I've been making steady progress with the first two scripts for TWTTIN. Given that we are recording on Monday this is a good thing, but to be honest it's only show 1 that is anywhere near ready. I have two vague ideas for show 2 and will just have to hope that in the next couple of days it all transforms into something broadcastable. It probably will. It's always been like this with this series and if I can get a good run up at something then it can come together quite quickly.
This morning I quickly wrote a sketch about Noah's Ark. I had intended to make it something about the
Flea problem, which I failed to discuss on Quote Unquote in 2005, but it turned into more of an angry diatribe about people taking the Bible literally. It is a bit more obvious, I suppose, and it probably occurs to most six year olds that Noah's task is somewhat impossible (for example he presumably had to collect two of all the as yet undiscovered species, as well as being expert enough to tell a particular type of finch or whatever from another), but when you put it all together it does make quite a strong case for a literal Biblical interpretation being somewhat mentally ill. A thing I hadn't thought about before was that if God flooded the whole world then surely this wouldn't be a very effective way of killing anyone else who happened to have a boat. Sure enough Noah was inland so having a boat was seemingly a bit daft, but the whole world was flooded and some of the world is by water and surely a lot of people there must have been able to ride out the deluge. Maybe a lot of the boats wouldn't have enough food on them, but some boats would be loaded with food or grain or animals and people only had to survive for 40 days.
And it's hard to see where all the different human races fit into this. Supposedly all humanity is related to Noah's three sons, but surely if that was the case we'd all look a lot more Jewish. Even had Noah's sons each married an African, a Chinese woman and an Aboriginee (which with the best will in the world is somewhat unlikely for the Jewish race, who liked to keep it in the family, so to speak), then it still seems unlikely that we would have the diversity of population that we have today would have been unlikely to have developed in the 4000 years that the strict Biblical interpretation demands. Never mind all the biological, geological and archaeological evidence that God presumably planted to test our faith - as if believing in Him wasn't a big enough leap already.
This would all be laughable and worthless to point out, if it weren't for the fact that Creationalists demand to be treated seriously and that some schools want to teach the Bible as fact.
Whatever you think of science I think we can be fairly sure they are at least most of the way to getting stuff right, just down to the successes they have enjoyed. It is science, not religion, that has made it possible for all human beings to fly, it's science, not religion that has managed to cure many terrible diseases, not through the power of prayer, but the power of actual working medicines. It is research into DNA that has not only managed to prove the theory of evolution, but also to cure the sick and catch the criminal (you know, when the police remember to send it to the labs) and prove paternity and convict rapists and paedophiles (all of which things must annoy many of the clergy as so many of them have been caught out themselves). If religion could do just one of these things on a regular basis, not just written about in a really old book, but in front of my eyes right now, then I would have more time for it. But it can't and yet we're still supposed to give it equal respect, if not superior respect.
In the end, as you'll hear if the sketch makes it to air, the strange thing about Noah's Ark and the flood is that it is a remarkably inefficient way for an all powerful God to go about wiping out humanity. It is inefficient because any sailor will survive and unnecessarily time consuming, in terms of all the travelling and animal collecting and species and sex verification and ark building that was required. Presumably God had to magic it so that Noah wouldn't be attacked by his lions and that the lions wouldn't eat the gazelles. So why didn't he just magic it that all animals became temporarily aquatic? Or that all the people he hated just had heart attacks? Or that all the bad people just were magicked into being good?
And how can anyone with any intelligence believe that this story is literally true? If it's some kind of morality tale or an exaggerated version of some great and ancient flood (in one part of the world) then there might be a tiny bit of truth in it. But what are you buying into if you just refuse to admit that it obviously could never have happened? And if it did then the God you're worshipping is mentally ill and using his resources in a very odd way?
A child of five will suddenly realise that it's impossible for Father Christmas to get round the world in one night and deliver presents to everyone. You might be able to stymie his intellect or a couple of years by telling him that he is able to do this by magic, but ultimately he realises that the truth is that there is no Father Christmas. It's not such a bad thing to realise. It is part of growing up and you're able to laugh at the simpler you who believed in it, even to be fond of the story and of yourself. Noah's Ark is the same as Father Christmas. And any reasonable person would realise all that I have said above at the age of seven or eight. And yet if Noah's Ark didn't happen as we are told it did, then that means the Bible isn't infallibly true (ignoring all the many contradictions within it) and so grown men and women convince themselves that this story happened, in the face of all reasonable fact (and fiction) and then have a say in the way children are educated.
What a crazy world?
Time for another flood God, I would say. I'll start building a boat. Or maybe I'll just go and sit on the QEII. Less bother. Everyone come along and bring a couple of animals. I bagsy the dogs.
