Science and Religion

 I concede that every story of creation is as valid as the scientific one. I concede that we may never know.

I propose however that religion will never get us closer to the truth and yet science might well get us there eventually.

I propose that nothing we do, science or religion, can or ever will show us the whole truth of the creation of the universe because we are incapable of knowing it.

My belief or hope, is that the external force/being/Creator which is the unknowable option I choose to go with is pleased that we are finding out more and more about how creation (in its widest sense) works. But all we are doing is akin to discovering the rules (grammar and syntax) of writing. It tells us what some of the rules are but those rules don’t and can never tell us how the idea of writing was created or why it was created and tells us only a fraction of the essence of the person who was the writer.

I see neither as good nor bad . People can use science in a bad way but science as a concept corrects itself over time. It tests and changes.

Yes it should do, Alex, but we are becoming so skewed by money and politics that it has become very hard to go against the grain that the establishment has decided is correct. In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they’re different. Look at how the establishment scientists lied about Cv19 – money and politics do not the best interests of the majority bring.

Religion however is easier to use for bad. And it doesn’t correct itself over time it becomes engrained entrenched and open to fanatics.

Well some religions correct or alter over time. What was the reformation if not a democratic correction of Christianity? And the practices and teachings on morality of the C of E for example have changed massively since WW2 such that it is now hardly any different from liberal secular society at large.

I don’t decry religion I just don’t think it necessary. I DO think anti authoritarian thinking is anti religious thinking.
I agree, in that all forms of closed-minded certainty of thinking is religious. Religious behaviours (unshakable acceptance viewpoints; the out-casting of heretics; forms of words/mantras that show you’re part of the group; songs; symbols; etc) do not require supernatural belief.

If religion was taught as if “there might be a god” I would find it more acceptable than the certainty that is communicated.

Teach religion as a possible world view rather than a definitive world view and I would be more comfortable.

Religion IS taught in this way Alex in the vast majority of schools including, ironically, C of E schools. All (most) religions are taught side by side along with humanism in Religious Studies GCSE and A Level for example. That was even true in 1983 when I took Religious Studies A Level. One paper was Christianity (it was a Cathedral School after all) and one was a comparison of the beliefs of the main religions.

If spiritual studies compared the trials of Aphrodite or Tom Brown or Oliver Twist or Harry Potter to those of Joseph with equal vigour to understand human dilemmas, then I would approve.

Religious stories have value like all stories but that doesn’t mean they are true. But it doesn’t mean they aren’t true either.

The values can be true whilst the stories are not.
I agree in the same way that the values can be true as well as the stories. Indeed the stories can be true but the values wrong. We’re back to choosing which unknowns we prefer again.

Coercion is convincing children and the vulnerable to hold opinions that are potentially false.
Who gets to decide which views are potentially false? And why do THEY get to do their supposedly benign coercion?
ALL views are ‘potentially’ false, in that we may and often do change our mind as to their veracity over time.

The truth IN the value of the stories should be discoverable and able to be witnessed. Whereas The truth OF the story is irrelevant and should not be taught or defended with threats of sacrilege or blasphemy.
It’s dangerous to dismiss the personal testimonies of many people over millennia simply because you don’t like the implications of what they’re saying.

If the human race was reduced to few mating pairs and all books and technology was destroyed. Then eventually the exact same science and technology would be rediscovered with the same scientific laws.

But we would not have the same religions with the same stories although we may rediscover the same human values needed to survive.
So what?

This simply means that we are incapable, however high a pedestal we hubristically put ourselves upon, of comprehending fully what the God/External Force/External Being is. Therefore, we will always see different glimpses of it creating differing ideas/religions.
Imagine an express train passing through a small country station at 90mph. The passengers will see it as a blur only. Even if they try to see the detail they will only be able to see a small fraction of the detail of the whole and between them, the passengers will see many different fragments of detail. When describing the station, they will all give differing accounts of their little fragment which are true but only in part; none can accurately describe the whole.
For all we know, time as we experience it, may be totally different for that external Being. i.e. the laws of physics etc we have may not be the same outside our universe.
And even if we were to discover the same values, this could simply show that the spark/values put in us by the creator Being can only be extinguished by that creator, not by us.

 

Every argument against coercion and authoritarianism is an argument against belief in a religion being the gospel truth!

We should educate enough that children can challenge religion not just believe it.

We should educate enough that children can challenge religion and science and political ideology and literary criticism and all accepted norms across society not just believe it. Providing that this challenge means to rediscover the purpose and value of these things and alter them only as much as is necessary to improve them; not just automatically gainsaying or ripping-up everything that’s gone before.

I think you said Carl Sagan said something similar very recently.

Sagan was an avowed atheist; the scientific method and reductive materialism was his religious behaviour. And there is much to be said for it but not to the exclusion of all else.

I rest my case

Your case rests on looking to how religion operated in the past or the most extreme forms of religion today. The religious issues you rail against don’t exist to all intents and purposes (certainly not in Christianity) in the UK any more; (Islam is a worrying issue I grant you) i.e. in the Christianity of the UK, the beliefs & teachings you don’t like are seen far more in the breach than in the observance.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. This is an erroneous way to think.
It's religion AND science, not either/or. Each of us must take the parts of both that we need to make a foundation upon which to live.

