Category: Religion

Examining religious belief from around the world.

The Authentic Illusion of Salvation

A moment of religious devotion can feel like a direct encounter with the divine — but the experience may have deeply human origins.

There are few experiences in human life more convincing than religious conversion.

In the moment it happens, it feels absolute.

The new believer does not merely adopt a belief; he experiences what appears to be a profound transformation of reality itself. The world suddenly becomes charged with meaning. Events seem purposeful. Personal history acquires a narrative arc. Even suffering can appear reinterpreted as part of a divine plan.

To the convert, the conclusion feels unavoidable: God has revealed Himself.

I know this experience from the inside. For several years I believed, with complete sincerity, that God had personally intervened in my life. The sense of transformation was overwhelming. At the time it felt impossible to doubt that something supernatural had occurred.

The experience is often accompanied by powerful emotions: relief, gratitude, awe, sometimes tears. The convert may describe feeling “known,” “forgiven,” or “reborn.” For many, this moment becomes the central turning point of their life story.

From the inside, the experience feels like the discovery of truth. God exists. Faith becomes certainty (Hebrews 11:1).

From the outside, however, something more complex is happening.

A psychological ignition

Modern psychology offers a more prosaic explanation for the intensity of conversion.

Many conversions occur at moments of emotional vulnerability: crisis, guilt, loneliness, addiction, grief, or identity confusion. In such moments the mind becomes unusually receptive to radical reinterpretations of reality.

These states create a powerful readiness for cognitive re-organisation. The mind searches urgently for a coherent narrative capable of resolving internal tension.

Religious frameworks are uniquely suited to provide such narratives. They offer a ready-made interpretation of suffering, a clear moral structure and the promise of forgiveness and life beyond the grave.

When the new believer accepts this framework, the psychological relief can be immense. The sense of personal chaos suddenly resolves into a meaningful story.

The experience feels supernatural.

In reality, it may simply be the human mind discovering an interpretation that temporarily stabilises itself.

The sociological amplifier

But psychology alone does not explain the power of conversion.

The social environment plays an equally decisive role.

Conversion rarely happens in isolation. It usually occurs within communities already organised around the expectation of transformation. Worship services, testimonies, music, prayer and communal affirmation together create a powerful emotional ecosystem.

When a convert stands before such a community and declares a new faith, the response is immediate: approval, celebration, belonging.

The individual does not simply gain a belief.
He gains a new identity and a new tribe.

Human beings are exquisitely sensitive to social reinforcement. Once a community confirms that a person has been “saved,” the psychological commitment deepens rapidly. Doubt becomes socially costly. Certainty becomes a badge of belonging.

Belief, in this sense, is stabilised not only internally but collectively.

The sincerity paradox

None of this means that conversion experiences are insincere.

Quite the opposite.

At the moment of conversion, the belief is usually completely genuine. The emotional intensity is real. The sense of transformation is real. The feeling of encountering God is real.

But sincerity does not guarantee accuracy.

Human beings are capable of deeply authentic experiences that nevertheless rest upon mistaken interpretations of reality.

Religious conversion may be one of the most powerful examples of this phenomenon.

Human beings are capable of deeply authentic experiences that nevertheless rest upon mistaken interpretations of reality.

The problem of competing revelations

One further observation complicates the picture.

If religious conversion truly revealed a universal divine reality, we might expect converts around the world to converge toward the same understanding of God.

Instead, the opposite happens.

Christians experience conversions that confirm Christianity.
Muslims experience conversions that confirm Islam.
Hindus encounter Krishna.
Pentecostals encounter the Holy Spirit.
Catholics encounter the Virgin Mary.

Each experience feels equally convincing to the person undergoing it.

The simplest explanation is not that all these mutually contradictory revelations are true.

It is that the human mind is capable of generating profoundly convincing experiences within whatever symbolic framework it inhabits.

The quiet aftermath

For some people, the story ends with lifelong faith.

For others, something else happens.

Years later, the convert begins to recognise the psychological and sociological forces that once felt invisible. The experience that once seemed supernatural begins to look more recognisably human.

This realisation can be unsettling.

Because it means confronting a difficult possibility:

The God who once felt unquestionably real may have been a projection created by the deepest needs of the human mind.

And yet the experience itself — the hope, the meaning, the transformation — was never fake.

It was simply human.

“The gods we worship write their names on our faces.”
— C. G. Jung

Gay Fathers: Why Gay Men Build Straight Families

The Closet Has A Wedding Ring: How Gay Men Became Fathers

A few weeks ago, in a bar in Berlin, I mentioned to a man I had just met that I am the father of four. He paused briefly, then smiled and said, “Me too.”

Neither of us was surprised.

Among gay men of my generation, this quiet moment of recognition is more common than most people realise. Many of us built heterosexual families before we ever spoke openly about our sexuality. The pattern is well known in private and rarely examined in public.

The easy explanations tend to fall into two unsatisfactory camps. Either the men are portrayed as victims of their era, pushed helplessly into lives they never chose, or they are depicted as fundamentally deceptive, as though their marriages were nothing more than elaborate shams.

Reality, as usual, is more complicated and more human than either of these caricatures allows.

Orientation and Behaviour: A Necessary Distinction

One of the most important starting points is a simple but often overlooked distinction: sexual orientation and lived behaviour do not always align neatly. Sexual behaviour is fluid; sexual orientation is not.

For many heterosexual people, desire and life path coincide without much friction. For a significant number of gay men, particularly in earlier decades, the relationship between the two was more complex.

This does not mean orientation is infinitely fluid. It means only that human beings are capable of living in ways that do not perfectly mirror their inner erotic life.

Across much of the twentieth century, many men who experienced primary attraction to other men nonetheless married women and fathered children. Some did so consciously, some half-consciously, some in genuine hope that marriage might settle their inner restlessness.

What matters, and what is sometimes too quickly forgotten in contemporary discussion, is this: whatever the social context, these were still adult decisions. Social expectations may shape the landscape in which choices are made, but they do not erase personal responsibility for the lives we build within it.

The Social Script Was Narrow — But Not Irresistible

It would be historically naïve to ignore the strength of the social script that shaped male adulthood for much of the last century. Respectable manhood was closely associated with marriage, fatherhood, and visible domestic stability. Homosexuality, by contrast, was widely stigmatised, pathologised, or criminalised in many Western countries well into living memory. In West Germany, we had Paragraph 175 until 1994, and in Britain, the legal age of consent between two males was lowered to 16, in line with the heterosexual age of consent, in 2001.

These realities formed the background conditions in which many men made their life decisions.

But background conditions are not the same thing as compulsion. Men were not automatons. Some resisted the script. Some lived quietly single. Some formed discreet same-sex lives. Others chose marriage.

The more honest account is therefore not that gay men were forced into heterosexual families, but that many judged — rightly or wrongly — that marriage offered a workable path to belonging, stability and ordinary social life.

For some, it did.

For others, the costs emerged only slowly.

The Psychology of the Split Life

To understand how these marriages functioned — sometimes for decades — we have to move beyond the crude language of denial and look more carefully at the psychological mechanisms involved.

Human beings are remarkably adept at compartmentalisation. It is entirely possible to build a life in which emotional loyalty, domestic commitment, and parental devotion coexist alongside an erotic life that remains partially or wholly unintegrated.

