Brief history of unbelief on PBS

OK, Americans, a couple of years after the British saw it, you are being treated to Jonathon Miller's A Brief History of Unbelief, a three-part series on how atheism came to be possible in western society, such that it is now one of the larger "religious" divisions in our culture. I'm not mocking, as Australia hasn't seen it yet. But I got sent a review copy, so here are my thoughts, below the fold. It starts on 54 May on PBS, I'm told, so check your local schedules, as they say.

I really really really wanted to like this series. Miller is one of my TV heroes, and was famously a member of the Beyond the Fringe comedy show with Dudley Moore and Peter Cook. His erudite and civilised manner conjures all kinds of boffinish associations for me that recall my childhood love of such shows. But the realisation is less than it could have been. There are great things about this, and less than great things, and some that are plainly bad.

The first show "Shadows of Doubt" is basically about the nature of "belief" and involves a discussion with Colin McGinn, a well-known epistemologist (philosopher who studies knowledge... do keep up!). It was very wordy, despite the cutaways to places around the world of churches, and other edifices. One of the most annoying things is that as they have an actor (who I know and like, but can't place the name) reading out the quotations, there are these little bells in the background going "glingle glingle". Pratchett fans will understand if I say that I expected the belief fairy to appear with each reading. Moreover, there's a fair bit of repetition. However, it is always a good thing to see Democritus and Epicurus given airtime, considering how much Plato and Aristotle get in each possible venue. It riffs off the Twin Towers tragedy in ways that I think are just opportunistic. Sure, the terrorists were religious. So were the guys who discovered bacterial contagion and hygiene. I'm getting sick of that simplistic interpretation of our present war of civilisations.

And simplistic interpretation is there in the second show, "Noughts and Crosses", too. In this show, the views of Andrew Dickson White, the nineteenth century author of a dreadful piece of historical revisionism, The History of Warfare between Science and Theology in Christendom, is given a showing, but there are some dreadful mistakes. One is the standard misunderstanding of the nature of the two sphere universe - once and for all folks, the earth was at the centre of the universe, because that was where the trash was placed. We weren't the center in any nice sense, OK? Another is the old claim that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his heliocentrism (worse! That he was a student of Galileo's!): it was his heresy that got him burned.

However, once he gets to Thomas Paine and Baron D'Holbach, he is as far as I can see on firmer ground and the subsequent discussion is much better.

The third show, "The Final Hour" is perhaps the best. Again with the repetitive quotes and little bells, and Daniel Dennett gets some airtime to yet again argue that Darwin made design implausible in biology (which it did, of course) but the rest of the show, which is mostly Miller with historians, narrating the rise of unbelief in the 19th and 20th centuries, and returning, this time more effectively, to McGinn, is more interesting.

Overall I get the impression that Miller changed his mind on several matters as the production went along, which is why they resort to the device of having Miller watch himself on a DVD player occasionally, in order to deliver a different narrative than the one they first recorded in situ. The structure is accordingly a bit fractured. But it is worth seeing if only because it discusses religion in culture more evenly and deeply than any other show appears to (I haven't seen Dawkins' Root of all Evil).

As an added bonus, there is a site the BBC maintains called the Atheism Tapes, which has longer interviews for those who wish to follow up. The interviewees are the same as the show, but longer: Arthur Miller, Steve Weinberg, Dennis Turner, Richard Dawkins, and so on are included.

More like this

... they have an actor (who I know and like, but can't place the name)

It was bothering me too but I thought to look him up on the Internet Movie Database. He's Bernard Hill and he played Theoden in the Trilogy of the Rings.

I managed to watch it on the web and I think your criticisms are all valid. I also watched McGinn's longer interview and, while I'm sure he is good at his job, he didn't appear too sure-footed on atheism or the arguments for and against theism. He seemed to have taken his own advice to treat the issues in the same way as you decide whether or not you believe in the Greek pantheon a bit too seriously to be of much help in enlightening anyone about atheism.

Isn't disappointment going to be a given for any made-for-TV treatment of a topic as large as the history of disbelief (even if it's a BBC production)?

