Homo economicus’ Weblog

A good argument has a frank exchange of views, and where they differ but are spoken lightly and with good humour it can be as exciting as an argument that involves chair throwing.

On that score Gervais and Williams are in the former category – enjoyable to listen to. Glad Simon Mayo just sat back and let it happen.

Mentally it is a traumatic moment when you realise that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not of god. While you may think your first thought is of freedom, to think for yourself and not be told what is right, and to celebrate life without constantly thinking of the pagan significance of symbols, your first reaction is one of abject horror that your belief is false. Because it felt so much like truth, and the mysteries of the world you understood.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the cage you were in felt comfortable. Your life was dedicated to Jehovah’s will to share the good news and save as many people as you could before Armageddon. Which was as real an event to me as tomorrow’s sunrise. When you step out of that cage you are seeing the world through new eyes. The framework by which you judged social interactions, based your daily routine is gone. You have to reinvent yourself. You have to understand the world anew.

The shock is that you find out who you are – rather than who you thought you were, a serf of god. I had been out of Secondary School since the first year learning at home (which is to say I read text books – home schooling sounds like I had teaching resources and a teacher) having prepared myself for a life of ministry work as a pioneer. Which is to say a missionary. Blown out of the water, with two years of secondary school left I realised that to have any opportunity in life I needed qualifications – I needed to go back to school. Back where I had been bullied as a Jehovah’s Witness.

Yet despite all this, the instincts you develop die hard. For example I still considered Christmas and birthdays incompatible with Christian teaching – and the Trinity and divinity of Jesus to be in error. The one good thing about that skepticism of other Christian teaching is that it stopped me and my mother joining the born again Christians or Mormons who were waiting in the wings to snap us up. I would wish to say we were wary of being fooled again, but the reality was we just wanted to come to terms with things for ourselves without someone trying to guide us to an answer. We wanted to figure it out for ourselves. In essence we believed in Jehovah, not the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

That helped me because the reason why we left was my inquiry into the past teachings of the Watchtower – designed to furnish me with answers on life the universe and everything, which instead revealed false prophets and changed doctrines. Now I was free to read books that were not published by the Watchtower Society, prevented because they would mislead you from the truth and also the time it took up reading Watchtower publications for meetings. As I have mentioned, I read Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy in secret because elders considered it inappropiate reading. It got me thinking how the earth came into being and how you would prove god was the cause.

Part of getting over the horror was to learn about the world, and to reason for myself rather than be told this is the truth and that doubt is wrong. Time is an important healer. Going back to school, and joining a tennis club meant that social interactions which had been limited to Jehovah’s Witnesses in the past became more natural. Especially when trying to save people was not going to be part of the conversation.

Taking part in the school play gave me an adrenaline rush I had only ever experienced giving a talk in the congregation – but I felt part of a community. It was possible to be in a social network, even with people with different backgrounds and beliefs to yourself. Hard as it may be to believe about adolescents, sinning and having a good time were not the only considerations of people my own age – people did volunteering, others were getting over dysfunctional families with a dignity and strength that I thought only the holy spirit and not human will could give.

Down to the bookshop, while studying at 6th Form, I decided that what I needed to know was why there was life in all its variety. I had been taught to be a creationist, that evolution was wrong and how Satan took people away from the truth. Now I had an opportunity to actually read a book on evolution by a scientist – and the only one I knew was Dawkins thanks to Adams. The store assistant suggested Richard Dawkins “Blind Watchmaker” – which was perfect because before the Jehovah Witnesses (we started studying when I was eight) I had been into computer programing on my old Spectrum, so the fact that Dawkins was running programmes to understand evolution fascinated me.

There was considerable anger about how I had been taught to observe the world, and a recognition that one reason for belief had been terror about what the world would do to me without god and the need for approval from the congregation. It would be fair to say that the congregation was my surrogate father, with my parents divorced, teaching me right and wrong and being my role model. This anger was the final thing that made me burn that bridge to nowhere which accepted the dogma without the faith in organised religion. It broke the tethers of affection that I had as a child.

