Remembering JG Ballard.

JG Ballard, an author I have admired for long time, has died, after a long battle with illness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/apr/19/jg-ballard-obituary


I first discovered JG Ballard when I was 18, the first book I read was Millennium People (one of his best, I believe). I’m trying to remember what, exactly, it was that lead me to him, for sure I had seen and read Fight Club before discovering him (a book that would not have existed without Ballard) I was also listening to Radiohead at the time, (who have acknowledged an influence,-- the milieu and mood of OK Computer is very Ballardian). I would, almost certainly, have watched Crash before reading any of his work, it is probably this (the film) that sparked my curiosity.

Its somewhat ironic, though, to think that Crash made me seek him out, even though I have never read it, and that it is considered to be his chief work. Ironic and also a bit simplistic, for Ballard’s work was much more richer, more intriguing, more influential than reducing him (as a lot of the press is doing) to being a chronicler of his war time interment as a child in a Japanese camp in China or his provocative book of car-crashes, sex and death, techno-porn. Though Crash has elements that would form the basis of the majority of his work, I think something like Super-Cannes or Millennium People is to be considered the essential Ballard. What he chiefly gave the world in way of his output was literature both informed by Dali and Freud, first hand experience of human cruelty, the effect and affects of modernity and consumerism and social organisation. The outcome of his work invariably seen individuals and sub-cultures reacting to modernity in ways that were, anarchic, messianic hero worship, and the appeal of fascism. The results on the page were funny, absurd, hysterical, frightening and wholly original. As Martin Amis put it in his interview with Channel Four news on Ballards death “no other author could have wrote what he wrote”. I have to also quote the well know phrase a publisher said of Ballard “beyond all psychiatric help”.

I haven’t really read much of his stuff for over a year, indeed, since becoming interested in philosophy--the kind that can be called empirical philosophy, Ballard has somewhat fallen out of favour. I’m reading John Gray at the minute, a philosopher with what I would suppose are continental influences-- described Ballard’s book Super-Cannes as one of the key books of the 21st century. There is a deeply irrational strain that runs through these two authors work, almost at times I suspect, a admiring of violence and cruelty and tribal impulses. Perhaps, or perhaps not, what Ballard and Gray wish to articulate, is that naïve ideas of unfettered human reason and progress and comfort are delusions. That there is a deep, irrepressible urge in humans for the lusting of power, of cruelty and irrationality. Ballard’s work, maybe a testament, a notebook, a view from the inside of the mass murderer, of the crazed fabulist, of the charlatan, the fake messianic figures, psychopaths, bored advertising men drawn to violence and danger.

Ballard is sometimes seen as a prophet, his work, especially the early sixties sci-fi stuff, are seen as prescient of our recent environmental catastrophes and imminent disaster with global warming. His writings on the obsessions of celebrity and their deaths, pre-figure Princess Diana and Jade Goody. To my mind, he has changed the way I view modern architecture and cities. The films of Michael Mann express some of the ambivalence and the de-personalising effects of architecture on the individual.


Ballard though, was foresaw himself by another great writer and foreseer of the future. In another moment of serendipity, I was reading a totally unconnected, old article by Bertrand Russell from Sceptical Essays-Some Prospects Cheerful and Otherwise, he had this to save on future irrationality.

“Perhaps, in the end, safety will become wearisome, and men will become destructive from sheer boredom.”

Or in a more full blooded way.

“In such a world it is to be feared that destructive impulses would become irresistible. R. L. Stevenson’s Suicide Club might flourish in it; secret societies devoted to artistic murder might grow up. Life in the past has been kept serious by danger, and interesting by being serious. Without danger, if human nature remained unchanged, life would lose its savour and men would resort to all kinds of decadent vices in the hope of a little excitement.”

Bertrand Russell--Sceptical Essays.

That’s an extraordinary precise of Ballard. Indeed, Ballard main theme, I believe, is the dangers of too much order, comfort and security. That civil society will always be threatened by anti-rationalist, radical and murderous groups wanting dis-order and a return to the tribal law of the jungle. His last book, Kingdom Come, is a tale of banal consumerism breeding a neo-fascist revolution-cum-religious messianism. As you expect from the title, the conclusion is apocalyptic.

It think it telling that one of the titles of his books (collection of reviews and essays ) is called a User’s Guide to The Millennium. So, in signalling agreement with John Gray, I would conclude that for someone dropping into the planet from the years 1995 to September 2001--then, JG Ballard is surely one of the essential guides. In two hundred years from now, we will either by living in caves, clubbing animals again and engaging in slavery or else we will be colonising space, presided over by a world government with liberal democracy flourishing everywhere. Depending on what happens, Ballard will be viewed as an author of impulses best forgotten or a calm, disinterested, clinical Cassandra who foresaw the future.


Best

Mike.

Comment on Ed Husain op-ed, What Binds Brits together?

Here is the Op-Ed at the Gurdian website.

Mr Husain, the man who wrote the Islamist,(which i reviwed here) has this to say on the values that bind people of the UK together.


key points from the OP-Ed

"Last week's arrest of alleged terror suspects reassured many in Britain. The suspects are all – bar one – from Pakistan. There was an unspoken sense of relief among many that at least they were not British. But why? Why do we expect not to be attacked by "our own"? Why is "home-grown terror" more terrifying? What in Britain glues us together to prevent us from turning on one another?"

"Let's cut to the chase: we have a problem with connected identity here in Britain. It's not just Muslims such as Khan who feel disconnected from Britain – the problems of atomised, self-centred existence are widespread. The "nothing-to-do-with-me-guv" mindset has caused us damage. It has made us unwilling to find common ground with our fellow citizens."

I believe though, you answered your own question. How can (Muslim) non-drinkers and drinkers get on? How can we reconcile the values of collective obligation with individualism. How can you reconcile the culture or reason, discourse and scepticism with the culture of obedience, faith and group-loyalty?

"We need to move beyond simplistic debates about identity and engage with the deeper issues that are at stake. Too often, commentators have suggested that a united society can be built on shared tastes in sport, food, and clothing. This is not enough: such arguments overlook that the 7/7 bombers played cricket, ate fish and chips and dressed in jeans. We need a deeper debate about the core values that can bind us together as a nation."

from Ed Husain, writing in the Guardian.

My View

I dont believe you can. Two choices face us from this conclusion.

1. We continue on the same path of not seriously engaging with Muslim separatists, by apologising for them, stating that there is not a problem with them or their ideology, that the problem is really US foreign policy. British policy regards Muslims at the minute is to engage with the non-violent extremists. This is a very short-sighted policy. The problem is not terrorism, it is the values of freedom and inquiry that are under threat. The extremists might not use violence, but they use ever other tactic to coerce others into complying.

2. Both the Government, the establishment and the intellectual class can and should wage intellectual war on Muslim separatists. We need the same kind of response that was present during the cold war intellectual battles over communism. The ideology of Islam and the politics of Muslim separatists will erode in the face of unrelenting, challenging scepticism from the larger population. Secondly, we need to give larger voice to people like yourself MR Husain and someone like Ayan Hirsi Ali. We need to encourage and support Female Muslim rebellions, and quests for independence.

The goal of creating a tolerant and reasonable Muslim population in the UK is a worthwhile goal. Why? For the reason that ideas spread, that relatives back home might pick up on whats going on with their UK cousins. That many silenced, progressive Muslims, might draw inspiration from the modern Muslims in Britain. One of the sad observations from MR Husains book is that England is such a hotbed of extremism, that it outdoes even the Saudis in rhetorical fervour, that many young British Muslims grow up to be the most radical kinds of Muslim. This, of course, can be changed, but only if their is willingness to do so, at present, I do not see such will.

Best

Mike.

