Archive for the ‘Religion & Politics’ Category

Huffington Post survey on religion

Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 | Humanism, Religion & Politics

Huffington Post recently commission Survation to conduct a survey on religion in Britain. The results were quite promising for the humanist community. Here are the highlights:

  • 60% of people described themselves as non-religious
  • Over half believe that religion does more harm than good
  • 13% of people said atheists were likely to be more moral, compared with 8% who said atheists were likely to be less moral

Read more in the Huffington Post article and the BHA press release.

5-11

Wednesday, November 5th, 2014 | Religion & Politics

gunpowder-plot

Lest we forget the greatest terrorist attack the world has ever known.

Monster Raving Loony 2014 Conference videos

Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 | Religion & Politics, Video

Cabinet reshuffle:

Howling Laud Hope’s speech:

Dancing during the pub crawl:

Loony Party 2014 Conference

Thursday, October 30th, 2014 | Events, Religion & Politics

Last month we attended the 2014 conference of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Very few party conferences are start with a pub crawl.

IMG_7213 IMG_7229

Or have a travelling band that follow them around.

IMG_7199 IMG_7202 IMG_7207

In my opinion, this is of the severe detriment to the other parties. It had all the important bits too of course. The cabinet reshuffle for example.

IMG_7232 IMG_7273 IMG_7305

Llandrindod Wells it quite a nice place. Rather scenic. Being in the middle of Wales, it is a bit of a mission to get to though.

Scottish independence

Saturday, September 27th, 2014 | Religion & Politics

We were in Scotland for the independence vote. I am not going to claim that we were entirely responsible for the swing back to “no”. But as we all know, correlation does imply causation…

To do this any kind of justice I would have to spend a lot of time planning my thoughts and writing them out. However, having just got back from a week’s holiday and straight into conference season, I don’t have time for that. So here are some briefer thoughts.

On the whole, I was behind the no vote. From a rational perspective, I am not sure that was the right path. Scotland enjoys a large amount of public spending, free prescriptions, free university, etc. If the no campaign is to be believed, it is £1,200 per person. That is a huge subsidy from the English tax payer. Though how reliable those figures are will no doubt be much disputed.

However, from an emotional point of view, it was a shock to see that almost half the people in Scotland dislike me so much, just for being English. It felt like a divorce. I didn’t want our family to be torn apart. Of course the yes campaign would say it is not like that. But it felt like that.

I am also not sure there is much of a difference between the results. We are devolving further powers anyway, so the countries will go their separate ways somewhat, despite being the same country on paper. Of course, there are benefits to this. But also disadvantages. It makes law and business far more complex for example. To give an example that has actually touched my life, charity laws different between England and Scotland for example (and it’s annoying).

There is the possibility that politicians will just go back on the word though. It does not look like they will from the posturing that has happened since the vote. However, it wouldn’t be altogether surprisingly – every politician campaign is full of promises the elected party does not deliver on.

It was interesting that Royal Bank of Scotland said they would move their headquarters to London. However, it probably wouldn’t be that embarrassing for Scotland – Westminster already owns most of it anyway.

One of the biggest advantages of having Scotland remain part of the union is that we have also escaped a decade for Tory governments that would have probably resulted from losing the Scottish labour vote.

Anyway, ramble over.

You can’t handle the truth!

Friday, August 29th, 2014 | Religion & Politics, Thoughts, Video

In the film A Few Good Men Colonel Jessep speaks the often quoted, though perhaps not very well understood, “the truth? You can’t handle the truth.”

I used to consider myself more right-wing in that I was (and still am) a libertarian. Though as I have grown older I have come round to more of a lefty socialist world view. However, my attitude towards the military has changed in the opposite direction.

As a libertarian I was anti-military. My view was that we should just let other countries get on with it and you should not be classified as a hero for taking government money to go murder black and brown people. Consistent with my libertarianism, though not a view in line with what many other people on the right would think, most of whom want to see aggressive military spending.

As a socialist, I am now not no so sure. If we are going to say that the machinery of governments should be used to maximise equality instead of liberty, then why should it stop at an arbitrary national border? Why insist that money be taken from the rich and given to the poor, while at the same time reconciling North Koreans to their horrible fate of oppression and starvation?

Of course one message to take away from this is that the whole left-right issues are not so easily pigeon-holed. But also, that the left-right view points are often inconsistent within themselves – the right do not want the state to interfere (except in the bedroom), the left do want the state to interfere (but not in the bedroom).

Back on the video though, it illustrates an important point. This issue is not an easy one. How do you balance the desire for peace with the desire for justice and liberty?

Why do some atheists become pagans?

Thursday, August 28th, 2014 | Humanism, Religion & Politics, Thoughts

Recently, I saw one of my friends post on Facebook about attending Pagan Pride. I found this interesting because they used to run an atheist society. When I think about it, I can name quite a few people who have flirted with paganism, either before they came to atheist society, or having left the society and then drifted over to paganism.