Many men in mixed-orientation marriages reported something like the following internal arrangement: their affection, duty and daily life were invested sincerely in the family they built, while their erotic imagination operated in a more private register. The two spheres were kept separate, sometimes consciously, often simply by force of habit and circumstance.

There was also a long-standing cultural belief — now largely discredited but once widely accepted — that marriage might in some cases “settle” or redirect same-sex desire. It is easy to dismiss this idea now, but it was taken seriously by doctors, clergy and families well into the late twentieth century.

Some men entered marriage in good faith under that assumption. Others entered it with more ambivalence. Still others, candidly, avoided asking themselves too many questions.

Again, the human picture is mixed.

The Body, the Role and the Marriage

Another uncomfortable but important reality is that physiological sexual functioning does not always map perfectly onto deep erotic orientation.

Many predominantly gay men have been capable of heterosexual intercourse, particularly within the structured expectations of marriage. This fact has sometimes been misread as evidence of bisexuality where none primarily existed.

The more accurate conclusion is simply that human sexual response is adaptable within certain limits. Performance, affection, novelty and relational context can all play a role.

But adaptability has its limits. Over time, for many men, the gap between role and desire became harder to ignore or sustain.

And this is where the story turns from sociology to ethics.

The Cost That Must Be Named

Any honest discussion of gay fathers in heterosexual marriages must include a truth that is sometimes softened in retrospective accounts.

In many families, when the underlying reality eventually surfaced — whether gradually, painfully, or suddenly — wives and children experienced real hurt, confusion, and sometimes profound disruption.

Not in every case. Some families navigated the transition with dignity and mutual care. Some marriages had long since evolved into affectionate partnerships rather than romantic unions.

But in many others, the moment of disclosure felt, understandably, like a huge rupture. Trust could be shaken. Family narratives had to be rewritten. Children, depending on their age and temperament, sometimes struggled to make sense of what had changed and what had not.

To acknowledge this is not to indulge in self-reproach, nor to erase the genuine love many fathers felt — and continue to feel — for their families. It is simply to recognise that complex life structures often carry complex human costs.

Responsibility, in adulthood, includes the willingness to look at those costs squarely.

“Nothing in life is as important as you think it is while you are thinking about it.”
— Daniel Kahneman

A Generational Pattern. Not an Excuse.

There is no doubt that the pattern of gay men building heterosexual families was more common in earlier decades than it is today. Social visibility, legal change, and cultural openness have altered the landscape significantly.

But it would be a mistake to frame this too simply as a story of past oppression versus present freedom. Human lives remain complicated. Even today, in many parts of the world — and in some families much closer to home — similar tensions still exist.

Nor is it especially helpful to imagine that earlier generations were uniquely constrained while younger men are uniquely liberated. Every generation navigates its own pressures, blind spots, and compromises.

The more useful observation is simply this: life choices are always made within a cultural frame, and those frames do change over time. What once appeared the obvious path for many men no longer appears so.

Understanding that shift helps explain the pattern. It does not absolve individuals of the consequences of their choices.

A More Adult Conversation

What is needed now is neither romanticisation nor condemnation, but maturity.

Gay fathers from heterosexual marriages are not rare anomalies. They are part of a recognisable historical pattern in Western societies across much of the twentieth century. Their lives typically contained real commitment, real affection, and, often, real internal tension.

The marriages were not necessarily fraudulent. Nor were they always sustainable in the long term. Both things can be true at once.

If there is any value in revisiting these stories today, it lies in the clarity they offer about the complicated relationship between identity, behaviour, social expectation, and personal responsibility.

Human beings do not always live in perfect alignment with their inner lives. Sometimes they adapt. Sometimes they delay difficult recognitions. Sometimes they choose stability over authenticity, at least for a time.

And sometimes the reckoning comes later.

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
— Søren Kierkegaard

Closing Reflection

That brief exchange in the Berlin bar — “I have four children.” “Me too.” — was not a confession and not an excuse. It was simply recognition between two men shaped, in part, by similar cultural weather.

Many of us built families in good faith. Many loved our wives and children deeply, even where the erotic centre of gravity lay elsewhere. And many, later in life, had to integrate truths that earlier decades made easier to postpone.

The task now is not to rewrite the past into something neater than it was, nor to retreat into defensiveness or regret. It is to understand the full human picture: the agency, the context, the love that was real, and the pain that, in some families, was also real.

Grown-up lives rarely resolve into simple narratives. This is one of them.

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
— Oscar Wilde

The Bells of Decline Are Already Ringing

Every organisation has a bell curve.

From the smallest start-up in Berlin… to the United States of America.
From a school, a church, a university department, a political party to an empire.

It’s always the same arc:

    1. Growth (energy, hunger, imagination)
    2. Peak (confidence, dominance, self-belief)
    3. Decline (bureaucracy, complacency, fear, decay)

This is not cynicism. It’s recognising a pattern of reality.

The question most leaders avoid

Be brutally honest: where is your organisation right now on the curve?
And when did you last hear your senior team ask that question out loud?

Because the bell curve isn’t a risk. It’s a default trajectory. It is what happens when success turns into comfort, comfort turns into protectionism, and protectionism turns into denial.

So what will you do? Ignore it and die quietly? Be honest about it and decline anyway? Or be honest about it and start building renewal structures now—before the slide becomes irreversible?

And there’s a sharper option leaders rarely admit exists: leave. Sometimes the most rational decision is to step off a sinking ship and stop lending it your competence.

History suggests the curve can’t be stopped.
And right now we’re watching it at scale—a global shift in momentum from West to East.

But I do think decline can be slowed. Here are my ideas:

1) Limit oligarchy. Increase real democracy.

When power concentrates, reality gets filtered. Bad news stops travelling upward. Loyalty becomes more valuable than truth. A leadership class forms that primarily exists to keep itself in place.

That’s not a theory. It’s the story of countless organisations—and empires.

When decision-making is captured by an inner circle, the mission becomes secondary. The organisation starts protecting status rather than producing value.

Democracy inside an organisation doesn’t mean chaos. It means distributed intelligence: people closest to customers, systems, classrooms or frontline work have meaningful influence over what must change.

2) Build for the next generation, not the next quarter.

Short-termism is a slow form of self-harm.

A company can hit its numbers while hollowing itself out: talent loss, declining product quality, decaying trust, shrinking learning capacity. The spreadsheet looks fine—until it doesn’t.

And there’s a more subtle failure inside that: leaders often build for their own peer generation, when they should be studying the people 10–20 years younger. That’s where the next expectations, habits, technologies, and cultural defaults are forming, long before they show up in your revenue chart.

What feels “risky” to today’s leadership often feels obvious to the next cohort.
And what feels “obvious” to today’s leadership can look obsolete almost overnight.

This is why so many organisations are blindsided by disruption: they optimise for the present, then act shocked when the future arrives.

If your planning horizon is shorter than your product lifecycle or your employees’ careers, you’re not sowing. You’re only maintaining and harvesting.

3) Hold ethical values steady (don’t drift in panic).

Organisations rarely collapse because of one mistake. They collapse because of moral improvisation.

