Belief in Elves

Is it Irrational to Believe in The Elves, The Dwarfs, Fairies and Goblins? 

3 min read

Who might argue, that belief in The Elves is irrational? Just because there's no empirical evidence to support them doesn't mean they're not real, no? Whoever says the burden of proof sits with believers, clearly don't believe. 

Why do you need evidence for Elves? 

All sorts of clever arguments exist that focus on design of the cosmos and cause, which have been refuted by philosophers and scientists. In fact, some atheist hardliners insist that belief in Elves can do more harm than good, for example: the public might believe an ailment they have, is in fact, Elf-shot, leading them to unwisely seek an insufficient remedy from a witch, only to die, because it was brain cancer all along. 

When Our Beliefs are Unhelpful... 

Apart from The Elves, The Gnomes can also make people feel terrible with regards to our sense of self-esteem and self-worth. The Journal of Religion and Health published a paper claiming that worshipping such judgemental things will likely result with feeling shame, especially surrounding sexual practices (Rowatt, Wade C. et al. 2010).  

Benefits of the Invisible Folk

Belief in The Elves and other special folk we can't see, might be 'reasonable' according to the likes of William Lane Craig (2008) and others who hold an explanation for their own faith. Evolution of Regression, published a piece by Bull (2021), suggesting believers might be able to think in metaphorical terms, and articulate complex ideas about abstract objects. The claim still stands and is not proven. 

Why is it Always About Proof?! 

The Dwarfs, The Goblins and The Elves are great but, I can't accept them without at least seeing a smudge of the mythical in my mundane world. For example, we never see falling dragon sh*t crushing cars, only to be reported on by Mary Nightingale on The News at Ten. Evidence is quite useful. 

What Spitituality? 

In terms of psychological benefit, belief in any form of Elf can be glamoured up to look healthy; psycho-babble and new age shpeel might say all spirituality is healthy for life. However, it's only healthy, if you're not that particular theistic satanist waiting outside St. Lukes with a can of petrol and a box of matches.  

References

Bull, S.H (2021) I Think Stuff That Doesn't Exist is Real. In U. R Saul & D. Face (Eds.) Evolution of Regression. 

Rowatt, Wade C. et al. (2010) Beliefs about God, Peer Influence, and Risky Sexual Behavior among College Students. Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 50, no. 4, 2010, pp. 772–788.

Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics (3rd ed.). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Are Atheists More Analytical Than Theists?

Is it Wrong to Say We Are Smarter Than Our Religious Brethren?

Doubting and Thinking

7 to 9 min read  

An analytical atheist could be quite a compelling character. This modern archetype often standing as the critic of traditional faith. I'm always shamefully plugging my other blogs. Anyway, according to recent studies, if you believe in god, you're more likely to score 5-6 points lower on an IQ test than non believers!

One study specifically looked at the connection between atheism and IQ, and it was published in the journal Intelligence in 2013. It analysed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which included over 20,000 participants. Individuals who identified as atheists or agnostics had higher verbal intelligence scores than those who identified as religious. Mental, right? Why? Well, read on...

So, we humans all use our verbal reasoning to conceptualise words for problem solving and reasoning. However, non-believers and believers alike had very similar non-verbal intelligence scores (Nyborg, 2013). Non-verbal intelligence is that ability to address visual, wordless issues.

Tests and Results

Yes it's often said, (most likely consolidatory) that IQ tests are only an estimation of intelligence; an assessment of how candidates perform at taking that actual test. Duh, yeah! It's just like how a beep or push-up tests estimate fitness by assessing those particular physical activities. Intelligence has more dimensions to it than fitness does, it is very nuanced.

So, shouldn't we label atheists as presumptuous whenever they say they're generally smarter than believers? Comparatively, if football players say their fitness is higher than non football players, are they right? If trends show between the two groups significant show a result it appears as if you have a fair evidence based argument! But do you?

So yes, okay, IQ tests only represent specific aspects of our intelligence, namely: mathematics, language, problem solving and recognising patterns. Our philosophical potential, on the other hand, that sneaky machiavellianism, and common sense, as well as athletic intelligence and that vital emotional intelligence (more accurate for success in life) are not included. 

Mensa target specific areas: art, design and social communication do not come under the focus of IQ testing. They can't be assessed on a paper. We know that police fitness tests don't typically measure paper work or issuing cautions, but yet, aren't they still classed as part of policing? Excuse the poor example, I am only trying to raise a simple point — tests are quiet limited.

