Thanks. I was happy with how the little aprons came out.
And yes, that is a Rubik's cube. If he existed, I think that's how he'd be spending his eternity, rather than, oh, alleviating human suffering or some such trifle.
What I meant to say was, for someone who doesn't believe in a god, you certainly seem to have strong and developed views about what a god should be like, and I find that a little curious.
Although not a highly religious person, I find atheism excruciatingly dogmatic and political, and could compare some atheists to reformed smokers who won't stop harping on at everyone now that they've kicked the habit. At least in their case they can point to evidence that smoking kills people, though.
I'm inclined not to see god as some crusty old guy talking out of a cloud anyway, so maybe should pick up a few tenets of Buddhism, that prominent non-deity religion.
As a formerly religious person, I can assure you that I have no small experience in the kinds of claims made by theists about their chosen deity.
For your part, what does it mean when you hang out on blogs whose tone you find excruciating? The internet is a big place. Why don't you exercise your masochism somewhere else, instead of telling other people what they should write about?
That's a little harsh Daniel, although I'm happy to get off your blog from now on; but I note you run an open forum.
Funnily enough I read and comment on a number of blogs (as many post grad students do between thesis work)and originally found your blog out of an interest in linguistics: upon which I can say your views are intelligent and insightful.
On the religion front, I got caught up about twelve months ago addressing my lazy postmodern agnosticism (ie "What do I really think about religion, now that I'm a grown up, educated person?"). As distinct from some of your readers, I never came from a dogmatic religious background, and would perhaps recommend an outreach group for people who are exiting such environments, run by professional counsellors (perhaps you are already involved in running one, if not, you certainly should be?) The whole point is to walk away with an absolute clear choice about what a person believes in, folly-ridden or otherwise. I'm a pro bono director of a (non-religious) drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, so I know a little bit about rehabilitation from serious addiction. I should add that the current view in rehab is that religion does not assist drug and alcohol rehabilitation per se, so, for example, AA and NA use a little weakened religious/philosophical thought to help their members recover on a daily basis. But there is no actual religion in it. (Some people do find religion helpful, though, I acknowledge this).
So, getting back to my earlier point, I looked at my lazy agnosticism and frankly came to the view that some of the most vocal atheists are full of venom – I think PZ Myers is just railling and railling (you start to wonder what his psychoanalitic issues must be), similarly, James Randi: what a nutter. I also came to the view that some of the great scientific intellects (like Stephen Hawkings) still don't have the authority to say they can prove (in his case) there is no god in the universe, much as I admire the man's intellect, I don't think he does get there, if you read him: pure hubris ("God complex?")
I keep thinking that for all its faults in its manifestations in the real world (we could go to town on them) the one thing religion does is that it provides a sense of "connectedness", in its most essential and raw form. It connects people together within a greater frame of existence. If you strip back the history of religion, the whole several thousand years of it within the human imagination, you can see that it is a story (told through bibles, folk tales, poetry etc) of human beings trying to get a sense of the commonality of human experience, and maybe just hoping/imagining that we belong to something greater than ourselves. I don't claim any originality in these ideas: they preoccupied 20th Century literature.
So, the question is, if you strip back humanity to this most essential level, what do you get? And do you have so much cause to be antagonistic?
I've only just found your blog and have been reading posts as I have the time. I used to attend an institute class you taught at UWA.
I really enjoy you're blogs because they don't seem to have the "excruciatingly dogmatic and political (tone of other atheist/agnostic/ex-mormon blogs), and could compare some atheist (agnostic/ex-mormon blog)s to reformed smokers who won't stop harping on at everyone now that they've kicked the habit" as Jev also seems to have noticed.
I liked Jev's description of himself as a "Lazy Agnostic". I have taken to describing myself (privately so far) as a "Hopeful Agnostic" but think the lazy tag probably applies equally to me as well. I differ from Jev in that I come from the Mormon backround, rather than the non-religious background.
I was just a little surprised that Jev's comment about not believing in God but having strong ideas about what God should be like got under your skin like it seemed to.
Anyway, I'm new to reading blogs, particularly anti/ex-mormon/religious ones. Like I said, most I can't bear, but I really enjoy yours, so please keep them coming.
Now, having written all that, let me see if I can work out how to post it.
21 January 2011 at 7:10 am
Those little green skirts (aprons) in the prayer circle are adorable! …on cartoon figures that is, NOT in real life.
21 January 2011 at 7:11 am
Is God playing with a Rubix cube?
21 January 2011 at 8:46 am
Thanks. I was happy with how the little aprons came out.
