The Atheist in the Room

On Wednesday I attended the World Muslim Leadership Forum’s annual conference. That’s probably the last place you’d expect to find an atheist and yet there I was, my little BHA pin badge proudly on display, to listen to a varied collection of Muslim speakers from around the world discussing issues facing the “Islamic world” today.

The conference couldn’t have been more timely. With riots across the Muslim world in response to an inflammatory YouTube video and the Arab Spring still unfolding, what these guys have to say matters.

The first speaker, and probably my favourite, was Anwar Choudhury, director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the first Muslim to represent the UK as a diplomat. Choudhury spoke passionately of his identity as both a proud Muslim and proud UK citizen. He argued, quite rightly, that it takes more courage to be a moderate than an extremist; that to choose the extremes betrays a lack, not abundance, of faith. He himself was a victim of a terrorist attack when working as the UK ambassador to his country of birth, Bangladesh, when a grenade was thrown at him when leaving prayer at a mosque, leaving him in hospital and killing his bodyguard. However, he said, the abiding memory for him of the attack was not the grenade but the 100s of Bangladeshi civilians who surrounded his hospital that night to protect him from further attack.

We had talks from 9:30 to 5 covering a wide range of Muslim voices from the self declared “eco Jihadi” imploring her listeners to go veggie to Ugandan born Lord Sheikh of Cornhill, chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, giving business advice. The Muslim Council of Britain, representing over 500 Muslim groups, was represented by its director who chaired one of the panels. Something that stood out was the lack of calls for any explicitly “Islamic” style of government or political movement. Instead speakers focussed on the need for more Islamic voices within current systems- Islamic financial products competing along side conventional products and more Muslims taking their place in the public sphere.

For all the panic in Britain about the lack of Muslim integration in the UK, the suggestion that British Muslims are seeking special laws and exemptions, this event showed those who seek the exact opposite; Muslims seeking to practice their faith freely and work with others on building common ground. This was, after all, their reason for inviting someone from the BHA. Anwar Choundry finished his speech by highlighting his view that there is no war between Islam and “The Other”, instead the fight is between extremist and moderate. There is no doubt in my mind that the passionate “moderates” who spoke on Wednesday have a great deal of good to bring to the country, a necessary reminder that the tempting narrative of “crash of civilisations” gives too simplistic a world view, a message that now more than ever we need to hear. It is up to us to decide which narrative to believe- from personal experience working with Muslims, I believe much more in the narrative of the Muslim Leadership Forum than the divisive narrative of extremists. It needs to be heard.

Secular Humanism and Life After Death

Just what is there to say about secular humanism and the afterlife? Humanists don’t believe in any such thing, after all and yet I've been asked to talk about just that at the London Interfaith Centre this November. It might seem as sensible as discussing the Christian view of Mohammad or vegetarian recipes for roast pork. 

But stuck for ideas I ain't after a tweet for help (and a helpful retweet from the BHA) was answered with over 30 thoughtful 160 character gobbets to get me started. There were new ideas and ones I'd thought of, ideas I liked and those I wasn't so sure of. Here, for your reading pleasure, are my thoughts on these tweets.

You want a physicist to speak at your funeral

A few people quoted a nice piece from NPR about what a physicist might say to your bereaved. Some also suggested quoting Sagan about how we'll end up in stars. I can certainly see the poetry in this. It's a pretty nice thought that the stuff we're made of will one day undergo a nuclear reaction in the belly of a star or that our matter never really dies; it just takes another form. But I'm not sure this can provide true comfort. After all, the blood in my veins may well one day play its part in the celestial boogie, but so will the atoms in this keyboard and Julius Cesar's dandruff. In fact, this version of "afterlife" is open for us all, regardless of how we live, as if it doesn't matter how we treat people, the risks we take, where we stand on the Mac/ PC debate, none of it. For a humanist who believes that there is such a thing as a good life, this concept of afterlife kinda sucks compared with the wrath/ reward structure found in most religions. What's more, it requires a pretty selective reading of science. Yes we could become stars but then those stars will burn out and spacetime will continue expanding until all is isolated and cold (I suspect this sentence explains why I haven't been invited to speak at any funerals). Also, stars are only cool because we humans say they're cool, they ain't objectively, scientifically so. You just can't have meaning without humans. So selective science provides for some nice poetry, but we're going to have to get more humany...