In a crisis, values become “flexible.”
In growth, values become “optional.”
At the peak, values become “PR.”

Trust doesn’t usually die in a scandal. It dies in a thousand rationalisations.

Ethical steadiness isn’t virtue-signalling. It’s strategic. Trust is a form of capital, and once it’s spent, it is brutally slow to rebuild.

4) Respect history, but don’t worship it.

Tradition can be wisdom. Or it can be a velvet coffin.

The most dangerous sentence in any institution is:
“But this is how we’ve always done it.”

That phrase has probably been spoken in every declining empire, every decaying school system, every complacent corporation, and every institution that mistakes inertia for stability.

Keep the lessons of history—but don’t let history become your excuse for refusing change.

5) Reward truth-tellers, not loyalists.

Cultures fail when honesty becomes career suicide.

When an organisation punishes uncomfortable truth, it trains people to produce comforting noise. Metrics get gamed. Problems get rebranded. Rot gets managed instead of removed.

If your culture doesn’t actively protect dissenters, you don’t have “alignment.” You have fear.

One of the clearest predictors of decline is a leadership team that only hears what it wants to hear and then mistakes that for reality.

6) Break the organisation on purpose (real renewal, not cosmetic change).

Here’s the missing lever most leaders refuse to pull:

Healthy organisations schedule their own disruption.
Unhealthy ones wait until disruption happens to them.

This is deeper than “innovation.” It’s constitutional design:

    • sunset clauses on programmes and teams
    • rotation of leadership roles
    • independent internal “red teams” tasked with challenging assumptions
    • simplification by cutting products, meetings, layers and rules
    • and, when needed, radical reinvention of mission, structures, and incentives—not just a new logo

There’s a famous story about Steve Jobs in a meeting, sweeping clutter off a table and saying, in effect: start again—what actually matters? Whether or not the anecdote is perfectly literal, the point is real:

Most organisations don’t fail because they lack intelligence.
They fail because they can’t bear to delete what once made them successful.

“How did you go bankrupt?”
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
— Ernest Hemingway

When God Comes Back: A Note of Caution for Gen Z (from an Ex-Pastor)

On 11 January 2026, Sky News ran a piece with a headline that would have sounded unlikely a decade ago: “How did Gen Z become the most religious generation alive?”

The article reports an uptick in religious belief and church attendance among young adults, with social media playing a surprising role in how faith is “discovered” and spread: short-form religious content on TikTok and Instagram, influencers speaking openly about God, and churches receiving enquiries from young people who first encountered religion online.

Sky’s piece includes voices from Christian influencers who say they’re seeing a noticeable rise in young people asking how to get involved, and it references YouGov data suggesting a marked shift: among 18–25s, monthly church attendance rising from 7% (2018) to 23% (2024), and belief in a higher power rising from 28% to 49% across the same period.

Even the sceptics appear in the report—young atheists who say this doesn’t match what they see online, or who wonder whether the change is temporary and pandemic-shaped.

So: something is happening. And if we care about society, about meaning, about the moral atmosphere we all breathe, we should pay attention.

Why this makes sense (even if you’re not religious)

I teach university students. I write about social meaning. And I have to admit: the trend itself is not mysterious to me.

When a society loses confidence in its shared story, people don’t become “purely rational.” They become hungry.

For a long time, the West lived off inherited moral capital: ideas of human dignity, restraint, compassion, truth-telling, fidelity, responsibility—values that were once anchored in a Christian metaphysics, then carried forward as if they could survive on sentiment alone.

But sentiment doesn’t sustain a civilisation.

What we increasingly offer young people instead is:

    • Ethical drift: everything negotiable, nothing binding
    • Performative role models: influence without character, aesthetics without responsibility
    • Thin narratives: “be yourself,” “live your truth,” “manifest your future” — slogans that collapse under suffering
    • A destabilised world: economic fragility, housing impossibility, ecological anxiety, war returning as background noise

Under those conditions, it is almost inevitable that many will reach for something older and firmer than the modern self. Something that says:

    • this is real
    • this is right
    • this is wrong
    • your life is not an accident
    • your suffering is not meaningless
    • there is a way through

And in the Western world, that “something” is most readily available in Christianity.

Which churches will benefit most

If Gen Z is turning toward Christianity for meaning and stability, we should be honest about where the gravitational pull will land.

It will not primarily be the churches that sound like ritual, bored faces and committees.

It will be the churches that sound like conviction.

The kinds of churches most likely to grow are the ones that offer:

    • non-negotiable truth (not “your personal journey,” but The Answer)
    • a strong identity (“this is who we are; this is how we live”)
    • high emotional impact (music, lighting, atmosphere, collective intensity)
    • clarity about enemies (the world, the devil, “compromise,” secular decadence)
    • belonging that feels immediate and total

The Sky News article points to the rise of Christian content on TikTok and influencer culture around faith.

That ecosystem naturally rewards certainty, compression, drama, and transformation narratives—all things charismatic and fundamentalist Christianity has always been good at packaging.

If you want a religion that fits social media, you will end up with the kind of religion that performs well on social media.

And that is where my caution begins.

My stake in this: I used to be one of them

I am not writing this as an anti-Christian hit piece.

I am writing this as someone who once stood inside that world—as a pastor, not merely a visitor. I believed. I preached. I led people. I sold my house and car and moved abroad with my family. I was part of the machinery that makes a high-commitment church feel like home and destiny at the same time.

I no longer believe in God.

And because I know what these churches can do—both the beauty and the damage—I want to say something directly to any Gen Z reader who is moving toward Christianity because the world feels hollow and unstable.

You are not foolish for wanting meaning.

You are not stupid for wanting a moral anchor.

But you may be walking, without realising it, into a system designed to take more from you than it gives.

So let me offer a warning, not against faith as such, but against a particular style of faith that is increasingly likely to catch you.

Four warnings before you hand over your life

1) It offers “ultimate truth” — but it cannot prove it

Fundamentalist Christianity sells certainty.

It tells you the world has a secret structure and it possesses the key: virgin births, miracles, demons, healings, resurrections, prayers that alter reality. It gives you a total explanation and calls that “faith.”

But human beings will believe almost anything if it fits the narrative they are offered—especially when the narrative arrives wrapped in community, music, belonging, and moral purpose.

That is not an insult to believers. It is an observation about humans.

A strong story can feel true even when it isn’t.

And the stronger the story, the more it demands you interpret everything through it: your sexuality, your friendships, your doubts, your pain, your ambitions, your money, your family.

Once you interpret reality through a sacred script, the script becomes self-sealing. Evidence against it becomes “temptation” or “attack” or “pride.”

That isn’t truth. That is a closed system.

2) It trains you to call the selflessness “love” — but salvation is still about you

There is a reason Nietzsche was so ferocious about Christianity.

Christianity can produce remarkable acts of compassion—real kindness, real service. Many Christians are genuinely good people.

But at the structural level the religion often contains a hidden centre of gravity: your soul, your salvation, your standing before God, your purity, your afterlife.

Even love can become instrumental:

    • I love you because I must be Christlike
    • I witness to you because your conversion validates my worldview
    • I “forgive” you because it keeps me clean
    • I help you because it stores treasure somewhere else

When salvation is the central preoccupation, the self never truly exits the stage.

