Who needs God?

When do you feel good?

Studies are pretty consistent on this one, and my own feelings are in line with the studies. I feel good when somehow I can avoid worrying about things that are out of my control. I feel good when I make someone else feel good, maybe by forgiving them or complimenting them. I feel good when I am in the company of good friends that I respect. I feel good when I am achieving something for my fellow human being, albeit small. I feel good when I can find some peace and some love.

Now think about techniques to achieve these things.

To worry less, reminding oneself about how small we are is a good start. We control little. We understand little. Shit happens. Wonderful things happen too. If we can be nonchalant about the shit and really notice and celebrate the wonderful things then life is rosier. We could spend our lives hiding from possible shit, but we have been given the gift of a single life, and life is surely for living not for hiding. What we do with our lives is up to us. Counting our blessings is in our self-interest.

Making other people feel good is surprisingly easy, it just takes some courage and practice. Whenever we can put ourselves in the shoes of others, give them the benefit of the doubt, or start from a premise of wanting to understand them and help them, then we have more chance. Does this harm ourselves? Not usually. Of course, if we don’t defend our own interests at all, we might find ourselves without a job or a home or any money. But it surprising how rarely defending our own interests requires blocking someone else. And if we are good to others, amazingly, they start being good to us. The people who receive smiles and compliments and gifts are usually the ones who give them.

It also helps if we can learn to work against our prejudices. Everyone is different, but does that mean we can’t respect others unless they are like us? If we see life as some sort of zero sum game, where our tribe has to protect itself against the others or lose out, then we grow suspicious. But how often is that necessary?

Finding good friends can be hard. We have to develop our social skills. I read one study lately which claimed that 90% of education is about knowledge, getting a job, earning money and so on, while only 10% is about getting on with others. They argued it should be the other way around. Imagine that. The first class on Monday would be about lifetime partners and how to hold on to them. Then something about listening. Maths and history only on Friday afternoons. Not that silly a thought really. Of course, some of us are lucky enough to get our 90% social education from our parents. But not so many of us really.

One way to develop social skills and find friends is to throw ourselves into a club or community. It is even better if the others in the club or community are trying to follow the same ideas as us about being happy. Maybe the community can also be the vehicle for doing some good for fellow humans. Perhaps they can offer ways to serve, whether it is the disadvantaged or the lonely. We can use whatever energy we can find for this, recognising that sometimes we have to place our own friends and family and ourselves first.

Lastly there is peace. Become fatalistic about the ups and downs of life can help us get less stressed. There are also techniques available to us, like relaxation or meditation. We all know that when we can find time out of our busy lives to slow down our brains, then that helps us feel happier. So why don’t most of us do it?

Now look at the world’s religions. The basic core of most religions is very similar. If you examine what the holy books actually say rather than what the religious leaders actually preach, then it is even more so.

Most religions encourage us to be fatalistic. They express it a bit differently, by using a construct called God. God understands, so we shouldn’t worry ourselves. Usually there is more, stuff about us being more likely to get good results if we are good ourselves or believe this and that. But we don’t really need to believe any of that. Just recognising that we are small and usually ignorant and not in control is healthy and enough.

All religions encourage us to be good to our neighbours. Sometimes they limit this to other believers of the same religion, but again, they don’t usually stop us being good to others as well. And if we study the original teaching, we can usually find support for loving those of other faiths.

A religious community can be many things. But a good one will usually emphasise the techniques to make us happy, and also give us the forum to meet friends and to serve.
And all religions recommend meditation, usually called prayer. All religions emphasise time devoted to reflection, often supported by comforting rituals.
So, does religion make you happy? It seems like it has the potential too. And perhaps it is no coincidence that doctrines that have stood the test of time should help humanity.

But what about the other features of organised religion?

First, there is the credo, or belief system. That can be tricky if you don’t believe in afterlife, or reincarnation, or miraculous acts of prophets. But maybe you can treat these as symbols or metaphors. After all, over the years some former absolute beliefs have become rather watered down, the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve for one. It may seem wrong stating you believe something you don’t, but, if you join in but are private about what you really believe, you would not be alone in your Church. More, as you recite the prayers and creeds and take part in the rituals, you might ask yourself if you are really certain they are wrong. How can you be so sure?

Next, there is the politics of the Church itself. Sadly, the senior figures in most Churches appear to have been on the wrong side of history more often than not. Church leaders even encourage their members to go to war against other Churches. They are usually pretty cowardly in choosing what to condemn or ignore. And their attitudes, for example to women or contraception, may not be easy to swallow. But are you joining a community or a political party here? And even if it were a political party, maybe you would not agree with every policy. Perhaps you also work for a company whose ethical stances you find questionable? It is possible to be part of a group without agreeing with everything the group does.

Then, some religious communities place less emphasis on the values that make us happy than on other values. Conservative homilies about the good old days or the youth of today. Reference to sin and punishment rather than forgiveness and redemption. And many Church communities seem full of some of the least good role models for their own beliefs, with a lot of bitterness and rivalry. I would not want to join a community like that. But the good news is that local Church communities exist full of the joyful energy of happiness values. If you look, you might find one. I will go further – probably the organised community closest to you that best epitomises the values that can make you happy is a Church one.

