Why Do You Believe in God?

This post is really looking for answers from believers. If you are a believer, please comment with your reasons for believing in God. Did you have an experience which proved God’s existence to you? Or is it just something you “know”? Have you always believed in God? I will be extremely grateful for all answers given. Also if anyone can pass this on to other believers I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks everyone!

Evidence For God (part 1)

Now, the last thing I want is to be accused of being “closed-minded” or having made my mind up without looking at the evidence. So I must state that when I first lost my faith in the God of Christianity, I searched – genuinely – to find some kind of “evidence” that would convince me that it was true after all. Needless to say, up until this point I have failed to find any such evidence. However for the purpose of this blog I will outline the possible “evidences” I considered.

One of the most common reasons people cite for believing in God is “the evidence of the world around us” and admittedly, at first glance, this seems to be a pretty compelling argument. However when you start to ask the scientific questions of how things came to be, you will find (at least, I did) that there is nothing about the natural world that cannot be adequately explained by science, and certainly nothing that indicates a perfect and benevolent creator.

The most striking feature of the natural world is the abundance of life on this planet, the sheer complexity and diversity of living organisms. Surely if anything pointed to a creator God it would be this? But, as it turns out, all of this can be satisfyingly explained by evolution - and without any of the philosophical problems of “why” a god would have created certain things.

The evidence that all life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor is overwhelming – so much so that it is no longer seriously contested within the scientific community. This video gives a fairly succinct outline of the evidence:

Having established this fact, many Christians (including myself, at this point in my journey) will say “but of course, God must have started the process! He must have created the first life form for evolution to act upon!” But as I searched, I found that the question of how life first began does not require a supernatural answer either. Here is one particularly useful video on the subject:

At this point I was left only with the fact that anything exists at all – that is, that something exists rather than nothing - in this line of evidence for the existence of some kind of supernatural creator... but as Lawrence Krauss explains in this fascinating talk, even this can be adequately explained by science. It’s a long video, but well worth watching:

This left me, (the world requiring no God for its existence,) with only the possibility of personal experiences, miracles and so on as evidence for the existence of God... I will discuss this in my next entry.

Heaven, Hell and the Immortal Soul

So the traditional Christian view - at least, the one I was brought up with - is that every human has an immortal soul which resides somewhere within their body whilst they are alive, then goes to either Heaven or Hell when they die. I found this view problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the idea of “Hell” as a place of eternal torment is, at best, ridiculous. Supposedly this is the punishment that we all deserve for our “sins,” so “God” who supposedly created us and loves us, will quite rightly send us there to suffer the worst pain imaginable for all eternity after we die (unless, of course, we have devoted our lives to worshipping him in gratitude for the blood sacrifice of his son, without which we couldn’t possibly be forgiven.) Now clearly this idea is abhorrent. I don’t believe that anybody deserves eternal punishment, a conviction I’m even surer of having heard Sam Harris talk about the illusion of “free will.” After all, what is the purpose of “punishment”? Surely it is a means of behaviour modification - anything beyond that is simply “revenge.” And so the idea of “everlasting punishment” is illogical and frankly, just cruel. Any God (or person) willing to inflict such punishment would not, in my opinion, be worthy of worship.

By contrast, “Heaven” is supposed to be this wonderful place where we will be perfectly happy in God’s presence forever. There is no pain, no suffering, indeed, no sin in “Heaven.” It is interesting to note that the people who believe this also believe that the reason those things exist on Earth is because we have “free will.” This of course raises the question of whether we would have “free will” in Heaven. The idea of Heaven itself is quite hard for me to believe in – but fortunately perhaps, as the idea of eternal existence is not entirely welcoming, I’m sure I’d be bored after a few billion years...

The problem with belief in a perfect afterlife is that it has the potential to stop people seeking to improve the one world we know exists. If people think the poor dying in Africa have eternal bliss to look forward to, why would they bother worrying about how to improve their lives on Earth? Perhaps these people will give a small amount to a charity to make them feel they have done something good and “pleased God” but many (admittedly, not all) religious people simply distance themselves from the problems on Earth, believing such things to be a part of “God’s plan.”

