Sunday, December 17, 2006

30% UK University Students believe in Creationism by AC Grayling


Reason lost

The revelation that almost a third of students believe in creationism shows how the resurgence of superstitious belief is endangering the world.

August 15, 2006 12:57 PM | Printable version

An Opinionpanel Research survey conducted in July this year found that more than 30% of UK university students believe in creationism or intelligent design. This raw detail is gasp-inducing enough in its own right, as indication of the effect of the propagandised resurgence of the fairy-tales that once served mankind's intellectual infancy and are now reasserting a grip on too many. But it is even more troubling as a symptom of a wider corrosion, the spread of a more virulent cancer of unreason, which is affecting not just the mental culture of our own country but the fate of the world itself. If that last phrase seems hyperbolic, read on.

Take the local concern first, and ask what is signified by the 30% statistic at issue. From the day that the government of John Major allowed polytechnics to redescribe themselves as universities, and his and successive governments set a target of getting 50% of school leavers into higher education, but without the huge investment of resources at all levels that would make this viable, it was inevitable that standards required for entrance to degree level courses would fall. And so it has dramatically proved. At the same time standards in public examinations at the high school level have also fallen, by some measures a long way. The official line, of course, is that the latter at least is not true: but such is the way with official lines.

The combined result is that a significant proportion of university entrants today are noticeably different creatures from their average forerunners of a generation ago: quite measurably less literate, less numerate, less broadly knowledgeable, and less reflective. At the same time education has been infected by post-modern relativism and the less desirable effects of "political correctness", whose combined effect is to encourage teachers to accept, and even promote as valid alternatives, the various superstitions and antique belief-systems constituting the multiplicity of different and generally competing religions represented in our multicultural society. This has gone so far that our tax dollars are now arrogated to supporting "faith based schooling", which means the ghettoisation of intellectually defenceless children into a variety of competing superstitions, despite the stark evidence, all the way from Northern Ireland to the madrassahs of Pakistan, of what this does for the welfare of mankind.

The key to the weakening of intellectual rigour that all this represents is that enquiry is no longer premised on the requirement that belief must be proportional to carefully gathered and assessed evidence. The fact that "faith" is enough to legitimate anything from superstition to mass murder is not one whit troubling to "people of faith" themselves, most of whom disagree with the faith of most other "people of faith" (thus: a Christian does not accept Islam, and vice versa; so a Christian's claim to be certain, by faith, that his is the only true religion is rejected, on grounds of faith, by the Muslim; and so on, to the point of mutual assassination); which shows that the non-rational mindset underlying religious belief, an essentially infantile attitude of acceptance of fairy-stories, has not been affected by the best that education can offer in the way of challenging and maturing minds to think for themselves.

Example: ask a Christian why the ancient story of a deity impregnating a mortal woman who then gives birth to a heroic figure whose deeds earn him a place in heaven, is false as applied to Zeus and his many paramours (the mothers of such as Hercules, the Heavenly Twins, etc.), but true as applied to God, Mary and Jesus. Indeed ask him what is the significance of the fact that this tale is older even than Greek mythology, and commonplace in Middle Eastern mythologies generally. Why are they myths, whereas what is related in the New Testament (a set of texts carefully chosen from a larger number of competing versions some centuries after they events they allege) is not? Do not expect a rational reply; an appeal to faith will be enough, because with faith anything goes.

"With faith anything goes": here is why the claim that the resurgence of non-rational superstitious belief is a danger to the world. Fundamentalism in all the major religions (and some are fundamentalist by nature) can be and too often is politically infantilising, and in its typical radicalised forms provides utter certainty of being in the right, immunises against tolerance and pluralism, justifies the most atrocious behaviour to the apostate and the infidel, is blind to the appeals of justice let alone mercy or reason, and is intrinsically fascistic and monolithic. One does not have to look very far to find shining examples of this pretty picture in today's world, whether in the Middle East or the Bible belt of the United States. The rest of the world is caught between these two appalling instances of basically the same phenomenon, so it is perhaps no surprise, though no less regrettable, that the infection should spread from both directions.

More regrettable still, though, is the fact that the civilised quarters of the world are not taking seriously the connection between the world's current problems and failure to uphold intellectual rigour in education, and not demanding that religious belief be a private and personal matter for indulgence only in the home, accepting it in the public sphere only on an equal footing with other interest groups such as trades unions and voluntary organisations such as the Rotary Club. This is the most that a religion merits being treated as, as the following proves: if I and a few others claim to constitute a religious group based on belief in the divinity of garden gnomes, should I be entitled to public money for a school in which children can be brought up in this faith, together with a bishop's seat in parliament perhaps? Why would this be laughed out of court when belief of essentially the same intellectual value, say, Christianity, is accorded all such amenities and more?

I remind those who seek to counter with the tired old canard that Stalinism and Nazism are proof that secular arrangements are worse than religious ones, that fundamentalist religion is the same in its operation and effects as Stalinism and Nazism for the reason that they are at base the same thing, viz. monolithic ideologies. Religion is a man-made device, not least of oppression and control (the secret policeman who sees what you do even in the dark on your own), whose techniques and structures were adopted by Stalinism and Nazism, the monolithic salvation faiths of modernity, as the best teachers they could wish for. When any of these imprisoning ideologies are on the back foot and/or in the minority, they present sweet faces to those they wish to seduce: the kiss of friendship in the parish church, the summer camp for young communists in the 1930s. But give them the levers of power and they are the Taliban, the Inquisition, the Stasi.

Give them AK47s and Semtex, and some of the fanatics among them become airline bombers, mass murderers of ordinary men, women and children, and for the most contemptible of reasons.

How far are the 30% of students who believe in creationism from airline bombers? A very long way, of course; the latter are a sick and psychopathic minority only; but the point to register and take seriously is that there is nevertheless a connecting thread, which is belief in antique superstitions and the non-rational basis of the putative values they represent, values which can lead in the extreme to mass murder, as the chilling jingle reminds us: "faith is what I die for, dogma is what I kill for."

