United Kingdom, a Christian state? Not anymore…

…according to a United Nations investigation, into the role of religion in the UK, and also by the latest edition of Social Trends, a report published by the Office for National Statistics and described as “An established reference source”, aggregating “social and economic data from a wide range of government departments” and painting “a broad picture of UK society today, and how it has been changing.”

We’re all familiar with the 71.6% figure commonly cited by Church of England apologists, terrified by the increasing criticism of Christianity’s over representation in the United Kingdom. In a country where both the Head of State, and some members of the House of Lords, represent a National Church, the United Nations’ recent calculation that half (only two thirds for 18-24 year olds) of all britons are non-religious and that the 71.6% figure of 2001 is no longer accurate, will come as quite a shock to many. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the UN report also requested the disestablishment of the Church of England, the influence and high profile of which they claim does not mirror “the religious demography of the country and the rising proportion of other Christian denominations.” Ofcourse, some would say that, recently, the Church of England has been doing a very good job of disestablishing itself…

Personally, I’d say the following quote pretty much sums up the real reason for the CofE’s existence:
“The only sensible conclusion to draw from the uniquely privileged position of the Church of England - its official status, the bishops’ seats in the House of Lords, the Prime Minister’s right to appoint senior clerics and so on - is not that it represents some profound spirituality in the people, but that it suits mutually convenient purposes for state and Church”
-”The English” by Jeremy Paxman, p99-100

With only 38% of those Britons that took part in a recent Eurobarometer survey declaring a belief in God, 45.8% rejecting affiliation to any religion, and with those considering themselves Anglicans dropping by 7.1% in the past decade, the Office for National Statistics’ recent report seems even more stark for the poor old CofE.

“…the ongoing, growing, and powerful movement called secularism, a way of understanding and living that is indifferent to religion — in fact, not even concerned enough to pay it any attention, much less oppose it.”
-National Council of Churches, Handbook of Denominations: Secularisation.

It would appear that the claims of social theorists, that there has been a rapid process of secularisation of British society since the 1950s, are proving more of a reality than even the most wild eyed anti-theists might have hoped. It is no coincidence that the increasing secularisation of Europe correlates with the rise of Science and ongoing modernisation; it appears that the further development and implementation of secular ethics, transnational democratic government, and gender equality may go hand-in-hand with the diminishing authority of religious institutions.

“DALAI LAMA SAYS SECULARISM IS THE TRUE ROUTE TO HAPPINESS

The Dalai Lama has come out in defence of secularism. Speaking in Tokyo, the Tibetan spiritual figurehead said: “Secularism does not mean rejection of all religions. It means respect for all religions and human beings including non-believers. I am talking to you not as a Tibetan or a Buddhist but as a human being having a friendly discussion and sharing my experiences on the benefits of cultivating basic human values.”

In a lecture on “A Good Heart - The key to Health and Happiness” the Dalai Lama emphasises that cultivating secular ethics - which he said has nothing to do with religion - benefits all human beings. He said strengthening inner values of warm-heartedness and compassion benefits both believers and non-believers in leading a happy and meaningful life. He said, “Love and compassion attracts, hatred and anger repels. [...] Peace does not mean absence of conflicts. Differences will always be there. Peace means solving these differences through peaceful means; through dialogue, education, knowledge; through humane ways,” the Dalai Lama said amidst a thunderous applause.

Terry Sanderson, vice president of the National Secular Society, said: “It is not often that we can raise a cheer for a religious leader, but the Dalai Lama is sensible to say that a universal ethic is better than one based on religion. Secularism asks us to keep our religion to ourselves, which enables us as human beings to share what unites us rather than what divides us.”
-National Secular Society newsletter, 2006 Nov 17

Are you a “fundamentalist atheist” and what is your view of religion?

Another interesting blog post by Agnostic Atheist

They have produced a very quick set of questions aimed at Atheists or Agnostics, to get a flavour of how common ‘fundamental atheists’ really. These were my answers:

Do you consider yourself an “atheist fundamentalist?”
Nope, I guess I’d consider myself a secular Humanist, or Agnostic Atheist. I think fundamentalism has more to do with society and individual personality, than any particular ideology. The term ‘atheist fundamentalist’ has definately been over-used by theists recently, and I think it only reflects a minority of ‘non-believers’.