It seems to me that there seems to be a stronger link between atheism and paganism than between atheism and other religious beliefs. I wonder why this is.

The simplest explanation, could be the size of my dataset. While having reviewed my personal experience revealed this connection, it could simply be that this by chance, and if I looked at a wider variety of evidence I would see something different. In particular, cultural setting probably plays a large part, though if that was the case you would expect the dominant religion to feature to be Christianity. Still, that seems a good explanation. However, in the interest of discourse, I want to discuss the possibilities assuming that that is not the case.

My first instinct was that Paganism is easier to swallow than more dogmatic religions. It seems fair to say that in order to become religious, you probably have to swallow its bullshit to some degree. With the Abrahamic religions, that is quite well defined bullshit. it is hard to wriggle out of because their god helpfully wrote it all down in a series of contradicting books that explained exactly what it was, then created a series of prolific institutions to further expand its claims.

Paganism does not have this. Nobody really knows what it is about. Thus from an intellectual point of view, it is easier to swallow their nonsense because you have more freedom to accept or reject specific claims and can water it down to taste.

However, I am not convinced by this explanation. Religion is not an intellectual argument. It is an emotional one. I am not sure who said “[the problem with convincing believers is that] you can’t reason yourself out of a n argument you did not reason yourself in to”. People do not make these choices using logical. If they did, nobody would be religious. It is a willing suspension of your disbelief in order to gain the emotional reward gained from religious adherence.

That is not to say that religious people cannot defend their ideology. They do, and come up with plenty of arguments for their belief. However, as Michael Shermer’s research shows, people form beliefs first and then come up with reasons why they believe if afterwards.

Therefore, if we accept that religion is an emotional choice, the watering down of theology offers no benefit. Indeed, for me personally, it would be less appealing. If I was to ignore my rationality and choose on an emotional level, I would much rather have the loving, protective (if a little jealous and vengeful) Christian god watching over my life and occasionally listening to my prayers (I am rich and white, and would generally pray fur curable things after all) than the vague concept of a Mother Goddess which may nor may not split down into a polytheist set. I want the certainty that our human brains naturally crave. Otherwise what is the point?

Another explanation could be the similar, but importantly different, idea that we inherently have believing brains (referencing Michael Shermer once again). In a straight forward clash between emotion trying to override logic, it makes more sense to go to one extreme or the other. But suppose that rather than craving the certainly of religion, we simply allow our rationality to slide to the point where we tolerate our inherent trait of building narratives and purposes were not exist.

If we were to subconsciously form this belief, which we are all somewhat predisposed to do, we would then go looking for a way to explain why we held this belief. Again, belief first, reasons second. But the key point with this is that we are still essentially acting on a rational, intellectual level, but from a base point that we are formed a faulty premise that there is something greater out there. Retroactively fitting an explanation to this, would lead us to fitting on the belief system that causes the least conflicts with that world view. Here, with its lack of doctrine and defined beliefs, Paganism probably has the edge.

Fin-Global Development Index

Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 | Religion & Politics

There are lots of different reports that rank nations according to various criteria to tell you who is best at something. Education, healthcare, equality, prosperity, the lists go on. The problem with these lists is that they can be very subjective and so it is difficult to trust which ones are a) accurate and b) measuring something meaningful.

The Fin Global Development Index solves this problem. We have taken 23 different indexes and averaged them to produce a score for each country. This helps prevent bias in any one report from moving a countries position.

Secondly, I took ensure that a fair criteria was used. Rather than measure on the criteria that was used to build the report, I took a simple premise.

We all know that Finland is the happiest, most developed, generally best place in the world. It has an unmatched education system, high social mobility, and achieves such levels of happiness that most of its population manage to not kill themselves even though it is dark, miserable and freezing cold six months of the year.

Therefore, based on this premise, countries were awarded points based on how close they were to Finland in each of the rankings. Having an equal score resulted in zero points, being one place away was one point, and so on. Therefore if Finland ranked 4th in the world, you would earn zero points by being joint-forth, one point for being 3rd or 5th, and so on. The object being to score the lowest amount of points.

