The BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee has acknowledged that the comments were “offensive”. The Committee maintains that Mr Paxman’s use of the term “religious hogwash” was not intended to deliberately cause offence. But it acknowledges “that they were offensive to some of the audience and that there was no clear editorial purpose for their use in the context of this Newsnight item”. The Trust’s report added: “The committee therefore concluded that the item breached the editorial guidelines on harm and offence. It added that it regretted the offence caused to some viewers by the use of the terms ‘religious hogwash’.
The words were used in a scripted item on "Newsnight" about Richard Dawkins' book ...
... and here are some transcripted snippets from the programme.
Jeremy Paxman : From our earliest years we learn to suspend disbelief. And that apparently is also how we condition impressionable brains to absorb religious hogwash.
Book extract : According to the modern version of the Big Bang model the entire observable universe exploded into existence between 13 and 14 billion years ago. Scientists will tell you that time itself began in the big bang and we should no more ask what happened before the big bang than we should ask what is north of the North Pole.
Jeremy Paxman : But therein lies Richard Dawkins’ problem. Even with him setting them up as Aunt Sallies, the myths remain the better stories carrying an imaginative charge that makes nonsense easier to understand than fact. Fairy tales of whatever world religion retain an untarnishable beauty more easily followed by a small and impressionable Tasmanian child for example.
Tasmanian Children : son and daughter
of Crown Princess Mary of Denmark
who live in Tassie
The programme item, the book and Paxo all fall into the common trap of dismissing anything religious as, at best, childish naivety. Clearly the fat bus bloke progenitor of this blog would not agree, having been a committed Christian for 53 years!
But, surely, we hear our readers cry, no normal person today actually believes the stories in, say, the Bible Book of Genesis? We have moved on. We are grown up now.
Huge old man creating everything in six days? You can see Paxman's point.
The words of the book of Genesis were probably first written down, in Hebrew or something similar, about 1500 years BC. Undoubtedly the stories existed for thousands of years before that and certainly the original narratives were edited until they assumed their present literary form in about 700 BC. At no stage does any part of the Bible claim to be a scientific text book; indeed science was so primitve then, that any attempt to give technical credibility to the story would have been impossible.
BUT ...
Ignore Paxman, ignore Dawkins, even ignore pictures mostly painted before the artists understood anything like modern science ...
God : according to Michaelangelo
... and then look at those ancient Hebrew words.
Only then does it become possible to check for hogwash!
And, talking of porcine ablutions ...
Paxo isn't always right, you know. For a self-confessed pseudo-intellectual he has been known to make a few child-like errors in pronunciation and word use. So here's a little lesson for you Jezza ...
Consummate
Meaning "highest standard" comes from Latin "summus", supreme; same idea as "summit".
It is pronounced CON-SUM (as in 2+2)-ATE
It is not pronounced CONSUME-ATE. The word has nothing to do with "consuming". You should know better, Paxo! Yet you have been heard using the wrong pronunciation with consummate clarity and excellent diction on numerous occasions.
The correct pronunciation can be followed by a small and impressionable Tasmanian child, for example.
The "Fat Bus Bloke Bible Blog" will not entertain Religious Hogwash; but it will look at what The Bible actually says and seek to examine how the words match up to Scientific and Historical studies. And, indeed, fbb will be pointedly honest where there is confusion and conflict. Preaching is not the purpose of these posts.
Helping people to do a little better than a Tasmanian child is fbb's aim. Maybe Jeremy Paxman should start reading it?
Can't think that Richard Dawkins would be interested.
By the way, today sees the start of the new Dr Who series on BBC 1! Dawkins is married to Lalla Ward ...
... a former Dr Who "companion".
Next Bible Blog : Sunday 2nd September
I know that Dawkins is principally a microbiologist, but am I alone in thinking that it is rather odd that he should devote so much of his time and effort to something that he believes does not exist?
ReplyDeleteIf it earns him a dollar or two, all power to his Atheistic elbow. I wonder whether he realises that an atheist is a man of great faith; as much faith as a Christian. Both "extremes" consider the same evidence and come to opposite and equally unjustified (according to Dawkins) conclusions. If a Christian is deluded by believing in God, and atheist is equally deluded by rejecting Him. The middle road is the more popular (sadly for the proponents thereof); agnosticism and apathy.
ReplyDeleteRe RC169....
ReplyDeleteFear that it does.......
Or the sums he can earn from books and talks denying it and 'following' of lost souls it gives him.