Life, the Universe & Everything

How To Get Along

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:45:00 +0000

You know that song: "Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." We can if we want. Something Jesus might have said, right? Don't worry, I'm not suggesting you should. Really, I just thought I'd tell you what I've been up to recently.

I've been trying to do things a bit differently, you see. Trying a different approach. Because I was kinda down in the dumps and was having a good long think.

Humans - that's us (I presume you're human. If you're not, please say hi. I've never met a non-human who can read before) - live in societies. Societies have ideas of right and wrong. Those ideas of right and wrong vary between different societies (cultures, if you like). Not only that but they also vary with the progression of time. With all these ideas of right and wrong, it's not surprising we get a bit confused.

During the recent riots in England, a friend posted on facebook how furious she was, how these people were acting like thugs and didn't deserve any sympathy.

"Every person from childhood 'knows' in their gut what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is ok and what is not ok." She said.

We really feel strongly about this, don't we? Without right and wrong, the foundations of moral order crumble, we fear.

The problem is - here comes a big statement - every conflict in the world, big or small, is created by conflicting ideas of right and wrong. You cannot have a conflict unless you have two sides who believe in their own righteousness.

It's always the righteous who go to war.

So how about this: try, for a second or two... well, make it an hour... half an hour? For moment, then, imagine there is no right and wrong. In other words: take all your ideas of right and wrong and let them go.

It means there's no such thing as justice. And the concept of justice is pretty ridiculous, if you think about it. When I hear people reported on the news saying they just 'want justice to be done' I now find myself wondering 'what do they mean?'

Are you still imaging there's no right and wrong? Good. Have you suddenly turned into a serial killer? I thought not.

So how is this of use to you? Well, whilst you're in this no right or wrong zone, it makes it harder for you to get into conflicts. Even internal ones! Why? Because you have absolutely no justification to back you up.

"But that doesn't stop people from telling me I'm wrong." No, but you don't have to believe them. I think it makes a difference. A big difference.

We tend to get angry when we're hurt. And we get hurt when people criticise us. We get all self-righteous and try to defend ourselves. But what about if we don't believe in their 'wrong'. Their criticism is now meaningless. We've turned their attack into nothing more than an opinion.

Even those internal conflicts. The ones that make you flog yourself with relentless guilt. You can let those go too. You don't have to feel guilt any longer, because it's impossible for you to have done something 'wrong'.

I knew this idea wasn't going to be popular, but I thought I'd say it anyway. I know you're all seething with a need for justice. "You're giving people a license to act badly!" I hear you rage. Almost certainly in unison.

In a sense, I am. Giving people a license to act 'badly' (how is it possible to judge?) diffuses a whole lot of conflict. And it might just help people to get along.

Morality in Society Without Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:55:00 +0000

I was sitting on the tube and I saw someone reading a newspaper with a headline which went something like "...Possible for Morality in Society Without Religion". I couldn't see the whole headline so I don't know if it was for or against the idea, but whichever way the article went it was an opinion held by Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks.

Is it possible to have morality in society without religion? I think this is a silly question. Can you name a society that doesn't have a set of moral principles? Nope. Society IS morality. In fact, the greater part of society is created by a common consensus on what is correct or incorrect behaviour within it.

It seems that philosophers and leaders have debated the need for belief in a higher authority or the consequence will be 'anything goes'. There's no confusion here. You cannot have society without there being a pressure exerted by that society on your behaviour.

I don't believe in gods. So why don't I behave without restriction? Obviously, because I have been conditioned by society to behave in an acceptable way.

Values change. 50 years ago in the UK it was unacceptable to have sex with someone of the same gender and so it was against the law. It was mostly heterosexual Christians who found it unacceptable and, as they formed the majority of British society, what they said went. We're also talking about a time when it was generally unacceptable to have 'mixed race' marriages. Those pressures are still in our society now, just less strong. There's also pressures in the other direction - there's political and social pressure to accept these old taboos.

If you're looking for some kind of set of unshakeable set of 'commandments', well they don't exist. Not even for religious people. I know the 10 Commandments are set in stone, but only the words, not the way they're interpreted.

I found an old article by Lord Sacks on the subject. He says "You don’t have to be religious to fight for justice, practise compassion, care about the poor and homeless or jump into the sea to save a drowning child." He's already making assumptions on what is morally acceptable behaviour for our society. It's an 'everybody knows' moral code. I agree that 'morality... is the result of social practice, honed and refined over many centuries' but 'The West was shaped by what today we call the Judaeo-Christian tradition' is another folklore assumption.

How much did society change after pagan Europeans were converted to Christianity? Roman historians will tell you about the savage barbarians who were 'civilised' by Roman influence. But we have to remember those 'civilised' Romans used to watch people hack lumps out of each other for Saturday afternoon entertainment.

Would pagan Europeans have converted to Christianity if their moral code was not already fairly close? Clearly, you cannot create a society based on selfish behaviour. The basis of any society is harmony. The best way to create harmony is compromise and sacrifice of the self in service of the group as a whole. The Christianity myth is based on this premise - one man/god sacrifices himself for the sake of the community.

