Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 23, 2017, 08:25:15 AM
-
Interesting looking series from BBC in conjunction with the British Museum, starting this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099xhmj
-
Interesting looking series from BBC in conjunction with the British Museum, starting this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099xhmj
thanks , ill have a listen .
-
Interesting looking series from BBC in conjunction with the British Museum, starting this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099xhmj
very interesting, however I could make up a completely different story about the figure which would sound equally plausible .
-
Yes the bbc's going through a pretty severe session of fawning over religion again, more than it usually does, no doubt this is another small part of its little and often policy.
ippy
-
Yes the bbc's going through a pretty severe session of fawning over religion again, more than it usually does, no doubt this is another small part of its little and often policy.
ippy
Did you listen to the programme?
-
Did you listen to the programme?
No, nor would it have been necessary for me to do so, their system works well they've had so many years of experience, polishing up their act in this area that will and does make it almost impossible to prove anything, they have it covered, so it should be easy for you or anyone else to rubbish my coment about them fawning over religion, which no doubt you will enjoy doing, I would be more surprised if you didn't.
ippy
-
No, nor would it have been necessary for me to do so, their system works well they've had so many years of experience, polishing up their act in this area that will and does make it almost impossible to prove anything, they have it covered, so it should be easy for you or anyone else to rubbish my coment about them fawning over religion, which no doubt you will enjoy doing, I would be more surprised if you didn't.
ippy
Hmmm? maybe you should have listened to the program
-
Hmmm? maybe you should have listened to the program
When you see and get involved with the BBC, hopefully you would get the overall picture, I would agree with your view that you seem to think I should be looking at this small part of the whole, it does look like that when looking at any one small part of the BBC's output in this area.
It's a little and often and never miss with religion and largely it works.
ippy
-
I heard the programme yesterday. I shall try and hear as many as possible. Main reason is that his History of the world in 100 objects was such an absolutely superb book.
-
I heard the programme yesterday. I shall try and hear as many as possible. Main reason is that his History of the world in 100 objects was such an absolutely superb book.
an great series on the radio too
-
an great series on the radio too
Neil MacGregor has an amazing way with words, and in his previous series, was able to conjure up a vivid picture of the objects he was describing which virtually did away with the need to actually see the item. His speculations as to the objects' actual significance may have been off the mark, but I can't imagine many people around who would be more likely to give an informed viewpoint.
Likewise with the present series. His views on religious beliefs in the past may be even more speculative, but he always holds my attention.
I don't really accept the view that because one doesn't buy into any religious belief (I don't) that what has preoccupied the minds of countless millions in the past is without significance. It helps us understand where and what we are now.
-
Hmmm? maybe you should have listened to the program
[/quote
Are you by any chance American?
-
Hmmm? maybe you should have listened to the program
[/quote
Are you by any chance American?
are you by chance looking for trouble?
-
My post 7 needs to be related to my other posts on this thread.
ippy
-
are you by chance looking for trouble?
I was just looking at your spelling of the word "programme"!
-
I was just looking at your spelling of the word "programme"!
you already know I'm not so why ask again unless you have an ulterior motive
-
Neil MacGregor has an amazing way with words, and in his previous series, was able to conjure up a vivid picture of the objects he was describing which virtually did away with the need to actually see the item. His speculations as to the objects' actual significance may have been off the mark, but I can't imagine many people around who would be more likely to give an informed viewpoint.
Likewise with the present series. His views on religious beliefs in the past may be even more speculative, but he always holds my attention.
I did listen to most of it - kind of stumbled upon the programme. I agree that MacGregor is excellent as a wordsmith. That said I think there was far more speculation than could be supported by the evidence. From what I could gather we know precious little about the object or those people that made it, yet we were told a pretty complete story about both. There is a danger that we simply fill in the gaps to make the radio programme more compelling, rather than simply accept that the object is very interesting but we really don't know its significance to those that made it.
Also needs to be pointed out the the Lion man object (the topic of the first programme) that we see is based on recent reconstruction of, I think, some 200 fragments. Are we really sure that how the object was put back together reflects how it originally was - I'm not sure we can be and certainly this issue wasn't addressed at all.
I don't really accept the view that because one doesn't buy into any religious belief (I don't) that what has preoccupied the minds of countless millions in the past is without significance. It helps us understand where and what we are now.
I agree.
-
I did listen to most of it - kind of stumbled upon the programme. I agree that MacGregor is excellent as a wordsmith. That said I think there was far more speculation than could be supported by the evidence. From what I could gather we know precious little about the object or those people that made it, yet we were told a pretty complete story about both. There is a danger that we simply fill in the gaps to make the radio programme more compelling, rather than simply accept that the object is very interesting but we really don't know its significance to those that made it.
Also needs to be pointed out the the Lion man object (the topic of the first programme) that we see is based on recent reconstruction of, I think, some 200 fragments. Are we really sure that how the object was put back together reflects how it originally was - I'm not sure we can be and certainly this issue wasn't addressed at all.
I agree.
exactly prof
I had to suspend my mild outrage, The problem is ,some people listening might take it all as 'gospel'
-
exactly prof
I had to suspend my mild outrage, The problem is ,some people listening might take it all as 'gospel'
Having listened to the programme and then engaged on this thread I looked into this a bit more (but no more than looking at Wikipedia!!). Anyhow, apparently the statue has been put together, taken apart and put together again several times with significant change in its height from one 'rebuild' to the next. So clearly you can put the pieces together in a variety of ways to create distinctly different final statue forms.
In the programme there is an off-hand comment about organic material (that might be blood, although that wasn't confirmed) being found near the mouth. This was suggested to be of huge cultural significance indicating involvement of the statue in ceremonies. This seemed a massive step too far for me - even if it were deemed to be blood isn't it much more likely that this came from a minor injury from the original craftsman as he used his basic tools to create the statue, or even from one of the more recent 'rebuilders' - noting that some of the shards of ivory are likely to have been pretty sharp.
-
Having listened to the programme and then engaged on this thread I looked into this a bit more (but no more than looking at Wikipedia!!). Anyhow, apparently the statue has been put together, taken apart and put together again several times with significant change in its height from one 'rebuild' to the next. So clearly you can put the pieces together in a variety of ways to create distinctly different final statue forms.
In the programme there is an off-hand comment about organic material (that might be blood, although that wasn't confirmed) being found near the mouth. This was suggested to be of huge cultural significance indicating involvement of the statue in ceremonies. This seemed a massive step too far for me - even if it were deemed to be blood isn't it much more likely that this came from a minor injury from the original craftsman as he used his basic tools to create the statue, or even from one of the more recent 'rebuilders' - noting that some of the shards of ivory are likely to have been pretty sharp.
nothing gets past us eh prof?
-
The problem is ,some people listening might take it all as 'gospel'
Well, it never does to overestimate the critical intelligence of people - they voted in Trump in the US, and 52% of Brits voted for Brexit. I like to think that most of those who are prepared to listen to Neil MacGregor at all have probably a more developed critical intelligence than most. But perhaps even that sanguine attitude to people is just an example of 'blind faith' on my part.
-
Well said Dicky
And to be honest , I do love a drop of sangria myself 😂