I studied for four years at Oxford and Nobody Taught Me How Money Works

The British government has this week announced plans to ban social media access for under-16s. Ministers describe it as a historic intervention to protect children. Newspapers are full of discussion about algorithms, screen addiction and online harms. Yet as I watched the announcement unfold, I found myself asking a different question entirely. Why are we once again arguing about what children should be prevented from doing rather than what they should be taught?

The discussion is presented as a matter of national importance. Ministers speak gravely about online harms. Newspapers speculate about restrictions and enforcement. Experts are summoned to television studios. Committees are established. Reports are commissioned.

But all of my experience as a student and teacher tells me that we are arguing passionately about the wrong problem. At sixty-five years of age, having attended good schools, won a scholarship to Oxford, taught for decades and worked in several countries, I have reached an uncomfortable conclusion: almost nobody ever taught me how money works.

Nobody explained investing. Nobody explained compound interest. Nobody explained pensions. Nobody explained the long-term consequences of inflation. Nobody explained the relationship between taxation and public services. Nobody explained mortgages beyond the most superficial level. Nobody explained the astonishing difference between acquiring assets and merely consuming income.

Yet these are not specialist concerns. They are among the most important forces shaping the lives of ordinary citizens.

They influence where people live, when they retire, whether they accumulate wealth, how vulnerable they are to economic shocks and, ultimately, the degree of freedom they enjoy throughout their lives.

The strange thing is that this educational failure is almost invisible. Some parents complain if their children leave school unable to read Shakespeare. Politicians worry if socially constructed examination results fall.

Universities debate decolonisation, inclusion, safe spaces and artificial intelligence.

Meanwhile, millions of young adults enter the world with little understanding of debt, investment, taxation, pensions or wealth creation.

Nobody seems particularly alarmed. But as a teacher, I find this extraordinary. And as a citizen, I find it deeply disturbing.

As someone who grew up in a working-class family, I find it difficult to avoid an even more uncomfortable observation.

Those who grow up in affluent families often learn these things anyway.

They hear conversations around the dinner table. They observe parents discussing property, investments, inheritance and taxation. They absorb financial knowledge almost by osmosis.

Those from less privileged backgrounds are often far less fortunate.

The result is that schools, which are supposed to reduce inequality of opportunity, usually end up reinforcing it.

I studied languages, theology, literature and philosophy. I do not regret a moment of it. Education transformed my life and broadened my horizons in ways I shall always be grateful for.

Yet if I am completely honest, my grandfather, a builder with far less formal education, may well have understood practical wealth creation better than I did. He understood property. He understood value. He understood patience. Most importantly, he understood that money is not primarily about income. It is about what income becomes over time. That lesson alone may be worth more than half the curriculum I studied. Unfortunately, he passed away when I was five years old, so he could never pass on his wisdom.

The question therefore is not whether children should be protected from harmful content online. Of course they should.

The question is why governments find it easier to regulate TikTok than to ask whether the curriculum itself is preparing young people for adult life.

Why is there endless discussion about screen time but comparatively little discussion about economic literacy?

Why do we devote thousands of classroom hours to subjects that many pupils will never use again while allocating almost no serious time to understanding mortgages, pensions, inflation, taxation, investing and economic reasoning?

And why, after decades of educational reform, do so many intelligent, capable and highly educated adults still feel financially illiterate?

These are not merely personal questions. They are political questions. They are social questions.

And they are ultimately questions about power.

A population that cannot critically evaluate economic arguments is easier to persuade, easier to frighten and easier to divide. It becomes dependent upon experts, commentators and politicians to interpret reality on its behalf.

A population that understands economics is harder to manipulate.

Perhaps that is why the seven economic myths I recently encountered fascinated me so much. I will share them here next week.

These seven myths didn’t just reveal something about economics, but they revealed something about education.

And perhaps, more importantly, about what education still fails to teach.

“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”

— W. B. Yeats

If Yeats was right, then perhaps we need to ask whether we are lighting the wrong fires.

 

Gregor Gysi: The Best Chancellor Germany Never Had

Why Friedrich Merz Is Sealing Germany’s Coffin

Recently, Gregor Gysi made an observation that deserves far more attention than it has received. According to Gysi, Friedrich Merz’s political strategy is increasingly based on finding new groups of people to blame for Germany’s socio-economic problems rather than confronting the deeper causes of the country’s decline.

First it was immigrants and refugees.

Then it was the healthcare system.

Now it is Germany’s workforce.

Whether one agrees with Gregor Gysi on everything or not, his criticism exposes a troubling pattern. Whenever Germany faces a serious challenge, Merz appears more interested in identifying a convenient target than offering either a compelling vision for the future or consistent decisions aligned with clear political and ethical values.

The Refugees Who Helped Germany

Germany welcomed around one million refugees during the migration crisis of 2015 and 2016. The decision was controversial then and remains controversial today, stoked up by the nationalism of the AfD.

Yet ten years later, many of these refugees have integrated successfully. They have learned German, entered the labour market, started businesses, paid taxes, contributed to the pension system and become part of German society.

Some arrived as highly qualified professionals: doctors, engineers, academics and lawyers. Others filled essential jobs that Germany struggles to recruit for itself.

Germany’s demographic crisis is not a future problem. It is happening now. Employers across the country face labour shortages. The pension system depends on a shrinking workforce supporting a growing retired population.

Against this background, treating refugees primarily as a burden rather than as contributors makes little economic sense.

