God vs Delusion

What's this, I hear you cry, two posts in the space of 24 hours? Yes, I'm afraid I couldn't stop myself from posting, having heard today about Richard Dawkins's new book, The God Delusion. This book apparantly sets out to show that God does not exist, and that religion is a negative thing. Having read some extracts of the book on the BBC website, it seems to me that it's more anti-theist rambling, but I'll reserve judgment until I've read the whole thing.

I will, however, address one point which Dawkins makes, and which is a particular bugbear of mine. He discusses at length the favourite charge levelled at religion, namely that it "always leads to violence". In the present climate, it is not difficult to see why, with the threat of so-called "Islamist terror" ever-present. In the recent past, conflicts between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland and between Palestinians and Jews in Israel have also given rise to such claims. I would argue, however, that far from being the cause of such strife, religion is the easy scapegoat. These conflicts are almost exclusively concerned with ownership of land or other economic resources, and have little if anything to do with the religious orientation of the groups involved.

More convincing, however, is to consider an overview of the twentieth century's major wars. The Great War was caused by an arms race, and had nothing to do with religion; the Second World War was caused by the all-consuming egotism of Adolf Hitler, who was to all intents and purposes an atheist. The Vietnam War was about political ideology, as were the Korean and Afghan wars. The Balkan conflict principally concerned ethnicity and the egos of the principle players. The First Gulf War was, again, prompted by the ego of Saddam and the response from the West in defending its economic interests. Indeed, the man responsible for more deaths than any other person in the 20th century, Josef Stalin, was an atheist who acted solely out of self-interest in order to maintain himself in power and grow the cult of his personality.

Faced with these facts, it seems somewhat outrageous to claim that religion is a major source of conflicts. It seems to me that the major source of killing and destruction in the past 100 years has been through individuals turning away from God and embracing the cult of their own ego. Ultimately, it is human failing that provokes war, not religion; the last century, which saw more human suffering than any previous, shows us that.

One final point - having discussed the religion/war claim in such detail, it occurs to me that there is a certain weakness in the overall purpose of arguments which attack religion on these grounds. By concentrating on this topic, Dawkins and others are seeking to undermine faith on the basis of its effects, and possibly the character of the various religions. They never seek to tackle the truth which underpins faith - and when they do, it is with bland statements such as "there's no evidence for a God".

If I were to take such an approach to one of 20th century science's greatest achievements, namely the discovery of the atom, I would point out that
a) I've never seen one, and I only have the word of various scientists for its existence (all of whom have a vested interest)
b) Within a very short time of the atom's "discovery", its name had been used to unleash the most destructive man-made forces ever - namely the atomic bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki
c) This "atom" still threatens us today, being present in the many hundreds of nuclear power stations across the West. These will all have to be decommissioned, at a huge cost - most of which will be spent on employing, er, scientists.
On this basis, science is a terribly bad thing and we should stop spending huge quantities of cash on scientists.

Ok, so I'm being slightly fascetious, but I hope you get the point. Science should not be quarreling with religion, it should be working with good Christian people to find solutions to the world's problems. Ultimately, Dawkins and his ilk can ramble on forever about how terrible religion is, but it's not going to stop me believing, and it certainly won't prevent me from trying to make this world a better place.

Alienation

As regular readers will know, it is some six months since I moved from my family's home in rural South West England to my nation's capital. Moving to London has certainly provided me with opportunities, both in furtherance of my career and in what I will, for the moment, term "social" activity.

What troubled me most about moving here, and what has continued to press upon my mind since, is the problem of social alienation which has been increasingly present in urban life since the nineteenth century. Even modern rural towns and villages maintain a sense of community (Gemeinschaft, according to Tönnies), in which individuals subordinate their own needs to that of the "greater good", believing this to be in their own self interest. Modern urban areas, by contrast, operate on a principle more accurately described as society (Gesellschaft) in which shared morality is replaced by an almost market-driven system of self interest.

In today's London, this manifests itself in a number of ways. There is a growing trend amongst young people to avoid long-term relationships, staying single in order to "enjoy life". What is troubling about this is that many consider it desirable to get drunk every night of the week and sleep with as many different people as possible. The result of this is a form of social alienation which commodifies people - whether as drinking companions or sexual playthings. This is to say nothing of the people who serve our coffee, sweep our streets and keep our transport system running - they often don't even merit acknowledgement.

