Today is my birthday, a traditional time for reflection. Here are a number of maxims on how we conduct our lives (and politics) which I find of interest.
1. 1. This is from a talk by a humanist which I I heard on the radio some years ago. I can’t remember the speaker’s name or the title of the broadcast. It can’t have been “Thought for the Day” as humanists weren’t allowed on that and maybe still aren’t.
Beyond our physical needs for safety, warmth, shelter, drink and food everyone has three psychological needs:
- that someone cares what happens to them (usually a partner, parent, offspring, relation or friend);
- that someone or something benefits from their having lived;
- that they pay their way.
I believe all three, and especially the third, to be true. I think no-one actually enjoys being a “sponger” or passenger.” Some, forced into that position (benefits scroungers?) may try to save face by pretending to boast about it, but would really like a job with a decent income and the ability to “pay their whack.”
2. 2. The Religion of Usefulness.
- Happiness is the only good;
- The time to be happy is now;
- The place to be happy is here;
- The way to be happy is to make others happy.
Robert G Ingersoll, 1833-1899.
I believe this was once displayed on London busses under the heading “There is no God” (Ingersoll was a well-known American agnostic) but I feel that agnosticism or atheism are not a necessary conditions for the statements to have value. Though essentially selfish they are rather more positive than the worst interpretation of religions: put up meekly with the inconveniences of this life in the hope of a better one in the next (or oblivion.)
3. 3. The Church (-es, and Synagogues, Temples, Mosques, Chapels and whatever. . .)
- My attachment to Catholicism ows much more to a sense that it is a good guide to this life rather than to any conviction that it is a passport to the next. Edward Stourton, BBC presenter, 1957- 2026, quoted in a recent obituary in the Guardian.
I feel very much the same about my attachment to the C of E, and especially to its ceremonies, liturgy and music. I suspect it applies to most if not all the major religions. At best, religions exist to promote “the good life.” At worst they are used as tool by governments and bigots to control the lives of others. We must strive for the former and fight against the latter. Maybe that’s the search of the “via media.”
4. 4. Taxation
The poor and middle pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the very rich pay lawyers and the billionaires pay politicians/political parties.
George Monbiot, The Guardian, St George’s Day, 2026.
I’ve long believed we should adopt a different terminology about taxation, drop the description “burden of taxation ” and adopt “the privilege of paying taxes.” That’s not as daft as it sounds. Many working men, my father included, where very proud when their pay packet (as they were then) reached the level when they "qualified” (another term deliberate chosen) for income tax. If that’s a step too far, let’s talk about taxation as our “subscription “ for membership of an ordered educated and secure and cultured society. Accountants who advertise their services for “tax efficiency” (ie maximum avoidance) should be scorned, tax evaders boycotted and their directors sentenced to lengthy community service
5. 5. Political Canvassing
- Understand that “feelings” don’t care about your facts. Matthew D’Ancona, Prospect Magazine, September, 2023.
A tough one, this. We need to reverse the concept that “Media Studies” are some sort of Micky Mouse degree, and teach them from the infant class upwards. From the very earliest ages children should be taught to distinguish between fact, opinion, blatant distortions and propaganda, as I believe is already done in Finland.
At best, religions exist to promote “the good life.”
ReplyDeleteRubbish.
1 Corinthians 15:14.
1 Corinthians 15:14
DeleteIt's a long time since I went to sunday school but I though this was about
"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."
How does that connect with "the good life"?
As far as I'm aware all the major religions have their version of how to lead the good life
How does that connect with "the good life"?
DeleteIt doesn’t. That’s the point. Christianity is not about promoting ‘the good life’ at all. Christianity is about letting people know that a particular Jew in the first century was the Son of God and returned from death. Nothing to do with ‘the good life’ — as St Paul knew when he wrote that letter to Corinth.
You're wrong.
DeleteAll the main religions have a set of "rules" to follow for believers. Follow the rules for a good life
All the main religions have a set of "rules" to follow for believers. Follow the rules for a good life
DeleteChristianity is very specifically not about ‘following rules for a good life’. Christianity is about the truth of Jesus being the Son of God. It’s about the truth, not the rules.
And what did Jesus have to say about it. I recall it was "Love thy neighbour as thyself." We really would have a much better life, if not a good one if so-called Christians really followed that.
DeleteAnd what did Jesus have to say about it.
DeleteMark 1:15.
Or indeed Matthew 10:16-23. Or Matthew 16:24-6.
DeleteThe ‘good life’? Really? Not a bit of it. Persecution and suffering, that’s what Christianity is about.
"Christianity is very specifically not about ‘following rules for a good life’."
DeleteSo what are the commandments then if not a set of rules?
So what are the commandments then if not a set of rules?
DeleteThey are a set of rules. But they have nothing to do with ‘the good life’. You follies the commandments because that is God’s will, not because you want a ‘good life’.