I recently thought of a young Syrian woman I know. She now speaks fluent German, as well as English and Arabic. She is completing a doctorate in law and has every prospect of becoming a highly productive member of German society.

Yet she is planning her future elsewhere, most likely in the United States.

Germany invested in her integration. Germany benefited from her talent. Germany may now lose her altogether.

That is not a success story. It is a failure of political imagination.

Scapegoating Healthcare

The same pattern appears in healthcare.

Germany undoubtedly faces major financial pressures in its health and social insurance systems. An ageing population, rising costs and economic stagnation create genuine challenges.

But the answer cannot simply be to reduce protections that millions of people rely upon.

The principle that families should have access to healthcare regardless of income has long been one of the strengths of the German social model. Weakening that principle may save money in the short term, but it risks creating greater social and economic costs in the future.

What is particularly striking is the contrast between the urgency applied to military spending and the hesitation shown towards investments in social infrastructure.

Politicians readily describe defence spending as an investment in the future. Yet healthcare, education and social stability are investments too.

A nation is not defended only by weapons. It is defended by healthy, educated and confident citizens.

The Myth of Working Longer

The latest target appears to be Germany’s workforce.

Merz has argued that Germans need to work more hours and remain economically active for longer. On the surface, this sounds practical and responsible.

In reality, it reflects a remarkably outdated understanding of productivity.

Human beings are not machines.

Productivity depends upon motivation, trust, leadership, skills, technology and working conditions. A well-managed and valued employee working thirty-five hours per week can often contribute more than an exhausted and disengaged employee working fifty-five.

The most successful economies do not necessarily have the longest working weeks. They have the most productive working hours.

Germany’s challenge is not primarily that its people are lazy. It is that investment in digitalisation, reducing bureaucracy, promoting infrastructure and innovation has lagged behind many competitors for years.

Blaming workers is easier than fixing structural problems. But it is also less effective.

Germany Needs Leadership, Not Scapegoats

Friedrich Merz undoubtedly possesses ambition. He looks like a statesman. He speaks confidently. He projects authority.

Yet genuine leadership requires more than authority.

It requires empathy.

It requires vision.

It requires values.

The CDU once prided itself on balancing economic responsibility with social responsibility. Today, that balance often seems absent. The willingness to embrace large-scale borrowing while simultaneously questioning social protections creates the impression not of strategic thinking but of political inconsistency.

Germany faces enormous challenges: demographic decline, economic stagnation, digital backwardness, labour shortages and growing political polarisation.

None of these problems will be solved by blaming refugees, healthcare recipients or workers.

They require something much rarer.

They require a government willing to unite rather than divide.

For all his political flaws, Gregor Gysi has long understood one simple truth: a society becomes stronger when it expands the circle of belonging rather than narrowing it. He truly is the best chancellor Germany never had.

Germany’s future will depend on whether more of its leaders understand that truth as well.

“When five people own more wealth than the poorer half of an entire nation, the problem is not refugees, nurses or workers. The problem is where the wealth has gone.”
— Gregor Gysi (paraphrased from his speeches on wealth inequality)

No Such Things As Humane Suffering

On my way to the shops recently, I came across a small group outside the mall. They wore Guy Fawkes masks and held laptops showing videos of animal suffering. Their banner read: Anonymous for the Voiceless.

All my life I had pushed this issue aside and carried on eating meat. But one phrase on their placard stopped me in my tracks:

“Why are my taste buds more important than the suffering and death of another living creature?”

That line wouldn’t leave me. I watched two of the videos they recommended — one by Ed Winters (UK), the other by Gary Yourofsky (USA) — and for the first time I felt obliged to reconsider my standpoint.

What I Didn’t Know

Of course I knew animals were killed for meat. But I had never really thought about the dairy industry.

    • Cows must be artificially inseminated to produce milk.
    • Their calves are taken away soon after birth so humans can consume the milk.
    • The calves’ stomachs are then used for rennet, a key ingredient in many cheeses.
    • Chickens in the egg industry live in conditions so brutal they barely warrant description.
    • Now I understand why vegans put dairy and meat on the same level. There is no such thing as humane suffering or a humane death.

Cultural Defences

In the same week, I read about Air New Zealand serving vegan burgers on flights to the USA. Carnivores were furious. MP Nathan Guy tweeted:

“Disappointing to see Air NZ promoting a GE substitute meat burger. We produce the most delicious steaks and lamb on the planet – GMO and hormone free. The national carrier should be pushing our premium products.”

So — jingoism as a defence for cruelty?

Religion and the Blind Spot

Years ago, when I still believed in God, vegetarian friends asked me why I ate meat. I had no good answer.

Looking back, I see how Christianity itself shaped my indifference. The Bible tells us that:

    • God preferred Abel’s animal sacrifice over Cain’s vegetables (Genesis 4).
    • Humans were given permission to eat meat (Genesis 9).
    • Animals lack souls and need no salvation (Genesis 1).
    • Humans are to rule over animals and nature (Genesis 1).
    • Sacrificed animals were required to cover sin (Hebrews 9).
    • This world will one day be destroyed and replaced (2 Peter 3).

With such narratives, why give thought to the suffering of animals or the destruction of the environment? When was the last time you heard a sermon in church encouraging veganism?

By contrast, many Hindus are vegetarian. In Hinduism, animals are treated with greater respect — perhaps because of reincarnation, perhaps because there is no idea that this world is disposable.

