First (and second) episode of Dawkins’s new television series

October 24, 2012 • 1:07 pm

Embedding of this video has been disabled, so I’ll just post the link to the first episode of Richard’s new 45-minute series on UK Channel 4, “Sex, death, and the meaning of life.” (Episode 2 continues immediately thereafter, just don’t stop the YouTube video. But I haven’t watched that second episode.)

The blurb for this segment:

In this thought-provoking series, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explores how life might look without religion. First, he examines issues surrounding sex and the notion of sin.

The purpose of the series is precisely what I discussed earlier today: to show how a secular and humanistic view of life can be constructed to meet the needs that are supposedly ingrained in humans and heretofore met by religion. A few of the questions that Richard addresses and answers, as well as highlights of the piece.

  • Is religion required for morality or a sense of purpose?
  • Are religious people really more moral than nonbelievers? Do they feel more guilt when they stray?
  • Where did the human sense of morality come from? Are there evolutionary roots? Is there a difference between human morality and the evolved “rules” that enables social mammals to get along?
  • Profile of a French surgeon who “revirginizes” women by reconstructing hymens. (Most of the women are Muslims, of course.) This is a particularly poignant part of the show.
  • Did the “free love” culture of the Sixties fail because of evolutionary constraints?
  • How does neuroscience help us understand empathy?
  • Is the world getting better and people more moral?

It’s a pretty good show, which includes interviews with other scientists and with religious people, and its tone is gentle:  well-aimed at a religously-oriented audience. There is not a sign of stridency or militancy here, though Dawkins’s beliefs are firm. He may go a wee bit too far in showing the innate goodness of humans in response to the misunderstanding that accompanied his book The Selfish Gene (i.e., selfish genes make selfish people).

Steve Pinker makes a guest appearance at the end, and you even get to see Richard’s dog, a little fluffy white thing. (I’d write more if he had a cat.)

The blurb for the second episode is this, and if any reader has seen it, weigh in below:
Episode Two Monday 22 October 2012. Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life.
Richard Dawkins explores what science can tell us about death.
It’s a journey that takes him from Hindu funeral pyres in India to genetics labs in New York.
Dawkins brings together the latest neuroscience, evolutionary and genetic theory to examine why we crave life after death, why we evolved to age and how the human genome is something like real immortality – traits inherited from our distant ancestors that we pass on to future generations.He meets a Christian dying of motor neurone disease, reminisces about the Wall Street Crash with a 105-year-old stockbroker, and interviews James Watson, the geneticist who co-discovered the structure of DNA.Dawkins admits to sentimentality in imagining his own church funeral, but he argues we must embrace the truth, however hard that is.In a television first, he has his entire genome sequenced to reveal the genetic indicators of how he himself may die.

34 thoughts on “First (and second) episode of Dawkins’s new television series”

      1. Also needs fixing in the title? And being pedantic it isn’t “TV 4”, the organisation is called “Channel 4” (give them credit since the BBC is way too pro-religion to given Dawkins his own programmes!).

  2. One has to wonder why Dawkins always leaves the door slightly ajar. Sentimental about his own funeral?

    It’s just one giant illogical leap from this kind of sentiment to a Pascal-ian hedge bet, followed swiftly by rumors of a deathbed conversion, and we all know how good Christians are at straddling yawning chasms of poor reasoning.

    Not to be rude or ghoulish, but time-lapse photography of Dawkins’ decomposing body, lying in a secluded meadow perhaps, returning (bite-by-buzzard-bite?) to the natural origins he sprang from, may be a more appropriate (and equally illogical) sentiment for the world in which he ceases to be.

    Raising awareness post mortem? YouTube betcha!

    2. You’d probably fall foul of the law on disposal of human bodies, which has some rational bases as well as emotional ones (disease management, making it harder to cover up illegal killings). That said … I have a vague memory of it having been done. Or maybe I’m thinking of something from that Appalachian (?) “Body Farm”?

    1. Perhaps someone (someone more IT literate than me!) might put it on Youtube soon enough. It’s a Channel 4 broadcast. Channel 4 appear to be more relaxed about their shows appearing on Youtube than the BBC. So hopefully you’ll get to see it soon! 🙂

  4. dog, a little fluffy white thing. (I’d write more if he had a cat.)
    Oh, come on, you ol’ canine- a-phobe. How about big unfluffy red or blue or black canine creatures? I can send photos! Dogs inhabit my catless house but cats are fascinating and deserving of truck loads of respect. It also might be possible that more cats are
    atheists than dogs are, but if mine had any godly inclination, it has been totally eroded by reading your words. They worship chipmunks the way cats adore mice and that suffices for both.