Response to an aggressive and rude scientific materialist

When you say the laws of physics are natural phenomena, you are really saying that they exist but you don't know why or how they came into being in the first place.

The latest idea (now the equally unlikely big-bang theory is in doubt) is that the universe (and therefore the laws of physics) has always been there. But this is just as much a ‘useful yet unproveable slight-of-hand’ as anyone claiming that these things must have been created at some point by an external Force or Being.
The latter view is just as likely as the former and both are ultimately beyond our grasp to prove definitively one way or t'other.

When you say that a new civilization would not replicate the precise theistic beliefs we have, you are right, at least I suspect you are. But to that I ask, so what?

This simply means that we are incapable, however high a pedestal we hubristically put ourselves upon, of comprehending fully what the God/External Force/External Being is. 

This seems a reasonable hypothesis since any External Force/Being that is capable of creating the universe containing the laws of physics and time etc is likely to be advanced beyond our understanding to the same extent as our abilities and achievements are to an ant or a mouse. 

The plethora of ideas about what God is are likely to be the manifestation of our attempts to comprehend the (to us) largely incomprehensible.
Of course we desperately want to fully comprehend, and in our arrogance may tell ourselves we do but I think we can only see small glimpses.
I realise that it's much easier to either pretend we have the full and complete answer or the opposite extreme, to say there is nothing there to be found.

I can see that if your view of life the universe and everything is that unless you can see, touch, measure or weigh it. Unless it fits with a mathematical formula or a law of physics it doesn't, more it CAN'T exist; that if we can't find it, it can't be there, then you will not see any merit in my arguments.
But it’s a very narrow and limited way of looking at the universe's existence and I am sorry for that. 

 

Ramblings or Brain Dump on God

 "Meaning is found both in the acceptance of fate and in the struggle to remain free, to make value choices amid a constricted range of possibilities. Whatever the gods do, we are still summoned to be the guardians of our souls.

The challenge to each of us is to accept the danger of our personal journey and thereby accept the gift of our lives”.

James Hollis

God doesn’t decide what we do with our lives, or even how long or short they are. Ours is not a purely mechanistic world with pre-determined outcomes. Luck plays a large part as do our choices. If you want Heaven on Earth and decide that without it, God either doesn’t exist or is evil, then that’s up to you. I just think it’s a very limited way of thinking. 

Our existence comprises both the world governed by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, maths, in other words what we call science, and the metaphysical world which sits above below and within it. 

It's this metaphysical world which means that everyone believes in something; behaves in religious ways toward something; has faith in something. 

Appreciation of love, beauty, art of all types, are in no way an evolutionary necessity, yet to one extent or another everyone has these. Why? 

I put it to you that it's because these unseen, unexplainable things including consciousness and how the mind interrelates with consciousness, are just as much part of our world as the scientific.

Question:

What is sacred to you or what does the word sacred mean to you?

We are biologically finite creatures. Thus, in the midst of life we are in death. i.e. we can die with no warning at any moment. 

Worse, in some ways, we can be struck down with an affliction so debilitating that we would rather have died, or so we think. 

The luck that automatically comes with the gift of free-will sometimes brings with it terrible unfairness and suffering. But your free-will allows you to decide in what way to deal with it, as Socrates did for example, when he chose to refuse exile and be executed. 

Why would he do that? How was he able to make that ultimate self-destructive choice? Who knows but it’s just one example of people choosing to use their free-will to face suffering and unfairness in other than a bitter angry way. 

Solzhenitsyn endured mistreatment and the Gulag through his chosen attitude to the situation. He was told he was to be executed several times but he remained calm.

Many Jews in the concentration camps were able to stay calm of mind in appalling circumstances etc etc

_______________________________________________________ 

It’s irrational to suppose that we can rationally achieve answers to the big questions like, God, human nature, the nature of the cosmos etc. That is in itself a leap of faith. 

It’s arrogant human-centric, ‘we are the be all and end of all of intelligence and knowledge’ thinking.

Most scientific discoveries were not made via the scientific method. They were made by imaginative leaps to which the scientific method was later applied to prove them.

Seeing something clearly is only a function of the resolution you choose to apply; the tools you choose to use. Choose the wrong resolution, the wrong tools, the wrong way of thinking and you will always get the wrong answer, or certainly only see and therefore understand part of reality.

We often mistake conviction for certainty or worse, accuracy or fact.

The only thing of which we can be certain is that we can’t be certain of anything, and anyone holding closed-minded dogmatic positions using reductionist materialist concepts as their only tool – the left brain only - on the big issues of love, consciousness, the universe, God, the sacred, human nature, appreciation of beauty etc are almost bound to be wrong because they are using the wrong tools to think about these things. 

You can’t measure love or human nature or the beauty of nature in a laboratory. Does that mean they’re not real? NO! Do we fully understand them? No! 

