[KatoabamyHant]

I'm not sure TRG. It's just that recently it seems that every time I turn on RN there is someone talking about religion. I mostly listen early evenings.

As for time frame I'd say about a year, but it could be that it's always been there and I've just noticed it.

There were huge changes a while ago; PM was reduced (and being told to go to another time and place for the old style extended format was no more than an admission of it's guttedness); Natasha MItchell's "All in the Mind" became something soft and light and popular no doubt ... and that is the killer for me, not the tendency to shift towards "religion" of a particular sort*, per se, but the shift FROM topics that required longer programming into dealing with them as sound bites of the same kind as commercials use.

Those familiar with the old "All in the Mind" and the new, will know exactly what I am talking about.

I am not any kind of intellectual but loved stimulating / challenging programs about current developments whether in science or anything else; it is true that I used to listen to some of them a couple of times (and occasionally more) to get the hang of quite new stuff ... that isn't an issue for me or any one, any more. Indeed I imagine it is regarded as an improvement on the kinds of check lists the new kinds of auditors make such good use of.

Of course it isn't their fault that Saunder's The Philosopher's Zone is gone, but it was one among equals only two or three years ago ... it's a very reduced Radio National now, on several criteria.


*Under Stepehen Crittenden it was a brilliant program about religions of Australia and the world by someone who took faith seriously across a range of them.

[snislarne]

>>>Usually I can make a reasonable guess at what you are getting at, but this time I'm afraid I haven't a clue"

We make up the [and our] social world, it is contrived but real, religious and secular alike. The contrivance is to be delighted.

[tilmprarnerit]

I'm not sure TRG. It's just that recently it seems that every time I turn on RN there is someone talking about religion. I mostly listen early evenings.

As for time frame I'd say about a year, but it could be that it's always been there and I've just noticed it.

Since January this year a number of major programming changes were introduced with an associated number of respected presenters moved or lost. However, last year the early evening changed to a different format which is when it was most noticeable to me. Most of the interesting daytime programs were repeated in a different time slot and the times of the repeats stayed stable over many, many years. Several of the repeats that allowed people to catch up simply changed to time slots like 3:00am or something and were replaced by repeats from other programs - this included the religious/spiritual stuff Rev is talking about being on more than one week night and some stuff of little or no interest to me. It is about 18 months since these changes occurred but they didn't all happen in one week.

RN has gradually been dumbed down to the point where, with a few exceptions, it isn't worth listening to even in the background. Some of the good programs are left but with 'twee' presenters or 'twee' formats, some have been maintained like Background Briefing which is still doing investigative journalism, Late Night Live but many have been lost completely to anyone with normal working hours or just cancelled.

Like a lot of other people I miss the interesting stuff they used to do and it isn't anywhere else - so it's gone!

[Attaniuri]

Just left my comment there.

At the risk of Peter B calling me a troll for going off topic, has anyone else noticed that Radio National seems to be giving ever increasing time to what might be termed "philosophy and practice of religion" with virtually zero time devoted to rationalist philosophy and ideas? In fact on the rare occaisions when atheists are mentioned it's almost always in terms that suggest they are some intellectually deficient sub-species with an unfortunate lack in the all important "spirituality" department.

Radio National has gone to the dogs ever since the "re-branding". Aunty in general is becoming a pale imitation of commercial media. The Rev is right: increasingly RN is becoming a bastion of crackpot theidiocy against the gentle tide of reason. Radio National- your life imploding.

[ProomoSam]

>>>Usually I can make a reasonable guess at what you are getting at, but this time I'm afraid I haven't a clue"

We make up the [and our] social world, it is contrived but real, religious and secular alike. The contrivance is to be delighted.

OK, I'll see what I can contrive out of that

[newshep]

gradually been dumbed down to the point where, with a few exceptions, it isn't worth listening to that is true for all MSM

even here

[investmentonlinev2006x]

Thanks guys.....now I know why I am not hearing what I used to hear....and you prompted me to go to the radio schedules to find out where 'my' programs have gone. An amazing (probably not the right word) number have their repeats at 5.30am........

[arriftell]

>>>>>In fact he's far more likely to discuss philosophy with someone who doesn't share his views"

Good to know he's not into cloning himself.

