You are on page 1of 74

A Utopian Philosophy

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1
A Utopian Lifestyle................................................................................................................ 2

Political and Philosophical Ideologies

Anarchism............................................................................................................................. 5
Socialism.............................................................................................................................15
Communism........................................................................................................................ 17
Utilitarianism....................................................................................................................... 20

Selfishness and Selflessness

Evolution Versus the Golden Rule...................................................................................... 22


Evolutionary Psychology of Reproduction.......................................................................... 23
The Selfishness of God.......................................................................................................32

Religions of the World

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 34
Atheism and Agnosticism.................................................................................................... 36
Judaism............................................................................................................................... 38
Christianity.......................................................................................................................... 42
Islam.................................................................................................................................... 48
Buddhism............................................................................................................................ 58
Confucianism...................................................................................................................... 61
Taoism................................................................................................................................ 65
Hinduism............................................................................................................................. 66
Sikhism............................................................................................................................... 69
Paganism............................................................................................................................ 71

Copyright notice: this book is in the public domain

Last updated on 24th August 2008.


For the latest version see www.utopianresearch.com.
Introduction to Utopian Research
This book presents a practical analysis of sociological and religious issues. The ideas
presented here are intended for debate, experimentation and refinement. The scope of the
research is very wide, encompassing religion, philosophy, ethics and science in an attempt
to determine an optimised lifestyle for human beings that gives the maximum possible
individual freedom and self-fulfillment. Existing ideologies and religions are analysed to
find out how well they satisfy people's individual needs to identify areas where
improvements can be made.

The optimised lifestyle outlined here incorporates aspects of many philosophies and
religions. For example, one can observe that people are often in a state of suffering, which
is a central concept of Buddhism. In Zen Buddhism, the path to true enlightenment is said
to come from self-knowledge; a similar idea is used in this research, and the theory of
evolution is used as the best source of this knowledge. The positive aspects of utilitarian
and socialist arguments are also acknowledged, and special emphasis is placed on the
potential benefits of anarchism.

The key aspect of the utopian philosophy proposed here is the ethic of reciprocity, known
as the 'Golden Rule'. The interpretation placed on the Golden Rule in this book describes
the situation in which a person has equal priorities for fulfilling their own needs and the
needs of others. The Golden Rule is present in many religions and has special emphasis
in Christianity, where it is phrased as a commandment to love your neighbour as yourself.
When analysed in detail, the Golden Rule leads directly to an optimal life strategy that I
have termed a 'Personal Utopia'.

A Personal Utopia can be defined as a state of being in which one follows the Golden
Rule, and one is in an environment in which others do the same. No spiritual beliefs are
required to behave with a degree of selflessness towards others. However, I believe that
an open mind is essential if one is to understand a religious mindset, which is a necessary
precursor to being able to teach people how they can increase their own freedom and self-
fulfillment. Regardless of your beliefs, I hope that you will find this book useful and
informative.

1
A Utopian Lifestyle
This book presents the following theory:

• The human condition is a state of intermittent or continuous suffering from sources


such as mutual selfishness, inequality, poverty, starvation, war, disease, disability,
natural disasters, bereavement, childbirth and aspects of most religions.

• Freedom and self-fulfillment are two conditions that should be met to reduce the
suffering of an individual. This can be achieved by maximising the extent to which
an individual can be selfish.

• Where everyone is selfish, people gain freedom and fulfillment at the expense of
others. Mutual selfishness reduces the levels of freedom and fulfillment for
everyone.

• The best way to maximise freedom and self-fulfillment is to follow the Golden Rule
(do for others that which you would want others to do for you); a degree of mutual
selflessness is an optimal life strategy for individuals who exist in an environment in
which others do the same.

• Following the Golden Rule requires no spiritual beliefs.

The following picture shows the difference between selfish behaviour and following the
Golden Rule:

2
This diagram can be illustrated by an example from nature. Imagine that a bag of food has
been placed outside for wild birds to eat, with enough space for only one bird to eat the
food. When a flock of birds discovers the food, individuals fight to occupy the space to eat
it. This is inefficient and causes stress to the individuals, giving a relatively low quality of
life. Weaker individuals are less able to compete, and are more susceptible to death from
predators and cold weather. The selfless alternative would be for the birds to wait in turn to
eat the food, and to ensure that each individual eats enough (weaker birds in the flock
would eat more). This would be efficient, create equality and minimise stress, giving a
much higher quality of life. This higher quality of life could be described as a Personal
Utopia, in which individuals behave with a degree of selflessness towards each other. A
Personal Utopia would only work if individuals were genuinely following the Golden Rule
with the aim of reducing suffering, and fulfilling the needs of others. The Golden Rule
contains an intrinsic requirement for equality. For example, one would not ordinarily cause
suffering to oneself to fulfill the needs of another person; this would be doing for others
more than you would have them do for you. To follow the Golden Rule, I should be
prepared to do the things that I might want others to do for me:

• I should live in a way that gives me freedom while minimising the suffering that I
cause to others.

• I should be available as a source of anything that would fulfill the needs of someone
else, while not causing suffering to myself or others.

• I should be prepared to forgive others if they have harmed me and wish to be


forgiven, providing that this does not cause suffering to myself.

• I should acknowledge that some people are more sociable than others, and some
people require more time alone than others. Following the Golden Rule could be as
simple as leaving people alone to allow them the freedom to do what they want
without interference, and supporting their ability to do this.

• I should acknowledge that my Personal Utopia would not be static, and that people
could enter it and leave it. People often have a need for change in their lives, and
the ability to let people go is an example of following the Golden Rule.

• I should acknowledge that the way that I would want to be treated could be
completely different to the way that others would want to be treated and I should be
prepared to adjust to other people's needs.

• Following the Golden Rule goes against our natural instincts to be selfish. I would
have to appreciate that it takes time to learn how to do it.

• A Personal Utopia would be a very good support network from which to help those
in need. I believe that those who choose to do this would have a more stable
Personal Utopia, because they would be in contact with more people who may be
receptive to these ideas. Following the Golden Rule should involve helping those in
need to the best of our abilities.

• Another way to follow the Golden Rule would be to teach others the benefits of
doing so.

3
The following would be more difficult to do, but they are still aspects of following the
Golden Rule, because this is how we would wish to be treated by others:

• I should be prepared to suffer for others if this is necessary to alleviate their


suffering.

• I should be prepared to risk my life in order to save the lives of others if necessary.

The two genders have different needs, which must be taken into account when
considering how to follow the Golden Rule. This is described more fully in the chapter
about evolutionary psychology, although one can summarise the different gender priorities
as being sexual (male) and based around a desire for security (female). The different
priorities of the two genders leads to the battle of the sexes, which can cause suffering to
both genders. One possible solution would be as follows:

• Place emphasis on providing everyone with security (both men and women).

• Suppression of the male protective instinct that would normally be restrictive to the
freedom of both genders.

• Adopt a relationship structure that maximises sexual freedom. For example, the
Mosuo are a Chinese ethnic minority group who live high in the Himalayas.
Traditionally, a Mosuo woman who is interested in a particular man will invite him to
come and spend the night with her in her room. The role of a father is played by
male members of a woman's family (e.g. her brothers). This type of culture allows
for greater sexual freedom than marriage.

It may be beneficial for individuals to focus on the things that they are good at when
behaving selflessly. By playing to our strengths, it should be possible to make better
Personal Utopias for others. This would be more achievable for larger groups of people.

It would be following the Golden Rule to allow others to be selfish at our expense, because
people want to be selfish. However, becoming slave-like or allow others to restrict our
freedom would defeat the object of this Utopian lifestyle. It should be possible for a
relatively large number of people to live selfishly at any one time within a Personal Utopia;
an analogy can be drawn with parents who are able to bring up a large number of children
who live at their expense. However, there would need to be a balance between individual
selfishness and selflessness to ensure that all individuals have the maximum amount of
freedom.

4
Anarchism
Anarchism describes any philosophy or system that advocates an absence of a centralised
government to organise a society. Many different forms of anarchism have been proposed.
In general, they suggest that harmony can be achieved through mutual cooperation and
agreements rather than from a central authority. Anarchist theoreticians promote the
benefits of freedom and equality that this system would bring. However, I believe that an
anarchy is only achievable if people are prepared to follow the Golden Rule of reciprocity;
if not, then I believe that a democracy provides the greatest amount of freedom and
equality possible in an environment in which selfish competition occurs. Some anarchist
philosophers believed that people would follow the Golden Rule naturally in a rule-free
anarchist environment, but I believe that this is an assumption that requires close scrutiny.
In this chapter, the arguments of leading anarchist writers are examined, and practical
suggestions are put forward to identify a means by which a stable anarchy could be
achieved.

Kropotkin was born in 1842 into a wealthy Russian family. He was well educated and
scientifically trained. At the time of his birth, Russian society was feudal, with a minority of
wealthy landowners having power over the communities whose land they owned. The serf
class formed the majority of Russians; they had little freedom and were required to serve
their local landowner. Serfdom was abolished in 1861, and the ownership of some of the
land was transferred to the former serfs. However, the land was not given to them freely,
and they were required to pay redemption payments for many years. The oppression of
the former serfs and the dictatorial Russian government created an environment that
stimulated revolutionary thought, including groups that advocated democracy, communism
and anarchism. This eventually led to civil war and the formation of the socialist Soviet
Republic.

Kropotkin came into contact with a group of Russian anarchists, and saw the benefits of
the freedom that they proposed. His participation in revolutionary activities led to his
imprisonment by the Russian authorities, and his experience of prison reinforced his
anarchist beliefs. He escaped to Europe, and wrote a great deal on the subject of
anarchism. He is noted for his emphasis on the need for mutual aid and cooperation
between people to make an anarchist society harmonious. He stated the need for people
to do as they would be done by in order to achieve this aim1. I am in agreement with many
of Kropotkin's ideas, and it is clear that his aim is to maximise the happiness and freedom
of humanity2. However, there are some points where I disagree with Kropotkin's analysis,
and these are outlined below.

Kropotkin uses the theory of evolution to support his work3. He describes situations where
animals have a sense of morality, solidarity and unity. He suggests that it is natural for
mankind to follow the Golden Rule, and hence live in peaceful anarchy. The evolutionary
theory of altruistic behaviour was later expanded upon by biologists such as Dawkins, as
described below.

The theory of evolution involves biological replicators (genes) which contain encoded
information about the construction or maintenance of a biological organism. Genes are
copied and passed on to the next generation during the process of reproduction. Small
errors can occur in the copying process, which creates variations in their properties.
Genes can be thought to be in competition with each other, because a gene that leads to
an advantage in the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce is more likely to

5
spread throughout a population. The implications of this theory are described by Dawkins
in The Selfish Gene4. Dawkins also describes how a gene could give rise to altruistic
behaviour. At first, it seems paradoxical that a gene could lead to a behaviour that acts in
the best interests of another organism; it means that the benefactors of the altruistic
behaviour are more likely to pass on their genes, while the altruist is less likely to pass on
their genes. However, from the perspective of a gene, it only matters that genes of the
same type are propagated successfully. Close family relatives are likely to share some of
the same genes. If a family member shows altruistic behaviour towards other family
members, then the genes of these family members are more likely to be passed on to the
next generation. Nature has therefore come to the conclusion that the Golden Rule (a
degree of mutual selflessness) is the most efficient way to aid the survival of the
individuals in a family group and to ensure the propagation of their genes.

Furthermore, Dawkins suggests that even unrelated members of the same species could
get more benefit out of being in a group than being alone. He gives some examples: "A
pack of hyenas can catch prey so much larger than a lone hyena can bring down that it
pays each selfish individual to hunt in a pack, even though this involves sharing food. It is
probably for similar reasons that some spiders co-operate in building a huge communal
web. Emperor penguins conserve heat by huddling together."

Human altruism is probably a combination of these two factors. In our evolutionary past,
we lived in small interrelated communities. In modern times, this is not usually the case,
but many of us are genetically 'hard wired' to generate the behaviour that is appropriate to
our evolutionary past. Trust, sympathy, compassion, generosity, gratitude and guilty
conscience stem from our evolutionary past. These attitudes can be directed towards
strangers because our genes still 'expect' that we will be in contact with relatives for most
of the time; evolution is too slow to catch up to our modern situation. For example, if one
asks someone else for directions, they will almost always provide assistance if they can,
even though they are unlikely to have that favour returned. Mutual reciprocity is also a
common human behaviour, which is achieved by doing other people favours, and keeping
track of the favours that one is owed. The system of favours is policed by gossip, and the
number of favours that a person is likely to receive is dependent upon a reputation for
generosity and reciprocation. Altruism towards women by men is a character trait that is
selected for by women, which is discussed in more detail in the chapter about evolutionary
psychology. However, most altruistic behaviours are overridden by anything to do with
reproduction. The effects of the evolutionary arms race between the genders and between
men are also highlighted in the chapter about evolutionary psychology.

In Mutual Aid, Kropotkin supports his theories by describing the behaviour of primitive
societies such as the Hottentots, who appeared to apply the Golden Rule to their conduct3.
Kropotkin believed that the differences between European and Hottentot behaviour were
culturally rather than biologically based. However, I believe that their differing behaviour is
a biologically based response to different social circumstances. I believe that people
modify their behaviour according to a subconscious awareness of who is more likely to be
related to themselves. For example, I believe that I am subconsciously aware that
everyone outside my immediate family is unrelated to me in the society in which I live. This
is probably because I lack a tribal solidarity with other members of my society; I am
entirely independent of them, and they are entirely independent of me. My subconscious
brain concludes that they must belong to a different tribe. If I were living in a tribe, the
increased level of interdependence should cause a change in our mutual behavior.
Perhaps this is why many anarchists intuitively advocate a simplified lifestyle due to the
increased stability that small interdependent populations would provide. For similar

6
reasons, tribal behaviour probably has a stabilising effect on religious groups, regardless
of their beliefs and practices. In my opinion, it would be preferable to base cooperation
through the Golden Rule on intellectual understanding rather than through the creation of
favourable circumstances, simply because circumstances can change.

To demonstrate that our subconsciousness can distinguish between related and unrelated
people, it is beneficial to study a theoretical example that ignores the effects of relatedness
between individuals. Many species of bird clean each other's feathers in hard to reach
places (such as the head). Feathers must be kept in good condition for birds to be able to
fly properly and resist parasites. There are three different strategies that birds can adopt,
and this theoretical example assumes that the behaviour is genetically inherited and
subject to evolution:

1. The natural givers clean the feathers of any other bird. These birds are dependent
upon the other bird being a natural giver or a reciprocator to get their own feathers
cleaned.

2. The reciprocators only clean another bird's feathers if their own feathers are
cleaned by that bird first. reciprocators therefore depend upon natural givers to get
their feathers cleaned.

3. The freeloaders do not clean the feathers of other birds. They are dependent upon
natural givers to get their feathers cleaned.

The freeloaders are able to spend the most time finding food and reproducing, and are
more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation providing that there are natural
givers to clean their feathers. In the absence of natural givers, the freeloaders would be
less likely to survive.

The reciprocators also have an advantage over natural givers. They do not waste their
time on freeloaders who will not clean their feathers. However, in the absence of natural
givers, the reciprocators would be less likely to survive.

The natural givers are dependent upon there being other natural givers or reciprocators to
clean their feathers. They may waste time on freeloaders and may therefore have less
time to feed and reproduce. However, both the freeloaders and reciprocators require
natural givers to clean their feathers. Therefore, the population will retain some natural
givers. The numbers of each type of bird in the population will probably be unstable over
time.

Human behaviour is much more complex than the behaviour traits discussed in this simple
example. However, in my opinion, this theoretical example parallels the variation in human
behaviour in modern society. Some people are more likely to be natural givers, some
people are more likely to depend upon a system of favours (reciprocators) and some
people could be described as freeloaders. People are more likely to be freeloaders if they
have a lot of inherited wealth. Some women are entirely dependent upon their husbands
as a means of survival, but this is a separate issue discussed in the chapter about
evolutionary psychology. In my opinion, most of the people who are dependent upon State
benefits or in prisons will be the victims of circumstances to varying extents. However,
there were over six thousand convictions for benefit fraud in Britain during 2006-20075. In
Mutual Aid, Kropotkin uses the example of bees to suggest that natural selection must
eliminate any lone bees that try to steal from bee hives, because cooperative behaviour is

7
much more favourable to the survival of bees. Kropotkin notes that bees in hives defend
their honey from lone bees. This behaviour parallels the generally held attitudes among
people towards those who are not seen to be contributing to society. Kropotkin believed
that these attitudes would be sufficient to police any freeloading activity carried out by
people in an anarchy.

In the conclusion of his chapter entitled Mutual Aid Among Animals, Kropotkin states his
belief that evolution is directed towards minimising competition and maximising mutual aid,
because this is more efficient. Unlike Kropotkin, I believe that the natural mode of human
society is tribal rather than an equality based on mutual aid. I agree that there are naturally
evolved tendencies for us to form societies and work together, but I observe that such
societies are characterised by power hierarchies rather than equality. The formation of
power hierarchies usually involves competition between individuals. Kropotkin was aware
of the nature of tribal societies6 but did not appear to see this as a threat to peaceful
anarchy. Although there is evidence to suggest that people have an inborn instinct to the
Golden Rule, I do not believe that this instinct is strong enough to justify Kropotkin's
optimism. If an anarchy were to be successful, it would be necessary to teach people how
and why to follow the Golden Rule. It would require the reciprocators and freeloaders in
the human population to adopt the role of natural giver for some of the time, otherwise
Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid would not work. For example, in a population of natural
givers there would be more time available for male freeloaders to form gangs and
dominate others. This is a normal pattern of male behaviour that is intended to increase
their reproductive potential. When people start to dominate others, this is the first step
towards losing the freedoms proposed by anarchist theory.

Stirner was another anarchist philosopher. In the opening chapter of his book The Ego and
His Own, he argues that it is preferable for people to serve their own interests rather than
the interests of God or governments7. He notes that everyone, including God, is selfish,
and he expresses the desire to be free from serving the causes of others so that he can
focus on his own interests. He regards religion and morality to be restrictive. He is also
opposed to communism, and suggests that the consequence of communism is to make
everyone equally destitute. I do not believe that Stirner's argument for absolute freedom
through absolute selfishness is a feasible proposition. It is in the selfish interests of some
people to dominate others and restrict their freedom as described above; I do not believe
that Stirner would have had the freedom he desired in the society that he advocated.

Unlike Stirner, Kropotkin advocates the communal ownership of property. Kropotkin


observes that the ownership of property creates inequality, and that the lack of ownership
of property would remove the motivation for theft6. An alternative opinion is that the ability
to buy and own products is one aspect of freedom. Ideally, I believe that people should
have the freedom to choose which option to take by allowing them to designate anything
that they own as being public property. This might involve allowing public access to such
property, perhaps by placing it in a communal location. I also believe that it would be
useful to make services free and accessible to people.

Kropotkin makes a good argument about the ability of an idealistic society to minimise
crime in the absence of any laws6. He advocates the reduction of crime by taking away the
main motivations for criminal behaviour – i.e. tackling the source of the problem. Although I
agree that this would be ideal, I also have concerns about the stability of this system. For
example, the murder of one person that went unpunished under this system could
undermine the stability of the society that Kropotkin advocates. Another potential problem
is illustrated by the following scenario. Imagine that an anarchy has been established, but

8
a political party associated with a gang wants to take control. The gang members could
cause dissatisfaction among ordinary people by committing crimes that go unpunished.
The political movement could then promise to crack down on crime if voted into power.

How should these problems be resolved? Laws can be made for several reasons. They
can help to preserve freedom or restrict it. They can protect ordinary individuals against
the selfishness of others, or they can protect the selfish interests of the rich at the expense
of the poor. Laws can take into account individual circumstances when people commit
crimes, or they can ignore them. They can also be used to protect the power of
governments and dictatorships. One can pose the question as to whether or not any laws
are compliant with the Golden Rule. I suggest that they are only compliant with this rule if
an individual agrees to follow any given law. If a person does not agree to follow a law,
then forcing them to obey it is not in keeping with the ethic of reciprocity, because the
lawmakers themselves would not want to be forced to follow a law created by others if they
were opposed to it. One advantage of a system of consent would be to prevent
unreasonable laws from being introduced, because people would have the right to refuse
to follow them. Therefore, such a society would be similar to an anarchy even if there were
a government in power, because its citizens would have the freedom to act independently
of the government.