As part of the strategy for countering the pernicious effects that faith and dogma can produce, we need to return religious commitment to the private sphere, stop the folly of promoting superstitions and religious segregation in education, demand that standards of intellectual rigour be upheld at all educational levels, and find major ways of reversing the current trend of falling enrolment in science courses. The alternative is a return to the Dark Ages, the tips of whose shadows are coldly falling upon us even now.

Why do I read popular science books?

I'm interested in the truth.

For several years I have read many books on Evolution, Cosmology etc (my library). They satisfy my thirst for truth and knowledge. I annotate my books with vertical lines indicating the most interesting or significant points. Then I go on to read other related books. But a month or a year later how much do I remember of what I have read? I feel I should do more with these books to extend my understanding. And somehow communicate my understanding to others.

A couple of months ago i summarised The Periodic Table. I felt happy, even strangely elated for a few weeks even though i never got around to adding by review to Amazon.co.uk. The process of summarising gave me a deeper understanding of the subject.

  1. Why not review the significant books i've read and publish my reviews on Amazon or this blog?
  2. Why not read the bibliographies in these book and read the original scripts?
  3. Why not choose a sub topic and summarise the book and its bibliographies?

Maybe someday, even write and publish a book of my own!

I want to think more about the books i read. The process of summarising and reviewing should help. Otherwise sometimes I feel the books I read pass me by like ships passing each other in the night.

How can I communicate to others what I have read? Katie Geary, a work colleague asked me yesterday - what is "The Selfish Gene" book about? I mumbled something about evolution and genes and dont think of "selfish" in its normal meaning.

With the knowledge & understanding I have at the time I read these wonderful popular science books, how can I contribute, in even a miniscule way, to advancing science or knowledge? That seems a very grand and lofty aim. But reading the Preface to the 1989 edition of The Selfish Gene by (my all time favourite author) Richard Dawkins, gives me some hope. Richard Dawkins talks about (page ix) the Necker Cube and says:

"Rather than propose a new theory or unearth a new fact, often the most
important original contribution a scientist can make is to discover a new way of
seeing old theories or facts."

"That most toxic of ideas: national sovereignty" by AC Grayling


The Taepodong effect

What did North Korea invoke to justify its missile tests? That most toxic of ideas: national sovereignty.

July 5, 2006 03:35 PM | Printable version

North Korea defends its seven missile tests, one of them involving the Taepodong-2 long-range missile capable of reaching Alaska, by saying that its "national sovereignty" entitles it to conduct them in its national self-interest. North Korea's critics, by contrast, argue that in the arena of weapons systems with extra-territorial reach there is no right of unilateral action; international agreements, controls, treaties and responsibilities oblige countries to respect the security interests of neighbours and indeed the international community at large. Disregard of these constraints, they point out, is risky and destabilising.

The critics in question include Japan and the US. The criticism is of course correct; North Korea's behaviour is an example of immature grandstanding and nose-thumbing, wincingly obvious from the choice of date (July 4) for the tests. Japan has a valid point in objecting to North Korea's tests, not least because of North Korea's irresponsible track record in the field: in 1998 it fired a Taepodong-1 over the north of Japan, a highly provocative if not downright stupid act.

But the United States' stance is, at the least, hypocritical. What it rightly censures others for doing it wrongly does itself, and with almost total impunity. The attitude of the Bush administration to a whole raft of international institutions and measures, from the International Criminal Court to the Kyoto environment initiatives, from the United Nations to the non-proliferation treaties on nuclear weapons, is consistently negative and unilateralist. It pleads national interest and national sovereignty just as North Korea does, despite the fact that the hollowness of North Korea's appeal to the concept is proof positive that claims of national immunity from international obligations are unacceptable.

If North Korea cannot get away with the "national sovereignty" scam, and if logical consistency requires that neither can the United States, then of course nor can anyone else. It also requires that the point be taken to its more general set of conclusions, a lesson that (for example) Eurosceptics might do well to learn, and with them petty nationalists of all stamps everywhere. There are many additional reasons why nationalism is the wrong direction for human beings to go in; here the overriding point is that no nation (if, by the way, such a thing actually exists), like no individual, is an island, and promises itself nothing but trouble by trying to be one.

As always, history teaches rich lessons here. When the Eleanor Roosevelt committee was drafting the UN declaration of human rights in 1948, the Soviet representatives were emphatically concerned that nothing in the declaration should allow "interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states", which in effect meant freedom for governments to torture and murder their own citizens without anyone from outside raising complaints on human rights grounds. As it happens, the other post-war major powers (the UK, US, China and France) were not especially happy about the human rights idea either, which was then most eagerly welcomed by third-world countries and colonised peoples, who understood the opportunity it offered. As events have shown, adoption of the UN declaration in Paris in 1948 proved to be the first really major breach of the national sovereignty idea since its origin in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, with all its subsequent catastrophic horrors.

In fact, as international reaction to the example of North Korea's weasel appeal to national sovereignty shows (to say nothing of the US parallels) we should hope that the cluster of associated toxic ideas - "nation", "nationalism" "national identity" - is well on its way to the rubbish heap of history.

***********************
Comments


Oxford/gbr

ACGrayling:"In fact, as international reaction to the example of North Korea's weasel appeal to national sovereignty shows (to say nothing of the US parallels) we should hope that the cluster of associated toxic ideas - "nation", "nationalism" "national identity" - is well on its way to the rubbish heap of history."

Actually that shows something else - Communism is dead and in a desparate last-ditch effort to stay afloat the North Korean Communists will even try to appeal to Nationalism. It is not Nationalism that is the problem. South Korea is at least as nationalistic. It is the Communism. Alas that cluster of toxic ideas has not yet gone to the rubbish heap of history, but the good news is that it only survives in North Korea, Cuba, academia and on CiF.

Besides which nationalism has been a hugely successul ideology and whatever the downsides of nationalism, the only thing worse is a lack of nationalism. It works. The "nations" without nationalism are being swept into the rubbish heap of history. If only the Palestinians were more nationalistic in 1947! If only the Native Americans had a sense of their own national identity!



