ON THE EXISTENCE - OR NOT - OF GOD

Always smartly dressed: Richard Dawkins
 who rather curiously converted me to God

The very fact that I am asking the old question about the existence of God (or god if you are an atheist) shows that, in a way, he does exist. If I ask if He exists then I am bringing him into being. The question is probably better put – does God exist as a concept or as a being. It is probably better to ask, how much is God a concept and how much is he a being? Did God invent people or did people invent God. Which came first – the chicken or the egg?  

I have always believed that people invented God rather than the other way around. This is not to disparage belief, merely to say that it is a prerequisite of living. A part of the process of coming into being is to think that we are not alone, that we are part of a larger plan emanating from a deity who remains unknown. God does not interfere in our daily lives or he (He?) would not have let horrors like the World Wars claim so many millions of lives.

 

How could a benevolent God who was watching over and controlling us allow so many young men be cut down by machine gun fire as they climbed out of the trenches. How could so many innocent Jews – women and children especially – be slaughtered in gas ovens at Auschwitz and similar concentration camps, their bodies burned after death to dispose of them without any kind of proper funeral or burial, just tossed away like so much rubbish?

 

When you see the terrible things human beings have done to each other and which Nature does to us in the form of earthquakes and natural disasters it is hard to believe in an all-controlling and benevolent deity who has our best interests at heart. After Charles Darwin’s ideas were eventually published – he kept them under a staircase so as not to upset his pious wife – we gradually began to believe more in chance and less in a just god.

 

Nowadays, people are increasingly indifferent to religious belief. They ignore the idea of a deity and an afterlife and accept, for all the talk of being ‘in a better place’ after death, that we live in our bodies until we die and we can only expect oblivion afterwards. I think this indifference is far more of a danger to religious belief than the atheism of people like – to quote a famous example – Richard Dawkins, who takes a more approach to the question.

 

Yet, it is surely because atheists are often very moral people that we still maintain some kind of belief in a deity, a greater power than a purely human one. I like Dawkins the scientist and read one of his books, The Blind Watchmaker, once. He presents the Darwinian idea that human life gradually evolved on this planet rather than it being created by a greater power. He is backed up by Darwin and geology so his arguments remain hard to contradict.

 

In his book, however, Dawkins makes several moralistic comments which have a kind of almost undergraduate flavour about them – against the boiling alive of lobsters and in favour of abortion rights, for example. It is these which spoke most loudly to me and which I remember best of all, long after I have forgotten the rational scientific arguments he makes.

 

Take the boiling alive of lobsters. Afficionados of their preparation (of which I am not one) believe that the flavour of the finished product is improved by boiling them alive rather than killing them quickly. Just say you were given the choice at a restaurant between boiled alive lobster and the quick-killed variety. This is not too crazy an idea, by the way. We have the choice between free range and factory farmed chickens when we go shopping for example.

 

A scientist believes that taste and smell are senses that developed to tell if food was poisonous or had gone off and might make you sick if it did not prove fatal. This has now developed to the extent that people spend thousands of pounds on meals and wines to go with them. They also have extended their moral senses to give priority to free range foods or to eschew animal and meat products entirely by embracing vegetarianism and veganism.

 

Yet science is factual rather than moral. It does not give priority to moral considerations when choosing, for example, to embrace quick-killed or gradually boiled alive lobsters. One is merely supposed to taste better than the other. Our sense of morality helps us to make the decision here and morality developed as a mechanism to make it easier for us to live together. Put bluntly, moral people tend to make better neighbours than immoral ones. 

 

This sense of morality has now been extended to non-human species who are afforded rights they could only have dreamed of once. These are not universally adopted by humans (which is why many still boil lobsters alive). Scientific investigations may explain this process but, in doing so, it also explains them away. If analysis tells us that we are acting in a purely moral way, we can just as easily reject this morality in order to enjoy better-tasting lobster.

