An interview with Brian Cox

mikhail · 09-08-2011 12:51pm #1

The AV Club has published an interview with Brian Cox. He discusses his tv show and (interesting for this crowd) quite a bit about his attitudes to religion. The whole thing is worth a read, but an excerpt:

Do you believe in God?

No. [Laughs.] But I’m not an atheist in the form of Richard Dawkins. And I know Richard and I like him a lot. But there’s kind of an antagonistic atheism, which I don’t support, although I don’t believe in God at all. Sagan wrote a very famous essay called “Religion And Science: An Alliance,” where he pointed out that really what you want in the world is a coalition of people of goodwill to move things forward. He was thinking, at the time, about nuclear disarmament, because in the ’70s that was the great threat. Now, you’ve got threats to the climate, you’ve got threats with conflicts, which are in part driven by clashes of civilizations and clashes of extremist religions. So I think you can be quite pragmatic about it and say, “Even if I thought it was a good idea, I’m not going to convince everybody in the world that they should give up religion.” It’s not going to happen.

I have a good friend who is a Dean of Guildford Cathedral—that’s kind of the highest religious position in the U.K. I don’t share his particular beliefs, but we do share a vision that sensible people could come together to make progress, to build a more tolerant world. So that’s my view.

Whilst I’m not religious at all, I do not have an issue what I will call “moderate religion.” I do have a big issue with things like Young Earth creationism, because it’s ****. I have no patience at all for people who think the world is 6,000 years old. It isn’t. The universe is 13.73 plus or minus 0.12 billion years old, given our data at the moment and our understanding of the way it evolved. And that’s it! But the thing is, in Britain anyway, most—what I will call “sensible” religious people—don’t think that their particular religion has anything to say about the age of the Earth. I’ve pointed to some writing by St. Augustine, a venerated Christian theologian from many years ago, he pointed out that once you begin to read the Bible literally then you open it to ridicule and ultimately that’s the path to the downfall of the religion. It is. Because it’s not a textbook. St. Augustine knew that. It’s not as if this is new thinking. It is a statement of the obvious.

Zombrex · 10-08-2011 11:26am

I appreciate what he is saying but in my experience sooner or later "sensible" religious people become "senseless" religious people. It just depends on what you are discussion.

So you may say "sensible" religious people don't believe in Creationism, so we should work with them to move the debate for science forward. And that is fine until you start discussing a genetic cause for homosexuality. And then some of the "sensible" religious people drop into the "senseless" category. But it is ok, right, cause we are still being inclusive of the "sensible" religious people.

And then you get to a natural theory of religious practice, and you lose more "sensible" religious people to the "senseless" category.

Ultimately the difference between atheists like Co and atheists like Dawkins seems to be more that Dawkins knows that this is ultimately were we are going to end up, where those like Cox are just thinking well Ok right now things are ok with most religious people.

Turtwig · 10-08-2011 11:50am

I disagree Wicky,

I don't think such disagreements are just associated with the religious. The irreligious are an irrational bunch too. All one has to do is look at the majority held myth of natural products and ingredients or the bizarre attitude held towards drugs like Marijuana not being bad for you health. I think the problem lies purely with ideologies if people hold ideological views then they are prone to doing whatever they can to reject anything which challenges that belief.They don't need religion for that. A simple ideological belief will do. For what it's worth I know plenty of religious people, well quasi religious, who are open minded in just about everything except the existence of a deity. They just believe there to be something.

Zombrex · 10-08-2011 4:31pm

Malty_T wrote: »

I disagree Wicky,

I don't think such disagreements are just associated with the religious. The irreligious are an irrational bunch too. All one has to do is look at the majority held myth of natural products and ingredients or the bizarre attitude held towards drugs like Marijuana not being bad for you health. I think the problem lies purely with ideologies if people hold ideological views then they are prone to doing whatever they can to reject anything which challenges that belief.They don't need religion for that. A simple ideological belief will do. For what it's worth I know plenty of religious people, well quasi religious, who are open minded in just about everything except the existence of a deity. They just believe there to be something.

Oh yeah, of course. I don't mean religious specifically, I mean the irrational.

Saying well it is ok because at this moment this person's irrational beliefs are not effecting me so lets all just get along, is to my mind (and atheists like Dawkins) short sighted.