Humany woomany

Most tweets spoke of the need to focus on the here and now over any hope of afterlife. These were much more in line with my own thinking. Here are a few of the tweets I got;


For me, as an atheist, the "afterlife" is how we are remembered: how we have influenced others and the world around us.


Make the most of this life. Its all the more precious because its brief.


Important to try and make this world better, in this life, because there probably isn't a second chance.


Celebrating the life & using this life to do good?


You could go with the old (but true) cliche that the fear of death is really fear of a life half-lived.



I like 'em all! One thing you'll notice is that unlike Sagan and religion, these human-ier approach offers no immortality. Reproducing won't make you last for ever- your genes get watered down with the generations and your children are individuals, not you reincarnated. Memories can't last forever, either. But is that so bad a thing? I guess firstly, if that's how it is then that's how it is. There's no competition on for who can create the loveliest vision of the world. 

But is eternal life even all that lovely? It's certainly unfathomable. Would I still be the same person without my body? If a big part of my personality is playing golf, how can I still be myself without arms? But I don't really see how it's desirable to simply never expire. It seems that the sensible statement "I don't want to die tomorrow" has been madly extended ad infinitum without too much thought. 

Looking at the world around us all we can guess is- this is it. There are no second chances. Lost opportunities will remain just that; lost. This was the theme in many of Tuesday's tweets and what I would say is the essence of the humanist approach to death. We are born without purpose and die without going anywhere, all that matters is what happens in between. Whom we meet, how we live, what we leave behind. 

This doesn't mean religious ideas of afterlife have no use. Nietzsche made good use of the concept of reincarnation to express neatly his view of life. He invites the reader to imagine being forced to repeat her life over and over for ever. Every mistake, triumph, wasted evening, friendship gained and lover lost. Now, he said, how would you live your life differently knowing this? I'd say that's the acid test for a life well lived. It may only be a metaphor but there is still some use, at least, for the afterlife for a secular humanist. So, as the cool kids say, YOLO.

A million thanks for the tweets! I've still a while to go before this talk, will be sure to write more about it.

The Young Atheist's Handbook

It’s common for religious groups to tell stories of atheists and other non-believers converting to their religion. But how often do we atheists hear stories from those who lost their religious faith? There seems to be a vacuum here and it’s one that ex-Muslim Alom Shaha aims to address in The Young Atheist’s Handbook, the story of his grappling with living a life without God and rejecting his religious upbringing. It is his own personal story but one that will resonate with many ex-religious and one that certainly feels familiar to my own story; just replace “Muslim” with “Catholic” and Alom could be my long-lost Bangladeshi twin.

I didn’t read any philosophical arguments in the Handbook I hadn’t heard before but I don’t think that’s the point of the book; as Alom himself says, there are very few on either “side” who are swayed by argument alone. What matters more in the book is how these arguments presented themselves to Shaha and at what times in his life; the death of his mother while he was young, living with an abusive father, trying bacon for the first time... It’s that old cliché- I don’t care how much you know until I know how much you care. Alom shows that he cares, that these arguments are not just for the cold ivory tower but the mushy, messy human heart. His book presents a refreshing antidote to the unfair stereotype of the atheist as a heartless materialist looking with disinterest at a world of meaninglessly interacting atoms.

While the book may be called a handbook, it is anything but; a Humanist like Shaha would not set about to tell people how they should live. But in providing this memoir, Shaha does succeed in two very important ways- in showing a questioning, doubting, human face of British Muslims that will surprise many readers and providing a source of advice and council to others who may find themselves where a younger Shaha once was; struggling to shake lose beliefs they know not to be true.

