Category: radio

Michael Nugent on the de-platforming of Richard Dawkins

July 26, 2017 • 11:30 am

Michael Nugent is the head of Atheist Ireland (and a playwright), and works tirelessly for secularism in Europe. He’s also known for always wearing a red polo shirt, even when meeting heads of state. (I once emailed him why but got no reply.) But in a more serious vein, he’s just written a long email to Berkeley station KPFA that he’s posted publicly on his website, “Why KPFA radio should reconsider breaking its agreement with Richard Dawkins“. It’s a long article, as is customary for Michael, but it’s thorough, and even has a preliminary outline (Michael’s words are indented throughout):

In this letter I will address:

  1. The problem with your current approac
  2. Why your original decision was unjustifie
  3. Your profiting from Chris Hedges and Christopher Hitchen
  4. The word Islamophobia and the demonising of Richard Dawkins
  5. Summary of what I am requesting

It’s a good letter, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that KPFA will respond, and I think Michael knows that. It’s more an attempt to provide a centralized resource for rebutting this species of criticism of Richard. For instance, there are many links to articles Michael has written about why we should discard the word “Islamophobia”, and articles about why Dawkins has been demonized and mischaracterized for his views on religion.

Since KPFA has now invited Richard back to clarify and explain his views (I doubt that will happen unless, as Richard has requested, KPFA first apologizes for the de-platforming), Nugent asks the central question:

But if you are prepared to host Richard talking about Islam on your station, why can you not honour your agreement to host him talking about science at the originally planned event?

You can read the rest of the piece, but I want to point out two instances of KPFA’s hypocrisy about de-platforming invited speakers. This shows, more than anything, that it’s Islam, not free speech or everyone’s feelings, that it’s protecting, perhaps out of fear of reprisal or of giving offense to particular “people of color” who adhere to an oppressive faith. And it has no desire at all to protect the feelings of Jews! But that’s what we expect of Regressive Leftists.

Hypocrisy #1

In a news item justifying your behaviour, you interviewed Lara Kiswani, Executive director of the Bay Area based Arab Resource and Organizing Center. She said that she had contacted ‘her partners in the station’ when she heard of the event. You also allowed her to make unchallenged defamatory allegations on air, including that Richard is ‘a well-known Islamophobe’.

But Lara herself, at an event in UC Berkely, is reported here as saying that ‘bringing down Israel will really benefit everyone in the world and everyone in society,’ and she told a student who questioned her that ‘as long as you choose to be on that side, I’m going to continue to hate you.’ She has also expressed other controversial views.

How could you consider whatever Richard has said about Islam to be so hurtful that you could not even sponsor him talking about science, while justifying that decision by interviewing somebody who has explicitly said that she hates people because of their beliefs?

To be clear, I fully support your right to interview Lara Kiswani about her views, within the limits of defamation law. However, based on the criteria that you used to break your agreement to host Richard, and assuming that you have the same concern for Jews as you do for Muslims, you should not agree with your station hosting Lara.

Touché!

Hypocrisy #2

3. Your profiting from Chris Hedges and Christopher Hitchens

Can I ask you to compare and contrast your approach to this problem with your approach last October to the launch of Chris Hedges’ book Unspeakable, and to your profiting from $300 pledges for a media archive that includes a debate with Christopher Hitchens?

Chris Hedges is also a controversial author whose writing can hurt people. Indeed, he was disinvited from a peace conference in the University of Pennsylvania in 2014, because he published a column comparing ISIS to Israel.

Despite this, you (rightly) hosted a similar book talk last October for him. Ironically, you hosted it in conjunction with Project Censored, and the full book title was ‘Unspeakable: on the most forbidden topics in America.’

You also currently advertise an offer on your station whereby, for a pledge of $300, listeners can get a Chris Hedges media archive collection, which includes a debate between Chris and the late Christopher Hitchens.

Here is a link to an article by Christopher Hitchens titled ‘God fearing people: why are we so scared of offending Muslims?’

Here is a link to an article in which he said ‘But at the moment, it’s very clear to me the most toxic form that religion takes is the Islamic form… The whole idea of wanting to end up with Sharia with a religion-governed state — a state of religious law — and the best means of getting there is Jihad, Holy War, that Muslims have a special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand this is absolute obscene wickedness and I think their religion is nonsense, in its entirety.’

Why are you happy to host and profit from a book event for Chris Hedges, and to profit to the extent of $300 a pledge for a media archive that includes a debate between Chris Hedges and Christopher Hitchens, but not happy to host and profit from a book event about science by Richard Dawkins?