Countries represented

A selection of countries were chosen to represent the world. These included a selection of developed nations, as well as developing nations to use as comparisons. The complete list of countries included were:

  • Norway
  • Sweden
  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • Spain
  • Germany
  • Estonia
  • United States
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • Japan
  • India
  • China
  • Brazil
  • Saudi Arabia

Indexes

The following index were used to compile the report:

  • GDP (PPP) per capita
  • Life expectancy
  • Infant mortality
  • Press Freedom Index
  • Pearson education index
  • Education Index
  • European Health Consumer Index
  • WHO healthcare rankings
  • Human Development Index
  • World Happiness Report
  • Long-term unemployment (OECD)
  • Government transparency (OECD)
  • Global Slavery Index
  • Social Progress Index
  • Cancer rate (OECD)
  • Health care quality (OECD)
  • Suicide rate (OECD)
  • Corruption Perceptions Index
  • Globalisation Index
  • Failed States Index
  • International Property Rights Index
  • Legatum Prosperity Index
  • Alcohol consumption (OECD)

Results

Rank Country Score
1 Sweden 7.0
2 Norway 8.3
3 Canada 8.4
4 United Kingdom 10.1
5 Australia 10.6
6 Germany 11.7
7 France 14.1
8 United States 14.8
9 Japan 17.0
10 Spain 17.0
11 Estonia 13.9
12 Brazil 55.9
13 Saudi Arabia 57.9
14 China 81.8
15 India 100.0

Analysis

When plotted as a percentage graph with zero representing a perfect score and India (who scored the highest) representing the worst possible score, most developed countries represent similar levels of development.

chart

Click for a larger version.

The highest ranking countries were Sweden, Norway and Canada. There is a possible bias for Northern Europe to share a similar culture and therefore score better on some of the metrics, or it could simply be that these countries are uniformly excellent (or more likely both).

It is also possible that OECD countries benefited from the inclusion of those lists as because there are less states on there, they may be moved closer together. This is unlikely to have had a large effect, as most non-OECD countries would not score that highly, but will have had some effect.

Conclusion

Northern Europe and Canada are the best places to live. Unless you dislike freezing your balls off, in which case you might want to consider the United Kingdom or Australia. You probably do not want to live in India.

Independence days

Monday, July 7th, 2014 | Religion & Politics

4th of July, Higgs Day, is a big thing for Americans. To the rest of the world however, it is just another day.

Being British, you can sometimes receive a gentle ribbing from Americans about the issue. The day they broke free from the Britain Empire. The truth is though, this happens to us a lot. We used to own almost everyone, so statistically, more than once a week someone is celebrating their independence from us.

Month Countries Count
January Australia, Brunei, Sudan, Burma, Nauru 5
February Sri Lanka, Grenada, Gambia, Egypt, Saint Lucia, New Zealand, Kuwait 7
March Ghana, Mauritius 2
April Zimbabwe, Ireland, Sierra Leone 3
May Israel, Jordan, Guyana, Cameroon 4
June Seychelles, Tonga 2
July Canada, United States, Malawi, Solomon Islands, Bahamas, Maldives, Vanuatu, Kiribati 8
August Jamaica, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago 6
September Swaziland, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Belize, Malta, Botswana 5
October Tuvalu, Uganda, Cyprus, Nigeria, Lesotho, Fiji, Zambia, Iraq, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 9
November Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Barbados, Yemen 4
December Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Kenya, Bahrain, South Africa 6

Grand total: 61

House prices and the free market

Saturday, June 28th, 2014 | Religion & Politics, Thoughts

Recently a new report by Shelter suggested that 80% of homes were unaffordable to most families. Government intervention on this issue has failed us. Perhaps it is time for a free market solution?

Firstly, the government’s “Help to Buy” scheme is not helpful. It allows people to take 95% mortgages by allowing the banks to make less risky mortgages and the government paying the rest. The problem with this is that it allows people to buy homes they can’t afford.

The example of the Help to Buy website shows the government adding in £20,000 to the £5,000 deposit the buyer has, thus allowing them to buy a £200,000 house. But they cannot afford a £200,000 house. Based on the deposit they are putting up they can afford a £40,000 house. However, state intervention then allows everyone to charge £200,000 and have buyers for them, thus house prices go up to way beyond what they should be.

Secondly, the banks are willing to take large risks on mortgages because they know the government will bail them out if they get into trouble. Thus they can take huge risks, get rich when times are good and make the tax payer pay when times are bad. Who wouldn’t do that?

The government should stop doing things to make this huge prices affordable and actually do the opposite – making them unaffordable! Thus the free market would then bring prices down.

This, not propping up unaffordable house prices, is where state intervention would be useful. In order for the free market to function effectively you need to ensure there is liquidity in the market. This can be achieved by making sitting on second homes unaffordable.

Leeds City Council has already taken steps to do this. They have revoked council tax discount on empty properties and after two years you even may a premium of an extra 50% (you pay 150% of the normal council bill) to encourage you to sell it. Similarly, as I wrote about in 2012, you could just ban people from buying second homes.

Ending the state-sponsored propping up of house prices and introducing further measures to add liquidity to the housing market could then allow the free market to bring house prices down to a reasonable level.

Obviously this is a topic that most people will have an opinion on, so I would love to hear why I am wrong (on which I expect there will be some good arguments).