Fantasy-esque narrative aside, I decided I would write a short update since it’s been quite a while since my last post. In some respects, much has and has not happened in my life since then. Towards the end of October, my eldest sister got married and moved into a new house with her husband. In mid-November, I started a part-time job (which became full-time about four-months-ago) and towards the end of December, I became a fully qualified car driver (getting my first car one-week-ago). To be honest, I wish I could say I’ve been sailing the seas, or taking to the skies, but I’m afraid I can’t.

At the moment, I am working in a bicycle warehouse/factory (the company sells bicycle and non-bicycle components as well as full-spec bicycles). My job currently is that of replenisher – in other words, I refill boxes in the warehouse with stock that customers have returned (provided the stock is in “resell-able” condition). Perhaps cynically, I have often viewed my job simply as, “Putting things into boxes” and (grandiose aside) that is, essentially, what my job entails. It is a job I have been doing for quite a few months. To be honest, at times it’s a pleasant job – it’s not “heavy” when it comes to pressure – in fact, if anything, it’s quite a laid-back job (that’s not to say that I’m lazy but that the job, at least in my opinion, is not mentally burdensome). However, saying that, while the job is not burdensome it is, more-often-than-not, boring. The work is so mundane that there are many times I find myself drifting away into other thought (I even heard one supervisor in another department describe my job to his workers as, “boring as Hell”; quite a contrast to Mark Twain who said, “Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company”!).

The reason I got the job was simple: one day while in town my Mum walked past a recruitment agency, went in, told the people about me and a few days later I then visited them for an “interview”. I am “employed” at the bicycle company as a temporary agency worker; in a sense, I do and I don’t work for the company: I do in the sense that I work in their facilities and wear company uniform; I don’t in the sense that my wages are ultimately paid (and determined) by the recruitment agency. When I first entered the job, I worked three nights a week – three and a half hours each night. After a few months, that was then extended to full-time. While I have appreciated the job (and, in many respects, I still do appreciate it) it is by no means what I want to do with my life.

I suppose, like many people, I do my job purely because I “have to” – I have to do something with my life at the moment and I need some means of financial income and, while the job may not be my ideal job, it is something in a time when it’s hard to come by anything. A part of me doubts that I’m the only one who thinks that and, from my experience working with others, many people view their job purely as a financial anchor. In a way, I can understand the mentality behind such thinking: it is important to have a stable financial income because, let’s face it, money is required in order to buy even the essentials of life: most food, water, medicine and clothes are not free (although some may believe that they should be free because they are “essential” to sustaining human life).

Saying that, however, I find it somewhat sad that many people (including myself, I’ll admit) do their jobs purely out of financial considerations. Are we really slaves to our jobs? Do we all grudgingly walk in to work five days a week thinking to ourselves, “Back to this hell-hole”? I understand that we all have our ups-and-downs; days when we feel on-top-of-the-world and days when we feel down-in-the-dumps but are we forever in a vicious cycle of viewing our jobs with disdain? I will fully admit that when I started my job, I was genuinely thrilled and excited about it. At the time, I had gone through quite a few weeks (if not months) of unemployment (the situation of many people) – looking back, I think my excitement was ultimately due to the fact that, simply, I could now say to others that I had a job (albeit a part-time one).

Now, about seven-months-later, resentment towards my job has very much set in (I must stress that I resent my job, not my co-workers; my co-workers are wonderful and a pleasure to work with). I honestly can’t help but think that my job is a dead-end job. Indeed, it strikes me as the type of job one could only do for a couple of months before moving on – there doesn’t seem to be anything more to the job than what there already is. Even-so, I am starting to have doubts about the longevity of my stay at the company. Perhaps every Temporary Worker (or “Temps”, as we are so-often called) has doubts of one sort or another over the security of their job (even if it’s just that: temporary). I’ve even tried to convince myself that my feelings of resentment are only mood-swings but, alas, I can’t bring myself to believe such a conclusion for the feelings towards my job remain constant.

I’m not trying to be smug, nor am I suggesting that I’m “too good” for the job, but I honestly can’t help but think that I am grossly over-qualified for my job. Even-so, academic qualifications aside, I think the job is too little of a challenge for me.

I will fully admit that I have strongly considered leaving my job. Indeed, I am considering leaving my job. I am very tempted to throw in the towel and walk out. So then, what’s making me hold on to my job? Firstly, the fact that I have to pay off my car and its insurance. Secondly, the fact that it’s hard in the current economic climate to find any sort of sustainable job and, thirdly, I don’t want to disappoint friends and family by giving up my job, despite my unhappiness with it (perhaps that’s an odd reason but it’s nevertheless one I have).

I honestly don’t know what to do at the moment. Quite frankly, I feel frustrated, unhappy and stuck. My enthusiasm and passion for my job is gone and while I have sincerely tried to be positive and to “look on the bright side”, I can’t bring myself to do so now.

I am hoping a resolution occurs soon…

I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It’s just that the translations have gone wrong.

[The Beatles are] more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first, rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity.

John Lennon

One of my favourite television programmes is that of “The Universe” on the History Channel (if your television is HD, I recommend watching it on History HD). In one episode, a computer animation was shown comparing the size of Earth to that of our Sun, the size of our Sun to the size of even larger stars, and the size of larger stars to the size of, well, even larger stars…It was like big fish eating smaller fish, or a series of matryoshkas. Watching the segment made me feel very small but it’s also something which staggers me.

We live on a tiny planet in one galaxy out of millions (if not billions) of other galaxies, which themselves could (and, in my opinion, probably do) harvest some sort of life. What makes us think we are of any great significance or worth in the cosmos? Why should we think that our little piece of cosmic dust has any great position in the grand scheme of things? Most Human Beings don’t reach past eighty or ninety-years-old and yet there are stars, planets and galaxies which have lasted for thousands of years (indeed, you don’t even have to go into Outer Space – there are trees on Earth which have lasted for hundreds of years).

