Meeting of 30 January 2003
EHA President Arthur Atkinson: My Presentation of Humanism
Two years ago I suggested that an appropriate subject for our January meeting would be a discussion on the advantages of being a humanist, and I prepared a talk listing 12 humanist assets which I thought would set the scene for our subsequent meetings. However I was dissuaded on the grounds that one person should not put forward ideas on which we were not all agreed.
A similar situation seems to have arisen this year, but I have accepted an invitation to express my views briefly, and allow time for another member, in this case Raymond, to follow me. You can then decide whether there is any essential difference.
Take the logical first. If we say the supernatural does not exist, how can we go on to ask what is the nature of the supernatural? But philosophically a definition of the supernatural seems to be required.
I have recently been in touch with Dr Ron Bell, a one-time Chairman. He has suggested a definition of humanism which seems to me wholly adequate. The supernatural is unreal. How can any humanist disagree with this? I should be astonished. Would they want to claim that the supernatural is real?
Personally I am quite happy to accept Dr Bell's definition and leave it at that. The Supernatural is unreal. (This disposes of God). It is the essence of humanism on which we are all agreed. We can believe what we like about other aspects of humanism as long as we do not contradict this basic idea. For once we go beyond it, all sorts of logical and philosophical confusions will arise.
People will ask the awkward question "What is real?". Descartes stirred up a legacy that has bothered philosophers ever since: "Was he himself real?". Incidentally it has been pointed out that there is a flaw in his answer. When he said "I think", he overlooked the fact he assumed the existence of the "I" that does the thinking.
But such confusions are unnecessary. We do not have to ask what is real. Real things - natural things - have a habit of making themselves felt. When asked how he knew that a tree-stump was real, Dr Johnson gave it a mighty kick. Natural processes have revealed to us what is real. Evolution tells the whole story. It has enabled us to survive.
When the first living things diversified, becoming animals or plants, natural processes endowed the former with in-built survival equipment, their senses. These were quite different from what plants possessed and enabled animals to achieve consciousness.
As a result of this they survived the impact of their environment, indeed, the real world, and ultimately appreciated it.
The question "What is real?" did not arise until early human beings began to speculate and invented an imaginary world which they thought to be real. No one knows when the process started. Let us pick it up in the Old Testament. God (the supernatural world) was very real to Moses, but he did find reasons for wanting to see God's face and had to put up with God's reluctance to show it. He accepted him as a jealous God. One among others.
In New Testament times God was a spirit, a totally different concept. It was, of course, an open-ended one, and we can trace its subsequent variations, noting the dominance of deism in Newtonian times, right up to the 19th century when the Darwinian Enlightenment finally put "God" back among his classical antecedents. Allah and the rest must follow eventually. Humanism, which has always been in the background since Epicurus said "At death sensation ceases" has been established as the only acceptable attitude to the mystery of existence. The world is in desperate need of humanism.
I have lacked time to describe the humanist experience which my 12 humanist benefits would have produced and provided a far more satisfying comfort than anything found in religious illusions. I must end by drawing attention to the dangers that religion presents. It stirs up strife - Catholics against Protestants, Jews against both, Muslims against infidels - but worst of all it encourages the well-meaning British Prime Minister to follow the American President, who announced "I'm sticking with God". Meeting of 30 January 2003 Discussion
The topics offered by the second speaker were voted on as follows. There were 3 votes available to each of the members of the audience: Maggie Adams; Arthur, first speaker; John Bennett; Tony Constable, chairman; Alex Hill; Ian Roberts. [Who attended despite singularly unpleasant weather].