You may feel you are becoming “more loving,” but you may also be becoming more morally anxious, more self-monitoring, more dependent on approval, more afraid of your own doubt.

3) The sacrifices will not deliver what is promised

High-commitment Christianity often sells a paradox:

Give up the world and you will gain joy.

And sometimes, at first, it works. Early conversion can feel like oxygen: clarity, unconditional love, a new tribe, a new identity, a new sense of direction. In a lonely world, that is powerful.

But over time the bargain changes.

You will be asked to sacrifice things that are not merely “sinful,” but simply human:

    • parts of your identity that don’t fit the template
    • questions you’re not allowed to keep asking
    • desires you must rename as temptation
    • relationships that become “unequally yoked”
    • your own inner authority

And here’s the trap: the moral standard is often impossible.

You will be told to be holy, pure, humble, grateful, surrendered, joyful, obedient, servant-hearted, faithful, prayerful, disciplined, generous, forgiving, and to treat doubt as rebellion.

That produces one of two outcomes:

    1. you become a performer: outward righteousness, inward fracture
    2. you become perpetually guilty: never enough, never clean, never sure

Neither is freedom.

4) You may be entering a soft prison you won’t easily leave

This is the warning I most want to underline.

A church can become a total social world:

    • your friends
    • your dating pool
    • your weekends
    • your music
    • your language
    • your moral framework
    • your sense of being “safe”

And once that happens, leaving is not like changing a hobby. It is like exiting a country.

The gravitational pull is real:

    • leaders frame departure as betrayal
    • friends become wary, then distant
    • doubts must be hidden or confessed
    • your identity becomes fused with the group
    • your fear of “backsliding” keeps you inside

Even if nothing “cultic” is happening, the system can still function like a sect: high belonging, high cost, high control.

And if your life later falls apart, as lives sometimes do, the love you thought was unconditional can become conditional very quickly.

I have lived that.

When my own life imploded, many of the people who had once spoken the language of grace stepped back. Disappeared. Some rewrote history. Some behaved as if I had never existed. It was as though my entire Christian life was deleted overnight.

And the cruelty of that is specific: because Christianity is often sold as the cure for rejection. You think you are finally safe.

Then you discover you were safe only while you were useful, coherent, and compliant.

A closing word to Gen Z: don’t outsource your hunger

If you are drawn toward Christianity because the world feels unstable, I understand.

The moral void is real.

The longing for meaning is not childish. It is the most adult thing about you.

But please, before you hand over your identity, time, sexuality, money, and inner authority to a high-commitment religious system—pause.

Ask:

    • Does this community make me more honest, or merely more certain?
    • Does it strengthen my conscience, or replace it?
    • Does it widen my compassion, or narrow my world?
    • Can I doubt here without being punished?
    • If I leave, will love remain?
    • What is the cost of belonging—and who benefits?

If you still choose faith, choose it with open eyes.

And if what you are really seeking is meaning, moral seriousness, and community, remember: religion does not own those things. Human beings do.

We built religion to carry them. We can also build other vessels.

The point is not to mock your hunger.

The point is to protect you from people who know exactly how to use it.

“I might believe in the Redeemer if his disciples looked more redeemed.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche

Is It Time For A Peaceful Revolution?

The return of Donald Trump is not merely a political event. It is a moral diagnostic.

It tells us something deeply unsettling about the state of our world: that values, principles, and ethics have slipped from the centre of public life. They have been displaced largely by financial gain, grievance politics, racialised fear, and the steady erosion of democratic norms.

This is not an American problem alone. It is a global one.

Trump is not the cause of this collapse; he is its most conspicuous symptom, like a mirror held up to societies that have quietly traded moral seriousness for spectacle, responsibility for outrage and truth for tribal loyalty.

The Disappearance of Principle

Where are the people of principle?

Where are the politicians who speak honestly about limits, responsibility, and restraint, rather than promising everything while meaning nothing? Where are the leaders willing to say “this is wrong” even when doing so costs them popularity, office, or power?

And where, more troubling still, are the faith communities — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist — when democracy is undermined and human dignity reduced to a slogan?

Too often, there is silence.
Or worse: rationalisation.

Ethics in a ‘Post-God’ World

We increasingly describe ourselves as living in a “post-God” world. Whatever one’s beliefs, this framing carries an uncomfortable implication.

If there is no higher authority to appeal to, no divine judgement, no metaphysical reckoning, then responsibility does not disappear. It intensifies.

In such a world, ethics cannot be outsourced to tradition, scripture or institutions. They must be embodied in individuals.

We are fully and finally accountable for what we tolerate, excuse, and normalise.

The collapse of shared ethical frameworks does not free us. It leaves us more exposed.

When Systems Fail

When political systems fail, when institutions rot from within, when law bends to power and truth bends to profit, waiting politely is no longer a virtue.

Peaceful resistance is not extremism.
Civic courage is not disorder.
Refusing to normalise injustice is not naïveté.

History does not judge societies kindly for their patience in the face of moral collapse.

The GDR: Proof That Change Is Possible

I live in the former German Democratic Republic.

Within my own lifetime, I have seen proof that enormous social change is not only possible, but inevitable, when large numbers of ordinary people rise up peacefully and say: Enough.

No tanks.
No violence.
Just people.

The fall of the GDR was not engineered by heroes or generals. It was brought about by teachers, factory workers, church groups, writers, engineers: people who withdrew their consent from a system that no longer deserved it.

That lesson should haunt us and teach us.

Have We Gone Mad?

As a warning light on the dashboard of history, young Germans are once again being asked whether they are prepared to fight for their country.

After everything Europe has lived through: after the ruins, the camps, the mass graves, the promises of Nie wieder — have we learned nothing?

The question should not be how to prepare the next generation for war, but how we allowed ourselves to drift back towards the conditions that make war imaginable again.

Democracy Belongs to the Ordinary

Democracy does not belong to elites.
It does not belong to parties, platforms, or billionaires.

It belongs to writers.
Teachers.
Lawyers.
Nurses and doctors.
Construction workers.
Refuse collectors.

It belongs to all of us.

When democratic systems disintegrate, it is not because “the people” failed. It is because too many people were persuaded that their voice no longer mattered.

Silence Is Not Neutral

Some of us are old enough to know where silence, blame-shifting, and passivity lead.

Writing from exile as Europe collapsed around him, Stefan Zweig issued a warning that has lost none of its force:

“The greatest danger threatening humanity today is not fanaticism itself, but the silent toleration of fanaticism.”

Zweig understood that history is not undone by villains alone, but by the quiet compliance of the reasonable.

So Where Is the Line?

If Zweig was right, then the question is no longer whether we see what is happening.

The question is this:

Where do you draw the line?
What responsibility do professionals, educators, faith communities, and citizens have when institutions fail?
What does peaceful resistance look like now?

Enough silence.
Enough normalisation.
Enough waiting.

History does not move only through great men. It moves when ordinary people decide that they will no longer cooperate with the unacceptable.

The moment is not coming.

It is already here.

“Truth to tell, we are all criminals if we remain silent.”

—Stefan Zweig

Meaning Before Language

At the start of the New Year, I began growing mung bean sprouts on the kitchen counter. Nothing ambitious: a glass jar, a handful of dry beans, water, patience. It was partly practical — a small attempt to eat better — and partly seasonal, a gesture of beginning again.