Therefore, in my opinion, it would be best to create a series of laws that individuals could
either agree or refuse to follow. If an individual were to refuse to follow a law, then they
should not expect to receive protection from that law. This creates a problem, because a
person could refuse to follow a law and break it, but their victim could have chosen to
follow that law and receive protection from it. I suggest two alternative solutions to this
problem. One approach would be to apply half the normal penalty for breaking that law. In
this case, an individual would only be completely free from prosecution if they were to
break a law that both they and their victim had refused to follow. An alternative approach
would be to distribute the costs associated with making reparations to victims of crime
associated with a particular law to all those who refuse to follow that law. In this case,
anyone who refuses to follow a law could avoid prosecution if they were to break it. It may
be beneficial to have different geographical regions that operate with different laws. If a
person were to choose not to agree with a law, they could locate themselves in a suitable
area. In this way, people could choose to follow Kropotkin's ideals by locating themselves
in an area with no laws at all.

Some laws would be difficult to enforce under this system. For example, if some people
decided not to pay taxes, then they may be refusing all other laws by default; a person
would probably not be entitled to the services that taxes pay for, including law
enforcement, if they decided not to pay them. Another example is corporate law. Many
corporate laws do not apply to individuals, but to a company as a whole. I suggest that
corporate laws should be exempt from this system. Another example is the concept of
intellectual property. Intellectual property laws are designed to protect the work of one
individual or organisation that has resulted in an idea from which money can be made. It is
a way of ensuring financial rewards for work that could otherwise be easily copied and sold
by others. These laws would cease to function if some individuals could choose not to
follow them.

In my opinion, the laws that are intended to protect children should be exempt from this
system, because only adults would have sufficient knowledge to be able to choose which
laws to follow. This would include many of the laws for public safety. It may also be
necessary for some taxation to be compulsory to secure a child's right to security, health

9
and education, unless these were provided voluntarily by a community. At the present
time, parents are responsible for the crimes that their children commit. Therefore, I believe
that parents should have the right to decide whether or not some laws should apply to their
children. If parents were to choose, for example, to disagree with a law against theft by
their child, then they would not receive protection from the law if someone else's child
were to steal from them.

One problem with this proposed system of agreeing or disagreeing with laws is that the
legal system is very complex. It may therefore need simplification to become accessible to
people so that they would be able to make informed choices about which laws they agreed
to follow and which laws they did not agree to follow, while avoiding the creation of
loopholes in the law.

Kropotkin makes a good argument for the abolition of prisons in a pamphlet entitled
Prisons and Their Moral Influence on Prisoners8. I also disagree with the philosophy
behind the penalties for breaking the law in the current system. I do not believe that a
lawbreaker owes a 'debt to society', but only to those affected by the crime. Perhaps a
better system would make reparations directly to those affected by crime. If an offender
were to pose a high risk to public safety, then I believe that it would be preferable to assign
people to monitor that person rather than imprison them.

Kropotkin's writing was aimed mainly at freeing people from oppression. In my opinion,
democratic Western societies are much less oppressive to their citizens than the
governments present at the time of Kropotkin. In a democracy, everyone has an equal
right to vote for a person to use power on their behalf, and this system gives a relatively
high level of freedom. I believe that a democracy is ideal in a society in which most people
do not follow the Golden Rule. By contrast, I believe that anarchism would be highly
unstable if people had a selfish mindset. I also believe that there is a much greater risk of
losing one's freedom in an anarchy than in a democracy. However, I believe that anarchy
would be ideal if people were prepared to follow the Golden Rule. I also believe that a
society could achieve the freedom advocated by Kropotkin if people were to be given the
freedom to act independently of the law and the government as described in this chapter.

One function of governments is to provide protection against other governments, terrorist


organisations and non-government organisations that wish to gain power over others.
Therefore, I believe it would be difficult for governments to be disbanded completely
unless most people throughout the world adopted the Golden Rule.

A democratic government should not interfere with a person who chooses to follow the
Golden Rule, because one aspect of a democratic society is to allow people to live in the
way that they choose. However, it should be noted that prejudices have traditionally
existed towards gypsies, whose itinerant lifestyle is based around the principle of freedom,
and shares similarities with the philosophy of anarchy.

The remainder of this chapter will focus on some of the other major anarchist theoreticians
to determine what can be learned from their opinions. Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
is an analysis of political issues to identify a system of society that would be the most
beneficial to people9. It was written in England by William Godwin, inspired by the French
Revolution, and is celebrated for its anticipation of socialist reforms and the embodiment of
anarchist philosophy. However, this work was not well known by the other major socialist
and anarchist philosophers and it had relatively little influence on the early anarchist
movement10.

10
Godwin suggests that the main purpose of government is to defend a society against
internal and external threats (a negative purpose), rather than to promote human
happiness (a positive purpose). Consequently, he concludes in the third book that, "It is
earnestly to be desired that each man should be wise enough to govern himself, without
the intervention of any compulsory restraint; and, since government, even in its best state,
is an evil, the object principally to be aimed at is that we should have as little of it as the
general peace of human society will permit."

In his second book, Godwin emphasizes the role of interpersonal interactions in fulfilling
people's needs. Godwin observes that the Golden Rule is not usually followed due to
inequality between people. He supports unequal treatment of people by stating his belief
that an archbishop should be saved from a fire in preference to a valet. He suggests that
people should be treated according to "their merits and their virtues." Despite this
inequality, he asserts that there is a "moral equality", by which he means that all people
should be subject to the same moral code of duty. He suggests that the needs and desires
of all people are very similar, so it should be straightforward to determine the actions that
we should take to serve the needs of others. He suggests that people should use their
reasoning and common sense to determine these actions, and encourages people to
contribute to the benefit and happiness of others wherever possible. In his last book,
Godwin makes arguments against the institution of marriage, stating that, "to maintain my
possession of a woman, I am guilty of the most odious selfishness," and suggests that the
resulting jealousy between men reduces their desire to cooperate with each other. Like
Godwin, I believe that the institution of marriage is a threat to peaceful cooperation. I
suggest that the formation of relationships that promote freedom would be essential to the
stability of an anarchy; the converse implies competition for sexual partners, attempts to
gain power over others, and the erosion of freedom.

Godwin describes the extent to which he has a duty to help others as follows. If someone
were to ask him for help, he states that it would be his duty to help that person unless this
would cause damage to society. He also states that he should be prepared to die if his
death would be beneficial to society. However, he notes that it would usually be his duty to
live, because he would be able to continue doing good deeds for the remainder of his life.
He states that it is his duty to give money away to anyone who asks for it, providing that
they need it more than him; he suggests that such a duty should be considered similar to a
legal requirement. If two people were to make similar claims, then it would be his duty to
balance their requirements. His socialist ideas are expanded upon in his last book. Unlike
Kropotkin, he believed that a society has the right to deprive a person of their freedom if
that person is believed to pose a threat to society.

There are aspects of Enquiry Concerning Political Justice that I disagree with. In particular,
I disagree with his opinion that some people are more valuable than others. In addition,
while some of his ideas are directed towards reducing suffering and fulfilling people's
needs, his emphasis on duty is very restrictive to freedom. He emphasizes the importance
of duty to the extent that he believes that a person has no right to live if it is their duty to
die. I also disagree with the strength of the utilitarian arguments used. For example, in
book seven he says, "It is right that I should inflict suffering, in every case where it can be
clearly shown that such infliction will produce an overbalance of good." I support utilitarian
arguments in an environment where most people do not follow the Golden Rule, such as in
our modern society. However, in an anarchy in which most people follow the Golden Rule,
I believe that the freedom of all individuals should be respected equally. Therefore, in my
opinion, it would usually be wrong to demand that a minority should suffer for the benefit of

11
a majority in an anarchy. Godwin also seems to have great faith in the power of truth to
effect positive changes. However, I believe that it is very difficult to change people's pre-
existing conceptions, regardless of how much truth is presented, because it involves a
change from the familiar to the unfamiliar.

Godwin advocates the use of one's own reason in preference to following a religious
doctrine. He also rejects the religious concepts of good and evil. Instead, he redefines
good to be anything that causes pleasure, and evil to be that which causes pain. However,
I do not believe it is useful to talk about good and evil in this way. For example, pain can
be caused by an accident, but an accident cannot be considered to be evil. Instead, I
believe that selfishness and selflessness are the important concepts to focus upon, as a
combination of the two types of behaviour should maximise individual freedom and
fulfillment in an environment in which others behave in a similar way. Too much of either
behaviour would lead to suffering. Hence, I agree with Godwin's aim to maximise
individual fulfillment and minimise suffering, but I do not believe that it is helpful to use the
terms 'good' and 'evil' to describe these aims.

Godwin was opposed to monarchies and aristocracy, and he perceived the aristocracy as
being the main obstruction to revolutionary change. Godwin was also against the concept
of a centralised government, because he argues that people are all individuals who do not
necessarily share the same opinions about public policy. Godwin came to similar
conclusions as Kropotkin about the necessity of governments. At the end of the fifth book,
he concludes that if people were to use their reasoning in the way he advocates,
governments should become unnecessary. In the sixth book he advocates a
decentralisation of power to local districts as an intermediate stage to the dissolution of all
governments and the gradual extinction of all laws. As described earlier, he advocates the
distribution of property to create equality. He also advocates a simplified life, and the
avoidance of luxuries: "All refinements of luxury, all inventions that tend to give
employment to a great number of labouring hands, are directly adverse to the propagation
of happiness." This possibility is discussed in more detail by Schumacher in Small is
Beautiful11, although I believe that personal preference would dictate whether or not one is
happier with a simpler life. In addition, I believe that technologies can potentially increase
our freedom; for example, we are free to experience different worlds in a cinema. Godwin
claims that the society he outlines would be very efficient, and suggests that, "the labour of
every twentieth man in the community, would be sufficient to supply to the rest all the
absolute necessaries of life."

Proudhon was a French writer of anarchist literature following the French Revolution. He is
most famous for his idea, "Property is theft!" In his book entitled What is Property?,
Proudhon challenges the natural right to own property12. In doing so, he states that his aim
is to bring about, "an end to privilege, the abolition of slavery, equality of rights, and the
reign of law." He uses examples such as taxation and capitalism to argue that property is
theft, and links the right to property with inequality.

Proudhon mentions the Golden Rule, and expands upon it by noting that his rights (what
he can expect from others) are equivalent to his duties (what he should do for others). He
suggests that society is governed by the principle of justice, which is based upon rights
that originate from the Golden Rule, partly due to the spread of Christianity. However,
Proudhon does not agree with "the right to enjoy and dispose at will of one's goods, one's
income, and the fruit of one's labor and industry." By extension, he also argues against the
principles of government as the source of property laws.

12
Proudhon can be credited with inspiring many people with his views about equality and
anarchism10. However, I do not agree with all of his arguments. In my opinion, it is
intuitively obvious that property is not equivalent to theft. Proudhon compounds upon his
dubious argument by making statements such as, "property is physically and
mathematically impossible," and, "property is impossible, because it is homicide."
However, the boldness of the statement "property is theft" popularised a work that
advocated anarchy. Many commentators suggest that Proudhon was attempting to
communicate useful ideas through his paradoxical statements. However, I do not believe
that giving support to these arguments is useful to the anarchist's cause; I believe that it is
preferable to make better arguments. Proudhon was very critical of communism, but the
more coherent arguments of Marx eventually eclipsed Proudhon's work, and communism
became favoured over anarchism.

Proudhon acknowledges the benefits of property in The System of Economic


Contradictions, where he states his belief that "property is freedom" alongside his belief
that "property is theft."13 He also makes more practical arguments about property in his
People's Election Manifesto14. My opinions on property are as follows. As Proudhon
himself notes, a person needs certain things to survive, including food and shelter. The
creation or acquisition and defense of property for personal use is part of our desire for
survival. Fulfilling the desire to survive is a selfish behaviour that may or may not impact
negatively on other people. One can infer that the corresponding selfless behaviour would
be to give everything that one owns to other people. Therefore, the idea of communally
owned property falls between selfishness and selflessness, and could be considered as an
application of the Golden Rule. However, since the ownership of property is selfish, and
since the ability to act selfishly is equivalent to freedom, I believe that it would be
preferable to have a mixture of communal and private property.

In The System of Economic Contradictions, Proudhon also came to the conclusion that
religion is in opposition to freedom. Proudhon believed that the formation of an anarchy
should involve a rebellion from religion. He believed that if God existed, then he was an
"anti-civilizing, anti-liberal, anti-human being," and that he was very different to how
religious teachers portrayed him to be. I agree that there are aspects of religions that
restrict freedom and cause suffering, and this is discussed in later chapters.

Other famous anarchists, including Bakunin and Tolstoy, were influenced by Proudhon's
writing10. Although he wrote little himself, Bakunin's charismatic style served to promote
the ideals of anarchism to many people. He was opposed to the authoritarian ideas of
Marx, and his efforts served to facilitate the anarchist movement. While there has never
been the successful replacement of any government with an anarchy, many small colonies
functioning on anarchist principles have resulted from this movement10.

The anarchist movement is much larger than is suggested here, and the literature of only a
small number of leading anarchists have been examined in this chapter to analyse the
main principles of anarchist thought. Further information can be found in summaries by
George Woodcock10 and Colin Ward15, and a lot of anarchist literature is freely available
online. I agree with many of the main principles put forward by anarchist theoreticians, but
disagree with many of the details. Furthermore, I do not see political change as a primary
objective, but a natural result of a large number of people following the Golden Rule. For
example, one could envisage the democratic election of an anarchist party whose
responsibility it would be to dissolve government. In my opinion, issues such as global
poverty and the environment should take priority, although political change would
undoubtedly help to solve these issues.

13
Like democracy, the principles of anarchy are equality and freedom. Anarchy would
provide greater equality and freedom than democracy, and should therefore be the
ultimate goal of a democratic society. However, I believe that an anarchy can only function
in a society in which people are prepared to follow the Golden Rule. In this chapter, I have
given practical suggestions that could be used to make anarchy a realistic and achievable
goal.

1. Kropotkin, P. (1927). Anarchist Morality. Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets. ed.


Baldwin, R. N. Vanguard Press.

2. Kropotkin, P. (1927). Modern Science and Anarchism. Kropotkin's Revolutionary


Pamphlets. ed. Baldwin, R. N. Vanguard Press.

3. Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual Aid, A Factor of Evolution. Heinemann, London.

4. Dawkins, R. (2006). The Selfish Gene. 3rd Edition. OUP, Oxford.

5. Housing Benefit Quarterly Fraud Performance Statistics (Data for 2006/07).


http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/hb_ctb/performance/performance.asp. Department
for Work and Pensions.

6. Kropotkin, P. (1927). Law and Authority. Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets. ed.


Baldwin, R. N. Vanguard Press.

7. Stirner, M. (1844). The Ego and His Own. ed. Leopold, D. (1995). CUP, Cambridge.

8. Kropotkin, P. (1927). Prisons and Their Moral Influence on Prisoners. Kropotkin's


Revolutionary Pamphlets. ed. Baldwin, R. N. Vanguard Press.

9. Godwin, W. (1793). Enquiry Concerning Political Justice.

10. Woodcock, G. (1962). Anarchism. Penguin Books.

11. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People


Mattered. Harper & Row, New York.

12. Proudhon, P-J. (1840). What is Property? ed. Kelley, D. R. & Smith, B. G. (1994).
CUP, Cambridge.

13. Proudhon, P-J. (1888). System of Economic Contradictions: Or, The Philosophy of
Misery.

14. Guerin, D. translated by Sharkey, P. (2006). No Gods No Masters. AK Press.

15. Ward, C. (2004). Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. OUP, Oxford.

14
Socialism
Socialism describes any method of creating equality in response to an economic system in
which workers are rewarded with less payment than the value of the goods that they
produce. Socialism is often characterised by the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the
poor to increase equality. Communism is where equality is achieved; it is a classless
society based on a common ownership of the means of production. Communism is
discussed in the next chapter. Socialism has a rich history based on working class
movements in many countries. However, this chapter will focus mainly on the virtues of
socialism itself rather than its historical origins, which are well covered by other books1-3.

The purpose of this book is to identify a lifestyle that maximises the freedom and fulfillment
of all individuals. British society has already undergone many social reforms. Therefore, it
should be possible to ask whether or not social reforms such as a free health service, free
education, State pensions and other welfare benefits have improved people's lives. I
suggest that, on average, they have reduced people's suffering but have not increased
their fulfillment. The result of each social reform is a cause for constant criticism and
dissatisfaction, despite reducing people's suffering. This may be because most people do
not compare the presence of a system with its absence, but instead compare a system
with their own expectations of that system. By contrast, people often seem to be happier in
simpler societies that do not have such advanced social welfare systems. For the reasons
described in the previous chapter, people in simpler societies often have a much greater
tendency to follow the Golden Rule, which may account for this difference. Hence, I
believe that the nature of interpersonal relationships have a far greater impact on people's
fulfillment than social welfare reforms.

Since social welfare is beneficial to people by reducing suffering, and since the Golden
Rule can increase people's fulfillment, perhaps it would be beneficial to combine the two
concepts by identifying a form of socialism that involves following the Golden Rule. Some
anarchist philosophers suggest that an ideal society would involve a local community
placing all of their produce in a central location, with people taking only what they need
from the communal resources4. This would be very efficient, because middlemen such as
shopkeepers and distributors would become unnecessary. However, the disadvantages of
this system include the unfairness for people who work harder than others and the
significant difference between this system and our current system, which would make the
change more difficult to achieve. However, one can conceive of a socialist system of
wealth distribution based on this principle. In my opinion, the optimal distribution of wealth
that would satisfy the Golden Rule would be:

• 50% of income kept by the person who earns it.

• 50% of income redistributed.

The following diagram shows an example of this type of redistribution, using four typical
wages.

15
This redistribution resembles the effect of social welfare and taxation in countries such as
Britain, suggesting that utilitarian arguments and movements for social reform have
already had a similar effect. However, I believe that it would be preferable to run such a
scheme at a local level rather than a national level to give independence to local
communities. As discussed in the chapter about anarchism, such a system should be
voluntary to be compliant with the Golden Rule. However, in complying with the Golden
Rule, I believe that much higher levels of fulfillment would be achievable through this form
of socialism than in the current system.

1. Spalding, R. (1999). Socialism and Communism. Hodder & Stoughton, London.

2. Newman, M. (2005). Socialism: A Very Short Introduction. OUP, Oxford.

3. Sassoon, D. (1996). One Hundred Years of Socialism. Harper Collins, London.

4. Woodcock, G. (1962). Anarchism. Penguin Books.

16
Communism
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were revolutionary German socialists who used the idea of
communism to outline a practical solution to the problems of inequality. They identified the
source of inequality as being a small number of capitalists who own the means of
production, leaving labourers little choice but to work for them. Marx and Engels discussed
the nature of the capitalist system at length, emphasizing the fact that the wages of
labourers have to be lower than the value of the work that they do, because the object of
capitalism is to make a profit. They used anthropological studies of primitive communism
to show that this situation was not inevitable, and suggested that a better system would
involve the communal ownership of the means of production. They advocated the removal
of class divisions, economic inequalities and unequal life-chances, and defined the ideal
goal to be the fulfillment of human needs through satisfying work and by obtaining a fair
share of the material products of society. They also sought to create a system that would
give people flexibility and freedom of choice in the type of labour that they wished to
engage in.

In the opening chapter of The German Ideology1, Marx claims that people's lives are
determined by their working conditions and by what they produce: "What [people] are ...
coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce.
The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their
production." Marx believed that material concerns were the sole factors in determining all
aspects of humanity. He suggests that, "the production of ideas, of conceptions, of
consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity," including religious,
political, moral and legal ideas. Consequently, Marx looked no further than to aim for better
working conditions and an equal distribution of material products.

Marx believed that an ideal society would involve the abolition of private property, resulting
in equality. This idea proved to be popular among working classes in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries; they often did not own property, meaning that they had "nothing to
lose except their chains."2 In The Communist Manifesto, Marx advocated that working
class people should unite to defeat their governments and oppressors.