Finally, the idea that we each possess (or are) an immaterial soul may seem perfectly logical at first glance. People generally feel that their conscious mind is “who they are” and that this is somehow separate from, but in control of, their material body. This viewpoint of separate immaterial soul and material body is known as “dualism.” The most common criticism of this is the question of how an immaterial soul could affect a material body, but for me there were other, more pressing issues. One of the first problems for me was that Christians usually claimed that humans were the only species to have a soul. This seemed to be at odds with the apparent “proof” that was the conscious mind, as other species of animal were clearly conscious. But then even if I assumed that all conscious animals had some sort of “soul” there was the problem of where to draw the line. Were there different kinds of souls with differing levels of complexity? And if the “soul” was what gave life to an organism, would plants also then necessarily have some kind of soul? And what about cells in a Petri dish?

Going back to the assumption that humans alone possess a soul, there are still many unanswerable questions. At what point does the soul enter the body? Many religious people argue that this happens at the moment of conception – when the sperm fuses with the egg cell. But if this is the case, then what are we to make of identical twins, where a single zygote (fertilised egg) splits into two at some early point in development, and each half develops into a complete person? Has the “soul” present at fertilisation split into two? And what of chimeras, where two (genetically dissimilar) zygotes fuse to create a single person? Have two souls fused together in this person? Even if we assume that the soul does not enter the body until later in development, there are numerous problems. For example, research has shown that each half of the human brain can function independently, so theoretically half of a person’s brain could be transplanted into another body – and that person would continue to live as two separate people. In addition, the fact that drugs, brain damage, tumours, surgery and so on can affect a person’s thoughts, i.e. their conscious mind indicates that the mind is indeed a result of material brain physiology – and so on what grounds is an immortal soul assumed?

Even the Bible is not clear on this issue. For example, Ecclesiastes 9:5 says “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten,” which clearly suggests the absence of any kind of afterlife. Indeed this idea seems to appear late in Jewish history, being popular around the time of Jesus – which would explain its importance in Christian tradition today.

The "Goodness" of God

So I grew up believing that God was the epitome of “goodness.” He was perfect in every way, and he loved each and every one of us. However I also believed that God was the creator of all things. At some point (pretty early on, I believe) it occurred to me that these two beliefs were incompatible. “All things” included bad things, disease, death, suffering... how could a good and loving God have created these things? My early questions were met with vague answers involving “Satan” and “the fall.”

At the age of five I became a vegetarian because I could not stand the thought of animals being killed just so that I could eat them. It struck me as odd that other people did not share this concern, and that a supposedly perfect and loving God should have created a world where animals had to devour each other in order to survive. I was often told, in response to my questions, that God had not originally created the world this way; that it was only after “the fall” that death entered the world and people (and animals) began to eat meat. However then it just puzzled me that Christians did not try to live as God “originally intended,” especially as consumption of meat is by no means necessary for humans. But, apparently God had said at some point that killing animals was ok, so that made it alright.

Of course, once I had realised the truth of evolution these answers were even less satisfying. Even if Adam and Eve had existed as the first humans with a “soul,” death must have existed long before they arrived as it was a necessary part of the evolutionary process which had already been going on for millions of years before humans evolved. This left me in an awkward position, trying to make sense of the belief that God had somehow used evolution as a means of creation... but I just could not square this cruel and ruthless process with a loving designer.

The “Problem of Evil” is a well known theological problem. It is basically the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil (or suffering) with that of a God who is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (perfectly good). I once posed this question to a devout Christian, and the reply I got was that it is not a problem because God is not supposed to be omnibenevolent. This just raised more questions in my mind.

Over time, I formed an image of God as cruel and vain dictator who created people only so that they could worship him. Despite giving us the “free will” to choose, this God (claimed by so many to be perfectly loving and good) would condemn any who chose not to worship him to eternal suffering in Hell. This was because he was “just.” Some may argue that it is not the crime of “not worshipping” God for which people are condemned to Hell, but the “sins” of which we are all guilty. They would say it is by “accepting the gift of Jesus’ sacrifice” that we can be spared this punishment. However, one has to wonder what “sin” could possibly warrant such a harsh punishment. (More on this in my next post).

