Over the Christmas period we watched Bill Bailey’s excellent stand-up performed in Dublin from the ‘Dandelion Mind‘ tour last year. As usual, the show was great and very entertaining – nice one, Bill!
It was all going so well. There we were, chuckling away and enjoying the show. Then, almost out of the blue, Bill begins to ridicule the ‘Doubt of St Thomas‘ which, I have to admit, was very funny. Yet… as I sat there I became aware of an uncomfortable feeling of familiarity with this kind of material. There he was, something of a hero in comedy to me, and he was quite openly ridiculing the faith of millions of Christians in an almost casual and quite un-intellectual manner.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I like a good joke as much as the next guy… and there is certainly much to poke fun at in the Christian faith, given the 2000 or so years of history you can look at. And I certainly understand that a show themed on ‘doubt’ was inevitably going to wind up with some kind of mention of religion. And yet…
Is Ridicule Appropriate?
Hmm. Yes. Ridicule is appropriate when it comes to matters of religion and faith, just as it is in any other walk of life. If we stand up and tell comedians to stop making fun of stuff then we impoverish our culture. That is not my point.
What I find uncomfortable is the very simplistic form that this ridicule takes. And it’s not just Bill.
During his performance he mentioned ‘creationists’ and characterised them as all believing in a recent formation of the Earth, something which (apparently) Darwin rather conclusively refutes. Aside from the inaccuracy of that presentation of Darwinism, which is certainly apparent to anyone who understands any of the nuance in the Theory of Evolution, what made me jiffle in my chair was the assertion, by association within the material to the stuff about Thomas, that this is the kind of stupid thing that all Christian creationists believe in… and let’s all just have a jolly good laugh at the stupid people.
Now then… it’s not just Bill.
This seems to have become the approach of many atheist comedians supported, no doubt, by the editorial position of the BBC and other television networks. This is the approach of grossly oversimplifying the debate about creation and evolution, retrenching the idea that faith and science are incompatible, and pointing and laughing at the stupid non-scientific folk who believe in this wacky stuff called religion.
Is this appropriate? Now I’m not so sure.
Black-and-White Oversimplification?
There is a great deal more sophistication in the debates that go on between religious believers and scientists. For starters, there are a great many scientists who are religious believers, and they stand alongside some greats like Kelvin, Planck and Einstein. Yet, even within the community of ‘faith-heads’ (as the great ‘Bright’ Dawkins likes to put it) there is a great continuum of belief and thought. It is not as black-and-white as many in entertainment might like to suggest.
One of the founding principles in newspaper and television journalism, as explained to me by a long-time editor of a major national many years ago, is that you have basically three kinds of people when you interview: good guys, bad guys, and the experts. It seems to me that this black-and-white, good-versus-bad approach to the relationship between science and faith is being perpetuated by the desire to create nice and simple sound-bites which, in the case of comedy, make folk laugh. That’s understandable… but it does a great disservice to the folk that are being ridiculed.
Yes, I know that many ‘fundamentalist’ religious folk DO believe in a recent-Earth theory of creation. Yes, I know that there are many Christians who consider it being faithful to the Bible to take it all literally. Yes, I know all that.
What I also know, however, is that the majority of even mildly educated and thoughtful religious believers don’t see things in quite the same black-and-white and simple terms as are often presented in Western culture today. Quite the opposite in many cases.
Let’s Not Pick On Bill
Let’s be clear: Bill Bailey is just making a cool living on stage telling funny stories and entertaining folk. No problem with that. It’s not really his fault.
The challenge, I feel, is in asking ourselves: Are the issues as black-and-white as the media likes to portray them?
I would challenge us to breakdown of the myth of science being opposed to religion. This is an oversimplification.
All that is spiritual is not irrational, and all that is scientific is not perfect. Rather, each discipline is trying to understand the universe from different perspectives… from different methodologies and approaches.
Why don’t we stop for a second and consider that in the audience of our daily lives, whether these people are stupid or wise, there are religious believers who would really rather not be misrepresented. And there are scientific believers who could do well to learn a little more about religious ideas and philosophies.
But then, I guess, we are probably just getting used to the ridicule of faith by now. It is, after all, an easy way to make folk appear stupid.
… the myth of science being opposed to religion. This is an oversimplification.
