The BBC has wholeheartedly thrown its lot in with the liberal reformers; there has been no “impartiality” on any of the big moral issues of the past half-century. In every instance, the socially conservative argument has been depicted as callous, reactionary and dogmatic. Any counterargument to the prevailing liberal consensus is now ignored altogether; social conservative voices are conspicuous by their absence on mainstream current affairs programmes. That is sometimes because there is no one in the production teams who understands the social conservative position, so it is no longer considered when programmes are in the making. The liberals now have a national culture moulded by their thinking and their laws; it is their world now – the old morality has been utterly vanquished.
Consider the way in which Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion was promoted by the BBC. The book was treated with reverence, and the lavish coverage helped to propel its author to the highest pinnacle of intellectual celebrity. He is now one of that small, glittering band of international intellectual superstars in demand around the world. The BBC was not his only promoter – the Times, the Guardian and the Independent, as well as most other serious television and media outlets, all paid homage to the new guru – but the BBC’s imprimatur is always worth more than the others.
Partly thanks to the BBC’s heady sponsorship, The God Delusion became a global phenomenon which – given its intellectual mediocrity – takes some explaining. The eminent American sociologist Peter Berger gave much thought to the general phenomenon of secularisation, and his observations are peculiarly apt as a way of explaining the success of Dawkins’s book:
“There exists an international subculture composed of people with Western-type higher education, especially in the humanities and social sciences, that is indeed secularised. This subculture is the principal “carrier” of progressive, Enlightened beliefs and values. While its members are relatively thin on the ground, they are very influential, as they control the institutions that provide the “official” definitions of reality, notably the educational system, the media of mass communication, and the higher reaches of the legal system. They are remarkably similar all over the world today, as they have been for a long time … I may observe in passing that the plausibility of secularisation theory owes much to this international subculture.”
So ubiquitous was the coverage that it felt at the time as if The God Delusion was being promoted as a quasi-official philosophy; away with the Book of Common Prayer, in with a book for the common man. And in the context of Berger’s “subculture”, The God Delusion has become one of the standard texts of the secularists; an enormously influential work colouring the opinions of millions of people around the world. The fact of its essential vacuity doesn’t matter because, with its reputation enormously inflated by an uncritical media, it has been promoted to the status of holy writ.
The old moral code is difficult to live up to; its stern injunctions run counter to human instinct in every respect. It calls for self-restraint and self-abnegation and does so in the name of a higher power. That’s why people find it difficult, and why many don’t like it. Mr Dawkins’s alternative Ten Commandments, as listed in The God Delusion, have the great advantage of not being at all irksome – they are, in fact, a very agreeable and flexible set of rules which allow an individual to do pretty much what they want. They certainly would not act as a brake on selfish impulses. The crucial point to grasp is that because they admit to no outside authority, but depend entirely on the individual’s own judgment (one might say “conscience”) of what is right and what is wrong, they validate an infinite variety of outcomes. Each man becomes his own “god”, and sets the rules accordingly. The obvious problem is that most people find it difficult to resist the temptation to self-justify their actions, and tend to give themselves the benefit of the doubt.
The noble lie at the heart of this new morality is that we can, as individuals and as a society, dispense with an objective moral code without harmful consequences. The claim is that the old moral code was judgmental and harsh and based on a non-existent deity who had supposedly laid down rules about human conduct; in fact, say the atheists, the rules were concocted by power-hungry priests. The new moral code, they say, which dispenses with God altogether, allows everyone to live happier lives – free from the guilt that the traditional rules engendered. This idea has been successfully marketed to the country (after all, it’s not that difficult to persuade people to do what their instincts urge them to do) and, exercising our democratic free will, we have enshrined in law measures that overturn the old moral code.
The BBC which, once upon a time, understood its responsibilities differently and promoted a straightforward Christian view of the world, has been the midwife to this transformation; in fact, more than the midwife – an active agent of change agitating for the new morality. And, the change having been successfully realised – with permissive liberal values now triumphant – the BBC no longer even allows a social conservative challenge to the new dispensation. Any claim by the Corporation to be “impartial” in this debate is a lie.