It seems obvious to me, religions are chosen by a society if they reflect the moral behaviour they approve of. Religion is like a moral behaviour package with a big daddy figure to act as the eternal parent/enforcer. Religion doesn't provide morality, it just helps to increase the pressure on your society to behave in the way you wish.

I'm Determined to Tell You About Determinism

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sat, 28 May 2011 09:50:00 +0000

I have these moments where I think I've discovered something new. Its usually something philosophical.

It was some time ago on this blog that I put forward the idea we are not in any way responsible for our actions (I can't remember which post it was and I can't be bothered to find it - I'm lazy like that). At the time, someone commented this was not a new idea as a lawyer had successfully argued this in a court in Chicago in 1924.

So it wasn't new. But why did nobody tell me about it? Isn't this rather important? That none of us are ultimately responsible for what we do. That the system of punishment and the habit of blame are based on an illogical premise. Isn't this the first thing you should be taught at school?

But wait. If this idea is old news - we've been there, done it and bought the bus ticket to predetermined liberation - why is just about everyone still acting as if blame and guilt are very much alive and well (and living in Chicago, most likely)?

I had to come up with the idea on my own because it seems to be out of favour and not talked about at all in polite circles (I avoid rude circles). And as it happens, it helped me out of deep deep depression (yeah, I realised the illogicality of beating myself up for doing 'bad' things - what else could I have done but act as me?), so it would have been nice if the idea had at least been run past me at some point in the previous 40 years of my life.

I've recently been chatting to a few friends about the idea. People are curious. "What is it?" they inquire.

OK. This idea questions what choice really is. Imagine you don't like strawberries (those of you who actually don't like strawberries, just relax). Imagine I now offer you a choice of ice cream flavours: vanilla and strawberry. Which one will you 'choose'? Most people happily answer 'vanilla'. No choice.

But I still had a choice, most people insist. You didn't choose not to like strawberries and that's what made you pick vanilla. For some reason - maybe you ate a bad one as a child, maybe you gorged on strawberries once and made yourself sick or maybe you have no idea why you don't like strawberries - the desire not to eat strawberries was created back somewhere in your history.

"But I still made a choice (you people are very stubborn) I could have chosen the strawberry ice-cream if I'd wanted to."

If you'd wanted to. Who determines what you want?

"I do. I decide what I want in life. It was me who decided to become a lawyer and it was me who decided to study hard until I eventually became one. Nobody forced me to do this."

Now I'm like an annoying child: Why did you want to be a lawyer and not, say, a doctor or a plumber?

"I find law more interesting. I was also crap at biology. And I'd rather do law than deal with peoples' sewage all day."

Why? I know this is irritating, but it has a point.

The point is, keep asking why you did the things you did and at the root of it is something predetermined. Upbringing, culture, society, genetics, emotions and desires (pre-programmed chemical reactions which provide an advantage to our survival as primates), chance events or meetings.

"I wanted to be a lawyer. I could have been a doctor or a plumber but I chose law. It was my choice."

Let's try a different angle. We are, essentially, choice-making machines. Like your computer, for example. It makes choices too. If you have anti-virus software installed, it chooses which programs are viruses and which aren't. Most peoples' anti-virus software doesn't like viruses and so rejects them. How does it choose? Well, it chooses based on what it is programmed to recognise as a virus. If it chooses to reject something incorrectly, is it to blame? No - the programmer is at fault.

"We're not machines. Otherwise we'd all do the same thing."

My phone acts differently to my TV set, but they're both machines. Every human is an individual. I'm not disputing that. But every time you make a choice, what determines how you make that choice is something created by an external 'hand'. The point is: what part of your personality are you ultimately responsible for? The irrefutable answer is: none.

Remember all those times you've been criticised or scolded? As children, this is how we're knocked into shape by adults. It's called discipline. We're taught to feel bad for doing 'bad' things.

"Simon, don't be so bloody arrogant, you think you know everything. Why don't you try being a bit more humble and listen to other peoples' opinions?"

I don't know, why don't I? I guess I just wasn't built that way.

"Don't be so cheeky. Go to your room!"

Why does someone break the law?

You know what, before I explore this, let me just say, every one of you reading this has broken many laws in your life. Maybe simply through ignorance of the law or because you decided the law was ok for you to break. How many of you have used pirated software, illegally downloaded music, even (in the old days) taped a LP and given it to your friend or knowingly accepted too much change at a store etc etc etc... the list is endless. We all have. We're all law breakers.

So I was having this discussion with a manager at work in the cash office. "If you're not responsible, it's ok for you to take the cash and walk off". I wouldn't do that, it's not in my character. But if someone did it, I couldn't say it was 'wrong' or that they were to blame. They just so happen to have been created a thief (laws create criminals, by the way).

This is the point most people walk away from this philosophy. Most of us cannot accept that someone who breaks the law (even though we are all law breakers) is not responsible for his or her actions. We - in general - hate this concept (it's ok, you were predetermined to hate it, so relax). "So," said the manager "you want to live in a world where anyone can do what they want?" No I don't. I prefer to live in a world where people aren't allowed to kill me or take my things (although, whether we live in that world right now is debatable).

