Matt Hicks2013-05-20T14:23:42-04:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=matt-hicksCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Matt HicksGood old fashioned elbow grease.Reflection On John Hicktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12707122012-02-11T17:48:26-05:002012-04-12T05:12:01-04:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/
Richard Dawkins, the perceived ultra-enemy of religious faith today, rather astutely pointed out recently that religion remains the one area that actively avoids critical analysis and yet is the one area that most needs it. John Hick was one of the few exceptions to that rule. Indeed one might perceive that his faith depended on scepticism.
The Myth Of God Incarnate published in 1977 was the cause of much controversy. Those who stopped even briefly to listen properly however, were rewarded with a reasoned and rational approach to the divinity of Jesus. In his long and prolific career, very little about the Christian faith and its claims about Jesus were left to rest in the safety if creedal enforcement. The Virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and the trinity; all of these were placed under Hicks' microscope, broken down, dismissed, redefined, re invigorated and written in an easy and accessible manner so rare for such esteemed academics. In essence Hick preferred metaphor to literalism and human achievement as a reflection of divine light.
Since its founding, Christianity has changed and adapted to suite the culture or nations it infiltrates. Arguably the pace of such practice has yielded to fundamentalism, yet Hick felt compelled to continue this approach. He therefore became popular with those of all walks of life, who found themselves in a state of unavoidable religious doubt. Reading Hicks' essays and books convinced people that doubt was not a sign of spiritual "back sliding" but a measurement of maturity; that coming up with answers different to the mainstream Church was not a symptom of delusion but of clarity.
Hick himself suffered for his doubt. Subject to two heresy trials by the Presbyterian Church, he eventually found himself exiled and at home as a member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Hick walked his chosen path with pride and humility, concerned not with the "final solution" that Christianity promises but with the compassion and good we could promote in this life based on the sermon on the mount. It was in this and the evident religious crossover that he found a great affinity with Buddhism amongst many other religions as he championed in his pluralistic approach to faith.
He never ultimately crossed the line from being an honest sceptic to atheist (what he called the epistemic distance) but he walked and supported those who did in his honest empathetic writing. Despite the accusations of heresy, Hick was well respected in academic fields as a theologian and philosopher who applied reasoning and rational clarity to the scriptures and history of Christianity to expose the nonsense and champion the truth. Ultimately he led sceptics to either a form of "believable Christianity" or indeed empower those who chose to cross that epistemic distance to do so with conviction and courage.
Although not a humanist and someone who always remained theist in his faith he, nonetheless became one of the champions when it came to defeating religious absolutism. It is sad, perhaps, that his legacy of open minded and critical scepticism will not be taken up by many Christians in the future. It seems therefore all the more fitting that he should be remembered and valued by those who place reasoned, rational thinking and the desire to do the best for others in the one life many religious people de-value.
]]>God is Dead or Bill Gatestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12205482012-01-21T05:12:43-05:002012-03-22T05:12:02-04:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/
Unlike the Four Horsemen of New Atheism who base a lot of their views on their biological backgrounds, my idea is based in the notion of Computers after reading a very brief over view of Alan Turing and John Searles' philosophy in A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton.
Alan Turing was most famous for his work in Bletchley during the Second World War in his creating code breakers against the enigma machine. He was also fascinated by the idea that computers may one day think intelligently. His test, very briefly, was this. Someone is sat at a screen and is typing in questions. The answers on a screen appear in front of this person who is unaware as to whether the answers are coming from a person in another room or from the computer itself. Turing said that if the person fails to tell the difference, then it suggests that the computer is able to think intelligently.
John Searle refuted this with a test that involved a person sat in a room receiving cards through a letter box with Chinese symbols on them. That person then has to match the symbols on the card with a symbol in a book and then find the card in another pack that matches the symbol in the book. They then have to post that card back through another letter box. What the person doesn't know is that, within this card system, there are questions and answers which are being asked and replied to without the use of intellect from the person receiving the questions and delivering the answers. This was Searles' way of saying that computers can still provide intelligent answers to questions without having intellect. Warburton highlights the difference between syntax (the rules regarding the order that symbols are processed) and semantics (the meaning behind the symbols).
Now what Searle was trying to prove was that computers would not be able to think intelligently; but it gave me a thought which is reflected briefly by Warburton in the very same chapter. What if this test is not a reflection of computers but more a reflection of us? What if we are merely advanced computers? Indeed this is something that Turing debated. But consider this. What if meaning or semantics are only important to us because they are an inbuilt motivation for processing information.
The sense of meaning is vitally important to every human. Recognition that we exist, why we exist, what we are meant to be doing, what we are doing, what we say, all of these things are fired by the craving for meaning. I would like you to try a moderately scary exercise. Try and think about what "meaning" consists of. What is it about meaning that excites us and makes us carry on with life? Why does it bring us so much pleasure? Even in the depths of torture and suffering, some people are content because of their sense of meaning. I would argue that if we really break it down there is very little that makes any sense about meaning. Certainly there is no purpose behind it other than it being an experience in itself which sustains us. So in light of this; what if meaning is merely a process which motivates us to process the syntax (language, numbers, actions, beliefs, assumptions etc) in the right order. What if our sense of meaning is just vital software that makes us work as advanced computers? Perhaps a good way to think about it is looking at the way sugar is processed in our body.
Sugar (glucose) is something that our bodies need within out cells to burn oxygen and therefore make the energy that helps us carry on. Now for that sugar to get into our cells a special process called the lock and key mechanism needs to happen. On the cell wall is a locked door through which the sugar wishes to pass. The only way it can do so is if there is a key. That key is called insulin which attaches to the lock on the cell door and allows sugar to pass through. Similarly therefore, could it be possible that without a sense of meaning, we would not process information in the right order? We just wouldn't be motivated to do so. Arguably this is something we see in those who suffer from bipolar disorder. So meaning, we realise, is the key to the lock that inspires us to pass this vast web of information around for whatever reason that is above our knowledge?