But as so often happens, attention did the rest.

Each morning and evening I rinsed the beans, drained the water, and tilted the jar back into place. Within a day, change began. Roots appeared. Pale shoots followed. By the third day, the jar was quietly alive with direction and momentum. Nothing dramatic. Nothing expressive. Just steady response.

Watching this simple process unfold gave rise to a set of thoughts that have stayed with me.

There is something quietly reassuring in discovering that:

    • order doesn’t require intention
    • meaning can emerge from conditions
    • responsiveness is not the same as consciousness

A seed doesn’t care —
but it is exquisitely attuned.

That distinction matters far beyond botany.

A mung bean has no brain, no awareness, no sense of purpose. It does not want to grow. It does not know that it is growing. And yet, when the conditions are right — moisture, warmth, oxygen — it responds. Enzymes activate, stored energy is released, cells divide, and a process begins that looks uncannily like purpose.

But it isn’t.

What the seed demonstrates is something both humbling and quietly radical: meaning can arise from structure rather than intention. Order can appear without a planner. Direction can emerge without desire. Life can move forward without knowing why.

“Life is not obliged to make sense to us.”
— Richard Dawkins

We tend to assume the opposite about ourselves.

Much of modern human anxiety is rooted in the belief that meaning must be consciously created: unless we are constantly choosing, narrating, justifying, our lives risk becoming meaningless. We speak as if significance must always be meant by someone, preferably articulated, preferably defensible.

And yet, much of what shapes us most deeply happens long before we have words for it.

Which brings us to language.

There is a quiet assumption, widely shared and rarely examined, that meaning only exists where language exists. I certainly absorbed this idea early on: that without words, symbols, and narratives there could be no meaning, only blind mechanism. Animals, plants, seeds may be somehow alive, but they are not conscious of their existence because they do not have language. But is this assumption true under closer attention? Language does not so much create meaning as name it. Long before we describe a situation as safe or threatening, nourishing or hostile, our bodies are already responding. Long before a child can articulate belonging or neglect, those conditions are shaping who they become. Meaning, in this sense, precedes language. Language arrives later, not as the origin of significance, but as its echo.

Taken seriously, this idea does not just reshape education or psychology; it also presses uncomfortably on our concepts of religion.

If meaning precedes language, then religion becomes structurally vulnerable in a way it rarely acknowledges. Religious systems depend on language to define, order, and sanctify a reality that was already unfolding long before it was named. Just as the seed germinates without reference to our metaphors, doctrines, or reverence, the world generates complexity, order, and awe without requiring theological narration. Religion, in this light, does not create meaning but gathers around it — stabilising, preserving, and sometimes claiming ownership of what would otherwise continue unbothered. The danger is not that religion is false, but that it mistakes itself for the source rather than the afterimage of meaning: a linguistic architecture built around processes that do not need to be spoken in order to be real.

“There are no facts, only interpretations.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche

Seen this way, the seed is not a lower form of life waiting for consciousness to redeem it. It is a reminder that attunement comes before articulation.

This has implications for how we think about human agency. To say that meaning can emerge from conditions is not to deny responsibility or choice. It is to relocate them. Agency is not constant control; it is responsiveness within constraints. The skill is not to will meaning into existence, but to recognise what kinds of environments allow growth — in ourselves and in others.

And this is where education enters the picture.

Much of contemporary schooling still reflects a modernist inheritance: knowledge divided into discrete subjects, timetabled and assessed in isolation. Biology here. Chemistry there. Physics somewhere else. Meaning nowhere in particular.

We teach biology largely as a catalogue of facts — cell structures, taxonomies, cycles, pathways — accurate, necessary, and often lifeless. Rarely do we teach it as the study of responsive systems. We talk about genes, but not environments. About mechanisms, but not emergence. Students learn that a seed needs water, warmth, and oxygen, yet miss the astonishing implication: life does not need a mind in order to organise itself.

By separating biology from physics and chemistry, we also reinforce a subtle illusion — that life is something apart from the rest of reality, rather than a continuation of it. As if metabolism were not chemistry in motion. As if growth were not physics slowed down and shaped by constraint. As if living systems did not obey the same laws as rivers and stars, only at a different scale.

A more truthful curriculum would dissolve these boundaries.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
— Werner Heisenberg

Imagine teaching “life” as a conversation between disciplines:
chemistry becoming organised,
physics learning to linger,
energy flowing through matter long enough to notice itself.

In such a curriculum, a sprouting seed would not be a marginal example but a foundational one. Students would be invited to ask not only what happens, but what it reveals: that responsiveness predates consciousness, that attunement is older than intention, that meaning does not need to be imposed in order to arise.

The ethical consequences would follow naturally. Instead of moralising failure, students might ask better questions: What conditions were missing? What environments are we creating? What do we reward, nourish, neglect?

Education, at its best, does not manufacture outcomes.
It creates conditions.

A seed doesn’t care.
But it responds.

So do children.
So do communities.
And, more often than we like to admit, so do we.

Perhaps part of the task of education — and of adult life — is to relearn this modest, hopeful truth: that meaning does not always need to be pursued or declared. Sometimes it only needs the right conditions in which to emerge.

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
— Albert Einstein

A Perfectly Absurd Christmas Story

The other evening, in the spirit of seasonal escapism, we were watching Man vs Baby—a piece of festive fluff involving slapstick chaos, an unruly infant, and, inevitably, a primary-school nativity play.

At some point, my husband—who grew up in Indonesia and is unfamiliar with Christian traditions—turned to me and asked, quite innocently, what the story was actually about.

So I explained.

A teenage girl called Mary, who was also a virgin, gives birth to a baby. This baby is God. He is born in a stable because there is no room for him in the local accommodation. A star appears in the sky, guiding three wise men and a group of shepherds to come and worship this baby and bring him gifts. This child will later be executed, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven, and now sits—still in a human body—on the throne of the universe, exercising ultimate authority over all of existence for all eternity.

My husband listened politely. He nodded. He asked no follow-up questions.

But as I heard my own voice recounting this story, I had a sudden, almost comic moment of estrangement. Detached from carols, candlelight, stained glass, and nostalgia, the narrative sounded astonishingly absurd.

And yet.

It is also undeniably beautiful.

As a story, it has extraordinary power. Told aloud. Set to music. Painted. Sculpted. Recreated each December in glowing wooden cribs in living rooms, churches, town squares, and shopping malls. It is gentle. It centres on vulnerability rather than force. A baby rather than a king. Straw rather than marble. Hope for the world arriving quietly, unnoticed and poor.

I once believed it all.

Not only as a child, but later for about fifteen years of my adult life, when I was a Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian. I genuinely thought this story, set in the Middle East two millennia ago, explained everything: meaning, love, suffering, death, and the ultimate destiny of the world. I didn’t experience it as absurd at all. It felt profound, coherent, and necessary.

But with distance, the story didn’t simply become implausible; it became troubling. Not because it is poetic or mysterious, but because of what has been built upon it. The same “cute” story about a baby has been used to justify division, exclusion, cruelty, war, and extraordinary human suffering. Not by accident, but repeatedly, systematically, and often with great confidence and moral certainty.

