Does God exist?

Posted by on

The late Stephen Hawking famously declared that there was no need for a creator. He was an atheist who stated that science offered a more convincing explanation of life and the universe than god or gods. He believed that the universe is governed by the laws of science. In his 2010 book, “The Grand Design” (written with Leonard Mlodinow) he wrote that the Big Bang was inevitable and spontaneous. “Because there is a law such as gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing……..Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going”.

Interviewed on ABC News Hawking said, “One cannot prove that God doesn’t exist. But science makes God unnecessary. The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”. On other occasions he expressed the conviction that there is no God. “No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. There is probably no heaven or afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe.

Epicurus believed that there might be gods on Mount Olympus, but they spent their time making merry and chasing goddesses. They took no interest in the doings of mankind. This, I suspect, but can’t prove, was a “ politically correct” statement that avoided blowback from priests and believers. In fact, I think he was, privately, an atheist, who laughed at the stories about the gods and preferred a scientific approach to life and the universe.

We can, as Epicureans, support both Hawking and Epicurus, but we must do so respecting the beliefs of others and putting our views forward politely, with a smile, especially for those who are religious but who try to learn and understand physics and modern science, butfind religion is a reassuring comfort.

Learning English

Posted by on

770,000 people living in England speak hardly any or no English. The British communities secretary Sajid Javid, is promising to expand teaching of English for immigrants. Up to 70% of those needing it are women, mostly Pakistani or Bangladeshi. Javid said that when his mother learned English 15 years after arriving from Pakistan it “transformed her life”.

770,000! I cannot imagine leaving the country of my birth for a foreign land on a permanent basis and not making an effort to learn the local language. There are still cities in Britain where Pakistanis and Bangladeshis only speak their native- born dialects. This must have led to isolation, alienation, self-segregation, potential exploitation and miserable half-lives.

Some men have clearly found it “convenient” to have their wives stuck at home, unable to communicate with the indigenous natives. Many young women have now rebelled, become educated and have successful careers. But the old religious culture persists – women are treated as second-class citizens. I think it is a human right for women to be able to go to classes, learn the local language, and integrate. No medieval-minded man should be allowed to stop them. Sajid Javid is right, even if late in the day. He is, in effect, finally undermining the male domination that is prevalent in poor moslem communities. Good! Epicurus would applaud. You cannot have a cohesive society if part of it can’t speak a word of the language after years of residence in a country.

Being interrupted in full flight

Posted by on

From Bryn Glover, Kirkby Malzeard, North Yorkshire, UK

“May I report a highly effective way to counter interruptions while talking?

“In the 1980s, I sat on the council of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs trade union in England. Meetings were always attended by the extrovert and voluble general secretary, Clive Jenkins. He would frequently interrupt speakers during what were otherwise disciplined and strictly non-interrupted meetings in order, as he put it, “to be helpful and progress business”.

“One member, who seemed to be interrupted more than others, developed the technique of instantly stopping speaking and waiting in silence until Clive, with his usual sweet smile of acknowledgement, had finished.

“She would then immediately continue speaking at precisely the same point in the sentence she had been delivering when interrupted. There was never any loss of sense, grammar or syntax. It was as if the interruption had never occurred. This was so effective that it eventually cured Jenkins of his habit. It is a very difficult trick to carry off, but it can be devastating”. (New Scientist, March 10, 2018)

One of the things that always brings me up with a jolt is when you are in the mid-sentence and your listener’s phone goes off, or there is a similar interruption. Then, at the end of the telephone call your listener totally ignores the fact that you were speaking and changes the subject totally, as if you had never opened your mouth.

I fear we are all sometimes guilty of this, myself included – it is probably not deliberately rude, just a matter of lack of attention. Should one simply stop worrying about it, or should one be developing the above technique of resuming precisely where one left off? Or am I a boring my listeners out of their tiny minds? (Will have to ponder that!)

Epicurus was, apparently, a good and attentive listener, whose popularity was based, not only on what he had to say, but the courtesy he showed by scrupulously commenting on the views of others. It helps cement relationships.