  5. I thought the first episode did a good job of setting out how we can be moral without religion, but the second didn’t really address the issue of how we can cope with the idea of death without it. The clams and Dawkins’s genome were fascinating, however.

    /@

  7. Interesting part about tribalism and how, if you’re a member of one tribe (say Anglo-Americans) then you won’t have the same empathy toward another tribe (say muslims living in the Middle East). So when you hear that a Hellfire missile blew up 2 terrorists and 7 civilians, including 3 children, many members of the American tribe won’t feel the empathy they would if those people died in a fire in Iowa. I’m wondering if atheism will develop enough tribalism where we’re not as moved if a religious person dies as we would be if (well it would be unfair to use Hitchens) an atheist dies.

  8. My wife has asked me in the past, what I wanted done with my body if I should die. I like to say, “Just put me in the bin by the curb and save some money”. Of course she then had to ask if that’s what I’d do with her and she didn’t like it when I said I would, if they’d let me.

    1. the reason she didn’t like it probably was that she was expecting you to actually ask her what she would want done, since she asked you.

  9. I think one of the worst aspects of the Christian tradition is the assumption that mankind is “guilty until proven innocent”: inherently sinful unless purified by a surrender to Christ. Such a negative start to it all! Where did this assumption originate? I don’t see anything in our environment that would point to the inherent sinfulness of mankind. Sure, mankind is capable of, and performs, innumerable acts of cruelty and debauchery, but it is also capable of acts of extreme kindness. I think the notion’s “staying-power” lies in the fact that it’s a good weapon to threaten people into joining your particular belief system: “Believe as we do, or suffer damnation and eternal torment after you die.” Pretty powerful stuff. It’s also good for reining in members of the “flock”: “Follow the commands of the church elders, else you will be damned.”

  10. The second episode – this really has poignant if you want poignant, namely the home (Roman Catholic) where children born with a fatal illness or genetic defect are taken to die. The couple who knew their child had no kidneys & carried through with the pregnancy, praying for a miracle (that someone could live without kidneys or that they would miraculously grow?) for six or seven months knowing it would die withing a day or so of birth. Is that cruel? He handled speaking to that couple incredibly well. I hope this series shows RD is not the monster some critics have painted him.

    We see him have his genome sequenced & he is given the hard drive with the information. He shows us the family vault where various ancestors are buried but though he would like, he suggests (half joking?) to lodge this hard drive in there with the bones of said forefathers, they lost the key to the door sometime in the last century.

    Third part this coming Monday.

    1. “I hope this series shows RD is not the monster some critics have painted him.”

      I strongly doubt it. That picture of RD is barely based on facts to begin with, and people perpetuating it are bound to this image with religious (yeo) zeal.

      IF RD is no strident atheist their whole worldview will fall apart, therefore, RD must remain strident and shrill, regardless of any proof to the contrary.

  13. Love Dawkins as a biologist, can’t stand him as an armchair psychologist. Same goes for Coyne, Harris and the rest of the new atheists. Which for me answers the question asked earlier, why why new atheism is worse than the old. Every new atheist is a pseudo psychologist–as opposed to the “old” atheists who simply don’t believe in God. Indeed, real experts (like Pinker or Atran, for example) avoid new atheism like the plague. They know better.

  14. Saw the 1st episode, thought it was really good, as Jerry says, he is very measured and not the slightest bit strident. That Christian teacher/preacher was getting very strident towards Dawkins but even then he restrained himself (although I thought I could see some nerves twitching).

    Nothing really new for people like me who are fairly booked up on ape emotions, have heard of Pinker’s work, etc, but a great introduction for lay people.

  15. JERRY, please read this !

    In response to you stating “and you even get to see Richard’s dog, a little fluffy white thing. (I’d write more if he had a cat.)”

    – Youtube “Hate E-mails with Richard Dawkins”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc
    – this is Richard at HOME, watch what jumps from the sofa onto the floor at the 13 second mark !
    – So, write more !

    1. Oops, I did not know the actual video would embed, I only meant to provide the link. The clip itself is entertaining, watch it !

    2. That has very much the air of a Saturnalia, Newtonmas or Hogmanay party. About the only thing missing was Christians roasting on an open pyre.

Comments are closed.