Reformation of Manners

OK, so the title is just what I happen to be revising at the moment. Technically, I think my SROM revision is done, but I would probably get some odd comments if I labelled this post ‘Infanticide’ since that is what I’m currently revising. The blog has been ‘down’ for a few days due to vital revision/procrastination activities (and hangovers), but I’m going to endeavor to post something different, exciting and new as often as possible throughout the next few weeks of exams.

Exciting thing 1: New Union building plans discussed at Student Council. Given that I tend to like a fight, I was surprised that there didn’t seem to be anyone representing the 2,000 strong OUTRAGE contingent. There was almost a mature and sensible debate going on, and a general lack of OUTRAGE. This pleased me because although OUTRAGE sounds funny, it can be quite trying on the nerves to be in the company of a lot of people suffering from OUTRAGE. I can only presume that OUTRAGE at the Union plans only went as far as Facebook, which is almost as ironic/oxymoronic as the comment along the lines that many people were ‘actively protesting on Facebook.’ Presumably, since I last read the dictionary, the new definition of OUTRAGE is ’setting up a Facebook group with the word OUTRAGE in the title.’ Of course, this is not to say that Facebook cannot contribute to any form of debate/discussion/development of the plans (or any other issue for that matter), simply that a group with OUTRAGE in the title which contained a letter which conflated homosexuality and building plans maybe is not making such a constructive contribution to the process. Homosexual architecture fetishists must have been happy with that.

Exciting thing 2: Xpress Speech handover meeting yesterday. For no good reason, I’m going to write this in the style of the chapter headings in the Moist von Lipwig Discworld books by Terry Pratchett:

Plans to book Richard Wilson (English lecturer, apparently some sort of God) for radio show (TO BE CONFIRMED) — the many ways to outwit security and gain access to the studio at weekends considered — no swearing — a big bag of scripts — the curse of the soap — technical hitches and their manifold joys –producers and the usefulness of — ‘is it a lemon or an orange?’ — formal forms are formulated — the library and its stultifying dullness — delegation and its benefits — disadvantages with being one person and not two — the Quiz.

Exciting thing number three – New Doctor Who Box Set in my possession. Featuring: Sontarans in the following: The Time Warrior (classic), Sontaran Experiment (classic), Invasion of Time (less classic), The Two Doctors (classic, ish). I should clarify, in my possession indicates that I have purchased said item and not that it fell into my hands by some nefarious process.

Incidentally, due to this new purchase, I am currently selling my existing (good as new) DVD copy of The Two Doctors for £15 of your English pounds (RRP in HMV: £20). Its a two disc set and has only been viewed once. Get in touch if you’re interested.

Exciting thing number four: It has occurred to me that the IF (Interesting Fact) scale which was formulated last month has been superseded by the Exciting Thing scale (or ET scale, if you prefer). In future posts, I will of course make it clear which scale I am employing on an appropriate and intersubjective basis with the possibility of developing a rational consensus model of truth statements which can be logically proved or disproved in order to make an appropriate selection between ET and IF scales. This will be clarified at a later point.

That seems to be about all the IF/ETs I have to share at the moment, so until the next time,

Byee!

Atheism, Religion, Dawkins

I would dearly like to respect Professor Richard Dawkins. As a fellow atheist at least. Yet why, why is it, whenever I hear him on the radio or read anything by him, I feel the perverse urge to go sign up with the nearest recruiting religious sect? Its lucky his appearance on the Today programme this morning didn’t coincide with the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses on my doorstep, otherwise I might have done something which I would now regret.

For those of you who thought you might be spared my unnecessary and pointless attack on Prof. Dawkins, skip a couple of paragraphs (probably only one, to be honest, I may forget to paginate, let alone punctuation once I’m in full flow). Dawkins was on the Today programme to provide his usual uber-mcAtheist attack on religion after Cardinal O’Connor (chief Catholic of Britain) had suggested that Britain should not become a ‘God-Free’ zone. My main objection to Dawkin’s particular brand of ethical/scientific universalism in this instance is not, however, my usual array of hippie subjectivism.

Dawkins began by attacking the interviewing style of John Humphries and the Today team, for being ‘too soft’ on clergymen, suggesting that all an interviewee had to do to get an easy time was say ‘I’m a clergyman’. This was firstly not entirely (i.e. not at all) relevant to the issue of faith in Britain which had originally been raised in O’Connor’s speech. However, Dawkins persisted in devoting the rest of his interview to this subject. Humphries’ defence that when discussing religion, a matter of faith could not be interrogated to the same extent as, say, a politicians view on the economy, was rebuked by an increasingly outraged Dawkins.

