Warning

[ZERO]

There was a program presented by Richard Dawkins on ABC last night.
At the beginning the station put a warning graphic up stating: "This program contains the views of athiest and scientist Richard Dawkins." ??? ???

Does anyone else find this odd?

[Admin]

Odd? Certainly!

Do they put warnings up when bishops or mystics give their views in programmes?

What next?

Warning: This programme contains factual information, rational views, and common sense.

I'm laughing here but I'm not sure I should be!

[NorthernSoul]

ABC as in American broadcasting or Australian or...I'd guess American.

Where can I see this?

[ZERO]

ABC as in American broadcasting or Australian or...I'd guess American.

Where can I see this?

BZZZZT! Wrong.

I'm an Aussie.

[Mongrel]

I thought Downunder Land was pretty secular, barring the odd pocket of creationists...

Could it have been a piss take?

[ZERO]

I thought Downunder Land was pretty secular, barring the odd pocket of creationists...

Could it have been a piss take?

Very secular, most people could not care less about religion.
ABC does have a few religious programs, Songs of Praise and one called Compass which covers religious issues. I can't think of any others.

I don't think it was done in jest.
Probably a salve to a very vocal minority.

[filippo lippi]

Idiots may catch hell from tryimg to think, so the warning was a mercy.

[farmersboy]

Look out all those of a religious disposition, this program contains scenes of reality, something you clearly struggle with.

It's getting as silly as the warnings all films seem to come with these days...

"Warning - contains scenes of mild peril"

[dalriada]

Do they put warnings up when bishops or mystics give their views in programmes?

On a different tack, they do tend to tell you if scary spiders are going to appear on screen, perhaps Dawkins has been known to provoke a similar phobic response in unsuspecting audiences?

I wonder if we could get Rupert Sheldrake into a lab with an assortment of video clips and test out that theory....

[newatheist]

Lol ... well, i guess thats all i can say to that.

[Trinoc]

"Warning - contains scenes of mild peril"

I like "Contains mild language". Am I supposed to get offended my lines such as "Good morning Mr Jones" or "More tea, vicar"?

[Mulder]

The warning is excellent! It means that people now take Dawkins seriously enough to think his ideas might cause a believer angst.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

The words 'And now from xxx in our xxx studio comes today's Thought for the Day' make me turn my radio off.

[Dubious Dick]

Don't think we need a warning on religious material if the following is anything to go by. If anyone can make head or tail of it I will be amazed. Just what on earth is this guy trying to say? Sounds not unlike the archbish Williams wittering on trying to shoehorn christianity into the modern World.

Amazing waffle!! It always surprises me that people do not seem to see the contradictions and absurdities in all religions. They seem so bleeding obvious!!

Anyway, here's for your Monday treat. More waffle than a U.S. breakfast!!

Face to faith

Metaphors can provide a useful way of forming an understanding of God, writes Barry Courtier


Comments (75)

• Barry Courtier
• The Guardian, Saturday 10 January 2009
• Article history

It is time to put away the decorations, and let Santa Claus lead his reindeers home for another year. But what about the Father Christmas myth, and its parallels with the Christian message?
Children go through various stages: from blind acceptance of the "fact" of Father Christmas to discarding the story but valuing the spirit. Parents should help their offspring to accept the reality of the situation as early as they are ready, but often instead obfuscate and mislead to protect the children's "innocence". Churches appear to treat their flocks in similar fashion, with the age-old verities unquestioningly served up on a weekly basis. Are the gospels fact or myth? The answer must be primarily myth (say around 90%), but based on a degree of fact - as with Saint Nicholas.
Jesus spoke in parables, which with other words such as imagery, symbolism and allegory connote indirect forms of expression. Metaphor provides a useful term - it is depicted by the gospel writers as a natural medium for Jesus, as it has been for teachers of knowledge at all times, including those from the field of science. Metaphor is inescapable; it is our means for coming to understanding, providing pointers to truths.
Two of the most problematic biblical metaphors are, first, the pronoun "he" - many Christians would concur that God is not a superhuman male being, yet persist in the "father" imagery - and, second, the host of verbs referring to divine actions: apparently God can send, decide, make, promise, forgive, etc. But these are things that humans do, and to presume them on to "God" diminishes this entity. Humans may be God-like in their ability to perceive, create, destroy and take decisions, but, to reverse the analogy, only create a God in the image of man.
Do people repeat creeds and dogmas knowing them not to be literally true? Perhaps the language of metaphor becomes so embedded in the psyche that there is no conscious differentiation between metaphor and actuality. Or does a pick-and-choose approach apply - saying yes to certain miracles or events, but no to others? This is a recipe for incoherence. Or perhaps believers accept the metaphor as such all along, but without explicit acknowledgment. If so, it then becomes misconceived to reject the beliefs on the basis that they are not true. The mental contortions involved are considerable.
In the past, to be other than a literalist pushed one towards accepting the label of "atheist". But there is the option of adopting one's own set of metaphors in a "qualified theism", for instance seeing God as a dynamic state or quality, at the highest level of organisation, discernible at the heart of all things, inter-connecting physical and non-material realms. This vision sees an overarching principle of "harmony" present in creation, marked by a mutual, meaningful interdependence, which involves birth and death, joy and pain, but contrasts with the nihilistic attitude of militant atheists, who assume an impious worship of the man-god to be the true and only basis to religious experience.
The nature of the underlying "Godness" is recognisable through the capacity to love. It is natural for us to say: "I love ... " with respect to a multitude of things, places, persons, art forms, acts, feelings - at differing levels, but all reflecting the ability for objects to engender a meaningful stimulus, to which one can respond. So something akin to a personal relationship is inherently involved - expressible in a variety of forms. As narrated, Jesus saw his relationship, and role, as one of son to father, and this metaphor of faithful obedience formed the basis for his life and actions; it was manifestly right for him.
Thus it can be seen that a valid set of beliefs can be erected on the basis of personal metaphors of the divine, underpinned by the moral precepts and example of Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels. Whether this is describable as Christianity is unclear. Perhaps it does not greatly matter.
• Barry Courtier is a writer in west Wales

[farmersboy]

Does he get paid money to write drivel like that?