I think most of you are bringing your own negative attitudes to the world to this series.

For example?

I am what could politely be considered an ardent non-believer with a general contempt for the human race but I thought the series was great.

Good for you. Glad you enjoyed it. I, and others, didn't so much.

I didn't detect any of the snideness that so many of you claim to have seen. I genuinely think you are projecting onto him your own prejudices.

I'm detached from all religious rituals. He has quite strong opinions, very often in favour of those closest to his own oeuvre, and incredulous to those that are markedly different. Hardly comparable stances, and most certainly not a case of "projection".

What's wrong with him being tolerant and 'nice'? You accuse him of being too tolerant and also not tolerant!

Nothing is wrong with him being "nice", if he was being "nice" by simply accepting their rituals as-is, whatever their form, and without deference to or comparison with his assumptions.

Would it have been more enjoyable for you if he went around converting people?

What an asinine question.

He never once hides that he is an Anglican minister which must mean he believes in something powerfully enough to have become one. Yet when he expresses that what he is seeing makes him uncomfortable you complain.

If his "something" is so powerful, then why should he even feel uncomfortable in the first place?

You seem accepting of his discomfort in the beliefs of others, yet incapable of accepting that his beliefs might make others uncomfortable. I myself don't care for his beliefs one way or another, but when he is being judgemental of others because of (rather than in spite of) his beliefs, yet refuses to consider his beliefs to the same standard, that's simply insincere duplicity.

I suppose all of you are free from any emotions or opinions in all circumstances?

Your supposition is wrong.

He isn't impartial and never claims to be. This is stated at the start of every episode.

Which hardly makes it universal television, does it? Why present ritual from around the world through the viewpoint of one with one particular niche predilection? Why not present each segment from the point of view of one of its own adherents? Or perhaps from the viewpoint of one with no preconceived biases for any of the eighty sects?

Perhaps you should try to be as understanding and open minded as he is trying to be. He isn't perfect but is doing a far better job at trying to be than any of the commenters here.

Perhaps if the programme was presented as purely an anthropological comparison of various religious ritual rather than through the narrow lens of a (admittedly, as you point out) judgemental christian we all would have learned more.

If Auntie offered to pay for me to take a year off and travel around the world meeting interesting people and observing their rituals, I can assure you that, were I to accept, I would be far more impartial.

I believe that too many of you are in love with being cynical for it's own sake, self promotion "look at me and my ever so clever sceptical view point" rather than trying to understand what you are seeing.

Believe what you like: it doesn't make it so. I would have been far happier is someone like Richard Attenborough or another without pre-existing biases had presented it. That would have made "understand[ing] what you are seeing" untainted by notional prejudices.

Just in case you didn't get the meaning of my observations — and I would like to presume those of the other commentators although they're free to correct me — it's the blatant hypocrisy that I have issue with.

What's wrong with him being tolerant and 'nice'? You accuse him of being too tolerant and also not tolerant! Would it have been more enjoyable for you if he went around converting people? He never once hides that he is an Anglican minister which must mean he believes in something powerfully enough to have become one. Yet when he expresses that what he is seeing makes him uncomfortable you complain. I suppose all of you are free from any emotions or opinions in all circumstances? He isn't impartial and never claims to be. This is stated at the start of every episode.

Perhaps you should try to be as understanding and open minded as he is trying to be. He isn't perfect but is doing a far better job at trying to be than any of the commenters here. I believe that too many of you are in love with being cynical for it's own sake, self promotion "look at me and my ever so clever sceptical view point" rather than trying to understand what you are seeing.

Such as the patron saint of patronising making his spectacularly profound discovery that nobody had sat in a couch for 2 years (in the Dalai Lama's penthouse in moscow). That was an absolute gem.

I wouldn't have been in the least bit surprised if there was a special announcement at the end of the programme, during the credits, that proclaimed "if you have been affected by the topics raised in this programme..or if you know of a couch that hasn't been sat upon for over 2 years..please call our special hotline now…where a team are ready to take your call and patronise you now" .

Or the magical moment when he touched the arm of that middle aged Russian winter swimmer when urged to join in and go for a swim? What in the name of blazes was that about? I cannot think of a more inappropriate thing to do, apart from maybe asking the gentleman to drop his swimming togs to see if he was indeed a member of the human race. As for feigning a, *cough*, chest infection, I don't think paddypower will be offering any odds when the oscars come up.

That all said, one moment that made me cackle out loud in particular, was his attempt to become the most patronising person ever, with his David Brent-esque mimicking of the Hare Krishna's dance along the streets of Moscow.

So it's worth a glance..even just for the laughs.

I agree with your earlier poster who mentioned how well the series was shot. Which is probably what makes the Jones Factor so infuriating.

Casting him in the role of intrepid faith explorer is not unlike suggesting Paris Hilton should script and present a series devoted to quantum physics.

Yes, that was a compliment (or at least it was offered as one). :-)

In brief, it was about as enlightening as a soggy biscuit.

Somebody really needs to take the same premise and do it properly. If I was in charge of the license fee coffers, I would nominate Hitchens and Dawkins to travel across the globe and do it properly.

There are two moments in Friday nights episode that had me apoplectic…one was the scene in Russia where they "covered" Atheism. Just off the Red Square in Moscow, Jones shared a coffee with a Russian atheist who was doing his best to explain to Jones why so many churches had sprung up in Russia since the fall of communism. Jones couldn't contain his blinkered and short sighted glee over that fact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/80faiths/locations/europe.sh...

The Russian chap was doing his best to explain that under communism, Russian people had very strict boundaries, rules and regulations they had to abide by…for generations. They were groomed not to question anything. If they did, they would be punished. Now that communism was gone, Russians turning to religion was simply the replacement of one regime with another rather than the miraculous awakening Jones blubbered on about, in one of his many irritating asides to camera. I was shocked he didn't break into "Religion rules the Waves" to the tune of Rule Brittania.

Another teeth grinding moment when he was with a curious cult/group/faith in Italy called The Damanhur Experiment (there's a clip here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/80faiths/locations/europe.sh... and they generously showed him their stunning temple, which included a massive hall surrounded by little alcoves containging a stained glass depictiion of all the main world religions…from christianity to buddhism. In one of his annoying asides to camera, he noted how uncomfortable he felt that his religion was just one of many many other religions depicted in this hall. At that moment, I thought.."at last…the penny's dropped"….but no..he went on waxing lyrical about something else and the whole jaw-droppingly obvious point to the whole premise was lost.

If there was a nobel prize for irony, Jones would be a shoo in for a nomination.

To put it into context….it would be a bit like Darwin going to the galapagos, being surrounded by all these curious yet familiar creatures and turning to camera and saying…"hmm…that's interesting…now…I wonder what's for tea?" Or David Attenborough…in the midst of the jungle, surrounded by Orangutangs in their natural habitat, turning to camera and saying "I used to have a teddy bear, just like that when I was a boy"!.

The cognitive dissonance of the man is a wonder to behold.

I'll catch the whole thing later on iPlayer. It does make me wonder why do I put myself through this nonsense, though.

I'm not sure what's going on with the site to crash FF and IE (FF/Mac works for me, although I usually use Safari/Mac without issue). If you could let me know a bit more about what happens to you when you use those browsers, I might be able to help.

I hope it's not the IntenseDebate plugin, I really like this system…

Great review though.