I have been thinking about how we, as Human Beings, measure success, or what gives us meaning and purpose in life. What makes, or what is, a successful person? The answer, no doubt, is different for everyone. Some people find success in their career or business and the revenue they generate from it; others find it in marrying the love of their life and starting a family with that person; some find it in achieving well academically and still others find success in simply tidying the garage or nailing the perfect recipe for a cake. To many people, success is what “floats your boat” – what makes you happy in life.

Success, for some people, may even be the answer to the following question:

• What does it mean to be “Human”?

To some people, being Human means having a special “place” in the cosmos. To others, being Human means having a unique genetic code, or biological blueprint. In a post I wrote about two-years-ago, I said:

For some people, Life is just one of those things that we just happen to be a part of – that we’re just forms of Matter wandering about and that we create the meaning to our own existence. For others, it’s a belief in a supernatural God or gods who made us and who have a plan for us and our lives; and still for others, there is no meaning or purpose to Life and there is no such thing as reality.

Summer is now over and Autumn has arrived. While Autumn and Winter can be very cold, I often find that Nature displays its greatest wonders at such times. I am often awe-struck by the gold and red of the leaves and the snow as it descends onto the the Earth (although, what is nice for one may be nasty for another: snow may be nice to watch while beside a roaring fire but it’s maybe not so nice if you have to drive in it or work in it. Sometimes too much of something can be a bad thing and snow, in vast amounts, can be deadly).

My epiphany towards Autumn and Winter can, I think, be summed up in one of my favourite poems by Robert Frost entitled, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”:

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there’s some mistake.
The only other sound’s the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

The Book of Ecclesiastes, much like some of Frost’s poetry, can be read as a depressing book and, in many regards, such a statement is true (although I would call it more sombre than depressing). However, what fascinates me about the book, and why it is one of my favourites of the Bible, is that it’s realistic – a sombre take on life (not that the other books of the Bible aren’t realistic – it’s just that Ecclesiastes seems to have a particular Human quality to it). The writer, in my mind, certainly has a “here today, gone tomorrow” mentality – he acknowledges that life is a fleeting thing – here one minute, gone the next:

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build…

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no-one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

Ecclesiastes 3 v 1-3, 11

Reading through the chapter, what also intrigues me is how the writer, in a sense, puts Humans on the same level as animals (at least, with regards to mortality):

Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; the human race has no advantage over animals.

Ecclesiastes 3 v 19

What I’ve highlighted in bold is often seen as the anti-thesis of Human thought. We like to think that we have multiple advantages over animals – we like to think that we are vastly superior and can outwit them, whether it be in speed, strength or mental capabilities (a cheetah can run faster than a professional athlete sprinter). Indeed, many Theists like to think that Humans are more special than animals because they were made personally by God. However, I don’t think the writer, in this case, is referring to speed, strength, mental prowess or even the idea of a personal God creating Humans – if anything, he is stating the fact that Humans, like animals, suffer from mortality – we may be superior to animals in our mental, scientific and engineering capabilities but, like animals, we are still affected by Death.

Some people plan their lives out in military fashion – they will plan what they hope to do next year or in ten years time (such as: be married before reaching thirty-years-old or travel the world before reaching fifty-years-old). While I don’t think it’s particularly wrong to plan ahead, I do think that the future is somewhat obscure. When we think of the future, we think of ten years from now, or fifty years from now, not a day from now or a week from now. Indeed, the “future” is not limited to tomorrow – the future is thirty minutes away, fifteen minutes away and even sixty seconds away. When you started reading this Blog post is now in the past.

History is often, if not always, outlined in a finite time-scale. Historical events, whether they be somebody’s birth or a battle, are given positions on the time-scale; but not just any old position – they are set in a particular order in relation to each other. Using a “line”, we can trace (or represent) the history of Man right back to the Beginning of Time (or recorded history).

All of us are accustomed with finite Time. We measure Time with our clocks and we live in days, weeks, months and years (months being associated with different seasons, or drastic changes in climate). In the West, most people begin their year in January and end it in December. So, most of us associate Time with some kind of structure. What makes the concept of Eternity interesting (or confusing) is that it’s structureless – there is no “A to B” in Eternity – no “Beginning and End”. Such a lack of linearity throws us off guard when we then begin to “imagine” what Eternity must be like. In some regards, we will never fully be able to “imagine” Eternity until we break out of the cycle of linearity (a feat which may be impossible).

In a finite time system, things grow, become older, start to decay and then finally die (or wear away) – in other words, numerous changes take place. Even though there is no Beginning and End in Eternity, does that mean that things, or people, don’t age? To age is to imply that there are “Start” and “Finish” dates. I am not the same age I was ten-years-ago, because months and years have passed since then. Even-so, I have aged biologically (maybe “aged” isn’t the right word. Maybe “developed” or “changed” would be better). To most of us, we associate old age with wrinkles and losing our physical vigour; to most of us, that is a sign that we are nearing the end of our biological life (that’s generally true if the person in question has been healthy throughout their life and has not been involved in, say, major accidents which have severely altered their body for the worse).

Filed under: Atheism, Christianity, Church, God, Life, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Science, Society, Theology Tagged: Technology, Time Travel ]]> http://jmcc90.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/the-human-code/feed/ 0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 James http://jmcc90.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/rose-of-sharon/ http://jmcc90.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/rose-of-sharon/#comments Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:10:48 +0000 James McConnell http://jmcc90.wordpress.com/?p=16159 ]]>

My dove in the clefts of the rock,
in the hiding places on the mountainside,
show me your face,
let me hear your voice;
for your voice is sweet,
and your face is lovely.