My Challenge

In conclusion, I challenge you to watch either Dominion or Land of Hope and Glory. If you do, you may find yourself with no excuses left to remain a carnivore.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. The more helpless the creature, the more it is entitled to protection.”
— Mahatma Gandhi

The rise and fall of every Christian revival

Every revival follows the same bell curve: born in protest, swollen with prophecy, and ending in the death it once defied.

Church renewal movements are born in fire, out of dissatisfaction with the lifeless liturgy of the established church, or the suffocating legalism of groups like the Exclusive Brethren. At first they return to the raw text of Scripture and gather in homes, led not by ordained clergy but by men who claim the authority of the Spirit.

Then comes structure. Buildings. Bands. Youth groups. Paid pastors.

At the crest of the curve come the prophecies: revival is coming, just around the corner, greater than anything seen before. Money is given sacrificially. Lives are rearranged. Large buildings bought. Hope is inflated into certainty.

But the revival does not come.

The failed prophecies are rarely named as failures. No serious apology is made for the emotional pressure, the money raised, or the years of expectancy spent on promises that dissolved into air. The people who joined near the beginning often remain inside the system anyway, not because the prophecy came true, but because they have built their lives inside its language. One reason the cycle works is brutally simple: those with living memory of the last false dawn are eventually buried. The cycle renews itself not by repentance, but by funerals.

On the downward slope, the message softens to attract outsiders. The sharp edges are rounded off. Meetings shortened. Speaking in tongues relegated to prayer meetings. Women step into the pulpit. Social projects begin to replace urgent evangelism. By the time the curve flattens, the movement has drifted back into the same spiritual lethargy from which it once broke free.

And somewhere, quietly, the pattern begins again.

This is not new.

The eighteenth-century Methodist revival carried the same internal logic, though in a different register. Prophecy was not usually delivered as spontaneous announcements of imminent awakening, but woven through sermons, hymns and journals. John Wesley spoke of a “work of God” spreading across England; early Methodists read their experience as the fulfilment of biblical promise, the “latter rain” of the Spirit poured out again in the last days.

And yet Methodism, too, followed the curve. What began as a disruptive, Spirit-driven renewal gradually became a structured denomination.

It always does.

What is more interesting is what happens before the next rise.

Recent history gives us several variations on the same descent.

Hillsong shows what happens when a movement builds itself around energy, scale and centralised identity. For a time it feels unstoppable — global, confident, culturally dominant. But when leadership fails and the narrative fractures, the fall is sudden. Not total collapse, but deflation. What was once a movement becomes an organisation trying to stabilise itself.

Mark Driscoll represents another version of the curve: charisma outrunning character. The rise is rapid, the influence undeniable, but the culture formed around the leader cannot bear the weight placed upon it. When the collapse comes, what once looked like authority begins to look like control.

Newfrontiers offers a quieter trajectory. No great implosion, no single scandal at the centre — simply dispersal. A movement built around relational authority fragments into multiple streams. It continues, even grows, but the shared identity thins. What was once a single current becomes a cluster of networks, leaving behind a nagging feeling of dissolution.

Vineyard perhaps shows the most stable outcome of all. No collapse, no dramatic fracture — simply absorption. Its innovations in worship and church culture spread so widely that the movement itself becomes less distinct. It survives by dissolving into the mainstream it once helped reshape.

Sudden deflation. Moral collapse. Gradual dispersal. Quiet absorption.

These are different endings, but they belong to the same curve.

And beneath them lies something more uncomfortable.

These movements do not begin with authority. They begin with relief. A sudden sense that life makes sense, that one is seen, located, given purpose. Meaning becomes structure. Structure becomes authority. Authority becomes identity.

Then, slowly, the system outgrows the intensity that created it.

What felt like life begins to feel like maintenance.

What felt like truth begins to feel like language.

What felt like revival becomes, in time, another form of what it once opposed.

The bell curve is not just a pattern in churches.

It is a pattern in us.

“The most terrible thing of all is when a movement that began in passion ends in habit.”  – Søren Kierkegaard

Sovereignty Begins at the Desktop

Linux desktop workspace representing digital sovereignty, privacy and independence from big tech ecosystems

For years, choosing an operating system was treated as a consumer preference: Mac or Windows. Apple or Microsoft. Design or compatibility.

Those days are ending. Indeed, for me, they have already ended.

My move to Linux was not born of practicality. It began as an explicitly political decision: a small personal protest against what I see as the increasingly troubling direction of the United States and my growing discomfort about privacy and with Europe’s dependence on American technology.

What began as principle, however, quickly became something more exciting. An education, even.

In moving away from mainstream platforms, I discovered not merely a political statement but a better way of computing: faster, calmer, less intrusive, more user-controlled—and one that forced me to confront how casually many of us have entrusted vast quantities of personal data to a handful of foreign corporations.

Increasingly, our technology choices are no longer merely about convenience or aesthetics. They are about jurisdiction, sovereignty, dependence and trust.

The Illusion of Neutral Technology

We have spent two decades pretending that software is apolitical. It is not.

Private data is the so-called new oil.
Cloud platforms are geopolitical assets.
Operating systems are instruments of jurisdiction.
App ecosystems are channels of dependency.

To build one’s digital life entirely on American platforms is not simply to use foreign products. It is to place one’s communications, workflows, data and habits inside systems governed elsewhere.

For years, this dependency seemed harmless because America appeared stable, predictable and aligned with European interests. That assumption now looks far less secure.

Why Linux Appeals Beyond the Technically Curious

My own switch to Linux was motivated initially by principle, but sustained by practical reality.

Linux is, quite simply, excellent.