Now it is at this point that we come to why I think creationism and design by a "God" is dead. At least this is why I think our current thinking about it is dead. The building of computers is obviously a move to make our lives easier but what we love about them is the way they imitate us. Building a computer that can apparently think is merely trying to see if we can imitate or build ourselves. It is a move to understand ourselves more but also because, like the need for meaning, we have an intrinsic desire to imitate and be imitated. This is something called mimetics (think miming) which is something the thinker Rene Girard writes about. So this brings us to the issues that have occupied me.
Building a computer is merely imitation. It is to manufacture something that already exists, to work with a template we already have. We may consider that the electrical impulses in a computer work very similarly to those in our own brains. So actually to say we have "created" a computer is wrong. Even if a very advanced computer was built for the very first time, it has not been "created" because it has been built based on a template or idea that already exists in us. Plato suggested that we already know all things, we merely need reminding. Both ideas follow the same track.
So what if we were to redirect our view from the computers we have made and point it outwards towards this supposed God of the monotheistic religions? If we base Gods building of us on the model we have about building computers, we have a problem. We no longer have an all powerful, all knowing, all present God. By virtue of the idea that God builds "us" in "His" image, we cannot have been created i.e. a completely original idea, nature or existing being. We are merely built from a template or idea that already exists. That is if God has created us in His image, He has merely made us from a template that preceded His own thinking and ability to design. God has merely imitated. God in this case is merely a more advanced version of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Therefore, the God that has been presented to us over thousands of years of Western thinking does not exist. This God has merely served as a syntax with a profound semantic that is rapidly failing.
The only way out of this, if one prefers to keep their religious faith, is to realise this: If we have been truly created, we have come from something so vastly different in nature and existence to ourselves which cannot be reflected truly in our thoughts or definitions or worship or theology. So vast would be the difference with the God proposed by monotheism that it would make no difference whether you were a Christian or an Atheist because neither definition are adequate to reflect the truth.
Ultimately the important realisation behind this idea is that of our limitations. Whatever view you choose to apply to your reality may well work for you but we have to be prepared to accept that its purpose may only be to make you function for the sake of functioning. If your syntax has a religious semantic, then that is fine if it works. Equally if your syntax is fired by a scientific semantic then that is equally good. Ultimately there may be cross over and so we see some scientists who are very religious i.e. Dr Robert Winston.
When two syntaxes begin to clash violently as we see today amongst factions of Islam, between Christians and the New Atheists, between pro life and abortionists then we have a responsibility to lay both under the microscope of critical scrutiny. That can be done with either respect for the other or by one gaining victory over the other either violently or gradually as we are beginning to see between the religious and the secular.
For some people, syntaxes die on a personal level when the semantics fail. This occurred personally today. I am today, a little less agnostic as I was when I woke up. My choice now is whether to deny it and dress my previous semantic with fool hardy arguments or I can celebrate it and hope that today I will function a little more efficiently than yesterday.]]>Adam, Eve and a Dog Named Hachikotag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11758482011-12-30T03:33:06-05:002012-02-28T05:12:02-05:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/
This is by no means a new concept. In fact it is rather neatly summed up in the book that is now rather crumbling away as the mainstay of western thought and morality. The creation story in Genesis 1 sees the world created in seven days concluding with the creation of Adam. In Chapter 2 Adam is, supposedly, delegated to name all the animals. Chapter 3 sees the fall of Adam and Eve and the expulsion from the garden of Eden. Now if the first chapters of the Bible are to be taken as a representation or poetic image of the nature of our being, then we see something fascinating occurring. Within two chapters we are both elevated as perfect complex God like beings and then expelled in shame for misusing the power that comes from this. My interest in this passage, however, is based on the possibility that the very thing that makes us more complex, more conscious and aware, is the very thing that causes our potential downfall. Whilst it makes us more awake, it also leads us to a horrendously over elevated opinion of how great we are.
The philosophical heavy weight, Ludwig Wittgenstein spent a lot of time approaching the problem of language and reality in both Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations. In the first he examines the notion of reality within language reflecting statements that helps us picture the world as we see it. In the latter he looks at the opposite; language reflecting reality. They are, despite appearing subtly different, at very different ends of the spectrum. Something view people really think about or observe. But then why should we? It is not an everyday problem to us is it?
Whether one sees the above as a problem or not, what we have available to consider is whether there is no reality outside of our language or whether reality is poorly reflected by our language. After all; we experience with language, we think with language, we exist within language. Our existence and awareness is characterised by the balance that exists between us being in command of language or actually being slave to it and whether, in the middle of all this, reality exists within language alone or beyond it.
A.J. Ayer in Language Truth and Logic approaches some very important issues about how we misuse language to end up believing things we really shouldn't believe. Ayer argues that statements should never be taken on face value. In fact there is a criteria of valuing a statement or proposition on the strength of its verification. For a statement to be significant, to be fact, there have to be observations that can be made that will prove that it is either true or false. If that cannot be achieved then verification has to be obtainable in "principle" i.e. it is foreseeable that something would be verified if the correct observation were to be available. Ayer gave the idea of mountains existing on the dark side of the moon being potentially verified by the use of a rocket which we do not, at present, have available. If we begin to apply this criteria to every statement we make, it becomes quite clear just how much we say and think has little real fact about it. In fact he suggests that most statements we make are, at best, highly probable and verifiable in principle and therefore not strong in significance. Of course there are issues with his argument. On the one hand he states the importance of this criteria but then accepts that it then renders almost everything we say nonsensical. As a result, he inadvertently renders his own argument to a nonsensical state. He does, however, accept that a statement may be true or false regardless of the quality of evidence or observations made. Indeed whilst reality is limited, defined and contained in language, our own command of language or ability to obtain adequate evidence or information stains our ability to come to the correct conclusions or to be secure in our verification. This is the key problem when it comes to making assumptions about aspects beyond the realm of experience or reality.