Song of Songs 2 v 14

When it comes to movies, I can generally watch anything from action-packed thrillers, drama and comedies to fantasy and sci-fi. One genre I’m not a big fan of is that of Romantic Comedy. The reason I don’t particularly like Romantic Comedies is that, to me, they are generally over-blown, sensualist and grossly unrealistic in their portrayal of love. Granted, those in themselves may be attractive qualities for some people. I, however, don’t find them appealing.

Yet, there is sometimes a feeling amongst people that love and relationships are picturesque- some people, in a sense, “paint” their perfect picture of what love “looks like”, or how they want to be “in love”. Indeed, if I was to ask most people, “What is Love?” the answers I would receive would be something like, “It’s a magical feeling”, “It’s hard to describe” or even “You don’t need to describe it”. Love is viewed as something outside the realms of Human explanation. It’s viewed as “magical”.

I am often intrigued by how people describe love. For instance, words like “cold” and “heartless” are attributed to those who are considered to be “emotionless”, or lacking any sort of emotional euphoria. Likewise, love is often associated with heat, warmth and “snugness”- love is seen as a “cosy” feeling-  many people have the picturesque image of a couple sitting in front of a roaring fire on a winter’s night drinking wine. If somebody rejects that image of love as superficial and unrealistic, they are seen to be “cold”, having “extinguished” the emotion (they might even be seen to be like the cold winter weather itself).

Very often, the image of the heart is used to symbolise love and it is a very common image: there are two rounded tops which curve round to join each other at the bottom, forming a tip. Most people, however, don’t stop and ask: Why the heart? The “heart” in love is, perhaps unsurprisingly, closely related to that of the Human heart (when people draw a “heart” it is vastly different in its design to that of a real human heart). But why do we not use the image of a liver, a kidney or a brain to symbolise love? What’s so special and unique about the heart?

In my opinion, the heart is often used as an image because it is the “lifeblood” of the body- it is the engine, or the fuel, which powers everything else (a bit like a car- it will only start, generally, if there is fuel in the tank and the electrics work). Likewise, love is viewed as something which “makes the world go round”- it is a fundamental aspect of life, or so it is thought- without it, the world (in this case, Human Beings) would chug to a halt.

I suppose I should clarify before going any further that the “love” I am discussing in this post is  predominately that of a romantic, intimate nature. That’s not to say that other types of “love”  or relationships (friendships, familial etc) aren’t or can’t be “intimate” (or passionate) but that, for the sake of simplicity, I am mostly using “love” in the context of the Greek word “eros”, meaning the love between two “lovers”.

Many people believe in the idea of “love at first sight” which, if I must be honest, I don’t really believe is true. What I do think is true, and perhaps what the phrase should really mean, is the idea of desire at first sight. When a man is sitting in a cafe drinking his tea, glances up from his newspaper and sees a woman enter, the first thing he’ll take notice of (usually) is how she looks (and no doubt a woman would do likewise if a man walked in). It is somewhat in our nature to be attracted to those we deem aesthetically beautiful.

Physicist Albert Einstein once said:

Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That’s relativity.

The interesting thing about Western society when it comes to relationships is that people usually don’t question the means by which couples are “paired up”. For example, in the Western world, it is generally seen to be the man’s “job” of asking a woman out on a date (and she can either refuse or accept his offer). Unlike other cultures, in which the families of the man and the woman formally discuss the relationship, Western civilisation doesn’t sit down at a negotiating table- a man asks a woman out on a date (or vice-versa), they get to know each other and can then determine their suitability (or non-suitability) based on how the date went (or after a number of dates)- there is no formal “board-meeting” discussion of the relationship (at least, not at such an early stage).

An issue which often crops up among Christians is that of whether or not it is OK for a Christian to date (or marry) a non-Christian. I have heard many say that it isn’t; that the two cannot be reconciled. This approach, to me, seems to be overly exclusive. Indeed, the Apostle Paul states in Corinthians:

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

1 Corinthians 7 v 12-14

Some may argue that Paul’s words were only for the culture at the time and are no longer applicable in the modern sense. Indeed, some might even argue that because those were Paul’s own words (“I, not the Lord”) we should not pay too much heed to them. When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, there was much immorality taking place. What was Paul’s solution? A man and a woman were to marry:

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am.

1 Corinthians  7 v 1-7

Even though Paul says that he is giving a concession and not a command for people to marry, does it not still seem like a man and a woman would be marrying more out of a sense of duty than out of love if the only reason they were doing so was to save themselves from immorality? I would, however, agree with Paul in that it is good for a man not to marry. However, while it may be good for a man (and a woman) not to marry, is it good for a man (or a woman) to remain single? There is a difference, I believe, between being “unmarried” and being ”single”. You can be unmarried but not be single- that is, you can be unmarried but still be in a relationship with another person.

It always strikes me, and it is very peculiar, that when we see the image of indescribable and unutterable desolation – of loneliness, of poverty and misery, the end of all things, or their extreme – then rises in our mind the thought of God.

Vincent van Gogh

I do realise that it’s been a while since I posted anything on Cydonia Mensae. Hopefully, however, I’ll update it a bit more often. I also found out how to “split” a post into pages- hopefully it will be more merciful to read (no longer a giant wall of text!) although it might take me a while to figure out how to properly do it, so my apologies if this post seems a bit disjointed!

In July, I was on holiday in England and Germany. In England, I spent two nights in London and two nights in Oxford. In Germany, I went to Frankfurt and Hockenheim, staying three nights in Frankfurt. You might have seen on news channels recently of the disaster in Western Germany at the “Love Parade” festival where twenty-one people were crushed to death in massive crowds. One female eyewitness told how:

Everywhere you looked there were blue faces. My boyfriend pulled me out over the bodies, otherwise we would both have died in there. How can I ever forget those faces. The faces of the dead.