The BBC

Posted by on

On a random day (before the royal wedding) these are the subject headings of BBC News as received on my I- pad:
– Playing fantasy football with artificial intelligence
– “FatTax” row forces New Look price review
– Single, 30,and time to leave home
– Meghan’s father may not attend wedding
– Dealing with a child who won’t sleep
– Kristen Stewart goes barefoot at Cannes
– How to dress a royal groom
– Willow Smith reveals how she used to self- harm
– Scariest moment in my police career
– Are these (photo) Yorkshire pudding or Yorkshire pancakes?
– Cold war over ice cream at school
– House-bound woman crowd-funds for chair
– Arsenal’s medical head, Lewin, loses job

Meanwhile, the world was roiled by the Trump policy on Iran, protestors were being shot in Gaza, autocrats were being elected in countries like Hungary, Turkey, etc, mini-wars against terrorism were popping up all over Africa. Brexit was in its usual chaos, Argentina was going broke – yet again, etc, etc.

What is wrong with the BBC? It used to be the prime newscaster, respected throughout the world. No wonder people get their news from Facebook. You have to get it from somewhere, even if it’s fake.

Charles Krauthammer recently died. This is his view of the United States

Posted by on

“America is the only country ever founded on an idea. The only country that is not founded on race or even common history. It’s founded on an idea and the idea is liberty. That is probably the rarest phenomena in the political history of the world; this has never happened before. And not only has it happened, but it’s worked. We are the most flourishing, the most powerful, most influential country on Earth with this system, invented by the greatest political geniuses probably in human history.” — Charles Krauthammer

“…..not founded on race?”. “……..”founded on liberty?” Mr. Krauthammer was a very prominent political commentator with a great command of English and political rhetoric, a product of Oxford (I encountered him in his wheelchair at a dinner once, a propos of nothing). Clearly, he truly believed what he said, erasing from his mind the centuries of oppression of black Americans. He seemed totally indifferent to the political corruption caused by money in politics (the result his party’s policies), the emergence of a powerful and ruthless oligarchy, the dissolution of the American Dream, the effects of continual, non-stop and incompetently run wars that have made the country so deeply indebted…. no need to go on. He and his like are blinkered, and while they cannot see the obvious that the rest of us can see, the country will continue on its downward path. The Chinese must be laughing at us.

Should the Democrats embrace socialism?

Posted by on

On June 26 2018, a young woman called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a Democratic primary for New York’s 14th seat in the House of Representatives. She beat the well-established incumbent Joe Crowley, running on a platform of radical wealth redistribution, relaxation of America’s immigration laws and enforcement, and strong policies to deal with climate change. In this working-class and ultra-diverse seat, her radicalism resonated widely. She also had the benefit of a well-run campaign, including some of the best designed posters ever seen for a House primary. To a large extent, she benefited from the organisational infrastructure of the Sanders campaign in 2016, having campaigned for Sanders herself.

Ocasio-Cortez’s victory is not an isolated event, but is part of a broader trend for the Democrats to embrace more openly socialist candidates, particularly young women. There are several reasons for this. The increase in income inequality and the fact that wage growth increasingly lags behind corporate profit growth has made Democrats believe the regulated capitalism advocated by the Democratic establishment no longer best serves the interests of the people. The Republican Party seems completely unconcerned with inequality, preferring to cut taxes on the wealthiest than invest in the working poor; Democrats want a stronger contrast with Republican free-market orthodoxy. President Trump epitomises and personifies the greed and recklessness that most Democrats believe has come to define American capitalism. As far as electability is concerned, Democratic socialists believe socialism may be key to winning back the white working class voters who switched from backing Obama in 2012 to backing Trump in 2016.

There is much to admire about Ocasio-Cortez, as well as the American left more broadly. She is a woman with a great deal of energy and passion. She cares deeply about her constituents. Her lack of ambiguity is honest and refreshing- you know where you stand with her, however much you may disagree. More importantly, American socialists have been well ahead of the curve in identifying problems that are only now being talked about by the mainstream media. Inequality is discussed far more, because people now realise just because the economy as a whole is growing, doesn’t mean that everyone in the economy is getting richer. Socialists have been vocal in their critique of the brutality of the American immigration system, which often treats asylum seekers as common criminals. Perhaps most impressive is Ocasio-Cortez’s environmental policies, which recognise the magnitude of the threat climate change poses to the planet.