"They are a set of rules. But they have nothing to do with ‘the good life’. You follies the commandments because that is God’s will, not because you want a ‘good life’."
DeleteWow
So god sets a set of rules for you to follow but they don't lead to a good life?
Good job I'm an atheist then
So god sets a set of rules for you to follow but they don't lead to a good life?
DeleteThey lead to a morally righteous life.
DeleteThey lead to a morally righteous life.
but isn't that a good life to a christian? and to your god?
but isn't that a good life to a christian?
DeleteDepends what you mean by ‘good’. If you mean morally righteous, yes. If you mean pleasant and comfortable, emphatically not.
I would interpret Peter's comment about the "good life" as meeting the requirements of whatever religion you follow rather than a life that materialistically pleasant
DeleteI would interpret Peter's comment about the "good life" as meeting the requirements of whatever religion you follow rather than a life that materialistically pleasant
DeleteBut ‘all regions are about fulfilling the requirements for that religion’ is a pretty null statement.
(And even then it’s not actually true. A religion is about the truth of got the universe is ordered, not about how we act. Christianity is about the truth-claims it makes. Either God exists and Christianity is true, or He doesn’t and it isn’t. That’s all that matters, not lists of rules or whatnot.)
One might also point out that the Christians who are most revered, and held up to be emulated, are those martyred for refusing to compromise of the truth of Christianity.
DeleteHow can they be living ‘the good life’ of any kind if they are dead (and often, of course, died horrible, painful deaths at the hands of their persecutors)?
"That’s all that matters, not lists of rules or whatnot"
DeleteBetter tell that to the pope and the other religious "leaders". .
Better tell that to the pope and the other religious "leaders"
DeleteI don’t know about the Bishop of Rome, but all Protestants (like the Church of England) would agree with me; it’s kind of what the Reformation was all about, salvation by faith rather than works.
If that’s a step too far, let’s talk about taxation as our “subscription “ for membership of an ordered educated and secure and cultured society
ReplyDeleteBut that's not right at all. Subscriptions are voluntary: I get to choose whether to be a member of a club, and therefore whether to pay the subscription, based on whether I think that the benefits I get form membership are worth the subscription fee.
But taxes are involuntary: I have to pay them whether or not I think the benefits to me are worth it (and quite frankly, in Britain at the moment, where so much of my hard-earned money that I am forced to pay in taxes is wasted on things like bureaucracy, mismanagement, welfare, development aid, and general nonsense, I do not think the benefits I get from my taxes are worth it).
So actually taxes are nothing like a subscription.
Peter, a belated "happy birthday". I hope it was enjoyable
ReplyDeleteYou're a brave soul posting personal maxims for all and sundry to see. I suspect you'll get criticised by those unable to articulate their own
My own runs along the lines of:
try to make sure the world is slightly better when you leave than it was when you arrived
Peter
ReplyDelete#4 taxation
my own view is that we've generally lost the visible links between taxation and the benefits that that taxation brings - both generally and individually
People see their taxes going up and for many they see no visible benefit in terms of better services and ask the question - why should I pay more and more tax
Part of the failure lies with successive governments who've made little attempt to show what tax income has actually paid for.
I've no solutions to the conundrum unfortunately.
One possible approach would be to quantify the spend on common activities that people can relate to and also to provide a generic "this is how much tax you've paid this year"
eg
- cost of educating a child at primary school
- cost of a hip replacement operation
- cost of building a unit of social housing
- cost of running the bus service from Birstall to Batley
It might help people connect their tax payments with services recived by them or their families
I'm sure it would. The late great Paddy Ashdown was very keen on this, and hypothecation - asking people to vote for more or less tax on individual areas. The problem with that is that not many people would vote for more of their money to be spent on such as prisons and the rehabilitation of their inmates, or more and better paid tax collectors, though we need them too.
DeleteWe need to change the tone: something the Finnish-style of critical thinking education might help us achieve. We need to see the tax cutters and evaders as the real "scourgers," wanting "something for nothing - to live in a decent and safe society without paying for it.
We need to change the tone: something the Finnish-style of critical thinking education might help us achieve. We need to see the tax cutters and evaders as the real "scourgers,"
DeleteSounds like what you want is not education but indoctrination.
Peter
ReplyDelete#5
couldn't agree more
This has been missing from the curriculum in the UK for far too long - I'd class it under the heading of learn to think critically
Increasingly we appear to be seeing people's inability to recognise fact from fiction, fact from opinion, fact from belief and this will only get worse with social media and AI
Depressingly, I saw this on both sides in the Scottish Indy referendum, Brexit, discussion of migrants, discussion of climate change and global warming
I understand that - as you comment - in Finland this has long been explicitly integrated into the learning curriculum from primary onwards with positive results reported