I don’t mean to be insensitive and forgive me if I am but the phrase, “The faces of the dead” sounds almost like something from a Fantasy work- in fact, it reminds me of the scene in, “The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers” in which Frodo, Sam and Gollum are passing through the Dead Marshes and gazing at the faces of dead men and elves lying underwater. It may be a crude and irrelevant metaphor but that’s what it reminds me of. However, it’s somewhat beside the point.

I know I’ve discussed it many times before on this Blog and I apologise if I’m repeating myself but I can’t help but agree with the sentiment of Van Gogh. Why is it that when we see “indescribable and unutterable desolation” that we suddenly think to ourselves, “Where was God?”. Why did God not just magically expand the tunnel through which the people were walking? Wouldn’t that have saved many lives? Or why did a Rapture-style ascension not happen? Why did the tunnel not just ascend to give more room, or why were the people not lifted up before reaching the tunnel? Surely God could have achieved such a feat if he is all-powerful and in full-control? Did God sit idly by while people were being crushed to death?

As happens every year in July, a Christian conference in Northern Ireland takes place called, “New Horizon”. To be honest, I’ve only ever been to “New Horizon” once and that was two-years-ago when I attended a seminar entitled, “Blogging For Jesus”. I fully admit that I sometimes have a cynical view of such “conferences”, especially ones geared towards the youth. Any time I attend such conferences (which, admittedly, isn’t very often) I sometimes feel that the people there are putting on “images”. It’s very easy, in my opinion, to go to such things and feel like you’re being a “good Christian”. I often think to myself if I’m ever at said conferences, “What will these people be like without this?” or “What will these people be like in the real world?”.

Of course, it would be wrong of me to stereotype: not everyone who goes to “New Horizon” (or something of a similar nature) is putting on a “disguise”- a false perception of being a “good Christian”. I do think, however, that it’s easy to, as one speaker at New Horizon once said:

Have a one-night-stand with Jesus.

So, you’re feeling happy inside when you’re among your fellow “brothers and sisters in Christ”, but how will you feel when you’re not among them? So, you feel joyous when the music is playing and everyone is lifting their voices, but how will you feel lying in bed at night in the silence?

To be honest, I have a certain sympathy with people who say, “I just can’t believe Christianity” or “I just can’t believe in the existence of a God” and I have a certain anger towards those who demand that everyone, “Just believe it!”. Enquiry, in my mind, doesn’t hurt anyone and I have always felt that it’s good to question your beliefs, regardless of their nature, because only then can you really be certain (or uncertain) of them. I have often wondered, “Is God a dictator who demands absolute loyalty and obedience?”. Certainly, many Christians do view God in that light; however, again, I have also wondered, “Surely God would be sympathetic towards those who find it hard to believe in his existence?”. Faith, according to Christian Theology, is believing in the existence of that which we can’t physically see:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Hebrews 11 v 1

Would we need faith if we could physically see God? Possibly not. Although, I admit that it’s sometimes tempting to cry out, “Show yourself!”. God is an elusive Being…or so it seems.

Quite a few years ago, I was in a Christian Bookshop reading through a book which was a collection of “letters” children had written to God (much like the type of letters we wrote to “Santa Clause” when we were children, although our parents were often the recipients!). Most of the letters, as far as I can remember, were about trivial matters and were quite humorous. The concept behind it, I think, is quite interesting. Imagine, for a moment, that you could write a letter to God and send it to him- it wouldn’t be like the “letter” to Santa Clause which the jolly red man never got- it would be a proper letter asking God questions and you would get a reply (or, if you want to be more modern, the “letter” could be an e-mail). What would you ask or say? What would I ask or say?

Dear God…

Why is there pain and suffering?

Why do people have to suffer in order to believe in your existence?

What is the reason for people contracting cancer?

While I’m not a huge fan of U2, I will admit that I do like some of their music. In particular, I quite like their album, “How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb”. After listening to the album, two songs in particular stand out, “Miracle Drug” and “Yahweh”:

God I need your help tonight.

Beneath the noise
Below the din
I hear your voice
It’s whispering
In science and in medicine
“I was a stranger
You took me in”

“Miracle Drug”

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, tell me now
Why the dark before the dawn?

“Yahweh”

I’m not sure if U2 are a “Christian” band. A lot of their songs deal with Christian issues and have Christian themes running through them, but I’m not sure if that makes them “Christian” (for instance, I can sing a song which has Buddhist themes running through it, but singing it doesn’t necessarily make me a Buddhist). I am intrigued, however, by the line, “Always pain before a child is born”. I think this highlights, for many people, the issue (or problem) of pain.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg

Weinberg’s statement is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. To make it the whole truth, we must add an additional clause: “And for bad people to do good things—that [also] takes religion…Only a small fraction of sinners repent and do good things but only a small fraction of good people are led by their religion to do bad things.

Freeman Dyson

About three-weeks-ago in Cumbria, England, taxi driver Derrick Bird went on a shooting rampage through the villages of Lamplugh, Frizington, Whitehaven, Egremont, Gosforth and Seascale before killing himself in a forest near the village of Boot. In all, thirteen people died (including Derrick Bird himself). The event caused widespread media attention and shock and the question in the minds of everyone was, “Why?”. According to many reports, and to many people who knew him, Derrick Bird seemed like a friendly man:

All believed the man they called “Birdy” was a quiet, though sociable soul whose simple lifestyle in the village of Rowrah was occasionally enlivened by a taste for foreign holidays…

“It’s just unbelievable,” says local postmaster Derek Gilpin, who knew Bird for more than 20 years. “When I heard something was up, I thought: ‘Oh no, Birdy must have been shot’. I never would have imagined that the boot could be on the other foot.

“He was quiet, but he’d never let you go by without saying hello and asking how you were. It just doesn’t match up at all.”

It may be significant that the people who knew Bird, for all their shock and loss, have not yet allowed themselves to think of him as a monster or an animal: his acquaintances will tell you, with a disbelieving shake of the head, what a nice guy he always seemed.

