Motivation Version 1.5 April 2011

Why do I bother to do this?

I am writing this because I am not aware of any other book or internet site that explains in a fairly brief, understandable format what we all should believe.

You don’t have to be irrational or crazy to have a reasonable faith in things like truth and justice. But why should you have this faith, what is it based on? Many of us have trouble knowing what to believe and why we should believe it, and how that should affect our behaviour. Most people have trouble integrating what they learn from science, history and religion into everyday life. Many people keep their scientific knowledge and religious beliefs in totally separate “boxes”, and many people believe that it has to be that way.

Lots of people try to solve this global problem from their own local perspective, but these attempts are usually too limited. There are many excellent books that summarise knowledge in a particular area. Just to name a few:

· Bertrand Russell “History of Western Philosophy”;

· Steven Hawking “A Brief Moment in Time”;

· Jared Diamond “Guns, Germs and Steel”;

· William McNeill “A World History”;

· Karen Armstrong “The Great Transformation”

But these books, as great as they are, do not cover all areas of knowledge.

1. Philosophers are becoming more isolated as science encroaches on what was once the subject of philosophy. Some modern philosophers contribute to debates on ethics but many don’t seem to be publicly involved in the major issues of our times. Many philosophers now seem to focus on what the language means – but are slow to make any point that most of us think is worth hearing.

Those who do take a firm position on an issue – such as a belief, or disbelief, in god – often ridicule their opponents.

Sceptics tell us nothing positive, only what they don’t believe.

There are impressive overviews of philosophy which can help us, but the variety of opinions is confusing. We need guides not lectures.

Philosophy can help us analyse what we believe, but on its own it would be limited. We can speculate all we like, but science and history can sometimes tell us which philosophical ideas are unrealistic.

2. Scientists (including science journalists and science historians) can write impressive books and make excellent TV shows explaining the cosmos, life on earth and aspects of human nature.

Some of these are completely “values neutral”, trying to be polite to everyone. Some are contemptuous of unscientific views.

Many scientists can’t understand why their sensible suggestions are not taken up by everybody, especially the politicians, and not enough scientists are studying why they are being ignored.

Some scientists are personally quite limited in their views.

Science on its own is limited: it cannot tell us what we should be doing, and we need to take into account more than the scientific knowledge that we can believe.

3. Historians can only cover a certain amount of ground – there is too much history to put it all in writing. History covers not just the changes in nations, but the development of key ideas, such as science, religion and civil rights.

Often the history is told from a particular perspective, looking at it from one nation’s side or using feminist or socialist ideas to understand the past. We need to overcome our parochial bias.

Of course we’ll never know what really happened in complete detail. Post modernists will say we’ll never know anything in general, only what individuals express at various points in time and space. But we can still piece together enough stories to get a central “narrative”.

There are some impressive “histories of the world” which explain the broad trends, some with many authors so that there is less local bias.

We still need to know where history fits into the rest of knowledge. History on its own is limited: it does not tell us what is possible or what we should be doing.

4. Religious or spiritual leaders, people “of faith”, too frequently ignore objective or scientific reality. They often ignore history too.

Leaders of traditional religions are often so political and into marketing that they don’t firmly say what they really believe. Many clerics do not share the fundamentalist beliefs that their followers have, but let them continue to hold false beliefs, so they are effectively being dishonest with their congregations, hiding their true self.

Many spiritual people, such as pagans or ‘new agers’, who are not involved in the traditional faiths, often seem to have no firm beliefs: they can’t clearly say what they believe or what they mean.

Modern discussion of religion is limited, often because each side is shouting at the wrong set of opponents.

5. Artists, writers and film makers try to make sense of it all, to reflect the insights we can gain from these areas, to give them another perspective.

But too much “art” is junk, appealing to the lowest common denominator.

On the other hand a lot of “art” is too sophisticated for the average person.

Internet porn is a worry. Censorship of the internet is a worry.

It is from books and films that we take our cultural models. Too many young people learn their history and culture from comedy shows, sitcoms and TV dramas. That’s a worry.

6. At the personal level confusion reigns. There is a glut of self help books, but most don’t help much.

Personal sexual morality is a minefield.

False myths promote selfishness, or that greed is good, supposedly because of the “natural laws” of science or economics.

