Sometimes there's a problem with a religion where you make it up as you go along, feelings are treated with respect, wishful thinking counts as much as dogma or logic and you daren't give offence.
And that is that, no matter what someone comes up with, you can't come up with a knock-down reason why what they're saying is tripe.
Take this evening. One of the more bookish of the Moon Gibbon folk noticed that today is Severus Snape's birthday. For those of my gentle readers, whose evangelical sympathy would mean they have never opened the deeply-suspect covers of the Harry Potter series, I should explain that Snape is a deep and complex character, a man of many sides and - at the last - a great hero. But he has a sinister and austere side to him, as befits a member of Slytherin. Combining this with the evident fact that it's full moon, a whole new and scary mythological conjunction has arisen.
The Moon Gibbon people have decided that, when it's Severus Snape's birthday of a full moon, Snape redivius haunts the land, savaging those muggles that have not held fast to the old true Gibbon Moon faith. But the Moon Gibbon people are a fundamentalist and basically pessimistic people, constantly convinced that they have failed the Gibbon himself - not least because they have no idea what his requirements actually are. They should be out joining with us howling at the moon - instead they've broken for cover early this evening and are lurking in the spinney calling for the mountains to fall on them before they receive the lash of Snape's satirical tongue. It's gonna be a long night.
(For the calendrical liturgists among you, I'm sure you'll be interested to know that, given Snape's birthday only rarely coincides with the full moon, on other years the Gibbon Folk plan to move it to the first Saturday between Snape's Day and the nearest Full Moon. That means they can have the whole of Sunday to get over being terrified to death by an angry wizard in league with a giant lunar primate. If any of this makes any sense, you may like to consider starting your own religion).
Monday, 9 January 2012
Burn Down All the Forests
With a doff of the pointy archdruidical hat to Doug Chaplin (albeit on Twitter) for bringing this to my attention).
The BBC tells us that, thanks to CO2 emissions, the next ice age (which was due to being in about 1,500 years) will now be postponed.
This throws climate scientists who believe in warming (the majority) and those who deny (a few, and a lot of bloggers and people in bars) into a quandary.
Because a climate-change sceptic can't argue that we should keep on generating CO2 to stave off an ice-age, if they deny that producing the gas has any effect on the climate.
On the other hand, if you're one of the ones who say we should reduce carbon emissions to prevent global warming, but preventing global warming lets in an Ice Age in 1,500 years by the back door - then by how much should we reduce emissions safely? Do we try to reduce emissions to save the people of the next century, and hope the people of the next millennium will be able to help themselves?
It's really very hard to know what to do. It seems that if we take one path, this is it - we're all going to die.
Whereas if we take the other - then this is it, we're all going to die.
I've a sneaky feeling that religion got there before science on this one, with the very sane conclusion that we are all, indeed, going to die. But don't burn down the forests really - it's a silly idea but a catchy title.
The BBC tells us that, thanks to CO2 emissions, the next ice age (which was due to being in about 1,500 years) will now be postponed.
This throws climate scientists who believe in warming (the majority) and those who deny (a few, and a lot of bloggers and people in bars) into a quandary.
Because a climate-change sceptic can't argue that we should keep on generating CO2 to stave off an ice-age, if they deny that producing the gas has any effect on the climate.
On the other hand, if you're one of the ones who say we should reduce carbon emissions to prevent global warming, but preventing global warming lets in an Ice Age in 1,500 years by the back door - then by how much should we reduce emissions safely? Do we try to reduce emissions to save the people of the next century, and hope the people of the next millennium will be able to help themselves?
It's really very hard to know what to do. It seems that if we take one path, this is it - we're all going to die.
Whereas if we take the other - then this is it, we're all going to die.
I've a sneaky feeling that religion got there before science on this one, with the very sane conclusion that we are all, indeed, going to die. But don't burn down the forests really - it's a silly idea but a catchy title.
Migration Watch
I'm not going to beat about the bush. Burton Dasset is feeling most let down over his membership of Migration Watch.
Six months he's been a member, and not one field trip. Still, he's just heard about the publication of the report "Them Poles, coming over here taking Our Jobs", as I believe it's called. And now he understands why they lost interest in the "winter visitor" he phoned them to report, when he explained it was an unusual species of tern.
I notice that Migration Watch describes itself as "non-political". Off-hand, I can't understand how an organisation that counts incoming foreigners and reports that they're taking the natives' jobs is non-political, but I've obviously not thought deeply enough about the matter.
Sunday, 8 January 2012
Transferring the Nativity of David Bowie
Please note we'll be translating the Nativity of David Bowie as this year it clashes with the Nativity of Elvis Presley. Shame really. I was looking forward to celebrating Bowie's birthday, but now I'm all shook up.
A New Retention Myth
In contrast to the old, clearly-made-up Retention Myth I would like to propose the following:
People remember 55% of things they warmly agree with.