But I have a number of concerns, not only about Ocasio-Cortez and her proposals, but of the increasingly leftward drift of the Democrats. The first is electability. It is easy to assume that Americans will become so disgusted with Trump and the Republican Party’s embrace of him, they will elect any Democrat regardless of what they stand for. 2016 should have taught Democrats otherwise. The Democratic Socialists of America, of which Ocasio-Cortez is a member, believes that in an ideal world capitalism would be abolished. It only accepts the existence of private businesses because to get of them would be impractical. They are also calling for the abolition of ICE, America’s immigration enforcement agency. Without ICE, it is unclear how an immigration system would work- the implication is that the DSA doesn’t believe in borders at all. Moreover, American socialists have a reflexive aversion to foreign intervention, which may be problematic if a key American ally was under attack. While Trump by no means commands the support of most Americans, the policies of the DSA would be at least as controversial.

Overall, in an age of increasing polarisation, it isn’t surprising that the Democrats are embracing socialism. Since the Republicans have moved so far to the right, they cannot blame anyone but themselves when the Democrats move to the left. I suspect the GOP’s prioritisation of tax cuts above infrastructure investment and social insurance will provoke a strong backlash very soon. But the Democrats still need to understand why many Americans distrust them so highly. Embracing more government spending as the solution to every problem, particularly when the deficit is already so high, is a recipe for disaster in a nation generally sceptical of the state. In the aftermath of the Iraq War, strident military non-interventionism may not be a liability now, but Americans do not share the DSA’s view of American influence as a neo-imperial phenomenon. Perhaps most significant is American socialism’s complete refusal to set limits on immigration, both legal and illegal. In a nation which just voted for Trump, literally calling for open borders would all but guarantee Republican victories in states like Indiana, Ohio and Florida. While the boldness of socialists should be welcomed, there must also be a reconciliation with American public opinion as it currently stands. Ocasio-Cortez and her allies show no sign of doing so.

A refreshing story about a Yale psychology course

Posted by on

The most popular, wildly popular, course at Yale is a psychology course run by Prof. Laurie Santos. Prof. Santos, in mid-semester, told her students that her hour and a quarter session was on no account to be used for work and study, but should be used for relaxation and enjoyment. Stop worrying about grades if only for an hour, she told her 1200(!) students. Her message is one of putting happiness first and money-making last, to live joyful and meaningful lives.

Santos designed the course after hearing about the stressed out and unhappy students, in contrast to the time she was at university. National statistics show that nearly a half of all college students are experiencing overwhelming anxiety and feelings of hopelessness. They feel they have to be working non-stop, unable to enjoy other things their colleges have to offer. No doubt the debt hanging over their heads doesn’t help, nor the apparent demand for high grades from potential employers.

The idea of a liberal arts education is to learn, explore, sort out what is important in life, get an insight into ones capabilities and inabilities; to learn lateral thinking and how to express yourself well, even to do so in an amusing manner. One cannot do all this if you lead a frenetic life based on what well-paid job you can go straight into on graduation.

Bravo, Dr. Santos, and your happiness class. (Adapted from a Washington Post article by Susan Svfuga, May 13,2018)

The Supreme Court threat to our peace of mind and liberty

Posted by on

What will the Supreme Court look like in three months time?

It will be majority Republican, the newest member picked from the outer ranks of the most quixotic and literal interpreters of the US Constitution. He (probably he, because women should be attending to the kids, don’t you know) will believe that abortion should not only be banned, but those seeking an abortion should be jailed. He will likely believe that possesion of guns has nothing to do with defensive state militias, but that gun owners should be allowed to carry loaded, hidden guns into theatres, stadiums, schools, bars, and all other public places. He will carry his christian faith as a badge of honor and will abhor other “spurious” religions”. He will be the champion of white people and support all measures that eel immigrants, unless big corporations tell him otherwise.

