Infinite Monkey Business
May. 18th, 2012 03:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinLast Christmas there was an episode of The Infinite Monkey Cage that really bothered me, and I couldn't quite figure out why. Well, I knew what triggered it: Mark Gatiss was on as one of the guests, and he brought his delightful mix of wry humour and dark fantasy, but it seemed to me that when he played either of these cards, they shut him down. In listening to it again, it's not quite as obvious as it was the first time, and perhaps it is a fault of the final edit or my reading too much into it, but my first impression was very definitely that it went like this:
I quite like The Infinite Monkey Cage. It's an occasional series on Radio 4 that serves science and comedy like bangers and mash. I love science, and I love comedy! It's a great match! Its hosts are a particle physicist* and the comedian who delivers my very favourite bit ever done on the ignorance of the creationist/intelligent design crowd. It brings on interesting ideas and interesting guests. Obviously TIMC has a heavy atheist bent but that's fine; 90% of my friends are atheist or agnostic and I don't believe that's a coincidence.** That is not what bothers me – what bothers me is the belittling way they dismiss anything ... else. It wasn't just that it was Mark Gatiss they were dismissing (though that was part of it, I'll admit), but the coldness of their reaction to his bit of fun. It is a science show and they don't have time to get into the unscientific – there is a running thing about avoiding philosophy – but a bit of banter harking to the tropes of sci-fi, a genre which at its best is about the interplay of science and philosophy, is that so bad that you can't even run with it a little? Why even bring Mark Gatiss on the show if you recoil from the slightest glimpse of imagination?
*to whom I do a terrible disservice in that comic; he's actually the one who delivers the technical information about teleporting, but I went for a cheap parroting of Alistair McGowan's impression of him on The Now Show. I haven't even seen the show where he allegedly goes on about how amaaazing the universe is!
**I mean, not in a 'divine plan' kind of way, namely that I find the company of such people vastly preferable to the alternative, in general
It's the internal inconsistency of it that most grates: if you're going to be a humanist, secular or otherwise, then appreciation of the greatness of humanity (or its potential, anyway) is fundamental. While humans have achieved really astounding things in the sciences, isn't it remarkable, isn't it staggering that evolution has provided us with such powerful observational and analytical brains, which can handle not only empirical physical data (as one would expect from any sufficiently advanced social carnivore) but which can expound on ideas that can only ever exist in the abstract? We can shift gears in an instant from discussing the life cycle of frogs to the emotional and social implications of being green. And then write a song about it! We can invent people, events, entire worlds that never existed, that never could exist – not only that, but we can layer those stories with enough symbolic meaning that they go beyond mere invented scenarios and explore the questions of existence. Isn't it mind-blowing that we ask questions about existence at all? Why limit the awesomeness of life, the universe, and everything to what can be measured in a lab?
It's a science show, not a philosophy show, I get it; the collection of subjects nebulously categorized as 'philosophy' can be a quagmire once you get into it, and there are only 28 minutes available to get across a lot of complicated ideas and witty gags. But there's a way to say 'we need to stay on subject' that does not come across as a contemptuous 'what the hell are you going on about?'
Perhaps it wouldn't have bothered me so much if it weren't that the central conceit of the show was predicated on a belief in Santa Claus, and playfully exploring the science that would have to come into play when the myth is taken as fact. This may not be the fault of the show's creators – I am perfectly willing to believe the BBC directors said something along the lines of 'feel free to abuse religion all you want, just don't tell the kiddies Santa isn't real, or we'll never see the end of the angry letters!' All the same, it does set up a sort of double standard: the practicalities of supersonic reindeer and a jolly old immortal arbiter of morality are perfectly valid topics of conversation, but mucking about with the idea of a perfect copy of someone being changed in an unquantifiable way is not.
On a macro level, it was an enormous relief to hear people who are firmly on one side of a very polarising debate be confident enough to stride boldly through the middle ground: Yes, say the word 'Christmas'! Have a holiday with your family, and a feast, and presents; wish your neighbours well; it doesn't make you less of an upstanding secular humanist to sacrifice your culture, your children's happiness, and your own emotional fulfillment just to make a point. But if you're going to define yourself by scoffing at people who believe in a beardy man in the sky who will grant their wishes if they're good, then you have to give up Santa Claus. By all means celebrate Christmas – Christmas is a lovely holiday and most of the traditions associated with it have nothing to do with Christianity anyway. But don't go preaching the good news of rational secular materialism and then perpetuate the demonstrably preposterous myth of an immortal airborne omniscient benefactor unless you're comfortable being labelled a hypocrite.