81% of the bits they violently disagree with (of which they remember about 5% accurately)
And 42% of sitting around feeling in a comfortable and safe place.
4% of what they read on notice sheets
9% of what they subsequently hear when someone reads all through the notice sheet again for them
1% of the things on a notice board
Yet, mysteriously, 75% of urban myths
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Getting your sermon priorities right
It is said that people remember 10% of what they hear, 20% of what they see, 30% of what they do... presumably up to 100% of what they eat.
I've never seen any real research behind this claim, no trainer has ever cited his or her references to me (but see the link below), and my guess is it's codswallop, like the claim that the Americans spent millions on a space pen while the Russians just used a pencil. Burton Dasset once heard a trainer claim that the Beagle II mission was a masterpiece of project management, so that just goes to show the rubbish that people can say when power-crazed and drunk with the smell of dry-wipe marker pens.
But the claim I mentioned - the so-called "Retention Myth" - has infected the way that Beaker People engage in what more traditional, or - as you might say - "square" - churches would call "preaching".
For myself, the assumption that most people aren't paying much attention to sermons (see Burton's post from earlier today) is backed up by a natural inclination to avoid any firm doctrine in case it causes an argument. So I find it best to read spiritual-sounded verses from the Metaphysical Poets while playing a little light Enya, to the accompaniment of some vanilla-scented candles. People always say "nice sermon, Archdruid", and never feel the need to argue with my model of realised eschatology (which is just as well, as my model of realised eschatology is made of old matchsticks and wood glue).
Hnaef has bought into some of the verbal vs visual theories, so he occasionally preaches while riding a unicycle round the Moot House. I'm not saying anyone is any better-informed, but the time he did it while juggling with chain-saws, people certainly gave him 100% of their attention. And many came close to having their lives radically changed.
The other trendy sermon technique we like to use is to split people up into small groups and share their thoughts, and then get one person - the "rapporteur" is one term, although we prefer "show-off" - to summarise the group's findings to the Beaker People in plenum. We have noticed the tendency that this has to show up unusual heresies, and we treasure it as a way of developing some new ones.
Drayton, of course, when preaching over at the Funambulist Baptists, sticks rigidly to the belief that Jesus would only approve of sermons preached by a bloke in a suit. His sermons can occasionally last for an hour at a time, I am told - but if they are any longer than that, they have a break so his congregation can change ends at half time.
I've never seen any real research behind this claim, no trainer has ever cited his or her references to me (but see the link below), and my guess is it's codswallop, like the claim that the Americans spent millions on a space pen while the Russians just used a pencil. Burton Dasset once heard a trainer claim that the Beagle II mission was a masterpiece of project management, so that just goes to show the rubbish that people can say when power-crazed and drunk with the smell of dry-wipe marker pens.
But the claim I mentioned - the so-called "Retention Myth" - has infected the way that Beaker People engage in what more traditional, or - as you might say - "square" - churches would call "preaching".
For myself, the assumption that most people aren't paying much attention to sermons (see Burton's post from earlier today) is backed up by a natural inclination to avoid any firm doctrine in case it causes an argument. So I find it best to read spiritual-sounded verses from the Metaphysical Poets while playing a little light Enya, to the accompaniment of some vanilla-scented candles. People always say "nice sermon, Archdruid", and never feel the need to argue with my model of realised eschatology (which is just as well, as my model of realised eschatology is made of old matchsticks and wood glue).
Hnaef has bought into some of the verbal vs visual theories, so he occasionally preaches while riding a unicycle round the Moot House. I'm not saying anyone is any better-informed, but the time he did it while juggling with chain-saws, people certainly gave him 100% of their attention. And many came close to having their lives radically changed.
The other trendy sermon technique we like to use is to split people up into small groups and share their thoughts, and then get one person - the "rapporteur" is one term, although we prefer "show-off" - to summarise the group's findings to the Beaker People in plenum. We have noticed the tendency that this has to show up unusual heresies, and we treasure it as a way of developing some new ones.
Drayton, of course, when preaching over at the Funambulist Baptists, sticks rigidly to the belief that Jesus would only approve of sermons preached by a bloke in a suit. His sermons can occasionally last for an hour at a time, I am told - but if they are any longer than that, they have a break so his congregation can change ends at half time.
Wandering Attention in Sermons
It is a sad day, Dear Readers.
I have come out to Catthorpe to say a sad farewell to the old M6 viaduct, which is being demolished this weekend. One of my favourite motorway viaducts in the South Midlands.
Still, as Drayton very kindly drove me up here I "redeemed the time" as he kept referring to it, by completing my analysis of the differing expectations and actualities in where preachers and their congregations are focussing their thoughts and attention during a sermon. I hope the following diagrams make this clear.
Preacher's Focus - As the Congregation Expect it
The preacher is spending a good part of his or her time focussing on the congregation - although also paying plenty of attention to the text, thus staying on course and honouring the time spent during the week / last night / in the loo before the service writing the sermon. The preacher is also staying alert to the Holy Spirit (golden arrow) so as to be responsive to both the congregation and the text.
