Thought for the day on BBC Radio 4

[TheBoyPaj]

I know, picking holes in a religious spot is like shooting fish in a barrel, but this morning's opinion really wound me up.

The speaker (I didn't catch the name. Anyone know?) was discussing some recent research which suggested that the tendency for some women to be adulterers might be genetically determined. A sort of "seeking out a more viable mate" mechanism.

She seemed to reject the study on the basis that it conflicted with her view that God would never create a person with a predisposition towards trait, and that any subsequent decison to sin is purely our choice.

I feel that our daily decisions are influenced by a backdrop of cultural, learned and probably biological factors, but I can't be sure. I'd like to see the study to see what it suggests.

But this stupid woman didn't find fault in the methodology or the findings. She rejected it out of hand because it conflicted with her beliefs. And she was given 5 minutes of BBC radio's flagship programme to do it.

I had to get that off my chest. In fact, I think I'll complain to the editors.

 

[geni]

I had to get that off my chest. In fact, I think I'll complain to the editors.

Personaly I view a thought for the day that p15535 you off as better than the normal ones (which mearly make you get out of bed to turn the thing off).

 

[Oleron]

I listen to the thought for the day almost every day - sometimes it is my only thought in the day!

90% of the time it is some pious arse trying to do a PR job for whichever god they happen to follow. However it does occasionally strike a chord.

My complaint is that they, to the best of my knowledge, have never offered the spot to an atheist. There are many great atheist speakers in the UK that I'm sure would jump at the opportunity.

Anyway, I entirely agree with Paj about this bint this morning. She obviously didn't want to be bothered with inconvenient facts when she had such a neat worldview.

 

[Dragon]

The BBC have been asked about this - their answer, IIRC, was sonething like "It's for religious people because it's always been for religious people". There was a bit of a debate a year or so ago and Richard Dawkins was allowed to give an atheist alternative "Thought for the Day". ( as well as, not instead of, the usual offering).

 

[geni]

My complaint is that they, to the best of my knowledge, have never offered the spot to an atheist. There are many great atheist speakers in the UK that I'm sure would jump at the opportunity.

The main reason for thought for ther day is that it alows the BBC to claim they are including some relgious content while using the minium of program time.

 

[walthrup48]

I didn't catch the name. Anyone know?

Catherine Pepinster

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Ah, thanks for that, Jim.

(You can listen to the audio via Jim's link too)

 

[Diamond]

On my radio (alarm clock) it goes like this:

"And now, Thought For The Day. Today it's the Reverend J.C. Flannel who's a member of the General Synod"

"As I was travelling to the studio today........*CLICK*"

Then I go to work.

Agnosticism is easy when you can find the "off" switch.

 

[Stitch]

Here is the transcript for those that prefer to read it

 

[songstress]

Thought For The Day

Hello, peeps!

This snippet from Catherine Pepinster may be her own views, but it doesn't reflect real life. If one were to consider this in all truthfulness, men and women in abusive relationships would have to 'stick it out' because it's against what society believes in. That is rubbish. We all make mistakes in life and many of us do so when choosing marriage partners.

I don't know whether the prepensity to commit so-called 'adultery' is genetic or not, but speaking from personal experience, I have found that marriages aren't necessarily made in heaven or are the beautiful experiences that we are led to believe. Why should the putting on of a ring in a marriage ceremony immediately transform a bounder into something wonderful just because he's just become your husband? It doesn't happen. Indeed, I have found that 'the other man' is very often a woman's 'saviour' in a bad marriage.

While we respect other peoples' worldview, we don't all come at the subject of monogamic marriage with the same rose-coloured glasses.

Patsy.

 

[Quasi]

I think her point is that she believes in good and evil and that in between lies choice. Much like the criminal justice system in the US, which is also based on a free will/christian God philosophy, if we prove that in one or several instances free will is diminished it deystroys the christian worlview of sin and free will. This is also a major point of contention in evolution as it states that the fittest survive and insists that at some point in the future human beings as we are now will be extinct and the earth will go on without our lot. Evolution shows us that even cheaters can be rewarded so to speak. I suppose it is too much to try to yank the security blanket of religion from most regular people. It is IMHO people like her that are against embryonic stem cell research and abortion but have no problem with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really boggles the mind sometimes.

 

[anor277]

Originally quoted by Oleron

My complaint is that they, to the best of my knowledge, have never offered the spot to an atheist. There are many great atheist speakers in the UK that I'm sure would jump at the opportunity.

I can recall at least one occasion when they gave Richard Dawkins 2 minutes air time to give a secular view (I think that this was a sop to listeners who didn't like the religious homilies).

On the other hand they've never given airtime to some raving fundamentalist type who might offer the following thought, "In England today we have many faiths and religions, I'd like to remind our listeners that if you don't believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be damned in hell for all eternity". (I think this would generate a fine correspondence.)