I used the phrase "bent twig" as Isaiah Berlin used it - as a metaphor for nationalism. I think nationalism was obviously effective in Europe as a legitimiser of governments, though not much any more. Has it a place in the 21st century? I stick by the description of it as being used by useless and illegitimate governments an outward and specious appearance of a mandate. As soon as the illusion is torn, they have nothing to fall back on. They compensate for internal failure with external aggression, putting nationalistic symbols such territory on a pedestal.

This is used as much by the left as the right. I agree that Maoism hasn't got much juice left in it now. Confucianism was discredited over a hundred years ago and seems unlikely to make a reappearance. Nationalism would fil the gap nicely in China. It is the only thing that fills it in N. Korea.

As for those poor buggers who lack real nationalism being screwed by history, I sadly agree. Look at the Jewish diaspora in the late 19th century - the only way to protect yourself, in law and fact, is through having a State of your own.


Your criticisms of sovereignty and nationhood would be more credible if you had a viable, proven alternative. Since you do not, you come off like a crank.

Secondly, it is not hypocrisy for a free state to attempt to prevent dictatorships from arming. It's common sense and legitimate self-defense. The U.S. hasn't used a nuclear weapon in 60 years and does not threaten to do so - North Korea fumes that it will nuke another country about every other week. Maybe you should take them at their word.

Also, how far does a Korean missile have to be capable of penetrating U.S. territory before we are permitted to be concerned? And how do you know it can only reach Alaska, and not Seattle or Chicago?



Skopje/mkd

RobSterling: I think Bush has actually raised use of nukes as a serious option in the last few weeks. Or is that just 'sabre rattling' and OK.




Cambridge/gbr

The usual half-baked drivel from the Prof. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how we can have "international obligations" without nations. It's like trying to have "interpersonal relations" without people.

And my Eurosceptic instincts suggest to me that we'll find the EU on the rubbish heap of history long before nations and national identity.




Kim is a psychopath, but he's holding the entire population of Seoul hostage, no?

I'm still unclear as to why we and you and Kazakhstan and India have the "right" to nukes but not, say, Slovenia or Northern Fredonia. Once more, Kim is a psychopath and the world should make sure all sharp objects are kept out of his reach. But all this blather about nonproliferation -per se- makes no sense coming from all of us who proliferate.






Why Ice Floats on water


Liquid News

Water has some unusual properties. It's less dense at zero degrees celsius than it is at four degrees celsius. This is because when water freezes the molecules become fixed in a crystalline lattice, and each molecule is pushed away from its neighbours. If this wasn't the case, ice would sink instead of float and seas and lakes would freeze solid.

Characteristics

An unusual feature of ice frozen at a pressure of one atmosphere is that the solid is some 8% less dense than liquid water. Water is also one of the few substances to expand when it freezes.

Ice has a density of 0.917 g/cm³ at 0 °C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature. Liquid water is most dense, essentially 1.00 g/cm³, at 4 °C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals of ice as the temperature drops to 0 °C. (the word "crystal" derives from Greek word for frost.) This is due to hydrogen bonds forming between the water molecules, which line up molecules less efficiently (in terms of volume) when water is frozen. The result of this is that ice floats on liquid water, an important factor in Earth's climate. Density of ice increases slightly with decreasing temperature (density of ice at −180 °C (93 K) is 0.9340 g/cm³).

When ice melts, it absorbs as much heat energy (the heat of fusion) as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C, while its temperature remains a constant 0 °C.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Fitness 'cuts colon cancer risk by 22%'

Housework
Vigorous housework: good for fitness, and cancer risk
Keeping physically active can significantly cut the risk of colon cancer, international research shows.

Scientists analysed data from 413,000 people in 10 European countries, and found physically active people were 22% less likely to develop colon cancer.

They said an hour a day of vigorous physical activity or two hours of moderate activity would be enough to reduce the risk.

The study appears in Cancer Epidemiology and Biomarkers Prevention.

If you combine regular physical activity with a good diet you are more likely to maintain a healthy body weight which will also significantly help to reduce your risk of bowel cancer
Dr Lesley Walker
Cancer Research UK

The study found the risk of tumours on the right side of the colon was reduced by as much as 35% for most active people.

For active people who were not overweight the risk was reduced even further.

Housework a good option

Dr Lesley Walker, of the charity Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a very large study which should remove any doubt about the benefits of exercise in relation to reducing the risk of bowel cancer.

"It is important for people to understand that they can take steps in their daily routine to reduce cancer risk. You don't need to join a gym to get the benefit of exercise.

"If regular brisk walking or going for a run doesn't appeal you can do some strenuous housework.

"Cleaning windows, vacuuming and scrubbing floors burn off a lot of calories.

"So does gardening or cleaning the car.

"If you combine regular physical activity with a good diet you are more likely to maintain a healthy body weight which will also significantly help to reduce your risk of bowel cancer."

Dr Walker said it was unclear why the benefits of physical activity were particularly pronounced on the right side of the colon.

However, physical activity was known to stimulate waves of muscle contraction down the right side of the colon which accelerates movement of waste and the possible cancer-causing agents in it.

Among the 21,500 cases of colon cancer diagnosed each year in the UK, approximately half are detected on the right-hand side of the colon.

The study was part-funded by Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.

It is part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study.

Friday, December 15, 2006

Gore tells scientists to be vocal

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Al Gore (Paramount Pictures)
Al Gore released a movie about climate change this year
The former US Vice President Al Gore has told scientists to speak out more on the issue of climate change.

In a keynote address at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, he said it was imperative people understood what was happening to the world.

The year's biggest gathering of Earth scientists has heard further evidence of how the planet is warming.

Mr Gore said he was shocked by the report this week that suggested the Arctic may soon lose its summer ice.

Observational and computer modelling studies had indicated the northern polar region was fast approaching a tipping point that could lead to the loss of perennial ice cover by 2040.

"It's time for scientists to play a different role in asserting the value of scientific insight and defending the integrity of the scientific process, and becoming far more active in directly communicating to the American people about the meaning of the research you have underway..." he told his audience.

Mr Gore echoed the views of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) who on Wednesday issued a statement signed by 10,600 researchers complaining about political interference in their work.