Judges in courts still talk about "acts of evil" as they sum up a finding of guilty for some act of multiple murder, torture or rape. Evil? Really? My God, we're still burning witches. You see we were brought up - disciplined - with an idea of fair play through punishment. We're addicted to the idea of justice being done, even though we all break the law. We justify our own indiscretions - "so I parked in a disabled bay, it was just five minutes!" Maybe we even feel guilty about it.

"How can you compare parking offences to serious crimes like murder?!"

A British politician recently got hammered for saying there were more serious rapes than others. The point is, we all draw our own lines. The Law is not omnipotent to you, is it? Clearly not, because you've broken it many times. Where do you draw your line?

If someone told you he received a speeding fine, you wouldn't shun him as you would if he told you he had attempted to murder someone. Yet, the reason we have speed limits for cars is to reduce the amount of deaths and injuries caused by accidents. By increasing your speed, you are increasing your chances of killing someone. Like a child, or a father of three, or a beloved granny. But you don't give a shit. Because in your mind you're not bad.

In your mind. Why is it you think its ok? Hmm? I guess you were just made that way.

A very intelligent friend of mine ended our determinism discussion by saying "it's just nonsense". I'm presuming most of you reading this are probably thinking the same. It's difficult to break free from the idea of being ultimately responsible for our actions. Where does it leave us? It's the idea of choices which gives us the feeling of freedom and liberty. So I guess it's ironic that I'm suggesting you break free from that. I guess it's ironic that I'm suggesting some kind of freedom comes from realising how you are about to act at this point has been predetermined (those of you who've had enough and are about to stop reading: well, you were always going to do that at this point).

Actually, I'm not suggesting you do anything. What would be the point? You're only going to accept this idea if you're mind hasn't been programmed to see it as a virus.

Now I see why no-one told me about it before. There's a very strong human resistance to determinism. I guess it goes against everything we think we understand about ourselves and about others and about existence and the reason for getting up and doing stuff.

"So, what if I buy your idea that I'm just a mass of pre-determined ways of choosing things? What am I going to do with it? Do you know how much I've invested in the heroes and villains in my life? Tony Blair is a criminal who should stand trial for war crimes and I will shout loudly until he is brought to justice. My boss is a selfish, obnoxious arsehole who just can't accept I'd be better at his job than he is and I'm determined to prove it. My neighbour is a crazy bitch who needs to be taught some basic manners. My daughter has worked so hard all her life she deserves all the financial rewards she's now reaping...."

I've looked for philosophical arguments against it, but there's none. I've tried to think of an argument against it too (because I hate one-sided arguments) but I can't. The only angle against it has been "well, there's lots of things we don't understand". That's not an argument. It's dangerously close to the old 'God of the Gaps' device.

Hard Yolks

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:37:00 +0000

Me and G decided to go and have breakfast somewhere. We spent a few minutes deciding which place - 'How about the Turkish place?' 'Nah, last time the bacon was like cardboard' etc. Finally we decided on the cafe in the garden centre - its a nice day, you can sit outside, last time the brek was decent. So I order the traditional brek, G has poached eggs on toast. Its a bit slow but, hey, the weather is nice so we don't mind.

The brek finally arrives. All the eggs have solid yolks. Shall we complain? No it doesn't matter. But poached egg on toast with hard yolk - its dry. Pointless. I call the waitress - sorry but the eggs have solid yolks - what? - look, all the eggs have solid yolks (I tap my yolk with a fork to demonstrate) - what's the problem? (I start to get irritated) - the yolks of the eggs are hard, they're supposed to be runny - ok I'll change them.

A guy appears (he looks Albanian or something) - is there a problem? - yes, the eggs, the yolks were hard - ah. Did you ask for the yolks to be soft? - what do you mean? - when you ordered, did you tell the waitress you wanted your egg yolks to be soft (if this guy is going to make out it was our fault I'm gonna...) is there a manager here - I am the manager. I own the place - ok, well, you should know, when you make a poached egg, the yolk is always runny - just answer the question. I want to know if it was our mistake or... - That's what a poached egg is: runny yolk. There is no other type of poached egg - don't tell me how to do my job - but you don't know how to cook a poached egg - I've been doing this for 11 years. Answer the question, did you ask for your egg yolk to be hard or soft?

I can't believe it. Now I'm shouting - don't talk to me like an idiot! Why would I ask for the egg yolk to be runny? A poached egg yolk is always runny. Never in my life have I had to ask. You don't have to ask. In this country, poached eggs are made with a runny yolk. If you don't know how to cook a poached egg, that's your problem - (he's leaning over us now, a bit threatening) just tell me, did you ask for the egg to be cooked runny?

I stand up - forget it, we're not eating here. And I want my money back - I'm not giving your money back - I want a refund, I don't want to eat here now - The guy runs off. I follow him back to the kitchen where he disappears inside. I wait until he reappears. He says he has to have everything cooked again as he can't just cook the eggs as the rest of the food will be cold - now go back and sit (like we're dogs). We head back to the table - ok lets wait and eat the food. I'm hungry and we paid for it - I don't want to eat here now. They'll probably spit in the food - ok lets go.