Then I had something of a revelation: what if none of it was true? I looked at the world supposing that there was no God, and suddenly everything made sense.

Genesis vs. Science

One of the first bits of Christian doctrine I abandoned was the literal interpretation of Genesis. This wasn’t too much of a big deal for me, as there are many Christians who view Genesis – particularly the first few chapters – as allegorical. However it cannot be denied that this view, particularly accepting evolution over creation as described in the Bible, somewhat weakens the idea of God, and his perceived control over the universe. I suppose this is why there are still so many Christians who cling to the literal interpretation even though it means they must turn a blind eye to what has been empirically proven by science in order to keep their beliefs. This often leads to creationists making ridiculous arguments such as this, which basically states that unless you believe in biblical creation, you cannot assume that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space – and therefore cannot trust the conclusions that scientific methods point to. What this argument doesn’t consider, however, is why the scientific methods which can be trusted due to the uniformity of the “created” universe point to the conclusion of evolution.

Another story in Genesis which I was forced to abandon belief in pretty early on is that of “Noah’s Ark.” The main reasoning for this was simply the lack of evidence that such a thing ever happened (the implausibility of the story was secondary to this). However, once again there are biblical literalists who try desperately to argue for the historical accuracy of this story. One interesting example of this is here, which despite being found on the same site as the previous article (answersingenesis.org) gives a mutually exclusive argument, claiming that “to say that sediments have always accumulated in the past at the rates we observe today is an assumption. It’s an interpretation based on man’s ideas about the past and is not a proven fact.” Another example can be found here, detailing an extremely dubious claim of having located the Ark, not least because of the “discoverers” refusal to say exactly where it is...

All in all, early on in my journey from devout religiosity I realised that the book of Genesis was not a reliable historical account, but a collection of old stories/myths about how the world was created, how the snake lost it's legs and why there are rainbows. While this still allowed me to have some level of “faith,” the ridiculous, desperate and even moronic arguments put forward by some religious people only served to push me further from wishing to identify myself as a “Christian.”

The Problem With Christianity - How I Lost My Faith

The Problem With Christianity - How I Lost My Faith

So I was raised as a Christian. I grew up believing the Bible was the perfect word of God, the Earth was created in 6 days and the “Second Coming of Christ” was imminent. I was told that after death I would spend eternity either in Heaven, which was better than I could possibly imagine, or in Hell, where I would be burned alive, in excruciating agony forever. Which one I ended up in seemed to depend not on how I acted towards others, but on my continued attendance to church, memorising of Bible verses, and my willingness to stand up and say “Yes, I am a Christian!” no matter what persecution I may face.

As a result of these beliefs I lived in constant fear that I would end up in Hell, and was plagued by guilt because I didn’t want Jesus to come back tomorrow – I wanted to grow up, to live my life! Disgraceful, I know.

It wasn’t too long, however, before I started to wonder about certain things. I was always being urged to “live as a Christian” but I couldn’t quite get my head around what this meant. There seemed to be an implication that “living as a Christian” was to be a “good person,” but the things it entailed: going to church, reading the Bible, praying, and so on, seemed to have little to do with morality. Of course, there were the “ten commandments” we were expected to follow, but these all seemed either arbitrary or obvious. And then of course there was the main doctrine of the Christian faith – that none of us can meet God’s expectations anyway, so in order to save us from his own wrath, God came to Earth as his own son in order to be tortured to death so that he could forgive us. Aside from absurdity of this idea, it seemed to make moral actions somewhat optional for Christians, as all that really mattered was accepting this “gift” absolving us from responsibility for our “sins.”

At around the age of sixteen I stopped going to church. I felt I wasn’t learning anything new in these services, and they were a waste of a perfectly good morning that could be spent sleeping. Besides, wasn’t the Sabbath supposed to be a “day of rest”? I still considered myself a Christian at this point, but I had decided that the most important thing was to live according to the teachings of Christ, treating others how I would wish to be treated and so on. This didn’t stop certain people repeatedly informing me that I would be going to Hell unless I returned to the church, however.