So what would my own handbook look like? Very similar to Alom’s actually and I imagine many who left the religions of their parents would find themselves writing a similar book if we had his writing ability. I lost my faith around the same age as Alom but unlike him I got it back; I took Catholicism very seriously for at least two years of university. Catholicism, even in Northern Ireland, doesn’t have the same cultural bond as Islam did for Shaha- for me the fear was a life without meaning. It turned out that life need have no meaning other than the one you choose to give it. But I don’t think there’ll be any need for Rory’s Young Atheist Handbook on bookshelves; The Young Atheist’s Handbook provides a great, well written and very personal account of what it’s like to go through this journey. Now go, read it.

Effective Tuition Fees

Now this is very sad, I know, but I thought I'd make a table comparing the different tuition fee systems. A lot has been made of how most people won't actually pay back most of their debt- so what fees are they effectively paying, then? I've worked out these effective yearly tuition fees for people on different salaries in today's money with monthly payments in brackets.

Salary	Old System	New System	6,000 fees
<15,000	Free education!	Free education!	Free education!
16,000	900 (7.50)	Still free	Still free
18,000	2,250 (22.50)	Yep, free again	Free
20,000	3,300 (37.70)	Free	Free
25,000	3,300 (45)	3,600 (30)	3,600 (30)
30,000	3,300 (75)	8,000 (67.50)	6,000 (67.50)
35,000	3,300 (112.50)	9,000 (105)	6,000 (105)

It seems that the new system is good for anyone earning less than 24,000 as a graduate- that's a good bit over the median salary of 20,000. The new fees suck if you earn more than that and the 6,000 fees proposed by Labour only benefit those earning over 27,000. Monthly payments are easier for everyone on the new system.

That's right, the Tory system is good if you're poor, the old Labour one good if you're richer than average and the proposed Labour one good if you're really rather richer than average. It's a topsy turvy world...

Against Aid

This post was published on Slugger O' Toole.

Walking by a lake you see a child drowning. There is no one else around- what should you do? The clear moral answer is to jump in and pull the child out without sparing a thought for potential inconvenience. It has long been argued that the same moral reasoning applies to world poverty- we must intervene to help the world’s poorest. The widely held view is that this help should be aid.  But does sending aid make the difference it is supposed to- what if we were offering our metaphorical child little more than a faulty life ring? Or worse still- is our aid merely dragging her down?

I came across a few articles this week about the money sent by wealthy countries to poor to assist development. The verdict wasn’t good. One was an article in Thursday’s Guardian showing how Somaliland, unable to receive international aid for legal reasons, had become more democratic and, ultimately, wealthy as a result. The other was a report by New York University (NYU) which found that billions of dollars of US military aid sent to Columbia had only worsened drug problems there. Depressingly, the articles argued, it seems that aid just doesn’t work.

This isn’t a popular idea, or an obvious one. Ireland especially is renowned for the difference its international assistance makes to the world’s poorest countries. Untainted with the guilt of empire (unlike Britain) and unconcerned with promoting ulterior political or economic goals (unlike the US) Ireland has been uniquely free to focus its development program on simply making a difference to those who need it most. The Irish aid budget is over 600 million euro per year and outside of government, Ireland is home to many large aid organisations such as Concern and Trocaire, working in dozens of countries worldwide. For a once poor country, this has been a source of pride for many.

But could this pride be misplaced? I want to discuss here the arguments against aid- the belief that poor countries are actually much better off without our financial support. This is obviously controversial, not least in the midst of a famine in Somalia and a global financial downturn that has hit the poorest the hardest. But if aid is in fact hurting these countries, this is an important debate to be had. The charges made by the sceptics against aid can be summarised as follows- removing democratic accountability, killing exports and rewarding tyrants.

Removing Accountability

America was founded on the principle of ‘No taxation without representation’; in international development the reverse is equally true- no representation without taxation. If poor countries become dependent on wealthier ones for providing basic services instead of taking taxes from individuals and local businesses, the need to remain accountable to one’s citizens is reduced and corruption and inefficiencies sink in. Somaliland provides an excellent example of this- it was forced into democratic reforms when port companies refused to pay taxes. Aid money would have significantly reduced the clout of these merchants.