It offers:

    • greater speed and efficiency
    • far less software bloat
    • more user control
    • minimal intrusive advertising or telemetry
    • freedom from forced ecosystem lock-in
    • a calmer, more focused computing experience

It also avoids a growing trend I find exhausting in mainstream software: the transformation of operating systems into hyperactive consumer platforms.

Notifications.
Recommendations.
Prompts.
Pop-ups.
Embedded AI assistants.
Animated interfaces designed less for work than for perpetual engagement.

Linux, by contrast, still feels like a tool. Not a theme park.

My Preferred Distributions: Mint and Arch

For those exploring Linux, I find two distributions particularly compelling.

Linux Mint: Mature Practicality

Mint is Linux at its most civilised.

Stable, polished, intuitive and highly accessible, it offers a reassuringly traditional desktop experience without sacrificing elegance.

It is the Linux distribution I would recommend to most ordinary users and beginners.

Arch Linux: Radical User Ownership

Arch is a different philosophy entirely.

Minimal, modular and deeply configurable, it demands more of the user—but rewards that effort with extraordinary control.

Arch is not merely software.

It is a statement of intent:

I will shape my tools. My tools will not shape me.

Europe Is Beginning to Think This Way Too

What may once have looked like niche hobbyism is increasingly becoming state policy.

The French government has announced plans to migrate large parts of its public administration away from Windows and toward Linux as part of a broader digital sovereignty strategy.

Other European administrations are exploring or implementing similar moves, including regional and national migrations toward open-source alternatives in Germany and Denmark.

Why?

Because governments are recognising what individuals increasingly recognise:

Dependency creates vulnerability.

Reliance on foreign proprietary platforms means reliance on:

    • foreign licensing decisions
    • foreign corporate roadmaps
    • foreign legal jurisdictions
    • foreign political stability

The Great Irony: Linux Already Runs the World

Here is the part casual users often miss: Linux may still be niche on consumer desktops, but it already powers much of the digital world.

Linux runs:

    • most of the web’s server infrastructure
    • the overwhelming majority of supercomputers globally
    • vast portions of cloud computing infrastructure
    • countless embedded and industrial systems
    • even Android is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel

In other words:

Linux is not an outsider technology.

It is the backbone of modern computing.

The desktop is merely catching up.

A Warning to America — And An Opportunity for Europe

The United States should not assume technological dominance is permanent.

Consumers, institutions and governments are increasingly asking difficult questions:

    • Who controls our infrastructure?
    • Who governs our data?
    • What happens if political alignment breaks?
    • Why are we so dependent on foreign platforms for essential digital life?

If American tech firms continue to treat lock-in as strategy and complacency as entitlement, they may discover that dominance breeds resistance.

Meanwhile Europe has an opportunity.

Not necessarily to replace Silicon Valley overnight.

But to build credible alternatives.

To invest in open standards.
To support interoperable software.
To back European cloud and software infrastructure.
To treat digital autonomy as seriously as energy autonomy.

The next decade may not produce a mass exodus from American technology.

But the direction of travel is becoming harder to ignore.

Slowly, unevenly, but unmistakably.

Final Thought

My move to Linux will not alter geopolitics.

But it is, in its own small way, an expression of a wider conviction:

That technology should serve its user.
That infrastructure should remain contestable.
That dependency should never become invisible.

Linux is not merely for hobbyists anymore.

It is increasingly for those asking a larger question:

Who should control the tools on which modern life depends?

“In times of change, the learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped for a world that no longer exists.”
— Eric Hoffer

They fuck you up, your mum and dad

The Family: Where Human Flourishing Begins

We live in an age inclined to treat the family as merely one lifestyle choice among many: important perhaps, but ultimately interchangeable with any arrangement sufficiently loving and well-intentioned.

Yet history, psychology and ordinary human experience suggest otherwise.

Before the state, before schools, before therapists and welfare systems, there was the family.

It is there that a child first learns whether the world is safe; whether love is conditional; whether conflict destroys or can be survived; whether authority protects or humiliates; whether they themselves are fundamentally secure and wanted.

Long before formal education begins, the family has already taught its curriculum.

Why Family Matters

Healthy family life gives a child the internal structure from which adulthood is built: security, attachment, discipline, resilience, self-worth, emotional regulation, and a workable model of intimacy.

No family can guarantee psychological health. Human beings are too complex for guarantees and there are always external factors at play beyond the family’s control.

But stable, loving family life remains the environment most likely to produce adults capable of trust, responsibility and emotional maturity.

Children do not simply hear what parents say. They absorb what parents are and often copy what they do.

They learn from atmosphere more than instruction, from example more than ideals, from what is lived more than what is preached.

When Family Fails

But if the family is where health begins, it is also where damage often begins.

The same intimacy that nurtures can wound most deeply. The same bonds that create belonging can transmit fear, shame, addiction, insecurity, emotional neglect, and distorted ideas of love.

And the most dangerous aspect of family dysfunction is that it rarely appears dramatic from the inside. To a child, home is simply normal. What is repeated on a daily basis becomes invisible.

Many adults spend half their lives discovering that what they thought was personality, fate, or bad luck was in fact inherited emotional architecture.

“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” ― C.G. Jung

This truth is captured powerfully in the closing moments of the Netflix drama Adolescence, when the parents are left confronting the unbearable possibility that what has gone wrong in their son may not be separable from what was formed in their home. It is a fictional scene, but one recognisable to many families: the dawning awareness that neither parental love nor parental mistakes alone cause damage to a child.