What is your view of religion?
That very much depends on the particular religion, as well as the strength of faith and personality of individual believers. I think it’s dangerous to generalise theists, and athiests for that matter, based on their solely on their religious affiliation, or lack of it in some cases. For instance; I dislike Christianity, Judaism and Islam as religions, but know that many adherents of these faiths that are perfectly amiable, compassionate and intelligent people. As long as people keep it to themselves and don’t try and ram it down others’ throats, I haven’t any problems with personal religion; the same goes to non-theists as well.

Do you believe that atheism and religion can co-exist or do you support the eradication of religious beliefs?
NO! By no means do I endorse the forceful eradication of religious beliefs, such as that seen in communist Russia and China. However, I am strongly in favour of secularism. People should be presented with ‘the facts’ and given the oppurtunity to learn about the sheer diversity of human culture and belief; as well as being taught the importance of mythology and religion in humanity’s cultural evolution. I see, the secular Humanist school of, Atheism not as a complete break from the past, but something more like a direct, and natural, ‘evolution’ from religion - which too has played an important role in our recent history as a species. Above all, compassion, tolerance, and freedom of conscience are hugely important concepts to me.

Atheists are a minority and we would like our views to be respected. However, do you believe that we should reciprocate that respect to those who do not believe as we do?
Definately! Alienating, ignoring, and being patronising towards people, that hold different beliefs - no matter how delusional we may consider them - to ourselves, only excacerbates the divisions in society. Blaming current issues, such as terrorism and war, solely on religion is frankly a bit of a cop out; the real culprits are socioeconomic problems. Injustice breeds intolerance.

“Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists”

I recently stumbled accross a really good blog post that might be particularly interesting to free-thinkers, and moderate religious believers. I think it’s a good thing that people, particularly fellow Atheists, are openly considering that militant Atheism can be just as intolerant as fundamentalist religion. I believe it may suggest that fundmentalism is more likely to be a social and psychological problem, rather than something inherently evil about religion. Anyone, as fascinated by this phenomena as I am, may also want to take a quick look at this article by the Guardian, an excerpt from John Grey’s book, ‘The Atheist Delusion’. Personally, I thinks it’s very important that any, truly open-minded, ’non-believer’ takes the time to consider these ideas… if only so they’re better equipped to discredit them

Evolution for dummies

This is going to be an ongoing project, and is intended to be an easy-to-understand guide to the principles of evolution. It’s aimed particularly at people with little or no scientific understanding of evolution, who are left confused and bewildered by the so-called creationist vs Darwinist debate. If you believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism then welcome, please feel free to read this with an open mind and ask any questions you may have, this post is intended to be neither an argument nor an attack on anyones beliefs. I have tried to include links to Wikipedia, for any terminology or phrases that may be difficult to understand.

First, it’s important I clear up a few common mis-perceptions of evolution and the scientific method. Scientific theories are built on observable facts and are open to revision as fact dictates. The theory of evolution describes the emergence of new species from preexisting species over long periods of time. The evolutionary theory would be rejected immediately if it was proved wrong by solid factual evidence, and is continually revised and improved, based on the scientific discovery of new facts. There is indeed no scientific evidence, so far, against the existence of evolution, only debates amongst scientists over its nature. In the past half a century, breakthroughs - in genetics, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, biochemistry, ecology, nuclear physics, geophysics, physiology and phylogenetics - have revolutionised, and all but proved, the evolutionary theory. Many creationists often misinterpret evolution as a hypothesis - an idea that has absolutely no proof of being correct - when infact it is a theory - an idea supported by scientific evidence - just like that of gravity. For instance, the theory of gravitation is still incomplete, yet the earth still continues to orbit the sun and scientific investigation has found that, therefore, gravity must exist; some aspects of the nature and science of gravity, are still, very much, areas of open debate.