And yes, that is a Rubik's cube. If he existed, I think that's how he'd be spending his eternity, rather than, oh, alleviating human suffering or some such trifle.
21 January 2011 at 5:18 pm
Your expectations of your "pretend-God" seem curiously high…
22 January 2011 at 4:02 am
Since pretend people can't do anything, yes, I suppose you're right.
But if this god were real, then he would appear to show a curious lack of interest in human well-being.
22 January 2011 at 9:18 am
What I meant to say was, for someone who doesn't believe in a god, you certainly seem to have strong and developed views about what a god should be like, and I find that a little curious.
Although not a highly religious person, I find atheism excruciatingly dogmatic and political, and could compare some atheists to reformed smokers who won't stop harping on at everyone now that they've kicked the habit. At least in their case they can point to evidence that smoking kills people, though.
I'm inclined not to see god as some crusty old guy talking out of a cloud anyway, so maybe should pick up a few tenets of Buddhism, that prominent non-deity religion.
22 January 2011 at 12:26 pm
As a formerly religious person, I can assure you that I have no small experience in the kinds of claims made by theists about their chosen deity.
For your part, what does it mean when you hang out on blogs whose tone you find excruciating? The internet is a big place. Why don't you exercise your masochism somewhere else, instead of telling other people what they should write about?
3 February 2011 at 2:26 pm
That's a little harsh Daniel, although I'm happy to get off your blog from now on; but I note you run an open forum.
Funnily enough I read and comment on a number of blogs (as many post grad students do between thesis work)and originally found your blog out of an interest in linguistics: upon which I can say your views are intelligent and insightful.
On the religion front, I got caught up about twelve months ago addressing my lazy postmodern agnosticism (ie "What do I really think about religion, now that I'm a grown up, educated person?"). As distinct from some of your readers, I never came from a dogmatic religious background, and would perhaps recommend an outreach group for people who are exiting such environments, run by professional counsellors (perhaps you are already involved in running one, if not, you certainly should be?) The whole point is to walk away with an absolute clear choice about what a person believes in, folly-ridden or otherwise. I'm a pro bono director of a (non-religious) drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, so I know a little bit about rehabilitation from serious addiction. I should add that the current view in rehab is that religion does not assist drug and alcohol rehabilitation per se, so, for example, AA and NA use a little weakened religious/philosophical thought to help their members recover on a daily basis. But there is no actual religion in it. (Some people do find religion helpful, though, I acknowledge this).
So, getting back to my earlier point, I looked at my lazy agnosticism and frankly came to the view that some of the most vocal atheists are full of venom – I think PZ Myers is just railling and railling (you start to wonder what his psychoanalitic issues must be), similarly, James Randi: what a nutter. I also came to the view that some of the great scientific intellects (like Stephen Hawkings) still don't have the authority to say they can prove (in his case) there is no god in the universe, much as I admire the man's intellect, I don't think he does get there, if you read him: pure hubris ("God complex?")
I keep thinking that for all its faults in its manifestations in the real world (we could go to town on them) the one thing religion does is that it provides a sense of "connectedness", in its most essential and raw form. It connects people together within a greater frame of existence. If you strip back the history of religion, the whole several thousand years of it within the human imagination, you can see that it is a story (told through bibles, folk tales, poetry etc) of human beings trying to get a sense of the commonality of human experience, and maybe just hoping/imagining that we belong to something greater than ourselves. I don't claim any originality in these ideas: they preoccupied 20th Century literature.
So, the question is, if you strip back humanity to this most essential level, what do you get? And do you have so much cause to be antagonistic?
6 August 2011 at 7:30 am
Hi Daniel
I've only just found your blog and have been reading posts as I have the time. I used to attend an institute class you taught at UWA.
I really enjoy you're blogs because they don't seem to have the "excruciatingly dogmatic and political (tone of other atheist/agnostic/ex-mormon blogs), and could compare some atheist (agnostic/ex-mormon blog)s to reformed smokers who won't stop harping on at everyone now that they've kicked the habit" as Jev also seems to have noticed.
I liked Jev's description of himself as a "Lazy Agnostic". I have taken to describing myself (privately so far) as a "Hopeful Agnostic" but think the lazy tag probably applies equally to me as well. I differ from Jev in that I come from the Mormon backround, rather than the non-religious background.
I was just a little surprised that Jev's comment about not believing in God but having strong ideas about what God should be like got under your skin like it seemed to.
Anyway, I'm new to reading blogs, particularly anti/ex-mormon/religious ones. Like I said, most I can't bear, but I really enjoy yours, so please keep them coming.
Now, having written all that, let me see if I can work out how to post it.