The right brain is needed to look at all possibilities and be comfortable with not having certainty.

Too many don’t want to hear that we don’t know what we don’t know. They want to believe that what they know, or think they know, or think they don’t know, is it; the final unchangeably correct position to hold. 

Currently this is true most obviously with acceptable morality, even though we know acceptable morality has changed often through human existence. 

There's a belief that by only using the mechanistic reductionist tool of modern science can you find everything out and thence decide what’s right and wrong. That you can explain everything; that anything that can’t be seen, touched, measured, weighed and fitted into an equation or law is just fantasy, ‘woo’, to be ignored or stamped-out; and this is just wrong. It's the worst example of left-brain dominance that our society is currently trapped in.

When you look at the universe through a telescope, you see things. When you look at something on a slide through a microscope you see very different things.

It’s not that one is correct and the other wrong. It’s that you have to use the correct tool for the thing you’re studying.

And if you only have one tool or you tell yourself that only one tool is valid; that anything that tool can’t see or explain doesn’t exist or is not worth bothering with, you’re doing yourself and society a grave disservice.

God is not a thing in the way a bicycle or a rock or an animal is a thing. God is not anything that we can fully know or can properly comprehend. It’s a form of arrogance to say that because I can’t see something other people can, it must be wrong or not exist or be malevolent. God is unknowable to us in the same way we are unknowable to an ant or a snail. They may know a little about us, yes, but they don’t have the capacity to know just how much more knowledge and cognition we have than them or why we do things. They may therefore assign incorrect motives or reasons for our behaviour – if they even have that capacity.

We can’t write down in a scientific or mathematical text the full and precise content of human nature. So with God, whatever God is. We simply don’t have the capacity to understand anything more than our limited brain capacity allows.

Imagination is vital to our Being, to our well-Being. Why do we imagine, in our limited way, God? Because God exists and it’s in our given nature to feel that spark, to want to reach that essence which is greater than ourselves? 

Or because we’re weak, fearful and irrational? 

I prefer the first reason; you may prefer the second.

______________________________________________________ 

Although it's a very important point, I'll put to one side for the moment the fact that we neither have the cognitive ability or the language skills to fully comprehend or explain what God is. So, putting that to one side, there are three main questions:

1 did a Being/Entity/Essence largely outside of our knowledge or comprehension create the universe, everything in it, and by definition all the laws of maths, physics, chemistry, biology?

2 if so, does that Being/Entity/Essence intervene in our affairs?

3 if so, how can this Being/Entity/Essence be described as good or loving when there is so much suffering on earth.

_______________________________________________________

1. We cannot know in the narrow empirical sense the answer to the first question unless God chooses to make it so obvious that even we cynical sceptical humans have no choice but to acknowledge its truth. 

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method. 

The first part of that claim is obvious but so is the second part, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is one of the basic tenets of the scientific method itself.

So the most that anyone can say, if they are being objective and truthful is, ‘I choose to believe there is’ or ‘I choose to believe there isn't’. Both are faith claims because, to repeat, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless you decide you want it to be of course.

Some cannot see past the narrow-minded arrogance of modern scientism and simply refuse to contemplate the idea that the universe, vast and complicated though it is, has been created by an external essence, which some call God. 

To me, it is just as likely that such an external essence DID create the universe as that physical matter just appeared out of a vacuum where no physical matter previously existed.

2. It depends on what you mean by intervene and it depends how much intervention and how that intervention manifests itself you decide is necessary for it to be true. 

Of course, if you make it easy for yourself by simplifying things such that God should be intervening every moment, every time something which any individual person thinks bad is happening, and therefore a good God would intervene, then no, God doesn't intervene. 

But surely, simply applying our own human logic, there would be no point in creating a world in which you had to intervene billions of times every day.

And of course, our lives are not completely straightforward, completely black and white in such a simplistic way. So it would be unreasonable to insist that by only intervening from time to time and usually in ways which only the individual concerned understands as God's intervention, somehow that doesn't count or is in some way insufficient. 

If it's OK for you or me to intervene in other people's lives from time to time, when we choose to, not all the time, why do we get to say that it's wrong of God to do the same? Are you saying when you see something which makes you feel like intervening but you then decide not to, that immediately and irrevocably makes you a bad/evil/morally odious person? I hope not. That sort of guilt-ridden self-flagellation simply makes everyone miserable.

There are many examples over millennia of things happening to people which are inexplicable other than just waving it away with a term like coincidence or worse, claiming that the person is lying or crazy. 

I completely accept that it's up to every individual to decide whether a person's account of what happened to them and their belief that it was an intervention by God is true or not but that doesn't move us forward. 

Indeed, I would suggest that there may well be many times when God intervenes on someone's behalf where they simply don't realise that it's happened. That things that they put down to coincidence, good luck, were in fact divine interventions. 

I don't press that point but it's certainly possible. Perhaps all that matters is what the individual person who experienced the intervention thinks, not what other people think?