As we're walking away from the place, the guy comes running after us - where are you going? - we don't want to eat here now - but I'm cooking your food again - you're a twat - look, we're both human. I appologise to you, you appologise to me... - no. you've blown it. I'm never coming back here again... the guy opens the till and hands me 15 quid - take care - take care.

If All Men Were Alike

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:21:00 +0000

If all men were alike, all the world would worship the same God - Aldous Huxley

There would not be a problem if most of the world did not find it so impossible to see the possibilities. It seems that those who would be religious cling on to a rigid set of ideas. Their hope is in driftwood. It at least seems solid, where science is uncertain. There's even a principle named so. The argument between the religious is simply over whose bit of driftwood is most likely to float to paradise.

Because you can't bring up your children using Heisenberg's understanding of the universe.

"Don't set fire to your sister."

"Why?"

"Because she'll be both burning and not burning depending on whether we are observing her or not."

"Aw, but Dad said I could play with her locally changing deterministic qualities."

"If you don't put down that lithium and find something better to do, I'll invalidate you by falsification-experiment and no X-Box for a week!"

"Its so unfair... I hate you!"

Self Help

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:03:00 +0000

In my screenplay for Third Contact the opening scene is between the main character, a therapist, and his awkward patient, Karl. The therapist is goaded into an outburst:

"With everything that's going on in the world, happiness is an irrational state of mind... My job, essentially, is to encourage people to go around acting irrationally by being happy."

This is an idea that came to me a couple of years ago, as I was struggling with what a doctor diagnosed as depression. I came to realise, a major part of my misery was induced by a perceived societal pressure to be happy.

So I had a revelation: allow yourself to be miserable.

Why not? There's plenty to be miserable about.

Society, particularly capitalist society, says we should be happy. If we're not happy, we should endeavour to be happy; we should be striving constantly for it. If we don't, we're letting ourselves and everyone connected to us down.

So we go out and buy self help books which tell us how to be a better person.

I'm going to suggest you don't bother. Because you're never going to change. You're always going to be you, with the same strengths and weaknesses. Stop trying to improve yourself.

Did Einstein come up with his Theory of General Relativity (or whatever its called - I'm not smart enough to remember) after reading a self help book? No. He was a genius probably because of his human flaws.

Forget what everyone else wants you to be, or says you should be. Accept who you are. Allow yourself to be yourself. Even if you are a miserable old git like me.

The Common Lie

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:09:00 +0000

Here's a story for you. I've been told there is evidence for the actual happening of the Jesus that is Christ - that there were multiple witnesses to the Jesus events, whose minor contradictions in their testaments only enhance the idea they were independent-minded individuals.

As Mr A Hitler worked out pretty quickly, people believe what they want to believe. And they are even more likely to do it in groups.

I work in a cinema. A very big cinema. I do mundane crap like sweep up your popcorn and fill your coke cup with coke. When I first started working there, I was surprised to find such a lack of hygiene standards. Actually, nobody had a clue.

Added to this we had a mouse infestation. No big news - any large commercial building in a major city is going to have its share of rodents. But it became a running joke amongst the staff. At one point we had mice eating the chocolates on the shelf behind us, in full view of the customers we were serving.

After a few years I, like the rest, gave up caring. Then one day I get a text from a friend at work - we just served a dead mouse to a customer, in a frozen drink. He'd slurped his way joyfully to the bottom before finding it.

To me, this was no surprise. This was a probability.

The customer complained to the authorities. We were given about 5 days before the health and safety folk would visit. I and others were set to clean the concessions area (for some reason, the place where you sell popcorn and drinks is called concessions) from top to bottom, including the surface covered in mouse shit where the frozen drink cups where stacked. By the time the authorities arrived, whole new hygiene systems were in place.

The management told staff to keep quiet. Our jobs were at risk. The idea that the customer planted the mouse himself was circulated. This idea was so successful that pretty much every staff member became convinced this was the only logical possibility.

Against everything we knew about the place, the story we wanted to believe became virtual fact.

Would Jesus Execute People?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:27:00 +0000

Let's just imagine for a moment that Jesus the Christ actually existed in physical form. I'm no expert in his sayings and belief practices, but I'm pretty sure he was against people taking retribution into their own hands. I'm pretty sure he said something like 'leave revenge to Dad, you worry about your own sinning.'

Now, I was also under the impression the population of the United States was made up mostly of Jesus fans. A country which yesterday killed a woman, Teresa Lewis, for being involved in killing her family. My guess is the most fervently Christian states are the ones which are most for official revenge-killing.

But apparently I'm wrong. The Jesus story can be interpreted different ways, so it's up to the individual Christian to decide for themselves. And we're told we need to religion to provide us with a system of morality? How so, if we're ultimately left to decide for ourselves?