Ayer argues that the notion that the world of sense and experience as false is itself false. A notion put forward perhaps in eastern spirituality. It is something that he seems to dislike as much as he disdains the solid, definition brandishing , fact asserting faith of the Abrahamic religions. Both sides, he believed, could not be verified at all because they both commented on metaphysical, other realm assertions that just cannot be proven. Ayers ideas have truth, I think, but once again there is a flaw in that his own verification criteria dictates that this argument is nonsensical. For him to be safe in the knowledge that sense and experience are not false, he would have to verify each sense and experience or at least prove that most of them were not deceiving us. Indeed he would have to be enlightened and able to move beyond the limits of language, truth and logic to be able to prove it. Even when he had done that there would still be an issue in how to communicate such a thing that exists outside of language which again would make it insignificant and beyond our ability to experience. Of course one might even argue that we could never tell if a mystic is telling the truth or not unless we have passed over the boundary with him/her or overtaken him/her and passed the boundary or reality and language.
To highlight the above problems, Ayer suggests that we have a primitive , superstitious tendency to name everything. This brings us back to our, supposed, first ever man who must have been proud as punch to be given the job of naming and having dominion over all animals. If we look closely enough we can see that the naming occurs in two ways. We give a word or phrase to an animal or object which stands for that very thing, but then sometimes we also give names and words which comment on its appearance or attributes. It is the confusion that arises in this that brings about a schewing of our ability to observe clearly. Ayers' example is the confusion of boundaries between statements such as "dogs are faithful" and "unicorns are fictitious." There is a carelessness in both statements, although it is only the first which can't be verified; but the actual problem comes from the issue that attributability confuses the boundaries of existence. By calling a dog faithful we work with the assumption that dogs exist. However we do the same when we say a unicorn is fictitious. The fact that we are attributing fiction to a unicorn, gives the unicorn a certain level of existence even if it is on a different level to the Dog. Ayer suggests that this is where metaphysics and perhaps religion have emerged= through an error and oversight in grammar as opposed to experience.
So here we see that there are vast differences in how each human uses language and experiences as a result. It can either bless or curse. An example I would like to give here is the Akita. This is a dog which possesses two very different labels in two very different cultures. In Japan, the story of Hachiko the Akitas' loyalty to its master by waiting for him at a train station day after day for nine years after the master had died made it the national symbol for faithfulness. In the United Kingdom, there are calls to put the Akita on the list of dangerous dogs. So whilst one human might say the Akita is loyal, another would say the Akita is dangerous. Both attribute aspects onto the dog and ultimately have a bearing on its existence. We might go further by asking "Is the Akita a dangerous dog?" many would answer with yes until we see that Akitas have a tendency to be aggressive towards people who are not members of the family to which it belongs. It is sometimes aggressive because of its loyalty to its owner. Does that make it dangerous? You might argue that this is the wrong question. What if the right question was "Are there going to be problems if I introduce an animal into an environment and culture which is different to the one in which it was bred for or different to the environment it has evolved within?".
Language blinds and language enlightens. It defines friend and foe. It frees and it imprisons. It releases and it owns. Our language has the potential to enlighten but very often hinders. Words are a commodity that we take for granted. So as we look back to Adam and his enthusiastic naming of all things, I wonder whether the Chapter 3 account of the fall is the poetic account of the fall that occurred the moment humanity developed its tendency to label. For by naming something or someone, we either diminish its existence or we diminish our ability to see things are they really are.
]]>Hopes and Fears at Christmastag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11385062011-12-09T04:53:53-05:002012-02-07T05:12:01-05:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/
I, like many other people, have an issue with the idea of a literal virgin birth. I just can't buy it. Call it lack of faith, cynicism, call me a heathen. Whatever you call it is not going to change the fact that I have never, even when I was a fully signed up evangelical, bought into it. There lies a problem in here, however, because it, to me, is a myth that is woven into a real story. At some point, we know that a woman called Mary gave birth to a baby she called Jesus. So on the one hand, whilst I find no meaning in the orthodox, I see the potential for meaning in another. A meaning which I think is not exclusive to those who are comfortable with the normal orthodox creeds of the church or those who have found a deep metaphorical/physical meaning in the Christ.
A couple of days ago, I was reading the news when I stumbled across a story about a lady called Gulnaz. This lady had just been pardoned by the President of Afghanistan and released from prison. Her crime? She had been raped and conceived a baby who she gave birth to in prison after being accused and charged of adultery. She is one of thousands around the world today in similar situations and circumstances. Now you might think this is a step in the right direction for Afghanistan that she is being pardoned, until we find out that the conditions of her release is that she is to marry the man who raped her. Indeed, to even need to be pardoned for being raped is a brutal injustice in itself.
As I read it the story suddenly found a direct link to Christmas. Regardless of what you may believe about God incarnate being born of a virgin, there is a very strong link between Mary and Gulnaz. They are almost one and the same. We see two girls facing an incredibly bleak future.
In first Century Palestine, the laws on sexual morality were as stern and strict as the Sharia law we see in some Muslim countries today. In the New Testament we see a religion, society and culture that was in deep inner conflict fighting to create and maintain its identity under threat of the pagan and brutal occupation of the Romans.
In this context we have a young girl, perhaps as young as twelve years old who is betrothed (as good as married) to a man called Joseph. She finds herself pregnant and it appears that her betrothed is not responsible. Now regardless of how she conceived. Regardless of if she was touched by God, laid with Joseph, perhaps even been raped, she was now an adulteress in the eyes of Jewish law. In Jewish law she was facing either execution by stoning or being sent away from her family. The only other alternative was perhaps to simulate demon possession so that she could live as an outcast but at least be left alone. This is a practice that we see in the New Testament by many people who were, perhaps, unable to live within the pressures and confines of religious oppression and conflict.
It would appear actually that expulsion occurred. Joseph and Mary disappeared first to Bethleham. The Gospels tell us that this was down to a census being performed. Geza Vermes, perhaps the leading expert on Jesus today, informs us however that any census that occurred around that time happened 10 years after the supposed birth of Jesus. Similarly we are told that Mary and Joseph then find their way to Egypt to escape the slaying of the innocents. Once again, there is only mention of this in the book of Matthew with no evidence or recording elsewhere.