Dutch Disease

Dutch Disease is a phenomenon named after the discovery of oil in Holland in the 1950s. The sudden influx of foreign money pushed up the relative value of local currency, devastating the country’s manufacturing industry, which had relied on exports. The same can occur with aid, which is also a sudden influx of foreign money. Exporting has been the key to growth for so many booming countries such as China, India, Japan and South Korea- aid may well keep this opportunity away from its recipients, damning them to poverty.

Rewarding Tyrants

Many of the world’s poorest countries also have the most reprehensible leaders and yet still receive aid. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is a clear example of this, with aid essentially keeping the regime afloat. According to Professor Paul Collier, director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University, as much as 40% of African military spending is funded accidentally by aid.

This week’s NYU report found that US military aid found its way into the hands of the very drug barons they were targeting, due to corruption.

These are powerful arguments- aid can make a country less democratic, less competitive and more violent. Of course it is hard to argue against aid for emergency relief during a famine or earthquake but the larger argument that aid provides a clear path for a poor country’s economic development seems shaky at best. It seems clear that aid, as it is, is not working. The question for Ireland and the rest of the world is- will we continue dodging difficult questions or can real reform take place? Or is reform not enough; is now the time to make charity history?

Freefall- a manifesto for economic change

As markets tumble in Europe, America and across the globe, the world is waking up to reality: the recession is back. Indeed it never really went away. How much of this can really be a surprise? We have more or less the same economic system today as that which brought the economy to its knees just three years ago. In 2008 policy makers could at least plead naivety. Who could have seen the sudden collapse of the world’s largest banks? And who could have known just how interconnect companies and countries had become?

But these rhetorical questions do in fact have answers: Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics and Nobel laureate, was our Cassandra.  He was preaching long before the housing bubble and credit default swaps of the inherent dangers posed by lax legislation and misaligned incentives. His 2010 book Freefall, recently updated, is his victory lap. But more than “I told you so”, Stiglitz offers a way out of the mire. Politicians would do well to head his advice.

Market Failure

Stiglitz lays the blame for the crisis squarely, triangularly and circularly at the feet of free markets and their ideologue proponents. I’ve blogged before about my own flirtatious relationship with free markets and identified some of their key failings. One failing I didn’t mention was externalities, which was a failing central to the near collapse of the financial system and one which Stiglitz emphasises.  Externalities are by-products of business where there is no market mechanism to account for them- sometimes positive, sometimes negative. If I own a bee farm and an orchard sets up next door, the orchard benefits significantly from my bees’ polination without affecting me. But should the orchard owners not pay for this privilege? This is an externality- the market provides no way of paying me. A negative externality would be global warming- harm is caused by business but not in a way penalised by the markets. 

Stiglitz argues that banks, with their light touch regulations, posed huge negative externalities on the economy as a whole in a number of ways: the misunderstanding of risk, performance related pay and implicit government subsidy.

Risky business

Before making a loan, banks need to understand the risk associated with the borrower defaulting and adjust the interest rate accordingly. But to further decrease risk, banks started to package loans together with assumption that the more loans one had, the more the risk was spread out. This was fine, provided defaults weren’t correlated. But when house prices started to fall across the country, defaults became very correlated indeed. Because many of these loans had been packaged together in highly complex ways, banks suddenly realised that they couldn’t really tell which loans were safe and which weren’t. They also couldn’t trust the safety of other banks and so stopped lending to each other, resulting in the credit crunch. Stiglitz verdict is clear- commercial banks shouldn’t be allowed to create products they don’t fully understand. As US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson quipped, “the only useful financial innovation in recent decades has been the cash machine”.