3. This is, in reality, not only the trickiest question but actually the only one of any real importance. I suggested the three questions in what seems a logical order. However, really, it is only this third question that matters. For many non-believers, the fact that anything bad happens to any person at any time is all they need to know to say that God, at least God in the Christian tradition, does not exist. 

Indeed the fact that bad things happen in the world means they fervently hope God does not exist because who wants to feel they are being overseen by an unkind/nasty or at best amoral Being?

Thus they choose non-belief as the preferable option to 'believe'.

But as I've said before, what would be the point of creating a second perfect realm? If a state of bliss or perpetual contentment exists, what would be the point of simply replicating it within biological bodies?
Where is the satisfaction in creating something wherein you know precisely what every character within that thing is going to do and say at all times? Oh, and all of it is, in our terms, 'nice'?

And thus we hit the main problem, which is that we are trying to understand something which we cannot understand. We only have our level of cognitive function and that is simply insufficient to understand God. We find it hard enough, indeed sometimes impossible, to understand our fellow humans, let alone God. 

And this brings me back to the human centric arrogance that we are capable of knowing and understanding everything. It may well be a few millennia from now, that we believe we understand how the universe works in terms of our science, but we will never be able to fully understand the entity/Being/essence that is God because we simply do not have the cognitive ability to do so. As the ant and the snail are to us, so we are to God, if such an entity exists.
I understand that for many who believe that scientism or material reductionism is all there is don't like to even contemplate that there is anything more, and certainly that there is anything we won't in time be able to fully understand and explain.
But I and millions of others believe in this second non-material level, this meta level, this spiritual level, within our universe which reductionist material scientism simply cannot explain and so, refuses to acknowledge even could, let alone does, exist.

I am genuinely sorry that people see the fact that everything in everyone's life is not perfect all the time and indeed that for some people there is, in our moral terms, unfairness and suffering to a high degree as a reason to say that they don't believe God exists or that God is not kind and loving. God may indeed not be kind and loving in the way our limited cognition is capable of conceiving it but we have within us the ability to transcend unfairness and suffering in the way we react to it. 

It could well be that the more you suffer in this life the happier or more content you are in the next. Or that the more suffering you cause in this life will mean the less happy you are in the next.
Who knows?
And that, in the end, is the true state of this discussion; we do not and cannot know; we can only decide what we choose to believe.

PS Science is fantastic and has helped us know and achieve marvelous things but to me, it's not all thee is or can be. It's both/and NOT either/or.

Free will and the consequences

If there is no free will, then people that do bad things had no choice and therefore cannot be blamed and logically it would thus be unfair/wrong to punish them. 

So we don’t punish them and let them behave destructively?

Or do we behave badly/immorally/evilly ourselves by punishing them anyway? 

We cannot live our lives or run our society’s as though there is no free will, as most acknowledge, without it becoming an anarchic free-for-all sh*t show where only power and money or their lack matters, and morality is infinitely malleable. 

This is what dictatorship regimes do. They try to remove your free will and turn you into obedient robots via propaganda, fear and coercion.

That some societies have gone that way is horrible but we don’t all have to live like that. We have to believe that societies like the USSR, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, China, North Korea, Colombia for example, can be made better by people choosing a different way. 

Contending that there is no free will may make some feel highly intelligent, even wise, but it is a destructive & nihilistic position for anyone to hold in practice since it essentially says that things are how they are because they’re meant to be so and we have no choice but to act exactly as we do. 

I don’t believe this to be true.

I believe we DO have free will and it’s a gift we should be grateful for that we are allowed to choose what we say and do.

That’s what free will is.

We can all choose to behave how we like in any given situation, including behaving badly.

As to our culture and societal norms meaning we have no free will in practice, many people (though not as many as I’d like) change their views about things on a regular basis. We are all capable of getting past our upbringing and seeing the errors, hypocrisies and inconsistencies in our societal norms. The idea that our views are so influenced by our parents or culture or religion or even direct experience that they are set in stone for all time, such that we have no real choice over our behaviour, is provably wrong and a very unscientific as well as depressingly pessimistic way of regarding human cognitive abilities.

To get to the substance of the argument, yes, the gift that is free will goes hand in hand with the issue that some people will choose to do bad things. 

Furthermore, luck is automatically a by-product of a world of free will since what I choose to do or not do in any instance affects others in often unknowable ways – see Chaos Theory. 

People’s choice of behaviour and its repercussions for others (luck) happens for good or bad trillions of times daily, although thankfully the good/kind/honourable/friendly deeds of people toward each other massively outweigh the bad across the globe as a whole. 

Does that mean we should ignore bad luck and bad behavioural choices? Not try to reduce the bad in the world? No, of course not. We should do what we can to minimise it. 

Atheists want us to believe that there is no God, or certainly not a loving interventionist God, because if there were, God would have created Heaven here on earth.

They say that bad things happening proves God doesn’t exist or some hedge their bets by saying that He might exist but He doesn't intervene or (still bet hedging) if He does intervene He doesn’t always do so when we decide He should and therefore isn't loving because of the instances where free will and the luck that goes with it ends in bad results for people.

By this reckoning, even a single instance of something bad happening to someone who did nothing to deserve it proves the point.

