World Enough and Time

I got this article about the unpopularity of atheists from auriaephiala.

Makes me think we should do some image-building. Or something. You know, showing the sweet cuddliness of us atheists.

I sometimes wonder when I stopped calling myself a pantheist and started calling myself an atheist. My religious views haven't changed in the least. It's semantics. It's a matter of who I wanted to be associated with. After reading the views of other pantheists online and deciding they didn't quite get it, I was less inclined to call myself that.

I could call myself a pagan, but it's the same sort of problem: pagans tend to be organized - at least then ones I know are - and when I approached them with an interest, they said I would have to learn about paganism. I shied away. Sounds like catechism. Sounds like learning their religion instead of celebrating my own, in good company.

So where does that leave me? Like Philippa Somerville, uninvited, unwanted, unwelcome as ever. And in a group voted the most likely to steal a wallet. But still warm and cuddly.

Honest.

A few quick comments on The Second Coming now, because I had no time to comment yesterday.

The reasons this is worth seeing: it's by Russell T. Davies who is a good writer, an effective-but-sloppy writer, who manages to be gripping and to raise emotion even when he's getting things wrong. With this particular show, a two-part miniseries, he presents his views on religion: and though the theme is though-provoking and worthwhile, it comes across as essentially shallow. Which is a pity, because in many ways I think he's right. But a good theme poorly presented isn't a good theme.

The best things about the movie: Christopher Eccleston and Lesley Sharp in the lead roles. Both gave strong, complex, and riverting performances.

The problems? All in the script, in the writing. Not so much ideological as probems with the portrayal of the ideas being presented. If you're going to take on a subject as broad as the spiritual future of mankind and as deep as religion, you have to make it convincing, either emotionally or intellectually or, preferably, both. Though I have every disposition to accept the humanistic, atheistic viewpoint that Russell T. Davies presents, I found that he was failing to make me believe things I already believed. Which is not to say I'm an atheist; I'm a pantheist with humanistic leanings. Which puts me in his camp, more or less.

( For example... )

Basically, I think Russell T. Davies has handled the subject of religion and faith better, more consistently, and more clearly, in Doctor Who and Torchwood.

One of the things I blearily watched in the past few days was the British TV show Heaven and Earth, a BBC show in which celebrities discuss their views on religion. John Barrowman was the guest.

Rather to my surprise, he's Christian, and spoke rather clearly on what that means to him. I was surprised because I am always a little surprised when anyone is Christian - though I shouldn't be so naive about it. I was Christian once, so long ago I've almost forgotten what it was like.

Barrowman attends church, but he didn't say how regularly, or which church - I rather assumed Scots Presbyterian, simply through stereotyping, or because that's the background of my own family. This wasn't the kind of show that puts celebrities on the spot by pushing them to justify their faith, thank goodness. Barrowman talked about how his Christianity was not a religion of bigotry and he believes that God created him gay, and it was his role to be the best person he could be whatever his orientation. He said that his parents actually changed their church because of bigotry - presumably homophobia - from the pulpit. Charmingly, at the end, the interviewer congratulated him on his civil partnership with Scott, and mentioned the kilt he wore for the ceremony. She asked if Scott would wear a kilt any time soon. "I had enough trouble getting him into a suit," said Barrowman. "Besides, I'm the one with the good calves."

Asked about whether he wanted to have children (as had been reported), Barrowman said yes, but Scott wasn't so sure and he wouldn't do it unless and until Scott was sure. He also didn't want to become a parent just to have the child raised by a nanny, and his career is going so well these days, and he's so happy with it, he doesn't at present want to change his life so radically.

In my irrepressibly curious way I wanted to ask a bunch of other questions, not justify-your-faith kinds of questions, but questions about what Barrowman thinks about his work and his role on Doctor Who and Torchwood. I share the Russell T. Davies' brand of humanism in my beliefs, one of the reasons I love both shows so much, so I wanted to ask him about that: how do you feel, then, when Captain Jack says religion is merely superstition in a random universe? How do you feel about Torchwood's repeated assertions that there is no life after death? How do you feel about Captain Jack being surrounded with specifically Christian symbolism that depicts him as Jesus? ... I have no idea how Barrowman would answer these questions, but I am sure his answers would be both sensible and intelligent, and I'd love to hear them. Perhaps it is touching too close to Doctor Who-related subjects that the BBC (and Davies) do not discuss out loud. The parameters of what they discuss in public (in contrast to what they do not) are interesting in themselves.