Yet I wanted it to be true. So while being agnostic going into University, I still hankered for a benign all powerful being that may yet make the world a better place – I just did not see the  evidence for such a being. Because whilst I now appreciated the human spirit, I still considered civilisation to have been a failure in the problems facing humanity.  Reading Bertrand Russell helped with that. Education is a wonderful thing – while expectations may make us feel that the world is a miserable place that does not live up to them, when you consider where we have come from the human story is one of hope and resilience against the odds. Finally there was a sunset on the delusion of a god that could, but not yet.

Yes there are grave dangers and social problems, but that is nothing new. We are best placed to face them like never before. There is an alternative to a benevolent hand from another dimension saving us. We actually do not have a choice in this regard – which may just make us realise that science, technology, research and education are vital for human survival as they are for bettering ourselves and our way of life. Religion should not get in the way, either by diverting our attention or corrupting the education process.

OTHER BLOGS:

Me and Douglas Adams (outline of life in the Jehovah’s Witnesses)

What was it like with the Jehovah’s Witnesses? (a week in the life of a Jehovah’s Witness)

Are the Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult?

Mothering Sunday – Mother’s Day (an example of how you deal with a celebration you cannot partake in)

Happy New Year everyone!

 Well the fire works are firing. Mind you ended up actually replying to a blogger into the New Year commenting on my blog “The Way We Are”. The gist of his complaints seemed to be:

• Why should I be moral without god?
• Morality not based on god is subjective and existentialism.
• Strong evidence for evolution is only a probability – not to accept it could be wrong is dogmatism
• Science is an atheist’s god.

This was how I replied on his blog:

Evolution explains the origin of species. I explain in my blog that we have a sense of morality – tit for tat, empathy, game theory explanations of behaviour – this is the source I give in my blog explaining moral behaviour. The ability to socialise and form societies is one of the reasons why we have so far thrived – this ability to  live by a code of conduct. The question is why god is necessary for people to not break a taboo. If the only reason you claim to be a good person is because of god watching you or rewarding you I would not consider that moral behaviour.

In “The Selfish Gene” Dawkins writes “I am not advocating morality based on evolution” (page 2) further in the end notes (page 268) “There is no reason why the influence of genes cannot be easily reversed by other influences.”  Generosity and altruism are wonderful things – but do not expect help from biological nature – thankfully we have an adaptation that can make us overcome our selfish genes (the mind from which moral behaviour is possible). In this sense do we battle against our genes. As to ants do check out Dennett’s book “Breaking the Spell” where he mentions ants and what a parasite does to them. 

I do not know why you think that morality based on god, and faith that god is christian rather than any past faith or other current one, is somehow more objective than morality based on human reflection and deliberation. I see no discernible way to test the claims of one faith being true over another.

Yet I end my blog not with an appeal to morality but a recognition that the human race has a common ancestor – we divide ourselves by culture, religion, economic class, geographic location. But we are not so different as we think we are. The more we play on divisions the harder it will be to co operate and solve real issues bigger than god or what ideology you have – the survival of life on this planet.

As to science being god. Not at all. People can use science to do good things and bad things. We use reason to judge whether we should or should not make use of it that way.

Would you agree that saying christianity is the true faith would be dogmatism?

Perhaps also I should have mentioned that I have misgivings about existentialism – which incidentally is a position in christian thought as well. I am more interested in how people are what they are, and the consequences of their actions. To this end I feel philosophical thought based on scientific advances is the way forward. As to my favourite philosophers they would be John Rawls, Adam Smith and Hayek. In many ways I am interested in the Machiavellian approach to philosophy about explaining how people are rather than how they should be.

Just after midnight, first few minutes of Christmas Day.

Mixed emotions abut the event itself.