Through a Glass, darkly — Family

From my memoir, Teacher, There Are Things That I Don’t Want to Learn (significantly redacted in order to protect my children)

The family is the first, best, and original department of health, education, and welfare. The question is: what if it goes wrong? What if the wrong is passed on? And how can it ever be put right?

What follows is not accusation, just an inventory of what moved downstream.

In prison, I began to see not only the dysfunction in my own parents, but how faithfully I’d copied it. I had fooled myself by pointing to my rebellion — I didn’t smoke, I voted Labour, I hated football, I jettisoned their culture and accent — yet I had replicated their marriage almost exactly. I was the charismatic workaholic in charge of everything; my wife stayed passively at home. Without discussion, we traded my selfish busyness under the lights for her quiet withdrawal behind the scenes.

I inherited my father’s drinking, his love-hate with public speaking, and his fear of sexual shame; from my mother, her retreat from the world when overwhelmed, and her habit of abandoning people once they’d served their purpose. From my grandmother I learned how to cook, keep house, and draw attention toward myself as the golden boy — the shining charmer whose light dimmed everyone else.

Only what was genuine seems to have survived in our four children: resilience, manners, a hatred of racism, a creative streak, a love of travel and sport, and gratitude. So yes, family goes wrong — and what goes wrong is passed on, along with what was good. Can it ever be put right? I doubt it. Maybe it isn’t meant to be. But I’ve learned, as both son and father, that while you can’t go back or make it up to your children, you can stop it, through self-awareness and responsibility, from getting worse.

Grace in parenting is complicated. We hand down the worst with the best, model life badly, and often fail to hear our children’s cries — like my son’s warning that I “worked to rest.” Yet we cannot control everything: peers, culture, the online world, the strange chemistry of temperament. Our children are miraculous mixtures of countless influences. We must accept our share of responsibility without assuming all the blame.

Grace also looks like this: once we are parents, we remain parents until we die. However badly we fail, that bond is indelible. Our only hope is that our children will become better parents than us — both despite us, and because of us.

Breaking the Chain

No one emerges from family life unmarked. The question is what we will do with that knowledge as we discover it. We cannot undo the past. We cannot parent again the children already grown. We cannot demand retroactive healing from those we wounded.

But we can become conscious. We can tell the truth. We can take responsibility for what is ours without arrogantly assuming all blame for what is not. And we can refuse to pass on everything we received.

That may be the most realistic form of redemption available to any parent. And, in that context, I wish every mother a peaceful and re-assuring Mother’s Day this coming Sunday.

“Every child begins the world again.” — Henry David Thoreau

Who is God, really?

A man lies on the floor, staring up at heaven.
Light breaks through painted clouds. A hand reaches toward another — creation, divinity, meaning itself, captured in a single moment.

But from another angle, the sky is a ceiling. The divine is pigment. The gesture, for all its beauty, is human.

And the question for me, after two decades of fundamentalist Christianity, began there: have we been looking at our own creation all along?

If we look at everything that human beings have produced — art, language, moral codes, religion — God looks, in many ways, like our most sophisticated mirror. Literally every culture has invented (or discovered) some concept of a higher order: the ground of being, the ultimate judge, the cosmic parent. These images shift according to what any given society most needs or fears. In that sense, the God we talk about, the God with attributes, motives and commandments, is a human construction: a symbolic language for meaning, morality and mortality.

But that doesn’t automatically mean there is nothing beyond us. There’s a second, deeper question: whether our intuition that there is something conscious, ordering or transcendent that points to reality or whether it is simply an evolved illusion. Science can’t answer that question yet. What it can say is that mystical experience, moral intuition and awe all register in human brains as real and powerful phenomena. Whether they’re merely responses to something external or to our own depth is open.

If you push me personally, based on everything I’ve seen, read and experiences — I’d say this:

“What we call God may not be the source of our meaning, but the shape our need for meaning takes when we project it beyond ourselves.”

That’s not neutral. It’s a conviction that the word God is man-made, but the intuition behind it may be a genuine encounter with the structure of reality itself.

If there is something real behind the intuition of God, but it’s not a personal deity with emotions, commandments and preferences, then we have to rethink what faith, morality and meaning mean.

1. Ethically

Without a personal God, morality stops being obedience to an external authority and becomes alignment with reality itself.
If the “ground of being” is the structure out of which everything arises — consciousness, life, relationship — then to live morally is to live in harmony with that structure: honesty instead of delusion, compassion instead of domination, truth instead of manipulation.
Sin, in that framework, isn’t breaking divine rules; it’s acting against the grain of reality, damaging what is most real in ourselves and others.

2. Existentially

It removes the childish comfort of a sky-parent, but also the terror of divine punishment.
You can’t bargain with such a God; you can only participate in it.
Prayer becomes attention.
Worship becomes awe and gratitude.
Salvation becomes awakening: the recognition that you were never separate from the source to begin with.

3. Psychologically

Humans projected “God” outward because it’s hard to face the abyss of meaning and fear of death alone. But if the transcendent is immanent, built into consciousness itself, then our experience moves from obedience to discovery.
The “voice of God” becomes conscience, insight, intuition, the part of you that knows when you are betraying truth. That’s not delusion; it’s evolution giving us a compass.

4. Culturally

It explains why religions keep being both beautiful and dangerous. They are metaphors that became institutions — attempts to express the ineffable that hardened into dogma.
The task of a spiritually mature species might be to keep the poetry and let go of the literalism: to treat scripture as myth that reveals truth, not as truth that forbids doubt and causes division.