So, this is a bit of a strange advert for joining a religious community. The content of this advert is unlikely to be the declared content of what your local Churches offer. But why not look a bit deeper below the surface? You might be surprised. And as a result you might end up happier.

Without any need for God.

Unless, of course, this is all what God intends for us after all. Who knows?

Riots and Housing

I was away from Europe during the English riots this summer, and didn’t really have much chance to follow their progress while they were going on.

One small advantage this affords is to be able to look at the media coverage after the event almost as a historian rather than as current affairs.

The main conclusion from this is that the media seemed to overreact. Even the blessed Economist included a number of articles claiming cathartic status for the riots. They were smart enough not to rush into trite analysis of causes, but they did seem to get swept away by the tide of excessive significance.

For, three weeks later, apart from the poor people directly affected who will have to painstakingly rebuild their lives, these riots don’t seem such a big story after all. Many places have frequent riots. A death tool of six would be a good week in Mexico City, or Rio, or Jo’burg, or Washington DC, and probably in Shanghai too if we knew the full truth. There have been riots in England before. It will do us English good next time there are riots in the Paris banlieux, perhaps we won’t be so smug about it.

Some things I have read have stuck in the memory. Private Eye dragged out some quotations from the 1981 riots. They were almost word for word what politicians and commentators are saying now. Lots of guff about loss of parental discipline, breakdown of family values, disadvantaged underclasses, and predictions of imminent doomsday.

There was a letter, also in Private Eye, from Northern Ireland, bemoaning that they suffer this stuff all the time yet the British press don’t care. It is a good point, but I guess that is what devolved government is for, to find local solutions for what are clearly local problems. A Scot also wrote in pointing out that descriptions of British riots were not accurate, since in truth they were all in England.

Then there are the politicians. Here, the Labour ones are on very thin ice bemoaning the way cutbacks have created an angry underclass. Surely these things take much more than a single year to simmer? And who has been in power for the thirteen years that these kids have been growing up?

But Tory are little better. As usual they mourn the loss of supposedly better times past, conveniently glossing over every statistic proving that beforehand there was even more poverty and family abuse. And the solution of punishment and more punishment is pretty thick. Bagehot wrote nicely to redeem the Economist a little when he/she argued that this was an English perennial solution dating back to colonial times – wish the troublemakers away. Where to, exactly? Penal colonies in Australia? Sorry, guys, these are our people, we can’t just make them vanish. I hope Ken Clarke sticks to his laudable justice principles during the coming weeks. Hooray for LibDems in government.

Myself, I think it is far more banal. Young men always have some urge to rebel, to make their mark in the world and show off to their peers. How they rebel is controlled by simple risk and reward. In the old days, eternal damnation was a deterrent from the Church, and tighter families also created deterrence, in good ways and bad ones. On the reward side, social media have made things easier – if you learn that a shop is ready to loot and all you have to do is join the crowd, then it is more tempting. Risk of sanction by the state is always limited, especially for kids with limited assets and prospects.

If we accept the banal explanation, responses can be more piecemeal.

The police can try to get smarter in developing intelligence from social media, and finding ways to amass more force more quickly in a locality.

Deterrents can be stepped up a little, though recognising that many perpetrators have little to lose.

Patient efforts at community building should continue. The same for vocational work and apprenticeship initiatives. Building tolerance between races and those of difference generally is always a good thing.

But one potential priority is not often mentioned in the UK, and that is the link to the quality of housing. I suspect that the quality of accommodation is a big driver towards law-abiding participation in society. If you live decently, you feel better and less excluded, and you are less likely to partake excessive rebellion.

I am always impressed by the housing development activity in the Netherlands. The root cause may be the lack of free land and the challenges of abundant water, but the outcome is fantastic. Everywhere is zoned, and each year, I see many projects of new housing developments and many more upgrading the worst existing housing. Unlike in the UK, you rarely see top-end housing going up, the mass of development is aimed at first-time buyers and at less affluent households. In the space of ten years, more than half of the low quality housing around the Hague seems to have been upgraded into very respectable dwellings. Holland has its social problems, but my guess is that the drive to decent housing for all is one policy which keeps them in check.

By contrast, most activity (and headlines) in the UK seem to be focused on the top-end and the green belt discussion. The result may be greater division, greater resentment, and greater squalor for many.

I applaud the coalition for its housing policies generally, and find it one of the biggest indictments of recent left-wing governments that they largely ignored housing. It was Maggie Thatcher who came up with the brilliant idea of selling council houses, and idea for shorter contracts rather than lifetime tenancies makes a lot of sense. It also has to be possible to evict trouble-makers and send them somewhere less desirable. But all of this requires a decent stock of housing to begin with.

Public-private partnership has worked (arguably) for schools and hospitals. Why not for house-building as well? Such a policy would not require much government investment, and it would create growth and jobs just when and where they are needed. But it might also be the most effective way to reduce the chance of future riots.