If you haven’t seen this, read it – it is very funny. We need funny.

Posted by on

The writer of the following is Anthony Lane in the June 9th edition of the New Yorker “>http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-book-of-jeremy-corbyn”>

And it came to pass, in the land of Britain, that the High Priestess went unto the people and said, Behold, I bring ye tidings of great joy. For on the eighth day of the sixth month there shall be a general election.
And the people said, Not another one.
And they waxed wroth against the High Priestess and said, Didst thou not sware, even unto seven times, that thou wouldst not call a snap election?
And the High Priestess said, I know, I know. But Brexit is come upon us, and I must go into battle against the tribes of France, Germany, and sundry other holiday destinations. And I must put on the armor of a strong majority in the people’s house. Therefore go ye out and vote.
And there came from the temple pollsters, who said, Surely this woman will flourish. For her enemy is as grass; she cutteth him down. He is as straw in the wind, and he will blow away. And the trumpet of her triumph shall sound in all the land.
And the High Priestess said, Piece of cake.
And there came from the same country a prophet, whose name was Jeremy. His beard was as the pelt of beasts, and his raiments were not of the finest. And he cried aloud in the wilderness and said, Behold, I bring you hope.
And suddenly there was with him a host of young people. And he said unto them, Ye shall study and grow wise in all things, and I shall not ask ye for gold. And the sick shall be made well, and they also will heal freely. And he promised unto them all manner of goodly things.
And the young people said unto him, How shall these things be rendered, seeing that thou hast no money in thy purse?
And he spake unto them in a voice of sounding brass and said, Soak the rich. And again, Pull down the mighty from their seats.
And the young people went absolutely nuts.
And they hearkened unto the word of Jeremy, and believed. For they said unto themselves, Lo, he bringeth unto us the desire of our hearts. He cometh by bicycle, with a helmet upon his head. And he eateth neither flesh nor fowl, according to the Scriptures. For man cannot live by bread alone, but hummus is quite another matter.
And the High Priestess saw all these things and was sore. And she gathered unto her the chief scribes and the Pharisees and said unto them, What the hell is going on?
And they said unto her, It is a blip, as if it were a rough place upon the road.
But they said unto themselves, When the government was upon her shoulders, this woman was mighty. But now that she has gone abroad unto every corner of the land, she stumbleth. For surely it is written that ruling and campaigning are as oil and water, and there shall be no concord betwixt them.
And the chief scribes wrote upon tablets, saying, Jeremy is false of tongue. He hideth wickedness in his heart. And his sums do not add up.
And nobody paid any attention.
And the elders rose up and said to the young people, If ye choose Jeremy, he will bring distress in your toils and wailing upon your streets. Do ye not remember the nineteen-seventies?
And the young people said, The what?
And the elders spake again, and said to the young people, Beware, for he gave succor in days of yore to the I.R.A.
And the young people said, The what?
And the young people said, Jeremy shall bring peace unto all nations, for he hateth the engines of war that take wing across the heavens. And he showeth respect for all peoples, even unto the transgender community.
And the elders said, The what?
And it came to pass that the heathen of this land came among the people, with fire and sword, and slew many among the faithful. And great was the lamentation.
And the High Priestess waxed exceeding wroth and said to the people, Fear not. For I shall bind your wounds and give ye shelter from the heathen, and shall take up the sword against them.
And there came again pollsters from the temple, who said, Will the people not vote for her in this hour of need?
And nobody paid any attention.
And it came to the vote.
And the elders went up to vote, and the young people. And the young people were as a multitude. And in the hours of darkness there was much counting. And the young people watched by night, and the elders went to bed.
And there came in the morning news that the High Priestess had vanquished the prophet Jeremy. But the triumph of the High Priestess was as the width of a nail. And she was vexed.
And the elders and the chief scribes and the Pharisees spoke among themselves, yea, even in the corners of their houses.
And there was great rejoicing amidst the multitude of the young. And they took strong wine, and did feast among themselves. And there were twelve baskets left over.
And of the pollsters there was no sign.
And the people saw Jeremy and said, Surely this man has won? Doth he not skip in gladness like a young hart upon the hills?
And there was great murmuring among the elders. And they said unto themselves, Weep not. For the High Priestess doth but prepare the way. Cometh there not one who is greater than she?
And they said, Behold, for the hour of the redeemer is upon us. And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Prince of Peace. And they cried in one voice, Boris.
And the young people said, Oh, shit.
And the people gave tongue, and made supplication unto the Lord, saying, Lord, let our cry come unto thee.
And the Lord thought the whole thing was absolutely hilarious.
And then the people said, Lord, what shall we do regarding Brexit? For henceforth the High Priestess shall be as weak as a newborn lamb. How shall we hope for continued access to the single market?
And the Lord said, The what?