This is why Dawkins attacks "harmless" irrational beliefs like astrology. People say "Sure what is the harm" but the point is that it ends up being the same people, just at different breaking points.

Standman · 10-08-2011 5:57pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh yeah, of course. I don't mean religious specifically, I mean the irrational.

Saying well it is ok because at this moment this person's irrational beliefs are not effecting me so lets all just get along, is to my mind (and atheists like Dawkins) short sighted.

This is why Dawkins attacks "harmless" irrational beliefs like astrology. People say "Sure what is the harm" but the point is that it ends up being the same people, just at different breaking points.

In fairness, Cox has explicitly given a good auld slating to astrology a few times. I think he is more sensitive with religion because he is basically on a PR campaign for science and doesn't want to alienate a huge portion of people in the world.

MrPudding · 10-08-2011 6:38pm

Standman wrote: »

In fairness, Cox has explicitly given a good auld slating to astrology a few times. I think he is more sensitive with religion because he is basically on a PR campaign for science and doesn't want to alienate a huge portion of people in the world.

This is a good point. I am a huge fan of Brian Cox, I have even forgiven him for d reem (not sure how to spell it) but I was a little upset by these comments. But, when taken in light of what he is trying to achieve I suppose it is understandable. But, whilst I understand his position, I can't quite goths extra bit to say I agree with it. Which I suppose is why I voted non-accomodationist in the other thread.

I think most would agree that Dawkins has alienated a portion of the population, who will not listen to anything he has to say on evolution, because of what he has said about religion. But then, I think that is ok because Dawkins is not just fighting the evolution front. He is also fighting the rationalism front and as such will come into conflict.

oldrnwisr · 11-08-2011 8:44am

Standman wrote: »

I think he is more sensitive with religion because he is basically on a PR campaign for science and doesn't want to alienate a huge portion of people in the world.

I respectfully disagree. I agree that Brian Cox has a softer approach towards most religious people but he makes it fairly clear in the interview which mikhail posted that the reason for this is not because he's on a PR campaign for science:

AVC: At one point in the show, setting up the idea that we are all made of the same elements that stars are made out of, you say something like, “My creation story does not occur on earth.” You can almost hear the television sets being shut off throughout the Deep South in the United States where a large population believes the Garden of Eden is somewhere on the planet we inhabit now.

BC: I don’t make the program in order to get the biggest possible audience. That’s not why I do it. We just want to make good programs. The moment you start trying to triangulate off people and try to follow the path of least sense—especially in a science program—you’re just lost straight away. There’s nothing I can do about it. The universe is 13.73 billion years old. When you make a program that is about the beginning of the universe, you’re going to have to say that it was 13.73 billion years ago. [Laughs.] There’s not a lot you can do about that, really. There are more scientific people in the U.S. than there are in Britain because there are more people. So, there are more religious extremists in the U.S. too, but that’s just because there are five times as many people living in the country. What can I say? Those people are not going to watch my shows anyway.

This is pretty much the same point he makes in the RTS lecture as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrdK4hWffo

Cox's attitude is that accurate science should always be at the forefront of science broadcasting. In a way, through these interviews what Cox is really proposing is a more restrained version of Dawkins' quip: "Science is interesting, if you don't think so you can **** off."

I just think that Cox is an accomodationist because he just doesn't give a crap about religion. He's just happy to leave it alone as long as it leaves him alone. Ben Goldacre seems to have the same idea:

I think probably the main answer to your question is: I just don’t have any interest either way, but I wouldn’t want to understate how uninterested I am. There still hasn’t been a word invented for people like me, whose main experience when presented with this issue is an overwhelming, mind-blowing, intergalactic sense of having more interesting things to think about. I’m not sure that’s accurately covered by words such as “atheist”, and definitely not by “agnostic”. I just don’t care.

Zombrex · 11-08-2011 9:09am

Standman wrote: »

In fairness, Cox has explicitly given a good auld slating to astrology a few times. I think he is more sensitive with religion because he is basically on a PR campaign for science and doesn't want to alienate a huge portion of people in the world.

Again that is my point.

bnt · 11-08-2011 2:25pm

I accept Cox's remarks at face value, but I also interpret them to mean that he simply doesn't have Dawkins' extensive experience with religious craziness, especially the type coming out of the USA. I mean - Dawkins used to be like that too, and still is in many ways e.g. he's friendly with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and is quite able to talk to people without attacking their religions. I don't think it's a coincidence that The God Delusion was published when Dawkins was nearing retirement age: he could afford to be more confrontational than he had been, since the professional consequences were naturally limited.