As I’m sure you are aware, close relatives will often look alike; for instance, a child will inherit characteristics such as hair colour, eye colour or skin colour from their parents. Inherited traits are controlled by genes and coded for by particular alleles, different ‘versions’ of a gene. A child will have a random combination of their mother’s and father’s genes, hence the fact that brothers and sisters are not genetically identical. Random mutations can also occur in genes, during the various stages of sexual reproduction, giving the child some new, entirely unique, gene combinations. So, as this shows, there is genetic variation from one generation to the next; we are not exact combinations of our parents genes.

People look different to one another. In other words, there is (genetic) variation within a population. In humans, this variation is caused by random (genetic) mutations, migration (gene flow) between populations and the ‘reshuffling’ of genes during sexual reproduction. Evolution is the change over time of this genetic variation. Different forms of a gene (alleles) will become more or less common than others, driven by evolutionary forces. Surprisingly, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species; the fact that humans and chimpanzees differ in only about 4% of their genomes, just goes to show how dramatic small changes in genetic makeup (genotype) can be.

A phenotype is any characteristic of an organism determined by an interaction between its genotype and its environment. Height, eye colour, and sexuality are common examples of phenotypes. Possessing certain phenotypes, such as camouflage or sharp teeth, may give an individual more chance of survival. For instance, if we take the example of camouflage: 200 hundred years ago, in a population of peppered moths, the vast majority would have been white, with a few of the peppered moths having black (melanic) colouration. The white moths were well camouflaged against the light-coloured trees and lichens in their habitat, so were more likely to escape predation, and reproduce. However, widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution killed most of the lichen, and blackened the trees with soot. The white moths were now easily visible to the Great Tits, that fed on them, and most of them died out. The black moths, on the other hand, were easily camouflaged and their numbers soared. Recently, with higher environmental standards, the light coloured peppered moths are once again common, while the industrial melanic variety thrive in cities. This is a common example of natural selection, where specific alleles confer a survival advantage and result in a change in allele frequency and genetic variation. In this example, however, the two varieties are still capable of mating, so are not yet separate species.

For speciation to occur, two populations must first be reproductively isolated. Common prezygotic (before birth) reproductive barriers include different mating times (temporal), different mating rituals (behavioural), anatomical differences (mechanical), incompatible ‘eggs and sperm’ (gametic) and different habitats (geographical). There may also be postzygotic (after birth) barriers such as infertility, as seen in zonkeys and zorses. Allopatric (geographic) speciation is the most common way that new species emerge.

Imagine a population of grazing mammals, inhabiting a great rolling plain, stretching for miles on end. There is genetic variation in this population, due to random mutations, but the population is so large that the mutations have little effect on the population as a whole. A small minority of the grazing mammals possess particularly strong jaws and thick hides, but gain no selection advantage on the fertile plains. One summer, the plains suffer a severe drought, and much of the habitat drys up and turns to desert. Most of the population migrate south, away from the drought, while the rest die of starvation or otherwise migrate north. Only a very small population (see founder effect) migrate north, into the rugged hills, where the climate is more cold and vegetation coarse. Individuals with a strong jaw and thick hide are now better adapted to their environment, and are more likely to survive the harsh winters and hence reproduce, during the following spring. Consequently, more offspring with strong jaws and thick hides are born, and the allele frequency for these traits increases. The genetic variation of the species is changing, through natural selection; evolution is occurring. Although similar to their cousins on the plains, the new population now have their own mating rituals, based on dualling with their strong jaws, unrecognised by their cousins. The two populations are no longer able to reproduce, so have diverged into two separate species.

This is a very simple guide to evolution and the science behind it obviously much more refined than I’ve described, or even know how to for that matter, but will hopefully serve as a solid foundation for future reading and help you understand some of its core principles.