That, for me, is the real tragedy—not that the story is implausible, but that it has been weaponised.

And yet, here we are again.

Lights are going up. Schools are rehearsing their nativity plays. People are travelling, eating too much, falling out, making up, missing those who are no longer here and trying, in their imperfect ways, to be a little kinder.

So this is not a call to cancel Christmas. Nor is it an attack on those who still believe the story literally. It’s simply an honest moment of reflection: a recognition that something can be both moving and absurd; beautiful and dangerous; comforting and deeply problematic.

In any case, beliefs aside, I want to take this opportunity to wish you—whoever you are, wherever you are—a genuinely restful and enjoyable Christmas and New Year break. May there be moments of warmth, laughter, good food, and quiet. And for 2026, I wish all of us what really matters: peace, goodwill, good health, and a little more humility about the stories we tell ourselves—and each other.

Happy Christmas.

“Christmas is not a time nor a season, but a state of mind.”
— Calvin Coolidge

From Village Carpenter to Global Force: The Strange Success of Christianity

It remains one of the strangest facts of history.

A thirty-something artisan from a provincial backwater, speaking Aramaic in a corner of the Roman Empire, is now at the centre of the world’s most geographically widespread religion. Two thousand years later, his story is still believed – not just by the desperate and uneducated, but by surgeons, software engineers, lawyers, professors and prime ministers.

We can debate for ever whether the miracles happened, whether the tomb was empty, whether God exists at all. But even if you bracket all that out, a hard question stays on the table:

How did this particular faith story become so portable, so durable, and so attractive to intelligent people for so long?

And – just as interesting – why does Christianity grow in some places today and haemorrhage members in others?

I want to suggest that the answer has less to do with miracles, and more to do with four things:

    • its portability
    • its God of love
    • its dual appeal to heart and reason
    • and the way it behaves sociologically – either as a movement or as an institution.

Christianity’s Secret Weapon: Portability

Most ancient religions came bundled with a package deal: one god, one people, one place, one language.

You worshipped the gods of your tribe, your city, your land. The temple was in that city, the sacrifices at that altar, the prayers in that tongue. This is how religion normally works.

Christianity broke that model.

From the very beginning it said, in effect:

“You don’t need to be Jewish. You don’t need to move to Jerusalem. You don’t need to learn a sacred language. This is for everyone.”

No temple to travel to.
No hierarchical clergy or priesthood – every believer is a priest
No sacred script only the initiated can read.

Just a set of compelling and memorable stories and teachings about Jesus and a small travelling community who claimed that his life, death and (as they saw it) resurrection had changed what it meant to be human.

That made Christianity absurdly portable:

    • It moved from Aramaic into Greek.
    • Then into Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Gothic.
    • It made the jump into the philosophical worlds of Plato and Stoicism, and then into the legal and administrative world of Rome.
    • Today it sits comfortably in English, Swahili, Korean, Portuguese and Tagalog without asking anyone to “become Jewish” first.

If you strip Christianity back to its core, the essentials are strangely easy to translate:

    • love
    • forgiveness
    • dignity
    • care for the poor
    • hope beyond death
    • justice
    • meaning
    • transformation

No sacred mountain. No exclusive caste. No single holy language.

Just a story and a way of life that can, at least in theory, be picked up anywhere.

Whenever Christianity has leaned into this radical portability – no guarantees, no bureaucracy, just small communities trying to live this story in their own culture – it has tended to spread.

Whenever it has wrapped itself in state power, fixed liturgies, heavy buildings and highly controlled hierarchies, after some initial growth, it has tended to stall and then decline.

We can see that empirically now.

A Shockingly Different God

Portability explains how Christianity can move.
It doesn’t yet explain why anyone would actually want it.

Here I think we come to the most explosive claim at the heart of Christian faith:

God loves you. Personally.

We are used to that sentence now. In the ancient world, it was dynamite. All humans are looking for existential meaning and personal acceptance.

The gods of Rome were powerful, but capricious.
The gods of Greek myth were brilliant, but aloof.
The philosophers spoke of a Logos or a First Principle – interesting, but hardly something you would sing hymns to.

Then along come the Christians, saying:
the ultimate reality behind the universe is not raw power, not blind fate, not an impersonal force, but self-giving love – and that this love is somehow focused on you.

Not just: “There is a god.”
But: “You are known and wanted.”

Add to that some other, equally disruptive ideas:

    • that slaves have dignity,
    • that women and children matter,
    • that the poor, the stranger, the sick, the disabled are not disposable but precious,
    • that every human being, without exception, bears the image of God.

In an empire that threw away unwanted babies, left the sick to die in the street, and treated most people as economically useful units at best, this was not just comforting. It was revolutionary.

You didn’t have to believe in miracles to find this vision of the world compelling. Many still don’t.

Heart and Mind in the Same Story

There is another piece to the puzzle. Christianity did something that very few religions manage to sustain over centuries:

It offered a credible home for both the heart and the mind.

On the heart side, it speaks to:

    • forgiveness for real guilt
    • a path to change when you hate the person you’ve become
    • a community that will (at least in theory) walk with you
    • the intuition that love and justice somehow matter more than success
    • the fear of death and the longing that death is not the end

On the mind side, it offers:

    • a universe that is ordered and intelligible rather than random
    • a moral framework that is more than “my preference vs. yours”
    • a coherent story of how humans can be capable of both beauty and horror
    • a God-concept that can be, and has been, taken seriously by some of the most demanding intellects in history

Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Bonhoeffer – whatever you make of their conclusions, these are not gullible people. They were not seduced by a cosy fairy tale. They found in Christianity a way of thinking that was at least big enough to wrestle with reality.

That combination – emotional depth and intellectual seriousness – is rare. It goes some way to explaining why, in every generation, some doctors, lawyers, scientists and philosophers still end up in church despite knowing all the reasons not to.

When Christianity Behaves Like a Religion, It Shrinks

The really uncomfortable part, especially if you belong to an established church, is what happens next.

Over time, the portable, story-driven movement becomes something else:

    • It builds buildings.
    • It develops liturgy and rules.
    • It trains a professional clergy.
    • It negotiates with states and empires.
    • It learns to sit quite comfortably next to imperial power, feudal systems, colonial projects and nationalist dreams – sometimes as their chaplain.

Some of this is inevitable. Human beings organise. Communities need structure. Not every bishop is a villain.

But the sociological pattern is striking:

    • In much of Europe, the old state-linked churches – Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed – are in steep numerical decline.
    • They are rich in buildings, history and liturgy; poor in young adults, fresh converts and living energy.
    • Many of their most enthusiastic members quietly slip away to small, lay-led, often charismatic communities – or out of the Christian story altogether.

You don’t need supernatural explanations for this.
It is what tends to happen when a movement becomes an institution and then an arm of the state.

The religion that once prided itself on having “no temple, no priesthood, no sacred language” has sometimes become exactly the kind of religion Jesus himself spent so much time arguing with.

And people vote with their feet.

When Christianity Behaves Like a Movement, It Spreads

The picture is very different whenever Christianity sheds the imperial clothing and goes back to something closer to its original form.