BBC News

What drives a seemingly ordinary, friendly person into a murderer? There have been various reports that there were conflicts in the Bird family over the will of their mother and that Derrick Bird was fearful of going to jail over issues of tax. Indeed, Derrick Bird, before his killing spree, had only recently become a grandfather. As a result of the killings, there have been plans to introduce more gun legislation. I admit that I find it strange how new “gun legislation” is only thought of after incidents such as these take place. Even-so, are more or new gun laws necessarily the answer?

In my opinion, I think the answer is no. Indeed, I think if new legislation is to be made regarding guns, then we might as well ban kitchen knives (which people can get their hands on easier). Perhaps this raises the issue of “Good and Evil” and how we distinguish between Evil acts and Evil men (or Good men and Good acts). For example, take Derrick Bird. To many people before the massacre, he was a nice man, and even after the massacre people still somewhat refused to believe that it was him who carried it out- the event and the person didn’t seem to match up- the event was horrible but the man, to them, wasn’t. So, even though Derrick Bird did a terrible act, he was still viewed upon as a nice man- a nice man triggered by something.

I think the interesting question is this: Which one was the greater evil: Derrick Bird or what Derrick Bird did? Would we say that Derrick Bird was intrinsically “evil” based on what he did? Was Derrick Bird incapable of committing any good, altruistic acts? Quite a few weeks ago, I watched “Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix”. In one scene, Harry’s godfather, Sirius Black, tells Harry:

We’ve all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That’s who we really are.

I would somewhat have to agree with that sentiment. Before that, Black states that the world is not “split into good people and Death Eaters“. If somebody commits an “evil” act, that person is sometimes viewed upon by the rest of society as “purely evil”. I somewhat feel that it’s wrong to call someone “purely evil”. Echoing Sirius Black, I believe that we all have elements of both Good and Evil; I don’t believe we are either one or the other. When we think of “Evil” men, we usually think of the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Yet, were these same men not capable of committing good? Of course they were and, in some regards, they took actions which they genuinely believed were good- to themselves, they were not “evil monsters”- of course it doesn’t justify their actions, but the point I’m trying to make is: It’s unlikely that Hitler, Stalin and Mao thought to themselves, “Gee, I’m a really evil man”- they are “evil” according to our standards. I think the Book of Isaiah sums it up well:

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness.

Isaiah 5 v 20

Of course, what constitutes “Good” and “Evil” often varies between people, although society often has a consensus on what is morally acceptable and unacceptable (the fact that “Good” and “Evil” varies among people, I believe, doesn’t necessarily mean to say that Ethical Relativism is right- just that people have differing views).

I believe there’s a difference between harbouring a certain thought and carrying that same thought out (or not carrying it out). For example, I may harbour the thought of beating somebody over the head with a baseball bat- I could harbour that thought for days, weeks or even months. What is important, or significant, is whether or not I act on that thought- in other words, whether or not I do actually grab a baseball bat and whack somebody over the head with it. Of course, the thought itself has significance, between it shows that I am already giving consideration to the act (maybe not serious consideration, but consideration nonetheless). So, in some regards, my actions reflect my thoughts and my thoughts determine (or can determine) my actions. Personal thoughts, in themselves, cannot physically hurt another person but (depending on the thought) they can if they’re put into action (again, for example, I may think of hurting Person A but my actual thought isn’t going to do any damage to Person A unless I carry it out).

I think what is harrowing is the prospect that any one of us can turn into a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao or a Derrick Bird; or be like them. Most of us have the potential, and the ability, to kill people- not just with guns, but with knives and even our own hands. Perhaps it’s all-too-easy to put Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Derrick Bird into one camp when we ourselves have the exact same potential to be in that camp. What makes me any less of an evil man than these four men? I may not shoot people dead, but does that make me a “good” man? I may hold the door open for a little-old-lady, but does that mean I’m not “evil”?

Sometimes people ask the question: Why do bad things happen to good people? Some may feel that the victims of Derrick Bird’s rampage didn’t deserve what they got; and perhaps they didn’t. Even-so, people don’t normally ask, “Why do good things happen to bad people?” Again, I think this comes back to the issue of, perhaps, the world not being black-and-white with regards to morality. Why do bad things happen to good people? Because that’s life. Why do good things happen to bad people? Because that’s also life. True, bad people may not deserve good things, whereas good people may deserve good things (and we may feel a sense of injustice at a “bad” person receiving “good” things), but it’s still a fact that good things happen to “bad” people. Even-so, I think if we’re going to ask these questions, we might as well ask, “Why do good things happen to good people?” and “Why do bad things happen to bad people?”. Because they deserve them? Because a “good” person deserves “good” things? Because an “evil” person deserves “evil” things?

In a news article about Derrick Bird, I read an interesting comment by one man who criticised society’s “suppression” of men, which he saw as detrimental to men- he even went on to say that he was surprised that there weren’t more men reacting in a similar fashion. To this person, society was (or is) fuelling the anger in many men by letting them be mocked and jeered at by Feminist beliefs; let’s all “blame men” for our woes.

I think, in some respects, he makes a fair point. During lunchtime on British television, there is a show called, “Loose Women” which comprises of a panel of four women who discuss and debate many issues. From what I’ve seen of the show, many of the issues revolve around similar themes: sex and men- in particular, treating men in a derogatory fashion. Of course, not all the panelists hate men (neither do all women) but a part of me can’t help but think: If there was a show in which four men openly talked about women and sex in the early afternoon, how acceptable would it be to others? Would people say, “Oh well, boys will be boys”? A part of me doubts it. I can imagine the show receiving a fair bit of criticism for its sexual innuendo and parents phoning up the studio to say that it’s a bad influence on their Little Johnny.

Of course, you can pass the “blame bucket” around and around- in some respects, we’re all guilty of such behaviour, whether male or female.