ON Coppola

The Films of Francis Ford Coppola

Over the last month or so I have had the pleasure of re-watching the films of Francis Ford Coppola. Out of at least five films deserving of entry into the pantheon, Coppola contributes an astonishing three (which is mightily impressive considering the output of that decade-the seventies) the other two being Star Wars and Taxi Driver. It is even more remarkable when one is aware that the budding director was nearly fired from the Godfather, which would have robbed us of the Conversation, Godfather part two and Apocalypse Now. It also needs to be stressed that, like Radiohead with its dazzlingly eccentric output , every movie Coppola directed (and produced and co-written) was in some ways a reaction or answer to the previous one. With the exception of the difficult but rewarding Conversation every movie is a filmic feast, filled with the best of American talent, narratives that are gripping and absorbing, that mirror the politics of its time and paradoxically are personal and intimate, that aesthetically in many ways capture both the mood of European art house and film noir of the 1950’s. (which in turn had its roots in European art.)

It would of course be a crime and a sin to omit the names that helped make the films what they are. Set designer Dean Tavoularis, composer Nino Rota and Francis’s own father Carmine, Cinematographers Gordon Willis and Vittorio Storaro, editor and sound designer Walter Murch. Writing contributions from Mario Puzo (the author of the Godfather) John Milius and Michael Herr. Acting talent that of course includes many of the best actors of the last fifty years but consider how less rich the films would be without the likes of Richard S Castellano (Clemenza) Sterling Hayden (capt McCluskey) John Cazale (Fredo and Stan,) G.D Spradlin (Senator Geary and General Corman) Lawrence Fishburn (Mr Clean) Lee Strasberg (Hyman Roth) The uniqueness and richness of the characters both in writing, acting and personality is echoed in another great American achievement--David Simon’s The Wire.

It is worth remembering some of the things that went on in the making of the Godfather. I strongly recommend by the way the Godfather boxset with its wonderful documentary materials and interviews. According to these behind the scenes and reminisces, Coppola wasn’t much wanted as director, he recalls how he was sitting in a toilet stall only to hear fellow crewmembers bad mouth him. Perhaps its apochrya but Coppola was meant to be fired the weekend over which they shot the great Sollozzo assassination scene in which Al Pacino has his first moment of glory and Michaels first moment of malignancy. What a scene to be saved by, Coppola stayed and the rest as they say in the business is history.

Michael (Al Pacino) dominates the Godfather films, or rather haunts them. Even when not present, his brooding, calculating malevolence is ever felt. Critic David Thomson suggests Michael visibly seems to retreat into the darkness. In the flashback scenes in number two, we along with Michael find it painful yet unable to prevent the existential contemplation of the past, searching for the answers to what went wrong in the present. Michael is a lonely figure, left at the end of Godfather two with a pyrrhic victory that is more like ironic tragedy without a trace of self knowing cynicism or humour to leaven the increasingly cramped and claustrophobic air of his fort (prison?) at Lake Tahoe.

Michael’s tragedy is also presented as America tragedy and the trial and sorrow of every man who has to live up to some kind of ideal whether that be a tradition or some great ancestor or indeed father. John McCain’s autobiography is called Faith of my Fathers, he will have to spend the rest of his years contemplating himself as third time nearly been, a man who surrendered himself to the Rovian mudslinging politics that he deplored (when directed against himself) in his first run for President in 2000. He may also go down in history as the man who brought the Christian fascist and fantasist? Sarah Palin into the spotlight and potential 2012 presidential victory. The tragedy is (as Aristotle pointed out long ago) that the things you hold dear, the beliefs and values and emotions that you cherish are the very things that lead you to despair, failure and solitude. Michael loved his father and his father was a loved man but he was also a criminal, a gangster and a murderer. The flashbacks scenes in Godfather 2 have the quality of a romanticized and sanitized past that every leader and conservative re-witnesses history whether political or personal. When Michael stands before the priest in Part 1 and renounces Satan while standing at the foot of an orgy of chilling violence which Coppola masterfully cross cuts and scores to Catholic liturgy- Michael is presented as the poker faced representative of a soulless hypocrisy- Catholic and Capitalist. Thirty years earlier his father would have been standing in the same position with the same attitude and contempt for the Church and the pezzanovante, only Vito carries his criminality and contempt off with a certain rustic charm, his Machiavell/capitalist machinations shrouded by words like honour and respect and dignity.

The themes of power, certainty of leaders and the consequences that follow from their actions are the bedrock of Coppola’s themes throughout his films of this period.

In the Conversation, Harry Caul, has knowledge of a potential murder, he is certain (wrongly) of the people who are the malevolent forces and the consequences of his actions here see the murder of the innocent and the destruction of his own flimsy walls of sanity. Like Michael and Kurtz, Caul is in an existentialist dilemma. Does he hold true to his core beliefs or loosen them? He has the power of life and death but he is unsure of how to act. How does one know that ones actions are right? Kurtz is “clear” in his mind but his soul is “mad”. Michael follows the logic of extirpation ruthlessly but is hollow and emotionally vacuous as a result. Caul has neither the intelligence nor the clear thinking logic of these two yet in many ways he ends up the worse, reduced to madness and insanity, the knowledge? That one is being watched and that ones very secrets or guilty action is known and there is nothing one can do about it.

There is an irony here and Coppola’s fellow film-maker and Catholic friend Scorsese would know it only two well. Caul specialises in ear dropping, listening in on peoples secrets, spying that has and will have terrible consequences. Mentioning the title Godfather with the image of puppeteering gives the game away. (never mind Kurtz’s deification--spot James Frazer’s Golden Bough as one of his set texts for a modern re-creation of a far east Yahweh with M16 Assault rifles and machetes. Caul at the end of the film undergoes a breakdown, a potent symbol. I observed to myself has this not been Caul’s condition for the entirety of his life? As a serious and guilt-prone Catholic--what else would there be to expect? All very well having an all seeing and knowing God if your filled with loving and kind thoughts-not if you’re a solipsistic misanthrope like Caul. I had a conversation once with a Zen Priest--an ex Catholic who recounted how relieving it was to have this concept of a permanent CCTV camera removed from his mind.

The Conversation was made in between GD1 and GD2. It is a much smaller film, far less grandiose and fully demonstrates a side of Coppola that many people miss--that is the introverted and pensive Francis, the man who would drive himself to near destruction on Apocalypse Now. Before that though, Coppola laid to rest any doubt as to his talent with Godfather 2. It’s a very rare thing indeed that a sequel of something actually exceeds the first. Watching the Godfather 2 again confirmed it. The unrelenting, underlying misery and folly of the 1950’s story juxtaposed with the simple, rustic and dreamily romantic flashbacks of Vito’s rise to power is deftly engineered. Pacino comes into his own in the film, even manages to outdo arguably his greatest scene of the Sollozzo execution when he smashes his rebelling and protestant and non-Italian wife’s face in over her abortion. It is the only sign of mental or emotional weakness in Michael, the only time he drops his cool, logical macho intellect. (the other snap which is related was when Tom Hagan informs him of the “miscarriage” “was it a boy?” “Mikey after 3 months…” “Cant You Give A Straight Answer Anymore! Was it a Boy?!”

GD2 does answer a charge though that was labelled at the first film. That it glamorised the gangsters. I believe there is some truth to this. But it is this truth that adds power to the Godfather 2. Unlike the last one were we could and did enjoy the vanquishing of the families enemies and cheer on the many murders--we are not allowed this in number two. Even when Vito kills we sit in stony faced silence.

Themes of the certainty of power, the consequences of violence, moral hypocrisy are fully treated in Apocalypse Now Redux but still without any conclusion. I was stunned watching this film again, I already considered it the most impressive film I have seen but seeing it again on a widescreen with surround sound (I await the day of seeing it in the cinema) was an experience, a thrill that few other films have ever delivered.

The opening! What with the Doors, the images of helicopters swooning in slow motion across bombed out trees lines, lit up with Napalm. On cue to the lyrics, Willard’s stoned out and burned out face appears. Coppola has always been a great visual storyteller but the number of things both profound and subtle and small in this sequence can only be described in the words cinematic genius. But there is so much! After that intro, consider the next crescendo--of Willard going mad and wrecking his room. Two masterpiece scenes in under ten minutes. The briefing/dinner scene, shot mostly from Willard’s Point of View is another ace. Coppola is a rare thing, especially today, a moviemaker who has an impressive ability for large beautiful bombastic films that are also rich in detail, nuance, thematic obsession and concern for actors. Though he made a few more masterpieces since--his decline is one of the saddest things in American movies.