By your own criteria for breaking your agreement on this event, it just doesn’t make sense. You should either reconsider your decision regarding Richard, or else remove this pledge offer from your website.

KPFA’s hypocrisy, then, is twofold: it allows speech that is equivalent to genuine hate speech, so long as it’s directed against Jews and Israel (I reiterate that I don’t think such speech should be banned); and in the past it’s sponsored and profited from criticism of religion that’s just as strong as Richard’s.

But there’s much more in Nugent’s “J’Accuse” letter, so go have a look.

(Left to right): Richard Dawkins, Jane Donnelly (of Atheist Ireland), and Michael Nugent in his quotidian getup.

Nice BBC show on science communication; Dawkins and Deborah Kelemen talk about evolution

July 3, 2017 • 1:00 pm

I’m just going to steal reader Colin’s email, which called my attention to a 42-minute BBC4 program featuring several people, although, as usual, Richard Dawkins gets top billing (see screenshot below). I’ve just listened to the show and recommend it. Here’s what Colin wrote me:

The program is now be available here. It discusses with Richard Dawkins a new book by child psychologist Deborah Kelemen, which introduces the concept of evolution to children through fictional creatures called piloses.  Her book, How the Piloses Evolved Skinny Noses, has a one line review from Steven Pinker on Amazon.

Richard Dawkins’ piece starts at around 17 minutes, and touches initially on a subject close to your heart, airline security checks, while discussing his latest collection of essays.  The subject of creationism comes up at 25 minutes.  Deborah’s book follows on about a minute later.

If you can spare half an hour, I think you may find it interesting.

Click on the screenshot to go to the program (press the arrow when you get to the site to hear it). Here’s the summary if you want a preview:

On Start the Week Andrew Marr asks whether scientists have failed in their task to communicate their work to the wider public. The ‘passionate rationalist’ Richard Dawkins has spent his career trying to illuminate the wonders of nature and challenge what he calls faulty logic. But he wonders whether Darwin would consider his legacy now with ‘a mixture of exhilaration and exasperation’. The child psychologist Deborah Kelemen has been working with young children to find out what they make of adaptation and evolution with the storybook, How the Piloses Evolved Skinny Noses, and is encouraged by the sophistication of their understanding. The mathematician Cathy O’Neil says it’s time people became more aware of the mathematical models and algorithms that dominate everything we do online and in finance, and yet are increasingly opaque, unregulated and left unchallenged. While Alex Bellos looks to improve numeracy with puzzles and brainteasers which have been entertaining and frustrating people for centuries.

Some highlights for me:

12:21: The famous “wolf, goat, and cabbage” puzzle, which is cool. Do you know the answer? I couldn’t figure it out in a few minutes of thinking, but I think I could if I had a pencil and paper.

16:23: The Dawkins bit begins with a question about the importance of mathematics in evolutionary biology (Dawkins points out, as I often do, that Darwin didn’t know much math and there are no equations in On the Origin of Species. He goes on to talk about the title of The Selfish Gene, rules, airline security (Woody Allen fans will find that Richard gets Allen’s quote on immortality wrong).

22:03: The discussion of science education begins; Richard decries the ubiquitous tendency to make science “fun”. Others chime in.

24:30: Discussion of creationism in American education.

25:10: Kelemen discusses misunderstandings of Darwinism and how her book overcomes them. (Dawkins chimes in that he likes the book, but says that it’s missing a crucial bit of information.) The discussion of how to teach science to kids goes on until the program almost ends.

39:55: The end: Richard pronounces on whether, in the future, the scientific mindset can overcome the hegemony of religion.

Richard also plugs his new book of essays (some new) called Science in the Soul: Selective Writings of a Passionate Rationalist. I’ve read it and think that overall it’s very good. It’s a Professor Ceiling Cat Recommendation™.

I haven’t read this one, but it might be good for kids. Have any readers seen it:

My podcast with Radio Live

May 22, 2017 • 8:15 am

When I was in New Zealand I was unable to do a podcast with reader Graeme Hill for the podcast Radio Live, but I did it from my home in Chicago a few days ago. I was on my landline, so the sound quality on my end isn’t optimal. The interview is about 40 minutes long; click on the screenshot below (taken in February 2016) to go to the podcast. I like the photo as it brings back pleasant memories of Darwin Day last year, when I spoke to the British Humanists. My hair is a bit unkempt, but at least I have a tie.  Behind me you can see the well known anatomist and science presenter Alice Roberts, who was the moderator that night.