The UCS claimed to have documented hundreds of cases of scientists working for US federal agencies being asked to change data to fit policy initiatives, or simply to bury the information.

Alluding to his recent movie on global warming, the Democrat politician said efforts to censor "inconvenient truths" should be resisted.

"We now face a climate crisis without any precedent in all of history and it's imperative that those who have the best evidence of what's occurring spread the knowledge beyond the small discipline in which these studies are usually disseminated," he told the BBC after his speech.

Larger-size clothes should come with warning to lose weight


Clothes made in larger sizes should carry a tag with an obesity helpline number, health specialists have suggested. Sweets and snacks should not be permitted near checkouts, new roads should not be built unless they include cycle lanes and food likely to make people fat should be taxed, they say in a checklist of what we might “reasonably do” to deal with obesity.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the team says that “pull yourself together, eat less and exercise more” is an inadequate response to obesity, voiced only by “less perceptive health professionals” and the media. What fat people need is help, advice and sympathy to overcome their addiction to food, says the group of public health professional, which includes Sir George Alberti, the Government’s national director for emergency care.



Their checklist of possible actions includes:

  • Printing a helpline numbers for advice with all clothes sold with a waist of more than 40in for men and 37in for boys, women’s garments with a waist of more than 35in or size 16 or above, and more than 31in for girls
  • Banning the placement of sweets and fatty snacks at or near shop tills and at children’s eye level
  • Taxing processed foods that are high in sugar or saturated fat
  • Introducing health checks for all school leavers, both primary and secondary
  • Allowing new urban roads only if they have cycle lanes
  • Establishing a dedicated central agency responsible for all aspects of obesity

  • Can an atheist be a fundamentalist? by AC Grayling


    Are there people who believe only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - or only part of a god?
    May 3, 2006 11:06 AM | Printable version

    It is time to put to rest the mistakes and assumptions that lie behind a phrase used by some religious people when talking of those who are plain-spoken about their disbelief in any religious claims: the phrase "fundamentalist atheist". What would a non-fundamentalist atheist be? Would he be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - perhaps that there is only part of a god (a divine foot, say, or buttock)? Or that gods exist only some of the time - say, Wednesdays and Saturdays? (That would not be so strange: for many unthinking quasi-theists, a god exists only on Sundays.) Or might it be that a non-fundamentalist atheist is one who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves - and still do?

    Christians, among other things, mean by "fundamentalist atheists" those who would deny people the comforts of faith (the old and lonely especially) and the companionship of a benign invisible protector in the dark night of the soul - and who (allegedly) fail to see the staggering beauty in art prompted by the inspirations of belief. Yet, in its bleeding-heart modern form, Christianity is a recent and highly modified version of what, for most of its history, has been an often violent and always oppressive ideology - think Crusades, torture, burnings at the stake, the enslavement of women to constantly repeated childbirth and undivorceable husbands, the warping of human sexuality, the use of fear (of hell's torments) as an instrument of control, and the horrific results of calumny against Judaism. Nowadays, by contrast, Christianity specialises in soft-focus mood music; its threats of hell, its demand for poverty and chastity, its doctrine that only the few will be saved and the many damned, have been shed, replaced by strummed guitars and saccharine smiles. It has reinvented itself so often, and with such breathtaking hypocrisy, in the interests of retaining its hold on the gullible, that a medieval monk who woke today, like Woody Allen's Sleeper, would not be able to recognise the faith that bears the same name as his own.

    For example: vast Nigerian congregations are told that believing will ensure a high income - indeed they are told by Reverend X that they will be luckier and richer if they join his congregation than if they join that of Reverend Y. What happened to the eye of the needle? Oh well, granted: that tiny loophole was closed long ago. What then of "my kingdom is not of this world"? What of the blessedness of poverty and humility? The Church of England officially abolished Hell by an Act of Synod in the 1920s and St Paul's strictures on the place of women in church (which was that they are to sit at the back in silence, with heads covered) are now so far ignored that there are now women vicars, and there will soon be women bishops.

    One does not have to venture as far as Nigeria to see the hypocrisies of reinvention at work. Rome will do, where the latest eternal verity to be abandoned is the doctrine of limbo - the place where the souls of unbaptised babies go. Meanwhile, some cardinals are floating the idea that condoms are acceptable, within marital relationships only of course, in countries with high incidences of HIV infection. This latter, which to anyone but an observant Catholic is not merely a plain piece of common sense but a humanitarian imperative, is an amazing development in its context. Sensible Catholics have for generations been ignoring the views on contraception held by reactionary old men in the Vatican, but alas, since it is the business of all religious doctrines to keep their votaries in a state of intellectual infancy (how else do they keep absurdities seeming credible?), insufficient numbers of Catholics have been able to be sensible. Look at Ireland until very recent times for an example of the misery Catholicism inflicts when it can.

    "Intellectual infancy": the phrase reminds one that religions survive mainly because they brainwash the young. Three-quarters of Church of England schools are primary schools; all the faiths currently jostling for our tax money to run their "faith-based" schools know that if they do not proselytise intellectually defenceless three and four-year-olds, their grip will eventually loosen. Inculcating the various competing - competing, note - falsehoods of the major faiths into small children is a form of child abuse, and a scandal. Let us challenge religion to leave children alone until they are adults, whereupon they can be presented with the essentials of religion for mature consideration. For example: tell an averagely intelligent adult hitherto free of religious brainwashing that somewhere, invisibly, there is a being somewhat like us, with desires, interests, purposes, memories, and emotions of anger, love, vengefulness and jealousy, yet with the negation of such other of our failings as mortality, weakness, corporeality, visibility, limited knowledge and insight; and that this god magically impregnates a mortal woman, who then gives birth to a special being who performs various prodigious feats before departing for heaven. Take your pick of which version of this story to tell: let a King of Heaven impregnate - let's see - Danae or Io or Leda or the Virgin Mary (etc, etc) and let there be resulting heaven-destined progeny (Heracles, Castor and Pollux, Jesus, etc, etc) - or any of the other forms of exactly such tales in Babylonian, Egyptian and other mythologies - then ask which of them he wishes to believe. One can guarantee that such a person would say: none of them.