Is Apocalypse Now an anti war film? Its worth asking, for it can be assumed that it is without justification. I would say no, or rather I would say its an anti-establishment film or again to put it more pointedly--one mans personal journey, polemic and self-destruction (Kurtz and Coppola’s) against hierarchy and bureaucracy. Sam Peckinpah would have appreciated the film immensely. Coppola in retrospect has been cast as a member of a group of young turks who would shake up and eventually re-establish the film business and studios in the 1970’s. Their names are well known but it would seem that Coppola really did despise much of the studio system that was still potent despite the relaxing of the Hays code that constricted the industry since the thirties. Coppola wanted to go it alone, “he got off the boat he split from the whole fucking program”. He created Zoetrope studios to do personal films outside the mainstream. For a while it was working. The dream ended a little later in the 1980’s with the failure of the Cotton Club. In some ways I picture Kurtz as Coppola and Willard as the ambivalent and ambiguous George Lucas who’s career Coppola gave lift to, which in an almost oedipal move killed his dream off. Star Wars along with Jaws killed the possibility of a mature and thoughtful and entertaining American cinema. Perhaps that is too harsh, that the banality of much of what we see today would have won out anyway. Perhaps though like in Vietnam, a small victory could have been achieved, or, rather the forestalment of defeat and despair could have been kept at bay for a few more years.

When Willard kills Kurtz and emerges as the new God, when he drifts back to civilisation, the flat and Zen and stoned out face is our face. The “witness” to so much, so many explosions and settings suns, so much fuck of eloquence of soldiers shooting at the shit. Words cannot capture the almost mystical and religious aura of much of Apocalypse Now, there is much in human experience that words cannot express that are much better “understood” in music or images. Drugs help, was Coppola dropping Acid like Lance? Carmine Coppola’s score which would sound cheesy and ridiculous in any other setting accurately gets the mood of this film-fucked up-out of sync, stoned and wasted, wistful and dreamy. The movie stays with you, days later walking down the street or driving in the city at night, snatches of music come back to you, lines of dialogue, images of helicopters flying across your vision. “the Horror the Horror”.


Best


Michael Faulkner.

The Doctrine of Terror.

Here is a thought experiment--an attempt to lay out what kinds of violence a terrorist or terror group would deploy that was justified. I am here, positioning myself in the mind of the potential terrorist. I will not be exploring in great detail, the justification that can be given for violence such as just war. I am primarily interested in setting down a continuum of ethically justified, proportionate terror/violence. Developing a gradual increase in action.

I feel I should say a few words on the use of the word terrorist. As the name implies, terror, fear and panic is one of the goals that various “terror” groups seek to achieve. However, I believe as this will show there is a distinction to be made concerning numerous terror groups various goals, intentions and tactics, not to mention their attitude towards targeting non-combatants.

In what follows can be seen either as an escalation of violence or a slow slide into ever more questionable or unethical and immoral action. (please note, again, this will be argued from a point of view of a terrorist, I am not dealing with the underlying premises. Or example I believe it would be justified to respond with some sort of “terrorist“ activity in response to genocide or slavery or a huge infringement of civil liberties.)

Here is the gradient.

* Rational persuasion and negotiation has failed to bring both sides to an agreement or that one side will not listen to rational argument. Said policy is continuing and will continue for the foreseeable future. Which leads to…

* Warning-that the failure to cease and desist from said policy will result in violent consequences.

Failure to do so results in….

* Kidnapping of political leaders who have either advocated, implemented or created the said policy. Attempt to persuade them to either see arguments to desist (dubious given the circumstances) or present them with three choices. Either support our cause, (if you really have changed you mind) and or cease and desist from you role in carrying out or implementing said policy or die. If you choose to cease and desist and renege on your promise--you will be marked for death.

* Targeted assassination (designed to kill one person, ie a sniper rifle or pistol--one bullet one body) of a political leader who has either advocated, implemented or created the said policy that has motivated the terrorists.

* Targeted assassination of various political leaders, deputies, ministers, military leaders, police chiefs, CEO’s who have either advocated, implemented or explicitly support said policy.

* Bomb or mortar attack on HQs, offices or home of said political leaders who have created or implemented said policy. If there is collateral damage this is justified if and only if there is strong evidence to think the political leader is or will be in the targeted location. And only if the violence is proportionate. (I will discuss proportionality later)

* Telephone or email target and or media and inform target that a bomb has been planted in said location. The call is a feign. There is no bomb, the point is to cause fear and to show the enemy that next time we might not either be lying or merciful.

* Plant bombs in or near military or political institutions. Ring forward and state that said bomb will explode--this will give them time to evacuate the building. Only structural damage and financial damage is the aim here. There is one other aim--which is power and fear (which is used to persuade the enemy to change said policy) Inform target that next time there may not be a warning.

* Deliberate shoot to kill policies against soldiers, policemen or other government personnel who are actively in co-operation with said policy.

* Deliberate and without warning--detonate bombs or mortar attacks, military bases or government building which are actively in co-operation with said policy.

* Kidnapping of non-combatants and NGO’s who are clearly and explicitly in support of said policy. Either persuade them to the cause or get them to cease and desist or kill them, and kill them (target for assassination) if they renege.

* Targeted assassination of non-combatants and NGO’s who are clearly and explicitly in support of said policy.

**** Indiscriminate bombing of non-combatants in a public place****

**** Maximal indiscriminate targeting of non-combatants in a public place****


Given the logic of just war and that there is times that violence is in fact an ethical response to things like slavery or genocide or the threat of annihilation- it seems to me that much of the above is justified. The problems start I believe when we move from bombing military and political institutions to the kidnapping and finally killing non-combatants. The threshold is non-combatant, however I believe it could be said that for example a wealthy German businessman who was donating money and resources to help the Nazi party could be targeted as a facilitator and supporter. If he were “persuaded” to cease and desist this would seem to be a “positive” outcome. If his death was caused, there would be less money and resources going into the Nazi party.

However this action would be constrained by what difference would it really make? Furthermore it might actually increase support for the Nazi party or similar political party or policy for example. Also would there not be more worthy targets? Would his targeting be justified though if the previous justified actions (kidnapping and targeting of leaders etc) were carried out and to avail? Surely though, if the leaders and solders were killed and a regime or country did not still change its ways how likely is it to change after a civilian is targeted? This is an “empirical” point, if there was no prior indication of what the action may result in it might be justified to carry out the action--provided the outcome or goal to be brought about was worth it.

Clearly the real problem is with indiscriminate bombing. Bombing kills indiscriminately. It kills both supporters of a terrorists cause, indifferent civilians and the backers of said policy that terrorists have a problem with. It is a crude, blunt weapon. However is there any circumstances were it could be justified? I believe so. To be adopted only in extreme circumstances and when all other approaches both non aggressive and aggressive has failed and only if there is a real chance of success and that the action is proportional to the likely success and goal of the terrorist and of his action.

Putting it more clearly, this pretty much rules out bombing if not in theory but in practice. I would define extreme circumstances as either slavery or genocide. Real chance of success also seems pretty negligible. The only “success” that perhaps can be taken from deliberate targeting of civilians is that it might persuade both sides to sit down and work out their differences peacefully as they have seen that violence does not work.

Proportionality is a problem and I don’t consider myself to have solved it. In the end all that can be said is that it is a matter of degree and reasonableness. For example it would not be proportionate to detonate a nuclear bomb in a city of a country that has denied certain members of that county labour rights or basic civil rights. It may be ethical though, to assassinate a politician or bomb a government building. From this crude example it would suggest that our concept of rights, freedoms and welfare does not translate easily into the arithmetic of body count. For example is it ethical to kill one person to promote to welfare and rights of twenty million people? What about twenty thousand or twenty? No? What if he is actively blocking their welfare and causing their death and suffering? Should violent action only justified in the actual consequences it brings about? Ie intentions and means are unimportant if the end gained outweighs the losses?

Given the hierarchy of justified violence it is quite clear that many terrorist groups do not consider them and go straight to indiscriminate killing or show no regard for human life whatsoever. There is many who would make a moral equivalence between say a government that accidentally kills civilians in air raid and a terrorist who blows up a teenage disco. The distinction is obvious when you consider it from the perspective of the continuum. The military are targeting either military or paramilitary targets, the terrorists are not. The military as best possible seek to reduce civilian deaths, the terrorists in many cases seek to maximise it.