In 2010, a meta-analysis was published in the journal: Personality and Social Psychology Review, which analysed data from 63 studies conducted over 80 years and noticed a slightly statistically significant negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence (Zuckerman et al, 2010).

This negative correlation simply means, 'more' having a downward connection with 'less,' for example: the more you eat, the less hunger you have. This correlation generally showed: the more religious one might be, the less IQ points they usually score! Does this portray an absence of intelligence or a non-use of critical thinking? Research implies that if the religiously leaning suddenly began to doubt, and critically assess instead of readily believing, they would develop an analytical attitude, which would sow seeds of logic and reason.

Far enough, but are we consigning the faithful in the dunce's corner now? Of course not! Authors clarified that religiosity and intelligence is a complex relationship explained by numerous factors, including that one negative correlation! Higher IQ sits with those who’re naturally inclined to critical thought and analysis. Curious minds will see patterns, doubt figures and question theological challenges in theism. They may find little satisfaction given how insufficient explanations equate to nothing.

Another study was published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science in 2017. Believe it or not, but this one reckons that religious folks are more likely to take-up conspiracy theories than atheists are! It also says believers are less likely to engage in analytical thinking when compared to non-believers (Gervais & Norenzayan, 2017). Dont forget, these are general findings and does not imply every religious person.

The thing is, not all conspiracy theories are off-the-wall codswallop are they? Take Russian interference with the 2016 election or Cambridge Analytica, for example. The Covid 19 leak is now considered to be real! In the eighties or nineties a journalist called Gary Webb, was branded a conspiracy nut, but when he uncovered a CIA drug trafficking conspiracy he was vindicated! Such accusations are not helpful.

Going on these studies, you could be forgiven for asking: 'Does this suggest atheists have bigger brains?' it makes sense, since bigger brains have always been associated with being smart. Pietschnig et al (2022), found previous studies are fuzzy as to what degree brain size reflects IQ score. It must be said, brain size as in cerebral memory development from knowledge acquisition, is not the same as the raw cognitive application of intelligence.

Meta-analysis of 86 studies with over 26,000 people discovered this connection was nothing to write home about. The areas of correlation between brain size and IQ score have reduced over time, not because of our brains changing, but because of uncertainty around the data recorded in previous studies and the ongoing understanding and definitions surrounding intelligence.

Rest assured, the claims in these studies cited above have all been criticised. Critics have argued that these studies may have been subject to selection bias. On the other hand, the same critics often fail to explore critical thinkers who are, in fact, also religious. Only one faith was mentioned above all others in the studies (Christianity) with some allusion to other Abrahamic religions. Sadly, the studies left out eastern religion such as Vedanta, Daoism or Zen for example. It fails to represent polytheism, be it modern reconstructed or Hindu. All religions and cultures hold their unique perspectives and concepts meaning the data is biased in its sampling.

It is vitally important to question if the relationship between one's faith and their intelligence is decreed by intelligence. Do you think an IQ test certificate can prove an atheist is smarter than you or your fellow religious peers? I believe IQ has little to do with a person's attraction to a faith. 

References:

Gervais, W. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2017). Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(7), 742-749.

Nyborg, H. (2013). The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans. Intelligence, 41(6), 678-689.

Pietschnig, J. Gerdesmann, D. Zeile, M. Voracek, M. (2022) Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211621

Zuckerman, M., Silberman, J., & Hall, J. A. (2010). The relation between intelligence and religiosity: A meta-analysis and some proposed explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(4), 353-374.

Zuckerman, M. Li, C. Lin, S. & Hall, J. A. (2020). The negative intelligence–religiosity relation: New and confirming evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(6), 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219879122

Is The Gender Pay Gap Sexist?

Gender Pay Gap? I dunno... 

7 to 9 min read 

The gender pay gap has been a thorn in the side of women across the country. When we discuss the gender pay gap issue, we typically draw from the numbers, such as the various gender percentage comparisons. However, narrowly focusing on this might fail to capture the full extent of the problem. 

For me, it's the politics behind it that can be odourous. Sometimes, I find statistical arguments questionable. Not many of us saturate ourselves with complex numerically processed statistics, which are supposed to explain something about why men get paid more than women do. I simply cannot grasp how numbers might prove, let's say, any of those feminist arguments that blame a patriarchal oppressor for pay inequality—why is it so complicated? 

Okay, Here We Go...