Over the last few years I have been searching all avenues of Science, Philosophy and Religion, trying to find the answers. I have now come to the conclusion that there is almost certainly no God, and certainly not the one of the Bible. My next few blog entries will discuss how I came to these conclusions. The main topics include:

·         Genesis vs. Science

·         The“goodness” of God

·        Heaven, Hell and the immortal soul

And more....

The Tenth Guideline

Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Why it may be perceived negatively

The idea that humanity could be seen as “a cancer on the earth” is understandably offensive to some. However it should be noted that this guideline is not saying that we are a cancer on the earth, but simply that we should avoid becoming so. Most people would agree that it is in our best interests not to destroy the planet, but it is an inescapable fact that the human population is having a detrimental effect on the environment, and this is something we need to address before it is too late.

Some religions hold the view that the earth and everything in it were created for the benefit of mankind. In the past, the Bible verse: “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.””(Genesis 1:26) has been used to justify this view and the idea that other species are at our disposal because “God” has given us “dominion” over them. More recently, I’m glad to say, people have interpreted this as meaning humans have a “stewardship” over other species, and therefore a duty to look after them, but this view is rarely implemented.

Why the issue should not be ignored

The Earth is a beautiful, amazing place and this can largely be attributed to the vast and diverse array of species it is home to, both animal and plant. As the human population grows however, more and more species are being driven to extinction by human activities such as poaching, over-fishing, over-hunting, and most particularly by the pollution and destruction of natural habitats. Deforestation is a commonly cited example of human activity negatively influencing the environment. In addition to the destruction of habitats, deforestation contributes to global warming by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide re-uptake by trees and so increasing atmospheric levels of this greenhouse gas. The combination of this and excessive burning of fossil fuels means that the “greenhouse effect” is causing a rise in the earth’s temperature with potentially catastrophic effects on the climate worldwide.  

What could be achieved?

If humanity works together to develop “clean” energy sources, conserve natural habitats and generally reduce our negative impact on the natural world, then future generations will continue to be able to enjoy (and survive on) this wonderful planet.

The Ninth Guideline

Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.

Why it may be perceived negatively

It is possible that certain religious people would reject this ideal because it requires no concept of a “God.” Others, however, may interpret it as an embodiment of their religious ideals. Either way, what is important is that we as a species seek to find the real truth (rather than simply believing what we wish to be true), and make moral judgements which are based on love for our fellow creatures (human or otherwise). Some people may reject the idea that “beauty” should be prized, but these people should note that “beauty” can be defined as a set of qualities which are pleasing not just to the aesthetic senses, but also to the intellect and moral senses.

Why the issue should not be ignored

To ignore this guideline would be to reject all the amazing things life has to offer, and neglect to live life to its full potential. Few would deny that “love” is what gives life its fullness and meaning, and for most people a life without “love” would be unbearable. “Love” can mean so many things that a single word is inadequate to encompass all that “love” can be. The Ancient Greeks had four separate words: “agápe" meaning unconditional or sacrificial love, “éros” meaning passionate or romantic love, “philía” meaning friendship or affection for those we are familiar with and “storgē” meaning natural affection such as that felt for one’s family. All of these add joy and fulfilment to human lives and motivate right actions and attempts to make the world a better place for all.

The search for “truth,” meaning what is in accord with fact or reality, is an innate part of human nature. Throughout human history we have endeavoured to discover truths about the world we live in. Our earliest attempts were through religion - a common feature throughout most human civilisations. Many religions feature stories attempting to explain the origin of the universe and of life, to explain natural phenomena such as lightning, floods and volcanoes and aspects of the human condition such as disease and death. These things would have been confusing and frightening to our ancestors, so the belief that they were controlled by supernatural beings that could be prayed to, and appeased with sacrifices and worship seemed both rational and comforting. Gradually, however, humans began to understand more of the world as it really was, through observations and experiments, and thus “science” was born. Initially there was no disagreement between science and religion, but as science began to discover truths about the universe which were in conflict with religious (particularly Christian) dogma, such as the Earth being flat and at the centre of the universe, the two began to diverge, with many fundamentally religious people now rejecting scientific findings because they contradict religious scriptures, and indeed many scientifically-minded people now rejecting all religion because it is not backed by empirical evidence. The importance of finding what is really “true” is great, as this knowledge facilitates advancements in science and medicine, all the things which can improve the quality of human existence.