For as a believer, I believed it was a pagan festival and nothing to do with true Christianity. So from 8 to 14 did not celebrate Christmas at all. No presents, no tree. No feasting. And to be honest if you want no sense of fun then the Jehovah’s Witnesses were the place to be. The only outing we did I recall was to the British Museum, bible in hand as a Brother would do a bible tour, as we went around the exhibitions. Strange that we never went round the Science Museum or Natural History Museum. But then the bible does not say so much about these things.

As a non believer in adulthood I enjoy the fun of Christmas. The socialising, wishing people well and the idea that at this time you bury the hatchet (not in each other). For me it is fun, enjoyable – it is a pleasant fiction.

On the other hand though some parts I find really disturbing. The Christian faith is celebrating that a child, clothed in human flesh, will grow up to be crucified. That is the purpose of his birth, the reason for his life – he has no other destiny. This agonising death will through the economy of salvation save all of us from a transgression we took no part in, and could do nothing about – original sin. Somehow we should be grateful for this and celebrate a life that literally is a sacrificial lamb of god.

The nativity play makes me want an alternate end. One where no massacre of infants takes place. Where no child need grow up with the such expectations of the world on their shoulders – it is their life and we are responsible for our own short comings, and cannot place moral responsibility on others to carry our burden.

Stripped of the myth, The Daily Mail recently accused Dawkins et al of taking away the meaning of Christmas and demeaning the power of belief in achieving good deeds. Yet surely you do not need to believe in the massacre of infants to be against child infantry? Surely you can appreciate empathy of another’s suffering without accepting the holy sacrifice? Recognise that being fair to others does not require a holy spirit to so move you?

To reject faith is not to reject virtue. The idea that belief in faith reinforces virtue is one that needs to be called into question. The evidence is that people that profess faith and do good deeds do so because they recognise the value of doing the deed – and may well feel good about doing it too. Some may claim not to have the strength to do so without their faith – but that is perhaps because the ability of the mind to create a model that helps in these matters is not as well understood to the believer as it is to a psychologist.

Or maybe it is – but they cannot think of other mental formations that could achieve the same trick – perhaps better, perhaps not. Maybe they have to think that it really is supernatural instead of something they just feel.

 However you enjoy this day, may it be a good one. But just because I do not think the son of god was born to us does not mean the idea of sacrifice, unity, love, peace and good will is lost on me. More then ever do I appreciate a good time – even one based on a delusion.

Merry Christmas!

The new Liberal Democrat leader in the UK on radio saying he did not believe in god is not really news – he gave the main speech at the Lib Dem Humanist and Secular dinner a while back. However, even the BBC has given a tabloid like treatment to the news.

I wrote about the reason for a new leader here. Clegg is on the classical liberal side while the challenger he narrowly saw off (though Clegg had more MP support, in the leadership rules my vote is equal to an MPs) Chris Huhne is more of the social democratic type. The Lib Dems formed by a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party (the SDP in turn being formed by the gang of four MPs that previously had been Labour Cabinet Ministers). 

Most of the reaction has  been that it is not really an issue. The Archbishop of Canterbury weighed in saying honesty and responsibility were far more important than the religious or otherwise opinions of politicians. A documentary of Tony Blair recently covered his religious belief and his term in office - though the interview was so tame that when he refused to answer a question it just stopped (thank goodness it was David Frost and not this team that interviewed Nixon!).

Having said that Nixon was a Quaker. The actions and character of a person are much more important things to judge someone by. Having said that I remember in my younger days when I was a Labour activist (just before leaving the party in disgust because they did a U turn in office and introduced tuition fess for university causing a housing crisis for students that did not take their gap year, that took months to sort out) trying to get the vote out for Ben Bradshaw in Exeter while I studied there.