The religiosity of National Public Radio

May 1, 2017 • 9:00 am

One of our readers, Thomas, has a website called Airbag Moments, which seems to be devoted to cogent critical review of the U.S.’s National Public Radio (NPR). For years I’ve been harping about the organization’s pro-religious stance (see some of the posts at this search), and not just from unctuous Krista Tippett, either.

In his latest post, “Yes, public radio is pro-religion“, Thomas makes a good case for that thesis, citing not only entire shows on NPR that are religious and pro-religion (as far as I know. there are no atheist shows); but also announcers that have religous belief or are soft on faith (a surprisingly large number); individual shows that are blatantly pro-faith; “religion unfriendly” events that are ignored or downplayed by NPR; and public statements or tw**ts by NPR announcers that give tongue to faith. He also inquired about this issue (and their faith) to several NPR announcers, some of whom actually answered him.

I recommend reading the whole thing if you think NPR is evenhanded about faith. Here’s something that surprised me (quotes from Thomas’s post are indented):

Shockingly I just heard the contributor credits at the end of Science Friday and was horrified to learn that the Templeton Foundation is a sponsor. The missions of that very wealthy foundation include trying to prove various religious notions like the efficacy of prayer, and to promulgate the misguided assertion that science and faith are compatible. I have not detected much bias in this direction on Science Friday, but I am not a regular listener. I don’t know when this unfortunate relationship began.

On the “objectivity” of NPR when it comes to reporting about religion:

Journalists are routinely required to disclose conflicts of interest and even recuse themselves from stories or even their jobs. Michelle Norris, for example, left her position as host of All Things Considered when her husband took a position with Obama’s reelection campaign. Yet religion gets something of a pass in this regard. It is routine for reporters not to discuss their personal beliefs and practices even when they are reporting on religion. This is an obvious double-standard. How can a Catholic reporter, who seriously believes in transubstantiation, the infallibility of the Ex-Cathedra utterances of the Pope, etc., possibly be objective when covering Catholicism if the assumption is that Norris can’t be objective about Obama because her husband works for the campaign? I mean I sort of get it about Norris, although I credit her with having a totally independent brain from that of her husband and personally think she needn’t have stepped down, but a person’s religion is a deep part of their personal identity – not just something their spouse does.

You may think this is a non-issue, but unless we keep calling attention to this kind of stuff, America will slide deeper into superstition. This station is, after all, funded in part by the American taxpayer, and thus should be secular in tone.

Here’s one religious show on NPR:

Interfaith Voices. Their treacly, obsequious-to-religion slogan on Twitter is “Approaching the world’s religions with an open, humble mind.” Hosted by a Catholic Nun. (I always find it ironic to approach religion with a “humble mind” given the unfathomable arrogance so many religious folks have involving their evidence-free certainties about reality and personal relationship to the infinite almighty.)

Do they have atheists and agnostics regularly on that show? If not, than this is non an even-handed treatment of religion.

And here’s an example of the ludicrous religious dissonance of someone who many of us probably listen to regularly, Scott Simon, host of NPR’s Weekend Edition:

UPDATE 4/30/29

Scott Simon went into some detail about his personal theology in an interview on today’s show:

NEVINS: Do you know where you’re going? I don’t believe in heaven or hell. So…
SIMON: No. I know what I tell myself, but do I know that for sure?
NEVINS: What do you tell – what do you say?
SIMON: Oh, I – you know, I believe in a heaven and I’ll be reunited…
NEVINS: You think that?
SIMON: I’ll be reunited with my parents and with my lost sister and with, you know, every pet I’ve ever had and loved. And I’ll be up there waiting for my wife and children. Is that for real? Of course not. But that’s what I tell myself to get through the day.
————-

Thomas added in an email to me:

I’m familiar with this sort of double-think from intelligent people, though I have never subscribed to the idiotic banality “genius is holding two opposing ideas in your head at once.

What kind of person tells themselves stuff they don’t think is “real” so they can “get through the day”?

NPR’s creeping religiosity not only surprises me, as always happens when smart or eloquent people profess faith in superstition, but also bothers me. Perhaps you have to be an atheist to notice this kind of airwave pollution, but I object to it.

Scott Simon. Will he see Fluffy in Heaven?

Reminder of two appearances

April 21, 2017 • 9:30 am

Just a reminder: I’ll be on National Public Radio San Francisco (KQED) at 9 a.m. Pacific Time today, discussing the March for Science with some of the organizers, some scientists who are dubious, and journalists. You can find the announcement and the livestream link here.