“Beauty” is all that is pleasing to us. It is art, music, literature, poetry and even the universe as a whole. Appreciation of these things adds richness and enjoyment to our lives.

What could be achieved?

A meaningful, joyous and harmonious existence, making the most of this short period of consciousness we call “life.”

The Eighth Guideline

Balance personal rights with social duties.

Why it may be perceived negatively

There will always be people who are only concerned with their own interests regardless of the consequences for others.

Why the issue should not be ignored

This guideline reflects the Aristotelian principle of the “golden mean” whereby the ideal virtue lies between two undesirable extremes. In this case selfishness would be the vice of a person disproportionately concerned with their own personal rights and neglecting their duties towards others, whilst the converse of extreme selflessness at the expense of one’s personal wellbeing would be the vice at the other end of the spectrum. The “golden mean” in this case is to find the right balance between personal rights and social duty – that is, our obligation to act in a way which benefits society as a whole.

This principle applies to organisations as well as individuals. For instance, any business has in addition to its primary function of generating profits, a duty to behave ethically and contribute to economic development, while improving the quality of life for the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large. When these duties are ignored, society ceases to function effectively and we experience severe economic and social problems.

What could be achieved?

Again, the sky is the limit if humanity manages to sort out its priorities and work together for the good of all.

The Seventh Guideline

Avoid petty laws and useless officials

Why it may be perceived negatively

I guess the potential controversy here stems from disagreement as to which laws are considered “petty” and which officials “useless.” There are many subjects which could be raised here, but one issue a lot of people feel strongly about is the legal status of cannabis. Many people are opposed to the legalisation of cannabis simply because it is currently illegal. These people generally either assume there must be a good reason for its current legal status or are afraid to be involved in the discussion lest they be associated with, or seen as supporting, something which is currently outlawed.

Why the issue should not be ignored

Enforcing petty and unimportant laws is a waste of time and resources which could otherwise be directed at tackling real crimes with real victims. In addition to this, the existence of laws which are seen as trivial, and which the majority of people break on a regular basis, may lead people to a “criminal mindset” where breaking the law has become the norm and may lead some individuals to cease to distinguish between these petty crimes and more serious offences.

What could be achieved?

A more efficient and effective legal system.

The Sixth Guideline

Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

Why it may be perceived negatively

For many this guideline may drum up images of the “New World Order,” the subject of numerous conspiracy theories concerning secretive power elite groups, freemasonry and the “Illuminati,” all supposedly conspiring to rule the world as a totalitarian “One World Government.” These theories are particularly prevalent among the American far-right and fundamentalist Christians, many of whom believe such events are prophesised to precede “end times” and will involve the emergence of the “Antichrist” in the form of a world leader who has made a deal with the devil in order to gain wealth and power. Considering that most of these people are eagerly anticipating the “end times” and the “second coming of Christ” which it will supposedly involve, one has to wonder why they would bother to oppose this... but of course, these are people who do not value reason.

Why the issue should not be ignored

Practically all wars could be avoided by the correct implementation of this guideline. Most wars arise due conflict between the governments of different countries over land, resources or religious or political ideologies. Whatever the cause, time and time again it is governments who declare war, and civilians (including, but not restricted to, soldiers) who lose their lives. It would be far better to resolve these conflicts in a world court, where reason rather than force would decide the outcome, ensuring that the best solution can be found. The establishment of the United Nations at the end of the Second World War was a huge step in this direction, but warfare remains commonplace around the world, suggesting severe refinement is needed.

Another situation often resulting in war is when a country’s leader becomes corrupt, oppressing his own people, and needs to be removed from power. A world court would have authority over all national leaders, ensuring they are fair to their people and conform to international standards of human rights. The world court would have the power to arrest any world leader not in compliance with these standards without the need for large-scale violent conflict.