In 2020, The Office for National Statistics, stated that the gender pay gap for full-time workers in the UK was 7.4%. They reckoned that on average, for every £1 earnt by a man, a woman earnt just 92p. However, years later and it's reported that the gap is getting smaller, but on the contrary: women are paid 89p for every £1 a man earns on average, Sky News (2023). They say the numbers represent full-time workers, adding that introducing figures for part-time and self-employed workers would show a bigger gender pay gap, because women work part-time a lot. 

Now, the government recently estimated that between 200 000 - 500 000 transgender people live in the UK. How fairly they are represented in these statistics has little to do with precision data retrieval—no clear guidance exists. If the study was entitled the cisgender pay gap, it would be non-inclusive, and honestly, does the research only want data from people who identify as the sex with which they were born? How would the poor transgender guidelines and data collection of hundreds of thousands affect the findings? 

Is the claim that men are deliberately paid more than women an oversimplification, or does it have substance for a great patriarchy conspiracy? Without a doubt, factors such as social class, education, health, ethnicity, ones amount of experience, racial and cultural prejudices, as well as the type of job, will all impact on cold quantitative figures, leaving little room for conspiracy theory. 

To keep on the side of real life, let's consider the female dominated sex industry. Men make up 20% of sex workers, and women make less money than men do. You see, a few years back, gentlemen escorting in London could earn a solid £1,000 an hour; where as, in comparison, ladies were limited to £150 per hour! (Marshall, 2019). Not to forget that the lowest earners could make as little as £5-£20 for providing a sexual service in a brothel or on the street (Neill & Plankey, 2017). In surveys shared by Streetlight UK (2015), 76% of people in prostitution had experienced some form of PTSD and 90% of women said they would stop if they could. It is likely this is because key male sex workers are less common, rarity almost always commands a premium. 

The Canadian Psychology Professor... 

Professor Jordan Peterson, (2018), argued against feminist accusations by stating the gender pay gap is not solely due to discrimination against women. He put forward a practical explanation that men and women naturally gravitate towards different work, and he played down any patriarchal theories behind the pay gap. Of course, there will be random sexist people dotted across the world of employment. 

It's good to remember, STEM careers are often highly paid and attract males. These are fields that require typically left brained individuals. Peterson insisted women who choose the same career paths as men and match their hours are generally paid the same (BBC, 2018). We can see this in large bodies like the NHS. Agreed, the job market is not just the NHS. 

Critics of Peterson's argument reckon that women in male dominated fields often face discrimination and harassment, which encourages high staff turnover, office for National Statistics (2020). On the other hand, women can be sexist to men in their female dominated fields, I can attest to that. 

Verdict

Can we learn anything from this? Yes, numbers suggest there's a gender pay gap in the UK. Fine, but this issue doesn't seem simple enough for me to grasp. I'm sure any of us can use numbers to validate our own bias, go along with me here, for example:

Farmers These Days!

• Statistically, we found 82.4% British farmers use collies as sheepdogs. 
• Many other animals including ravens, dolphins, and especially pigs, are all proven to be much more intelligent than dogs.
•  67.3% of farms keep pigs which make better candidates for sheepherding than Collies.
• Choosing Collies unfairly maintains pig unemployed. In addition, swine are slaughtered for meat but instead, canine consumption is economically more viable. This means pigs should herd livestock without swinophobia or pigudism. 

We shouldn't use statistics to make questionable arguments. We all get pulled in by these quantitative assertions, but they don't always reflect the state of affairs—pigs are more intelligent than dogs, but they are more lazy and much slower. In 2020, employers with at least 250 staff, without any guidelines, chose whether they should tick the male or female box, representing their staff in the gender pay gap (Penman, 2020). 

  

References:

Marshall, T. (2019). "The shocking male-female sex pay gap." BBC Newsbeat. [Online] Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48602674

Neill, M., & Plankey, M. W. (2017). "Sex work in the United Kingdom: policies and politics." Healthcare. 5(1): 9; doi:10.3390/healthcare5010009

Office for National Statistics. (2020). Gender pay gap in the UK: 2020. [Online] Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/genderpaygapintheuk/2020

Penman, A. (2020) Gender pay gap and trans people [Online] Available from: https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/features/gender-pay-gap-reporting-and-trans-people/

BBC. (2018). Jordan Peterson: 'Women who claim gender pay gap aren't reliable'. [Online] Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552

Sky News (2023). The Pay Gap Is Narrowing, But Women Still Paid Less Than Men, Sky News Analysis Suggests [Online] Available from: https://news.sky.com/story/gender-pay-gap-narrowing-but-women-still-paid-89p-for-every-1-a-man-earns-12846184

Streetlight UK. (2015) Prostitution The Facts [Online] Available from: https://www.streetlight.uk.com/the-facts/

Why Don't They Faith Heal The Pope?