Aside from the religious angle, capital punishment is childish. You know when you were 6 years old and you scribbled on your sister's drawing, so she punched you, so you kicked her in the leg, then... etc etc until your mum had to pull you apart, followed by a lecture on how to behave in a civilised manner?

An 'eye for an eye' is not civilised behaviour. I learned that when I was 6. But it seems in some countries, they never learn it.

Pope Sparks Row

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:06:00 +0000

The Pope has come to show his very old and ugly mug in the UK. Look how old and ugly he is, here wearing his Santa hat. He says hi, sorry about the child abuse and hopes all evil people get their due punishment. Oh, and by the way, atheists are Nazis (he should know, he used to be one himself).

I'm glad the biggest hobnob of the Christian movement has brought his words of enlightenment to my nation. Things were starting to get a little too clearly thought out, so nice one mate. Glad you could make it.

I'm jealous because life is so simple for the religiously minded...

"Will all the evil people stand to the left, please?! Thanks. Right, that's that sorted. Bring me the anus of a small child..."

If anyone is still reading...

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:56:00 +0000

I happened upon this world clock page. Pretty cool and seems to get people excited when I show it to them. It has a normal clock. But more 'fun' are the ticking stats for things like death by poisoning or the world temperature slowly but steadily rising. For added drama, I recommend you hail nearby friends, family or work colleagues then hit the "now" button. Then cry with excitment, "Look at that - 28 people have been killed in road traffic accidents since I pressed the button!"

It gives you a mild God-like sense of power.

Inner Peace on empty...

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:56:00 +0000

...tried putting Christmas Spirit in the tank but it messed up the engine.

IQ2 Debate- "Atheism is the new fundamentalism"

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:20:00 +0000

No Acting Please

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:52:00 +0000

My friend lent me No Acting Please by Eric Morris and Joan Hotchkis. An interesting read, so far. I think this bit of wisdom might refer to me:

Once upon a time in Japan, a young man desirous of learning the art of the Samurai consulted with the oldest and greatest master of Samurai in the world. He said, "Honorable Master, I wish to become the greatest Samurai in the world. I will study diligently. How long will it take me?" The master replied, "Ten years." The student was shocked. "No, no, Honorable Master, you don't understand. I will live, eat, sleep and breathe the Samurai. I will think of nothing else! You see, I must be great. If I live, eat, sleep and breathe the Samurai and think of nothing else, then how long will it take me?" The Master's answer was, "In that case, twenty years."

Are You Worried About the Large Hadron Collider Creating a Black Hole in the Centre of Europe and Swallowing Us All Into Singularity Style Oblivion?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:06:00 +0000

Relax.

If you watched my Quantum Suicide video which I posted earlier, you'll now have complete, unbaffled understanding of the 'multi-verse' theory of quantum mechanics.

'Hey', I hear you cry, 'how am I supposed to digest my crunchy nut cornflakes in the morning, whilst containing the knowledge that at any nano-second I could squished into much less than the size of an atom (and I'm guessing that has to hurt) because some folks with nothing better to do are meddling with the very fabric of the universe, without even asking us if we minded?!'

I see you're all stressed out. You're muscles are tensed. There's a knot right there in the apex of your neck and your right shoulder. Well, let me give you an Uncertainty Principle massage.

Chill out, man - the universe will just split into two: one where there's a black hole which swallows us and everything else in the vicinity, and one where no black hole was created. Of course, we will only be aware of the non-black hole version of history.

This is why we're never going to be made extinct by a large objects from space crashing into our planet. Because we won't be aware of the universe where we all got wiped out. In fact, there must be a universe where highly evolved, brainy Tyrannosaurus Rexes are stomping around earth worrying about the possibility of impending meteor strikes.

Enjoy your immortality... while it lasts.

Is God Simple?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:23:00 +0000

"Evolution is ruled by a beautifully simple and elegant idea called natural selection; those genes that cause their phenotypes to be passed on get replicated and those that don't don't. The variation in genes is caused by random mutation but the environment determines which set of random variants survives in a non-random way. That's basically it.

God is a supernatural being who lives everywhere and nowhere, who created the universe from nothing, who makes man write contradictory books, causes miracles thus defying the laws of physics, can see into our heads, has created heaven and hell, speaks to special people who pass on his message, makes sure there is absolutely no evidence of his existence and after creating man also created evidence of evolution to trick him into believing that He does not exist.

Is evolution more simple than the God idea?

Yes. I'll take the science over the fairy story any day."

A nice clear statement of disbelief in Gods I found here.

'A Confession' by Tolstoy

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:56:00 +0000

During a 'spiritual' debate with a friend, Tolstoy's A Confession was recommended to me. Here's the background from here:

From 1875–1878 Tolstoy experienced a period of increasing depression and psychological crisis... The inevitability of death overwhelmed him... Tolstoy found that the uneducated peasants possessed a definite conception of the meaning of a life, a comfort and security derived from "irrational knowledge," from faith in a creator God. This faith rescued them from despair and suffering and infused their life with meaning. Confronted with the choice of irrational faith or meaningless despair, Tolstoy chose faith.