What could be achieved?

World peace!

The Fifth Guideline

Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

Why it may be perceived negatively

It’s hard to imagine why anyone would be opposed to this one, but I’m sure there are people who are. And they are probably religious -_-

Why the issue should not be ignored

Despite the fact that most people would agree with this basic guideline, it is still far from being a worldwide reality. In some places sharia law means that if a woman is raped she can be held accountable, and sometimes put to death! Elsewhere, legal systems are far from perfect, with sentences often considered disproportionate to the crimes, as in the example below:

 

What could be achieved?

A fair worldwide society where every person, and indeed every nation, can feel safe and protected by the law.

The Fourth Guideline

Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.

Why it may be perceived negatively

People tend to be quite protective of, and indeed feel passionately about, their traditions and their faith. Some religious people in particular may view any attempt to apply rational thought to their religious traditions as a direct attack on them which can only have been inspired by “Satan.” Similarly, traditionalists of all persuasions tend to be reluctant to consider change regardless of rational arguments, which can hinder progress and prevent problems being solved.

Why the issue should not be ignored

The ability to reason is fundamental to our ability to survive. All conscious creatures must possess some level of rationality in order to make sense of, and survive in, the world. But humans, it seems, have evolved a (debatably) superior ability to use logic to solve problems. Reasoning, defined as to “think, understand, and form judgements by a process of logic,” would have been critical for our ancestors to recognise and avoid danger, find the best sources of food and solve other problems facing them, which ultimately led to our advancement as a species. From the creation of early tools and harnessing the power of fire right up to modern technology, the use of logic and rational thought has been the driving force of human progress. It only makes sense to apply this ability, perhaps the essence of what makes us human, to the many problems we face in the world today. Poverty, conflict, environmental issues, finding cures for diseases... all can potentially be solved by correct use of logical reasoning, and indeed have been in the past. The alternatives however - passion, faith, tradition... are frequently the cause of such problems, and hold little in the way of potential solutions.

What could be achieved?

Anything! There is no limit to what humankind could achieve in the future if we remain rational and continue to expand our knowledge through the scientific method.

The Third Guideline

Unite humanity with a living new language

Why it may be perceived negatively

Nationalists of any country may initially feel alarmed at this idea, fearing the extinction of their national language and perhaps daunted by the idea of learning a new language (particularly if they are British, I joke). However, the good news is that this guideline is already well underway, with the majority of the world speaking English, if not as their main language then at least for international purposes. In fact I would hazard a guess that every single person reading this blog speaks at least some English J

Another potential objection comes from those of the religious persuasion, who may claim that to unite humanity with one language would be to defy God, who purposefully divided humans by giving us separate languages after the “Tower of Babel” incident. Seemingly this was to prevent humanity from building a tower tall enough to reach Heaven (which was in the sky until humans managed to build aircraft, at which point God had to relocate to another dimension outside of space-time to continue hiding from us. But I digress.)

Why the issue should not be ignored

Having a universal language has become a necessity in the modern world, where (thanks to the internet) communication and sharing of information with anyone anywhere in the world is a reality of daily life. It would be a terrible waste of this opportunity if the populations of each country only spoke their own language. In addition, it is now possible for humans to travel worldwide and experience so much more of this planet than any previous generation. This new enrichment of the human experience is facilitated by the ability to communicate with other members of our species regardless of their country of origin.

What could be achieved?

Ideally, within the next few generations every person in the world will be fluent in English (or another universal language that we agree on) and worldwide communication will be a great deal easier, with no language barriers or translation errors. I would also put forward the idea that a universal currency should (and I expect, will) be implemented at some point in the future. This would facilitate international trade without the complications of changing exchange rates, as well as making international statistics and individual travel arrangements much simpler!

The Second Guideline

Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity

Why it may be perceived negatively

This second guideline may well ring alarm bells for many people – conjuring up images of Nazi regimes and mad scientists trying to “play God.” However a critical difference must be noted here: the Nazis were interested in “ethnic cleansing” which would, in effect, reduce diversity. The guidelines advocate an increase in diversity along with the improvement of “fitness” or “health” of the gene pool. Despite this distinction, many people will still feel uneasy about the concept.