The right to vote in early democracies was only given to male property owners. Hence,
Marx did not advocate democracy and instead advocated a "dictatorship of the proletariat"
to describe the transitional state between a capitalist society and a stateless (anarchist)
communist society. Communism proved to be successful in many countries, including
Russia and China. However, the governments of both countries remained in power, taking
the form of dictatorships. Stalin, the second Soviet Russian leader, executed the founders
of his own communist party to consolidate his power, and created forced labour camps
and concentration camps3. In China, the communist party maintains control by censoring
information (e.g. the news and the Internet) and by quelling disturbances by force, such as
in the case of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Thus, in neither case were
labourers empowered in the way that Marx intended.

Given the problems with Marxist authorities, do authorities of any type have a role to play
in an ideal society? I believe that it is sometimes beneficial for people to submit voluntarily
and temporarily to an authoritarian environment to work more effectively towards a
common goal. A dictatorship is neither temporary nor optional in nature, and therefore
does not fall into this category. However, one example that does fall into this category is
that of an orchestra. Musicians in an orchestra submit to two masters, namely the

17
composer of the music that they play, and the conductor who directs the orchestra. The
result is that the orchestra produces beautiful music. If the musicians in that orchestra
were to decide to ignore the conductor and play according to their preference, or to ignore
the composer and play what they wanted, then the orchestra would not produce beautiful
music.

By contrast to communism, capitalism defines an economic system in which people are


free to produce, trade and obtain private ownership of property. Capitalism therefore
maximises the extent to which people can be selfish. However, if Marx had been alive
today, he would have pointed out that Western capitalism leads to the exploitation of
workers in countries such as India and China. Most of the inequality caused by capitalism
is now between countries rather than within them.

China is sometimes referred to as the world's factory, with vast quantities of Western
consumer goods being produced there. Chinese wages are usually much lower than those
in the West, meaning that production costs are cheap. The Chinese government is based
upon an interpretation of Marxism known as Maoism. Maoism is a militant ideology, and
Maoist organisations exist outside China, particularly in Nepal, Peru and India, where they
advocate and participate in military activities with the aim of establishing communism in
their countries. However, since most of the inequality generated by capitalist activities is
now between countries, there is a risk that Marxist principles could be applied to justify the
creation of international communism by force. In my opinion, this possibility is made much
greater by the fact that a large and powerful communist nation is also the victim of the type
of exploitation that Marx was opposed to.

The Soviet organisation Comintern (later Cominform) was intended to promote


international communism. The concept of international communism was supported by
Mao, who commented that, "A Communist is a Marxist internationalist, but Marxism must
take on a national form before it can be applied."4 Some online sources suggest that
Comintern's charter included the directive to use force if necessary5. Historically, Soviet
Russia did use force to establish communism in other countries. Russia helped to liberate
the Eastern European nations from Nazi Germany during the Second World War, but took
the opportunity to establish communism in these countries. Military intervention took place
when Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) attempted to break free from Soviet
control. Western views of Russia's interference with these nations led to the Cold War.

Communism is perceived to be the only practical solution to inequality by many people; a


priority of this book is to provide a viable alternative. In my opinion, communism is far from
being ideal due to the tendency to create a dictatorial authority that is restrictive to
freedom. In addition, I believe that the needs of people are far more complex than Marx
suggests. Capitalism allows people to act more selfishly, so this system gives more
individual freedom than communism. Arguably, communism is more effective in creating
equality than capitalism, and China claims to have lifted 300 million people out of poverty
in less than a generation6. However, I believe that a society in which people followed the
Golden Rule would entail the benefits of equality that communism provides, along with the
benefits of freedom that capitalism provides, while at the same time avoiding both the
exploitation of workers and an unelected communist regime.

1. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1845). The German Ideology.

2. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto.

18
3. Spalding, R. (1999). Socialism and Communism. Hodder & Stoughton, London.

4. Zedong, M. (1992). Mao's Road to Power: Revolutionary Writings, 1912-49. ed.


Schram, S. R. & Hodes, N. J. M. E. Sharpe, New York.

5. MI5. http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page238.html.

6. World Food Program.


http://www.wfp.org/english/?n=326&formCategory=Press%20Release&elemId=id20
67&key=1146.

19
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a philosophy that is designed to determine whether a given action is right
or wrong. It centres around the principle of utility, which states that an action is right if it
tends to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. It can also be
phrased to define a right action to be the one that minimises suffering for the greatest
number of people. Effectively, according to this philosophy, an action is correct if the
resulting benefits outweigh the harmful effects. Utilitarianism is often viewed as a political
philosophy that entails a democratic government as a political institution, and utilitarian
arguments are most commonly used where a decision affects a large number of people.

Utopian philosophy such as the theory of Personal Utopia can be viewed as a form of
utilitarianism. The main difference is that a Utopian philosophy sets an ultimate idealistic
goal whereas ordinary utilitarian arguments accept the status quo, and determine how
improvements could be made in a single action. Potentially, if all actions are made on a
utilitarian basis, many improvements could be made, but an ultimate Utopian goal might
never be achieved.

An example of a utilitarian argument is as follows. In the UK, there have been doubts
about the safety of a vaccine designed to protect people from being infected with measles,
mumps or rubella (the MMR vaccine). However, further research has suggested that the
vaccine is safe. Due to the safety concerns, too few children have been vaccinated,
meaning that the population is at risk from these diseases. Levels of immunisation need to
increase from 85% to 95% to give protection against an epidemic. The Fabian Society has
proposed a utilitarian argument to solve this problem. They suggest that children should be
denied a place at school and that child benefits should be taken away from parents unless
their children are vaccinated. Effectively, they propose that parents should be very strongly
encouraged to consent to their children having the MMR vaccine to reduce the potential
suffering of the population.

This argument takes into consideration that children do not have the free choice to decide
whether or not to be vaccinated, because their parents make this choice on their behalf.
The health scare surrounding the MMR vaccine has meant that some parents have
decided that it is in the best interests of their children not to allow them to have the
vaccine. In doing so, they may be putting their own children and other unvaccinated
children at risk from infection. The utilitarian argument is therefore acting to protect
children who are not old enough to make an informed decision about vaccination.

In my opinion, this argument is in line with the Golden Rule given the current structure of
society. This does not mean that the current structure of society is the best one, or that this
utilitarian argument is ideal. In my opinion, one failing of the principle of utility is that it can
be used to select the lesser of two evils without attempting to address the underlying
issues of why there are only two evils to choose between.

Utilitarian arguments can also be brutally oppressive in determining who should suffer or
die to give benefit to the greatest number of people. For example, as described in the
chapter about anarchism, the anarchist philosopher Godwin applied utilitarian arguments
to determine the relative value of different people. He believed that those who are
traditionally thought to have a higher capacity to benefit society are of more value than
others. He suggested that this measurement of a person's value would be suitable to
choose whose life to save in an emergency. In an environment where the freedom and

20
equality of all people are respected, it would be difficult to apply utilitarian arguments due
to their tendency to favour a majority at the expense of a minority. In conclusion, I believe
that utilitarian arguments are useful in present day societies, but should be restricted in a
society of people who are prepared to follow the Golden Rule and are progressing towards
anarchism.

21
Evolution Verses the Golden Rule
The theory of evolution contradicts with two elements of Judeo-Christian beliefs, namely
that a literal interpretation of Jewish scripture suggests that the Earth has existed for less
than six thousand years, and that life was formed by divine intervention as a perfect
creation. Although it is straightforward for scientists to give evidence against the Jewish
story of creation, proponents of evolution cannot disprove the existence of God. Similarly,
proponents of creationism cannot prove the existence of God. It can be concluded that this
argument is difficult or impossible to resolve to the satisfaction of either side, and this
chapter does not argue in favour of either perspective.

Instead, this chapter focuses on a key point underlying the theory of evolution, namely the
survival of the fittest, which is partially dependent upon selfish competition between
individuals. Many religions advocate a form of the Golden Rule (e.g. 'love your neighbour
as yourself' in Christianity), which advocates a degree of selflessness. This means that the
results of evolution (ourselves as selfish individuals) are in opposition to fundamental
religious teachings that encourage selfless behaviour. The evidence for selfishness in
humanity is widespread, and includes competition for land and resources, exploitation,
racism, genocide, and competition for status and sexual partners.

If a society were to adopt a literal approach to the Golden Rule, there would be little further
evolution of many aspects of humanity, because selfish competition between people
should not occur. The benefits of doing so have been noted by anarchist philosophers
such as Godwin; following the Golden Rule allows us to increase our freedom, and would
also make society much more efficient.

It should be of benefit for proponents of creationism to take into account the valuable
insight provided by the theory of evolution. Understanding our evolutionary origins enables
us to appreciate the drives behind selfish behaviour. By using this knowledge, we are
better able to define and observe the potential benefits of selflessness, a quality valued by
many religions.

22
Evolutionary Psychology of Reproduction
This chapter describes how the principles of evolution can be applied to the psychology of
sexuality. I suggest that the psychological aspects of reproduction and the levels of
intelligence and sophistication that is involved may be the main driving force behind the
evolution of human intelligence. If so, this means that human intelligence should increase
if evolution is allowed to continue. Other forms of intelligence are probably by-products of
the intelligence that has evolved for reproductive purposes. For this reason, this chapter
focuses entirely on gender issues. I believe it to be a very good model on which to base
gender-specific needs.

Feminism

Feminism is the movement for equal rights between men and women. There are many
references that cite male attitudes as being the biggest restriction to female freedom.1-2
However, there is another side to the story, which is covered in this chapter. The purpose
of the analysis is to describe various forms of selfishness relating to reproductive activity in
addition to identifying the primary desires and characteristics of the genders to increase
mutual understanding. In doing so, it is necessary to challenge the foundation of feminism,
the claim that men and women are equal because they are the same, other than the minor
physiological differences that are necessary for reproduction. Since this claim is
challenged in this chapter, it is my responsibility to put forward another argument for male
and female equality:

The desire for freedom in men and women is equal. According to the Golden Rule, men
and women should have an equal right to freedom and an equal responsibility to promote
the freedom of each other.

Evolution

The process of evolution is based upon individuals who are the product of information
encoded by genes. Small changes in genes can arise by random chance. A changed gene
that increases the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce is able to spread copies
of itself through the descendants of that individual. Evolutionary psychology makes the
assumption that our psychology has evolved in the same way as all other aspects of
humanity, to increase the chance of survival and reproduction of an individual.3-4 Some
genes are only expressed in one gender, allowing for differences between the genders to
be propagated. Both men and women are adapted to pass on their own genes
successfully. This analysis discusses physiological and psychological adaptations that are
present in men and women to increase the chances that their genes will be passed on
successfully.

Women

• Unlike men, women are very limited in the number of offspring that they can
produce. Female reproduction is therefore concentrated on the quality rather than
the quantity of their offspring. Sometimes, adaptations are paradoxical. For
example, women are menopausal (they lose the ability to reproduce). This may be
an adaptation that arose in ancient cultures where people lived in extended families;
older women could act as babysitters or scavenge for food for the family.5

23
• Human children are very resource-intensive, and there are adaptations in women to
help direct male resources into families. In our evolutionary history, genetic
adaptations that increased the security of a woman would increase the likelihood
that her children would survive into adulthood due to the increased support from a
male. This is the origin of the female drive for security, which is discussed below. It
is worth noting that both female reproduction and survival are facilitated by gaining
security. This differs from men, where survival and reproduction are obtained
through separate means. Hence it can be expected that women should have one
primary drive for security and an array of mechanisms to obtain it, whereas men
can be expected to have a variety of drives directed towards different objectives.

• Women are often playful and very socially intelligent. Presumably, this mentality
facilitates communication with children, an evolutionary adaptation to help children
develop. These more child-like female qualities also act as an adaptation to play
The Game (the process by which male/female relationships are often formed),
which requires a very high level of social intelligence. It is a long process, which
requires a man to give a commitment of time, which helps to increase female
security (men are less likely to abandon a woman if they think that they will have to
spend the same amount of time forming another relationship).6 The Game can
involve flirtatious behaviour and body language to communicate attraction,
disinterest when a man shows interest, rejection when a man makes an advance,
using other men to promote jealousy and insecurity (e.g. flirting with other men to
encourage competition, having several male friends, or, under certain
circumstances, announcing the existence of a boyfriend), further body language to
show attraction, appearing to be helpless like a child to promote male
protectiveness, and eventual acceptance of the man. The Game can be played by a
social group of women in which the other women in the group act to promote male
insecurity and may also probe them for information about their views and feelings;
this is an adaptation that is advantageous to all women. The default behaviour for
some women is to attempt to create feelings of insecurity in young unmarried men,
even if no women are actively flirting with those men. The high comedy arising from
The Game appears to be intellectually stimulating to women, and could be a way to
avoid boredom. As in most species, women are rarely in direct competition for men.
Social aspects of The Game are not passed on genetically. They are learned by
trial and error and discussions about men between women.

Upon successful completion of The Game, security is usually consolidated by sex;


i.e. the sexual act not only serves to enable reproduction but also to create male
dependency on their partners as a source of pleasure (a form of addiction). For this
to work, the overall availability of sex to most men must be low, hence the stigma
surrounding prostitution and immorality. In a long term relationship, the occasional
denial of sex to a male can be used to maintain security by exerting a strong
influence over him.

• Men can be more desirable to some women if they are more dominant, difficult to
subdue, sexually confident, physically attractive or in possession of other
characteristics that make them more likely to sleep with other women. Paradoxically
this is genetically desirable to women because her male children are likely to pass
on her genes more effectively (like their father). However, some women may
deliberately choose men who lack these characteristics to decrease the chances
that they will have an affair, increasing their own security. Thus, female taste in men

24
varies considerably. In general, male adultery is a threat to female security, and
most women react accordingly if they find out that their male partners are having an
affair.

• Most women do not ask men to go out with them or to marry them. Instead, The
Game is used to entice a man to ask a woman to go out with him and to ask a
woman to marry him. The psychological effect is to encourage men to think that
they want marriage as much or even more than a woman, increasing female
security.

• Women have better peripheral vision than men, so that they can see when men are
showing interest in them without having to look directly at them.7 This allows a
woman to assess how easily she will be able to attract a male before starting The
Game. Men have poorer peripheral vision, and the direction of their gaze (e.g.
towards the breasts) also acts as an indicator to women of sexual interest.

• Women show physiological adaptations to appear to be more child-like, such as a


high pitched voice, higher quality skin tone, lack of facial hair, smaller average
height and lower average physical strength. This increases the overall security
provided by men due to the association with children and the desire to protect them.

Many women assert that "men are like children." It is true that men show similarities
to male children, but women are much more similar to children than men are. This
commonly heard phrase may be intended to disguise the reality, or to discourage
men from showing 'child-like' (rebellious) behaviour.

• Although there is no clear scientific evidence for gender specific emotion, everyday
experience of relationships and evolutionary principles strongly suggest that there
are significant differences. For example, men do not love women in the same way
that women love men. Male love is an emotional dependency that women select for
in men to increase their security. It could be described as a constant longing to be
with someone, and a woman may choose to make it very difficult for a male to gain
access to her during the initial stages of The Game. This means that he will start to
associate her absence with a feeling of unhappiness, which makes it more likely
that he will remain with her and provide security. By contrast to male love, female
love is a child-like desire for security and protection. Thus, both genders use the
word 'love' to describe two completely different things that are both directed towards
increasing female security. This is genetically desirable because children are more
likely to survive and pass on the genes of both parents if a male is willing to provide
security. Therefore, adaptations to increase female security are present in both
genders. Both male and female love are equally good, but the traditional meaning of
the word refers to the male emotion.

From evolutionary principles, female love should not take the form of an emotional
dependence, because this would interfere with The Game, and would serve to
decrease female security. The idea that women do not love men in this way is a
very unpopular assertion to make and is disliked by both genders. Men want to
believe that their partners love them in the same way that they love their partners.
Women dislike the assertion because it threatens the security afforded by men.
There are, however, very pronounced differences in the way that men and women
treat each other that suggest major psychological differences in the nature of the

25
bond formed by each gender in close personal relationships. For example, unlike
men, few woman would ever buy a man flowers, chocolates or diamond rings.

• Male emotions have specific purposes such as anger to drive them to fight (e.g. in
wars to protect their families) and love to increase female security. One can apply
evolutionary principles to suggest that female emotional responses are optimised to
increase security. For example, women may become angry if their male partners
are behaving in a way that suits themselves rather than providing security (such as
spending their money in a pub). Many women are more likely to cry than men,
especially if their security is threatened. Men associate crying with being very
unhappy, and they usually respond by deferring to a female and increasing her
security. This is probably the reason why we cry (an arbitrary response linked to a
male emotion that is paralleled in women whenever their security is threatened,
eliciting a desirable response from a male due to an emotional association, leading
to increased female security and more effective propagation of the genes of both
men and women). Thus male and female emotional responses result from
completely different stimuli, although both are directed towards increasing female
security. It is possible that the same emotions are experienced in both genders, but
are triggered by different things. Alternatively, it is possible that some or all of the
emotions are a uniquely male experience, and automatic responses have evolved
in women to give the impression of having appropriate emotions to increase their
security.

It is also possible that there is a range of female psychologies between these two
extremes, which may account for the varied opinions about male/female differences
in existing literature. For example, feminist sociology usually defines male and
female psychology to be identical, with differences mainly due to sociological effects
(e.g. Masculine, Feminine or Human? by Janet Saltzman Chafetz8). I support
arguments for equality between the genders, but I am more skeptical about the
arguments for their similarity. I do not believe that an important issue such as
equality should be based on questionable arguments. What could be the motivation
behind such arguments?

One problem with discussions about female psychology in existing literature is that
only women are qualified to describe it, but most famous psychologists are male. In
addition, it is not in the interests of women to give any information to men other than
that which serves to increase their security. While most feminists insist upon the
similar nature of men and women, this trend is not universal. The Manipulated Man
(Esther Vilar) is written by a feminist, and gives a very polarised view of men and
women. In this book, men are described to be intelligent, and women unintelligent,
cold and manipulative.9 I disagree with her assertion that female intelligence is
relatively low, and the consequent implication that women are instinctual and not
responsible for their behaviour. I suggest that female reproductive intelligence is
usually very high, and that such intelligence is selected for through evolution. Esther
Vilar has received death threats for publishing her book. In particular, her book was
unpopular with women. This may suggest that if women talk openly on this subject,
they risk decreasing their own security not only from men but from other women
who perceive that their security is threatened as a result. For this reason, such
books may be inaccurate and may fail to tell the whole story. Another factor that
may inhibit a good description of female psychology is that many women are
brought up to believe that they experience life in the same way as men, when this
may not be the case. Hence, women's ability to judge their own psychology

26
objectively may be impaired by sociological conditioning.

• Some sociologists argue that different behaviour traits observed in the two genders
in different cultures is evidence for their psychological similarity, with differences
coming primarily from their social environment rather than their genes. Sociological
effects do have a significant impact on people, but the differences observed in
different cultures may simply mean that there are many different ways for men and
women to fulfill their respective desires for sex and security. For example, the
nuances and subtlety of The Game seems to be most well understood by women
brought up in the Western culture. By contrast to the West, women in Russia seem
to lack this cultural knowledge, and classes have become popular to teach women
aspects of The Game.10 Within the Western culture, there is a range of knowledge
and talent among women relating to The Game. In addition, many aspects of The
Game become less important in a Church context, because Christian men are
conditioned to expect marriage. It is probable that the Church views on morality are
a major motivation for both men and women to go to Church despite the
interference with normal sexual relations; both men and women may feel more
secure with a partner who believes that they will burn in hell if they have an affair.

In Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, Margaret Mead compared


the sex roles of three New Guinea societies, and claimed that all three were
arranged very differently from our own.11 Her research is often used to promote the
idea that gender stereotypes are determined by society. However, I propose
alternative conclusions for each of the three societies based on evolutionary
psychology. In the Arapesh culture both men and women seemed to be feminine. In
this culture, men were allocated female partners from an early age; women gained
security from men without having to do anything, and men gained sex without
having to go through the flirting/dating/marriage game and did not have to prove
their worth, dominance, power or influence or fight other men. Thus, the needs of
both genders were fulfilled without the need for social posturing, meaning that male
aggression was unnecessary and this society was peaceful.