1. COFFEE MORNINGS IN NORTHOLT (how it all started) [2]
2. OBJECTIVE VIEW OF SUBJECTIVE BELIEF - AND VICE VERSA (alpha thinking etc.) [0]
3. THE ALTERNATIVE TO THEISM MUST BE FOUND (and the best view of death) [8 - chosen for presentation]
4. CONTEMPORARY WORLD-WIDE HUMAN CULTURE IS THERE! (plate and saucers) [0]
5. MENTAL CONCEPTS ARE TRANSFERABLE (from below the surface, to the outside and back) [4]
6. SOME RECENT HISTORY OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE (stacked plates and saucers) [2]
7. ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF WORLD-WIDE HUMAN CULTURE (the role of communication) [0]
8. LOCAL HUMAN CULTURES AND RELIGIONS (they go together) [1]
9. INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE MINDS NEED MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING (simple glossing-over does not work) [1]
10. DIVIDED HUMANISM (over whether to include culture) [1]
11. COMBINED HUMANISM IN EALING (and beyond) [Already selected]
Afterwards the only alternative to theism, Tony and others claimed, was atheism. Atheism wasn't sufficiently clearly stated as being the normal, rational response to the human condition. Theism was imposed, all were agreed, on children's pristine human minds by the society into which they are born but Tony, John, Alex and Maggie proclaimed themselves to be atheists first and foremost. Raymond explained that some of the objection to a "militant" or "hard" atheism came not from him but from what had become styled the 'subjective' wing of the EHA - which he was keen to include, especially as Derek and Valerie Hill, its chief protagonists, were not themselves present. Unless we are careful valuable insights will be lost.
In his comment, however, on Arthur's presentation Raymond claimed that he found reason turned on its head by its extraordinary statements. "The supernatural is unreal" he had long felt convinced was mere tautology. Arthur had though gone on to call self-contradictory any remark that "the supernatural is natural or real". Yet brain research had demonstrated centres which if stimulated by a trance or by an epileptic attack, for instance, produce feelings of oneness with the universe and of awe before some fictional presence such as God. Thus the 'super'natural could be natural. In this sense others too agreed.
"We know nothing about death", as Arthur claimed, was true enough for the subjective individual who had never him- or herself yet experienced it; but could not be applied objectively. The collective mind knows all there is to know so far about death. What is claimed for after death (or after life, as Tony expressed it) is however a pure matter of opinion.
Anxiety about death was emphasised by Maggie as part of the human condition. Many, though, welcome death - Tony added - while the majority do fear it; as the end of an experience they are not tiring of but enjoying.
Poetry, Raymond thought, was objectively neutral and quoting it extensively, as the first speaker had just done, could not support or counter the implied, subjective arguments on any subject. Finally of Arthur's 12 Benefits from Humanism, he accepted only 3. The majority, 6, favored humanism no more than religion and 3 were more properly benefits from religion.
Alex, Tony and Raymond disliked pontification on matters of personal decision. Tony spoke of Arthur's "12 Commandments".
R.C.
Letter from the Editor (to the President)
08/03/03
Dear Arthur
I have now read your text (see Report from Meeting) and personal communications of 15 Feb and of 23 Feb - thank you for writing. Our present discussion though is I feel going round in circles. You observe:
(1) Saying 'nature is real' is not mere tautology, as I have claimed.
(2) By their unaided senses non-human animals can achieve consciousness, as you recently put it. (No cerebral cortex needed!).
(3) "Real" concepts are not present in the human imagination in exactly the same way as "unreal/supernatural" ones.
(4) I have failed to explain my, personal, concept 'collective mind'. (This though is as yet an experimental title).
(5) Poetry supports humanism.
(6) You deny your humanism is unscientific.
Nothing less than a full reply will do justice to our differences on these questions. For this I can only refer you to a projected booklet "Combined Humanism" which, though, won't be complete for a few months yet.
Raymond
A second life or (a more meaningful) only one?
These are several areas to be explored. I have left to others the addition of further ones and the filling in of detail. And of course some suggestions on this list may be dropped, according to preference.
1. New experiences and activities.
2. New friendships and revival of old ones.
3. Acceptance of fresh, but planned, risks.
4. Hospice provision - during terminal days or weeks, for ourselves as well as others - either at home or away.
5. Preservation of health (life quality and duration) by early, or prompt, action.
If you respond please keep up this numbering, where possible, to facilitate uptake of ideas.
R.C.
Book Review: Quality with Clarity Grayling A.C. The Meaning of Things. Applying Philosophy to Life. London: Phoenix, 2002.
"Any book", wrote Schopenhauer, "which is at all important should be re-read immediately". I commend this one for inclusion in such a category. Each essay combines the qualities of brevity and an economy of words with depth of insight and total clarity. No-one can put down this book and say "What I don't understand . . . ".