Why the issue should not be ignored

Since the origin of life, natural selection has ensured that only the healthiest and best-adapted genes are passed on to the next generation. This is still the case for most species on Earth. However human ingenuity and advances in medicine mean that many who would not otherwise have survived to reach childbearing age and reproduce are now able to do so – which is of course a good thing from most perspectives. However the downside of this is that the human race is gradually accumulating harmful mutations. It has not only stopped evolving positively, it is getting genetically weaker. This means increased health problems, reduced quality of life and increased medical expenses, as more and more people need continued medical treatment from very early in life. There is also potentially a decline in the average IQ of the human population, as it has been suggested that there is a negative correlation between fertility and intelligence.

What could be achieved?

By utilising now available technology such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (embryo screening) for individuals who are either sufferers of or known carriers of certain genetic diseases it is possible to avoid such diseases being passed to the next generation. However in some cases where an individual is homozygous (carries two copies of the defective gene) it may be necessary to restrict reproduction or use donor eggs or sperm. A more controversial idea is that of setting certain criteria for reproduction (such as mental/physical health, ability to provide for offspring and so on) but I regret to say this is unlikely to catch on despite potential benefits for humankind. Nonetheless, if we make an effort to guide reproduction wisely, improving fitness and diversity, we can achieve a healthier population with better quality of life and less financial pressure on individuals and national health services.

The First Guideline

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Why it may be perceived negatively

Many (incorrectly) assume that adhering to this guideline would involve actively killing a large majority of the Earth’s human population. I must emphasise that this is not the case. What it actually means is limiting the rate at which new people are born. This is easily achieved by use of contraceptives, which have been extremely successful in the developed world as a means of slowing the rate of population growth. However there are certain groups of people (such as the Catholic Church) who still oppose the use of any form of contraception to prevent pregnancies.

Why the issue should not be ignored

“Overpopulation” refers to the situation where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. Most estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth are between 4 billion and 16 billion (according to Wikipedia). The global human population now exceeds 7 billion, so depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may or may not have already occurred. I don’t know how the figure 500,000,000 was calculated, and therefore have no reason to stick strictly to it; however I think it is clear that the human population cannot be allowed to continue growing exponentially, and may even benefit from some reduction in number. The reasons for this are as follows:

Environmental – rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution, are all made worse by continued population growth. In addition, many natural habitats such as rainforests are destroyed to make room for the growing human population at the expense of the other species we share this planet with.

Limited resources – food, fresh water, fuels, etc. A larger population means increased demand for resources which will lead to higher prices, deprivation, poverty, starvation and potentially war over these limited resources.

What could be achieved?

A smaller human population would mean increased quality of life for humans, and a healthier and more peaceful planet. Remember quality of life > quantity of life!

Introduction To My Blog

The large granite monument in Elbert County, Georgia, USA, which is variously referred to as the “Georgia Guidestones” or “American Stonehenge” has been the subject of many conspiracy theories over recent years. The mysterious monument commissioned to be built in June 1979 by an unknown person (or persons) under the pseudonym “R.C. Christian” features a set of ten guidelines for humanity in an “Age of Reason.” While conspiracy theorists often claim these guidelines to be “satanic” in nature, I would like to put forward the view that in actual fact these ten guidelines are not only extremely logical but may hold the key to solving many of the problems facing humankind today.

The ten guidelines are as follows:

1.     Maintain humanity under 500,000,000in perpetual balance with nature.

2.     Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

3.     Unite humanity with a living new language.

4.     Rule passion — faith — tradition —and all things with tempered reason.

5.     Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

6.     Let all nations rule internallyresolving external disputes in a world court.

7.     Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

8.     Balance personal rights with social duties.

9.     Prize truth — beauty — love — seekingharmony with the infinite.

10. Benot a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

I will discuss each of these in detail in upcoming entries, considering why certain groups have reacted negatively to them and why, from a rational point of view, they make perfect sense and why adhering to these guidelines would make the world a better place for all. All comments are welcome :)