AW! Epistles
From Simon Birnstingl
Abstract
Wednesday, September 06, 2000
You must be quite familiar with the Bible. I am only familiar with parts as selected by RE teachers and priests at Sunday School, a rather narrow choice. I have also browsed for my own interest, and find it fascinating if dense reading. It always leaves me wanting to know what has been lost or changed in translation and how people thought of the world at the time the texts originated. So much has been twisted for aims other than finding the truth, which seems in part to be your assertion. What is your ultimate aim? Are you trying to find a true god, or to show that the need for a god is a human weakness exploited by the priesthood for millennia, or something else?
I must admit to being what you might call a Nietschian Atheist, as I believe that the only way for humanity to progress is to deny the existence of any deity and to take full responsibility for our destiny. I am very sceptical about modern evangelism and Christian fundamentalism as well as other New Age mysticisms, which you will gather from my letter to FT I feel will take us back to the Dark Ages. Now is the time for us to step forward into the next millenium, not back into an ignorant and superstitious past!
Thanks for looking at the AskWhy! website. My curiosity about the origins of Christianity stem from my amazement that people are so gullible so I fall into your human weakness exploited by the priesthood for millennia category. Christianity strikes me as a blatant confidence trick which is not even very well disguised. The con man was not Jesus who thought he would lead the Jews against their enemies into a kingdom of God. He was obviously mistaken and died for his error. But that never stopped Paul and a lot of evangelical conmen in the first century from setting up a confidence trick that has lasted ever since"and these evangelists always get rich.
The Hidden Jesus actually ends with your very sentiment, saying that our gods and devils are within us and that is where we must confront them. It seems you’d enjoy it. If anything I favour the old nature religions because, whatever else is true, if we destroy our environment we too must die. It is the lack of respect for nature (or Nature) engendered by the entirely mistaken, self-centred ideas of the Christian superstition that has led us to over exploit the resources available to us with no thought about future generations. We need a sense of awe not at churches but at nature so that we value it rather than determining to cut it down or dig it up. Do you mind if I post this correspondence on the website?
Please do post my correspondence on your website. I would be interested to see how any debate develops.
While I agree with you about the effects of how theologians have interpreted scripture so as to justify the behaviour of the powerful and exploitative, I think it is important that we use the turn of the millennium to look to the future rather than to the past. It is common for people to see their choices only in what has gone before, as if the medieval idea that we are fallen from a golden age is again popular. While it is important that we should understand history if we are, to paraphrase Churchill, to avoid being condemned to repeat it, we will only progress by finding new solutions to our new problems.
You will note that I say we should take full responsibility for our destiny. I do not just mean that we should deny any external supernatural force as existing so that we can free our minds, I mean we should be clear about taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions rather than blaming the same supernatural force.
While on a superficial level the old animistic faiths are attracive, they also had their faults. I question the need for faith, period, in anything but ourselves. After all, the world is a very different place today than it was in pagan times, and our understanding of it is very much deeper. There are a lot more people, for example. The adoption of pagan values and the life that they encourage would be practically impossible with our current population and their aspirations.
It was the philosopher George Santayana who said that originally and there is nobody to agree with him more than me. Our whole history shows that we do not seem to learn. But that shows how important the past is to illuminate our way in the future.
I agree emphatically that we should take full responsibility for our destiny rather than blaming the same supernatural force.
Quite a bit to disagree about when you speak of while on a superficial level the old animistic faiths are attracive, they also had their faults etc.
First you now seem to be denying the value of past knowledge. I am not suggesting that we should adopt any simplistic nature religion but that we should recognise the importance of the world of which we are a part and which ultimately we depend upon not as a sort of providential shipwreck that we can strip down for our benefit but as a sustainable resource which we must protect for future generations by curbing our selfishness and greed now. It would be better if our religion had this at its centre rather than some fictitious character whose effect is to keep us dwelling upon our selves rather than everything else. The whole purpose of Christianity is to assure believers that they will be saved and live the eternal life of a god in some other dimension while the world can go to pot. it is hardly surprising that as the means of exploitation of the world have advanced, the world itself has declined - in biodiversity, for example. There are a lot more people and a lot less of every other creature.