Arguments about collective responsibility are fraught. Indiscriminate targeting, kills as I have said people who are indifferent or in support of what the terrorist wants. Also it should be considered unethical to hold hundreds or thousands of people guilty for policies in which they have not explicitly supported or carried out. Especially when there are more guilty targets that deserve singling out. Also at the risk of repeating myself, the repugnance of the action, the indiscriminate nature of the violence and the probability that it will bring about what the terrorist seeks is also further strikes against terror bombing.

A move against this could be that because individuals “choose” to live in a democracy they have to assume the responsibilities and consequences that the country they live performs. There does seem to be some tacit support for this. For example lets say I possessed illegal drugs, I don’t agree with the governments support of drug criminalisation and would argue the point with the judge, however I would have to resign myself to the prison sentence nevertheless.

I don’t think this argument is more persuasive to the idea that perpetrators of crimes are the ones that should be held to account. There are graduations of culpability and in turn graduations of punishment. It would seem to fly in the face against everything we hold of value such as individual liberty, choice, responsibility and notions of judicial equality.

To conclude then I would argue that almost certainly the policy of indiscriminate bombing and mass murder against non-combatants is never justified.

Best

Michael.

A New Years Resolution For Christians.

(I sent this in email to my Christian friends--its kinda half tongue in cheek but if we got Christians to carry out these reforms our quarrel with them would be rendered mute. Perhaps you may wish to email this to whoever you know or mail them similar ideas.)

Dear friends

Recently I have been considering, again, the almost eternal debate concerning religion. Again, recently I came to the conclusion, or rather realisation, that it is the negative consequences of much religious doctrine and practice that has motivated much of the current war of words. As opposed to say, just having a barney for the sake of it, a financial opportunity or that it (New Atheism) is just a fad that has developed arbitrarily. This is hardly an original analysis but worth baring in mind--for all sides ( many miss this point), for not all religions are the same and not all are worthy of the same respect or disrespect-should the circumstances require it.

The following proposals that I will outline here may seem the most controversial suggestions since the reformation. So it is here that I will nail my thesis, not to any door but to your very computer screen. For my part, I consider what follows is basically sound and cut from the cloth of common sense. My proposal is this: That good Christians, real, moral and educated Christians should reject both the impostor St Paul or Paul of Tarsus and utterly abandon the Old Testament. (Abandon its theology and morality-not perhaps its poetry in places)

Why and how?

These are words no doubt, forming on your very lips at this second. I will answer both why and how in what follows. So, are you tired of being called deluded? Are you fed up of going about in fear of being buttonholed by some pedantic gadfly who lassos you with the historical and theological Christian support of slavery and the nonsense of a creator God who makes the world in six days and puts his feet up on the seventh? Do you wish that atheists would just leave you alone and go annoy someone else? Well if you do--then I have the solution for you.

I recognise, that this and what follows can almost be seen as satire. For the paradox is this--I will outline what I believe I have not seen any religious apologist do, which is to make the strongest case for Christianity possible (in both theory and practice for the 21st century). What would follow I believe, would actually make it more influential (for a time) it would though like a vaccine shot, make the spread of resistant anti-bodies to dogmatic and lunatic forms of religious belief harder to take hold in a population. As any good doctor will tell you, Natural Selection has adapted us to a certain amount of germs--it just depends how much and how strong a germ or virus we are exposed to and what consequences it brings. Or as Zen Roshi Joan Halifax humorously states “it’s not the case that we don’t drink poison in our lives--its knowing how much.”

So I will both play the role of Louis Pasteur and Robert McKee (the Hollywood script doctor)-- “We have a good story to tell here, perhaps the greatest one ever told, it comes in three acts, act one is too long and the violence and barbarism is too much for a modern audience these days--they would be sick into their popcorn, and this third act, bit too cheerful for the coming destruction of the earth, and this bloke St Paul, bit too much of baddie to be a hero I’m afraid, no no, it wont do--lets be radical, lets abandon the whole three act thing and simply base our story on the entire second act, one this rather fine fellow you call Jesus.”

You may be raising eyebrows at this point--saying that if I can make a case for Christianity in such a way as to make it more likely to spread through the population--have I not contradicted myself--what stops me then becoming a Christian?--well I will say a few words on that point in my closing remarks.

There were of course debates in the early history of Christianity as to whether or not to drop the Old Testament. They kept it--for reasons I’ll discuss shortly. However I believe this was a mistake--a profound one, for the blood drenched odour of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Second Samuel and the implausible Genesis and mythical Exodus has followed Christians around like a bad smell.

Of course the reason they tagged the Torah on was that it contained prophesies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled. Especially the doctrine of the virgin birth. Surely, good people can see that the value of a person lies in what they do and say, not in what was possibly ordained or prophesised for them. Take the case of the virgin birth--Jesus never had any control-- just like you and me of how he was conceived--or not. In today’s society we value and judge a person by what they do and say not by their background--especially how they were born. Do we for example deem people of caesarean birth more special than those who only slipped out of the birth canal? Or someone conceived by in Vitro fertilization is special in a way they cannot be by the more natural methods of procreation?

Lets say if we grant the premise that there is a God-one who designed the gravitational constants, the laws and intricacies of mathematics (which even today the best and brightest are still puzzling over) the wonders of deep space and deep time, the planets, the stars, the universe and everything in it. Frankly, it cheapens a God of this statue that he would announce the most immense moment in the history of the universe by bestowing a virgin birth for his son to an illiterate woman in bronze age Palestine.

Good, intelligent, Christians should have no need of tricks, either they build their faith on the noblest aspirations or not. Either they claim their faith on the verifiable and realistic actions of their leader or else they will suffer the ridicule and opprobrium that they rightly deserve.

The second reason for Christians to hold firm to the Old Testament is this.

“Don’t think that I have come to destroy the law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but the bring about what they said. I tell you the truth, nothing will disappear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. Not even the smallest letter or smallest part of a letter will be lost until everything has happened.”

Matthew 4, 17

Ok so how do we deal with this?……

Firstly its clearly ambiguous, what law? Which version of the ten commandants? (there were two contradictory ones remember) also remember, that much of Jesus’s ministry was in opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy of the day. Also it should be said, that apart from a few ambiguous lines--Jesus never did violence or called explicitly for violence against anyone. Unlike the laws and behaviours of both God and the patriarchs of the Old Testament. If this is not enough then consider this. It might not work in theory but everyone accepts, indeed expects it in practice.

“It is said “anyone who divorces his wife must give her a written divorce paper” but I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife forces her to commit adultery, the only reason for a man to divorce his wife is if she has sexual relations with another man. And anyone who marries that divorced woman is guilty of adultery.”

Matthew 5, 31.

Of course, no one takes this seriously anymore, except a few bookish, elderly virgins in the Catholic church. It was this dogma of course that forced King Henry the 8th to break with the “king with the pointy hat who sits on his throne in Rome” (if only at least for Henry’s more creaturely reasons--well I suppose divorce is better than losing ones head…)

So here we have a ringing, sparkling, flagrant breaking of scripture. I could of course list countless examples of such concessions to modernity and common sense but I don’t need to. The example of this should demonstrate that our moral sense has changed-- reasonable good men and women both Protestant and Catholic reject the above commandments of scripture--the words of Jesus himself. If that is Kosher (I’m mixing my monotheisms here) then it is only a small hop, skip and jump to abandoning the Old Testament. After all-- if we don’t listen to Jesus on specific and rather clear issues then its hardly a grave sin to reject a book that has little to do with the core message of Christ. If you are further in need of persuasion on this point I kindly recommend you ask an unbeliever what he or she thinks of the morality on display of some of the more notorious books of the Old Testament, or better yet and with more kindness--you read them yourself.