How often do people turn to spiritual solace during an episode depression?

He says, reason can't lead you to meaning (and this is why the humble, uneducated peasant is in a better condition) but he uses reason to work that out.

Tolstoy's conversion, like all god/supernatural belief, is very ego-centric. ie: this is all about mankind and our plight. Specifically in this book: there must be meaning or Tolstoy feels miserable.

He talks about how he feels; and all his philosophy is about how he feels - the universe revolves around him. Remember that old idea? Remember how the destruction of the man-centred universe got up religious folks' noses?

Tolstoy spends a lot of time describing his feelings of suicide - when he didn't have faith he wanted to kill himself. As soon as he had faith, he was rejuvinated again. So his faith is all about him (It makes sense, because my dad is very ego-centric and he believes, pretty much indiscriminately).

Oh, it's painted as some kind of worthy thing. 'Look how happy the poor people are with their simple lives'. Throw away the chains of reason and just believe!

In Polar Express the kid is flawed because he wants evidence. In fact, he's just maturing. Believers never grow up. They never mature in this way. How perfect a representation of human selfishness is Santa? Some magical being here to bring us presents.

To my mind, Tolstoy is a coward, because he took the easy option. He was miserable, wanted to kill himself because he saw no meaning. And believing in some kind of god-force made him happy again. It makes sense to me that a guy heading towards old age and regressing back into his child state would look for a father figure to comfort him.

He talks about this lack of meaning without faith. Because with science we can never know everything. Because if we are to end and turn to dust, what is the point?

Well, even with faith, what is the point? Instead of turning to dust, we turn to spirit. Then what? 'you'll have to wait and see' say the believers. But hang on, that doesn't help me any more than my non-belief. I still don't have a meaning. It just puts out the horror of death; of finality.

Death - I say: death is only of concern to those witnessing it. And you will not be a witness to your own death. Therefore, your own death is not your concern.

Religion/belief in god-forces destroys life, because it looks forward to an after-life. I say create this day, create this second, create this moment (within or without time), because there's nothing else to concern you.

Why is Tolstoy so concerned about his non-existence? Ego. He can't bear the thought that his self will no longer exist. He can't bear the thought that all his great works are just a temporary pattern in a temporary universe.

Contrary to the Jesus thing: if you act unselfishly, you can live forever (if you're unselfish now, you can be selfish in the future), I 'believe' once you give up your obsession with your own existence, only then can you begin to act unselfishly.

If a lion could talk, we could not understand him.

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:09:00 +0000

Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein is considered one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century.

It's amazing how ignorant we can be.

So I'm cheating by reading the wikipedia breakdown of the contents. It's a start, isn't it?

But it highlights the problem with language: it's a poetical thing. Even something as simple as 'buy five red apples' is open to an infinite amount of interpretations.

Then you have a book of rules. Rules which you are encouraged to live your life by. Yet those rules have infinite interpretations. How can they then be useful?

Rules made of words are as useful as rules made of clouds blown by the wind to the infinite corners of the Earth.

The Holy Bible/Qur'an has about as much chance of unifying human ambition as I have of emptying Lake Windermere with a tea strainer.

The claim is - we'll be living in a better world if we have everyone taking moral guidance from a work of religious literature.

The more open-minded believers will claim spiritual enlightenment is an emotion, not to be tied down by words. The words are just a connection - God's hotline to his Bat Cave. The dialogue you have with the Big Man is up to you.

Never mind the meaning, feel the love.

The problems arise when the believers try to intellectualise. That's when it becomes a Python sketch.

But infinity causes all sorts of problems to all sorts of people. A recent Horizon show told us mass becomes infinite at the centre of black holes. And you can't really work with that. The rules of physics no longer apply.

Infinity also causes problems at the quatum level. ie: the atoms which make you are in an infinite amount of places at the same time. Which means you are.

Heard of Quantum Suicide? Here's a short movie I made about it:

Jonathan Miller in 5 Minutes

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:03:00 +0000

Jonathan Miller does a 5 minute interview for the BBC and talks about his non-belief in higher beings. Belief in a thing called 'God' hasn't even crossed his mind, and why should it?

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:35:00 +0000

Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

A. Einstein

Question Time

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:50:00 +0000

I was such a nurdy kid, I used to watch BBC's Question Time, quite regularly. Over the years, I began to get tired of the same old political dopplegangers showing up to answer questions in a way that a used car salesman will answer questions about about a used car he's trying to sell you. So I stopped watching.

But I had to tune in last Thursday as we were promised the spectacle of seeing the British National Party leader Nick Griffin MEP lynched by the blood-thirsty mob.

I was bullied at school. I was bullied by the kids who were bullied. I was truly bottom of alpha male natural selection process. I learned many things about humanity.

One of the things revealed to me was - how the fear of being outcast from the main group motivated people. I would be playing with someone who acted as if he was my friend. But as soon as a third party arrived, that 'friend' would turn on me in an instant - "Don't forget he's Stinker!"

