How r u?

Predictive text is a good measure of the state the world is in. On a mobile phone with this incredible piece of technology, a strict hierarchy is placed on words with similar letters, such that an ardent texter can easily enter "he" when she meant "if", or "of" when she meant "me".

I'm sorry to report, folks, that by the measure of predictive text the world is in a sorry state.

"Beer" is ranked firmly below "adds".

"Pint" is ranked below "shot" and "riot".

"Joy" is considered less important than "low".

And "cheer", believe it or not, is forced to give way to "aides".

Is one not permitted to have fun anymore? I only wanted to send a text about my night out and I end up telling people that my aides have reported that the shot adds to the riot.

And if you disagree with me, if you think that hedonistic words like "beer" and "cheer" should be kept in their place, then you will be aghast to discover that when you try enter the innocent verb "sew" into your phone, it returns the disgusting noun "sex". How the world has changed...

The perfect metaphor for happiness

In this month's issue of Prospect, there's an article on the relationship between happiness and wealth. This is just the sort of thing that I love to read - it's such a wonderfully callous way to approach things. I remember reading a similar article last year which said that the No.1 factor for happiness is getting enough sleep, and that there is no relationship between money and happiness beyond basic essentials (food, water, shelter).

The Prospect article agrees, but it has a caveat. Although there is no connection between income and self-reported happiness (they do these surveys by simply asking you how happy you are), there is a connection between happiness and GDP growth. People are consistently happier in countries where GDP is steadily rising, even though it makes no difference what the actual GDP is (An Angolan can be happier than a Norwegian as long as the country's GDP is rising).

But what got me about this article is the metaphor he uses to describe the importance of steady GDP growth: "Imagine a guillotine, on which a kitten is strapped, connected to a bicycle that must be pedalled ever more quickly to keep the blade aloft. Slow down, and the kitten gets it." Yeah - I bet that kitten's as happy as can be!

It reminded me of a poem by Sheenagh Pugh, on "The Pursuit of Happiness":

"But he only said
you had a right to chase it:
he never mentioned

catching it up. [...]

And if you caught it,
if you ever did,
wouldn't it taste stringy,

all muscle and disappointment,
and what would you do
with the rest of your life?"

Yes, Sheenagh, I imagine the kitten would taste pretty stringy. Keep pedalling, everyone!

Which life?

The magazine The New Humanist is run by the Rationalist Association. I love that there is a contemporary publication devoted to humanism. This is a worthy cause. I do not love that Borders in York stocks The New Humanist but does not stock any Christian journals.

The Rationalist Association does not appear to oppose religious beliefs, just religious dogma. However, on the inside cover of the current issue of The New Humanist is an advert by a different group, the British Humanist Association. I notice that their slogan is: "for the one life we have". The BHA clearly believes that this commitment to "the one life we have" distinguishes them from Christian organisations. All it reminded me of was the slogan of Christian Aid: "we believe in life before death".

This got me thinking about the attitudes expressed in the above statements. Earlier in the day, a friend of mind had suggested that Christians are more likely to be accepting of the status quo because of their trust in a higher power. An "opiate for the masses", you might say. But my reading of the Gospels is that Jesus persistently exhorts us towards active subversion. We are told to pursue ideals of love, community and faith against the norms of society. He promises a life after death, but all his advice is on how to act in this life.

The British Humanist Association and Christian Aid are opposed on a matter of principle, but their end conclusion is the same: a commitment to the life we are living now. Surely rationalism and a love of Christ are not incompatible?

To beg the question

Acts 3:1-8: Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple that is called the Beautiful Gate to ask alms of those entering the temple. Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive alms. And Peter directed his gaze at him, as did John, and said, "Look at us." And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!" And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. And leaping up he stood and began to walk, and entered the temple with them, walking and praising God.

What should we do when a beggar asks us for money? It has to be one of the most awkward social interactions, for a Christian or anyone else. Nietzsche said that "beggars ... should be entirely abolished! Truly, it is annoying to give to them and annoying not to give to them." That's often how I feel, but it's hardly the answer.

Occasionally I have spontaneously given a beggar a £20 note, usually out of confusion more than compassion. How can you give money to someone when you don't know if they really deserve charity? Everyone deserves love, but that doesn't mean they deserve financial windfalls! Surely a better way to help homeless people is through organised social work and local government projects. Manchester Cathedral runs a centre for the homeless, for example.

On the other hand, you can't ignore a beggar either. That is plain rude and still leaves you feeling incredibly guilty. That's why the passage from Acts struck me. When Peter was asked for alms, he used the opportunity to help the beggar in a different, more useful way, and witnessed to his faith to boot! Is this a model for us? I can't imagine saying to a beggar, "I've no money, but come to church with me instead." I remember Don Miller in Blue Like Jazz saying that he used to take homeless people to lunch; I can't see myself doing that, either. What is the answer?

To be honest, I think the point of Acts 3 is primarily that no-one should be forced to be a beggar because of a physical affliction. On the whole, today's society is pretty good at protecting the disabled. But that doesn't solve my problem. For now, when a beggar asks me for money, I just acknowledge him and apologise that I don't have any spare change.