Is Atheism just another religion (part 2)

Posted by on

Yesterday I quoted a long article that suggested that religious people and atheists are more psychologically alike than they admit. The religionists argue that supernatural beliefs are hard-wired into our brains. Evolution, has left us with a tendency make belief in non-material beings come easily. As highly social and tribal animals, for example, we need to keep track of the thoughts and intentions of other people, even when they are not physically present. From there, it is a short step to conceiving of non-physical entities such as spirits, gods and dead ancestors who “know” what we are thinking and influence our lives. Some hardcore atheists also tend to entertain quasi-religious or spiritual ideas such as there being a higher power or that everything happens for a purpose.

Sloan Wilson posits another way atheists behave, as if they are part of a religion: “playing fast-and-loose with scientific facts”. “Atheists say that religion is bad for humanity and deny that it is not an evolutionary adaptation. This, he says, is not true. “This is how atheism becomes an ideology. It is organised to motivate behaviour. Using counterfactual beliefs in order to so leaves little difference between atheism and a religion”.

But the difference is that for atheists there are no rituals, no membership rules, no sacred texts and no proselytising. Psychologist Marjaana Lindeman at the University of Helsinki in Finland adds: “There is no evidence for the argument that all people have an implicit belief in the supernatural.” (Thank you! Ed.). Nor does atheism provide a sense of meaning and purpose, encourage people to do good, or endow you with great enthusiasms, except in the case of a very few individuals. (Based on an article in the New Scientist)

My comment: some people need a religion, others don’t. We are all discrete, unique individuals with scores of views, beliefs and points of view. Social scientists like to make generalisations from the particular, but it seems a pointless exercise. Education should allow us to form our own views, not go along uncritically with the majority. That’s a good thing. Religion can (not inevitably) lead to intolerance and cruelty (the Spanish Inquisition). Ask the Islamists, who use violence, and the American evangelicals, who support the Trump oligarchy in every particular to the detriment of the poor and sick. These are political groups and have nothing to do with the prophet Mohammed or Jesus Christ, whose names are being used by disagreeable tribes to impose their beliefs on others. What you can say is that “good” religion teaches morality and ethical behaviour from an early age, which is sorely needed. This is also one objective of humanistic beliefs like Epicureanism. We need more positive morality and ethical behaviour.

I believe you can be moral and ethical while being indifferent to both religion and atheism (all ‘isms in fact). I was once offered a very large contract provided I put a significant bribe directly into the bank account of the CEO of the customer concerned. The order would have accounted for one quarter of our total annual sales. I refused. It had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with ethics and the slippery slope.

Tomorrow: something funny!

Is Atheism just another religion? (Part 1)

Posted by on

Owen did a brilliant piece on Christianity yesterday. So today I follow it up with a piece on atheism, as published recently in the New Scientist:

Lois Lee directs the Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. She is quoted as saying: “When people say’atheism is just another religion’, they normally mean it in a pejorative way. The subtext is clear: atheists are hypocrites. If atheism really is just another religion, its claim to be a superior way to run the world is thereby fatally weakened, and the criticism of religion – that it is irrational, dogmatic and intolerant – comes flying back, with interest. In this way progress towards a more rational and secular society is undermined.