And, on May 24 at the Lisner Auditorium in Washington D.C., I’ll be in conversation with Richard Dawkins, followed by audience Q&A. This is a benefit for the Center for Inquiry of Washington, and, as usual in such events I’m participating without remuneration. I believe tickets are still available—at $29 each—here (there’s a $250 VIP package as well).

I want to talk more about evolution than about atheism, since this is the only stop on Richard’s four-city tour in which he converses with another scientist (everyone else is a satirist or comedian). BTW, at this venue there is no choice of seats, so if you want a good seat, get there when doors open at 6 pm (the event begins at 7 pm).

Matthew on the BBC

February 22, 2017 • 8:20 am

Matthew Cobb was too modest to tell me that he was on Radio 4’s episode of The Infinite Monkey Cage (a science/comedy show) yesterday, but reader Kevin called it to my attention. You can download the broadcast by clicking on the screenshot below, and here’s the BBC’s summary:

Making the Invisible, Visible
Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined by comedian Katy Brand, Cosmologist Prof Carlos Frenk, and biologist Prof Matthew Cobb to discover how to make the seemingly invisible, visible. They look at how the history and development of the telescope and the microscope have allowed us to look at the impossibly big to the seemingly impossibly small, to gain insight into the history of our universe and the inner workings of the human body. They look at how radio and space telescopes have allowed us to look back in time and “see” the big bang, and understand the age and content of the early universe, and how space telescopes have thrown light on the mysterious substance known as dark matter. They also look at the way microscopes and new biological techniques have allowed us to understand the seemingly invisible processes going on inside our cells. They also ask what, if anything, will always remain invisible to us – are there some processes or concepts that are impossible for us to “see”.

I’ve listened to about 25 minutes of the 46-minute show, and Matthew and Frenk impart some good biology and physics. The show is a great combination of humor and science.

screen-shot-2017-02-22-at-6-54-00-am

The BBC osculates faith on Sunday morning

September 11, 2016 • 8:46 am

Reader Michael called my attention to today’s BBC schedule, which apparently upset him. His note:

Hi Jerry. The below is my BBC radio guide for this morning. I’ve supplied exact quotes of the listing descriptions. Please note that item 8 is a different person each week and it’s very rarely an atheist.
06:00 – 07:00
[1] BBC Radio 2: “THE SUNDAY HOUR. Diane Louise Jordan plays uplifting spiritual music  – hymns, gospel, choral, classics. Plus listeners’ dedications & prayers.”

06:00 – 07:00
[2] BBC Radio West Midlands: “SIOR COLEMAN. Sunday morning hymns and the religious music you love.”

06:05  – 06:35
[3] BBC Radio 4: “SOMETHING UNDERSTOOD. Ethical & religious discussion. Poetic Rituals: Dr Sarah Goldingay searches for moments of transcendence that can be encountered through the routine & ritual of the everyday”

07:00 – 09:05   
[4] BBC Radio 2: “GOOD MORNING SUNDAY. Fern Britton presents the topical faith programme with poet Lemn Sissay & faith guest Reverend Zoe Hemming”

07:00 – 09:00
[5] BBC Radio West Midlands: “SUNDAY BREAKFAST. Llewela Bailey with the week’s news & topical conversation from a faith perspective”

07:10 – 07:54
[6] BBC Radio 4: “SUNDAY. How can churches’ make people with learning disabilities welcome? Measures to placate Icelandic elves. A LGBT chaplain for Wales. Are C of E Bishops too ‘safe’?”

08:10 – 08:48
[7] BBC Radio 4: SUNDAY WORSHIP. The Power of Peace: The Rev Steve Chalke argues that living a life of peace is the most radical response to violence & suffering. Live from Oasis Church, Waterloo, London”

08:48 – – 08:58
[8] BBC Radio 4: “A POINT OF VIEW. A reflection on a topical issue. Atheist John Gray muses on what his idea of heaven is – and why it shouldn’t be a perfect world”

I had no idea that there were three hours of religious proselytizing on the Sunday BBC. Even the last ten minutes, involving John Gray (whom I’ve often criticized on this site and called “an atheist-hating atheist”) is paying some homage to religion by discussing heaven. But really, a government-run radio station in a largely secular country—one far less religious than the U.S.—shouldn’t be purveying this kind of fictional palaver. NPR, the U.S. equivalent, though not run by the government, would never do anything like this. Any any U.S. government radio station wouldn’t be allowed to broadcast such stuff; it would violate the First Amendment. (Or, if they did, they’d have to allow all religions to do their thing, including the Pastafarians and Scientologists.)

Isn’t this what churches are for?