Could it be that Mary was expelled from her family and fled far away because of the simple fact that she was either told to or she feared for her life? Did she actually persuade Joseph that she was a virgin who had conceived by God? Did he merely believe her when she told him she had been raped? We just don't know. The simple fact is, it is likely that the life of Jesus was profoundly affected by this expulsion and this injustice towards his mother.
Is that why Jesus was comfortable identifying with outcasts? Is that why he felt so much pity for the adulteress in the street or the prostitute that washed his feet and dried them with her hair? Is that why he found his place as one of the hermit like mystics that scared as much as they mesmerised the public? These strange holy men, such as Jesus or Honi, appeared to have a direct contact with God without need for the ritual or the synagogue or the law. Is that the only way Mary could have returned to her home? Were the crowds that would otherwise execute her, too scared of her mystic son? Is this why Jesus the man had such a sense of injustice and human rights? Finally was it the love of his mother that led him to forgive?
Even when he too was sexually humiliated in his final flagellation by being stripped naked, perhaps even himself being raped, and hung to a cross, was it the notion that his mother has gone through the same humiliation and yet still had capacity to love that empowered him to forgive, love his persecutors and also find the strength to show compassion for a fellow prisoner on a cross.
I am not interested in conspiracy theories or cover ups. Many good people find worth in the nativity story as we are taught it. On the other hand I am not interested in institutions that depend on miracles to survive. What interests me is that this happy time of year (for most people) was born from the worst imaginable suffering a young innocent girl might endure. There is a meaning to Christmas that you do not need to be Christian to adopt. Christmas can represent the empowerment of the weakest in the worst conceivable situations. Even the most demonised ridiculed people of any society can turn their own society around.
But let us not leave out those of us who have not suffered in any huge way. In this story there is also the notion that what say, how we act and what we believe, has a direct influence on our own children and those around us. We have a choice as to whether we help them to be instruments of hate or love or even apathy. Maybe we could use Christmas to recognise this responsibility and the ones affected by it.
Finally, little thought finally towards Gulnaz who walks towards a life that flows ever distant from the life she might have dreamed of as a girl. In the photo of her and her child we see a woman brutally beaten down and yet, she lovingly holds this baby. A child whose father is a rapist. Perhaps when we next go to a carol service, the least we could do is spare a thought for her as we sing about the little town of Bethlehem and the words "The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight".]]>Libya-The Original Positiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10311042011-10-24T15:09:46-04:002011-12-24T05:12:01-05:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/
I don't know about you, but I couldn't help being the far distant, western moraliser on seeing the footage of this helpless, old man being beaten and bloodied as he approached the last moments of his life. It is a regular habit of our culture that we look and stare upon other nations on ethical issues and pass judgement. Indeed as I stared at the images before me, I couldn't help but wonder how Libya could possibly come out of this if, at the moment of freedom, they display such wanton violence towards another human.
What I neglected to accept, however, was that this violence wasn't wanton. Not to those dishing it out. What I failed to remember was that these people had lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children to this old frail man. I felt uncomfortable as I realised that I could only pass judgement if I was sure that, when stood in front of this man, having lost a loved one and with a 9mm pistol in my hand, I would not have been at least tempted to pull the trigger.
So here Libya is faced with the prospect of building a new country with the world looking on through the lens of hundreds of news agency cameras. It would appear that no moment is lost to us. We realise that whilst NATO have gone in to protect civilians from Gaddafi, members of the freedom fighters have also committed atrocities. Only days after Gaddafis' death, it is reported that 53 of his loyalists have been executed without trial. This is not long after a similar number of lives were herded into a hanger by Gaddafi loyalists to meet a similar end.
One might be forgiven that with Libya being in the grip of such apparently violently minded people on both sides, there is little hope for this country. Perhaps it will walk the same lawless, blood stained, hateful path that Iraq is only just trying to emerge from.
I would argue however that, as far as post revolution countries go, Libya is not in a bad position.
The mistake made in Iraq was the loss of balance of power between its tribes under the supervision of an external and eventually unwelcome agent. As I understand it, Libya is also very tribal. There will be a lot of different factions with some times vastly different interests. Libya has the potential to erupt into a volcano of civil unrest but it also has the potential to emerge as a leading, modern, Arab nation due to some key ingredients. The first is that, of course, there has been arguably minimal outside influence. There has been no invasion. There are no occupying foreign troops. Libya, as western forces step back, is its own country with its own decisions to make. The second ingredient is the threat and real likelihood of spiralling violence. Both ingredients, I think, help to bring about a near perfect environment for John Rawls' "Original Position".
The Original Position, very basically, is the circumstance that brings about the most fair justice system in a fair society. The crucial factor is that everyone who has a part to play in the decision making and forming of this new society operates under a "veil of ignorance". This veil prevents each member from seeing what role, position, and wealth they will acquire before the society is established. With such a sense of insecurity, each member will strive to ensure that the society is as fair as it can be so that they can get the best possible and safest deal. It may lack the moral or ethical ideal or inspiration behind revolution and justice, but it works. Failure to cultivate these factors in post-revolutionary countries will bring about a return or move back towards pre-revolutionary conditions. We have seen this with Iran and Afghanistan but we have seen successes with many countries that have emerged out of the eastern bloc having been in a condition resembling the original condition.
So could it be that Libya meets the right requirements for Rawls proposal? I do not truly know the answer to that as someone who is not Libyan; but I would suggest the potential is there.
And for all us democratic, civilised, moral know-it-alls in the UK and the US; let us not be under any illusion that we are so far removed from the blood thirsty behaviour that has recently occurred in this emerging country. Let us be aware that it was not too long ago, in the grand scheme of things, that the United Kingdom was made up of blood thirsty, power hungry tribes who came together under the right circumstances of the Original Position.