When The Pope Relies on Medical Science and Your Mate Calls him out as a Holy Sh*t.

3 to 5 min read

I mean, fair enough, if you're an atheist and you've immersed yourself in those gritty atheist vs. theist debates on popular social media platforms, your excitement might reach a peak at the thought of the head of the church turning to medical healthcare recently.

To be fair, Catholicism has a history of clashing with scientists, opposing any knowledge that goes against their faith, and now they're embracing it, seemingly abandoning the healing touch they believe Jesus bestowed upon them. Stop, for the love of God! There's already too much aggression in the world, so why can't we all just find common ground and stop labeling each other as heretics or brainwashed? 

Many religious officials claim, out of deep-seated belief, that holy water can drive out demonic forces (which aren't even real). If you were to follow that line of thought, imagine the havoc priest-filled urine pistols could wreak in a demonic invasion! Picture it: resistance fighters armed with these unconventional weapons, clergy lobbing their own holy sh*t grenades at the hellish horde outside a Tesco in a dystopian future devoid of churches.

Anyway, yes, those self-prided 'discussion champions' who pit science against religion often miss the mark. Many scientists and healthcare professionals hold religious beliefs (a fact that has always puzzled me), so why should we be quick to criticize the Pope for seeking medical treatment without considering the complexity of his position?

Science and atheism may differ significantly, but some atheists wield science with the authority of a medieval Templar brandishing his sword — often with a shaky grip on the handle. So what's the deal? Jesus was all about healing the sick. He taught his followers to do the same, passing on the power to heal. However, I've never heard of faith healer separating Siamese twins, to be honest. This raises an important question: Why aren't the Pope's guys using their healing powers on him?

Despite their hands-on approach to healing the sick—or rather, spitting on them for healing purposes (yes, Jesus actually did that, see Mark 8:22-26)—why didn't anyone from the Pope's entourage take this route? Well. . . mysterious ways, maybe? 

There are countless stories of saints performing miraculous healings! I'm not trying to be contrary, but even someone like Oscar Romero reportedly healed a woman from El Salvador in 2015 using what I like to refer to as the 'Jesus touch.' So, let's have an open and honest discussion without resorting to convoluted arguments: why couldn't anyone else in the Catholic Church heal the actual leader of the Church—the Pope?

The point is, they can't have it both ways! Either stick to the belief in the healing powers of Jesus' hands within the Vatican Palace, or acknowledge the need for modern healthcare like everyone else, accepting that perhaps biblical faith healing isn't as straightforward as it seems.

Was William Lane Craig Right?

The Apologist. 

7 to 9 min read

It is important to appreciate how the power of interpretation, existential meaning and subjective experience all influence religiosity. They play a significant role with maintaining faith, even to the point that the most potent of all the evidence-based arguments will often fail to persuade a believer to abandon their worldview. The religious mandate of an apologist might necessitate him/her to rationalise backwards; initiating a conclusion and  implementing theology that fits it. One great defence of theism is to be found in the Christian Apologist William Lane Craig. 

William Lane Craig is a 'Christian Philosopher' though, how this differs to a philosopher who happens to be a Christian is unclear. Tensions once existed between William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist who still avoids publicly debating him. 

In fact, Craig's reputation among Christians has prospered due to Dawkins lack of participation. However, Craig does have his critics, especially for smearing Sam Harris during a live debate. 

Craig has been observed evading important questions and issues raised by his opponents. He has also been accused of misrepresenting scientific work from Stephen Hawking and Michael Ruse, for instance (Pearce, 2014). This apologist will use equivocation fallacies and reduce complex arguments to oversimplified caricatures without even thinking about it; the simple arguments are easiest to destroy. For example, in one debate, Craig misrepresented philosopher Daniel Dennett's position on consciousness by saying that Dennett believes people don't even have self-awareness. 

Fair enough, an apologist can be skilled at convincing some audiences, overall, but such tactics essentially detract from the quality of respected highbrow discourse. This is where they clash with the analytical atheist. 