Atheists have been treated with suspicion for centuries. Latterly the strident criticism of religion from Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) hasn’t helped. “The church of the non-believers” and a “crusade against god”, are descriptions used by critics of Dawkins, who is accused of portraying atheism as the only source of truth and righteousness and its enemies as “bad, bad, bad”; another religion, in other words.

Dawkins may be over the top, but his accusers may be protesting too much. The defining feature of religion is belief in god(s). Atheism defines itself as the absence of belief in god. How can it be a religion? That is like saying that “off” is a TV channel, or not-playing-tennis is a sport.

But some people think that atheists have not taken the charge seriously enough.

The truth is, they say, is that atheism is not simply an absence of belief in god, but also a set of alternative beliefs about the origin and nature of reality. Even though these belief systems diverge in their content and level of fact from religious beliefs, perhaps they originate from the same underlying psychological processes, and fulfil similar psychological needs. Religious ideas, for example, provide stability and reassurance in the face of uncertainty. They help to explain events and provide a moral framework. For these reasons, and others, they are intuitively appealing to human brains. Maybe brains that reject supernatural ideas simply soak up naturalistic ones, helping alleviate stress and anxiety, as religion does.

It is well known that religious people often turn to their beliefs to deal with emotional distress. Faced with reminders of mortality and issues of morality, both religious people and atheists reaffirm their beliefs. Religious people turn to god to help people regain at least a subjective sense of control and predictability. Atheists do it too.

In times of stress atheists tend to turn to scientific ideas, especially theories that emphasise orderliness and predictability over randomness and unpredictability, which suggests that religious believers and atheists are more psychologically similar than either would like to think. (a heavily edited article that first appeared in the New Scientist).

I think all this is wild generalisation, and unscientific generalisation at that. There are many people who really couldn’t care less about these ‘isms. I am one of them. Yes I have a set of beliefs based on Epicureanism. They are humanistic. I believe in treating everyone with respect and kindness, would like to see greater equality, believe in good education and a decent, secure living for all, good manners, and consideration. I totally deny turning to any ism in times of stress – just maybe agonising for two minutes, then working it out and getting on with life, which should be a joy, not a penance.

Epicurus and Christianity

Posted by on

Another one of my Modern Philosophy posts. I hope I speak with some authority on this one, having been brought up in an Evangelical Christian home, attended church regularly for eighteen years, and familiarised myself with the key tenets of Christian doctrine. Having already written about Islam, I hope to complete an analysis of the three monotheisms with a post of Judaism, so look out for that over the coming months. 

On a metaphysical level, Epicureanism and Christianity fundamentally contravene each other. The former is a materialist philosophy, claiming that nothing exists beyond the empirical realm that humans can know about. There may be gods, but their activities are inconsequential to life here on earth. On the other hand, Christianity is essentially about mankind’s redemption from sin through the resurrection of Jesus, so that we may enjoy a direct relationship with God. In the ancient world, Epicureans and Christians often clashed because they disagreed on so much.

Despite their contradictory claims, both Epicureans and Christians would profess to adhere to the same standards of behaviour: compassion, forgiveness, generosity, inclusion, hospitality, love, as well as an aversion to excess. Some Christians would claim that Christianity, or at the very least formalised religion, is a pre-requisite for living a truly moral life, though that isn’t a view held by all. Epicureanism certainly never made a claim to a monopoly on morality. As an Epicurean, I think people of all religions are capable of living highly fulfilling lives. A late Christian friend of mine spends her life looking after children, volunteering to help the elderly, and participating in the church choir and band. I may not agree with her metaphysics, epistemology or ethics, but I can certainly appreciate the difference she made to the lives of those around her. Equally, the Islamic Society at Exeter University raises a lot of money for charity. So I’m afraid ascribing truthfulness to a doctrine based on the good works of its adherents is a rudimentary fallacy because virtually every doctrine can claim to have had good effects.

Therefore, it’s important to establish what sets Christianity apart. I won’t get into any obscure verses in the Old Testament; the Christian community is divided as to how to interpret those verses and their relevance for the modern day- a debate that ought to be resolved amongst Christians. As I said before, Christianity is fundamentally about the death and resurrection of Jesus. This was to satisfy an all-powerful God who cannot abide sin. But thanks to sinful human nature caused by Adam and Eve (see the first few books of Genesis to find out how this happened), people are incapable of living perfect lives, requiring God to come down in human form to die as a blood sacrifice for human redemption.