The timing of the US release couldn't be more opportune, however. Miller is so thoroughly a friendly-uncle atheist that he nicely counterbalances his countrymen Dawkins and (especially) Hitchens who are much more the mean-cousin-who-did-way-better-in-school-than-me and-never-lets-me-forget-it variety of atheist.

One intriguing side effect of the media attention to atheism in the US in recent months: if I'm not imagining it, the word "atheist" has been losing its negative connotations. If this keeps up, "bright" will be superfluous.

By David Sewell (not verified) on 01 May 2007 #permalink

Ah, that's the guy. This explains why I wanted to bow before him each time he came onscreen...

Now all we need is an aggressive agnostic who comes onscreen and screams at you "nobody knows anything!" and we'll have all the combinations of atheists, agnostics and attitudes covered.

There can't be a worse medium for philosophical reflection than television. To understand serious issues, cable doesn't help. You need Paperview--or, better yet, a live conversation with a thoughtful human being.

I was frustrated that Miller focussed exclusively on Western European thought, without acknowledging that's what he was doing. Sometimes this made him look silly (e.g. when he said something like that after Luther, Christianity had its first big split. The Orthodox Church, anyone?). I also think some of the English he mentioned were actually Scots.

On the other hand, I did learn a lot about the subject: my knowledge of the history of philosophy isn't terribly systematic, so it's always nice to have a few gaps filled in.

I also had a problem with Bernard Hill - just that he looked too much like George Galloway.

Bob

Hill is not enough like Galloway (whose confrontation with the US Senate was priceless!) to worry me. But Miller's Anglocentrism is obvious. Orthodoxy is not in that branch of the history of the West.

Oh yes! I've never been much of a fan of Galloway, but seeing him turn the tables on the US Senate got him a whole heap of bonus points.

Sure, the terrorists were religious. So were the guys who discovered bacterial contagion and hygiene. I'm getting sick of that simplistic interpretation of our present war of civilisations.

Tell me, what instrumental part did religion play in the discovery of bacterial contagion? Which scriptures were guiding their research? It's a really bad comparison, you'd have been hard pushed to find people willing to sacrifice their lives in the slaughter of innocents if they didn't think there was some reward waiting for them. I'm not saying such people don't exist but it's pretty clear that the 9/11 hijackers' actions were facilitated by their belief in some version of the old 72 virgins thing.

FWIW I really enjoyed the programme when it aired a few years back but on repeat viewing found a few holes in it. That said it's a massive subject to cover so the job he did in three episodes was admirable - it'd take at least another three to fully do the subject justice.

People have been willing to lay down their lives for their country, their people and their culture, with or without religion (or do you want to say that atheists would never do anything patriotic, in which case I will mention Tillman?). So it is not necessarily the case that terrorism is founded or even mostly motivated by religion. I think that Islamism is better seen as a clash between village tribalism and urban civilisation than between Christian west and Islamic east. The virgins stuff is more in the line of a post hoc rationalisation. The imams who motivate this stuff aren't concerned with Islamic purity, but with a culture, a way of living, in which they and not the secular authorities have influence on people's lives.

Isn't that just it though? That geopolitical and cultural arguments for the leaders of these movements are turned into religious arguments for the rank and file. I doubt that al-Qaeda gains adherents with complex political arguments nor even necessarily by mentioning the desire to restore the caliphate. Rather, the enemies are portayed as devils, as the Great Satan, and that it is only holy and correct to oppose them.

That religion can lead to this certainly isn't an argument against religion per se; rather, it is an argument against dogmatic ideologies of all forms - be they religious, poltical, or nationalistic, as they encourage the us vs. them, good vs. evil attitude and often treat their own scriptures or principles as prolefeed with which to influence the adherents at large.

Somebody give that Magpie a nice shiny bottle top to take back to his/her nest. That second paragraph is spot on.

I think that Islamism is better seen as a clash between village tribalism and urban civilisation than between Christian west and Islamic east. The virgins stuff is more in the line of a post hoc rationalisation. The imams who motivate this stuff aren't concerned with Islamic purity, but with a culture, a way of living, in which they and not the secular authorities have influence on people's lives.

You're right about the culture and way of life thing. But you're wrong to think it absolves religion of blame.