Historian Laurence Rees wrote an excellent book called, “Auschwitz: The Nazis and The ‘Final Solution’”. In the introductory chapter, he writes:

Perhaps above all, though, Auschwitz and the Nazis’ ‘Final Solution’ demonstrate the power of the situation to influence behaviour to a greater extent than we might like to imagine. It is a view confirmed [by] Toivi Blatt, who was forced by the Nazis to work in Sobibór and then risked his life to escape: ‘People ask me,’ he says, ‘”What did you learn?”, and I think I’m only sure of one thing- nobody knows themselves. The nice person on the street, you ask him, “Where is North Street?” and he goes with you half a block and shows you, and is nice and kind. That same person in a different situation could be the worst sadist…All of us could be good people or bad people in these [different] situations. Sometimes when somebody is nice to me I find myself thinking, “How will he be in Sobibór?”

Perhaps that is the unpredictability of Human psychology- how do you know whether the person you pass in the street is nice or cruel? How to do you know whether the person who waits and keeps the door open for you is friendly or a fraud? How do you know whether you really know your friend of twenty-years or if they’re someone completely different? In some sense, we don’t know. We like to think that the person who holds the door open for us, or who gives us directions, is kind and helpful but we can never be certain of it. We like to think that our friend of ten or twenty-years is who we think they are. Even though many people are strangers to us, most of us are not paranoid when we walk down the street. Society has developed “rules” and “conditions” which ensure we live in harmony with each other: social rules and legal rules. For instance, it’s frowned upon in society to deliberately attack another person- while it’s against the law it is also against the socially accepted way of behaving- society tells us to respect and be kind to one another- our parents told us to share our toys with other children; our teachers in school told us to work in groups and to co-operate with others.

I don’t believe, however, that we derive all our morals from what “society tells us”. Society might tell us that theft is acceptable or that it’s acceptable to commit adultery, but what if such acts go against our moral conscience? We are kind to people, not just because it’s socially acceptable but because we think to ourselves, “He is a fellow Human Being like myself. I’m kind to him because I respect his life- therefore, I would want him to be kind to me and to respect my life”. In some regards, the “Golden Rule” still rings true:

If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Luke 6 v 29-31

Some might find this a weak proposal; after-all, if someone steals what rightly belongs to me then do I not have every right to demand it back? Should I just give in to theft? If someone physically attacks me, do I not have every right to defend myself and my life? I think, in some regards, the “rule” is the foundation on which everything else is built- it is the Primary “function”, if you like, or applies to the “Primary Person”. For example, someone might see me and think, “That James McConnell is an idiot. I don’t like him so I’m going to beat him up”. Now, that person might then think themselves, “Well, would I want James McConnell to beat me up?” and the answer would probably be, “No” (and not just me- they probably wouldn’t want anyone to beat them up). However, if that person then attacks me, they have broken the rule- they wouldn’t want me to attack them but they have already started to attack me- the rule, therefore, is now void (or been made void)- they are not doing to me what they would want me to do to them (in other words, they would want me to be kind to them, but they’re not being kind to me).

Therefore, I don’t believe that the “Golden Rule” tells us to be pacifist or to just ignore those who are being attacked. Paul, in his letter to the Christians in Rome, states:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

Romans 12 v 17-18

Again, for example, if someone is being attacked and others run to their assistance and try to physically break up the fight, those people are not repaying “evil for evil”, they are using justice as a means of stopping evil; of stopping the fight- they would be repaying “evil for evil” if they then started to physically assault those who physically assaulted the original victim.

In his work, “Beyond Good and Evil”, Friedrich Nietzsche was critical of Christian morality, which he saw as cruel, restricting and for the weak:

The Christian faith, from the beginning, is sacrifice; the sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit; it is at the same time subjection, self-derision, and self-mutilation. There is cruelty and religious Phoenicianism in this faith, which is adapted to a tender, many-sided, and very fastidious conscience.

Instead, Nietzsche believed in the idea of the “Übermensch”, the Superman- a being who would extol strong values and not give in to weakness:

Now, however, a new table of valuations must be placed over mankind—namely, that of the strong, mighty, and magnificent man, overflowing with life and elevated to his zenith—the Superman, who is now put before us with overpowering passion as the aim of our life, hope, and will. And just as the old system of valuing, which only extolled the qualities favourable to the weak, the suffering, and the oppressed, has succeeded in producing a weak, suffering, and “modern” race, so this new and reversed system of valuing ought to rear a healthy, strong, lively, and courageous type, which would be a glory to life itself. Stated briefly, the leading principle of this new system of valuing would be: “All that proceeds from power is good, all that springs from weakness is bad.”

If I sacrifice my time to help at my local hospice, am I a weak person for doing so? If I sacrifice my time to help a friend with work or a project, am I a weak person for doing so? I could be spending that time doing something that I like, so why should I give it up for someone or something else? I think Nietzsche is somewhat confused over the Christian idea of “sacrifice”. True, there is indeed sacrifice in Christianity but I think we need to ask, “What type of sacrifice is it?”, “Is it all our own sacrifice?” and “Is all sacrifice bad?”. Christianity’s central thesis, if you like, is that Jesus served as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. In some regards, it echoes the Old Testament sentiment, where a lamb was often sacrificed to God- in the New Testament context, the “lamb” is Jesus (some might say The Lamb- The Ultimate Lamb). Does Christianity teach the doctrine of all-encompassing sacrifice? What is sacrifice?