There is a world wide decline in religious fervour, except for Christian fundamentalism – mostly in the USA and Africa - and Islam – mostly promoted by the Saudi Salafist/Wahhabis.

Parents lack confidence in how to discipline their children.

Modern societies focus too much on material goods and sexual titillation. Materialism is rife, but the most wealthy nations and the wealthiest people are not the happiest.

Can we develop a guide for day to day living that is sensible?

7. Politicians are practical, acting within the power they have. This power comes from the popular vote, or military might.

But politicians act with limited insight, and usually they adopt selfish national or ethnic perspectives. Too many politicians are corrupt. “Pork barrelling” is legalised corruption and inefficiency, and is widespread, especially in affluent countries.

A lot of government and big business expenditure is wasted.

Many people are alienated from the political process or vote on whims, such as how attractive a politician looks.

Government agencies – the police, military and intelligence services – are acquiring better tools to monitor – and control – citizens, but controls on them are limited.

8. If we do come to a set of conclusion about these most significant areas of like how should we view them? Would they constitute our Philosophy? Lifestance? World View? Religion?

------------------------------------

We DO NOT need

· more populist philosophies, or

· more amazing stories from science, or

· more biased history, or

· another bout of religion bashing, or

· more denials of the significants of culture, or

· more escapism - into the classics or into pop culture, or

· more new age spiritual guides or self help manuals, or

· another political anti-government rant.

We DO need a summary of how everything that we can reasonably believe fits together, and how that impacts on the decisions we make in our lives.

I think the “Global Beliefs” or “Reasonable Way” I am proposing here is simply stating what many people already believe, more or less, even though they have not really “connected all the dots” or realised that this is a defensible and coherent “Way” of life.

· Many people who have had doubts about their fundamental faith will be put off by aggressive atheists who can see no good in any religion. There is a better way to move forward, to discover the real fundamental beliefs most of us have, and to learn how to express these, each according to our culture.

· Many people have been forced through their lives or careers to review the beliefs they grew up with. This includes executives and professional employees in multinational enterprises, large national companies, non-government organisations, diplomatic services, people who read widely, and perhaps even some perceptive tourists. Often such people come to accept that other views of the world may also be valid, but still struggle to know what are their own core beliefs.

· I also suspect that many “New Agers” looking for a contemporary spiritual life will discover that the view of science and history presented here clarifies their thinking, making it more grounded in reality.

Of course, many of the ‘global beliefs’ presented here, on the surface, contradict the core beliefs of traditional and New Age religions, but we can show where these religious beliefs fit in the overall picture. We can show how someone from a traditional religious background can expand their understanding of their faith and communicate better with those from other faith backgrounds.

So the main motivations for developing this description of ‘global beliefs’ are:

· To help those who are confused to find reasonable answers to the big questions in life, especially young people;

· To help others who accept all the individual components to “join the dots” and see how they all fit into an integrated, comprehensive set of beliefs;

· To help dispel certain myths, which are based on misunderstandings, that are held not only by religious people, but also by scientists and sceptics;

· To fill the gaps in contemporary discussions of “the meaning of life”;

· To promote peace and understanding by defining sharable global beliefs.

A bit of light relief:

In the book (now also a film) “The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy” the greatest civilisation in the Universe build the most powerful super computer in the Universe, called “Deep Thought”, and feed it all the knowledge they have. Then they ask Deep Thought the hardest question in the Universe, “What is the meaning of life, the universe, everything?” Deep Thought has to think about this for hundreds of years, but finally is ready to give the answer, to the descendants of the individuals who originally posed the question. What they hear is, “Forty Two”. This is not what they expected, but could Deep Thought somehow be right? On being queried again, Deep Thought says the really difficult bit is to work out the proper question!!

These global beliefs can be stated in 42 sets of ‘conclusions’, covering philosophy, science, history, religion, art and culture, personal practice and politics. In our mere human sojourn on Earth, over the past few millennia, all of humanity has been contributing to developing and responding to the key questions. We’re all doing it, in our own way.

Let’s hope we don’t get blown up, or blow ourselves up, before we get it right, before we realise it’s not just our own way, but the most reasonable way. This is part of my contribution.