He was desperate not to be seen showing any kind of kinship to the person 'everyone knew' was failing to live up to the values of the main group. This is how I discovered that all human groups act in a way not unlike the Nazis (Yes, I'm sorry folks - your lofty, democratic ideals are fucked).

And so it was on Thursday's Question Time as the tribal elders, backed by the baying crowd, queued up to play Slap The Village Idiot.

Nobody left that TV studio having exemplified the civilised nature of our breed. The elected alphas, whilst accusing Nick Griffin of being a Nazi were themsleves acting like them. It takes one to know one, I suppose.

The hysteria grew. David Dimbleby used his conductors baton to orchestrate the feeding. Everyone wanted a bite. And all the panel were given an equal measure of Griffin's flesh (about a lb each?).

Jack Straw claimed the nation would see the despised for what he really was and abandon him - "Remember he's Stinker!"

But no - the following day, the bigger group said to the self-righteous group, "He may be an idiot, but we agree with him". Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said he told us so - as far as he's concerned, democracy only works when the self-righteous elite are setting the agenda and those drinking from the well of populist bigotry should not be allowed a voice.

So much for ideal of common consesus. Hain and others like him are saying, "We believe you should all have your say in how your country is run! Unless you all want to be Nazis, in which case we're taking our ball away."

There was no reason displayed during Thursday's QT. Griffin's idea us pale skinned folk are the indigenous peoples of this island, under threat in the same way the Aborigines were under threat from European invaders (guns vs sticks) was equalled in absurdity by constant cries of "racist!"

It's great to see our suited leaders lose control.

Another thing I learned about bullies - the ridiculers always end up ridiculing themselves. I think it was Dimbleby himself who scoffed "I don't know whether you love Muslims or hate them!" as Question Time was rapidly reduced to the level of drunken, after-dinner banter conducted by a gang of smug broadsheet readers who know a lot less about their subject than they think they do.

That's why it was so much fun to watch. Because, beneath the dry crust of pontification and rhetoric runs the hot lava of prejudice, ignorance and bigotry. We're all at it.

Theist, Nihilist

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:56:00 +0000

I once had a discussion with a Christian where I was accused as an atheist of bringing misery to humanity with my bleak and soulless nihilism.

Nihilism is the idea that "life is without meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value".

I think it's worth repeating: religion is about as nihilistic as you can get.

"Surely not", nay say the believers, "God is not nihilistic, with all that love and warm shafts of light from heaven shit."

Well, let's just focus on the essential question: why are we here?

God is Great.

God creates Man.

God is still Great.

Therefore, in this theistic system, Man serves no purpose. Neither does Man's life have meaning or intrinsic value.

However, as an atheist, at least the door is still open to a meaning appearing at some point. At least I'm allowed to set the value for my life, and the lives of others - I can find my own meaning.

With religion, that door is closed. Your life is meaningless and the system doesn't allow for you to get creative about it, because they claim to have all the answers already.

With religion, your path is laid out and, I'm afraid, the Good Book makes it clear - it's absolutely pointless.

Give God a Bell

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:19:00 +0000

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been having a chat with the Old Man Upstairs about saving us from environmental catastrophe. It's "no go" aparently. He's just about sick and tired of saving us from our own fuck ups, having to take retribution on himself and everything.

Well, the fact is he knew all this as he was creating us and so we he created us with the intention of seeing us destroy everything he has created for us.

I like to think of the Earth as God's Robot Wars. He designed all these life-machines to kick the fuck out of each other. The best machine wins!

God: "Come on you bacteeeeeria! Bacteeeeria, bacteeeeria, bacteeeeria!"

You can imagine the angels doing a kind of cheerleader thing...

Priest Admits Religious Story "A Fable"

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:17:00 +0000

In today's amusing story from the world of the self-deluded, a Catholic priest has been announcing to children that Santa doesn't exist.

The priest said he had never intended to hurt anyone, but it was his duty to distinguish the reality of Jesus from the story of Father Christmas which was a fable just like Cinderella or Snow White.

Good luck with that.

Have a Very Consumer Christmas and an Arbitrary New Year

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:13:00 +0000

I'm supposed to be asleep. I'm terrified. I'm more terrified by the idea of a magical being coming through my bedroom door than the possibility he might recind my gifts on account of my being awake.

It's not so much that he is a magical being either. It's more that the persona of the rotund red and white man from the North Pole has been steadily inflated in my innocent mind since I was able to understand the words "father" and "Christmas"...

If I'd been 16 instead of 6, the same effect could have been created by John Lennon coming through the door. Or Adolf Hitler.

Christmas was an exciting time in my childhood, fueled by TV adverts which lead the drive to promote peace and goodwill to all men, women and children... upon the ownership of items which, by the look of things, could inspire unimaginable joy.

And I was a TV addict as a child. The TV set was my church. The people inside it my church leaders. And Father Christmas was undoubtedly the god (who you only thought about once a year). His miracle - to bring forth the Items of Holy Joy from the TV and make them real.

There was some kind of deal with carrots for the reindeer and brandy for F.C. I really only feigned interest. It seemed to keep the parents happy. That's what parents do - they look after the catering.