Three of Craig's key supporting premises in his structured case for Jesus Christ's resurrection, is the historicity of Jesus Christ's empty tomb:

1. Joseph of Arimathea entombed Jesus.

2. Women from Jesus's circle discovered the tomb empty on the Sunday after the crucifixion.

3. The best explanation for the empty tomb is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

It's easy to debunk his arguments, for example:

1. The actual historicity of the empty tomb itself is not certain. Yes, all the gospels mention an empty tomb, but, to be fair, nothing independent of historical significance proves the tomb actually existed. We also have no guarantees of its empty discovery three days after post crucifixion. The jury is still out, there are still debates exploring the topic, which shows that Craig's claim is not a given fact, but presupposition. 

2. Even if we do pretend that the biblical tomb is historical and empty, alternative explanations significantly more plausible than the resurrection of a corpse are readily available. For example, the body might have been moved by an unknown party, or perhaps, the female followers visited someone else's tomb by mistake. A list could be compiled. Craig's hopes the empty tomb is bound to the resurrection of Jesus before he walked away. Wishful thinking. 

3. Again, Craig takes the gospels for granted as sound forms of evidence. Tainted by religio-political bias and pieced together years after the events they describe, they contain numerous discrepancies and editorial interjection. They may be historical, but they are not reliable historical records. 

Overall, Craig's arguments are easily disputed because they are weak. Check out his cosmological argument:

Craig has featured this Kalam cosmological argument in various debates shown on YouTube. This theistic philosophical assault for the existence of God, makes the same mistake. It bases itself on the assumption that 'the universe had a beginning, and therefore, it must have had a cause (which is God)'. The argument goes like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Again, Craig deals his presupposition, assuming God is the prime causality. The apologist assumes the workings of time. Checkout the following counter arguments:

1. The first premise is not necessarily true. Our intuition and everyday experiences may inform our beliefs of causality within this part of the universe in which we live, but, in all its majesty, we cannot speak for the entirety. We don't know if causality applies to the absolute sum of the universe or to something beyond our observational limit. Science has gaps of knowledge about the big bang.

 

2. The cosmic microwave background radiation evidences the universes expansion; these observations do not imply our universe was caused to come into existence. It is not impossible that the universe is a self-contained system and free from causation. Therefore, that claim is redundant. 

3. Craig assumes that time is linear, and absolute, again, this may not be the case. We know certain theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity state that time is not as straightforward as we normally think; it undermines the reliance on Craig's notion of a 'first cause', these arguments greatly appeal to our common intuitions about the world. 

Verdict

The cosmological argument provided by Craig is quite controversial and somewhat deceptive. Neither this or the tomb argument lightens theism's burden of proof. The empty tomb may be the weakest of the two. We do not require undeniable proof of Christ's missing tomb, or the conditions of the universes beginning; persistence only risks non-falsifiable fallacy. 

However, it is interesting, why key evangelicals would perform public debates that will never be resolved.

The obvious plus point for theists is the indirect proselytising and preaching. Ironically, Craig calls his website Reasonable Faith; he has a book by the same name, yet he has admitted it is improper to apply reason to faith. 

He has said on television that he does not base his belief on arguments and evidence; we know they are paths to his predictable conclusions (God). Following his 'ministerial use of reason' (the gospels before thinking), Craig has admitted to serving faith like a hand maiden. This is not reasonable but just faith. 

If the main purpose of debating events were merely to attract numbers for church seats, that would be unfortunate, given the decline in Christianity. 

_____________________________________

Reference

Pearce, J (2014) William Lane Craig Misrepresents and Strawmans Ca On His Podcast, Denying Science. [Online] Available from: www.skepticink.com. Retrieved from:https://skepticink.com/tippling/2014/04/10/william-lane-craig-misrepresents-and-strawmans-ca-on-his-podcast-denying-science/

I used to think they apologised a lot!

Relativism in Religion?

Does the Universe Reflect the Attributes Ancient Cultures Assigned to God?

4 min read

Human beings often marvel at the cosmos, hoping to find meaning, inspiration, or signs of a creator. Yet when we examine the origins of religious concepts, we discover something fascinating: religious figures such as Christ's Heavenly Father or the Gnostic Monad were shaped by non-religious ideas found in ancient Greek philosophical works about nature and the heavens.

The Problem with Modern Religious Belief

In churches today, people are expected to simply believe in creeds and supernatural occurrences described in religious texts—questionable propositions such as walking on water and resurrection. This relativism, believing in that which is usually unacceptable but only when situated in church while retaining one's skepticism in private life, is quite baffling.