Firstly, I learnt nothing about the good Proffessor’s view on religion in Britain. Secondly, his bull-in-a-china-shop tabloid selling approach to matters of conscience arguably does more to damage the positive aspects of atheism. Thirdly, and ironically, since he avoided answering the question on faith in Britain, are we to presume that he considers himself such a ‘clergyman’ at the grand church of atheism. High priest maybe, or master of ceremonies?

I feel this links into a deeper point about Dawkins’ atheism. In attacking all religion as unjustifiable superstition, he implicitly posits scientific, rational atheism as a similar creed to religious belief and observation. His view that religious belief is a form of deviant or delusionary behaviour (though apparently necessarily biological in origin) smacks to me of the sort of arguments used by all sorts of religious fundamentalists. I believe that more radical adherents to the Christian Gospels, the Koran or the Torah all suggest that theirs is the one and only and true truth. Why should we consider Dawkins’ evolutionary ’science’ as any more of a story. Certainly, it is couched in modern terms of objectivism and science which sit uncomfortably alongside the narratives of faith, trial and belief which abound in more traditional religious texts, but equally, in its radical unthinking rejection of alternative accounts of belief, there is arguably certainly a parallel. 

It could be countered that the grounds of proof of religion and science are at odds with each other. This is arguable, however, only to the extent that one privileges one discourse over another. The grounds of proof are different, but since their teleology – universal proof of given laws and norms – is the same, arguably the parallel still stands. Furthermore, Dawkins’ unwillingness to even take a position on the issue of faith in Britain (on this occasion at least) suggests that he is more than aware of the act of faith at the heart of his apparently so rational, objective and scientific atheism.

Anyone please feel free to comment on the half-baked couple of hundred words above,

Byyeeeee! 

Inspiration, lack of

Energy, drive, fire, excitement, inspiration, electification…

These are all lacking at the moment. On the other hand, I feel the pressing need to rant about a next door neighbour who seems to think that 7:30 am is a perfectly respectable time to start up his chainsaw and make godawful DIY noises. It seems I am the only one who is affected though since the road is full of old people and I was most surprised to find when I crawled downstairs after said disturbance (on a SUNDAY MORNING of all times, is nothing sacred?!) to find that everyone – and yes, literally everyone – was either already up and out or doing things. It made me wonder if old people – and the people round here are old, imagine a donkey-cart load of old and add another few lumps of old and that’s still not even close sort of old – are basically giant larks, and have to get up with the daylight? Further research might be necessary on that one…

Inspiration is needed because I’ve singularly failed over the last week or so to regularly use this blog, meaning its basically just sat around on the internet taking up bandwidths (and don’t tell me I don’t know my technical stuff, that’s what internets does – takes up bandwidths, innit?)* However, being sprawled in a prone position on the remnants of a sofabed probably isn’t the best position from which to inspire, or respire for that matter…

That’s better. Now on with revision or buy an icecream…

Inspiration can wait till later I think.

Byee!

 

*And no comments about the quality of my English either.

A fourth post, musings on the Priesthood

I reckon I’d make a great Vicar, possibly a Catholic one. This idea occurred to me while I was procrastinating and avoiding the many grimly stressful activities which life has thrown at me (well, one essay, but I feel the need to moan). Now, before anyone runs screaming in horror at the thought of me in a long white dress…

Sorry, lost my track in transgender fantasy there.

First and foremost, most priests are single. Check. Secondly, RC priests have to be celibate. Check. Thirdly, they get to make speeches telling people what to think (I don’t want any of that “moral and spiritual guidance stuff”). Check. Fourthly, I like Gothic architecture. Plenty of opportunities for that. Fifthly, it seems a belief in some eternal and ineffable deity is required.

Hmm… Looks like maybe the established religions might not be such a good bet…

Anyone know about any Foucaultian sects who promote an agnostic/atheistic agenda, advocating an undefined and reflexively contextually justified form of spiritual knowledge, whilst refuting the potentiality for grand, over-arching metanarratives, such as those found in pretty much every global religion currently established? (Basically, a church where belief isn’t compulsory, and is always reflexively ironistic).

No, thought not. Back to the sodomy essay it is then.

In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost,

Byeee!