[SerycegeBunny]

>>>>>In fact he's far more likely to discuss philosophy with someone who doesn't share his views"

Good to know he's not into cloning himself.

I disagree.

We need more PA clones to combat all the Alan Jones clones.

[drmarshallusa]

>>>We need more PA clones to combat all the Alan Jones clones.

Yeah good point.

[xsVfF9Em]

>>> has anyone else noticed that Radio National seems to be giving ever increasing time to what might be termed "philosophy and practice of religion" with virtually zero time devoted to rationalist philosophy and ideas?

Ive stopped listen to some RN programs for that very reason

they don't seem to except that religion is in decline

perhaps a reminder

God has never been proved or disproved by anyone

God is invisible

God is Human created
all the churches, mosques, cathedrals etc all built by people
all the religious artworks, sculptures etc all created by people
all the religious texts, written by people, printed by people, read by people
all the priests, bishops, fathers, cardinals etc all people
all the believers are people
God only exists in people imaginations

see the pattern

all human created, all people

you broadcasters get on radio and preach like god actually exists, when in fact there is no proof of Gods existence anywhere


I'm inclined to think that saying something exists when in fact there is no proof of its existence is akin to some kind of fraud

maybe someone else can find a better word for it

but If I had my way with these radio preachers they would be required to warn people before and after discussion on TV or radio that God has never been proofed to exist or some better worded warning

so these religious people should come back down to earth, they live in some kind of fairy land believing in some 2000 year old nonsense, written by people probably smoking drugs at the time

[VistaULTIMATEdownloadaPro]

>>>they don't seem to except that religion is in decline"

This may be true as a generalization of the type of generalization you intend, but for any case of an individual the faith may not be in "decline", but I gather you would like to see an even greater "decline" applied to all individuals, which raises the question of your regard for the varied faiths and extent of as relates to individuals.

On the subject of the necessity of religion, as a psychological adaptation let's say, in the case of individuals, it may be instructive to consider some truths of life. The now is very transient, in fact the greatest certainty for any of us is that of the past. This 'certainty' aspect and how it imposes on mental states and well-being is important I believe. Science and empiricism are in the business of certainty and uncertanty. Quantifying the latter to increase the former for the good of something, hopefully.

What is there more than desire, hope and memory?

I think understanding 'faith' requires consideration of more mundane faith. Doubtful anyone can escape consideration of ego and ego mechanisms as applies to this. What really sustains ego. Everyone has ego.

Faith bashing to maintain ego, or as part of, probably deserves a moment of introspection.

At any moment any one of us is quite self-interested about what we give attention and effort, or dismiss maybe, or cast down. It's really easy to do.

Even a hard-nosed empiricist though would have a hard time, if it were considered properly, to dismiss the likelihood that bio-history as expressed in the contemporary social envionments or culture more broadly involve perspective and conceptions that are the product of some type of faith.

What is the reality of belief. Even if the thing believed does not exist physically external to the mind, it does exist in the mind and is real in that mind, meaning it has real influence. The beliefs really do influence how neurons operate and behaviour.

Not much isn't representation, 'contrivance' wouldn't be too strong a word.

Take eccentrics for example that sort of invent their own internal reality, make it up, you know toddlers do this. They have imaginary friends. The thing is I don't believe adults, normal adjusted adults for example, completely abandon this. They may learn to appear as if their reality is rock solid derived from what is "real", of "reality", but is it really, entirely, or is it they have adopted common justifiable [or socially justified] beliefs that are unlikely to draw adverse attention that keep them on easy street in the range of normal psychology.

I believe we all have beliefs that might be seen as "faith". The God may be seen as "self". Nothing wrong with this.

The test of this may be when normal ego mechanisms are made impossible, and what is the outcome of reality being intolerable.

It is conceivable that reality could be so revolting as to require inventing a tolerable alternative. I'd argue people generally do this anyway. Quite routinely. Someone might argue it is an alternative reality, but why can't it be 'alternative' without the socially impositional and normative aspects. So here is the overlap between what is personally normative or normalizing and the social aspects of what is normal.

Skepticism is a type of easy street. There are examples in the apparent real world in which case a lack of evidence is evidence. Take the latter and what can be ignored, the scope of it extending to dissemblance. Take for example the case that the propositional content of any utterance need not have correspondingly evidenced intention. In fact the former can uninform and mislead of the latter.