Firstly, “sacrifice” is the complete killing-off of something. For example, if I sacrifice my life for somebody else, it means that I lose my life so that the other person may keep theirs- for example, I may donate one of my vital organs to another person knowing that the loss of it will most likely result in my death- however, as a result of my sacrifice, the other person will be saved. Secondly, I don’t believe that Christianity does teach the doctrine of all-encompassing sacrifice. If sacrifice is to mean the complete “killing-off” of something, then does that, or could that, not extend to everything? For example, the Amish in America believe in physically separating themselves, or cutting themselves off, from the rest of the (non-Amish) world- they live in their own communities and rarely (if ever) associate with anyone else. However, while they are very traditional, are they not still “worldly”? They still use materials from the world (or in the world) to make their clothes. They travel in carriages made of materials in the world. So, while they have engaged in “sacrifice” it is not all-encompassing sacrifice- the “sacrifice” only extends to certain things.

When talking to the twelve disciples, Jesus said:

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Matthew 10 v 37-38

Although the speech was to the twelve disciples, Christians have often extended it to the entire Church. One thing I’ve understood little about the speech, and which I find curious, is the idea of “finding” your life. We generally know what it means to “lose” our life but what does it mean to “find” our life?

This is my own mere speculation, but I think that “Finding your life” could refer to getting your life back on track (in “worldly” terms)- in this passage, however, it’s suggested that you shouldn’t think your worldly life will last forever. In other words, this life is a “fleeting moment”- if you think that everything will be OK in the end, or that your life will be smooth-sailing, then you will be disappointed or deluded- you will eventually “lose” your (idealistic) hopes and expectations. Interestingly, the idea of “losing” your life for the sake of the Gospel may not apply exclusively to death and/or the Afterlife (or even martyrdom). For instance, when someone becomes a Christian, or perhaps a few months after their conversion, they often talk about feeling a sense of “new life”- Jesus could be suggesting that whoever “loses” their life, or whoever throws away their “old” lifestyle (their old way of behaving), will “find” (or develop) a new sense of life (a new lifestyle or a new way of looking at the world).

One way in which people look at ethics is through relativism. According to relativism, there is no such thing as absolute truth or an absolute way-of-living: If you think you’re doing a right thing, then who are others to judge you? And who are you to judge the actions of others? Why should there be an absolute, objective standard to live by? After-all, don’t we just “live and let live”? If relativism is true (which in itself would be an absolute statement), then who’s to say that what Derrick Bird, Mao, Hitler or Stalin did was wrong (or right)? Maybe Hitler did a wonderful thing killing millions of people- maybe we owe it to Hitler for eradicating the Jews and others- besides, how would we know if it what Hitler did was good or evil? The main idea behind relativism is that it’s a “catch-all” system of ethics. In other words, it’s flexible- it can apply to any-and-every situation; all you have to do is that which you think is right for that particular situation; and no two situations are always the same.

Yet, I think there is a dilemma.

If I walk along a street and I see a homeless man who I personally know, I might feel charitable and throw him a coin or two- and, because I know him, I might give him a bit extra than I normally would. Further down the street, I might come across another homeless man but, because I don’t know him, I may be reluctant to give him any money and so I may use the excuse that I don’t have any spare change- after-all, in my mind, he might be pretending to be homeless and may use the money I give him to buy illegal drugs. Both men are homeless and living on the street, yet I give money to one and nothing to the other- according to relativism, this would be completely justifiable because good and evil, or right and wrong, depends on the situation or circumstance- the circumstance in this case was that I preferred one homeless man over another. Even-so, do we know which circumstances, or situations, require us to be relativist or do they all require us to be relativist- in that case, is it really “relativism” any more?

Many people believe Evolution to be true- to many, it is no longer a “theory” (some might say that it never was a “theory”). One such rebuttal to the Evolutionary/Naturalistic view of the mind is that it makes our thoughts void, or null:

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.

J.B.S. Haldane

If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.

C.S. Lewis

I do wonder whether or not such criticism properly distinguishes between cause and effect. The cause of our thoughts may be the various movements of atoms and the various reactions of chemicals in our brains. However, the effect of those movements and reactions is thoughts.

Imagine that I propose a magnificent idea which explains a particular mystery of the Universe- I take my idea to many scientists and mathematicians (and possibly a philosopher here-and-there!) and, after rigorous researching and testing, they find my radical idea to be true- the world is amazed and I’m nominated for a Nobel Prize. Of course, such a thing will never happen (I’m not intelligent enough)! But imagine I then tell everyone that I can’t be nominated because my idea was purely the result of chemical reactions in my brain- therefore, it is completely null- chances are, I would probably be viewed as crazy for rejecting such a prestigious thing as the Nobel Prize and for denying the validity of my idea.

Is such a thing only relevant to minds? My entire body is made up of atoms- do I then doubt the existence of my body? Of course not. My body may be made of atoms but that doesn’t mean that I doubt its existence. I think the same is true with regards to the mind- just because my mind consists of atoms and my thoughts are the result of various chemical processes doesn’t necessarily make those thoughts void. Even-so, while everything (or mostly everything) consists of atoms, not everything has a mind. A rock is made up of atoms but it doesn’t have a mind- why not? Because a rock does not have the proper elements which allow it to consciously think- it is composed in such a way which denies it the faculty of thought. I do wonder, though: If my thoughts are composed of atoms, how do my atoms know which “form” to take in order create my thoughts? Indeed, is there such a thing as “mentality” or is it only a word we give to physical reactions in the brain? It’s an issue I’m still not sure about.

Some fear that if we start taking a reductionist and naturalistic approach to everything then all joy will be sucked from the world. I don’t believe that’s true. We know that stars are really just giant balls of hydrogen, helium and other chemicals, but that doesn’t make them any less beautiful in the night-time sky- we don’t admire them less because we know what they’re made of.

In his book, “River Out of Eden”, Richard Dawkins wrote about the indifference of the Universe:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

In some regards, he is right. When a planet collides with a piece of rock debris, there is no morality present- the debris doesn’t think to itself, “Oh dear, I’ve crashed into this poor planet” and the planet doesn’t think to itself, “I’m going to get my revenge on that stupid piece of rock”- neither are aware of the consequences of their actions, nor of the actions themselves.