So now we come to Paul. Who is this fellow anyway? Surely after the visitation of Jesus--God’s work was done, why did he have to blind Saul on the road to Damascus? Surely the testimony and actions of Jesus was all the proof that was needed? Why didn’t Jesus foretell of Paul and his role in early Christian history? What do you think is more likely- that God needed Paul to spread the word (which would mean that his own son had failed to convince) or that Paul was maybe mistaken in his visions? Or if you want to take a more sinister line--maybe Paul was doing it for underhand reasons-- a racket perhaps? Or simply to have power and influence? Or maybe as some serious scholars have suggested that Paul who suffered from epilepsy which they claim, produced the experience of being in dialogue with the divine. (aside note I am aware of “experiments” involving theologians taking LSD and “communing” with the divine, obviously cultural influences play a role in determining the content of a persons spiritual or drug experiences. For example South American Indians trip out to Ayahuasca and commune with their spirits, which needless to say have nothing to do with the spirit world and everything to do with the affect of certain chemicals on the brain)

I believe that I have stated sufficient reasons for rejecting Paul. I will though say a few more words on his ethics. Clearly, I believe, you can see that Paul’s attempts to return to the more oppressive and rigid Old Testament ethics are clearly in contrast with much of Christ’s ethics. There are many passages of homophobia in his writings, he supports slavery, believes women to be subservient to men “Christ is head of the church so man is the head of the house” that women be disallowed from talking in church or holding positions of responsibility. Clearly, Jesus never advocated any of this.

So here is where we “should stand and do no other”. Again recalling the protestant mantra “back to the bible” should be replaced with “back to Jesus” and all else should be safely placed back upon the shelf.

To clarify my proposals: we can conceive of two types of Christians.

Imitatio Paul

And

Imitatio Christ

Here is an idea to spread, don’t call Pauline Christians, Christians at all call them perhaps Paulians so that will leave good Christians like yourselves to reclaim the word Christian. An analogy with the gay movement is easy to see here--where they reclaimed the word Gay as a positive word, not one of abuse.

So it is easy to see here, two traditions and two lines of demarcation.

In the Paulian camp we have figures such as Ratzinger and all the Popes of the antiquity. We have Augustine and Aquinas, Robertson and Robinson, Bush and Blair, Luther, Falwell, Paisley, Warren and the Bishop of Carlyle. The consequences that such men have wrought is variously war both national and sectarian, inquisitions and witch hunts, oppression and torture, homophobia, child abuse, undermining science and obscuring ethics.

In the tradition of Imitatio Christ we have Martin Lurther King, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Bishop George Bell (who opposed the carpet bombing of Germany in the war years) and countless unseen and unheard Christians who to paraphrase sceptic Michael Shermer- do thousands of acts of unseen kindness every day.

I hope and trust that you know what side you belong to or would wish to. A Christian or a Paulian? Let me reduce the issue further to its most simplest components. A good way to see a proper follower of Christ and a follower of Paul and Leviticus is to observe the reactions to this question--- In terms of your religious beliefs, what is your view regarding homosexuality? If as Iris Robinson (along with many others) would say that it is “vile” an “abomination” and one of the things that will damm you.(in the tradition of Paul)

Or

A proper Christian would reply “I have no religious opinion on the matter in question, for Jesus never speaks on the matter, so I am indifferent, God will judge I wont.” I could formulate the same question regarding creationism or slavery or war or many other issues that beleaguer the world.

It is only when one cuts away the theological obscurantism and barbarism that the inspiring figure of Jesus emerges. Jesus is nothing if not a troublemaker. A gadfly, a maverick, an angry young man, a friend of the left and social justice, a contrarian, a punk and a hippie, he is the messiah and he is a very naughty boy. Jesus, if he were alive today would not be sitting in on Friday nights drinking tea with pious old ladies--he would be out, mixing it up with the best of them, raving and revelling but teaching that there is more to life than such exciting pursuits. In this craven age where potential voters in political elections are asked which candidate would they like to have a drink with, at least, unlike say George Bush we could at least and would want to have a drink with Jesus.

So now you ask--what could possibly be wrong with this man? Well I should note the reasonable objection, that no man, no matter how ethical or insightful testifies to nothing other than he is ethical and insightful. It does not prove or remotely indicate that he is divine or the son of God. No man also, even if he did posses magic powers as the Gospel claims- would only mean he would be nothing other than a person of extraordinary ability and just that--it would not prove he was the son of God. (and only if such miraculous events were further corroborated with sound scientific methods of investigation--repeat, double blind experiments, observation, reasoning to the best explanation of phenomena-- which unfortunately we cannot do in this case)

However I wish to repeat what Bertrand Russell wrote. He places Jesus lower in his ethical estimation of great historical figures such as Socrates and the Buddha. Socrates loved argument and was put to death for it. He displayed indifference to people who disliked or disagreed with him, he never threatened like Buddha and unlike Jesus anyone with hell fire and eternal damnation.. Nor it should be said that Socrates never attempted to persuade anyone other than through his reason (no promise of heaven or to render it more jarring-- Sugar Candy Mountain--as George Orwell has the animals of Animal Farm imagine their own idea of eternal repose--where every day is a Sunday, with an endless supply of sugar cubes and hay to gorge on.) the use of force, bribery and manipulation are not logical or noble reasons for accepting propositions and for these reasons Russell places Jesus lower in the pantheon.

So there we have it. Here is my proposals for your religion in the year 2009. Please do share this with your fellow Christians and the ideas expressed within--if only for arguments sake--and what wrong with that? Either we sort out our problems with talk or we sort them out with bullets and bombs. I’m all for the former as are most non-theists while many religious people, muslims especially are not. As Sam Harris concludes “we cannot expect to survive our religious differences with weapons of mass destruction indefinitely”

Best wishes and be well in the new year.

Michael.

Is Belief in God the way to peace?

(I was recently at a debate at Queens university to see and take part in a debate concerning the above question-this is my own response to it.)

What God needs be believed in, for peace? Is it Thor? Is it Zeus? Apollo maybe? How should this God, if he exists, be worshipped? Prostrations several times a day towards a fixed location on the earths sphere? Imbibing wafer biscuits, in a bizarre, symbolic act of cannibalism?-how about burnt offerings of livestock- or better yet, of humans? Of course the Homeric Gods are dead, just as the Gods of the Norse and Mayan have also perished, reposing in the graveyard of myth and ignorance, of our bloody and desperate past. The Gods we concern ourselves with today are of the sky-God desert religions-the Abrahamic faiths-the “religions of the book”. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Needless to say, they don’t believe in the same God, or worship their God in the same way. Pushed to their logical conclusion they are all in direct competition with one another, not only for their own survival, but for the souls of every man, woman and child on the planet. Look to their eschatology’s for how human history will be written, invariably you will find, holy war, holy terror, and hell on earth. Messiahs coming back to judge the living and the dead. Christians floating off into sky, Jesus serving in the ranks of the Mahdi, waging Jihad against the infidels; and the earth going up in an apocalyptic fireball, of religious frenzy. This is what belief means for earth, this is where human civilisation is supposedly heading. As Jesus himself said “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not send peace but a sword.” What does this mean--well as scripture say “The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” 2 Peter 3:10

Do I need to say more? Do I need to go on? Well, lets start with the barbarism and tribalism that has engulfed my own country of birth. Northern Ireland, a pokey little country, of just over a million souls, on the edge of western Europe, who have for centuries been at each others throats-- and at each others--knees. The conflict is of course largely political but it arose out of oppression and inequality, justified and perpetuated by religious myths and differences. It was not that long go that politicians of this country uttered statements-- “A Protestant parliament, for Protestant people for a Protestant country”. Who would not see what would happen when each side denounces each other as idolatrous heretics and antichrists? Do I need to recount the litany of misdeeds that religion has accumulated in this country? Do I need to mention the drills going into peoples knees? Or the method of butchery we call knee-capping? Petrol bombs used to drive families out of their homes? The enforced ghettoizing, impoverishing and balkanizing of separate communities. Much of it self created and self policed as witness- women beaten and molested by paramilitary groups for holding relationships with the other side? Unwritten taboos over marring out, the separation of children into faith schools, a ready made identity foisted onto them and encouraged to hate the other side. Did belief in God cause peace and prosperity here? Or did it cause murder and misery?