]]>Evil is a Comfort Blankettag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10098842011-10-13T18:32:08-04:002011-12-13T05:12:01-05:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/
Where does this fascination come from? Well I would argue that it comes from the very reason we define something as evil. That the measurement of evil serves not as a moral bench mark but as a smokescreen for our own conscience.
The perfect example of this occurred subtly this week in a piece of journalism which may well have been ignored by many. The report of the Care Quality Commission highlighted the "failings" of the NHS in its care of the elderly. Now the word "failings" really doesn't come across as being particularly damning. It suggests a break down in the system, an oversight, a lack of leadership. No doubt improvements will be suggested and acted upon and then our consciences will be clear. I would like to take the opportunity to point out, however, that the end result of these failings have the same horrific end point as that of Joanne Yeates or the child murdered by a witch doctor or abused at the hands of a sex gang. People have still died needlessly. People have still starved when they should not have done so. People have still been made to drink water out of flower vases because no one would give them a drink of water. People have still experience pure terror and suffering.
We are quick to point out the monster. Why? I would argue that this is a strange human phenomenon. It's not because we are utterly shocked over a heinous crime. If you haven't noticed, humans have a very murderous history. Humans are blood thirsty whether through actual killing or through the representation in media. Why then, do we cry out when something like the murder of Joanne Yeates occurs? A sense of injustice? Loss? How many of us will even remember the name Joanne Yeates in five years when another murder victims name rolls off our tongues. How many names of people plastered into the structure of Fred and Rose Wests' house can we remember? I would argue that the monster means more to us than the victim. Why? Because monsters tell us that we are not responsible. We didn't commit the crime. We never would do such a thing. Were the paedophile protests in Portsmouth in 2000 about a genuine sense of injustice and danger or was it about people exclaiming that they were not , themselves, paedophiles monsters?
You might say I'm being unreasonable. You might say I'm intellectualising it too much. But too me it says it all when the needless deaths or suffering of those who have given most to this society are classed as "failings" due to lack of leadership. I find it interesting that there are no monsters in this story. Yes the NHS has been blamed and its shortcomings identified. Even the front line troopers of healthcare, our nurses, have been blamed. No one has been classed a monster because we all know that the sad sorry end of an elderly patient in secondary care is often the conclusion to a longer sad story of neglect and failure. In short, we are neglecting our elderly population. Me, you, the NHS, and even Mr Andrew Lansley. That is why we are not quick to point out the monster here.
As someone who has been in the healthcare profession in various capacities over the last 15 years I can safely say there are good and bad professionals. Good and bad by virtue of their practice. I have never met a villain or to be honest a true angel. I have met people who lack the resources and, therefore, insight into how they can give optimum care. I have met nurses who are so exhausted and stretched for time and staff they can only do the bare minimum for that shift. I have also met people who seem to have a supernatural gift for making time stop, getting the job done, keeping patients safe and secure and on the road to healing. The difference between all these people and the rest of society when it comes to the elderly however, is that nurses spend a significant amount of time evaluating their practice and questioning how they can make the next day better for their patients.
So I might also add that whilst hospitals are not ideal places for the care of the elderly, they are often the only place that will take on the care of someone whose social care package is not fit for purpose. I might also add that many of the elderly end up in hospital for very preventable reasons such as dehydration, hypothermia or a fall. The simple fact is that, as mentioned, entry into secondary care is often because, somewhere along the line, the patient has been neglected needlessly. Some where down the line a family has left responsibility of care on one exhausted son or daughter. Somewhere down the line an elderly man or woman has fallen over and been forgotten in their cold, neglected flat when the smaller local community could easily have chosen to help.
So I would like to propose that this fixation with evil that our culture has is not a moral benchmark. It is merely a tool to helps us sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that we are not monsters, murderers or witch doctors. The creation of monsters is the clever diversion from the fact that if we opened our eyes that bit more, we would realise just what we could do to improve the life of someone else. By not doing so we are the very monsters we elevate away from our precious sense of being good people.
]]>Holy Tablestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10037202011-10-10T14:06:48-04:002011-12-10T05:12:02-05:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/
Well I have been trying to answer this question for a while and the best way to do so is with a story involving you, me, a cat and a little wood worm. It all started with a discussion I had with a friend about Wittgensteins' table. Now the point of this table is set a little apart from the point I wish to make but it did get me thinking about the nature of existence.
We might feel very safe in saying that a table exists, but we only have to look at the process by which the table came to exist to see that the situation is somewhat more delicate. Break the table down into its key components of wood, nails, glue and varnish and you no longer have a table. You have the potential for a table and only if that potential is recognised. So we see that existence involves a collection of other materials and recognition by an external consciousness within specific ideal circumstances i.e. the need for a table. Back to the story.
One day you decide that something is missing in your life. All these lovely things you have collected in life are lying around the floor getting trodden on and all dusty. So you get the finest wood that you can afford and you beaver away in your workshop to make the most beautiful table ever made. Now you spend some time trying out the putting of things on this table and then you go to make a cup of tea happy in the knowledge that this table exists.
In your absence, I come along having never heard of a table. I have no experience of table use let alone building one; but I do have wide experience of chairs. So when I arrive and see your table, what is the first thought that comes into my head?
"Wow! What an interesting looking chair!"
I am so taken with this interesting looking chair that I spend a lot of time sitting on it and bouncing up and down. I am not sure about the design but it is growing on me. During this time you come back and see me on your table.
"What are you doing?" you ask.
"Oh is it yours? I was just trying out your very interesting chair.
"Oh, I see. But I'm afraid you are mistaken. This is a table. I should know because I made it."
Two things can happen at this point. We could find each others view point interesting, maybe swap ideas. Maybe if we are really clever, we could market the idea of chairs and tables to do something amazing. It would revolutionise tea times and restaurants all over the country. The other more likely event, however, is that you might stand by your view that this is ,in fact, a table and I would refuse to budge on my view that it is a chair. World war three breaks out. We accuse each other of heresy and blasphemy. We maybe even try to kill each other over the possession and definition of this object.