A single instance out of trillions of daily actions and interactions between people across the planet is all you need for this view to be right. Indeed, in this perfect saccharine world, where a loving caring God existed, no-one would ever do anything that anyone else could complain about in even a small way. God would not need to intervene since he would have so rigged the system that intervention would be unnecessary.

Would anyone ever die bringing grief/sadness?

Would anyone ever be born with all the difficulties of pregnancy and the pain the woman goes through giving birth?

In this atheist idea of a loving God world, there REALLY would be no free will because people would not have the ability, the choice, to do anything selfish or mean or unkind.

Our world would be like an online game with all the parameters for each character set so rigidly that every action and consequence would be known in advance and only good would ever be done or ever be a consequence of anything done. 

Indeed, no-one would do anything much at all because so much that we do can affect other people in a way they don’t want, creating unhappiness, and we can’t have that in a loving God world, can we atheists?

This is atheists wanting us to believe that there are only two alternatives: a) there is no God, or b) certainly not a loving interventionist God, because if there were, God would have created perfection, i.e. Heaven, here on earth.

Everyone is happy and everyone is good and everyone is kind and nothing bad or painful happens to anyone, ever, and everyone has everything they want all the time. 

EVERYTHING is perfect ALL the time! 

We all seek Heaven where peace and contentment reigns perpetually but we differ on how and when that Heaven is obtained. 

Perhaps how we live our lives here on earth, however long or short, however pleasant or unpleasant people’s choices or dumb luck makes that, is how the perfection we seek, how Heaven, is obtained. 

I choose to think so. Atheists choose not to. Fair enough. 

I have a further existence of some kind to look forward to, atheists have nothing. Again, fair enough. That's up to them.

Because we have free will, we all have this choice to make freely about what to believe concerning the creation of the universe and whether or not some part of our essence continues after our body dies. 
But I know this; I wouldn't want to live in a world where there was no free will. Where everything I and everyone else was going to do or say was pre-determined.
What would be the point of that?
Why make a second Heaven? What would be the point?
This mortal free-will existence may decide how our essence continues and may make us appreciate it more if we are fortunate to attain the real Heaven.

Only time will tell who’s right and who’s wrong and by then I suspect we’ll both be past caring.

My thoughts on current politics in the UK

I think it was Noam Chomsky who said that we are given the illusion of freedom by being allowed free speech on the topics the elites want while being denied any form of speech on the topics the elites don’t want.

__________________________________________________ 

As a preface statement, I want to say that I am NOT telling anyone else how to vote; merely explaining what I’m thinking at the moment and why. 

Firstly, I want to suggest that there is very little point reading any of the political manifestos. There is no legal requirement for Parties to put their manifesto pledges into action and there is no legal comeback if/when they don't. As we all know, they put in place the bits of their manifesto they want to, ignore the bits that they just put in to get votes but never had any intention of doing, and do things which were not in their manifesto but which are brought in so quickly that it was obvious they planned to do them all along. Political Party manifestos are and should be treated like simple propaganda and, as we know, propaganda is a form of lying.

In my view, Labour will be no better than the Tories. Neither Party deserve my vote.

They are two sides of the same coin. Like a coin, the sides may look different at a quick glance but in practice give you the same outcome. The direction of travel is the same, the only difference may be in the speed.

The huge Conservative majority in 2019 was ridiculous and undeserved as will be a Labour huge majority this time. 

Swinging wildly between two useless, entitled, and highly outcome-similar Parties shows the poor state of our democracy.

What? They aren’t similar?

Let’s look at the big topics.

Economy – no change. The global economy, particularly that of the USA which will drive the performance of our economy at a macro-level. Taxes will continue upwards with no discernible improvement in services. All the increased revenue goes on the yearly servicing of our massive national debt plus the automatic annual increase in administration costs of the State (wages, product procurement, pensions etc). There’s none left over to actually improve the services given. The cost of living will continue to rise via increased taxes, increased prices & continuing poor economic productivity, thus continuing to widen the gap between the top & bottom 50% which will end in tears.

As usual the tax increases will affect the middle 70% most. No government will increase taxes on the bottom 20% (other than indirectly). And neither will they increase the taxes on the richest 10% in any meaningful way as they will simply leave the country which will lower the overall tax take since they pay way more than 10% of the overall tax.

NHS  – There will be no change overall. A new Government may choose one or two areas to throw money at and improve but it will be at the expense of other areas they deem less politically harmful. Like the economy overall, any extra money is swallowed up by increased annual administration costs. Neither of the two main Parties will dare suggest structural change to a sacred cow. If we continue as we are, the NHS will become, in a real sense, unaffordable in a generation or two but who cares? That’ll be for them to sort out; not our problem – thanks grandad!

Education – Again, it’s the same here as with the NHS. There will be no meaningful change. Extra money will not translate into better education for the same reasons as the NHS  - increasing costs & lack of political will. There appears no appetite to address structural issues, only ideological ones.

Immigration – huge increases in the last 25 years. The last 10 years make the difference between open borders and sensibly managed immigration a purely theoretical one. 