Did belief in God cause peace and prosperity during the middle ages? Did it stop England from descending into civil war? Was it a peaceful, joyous time when women were hunted and prosecuted and burnt for witchcraft? How much inner harmony and equanimity resided in a poor unfortunate-- suffering the gruesome pleasures of the rack? Or having to be branded with a B on the forehead--accused of being a blasphemer? Or men having their arms dislocated in a process called Squassation? I wonder, really- how pious and noble did Christians feel during the two thousand years of Jew baiting that concluded in the crematoria of Auschwitz’s?
Who else today is guilty of that ugly and rancid ideology of anti-Semitism? That talks of a global, Zionist conspiracy? That Jews are pigs, rats and apes? I think we all know. Its been at it again, in India, in Mumbai, in the East. Who did they single out for special treatment, Jews of course. Second on the list were Americans and British nationals. Hotels were targeted, as were cafés. The western media seem to be relieved that it was not Al Qaeda, does it really make a difference… Who is going to stand up now and really, honestly, say that Islam is a religion of peace.

Islam especially,needs to be singled out for blame and opprobrium here. For though Christians mostly “behave” themselves compared with the lunacy and terror and mad work that gets carried under the aegis of Islam. A few topical examples serve reminder of a fact that is buttressed by more and more evidence day after day. That Islam not Islamism, or Jihadism-that Islam, as practiced today by billions of Muslim, is anti-west, anti-freedom, and anti-woman. The point needs reiterating for it is Muslims themselves who are suffering the worst and who are losing out the most by living under a 7th century system of morals. A recent news report coming out of Somalia that tells of a thirteen year old girl, raped, buried alive and bricked to death for adultery. I ask you to pause over the fact the girl was thirteen years of age--she was accused of adultery??

Consider the story not so long ago that trickled out of Iraq. Where a young Muslim woman was slaughtered and left in a ditch-killed by her own family. Her crime? having a crush on a British solider. Her mother-who appalled at the actions of her male relatives left and sought refuge in the authorities--she too was hunted down and killed. Or what of Parwiz Kambaksh who in “free” Afghanistan was sentenced to death for allegedly insulting Islam. His crime?- to download information regarding the human rights abuses of women under Islam. His sentence as of this minute has been reduced to only life imprisonment. I could continue- about the nature of Jihad, the death threats over Salman Rushdie, the beheading of journalists, the forced marriages, the institutionalised rape and paedophilia of young girls from Yemen. Does all this make for stable and prosperous and peaceful societies? Does it make for happy men? Does it make confident, fulfilled women?

The term peace need not and does not, just relate to the social, political arena. It can mean inner peace and tranquillity. The cultivation of compassionate states, altruism, love and charity. It is scarcely believable that given the mess that religion made of much of our discourse and progress on such things as human rights and individual autonomy that it could ever result in states of inner peace. Yet it obviously can. This says nothing though to either the truth claims of the religion nor does it speak to the consequences wrought by their attainment or the effects of their preservation.

It is simply a myth that Christianity even in its Sunday best is the Summum bonum of our religious or ethical systems. The morality on offer in books like Leviticus or Deuteronomy or Second Samuel not to mention large swathes of the New Testament is, frankly, embarrassing as a guide to attaining peace and wellbeing. --only if you take it for what it claims to be, that it is a book of divine inspiration of which no mortal in the bronze age or the computer age today could have written. Christianity especially becomes less impressive when set against Buddhism for example. Five hundred years before Christ walked the earth and quite a bit before either Plato or Aristotle set down their thoughts, Buddha and numerous Buddhists laid down an ethical system that is largely more compassionate and conducive to happiness than is Christianity. Indeed its four virtues of Loving-Kindness, Compassion, Altruistic Joy, and Equanimity outstrip Christian teachings on sin, faith and belief. Indeed the ultimate aim of a Buddhist is to work to achieve enlightenment or peace. A person could spend their life trying to reach this goal-if its at all possible. A person can become a Christian and await to enjoy the pleasures of the afterlife in less than five minutes. This is cheap, this is not a way of gaining wisdom or insight. Like the ancient Greeks however, Buddhists saw that peace or human happiness was the end goal in itself, that it was realizable in this world and no God need be worshipped for it to be obtained.

There is some research from social psychologists which suggest that Christian fundamentalists in America are the happiest in the country. I don’t have a problem believing this as true. This is to be contrasted though with northern European countries-largely atheistic and by similar investigative methodologies report same levels of happiness with far less societal dysfunction such as homicide, prison populations and STD’s. Phil Zuckerman’s Society Without God explores this point in more depth in his recent book. You may be tempted to say, well good for them and good for us. However do they need to create fractious tribal hostilities, demonize homosexuals, lie to their children, or try to get bullshit taught in schools. Where is Norway’s secular equivalent to Sarah Palin? The UK is mostly irreligious but here in Northern Ireland we do have are very own Palin- MP Iris Robinson, the wife of the first Minster of this country no less, who believes she is carrying out God’s will when she announces that Homosexuals are worse that Paedophiles and vile abominators. This is not the sort of people we want running a country--but this is the sort of person we have--and will do unless we learn to leave behind our myths and superstitions.

In the coming decades we are going to understand the constituents of Eudemonia, (Human Flourishing)we will understand what kind of political arrangements, economic systems and ethical attitudes and behaviours which do and which don’t contribute to human well-being. Religion is man made. No doubt there is much social utility in it, this can be used and understood in a totally secular way though. Religion operates like a placebo, it is a positive illusion. It is an archaic and a divisive force today in our truly global community. The historical degradations and the current malaise wrought by belief in God is simply inexcusable, as is the taboo of criticizing it. It is time we all grew up, it is time we all had a serious discussion and exploration about is best and what is good in this world. The sooner we realise this the better, happier and more peaceful we will all be.

Best and be well

Michael Faulkner

Project Civilisation

What kind of person do you consider yourself to be? Decent? Responsible? Kind? What kind of life do you wish to lead? To make good use of your existence, to find rewarding and enjoyable employment? To cultivate deep and valuable friendships? To find love? To raise a family? Furthermore, what kind of society do you wish to live or raise your family in? Do you desire to see your children grow up to be happy and well adjusted and well-informed? To do well in school and to treat other’s with respect and dignity, to live in a society that is fair, equal and tolerant? One that elects smart, responsible leaders who serve well informed voters on ethical, political, and environmental issues? All of the thoughtful and mature among us recognise, that this is the project of living that we are all engaged in. It is upon the realisation of these many aspirations and hopes that will determine the well-being and future of our societies and of ourselves.(1)

There are many people who believe that such endeavours can only be realised, via one or more of our faiths. There are many who claim that enlightenment values- political liberalism, tolerance, human rights, were birthed by Judeo-Christian values. (2)(3). There is no doubt that the moral identity that people draw from religious beliefs or otherwise are important(4) But in today’s truly global community, divisive and mutually competing identities, such as Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist, is archaic and in need of changing. We should simply act as responsible and decent human beings-we do not need to separate ourselves or give ourselves a name in order to accomplish this.

We are in a strange time regarding our beliefs. Religion as practiced by the vast majority of people in the first world, is bereft of intellectual content and has been for quite some time.(5)(6). Its status, as guardians of the moral law and champions of human dignity hasn’t been admittedly- fully vitiated as its factual claims- it has however been thoroughly criticised and found deeply unpersuasive(7).

These facts, omit a dreamy reality though. For rather than pulling back from the precipice of religious unreason, we are seemingly still hurtling ourselves towards it.(8) If good people of all persuasions are to embark upon and realize our common goals, then we all will have to omit of our delusions about our current situation.

The crucial point that religious moderates need to realise- that the recurrence of religious criticism has not taken place in a vacuum nor has it come about arbitrarily. It is a principled push-back against the consequences that various religious beliefs and practices have wrought upon society.(I invite the reader to a long footnote as to why this is such, if they are unconvinced and in need of persuasion on this point.(9)

It has become apparent to me that there is a substantial number of atheists though that are in principle opposed to anything that has a tincture of religion in it. This is a sad confusion that all sides are guilty of. Mistaking the numinous for the transcendent, the super for the supernatural, the spiritual for new age quackery. There is an impulse in all religions, faint in many but nonetheless present-a groping for the profound a need of the sacred. The crucial point is that what many get out of community, charity, hymns, prayer or contemplation is interpreted as confirmatory of their beliefs.(10)They are of value in and off themselves-not what they purport to be for. Many atheists though seem incapable of seeing the value of these things.