However, Cox hasn't had the kind of direct religiously-motivated attacks on his field that Dawkins has had to endure, particularly when it comes to school curricula: evolution by natural selection is basic biology, but Cox's professional work is at a level that isn't taught in schools at all. Remember the Dover School Board case a few years ago? I can imagine a similar case happening some day, in the area of Cosmology vs "young Earth" ideology. If Cox spends more time in the USA, and experiences people cursing him and his family to hell and back for accepting that the universe is over 13 billion years old, he might change his tune a little. :cool:

parrai · 23-09-2011 2:21pm

No. [Laughs.] But I’m not an atheist in the form of Richard Dawkins. And I know Richard and I like him a lot. But there’s kind of an antagonistic atheism, which I don’t support, although I don’t believe in God at all. Sagan wrote a very famous essay called “Religion And Science: An Alliance,” where he pointed out that really what you want in the world is a coalition of people of goodwill to move things forward. He was thinking, at the time, about nuclear disarmament, because in the ’70s that was the great threat. Now, you’ve got threats to the climate, you’ve got threats with conflicts, which are in part driven by clashes of civilizations and clashes of extremist religions. So I think you can be quite pragmatic about it and say, “Even if I thought it was a good idea, I’m not going to convince everybody in the world that they should give up religion.” It’s not going to happen.

I have a good friend who is a Dean of Guildford Cathedral—that’s kind of the highest religious position in the U.K. I don’t share his particular beliefs, but we do share a vision that sensible people could come together to make progress, to build a more tolerant world. So that’s my view.

Whilst I’m not religious at all, I do not have an issue what I will call “moderate religion.” I do have a big issue with things like Young Earth creationism, because it’s ****. I have no patience at all for people who think the world is 6,000 years old. It isn’t. The universe is 13.73 plus or minus 0.12 billion years old, given our data at the moment and our understanding of the way it evolved. And that’s it! But the thing is, in Britain anyway, most—what I will call “sensible” religious people—don’t think that their particular religion has anything to say about the age of the Earth. I’ve pointed to some writing by St. Augustine, a venerated Christian theologian from many years ago, he pointed out that once you begin to read the Bible literally then you open it to ridicule and ultimately that’s the path to the downfall of the religion. It is. Because it’s not a textbook. St. Augustine knew that. It’s not as if this is new thinking. It is a statement of the obvious.

That is a fantastic interview... I have watched this man on tv in several documentaries and always found them thoroughly educational... Never knew he was an atheist, and what difference did it make? Absolutely none.
I think the man is a realist... Facts are facts, he is telling it as it is. All the supertitious stuff is hocus pocus and he doesn't get involved in it. You cannot please all the people all the time. You can however produce the facts and let them decide for themselves. He has great time for educating people, with the best possible information he has, he doesn't dress it up, he just tells it as it is... There is no political agenda of any description, it's just real.

I believe it takes all sorts to make it work. I believe the bible to be a series of parables that have outcomes that are just. I don't swallow what happened 6000 years ago as verbatim... These were passed down from generation to generation, and those times were different... This I think is where people, who take it too seriously, go wrong.

I accept that alot the things in it are not entirely palatable, but one would expect it, considering it was composed by dozens of people and written by dozens more, then edited by even more.... So many viewpoints, altogether in one very old book, that was probably changed several times down through the millenia... It can't possibly be conclusive.

But I do believe there is something, I don't what, but it's just a feeling... As Malty T has said of friends of his, but I don't even know if it is a deity, but there is a spiritual feeling that is alive for sure...

sensibleken · 26-09-2011 11:18am

He was really good in Manhunter but Troy was a pile of crap

Dave! · 26-09-2011 12:19pm

parrai wrote: »

But I do believe there is something, I don't what, but it's just a feeling... As Malty T has said of friends of his, but I don't even know if it is a deity, but there is a spiritual feeling that is alive for sure...

Was with ya up until there

angel343 · 27-09-2011 4:41pm

sensibleken wrote: »

He was really good in Manhunter but Troy was a pile of crap

lol

parrai · 27-09-2011 5:52pm

Dave! wrote: »

Was with ya up until there

We all have our cross to bear!!!

An interview with Brian Cox

Comments