    So, in order not to be a "fundamentalist" atheist, which of the absurdities connoted in the foregoing should an atheist temporise over? Should a "moderate atheist" be one who does not mind how many hundreds of millions of people have been deeply harmed by religion throughout history? Should he or she be one who chuckles indulgently at the antipathy of Sunni for Shia, Christian for Jew, Muslim for Hindu, and all of them for anyone who does not think the universe is controlled by invisible powers? Is an acceptable (to the faithful) atheist one who thinks it is reasonable for people to believe that the gods suspend the laws of nature occasionally in answer to personal prayers, or that to save someone's soul from further sin (especially the sin of heresy) it is in his own interests to be murdered?

    As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is "naturalist", denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws. This properly implies that there is nothing supernatural in the universe - no fairies or goblins, angels, demons, gods or goddesses. Such might as well call themselves "a-fairyists" or "a-goblinists" as "atheists"; it would be every bit as meaningful or meaningless to do so. (Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the 20th century; the church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because - you guessed it - of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century.)

    By the same token, therefore, people with theistic beliefs should be called supernaturalists, and it can be left to them to attempt to refute the findings of physics, chemistry and the biological sciences in an effort to justify their alternative claim that the universe was created, and is run, by supernatural beings. Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane - and with far greater frequency. But of course, as votaries of the view that everything is consistent with their beliefs - even apparent refutations of them - supernaturalists can claim that science itself is a gift of god, and thus justify doing so. But they should then remember Popper: "A theory that explains everything explains nothing."

    In conclusion, it is worth pointing out an allied and characteristic bit of jesuitry employed by folk of faith. This is their attempt to describe naturalism (atheism) as itself a "religion". But, by definition, a religion is something centred upon belief in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe; and not merely in their existence, but in their interest in human beings on this planet; and not merely their interest, but their particularly detailed interest in what humans wear, what they eat, when they eat it, what they read or see, what they treat as clean and unclean, who they have sex with and how and when; and so for a multitude of other things, like making women invisible beneath enveloping clothing, or strapping little boxes to their foreheads, or iterating formulae by rote five times a day, and so endlessly forth; with threats of punishment for getting any of it wrong.

    But naturalism (atheism) by definition does not premise such belief. Any view of the world that does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory, or at worst an ideology. If it is either of the two first, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings conducted at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics.

    And one can grant that the word "fundamental" does after all apply to this: in the phrase "fundamentally sensible".

    Thursday, December 14, 2006

    Humanist ethical outlook is non-religiously based


    Those who are not religious have available to them a rich ethical outlook, all the richer indeed for being the result of reflection as opposed to conditioning.
    November 21, 2006 10:00 AM | Printable version

    The current quarrel between religious and non-religious outlooks is another chapter in a story whose previous main incidents are be found in the mid-nineteenth century and the early seventeenth century, in connection respectively with Darwin's discoveries in biology and the rise of natural science. Both are moments in the slow but bloody retreat of religion; so too is what is happening now. For, despite all appearances, we are witnessing the death-throes of religion: I make the case for this claim in Prospect Magazine.

    Here I wish to comment on something that, in the current climate of debate, has been mainly overlooked: the fact that those who are not religious have available to them a rich ethical outlook, all the richer indeed for being the result of reflection as opposed to conditioning, whose roots lie in classical antiquity when the great tradition of ethical thought in Western philosophy began.

    For convenience I use the term "humanists" to denote those whose ethical outlook is non-religiously based - which is, in other words, premised on humanity's best efforts to understand its own nature and circumstances.

    Consider what humanists aspire to be as ethical agents. They wish always to respect their fellow human beings, to like them, to honour their strivings and to sympathise with their feelings. They wish to begin every encounter, every relationship, with this attitude, for they keep in mind Emerson's remark that we must give others what we give a painting; namely, the advantage of a good light. Most of their fellow human beings merit this, and respond likewise. Some forfeit it by what they wilfully do. But in all cases the humanists' approach rests on the idea that what shapes people is the complex of facts about the interaction between human nature's biological underpinnings and each individual's social and historical circumstances.

    Understanding these things - through the arts and literature, through history and philosophy, through the magnificent endeavour of science, through attentive personal experience and reflection, through close relationships, through the conversation of mankind which all this adds up to - is the great essential for humanists in their quest to live good and achieving lives, to do good to others in the process, and to join with their fellows in building just and decent societies where all can have an opportunity to flourish.

    And this is for the sake of this life, in this world, where we suffer and find joy, where we can help one another, and where we need one another's help: the help of the living human hand and heart. A great deal of that help has to be targeted at the other side of what the human heart is - the unkind, angry, hostile, selfish, cruel side; the superstitious, tendentious, intellectually captive, ignorant side - to defeat or mitigate it, to ameliorate the consequences of its promptings, to teach it to be different; and never with lies and bribes.

    Humanists distinguish between individuals and the wide variety of belief systems people variously adhere to. Some belief systems (those involving astrology, feng shui, crystal healing, animism...the list is long) they combat robustly because the premises of them are falsehoods - many, indeed, are inanities - and, even more, because too often belief in some of those falsehoods serves as a prompt to murder. Humanists contest them as they would contest any falsehood. But with the exception of the individuals who promote these systems when they should know better, humanism is not against the majority who subscribe to them, for it recognises that they were brought up in them as children, or turn to them out of need, or adhere to them hopefully (sometimes, and perhaps too often, unthinkingly).

    These are fellow human beings, and humanists profoundly wish them well; which means too that they wish them to be free, to think for themselves, to see the world through clear eyes. If only, says the humanist, they would have a better knowledge of history! If only they would see what their own leaders think of the simple version of the faiths they adhere to, substituting such sophistry in its place! For whereas the ordinary believer has a somewhat misty notion of a father-cum-policeman-cum-Father Christmas-cum-magician personal deity, their theologians deploy such a polysyllabic, labyrinthine, intricate, sophisticated, complexified approach, that some go so far as to claim (as one current celebrity cleric does) that God does not have to exist to be believed in. The standard basis of religious belief - subjective certainty - is hard enough to contest, being non-rational at source, but this is beyond orbit. It is hard to know which are worse: the theologians who are serious about what they say in these respects, and those who know it for a game.