So:

If there is a real ground of being but no personal deity, then “God” is not Someone to worship but Something to wake up to.
The ethical life becomes an act of participation, not submission.
Heaven is clarity, not geography.

If we strip away the idea of a personal God but keep the intuition that there is a real ground of being, something that is truth, consciousness and life itself, then guilt, forgiveness and redemption become psychological-spiritual processes, not legal or supernatural ones.

1. Guilt

In this view, guilt isn’t a divine sentence; it’s the psyche’s alarm system.
It signals that you’ve moved out of alignment with what is real and life-affirming. When you deceive, harm, or instrumentalise others, you challenge your own coherence. The pain of guilt is not punishment but feedback: reality pushing you to restore integrity.

The problem is that most people either drown in guilt or silence it.
Religion often worsened that by turning guilt into debt, something owed to an external judge.
But in this framework, guilt is diagnostic, not damnatory.
You listen to it, trace it to its cause, and let it guide you back to truth.

2. Forgiveness

If there’s no divine being to forgive, then forgiveness must emerge within consciousness itself.
You can’t erase the past, but you can integrate it, see it truthfully, feel the pain, and let understanding dissolve the need for vengeance.
Forgiveness becomes a recognition of shared brokenness: that whoever harmed you (or whoever you harmed) was acting from ignorance, fear, or distortion.

Forgiving doesn’t mean excusing; it means releasing your identity as either the guilty or the victim.
You step out of the narrative of debt and punishment and into the reality that everyone is stumbling toward wholeness.

3. Redemption

Without a divine judge, redemption is not being declared clean — it’s becoming real again.
It’s the return to inner coherence after self-betrayal.
You redeem yourself by telling the truth, repairing what you can, and allowing compassion, not self-pity, to re-root you in reality.
It’s the same pattern you see in psychotherapy, art, confession, and love: the movement from concealment → exposure → integration.

4. The Shape of Grace

Even without a theistic God, something like “grace” still exists.
When you tell the truth, life has a way of meeting you with unexpected gentleness, not because someone decides to forgive you, but because truth itself is healing.
Reality is merciless with lies but merciful with honesty.

If you accept that, then the task of the guilty person is no longer to appease a deity but to become whole, to stop fragmenting themselves with denial.
And the task of the forgiver is not to absolve but to see: to understand enough that hatred dissolves into clarity.

Redemption isn’t about being declared innocent. It’s about becoming real again. The moment I stopped trying to defend the person I had been, something in me unclenched. The shards started fitting together, not into the old shape, but into something rougher, truer, almost beautiful in its fractures.

Grace, I realised, isn’t God sparing you. It’s reality allowing you to continue, to try again, to live in truth instead of illusion.

The glass doesn’t become clean; it becomes transparent. And through it, you see both your own reflection and the world beyond, no longer separate, no longer opposed.

We may never know whether there is something beyond us. But we can know this: the God we speak of bears an unmistakable human shape.

We painted the ceiling. We lay beneath it. And over time, we forgot that we had done so.

What remains is not emptiness, but a more difficult honesty: the possibility that meaning does not descend from above, but emerges from within, asking not for worship, but for a truth that is higher than faith.

“Theology is anthropology… the object of any subject is nothing else than the subject’s own nature taken objectively.”  – Ludwig Feuerbach

When breaking the law is the right thing to do

When Absolutes Meet Life: The Ten Commandments in a World of Grey Zones

Introduction: Granite Pillars, Shifting Ground

The Ten Commandments stand like granite pillars in the moral imagination of the West. Their clarity and simplicity — do not lie, do not steal, do not kill — promise a moral compass that transcends culture, time and circumstance.

Yet the moment we bring them into the tangle of real life, absolutes begin to rub against exceptions.

Take truth-telling: you shall not bear false witness. But if lying spares the hunted from a tyrant’s soldiers, can we still call it sin?

Or killing: you shall not murder. What of the soldier who fires not from hatred but to liberate, or the doctor who relieves excruciating suffering when life is otherwise ebbing away?

The commandments do not disappear. But they begin to bend under the weight of reality.

Where the Commandments Begin to Fracture

Each commandment, when examined closely, reveals a fault line:

    • Do not lie → What if a lie saves a life?
    • Do not kill → What about self-defence, war, euthanasia?
    • Do not steal → What if a starving person takes bread?
    • Honour your parents → What if they are abusive?
    • Keep the Sabbath → What if healing or survival requires breaking it?

Even the Hebrew scriptures acknowledge this tension:
David eats sacred bread when starving. Rahab lies and is praised.

The pattern is consistent: when strict obedience collides with human dignity, compassion begins to override rule.

Modern Grey Zones: Where Ethics Gets Uncomfortable

The ancient dilemmas have not disappeared. They have intensified.

1. Civil Disobedience and Tax Resistance

If citizens believe a war is unjust, are they morally obliged to fund it?

If millions refused to pay taxes in protest, would that be:

    • theft from the state?
    • or moral courage against injustice?

History complicates the answer. Figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. framed civil disobedience not as lawlessness, but as obedience to a higher law.

Yet the danger is obvious: if everyone decides individually which laws to obey, social order collapses. So where is the line — between conscience and chaos?

2. State Policies and Human Life

Consider population control policies that have led, directly or indirectly, to the killing of female infants. Is this:

    • a utilitarian attempt to manage resources?
    • or a violation of the most basic moral law — the sanctity of life?