I’d very much appreciate it if you could recommend any useful websites, on evolution, and will add them to this list:
TalkOrigins
Understanding Evolution
Science Daily
Evolution Society
Wikipedia
Evolution Blog
Evolution News

Fun Website

I’ve never really been into comics myself, but I stumbled across quite a fun website the other day…

Described as the youtube of comic strips, Bitstrips is basically an online collection of user made comics. With an extensive, and simple to use , editor; Bitstrips allows anyone to easily design your very own cartoon characters, and use them to make comic strips. Users have the oppurtunity to get their own a member profile and join the community, as well as being able to invite friends, or quickly transfer their own comic strips to other social networking sites. Here’s my (very bad) first attempt at making a comic strip:

Right click on the comic, then left click on ‘view image’ if you cannot read the text.

It’s actually surprisingly fun; but be warned, it’s very addictive!

Evolutionary Layers of the Human Brain

“You have been entrusted with the care and feeding of the most extraordinary and complex creation in the universe. Home to your mind and personality, your brain houses your cherished memories and future hopes. It orchestrates the symphony of consciousness that gives you purpose and passion, motion and emotion.” - The Franklin Institute

Psychology, as a natural science, is built upon the theory of evolution and the human brain should be seen in this light. The unique mental capacities of the human mind have evolved through natural and sexual selection; adaptations to the pressures felt by the first human beings, and their distant ancestors.

One of the most influential and efficient models for understanding the brain, in the context of it’s evolutionary history, is the triune theory, proposed by Paul MacLean. According to this theory, our brains consist of three basic sections - the R-complex, the limbic system and the neocortex, - emerging in succession over the course of our evolution. Each of these represents an evolutionary plateau in the development of our brains; reptillian, paleomammalian, and neomammalian.

Our ‘reptilian brain’ - consisting of the brainstem and cerebellum, the most developed parts of a reptile’s brain - is responsible for primitive thoughts and emotions such as rage, xenophobia and fight-or-flight responses, as well as instinctive survival behaviour; breathing, heartbeat, muscles and balance. This ‘brain’ maintains our basic (autonomic) bodily functions and keeps us alive, its structure remains one of the least changed by evolution, largely due to its success. The R-complex can often overide the more rational regions of our brains, resulting in the unpredictable, primitive, and often anti-social behaviour still seen in some humans today.

The paleomamallian brain - developed 200 million years ago, in the first mammals - allows us to record long term memories and differentiate between pleasure and pain; in humans it is responsible for emotion. Primitive mammals, such as cats, can make simple decisions based on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, beyond their vegetative impulses, but are incapable of rationalising these feelings and are not truly self-conscious. This brain consists of the limbic system; the hippocampus and amygdala, which help control the endocrine system. Thus the paleomallian brain was an evolutionary step forward, from the rigid, but reliable, compulsions of a purely reptillian brain; towards a mind capable of decisions, based upon personal experience and emotion, but unable to consciously experience or regulate such feelings.

The neomammalian brain, or neocortex, which is the most recent evolutionary addition to our brains, began growing at an astonishing rate after the emergence of the first primates, and with it eventually came the evolution of higher mentation; such as abstract thought, imagination, reason and language. The refinement of the neocortex haled the beginning of culture and consiousness; this can be observed, in mammals with a highly developed neocortex such as dolphins, chimpanzees and humans.

The neocortex,also responsible for processing sensory information and motor commands, has been found to be more complex in carnivores and omnivores than herbivores; this is probably due to strong selection pressures, presented by the mental capabilities required to catch prey, and the subsequent reward of a protein rich diet. Mammals with a large neocortex, and hence a highly evolved sensorimotor system, would be more succesful hunters and have an evolutionary advantage over those without.

In primates, the growth of the neocortex was also driven by increasingly complex social structures. The ability to predict the emotions and behaviour of others became a very strong evolutionary advantage, driving rapid growth in areas of the neocortex related to language, empathy and other social skills. Posessing the mental capacity to make and use tools would also have made an individual more valuable to the tribe, and helped lead to the formation of increasingly complex social hierachies. Contrary to early evolutionary theories that were put forward by very insecure Victorian men, claiming that women were evolutionarily inferior; it now appears that women may have helped drive the evolution of human intelligence, sexually selecting intelligent and empathic males - craftsmen, wise men, spiritual leadears and healers for example - over the traditional, brutish, alpha males. Ancient figurines also show that the first religions may have worshipped women as embodiments of the fertility Goddess (Nature), alongside the widely known Sun and Moon Gods.