The levels of immigration (legal and illegal) we have witnessed over the last decades is a sleight of hand to appear to be growing our GDP. 

Pretending our GDP makes us 6th in the world when per person we’re down at 27th!!

The only difference between Labour & Conservatives is the latter does it for cynical hard-nosed economic reasons and screw the societal problems, whereas the former think open borders is morally the right thing to do and screw the societal problems. The outcome is the same and will end in tears.

Climate - whether Labour or Conservative there will be more doom and gloom and ‘the end of the world is nigh’ predictions that we’ve had since the 1960s justifying more climate related taxes, more restrictions on movement, more laws, rules and regulations justified ’cos climate, obviously’, with no improvement to the actual climate and continued increases in the cost of living via rising energy & food prices. More tears on the horizon.

Understand that China has more carbon emissions than the developed world combined. But let’s blame it on ‘western’ farmers & cows, plaster solar panels on prime farmland, fill landfills with wind turbine blades & use electric vehicles with batteries that include rare elements like cobalt mined by child slaves in Congo, all for the greater good, apparently.

I have a separate piece on climate change policy and its effect on society here. https://rantsramblingsremembrances.blogspot.com/2024/06/my-thoughts-climate-narrative-both.html

Utilities/Energy – is nationalisation the answer or is the real problem net zero policies & lack of energy security via insufficient storage capacity? 

Anyone old enough to remember the s**t show of the 1970s will understand that nationalised or privatised, the end result (i.e. quality of service and cost of gas, electricity and water) will be the same – always going up over time. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. 

Nationalisation is not a silver bullet solution here and it’s a lie for politicians to say otherwise and naïve of folk to believe it. 

I do though think that allowing foreign companies to own our utility companies is plain daft and asking for trouble.

The important stuff little discussed by politicians and the BBC

The even more important, if less obvious, societal issues is where the bigger choice of policy is and is where my decision will be made.
after all, if our society collapses, the economy won't save it!

So things like:

Identity politics generally

Trans rights & racial politics in particular

Islamism/Anti-semitism

The change to a purely digital economy & the control that gives the State

It's actually these less discussed but in reality vital societal issues that should be deciding this election as that’s where the real differences are between all the competing Parties. 

So for example:

Are you happy with the current high immigration levels or do you want less? 

Do you want trans-rights to mean biological fact can be circumvented at will in the name of inclusivity or do you agree with J K Rowling that inclusivity must stop when the existing rights of others are eroded?

Do you want Islamism (including blasphemy laws and by almost unavoidable extension antisemitism) to increase out of fear of being labelled Islamaphobic or a false belief that minorities or the losers of a fight MUST be the good guys irrespective of other considerations or that speaking honestly about the lack of integration, particularly of Islamic communities, makes you a bad, as opposed to sensible and honest, person?

Do you agree with the steady removal of using cash & forcing the use of online banking & digital currency with the control over your money that gives the State via the banks & credit card companies? 

Do you agree in principle with a Chinese style societal-credit system in which what you can do, where you can go, and access to your own money is determined by how obedient you are to the State?

[We’ve seen this already with governments around the world, not just China but Canada(!) ordering banks to deny people access to their own money if they don’t obey the government]. 

Are you content with those who run our national civic & political  institutions in bed with the mainline media and large corporations to force conformity by propaganda and removal of rights & services if they don’t like your views? 

None of above important societal issues are discussed in the mainstream media and, however we as individuals would answer these questions, we all know why. 

But pretending problems don’t exist doesn’t make them go away. Worse, ignoring real societal problems just allows them to grow and anger to fester bringing civil strife.

The way I see it, it’s not about Left and Right anymore. That’s out of date thinking.

This is the grey technocratic elite class in our society getting a controlling stranglehold on the majority.

Simplistically, it’s about the top 10% income bracket and their wannabe apparatchiks in the 75%-90% income bracket deciding that liberal democracy has had its day as the plebs keep giving the wrong answers. 

It’s ‘we know best’ technocratic managerial elitism trying to prevent any further use of very annoying democracy to de-rail their self-righteous and self-serving plans for the world. 

It’s a modern day regressive throwback to the medieval feudal system where the elite and their immediate underlings do as they please, decide what’s right and wrong, and everyone else just has to do as they’re told or be punished.

How can these real issues that affect many in their daily lives now and will be unavoidable for all soon, not be discussed openly by politicians and in the media as vital issues which should inform people’s choices? 

The fact that they’re not, merely emphasises how ‘guided’, propagandised or  rather ‘conned’ we are being by those happy with the system as it is.

I think it was Noam Chomsky who said that we are given the illusion of freedom by being allowed free speech on the topics the elites want while being denied any form of speech on the topics the elites don’t want.

Voting either Labour or Conservative just aids and abets this rise of the predictable anti-democratic technocrat with the demise of liberal democracy and I for one will be voting against more of the same.

My thoughts the climate narrative: BOTH extremes are wrong

As an opening statement, I want to say that climate change is real. My concern is the exaggeration, as I see it, of the human causation of it and the reason/agenda behind that exaggeration.