Science is not the opposite of religion but they are radically different things and science proves many claims of many religion to be wrong.
There are some questions that science cannot answer, e.g. the purpose of life, but the vast majority of questions, e.g. the age of the planet, that science can and does answer. These very different domains can happily co-exist allowing many scientists, including Darwin, to be both scientists and people of faith.
The problem arises as the evidence based approach of science expands into areas traditionally in the domain of faith.
Creation myths such as the book of Genesis were the best mankind could do up until the 1800s. Since then, numerous fields of science from astrophysics to paleontology have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is ~4 billion years old and the universe ~14 billion years old. This does not prove the non-existence of gods or an outside force in the universe’s creation but it does prove that it happen a long time ago.
Where religion is and should be ridiculed is when people fly in the face of all the evidence and deny the truth based on their own prejudices. This is no different from ridiculing climate-change deniers or ufologists or flat-earthers.
The act of ridicule is appropriate for those who believe in ridiculous things.
A more unusual viewpoint from yourself. The motivations behind this could be a great discussion in themselves.
I think that the focus of the article is wrong. While I haven’t watch this offering from Bill, the man is far too intelligent to slip into such simple comedy without a reason. There are a great variety of reasons why such a subject could be presented in such a simple, inaccurate and unchallenging way, not least of which could be the assessment that it was what the typical Bailey audience wants to hear – but when did a comedian/comediene ever admit to playing to the audience? After all modern comedy is supposed to be a reflection on life, especially the life of the comedian. Why present this subject in such a clumsy way? The simplist and most basic of comedy performances can evoke quite serious reflection on behalf of the viewers, but that needs something else.
What is important from the viewers perspective is the level of critical appraisal of the piece. Now I know that most people would not think that going to a comedy performance needs critical perspectives, but if well developed there will always be that voice in the back of your mind evaluating and valuing what you are watching. I think this is essential to comedy as some subjects need its light and bite to help people come to terms with the severity and moral or intellectual challenges these subjects present.
So for me the focus of the article shouldn’t be as much the protest that religion has been wrongly or incorrectly ridiculed, it deserves it like so much else in our lives and error can lead to truth. The focus should be, in general, have we all become less able to be critical about what is being presented to us, to assess the messages behind the words and whether they have any relevance to ourselves, and is that giving excuses to the people who present to us information on any level to be lazy, unfactual and poorly presented manner?
Mind you that this might lead onto the thought can religion stand up to too much critical reflection?
With your comment, Chris, I find myself in broad agreement – thanks for taking the time to post it.
Perhaps, in relation to Bill’s comments on “creationists” he was indeed intending to ridicule “those who believe in ridiculous things.” That being said, it would be more factually accurate of him to identify such folk not as “creationists” but as people who propose a young Earth theory. Of course, that’s not as catchy a short-hand as the one he used. 😉
One small question arises from your comment however. When you say that, “religion is and should be ridiculed is when people fly in the face of all the evidence and deny the truth based on their own prejudices,” I cannot but wonder if there is difference between truth and fact, or knowledge. Having evidence of something, factually knowing a thing, is not necessarily the same as expressing that things’ inherent truth. Truth, for me at least, implies an expression of value and not just an expression of fact. But then, that’s the philosopher in me I suppose.
And FH, sorry I was typing my last as you posted… An excellent response for us to chew over, many thanks.
I am minded to agree with the desire to ask if we are too uncritical in our acceptance of ideas as presented by entertainment media. As for your last question well, there is a whole series of posts for me to draft on the critical analysis of religious belief. Oh, for more free time! 😉
I’ve probably missed the boat on this one, but, although I have not watched the stand-up routine you refer to, I have watched tinselworm, and I’m sorry to say it, but he appears to have been just as guilty of setting up Aunt Sallys for a cheap laugh as those which you appear to have described.
Having said that I thoroughly enjoy well thought out and thought provoking comedy when it comes to religion (“Life of Brian” immediately springs to mind, or some of the truly well thought out stuff on “the Armstrong and Miller show”, e.g. 2 vampires on an Alpha course, “Rev”, of course, was brilliant).
I do, however, get tired of the sloppy stereotyping which comedy has a tendency to be prone to.
As always, usefuol stuff from Chris, and FH. Thanks, Guys.