He will likely support the Oligarchy and the idea, not addressed in the original Constitution, that corporations are people who should be allowed both to vote and to give unlimited funds to political candidates, preferably Republicans. He will probably believe that it is constitutionsl for party hacks to draw constituency boundaries in a partisan manner, and he will see nothing wrong in multi-millionaires heading Federal departments and signing contracts that benefit themselves, relatives and friends. He will believe in the moral superiority of the rich, blessed by God, and suggest that poor people should humbly wait for the odd goodie at the rich man’s gate. He will aim to overturn the progress made by blacks and homosexuals, who simply want equal rights, and he will support America being great again, even as his appointment is part of the process that ensures that it will never be so again, but will be passing the baton of world hegemony to China. A List of Shame.

What has this to do with Epicureanism? Because Epicureans would prefer to live under a Constitution that offers everyone equality and freedom. They fear claptrapery, autocrats, the destruction of the environment, everlasting wars, and the greed of the very rich. They yearn for peace of mind and simply being allowed to get on with everyone, without being bullied and having their rights removed. The former champions of freedom no longer believe in it, only money.

Thought for the day

Posted by on

A BBC headline today asks, “Has Trump broken the “special relationship?”

Answer: No. The “special relationship” is between the US and Israel and is growing into an uncritical lovematch daily as far as the US government is concerned. The relationship with the UK is confined to cooperation between the intelligence services, and hasn’t been alive and kicking for decades. Ask the average American about the Special Relationship with Britain and they will tell you that Britain is a nice place to vacation – and they speak English. Period. There are foreign policy implications to this.

Thanking people

Posted by on

A woman wrote to the Washington Post on May 21,2017 complaining about a daughter-in-law who never thanked anyone for gifts, for meals, indeed, for anything. Carolyn Hax, who writes an agony column for the Post, replied in part that her lack of manners hurt the daughter-in-law more than it hurts the giver. “A glaring social deficit like this will compromise her with almost everyone who experiences it”.

This woman was almost certainly never taught courtesy by her parents. It is a delight to meet a courteous young person who thanks you snd shows respect and courtesy to everyone, old, young and of every race and creed. It does a child no favours to skip the dull and frustrating business of drilling manners into small children, tiresome as the process is.

Oh, the tedium of being made to write “thank you” letters as a child! Oh, the smouldering resentment, when young, of having to thank some distant relatives when you never wanted to visit them in the first place and were bored beyond endurance! But then it becomes normal. Indeed one feels uncomfortable if you don’t send those polite thanks. And you notice when others fail to thank you for your own generosity. A habit? Yes, but an excellent one.

I suggest that manners, Epicurean behaviour that greases the wheels of social life, may be being ignored by both parents working full time outside the home. Are they returning home tired in the evening? Are they expecting that schools will do the jobs that should be done by parents, e.g civilising a child? I know really smart, capable parents who are bringing up stellar kids. But as for the others, how do we persuade them that even such a simple thing as saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ is a sign that you have joined centuries-long cohorts of people who understand how to win friends and influence others, the bedrock of our social system?

Fake news and its effect on children

Posted by on

The all-party parliamentary group on literacy heard evidence that fake news could make children more anxious, damage their self-esteem and skew their world view. In research for the report, the National Literacy Trust showed more than 2,000 UK eight to 16-year-olds six news stories, two of which were fake, and asked them to identify which were real and which were not. Only 2% got all six right. (BBC News, 13 June 2018)

This reinforces my contention that there should be no anonymity on the web. Everyone should be forced to be open and to have the courage to put their names to their views, like real men. Cowardice should not be rewarded! If someone is found to have spread unfounded rumours or fabricated “news” they should appear in a magistrates court and be heavily fined, if the magistrate deems the offense to be egregious. These purveyors of untruth are undoing our society and should be held to account. Ignoring it is not sn option.

The Epicurean Paradox

Posted by on

The “Epicurean paradox” or “Riddle of Epicurus” is a version of the problem of evil.
Lactantius attributes this trilemma to Epicurus in De Ira Dei:

“God,” he says, “either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able.”