My opening question is, why are so many people willing to believe catastrophe narratives?

I understand why people want to believe good news that they're told, that's obvious. But it's much less obvious to understand why people are so willing to believe potentially really bad news, apparently uncritically.

We have been given, via politicians, global unelected quangos and the media, climate catastrophe ‘the end of the world is nigh’ predictions since the late 1960s. For example, in the 1960s we were assured that overpopulation would mean we ran out of food before the end of the century; in the 1970’s we were told that oil would run out before the end of the century; we were told in 2017 that the Great Barrier Reef is dying, then in 2023 that it has recorded the fastest growth of coral in 40 years; and there are scores of like examples. None of them have come true but we’re continually promised they will or a new one will soon. The predictions of catastrophe keep coming and vast swathes of the population keep believing them.

I can only think that there are three issues in play. 

Firstly, people simply cannot believe powerful and influential people/organisations would lie about something as important as this. Therefore, they aren't lying and it's all true. This well-meaning wilful credulity is being used to alter society in ways which under normal, (i.e. non fear & panic) circumstances, would be deemed unacceptable.

Secondly, and this picks up from my previous comment, there are people who have ideological agendas which benefit from keeping people permanently on the defensive, worried, frightened;

Thirdly, and extending the previous point, the climate industry is worth £billions which will not be given-up easily.

People will object to me saying that those people making climate catastrophe predictions are lying and I suppose it depends on how you define lying. If, for you, something has to be 100% untrue for it to be a lie then you are correct; they aren't lying. However as in a court of law where you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then yes, they are definitely lying. 

Let me put my cards squarely on the table. Climate change is real but the extent to which humans are causing it is exaggerated and they know it. The science, to the extent that highly complex multi variant models can be called science, does not support the level of concern which those responsible for communicating on this matter choose to message out.

To me, that constitutes lying because they are not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Of course we shouldn't be putting raw sewage into our rivers; of course we shouldn't be chucking plastic into the oceans; of course we shouldn't be deforesting & should be planting trees; of course we shouldn't chuck litter and fly tip in the countryside; of course we shouldn't over fish and kill animals to extinction. 

The stopping of these things is sensible and obvious.

But as we know, the Net Zero Policies being enacted, both in our country and around the Western world, go much further than this and directly impinge on freedom of movement, freedom of speech, financial security and energy security via unreliable pretend green (think of the rare elements that go to make them and the short working life plus disposal costs) alternative energy sources.

China has more carbon emissions than the developed world combined. But let’s blame it on ‘western’ farmers & cows, plaster solar panels on prime farmland, fill landfills with wind turbine blades & use electric vehicles with batteries that include cobalt mined by child slaves in Congo. Let’s flagellate ourselves while China laughs at us. But it’s all for the greater good, apparently.

All of which brings me on to the political philosophical question of just how austere and restricted we are prepared for our lives to become in order to supposedly (we hope) do something which will benefit humanity on the planet longer term. As in all things in life, there comes a point at which the lack of enjoyment, the lack of freedoms, the lack of civil liberties, the stifling control that the State apparatus has over your life will simply make life so grey and drab that you question whether or not it’s worth living, at least for those who can remember when we had the freedoms. Just ask those who lived behind the iron curtain of communism.

Now I understand that comfortably off people, especially those living in cities with good public transport, will not see many of these things as a major issue because it will be some considerable time before such creeping restrictions on freedom of movement and freedom of what we can do, where we can go, what we can & can't eat etc will hit home to them. 

But surely we are intelligent and unselfish enough to project ahead and say that, as usual, restrictions that affect a relatively small number of people in relatively small ways initially, will increase and escalate to the point where it affects a huge number of people in major ways, and it's really only the top 10% or 20% of people who will be in a position of financial strength and/or political influence such that they can continue living as they wish. Everyone in the bottom 80% downwards will find within a generation or two that they'll have lost many freedoms and civil liberties compared to their grandparents and great-grandparents (i.e. us). That where people can go, and by what means (car and plane travel) and how often etc are all severely restricted except for the rich and powerful and there will have been no change from a positive point of view to the climate whatsoever because it's too big, too complex and we cannot alter it unless we set off hundreds of nuclear weapons in one go or something like that. But otherwise we cannot alter it meaningfully either for good or for bad and we should stop allowing this myth to  be used as an excuse for giving the State apparatus and unaccountable unelected global bodies like the UN, WHO etc control over our lives and allowing them to restrict our freedoms and civil liberties all based on an exaggerated problem with a series of unachievable goals using civil liberties reducing & financial independence reducing solutions.

I think that the likelihood that those pushing climate change as a human made catastrophe rather than an historically continuous variable and by extension, pushing various policies which just so happen, purely by coincidence of course, to reduce individual freedoms and civil liberties and accrue more power and control to the State & global quangos; the likelihood that those people have only the best motives and intentions, that the increase in State & Global quango control and power is simply an unfortunate accidental by-product as opposed to the reason they are doing it; I think that will turn out to have been a naive and credulous viewpoint.