Since the Industrial Revolution, many writers have sought to explain the causes of this phenomenon. Tönnies pointed out, rightly, that the loss of family bonds was a key factor (for instance, I can't remember the last time I saw any of my cousins). The fact that most people living in urban areas no longer live with, or even see their families regularly is surely a contributory factor.

Marx claimed that capitalism and commodification were to blame for the situation. There is some truth here; the fact that so many of our interactions with others are impersonal - buying coffee from a stranger in Starbucks, or asking for information from an unknown TfL worker - surely leads us to view such individuals in an almost mechanistic fashion, thus devaluing their humanity.

Georg Simmel comes perhaps closer to the truth. He argued that man has a natural "impulse to sociability", but that the nature of modern urban society led people to the creation of a defence mechanism to protect against the hostility of city life. This is, it seems to me, self-evident in London today; if one is approached by a stranger in the street asking for help or such like, the natural impulse is to avoid him, largely through fear for our safety, which subordinates concern for our fellow man.

The most obvious cause of this alienation, it seems to me, is our alienation from God and from faith in general. Feuerbach argued that the concept of God serves to alienate man from his own nature, and in an odd way he was half right. While Feuerbach (and others since, right up to modern day Objectivists) argue for a new morality based on the primacy of the human ego and self-interest, it seems to me that the breakdown of community has not achieved positive results. The alienation was never from our own nature; rather, it was from the portion of our nature which is interested only in the immediate requirements of the self. But this element of our nature has no regard for the human need for spiritual fulfillment. Objectivism and other such philosophies attempt to circumvent this by substituting human achievement as the ultimate route to such fulfillment. However, as anyone who, as a child, spent time building large towers of bricks will know, the tower just keeps getting bigger along with the ambition of its creator until it all comes crashing down.

I firmly believe that the human soul requires more than personal achievement for sustenance. While the anti-Christian theorists claimed that the spread of capitalism and egoism to all areas of society would eventually improve the human condition, in reality the personal happiness of the individual is suffering as a result. Terrible alcohol and drug related problems blight my generation, particularly in London, and more will be in store in ten or twenty years time. The answer, I believe, is not more wealth or more drunken sex; it is, rather, the love of God which binds us together in unity with Him.

Malaise? You should see the state of Iraq

This evening, President Jimmy Carter gave an extraordinary interview to BBC's Newsnight programme. In it, he was heavily critical of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, and of Tony Blair's apparant lack of influence on them. He also spoke about the worrying breakdown of boundaries between religion and state in the US over the last 20 years, and of the impact of his own faith on his political beliefs.

Essentially there is nothing I can say here which President Carter didn't say himself - he managed to articulate everything I have been thinking recently about our present situation. I strongly urge you to watch the interview, here.

Of all the extremely good points made, the one I would like to develop here above all is the relationship between Tony Blair and George Bush. I am, and always will be, in favour of a strong friendship between our two nations and, where possible, between our two governments. However, as President Carter points out, the British government has recently been "subservient" to the policies coming out of Washington, to the extent that the our government "automatically...adopted the same policies without exerting its influence".

There was a brief three year period, 1997-2000, in which the Clinton and Blair administrations worked together effectively (although not always perfectly) to further the causes of social and political justice in the world. Since then, my government - who are traditionally allied with the Democrats - has been willing to defer to everything Washington says in order to remain America's "friend".

I have been a member of the Labour party for 12 years, and have actively campaigned for Tony Blair and the party at three General Elections. It saddens me greatly, therefore, to see my party leader give in so regularly to the policies of an administration which started off right-wing and seems intent on drifting further in that direction. It is one thing to hold right-wing views, as George Bush does; it is quite another to derive your political philosophy and support from a left-wing movement, but still to defer spinelessly to a right-wing "ally" for the purpose of maintaining an easy life. In that regard, I consider Blair's actions to be far worse than Bush's - whether he believes in them or not, he has betrayed the very people that brought him to power in the first place.

I hope President Carter's words will be heeded on both sides of the Atlantic. It is refreshing to hear a Southern Baptist, who happened also to be President, talk of the wrong that is being done in the name of Christianity at present. I'm off to find a copy of President Carter's latest book, Faith and Freedom: The Christian Challenge for the World. I imagine it'll be a fascinating read.

Vive la France!