This is not an excuse however for people to utter the most egregious claims concerning- meaning, morality, values or otherwise. The punch line, is that there is activities of value that are practised by religious people but can be understood in a totally secular way. The solution to our problem is neither eradicating religion or promoting good religion but promoting good people to lead decent, honest and thoughtful lives.

Surprisingly Karl Marx had it right when he said-

“(Religion)-is the heart of the heartless world, just as it is the spirit of the spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people….Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower….the criticism of heaven turns into the criticism of the earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of right and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.” (11)

Though upbringing, ignorance and the limits and traps of our psychology play a role (12).What ultimately I believe so convinces people, once identified with a religion who remain so- is the positive social and psychological emotions they garner from it.(13). So we need to locate, isolate and extract what is of value in our religions and transport it to anyone--who wishes it. It is hard to find a word or words that express this succinctly. A good place to begin, is with meaning, morality, values and community or explanation, exhortation, inspiration and consolation.(14) Marx’s “spiritless” age meanwhile has not gone away despite the “flowers” of consumerist culture(15).

What we need is a national project, a grass roots development of a centre, where people can undertake and fulfil the needs that are met through religious affiliations. Connection, intimacy, a sense of being valued, a sense of the scared or reflective without the intrusion of the ridiculous or the commercial. Creative workshops, clubs and societies, lectures and talks from both professionals and enthusiastic amateurs, on various public interest matters. Opportunities for young people to socialise and enjoy themselves free from both drink, drugs and mischief. Community arts projects. Charity work, sports……

Every town could have a centre or at least hold events at schools, libraries, leisure centres or even churches. Larger towns or cities would naturally have more resources to deploy. It could be a government funded, charity based foundation. We could call it Hope or Project Civilisation or the Eudemonia Project- the Greek word for human flourishing. Although I do not have space to fill out what the exact details of what such a project could do, I will sketch in what such a project may hope to achieve with two areas of central importance-meaning and community.

On the question of meaning, its not about providing a single, one size fits all message, its about allowing people to explore the question and implications of meaning, values and morality, both inner-personally and inter-personally. Asking questions, rather than providing answers, searching rather than arriving at a fixed conclusion. The imparting of information relating to questions, such as how should I live my life? What should I value? What inspires me? Specifically, we may have speakers or part time co-ordinators from a range of different backgrounds and expertise. It need not be strangers though, local men and women may choose to share their own perspectives. Semi-conferences may be organised, workshops set up and personal projects embarked upon. It does not have to take a “discursive” approach though. Some might choose to take up guitar lessons or cookery lessons, or organise a local choir or enter the town into competitions and so forth. Local people may find fulfilling, moral and social identities, by attending or helping to organise events or helping to run classes for other members of the community.

The above paragraph related meaning, very closely to community and in a sense that’s the heart of the project. To re-capture the sense of community and social intimacy that would have been around thirty or forty years ago. Something that for a variety of reasons (not all of which is lamentable) has been lost. The project is not some romantic pine for the sunny days of yore. Strong communities of the past may have been desirable for their intimacy and support but they were also and still are raciest, sexist and insular. A priority would be learning about other cultures, perhaps sponsoring and supporting some less well off town, in a third world state. A citizen exchange program may be a fun and exciting extension of the opportunity that some schools give pupils. I have already mentioned many community programs that could unite people--let me give a few more, especially for young people. Sports is highly important not just for health or a sense of identity but for making connections and learning self-discipline, co-operation and endurance. For children with other aspirations--drama clubs, music clubs, computer game dens. Alcohol and drug free, Saturday night discos or mid week trips to the cinema along with possible weekend residentials, to learn team-work and leadership skills.

There is a real need I believe, to offer ways of marking births, marriages and deaths in ways that are not exclusively through church. The project could also help promote special community events such as the towns birthday or celebrating an important person who came from the area. Summer barbecues, Halloween discos and Christmas parties could be another possibility. Other projects would be-a town newspaper-or Ezine (electronic magazines emailed out) frequent town hall debates over issues that effect the community, mother and toddler groups, child day care, or even speed dating events.

Rather than unnecessarily explaining the reasons of why such things are psychologically, socially and spiritually important or their useful contributions to informed citizenship, I will look at possible difficulties and pit-falls that such a project might face.

Funding is obviously a challenge. Governments would argue that similar organisations and activities exist anyway. Setting it up as charity, making it tax-exempt with some government support is one possible route to go. Getting rich, high-profile philanthropists to kick start the project may be another one. With one of the above methods along with grass roots community support and desire to see such a thing would be the best way, to surmount the financial challenge.

The point that many or all of these activities exist anyway misses the point. Either all of the above is entirely provided by religious groups, therefore alienating everyone else or is through other exclusive bodies or organisations. The obvious attraction would be that it is open to all and all the diverse activities is brought under the aegis of one, big tent project. Also the message of community, co-operation and tolerance would be expressed explicitly and implicitly.(16)

Would it make a difference? We would never know for sure until such an enterprise was up and running. Clearly there is a need for many of the things I have outlined. However, three foes that such a project would attempt to eliminate would be- ignorance, tribalism and dogmatism. It would obviously be unsuccessful if it failed to redress such things or even if it contributed to them. The world is getting smaller and social demographics are changing. A gated, insular, racially/religiously separated community is a recipe for social dysfunction. As a resident of Northern Ireland, I know only full well what the consequences are of such maladies. A high profile and popular, inclusive organisation with one of its aims being to tackle these ills would surely make a difference.

I cannot think of a better way of putting my case or signalling the gravity of attempting to realise such an endeavour by quoting the last lines of Samuel Harris’s End of Faith.

“No myths need be embraced for us to commune with the profundity of our circumstance. No personal God need be worshiped for us to live in awe at the beauty and immensity of creation. No tribal fictions need be rehearsed for us to realize, one fine day, that we do, in fact, love our neighbours, that our happiness is inextricable from their own, and that our interdependence demands that people everywhere be given the opportunity to flourish. The days of our religious identities are clearly numbered. Whether the days of civilization itself are numbered would seem to depend, rather too much on how soon we realize this.”(17) (italics my emphasis)

Best and be well.

Michael Faulkner.


1 The stark conclusion is from Jared Diamond’s book Collapse How Societies Choose To Fail or Survive. It is not just problems such as environmental damage, overpopulation and climate change but actually convincing public figures and the public at large of them. Even if this has been met, there is still the consensus building and implementation that needs to be carried out, in order to stave off disaster. Various self interests yet collectively destructive factors, the weakness of human perception and political/religious differing identities are surely an obstacle to global co-operation. Furthermore, a recent global trends review by National Security Council reports that American leadership in the world will be on the wane by 2025 as the world becomes more bi-polarised “"No single outcome seems preordained: the Western model of economic liberalism, democracy and secularism, for example, which many assumed to be inevitable, may lose its lustre – at least in the medium term," the report warns” From The Guardian UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/barack-obama-president-intelligence agency

2 An example of this view is found by conservative author Dinesh D’ Souza in his book What’s So Great About Christianity. Philosopher John Gray although irreligious, has attacked secularism and “utopian” thinking as a descendent of Christianity. He has also attacked “New Atheism” Black Mass by John Gray. Straw Dogs by John Gray.

3 For an opposite narrative on the Enlightenment and what it means and where its inspirations draw from-AC Grayling- Towards the Light: The Story of the Struggles for Liberty and Rights That Made the Modern West. Grayling himself has offered a rebuttal of Gray’s Black Mass here on http://newhumanist.org.uk/1423

4 The importance of moral identity and what it means for our ethical considerations towards others is discussed by Jonathan Glover throughout his book Humanity a Moral History of The 20th century.

