Last night I took part in a debate on the admission of humanist contributors to BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day. Organised by the Churches Media Council, it was enjoyable, but also a little odd. I have to admit to having gone into the debate batting firmly on one side, but willing to be persuaded to the other. It was on the basis of sheer free-thinking rationality that I became more convinced of the wisdom and importance of opposing the motion.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones of the Telegraph was there and has reported on his blog.
Dr Andrew Copson, Director of Education and Public Affairs at the British Humanist Association, proposed the motion in a generous, persuasive and articulate speech, but one that was based strongly on an appeal for ‘fairness and balance’. Ariane Sherine, comedienne and journalist (and the inspiration behind the brilliant agnostibus adverts), seconded the motion, but made the mistake of reading the humanist Thought for the Day she presented on Radio 4’s ipm some months ago.
Giles Fraser and I opposed the motion – Giles in his usual forceful style, distinguishing between the argument for ‘inclusion’ and that for ‘distinctiveness’ in respect of the TFTD slot. I just got heckled from the irrationalists at the back who didn’t help the proposers’ cause.
It was an interesting debate, but frustrating for two reasons. First, we couldn’t really engage in a proper discussion with each other about the arguments put (leaving either side open to misunderstanding). Secondly, the degree of sentimentality behind the proposers’ presentations made me (and, I think, Giles) feel that we couldn’t be too hard or robust in our engagement with them. Then, one contributor from the floor even cited Erasmus as a giant in the great tradition of European humanism without seeming to realise that he was a Christian – or that the original humanists were theists.
The point that I feel really lost it, however, was the language that assumed (a) that humanists are free thinkers (and, therefore, theists are not), (b) that Christians believe themselves to be more moral than atheists (a caricature based on a prejudice that does not stand up to scrutiny), and (c) that statistics can be used when convenient but are being misinterpreted when inconvenient.
My regret following last night was only that the four of us couldn’t have had an intelligent conversation together about the matters raised. But it was a useful reminder that rationalists must be prepared for more rational debate on the basis of rational argument (and not sentiment) and Christians must check their own assumptions about where atheists/humanists are coming from.
And I still think the agnostibus adverts were brilliant. And I have still commended Ariane Sherine’s new book for Christmas in my new book about Christmas (details to follow soon).
Nick Baines's Blog 
October 9, 2009 at 3:57 pm
The point you make about Erasmus reinforces the sense of your account of the “debate” that in order to have a genuinely rational discussion the participants have to be mature and educated. That of course sounds elitist to modern ears but the alternative can be found any day on any number of blogs with variations on name-calling and ranting prejudice as the staple form of “debate”.
Personally I would support any and every form of “thought” for the day of only it reached some sort of cultural standard which it rarely does. The problem with TFTD is that it often simply boring and second-rate.
October 9, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Re Peter’s blog above – maybe I’m simplistic and/or less academically educated than you but I disagree with your comment that TFTD is often boring and second-rate. Mostly I think it is rational, often profound and obviously carefully thought out and considered.
Especially compared with some of the rubbish on TV, local radio stations and in some newspapers.
Interestingly, I was chatting with an experienced and knowledgable doctor this very afternoon who at one point said to me “You believe in God, I believe in randomness!” I just thought how sad that someone’s hopes should be based on such an obscure and limited thing as randomness.
Best wishes from Anne.
October 10, 2009 at 8:14 am
In response to Anne I concede that some contributors to TFTD are excellent – Mona Saddiqi, Angela Trilby, Wendy Beckett. (How curious they are all women!) But the average offering usually consists of an exercise in fence-sitting – the model schoolboy prepares his essay and finally concludes gingerly that perhaps, on balance etc. Moreover, I don’t think our standards should be set in relation to “rubbish on TV”. It is not at all academic – quite the reverse – to try to sift the rare fragments of gold from the rest. I know you are arguing that the best is often the enemy of the good but I don’t think it ever can be.
October 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm
The best is at times the enemy of the very good. Our parish is currently looking for a Children and Family Worker and the person specification (only verbal at present) puts so much expectation onto candidates that I suspect the Archangel Gabriel might hesitate to apply!
Whilst waiting for someone perfect to come along, I feel we may be missing someone who would be very good!
Anne.
October 11, 2009 at 10:32 am
Specifications often reflect the self-importance of the people who write them but why worry? The best candidate will perhaps be someone who is very good! Mind you, I once knew a young idealist who wouldn’t install a decent mirror in his bathroom or replace his rusy iron gates until he had found the perfect Arts and Crafts solution. His wife left him for the grocer.
October 12, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Sensible woman (and thanks for keeping things light!)
Anne.
November 6, 2009 at 4:14 pm
[…] As we pointed out in a debate last month, the argument is not about inclusiveness or ‘fairness’, but about […]