Last week, I took a much needed week's holiday in France. Much needed, because I have been working incredibly hard and long hours the past month or so, which is partly why I haven't had much time to write this blog.

I've visited France many, many times before - the first time being way back in 1989. I've always loved the country and considered myself a Francophile, but in the past few years I haven't visited. I guess maybe I'd forgotten what the place means to me.

My apparantly rational plan was to take the Eurostar from London to Calais, hire a car, and join my parents several hundred kilometres down the coast in Normandy. (My concerns over driving a left-hand-drive manual car were quickly allayed - it's quite easy really). I'd not taken a vacation with my parents for quite a few years, so I was taking a gamble - which, thankfully, paid off. What surprised me, however, was the fact that, on a Saturday afternoon in August, the Eurostar was virtually deserted. As was the car hire place (an international company), as were the roads. Indeed, I drove along the A28 from Abbéville to its interchange with the A29, a distance of some 75km, without seeing another car! Where was everyone? I had expected that stretch of road to be packed with British people in their right-hand drive cars, disregarding the lane markings.

Normandy is particularly close to my heart, as it was the first place in France I visited all those years ago. Since then, with the 50th and 60th anniversaries of the Normandy landings, the region has regained its sense of the importance of those events and, to some extent, defines itself by them. Almost every respectable business or public building flies the French, British and American flags side-by-side; banners across the entrances to villages and towns welcome "Our Liberators". It is an oddly wonderful sight to see the Stars and Stripes, Union Flag, Tricolore (and often the EU flag as well) flown together, and one which is seldom seen elsewhere.

We were staying very close to Omaha beach (pictured) where one of the US armies landed in 1944. Visiting the American cemetary on the cliff above, where nearly 10,000 US soldiers are buried is a deeply moving experience. To walk among the headstones, reading the names, divisions and states of the fallen, really gives a sense of the waste of human life that is the inevitable consequence of war. Perhaps more moving still, however, was my visit to Arromanches, just up the coast by Gold beach, where some of the British forces landed. The remains of Churchill's famous artificial harbour (which was hidden in the River Thames to evade detection by German spotter planes) still sits in the bay there, and on the clifftop is the Cinéma Circulaire, which plays an 18-minute, 360degree film interspersing modern footage of the Norman coast with contemporary footage of the landings, much of it filmed as if from the soldiers' perspective. It really impressed on me the extent to which we owe our freedom to those men, many of whom gave their lives all those years ago.

On a more upbeat note, Normandy has other characteristics other than the events of 62 years ago. Perhaps most notable is the Bayeux tapestry, which tells the story of the conquest of England by William, Duke of Normandy, in 1066. The tapestry is 70m long and, given that it is nearly 1,000 years old, remarkably preserved (incredibly, Bayeux survived the Second World War completely unscathed, despite being just 10km from the coast, and hence well within range of ships firing shells from sea). Ironically, the Bishop of Bayeux, who was William's half brother, forced English monks to sew the history of their own country's defeat, and they did a remarkable job. The ubiquitous scene in which Harold is shot in the head with an arrow does not remotely do the work justice - there are some fantastic scenes, some almost a metre in length, in incredible detail and still-vivid colour.

Normandy is also a favourite place of mine because, like my home county of Somerset, its principal traditional products are apples (cider, tarts, calvados) and cheese. Calvados must be my favourite drink of all - it seems to retain all the flavour of the apple, with added overtones of strong cheese. As one would expect, the food I had while there was exceedingly good, but then it is France.

The final thing I noticed, which perhaps had escaped me before, is the sheer quality of French women. Somehow, they seem to carry off an effortless beauty and sophistication which seems to be a complete anaethema to Londriennes. Not only that, but they also seem to like me a lot better than English girls. I was smiled at by more women in the street in that one week than I have the whole time I've been in London. Indeed, on entering a patisserie in Avranches, the girl working there gave me such a soulful, intense look that I was quite overcome. This perhaps says more about the inherent misanthropy that seems to predominate in London, but it is certainly food for thought. I'm sure I'd be happy living in France, and in some ways it would be an easier move than to the United States; this trip has, in many ways, only served to deepen my confusion. I just don't know at this stage.