If we stripped away all our religious belief systems, the unimaginably supreme cosmos would not change one iota. We might hold conventional ideas of the supreme being, usually depicted as a male figure decorated with adjectives fit for the cosmos itself. But upon reading Old Testament scripture, we find this supposed almighty deity was defeated by an old Moabite army who worshipped a deity called Chemosh (Kings 3:26-27). This somehow equated to Chemosh winning.

If we multiplied that ancient Moabite army a million times over and turned them into planet-sized warriors, they would disappear in the vast eternity that houses hundreds of billions of galaxies.

The Universe as the True Supreme Being

When it comes to adding attributes to deities, we often take inspiration from the universe itself. The Online Etymology Dictionary (2021) notes that "universum" and "universus" mean "all things as one, everything." "Versus" from "vertere" means "to turn back, transform or be changed." For hundreds of years, the universe has meant all things in one—entirety.
It sounds Neoplatonist, but the universe has been seen as God by various traditions in some way or another. The simple answer is this: the universe was here before humanity, religion, or philosophy. Therefore, why isn't the eternal universe more closely bonded with God across all Abrahamic faiths?

The majesty of the universe is self-evident to me—it's awesome! If God is all things, or almighty, then surely this universe is under his control, less powerful than he is, right? How do you prove that? Even smaller ideas of God and his angels, demons, and fairies require proof. Given the attributes we assign to them, you might imagine it would be easy to prove, but it's not! Why?

Nature Predates Our Stories

The mountains were shaped long before anyone proclaimed El Shaddai as their lord. We wrote stories setting ourselves above nature, but it's our biology that emerged from what we call nature. Nature provided us the skills to develop literacy to question it. Nature and the universe are essentially the same—we contain stardust, ingredients from the cosmos. That's kind of like a DNA-positive result, not forgetting the origin of DNA itself.

Defining the Divine

To represent a general definition of God, I examined common words gathered from popular sources including Merriam-Webster, Britannica Dictionary, and The Free Dictionary. Sifting through these sources, I grouped common denominators, leaving a clear picture:

Being, Spirit, Mind, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Worshipped.

The words "Being, Spirit and Mind" encapsulate existence and consciousness perfectly well—essentially the same meaning. You can argue and reduce this to the soul, but the same consciousness and being are central to the human experience. 

It's not unreasonable to agree with materialists who might argue that ancient devotees projected the human mind onto the universe in some act of anthropomorphism. Right or wrong, notions of the almighty in pantheism or panentheism aren't cognitive biases, but alternative perspectives.

If we consider worship, one of the key descriptive words, the act itself indicates a perception of God—as if worship itself contributes to the existence of the deity. Faithful engagement with a perceived deity reflects back on us, creating the relationship between devotee and deity. Belief is powerful and effective, often resulting in humans ascribing attributes to their deities and defining them.

The Universe Meets Divine Criteria

Cosmologists say the universe contains unlimited energy and power, which relates to what religion has been calling omnipotence. Our galaxy alone is 100,000 light-years long. Photons (light particles) move at a constant 670,616,629 miles per hour. A light-year is the distance light travels in one Earth year—typically about 6 trillion miles. NASA says we have hundreds of billions of galaxies in our observable universe. It is all-powerful, given that it is undeniably everything we know, with much more packed away beyond our observation.

The idea of omniscience is openly debated and rejected by certain Eastern religious philosophies of mind, while quantum mechanics continues to make slow progress in understanding consciousness.
We can't scientifically prove or disprove consciousness. 

However, the universe is believed to support basic microscopic life at the very least. Subatomic particles connected light-years apart are connected by quantum entanglement. The universe does not have to meet our criteria to be supreme and almighty. Heraclitus said that no man or god created this eternal cosmos, but this is refutable by global religions, regardless of how such philosophers unintentionally inspired the theologies from which they might argue.

Ancient Philosophical Influences
Consider The Logos, Rhema, Panta Rhei, and Plato's Timaeus. We all know how Aristotle inspired Saint Thomas Aquinas. Christ was held synonymous with The Logos, and Gnostic Christians essentially copied and pasted Plato. If we simply put Hellenic-Jewish cross-cultural pollination under the lens, it would explode with evidence of philosophical borrowing!