By contrast, in the Mundugamor culture, both men and women seemed to be


masculine, aggressive and cannibalistic. In this society, women would not have
been able to achieve a high level of security, even when married, due to the
aggressive culture. Under these circumstances, the best way to ensure security
could be preparedness to fight for it. The Mundugamor grew up tough and
independent because the women in this culture did not nurture their children. There
were taboos surrounding pregnancy and newborn children, and women resented
the restrictions to their freedom that child-rearing demanded.

Mead's observations seem to contradict with those of G. L. Bink, who described the
people he encountered on New Guinea as being friendly, only exhibiting
cannibalistic behaviour with war prisoners, only exhibiting aggressive behaviour for
purposes of revenge (particularly against other tribes), and stated that their children
were "much petted and loved."12 However, it is possible that Bink did not encounter
the Mundugamor tribe. Bink's observations were used by Kropotkin in Mutual Aid,
which is discussed in the chapter about anarchism.

In the third culture, Mead found that the Tchambuli had distinctive gender roles, but
the reverse of those in the West; men seemed to be more emotional, whereas
women held the social and economic power. In most societies, men have tended to

27
hold the social and economic power, and male emotion (such as love) serves to
provide women security. In the Tchambuli society, it seems that women had direct
control over the social and economic power (providing security), and men had more
freedom to express their emotions.

• Women are often willing to die to protect their young children, which demonstrates
the strength of the bond between mother and child. This bond contrasts with the
one that exists between a woman and her male partner (women are not usually
prepared to die for their male partners). As mentioned above, the Mundugamor
women were unusual because they did not appear to experience a significant
maternal bond. This might be because their security was not increased through
having children due to the taboos in their culture. It is therefore possible that the
maternal bond may be partially due to the increased security that pregnancy and
childrearing provides in most cultures. If so, a threat to a child may be perceived to
be a threat to a woman's security, which is a threat to her own survival. This may go
some way towards explaining why women are prepared to die for their children.

• There is a tendency among people to view those different from ourselves as being
less human. "We are the only true humans," is a sentiment found in many cultures,
especially further back in history.13 The same appears to be true for the way that
both genders view each other. The genetic advantage of this viewpoint is to make
exploitation and other forms of selfishness seem less distasteful. Most women view
most men as being emotionally insecure, possessing inferior social intelligence and
being easy to manipulate to gain the security that they desire. Most men view most
women as being inexplicable, helpless, vulnerable, argumentative, bossy and highly
emotional. Both genders have a tendency to view the opposite gender as a sub-
human that exists solely to provide for the other gender's needs.

• Studies have shown that women tend to have a higher level of interconnection
between the left and right hemispheres of the brain than men. Presumably this
enables a higher rate of data transfer between the two halves of the brain, and has
been linked by some studies to an increased linguistic/social ability.14 Men have
larger brains and more grey matter, which may enable an improved ability learn
about and manipulate the environment (i.e. to be a breadwinner).

Men

• Unlike women, male reproductive potential is virtually unlimited, with some historical
monarchs fathering hundreds of children. However, as discussed above, sex is not
readily available to men from women. Most men attempt to increase their
reproductive potential by competing with other men. This is often expressed as a
desire to be the dominant male in order to secure greater mating rights, and to be
seen to be more attractive to women. This incorporates a desire to have
importance, influence and power over others, usually defining self-worth to be that
which is of value to women. Men usually have a desire to protect and support their
family.

• Many married men often desire affairs with other women, to have a 'bit on the side'
without having to provide security or protection. From a genetic perspective, it is
best for a man to put a lot of resources into children where he is more certain of
their parentage, while simultaneously spreading his genes elsewhere.

28
• Single men can be made to feel insecure by members of both genders and the
values held by society. In addition, men who are in a relationship with a woman are
often insecure about the possibility of her having an affair. This insecurity surrounds
a desire to own a woman, because paternal parentage is less certain than maternal
parentage. It is genetically advantageous for men to restrict the relationships that a
woman has with other men.

• Men are generally more attracted to younger women because they are more likely
to be fertile.

• Many men have a desire to attack other men who are perceived to be dominant. In
civilised society, physical attacks are discouraged, so the ability to make
psychological attacks has evolved instead, usually expressed as an ability to 'wind
up' another person (to provoke aggression and anger in another person, which
civilised society makes difficult to express in a physical manner). The desire for men
to attack other men may come from a feeling of jealousy, inferiority, envy, sadism or
aggression and anger. A high level of social intelligence is required to enable
psychological attacks on other men. Women are able to select men with a high level
of social intelligence by choosing the ones that make them laugh.

An aggressor may pretend to be a submissive male, and may emphasize how


brilliant the victim is, while maintaining how unintelligent or weak they are
themselves. This differs from a normal dominance hierarchy in that it usually occurs
in situations where there is no apparent need for one man to be submissive to the
other. A newcomer to a male group may be attacked in this way by the existing
dominant male if they fail to act submissively; the dominant male may also draw on
the support of the group. This leads the victim into a false sense of security,
allowing the aggressor to probe them for information and weaknesses that can be
used in a later attack. The false submissiveness becomes patronising when it
becomes apparent that the aggressor was concealing his intelligence. If the
aggressor pretends to be the victim's friend at first, they can attack more effectively
due to feelings of betrayal.

An attack should be subtle enough for the victim to find it difficult to express in
words. An aggressor may pretend to take offense at something unrelated to their
true motives to disguise their own insecurity and to make an attack more effective.
An aggressor may make frequent inane comments or sing random songs that
become much more focused when, for example, another man is actively pursuing a
woman. They may create links between noises (such as their own finger snapping
or tongue clicking) and the victim's activities, especially those relating to any form of
potential embarrassment. Propagation of misinformation can occur in the workplace
to make the victim look unprofessional. Inexplicable behaviour from the aggressor
can serve to confuse the victim. The process works best if the aggressor is
physically stronger than the victim due to general intimidation.

Some cultural differences may be due to different overall levels of availability of sex
to men. A lower availability may promote male aggression, whereas a higher
availability may promote peacefulness and even cooperativity. For example, on
several occasions, I have observed African men encourage others to form
relationships if they do not see an immediate opportunity to form a relationship with

29
a woman themselves. By contrast, Western men usually adopt the attitude that less
sex for other men means more sex for themselves.

• A man is more likely to pass on his genes if he has the social intelligence to deceive
women by pretending to be protective, submissive, easily manipulated or in love.
Men are also more reproductively successful if they have an ability to identify
vulnerable women.

• Men usually express a desire to learn about and manipulate objects and the
environment, which enables them to become better breadwinners.

From this analysis, it can be seen that humanity is evolved to encourage inequality. Many
women attempt to gain a strong influence over men to increase their security. In addition,
many men are inclined to compete with each other for dominance, which also creates
inequality. Since there is a desire for inequality among people, there is an argument for
harmless inequality taking place in an optimised relationship structure in which people
follow the Golden Rule. For example, a group of people could decide between themselves
to use a distinguishing feature such as a wrist band to indicate if they wish to act selfishly
rather than selflessly at any given time. Such groups could organise themselves into a
network of appropriate relationships. These relationships could change frequently to
maximise the amount of time that each individual spends in a social position that is
perceived to be more desirable.

Both genders have evolved in such a way as to provide women with security. One can
therefore pose the question, "Is it in a woman's best interests to follow the Golden Rule
when she can already obtain what she wants?"

Selfless behaviour is frequently observed in women. In the chapter about anarchism, it is


shown that naturally occurring selflessness usually has a selfish origin. For example,
religious women may believe that they will gain greater security from God if they behave
with a degree of selflessness, and a large proportion of voluntary work is carried out by
women. They may also increase their security from men if they show selfless behaviour
towards others; men tend to assume that it must be their own fault if the only person who a
woman is unkind to is himself. Female selflessness is made more possible because of a
larger amount of free time that a woman can have if her male partner acts as the sole
breadwinner in a relationship.

However, close personal relationships with men are not selfless because their purpose
from a female perspective is the selfish acquisition of security. There are two
corresponding selfish male objectives: (a) to obtain sex without having to provide security
and (b) to gain exclusive sexual access to her. The first male objective potentially leaves
her with children but no support, and the second male objective restricts her freedom.
Neither scenario is ideal from a female perspective. The female ideal would only be
achievable if men were to follow the Golden Rule. However, harmonious gender relations
would only be achievable if both genders were to follow the Golden Rule.

In conclusion, the analysis presented in this chapter describes the psychological aspects
of reproduction, highlighting the subtlety, variety, sophistication, creativity, intuition and
intelligence associated with these behaviours. One can observe that these behaviours are
selfish in origin, and are probably among the main causes of oppression and suffering for
most people.

30
1. Ramazanoglu, C. (1989). Feminism and the Contradictions of Oppression.
Routledge.

2. Johnson, A. G. (2005). The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy.


Temple University Press, USA.

3. Evans, D. (2005). Introducing Evolutionary Psychology. Icon Books, UK.

4. Barrett, L., Dunbar, R. & Lycett, J. (2001). Human Evolutionary Psychology.


Palgrave Macmillan.

5. Hawkes, K. (2003). Grandmothers and the evolution of human longevity. American


Journal of Human Biology. 15:380-400.

6. Sexton, E. (2001). Dawkins and the Selfish Gene. Icon Books, UK.

7. Pease, A. & Pease, B. (2004). The Definitive Book of Body Language. Pease
International, Australia.

8. Chafetz, J. S. (1974). Masculine, Feminine or Human? F. E. Peacock Publishers,


USA.

9. Vilar, E. (1998). The Manipulated Man. Pinter & Martin.

10. Blomfield, A. (2006). Russian women taught how to get their man.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1534537/Russian-women-taught-how-
to-get-their-man.html. Telegraph Newspaper.

11. Mead, M. (1935). Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. Routledge.

12. Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual Aid, A Factor of Evolution. Heinemann, London.

13. Conrad, J. (1964). The Many Worlds of Man. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York.

14. LeVay, S. (1994). The Sexual Brain. MIT Press, USA.

31
The Selfishness of God
In this chapter, I would like to perform a thought experiment. This is a scientific experiment
that is carried out in the imagination, because it is impractical to do in real life. This
particular thought experiment is an extrapolation of existing biological research into the
future. At the present time, biologists are in the process of discovering the molecular
structure of proteins and other biological molecules. Protein chains are the direct product
of encoded genetic information; they are the means by which genes exert their effects in
biological systems. The methods used by laboratories to discover molecular structures are
very expensive, difficult and time consuming. Therefore, it would be much better if
biologists were able to use computer programs to predict what a protein structure would
look like directly from the genetic code. This is an active area of biological research which
uses computer simulated molecular environments to investigate protein folding.1

In the future, when this process has been refined, and when very powerful computers are
available, it should be possible to simulate the molecules of an entire cell in a computer.
From the perspective of that cell, there would be no difference between itself and a real
cell. The simulated cell should do exactly the same things as an ordinary one. Having
successfully simulated a cell, the next logical step would be to grow entire biological
organisms in a computer simulation. With a large enough computer, it would even be
possible to simulate an entire Universe, and model the evolution of life on Earth over time.
From the perspective of a simulated human, they would be exactly the same as a real one,
meaning that one should consider simulated life as having equal value to real life.
However, since this life would be simulated, then it should be possible for the administrator
of the computer system to modify the environment to favour the people who have been
created. For example, one could modify the computer program to prevent death, illness or
natural disasters. In fact, it should be possible to simulate a paradise for one's simulated
humans, and presumably this would be one's responsibility as their creator. If one
assumes that God exists, then one can infer that there should be a similar relationship
between God and ourselves. Yet God clearly does not behave in a way that conforms to
our understanding of morality. One can therefore conclude either that God does not exist,
or that God has a nature that is different from that which one would expect.

The nature and purpose of God has been debated for centuries by philosophers and
theologians. Their arguments are frequently phrased to support a theist or atheist
perspective. Hume offered an alternative approach. He believed that God was a "riddle, an
enigma, an inexplicable mystery," whose nature could not be determined. Hume was a
humanist and utilitarian who was critical of many aspects of mainstream theology. He
formed many arguments against intelligent design, and thought that miracles were unlikely
to happen. However, he did concede in his Natural History of Religion that, "the Christian
religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be
believed by any reasonable person without one."2 This implies that Hume thought either
that most people are irrational, or that miracles are necessary for a person to hold a
religious belief. However, he questioned the nature of miracles, and proposed that a
miracle could only be considered genuine if it would be a greater miracle that the person
reporting the miracle had made a mistake or was being deceitful.

However, another possibility is that miracles are genuine but malicious in nature. I express
this possibility in the next chapter, and I observe that claimed instances of spiritual
interactions appear to support theologies that include aspects which can cause human
suffering. This immediately leads to the question of, "Why would God behave in this way?"

32
I am in agreement with Hume's theory that the purpose of God cannot be determined.
However, I propose that this in itself is a cause of suffering, because it is opposed to a
basic need for us to make sense of our environment.

Therefore, assuming that God exists, one can conclude the following. The actions of God
appear to parallel advanced social techniques that people use to cause psychological
suffering to others. The motives for doing so are always selfish and can be sexual,
sadistic, a desire to eliminate competition or a desire to gain a degree of control over
another person. God appears to be a model of pure selfishness, paralleling this form of
human behaviour. Spiritual events seem to be used to gain dominance over people, to
cause psychological confusion and suffering and to reduce the reproductive potential of
individuals (e.g. by restricting sex to marriage). In my opinion, spiritual events and aspects
of the theologies that they support also propagate misinformation, which may be an
attempt to make people look foolish to others. This is another method that some people
use to cause suffering.

I suggest that both the actions and the existence of a God whose purpose is deliberately
concealed is a cause of human suffering and is therefore malicious in nature. I suggest
that this is the best theory to use to teach religious individuals how and why their lives
could be improved by rejecting spiritual concerns and focusing on interpersonal concerns.
Unlike an atheist perspective, this theory does not imply that religious individuals are
irrational for believing something that seems highly questionable to an outsider. Hence, by
acknowledging a spiritual element to the world, I believe that the lives of many people
could be improved by showing people why it would be beneficial for this spiritual element
to be rejected.

1. Scheraga, H. A., Khalili, M. & Liwo, A. (2007). Protein-folding dynamics: overview


of molecular simulation techniques. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry. 58:57-
83.

2. Hume, D. (1757). The Natural History of Religion. Green and Grose.

33
Introduction to Religions of the World
The following chapters give an overview of the major world religions based on how well
they appear to fulfill people's needs. Many people claim to have experienced some form of
spiritual interaction. If one assumes that most people are telling the truth about their
experiences, one can observe that such interactions appear to support beliefs in religions
that can cause suffering. Most religions have the following characteristics in common:

• Competing religions incite division and war.

• Many religious rules and regulations appear to have no rational purpose, and serve
only to restrict freedom and cause suffering to the followers of a religion.

• Many religions involve beliefs that are highly questionable or even provably false.
This can make it difficult for people to change their beliefs due to the injured pride
that it would cause, and traps people within a particular belief system. This is
particularly true of religious teachers, who have more pride at stake than an
average follower of a religion. These beliefs also encourage people to be derisory of
other people's belief systems. Mutual derision reinforces the false idea that if you
are being persecuted, then you must be right.

• Creation of outcast groups (e.g. prostitutes, pagans and the poor).

• Reports of spiritual communication suggest that inequality is created, because


some people receive more spiritual communication than others, and only some
people are called to be religious teachers. Many people are given no
communication at all.

• Some religions contain rules for physical punishment (e.g. Judaism and Islam).

• Some religions have a belief in a positive and negative spiritual force, and most
believe that God and spiritual events are good.

• Most religions entail theories about an afterlife, and the state of a person in such an
afterlife is often linked to our behaviour in our present life. The promise of an
afterlife can act as a restriction to freedom, because it attempts to link our everyday
behaviour with our survival instinct. Therefore, to increase freedom it is preferable
to believe that everyone goes to heaven or that no one does.

Many people link a belief in an afterlife to a spiritual experience that validates their
belief in a religion. However, spiritual experiences do not prove the existence of an
afterlife. It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife, but it is
possible to ask the question as to whether or not this would be preferable. I propose
that living forever in our present culture of mutual selfishness would not be
preferable because it would mean that humanity would be in a state of perpetual
suffering. However, I believe that if people were to adopt a degree of mutual
selflessness as described in this book, then living forever would be preferable to
ceasing to exist.

I suggest that there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to warrant serious consideration that
spiritual interactions are genuine phenomena. Furthermore, I suggest that a refusal to

34
consider this possibility serves to alienate many people from the opinions and ideas of
humanists and atheists.

One could define a spiritual interaction as being something that does not correspond to our
everyday experience of the Universe and cannot be explained by rational or scientific
methods. They could include things for which good scientific explanations are not possible
such as hypnosis, and where rational explanations are inadequate such as firewalking,
dowsing and crop circles. Reports of unusual phenomena are relatively common and are
not always associated with specific religions. Anecdotal reports from religious individuals
suggest that spiritual interactions are neutral (such as supernatural signs) or beneficial
(such as healing). However, the overall effect appears to convince people that their beliefs
in a particular religion are absolutely correct, even though aspects of many religions are
harmful to their followers.

It is possible to rate religions according to the average levels of freedom that they
engender, the level of fulfillment they bring to a follower, and the amount of fulfillment that
is brought to others (see the table below). It is also possible to rate one's own life in a
similar way. The level of freedom and fulfillment in a person's life is strongly influenced by
their own religious belief and the religion that is prevalent in the society in which they live.
When writing about religions, I focus on the points that affect these three parameters. The
theory of personal heaven is designed to optimise each of these parameters, and I
suggest that if a person follows the Golden Rule and lives among a group of people who
do the same, then their personal freedom, self-fulfillment and the amount by which they
fulfill the needs of others would be greater on average than people who adhere to any
other belief system.

Value Freedom Self-fulfillment Fulfillment of the needs


of others
5 Absolute freedom Optimal self-fulfillment Optimal fulfillment of the
needs of others
4 High levels of freedom Good self-fulfillment Good fulfillment of the
needs of others
3 Moderate freedom No overall benefit to self No overall benefit to
others
2 Somewhat restricted May cause suffering to May cause suffering to
freedom self others
1 Very restricted freedom May cause high levels of May cause high levels of
suffering to self suffering to others
0 No freedom Torture to self Torture to others

35
Atheism and Agnosticism
Atheism is a belief that God does not exist, and agnosticism is a viewpoint of ignoring
religion. Both agnostics and atheists reject God and spirituality, and are likely to have more
freedom than people who follow any mainstream religion. However, there are still
restrictions to the freedom of agnostics and atheists because of the mutually selfish nature
of society.

Agnostics may lack religious belief due to a lack of time to devote to religion, a general
sense that religion is not relevant to their lives, and a lack of anything that convinces them
of a spiritual element to the world in their immediate lives. Most atheists cite a lack of
verifiable evidence in the existence of God for their belief system, along with many
philosophical and scientific arguments that are in favour of an atheist perspective. The
theory about the nature of God presented in this book resolves many of the arguments
used by atheist philosophers against the existence of God:

• The problem of evil is a philosophical argument against the existence of an all


powerful loving God. The theory presented in this book argues that God is malicious
in nature, solving this problem of evil.

• Philosophers cite the fact that the scriptures revealed by an entity called God
contradict with each other. The theory presented in this book suggests that a
malicious God deliberately creates division to cause suffering.

• Philosophers observe that God is not very good at collecting believers. The theory
presented in this book does not require that God should turn everyone into a
believer.

• Philosophers argue that sociological and scientific arguments are sufficient to


explain religious belief. Similarly, the argument of simplicity suggests that God is not
necessary, and it would be simpler if he did not exist. While the theory outlined in
this book does not disprove these assertions, it does suggest that it is more
valuable to consider that God exists than to consider otherwise. This book could
easily be written using the simplistic assumption that God does not exist, but this
theory would be rejected by anyone who has experienced spiritual interactions.
Thus, a theory that is correct for an atheist cannot simultaneously be correct for
anyone who has experienced spiritual interactions. To draw an analogy, it is not
useful for someone who is red/green colour blind to theorise on behalf of all people
that red and green are the same colour, despite the fact that this may be a simpler
theory. Hence, the presentation of a more complete theory can be justified as being
more useful, even if some people disagree with parts of it due to a lack of firsthand
experience.

• There are many deductive arguments against the concepts of omnipotence (all
powerful) and omniscience (all knowing). For example, in The God Delusion,
Dawkins suggests that an omnipotent and omniscient being would be infinitely
complex, and much less likely to occur spontaneously than the Universe, which has
finite complexity. The theory presented in this book does not claim that God is either
omnipotent or omniscient. However, one can theorise that God could be both
omnipotent or omniscient within the Universe but not outside it, much like a
computer programmer can be all powerful over things that happen within a

36
computer game, while not being omnipotent in real life.

• One argument that cannot be resolved by this book is the observation that if God
created the Universe, then there should be something that created God, with an
infinite regress. However, this argument suggests that nothing should exist at all.
Since the Universe does exist, then this argument can be considered to be flawed,
and cannot be used as an argument against the existence of God.

37
Judaism
Judaism is a religion that has existed in various forms for over 3000 years. It is a
constantly changing religion due to the emphasis placed on debate and interpretation of
many texts, particularly the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud (oral tradition). The religion of
the ancient Jews was very different from modern forms of Judaism, although the practices
of all forms of Judaism are derived principally from the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.
These five books describe the origin and formation of the Jewish people and the covenant
made with God for his reported assistance in aiding the escape of the Jewish people from
slavery in Egypt. In this covenant, the Jewish God promised to look after the Jewish
people in return for their following a large number of rules. Judaism incorporates the belief
in a Messiah who will one day bring peace to Earth. Christian theology has been strongly
influenced by Jewish beliefs, and Christians refer to the Hebrew Bible as the 'Old
Testament'. Unlike Christians, Jews do not believe that the Messiah has already come,
because Earth is not yet at peace.

The Ten Commandments form an important part of the Jewish Law. First and foremost,
the Jewish God emphasizes that he is the only God, and that Jews must worship him
alone. Judaism is therefore a monotheistic religion, and much of the Hebrew Bible is
devoted to describing the differences between being faithful and unfaithful to the Jewish
God. Faithfulness is always associated with prosperity, whereas unfaithfulness is
invariably associated with disaster. The Ten Commandments establish a basis for people's
relationships with God and with each other. A basic moral code is established in which
Jews are forbidden to kill, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, be envious of others,
and they are told to respect their parents. Jews are commanded to observe a Sabbath day
once a week, and are instructed not to blaspheme. There are many laws in addition to
these commandments, with a total of 613 laws having been identified by Jewish scholars.
After the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70CE, many of these laws became
redundant. However, the dietary restrictions, festivals, ritual purity, and Sabbath laws are
still observed. Many of these laws have been identified by Jewish scholars as being
'chukim' (they appear to lack any rational purpose).

There are many positive aspects to Judaism. Jews feel a strong sense of belonging to a
community and a sense of having responsibility for all other Jews. Their two languages,
Hebrew and Yiddish, reinforce the cultural identity of the Jews. The atmosphere of
Judaism is one of mutual support, and Synagogues place emphasis on socialising and
education in addition to the worship of God. There is an emphasis on charitable giving, the
fair treatment of widows and orphans (e.g. Exodus 22:22) and the poor (such as the
cancellation of debts every seven years in Deuteronomy 15:1).

Due to the emphasis on heredity, someone born into a Jewish family is considered to be
Jewish regardless of their beliefs and practices, although converts to the Jewish faith are
accepted (the main precedent for conversion is Ruth in the Hebrew Bible). Jewish born
men and male converts are circumcised, a ritual first practiced by Abraham (Genesis
17:10). It is a painful ceremony, but is the only form of physical injury that is still carried out
as part of Judaism. The Hebrew Bible contains many commandments for physical
punishments (including the death sentence), but reinterpretation of these commandments
using the more positive verses in the Hebrew Bible have overridden these punishments in
modern times. The most positive aspect of this reinterpretation is the emphasis on loving
your neighbour as yourself (the Golden Rule), a commandment that is mentioned in
Leviticus 19:18, and is given foremost importance by modern Jews. The following table

38
shows some of the positive and some of the questionable commands from the Hebrew
Bible. Reinterpretation by rabbis over the centuries means that penalties such as the death
sentence no longer apply.

Examples of positive statements Examples of questionable statements


Love your neighbour as yourself. (Leviticus Whoever curses his father or his mother is
19:18). to be put to death. (Exodus 21:17).
Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling Put to death any woman who practises
block before the blind. (Leviticus 19:14). magic. (Exodus 22:18).
Do no unrighteousness in your judgements. You must keep the day of rest, because it is
(Leviticus 19:15). sacred. Whoever does not keep it, but
works on that day, is to be put to death.
(Exodus 31:14).
Do not go up and down as a talebearer If a man commits adultery with the wife of a
among your people; do not stand idly by the fellow-Israelite, both he and the woman
blood of your neighbour. (Leviticus 19:16). shall be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10).
Do not collect all of a harvest; leave some If a man has sexual relations with another
for the poor and for the stranger. (Leviticus man, they have done a disgusting thing,
19:10). and both shall be put to death. They are
responsible for their own death. (Leviticus
20:13).

Despite the efforts to dispense with the physical punishments advocated by the Bible,
there are still, in my opinion, negative aspects to the Jewish religion (i.e. aspects that
restrict freedom or cause suffering). Judaism incorporates the belief that God is equally
masculine and feminine. However, I am unable to perceive any femininity in the Jewish
God. The Jewish God is portrayed as having a masculine and authoritarian personality
similar to the Islamic God, and the implications of this are discussed in the chapter about
Islam. By contrast to the Islamic Koran, there is very little repetition in the Hebrew Bible.
Instead, there are a series of colourful and interesting stories about the Jewish people that
maintain the reader's interest. However, the Jewish religion does encourage repetitive
behaviour (rites and rituals) that are habit forming, much like those of Islam. This is
particularly true of Orthodox Judaism, for which there are rules for almost every aspect of
life, including those governing eating, clothing and personal relationships. In my opinion,
the restrictive nature of these rules are the main cause of suffering in the modern Jewish
religion. Modern Reform Judaism dispenses with some of the rules, but they are
maintained in Orthodox Judaism.

As mentioned in the chapter about Islam, it is my opinion that the Koran attempts to form a
'psychological prison' through the repetition of a threatening message. In my opinion, the
Hebrew Bible is written in a similar way by constantly placing emphasis on the threat of
divine retribution if the Jewish people fail to follow Biblical laws. In a separate chapter, I
propose the theory that God exists and has a nature that parallels human selfishness. The
text of the Hebrew Bible appears to support this theory; one can postulate a scenario in
which the Jews were given unreasonable rules to follow, and then placed in situations in
which 'punishments' could take place when they failed to follow these laws. Hence, the
behaviour of the Jewish God appears to parallel a form of bullying that is used to exert
dominance and control through fear. The Jewish God is also reported to have ordered
killing for disobedience (e.g. Exodus 32:27) and diseases were also thought to act as

39
punishment (e.g. Exodus 32:35).

During the early history of the Jews, the Jewish people fought to gain control of the land of
Israel. The wars inevitably gave the Jews many enemies through which 'divine
punishment' could take place. The book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible describes the
unstable period after the Jews had settled in Israel. Israel was repeatedly taken over by
foreign powers. Each time this happened, the Bible emphasizes that the Jewish God was
punishing the Jews for failing to follow the Biblical laws (e.g. Judges 2:11-23). The ultimate
'punishment' was the fall of Israel to Babylonia, followed by the exile of the Jews from
Israel, and this is covered by several books in the Bible including the prophetic warnings of
Jeremiah. These books serve to re-emphasize the message that unfaithfulness leads to
punishment. The Bible stops recording Jewish history after the return of the Jews from
exile, and the rebuilding of Solomon's temple. Later, Israel fell to the Roman Empire, and
the first revolt against Roman rule resulted in the destruction of the Jewish temple in
Jerusalem. A second revolt also failed. The Emperor Hadrian banned the practice of
Judaism because he believed that their beliefs were incompatible with the goals of the
Empire. Many more Jews were killed in the third revolt against the Roman rule. The Jews
did not regain political autonomy until the reformation of Israel in 1948.

The Biblical emphasis on the importance of the land of Israel could be considered to be a
source of Jewish suffering; in recent times, the Jewish nationalisation of this region has
served to antagonise the Islamic Palestinians, whose land has become occupied by
Israelis. The Koran encourages Muslims to fight people who are perceived to be
persecuting them. Hence, in this particular case, the rules of the two religions have led to a
war zone, causing suffering to both Jews and Muslims. Some of the 613 commandments
encouraged war with populations that previously lived in the region:

• Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 20:16).

• To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel (Deut. 20:17).

• To destroy the seed of Amalek (Deut. 25:19).

Historically, antisemitism (racism and prejudice towards Jews) has caused a lot of
suffering. Antisemitism may be linked to the Jewish claim to the land of Israel, Christian
prejudices arising from their links to the death of Jesus (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16), the
distinctive appearance of Orthodox Jews, the perception that Jews consider themselves to
be superior to other races (Jews prefer to see themselves as an example for non Jews
rather than a specially chosen people), the observed successfulness of many Jews (e.g. a
large number of Nobel Prizes given to people of Jewish descent), and perhaps the degree
of violence recorded in the Hebrew Bible. European antisemitism culminated in the Nazi
policy during the Second World War. Six million Jews and five million other
'Untermenschen' (those whom the Nazis regarded to be inferior races) were killed in a
policy of genocide.

In common with Islam, the Hebrew Bible appears to define a society that is very inefficient.
All Jews are required to refrain from any form of work for an entire day each week. In
addition, a large proportion of the ancient Jews were required to dedicate themselves to
religious duties. One of the twelve tribes that formed the Jewish people (the Levites) were
required to assist the priests in their duties by building, maintaining and guarding temples
in addition to singing psalms and carrying out other tasks. In modern times, Levites have

40
fewer responsibilities. Orthodox Jews pray in a Synagogue three times a day, and many of
the everyday rites and rituals are very time consuming. This means that Jews have less
time to do non-religious activities. In my opinion, this contradicts with the concept of loving
your neighbour as yourself, because it means that there is less time for one's own leisure,
and less time to help others in a practical way. Hence, although many Jewish scholars
perceive the concept of loving your neighbour as yourself to summarise Jewish Law, I
suggest that there are many aspects of Jewish Law that contradict with this concept.
Another example is the emphasis on animal sacrifice. This would have caused
unnecessary suffering to animals in addition to the loss of property, increasing the poverty
of poorer members of the population. In modern times, Jews do not carry out animal
sacrifices.

There are many rules relating to personal relationships in Judaism. There are repeated
warnings against adultery and a strong emphasis on marriage and bearing children.
Attempting to remain single or childless is considered to be sinful, representing a
restriction to the freedom of both genders. There are several rules pertaining to the
importance of being ritually clean. One of these rules declares that women are unclean
during menstruation and for seven days afterwards (Leviticus 15:19). Thus, no physical
contact is permitted with a woman for around twelve days per month, significantly
interfering with normal everyday life. There are other stigmas attached to women, such as
the emphasis on the unclean nature of a woman following the birth of a girl (Leviticus 12:2-
5); women are stated to be unclean for eighty days following the birth of a girl, and forty
days following the birth of a boy. Some modern forms of Judaism have reinterpreted
Biblical teachings to create gender equality, and permit the rabbinic ordination of women.
In addition to the negative attitudes towards women, the Hebrew Bible creates outcast
groups such as prostitutes and homosexuals. Certain non-Jewish groups (e.g.
Samaritans) were also treated as outcasts.

In conclusion, Judaism is a religion followed by a relatively small number of people who


usually share a common ancestry and have a strong cultural identity. Jewish communities
are supportive and usually successful, and there are many famous Jews throughout
history, disproportionate to their numbers. However, the history of Judaism is marred by
war and overwhelming suffering, which continues to the present day.

41
Christianity
Christianity is the world's most popular religion, with about 1.5 billion followers. It is a
monotheistic religion that originated in Israel around 30AD. The Christian Bible claims that
the Jewish God had a human son called Jesus, who is attributed with the ability to forgive
people for any wrongdoings, enabling them to go to heaven in an afterlife. The crucifixion
of Jesus by the Jewish authorities is claimed to be a sacrifice that is sufficient to atone for
people's sins. Christian dogma asserts that one should have faith in Jesus and maintain a
personal relationship with him through the Spirit of God in order to gain forgiveness.

The Christian Bible contains the Hebrew Bible, the gospels (four separate accounts of the
life of Jesus) and a series of letters written by followers of Jesus to groups of early
Christians. This chapter focuses on the gospels and the letters from Paul.

The Gospels

The gospels are four separate historical records of the life of Jesus, a radical Jewish
teacher who claimed to be the Messiah, fulfilling the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus placed great emphasis on loving God and doing what God requires. In accordance
with Jewish beliefs, he also placed great emphasis on loving your neighbour as yourself
(the Golden Rule). Many of his teachings were directed towards groups of people who
were not accepted by Jewish society (e.g. Matthew 9:13, Mark 2:15 and Luke 14:13), and
he was highly critical of Jewish religious teachers (e.g. Matthew 23:1-36).

Jesus is presented as a superhuman being who had the capacity to perform miracles such
as healing (e.g. Matthew 8:3), raising the dead (e.g. Matthew 9:24), walking on water (e.g.
Matthew 14:22-32) and turning water into wine (John 2:1-9). If reported accurately, these
could be described as spiritual interactions. In previous chapters, I have expressed the
possibility that spiritual interactions are malicious in nature. Hence, this discrepancy needs
to be explained; many of the spiritual interactions were reported to be beneficial to people,
and they also seemed to draw attention to the humanitarian message of Jesus. One
negative effect of the reported miracles of healing is the link made between sin and
disease both directly (John 5:14) and by implying that miraculous healing is due to the
forgiveness of sins by Jesus (e.g. Mark 2:9). In Hinduism, this link stigmatises people who
are disabled, and it may have had a similar effect among some Christian groups. Another
negative effect of the miracles is to make the gospels seem highly questionable to people
who have not experienced spiritual interactions themselves, including the humanitarian
message of loving your neighbour as yourself. For those who have experienced spiritual
interactions, it encourages the acceptance of the gospels in their entirety, rather than
simply the humanitarian message. A third possible negative effect of these miracles was to
draw attention to a restrictive theology that appears to suppress religious debate and
discussion as discussed below.

For a long time, Jewish scholars have placed primary importance on the idea of loving
your neighbour as yourself, even though this concept is not highlighted as being any more
important than any other in the Hebrew Bible (this is highlighted in Mark 12:32-33, in which
a Jewish teacher emphasizes the importance of Leviticus 19:18 relative to the rest of
Jewish Law). This is probably because debate and discussion form a central part of
Judaism. In fact, one can envisage that Jewish scholars could eventually have come to the
same conclusions that are presented in this book. However, with the introduction of
Christianity, this eventuality became less likely to occur because the new religion became

42
a threat to the Jewish identity. Christianity presented itself as an alternative to Judaism
that did not require people to follow the Law. However, unlike Judaism, Christianity does
not promote the discussion of ideas. Concerns about false teaching (e.g. Matthew 7:15),
not judging others (e.g. Matthew 7:1-5) and being humble (e.g. Luke 14:11) suppress
debate. Therefore, despite the benefits of spreading a message of loving your neighbour
as yourself to many people, I am uncertain whether there has been any overall benefit
relative to what Judaism could have become in the absence of persecution. Thus, I am
suggesting that spiritual interactions may have acted to restrict people's interpretation of
the concept of loving your neighbour as yourself, in addition to suppressing debate about
religious issues. In particular, the personality of God is restricted to a God of love, with an
explicit ban on saying anything against the Spirit of God (Mark 3:29).

There has been much debate during the development of Christianity revolving around the
competing, and sometimes contradictory, doctrines (particularly the Hebrew Bible, gospels
and letters from the apostles). This type of debate led to the Creeds and the doctrine of the
Trinity. However, more ambitious debating has served to cause tension in the Church. For
example, a division arose in the early Church between eastern Greek speaking and
western Latin speaking Christians due to an eastern desire to relate Christianity with the
outlook of Greek philosophy (e.g. the works of Justin Martyr). In modern times, there is
less restriction on debate because liberal Christians interpret the Christian doctrine to be
outdated in its views about issues such as women and homosexuality. There are now over
30,000 different Christian denominations and cults, each of whom have slightly different
interpretations or traditions associated with them. It is possible that the inherent restrictions
on debate within Christian theology may have contributed to physical violence between
different Christian groups, such as Catholics and Protestants.

The teachings of Jesus have a positive focus on interpersonal needs. Outcast groups such
as the sick, imprisoned, poor and hungry are identified as a primary focus for people to
provide assistance. However, I have several criticisms of the teachings of Jesus. In
particular, many of his teachings demand absolute selflessness. Examples include giving
up all you have for the poor (e.g. Luke 12:22-34), forgetting self and following Jesus (Luke
9:23), being prepared to die in the name of Jesus (Matthew 16:25), turning the other cheek
(Matthew 5:39-44), being a slave to others (Mark 10:44) and unconditional forgiveness
(Matthew 18:21-22 and Luke 17:4). Absolute selflessness restricts freedom, can cause
self-inflicted suffering, and can be described as loving your neighbour more than yourself.
As a result of these teachings, people seek an interpretation that permits selfishness, and
the teachings of Paul fulfill this need. In particular, the concept of grace is used to
counteract the teachings that demand absolute selflessness. Pauline theology is
discussed later in this chapter.

Jesus also gives many instructions that are impractical, such as a ban on the emotion of
anger (Matthew 5:22) and sexual attraction between unmarried people (Matthew 5:28),
neither of which are under conscious control. He advocates self-inflicted punishments for
those who transgress these impractical teachings, such as plucking out one's eye if one
should see someone that one finds attractive (Matthew 5:29) and cutting off one's hands
or feet if, for any reason, they should damage one's faith (Matthew 18:8-9). He advocates
perfection (Matthew 5:48), by which he means that people should sell all they have, give
the money to the poor and follow him (Matthew 19:21). He claims that people need not
worry about the concerns of everyday life if they choose to do this (Matthew 6:24-34 and
Luke 12:22-31). In addition, Jesus does not permit divorce, except in the case of female
adultery (e.g. Matthew 5:32) and his teachings about sexuality are very restrictive to
individual freedom. He also talks in parables, and states that his reason for doing so is to

43
ensure that people will fail to understand his teachings rather than to make them more
memorable (e.g. Matthew 13:13). Indeed, many of his parables are inexplicable (e.g.
Matthew 13:33). He shows little concern for practical family concerns (Matthew 10:34-39),
including bereavement (Matthew 8:22), although he still advocates the Jewish law about
respecting parents (e.g. Mark 10:19).

Jesus repeatedly refers to the threat of hell directly (e.g. Matthew 5:30), in parable form
(e.g. Matthew 3:12) and by implying that only some people will be acceptable to God (e.g.
Luke 20:35). Hell is often threatened as a punishment for not following his teachings (e.g.
Matthew 25:41-46), and for those who lack sufficient faith and belief (e.g. Mark 9:47). The
importance of faith in God is a repeating theme. Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1: "To
have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot
see." Insisting upon faith is a restriction on people's freedom of thought. There are other
restrictions on the freedom of thought, such as Luke 6:45, "A good person brings good out
of the treasure of good things in his heart; a bad person brings bad out of his treasure of
bad things. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of." The ban on anger and sexual
attraction are also restrictions on freedom of thought. In my opinion, restricting freedom of
thought also restricts the freedom of ideas and debate.

Jesus places great emphasis on worshipping God (e.g. Matthew 22:37). This is his first
commandment, and takes precedence over his humanitarian message (e.g. Matthew
22:39). However, worshipping God consumes both time and resources, meaning that there
is less available for oneself (i.e. one's own leisure time) or for others. The only way that
loving the Lord your God could be considered as being compatible with loving your
neighbour as yourself would be if people genuinely want to pray, sing hymns and attend
church services.

Jesus warned people to expect persecution (Matthew 5:11), made a negative comment
about pagans (Matthew 18:17), made inflammatory comments about Jewish teachers (e.g.
Matthew 23:1-36), showed prejudice towards non-Jews on one occasion (Matthew 15:21-
28) and appeared to have contradictory views about the importance of Jewish Law
(compare Matthew 5:17-19 with Matthew 15:1-9). While he did teach a humanitarian
message, he viewed the worship of God to be more important. This is particularly evident
in the gospel of John, where faith and belief is emphasized as being the most important
message, while humanitarian concerns are less strongly emphasized. In addition, despite
being critical of Jewish traditions, he encourages several rituals including baptism for the
forgiveness of sins (Matthew 3:13), prayer (e.g. Matthew 6:9-13), fasting (Matthew 6:16-
18) and established Holy Communion (Mark 14:22-25). The theology is made deliberately
confusing with parables, and the emphasis on miracles and prophecy makes the gospels
seem highly questionable to many people, discouraging them from loving their neighbour
as themselves.

Pauline Theology

Paul was a Jewish convert to Christianity. He is first presented in the book of Acts as a
man who persecuted Christians (Acts 8:1). Later, he is reported to have had a spiritual
experience that converted him to Christianity (Acts 9:5). He also claims that these spiritual
interactions taught him the gospel message (Galatians 1:12). Paul joined the disciples of
Jesus and assisted them in their preaching. He travelled to many places, established
churches and wrote many letters. These letters were subsequently incorporated into the
Bible.

44
Unlike Jesus, Paul does not advocate absolute selflessness. Paul focuses on Christian
poverty rather than general poverty, and uses the concept of giving as a means of
consolidating the unity of the Church (e.g. Romans 15:26). Paul does mention the concept
of loving your neighbour as yourself (Romans 13:8-9), but focuses on love as a passive
emotion rather than a selfless behaviour (e.g. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13). Throughout his
letters, his emphasis is on avoiding immorality, saying prayers, giving thanks, the
importance of faith, obedience, the significance of the death of Jesus, the grace of God
and establishing the Church. He also attempts to resolve his desire to win Jewish converts
with his views that Jewish Law had become superseded by the need for faith in Jesus. For
example in Romans chapters 2 and 3, he sensitively discusses the issue circumcision,
while in modern translations of Philippians 3:2, he refers to those who insist upon
circumcision as being "dogs". He is judgmental (e.g. Romans 1:18-32), yet condemns
those who judge others (Romans 2:1). He focuses on the unity of the Church (e.g.
Ephesians 4:3-5), and encourages the exclusion of those who teach differently to himself
(e.g. 1 Timothy 1:3-11) and those who do not follow his teachings (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:1-
13).

Paul's teachings are centered around God. While he does not mention the first
commandment of Jesus (love the Lord your God), he puts primary emphasis on God,
relatively little emphasis on the poor, and does not mention outcast groups. He suggests
that people should become a living sacrifice to God (Romans 12:1). However, unlike
Jesus, his concept of a living sacrifice does not involve giving up everything you have to
the poor. Paul emphasizes the need to work in order to support oneself (1 Thessalonians
4:11-12) and the poor (Ephesians 4:28), and insists that anyone in a Christian group who
refuses to work should not be given food (2 Thessalonian 3:10).

Paul's style of preaching appears to be intimidating, and he suggests that people should
be rebuked publicly if they sin (1 Timothy 5:20). Galatians 2:11-12 describes him rebuking
the disciple Peter because of a dispute over circumcision. Throughout his letters, Paul
repeatedly warns against false teaching (e.g. 2 Corinthians 11:4-15). False teaching could
be defined as anything that contradicts with Paul's own understanding of Christianity. As
discussed above, this suppresses debate about religious issues. Paul also emphasizes the
need for obedience, which restricts freedom. He stresses the need for obedience to God
(e.g. Philippians 2:13), obedience to authorities (e.g. Romans 13:5), obedience to parents
(e.g. Colossians 3:20), obedience to husbands (e.g. Ephesians 5:22) and obedience to
slave masters (e.g. Colossians 3:22). In one case, Paul instructs a runaway slave to go
back to his master (Philemon 1:16).

Paul idealises the suffering of Jesus (Romans 8:17). He also emphasizes his own
suffering (e.g. Ephesians 3:13) and claims that it is a privilege to suffer for Jesus
(Philippians 1:29), which is in agreement with the gospels (Matthew 5:11). Paul suggests
that people should not complain, be thankful and find joy in their sacrifice and suffering
(Philippians 2:14-18). The letter to the Hebrews is not thought to be a Pauline letter, but it
also emphasizes the concept of perfection of Jesus being brought about through his
suffering (Hebrews 2:10). Thus, Pauline theology and the gospels may be responsible for
increasing the suffering of some Christians by implying that it is necessary or even ideal.

Paul emphasizes the gift of God's grace for those who have faith in Jesus (e.g. Romans
3:21-26). He defines grace to mean that forgiveness of sins is possible for those who have
faith in Jesus, because his sacrificial death is sufficient to remove their sins. This may
seem like a message of freedom, but Paul insists that the grace of God is not an excuse to
sin (Romans 6:1-14). However, the concept of grace is probably one of the main reasons

45
why Pauline theology is popular, because this concept in isolation gives freedom.

Personally, I do not accept that Jesus died to 'take away my sins'. If I cause suffering, then
I have affected the person who suffers rather than Jesus. I do not believe that Jesus has
the moral authority to forgive me on behalf of the person who suffered. In light of this
observation, the concept of grace may discourage people from loving their neighbour as
themselves, because it interferes with the concept of personal responsibility for one's
actions. This issue was first raised by Pelagius in the late fourth century. However,
Augustine supported Pauline theology and argued that people are not able to achieve
perfection due to an inherent bias towards sin within humanity, and require grace to gain
salvation. In 418AD, the Council of Carthage (a meeting of various Church leaders)
decided to support Augustine and rejected the views of Pelagius. However, both
arguments are supported by the gospels; hell is threatened both for those who lack faith
and for those who do not follow the teachings of Jesus as described earlier.

The effect of the interactions between Christian concepts are very complex. Grace implies
that one has freedom of choice, because God is said to forgive any wrongdoings for those
who believe in Jesus. If people have freedom of choice, they tend to act in their own best
interests (i.e. selfishly), unless there is a good reason for them to do otherwise. The
teachings of Jesus place emphasis on a humanitarian message and selfless behaviour.
However, Pauline theology places emphasis on worshipping God and avoiding sexual
immorality, and places much less emphasis on humanitarian concerns. Since many of the
teachings of Jesus demand absolute selflessness, I believe that there is a tendency for
Christians to follow Pauline theology in preference to some of the teachings of Jesus. For
example, the grace of God means that people do not have to give up everything they have
in the way that Jesus demands. Pauline theology places great emphasis on the concept of
grace, but places much less emphasis on the humanitarian message of the synoptic
gospels. I believe that this complex interaction of concepts may have reduced the
humanitarian impact that the teachings of Jesus could have had in the absence of Pauline
theology.

Furthermore, Paul's first letter to Timothy and the letter to Titus contain instructions for the
creation of a system of organised worship. Paul advocates payment for priests on four
occasions (1 Corinthians 9:11, 1 Corinthians 9:17, 2 Corinthians 11:8 and 1 Timothy 5:17-
18). In my opinion, directing resources into church worship means that there is less time
and resources for oneself and less resources to help other people. Thus, I argue that the
instructions for church worship are in opposition to the concept of loving your neighbour as
yourself unless people genuinely want to spend their free time and resources supporting a
church.

A true form of the grace of God would permit everyone to go to heaven regardless of their
actions or beliefs. This form of grace would give freedom of choice, to behave selfishly or
selflessly. Paul argues that our free will is inhibited by a tendency towards sinfulness,
meaning that we require grace to overcome this shortcoming (Romans 7:14-25). By
contrast, I believe that the ability to act selfishly (i.e. doing whatever we want) is the very
essence of freedom. However, when everybody acts selfishly, people lose their freedom at
the expense of others. Therefore, I argue that the freedom of all individuals is maximised
in an environment in which people follow the Golden Rule.

In the letters of the other apostles, emphasis is placed on the importance of prayer (e.g.
James 5:13), salvation through faith in Jesus (e.g. 1 Peter 1:9), concerns about immorality
(e.g. 2 Peter 2:14), false teachers (e.g. 2 Peter 2:1) and patiently waiting for the end to

46
come. Both Paul and the other apostles believed that the end would be very soon (e.g. 1
Corinthians 7:29 and 1 John 2:18), a belief that stems from the prophecies of Jesus (e.g.
Matthew chapter 24). The belief that divine intervention will one day solve the world's
problems may discourage people from loving their neighbour as themselves. Similarly, the
idea that 'the poor will always be with us' (e.g. Matthew 26:11) is a defeatist attitude that
does not promote a need for change.

In conclusion, I see a lot of virtue in the teachings of Jesus, and many are applications of
loving your neighbour as yourself (for example, helping the poor, disadvantaged and
outcasts to society). However, many of his teachings demand absolute selflessness, which
is not appropriate for most situations because it would result in a large amount of self-
inflicted suffering (for example, being a slave to others, unconditional forgiveness, giving
up everything for the poor and 'turning the other cheek'). By contrast, the theology of Paul
does not demand absolute selflessness. However, Pauline theology is more focused on
the worship of God and places much less emphasis on a humanitarian message.

47
Islam
Islam was founded by Muhammad in 610AD and his revelations are recorded in the Koran.
Muslims follow a set of traditions known as the Five Pillars, which are outlined by the
Koran. Many Muslims also memorise the Koran, and Muslim males are circumcised at an
early age. The Five Pillars of Islam are:

• Recitation of a very short creed several times a day, "There is no other god but God
and Muhammad is the Prophet of God."

• Praying five times a day (the Koran demands regular prayer, e.g. 2:3).

• Annual alms giving (e.g. 2:43).

• Fasting during the month of Ramadan (2:185).

• Making a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime (2:196).

In my opinion, it is useful to distinguish between four different types of Muslim:

• Liberal Muslims are those who have adopted more Western values (for example,
they may accept homosexuality).

• Moderate Muslims living in Western societies are peaceful. They usually follow the
Five Pillars of Islam and memorise the text of the Koran in Arabic. They subscribe
to Islamic beliefs including the idea of a future worldwide Islamic State. Muslims
from Western countries may experience racism from Muslims in Saudi Arabia when
going on the pilgrimage to Mecca. Liberal and moderate Muslims may be opposed
to Jihad even if Western countries are involved in military conflicts with Islamic
countries (e.g. Iraq). This is because the Western society is not attempting to
prevent anyone from following Islam.

• Muslims in Islamic countries are often subject to Sharia Law which is enforced by
the State. There are Moral Police who ensure that Islamic Laws are complied with
and have the power to punish people. For example, there are many reports of
abusive behaviour towards Muslim women who fail to comply with the Islamic dress
code. The existing Islamic countries suggest the nature of a future worldwide
Islamic state that is desired by moderate Muslims. Therefore, this chapter focuses
on the nature of the lifestyle outlined by the Koran in the context of Sharia Law to
determine to what extent Islam fulfills ones own needs, the needs of others and the
level of freedom that it engenders among its followers.

• The Koran contains verses that advocate both peace and war. A minority of
Muslims choose to follow the verses that advocate war rather than those that
advocate peace. There are many examples of aggressive acts carried out by Jihadi
Muslims.

Islam is the second most popular religion in the world, with about one billion followers.
There are several possible reasons why the religion is so popular:

48
• The demands of the religion are straightforward, repeated several times and made
very clear to Muslims. There is specific guidance for things like divorce (2:230) and
dividing property between the relatives of people who have died (4:7-12). It defines
a very specific lifestyle for its followers, and it is easy to determine whether or not
one is doing what the Koran says. This contrasts with other religions, which are
often more difficult to understand and have vague, complex or unclear demands.

• The scripture is relatively short and repetitive. There is much less information in the
Koran than the scriptures for religions such as Hinduism or Christianity. The Koran
acts as a complete revelation, and does not demand that people should get
additional information elsewhere. However, additional information is available in the
Hadiths (sayings of Muhammad from oral tradition), and most Muslims use these in
addition to the Koran. One good Hadith is, "There should be neither harming nor
reciprocating harm," but there are also harmful Hadiths such as, "The hand should
be cut off for stealing," and, "If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him."

• The Koran is said to be written in a beautiful linguistic form in the original Arabic,
which may appeal to many people. Muslims are usually required to read the Koran
in the original Arabic.

• Originally, Islam would have been appealing to women over native Arab Pagan
beliefs. According to the footnote in the Koran translated by Abdel Haleem (used
throughout this discussion) for verse 58:2, Pagan wives could be divorced with a
word and would not be allowed to remarry. The Koran gives greater marriage rights
to women (2:229), while still oppressing them in verses such as 2:228 (which says
that husbands have a degree of right over their wives), 4:11 (which gives women
reduced inheritance rights), 4:34 (which encourages men to hit their wives) and
24:31 (the origin of the Islamic head-scarf).

Muslims believe that Allah has no gender, but I am unable to perceive any femininity in
Allah from the Koran. The religion appears to be particularly appealing to men; it appears
to appeal to hierarchical masculinity, with Allah as the dominant male.

• The Koran permits divorce (e.g. 4:20), remarriage (e.g. 33:37) and polygamy (e.g.
4:3), which appeals to male sexuality.

• It is against adultery (e.g. 17:32) and immorality (e.g. 4:15 and 4:24); this also
appeals to men because it conveys ownership of women. The head scarf is an
outward sign of a woman who is owned by a man (no other man is even allowed to
look at her). In addition, the Koran specifies that women must promise not to lie
about who fathers their children (60:12). Protectiveness and the desire to own
women stems from the genetic need for a man to father his own children and pass
on his genes to the next generation. Women suspected of adultery can be
challenged to ask Allah to abandon them if they lie about it (24:7). For women who
have committed adultery and really believe in Islam, this means a choice between
being hit 100 times (24:2) or facing the agonizing torment threatened by the Koran
(e.g. 3:21 and 4:14).

• The Koran may appeal to male aggression and violent emotion because there are
many verses that demand fighting.

49
Male hierarchies can be seen in many species. Nature is frequently organised so that
males fight each other for mating rights with a large group of females; monogamy is
relatively unusual. However, even in monogamous human cultures, male hierarchies are
still present. They may be present in general social settings, the family and the workplace.
Male social groups have benefits for both the dominant male and the less dominant males.
For example, men may submit to other men to gain promotions in the workplace. A
frequently encountered alternative to a dominance hierarchy is where all males antagonise
each other in an attempt to appear to be dominant to any available women.

A dominance hierarchy appears to exist between Allah (the dominant male) and his male
followers. Allah declares himself to be the best protector (e.g. 22:78), and his apparent
masculinity may also appeal to women. Allah proclaims himself to be an all-powerful
benevolent god who gives his followers favours such as life, livestock and prosperity (e.g.
16:1-11). However, disobedience to Allah is discouraged by the threat of an eternal and
painful torment (e.g. 22:57). Allah gives contradictory food restrictions to Jews and
Muslims (6:146 and 16:118), arbitrarily guides just a small section of the population (e.g.
13:31), creates disasters when he wants to test or punish people (e.g. 2:155), and claims
to be able to wipe out the whole of creation if he feels like it, and replace it with a
completely different one (14:19). Allah constantly complains that humans are very
ungrateful for his benevolence (e.g. 22:66).

There are many features of Allah that portray him as a dominant male:

• His general attitude is that of a powerful and irresponsible male dictator. For
example, he claims to be all-knowing and all-seeing (e.g. 8:53), claims that he
carefully monitors people to see if they follow his laws (e.g. 3:153) and says that he
keeps a comprehensive record of their activities (e.g. 50:4). Allah claims to have an
army of angels to monitor people's activities, and they will be the ones to accuse
people on the Last Day (50:21). Allah is portrayed as a very generous god (e.g.
16:1-11), who is very merciful and forgiving (e.g. 1:1), but will not tolerate Muslims
worshipping other gods (e.g. 4:116). He constantly complains about ingratitude (e.g.
2:243) and is willing to punish people (e.g. 10:50). Allah's generosity, followed by
people's ingratitude and their subsequent punishment, is a theme that is repeated
many times in many different ways (e.g. 17:69 and 34:16-17). However, both men
and women may associate with this style of thinking, because this is how powerful
dictatorial men behave.

• The Koran states that there is a rank in heaven (e.g. 6:132), and that there are
seven heavens in total (e.g. 17:44). Allah says that he can give you power (e.g.
35:10) and prosperity (e.g. 5:100) or an eternity of painful and humiliating torment
(e.g. 22:57). He claims to have absolute power over your life (e.g. 16:70), and
attempts to become your absolute dictator. He says that there will be no one there
to help people if they are thrown into hell (e.g. 3:192 and 29:25), which encourages
people to take all the help they can get from the Koran. He says that the unguided
know nothing (2:170), whereas those who are guided by the Koran are claimed to
be able to distinguish between right and wrong (2:185).

• Muslims are required to fight in support of Islamic ideals if necessary (e.g. 4:101,
8:39, 9:14, 9:29 and 47:4). This obligation is sometimes referred to as the 'Sixth
Pillar of Islam'. The Koran implies that Jihad is a defensive or retaliatory war against
a group of people who persecute Muslims; all Muslims are called to fight all

50
members of that group if Jihad is justifiable from the Koran. The incentive for doing
so is the promise of eternal happiness (e.g. 3:169). According to the Koran, non-
Muslims who do not persecute Muslims should be treated fairly and justly (60:8). By
contrast, some of the Hadiths suggest that Jihad is an offensive war to conquer and
convert non-Muslims (e.g. Sahih Bukhari: 1:2:24, 4:52:65 and 4:52:196; Sahih
Muslim 1:31 and 20:4684; Sunan Abu Dawud 8:2635). The Hadiths were finalised
during times of Islamic conquests.

The Koran claims that the time of a person's death is predestined, such that it is
unaffected by abstaining from fighting (3:154, 3:168, 6:2, 7:34 and 33:16). The life
expectancy of Muslims in countries such as Pakistan are around the world average,
despite the persecution of Muslims in many parts of the world and throughout
history. If the idea of a predestined death for Muslims were correct, then their life
expectancy would be expected to be much shorter. The Koran encourages people
to threaten those who refuse to participate in Jihad with hell (9:81).

Abrogation is where a verse in the Koran can invalidate another one that has a
contradictory meaning. I have not taken abrogation into account because different
Islamic scholars have different interpretations. Most think that peaceful verses
abrogate violent ones, but some think that the opposite is true. For example, some
people believe that verse 9:5 invalidates peaceful verses such as 2:256 ("there is
no compulsion in religion").

9:5: "When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the
idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout
post; but if they turn [to God], maintain the prayer and pay the prescribed alms,
let them go on their way, for God is most forgiving and merciful."

In the context of the scripture, this verse refers to an instruction to kill a specific
group of people in retaliation. It also advocates forced conversions, which have
occurred during the history of Islam. Abrogation stems from Muhammad himself,
because he would change his revelations over time. Muslims believe that he could
have been told to do this by a spiritual entity, or that he could have forgotten parts
of the text. Allah claims that he causes some revelations to be forgotten in 2:106,
and Islamic scholars also use 16:101 to justify abrogation. Some Islamic scholars
do not believe that any verses have been abrogated, and this is how I read the
Koran.

Despite provoking some of its followers to fight non-Muslims, the religion seems to
be much more damaging to Muslims than to anyone else. Indeed, throughout
history, more Muslims have been killed by other Muslims than by non-Muslims,
mostly due to the differences between the two major Islamic factions, Shia and
Sunni. Shia Muslims believe that following the death of Muhammad, leadership
should have fallen to his cousin Ali. Shia Muslims regard the bloodline of
Muhammad to have been chosen by God as leaders, and are therefore regarded as
saints by the Shia. By contrast, Sunni Muslims believe that religious leaders should
earn the right to lead rather than obtaining it through birthright. In addition to the
Shia/Sunni divide, further suffering comes from Islamic governments who have the
power to inflict the physical punishments advocated by the Koran. However, I
believe that Islamic suffering is caused primarily by the restrictive and time
consuming rules outlined by the Koran.

51
• Allah's army of thousands of angels are said to be available to help people to fight
his cause (3:125 and 8:9), and Allah claims to help Muslims on many battlefields
(9:25). However, later in the Koran, people start complaining to Muhammad that
they do not appear (15:7).

Allah also claims to be a protector of his followers (e.g. 2:286). However, this does
not explain why non-Islamic Western nations control most of the world's wealth. The
relative poverty of Islamic countries may be partially due to Islamic theology. The
Koran advocates archaic punishments, a lack of freedom, a ban on lending money
to receive interest (2:276), and directing people's time into prayer and pilgrimage,
reducing their ability to create wealth. This suggests that verses such as
"wrongdoers [non-Muslims] never prosper" (12:23) are highly questionable.

• Allah creates arbitrary rules to distinguish between people who are destined for
heaven and those who are destined for hell. This accentuates his all-powerful
nature, and his freedom to do what he wants. He gives conflicting dietary
restrictions to Jews and Muslims. In 16:118, the rules for the Jews are claimed to be
inferior, which implies that the Koran is a source of more accurate information than
the Hebrew Bible.

• In addition to creating arbitrary rules, Allah also views different sins with different
degrees of disdain. Adultery and theft have severe punishments (24:2 and 5:38),
persecution of Islam is stated to be worse than killing (2:217), idolatry and rejecting
Muhammad cannot be forgiven (e.g. 4:116 and 9:80), but other sins such as food
restrictions are not policed as strictly (5:3); some sins are accompanied by the
phrase 'God is most merciful and forgiving' (e.g. killing: 28:15-16), which implies
that people can sin in certain ways and expect to be forgiven.

• There are many people who Allah claims not to love. Allah does not love people
who overstep the limits (2:190), people who ignore Muhammad (3:32), evildoers
(3:57), the treacherous (4:107), those who sin (4:107), the arrogant (16:23), the
unfaithful (22:38), the ungrateful (22:38), people who spread corruption (28:77) or
the boastful (31:18). He does not guide everyone (e.g. 13:31), and he gives
conflicting laws to Jews and Muslims. Despite the allegedly poor laws given to
Jews, the Koran says that they wronged themselves (16:118). Wronging yourself is
another phrase repeated throughout the Koran (e.g. 30:9), and creates the
impression that the refusal to follow Islam is the equivalent of self-injury.

In my opinion, the dictatorial, dominant, all-powerful and threatening Allah creates a


'psychological prison' for his followers. This psychological prison is created using
repetitiveness. All of the main themes in the Koran are repeated several times, including
Bible stories about punishment, threats of a painful torment (e.g. 9:79), the idea that Allah
is an all-knowing, all-powerful entity (e.g. 9:78) and that Satan is their sworn enemy (e.g.
2:168). The repetitive nature of the book implants the Koran's threatening message deep
within the psyche of the reader. Muslims are warned again and again about the threat of
an eternal and painful torment. They are told again and again to pray, fast and give alms.
This effect is made even more potent by the tradition of memorising the text; children are
taught to do this in Islamic schools. Memorising text requires that it be recited many times,
so an average Muslim will be warned thousands of times of a painful and humiliating
torment for not following Islam. The repetitive nature of the religion is also expressed by
the Five Pillars. The Koran advocates that people should sleep little and pray a lot (51:17-

52
18), and admires some followers for praying for up to two thirds of the night (73:20).
Obligatory prayers are repetitive, and have a standard format for people to recite. Muslims
can also offer voluntary prayers. Muslims are also required to recite a short creed several
times a day, to reaffirm their belief that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah. The Five Pillars
become habitual because they are performed so often, and habits are very difficult to
break. The result is that people spend a huge amount of time performing rituals and
memorising the text, and are kept as 'prisoners' by the Koran.

The threat of a painful torment is not hypothetical, because the Koran creates violent laws
with which to subjugate the Islamic people. For example, it declares that the punishment
for theft is to cut off a person's hands (5:38). The punishment for persecution is cutting off
a hand and foot, crucifixion or banishment from the land (5:33). Persecution does not need
to be a physical act – it can include blasphemy, such as saying something against
Muhammad. At the time of writing, a British teacher in Sudan was arrested for blasphemy
and given a prison sentence because she allowed a seven-year old pupil to name a teddy
bear 'Muhammad'. The punishment for adultery is to be hit 100 times (24:2). Other violent
laws include the eye for an eye punishment from the Hebrew Bible (5:45), vengeance
killing (17:33) and it encourages men to hit their wives (4:34). It promotes cruelty to
animals by requiring that they be bled to death (6:145). The Koran implicitly accepts
slavery (e.g. 2:221).

The Koran repeatedly justifies itself. It uses Bible stories to show that other messengers of
God have been persecuted and doubted just like Muhammad. It also claims that
Muhammad was predicted by earlier scriptures, and quotes Jewish acceptance of him as
their promised Messiah (26:196-197). Although not mentioned in the gospels, the Koran
quotes Jesus as saying that Muhammad would come after him (61:6) and implies that
Jesus would not disdain a messenger of God such as Muhammad (4:172). The Koran
implies that believing its message is using reasoning (10:100), and that people have been
given clear proof of its validity (3:86). It challenges followers of other religions to provide
proof for their religions (18:15) and insists that the Koran could only have been devised by
God (10:37). There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the Koran has a supernatural
origin, but this does not mean that it has come from a beneficial spiritual entity. People
were reported to have heard a humming noise around Muhammad when he was receiving
his revelations, and he would sweat even on cold days. Critics of Muhammad suggested
that he was possessed (44:14). Some people have suggested that he could have been
epileptic, but Muslims reject this argument because his condition developed late in life and
it was always accompanied by a spiritual revelation.

Muslims believe that the Koran came directly from an entity claiming to be the Angel
Gabriel. He commanded Muhammad to recite three times, and squeezed him hard when
Muhammad said that he could not read. The angel then told him to memorise the text. This
is the origin of modern day memorising of the Koran. If the Koran does have spiritual
origins, it clearly supports the theory of the nature of God proposed in this book.

The bulk of the Koran is as follows:

• The nature of Allah, as an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god.

• The threat of a painful torment contrasted with the promise of heaven.

• The theme of punishment for disobedience and idolatry.

53
• Muhammad as a new messenger in a long line of messengers (e.g. 6:84 and 33:7).

• The persecution of Muhammad being similar to the persecution of people like Jesus
(2:87).

• The Five Pillars.

• Fighting and killing persecutors.

• Bible stories and related Arabic stories. The Arabic stories (e.g. 7:73-79 and 7:85-
93) are used to imply that Allah has been active before Muhammad in Arabic
communities in addition to Jewish communities. This assertion is stated in 3:137.

Bible stories are referred to and retold on a number of occasions, which has a number of
implications:

• Abraham is held up as a man with perfect faith (e.g. 2:130, 3:95, 4:125, 6:161 and
19:41), hence Muslim males are circumcised. In Africa, Islamic women are
sometimes circumcised by force.

• The Koran gains credibility from the Bible stories. However, there is a recurring
theme that Allah has moved away from the Jews because of their idolatry and the
rejection of messengers that were sent to them (e.g. 5:70-71 and 5:78-81) and
makes negative statements about Jews and Christians (e.g. 5:51, which calls them
wrongdoers).

• The Bible stories are used to re-iterate Koranic themes, and several stories with
similar meanings are often found together (e.g. chapters 26, 37 and 51 of the
Koran):

• The story of the flood of Noah is used to imply that idolatrous people were killed
(e.g. 7:64), and supports the Koran's assertion that Allah is willing to punish
idolatry.

• The story of the Golden Calf is used to emphasize the idolatry of the Jews. Allah
implies that the Jews broke their covenant (e.g. 4:153-161) and has turned to
the Arabs for more faithful worshippers.

• The story of the plagues against Egypt is used to create the impression that
Allah has the power to punish people who do not believe messengers like
Moses and Muhammad (e.g. 7:127-136 and 8:52).

• Sodom is claimed to have been destroyed because of homosexual immorality


(e.g. 7:80-81). Lot is emphasized as a messenger for the people of Sodom, but
he is not portrayed as a messenger in the Bible.

• Elijah (37:123), Jonah (37:139) and Joseph (40:34) are also used as examples
of messengers like Muhammad.

54
• The story of Job and the restoration of his wealth is used as a sign of Allah's
mercy (38:43).

• Stories about the persecution of Jesus (e.g. 2:87) and the disbelief of Moses
(e.g. 40:24 and 51:39) are told to discourage people from doing the same to
Muhammad.

• The story of creation is used to emphasize the power of Allah, the origin of
Satan and the results of Adam's sin that came from listening to Satan (e.g.
7:22).

• Biblical characters are quoted to have made Koranic statements. This serves to
repeat the Koran's messages in addition to gaining credibility by implying that the
theology has existed for hundreds of years. For example, Moses is quoted to have
warned people not to lie about God (20:61), which is emphasized by the Koran as
being one of the worst sins (e.g. 11:18). In 12:5, Jacob is quoted to have said,
"Satan is man's sworn enemy," which is stated elsewhere in the Koran (e.g. 2:168).
In 12:38, Joseph is quoted to have mentioned man's ingratitude to God, which is a
recurring Koranic theme (e.g. 39:7). In 12:83, Jacob is quoted to have said that God
is all-knowing and all-wise (also found in 4:24). Jesus is quoted to have supported
Koranic alms-giving (19:31).

• Aspects of the Bible stories are told in greater specific detail in the Koran, perhaps
to give the impression that the Koran is more accurate than the Hebrew Bible. It
includes many adjectives to describe personality traits such as "walking shyly"
(28:25) and "a strong, trustworthy man" (28:26), which are not found in the Hebrew
Bible. The Hebrew Bible only describes what people do, and does not give details
about their personalities. There are some minor differences between the Koran's
version of events and those in the Bible, and the Koran sometimes tells new stories
about Biblical characters (e.g. 18:71). One unlikely story is that of Joseph, who the
Koran claims to have been proven innocent, but was then thrown into prison
(12:35). Other questionable ideas in the Koran include the army of angels that are
claimed to be available to fight for Muslims, the idea that a Muslim's time of death
will not be affected whether they fight or not, and the idea that non-Muslims never
prosper.

Despite referring to Bible stories, the Koran is not included in a book with the
Hebrew Bible like the gospels are. This is perhaps because the Koran implies that
the Jewish Law is inaccurate in comparison with itself. The gospels may not be
included because the Koran states that Jesus was specifically for the Jews (e.g.
43:59).

Throughout the Koran, there are positive statements that encourage people to do good.
The positive statements include:

• The need to give alms and promoting charitable giving (e.g. 9:60).

• Defending the rights of orphans and the poor (e.g. 2:83).

However, in some verses, there are alternatives to doing these things. Verses 2:83, 2:177,
2:215, 4:8, 4:36, 8:41 and 59:7 tell people to help their close relatives, orphans and the

55
poor. In general, people would choose to help close relatives in preference to helping
others who may be in greater need. In addition, fasting is stated to be an alternative to
feeding the hungry. For example, 2:184 says that fasting is better than feeding a needy
person and 5:89 states that fasting for three days is an alternative to feeding ten people or
freeing a slave. 58:4 states that two months of fasting is the equivalent of feeding sixty
people. Feeding the hungry is also specified to be for the redemption for the sins of
breaking an oath (5:89) and a pagan divorce (58:4); therefore, feeding the hungry is a
public declaration that one has sinned, and it is likely that most people would choose to
fast in private in preference to doing this. A pagan divorce became a thing of the past, but
the association between the redemption for sin and feeding the hungry has remained in
the Koran. This probably discourages some people from feeding the hungry.

The Koran constantly emphasizes the need for forgiveness from Allah, when forgiveness
should only be relevant for interactions between people. In addition, the Koran implies that
the only person that you can wrong is yourself. A humanistic definition of the nature of sin
is omitted (i.e. an action or inaction that causes suffering); instead there is a set of arbitrary
rules, with penalties (such as fasting) for breaking them.

Jesus is mentioned many times in the Koran. The Koran portrays Jesus as a prophet, but
it denies things that are of particular importance to Christians. For example, it says that
Allah has no children (e.g. 6:100, 10:68, 19:88, 21:26, 72:3 and 112:3), that there is no
Trinity (4:171 and 5:73), that there is nothing joined to or partners with God (e.g. 16:3,
30:33, 35:40 and 39:65), that Jesus was not the Messiah (e.g. 5:17 and 5:72), that he was
only mortal (5:75) and that he did not die on the cross (4:157). The Koran claims that
Jesus made a bird out of clay, breathed on it and turned it into a real bird (e.g. 5:110). It
also claims that he spoke just after being born (19:30). Miracles like these would have
been very memorable, but have not been recorded in any of the gospels. The Koran
claims that the Jews thought that Ezra was the son of God (9:30), although there is no
evidence for this in the book of Ezra; the Koran compares the Jews and Ezra with
Christians and Jesus. It does not deny that Jesus was created without a father, but it does
deny that God was his father; verse 19:35 claims that God says 'Be' and it is, and no
family relationship is present. Lying about God is portrayed to be the worst thing that
someone can do (11:18); since churchgoers claim that they worship the Son of God, then
Muslims probably view them to be lying about God and are therefore deemed to be
Satanic. Similarly, 59:16 claims that it is Satan who tells Muslims not to believe in Allah.
The Hadiths (oral tradition) also talk about Jesus; Muslims believe that the second coming
of Jesus will involve him destroying the cross and uniting all people as Muslims.

The Koran appears to be particularly offensive to Catholics (Catholicism was the official
Christian religion when the Koran was written). It makes an implied criticism of the worship
of Mary as an equal to God (Mary is given special importance in Catholicism), and quotes
Jesus denying that he is the Son of God (5:116). In my opinion, it is not important that
Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. However, his commandment, "love
your neighbour as yourself," is an all-encompassing statement that is directed towards
reducing suffering. The Koran does not try to deny the teachings of Jesus; it omits them
completely and sidelines him as an example sent by God specifically for the Jews (e.g.
43:59) to verify the Hebrew Bible (e.g. 5:46). The activities of Jesus are therefore claimed
to be identical to the purpose of the Koran.

The Koran is directed against the traditional view of Jesus through its teachings against
any form of idolatry, especially where anything is associated with God as an equal. It also
warns that Satan threatens Muslims with the prospect of poverty (2:268). One does

56
become poor if we choose to give up all we have in the way that Jesus advocates; the
Koran is opposed to this teaching. The Koran incorrectly states that Christians offer to bear
the sins of others in 29:12.

There are many associations made between Satan and non-Muslims. For example, 43:62
says that Satan is the sworn enemy of Muslims in the middle of a passage that talks about
Jesus. However, Satan is quoted as saying that he would not test followers of Islam
(15:40-42). This reinforces the idea that anything non-Islamic is Satanic (16:63).

The Koran suggests that Christians invented the monastic life (57:27), which has led to
some Muslims suggesting that Paul is the most likely source of the Christian 'Antichrist'.
However, Christians have discounted Islamic criticism of Pauline theology, because the
Koran is offensive to their beliefs.

In conclusion, the Koran appears to be similar to the Hebrew Bible, but with much greater
emphasis on prayer and fasting. In my opinion, the Koran is directly responsible for a high
level of suffering and oppression among its followers due to the time-consuming prayers,
restrictive rules and harsh punishments for breaking Islamic laws.

57
Buddhism
Buddhists follow the teachings of the Buddha, who believed that the quest for
enlightenment and freedom from re-birth is the purpose of life. Buddhism shares many
concepts with Hinduism. One difference is a much greater emphasis on reincarnation.
Buddhists believe that people are endlessly reincarnated until they reach a level of
enlightenment that permits them to be freed from the cycles of re-birth (nirvana).

Central to Buddhist teachings are the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path to
enlightenment, leading to nirvana. The Four Noble Truths are:

1. All things are in a state of suffering.

2. This suffering is caused by desires and love of material possessions.

3. Escape from these desires is a prerequisite for inner peace.

4. The way to escape from these desires is by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Noble Eightfold Path is as follows:

1. Right understanding: understanding the Four Noble Truths.

2. Right intention: one must renounce worldly life and enter a homeless state.

3. Right speech: one must consider others and abstain from lies, slander, abuse and
gossip.

4. Right conduct: one must abstain from killing, stealing, lying, committing adultery and
using intoxicants.

5. Right occupation: one must never accept a means of livelihood that could be
considered questionable.

6. Right endeavor: one must strive after all that is good, and avoid that which is evil.

7. Right contemplation: one must learn to control the mind in meditation so that
emotion is not allowed to disturb inner peace.

8. Right concentration: it is claimed that one can reach a stage where the mind is
completely subject to one's will. This allows the mind to develop to stages beyond
reasoning and to nirvana.

The five precepts are the Buddhist ethical code:

1. Abstain from harming living beings.

2. Abstain from taking things not freely given.

3. Abstain from sexual misconduct.

58
4. Abstain from false speech.

5. Abstain from intoxicating drinks and drugs.

Additionally there are a further five precepts for those following a monastic life, although
there are many more in the Vinaya (Buddhist monastical rule book):

6. Abstain from taking untimely meals.

7. Abstain from dancing, music, singing and watching grotesque mime.

8. Abstain from the use of garlands, perfumes and personal adornment.

9. Abstain from the use of high seats.

10. Abstain from accepting gold or silver.

There are positive aspects to Buddhism. This religion identifies a problem with the human
condition (a state of suffering) and identifies a reason for this suffering (desires and a love
of material possessions). Desires can cause suffering if they are unfulfilled. However, I
disagree that escaping from desires is the optimal route to reducing suffering. In my
opinion, it is preferable to fulfill these desires rather than to attempt to escape from them in
order to reduce suffering. However, I agree that a wealth driven culture causes suffering to
oneself for several reasons:

• The perceived need for status in society is restrictive to freedom and promotes high
levels of stress (e.g. the 'rat race').

• The perceived need to comply with the social norm is restrictive to freedom.

• The desire for money can be restrictive. It is usually more time-consuming to earn
money than to spend it on things that are perceived to increase freedom and
happiness. In addition, the more money a person has, the more other people will try
to use that person. In a selfish society, people use each other rather than help each
other, promoting unsatisfactory relationships.

Buddhism combats this cause of suffering by creating a way of life which does not involve
owning possessions or having wealth. In my opinion, Buddhist monks have reduced
suffering because:

• Few people are interested in making use of them, because they have little material
wealth.

• They generally do not get married, and lack the restrictions of marriage.

• They may have little or nothing to worry about.

The disadvantages of this way of life are:

• A possible lack of entertainment and pleasure, perhaps leading to boredom.

59
• Freedom restricted by rules.

• In my opinion, Buddhism is not very enlightening (despite the claims to the contrary)
because it leaves many questions unanswered.

• An impractical belief system. For example, ants outnumber humans by millions to


one, and these life forms are unlikely ever to be reborn as humans so that they
could achieve nirvana. According to Buddhism, most life forms are locked in an
eternity of cycles of life and death. Another example of an impractical belief is that a
statement such as 'I have toothache' is meaningless according to Buddhist theology
because 'I', 'have' and 'toothache' are not counted in the ultimate facts of existence.

Most Buddhist monks are not major consumers, and their impact on other people is
minimal. Their first precept, "abstain from harming living beings" is good. However,
Buddhism is focused on a personal escape from suffering through enlightenment, and
gives little encouragement for people to reduce suffering by helping others in a practical
way. In general, Buddhists are encouraged to give to charity, but the Four Noble Truths,
Noble Eightfold Path and the precepts are focused on self-centred enlightenment and a
personal escape from suffering.

60
Confucianism
Confucianism defines an ideal society to be one in which everyone knows their place.
Instead of punishments for wrongdoing, this doctrine advocates a culture that is ingrained
into the social consciousness, such that deviating from the accepted norm results in
shame, and provides a deterrent for wrongdoing. The doctrine emphasizes the need for
virtue, and progression in society within the boundaries of authority. It advocates a
hierarchical class system based on one's achievements, knowledge and wisdom.

This type of thinking is particularly prevalent in Japan. The traditional religion of Japan is
Shinto, which considers everything in nature to have a spiritual essence. It is related to
Paganism and Shamanism. Japan is also influenced by Confucianism. For example, the
Japanese bow to each other frequently, and the extent to which two people bow is
dependent on their relative status in society. Redundancy or loss of status can lead to
suicide due to the shame that it causes. Confucianism influenced the Samurai culture, the
warrior caste of ancient Japan. If a Samurai warrior were dishonoured, he would cut open
his stomach and kill himself. The idea of an honourable death still plays a part in modern
Japanese society, and promotes suicide. Confucianism may also be to blame for a failure
to help the poor in Japanese society. For example, the welfare system is poorly
developed, and people are obliged to seek help from their families if they encounter
financial difficulty. Receiving welfare is perceived to be shameful.

Confucianism has also played a significant role in Chinese culture. China is a very old
nation and has been influenced by three main theologies; Confucianism, Taoism and
Buddhism. The Chinese culture also centers around folk religion and mythology.

The main Confucian texts are Confucian Analects, The Great Learning, The Doctrine of
the Mean and The Book of Mencius. The Analects are a series of sayings attributed to
Confucius around 500BC. Confucianism promotes accepting your place in society, and the
effect on Chinese culture may have made it easier for the dictatorial government to remain
in power.

Here are some verses from the Confucian Analects:

Book 1, 2:2
"Filial piety and fraternal submission!-- are they not the root of all benevolent actions?"
Emphasis is placed on knowing your place in society through relationships, particularly
with family. The importance placed on family relations also led to the worship of ancestors.

Book 1, 5-6
"The Master said, 'To rule a country of a thousand chariots, there must be reverent
attention to business, and sincerity; economy in expenditure, and love for men; and the
employment of the people at the proper seasons.'

The Master said, 'A youth, when at home, should be filial, and, abroad, respectful to his
elders. He should be earnest and truthful. He should overflow in love to all, and cultivate
the friendship of the good. When he has time and opportunity, after the performance of
these things, he should employ them in polite studies." Much of the text is about ruling
over people, and promotes a society in which people are easier to rule over; emphasis is
placed on respect and submission to those who are perceived to be social superiors.

61
Book 1, 8:3
"Have no friends not equal to yourself."

Book 2, 3:1-2
"The Master said, 'If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by
punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be
led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will
have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.'" A social culture is advocated
to provide a deterrent for wrongdoing.

Book 4, 5:1
"The Master said, 'Riches and honours are what men desire. If it cannot be obtained in the
proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and meanness are what men dislike. If it
cannot be avoided in the proper way, they should not be avoided.'" This advocates social
progression within the boundaries of authority.

Book 5, 15
"The Master said of Tsze-ch'an that he had four of the characteristics of a superior man:--
in his conduct of himself, he was humble; in serving his superiors, he was respectful; in
nourishing the people, he was kind; in ordering the people, he was just.'"

Book 6, 20
"Fan Ch'ih asked what constituted wisdom. The Master said, 'To give one's self earnestly
to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them,
may be called wisdom.' He asked about perfect virtue. The Master said, 'The man of virtue
makes the difficulty to be overcome his first business, and success only a subsequent
consideration;-- this may be called perfect virtue.'" Wisdom is defined to be doing your
duties in society.

Book 7, 6:1-4
"The Master said, 'Let the will be set on the path of duty. Let every attainment in what is
good be firmly grasped. Let perfect virtue be accorded with. Let relaxation and enjoyment
be found in the polite arts.'" Again, the importance of duty is emphasized.

Book 9, 22
"The Master said, 'A youth is to be regarded with respect. How do we know that his future
will not be equal to our present? If he reach the age of forty or fifty, and has not made
himself heard of, then indeed he will not be worth being regarded with respect.'" This
emphasizes a need to make a name for yourself in society.

Many people asked Confucius what 'perfect virtue' was and what constituted a 'superior
man'. Every time he gave a different answer.

Book 12, 1:1-2


"Yen Yuan asked about perfect virtue. The Master said, 'To subdue one's self and
return to propriety, is perfect virtue. If a man can for one day subdue himself and
return to propriety, all under heaven will ascribe perfect virtue to him. Is the practice
of perfect virtue from a man himself, or is it from others?'
Yen Yuan said, 'I beg to ask the steps of that process.' The Master replied, 'Look
not at what is contrary to propriety; listen not to what is contrary to propriety; speak
not what is contrary to propriety; make no movement which is contrary to propriety.'
Yen Yuan then said, 'Though I am deficient in intelligence and vigour, I will make it

62
my business to practice this lesson.'"

Book 12, 2
"Chung-kung asked about perfect virtue. The Master said, 'It is, when you go
abroad, to behave to every one as if you were receiving a great guest; to employ
the people as if you were assisting at a great sacrifice; not to do to others as you
would not wish done to yourself; to have no murmuring against you in the country,
and none in the family.' Chung-kung said, 'Though I am deficient in intelligence and
vigour, I will make it my business to practise this lesson.'" This verse and Mencius
Book 7 Part 1 Chapter 4 contain statements similar to the Golden Rule, which is a
positive aspect of Confucianism.

Book 12, 3:1-3


"Sze-ma Niu asked about perfect virtue. The Master said, 'The man of perfect virtue
is cautious and slow in his speech.'
Cautious and slow in his speech!' said Niu;-- 'is this what is meant by perfect
virtue?'
The Master said, 'When a man feels the difficulty of doing, can he be other than
cautious and slow in speaking?'"

Book 12, 4:1-3


"Sze-ma Niu asked about the superior man. The Master said, 'The superior man
has neither anxiety nor fear.'
'Being without anxiety or fear!' said Nui;-- 'does this constitute what we call the
superior man?'
The Master said, 'When internal examination discovers nothing wrong, what is there
to be anxious about, what is there to fear?'"

Book 12, 9:1-4


"The Duke Ai inquired of Yu Zo, saying, 'The year is one of scarcity, and the returns for
expenditure are not sufficient;-- what is to be done?'
Yu Zo replied to him, 'Why not simply tithe the people?'
'With two tenths, said the duke, 'I find it not enough;-- how could I do with that system of
one tenth?'
Yu Zo answered, 'If the people have plenty, their prince will not be left to want alone. If the
people are in want, their prince cannot enjoy plenty alone.'" This is a discussion about
taxation and tithing in the context of government.

Book 13, 10-12


"The Master said, 'If there were (any of the princes) who would employ me, in the course
of twelve months, I should have done something considerable. In three years, the
government would be perfected.'
The Master said, 'If good men were to govern a country in succession for a hundred years,
they would be able to transform the violently bad, and dispense with capital punishments.
True indeed is this saying!'
The Master said, 'If a truly royal ruler were to arise, it would still require a generation, and
then virtue would prevail.'" The text continues to advocate a form of government.

Book 17, 3
"The Master said, 'There are only the wise of the highest class, and the stupid of the
lowest class, who cannot be changed.'" This demonstrates the views of the lower classes
in the hierarchical classification system.

63
Book 17, 25
"The Master said, 'Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to. If
you are familiar with them, they lose their humility. If you maintain a reserve towards them,
they are discontented.'" In the hierarchical system of Confucianism, women were expected
to be subordinate to their fathers, husbands and sons. In extreme cases, female babies
were killed because male children were preferred. The painful practice of foot-binding for
women was common in China, because men preferred it.

Book 20, 2:3


"Tsze-chang then asked, 'What are meant by the four bad things?'
The Master said, 'To put the people to death without having instructed them;-- this is called
cruelty. To require from them, suddenly, the full tale of work, without having given them
warning;-- this is called oppression. To issue orders as if without urgency, at first, and,
when the time comes, to insist on them with severity;-- this is called injury. And, generally,
in the giving pay or rewards to men, to do it in a stingy way;-- this is called acting the part
of a mere official.'" This implies that it is acceptable to put someone to death if you have
previously instructed them, and also to oppress someone if you have given them warning
that you are going to do so.

In summary, Confucianism is a system of hierarchical class which serves to restrict the


freedom of individuals in the interests of the society in which they live by promoting
concepts like honour, virtue and shame. It advocates submission to those who are seen to
be social superiors and older family members. However, it serves to create a society that
is far from being ideal, due to inequality and restricted freedom.

64
Taoism
Taoism revolves around an observation that the Universe is based on opposites. These
opposites fall into two categories, Yin and Yang, and the unity of opposites is Tao. Taoists
believe in something similar to Newton's third law of motion (for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction). Unity with the Tao involves minimising action (thus
minimising reaction), leading to inner unity between Yin and Yang. Taoists are passive,
and they allow events to happen according to the will of the Tao without trying to direct
their own lives. Like Buddhist monks, Taoists are not major consumers and their impact on
other people is minimal.

Translating the Tao Te Ching has been difficult, and has resulted in a variety of
interpretations of the original Chinese. Like Confucianism, Taoism promotes governmental
control. The text promotes passivity, helping to create a mindset in which people are
easier to rule over. Like the filial submission in Confucianism, this may be one reason why
the Chinese dictatorship has been able to remain in power. The text is poetic and pleasant
to read, and is considered to be 'deep', meaning that it contains randomly linked concepts
and paradoxes such as, "There are times....when a square seems to have corners."
(chapter 41, Rosenthal's Translation). The brain has a need to make sense of its
environment, so religious texts that contain statements that make no sense cause the
brain major problems. In my opinion, the reason why religious texts like these are claimed
to be enlightened is because no one fully understands them; the text includes random
linking of concepts, statements that have no real meaning, and a central concept (Tao)
that is poorly defined.

65
Hinduism
Hinduism is the religion of India, characterised by a belief in reincarnation and the need for
enlightenment, and is related to Buddhism. However, unlike Buddhism, the religion
incorporates millions of gods and places emphasis on the importance of acquiring wealth.

The Hindu sacred texts are known as the Vedas – historically, Hindu tradition meant that
the priests thought that they were so holy that only the top three classes of Indian society
were allowed access to them. The Hindu Caste system still affects modern day India. It is
a system of social class – opportunities in Indian society are dependent upon family origin.
There are some people outside the Caste system; they are outcasts or 'untouchables'. The
inequality in India is obvious; cities have shanty towns alongside modern high-tech
buildings.

Here is a view of poverty from a Hindu sacred text:

Poverty is a state of sinfulness


From the Mahabharata, Santi Parva, Section VIII.
Translated by Sri Kisari Mohan Ganguli.

Arjun said: It is seen that a poor man, even when he stands near, is accused
falsely. Poverty is a state of sinfulness. It behoveth thee not to applaud poverty,
therefore. The man that is fallen, grieves, as also he that is poor. I do not see the
difference between a fallen man and a poor man. All kinds of meritorious acts flow
from the possession of great wealth like a mountain. From wealth spring all religious
acts, all pleasures, and heaven itself. Without wealth, a man cannot find the very
means of sustaining his life. The acts of a person who, possessed of little
intelligence, suffers himself to be divested of wealth, are all dried up like shallow
streams in the summer season. He that has wealth has friends.

He that has wealth has kinsmen. He that has wealth is regarded as a true man in
the world. He that has wealth is regarded as a learned man. If a person who has no
wealth desires to achieve a particular purpose, he meets with failure.

The underlined text blames the poor for their poverty. This may be one reason why the
suicide rate among indebted farmers is so high in India. The Indian economy is growing at
9% per year, the second fastest in the world. However, the prevailing view on poverty
means that the Indian Government repossesses land belonging to subsistence farmers to
make way for new businesses and industry.

Like Buddhism, Hinduism supports the idea of reincarnation. Hindus believe that people
who have been evil in a previous life are reincarnated as an animal or an untouchable
(chandala):

Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7:


Those whose conduct here [on earth] has been good will quickly attain some good
birth – birth as a brahmin, birth as a kshatriya, or birth as a vaisya. But those whose
conduct here has been evil will quickly attain some evil birth – birth as a dog, birth
as a pig or birth as a chandala.

66
People who are born as untouchables are blamed for evil acts in a previous life. The same
is true of people who are born with disabilities. Women are also perceived to have a lower
status than that of men, and this is highlighted in the Code of Manu, which is accepted by
most Hindus as the most complete expression of Hindu sacred law:

Manu 5.151-154
Him to whom her father may give her, or her brother with the father's permission,
she shall obey as long as she lives...Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure
elsewhere, or devoid of good qualities, a husband must be constantly worshipped
as a god by a faithful wife.

Manu 5.148-149
In childhood a female must be subject to her father; in youth to her husband; when
her lord [husband] is dead, to her sons. A woman must never be independent. She
must not seek to separate from her father, husband or sons.

When Hindus marry, the bride's family is required to pay the husband a dowry. This has
led to many women killing their female babies because they are too expensive. In modern
times, where people can determine the gender of babies before birth, female children are
frequently aborted. Indian authorities estimate that around five million female foetuses are
aborted every year. Another problem is bride-burning, where husbands kill their wives to
remarry and get a new dowry. According to CNN news, Indian police say that they receive
more than 2500 reports of bride-burning every year, often disguised as accidents or
suicides.

Devout male followers of Hinduism may follow the four stage path of Hindu Holy life. At
first, emphasis is placed on the acquisition of wealth. Later, when he becomes old, he
renounces his wealth and goes to live in the forest and may eventually become a
wandering Hindu holy man.

Hindus suggest that there are four purposes to life:

• Dharma: righteousness or morality.

• Artha: prospering.

• Kama: love and sensual pleasure.

• Moksha: liberation from endless cycles of rebirth.

Hinduism has an ethical code:

• Ahimsa: do not harm anyone.

• Satya: do not lie.

• Asteya: do not steal.

• Brahmacharya: control of sexual energy; a stage of life for learning and purity.

• Aparigraha: do not be greedy.

67
• Saucha: cleanse yourself.

• Santosha: be content.

• Tapas: discipline yourself.

• Svadhyaya: study.

• Isvara Pranidhana: surrender to God.

In addition to the ethical code, Hindus are encouraged to respect their parents (a need to
repay debts).

Hinduism traditionally involved the sacrifice of animals. This has now changed although
sacrifice of herbs, grains etc. into fire is still practiced. Many religions involve some sort of
sacrifice. I suggest the best sort of sacrifice is where a person uses their time or resources
to help someone else, because this is practical and useful. I suggest that the worst sort of
sacrifice is where something that could be used to help another person (time, resources
etc.) is destroyed.

Vedics (Hindu teachers) are known for their ability to cure diseases. Healing is claimed to
be a form of spiritual interaction that seems to be beneficial, but also appears to give false
credence to theologies that give rise to a large amount of suffering. There are many other
superstitious beliefs in Hinduism, and many forms of spiritual interactions are claimed to
occur.

In conclusion, Hinduism is a highly evolved enlightenment-based religion that promotes a


hierarchical system of social class in which women are oppressed, and the poorest
members of society are stigmatised.

68
Sikhism
Sikhism was founded in India by Guru Nanak in the 15th century. Guru Nanak is thought to
have had a spiritual experience that led to him becoming a spiritual teacher. He was
disillusioned by Muslim and Hindu intolerance and inequality, and pronounced that there is
neither Hindu nor Muslim, only man; he taught that all people are God's children. He
attempted to unify the two religions, and used both Muslim and Hindu clothes while
preaching. In addition, the Sikh Holy Book (Guru Granth Sahib), uses vocabulary from the
languages of the two religions.

Guru Nanak rejected the Hindu Caste system and believed in only one God. However, he
maintained the Hindu belief in reincarnation. The goal of Sikhism is spiritual peace and
liberation achieved through freedom from re-birth and unity with God. Sikhs believe that
their conduct in previous lives affects their current and future lives. Guru Nanak's
teachings led to the formation of the Guru Granth Sahib. This 1430 page long poetic book
focuses on Sikh beliefs, spirituality and the nature of the Sikh god. The book is not
dogmatic, and traditions such as leaving one's hair uncut were introduced later by Guru
Gobind Singh. Sikhs treat the book as a living Guru, and it usually has its own private
room.

The rejection of the Caste system led to Sikhs adopting the surnames Singh (Lion) for men
and Kaur (Princess) for women; in Indian society, these names were of high Caste
ranking. Worship also involves a free communal meal to which both men and women are
welcomed, promoting sexual equality. Guru Nanak was opposed to the tradition of Sati,
where Hindu women voluntarily burned themselves alive on the funeral pyres of their
husbands.

Sikhs believe in religious tolerance to the extent that they are prepared to defend their own
beliefs and those of others by force. Defending Hinduism is an example of defending the
freedom of people to follow a theology that causes suffering. However, true freedom
implies that people should be able to choose whether or not to cause suffering to others. If
people do chose to cause suffering, then the onus should be on defending the rights of the
people who are oppressed; Sikhs do this by providing an alternative to the Hindu Caste
system. Therefore, the Sikh approach to defending the freedom of religious expression is
probably justified; Sikhism defends the rights of someone to be a Hindu while not
supporting Hinduism itself, and at the same time shows people why Hinduism causes
suffering and defends the rights of those who are oppressed by it. However, it is
unfortunate that many Hindus may have rejected Sikhism because of the requirement to
keep their hair uncut (this is an open invitation for persecution, because it makes Sikhs
look very different to everyone else).

The Sikh community became more militant under the leadership of Guru Gobind Singh,
and they fought to defend themselves against persecution. One of the outward signs of
their religion is a sword, which they keep to remind themselves of their military obligations.

Sikhism promotes charitable giving, meditation and prayer. Emphasis is placed on


marriage, morality and refraining from adultery. Sikhs are not allowed to consume
intoxicants or animals that have been bled to death in accordance with Islam.

The Baha'i religion is similar to Sikhism. It originated from Islam in the 19th century,
founded by a man who called himself 'the Bab'. He announced that there would soon be

69
another prophet of God from a long line of prophets including Moses, Jesus and
Muhammad. The Bab was executed by the Islamic authorities, but another man received a
vision that he was the prophet. The Baha'i religion emphasizes the unity of mankind and it
is against all kinds of persecution and prejudice. They use their own scriptures and those
of other religions, and their places of worship are decorated with the symbols of many
religions. Like Islam, the Baha'i religion requires that people pray and fast. Emphasis is
placed on marriage, and the consumption of intoxicants is prohibited.

Sikhism was founded as a response to the negative aspects of Hinduism and Islam. It is a
relatively small religion with about 20 million followers. Sikhs do not try to convert people to
their religion, and believe in the divine origin of all religions with ethical principals similar to
their own.

70
Paganism
Paganism encompasses a diverse set of native religious beliefs including those of the
Ancient Greeks, Celts, native Americans and native Africans. Hinduism could also be
described as a form of Paganism. Many native beliefs were extinguished by Christianity
and Islam, but have been reconstructed by some people in modern times. There are so
many forms of Paganism, that it is not possible to make a summary that accurately
describes all of them. However, there are some points that apply to many forms of
Paganism, and I have included some of these here.

There are many positive aspects to many forms of Paganism, for example:

• Freedom of choice. People can choose which Pagan beliefs to follow, and there is a
huge range to choose from. People usually follow Pagan traditions because they
want to, not because they are trying to go to heaven and avoid hell.

• A lack of a strict set of rules. Some Pagans opt for beliefs that involve rules, but this
is entirely optional.

• Acceptance of people such as homosexuals, which many other religions do not


accept.

• The rule of threefold return discourages Wiccans from harming others (Wicca is a
type of Paganism). This law suggests that if a person does something good or bad,
then it will be returned to that person with a magnitude of three times. The
emphasis on the importance of personal responsibility contrasts with Christianity,
which states that a belief in Jesus allows for the remission of sins. The Wiccan
Rede (Do what you will, so long as it harms none) also discourages Wiccans from
harming others.

• Historically, goddesses and feminine power have been significant in some Pagan
traditions, so many forms of Paganism promote sexual equality.

• Pagans often prefer to be outside and their traditions often harmonise with nature.
Some traditions serve to promote relationship formation and sexuality.

There are some negative aspects to the Pagan religions:

• Pagan spiritual interactions sound fascinating (such as native American spiritual


journeys), and may be personally fulfilling. However, they may be time-consuming,
reducing the amount of time available for oneself and others. In ancient times, some
Pagan spiritual interactions may have been more damaging, and could have
encouraged human sacrifices in some cases. The inhabitants of Easter Island may
have been responding to spiritual interactions when they were building their stone
statues, leading to the deforestation of their island, and the eventual extinction of
their population.

• The prospect of people casting curses, hexes and spells that are intended to
influence free will (e.g. love spells) could make people feel a little uncomfortable
around some Pagan groups. In ancient times, this effect may have contributed to
the persecution and killing of witches. Christian persecution of Pagans may also be

71
encouraged by Biblical verses such as Matthew 18:17 and 1 Corinthians 10:20.

72

You might also like