Worried about Cuba

I'm worried about Cuba. The illness of Fidel Castro, combined with the non-appearance of his brother Raul, who is temporarily in charge, has generated much speculation. Whatever the facts, it is clear that Fidel, aged 79, cannot continue too much longer. I hope that Raul Castro and others will be able to continue his legacy, but I equally fear that the opposition may seize the opportunity created by the vacuum of power to bring about "democracy".
Winston Churchill once commented that democracy is the worst form of government ever tried, apart from every other government ever tried. In the main, I agree with him; however, I thing Cuba deserves a special case.
Prior to the Communist revolution, Cuba was a great place to go, as long as you weren't actually Cuban. The mafia had effective control of much of the island, and they tended to use Havana as their playground for lawless and often inhuman "fun". More importantly, the land was owned by large, mainly US-based corporations, who effectively enslaved the native population, giving them the choice of living and working on the land for a pittance (subject, of course to the mafia doing whatever the hell they felt like) or leaving the island. In brief, it was the worst sort of colony we've known.
The revolution, therefore, was neither surprising nor unwarranted. Under Castro, people were not only able to live on their country's land without excessive demands and mafia intrusion, they also had access to free public healthcare and education. Of course, Communism was not perfectly executed; however, what Castro has achieved and which the others did not is overwhelming public support and real social democracy.
So now I'm worried. If Fidel doesn't make it through, will there be an equally wise and sensible leader to take over? Raul may inherit power, but his lack of public appearances so far do not bode well. There is a real danger that "regime change" will take place - most likely in the form of "Miami-Cubans" returning to take over the place and turn it into a big money-making venture rather than an island supporting its population. I pray for Fidel, and that social democracy will continue in Cuba.

The future's bright, the future's... Orange County?

After my recent Longest Post in History world record attempts, you'll be pleased to know I'm keeping this one short (or at least trying to). It's time to put that unpleasant business behind me and look instead to the future. As Andrew points out, I can and will bounce back - I've done it plenty of times before, although I'd rather roll with things than go bouncing around too much.
Right now, the focus must be on my exams which take place in November. There's a lot of studying to be done before then, so the next few months are likely to be fairly uneventful as I get down to work. It's very important that I pass; although I'm technically entitled to a second attempt under my contract, it would actually expire before I get an opportunity which leaves me vulnerable as there's no precedent for such a situation. I'm sure it'll be fine, but I do need to make sure.
As I anticipate little in the way of personal "news", this blog is going to focus on two areas: firstly, I'm going to start writing a few posts about current issues and affairs, particularly the current oil/environment/economic paradigm. Secondly, I'm also going to talk about the future and what it may hold for me.
With that latter point in mind, I've recently given more thought to my direction once I qualify. Florida is still a strong contender, if I can put it like that; regular readers will know the extent of my love for the people and place. However, it appears increasingly likely that almost everyone I know in Orlando will have moved elsewhere by that time, which reduces the appeal of going to all the effort of moving there. Plus, as Andrew points out, if Al Gore (the Inventor of the Environment, as he was described in the Futurama episode in which he appeared) is correct, most of the state may soon be underwater.
The other option, and one which appeals greatly, is to spend a year or two doing a "100% travel" job. Many multinational organisations employ recently qualified accountants from various countries to travel the globe, performing internal audits of their branches and writing reports for consideration by regional or even global boards. Dull as this may sound, this type of work is exactly what I enjoy doing the most, and combined with the prospect of travelling the globe, all expenses paid and with a generous tax-free salary it seems ideal. The main fly in the ointment is the moral issues it presents - multinationals and air travel are among the least ethical things at present. On the other hand, someone would be doing that job if it weren't - a cliche I know, but true nonetheless.
Those two ideas (with, of course, the variation to the first whereby I settle elsewhere in the US) are definitely top of the list. I definitely don't want to spend too much longer in London, I want to advance my career and also spend some time outside Britain. Another EU country is possible - no immigration or work permit problems, easy to get to from England and I have reasonable French and Spanish. That option just doesn't grab me right now. I guess it'll be a case of wait and see when I get there. I can hardly complain about having too many options! Any suggestions?

Now, a long wait

Note: this post follows on directly from the previous post, so if you didn't read it already I recommend you do, in order to follow the story.