Us kids, meanwhile, got on with the important stuff. Wind up Evil Knievel and he does wheelies! Slam that button, your robot punches the other kid's robot's head clean off his shoudlers! And that, my brothers and sisters, was the Holy Joy of Ecstasy. Just like in the ad I was flying high. For about 40 seconds.

But the TV ad had promised. It had sworn by almighty F.C. the owner of this Item of Holy Joy would never get bored. Never. At least, that was the message that entered my brain.

But no matter. Even though that year's gifts had failed to live up to the hype, I was no less excited about next year's as the season approached once again. I was a junkie who needed his fix.

It wasn't until Santa's Grotto had become a mythical location (and I had started to get underwear for Christmas) that I began to see through the whole cynical system. I believe I was 13 years old.

30 years later and I'm still locked into it. I dread that moment on Christmas Day when we all have to sit round in a circle and open our presents. And the tradition in my partner's family is the tortuous and excrutiating One-by-One Method.

I sit there in two minds - do I try to delay the opening of my presents? Or do I try to 'accidently' open them all in one go and get the whole unpleasant experience over with.

"What are you doing? You've opened them all. It's supposed to be Grandpa's turn."
"I forgot."
"We've done it this way for the last 20 years, how could you forget?!"
"I got excited. I couldn't wait. I just had to find out what was in this bottle-shaped one."

No, it's going to cause too much pain. I'd be destroying a Christmas ritual which they've held for over half a century. I might as well urinate over the Christmas pudding with a "Light that, Grandpa!".

Luckily, one advantage of being "quiet" is you can fade out of a situation without anyone noticing. As Grandpa reveals his bird-feeder and Nanna peels back the silver and green Christmas tree motto wrapping of her vase and my other half expresses her deepest feelings of gratitude for the wrinkle cream she told me to buy (with the money from our joint account), the fact that my face remains expressionless throughout is, thankfully, unremarkable.

Only, I can see her feelings of gratitude are so desperately genuine. So my waxwork face covers a terrible guilt. Guilt that, due to my lack of imagination, I had to be told what to buy her. Guilt that this matters to her and yet I can't find the will somewhere to care.

I make the effort. I really do. I join the pre-Christmas shopping centre hysteria will all hope of finding something worth giving.

It's all lined up. How could it be easier? Those manufacturers have taken all the trouble out of Christmas. They've got this down to a fine art. There's boxes of gift sets, stacked up in huge superstores. Stacks and stacks running into an impossble infinity, like the last shot of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

How could I fail to find a gift? I should be able to do it blinfolded. "Just grab one and run!" the voices in my head scream. "You're thinking too much. Look at all these people. Do you think they think about it? They're just ticking off their list because that's what they've been told to do."

Through the belowing wall of hot air. Automatic doors invite me to freedom. And I emerge back onto the street empty handed. Sobered by the sudden cold snap of winter air. A Christmas failure.

If Everybody Says It...

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:08:00 +0000

...it must be true.

The man due to become the most powerful in the world is, for the first time, mixed-race.

It's hip to be mixed-race now. Everyone's talking about it.

This guy, for example. Apparently the Supreme Court were talking about it 40 years ago: "The freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides within the individual and cannot be infringed by the state."

"...today there are successful mixed-race individuals everywhere you look." I agree with that.

And then: England's 2006 footy team included six players of "mixed ethnic heritage". Are you sure it's only six? What about the other 5? Was their ethnic heritage of the purified variety? Do you actually know anyone whose ethnic heritage is unmixed?

What a strange phrase that is - mixed ethnic heritage. What it is is the English langue struggling to describe something that is impossible to define. It's one of those common sense things that everyone knows is there but when you try to nail it down, it keeps slipping away from you.

"Mixed race is the fastest growing ethnic group in Britain". If not, the world.

The article goes on to include the possibility the whole idea of race is nonsensical. Uh, well yeah.

This morning, on BBC Breakfast News, brothers and sisters of the darker skin variety were rejoicing that a fellow darker-skinned person was now President. "But he's not black, he's mixed-race" came the emails from a number of members of the TV news watching public.

Had darker-skinned folk been robbed of their new hero on a technicality? He's mixed-race, so he doesn't count as officially black.

"It's not an issue," the darker-skinned man countered, "Obama has already declared himself black."

That's that then. Although I wondered if it would count if McCain had declared himself black, too.

The darker-skinned man stuck to his convictions: "134 years ago, this man would have been sold as a slave". So, we are to define a man based on some misguided ignorance beffudling the mind's of our recent ancestors?

But nothing is clearer in the race issue when the two races in question are conveniently contrasting in colour. Black is black and white is white. It's scientific. And when you mix black and white what do you get? A kind of ruddy light-brown?

Only when you dipped your brush into the red pot and didn't wash it properly afterwards, I seem to remember from junior school art classes.

Black and white just isn't scientific enough for me. We need proper classifications for these two species of human. How about Assius Blanc and Assius Noir?

What I want to ask people who talk about "mixed-race" as if it's some kind of freakish minority is: "What do you think you are, then?"