 

[AOK Tiger]

You know what !

I aint a Christian.. I don’t even believe in God .. but I sort of agree with her.

Genetic predisposition is a crap excuse for a thinking sentient creature.

I KNOW what is right and wrong and I CAN stop myself doing what is wrong regardless of how much I want to do it.

Paedophiles are a classic example.. there is no doubt they are “genetically predisposed” to do what they do.. It doesn’t mean they should be allowed to do it !

I certainly do NOT adhere to the same religious sinner type philosophy as her but I refuse to excuse people for doing wrong because their “genes” dictated it !

 

[songstress]

Radio 4

Hello Aussie Thinker,

I am not religious, either. I used to see the world in black-and-white, until I realised that there are shades of grey. I had a violent marriage, in which my husband belittled me and made me feel ugly and small. This went on for a number of years (violent marriages aren't easy to get out of) until I changed jobs and met someone who treated me like a goddess. This gave me the courage to leave my husband.

I used to pray that God would help me find a way out of my marriage, and meeting Neil was God's way of steering me to the right course. Ever since then, I have realised that although we do have choices in life, sometimes we make the wrong ones. However, we don't have to live with the consequences.

I am not a card-carrying religious person; in fact, I am a Spiritualist medium, scientist, sceptical thinker and fatalist. All these things have stood me in good stead when making major decisions.

Patsy.

 

[Dragon]

Re: Radio 4

....

I am not a card-carrying religious person; in fact, I am a Spiritualist medium, scientist, sceptical thinker and fatalist.
....
Patsy.

You wouldn't be this Patsy then?

Welcome to the forum!
It can be quite a friendly place - but expect to have your claims challenged.

 

[songstress]

Hello Dragon,

Yes, that's me! Tee hee!

I really don't expect to make any such claims, to be honest. I can't claim that something exists outside of my own perceptions. I just know that it exists for me....sounds a bit odd? I can't prove anything, because psychic ability is in the main, unprovable because of it's nature. It's subjective and relevant only to those who are practising, who have received their own 'proof.' No further proof is necessary.

So I won't be claiming anything....sorry to disappoint....heh heh!

(I rather fancy a glass of whatever Patsy is holding in that bottle...yummy!)

Patsy.

 

[Ashles]

You say you're a medium.

Does that mean you can talk to the dead?

If so, what do they tell you? And do you hold seances or anything similar?

Just out of curiousity.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Hello, Patsy.

Nice to see you on this side of the divide.

Lets see- Earplugs, asbestos underwear, rock hammer, hard hat, seven league boots. You are appropriately kitted for fieldwork.
Have fun.

 

[songstress]

Forum

Hello Ashles,

Nice to meet you!

Well, no I don't talk to the dead - if someone is dead, you can't speak to them - heh! Mediumship is something that one is born with, rather like an instinct, if I can call it that. I can remember being a small child and 'seeing' people who I later found out 'weren't there' in reality. I used to 'know' things in advance. It wouldn't happen all the time, but from time to time. I had a terrible time from my mum and dad, who were scared of me. It didn't go away and for years, I was moving around aimlessly, looking for something that made sense of my ability. I was encouraged to visit a Spiritualist Church. I was frightened about it, Ashles, I really was. I had the idea that ghosts, demons and whatnot would be conjured up, and all sorts being unleashed. However, when I visited the place, it was quite pleasant, the people friendly and genuine and as I made friends (some mediums, like myself, are very sceptical of it all) it all made sense. At last I found people who could tell me what was going on and how to direct/control it. There wasn't any classes on 'cold readings' or 'hot readings' just people like me who had a 'gift' and had used it. The reason why I was and am sceptical of it, is because I don't think that a gift like this is purely for 'channelling' purposes. I am sure it has a greater use, but I haven't yet found it!

No, I don't take part in seances. The modern Spiritualist movement has banned them, although people can conduct their own private ones if they wish. Those old seances were open to fraudulent behaviour using actors, coat hanger witches and cardboard cut-outs. The modern movement won't touch them with a bargepole. All Spiritualist mediums in the UK undergo stringent training and are never let loose on the 'paying public' until they can prove that they really are using their abilities and not 'cold reading.' If anyone is suspected of it, he/she is dismissed and not allowed to practise on the platform but is advised to go back into 'circle.' The very reputation of Spiritualism depends on the quality of its mediums, and they do try to provide a good service.

That's just a potted snippet. I'm not trying to make you believe in anything, Ashles. Just answering your question. Hope I have enlightened you a little.

Patsy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Re: Forum

No, I don't take part in seances. The modern Spiritualist movement has banned them... The very reputation of Spiritualism depends on the quality of its mediums, and they do try to provide a good service.

Well, if we're going to derail the thread anyway...

I'm puzzled. What services do mediums provide besides seances?

On the original topic: couldn't they call it: "Absence Of Critical Thought For The Day"?