Nothing I can see gives me any cause to have faith in human beings generally. Undoubtedly we are lemmings running toward the edge of a cliff. In fact we are probably already sliding down the slope to the edge with too much momentum to stop ourselves. Ultimately, of course, you are right: only we can stop it, if it can be stopped - we must have faith in that. Before we can do anything, though, we have to stop examining our navels and look at the world and begin to respect it. A nature religion might make us do it - if we had remained believers in trees since ancient times, the world might not have been so damaged. But how we get people to stop bowing to the image of a man tortured to death as a heavenly human sacrifice to save the souls of men but nothing else, I don’t know.
I do not deny the value of an understanding of history or of some past knowledge, but I have to say that a lot of past knowledge was nonsense. Those who had to earn a living off the land knew all the tricks to best achieve their aims and they had a profound impact on their environment. Our predecessors simply lacked the means to have as broad an impact as we do today.
I agree with you about how Christianity has been moulded to allow those in power to remain on top and to allow the exploitation of the Earth’s resources, but I do not see the substitution of one faith with another as the solution. I think the difference between us and our solutions comes down to one thing: I have an optimistic view of the future while you do not. Because you do not believe that humanity will do anything other than spoil their environment given the choice you choose desperate means to try to stop the perceived catastrophe. The risk of substituting one lie for another is considerable, however, and should be considered. Surely the truth stands by itself, but any lie eventually needs others to back it up, leaving any new religion open to exploitation by the same people who used Christianity in a manner we both condemn?
My business is the environment, and as a biological scientist I have spent a long time working in related areas. My experience tells me that there is a lot of pressure from above, particularly the European Union, to improve our performance, but also that they are pushing at an open door. My business motto is Environmental sense is good business sense, and I find agreement from my clients on many levels. In this country we have, however, been subject to a government of the lowest ideals, with expoitation at the basis of their philosophy. I suspect that this philosophy with its lack of hope for all and its narrow visions has led to the kind of desperation you indicate in your postings.
I too come from the West Country, though I find myself living in the South East, and I have seen the changes in the countryside I was brought up in and love. It pains me how the rural economy has been allowed to decline and how agriculture has been changed for the worse by bad economics and vested interests, and how only the urban rich can now live in some areas and by their weekend existence insist upon a fossilisation of the countryside, dare I say it so that they can drive their Volvos through agreeable scenery and see themselves in some false rural idyll. I feel very strongly about these matters and I continue to use them as a basis for my work and my lobbying of MPs where I can.
There is no room for complacency, but I think we will see some improvements with this new government, if only in opening people’s minds to new possibilities. An optimistic viewpoint is a better sales pitch than doom-mongering, which so often has been shown to be exaggerated. However, we must keep pushing for improvement. I certainly will, and will use what I see as the truth, and that is all I believe I will need to convince others. That is why I question the need for any religion or superstition.
I suppose that you could summarise my opinion as being that the truth is ulimately empowering, freeing us from the chains of superstition and exploitation. There are attendant risks, but the possibilities are boundless. We have seen what religion can do, and found its limits. With modern communications and the availability of information we can move on from it, away from the need for a restrictive controlling authority of any sort. Surely we would be denying our destiny if we did not try?
One of the attendant risks to my philosophy, and a matter I find difficult to argue with the religious, is morality. The denial of any moral authority but ourselves has allowed some of the grossest excesses of humanity, be they nazism or Pol Pot. Of necessity we must have respect for others and their rights, but if there is no God or other higher authority, where does this morality come from? To me it is a simple pre-requisite for civilisation, do-as-you-would-be-done-by, if you like. However, I believe that by denying the existence of a higher authority we ourselves take responsibility for morality. At least the excesses of any person cannot be blamed on anyone or anything else. Nor can a higher authority be cited as the excuse for excesses such as the Crusades.
I hope these thoughts have gone a little further in conveying the scope of what I see as possible without religion of any sort.
Much past knowledge was of course ignorance but not all. In our modern arrogance we think we know it all yet time and again we find - sometimes too late - that we do not, and that old knowledge was sometimes more fundamentally sound even if not flawless in detail. The landscape in countries like England has been moulded by human activity for thousands of years. So far for each succeeding generation the changes have been tolerable or even welcomed. For the last few hundred years that has been changing and now there are parts of Britain where you can see virtually only one plant from horizon to horizon. Your argument seems to be that ancient humans were just the same as the modern ones and would have done the same damge if they could. Well there is no denying that they were essentially the same but the real point is that we know! They did not! We have seen what human activity can do and can recognise how severe it can be. They did not know what damage could be done or how to do it. They cannot be blamed but we can. The value of history is that we should learn from our past mistakes not repeat them on a grander scale. Even though we are now in a position to make the next war the terminal one, we do not seem to be any the less likely to start one.