The question remains: if the universe itself displays all the attributes we assign to God—unlimited power, eternal existence, omnipresence, and even the capacity to support consciousness—why do we continue to search for divinity in stories that pale in comparison to the cosmic reality surrounding us?







Reference

The Online Etymology Dictionary (2021) Universe [Online] Available from: https://www.etymonline.com/word/universe#etymonline_v_4519

Is Britain Racist?

The Sh*t Show of Racism!

7 to 10 min read

People can feel as if they are racist these days for not integrating much, or by having no friends outside their group comprised of the same ethnicity. 

Update: re-exploring those years when racism was weaponised against the UK

For years, however, science has told us we all have an own-race bias. A bias for recognising the faces of other people who share our own ethnicity, experts say this starts when we are babies. It's natural. Holistic based explanations are straightforward: we bond to what faces we see frequently, recognise familiarities and identify with those who we resemble us—is it fair to call this racism? I don't think it is. 

Maybe this factors in on people's choice to auto segregate, Mandaeism and Islam, for instance, both show that endogamy preserves culture. Though, for all accusations, is Britain really institutionally racist? Historians such as David Olusoga and Kehinde Andrews do refer to Britain as a country for white privileged benefactors of colonial slavery, they are mostly identifying classist people who are incidentally caucasian. Professor Andrews —who narrated the documentary 'The Psychosis of Whiteness'—speaks up against the racism he believes he percieves. His books are clearly defined; the latest called, 'The New Age of Empire: How Racism and Colonialism Still Rule The World.

If you take a 'what about' stance to challenge the professors points on race, or refer to historical occurrences of when white people were being booted out of their homes, it won't remove the historical racism of Britain. It cannot be undone. 

All of the world has darkness in its history. In the years following George Floyd's murder in the USA, British Policing was exposed to have a terrible vetting system; what came next was a series of high profile murders, many unspeakable crimes and MET corruption including toxic police chauvinism featured on national news, it led to resignations. 

On the other hand, if everyone takes a 'what about' stance and points the finger; we'll see humans from every walk of life fostering some kind of racial animosity towards each other.

The United Kingdom does have it's share of Danny Bakers; the disgraced broadcaster who compared the Sussex's newborn baby to a monkey in a picture he posted on twitter. That was undeniably a moment racism, just like calling Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman a coconut was race based. 

The country also has it's portion of Azeem Rafiq's, who rightly exposed Yorkshire Cricket's racial bullying, only to land himself in trouble for antisemitism.

Sasha Johnson's voice stood against racism via Black Live's Matter. Someone filmed her and posted her baiting violence and verbally abusing a black man in social media. The woman was clearly intimidating him with a racially loaded name denoting a black person who is culturally more like white people—doesn't this imply racism is beyond institution? 


When there is hypocrisy and bias, racial signalling always becomes an insult to injury. Attempts to allocate a specific ancestral, national or cultural origin of racism is also futile. The general idea is to blame white people for historical horrors committed against black people as well as modern institutional racism. Numerous factors come into play in modern hate crimes other than race, such as sexual matters, religious hatred or misogyny, mental health stigma or intimate relationships etcetera. 

The crown prosecution service (2022) said, 'many members of Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities and faith communities do not report what they consider to be racist or religious crime to the police because of low confidence in the criminal justice system. This is not a declaration of institutional racism, it is low confidence in a public service. 

British classism is the greatest cultivator of inequality and it has it's roots in history, reflected in the feudal system and its medieval use of torture. Christian rulers permitted nasty devices such as the iron maiden, the bone crushing wheel, and the Judas cradle, they destroyed suspected heretics, witches, as well as homosexual people, Jews and military prisoners. Countless civilians suffered this madness which served to pacify religious based schemes of powerful people. Racism is another vice of the wicked, found in the layman's dichotomy of Good and Bad; as with crime, phobias, and it's other ism's—our conscience recognises racism as bad. A deficiency. How should it be tackled? 

Moving out of Britain for a moment, consider the racially discriminatory evictions that occurred in African countries under Robert Mugabe. He deliberately changed land ownership rules in Zimbabwe against the interests of the majority of white farmers. This is reminiscent of the Windrush scandal under Teresa May, in Britain; again, this highlights our collective human deficiency of morality. Idi Amin ridded himself of many Indian and Pakistani citizens and famously said Hitler was right.

Google images show Amin demeaning his white subordinates. The communist Vietnamese expelled their French citizens. Societal hierarchy, power is the beast. Today, classist discriminatory thinking only serves to widen the poverty gap in the UK, genuinely, social equality won't thrive when racial games divide people. 