Performance related pay and other oxymorons

Performance related pay was abandoned by most professions when it became clear that it rewarded quantity, not quality and encouraged short term results. These are precisely the problems plaguing modern banking. Bonuses are paid for gains but not removed for losses, promoting excessive risk taking as bankers just couldn’t lose. Mortgage vendors were rewarded according to the number of mortgages issued, not their quality, leading to the phenomenon of “liar loans” for which borrowers required no proof of income. Even after the Crunch, the flow of bonuses continued, making a mockery of the claim that they were performance based.

Bankers on benefits

But perhaps the strongest externality was the implicit guarantee that the government would always save the biggest banks to protect the rest of the economy. This safety net enabled banks to take much greater risk at much lower interest rates- a subsidy of billions of dollars, greatly distorting the market. When the bailouts were received, very little was loaned on to small and medium sized business, the risks of speculation were still too tempting.

What’s to be done?

Stiglitz is no communist and recognises the importance of markets- the key is regulation. As the world sits on the brink of what may well be a double dip recession, here are his suggestions for policy changes to make a difference-

1.    Separate commercial banks from investment banks- banks shouldn’t be taking huge risks with ordinary households’ money.
2.      Require banks to keep some of the mortgages they sell on their books to ensure they have a vested interest on providing loans to those how can afford them.
3.     Give share holders greater say over executive pay and stop payments in stock options- they encourage short-term thinking.
4.     Require bailout funds to go to small and medium sized business. Much of it is their money, after all.

This is Stiglitz’s manifesto for change. Free markets have failed but markets can still work within sensible rules.  Failure to change in 2008 brought around the current difficulties. The world cannot afford to make the same mistake twice.

Jersy Shore and More

Two weeks of blog silence and American madness- Jersey shore, NYC (twice), charismatic churches and generally being awesome in Philadelphia.

I spent the second last weekend of July with the lovely Angud family in New Jersey, the idea being to let me experience a proper American family. The Saturday was the hottest day in 7 years, an impressive 110 Fahrenheit, which meant that going outdoors with Irish skin (which I happened to have on at the time) was a no no. So the afternoon was spent on XBox Kinect, which is amazing, followed much later in the afternoon by a go in the outdoor swimming pool with my abs glistening in the hot Jersey sun. James, Jarren and their family were incredibly welcoming and took me out for a chinese afterwards- the first American sized portions I've managed to get through so far. I went with them to Pentecostal church that Sunday and the next Sunday went to a Baptist church. Those will get their own blog post. 

The idea of the family stay was to introduce as a bit more to American culture and introduce me they did- I've now finally seen Jersey Shore and the South Park episode on N. Jersey. Many of the trials and tribulations of Snookie, "The Situation", Pauly D and friends touched my heart and moved me to my very core. Also, I wanna hot tub.

Next weekend was a busy one. Friday saw us head to NYC for a tour of the UN (with a lecture from an indigenous rights guy) followed by roaming around the city, walking from Times Square to the Brooklyn Bridge. Dem buildings is tall. One important lesson was learnt: don't wear a thin white shirt when there might be rain acomin'. Its crazy how easily things get transparent and how much of New York has now seen my nipples. 

Saturday was a chance to hang out chez Snookie- a trip to the Jersey shore itself, albeit the wrong end. Definite highlight was the giant inflatable pretzel which bore us many dozens of metres out to sea. I think we managed to fit 6 peeps on it at one stage. Amazingly, I didn't get sunburnt. A small victory for Gringos everywhere. 

Then this weekend was spent in NYC again! This time outside of the program so were free to do as we wished, staying from Friday through Sunday in an awesome apartment just 15 minutes from the Empire State building and 20 minutes from Time Square. Spent all of Saturday in Central Park having seen the main sites during the last two visits. The park is HUGE with musicians, artists and rollerbladers all over the place. Then back to Philly on Sunday morn' to go the a bbq chez Anguds, with the best bbq pork I've ever had plus more swimming and the annual intra family volleyball match with the rest of the clan. Then I got my very own Phillies baseball tshirt. Awesomes.

Just one full day left in Philly! Then a couple of days in DC, giving a presentation on the program at the State Department, no less. What a terribly gangster lifestyle I lead.