We are gullible sheep ripe for exploitation. Religion will always be used by unscrupulous people because many human beings are "lost sheep" looking for a leader - Christian metaphors are appropriately chosen. There seems no change in people’s willingness to put their faith in crooks and charlatans, whether relgious or political. I can see no answer except to cultivate in people such a passion for the preservation of our environment that they will not tolerate anyone, even their trusted leaders from making a mess of it. Such strong passions would probably have to be religious. That is why I think worshipping Gaia, blessing her for her bounty but at the same time treating her like any pregnant woman so that the new birth is successful, is the only sensible religion we could adopt today. You are right, though. I am pessimistic because I think we are already too late. I suspect we have already created the conditions for human beings to become extinct in the next, say, thousand years. I hope I am wrong naturally. I have children and a grandchild and I don’t want them to live in an increasingly hostile environment because we have already set it on the wrong course. Optimism is the last thing needed in this context because it leads to inactivity. We have to be active. Ruthless against the exploiters. Compassionate for those whose livelihood depends upon the bad habits we have inculcated. Determined to mend the wounds on the earth we have inflicted.
Doom-mongering is the expression always used by those who wish to marginalize the warnings of the lookouts. Nothing short of running aground will serve to prove that the doom-mongerers were right. Optimists might agree that they can see the shoals but pooh-pooh any suggestions that they might wreck the ship. In Who Lies Sleeping? I pick on unreasonable optimism as one of the evolutionary faults that human beings have. Up until this point in history optimism must have conferred advantages. But now it is a maladaptation. We are more likely to save ourselves if we adopt a pessimistic outlook. When it is plain that the ship is going to run aground even the optimists break out into activity. With luck, the ship might be saved, but if warnings had been heeded it would have been a lot less frenetic. Without luck - the situation we must assume if we are going to get moving - we are already wrecked.
You are right about morality. It is our own responsibility. It is because we have evolved as a ape moving in bands that we place excessive faith in leaders. In a sense it is rational to have a supernatural leader to place a fear of wrongdoing in everyone, even the leaders of our bands of apes, our kings and priests, who have the power to do as they like. Bu once again the concept of nature as a god or the earth as a goddess supplies the basis of morality. We are all part of the goddess and have no right to hurt any other part of her. The danger we are in can be thought of as her response to our arrogance and selfishness. In evolutionary terms we are all linked together in time and linked even with every other creature on earth however lowly. The chap in Hove I communicate with by e-mail is a neighbouring polyp on the reef of life. We are part of the same thing. Whether ideas like these are regarded as metaphorical or expressing an actual truth does not matter if it stops someone chopping down an ancient oak because it cuts off his view of the pond from the bathroom window.
We agree really on all the important issues. something has to be done and it should come from our own determination to do it. We differ in that you take the optimistic route which, despite your recognition of the danger, leads all too often to complcancy. I take the view of the doom-mongerer because experience and history show that nobody will do anything until they have to. Quite often that is too late.
I cannot tell whether you have read Who Lies Sleeping? but you span many of the issues therein. It expresses in more detail what I have been saying briefly here and gives some thoughts about the human psyche that gives me cause to be pessimistic - including optimism!
Very best wishes and empower to your elbow in trying to save us from a spaceship earth.
I have to disagree with you about optimism: It does not have to lead to complacency, though it can. One could equally say that pessimism leads to despair, though it obviously fires your passion. I am optimistic not because I do not see the challenges ahead clearly but because I feel we will overcome them. Complacency went out with Rachel Carson’s publication of The Silent Spring in the 60s. It is just that it takes a lot of time for the generation raised in the knowledge of what she wrote to reach positions of influence. When I was at school I took part in a weekend seminar on the Brandt Commission report on World Trade and yet I still see the problems and their causes raised as issues by the Commission. There is, however, an increasingly loud voice in Government pressing for the change needed.
You still have not convinced me that religion of one sort is better than another. Is this not saying that the end justifies the means? Very shaky ground! There is a risk that such desparation leads to extremism. I believe that unless change happens in its own time the upheavals caused can have a greater negative effect than the intended good outcome. Our job is to cajole and pester those who have the influence to make changes in the right direction. People within the green movement do this as a pressure group, but the weakness of that group is that it has not yet begun to come up with practical solutions acceptable to most people. That is in part my role and my business. It does not mean that we are not both important in achieving the aim we both agree upon, but if you like we are both moderating influences on the other.