Undeniably, skin colour is widely identified as the sole target of racial abuse, but, is racism always down to this? The term white supremacy or white privilege doesn't work with Anglo-Celtic racism, which, in all fairness, didn't require physical differences to incite hatred. The same goes with Russian and Ukrainian racism. Again, nasty intentions manifest in all towns, countries and empires alike. 

Definitely, any government department or public service might do something we call racist. However, when a big e-commerce company started to promote shops owned by black people, internet users called it racism, because of the exclusivity to one particular skin colour—nothing changed. This pales in comparison to the racist institutions of World War 2 for example.

However, it is good to know that policies for apartheid, edicts of expulsion are unlikely to be drafted when the equality act (2010) and the Race Relations act (2000) exist. The abolition of slavery act (1835) was only recently paid off. Race is a protected characteristic in the U.K.

The country has it's share of multi-cultural tension. Sadly, inequality continues to grow; education figures show that the children of white working class families have been down prioritised beneath those of other racial backgrounds, this is an example of institutional racism. 

Higher death rates for women of colour in maternity units was not sufficiently addressed and was called a racial issue. Health figures show, black women experience more chronic health conditions such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease than women who are not black. 

All of these problems can significantly increase chances of pregnancy complications and maternal mortality. It seems feasible that commonly found conditions like eclampsia or pre-eclampsia are more responsible for mortality figures than a racial issue. I hope this maternity care can be improved. 

It doesn't seem easy to explore all of the benefactors of slavery, it reached far and wide. Even West African Monarchy had dealings in it. The Velekete markets traded African countrymen with Europe—sometimes exchanging their own men for guns! Central and Eastern Europeans were enslaved by the Ottoman empire, Barbary Pirates made Eunuchs of the men and sex slaves of the young females. If legal historical reparations are ever introduced, everyone would be claiming from everyone else. What has long gone can't make modern Britain a racist institution. 

The crown prosecution define racism as: 

'Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race'

or

'Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion.' 

In everyday language do these definitions mean you can phone the police on anyone of a different background if they have been rude to you, or do only serious racial slurs suffice? If British justice is chasing up many perceived racial hostility, when will unfair accusations drain police provision? How would Harry and Meghan look:

Racist art in the Palace. 

Episode three claims racist art is in the Palace, but according to reporters, all of the items shown are situated elsewhere:

York Mansion House, 

Bristol Museum, 

The National Trust,

The Cliveden Estate,

Wentworth Castle in South Yorkshire,

Dyrham Park, Gloucs.

Historian Afua Hirsch says, “If you go into a palace or a stately home or anywhere that represents tradition you are likely to be faced with racist imagery.” She informed millions of viewers that the murals and statues “glorify the institution of slavery”. How is this not liable or racist? Classism and equality seem to have their own rules. 

If false vexatious racial accusations lead to legal action or psychological stress why shouldn't they be considered a crime? Historians seen in Harry and Meghan's docu-series may well have portrayed the Commonwealth as the new colonial-esque empire but, Meghan Markle's wedding veil was decorated with flowers representing the Commonwealth, countries to which she was to become a willing servant. 

With respect to the Sussex's, they once presided over Queen Elizabeth's Commonwealth Trust; equality of gender and support of it's youth was central to the job, but then, their Netflix historians pushed opposing views to the fact finding; both can't be correct—the Sussex's wouldn't have knowingly presided over a regime they knew was racist or colonial. They never stood for empire 2.0. Be that as it is, they did feel vexatious at the monarchy and made their public attacks. 

The focus of the Commonwealth is to maintain peace and to facilitate trade between member countries. It values democracy, promotes cooperation on environmental and economic issues, and finally, when a leader dies they vote for the next one. They all chose to vote for King Charles III. 

Out of all the 56 independent members, 36 are republics. 

It begs the question: why would the Sussex's go to such great lengths with a Netflix PR production to smear the Monarchy, but, at the same time, withhold direct conversation with a senior royal who they perceived as racially hostile? What sort of message does this send to people who stand up against racism? 

Final Thoughts

Recent behaviours in the UK show an evil readily discriminating against white people just as non-white people once faced racism. Ironically this modern racism is often ignored because of old reinforced stereotypes. In reality, if we get real, all people, regardless of their background can commit racial discrimination against anyone. Racist behaviour is not exclusive to any one community the best of us can stoop this low.