Through the centuries there is no evidence of the intervention of God in human affairs. One might reasonably have expected Him to have intervened during the massive slaughters of two world wars, but no. Again, one might expect evidence of intervention at the present moment, with the planet in peril, with so-called “strong men” taking control over countries throughout the world, with inequality, mass migration, hunger, the breakdown of liberal democracy and the end of American hegemony, which did at least guarantee a measure of order. But no. We have to presume that God is neither willing nor able to help us live together in respect and harmony. Millions have been calling upon Him for centuries, to no avail.

We are left with the hope that more and more people will espouse the decent, humanistic ideas of Epicurus that stand for moderation, consideration for others, toleration, the search for peace of mind, friendship and caring for those less fortunate than ourselves. Epicureanism and similar humanistic philosophies are what we have left to us. Common sense, really, but then the “leadership” of the human race seems to has remarkably little of that. It prefers self-interest, dubious dealings, lies, bullying and filling its own pockets at our expense. Plus ca change.

The shape of things to come

Posted by on

India is suffering from the worst water crisis in its history, with 600 million people (of a population of 1.3 billion) facing severe shortages, and 21 cities, including New Delhi, likely to run out of groundwater by 2020, according to a government think tank.

The study found that about 200,000 people already die in India every year owing to a lack of access to clean water, and warned that the crisis will get worse in the coming years as the climate gets hotter and drier. By 2030, it estimates that 40% of the population will have no access to clean drinking water. The report also warns that the states that are worst at managing their water resources – including Uttar Pradesh and Haryana – are home to half the country’s population and the bulk of its agricultural production. (The Week, June 23, 2018)

It isn’t hard to guess the outcome: increased violence, breakdown of whole communities and mass migration to places more livable. We know this – it doesn’t take an old testament prophet. But, like deer in the headlights, we just hope it goes away or we conveniently deny the causes.

Fraud in the American healthcare system

Posted by on

The FBI estimates that fraud, private and public, accounts for 10% of US healthcare expenditure. $350 billion out of the total of $3.54 trillion is pocketed by crooks. Why is this an Epicurean concern? Because that £350 million has to be made up for somehow, and is taken from honest citizens by insurance companies in the form of premiums and co-pay.

Some of the American companies who have been found out and have had to pay big fines – UnitedHealth, McKesson, Cegene and the Corporation of America are now involved in the privatisation of the British Health service, driven by a a government which has learned nothing since the days of Mrs.Thatcher, that is, that privatisation does little or nothing to bring down costs or improve efficiency. What it does do is to improve the profits of the companies, and the salaries of the CEOs. Fraud in the NHS, previously very small, is growing because it is easier to cheat than to cure patients. Aside from this, capitalism and healthcare do not mix because the consumer has difficulty making rational decisions based on quality and cost.

If you are sick and cannot get healthcare then your level both of pleasure and ataraxia must indeed be low. Actually, the American system, which is just another money machine, with its poor life expectancy, is a scandal, not to be repeated elsewhere. The UK system accounts for 8% of GNP; the America 16%. If the British doubled their expenditure of health the results would put America to shame. But this doesn’t stop some Americans constantly knocking the British system, using misleading information designed to protect American healthcare from the specter of the more rational single payer system.

Meanwhile, Americans spend $10,000 per annum per person on health, compared with $4000 person in the UK. And that is without taking into account the 27 million people who are uninsured.

No more net anonymity!

Posted by on

British Labour MP Jess Phillips says she has been bombarded with more than 600 rape threats in a single night. Facebook, Twitter and other social networks should be made to record people’s real identities, said Phillips. The security minister, Ben Wallace, has called for digital IDs to end online anonymity; while Theresa May has used the G7 summit to call for tech companies to tackle attacks against women.

What good reason is there for people be anonymous on the internet? None that I can think of. If you have something to say you should have the courage to say it openly, and be prepared for someone to argue against your point of view. Anonimity encourages the bullies and yobs and brings out the worst in a section of the population, who, prior to the age of the internet, couldn’t spread bogus news, make ad hominem comments and unsupported accusations, not to mention nasty, cruel comments on fellow school students. The stance of the Libertarians that foul language and nasty accusations are the exercise of “free speech” is total baloney. Total freedom is total license. There have to be rules of truth and decency – and Epicurean moderation.