 

Despite being a classic fence-sitting agnostic, I am sure that it is right not to boil lobsters alive (even if Woody Allen can make a good joke out of it in Annie Hall). I join the team of both atheists and believers who want their lobsters killed humanely and quickly, even if this results in a poorer taste. Yet I do so not because science is telling me to – science is indifferent to the matter – but because God is saying that this is the best way to behave.

 

So I believe in God even if I accept that he/she/it is a largely human creation. The most pious person would probably admit that form of his belief is partly an accident of history and geography and, if he had been in a different time and place, he would have followed a different path. Yet the most militant of atheists would be hard-pressed to explain why he or she adopted a very moral position if it was not partly due to the existence of a higher power.

Edwin Lerner

My other blog is DiaryofaTouristGuide,blogspot.com

 

NOBODY'S PERFECT

Billy Wilder's tombstone in Hollywood

I have often wondered what a successful relationship consists of. I can hardly claim to have had a particularly good record in this field, although I have been with my partner for nearly a quarter of a century now. We got together early in the twenty first century, which is now in 2025 a quarter over. I have a memory of going to see the new century in with my family on Dartmoor but it turned out that was one of last we things we did together.

We have certainly had our ups and downs in that time, almost splitting up at one stage and never formally tying the knot by getting married. However, we realise that we are both much happier inside a relationship than outside one and, after a while, you get tired of looking for the ‘right’ person and settle for what we have in front of us. So there is a part of any successful relationship that is settling for what you have got and stopping the search.

 

That does not sound very romantic, I would be the first to admit. When you are young you tend to believe that there is somebody meant for you and it is just a question of finding them. As you get older, however, you realise it is more a question of making choices from what is available. A lot of this comes from deciding that, in the old cliché, no-one is perfect and coming to terms with someone’s imperfections is the way to nurture a relationship..  

 

The film Some Like It Hot ends with just this thought as the Tony Curtis character admits to the man determined to woo and marry her that (s)he is really a man in disguise. (To cut a long story short, she and Jack Lemmon are trying to escape from murderous gangsters and think that the best way to do so is to dress in drag.) The film, which was made in the late 1950s, actually anticipates some of the transgender debates raging at the moment.

 

It is a frothy sort of film but. It has stood the test of time and pays rewatching today. The director Billy Wilder spoke with a foreign accent throughout his life, even when he was making films entirely in English later in his career. He was born in 1906 in Poland and moved to Hollywood to escape the Nazis, directing dark films like Double Indemnity and The Lost Weekend as well as light comedies. He was surely one of Hollywood’s great film directors.

 

The phrase ‘Nobody’s perfect’ is inscribed on Wilder’s gravestone. It is not actually the full epitaph (photograph above) and was meant to be a joke but there is a good point there. Nobody is perfect and the secret of having a long-lasting relationship is to STOP LOOKING FOR PERFECTION. There is a temptation to believe that somebody who is just right for you is out there and achieving happiness is just a matter of finding them.

 

But surely the secret of a good relationship is coming to terms with the other person in it, their imperfections and all. Both my partner and I want to be in a relationship while my ex takes the attitude that being on your own is better than being with the wrong person. It was, of course, this perfectionism that I fell for but was unable to live up to. Nobody, however, could have done that so she remains alone while I am with someone.

 

Each to his (or her) own. Yet I cannot help feeling that it is better to be with someone than otherwise. To have someone for company and conversation, for practical help and support and the feeling that you do not have to try too hard. I feel no envy towards those who are in the singles marketplace and are still out there looking for a new partner. It is, if nothing else, it is simply too much like hard work and I am happy to have left that all behind.

 

That may sound unbearably smug of me but it is genuinely the way I feel. As Saint Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians, 'When I was a child, I talked like a child. I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the way of childhood behind me.'

To be searching for a partner – or to be on your own – seems someone childish to me as I embrace my old age. Searching for someone new – too late, too late for all of that now.

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com 

Edwin Lerner

WHAT YOU DO NOT WHAT YOU MIGHT DO

The three victims of the Southport killings 
 

This article is about the killing of three young girls at Southport last year and the person who committed the crime. He has deliberately not been named in it so as not to boost his profile. Instead I have included pictures of the young girls who were victims of this terrible crime.