I think most people 'conjure' their reality, most of the time. I believe it is necessary. There's a peculiar deviancy about bashing the reality-unvisited. The easy street is gotten by belonging to the largest group of deviants. From this it might be said humans are deviants, to generalize, which may be true.

We smile and laugh while eating other creatures. We cook them up on the BBQ and have a few drinks to wash them down. Not that I believe any of us should be burdened by conscience over that. It brings me to what each of us thinks, to generalize, of our own species, really, the reality. I think that apparatus housed in the cranium, described as a proximate mechanism for survival, has about it some quite undisclosed mechanisms involving and propensity for indifference, not all or even mostly bad.

Some caution I think is required regarding indifference toward faith and belief more generally, the faith in ones antifaith, which may tend to make hope and desire less adaptive, less legitimate.

[worldofwarcraft]

ttf - how come you are so concerned about "faith bashing" but apparently show no concern at all about the far more prevalent bashing of the faithless?

[lionsiy]

Not as unconnected as might first appear.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...riddley-walker

and of Ridley Walker in particular

" Plot summary

Riddley Walker is set about two thousand years after a nuclear war has devastated world civilizations. The main action of the story begins when the young narrator, Riddley, stumbles upon efforts to recreate a weapon of the ancient world.

The novel's characters live a harsh life in a small area which is presently the English county of Kent, and know nothing of the world outside of "Inland" (England). Their level of civilization is similar to England's prehistoric Iron Age, although they do not produce their own iron but salvage it from ancient machinery. Church and state have combined into one secretive institution, whose mythology, based on misinterpreted stories of the war and an old Catholic saint (Eustace), is enacted in puppet shows."

from wiki

[casinobonyanes]

>>>>ttf - how come you are so concerned about "faith bashing" but apparently show no concern at all about the far more prevalent bashing of the faithless?"

The territory of belief quite often, perhaps even most of the time, is involved in the preservation of legitimacy of desires of some description. Two sides of the same coin, to the extent they may be called sides, my point being there aren't two sides only or even sides at all. Even "belief" gets rubbished.

Maybe the faithless are not as faithless as the term may be used.

In softening toward religion [insert your own qualifications], some softening to belief may come about, and along with it some softening toward human nature. Some love TRD, faith in the kindred.

Being strongly anti-faith in some ways may take a person closer to what they may despise about faith.

[Spongebob]

OK, I give up.

I don't seem to be getting anywhere, and it's long since stopped being a discussion about science.

[CGH1KZzy]

ttf - how come you are so concerned about "faith bashing" but apparently show no concern at all about the far more prevalent bashing of the faithless?

Not to mention, the implication that those with no religious beliefs are somehow defective and lead deficient lives. Or the very nasty insidious one where it's suggested that with no religious beliefs, there are no ethics or morals.

[Larisochka]

Not to mention, the implication that those with no religious beliefs are somehow defective and lead deficient lives. Or the very nasty insidious one where it's suggested that with no religious beliefs, there are no ethics or morals.

Thats the arugment that irritates me the most, that somehow religion is necessary for ethics and morals.

[Master_B]

Rev, whatever religious faith does it unlikely is unique to religion, is an important part of my point. What do you think is happening at the process level of the thinking organ, and can you imagine any analogies to help explain it.

And re ilago's point of the devout seeing non-believers as defective or lacking, there's plenty of secular arrogants out there that think a good portion of the population defective, just as a part of the mechanisms or characteristics of social stratification.

Just as religion isn't the foundation of moral thought, neither is secular some sure egalitarian utilitarian trajectory.

Religion fails in which case it discourages thinking. Particularly if it fails to facilitate or allow balanced perspective and a balance of perspectives.

I find JWs to be more desperate recruiters than Mormons. Literalist Free Presbyterians aren't too bad a people mostly. Of course there's always loons, but they feature right across any population. Some may gravitate toward religion.

I think we're all people, of similar ancestral stock, women and men alike, black, white, whatever. I like the idea of a hairy ancestor, keeps me pondering why hairy men have statistically higher IQs. Seems a bit counterintuitive.

[unfolaReemoma]

I like the idea of a hairy ancestor, keeps me pondering why hairy men have statistically higher IQs.

I have never heard that before, do you have a reference for that?