When we talk of “the Universe”, what do we mean? When people talk of “the world” or “Earth”, they usually refer to the planet itself- its physical and geographical environment- but as well as that, they also refer to the people who inhabit the planet. To many, “Earth” equals people and planet. In the same sense, when we talk of “the Universe” we usually refer to everything in existence- plants, people, planets, animals etc. However, people usually talk of things being “in” the Universe- for instance, scientists might say, “There are X number of galaxies in the Universe”. In my opinion, this is the wrong way to be talking about the Universe, as if “the Universe” is something abstract (at least, I think there could be a better phrase to use). We are not in the Universe, per se, we are the Universe (or, we are a part of it). Many people imagine the Universe as a Barbie House- a wooden box in which everyone and everything sits- we, then, are “in” this “box”. Maybe a better way of phrasing it would be, “There are X number of galaxies a part of the Universe, or making up the Universe”. Some might think that the issue of whether or not we “are” or “are in” the Universe is petty but I think it gives us more clarity.

To many biologists, our morality can be explained through evolutionary means- for example, the reason we are altruistic (from an evolutionary point-of-view) is because of our herd instinct- our ancestors grouped together into “herds” and, in those “herds”, they looked out for each other, defended each other from attack, and sacrificed their lives for each other- this same altruistic mentality has been ingrained in our genetic code and has been passed down from generation-to-generation.

I believe that’s true, to an extent. However, while some of our morality is genetic, I believe that some of it (if not most of it) is not genetic. For example, some children are rebellious when they are young- they shout, they scream and they defy their parents. However, while Timmy may be a rebellious rascal, Jimmy may be a little angel. How do we explain these two radically different sets of behaviour? Has Timmy been born with the wrong genes? Has Jimmy been blessed with the right genes? If Jimmy then grows up to be a nice person while Timmy grows up to be a thief, people may then look back at their childhood and see it as contributing to their behaviour in adulthood. I don’t think behaviour is simply a matter of genetics- genetics are involved, but I don’t believe they give the whole picture. Even-so, I think such issues raise the question of Free Will: If our behaviour is solely the result of genetics, can we ever be held responsible for our actions? A child is physically handicapped because of a genetic “breakdown”- should we hold the child accountable for their condition? Likewise, a child’s “bad behaviour” may be caused by a genetic “malfunction”- the malfunction may cause the child to do something which the rest of society disapproves of- should we hold them accountable for their behaviour?

I think the difference between being physically handicapped and being “behaviourally” handicapped is that we can often change our behaviour- it’s not always easy to fix a physical handicap. We are also influenced by many things when it comes to behaviour- our friends, the media and even our own thoughts. In some sense, our behaviour is “deterministic” but I’m sceptical as to whether it’s fully biological (“biological” in the sense that it’s determined by purely physical and chemical reactions). Some have suggested that Derrick Bird’s actions can be explained by the effects of the “Windscale fire”. In 1957, the granite core of a nuclear reactor at Sellafield nuclear plant (formerly known as “Windscale”) in Cumbria caught fire and released large amounts of radioactive contamination into the surrounding area. Derrick Bird was born on 8th October 1957. The incident at the plant happened on 10th October 1957. Some believe that the radioactive isotope, iodine-131 contributed to Derrick Bird’s mindset- the isotope is stored in the thyroid and can cause cancer later in life (although, to my knowledge, Derrick Bird didn’t have thyroid cancer). However, and perhaps this is where the dilemma arises, if that were true, would we not expect many more people in or from the area (including those born there), who were exposed to the same radiation, to commit similar acts of aggression and violence as carried out by Derrick Bird?

A “phobia” is categorized as an irrational fear of someone or something. For example, if you have a “phobia” of spiders, it doesn’t just mean that you don’t like them, it means that you can’t stand them- if there is a spider in the corner of the room, you are petrified- even if the spider is in the darkest and furthest corner, you still feel a sense of overwhelming fear at its mere presence. Indeed, even though most people know that spiders in the Western world are mostly harmless, compared to spiders in more exotic locations, they still harbour the fear of one crawling up their skin, biting them and making them fall ill. The first time someone goes sky-diving, they might be scared of their parachute not opening, resulting in them plunging to their death. However, it is often experience which teaches us not to harbour fear- the more often you go sky-diving, the more confident you will become at it and the less scary it will seem. As cheesy as it sounds, we do have to “conquer” our fears through experience if we are ever going to defeat them- you will never overcome your fear of heights if you always stay on the Ground Floor and you will never overcome your fear of planes if you always take the boat- true, you might think that it’s not necessary to take the plane or to sit on the Top Floor but you’ll never get a “feel” for them if you always avoid them.

One of my favourite actors is that of Johnny Depp. What I like about him is his ability to play almost any type of character and to make every character he portrays have a different quality. I’ve watched quite a few interviews with him and what astounds me is how much different he is in them compared to his acting roles- his characters are radically different in personality from the actor of “Johnny Depp”. When we think of a hypocrite, we think of someone who goes against their word- someone who doesn’t “practise what they preach”. The English word, “hypocrite” originates from the Greek word, “hypokrites” which basically means “actor”- someone who “plays” a specific character or personality.

In a way, we are all “actors”- not specifically in the hypocritical sense, but we are capable of “playing” different roles- we can appear to be one type of person to one set of people, while appearing to be another type of person to another set of people. Can we ever really and truly “know” someone? In my opinion, we can’t. I think there will always be an element, or a side, to someone that we are unaware of- whether that person deliberately hides it or whether it takes time to reveal itself. Of course, we can try to know someone as best we can, or as far as we can, but I don’t think it’s possible to ever have a complete picture of who somebody is. It somewhat highlights the fact that it’s not easy to “pin” one particular character, or identity, onto someone- there is often an element of surprise involved…

Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.

Abraham Lincoln