If the Lovelock hypothesis tells us anything it is of the inherent strength of Gaia to withstand challenges. The hypothesis gives us the idea of a huge system in dynamic equilibrium. In part what we are being shown today is that we indeed do live in a dynamic system, and as such it is changing. This is neither a good or a bad thing as far as we know, but it is an example of how we have taken our environment for granted and freak out when we see it changing. However, no matter how it changes it will still be there, and it will take a lot more than we have done so far to destroy it completely. If we are making a start on seriously changing the way we go about things we still have time, and I think we are.
In an attempt to assure you that I am not complacent I will list some of the issues that I consider to be of immediate concern:
The thinning of the ozone layer risks damaging the ocean ecosystems by its effect on phytoplanckton.
The diminishment of the gene pool by the loss of quality wild ecosystems.
The diminishment of the gene pool of our basic food crops.
The persistent use of halogenated organic compounds without thought to alternatives, and the problems of disposing of them and their by-products.
The continuing increase in the use of transport for frivolous or non-nessential reasons.(Transport policy).
The continuing increase in our energy consumption for frivolous or non-nessential reasons. (Energy policy).
Soil erosion.
Air pollution.
Water pollution.
Waste production and disposal.
These are just as they occurred to me. I am sure that I could think of more if I spent more time on it. They overlap to some extent, and have global or local importance. They also have their consequences and causes not listed. I have not mentioned agricultural policy, now I come to look at the list, but it has its implications on items such as gene-pools and soil erosion as well as pollution.
I also attach a copy of a database entry showing how the EC views these matters. It is an outline document intended to highlight issues, the detail being arrived at with the usual excruciating processes that are the low point of what I do. Enjoy! I hope this shows you that things are being done at the highest level.
It would not do if pessimism led to despair on this issue though doubltless it could. Despair arises when all is lost and my argument is that all will be lost if we do not take the matter seriously. I want pessimism to lead to anger. Anger that our leaders keep fobbing us off with more research is needed and we have every reason to make sure we have the right diagnosis or whatever. Anything to ignore the fact that we are settling lower and lower in the water. When it starts to flow over the gunwales they’ll be screaming: why didn’t anyone tell us?
Whether we are on the brink of disaster or still a long way off it, we know what is wrong and can do something about it. Your list is pretty comprehensive. The longer we put off proper conservation policies, the nearer to disaster we get. The truth is that there is a hysteresis in the reponse of earth systems to disturbances. We cannot be sure that we have not already entered the final circuit. 50 years for the ozone layer to recover, and then only when the pollution of the atmosphere with halogen derivatives has been stopped, might well be too long. How much phytoplankton has to die before its effects are irreversible?
I suppose, for me, there is optimism and optimism. The optimism I am criticising is almost a synonym for complacency. It is a determination to do nothing because it is too hard, or it will cost us our living, or our status so we imagine a favourable outcome from our presetn trends. The other optimism is what drives you on when you have decided that something must be done. If someone came up with a piece of incontrovertible evidence that we had destroyed ourselves, then we might as well resign ourselves to despair. But our lack of certainty gives us cause to be optimistic, providing that we start to make a determined effort now. As soon as we do, we shall get the real fights from the nimbys of exploitation. Oh fine. we must do something about conservation. (But not in the quarrying industry, the oil extreaction industry, the forestry industry, etc, etc). These are the optimists I most complain about, though there are others who believe their selfish bleats.
Perhaps a quiet sort of inner determination, such that you seem to have, might be needed to replace anger when we start to take action. You know better than me whether the efforts you point out are genuine. It all seems too relaxed to me.
Regarding Gaia, I agree that she will recover but we and a large number of other species might not be part of the recovery. If I were only worried about the earth itself then I would stop worrying. My point is to preserve the world as a place suitable for an intelligent ape. Gaia would be quite happy to destroy us and try another species in 100 million years if we have so little respect for her. That is why I argue for a religion centred on nature.
I am not arguing for religion for its own sake. The Christian religion has been not just singularly useless but positively harmful as anyone who examines its historical record can see (despite the sincerity of individual Christians). It took over a thousand years of Christianity before any Christian suggested we should respect animals. Almost a thousand years later we still do not unless they are our prize racehorses or penis-substitute Pit Bull Terriers. I do not believe that more than a tiny percentage of people are aware of the mass extinction going on and most of those simply do not care as long as they can afford a pint and watch Coronation Street. So the point of a nature religion would be to bring it to their attention and make them feel guilty about it. Such a religion would have a purpose.