Congregation's Focus - as the Preacher expects it
We will pay little attention to our old friends "A" and "B", as we know where their attention is.
The other people in the other side of the congregation, however, should be splitting their attention between what the preacher has to say, and the "still small voice".
What can actually happen is that the preacher gets hung up on the relationship with the congregation - are they all watching me? Are they looking out for me to fail? Have I got a spot on my nose? Am I making a fool of myself....?
Congregational Focus - Reality
Whereas in fact, of course, the congregation aren't thinking any such things. In fact, they are splitting their attention between the wall-hangings, the trouble at work last Friday, the baby in the back row that sounds like it might be about to cry, the attractive person in the row behind, and a serious consideration of what's for lunch. Every now and then they'll notice someone at the front still appears to be talking - and occasionally ask God whether he can make it stop. Or, for I would not want to appear overly-cynical, they accidentally catch something inspirational and/or controversial, and refer it to God for adjudication.
I have come out to Catthorpe to say a sad farewell to the old M6 viaduct, which is being demolished this weekend. One of my favourite motorway viaducts in the South Midlands.
Still, as Drayton very kindly drove me up here I "redeemed the time" as he kept referring to it, by completing my analysis of the differing expectations and actualities in where preachers and their congregations are focussing their thoughts and attention during a sermon. I hope the following diagrams make this clear.
Preacher's Focus - As the Congregation Expect it
The preacher is spending a good part of his or her time focussing on the congregation - although also paying plenty of attention to the text, thus staying on course and honouring the time spent during the week / last night / in the loo before the service writing the sermon. The preacher is also staying alert to the Holy Spirit (golden arrow) so as to be responsive to both the congregation and the text.
Congregation's Focus - as the Preacher expects it
We will pay little attention to our old friends "A" and "B", as we know where their attention is.
The other people in the other side of the congregation, however, should be splitting their attention between what the preacher has to say, and the "still small voice".
The preacher's focus - reality
Congregational Focus - Reality
Whereas in fact, of course, the congregation aren't thinking any such things. In fact, they are splitting their attention between the wall-hangings, the trouble at work last Friday, the baby in the back row that sounds like it might be about to cry, the attractive person in the row behind, and a serious consideration of what's for lunch. Every now and then they'll notice someone at the front still appears to be talking - and occasionally ask God whether he can make it stop. Or, for I would not want to appear overly-cynical, they accidentally catch something inspirational and/or controversial, and refer it to God for adjudication.
So my conclusion, Dear Readers, is this. Preachers pay too much attention to themselves because they worry what the congregations think about them. But they shouldn't because, on the whole, the congregations don't worry that much. In fact, they'd quite like the preachers to do well. I think there's the start of a virtuous circle here, but best not draw too much attention or we'd all start looking at the wrong things again.
Friday, 6 January 2012
Farewell to Bob Holness
The man they invented "avuncular" for, but not in a bad way.
When Bob Holness appeared on TV in the late 80s, a generation of students knew it was time to get out of bed. While a generation of people now in their middle age are immortalised, spot-covered, on video with their favourite teddy or other embarrassing good luck charm.
We'll have a "T" for "Thanks", please Bob. And let's hope you're going on the Gold Run.
When Bob Holness appeared on TV in the late 80s, a generation of students knew it was time to get out of bed. While a generation of people now in their middle age are immortalised, spot-covered, on video with their favourite teddy or other embarrassing good luck charm.
We'll have a "T" for "Thanks", please Bob. And let's hope you're going on the Gold Run.
Quick Epiphany Joke
And so the Magi entered into the house and saw the child and his mother. And they worshipped him and offered their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
And Joseph said unto them,
"Can you come back in a couple of days? Only we're transferring you this year. Makes it so much easier."
And Joseph said unto them,
"Can you come back in a couple of days? Only we're transferring you this year. Makes it so much easier."
Twelfth Night
Total confusion last night, I'm afraid. Crossed wires on the Somerset Mummers booking. Instead we got the Mummerset Plumbers, which wasn't the same at all.
They were kind enough to tell us what was wrong with the pipes, but unfortunately in a fake West-Country accent so strong we couldn't understand what they were saying. Then they all had to clear off. They're all auditioning for parts in "Midsummer Murders" and "Lark Rise".
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Chimera Monkeys
Just two years somebody invented glowing monkeys for a bit of a laugh, Scientists are celebrating the creation of monkeys made from cells taken from two or more separate embryos.
The team that carried out the work says the advance could have "enormous" importance for medical research. Although one member of the team, Dr Igor, added "Buh-wah-hah-hah-hah".
The team that carried out the work says the advance could have "enormous" importance for medical research. Although one member of the team, Dr Igor, added "Buh-wah-hah-hah-hah".
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)