Although significant biological evolution is said to have stopped between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, in humans - incidentally, this is before the emergence of modern racial groups - our moral, cultural and intellectual evolution continues to accelerate. Considering this, and that the fastest evolving human gene has been linked to the growth of the cerebral cortex, the evolution of the human mind is definately not over. Combined with breakthroughs in medicine, genetic engineering and nanotechnology, the current and future evolution of humanity is breaching a new, unprecedented barrier into conscious evolution.

One step too far? The Rise of Eco-Extremism.

Environmental activism - with a solid foundation in rigorously tested, mainstream, scientific evidence - has the potential to be a very powerful force for fighting climate change. Eco-extremism, on the other hand, is possibly one of the greatest (ideological) threats to the global environment; based on little more than a gross misinterpretation, and a fundamental lack of understanding, of the scientific evidence concerning climate change and the environment. These ‘green zealots’, with their warped sense of morality, threaten to undermine the whole environmental movement, by alienating mainstream society and tarring respectable Environmental Science with the same brush.

Eco-extremism is a bit of a blanket term really, but can be said to encompass those who take a “zero-tolerance” approach to environmentalism, rejecting “sustainable development” and “human-centered” democratic governments, in favour of a technologically primitive society that answers to “no-one but Mother Earth herself”. From eco-terrorism to narrow-minded campaigns, which fail to present any realistic alternatives to the current situation, environmental extremism can be as harmful and morally polluting as any other form of impassioned fundamentalism; founded upon deplorably nonexistent facts.

Some eco-extremists go as far to argue that a global epidemic, such as aids or avian flu, would be good for the environment; based on the claim that there is not enough food on the planet to feed the global population and the analogy likening the human race to a cancer. Firstly, there IS enough food, we (the developed world) just choose not to share it. Secondly, the collapse in government, communication, democracy and the global economy - following a world wide epidemic, with inevitable shortages in hospital beds and vaccines - would result in chaos. The luxury of having time to be conscious of the environment would soon give way to brutal dictatorships, war over energy stockpiles, the degradation of abandoned nuclear power stations, mass extinction of human-reliant animal species (such as those already endangered) and uncontrollable immigration; as the epidemic spread across the globe. The coherence of the budding environmental movement would dissolve over night, as we re-prioritised our own immediate survival above that of the planet.

Overall, eco-extremism is ‘anti-civilization: in its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing, short of returning to primitive tribal society, can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.’

Unfortunately, we’re in far too deep to merely wash our hands of technology, and hope that climate change will go away if we revert to our old ways. Ironically, the most realistic solutions are probably in technology itself: such as developing near 100% - most plants are ony 0.1% - effiicient solar power; synthetic, CO2 guzzling, bacteria or genetically modified algae, that produce hydrogen gas; another source of perfectly clean energy. If used responsibly, technology and science can expand our potential for global harmony, development and equality to new, glorious and unthinkable frontiers.

Mindfulness and Meditation

The most effective and calming meditative practice, for me, will probably strike most people as quite obvious, and nothing like their stereotypical image of meditation, at all. Mindfulness meditation is not only very relaxing, but is also said to protect against (severe) stress, anxiety and depression, as well as sharpening the senses, improving concentration and making the days pass slower and more colourfully. Mindfulness is a way of truly experiencing life for what it is; being fully aware of every sight, sound, smell, thought and feeling; then, without becoming embroiled in these sensations, thoughtfully letting them pass you by.

The ability of this technique, to bring colour and wonderment to everyday experiences, has lead to it being incorporated, with impressive success, into Cognitive Therapy for people who suffer repeated episodes of depression and anxiety. We’ve all been told of the importance to live in ‘the here and now’, but very few of us know why, or even think we have time to. However, as Jon Kabat-Zinn explains, “the present is the only time that any of us have to be alive; to know anything, to perceive, to learn, to act, to change (and) to heal”.

