Mormanism in decline

Posted by on

It once had a claim to be the fastest-growing religious sect in American history, but the prospects don’t look so rosy for the Mormon Church these days. The sense of confidence and momentum is absent in the current Church, which is registering only 1.59% annual growth – its “slowest pace since 1937”. That’s still a respectable figure in these secular times, but hardly impressive for a sect that maintains “a massive force of more than 70,000 full-time proselytising missionaries worldwide”. Part of the problem is that the structure of the Mormon Church prevents it moving with the times and softening its stance on issues such as homosexuality, gay marriage and female priests. Its presidents are regarded as prophets whose words have the authority of scripture. As a result, new Church leaders must “constantly contend with the words of previous prophets”, which they dare not gainsay. “This model worked very well for an emerging religion in the 19th century.” But it’s not so well-suited to the modern age. (Eric Armstrong, The New Republic)

I remember being visited by young Morman missionaries years ago. The lads were courteous, well dressed, articulate and confident about their beliefs, touchingly so. But what struck me was that, pause for a few minutes from the religious advocacy, and they knew nothing. They were from Salt Lake City and were operating in England. They seemed to know nothing about England except their temporary addresses, nor about any other topic I brought up. The words “brainwashed” popped into my mind. They seemed ill-prepared for the modern world. Among their tribe I am sure they will have thrived, but outside the protective arms of the Mormon system, they came across poorly. I felt sorry for them. But that is what blind faith alone can do for you. Epicureanism is, on the contrary, a pragmatic, humanistic set of principles, open to debate and to new ideas. Or it ought to be!

Where do good and evil come from?

Posted by on

Philosophers have long wrestled with the nature of good and evil. Are they an inseparable duality? Are some things inherently good or evil? These questions seem too abstract to be answered by science. But by asking questions such as “why are animals altruistic?” and “why do chimps sometimes violently kill one another?”, biologists have arrived at an explanation that applies equally well to humans. They suggest that underlying good and evil is the neutral hand of natural selection.

Scientists think that both ‘evil’ and ‘moral’ behaviour have two evolutionary roots.  One relates to the genes you share with close relatives, which are passed on to offspring and which influence you to, for instance, help with the rearing of children and do things for the extended family. Even though you are not raising your own brood, the shared genes benefit. What appears at first to be a selfless act is selfish at the genetic level.

The second influence is best explained by long-term benefits to the do-gooder. For example, blood donation is often cited as a selfless act, but one study found that it is more likely to be an act of self-interest. People who believe in the potential personal benefit of blood banks are more likely to donate than people who think mainly of their benefit to society.  “Good” behaviour, in other words, is often influenced by personal gain. “Evil” behaviour might be the other side of the equation.  Take infanticidal chimps. Subsequent observations suggest that when chimps kill the young they do so at times when competition for food and other resources is high, so killing the competition represents an advantage for the killer.

Josephine Head, a biologist who witnessed horrific chimp violence in Loango National Park in Gabon, says the behaviour of our closest living relative gives us a window onto the roots of some human violence. “The tendency for group violence between males, and the strong ‘us and them’ mentality we attach to everything, can be traced back to this adaptive behaviour in apes,” she says.

But there are also factors that are not rooted in evolution. Many people who commit horrific acts grew up in abusive or violent environments, which can have neurological, psychological and genetic consequences. And some behaviours are down to random mutations. “Crazy mass killers are likely just that – insane.

So those who study these things think that good and evil don’t exist in any real sense. But they do agree that the evolutionary pressures that can make humans violent can also make us extremely peaceful. Our sense of morality can eliminate – or at least minimise – evil in society. (A precis of an article by Rowan Hooper, New Scientist)

My personal opinion is that we are blessed with some measure of common sense and self-interest. If one treats people in thoughtful, kindly ways, ask them about themseves, offer little kindnesses and take an interest in them and what they think, then you will be rewarded accordingly. Put it another way: behave in a rude, uncaring, humourless way and you will soon have no friends. It isn’t rocket science.

Brexit, a field day for crooks. Bye, bye ataraxia!

Posted by on

Mobsters have always exploited world events for their own gain, says The Economist. But “for organised criminals, Brexit is perhaps the most promising rearrangement of the European scene since the fall of communism”. Clearly, much will depend on the outcome of exit negotiations. But if, for instance, Britain achieves its aim of maintaining an open border in Ireland while leaving the EU customs union, we can expect “an increase in the already substantial traffic in contraband” across the border, as well as “new opportunities through British ports and quiet coastal spots”. The expected “parliamentary logjam” as Westminster replaces EU laws may also bolster crooks if it means that current loopholes in anti-money-laundering regulations remain unclosed. But “Brexit’s biggest bonus for the underworld” is likely to be “weaker police oversight” following our presumed withdrawal from Europol and mechanisms such as the European arrest Warrant. Thanks in part to the EAW, Spain’s “Costa del Crime” has lately become less attractive to British crooks hoping “to enjoy (and reinvest) other people’s money”. “More sangria, lads? (The Economist, 3 February 2018)

Some will dismiss the above as “politics”. I look at it differntly. I think what is happening all over the world, and Brexit is an example, is the disintegration of life as we have known it since 1945, partly caused by idiot politicians, partly the huge threat to peace and security posed by climate change and bogus “news”. All this would have been as troubling to Epicurus as it is to us. To see the casual abandonment of a way of life painfully built over decades, the divisiveness, the foul language – all this makes life less pleasurable and increases anxiety. One can try to hide away from it and pretend it isn‘t happening, but regrettably it will affect us all, if not now in the very near future.

Thought for the day

Posted by on

There were nearly 60,000 murders in Brazil in 2015, as many as China, all of Europe, Northern Africa, Japan, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand combined. (Metrocosm, 12 September 2017)

And yet the Brazilian economy is quite lively. You can’t just put this down to fevelas and poverty.

Why is smacking still allowed?

Posted by on

“Britain is now one of just two countries in the EU (the other is the Czech Republic) not to have banned corporal punishment, nor to be considering doing so. If swearing at children is worse than swearing at adults, the same should apply to hitting them. Yet we deny children the protection from assault we give to adults, by permitting “reasonable chastisement” that doesn’t leave a mark. Defenders of the status quo say smacks are different, because they’re admonitory gestures, rather than assaults. But the “idea of the orderly smack”, delivered to teach a lesson, is a myth: “adults mostly hit their children when enraged and out of control”. And concerns that a ban could cause loving parents to be criminalised is not justified by evidence. New Zealand’s government found that such cases have been almost non-existent since smacking was banned there in 2007. More than 100 countries worldwide have outlawed smacking or are about to: Wales and Scotland intend to join them. England will surely follow at some point. So why not do it now.” (Susanna Rustin, The Guardian).

I must say I have mixed feelings about this. I agree that smacking children while angry is a bad thing, but then smouldering anger and grumpiness for the rest of the day isn’t very nice either. As a child I was smacked (actually caned at school and hairbrushed at home). Curiously, I never resented these incidents, for one good reason – I deserved them, and knew it. They were fair. I also learned from them. Not only do I not resent the chastisements, but I think I benefitted from them, since they helped me become more judicious and less impulsive. I still don’t conform but I did learn to apologise, or, with a smile on my face, to politely explain my actions in a persuasive way. Accepting that you have broken the rules and listening to calm reasoning for your punishment makes you, eventually, a better adult. Children have to have boundaries.