Here the commandment “do not kill” confronts the brutal logic of state planning.

3. Wealth, Environment, and Collective Harm

We do not steal — and yet entire economies extract from the planet in ways that may destroy future generations.

    • Is environmental destruction a form of theft from the unborn?
    • Does profit justify long-term harm?

The commandments were written for individuals.
But today, systems commit what individuals once did.

4. Truth in the Age of Power

“Do not bear false witness” once meant lying in court. Now it includes:

    • political disinformation
    • media manipulation
    • algorithmic distortion

When truth itself becomes a battlefield, the commandment remains, but its application becomes infinitely more complex.

A Personal Dilemma: When Every Commandment Collides

There was a moment when all of this ceased to be theoretical for me.

My mother came to visit me in Germany. At the airport, she was pushed over by an impatient passenger in one of those electric buggies. The fall seemed minor at the time, but it accelerated everything. Her health declined rapidly. Incontinence. Dementia. Depression.

Her GP made a suggestion. We could simulate a bladder infection. That would justify a hospital admission. From there, she would be transferred to a care home for short-term recovery — and, most likely, remain there long-term.

It would mean lying. It would mean manipulating the system. It would mean, in some sense, taking resources that were not strictly ours.

And yet the alternative was to watch her deteriorate without adequate care.

In that moment, the commandments did not line up neatly. They collided.

    • Do not lie — and yet the lie would open the door to care.
    • Do not steal — and yet the system existed precisely to care for the vulnerable.
    • Do not covet — and yet I envied those whose lives were not constrained by such responsibility.
    • Do not kill — and yet I felt flashes of rage toward the woman who had pushed her, a dark instinct that shocked me.

In the end, I followed the doctor’s advice.

My mother received excellent care. She lived for another seven years, safe, supported, and dignified in ways that would not otherwise have been possible.

Looking back, I still ask the question: was it right?

In the language of absolute rules, perhaps not.
In the language of lived reality, I believe it was.

And yet I cannot prove it was right.
I can only say that it was human.

The Real Question: Rules or Responsibility?

The deeper issue is not whether the commandments are right.

It is whether they can ever be applied without interpretation.

    • Absolute rules offer clarity.
    • Real life demands judgment.

Too much rigidity → cruelty in the name of morality.
Too much flexibility → chaos disguised as freedom.

We are left in tension.

A Different Way to Read the Commandments

Perhaps the commandments were never meant to function as rigid laws in every conceivable situation.

Perhaps they are moral directions rather than mechanical rules:

    • not “never lie,” but protect truth and trust
    • not “never kill,” but honour the sacredness of life
    • not “never steal,” but respect what belongs to others

In this reading, the spirit matters more than the letter.

But that raises a dangerous possibility: who decides what the “spirit” requires?

Between Fanaticism and Relativism

This is where modern ethics fractures into two extremes:

    • Fanaticism → rigid obedience, even when it harms
    • Relativism → anything can be justified

Neither is sufficient.

The real challenge is harder: to hold onto moral clarity without losing moral intelligence.

Conclusion: The Burden of Being Human

The commandments remain.

But they no longer stand untouched on distant stone tablets.
They stand within us — contested, interpreted, lived.

To be human is not simply to obey rules.
It is to carry the burden of deciding when, and how, they apply.

And that burden cannot be escaped.

Closing quotation

“He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche

Social Media Bans for Under 16s

Why banning social media for under-16s may feel right — but fails to address the real issue

There is a growing political appetite to ban social media for under-16s. Governments in countries such as Australia and Indonesia have already moved in this direction, driven by rising concern about anxiety, depression, and the psychological effects of digital life.

The instinct is understandable. But it may also be wrong.

The comfort of the ban

A ban is politically attractive because it is clear, decisive and easy to communicate. It signals protection. It tells a worried public that something is being done.

But it also avoids a harder question.

Why has social media become so central to childhood in the first place?

Policy without evidence

The Cambridge psychologist Sander van der Linden has been unusually blunt. There is, he argues, “zero empirical evidence” that banning social media for teenagers improves outcomes.

His warning is not ideological but methodological:

“Blindly instituting wholesale bans for teens takes the ‘evidence’ out of evidence-based policy.”

This matters. Because once policy is driven primarily by anxiety, it becomes vulnerable to simplification.

And simplification is exactly what this issue does not need.

The variability problem

Social media does not affect all children in the same way.

For some, it amplifies vulnerability: comparison, exclusion, anxiety.
For others, it provides connection, identity and support. As well as of course access to information for school work.

The outcome depends on:

    • personality
    • patterns of use
    • existing mental health
    • social environment

A blanket ban assumes uniform harm where there is, in reality, radical variation.

The misdiagnosis

More fundamentally, a ban risks targeting the wrong thing.

The problem is not simply that children use social media. It is that social media have been designed to capture attention:

    • infinite scroll
    • algorithmic reinforcement
    • intermittent rewards

These are not neutral features. They are behavioural systems.

Yet instead of regulating the environment, we regulate the child.

We restrict the user because we do not confront the system.

The illusion of control

Even on practical grounds, bans are fragile.

    • Teenagers will bypass them
    • Peer groups will remain online
    • The demand for connection will persist
    • Evidence shows that the dangers are greater once hidden underground

The behaviour does not disappear. It relocates. More importantly, a ban does not teach navigation. It postpones exposure.

From protection to preparation

Van der Linden’s alternative is not permissiveness, but preparation:

    • early digital literacy
    • gradual exposure
    • critical thinking
    • resilience

In short:

Not protection through restriction, but protection through competence.