During this argument a small cat walks by and hears the commotion. It is so traumatised by the noise that it darts under the table/chair to hide. Now, interestingly, the cat is neither experiencing the object as a table or a chair. It is experiencing a shelter. It has no interest in naming this object or observing the fine craftmanship.
Now whilst the table/chair is making a good shelter, a little wood worm wriggles over and takes a little bite out of the table leg. Words can't describe its emotions as it comes across the best tasting wood it has ever had the pleasure of eating. Once again this small animal is neither concern with it being a table or a chair or a shelter, giving it a name or observing its fine craftmanship. Indeed if it did it might develop a guilt complex about its eating the wood.
So my question here is "Who is correct?" Who has the right definition or description. Who is experiencing this object in the correct way? Who has more of a right over this object? Are you more important than the wood worm. Is your recognition of it more important or more enlightened than the cats' or mine for that matter?
So my point is this: by naming something and by attributing uses and characteristics to something, anything, are we not restricting its existence? If existence is partly about recognition, then surely applying rigid belief to something or someone hinders what they are. This can apply to literally anything. God, objects, environments, people, our nearest and dearest. I would argue that one of the greatest causes of sorrow today exists in the realisation of flawed expectation and belief.
So whilst you and I are fighting. Whilst one of us might lose the argument, the little cat will never be disappointed in this shelter. The wood worm will never be disenchanted by the realisation that it is eating a table. The latter two in the story are in a better position philosophically and practically because they are experiencing the table/chair/shelter/food. They are not applying belief; they are merely experiencing the object at that specific moment without projection of expectation into the future.
That is why I am content to experience the thing that you might call a table. That is why others may experience the table but not realise it. They may call it something else or give it another meaning. That is why others may be adamant that a table does not exist regardless of your very vivid idea of one, but they may still indeed experience the table. Finally, you know what the other big point is?
That table couldn't give a hoot what you think about it. Its not going to damn me for calling it a chair or send a flood to kill the cat or send the wood worm to hell. The object is not going to consciously punish those who do not address it correctly. Much like I do not get angry when my guinea pigs in my garden fail to say "Thank you Mr Hicks." when I have fed and watered them.
So that is why I don't do God. Not because I don't think God exists. Not because I do think God exists. It is because the moment we start arguing the point all we're trying to do is own the concept for ourselves and build restrictions that prevent, yes prevent, access to something we should have a firm hold on. All we are doing is saying that our experience is more meaningful and more true than some one else which, to me, actively seeks to undermine the existence of the thing we are trying to defend or promote. It suggests we care very little about the thing itself as opposed to the position we can gain by limiting it which, I would say, is a little childish. If, however, we manage to live with our viewpoints and accept that others experience and mentalise differently then amazing things might happen. People of different faiths and those without faith may stand together as brothers and sisters in celebration and peace and a common goal to better each others lives in the here and now.]]>Why I don't do God.tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9682582011-09-18T04:42:42-04:002011-11-17T05:12:02-05:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/
Many people have said it was the day when the world changed forever. I don't really think that is the case although I will admit that it changed the social, cultural and spiritual climate of both the UK and the US. What it has done for me is confirm that I really do not believe in God or at least not the God of the Bible or the Quran.
That may be a strange claim from someone who professes to have a Christian faith, but I believe that my own personal faith has only served to reinforce this position.
Since 9/11 we have seen a phenomenal rise in religious fundamentalism in the west. I think this has been for many reasons other than personal calling or religious revelation. The main reason is down to the main difference between humans and animals. Freedom.
I have recently been reading the very good book The Philosopher and the Wolf where Mark Rowlands talks about the difference between wolf and human. He mentions Jean Paul Sartres theory that humans are "being-for-itself" as opposed to "being-in-itself". Essentially what this means is that humans live to serve themselves and make choices accordingly. They manipulate everything around them and choose for or against certain aspects. They choose to be religious, they choose to be racist, they choose to not be, they choose what they eat or what they don't, they choose to live in a house in a certain way. Animals however are "being-in-itself" which means that they live according to their nature or evolutionary design. An example of this is the wolfs' mechanical intelligence in how it problem solves in reaction to its environment as opposed to a human that will change the environment in reaction to his or her needs. So what we see in humans is this freedom that is unique to evolution. The only issue is that I don't think humans are all that comfortable with it. We fear this freedom. We feel naked by it. We are scared of it. And if you don't feel scared by it then you are possibly missing something. We only have to follow primatologist theory that ape and human evolution occurred uniquely for us because we were obsessed and still are by sex. If that is the driving force of our evolution then I have to admit to feeling a little more grounded and realistic about human enlightenment.
After all the above point is Biblical. I don't believe for one minute that there was an Adam and Eve who literally ate something they were told not to, but it is a good example or illustration of our opinion of ourselves. We see it all the time now, especially when referring to genetics. "We shouldn't play God with this or that." The book Frankenstein is the famous story of what we think will happen if we get too clever.
So it is with 9/11 that we saw a reaction to this freedom from a minority of Muslim terrorists who shared their leaders view that the United States was Satanic. What followed was fascinating and very telling. The reaction of the West was not a cry for the maintenance of freedom. Instead there came a huge move back towards our own form of fundamentalism under the guise of freedom.
I will admit to having been petrified when the twin towers collapsed. My sense of helplessness continued through the news stories of people such as Kenneth Biggley being beheaded by Al Queda in Iraq. No where felt safe and there was nothing that we could do immediately to rectify it. In some ways it was a bit of a reality check but the reaction was not to open our eyes, it was to close them in our own fundamentalism.
Religion, time and time again, serves not to set people free but to trap them, envelope them in a false sense of safety. People are therefore more likely to turn to it when their world is less certain, when they feel unsafe, when they think their freedom has just bitten them on the arse. What people seek in religion is an understanding of that which cannot be understood around us and outside of our immediate existence. Our freedom comes with being able to look at that which we cannot understand and be cool with it, not by hiding from it.