If I'm going to be criticised for being too sceptical, for being too distrusting of politicians, too wary of large and remote powerful and influential bodies, a conspiracy theorist (see addendum below) then all I can say is that I would rather be criticised for that than being a credulous accomplice to the slow but steady removal of freedoms and civil liberties which our forebears fought so hard for, over many centuries. 

After all, someone who is heavily sceptical, who wants to closely question authority and hear opposing views, is merely asking other people to think more closely and more deeply before deciding whether to believe and do what they’re told or not. 

What’s wrong with that? 

Whereas the credulous are allowing a small number of powerful people with their own selfish agendas to subjugate the majority, which ironically will eventually include themselves, in a modern form of the mediaeval feudal system. 

As Huxley said, ‘we'll all be slaves and be happy about it’. 

Well, I won't be, and I encourage everyone else not to be either.

___________________________________________________ 

Addendum

In order to try and shut people up or get other people to ignore them and certainly to avoid having to have a sensible conversation about the issue, the derogatory term ‘conspiracy theorist’ is bandied about. First of all, just as a technical point, they aren't theories they are hypotheses; they are conspiracy hypothesists.

Hypothesising is observing what is happening and then putting causal scenarios together that seem to fit that observed evidence. 

That just seems sensible to me. 

That is properly engaging with what is happening in society rather than just either ignoring it or believing whatever you're told. 

The strange thing is, nobody seems to ever discuss what the opposite of a so-called conspiracy hypothesist would be. 

Someone who either focuses on their own life to the extent that they really neither know nor care about what is happening (i.e. if it's not affecting me, it's of no importance) OR someone who is happy essentially to go along with whatever is the mainline view given out by, for example, the BBC as long as their life is cushy (i.e. I’m all right, Jack, don’t rock the boat).

If a conspiracy hypothesist is something you shouldn't be (but you should!) then a blind adherer to mainline political narratives is definitely something you shouldn't be. 

Perhaps the derogatory term for them should be something like ‘complacent sheeple’? And as I intimated above, I would rather be criticised as a conspiracy hypothesist, for being too sceptical of State & Global quango sanctioned authority via tame ‘experts’ while alternative experts are silenced, than being not sceptical enough, or indeed, at all. 

It’s the complacent sheeple who allow those with power and influence to behave just as they like, while telling the rest of us how evil & selfish we are for not agreeing to continually tighten our belts and accept reduced rights, reduced freedoms, reduced services and reduced financial & energy security.

Narcissism, victimhood and social media: the bane of Western societies

A few years ago and in a different town to where I live now, there was a letter in the local paper castigating the local community for not supporting a concert of some sort in a local venue. 

The message was that this group had worked hard to put this concert on, it was excellent, and we (the local people) should be ashamed of ourselves that only 15 or 20 people showed up to watch. How can we expect groups to bother putting entertainment on in our town if we don’t support them?

The fact that a) this was not a local group but a touring group of some sort; b) there had been almost no publicity for it other than a poster on the notice board of the venue; and c) people neither have the time nor money to attend all the entertainments put on (such is our fixation on constant entertainment these days), seem not to have occurred to the writer.

I am often reminded of this episode as I see social media posts along these sort of lines. Something I care about didn’t or doesn’t get much support, how unfair/immoral/unkind this is, how awful you who disagree are for not seeing how important/necessary this is etc.

My specific problem with these sort of posts?

It’s a distasteful cocktail of narcissism and arrogance (everyone should agree with me on what’s important) trying to hide behind a highly dubious if not downright false claim of victimhood.

Social media makes these sort of instant emotional rantings very easy. 

Again, many years ago, I learnt the hard way about NOT sending Mr Angry/Offended replies to emails. 

For the last 25+years now, if my knee-jerk emotional response to an electronic communication is to type an accusatory or ‘how dare you’ or ‘you’re an idiot’ response, the first thing I do before typing anything is to delete the address of the recipient. This allows me to let off steam as I like without the danger of hitting the send button, only to regret it later. 

I allow time for my better self to re-establish the dominant position and re-write the email using less emotive language, while still getting my view across.

My suggestion for everyone using social media is similarly to write a post or response out not on the platform itself but in a separate word document. This allows time to calm down and allow your more rational reasonable self to re-establish itself before cutting and pasting the better reply across into the social media post.

The issue that instant social media replies shows is that there are some who  think their knee-jerk highly emotional first thought is normal rational thinking and others who seem more than happy to be whipped up and to whip others up into a frenzy on a regular basis.

This is no way for important decisions to be made, topics discussed or attitudes to be formed.

Finger-wagging or ‘how dare you’ posts, along with using aggressive language or personal insult or blocking people who disagree with you politely, are all signs of us not being in control of our emotions. Not allowing our better judgement time to dominate our instant emotional reactions.

Note that I am NOT saying that you shouldn’t say WHAT you think. I AM saying that HOW we say things matters enormously both to personal and societal harmony and instant emotion-lead reactions to reading posts you don’t agree with is both your enemy and by extension that of our wider society.