This is a totally immoral and depraved doctrine. The notion of blood sacrifice is a barbaric idea, invented when man was in a far more primitive state. It’s little different from the polytheisms that preceded Christianity, killing animals as sacrifices to vengeful Gods. The fear of divine punishment has permeated human behaviour for thousands of years. It’s largely a result of our innate sense of guilt. In the case of Christianity, you have a god that demands perfection, knowing that humans are now incapable of obeying his every whim. He then states that all of the world’s people are damned to an eternity in hell unless they accept his blood sacrifice. It’s a frightening belief, one that perpetuates constant guilt and feelings of inadequacy. Christians are forever apologising for themselves, even as they know full well they are trying to live to an impossible standard.

The truth is, humans are not in need of redemption. We are certainly highly flawed, and Christians have done an excellent job of pointing out that despite our advances in science and technology, we are not necessarily becoming more moral. We can never expect to be perfect, so there’s no point in apologising every time we aren’t. Christianity claims to absolve its believers from sin, yet Christians behave as if they are just as guilty as before, because Christianity demands absolute obedience to God, even after having believed in the resurrection.

As a result, I’ve noticed that Christianity attracts people who express a high degree of regret at how they use to live. Maybe they had a problem with alcohol or drugs. Maybe they were ill-tempered, or even violent. Perhaps they lived lives deemed to be sexually promiscuous by society, and so feel inadequate due to a new sense of shame. Christianity entices such people with the promise of absolution. But even after confession, Christians strive to improve to what are unrealistic standards, that ought never to be said if people are to live truly fulfilling lives. Christianity fails to offer a point in which the believer can be satisfied with themselves, apart from a vague promise of eternal life- a derivative notion that satisfies the base human greed and selfish desire to live forever.

The belief in blood sacrifice for the redeeming of sin has grave consequences for the modern world. Christians largely regard the non-Christian world as ‘fallen’, and therefore inherently corrupting. I’ve met Christians who have shut themselves away from the world, because they regard it as morally poisonous. In some cases, this has led to segregation, with Christians choosing to live apart from others, instead of trying to improve the world in which they live. I appreciate most Christians aren’t that extreme. But the casual dismissal of the non-Christian world is insulting to the followers of other belief systems who are only trying their best.

The worst aspect of the blood sacrifice doctrine is its effects on children. As a child, I was taught that I could never be perfect (or even good enough since God’s standard is perfection.) My only hope was to believe in Jesus and follow whatever the Bible says, or else be guilty of disobeying God. The image of hell was frightening for a child, who like most, had a vivid imagination. Christianity kept me afraid and anxious for many years. There was even one point when I cried when I couldn’t find my family, because I believed they had been taken to heaven and I was left to go to hell. In my view, instilling that sort of fear into children ought to condemned by wider society, though sadly it goes barely noticed.

A Christian upbringing was also damaging in other ways. Particularly when I was young, I wasn’t allowed to learn about other religions properly. I was never taught the arguments in favour of other religions, or even atheism. I wasn’t even allowed to find out bad things about Christmas. Even at A level, my mum was sceptical of me taking a philosophy course because it may cause me to ‘turn away’ from God. My parents also had a very authoritarian parenting style, demanding my absolute obedience and not allowing me to question them. Other Christian parents I knew were far worse, banning their children from anything they claimed portrayed Christianity badly, be it Harry Potter for its ‘Satanic’ influences or The Simpsons due to Ned Flanders’ ineptitude as a prominently Christian character.  Making fun at Christianity was deemed ‘blasphemous’ and resulted in severe punishment. This was a despicable way to raise children, one which I couldn’t possibly regret more. It is healthy for anyone to make fun at themselves and their beliefs, be they religious or otherwise.