We see this in:

    • house-church networks under communism
    • base communities in Latin America
    • Pentecostal and independent churches in parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America
    • small experimental communities in post-Christian cities in Europe.

What these movements tend to have in common is not a particular theology but a form:

    • they are locally led,
    • often meeting in homes, schools or rented halls rather than cathedrals,
    • heavily relational,
    • high on participation and experience,
    • able to translate the message into local culture without waiting for permission from a distant headquarters.

They may or may not be “charismatic” in the technical sense. Many are. Some aren’t. But they are recognisable cousins of that first generation of Jesus-followers who met in houses, shared meals, argued, prayed, fell out, reconciled and tried to work out what this story meant in Corinth, or Antioch, or Rome.

Where Christianity looks like that, it is often growing – sometimes quietly, sometimes explosively.

Where Christianity looks like a bureaucratic service provider for people who need weddings, funerals and a vague sense of national identity, it is often dying.

Again, you don’t need to believe in God to see the pattern. It’s written in the attendance figures.

So Why This One Story?

None of this “proves” that Christianity is true. That’s a different discussion.

But it does, I think, make sense of why this particular faith story has had such reach:

    • It told an outrageous story of love in a world ruled by fear.
    • It insisted that the most important truths about human life could be carried in a portable story, not locked in a temple or a tribe.
    • It managed, at its best moments, to give both the heart and the mind something serious to work with.
    • And it has a built-in tendency to break out of its own institutions and reinvent itself as a movement again whenever those institutions become too heavy.

An Aramaic-speaking artisan from a nowhere village should have vanished into the long list of forgotten preachers.

Instead, people all over the world are still arguing about him, still praying to him, still walking away from him in anger, still quietly coming back.

You can explain that purely in sociological and psychological terms, if you like. Or you can, if you are so inclined, wonder whether the “God of love” at the centre of the story has something to do with its refusal to die.

Either way, it is hard to deny that the story is still on the move – and that it travels lightest when it remembers where it began.

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”  – G. K. Chesterton

Cathedrals of Quiet Light: An Homage to Libraries

I did not expect a pilgrimage. All I wanted, on a cold Berlin morning, was a simple desk in my local library. A familiar refuge where I could coax myself into writing. Instead, I arrived to find the doors barred and the building shrouded in scaffolding. Closed for refurbishment. And yet even that felt oddly hopeful: a library being tended to, repaired, protected. A chrysalis in plywood. Still, it left me homeless for the day, so I pointed myself into the centre of Berlin and followed a vague instinct in search of a different reading room.

By early afternoon I was standing inside the Humboldt University Library, in the central Jacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm-Zentrum — a building completed in 2009 at a cost of roughly €150 million, a temple to light and linearity, a modern cathedral carved out of honey-coloured wood. I had never been inside before. I found my way up several flights of stairs, past quiet students and moving columns of books, until I arrived in the library’s great central atrium.

There are moments when atmosphere becomes an event, as if the air thickens with meaning, as though the space itself has a pulse. That is what happened. The first glance into the atrium felt like encountering a new idea before you have the words for it.

The room opened before me in tiers, receding downwards in vast wooden frames, each level lined with narrow study desks illuminated by soft rectangular lamps. Above, the ceiling dissolved into a grid of skylights, a geometry of glass and daylight. Below, hundreds of young people bent over books and laptops, headphones cocooning them, highlighters poised like tiny torches hunting for truth in margins. It was an amphitheatre of thought, tier upon tier of silent striving, human concentration arranged like an inverted ziggurat.

The sight moved me more than I had anticipated. I had often studied in the ancient libraries of Oxford, with their stone floors worn by centuries of scholars and portraits of stern-faced alumni glaring down with a mixture of judgement and encouragement. But this — this modern Berlin chamber with its clean lines and its open light — held its own kind of splendour. If Oxford’s libraries feel like the weight of the past pressing lovingly upon you, the Grimm-Zentrum feels like the future stretching out somewhere beyond the roof.

And suddenly I felt small and young again, in the most wonderful way.

A Place Where the World Learns How to Think

What struck me first was the sound — or rather, the absence of it. The quiet in a library is not mere silence. It is a collective agreement, a social pact, a voluntary reverence. The students around me were not quiet because they were told to be. They were quiet because they were invested. Because something mattered.

Then came the smell — that unmistakable perfume of libraries everywhere:
waxed linoleum; varnished wood; warm dust that rises from the turning of pages; and above all that distinctive scent of old books, a mixture of paper, glue, ink, and time itself. It carries, always, a faint edge of mystery – a reminder that knowledge ages like a living thing.

As I sat down on the highest tier, overlooking this incredible geometry of minds at work, it occurred to me that libraries are among the few places left in modern life where human concentration is visible. We watch it manifest physically: in posture, in scribbles, in slow-page turns, in the absorbed stillness of someone who is trying to understand.

The atmosphere was electric but hushed, charged but respectful. There were students mapping out theses with coloured pens, others scrolling through academic articles, some chewing their pens absentmindedly while staring into middle distance — that universal gesture of a mind wrestling with a concept. There were those who looked exhausted but determined, and others who looked exhilarated by a sentence they had just discovered. Every face was a small story of effort.

This collective striving was profoundly moving. It made visible something we often forget: knowledge is crafted, not downloaded. Even with all the technology around them, these students were still doing the slow, patient work that makes civilisation possible. Research is not glamorous. It is hours of searching, scanning, discarding, re-reading. Yet they persisted.

Watching them, I felt privileged — almost intrusive — as though I were witnessing a kind of secular liturgy.

This Is Not an Anti-AI Eulogy. Quite the Opposite.

Let me say this clearly, and early, because sentiments like mine are often misinterpreted: this is not a rear-guard lament against AI.
No pious calls to return to pre-digital methods. No false nostalgia. No technophobia.

I embrace AI wholeheartedly. I use it every day, and I consider it one of the most extraordinary tools ever created. It accelerates learning, supports human creativity, and holds vast potential for everything from agriculture to medicine to interplanetary exploration. It will help build the colonies on Mars long before we finish debating whether rocket fuel is environmentally friendly.

So this reflection is not a plea for a world without technology. It is instead an attempt to articulate something different: that libraries and AI are not adversaries.
They are partners.
One is where the human mind trains its depth; the other is where it extends its reach.

Libraries teach us how to think.
AI helps us learn faster once we know how.

The library is the gymnasium of cognition.
AI is the exoskeleton.

We need both.

A Secular Temple — or Something More

As I sat in the top tier of that atrium, I realised that all my senses were activated at once: sight, sound, smell, touch, and the quiet murmur of pages turning like a heartbeat for the whole building. It was almost too much. It bordered on the religious.

If you believe in God, you could easily imagine gratitude rising like incense: look what humanity — the species fashioned out of dust and breath — has managed to build. Look how our curiosity has unfolded into architecture, scholarship, craft, and a hunger for understanding that seems inexhaustible.

If you do not believe in God, the miracle remains.
After all, what could be more astonishing than this? That the random electrical impulses arising from an indifferent universe have generated organisms who sit together in vast wooden halls reading about Mesopotamia, quantum mechanics, marine ecosystems, political philosophy, medieval manuscripts, and machine learning algorithms. That atoms born in supernovae now write essays on ethics and the shape of a meaningful life.