    In contrast to the utter certainties of faith, a humanist has a humbler conception of the nature and current extent of knowledge. All the enquiries that human intelligence conducts into enlarging knowledge make progress always at the expense of generating new questions. Having the intellectual courage to live with this open-endedness and uncertainty, trusting to reason and experiment to gain us increments of understanding, having the absolute integrity to base one's theories on rigorous and testable foundations, and being committed to changing one's mind when shown to be wrong, are the marks of honest minds. In the past humanity was eager to clutch at legends, superstitions and leaps of credulity, to attain quick and simple closure on all that they did not know or understand, to make it seem to themselves that they did know and understand. Humanism recognises this historical fact about the old myths, and sympathises with the needs that drive people in that direction. It points out to such that what feeds their hearts and minds - love, beauty, music, sunshine on the sea, the sound of rain on leaves, the company of friends, the satisfaction that comes from successful effort - is more than the imaginary can ever give them, and that they should learn to re-describe these things - the real things of this world - as what gives life the poetry of its significance.

    For that is what humanism is: it is, to repeat and insist, about the value of things human. Its desire to learn from the past, its exhortation to courage in the present, and its espousal of hope for the future, are about real things, real people, real human need and possibility, and the fate of the fragile world we share. It is about human life; it requires no belief in an after life. It is about this world; it requires no belief in another world. It requires no commands from divinities, no promises of reward or threats of punishment, no myths and rituals, either to make sense of things or to serve as a prompt to the ethical life. It requires only open eyes, sympathy, and reason.

    Quotes from BHA & MORI - On level of Humanist convictions amongst the British Public.

    Quotes from BHA chief executive Hanne Stinson, BHA education and public affairs officer Andrew Copson and BHA Vice Presidents Claire Rayner, Baroness Whitaker and Richard Norman on Ipsos MORI polls (released 24/11/06) on the level of humanist convictions amongst the British public and on how many of the British public believe religious groups and leaders are paid too much attention by Government

    (Numbers in brackets refer to endnotes)

    Hanne Stinson , chief executive of the British Humanist Association said, �Britain is basically a Humanist country, and this poll shows it. We have always been aware that many people who do not identify themselves as humanists, and this includes quite a few people who do not know what Humanism is, live their lives by what one might describe as humanist principles. People who join the Association often tell us that they have been humanists all their lives, or for the last 20 years or so, but didn�t know it. But it is very encouraging to find that 36% of the British population are not simply non-religious, but actually humanist in their outlook and their morality, and that very many others don�t feel they need religion to understand the universe, or to guide their moral decisions. These people may not belong to the Humanist Association, may not have even heard of Humanism, but they share our attitudes and we speak for them in our campaigns.

    �Bishops and Archbishops every day make more extravagant claims about Britain�s alleged Christian values, but here at last is the evidence to show they are wrong. The churches, despite their establishment and institutional privileges, have lost the right to speak for Britain. The Government still makes one concession after another to religion on the basis of that 70% census figure, but if the public resents Government kow-towing to religious leaders almost as much as they resent its subservience to foreign leaders, then ministers really need to think again. They should move towards a secular state in Britain, with the Government neutral on matters of religion and belief, no privileges for any belief system, and public debate conducted in shared language, not dominated by religious pronouncements based on theology.�

    Ms Stinson added that her only surprise was that only 42% felt religion got too much attention from Government, and wondered how much higher this figure would have been if respondents had been able to select more than three options from the seven listed. �The other explanation might be a lingering deference to religion that has outlasted mass religious belief. Time and again religious groups get their way against overwhelmingly public opinion. They killed off the Assisted Dying Bill, which 4 out of 5 people supported (1); they have won wide exemptions from equality legislation so they can continue to discriminate against gay people and those who do not share their beliefs; and they will be doing their utmost to defend their 26 unelected members of Parliament when the Government tackles Lords reform this session!�

    Andrew Copson, Education Officer at the BHA, said that the result was particularly interesting coming so soon after Government caved in to religious pressure over faith schools: �The government keeps making the mistake of seeing pressure from religious groups as widespread public opinion. Even though poll after poll has demonstrated wide public opposition to faith schools (2), religious groups have fought off all attempts to reduce the harm done by them, and instead have won more privileges and pay scarcely a penny of the costs of �their� schools.�

    Claire Rayner, writer, broadcaster and BHA Vice President (and former President) said, �It is such an encouragement that so many of the British public accept the positive values of humanism. I fall over people with just the same views all the time, though they may not call themselves humanists. The local soup run that goes out to the homeless is run by the local churches and synagogues, but when I got involved with them I discovered that at least half of them are �non-believers�. But there is nowhere else they can go if they want to help.

    �I was a humanist without knowing it for many years before I found the Association � when I did, it was like finding a sort of home. Here were people with a range of views that matched mine, who shared my respect for life in all its forms and who, above all, did not in any way try to bully other people to follow their beliefs.�

    Richard Norman , Emeritus Professor of Moral Philosopher at the University of Kent, author of On Humanism(Routledge), and a Vice President of the BHA said, �What is encouraging about this poll is not just the fact that so many people can thrive without religious belief, but that they are capable of taking a rational and sensitive attitude to moral questions. They recognise that you can do justice to the complexity of moral problems without succumbing to the crude relativism of "it's all a matter of personal preference".�

    Baroness Whitaker, a Labour peer and a Vice President of the British Humanist Association said, �Ever since I was at (a Christian) school, I preferred humanism and I joined the BHA not long after I returned from graduate studies in the USA in 1961. As a child I found the religious presentation of sin and virtue uncongenial and as an adult I found the humanist perspective on morality, with its emphasis on reason, persuasive and attractive. It�s heartening to see that, today, so many people feel the same.

    �I don�t think that religious beliefs are needed to understand the universe, or to be moral (as even tiny children feel remorse and compunction) � the knowledge that life is finite obliges us to make choices, and our rational nature makes us justify these choices and relate them to each other in a coherent way. This is what creates systems of ethics and values.