So for me, the reaction I have seen in many Christian groups is very telling about how we use the idea of a God to make us feel vindicated, validated and free whilst limiting our overall mental, spiritual and physical freedom. Its much the same as wrapping a baby up tight in a blanket to reassure it. It's a return to the womb.
What we actually see in this Christian God is merely a human perception. God made in mans image. God becomes angry at the things that make us angry. He hates the behaviour that we hate. He loves the music that we love. Once again we have seen this behaviour since time began in the Bible. A turn to God when things are uncertain and the insistence of His support when we feel the need to eliminate large groups of people as a safety measure. Under this God we are justified when we use torture methods on people calling it "enhanced interrogation". In return for this loyalty and giving up of our freedom, we are fooled into a notion that though this life is crap, the next one will be awesome.
There's another reason I can't do God. Relationships are based on perception. The perception of two people who agree that their way of looking at their partnership is compatible. It may take on various forms of perception, to differing levels of success; but the most successful partnership is that where the two parties can percieve the other persons perception and thus mould their relationship to encompass the two. It is on this issue and in light of my previous point that any hope of a living, conscious relationship with any God is unachievable. Even with divine revelation, it is not achievable because there will still be moments when our own perception and image swamp what we have been shown. If we are aware of this, then it becomes apparent that the Old Testament is full of misconceptions about God. It is a book more about misconception than it is about success. Dare I say that the early Christians may have had an idea of this because actually they talk very little about God. But even then, it does not take long for the Church to feel safer in its human perception and start putting definitions and beliefs on this new found freedom.
So as someone who calls themselves a Christian, I cannot morally or ethically observe this God as being existent. A God that creates and then hinders, awakens and then keeps us blinkered. If this God exists then it is a God with serious mental health issues. A God that loves and then eliminates. I believe that the founder of the movement that grew into Christianity did not believe in this God either and it is reflected in the lack of concrete teaching about who or what or where God is. That is why I do not think belief in God in the way that has become tradition is not helpful to spiritual life as a Christian or in any religion. A concrete God that is defined can be shattered, shaped and manipulated and therefore defeats the very idea of what God is meant to be. Surely, therefore we are more likely to be in touch with the Divine if we relinquish our belief systems and celebrate our freedom in this quirky, apeish, loving, sex obsessed, artistic, thoughtful, philosophical, altruistic, selfish, conflicting freak of evolution that we are.]]>Power and Permission: The Blasphemy Behind The Name of Jesustag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9178832011-08-04T05:53:02-04:002011-10-04T05:12:02-04:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/
Jesus Lives
If he does what would he think of the Church today? Would he revel in the worship of his name? Would he sit and get off on the millions of people that raise their arms to him every Sunday?
I don't want to make assumptions, but it is clear from the Gospels that Jesus, the teacher, mystic, healer, even in his lifetime was uncomfortable with this sort of attention. So it brings forth an interesting point doesn't it. For whose benefit are people worshipping him? Its not Jesus. Jesus does not benefit from worship. If he was just a man then chances are he's not around to hear it anyway. If he was God, well then if God is all powerful and all knowing and all singing and all dancing a being, he doesn't need to be worshipped or praised. Worship all to often in the western world is a selfish act that serves our emotional stability or justifies our emotional weakness. Worship can also be the projection of ourselves onto God. That is why there is an insistence that God resembles and acts like a human.
There is another problem though in living a life that supposedly follows Jesus. The majority of teaching from the evangelical church has been about calling on the power of Jesus to make things happen.
I once heard a story by a vicar who was shopping one day and he was greeted by an elderly lady.
"How nice to see you Rev Smith." she said.
Now the vicar smiled but was somewhat puzzled because he only had a small congregation and he did not recognise this lady.
"I'm ever so sorry, but I don't recall meeting you before." the vicar said politely.
"Oh I go to your Church." the lady said.
"I'm afraid I must be ignorant as well as blind because I really don't remember seeing you on a Sunday morning before."
"Oh I don't go on a Sunday morning. I go to bingo at the Church hall on a Tuesday night."
Now this is a pleasant and poignant story in its own right but there is more. I relayed this story to some one I knew who is a Christian and a rather evangelical one at that.
"Well I'm not sure about bingo in a Church?" they said. Then they pondered a little and then finished with, "Well I suppose if they are doing it in the name of Jesus that's' fine."
What? Bingo can only be justified in a Church if its done in the name of Jesus?
It would seem that amongst many people things have to be done in the name of Jesus. Permission and power is what it is all about. To do something in the name of Jesus is to give oneself authority, permission, power to act, to speak out, to discourage to inhibit. It doesn't matter what you do so long as its done in the name of Jesus. It also excuses the messenger even if it's the messenger that comes up with that message.
"I'm sorry you can't be part of our church because you are divorced, because you're gay, because you're still a drug addict, alcoholic, prostitute. You're welcome to attend the services but you can't be a full member until you change your behaviour! Hey, don't have a go at me! Its not me saying it! That's what the Bible says. Its God making the call here!"
How many crimes have been committed in this name? It is frightening to think. But it goes further, even among the more socially conscious Christians.
"I am speaking out against this human injustice in the name of Jesus."
"I want to help you go through healing in the name of Jesus."
"I help the homeless in the name of Jesus."
I suppose the intentions are good but the issue is, if someone doesn't do the above in the name of Jesus, does that mean their work is less important?
If we actually look at the ministry of this ancient mortal teacher, if we look at what he actually did and stood for, we see a very different man to what a significant part of the Church displays.
Jesus didn't minister to bring the power of God to the people of Israel. This mans' ministry was about showing people the power and permission that already existed in them. He taught so people could be free from the idea of sin as opposed to sin itself. He taught to help people to become who they were really meant to be. He taught people that they were already teachers, healers, lovers, fighters for justice and compassion. No new transaction of atonement needed to be performed. The only thing that needed to happen was for people to get over themselves and realise the potential that they were born with. Jesus did not devise form Christian theology.
So when someone says that the message of Jesus should be taken to the whole world. Maybe they're right but not in the way the Chruch would have it. Its not about cosmic salvation. It is about helping each other into a position where we are empowered to be what we were born for.