 

Now that the killer’s punishment has been handed down – fifty two years in jail, no less – we begin the hand-wringing exercises. Politicians queue up to both condemn the killer and to say something like ‘it must never happen again’. The problem is that it is very difficult to prevent it happening again for the simple reason that in our society you are imprisoned for what you actually do – not for what you might intend to do at some future date.

 

Of course, no politicians can say this. They would have to admit that they were powerless and could not stop a poor, deluded person killing others in order to make the world a better place and possibly helping them to get to heaven in the process. There is just the small matter of spending the next fifty two years in jail before you can achieve that: eighteen years growing up and becoming a person, the rest locked up in a cell with little company.

 

It is worth emphasising this point because politicians are in the business of creating a perfect world. Unfortunately, the world is actually far from perfect and our freedoms have to be hedged around with protections, which sadly include the freedom to do evil things – like killing innocent young girls while they attended a dance class. He intended to kill all the adults and others attending the class and would have done so if he had not been stopped.

 

The only way he could have been prevented from killing those girls was if he had been locked up in advance. We then move towards the sort of situation imagined in that Spielberg film Minority Report in which people are arrested before they have a chance to commit a crime. Forget about human rights and the presumption of innocence and old-fashioned concepts like that. Lock them up first to prevent criminal activity.

 

To be fair, Minority Report is a science fiction film set in the future, featuring psychic characters who can predict crimes (‘precogs’).  As far as I know, precogs do not exist (yet) and the story can be safely stored in the fantasy category. Precogs have a 100% success rate and the business of putting people on trial and judging whether they had committed a crime or not. The fact that the crime had not yet been committed could answer that dilemma.

 

The government does have a programme called Prevent which aims to stop people being radicalised into terrorism. The official description says it is, ‘a national initiative … that aims to prevent people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It's part of the government's counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST. The extent to which the killer of these poor girls was a radical or simply a nutcase is disputed but Prevent seems like a decent idea.

 

Whether it is successful is open to debate. For all we know, they could have prevented plenty of similar massacres like the one recently at Southport but I think it is unlikely. Such programmes inevitably find it hard to convert people who have travelled down the path of extremism. Eight people were killed on London Bridge and Borough Market in 2017 by men who actually met with each other at a supposed terrorism prevention centre.

 

I do not think that we should abandon such measures, but let us be honest. They have limited success in what they are tyring to do. It is simply impossible to lock everyone who might attack another who we all (except the killers themselves) regard as innocent. ‘This is for Allah,’ the killers shouted as they killed bystanders in Borough Market in the 2017 attack. Yet Allah did not ask them to kill people and should not be blamed if they do so.

 

We tend to lump people together and a lot of people will blame all Moslems for thse killings. Yet, Moslems are, on the whole, law-abiding and hard-working people who do not deserve being lumped with the fanatics who perform these killings. I remember that there used to be a DIY shop run by a Moslem family which closed up at around midday every Friday so that they all could go to the mosque on what was their holy day.

 

I never resented this if it happened when I was in the shop buying something, even though it meant I would have to come back later. Good for them, I thought. They are showing that something is more important than making money. In this case, it was religion, which some customers might not sympathise with, especially if it was Islamic, but I liked the way that they simply stopped for a short time and thought about God rather than Mammon.

 

That was – for many – a positive side of Islam. The negative comes out in the acts of terror that can strike at random and with devastating suddenness. It is all very well identifying those who could potentially commit a crime but punishing them before they have done so is against the rule of law. This means that they have to commit the crime before they can be punished, as the killer of these girls did – suddenly, viciously and with little or no remorse.

 

Allowing someone to commit a crime inevitably means that there will be victims and my heart goes out to the parents of these girls. Who could be more innocent than a young girl at a dance class? Who could be more guilty than the person (usually male) who attacks and kills them? Yet, until their murder has taken place, he has to be regarded as innocent. No amount of hand-wringing can alter this, even if it means we have to allow evil to flourish.

 

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com

Edwin Lerner