Even the most hardened atheist cannot deny the improbability, the majesty of that.

To sit in a library is to witness a miracle in motion — a civilisation rehearsing its own continuation.

The Invisible People Who Make It Possible

It is easy, in moments of beauty, to forget the infrastructure that supports them. But libraries are not spontaneous miracles. They are daily, deliberate acts of civic generosity.

Someone designed this building with its lightwells, its tiers, its acoustics, its quiet. Someone else built it, brick by brick, panel by panel. Others maintain it, polish the floors, fix the lamps, organise the recycling, restock the bathrooms, oil the doors so they close softly.

Then there are the librarians, the custodians of order in our age of chaos. The ones who curate, classify, preserve, and patiently help bewildered visitors locate that one book whose title they have partially forgotten. They are the guardians of continuity, the keepers of fragments, the quiet historians of our intellectual life.

Yesterday, I watched a librarian register new readers at the desk. One of them was me. The young man helping me was in his early twenties, wearing a university hoodie, and fascinated by my British passport. He asked why the text was printed both in English and French. He was curious about British attitudes to Europe, about why I had come to Berlin, about what I was planning to write.

There was no transactional coldness in him. Only a genuine hunger to learn, to connect, to understand. It was a small moment, and yet it added a human warmth to the architecture around us. It reminded me that libraries are not only spatial achievements; they are social ones. They bring together people who believe — perhaps stubbornly, courageously — that knowledge should remain accessible to all.

And yes, I felt grateful. Deeply grateful. In an age dominated by cynicism about governments, it is worth remembering that states still choose to spend millions on libraries, archaeology departments, social sciences faculties, digitisation projects, and the preservation of knowledge. This is not trivial. It is evidence of a civilisation still investing in its own mind.

A Place Where My Own Creativity Woke Up

I did not plan to begin outlining a new novel yesterday. But the effect of sitting in that atrium was galvanising. The sight of hundreds of young minds in motion, the geometry of the architecture, the warm glow of the wood, the filtered daylight, the portraitless vastness that made every student their own protagonist — it all stirred something in me.

Creativity, I am convinced, is contagious. We borrow the electricity of others. When you place yourself in an environment charged with intellectual purpose, something inside you aligns. Ideas begin to organise themselves. Sentences appear without being summoned. Pages begin to form.

That is exactly what happened.

Within an hour of sitting down, my mind was in overdrive, casting threads between ideas I had been carrying for months, imagining scenes, characters, dilemmas. The space did not merely host my creativity; it provoked it. I left with the outline of my next book beating quietly inside my bag.

Why This Matters for the World Our Children Inherit

As I gazed into the atrium, I kept thinking about the thousands of young people around the world who will never experience something like this — who study in overcrowded classrooms, or at kitchen tables, or not at all. And then I thought of the students who do have this privilege and perhaps take it for granted, because we all take blessings for granted when they become part of the wallpaper of our days.

A library like this is not a neutral space.
It is a statement.
A declaration of values.
A place where a society says to its young:

Take this. Explore. Learn. Write. Think. Question. Become. We believe you are worth the investment.

My hope is that such spaces will not become relics. That they will not be drowned by the easy seductions of instant information, nor by political short-sightedness, nor by economic austerity. May libraries continue to stand as cathedrals of collective education, where young people can enter free of charge and leave richer in spirit, sharper in thought, and braver in imagination.

A Final Word of Gratitude

So this is my homage — not to nostalgia, but to possibility. To the people who keep these spaces alive. To the students who fill them. To the architects who imagine them. To the librarians who protect them. And yes, to the governments and taxpayers whose resources make them real.

Most of all, it is an expression of gratitude for the simple miracle that humans still gather in large wooden rooms to read books, annotate pages, debate arguments, and shape knowledge. In a world that often feels fragmented, libraries remind us that our species is still capable of collective enlightenment.

As long as there are libraries, there is hope.
As long as there are young people hunched over books, there is a future worth fighting for.
And as long as we preserve places like this — vast, warm, light-filled, reverent — our civilisation will continue to write itself into being.

Yesterday I entered a library looking for a desk.
I left having recovered my faith in human curiosity.

And perhaps that is the true gift of a library:
it does not simply store knowledge —
it awakens the desire to create more of it.

“Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it.”  – Hannah Arendt

If you love the world enough, go back to a library. Sit down. Read something difficult. Support these spaces. They are still where civilisation renews itself.

 

 

Why Populists Thrive in a Connected World

Why Has Globalisation Increased Division Instead of Unity?

Globalisation should have been our great humanising force. For the first time in history, large numbers of people can travel freely, study abroad, work internationally, and encounter cultures that would once have remained distant and unknown. We have access to films, music, literature, foods, and languages from every continent. On paper, this should have produced an age of empathy. A century in which the old barriers of race, nationality, and religion dissolved into shared humanity.

Yet the opposite has happened. As the world has opened up, political identity has hardened. Populist nationalism has surged: Donald Trump in the United States, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, and similar strongman figures elsewhere. Racism, religious extremism, conspiracy thinking, and tribal rhetoric are resurgent. The more connected the world becomes, the more threatened people seem to feel.

This contradiction is not new. It is the old story of the Tower of Babel. Human beings build upward toward unity, creativity, and common purpose—yet something in us fractures, resists, and disperses. Even if we don’t read that story religiously, it is psychologically precise. The closer we come to real integration, the more fear arises: fear of loss of identity, loss of control, loss of status.

Globalisation has consistently been experienced not as shared enrichment but as competition. The immigrant is framed not as a neighbour, but as a rival. Cultural diversity is discussed not as dialogue, but as dilution. Political rhetoric encourages the idea that “our” way of life is being erased. The result is defensive nationalism and, increasingly, violence.

This is not inevitable. The problem is not globalisation itself, but the absence of global solidarity to accompany global interdependence. We have integrated our economies, but not our ethics. We have connected our markets, but not our imaginations.

So the question is: How do we reverse the tide? How do we turn globalisation into a force for peace, dignity, and cooperation rather than division and resentment?

Here are three foundations:

1. Global Education that Teaches Perspective, Not Propaganda
International exchange programs cannot simply be tourism or language practice; they must cultivate the ability to see oneself from the outside. To understand how one’s culture appears to others, how history shapes identity, and how dignity must be mutual. Education that only reinforces national narratives will always produce suspicion, not solidarity.

2. Freedom of the Press, Protected by Law, Not Politics
Real democracy depends on the ability to critique power. When the press becomes the instrument of governments, oligarchs, or corporations, societies fracture along invented fears. The crisis at the BBC this week is not a local scandal—it is a warning. If journalism cannot report freely, citizens cannot think freely. And if citizens cannot think freely, they cannot live together freely.

3. Cross-Border Economic Cooperation That Shares, Not Extracts
The problem is not diversity—it is inequality. When globalisation enriches a few and impoverishes many, resentment is inevitable. But when globalisation supports fair wages, sustainable industry, ecological responsibility, and shared growth, it strengthens stability rather than fear.

In short: global interconnectedness must be matched with global empathy.

We already live in one shared world. The question is whether we will learn to behave as if that is true.

Unity is not naïve. It is the only realistic future we have.

“We may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong to one human race.”

–Kofi Annan