    �My own humanist values motivate me as a working peer, where I put the case publicly that non-religious worldviews such as humanist ones should be accorded the same status � no more and no less � as religious ones.�

    ENDNOTES

    (1) 82% of the British public �think that a person who is suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to receive medical help to die, if that is what they want�� (NOP poll, 2004)

    (2) eg 64% opposed the idea of government funding for faith schools, ICM poll 2005; 80% believed all schools should be open to those of any religion or belief, MORI poll 2001; 80% opposed the expansion of faith schools, YouGov poll 2001

    Analysis of MORI polls - level of humanist convictions

    Analysis of Ipsos MORI polls (released 24/11/06) on the level of humanist convictions amongst the British public and on how many of the British public believe religious groups and leaders are paid too much attention by Government.

    Full analysis of the responses is available here (pdf)

    Click here for commentary on the polls from BHA staff and Vice Presidents.

    Those who choose only Humanist statements � �humanists� by this survey�s definition - are more prevalent among:

    - younger and middle-aged people (aged 15-54) (41%) compared to those aged 55 and over (26%)

    - those in social classes ABC1 (43%) compared to those in C2DE (28%)

    - those with children in their household (43%) compared to those without (33%)

    - those that live in the South (41%) compared to those that live in the Midlands (30%), with those in the North in between (37%)

    - those working full- or part-time (42%) compared to those not working (29%)

    - those who read �broadsheets� (51%) compared to those that read tabloids (33%)

    - those with qualifications of GCSE equivalent and above (42%) compared to those with no formal qualifications (20%).

    The questions and answers in the poll were as follows:

    Respondents were asked: �If you had to choose just one of the statements which one best matches your view?� (The * indicates the humanist option in each case: respondents were not shown the *)

    Scientific and other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe.* (62%)
    Religious beliefs are needed for a complete understanding of the universe. (22%)
    Neither of these (10%)
    Don�t know (6%)

    Human nature by itself gives us an understanding of what is right and wrong* (62%)
    People need religious teachings in order to understand what is right and wrong (27%)
    Neither of these (7%)
    Don�t know (4%)

    What is right and wrong depends on the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world* (65%)
    What is right and wrong is basically just a matter of personal preference (15%)

    What is right and wrong is unchanging and should never be challenged (13%)
    None of these (2%)
    Don�t know (5%)

    Respondents were asked: �People often comment on the level of attention the Government pays to certain groups in society. Which, if any, of the following groups of people do you think the Government pays too much attention to?� and presented with a list of seven possibilities from which they could select up to three responses. Responses were:

    %

    Leaders of other countries 44

    Religious groups and leaders 42

    Newspaper headlines 35

    Big Business 34

    The Royal Family 20

    Trade Unions 17

    Ordinary people 3

    None of these 9

    Respondents were asked: �If you had to choose just one of the statements which one best matches your view?�

    This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our personal existence (41%)
    When we die we go on and still exist in another way (45%)
    Neither of these (5%)
    Don�t know (8%)

    TECHNICAL NOTE ON DATA COLLECTION

    Ipsos MORI interviewed a nationally-representative sample of 975 respondents aged 15+ across Great Britain. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, in respondents� homes, between 26 and 30 October 2006. 175 sampling points were covered. Results are weighted to the national GB 15+ population profile.

    42%: Government pays too much attention to ‘religious groups and leaders’

    17 Million humanists in Britain!
    36% of the population!


    42% of the population think the Government pays too much attention to religious groups and leaders!

    If you count yourself amongst the rapidly growing number of humanists in Britain, or resent the growing influence of unrepresentative 'faith leaders' on Government policy, please join the British Humanist Association today!

    We need your support to represent your views.

    The figures above come from a new Mori poll.
    Click
    here to see the results on humanist beliefs.
    Click
    here for the results on the influence of religious groups and leaders.


    42%: Government pays too much attention to ‘religious groups and leaders’ (24/11/06)

    (Numbers in brackets below refer to endnotes)

    More people think that the government pays too much attention to ‘religious groups and leaders’ than to any other domestic group according to an Ipsos MORI poll published today.

    Asked to select from a list of groups that people might think the government pays too much attention to, more people (42%) chose ‘religious groups and leaders’ than chose any other domestic group. Religious groups and leaders came second only to ‘leaders of other countries’ in a list that also included ‘Newspaper headlines’, ‘Big business’, ‘the Royal family’, ‘Trade Unions’ and lastly ‘Ordinary people’ (see below for full results).

    Hanne Stinson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, which commissioned the poll, said that her only surprise was that only 42% felt religion got too much attention from Government, and wondered how much higher this figure would have been if respondents had been able to select more than three options from the seven listed. ‘The other explanation might be a lingering deference to religion that has outlasted mass religious belief. Time and again religious groups get their way against overwhelmingly public opinion. They killed off the Assisted Dying Bill, which 4 out of 5 people supported (1); they have won wide exemptions from equality legislation so they can continue to discriminate against gay people and those who do not share their beliefs; and they will be doing their utmost to defend their 26 unelected members of Parliament when the Government tackles Lords reform this session!’

    Andrew Copson, Education Officer at the BHA, said that the result was particularly interesting coming so soon after Government caved in to religious pressure over faith schools: ‘The government keeps making the mistake of seeing pressure from religious groups as widespread public opinion. Even though poll after poll has demonstrated wide public opposition to faith schools (2), religious groups have fought off all attempts to reduce the harm done by them, and instead have won more privileges and pay scarcely a penny of the costs of “their” schools.’

    For further commentary on this poll click here , together commentary on the Ipsos MORI poll on the level of humanist convictions amongst the British public .

    TECHNICAL NOTE ON DATA COLLECTION

    Respondents were asked: ‘People often comment on the level of attention the Government pays to certain groups in society. Which, if any, of the following groups of people do you think the Government pays too much attention to?’ and presented with a list of seven possibilities from which they could select up to three responses. Responses were:

    %

    Leaders of other countries 44

    Religious groups and leaders 42

    Newspaper headlines 35

    Big Business 34

    The Royal Family 20

    Trade Unions 17

    Ordinary people 3

    None of these 9

    Ipsos MORI interviewed a nationally-representative sample of 975 respondents aged 15+ across Great Britain. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, in respondents’ homes, between 26 and 30 October 2006. 175 sampling points were covered. Results are weighted to the national GB 15+ population profile.