Christianity still has an anti-scientific streak. Young-earth creationism, which denies biological evolution, natural selection, and the true age of the universe and the earth, is still a very prominent belief. Science denial was rife amongst the Christians I knew, even on issues like climate change that have nothing to do with Christian doctrine. I’m not at all surprised that American Evangelical Christians are more likely to be climate change deniers than the general population- the latter is at least somewhat related to the former in my view. Other conspiracies, like 9/11 being a hoax, or the Federal Reserve being owned by the Rothschilds, are disproportionately common amongst the Christian community.

At least by British standards, the Christianity I’m familiar with is quite extreme. But by world standards, it is the norm. International Christianity is fostering a culture of authoritarianism, patriarchal gender norms, heavy-handed parenting, instilling fear into people, demanding the morally impossible, total and unquestioning submission to God, and in some cases, conspiracy theories, science denial and segregated lifestyles. Even in the United Kingdom, where the Church of England is relatively benign, Christianity still affirms the doctrine of blood sacrifice because it is essential to the Christian message. Epicureans should holistically repudiate Christianity, for its practical effects as well as its beliefs.

Best of the Week #2

Posted by on

Thanks to the positive feedback I received for the first Best of the Week, I’m pleased to announce it will feature every Sunday on the Epicurus Blog. Initially it was only going to be about newspaper op-eds, but anything of interest- political or otherwise- may be recommended here. And what a week it’s been, with both the UK General Election and the James Comey hearings taking place.  

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-theresa-may-lost-the-election-but-no-one-else-won-a3561051.html. An acerbic indictment of Theresa May and her election campaign, from none other than the former Chancellor and Evening Standard editor, George Osborne. May started the election with a commanding lead in the polls, a weak opposition, and the support of the right wing tabloids. All she had to do was run a risk-averse campaign, utilising the Conservatives’ popularity on the economy and national security to her advantage, and a landslide would be hers. Instead, her election bid promised unpopular reforms to the welfare and social care systems, insulted the electorate’s intelligence by repeating vacuous phrases like ‘strong and stable,’ and she seemed disengaged and unenthused due to her non-participation in mass rallies and televised debates. On the Andrew Marr Show, Osborne described May as a ‘dead woman walking,’ and quite rightly too; her days in Number 10 are numbered.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21723197-election-reveals-astonishing-changes-political-landscape-culture-wars-arrive. The Economist’s Bagehot offers a unique analysis here. He argues that British politics is being Americanised through the arrival of the so-called ‘Culture Wars’ on this side of the Atlantic. If he’s right, Britain will end up more divided than ever before. Faced with an ageing population, a lethargic and unproductive economy, and the monumental task of negotiating with the EU, a high degree of political unity will be required. The polarisation of the British policy along the social issues is the last thing the country needs.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/6/15739606/saudi-arabia-ties-qatar-trump. An excellent explainer of the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is a geopolitical issue with huge ramifications for the United States, particularly its relations with Iran. If left unchecked, this conflict could force the US to dramatically alter its Middle East policy, and has the potential to significantly increase world oil prices. Unfortunately I’m no expert on the Middle East. But this article is required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the region’s current fractures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/opinion/james-comey-senate-testimony-donald-trump.html?_r=0. Roger Cohen excellently summarises my thoughts on the Comey hearing here. Even if Trump didn’t act illegally when firing Comey, it’s obvious that he acted improperly. The case for impeachment isn’t quite open and shut, but it has certainly been made stronger over the week.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/nicola-sturgeon-the-second-biggest-loser/. One of the most positive outcomes of the UK General Election was that it dealt a blow to the cause of Scottish Nationalism. Alex Massie brilliantly explains why. The SNP is far from dead, it still holds a plurality of Westminster seats in Scotland. But separatism is the preserve of a minority of Scots; the election confirmed this and a strong desire to move on from the constitutional question. Having said that, the union is still under threat. If Labour goes into decline, if the Conservative alliance with the DUP proves unpopular in Scotland (as it almost certainly will), and if Brexit (which a majority of Scots voted against) goes badly wrong, it is very easy to see a rejuvenated SNP, capitalising on a series of crises which are very likely to occur