The BBC has a long and well established reputation for upsetting very many people for daring to offer the viewer/listener a variety of opinions; including many who believe that the BBC is the outreach of the "establishment," and those who believe that the BBC is far too radical to be trusted by "sensible" people.
“There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception.” ~ Aldous Huxley
Ideological bias is prone to block enlightenment a welcome guest in the lives of the enthusiastic student who understands that they know precious little, and have much to learn when listening to alternative perspectives that guide them out of their ignorance.
end
The eternal student, or the eternal dilettante?
Posted by John on February 3, 2019, 8:01 pm, in reply to "The eternal student"
Alex, you laud the BBC for “daring to offer the viewer/listener a variety of opinions”. That’s the problem – it doesn’t. Like our ABC, it fails in its charter to present a balanced program. It presents a very biased, left-leaning, “progressive” program. As the Catholic Herald article puts it:
”The old moral code is difficult to live up to; its stern injunctions run counter to human instinct in every respect. It calls for self-restraint and self-abnegation and does so in the name of a higher power. That’s why people find it difficult, and why many don’t like it. Mr Dawkins’s alternative Ten Commandments, as listed in The God Delusion, have the great advantage of not being at all irksome – they are, in fact, a very agreeable and flexible set of rules which allow an individual to do pretty much what they want.”
The easy way out, that is, or as Saint Paul put it:
“There will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrines, but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own desires, and will be turned away from truth into fables.” [2 Tim 4:3-4]
Having an open mind is one thing, but leaving it open to fables is something else again.
Re: The eternal student, or the eternal dilettante?
The BBC offers a balanced mixture of opinions that irks those who expect their licence fee to represent their opinions, and only their assumptions; never the viewpoints of other licence fee payers that may stimulate the viewer/listener to think outside their beliefs, thereby learning that each of us has much to learn when listening to alternative perspectives.
Cultivating discussion that grows a broader picture might well be considered creative reasoning, rather than mere amateurish tittle, tattle that Richard Dawkins hardly peddles when informing, and amusing his listeners with his determination to open debate beyond the narrow parameters represented by legalistic religion.
Galatians 2:16
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
end
Re: The eternal student, or the eternal dilettante?
”The BBC has wholeheartedly thrown its lot in with the liberal reformers; there has been no “impartiality” on any of the big moral issues of the past half-century. In every instance, the socially conservative argument has been depicted as callous, reactionary and dogmatic. Any counterargument to the prevailing liberal consensus is now ignored altogether; social conservative voices are conspicuous by their absence on mainstream current affairs programmes. That is sometimes because there is no one in the production teams who understands the social conservative position, so it is no longer considered when programmes are in the making. The liberals now have a national culture moulded by their thinking and their laws; it is their world now – the old morality has been utterly vanquished. “
Your post commences:
”The BBC offers a balanced mixture of opinions that irks those who expect their licence fee to represent their opinions, and only their assumptions; never the viewpoints of other licence fee payers that may stimulate the viewer/listener to think outside their beliefs, thereby learning that each of us has much to learn when listening to alternative perspectives. “
I guess, ne’er the twain shall meet, but the Catholic Herald approach conforms to the reality that I perceive; yours doesn’t.
You quote from Galatians: ”Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ,” The BBC, on the other hand, focuses on The God Delusion” How are the two compatible?
Re: The eternal student, or the eternal dilettante?
The Catholic Herald offers an opinion that you share. I do not. Let's not conflict opinion with reality.
The BBC broadcasts through its television networks, and radio net works sufficient material that addresses the views of various religion adherents, and those who offer alternative perspectives.
The BBC is a publicly financed broadcaster obliged under parliamentary statute to serve the general public, not just those who represent a particular viewpoint that satisfies the Catholic Herald's opinions.
The BBC has a long and well established reputation for upsetting very many people for daring to offer the viewer/listener a variety of opinions; including many who believe that the BBC is the outreach of the "establishment," and those who believe that the BBC is far too radical to be trusted by " sensible" people.
“There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception.” ~ Aldous Huxley
Ideological bias is prone to block enlightenment a welcome guest in the lives of the enthusiastic student who understands that they know precious little, and have much to learn when listening to alternative perspectives that guide them out of their ignorance.
Previous Message