The question beneath the question

But even this may not be the deepest layer because the focus on social media obscures a more uncomfortable possibility.

Over recent decades, childhood has changed:

    • less independent movement
    • less unsupervised play
    • more adult control
    • more structured time

Children are safer, and yet less free.

We did not simply give children smartphones.
We removed much of the world they would otherwise have enjoyed.

Social media did not replace childhood.
In some respects, it stepped into a space that had already been narrowed.

Conclusion

The case for concern about social media is strong.
The case for banning it is not.

As Sander van der Linden argues, policy should be guided by evidence, not urgency or political posturing. At present, the evidence for bans is thin, while the complexity of the problem is substantial.

If we want children to spend less time online, we will have to do something more difficult than passing laws.

We will have to ask what kind of childhood we are willing to allow.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”              – C.S. Lewis

The Myth of Powerlessness

What one person cannot do alone — and what millions can still do together.

In a time of escalating global conflict and war, many people are asking the same question: what can one individual actually do?

Almost everyone I speak to says the same thing. On trains. In cafés. On the street. Among friends.

“Nothing.”

What can I do? I am one person. One voter. One consumer. One voice. The machine is too big. The war is too far away. The system is too entrenched.

It sounds like realism. But it is something closer to resignation.

At the time of writing, this is not an abstract question. The United States and Israel are engaged in a widening military campaign across Iran and the region, with consequences already extending into Lebanon and beyond. Civilian infrastructure has been hit. Escalation remains a real possibility. The language of expansion and power is no longer confined to the margins.

And yet, in the face of all this, the most common response remains the same: there is nothing I can do.

No one person can stop a war alone. That is true. But it does not follow that one person has nothing to do. It only means that conscience must become collective before it becomes consequential.

Every system of violence depends not only on leaders, generals, and ideologues, but on millions of smaller permissions: purchases, habits, silences, career calculations, and the daily decision to do nothing because doing something feels futile. That is where power really sits.

We do not have to look far, in my adotped country, to see both what passive compliance can enable and what collective refusal can undo.

Where pressure comes from

We tend to imagine power as something distant: governments, armies, corporations. And of course, it is. But it is also embedded in the ordinary flows that sustain those systems: money, attention, legitimacy, cooperation.

Remove enough of those, and even large structures begin to strain.

As Charles Eisenstein has argued, modern systems are often more fragile than they appear. Confidence depends on participation. Withdraw participation at scale, and the system feels it.

The point is not that one person can bring about collapse. The point is that systems depend on millions of people continuing to cooperate. Which means that non-cooperation matters too.

Not expression, but leverage

Much of what passes for protest today is expressive. It allows us to signal disapproval, to feel aligned, to release moral tension. But expression is not the same as pressure.

Pressure is slower, less visible, and more demanding. It involves changing behaviour, not just declaring opinion. It involves cost.

If anything is to change, the question is not what we feel, but what we are prepared to do differently.

What can actually be done

None of what follows is dramatic. That is precisely the point. These are actions available to ordinary people, within the law, that become powerful only when they are repeated, shared, and sustained.

Speak clearly

Not “this is terrible.” Say what you oppose, what you want changed, and who has the power to act. Silence is easy to ignore. Clarity is not.

Write, then write again

One message can be dismissed. Patterns cannot. Ask for a position, not a platitude. Follow up.

Use money deliberately

Reconsider where you bank. Review what your investments support. Cancel subscriptions tied to companies you wish to avoid. Move spending where you can. Systems built on constant inflow notice outflow.

Recently, after 20 years of brand loyalty, I shut down my Apple eco-system. I now use European-based Proton Mail, Calendar and Drive and I write using Linux Mint and open source software. I’ve discovered that I am not alone.

Boycott with focus

Vague refusal achieves little. Targeted, visible refusal accumulates. Choose specific companies or sectors. Be consistent. Make your reasons public.

Pressure the institutions around you

Your university, your workplace, your church, your professional body. Ask what they fund, who they partner with, what position they take.

Institutions prefer neutrality. Pressure forces articulation.

Organise—and keep going

Movements rarely begin large. They begin with a handful of people who decide to act together and to continue acting.

Continuity matters more than size.

Show up

Demonstrations are not sufficient, but they are not meaningless. Presence, visibility, repetition—these change the atmosphere in which decisions are made.

Support truth and relief

Support serious journalism, legal work and humanitarian organisations. Wars continue more easily when they are obscured.

Turn agreement into action

Agreement has no effect until it is organised. Exchange names. Set a date. Do one thing. Repeat.

What this requires

None of this is easy.

It requires persistence rather than intensity. Discipline rather than outrage. Coordination rather than isolation.

It also requires something else: the refusal to adopt the logic of the thing one opposes.

If protest becomes only anger, only dehumanisation, only the search for enemies, it begins to mirror the structure it resists. The aim is not to reverse roles within the same system, but to alter the system itself.

It is easier to argue about geopolitics than to examine the small ways in which we continue to cooperate with it.

That is slower work. But it is more durable.

Conclusion

No one person can stop a war.

But wars do not continue by themselves. They continue because millions of ordinary people, in thousands of small ways, continue to cooperate with the systems that sustain them.

Withdraw enough of that cooperation — financially, politically, socially, publicly — and pressure begins to build.

The question is not whether you can do everything.

It is whether you are willing to do something.

And whether enough of us are willing to do it together.

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be either good or evil.”
— Hannah Arendt