In the past, I suffered from recurrent episodes of severe depression and - after abandoning the conventional psychiatric solution, in favour of Buddhist and Yogic meditative practices - have truly experienced, first hand, the limitless benefits of mindfulness. Now, I’m certainly no guru and am far from being the next Dalai Lama, but if something, so simple and costless, has so much potential to increase your quality of life then why not give it a go?

I particularly enjoy trying to practice mindfulness, as it doesn’t need to be constrained to formal meditation sessions and fits nicely into a busy Western lifestyle. Very simply, it involves bringing your awareness back into the present moment, focusing on your breath, as well as the world around you and analysing your own thoughts, so that you can begin to truly experience the inner and outer aspects of reality. Seeing the inner aspects of reality involves the realisation that ‘thoughts are just thoughts’ and aren’t necessarily right, or reliable, sources of evidence and truth. Our automatic reactions to different situations are often based on prejudices and predispositions, conscious or otherwise, as embodied within our ‘vocal mind’ - the messages heard while thinking. These messages are often neither helpful nor reliable, and will frequently lead to unnecessary worrying, interpersonal conflicts and illogical decisions. Mindfulness allows one to stand back from the minds ceaseless ‘commentary’ and to merely let unhelpful thoughts melt away; assess each situation with a clear, and open minded, rationality. Through this practice, it soon becomes obvious that the attainment of happiness does not rely, exclusively, on material gain.

Focusing on the external reality involves being fully aware of, and appreciating, the information collected by your senses; not allowing your self to become callus to the array of beautiful sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches in which we are immersed every single day. I find this practice especially enjoyable while cycling to College, first thing in the morning, or cycling home, late in the evening. The simple beauty of sights that most people take for granted - such as the reflection of the early morning sun, scattering over the rippling surface of the river; or the midnight mist, curling gracefully, and somewhat eerily, across the common - can be experienced with such intensity that they are almost overpowering. If one only opens their mind, to the almost unbearably ornate universe in which we live, and allow it to focus entirely on the present moment, then the potential for inner happiness is perhaps boundless.

Unlike many other forms of meditation, mindfulness can be practised at virtually any time; as anything, if done so mindfully, is meditation.

Prisoners on the path to enlightenment?

My girlfriend recently made an interesting post on whether some prisoners are treated too lightly, and it’s sparked a bit of a debate. She also raised a serious point on whether Eastern spiritual practices could be used, or adapted, to help give prisoners the chance to develop compassion and have a fresh start. This reminded me of an article I read, a while back, about the rise of Buddhism in British prisons and the increasing number of ex-convicts entering monasteries. I couldn’t find the original article, but I did find a related one on BBC that’s also quite interesting.

Next to the Princess Dianna Memorial Garden built by inmates at Dartmoor Prison, a large statue of Buddha has been erected in a specially created Buddhist Grove; outside the west wing, which houses sex offenders. “One thing that prisoners need is hope, and also a symbol that things can be better, and that one can in fact change oneself and become a better person,” explains the Buddhist Monk, Venerable Ajahn Khemadhammo Mahathera OBE.

To many, the image of Buddha symbolises compassion, kindness and enlightenment; ‘a means of freeing minds from greed, hatred and delusion - appropriate perhaps in a prison.’ I think, if this truly helps prisoners to change themselves and see lifes potential in a more positive light, then it’s a brilliant idea and also removes the need to overhaul the entire jail system, with ridiculous reforms. Dartmoor Prison is very much like any other, except that more than a dozen of the inmates are now practising Buddhists and there is an atmosphere of optimism, forgiveness and a desire, by the inmates, to make amends. I’m not a Buddhist, but if Buddhism can offer some prisoners an incentive to change, and a goal - enlightenment is arguebly the highest of them all - then I see no reason why it shouldn’t be introduced to some, if not all, prisons. After all, it was infact the current Dalai Lama that once said “My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.”

Update: Check out Emily’s original post ‘Token Economy; Prisoners living the life of luxury?‘ and join in the debate

Celestial Artwork

Now, I’m no astronomer but I recently stumbled across the Hubble Space Telescope website, and the gallery is absolutely incredible! Describing the indescribable seems like a silly waste of time to me, so you’re probably better off clicking on the image below, instead