5 Theologians have not came up with a convincing case against the arguments concerning the truth claims of Religion. Alistair McGrath who appears to set himself up as the chief opponent of Richard Dawkins makes a coded concession that religious belief is detached from normal evidence thinking or that the evidence is or ought to be emotional rather than factual. This can be seen somewhere in this fascinating exchange between himself and Dawkins. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=dawkins+v+mcgrath&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
Rabbi David Wolpe, who has debated Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, a published author, states that “Belief in God is not a propositional claim but an orientation towards life”. One final example would come from another theologian. Theo Hobson-the resident apologist for Christianity on the Guardian. “My response is: let's leave aside the question of the truth or falsity of religious belief… because the rationalist rejection of belief can't be the definitive answer it thinks it is. . And my response is also to say: let's focus on the second part of the atheist objection, the harmfulness.” This is from an exchange with Julian Baggini, Hobson position I gather is to evade questions on the truth or falsity and focus on harm or what’s good that religion does or could do. A fair summary of his position would be this “The core of Christianity is thinking that this man Jesus is uniquely important, on another level from any other human ever, worthy of worship. This belief can't be rationally justified.
So I can't really claim there's a gulf, or even a ditch, between me and the simple-minded devout, because that would imply I believed in a rationally defensible version of religion. That's why I'm so keen to park the truth question, and stick to the harm question”
Julian Baggini points out as would many that this is not the sort of belief that characterises the many millions who describe themselves as religious. In my opinion, Theology can be best thought of as a form of literary criticism. The problem is that much of it is impossible to falsify, its operates on equivocation , ambiguity and other sophistry. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/religion

6 Richard Dawkins is of the opinion that it was not possible to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” until Darwin’s discovery. It is the chief reason he claims why he is an atheist. It is rarely pointed out though especially by Dawkins himself which is generally disappointing-that Darwin, never, ever, set out to destroy Christianity or rubbish the genesis myth. Indeed he believed that his amateurish specimen collections would be additional evidence of Gods creation. Darwin has been described at one point as a unreflective fellow who considered becoming a country parson, who stumbled upon the discovery of evolution by natural selection. Darwin sat on his discovery for many years and only published his work when Wallace, another independent discoverer of the theory was intending to publish his findings. This aspect to Darwin should be presented more, for although he indirectly created the sliver bullet to slay Yahweh it was Dawkins who fired the shot with his 747 gambit. Darwin is far from the bogey man and arch enemy of religion that he is understood by many unreflecting religious people. I say this only to show that Darwin was no polemists nor did he have a vested interest in seeing God “murdered”- to use his heartfelt expression of what he discovered. However this is not to say that his discoveries has nothing at all to speak to on either the inerrancy of the Bible, the nature of Man, or the existence of God himself. The discovery is utterly corrosive to religious belief and especially to the God hypothesis.. Dawkins’s 747 argument, found in The God Delusion has generally gone unnoticed by religious apologists and bizarrely by many atheists themselves. I believe this represents the best case that can be made scientifically as to why there “almost certainly is no God”.

7 see- http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html showing correlations between widespread theistic belief and societal dysfunction. Also-- Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations can tell us About Contentment (New York University Press, 2008). Demonstrates positive levels of societal well-being and other indications of a well-functioning societal that are irreligious such as the Northern European countries. For a concise, effective repudiation of Christian ethics and its consequences see Letter To a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.

8 Even though the sell of New Atheist books has done well, it only amounts to a few million copies. It is too early to tell if the attacks not only on Religion but on the idea that faith is a virtue will have an effect.
See http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7913 for a article on the possibility that Religious families will have more offspring than secular ones, especially descendents of Muslim immigrants and how this will change the secular character of Western Europe.
Despite defeating several attempts to get Creationism/Intelligent Design into the classrooms it shows no sign of going away.-- http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/the_battle_rages_on_in_texas.php There is also concern over the number of children in British Schools from Evangelical and Islamic backgrounds brought up to believe in Creationism, faith schools has no doubt added to the problem.
http://www.teachers.tv/news/30218--a

9 The End of Faith, which is the first in the so called New Atheist books is one that is more expressly political and social rather than rehearsing the arguments on the existence of God. Harris was moved to write the book the day after 9/11 after studying religion for fifteen years. It would appear that many of his concerns were already shaped before the September attack. What did however influence him was the explaining away of Jihad within Islam as either not religious or aberrant along with the retreat into religious obfuscation that America embraced after the attack. It was clear to him that whatever else was going to be said, religion and faith would not be held to account for its consequences. In chief, his concerns are that the failure to hold religious belief to the same standards of other rational discourse, has been disastrous for social, economic, political and scientific progress. Indeed even rational discussion of them. His follow up, Letter to a Christian Nation is not an attack on the foundations of Christian ethics, or its bloody history nor is it a extended argument against the truth claims of it but-- largely on the consequences of specific beliefs and practices and the ignorance, unreason and dogmatism that propels them.
Richard Dawkins is self-admittedly less interested in the various consequences of religious belief. However his prime concern is the subversion of science, in particular, evolution. In an interview with Lawrence Kruss he stated that his motivation is to get people to accept evolution and the scientific method, his strategy of achieving this is to attack religious superstition--namely God hence-The God Delusion. It is likely though that Dawkins would have wrote a book concerning God at some point in his career, but I feel that the tone of the book would have been vastly different if the rise of creationism in both the US and UK, along with 9/11 had not have taken place.
Daniel Dennett’s approach is more measured than Dawkins or Harris et all--he wishes to see the spread of “a-virulence” that is-that people are protected from being inculcated with the most dangerous and retrograde belief systems. Religious apologists have for, perhaps understandable reasons, especially in the Muslim world- not conceded the point that these criticisms are fundamentally about consequences. Putting it bluntly, if it was not for Jihads, terrorism, honor killings, genital mutilation, undermining of abortion rights, the lies over contraception. Demonizing homosexuals, the murder of artists and beheading of journalists and the inculcation of children with fairy stories, the New Atheist movement would be largely bereft of content. If such dreadful consequences were remedied, debates over virgin births, inerrancy of certain books and the resurrection of certain people would be merely “academic”.

10 Sam Harris has been the most eloquent in his view of this. It can be found in his two books, along with various talks, debates and essays.

11 Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of Right by Karl Marx.

12 Daniel Dennett--Good reasons for believing in belief in God http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-808547712754338659 His talk begins around the 17 minute mark.

13 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7302609.stm and this for a larger overview of the issue which seems to confirm my thesis http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/pagenum/all/

14. I believe that it was Richard Dawkins in a debate who coined these terms in relation to the good life.

15 For an excellent literary insight into this I would suggest the work of JG Ballard in particular, Millennium People, Kingdom Come and Super-cannes. Radiohead’s masterpiece OK Computer provides the soundtrack to modern malaise along with the film and book Fight Club by Chuck Palahnuk. The work of Bret Easton Ellis which at times hilarious and brilliant also shows the “soullessness” of modern culture. For literary work which extols the luminous without the transcendent I cannot not recommend the work of Ian McEwan in particular Saturday-surely one of the best novels of the last few decades. There is perhaps no finer modern poet in showing that there is “grandeur in this view of life” than McEwan--which is to say the humanist naturalist outlook.
There is obviously disagreement whether we are less spiritually or psychologically contented than say, our ancestors recent or ancient. The founding of professional health care and the institution of psychology along with the relaxing of taboos over mental health, has no doubt revealed people with problems where in by-gone times they would have suffered in silence. As to our physical and material welfare there can be no doubt of the improvement of this index. It may well be an existentialist problem. Once the basic needs of life has been secured, alongside the freedoms that western liberal democracy brings and the availability of choices, the reflective individual is inundated with possibility. It is this search for meaning, value and inspiration that is for the humanist, one of life’s pleasures and rewards. However for many, such long and exploratory processes may be unfeasible and undesirable. Conventional religion perhaps can be thought of-disparagingly- like fast food, quick, easy and superficially satisfying. Modernity has raised problems for sure but we cannot turn the clock back. It seems that we need to rethink politics-- as a continuation of ethics, which is to secure the well-fare or well-being of each individual, to arrange social and economic situations to maximise the ability of everyone, everywhere to flourish.

16 It could not take place in competition with other, similar groups.

17. From-The End of Faith. Sam Harris.