending public revenue irresponsibly is more likely to stick.

[Nucular]

To be honest, I quite like Liddle's style - yes, it's polemical in the same way Dawkins' series was, but Liddle's got a 'normal bloke' sort of persona that I think carries it off. You get the sense with Dawkins that he knows exactly what the people he's talking to are going to say, which leads to frustration on his part; whereas Liddle doesn't seem to quite believe what's coming, which leads to incredulity and some righteous anger instead. I think the latter is more congruent with how the casual, non-evangelical but non-sceptical viewer would react.

Btw, as I said on another thread, I've got a disk of this I can copy if anyone's interested - pm me if so.

[And Introducing... A Leg]

I saw Rod Liddle on a late night discussion show on ITV recently (I forget what it was called, but it was hosted by Terry Christian), where they were discussing the Motoon business. Some muslim girl came out with something about how people should respect her beliefs, only for him to reply (this might not be exactly right):

"I respect your right to your beliefs but I've no duty to respect your beliefs themselves. Islam is oppressive, primitive and backward".

I'm not sure this tactic is the best, but it was so refreshing, given the wishy-washy crap we get from elsewhere.

[Oleron]

I'm not tolerant ALL the time and I don't see any reason why I should be.

I'm intolerant of intolerance, for a start!

I'm intolerant of stupidity. By this I mean intentional stupidity - knowing better but choosing to ignore the facts. I am very tolerant of stupidity due to lack of knowledge or ignorance.

Dawkins and Dennet (and Liddle to an extent) has come in for criticism for not treating people, who hold downright moronic beliefs, with kid gloves.

Sometimes the halfway point between 2 arguments is not always right. Sometimes people are just being bloody-minded muppets who deserve no quarter from those wanting to advance society through logic and critical thinking. Sometimes people are just plain wrong.

[John Jackson]

I agree with that Oleron.

Far too often these days we're being told that we should respect and tolerate other people's beliefs even if we disagree with them.

I can't accept that. Some beliefs are not just silly they are often stupid and even dangerous.

People who advise parents against vaccination, for example. I certainly disagree with them, but why should I respect their beliefs? It makes no sense.

The same goes for a lot of fundamentalist religion. Why should anyone be expected to respect the beliefs of someone who wants to stifle scientific progress, subjugate women, or kill others who disagree with them?

No. Sometimes people are just plain wrong. There’s no virtue in offering apathetic respect to people who willingly believe in nonsense.

[Nucular]

Although I think there's a difference between respecting beliefs, and respecting the person who has them.

I agree respecting a belief doesn't make sense if you disagree with it or consider it dangerous (particularly not if the person isn't respecting yours, and I don't think I've met many believers who feel they have to 'respect' the views of a sceptic); but respecting the person is quite possible, though imo not compulsory.

For instance, I've met some religious people I respect, not because of their views - I think they're silly - but because of the honesty, openmindedness and other qualities which go alongside those beliefs. But then some don't deserve respect, like, say, Kent Hovind, etc. - very similar beliefs to the people I do respect, but totally different approach, manner, methods, aims, etc.

[John Jackson]

Yes that a good and important point Nucular.

I should clarify that it is specifically erroneous beliefs that I think should be questioned and challenged rather than sit back and 'respect' them.

I don't advocate taking it to the point of discrimination and prejudice against those who hold them.

People have a right to believe whatever they like, I just don't think that beliefs, of any kind, are sacrosanct.

[Jocky]

There are times (including while reading this thread) when I'm not quite sure what people mean by the word 'respect'. The phrase 'respect religious beliefs' is actually more slippery than it looks.

There are two subtly different meanings for the verb 'to respect' which are relevant here:
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect

If somebody says "Respect my religion" meaning sense 1, then they are demanding unconditional esteem for their beliefs from non-believers. Skeptics everywhere have a big problem with that, and they are right to do so - why should anyone be expected to esteem something which they think is ridiculous? This is an unreasonable expectation in a free society >:( - and if a believer demands it then they are asking for a comeuppance

OTOH, If believers say "Respect my religion" meaning sense 2, they are asking for something rather different. But even here it is not clear exactly what conduct they are requesting. Do they mean
A. "do not violate my beliefs with your impudent questioning of them", or
B. "Do not interfere with my right to hold and express my beliefs".
If they mean sense A then they are guilty once more of demanding more than a free society ought to give - the right to profess something without allowing others the right to disagree. However, if they mean sense B then they're only asking for something which is essential to a free society, and which I think everybody has the right to expect.

I think that these shades of meaning often result in cross-purposes. What constitutes 'respect', exactly?

For example, take Leg's paraphrase of Rod Liddle: "I respect your right to your beliefs but I've no duty to respect your beliefs themselves. Islam is oppressive, primitive and backward". The second sentence is a pejorative and generalised attack, and it is clearly disrespectful in sense 1. It is probably disrespectful in sense 2A as well, unless the believer chooses to profess Islam because they actually like its oppressive, primitive backwardness (and there are probably some people out there who do ::) ). It is not disrespectful in sense 2B however - it explicitly distinguishes between the believer and the belief, and so is simply a contrary position which does not interfere with the rights of the believer at all.

However, if Rod had gone on to say something like " ... and because you believe in Islam, your opinion is worthless, and you and people like you are a danger to society" then he would have been guilty of lack of respect in sense 2B. He didn't - but given the manner in which he couched his argument he couldn't really have complained if he had been met with an equally sweeping assertion along the lines of "skepticism is empty, amoral and destructive", along with all the implicit personal criticism that connotes.

There is a line here which skeptics should not cross - I think we should always concentrate on the belief rather than the believer, and be at pains to avoid any appearance of ad hominem attacks.

Where you have someone who is both a believer and may merit a lack of personal respect (Nucular quite understandably has it in for Kent Hovind, for instance), I think it is best to attack them personally for their personal conduct, without simultaneously attacking their beliefs. OTOH, if you intend to target their beliefs, then avoid criticising their personal conduct at the same time. To elaborate on the Kent Hovind example, there are plenty examples of how to make it patently clear when you are playing the ball and when the man at http://www.kent-hovind.com/. This site manages a pretty complete critique of both the man and the beliefs, without getting mixed up between the two.

People who have their beliefs questioned often feel vulnerable and therefore can perceive a personal attack where none is intended. I think that skeptical argument is most effective when it takes issue with belief by reference to the facts, but is also punctilious about maintaining respect for the individual.