    Full analysis of the poll can be found here , together with analysis of the Ipsos MORI poll on the level of humanist convictions amongst the British public .


    ENDNOTES

    (1) 82% of the British public ‘think that a person who is suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to receive medical help to die, if that is what they want…’ (NOP poll, 2004)

    (2) eg 64% opposed the idea of government funding for faith schools, ICM poll 2005; 80% believed all schools should be open to those of any religion or belief, MORI poll 2001; 80% opposed the expansion of faith schools, YouGov poll 2001


    NOTES TO EDITORS

    The British Humanist Association(BHA) represents and supports the non-religious. It is the largest organisation in the UK campaigning for an end to religious privilege and to discrimination based on religion or belief, and for a secular state.

    For further comment, contact:

    Hanne Stinson (BHA) by email or on 07764 947249

    Andrew Copson (BHA) by email or on 07855 380633

    John Leaman (Ipsos MORI) by email or on 020 7347 3000

    The following distinguished supporters of the British Humanist Association are also available for comment:

    Susan Blackmore by email

    A C Grayling by email

    17,000,000 British Humanists ...

    17 Million humanists in Britain!
    36% of the population!


    42% of the population think the Government pays too much attention to religious groups and leaders!

    If you count yourself amongst the rapidly growing number of humanists in Britain, or resent the growing influence of unrepresentative 'faith leaders' on Government policy, please join the British Humanist Association today!

    We need your support to represent your views.

    The figures above come from a new Mori poll.
    Click
    here to see the results on humanist beliefs.
    Click
    here for the results on the influence of religious groups and leaders.


    7 million British Humanists (24/11/06)

    (Numbers in brackets below refer to endnotes)

    In the 2001 census 7 out of 10 people ticked the ‘Christian’ box but, with church attendance now below 7% (1) and under 1 in 3 marriages taking place in church (2), this figure was clearly more about cultural identity than religious belief (3).

    Today an Ipsos MORI poll has shown that 36% of people – equivalent to around 17 million adults – are in fact humanists in their basic outlook.

    They:

    - feel scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe (rather than feeling that religious beliefs are needed for a ‘complete understanding’)

    - believe that ‘right and wrong’ can be explained by human nature alone, and does not necessarily require religious teachings, and

    - base their judgments of right and wrong on ‘the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world’.


    Humanism is a non-religious ethical outlook on life and these answers summarise its key beliefs (click here for more details on Humanism today)


    These are the key figures from the poll (the detailed results and further analysis are given here , along with analysis of the Ipsos MORI poll on how many people believe religious groups and leaders have too much influence on Government ):

    - Overall, faced with the choice, 62% said ‘scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe’ against 22% who felt ‘religious beliefs are needed for a complete understanding of the universe’.

    - Similarly, 62% chose ‘Human nature by itself gives us an understanding of what is right and wrong’, against 27% who said ‘People need religious teachings in order to understand what is right and wrong’.

    - In the last question, faced with three choices, 65% said that what is right and wrong ‘depends on the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world’. The rest split almost equally between two profoundly un-Humanist views: 15% said right and wrong were ‘basically just a matter of personal preference’ and 13% said what was right and wrong was ‘unchanging and should never be challenged’.

    Thirty-six percent chose all three of the Humanist answers, and another 30% chose two out of three. Only 13% chose none of them.


    41% believe this is our only life

    Another question found that 41% endorsed the strong statement: ‘This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our personal existence’. Fractionally more - 45% - preferred the broad view that ‘when we die we go on and still exist in another way’. Of those choosing all three of the ‘Humanist’ answers, 54% said this was our only life, against 38% who believed in some sort of continued existence. And of those seeing this as our only life, 79% chose two or all three of the ‘Humanist’ answers to the other questions. (Interestingly, 22% of those who endorsed the need for religion in answers to other questions also said this was our only life.)


    Commentary (for more click here )

    Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association said, ‘Britain is basically a humanist country, and this poll shows it. We have always been aware that many people who do not identify themselves as humanists, and this includes quite a few people who do not know what Humanism is, live their lives by what one might describe as humanist principles. People who join the Association often tell us that they have been humanists all their lives, or for the last 20 years or so, but didn’t know it. But it is very encouraging to find that 36% of the British population are not simply non-religious, but actually humanist in their outlook and their morality, and that very many others don’t feel they need religion to understand the universe, or to guide their moral decisions. These people may not belong to the Humanist Association, may not have even heard of Humanism, but they share our attitudes and we speak for them in our campaigns.’

    For further commentary on the results of the poll from Ms Stinson and from BHA Vice Presidents Claire Rayner, Baroness Whitaker and Richard Norman, along with analysis of the Ipsos MORI poll on how many people believe religious groups and leaders have too much influence on Government , click here


    ENDNOTES

    (1) Religious Trends 5: 2005/06, table 2.21

    (2) 68% of marriages in 2004 were civil ceremonies - National Statistics

    (3) For example it was asked in a context of ethnicity and the question was ‘What is your religion?’, rather than ‘Do you have a religion and if so what is it?’


    NOTES TO EDITORS

    The British Humanist Association(BHA) represents and supports the non-religious. It is the largest organisation in the UK campaigning for an end to religious privilege and to discrimination based on religion or belief, and for a secular state.

    For further comment, contact:

    Hanne Stinson by email or on 07764 947249

    Andrew Copson by email or on 07855 380633

    John Leaman (Ipsos MORI) by email or on 020 7347 3000

    The following supporters of the British Humanist Association are also available for comment:

    Susan Blackmore by email

    A C Grayling by email


    Wednesday, December 13, 2006

    Beyond Belief - Speaker videos


    I wrote about the "Beyond Belief" conference when New Scientist reviewed it November.

    The Speakers: Watch videos - about 20 hours over the 3 day conference (source: BobPark.org).

    Fascinating.