So it occurred to me then that if someone then stands up and says that they are doing something, saying something, in the name of Jesus, they are blaspheming against the very Holy Spirit that they supposedly inherited. If someone needs to call upon a name to give them supernatural power or ability beyond them or even to to dow hat is right, well then that's the very witchcraft that many Christians speak against.
If on the other hand, someone, anyone, Christian, non Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist etc etc speaks up against a human injustice, empowers healing, saves a life, brings relief to the suffering without calling on the name of Jesus or anything other than the authority that exists in their own existence what does it mean? It means they have more faith in creation, more faith in God than any Christian that feels the need to qualify their actions with the empty Jesus stamp of approval.
By calling on the name of Jesus is to betray what we truly are.
The word Jesus is not a word that gives power, it doesn't save, it doesn't heal, it doesn't give authority. The worth in the teaching that this man spoke is that the authority is already there. Jesus was a teacher, and an example. His teachings are a vehicle, not an end point. A teacher doesn't pass exams for us, they merely tell us how to pass them.
Of course, once we have this realisation, there is nothing wrong with using names, icon, images to experience oneness as a personal focus on what needs to be achieved internally. This is not worship or calling on a name to give power however. This is focussing on what is already there within you.
]]>In The Dock With The Red Topstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9078402011-07-23T16:47:14-04:002011-09-22T05:12:01-04:00Matt Hickshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-hicks/News of The World. It would appear that in the darkest hour of murder victims families, terror victims families, families of killed service personnel, this Newspaper hacked into what should be a private and sacred space for consoling, grieving, hurting and healing.
We are exposed to horrendous crimes almost every day. They are so constant that we might be forgiven for being desensitised to it all. The crimes that shock though are the ones against our own society by normal apparently functional people. Worse than that are the crimes committed by those we assume are there for our best interests or provide a service.
Everyone has an opinion about the red top newspapers. Some of us turn our noses up at them, some of us rely on them to supply our view of the world today. Either way a problem exists in that we have elevated the them to an important role in society; to allieviate our boredom. Even if we pick one up to mock it, we may still find ourselves passing comment on the duty celebrity under scrutiny that day.
The News of The World has cashed in on two huge industries; that of aleiviating our boredom and the raising and destroying of randomly chosen people in order to affirm our own sense of standing and living. We have seen celebrities almost revered and then just as quickly demonsied, sometimes purely becuase of the way they acted, spoke or looked.
Perhaps Oscar Wilde put it better:
"The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman like habits, supplies their demands."
Someone else adds to this by saying:
"Journalism is the ability to meet the challenge of filling space."
So actually there is another issue here in that by filling space we are feeding our worst fears. This fear is that; if we entertain that space, if we face our boredom, and if we have no one but ourselves to focus on, we will find nothing of worth and someone we may even dislike more than the personalities we crucify.
Unfortunately religion has a part to play in this. It would appear that since the moment an official scripture was devised for the Christian religion, there has been the assumption of Divine permission to seek and delve into the very intimate aspects of peoples' lives. Those who are members of Churches are accountable, expected to act in a certain way, obey the rules of scripture as interpreted by the Church. This is a Church that has laid down rules on contraception, who you have sex with, when you have sex, what gender you have sex with, what you spend your money on, who you spend it on etc etc. What originated as a message to set people free on the hills surrounding Gallilee has resulted in a microscope for people to focus on another.
One might argue whether this aspect of Church came as a result of human nature or whether this behaviour has come about as a result of the Church. I don't know the answer to that. I know that it is not just exclusive to Christianity. Either way, from the days when society was shaped hugely by the Church, the behaviour of every ones lives have been subject to freeview by all. It has instilled a curiosity and demand for knowledge about other people that actually we have no right to.
Journalism has also persuaded us of the notion that we have the right to know everything, to be all knowing. From the bedroom activities of certain superstars to the grimy, gritty, detail of war, all supplied 24 hours a day. The simple truth is that we cannot and will not know everything. We should not know everything. Why? Because when we know everything, we don't know what to do with it. It has served its purpose in distracting us from ourselves but it has merely confused us further.
Truth, I believe is not always contained in detail. That is the problem with some aspects of journalism and the problem with fundamentalist religions. Both are very similar in that they assume that the truth IS detail. This is perhaps summed up in one more quote I have found by John Hersey:
"Journalism allows its readers to witness history; fiction gives its readers an opportunity to live it."
There is a big difference here. You can recite a creed, believe in the detail and then not experience God. You may see someone falling from the World Trade Centre in their last petrified moments and feel hate instead of compassion. You may feel confident that you are going to heaven over someone else because you have said "the prayer" but you might never experience happiness in this life. You may scoff when you read about yet another footballer and his sexual infidelities and yet resent the life you have.
I think the latest instances with the News of The World and also the child abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church and many other denominations have served a purpose. We have seen that there are institutions we have grown up with which are not fit for purpose other than to help us deny our true meaning and happiness. I commend and honour those who have suffered at the hands of both, those who have been devoured by these hungry soul eaters. I would also commend those journalists who, despite obviously serving an industry have decided to continue watching our backs by reporting on it.
We have a responsibility therefore. If we look upon both institutions and turn our noses up in disgust, we have merely denied the fact that they exist by our own doing, by our own craving to deny ourselves. Journalism and religion are both industries run by humans. Both can serve us beautifully and both can be our downfall. The latter occurs only when we allow it to. This is when we choose to be slaves to the servant, either because they tell what us what we want to here or they let us think we have arrived at a desireable point by crushing others as a benchmark. This point we have arrived at is ofcourse where we are most comfortable but where both industries have us lapping crap out of their hands.
Perhaps then by aspiring towards beauty as opposed to comparing our lives against ugliness, we may grow personally and as a society. Perhaps by also demanding rather than merely feeding from and obeying all institutions, we may start to build faith in them again. If perhaps we reflect on our own responsibility in our own lives, society may start to seem a little less uglier than we have been led to believe.
]]>