That's the rant I wanted to have back when the show aired, but I was too busy to write it down. Luckily, in the midst of my stewing at the time, a song I'd recently heard popped into my head, and I was mystified why I should be thinking of it until I actually listened to the lyrics, and realised they summed up my feelings on the matter more simply and beautifully than any rant could:
I quite like The Infinite Monkey Cage. It's an occasional series on Radio 4 that serves science and comedy like bangers and mash. I love science, and I love comedy! It's a great match! Its hosts are a particle physicist* and the comedian who delivers my very favourite bit ever done on the ignorance of the creationist/intelligent design crowd. It brings on interesting ideas and interesting guests. Obviously TIMC has a heavy atheist bent but that's fine; 90% of my friends are atheist or agnostic and I don't believe that's a coincidence.** That is not what bothers me – what bothers me is the belittling way they dismiss anything ... else. It wasn't just that it was Mark Gatiss they were dismissing (though that was part of it, I'll admit), but the coldness of their reaction to his bit of fun. It is a science show and they don't have time to get into the unscientific – there is a running thing about avoiding philosophy – but a bit of banter harking to the tropes of sci-fi, a genre which at its best is about the interplay of science and philosophy, is that so bad that you can't even run with it a little? Why even bring Mark Gatiss on the show if you recoil from the slightest glimpse of imagination?
*to whom I do a terrible disservice in that comic; he's actually the one who delivers the technical information about teleporting, but I went for a cheap parroting of Alistair McGowan's impression of him on The Now Show. I haven't even seen the show where he allegedly goes on about how amaaazing the universe is!
**I mean, not in a 'divine plan' kind of way, namely that I find the company of such people vastly preferable to the alternative, in general
It's the internal inconsistency of it that most grates: if you're going to be a humanist, secular or otherwise, then appreciation of the greatness of humanity (or its potential, anyway) is fundamental. While humans have achieved really astounding things in the sciences, isn't it remarkable, isn't it staggering that evolution has provided us with such powerful observational and analytical brains, which can handle not only empirical physical data (as one would expect from any sufficiently advanced social carnivore) but which can expound on ideas that can only ever exist in the abstract? We can shift gears in an instant from discussing the life cycle of frogs to the emotional and social implications of being green. And then write a song about it! We can invent people, events, entire worlds that never existed, that never could exist – not only that, but we can layer those stories with enough symbolic meaning that they go beyond mere invented scenarios and explore the questions of existence. Isn't it mind-blowing that we ask questions about existence at all? Why limit the awesomeness of life, the universe, and everything to what can be measured in a lab?
It's a science show, not a philosophy show, I get it; the collection of subjects nebulously categorized as 'philosophy' can be a quagmire once you get into it, and there are only 28 minutes available to get across a lot of complicated ideas and witty gags. But there's a way to say 'we need to stay on subject' that does not come across as a contemptuous 'what the hell are you going on about?'
Perhaps it wouldn't have bothered me so much if it weren't that the central conceit of the show was predicated on a belief in Santa Claus, and playfully exploring the science that would have to come into play when the myth is taken as fact. This may not be the fault of the show's creators – I am perfectly willing to believe the BBC directors said something along the lines of 'feel free to abuse religion all you want, just don't tell the kiddies Santa isn't real, or we'll never see the end of the angry letters!' All the same, it does set up a sort of double standard: the practicalities of supersonic reindeer and a jolly old immortal arbiter of morality are perfectly valid topics of conversation, but mucking about with the idea of a perfect copy of someone being changed in an unquantifiable way is not.
On a macro level, it was an enormous relief to hear people who are firmly on one side of a very polarising debate be confident enough to stride boldly through the middle ground: Yes, say the word 'Christmas'! Have a holiday with your family, and a feast, and presents; wish your neighbours well; it doesn't make you less of an upstanding secular humanist to sacrifice your culture, your children's happiness, and your own emotional fulfillment just to make a point. But if you're going to define yourself by scoffing at people who believe in a beardy man in the sky who will grant their wishes if they're good, then you have to give up Santa Claus. By all means celebrate Christmas – Christmas is a lovely holiday and most of the traditions associated with it have nothing to do with Christianity anyway. But don't go preaching the good news of rational secular materialism and then perpetuate the demonstrably preposterous myth of an immortal airborne omniscient benefactor unless you're comfortable being labelled a hypocrite.
That's the rant I wanted to have back when the show aired, but I was too busy to write it down. Luckily, in the midst of my stewing at the time, a song I'd recently heard popped into my head, and I was mystified why I should be thinking of it until I actually listened to the lyrics, and realised they summed up my feelings on the matter more simply and beautifully than any rant could:
