If I Ever Feel Better

After my first day in my new job, I blurted out to Nikki, “I’ve got an office, a Blackberry and a personal assistant! Who am I?”

To be true, the PA isn’t strictly mine - I share with two others - but I do have someone is supposed to manage my diary, do my photocopying and make phone calls for me. At least, I think that’s what she’s supposed to do. I haven’t quite got this figured out.

I did a bit of a survey of people I know to see what they thought.

My dad, who has had assistants for years now, said that you can get them to do anything. Organise your personal travel, get cards for birthdays, arrange your dry-cleaning. Basically, whatever work is making you too busy to do. My friends, most of whom don’t have PAs, generally agreed. “I’d love to have someone to do everything for me,” was the typical response. Although one mate said that he’d had an assistant for a few months and was as clueless as me.

I just feel really uncomfortable asking someone the same age as my mother to do things I am able to do myself. But on the other hand, this dry cleaning won’t take itself to the shops.

Moving to the North Shore has its definite positives.  I can afford a place bigger than a shoebox.  I don’t find empty syringes or condom wrappers on my doorstep in the morning.  I can walk up the street to get coffee without smelling urine once.  It’s just so frigging…nice.  There are trees and people have washed and my neighbours are nice and I am realising that I have always been a bourgeois yuppy on the inside.

There are dangers too.  Naturally, the overwhelming upper-middle-classness of it all could mean that I forget that there are poor people out there.  I could start to believe that absolutely everyone drives a BMW or a Lexus and that a Honda Jazz really is no car at all.  I could start talking about my stock portfolio.  I could have a stock portfolio.  The possibilities are endless.

Another risk that Nikki and I observed when scoping out the area is that, like a number of other harbourside neighbourhoods, this suburb has recently experienced a “baby boom”.  It seems as if everyone around here is aged between 25 and 40 and pushing a pram.  It’s clearly the place you go when you want to buy a unit, do some renovations and have yourself a kid or two.

“Everyone’s nesting,” said my fiancée on seeing the young families dotting the park we were in.

“The worst thing is that they make it look kind of appealling!” I commented, guiltily.

“I didn’t want to come out and say it, but yeah…”

If you intend to stay young and footloose, you can’t be too careful where you live.

Today I was about to do another post about atheism when I realised that it was probably time for a change of approach.  It dawned on me, as it does very occasionally, that there are people out there who don’t have regular updates on my life and are actually interested in what’s happening.  Since I don’t use Twitter, rarely update Facebook (although I lurk pretty often) and don’t have time to verbally update everyone in my life, I guess this little blog is a good a place to spread the word.

So 2009 is quite the year.  Just over a month ago, I started another job - possibly the most challenging yet and a strangely exhilirating one.  This weekend, I move across town to a new and unfamiliar neighbourhood.  In a matter of weeks, I’ll turn 28 and get married to the most beautiful, funny, ridiculous girl I’ve ever known.  Out of that list, only turning 28 doesn’t feature in the rankings of “biggest causes of stress” - and yet I feel strangely calm.

Perhaps it’s watching all my fears at the beginning of the year turn out to be baseless that has given me a new assurance.  There were a lot of fears and absolutely every single one failed to materialise.  There’s a lesson in there about always assuming the worst, but it’s one that I’m learning only slowly.

Everyone I know says that they keep expecting their life to simplify and it never does.  I think I now know that too - and that the secret is in learning to enjoy yourself and find fulfilment in the spaces between the busyness.  They’re not always easy to find, but they are there.  A piece of unremarkable wisdom, sure, but one I’ve seen others realise far later in life.

In the last few years, I’ve been intrigued by the work of British essayist/novelist/biographer A. N. Wilson.  Despite being an avowed atheist, Wilson seemed to be drawn to Christians of the past, writing biographies of Tolstoy, C. S. Lewis, Hillaire Belloc, Milton and…err…Christ.  His Lewis biography, the only one I have read, is simultaneously admiring and disdainful of Lewis’ belief.  The other Wilson book I’ve read, the novel My Name Is Legion, is loaded with Christ metaphors and revolves around a wild-eyed Christian mystic prophet.  For an atheist, he sure was a lot more complicated than Richard Dawkins.

But as C. S. Lewis himself commented, a serious atheist can’t be too careful with his reading - or writing.  As he has captured in two well-written articles this Easter, Wilson has found himself once again believing all the things he rejected so dramatically in his thirties.

Surprisingly, Wilson now sees his two decades of atheism as his brush with fundamentalism.  If anything, he has been encouraged back to Christianity by the intolerance and condescension he saw in his fellow unbelievers.  Maybe the side of buses isn’t as good an advertisement as actual humility.

The change-of-heart of one ageing doubter isn’t proof of anything, let alone the resurrection of Jesus, but it does challenge the common narrative of putting away “childish” beliefs with age.

The thing that amazes me most is the bravery it must take Wilson to admit his mistakes so publicly.  I can only imagine that he now reads much of his non-fiction work with the kind of embarrassment most of us only experience when seeing photos of our teenage selves.  At least C. S. Lewis converted before he made a name as a writer.  Wilson is going to have to live with his contributions to the cause he now rejects.  And good luck to him.

There must be a law in the blogosphere that states that whenever a blogger’s productivity has been declining and they do a post about how they’re back and service will resume as normal, it’s always followed by an extended hiatus.  Well, this has happened to me.  What can I say?  My fiancée returns to Australia after a year away, I change jobs yet again and I completely disappear from the internet.  It is any wonder?

If you believe the magazines and blogs I read, President Obama is “bringing science back”.  Apparently like Justin Timberlake he’s reintroducing us to something we might not have realised ever went away.

“Science” in this case is a bit of a problematic term.  It doesn’t just mean knowledge resulting from experimentation and examination - it’s used to refer to a whole lot of policies and ethical decisions that are pretty strongly associated with liberal values.  Perhaps it’s because of late the Right has been so vehemently opposed to scientific findings (e.g. climate change) we’ve come to associate liberal causes with science.  Even when I agree with the policy or approach, I’m slightly concerned by the consequences of conflating the two, particularly when it allows people to leave their own ethics and principles unexamined.

Take one of the most frequently cited examples of Obama’s Scientific Renaissance - stem cell research.  Now, removing restrictions on this kind of research could have real benefits and it brings the US into line with most other developed countries.  However, the decision whether or not to allow stem cell research is not about science vs religion.  It’s about one set of values vs another.  Science tells us whether we can experiment on stem cells and what we might hope to find.  It doesn’t tell us whether we should.  I thought a recent article in Slate summarised it well

That decision rests on whether you think there are any negative consequences to the action, and if so, whether those consequences are outweighed by the potential benefits.  It’s about values.  I think that in a democracy, the ethical views of the majority should not be outweighted by those of the few, but that’s not the same thing as one set of priorities being “scientific” and therefore inherently more valid.

Or let’s look at climate change.  The science seems to me to be unambiguous on the major points, even if many of the detailed predicitions are open to debate.  The Earth is getting hotter and will probably get a lot hotter unless we reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  There are some who debate this, but that’s the scientific question.  The question of what we then do about climate change is much less about the science and much more about who is responsible for fixing it.

What costs should we incur now to prevent catastrophe?  Who should bear these costs?  Do rich countries have a responsibility to act first or should the developing world slow its growth to save us all?  These are all questions of values and politics and ethics.  There is no scientific solution that identifies what level of wealth is worth sacrificing now to protect our grandchildren.  No equation says what a Bangladeshi life is worth in terms of SUV trips to the mall.  I believe that urgent and drastic action on climate change by developed nations is needed, but it’s not purely about science.

Maybe it’s because I’m both a social liberal and a Christian that I am especially aware of the tensions.  I know that my values and my politics are influenced by so many factors: my faith, my upbringing, my education (five years of economic rationalist indoctrination included) and my career.  I know what’s informed by facts and evidence and what’s my gut instinct or sense of what’s right.  I may expect you to listen to evidence and proof, but I know that there are many things I will never be able to convince you of because they exist somewhere outside of the scientific method.

Science is often said to be the anthesis of faith and I hear it often.  “Oh, I used to believe that, until I discovered science,” a guy commented to me last year.  We see a lot of this kind of talk from the New Atheists.  Religion is dangerous because it shuts off inquiry and leads to blind obedience, they say.  It needs to be stopped.  But wait a moment: is that a view backed up by scientific evidence?

I remember watching Richard Dawkins on TV talk about the dangers of faith and it hit me that the moment he talks about religion is the moment he stops being a scientist.  Dawkins’ views on religion may be driven by his passion for science, but that’s not the same as being scientific.  Has he subjected his hypotheses about the dangers of religion to experimentation?  Has he conducted a comprehensive cohort study or a rigorous metaanalysis to see whether exposure to religious belief leads to violence or intolerance or stupidity?  Has he determined the causation, controlled for other influences and found a statistically significant variation between believers and atheists?  Because until then, he’s squarely in the world of values and ethics and opinion.

I’m pleased to see science taking a strong place in government.  I think there should be more of it.  I’m all for evidence-based policy and subjecting our presuppositions to scrutiny.  I just want everyone to take a deep breath and remember that when a scientist moves beyond what is to what should be, they’re just the same as the rest of us, weighing up the pros and cons and making a judgement.  It may be a good thing, but it’s not science.

I’ve been taking a blogging break over the last few months while I try and get a better balance in my life.  But it occurs to me now that I still have a lot of thoughts bouncing round in my head that I need an outlet for - and 2009 is going to be a year I’d like to document.  So let’s see what happens.

Today is a momentous day for the United States and to a less extent the world. Barack Obama has been sworn-in as the first African American President. You already knew this. You also know that he’s been elected on a platform of change and hope - a claim that he will take the USA to a better, more optimistic place. This is a tough order under any circumstances, let alone when your nation is embroiled in two wars and facing a deep recession.

He’s also going to face the usual array of entrenched special interests, as well as the intransigence of Congress (on both sides) and the social divisions that will take a long time to heal. I think he’s a man of character and will do his best not to be defeated by these barriers. But I am also cynical enough to expect that he will not always succeed. After so much hope, disappointment and disillusionment is inevitable. Looking back at great leaders of the past, all have had their failures and weaknesses. Unless Obama actually is the Messiah , he will have his too.

You know what I can’t be cynical about?  Hearing kids say that Obama makes them believe that they can do anything.  The thought that prior to this moment, they have been cursed with the expectation that they can’t do so many things breaks my heart.  Self-belief is not enough in itself, but it can make a world of difference.

Whatever happens from now on, things have already gotten a little bit better.

Talk to a guy in the lead-up to his wedding and he’ll most likely express horror at the amount of effort that goes into planning the thing.  In all likelihood, he’ll tell you that he’d rather get married at the beach with 5 close friends and what the hell are “wedding favours” anyway?  I used to wonder whether this was gender expectations - an Aussie bloke isn’t supposed to get excited about this kind of thing.  But on the other hand, the way some brides carry on, fatigue and apathy from the groom-to-be are just natural reactions.

Even marrying the most fantastically down-to-earth girl imaginable, there is still a lot to be organised. I’m off the hook for almost all the planning, by virtue of being unable to inspect locations or talk to local providers.  In a lot of ways, it’s a typical guy’s dream: just turn up and marry the girl you love.  What could be simpler?  I’m realising that I’m just like all the other guys.

I helped a photographer friend shoot a wedding yesterday and for the first time noticed the details and elements that go into making the day happen - because, let’s be honest, all I’ve ever done at previous weddings is play Bridal Bingo and check out the bridesmaids.  The lesson?  It’s a BIG job.  My heart went out to Nikki and I just wanted to find a way to make it all magically happen.  Is there someone you can pay to do it who isn’t Martin Short or J-Lo?

Remember the best bonding experience of your life.  Think about the shared challenge or thrill and the relationships that formed out of it.  Think about the honesty and understanding that you felt.  Then look a bit to the side, to the periphery of your memory.  See anyone?  Who’s just outside of the photo?  Maybe you can only see their arm, their shoulder or half of their face.

Group dynamics are a funny thing.  I’m always trying to get my head around them in my untrained pre-Psych 101 fashion.  Something I’ve been thinking about for a year or so is how close relationships and group bonding leave others on the outer.  Because every group is defined by something common, anything from an artificial work structure (HR, Sales Team B) to a shared sense of humour, there are always going to be people who don’t meet the entry requirement.

Sometimes you won’t notice it, but other times you will spot people who are in the same place or situation, but are somehow omitted from the group that forms.  They might be the shy ones in a group of extroverts.  They might be the non-English speaker who doesn’t get the jokes.  They might respond differently to events than everyone else.

This might not be a big deal and for the most part we just appreciate the groups and bonds that we have the chance to form.  For those on the outer, their opportunity for bonding is probably some other time, with someone else in some other place.  Maybe it’s because I have felt on the outer so many times that even in the midst of becoming close to a group, I notice those who are left out.

At my high school reunion in September, just over a third of the year level turned up.  Most of them were from the self-identified “cool” group.  Quite a few of my friends were there, but even more didn’t make it.  Their absence was pretty obvious and yet several people said to me “Isn’t it great that everyone could be here?” or “That’s what I love about our year level - everyone was friends with everyone!”

Every time you draw a line around a group, there’s someone who’s going to be on the other side.  That’s not so say we shouldn’t do it.  We just shouldn’t kid ourselves that the circle is the whole world.