At the end of the last post, you will recall that my dreams were dashed over the period from December 1st-24th, 2005. I didn't officially hear about Kim's engagement until after Christmas, but I was sufficiently sure of it that I told my sister that it had happened almost as soon as it did, without having confirmation. I had such a strong sense about what had happened, in a way I had never felt before. If only I could do the same with the winning lottery numbers!
Christmas itself was in some ways terrible - my parents had no idea what had happened; they still don't. They had met Kim on a number of occasions when she had visited, and I'm sure they assumed that she was my girlfriend and that all was well with it. In some ways, the former assertion was true, in that for a time she was de facto. However, I couldn't really go into all the details and so I had to live out the awfulness of it in private. Winter in England is not a good time for me in any case, owing to the shortage of light. I recall drinking quite a lot, and watching a lot of fairly spurious movies, and playing card games with my sister and her boyfriend.
December 27th came around soon enough, and I was off to Florida. I came up to London, meeting Ambrose on the train at Bristol and staying right here, in this room which Ambrose was renting at the time and which I now occupy. We went off to Heathrow, met Naomi and her parents, flew to Chicago (where there was snow on the ground, as in Somerset) and then on to sunny Orlando. I had previously met with Ambrose in Cardiff shortly before Christmas, when he was hunting for a suitable engagement ring and I was looking for a specific diamond necklace, which I found there and gave to Kim as a Christmas present. She loved it, but it didn't change a whole lot. I did mention briefly to Am the substance of what had taken place; however, I chose not to mention anything of it to anyone else at the time, on the basis that we were going to Florida to celebrate Andrew and Amber's wedding (and, it turned out, Ambrose and Naomi's engagement) and so my shame and not wanting to spoil the party prevented me from mentioning it.
That week, as I published here previously, was fantastic. The wedding was incredibly moving, and the party afterwards was fantastic. I got to know Andrew's family a lot better, especially Richard, Mary and of course Katie, all of whom are wonderful people.
I remember distinctly having a conversation with Andrew and Amber, by the kitchen counter in their house, in which Andrew stated "I think you should move to the United States". On my first visit, in December 2004, I had contemplated moving there, having seen an ad in the Sentinel for our sister firm in the South-East, looking to hire staff such as myself. However, it was only on the wedding trip that I really started to feel like I could make Central Florida my home. That time, I hired a car and was therefore pretty much independent of our hosts (with directions when required, of course). I really felt I "got it" - the whole American thing, that is - and so Andrew's remark really struck a chord with me, which is why I remember it to this day. I realised that Florida offered me much more opportunity, as a person, than anywhere in the UK. I probably have more friends in Orlando than in any other city in the world, despite having only spent a few weeks there, total.
Unfortunately, we had to return to the UK, and I had to face reality. While in Florida, Kim had continued to call me whenever she was lonely; like an idiot, I accepted every call and racked up a £100 phone bill. I guess oftentimes I'm just too soft for my own good. When I got back, I had a long wait for my results, which were eventually published on January 31st. I passed, and had just 28 days to work out what I was going to do next.
With Kim engaged to another man, the remaining accountancy firms in my home town being as unattractive as ever, I resolved to move. I applied to the London office of my firm, and after several administrative cock-ups (including being told I had been rejected, only for that to be retracted within 24 hours) I went for an interview. Much as I wanted to move to the US, I knew I had to remain in the UK until March 07 to complete my qualification. I was emotionally weary, and was almost of the attitude that I couldn't care less. The result of the interview was that I was asked to wait for a few minutes, and then called back in and offered a position there and then. And not just any position - it included a promotion and a payrise amounting to £11k (US$20k). Just goes to show what you can achieve when you don't give a monkey's.
One of the managers who had interviewed me showed me out, and generously pointed out that I only had 15 days to move to London. I went straight home, logged onto a flat-share website, and by sheer luck the first place that came up on my search was the flat I eventually moved into. I came to London to look around and meet my flatmates; they were all happy with me, the room was available for exactly the period I needed, and so I moved in. I guess there are few people who can claim to have found a job and a place to live in London in the space of 5 days. Later, of course, I moved into Ambrose's room as he moved out to Winchester to be near Naomi.

And so, here I am in London, with my college course for finals starting next week. Hindsight has given me a good deal of perspective about things in general. I know for certain I won't be looking at girls who aren't single ever again - even if, as in this case, they initiate it. I'll still continue to be friends with girls just as I always have; I'm not ready to start a relationship until I've sorted out my move to the US, when it'll definitely be single girls only.

If you have any thoughts whatever about this posting marathon, please do comment. I won't be offended by what you think - frankly I'm ashamed enough of the way I acted that nothing anyone could say would increase that. I'd really like to know what y'all think.