You're treating religion like it's somehow separate from the cultures that harbor it. Religion has always been tied to tribalism and local customs--it's no different in Afghanistan than it is in America--religion is tied directly to whatever people's immediate cultural surroundings are (in America, capitalism and the nuclear family, for instance).

Religion justifies local superstitions and prejudices by attributing cosmological significance to them: "Gays are evil" doesn't carry nearly as much force, and isn't nearly as convincing, as "God says gays are evil." There isn't really anything to "religion" beyond this. This is how religion gets started, and this is what preserves it, and this is where it gets its strength.

So, yes, what we see in Islamic terrorism is the result of a culture clash. And religion is implicated through and through in that culture class, because more often than not it's religion that is the prime force in preserving the more backwards and prejudiced aspects of local culture.

I just simply can't take people seriously when they claim 9-11 wasn't motivated by religion. Even if it was just in order to preserve their "culture", it's religion that has convinced them that their culture is so important that it needs this kind of protection, and it's religion that justifies their actions by painting everything they see in stark absolutes and instilling the belief that God, the ruler of the world, wants their culture to be dominant over others.

We watched Bill Moyers Journal tonight, May 4, and were very, very interested in Jonathan Miller's "A History of Unbelief." Please tell me where we can watch the series.

By rev. o.c. brown (not verified) on 04 May 2007 #permalink

Wes, I think it's important to differentyiate when religion itself causes soemthing, and when religion is caused by the same thing as something else (in this case, terrorism). I do not deny that religion played a strong part in motivating these individuals to do what they did, but I think they may have done that for any of a number of other reasons too (such as ethnic honour or economic advantage). And thinking that one's culture is far better than all others' is a human constant.

I think if we could eliminate this extremist religion, we might see a drop in the number of such actions, but I doubt we'd see the end of it by any stretch. The Scots-descended Irish will still hate the prior inhabitants of that fair Isle. The Serbs will still hate the Croats and vice versa, and do "ethnic cleansing" whenever they can. Hutus and Tutsis will still hate each other for odd reasons of colonial pasts, and Russians will still mistreat Cossacks and Siberians, etc.

rev, I thought PBS was showing it as part of the Moyers' show. Sorry I can't help you, being as I am on the other side of the world...

It is on YouTube, among other places on the web. But you may have to hurry before the copyrightists get to it. I can't find the site I watched it on any more.

P.S. I'm glad to see you can at least post comments, John, and haven't had to absolutely go "cold turkey."

John, thanks for reviewing the program. A point of clarification: The Bill Moyers segment served as a kind of tie-in for A Brief History of Disbelief, with an interview of Miller and clips from the series.

For those Stateside, the calendar that John posted (broadcast schedule) will be regularly updated as we get confirmations from stations. If you can't find it in your area, please contact your public TV station and tell them you'd like to see it (tell them it's being offered by Executive Program Services.)

I may be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure that while they mentioned Giordano Bruno's heliocentrism, the program did say that he was executed for heresy.

As for the glingle-glingle-glingle bells, yes, those were annoying. I suspect that they were trying to show that they're evah so ahtistic, not realizing how annoying the end effect was.

The bits with Miller watching himself on screen came from the same source, probably, although there was a pair of such shots matched each other (talk about topic 1; see Miller on screen discussing topic 2; talk about topic 2 for a while; cut back to Miller watching himself on screen; pull out and resume talking about topic 1), giving the effect of a digression, or extended parenthetical discussion. Either that, or they were trying to be artsy and it happened to work that one time.

The Scots-descended Irish will still hate the prior inhabitants of that fair Isle. The Serbs will still hate the Croats and vice versa, and do "ethnic cleansing" whenever they can. Hutus and Tutsis will still hate each other for odd reasons of colonial pasts, and Russians will still mistreat Cossacks and Siberians, etc.

John, I do not understand what you mean by "odd reasons". Would you clarify a bit?

While there are certainly historical undercurrents in the tensions of the aforementioned groups, I would hesitate to suggest that history alone was a factor. There are plenty of current tensions--social, economic, and especially for the Hutu/Tutsi conflict, environmental--that make such distinctions so sharp and volatile. It seems to me that in times of more stability and prosperity, such distinctions become dull and could possibly fade in entirety.