On the door, some people refused to support him, even though they were Labour, because he was gay. Even the Conservatives locally made it an issue – stating do not let the pink flag fly above the town hall. When Labour won in 1997 and Bradshaw won I was elated. Only to become bitterly disappointed, not just with the party but also when Bradshaw attacked John Simpson for reporting that NATO bombing had brought the people of Serbia together with the campaign that they were all targets – Ben was wheeled out because he was a journalist himself and his character assassination attempt on Newsnight backfired.

Gordon Brown has his moral compass from his lay preaching father, David Cameron has opportunity and social mobility, and it would seem that Nick Clegg’s is about personal individual freedom and Brian Eno (to get in touch with younger voters).

Well we will see how it all pans out.

It seems when people use the term atheist or humanist people are emphasising something about themselves. Atheist that put simply there is no evidence of a god. A humanist that there are values and ethical choices which we can make without resort to the supernatural or superstition. To that end they are both sides of the same coin – it really does depend on what you are emphasising.

 So when someone says their ethical system is superior or their belief system self evident because it is sanctioned by divine writ, that it comes from god almighty and is not up for discussion, debate, reason or evaluation of consequences of ancient belief in the modern age then the passion in me rises. Because what they are saying is that even if it could be demonstrated that the belief when practised adds to human misery, causes untold suffering, has no benefit within this life time and the cost outweighs any, that no one is harmed on earth when someone breaks that belief – it still matters because god is offended, and faith matters over impact in the here and now.

People are entitled to have a religion. I would hope that people would put the inquiry that people do when shopping – scrutinize the alternatives on offer; or when listening to a used car salesman – examine the evidence that this car is not a lemon. If you want to believe that your life is worthless save for the agonising torture of a man 2,000 years ago that through the economy of salvation one man saved billions – good luck to you. I can tolerate that you may have this belief, meet up with people that have that belief and break bread, drink wine. You can even tell me about that belief with a view to saving my immortal soul.

However, in public discourse I will challenge your belief system. This may well hurt you. When saying I am an atheist this is nothing compared to when I phrase it I am not a christian in terms of shock on believers. Semantics no doubt, but I do not believe Jesus was the son of god, maybe he did not exist at all, and as for miracles I sincerely doubt it. Despite radical christianity (not the same as fundamentalist christianity) trying to move away from super naturalism (no god hears your pray etc) but use it as fable and allegory for leading an ethical life and jettisoning that which does not the question to ask is – can there be something better?

For me there is – and thank goodness for most religious people being able to cherry pick from their texts so that love, peace and harmony as goals are not affected by calls for slavery, inferiority of women, and death to the non believer. Yet the idea that ethics may be based not on a god or religious text is called into question. The only excuse I can think of is that people are unaware of the long history of moral philosophical thought, and the developments of law, which demonstrate the evidence that this does not need to be the case. Reason through the ages has been the major factor, religion often the style that the discourse has played its part in the historical narrative.

The thing is that the law is in many ways designed to protect citizens – from each other, even from the state. By this measure do we talk about the freedom that exists within a state. The secular state is seen, by some in the USA, as a threat to religion because when laws are framed, public policy is discussed, what god wants and their beliefs are not automatically given precedence.

But they should not be. Religious views have no more precedence than other political views or economic doctrines. Your religious belief should not hold any other citizen to ransom in their choices and behaviour – because the criteria is not that your sensibilities are harmed, or a god we cannot have a two way conversation with is made angry and his wrath is terrible, but whether the individual concerned is actually causing real harm that threatens the public good and needs to be held accountable for their actions.

It is with that view that humanism tries to work out what is the answer to ethical questions. It does not hold truth to be self evident. It does not accept that thinking is tied down, but through discourse and reason we can discover common values which have helped us live together, and that as a community writ large or small the human condition can be improved, and that change can be a good thing.

Do I wish religion would disappear? I just want people to examine, without prejudice, the world and universe in which we live. We only have a short time on this planet, and we hopefully can do more than just survive – we want to have meaning in our lives. Yet religion is not for me the best way – it certainly is not the only way. It should not be an issue to discuss and evaluate the moral claims we make, your life though is your own.