Would that all philosophers wrote so clearly. Whilst Grayling makes no attempt to write down to his readers, his ease with his subject has the effect of laying his undoubted erudition lightly upon his shoulders.
He makes no pretence of hiding the bestiality, cruelty and violence of which mankind is capable yet he does inject some welcome light into these currently dark days by elevating the creativity and potentiality of that which is good and great in the human race.
He is also - one hopes - ushering in a new age of classical essayists in the line of Montaigne and of Pascal and their successors, thus adding a little more quality to our leisure time.
It is difficult to choose any one essay for dilation but Humanists will appreciate particularly those on Christianity and Faith.
I can only urge you to go out and purchase a copy, plus a second one for your friend and if you are at all affluent or just simply lacking an overdraft then buy copies by the score and distribute them like summer fruits from a rich harvest. There should be a copy in every home.
M.A.
Editorial: Burying the hatchet
That is what Arthur Atkinson and me are exhorted to do by Maggie Adams, who may have been joined by others that prefer voting with their feet. Gross oversimplification of fact in order for humanism to be more easily understood seems to me no better than theism. As you can read though in my "Letter from the editor", although there is no 'hatchet' burying any 'bone' - of contention - is in effect what we are now doing. The discussion was not getting anywhere. The wider subjective-versus-objective discussion could be of more importance generally, since it follows a fault-line between different schools of believers in all kinds of political and religious controversies. Also we need to accept arguments on this one from both sides of the divide (subjective and objective - or whatever other way they may be characterised). Editorial: Nature/Science
Certainly the front cover illustration will look confused and unfamiliar to readers not already forearmed by having understood the representation of 'an extent' by a circle, as in previous diagrams. These extent-circles are drawn as if seen from the side, not from above. Consequently they appear as ellipses. This time the largest one represents the extent of contemporary world-wide human culture. A continuous black line portrays, within it, the extent of a local human culture and lower still the red ellipses, which only slightly overlap the above ellipses, represent the extent of concepts within the minds of two individual humans.
Concepts are transferable to the local and world-wide cultures. Here however they are shown in grey and are labelled 'hypotheses' (matters of opinion or personal fantasy); until, that is, they became regarded - blue - as 'accepted fact' or - yellow - as 'acknowledged fiction' by the other individuals who form a human culture. Some of these hypotheses, however, were not accepted at all and become regarded - purple - as 'fallacies'.
It will be clear, I think, from the diagram that what is called 'nature/science' often sees a different set of fallacies from the set seen as such by a given religion. Those hypotheses about which all are agreed were fallacious - whether as fact or as fiction - are not shown here however. Diagrams do not of course prove anything. They may though make something more intelligible. Book Review: A longer life or a more meaningful one? Both! Kirkwood T. The End of Age. Why everything about ageing is changing. London: Profile Books, 2001.
The writer is an academic and a medical specialist in gerontology in Newcastle upon Tyne. He reproduces here his series of Reith Lectures on the revolutionary developments in the biology of ageing (and of staying young) plus some of their implications for us and for our descendants.
In Part 2 of the book Professor Kirkwood looks behind some significant headlines in the press. Part 3 is science fiction set in the not-far-distant future.
A slim volume of at times compulsive reading matter, this publication is not recommended for reference but for page by page perusal - at more than one sitting, if required.
R.C.
The Ideal Book (perhaps by non-experts)
Can the EHA or any similar association recommend what they consider is the ideal book for all kinds of enquirer - or, if they do not themselves use books, for the enquirer's close relative or friend?
Yes, if you like, it could be a kind of Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Gita etc but to be preferred over such 'holy' books. We would like to think it's possible to fulfil personal needs within a smaller number of pages and without the objectionable features. Would it though be easy to read? Not necessarily - except in small amounts and following a well-referenced division of topics. Certainly the reader should easily find their own particular most helpful advice, if they have an idea of what it could be.
At present we come closest to this by providing a whole library of books - several dozen at least. But, and it's a big but, there is still the work of codifying it all. Otherwise how can the reader find, or the helper supply, the particular passage or page that would be the most relevant?
Our next problem, surely, is to check whether any - or, if ideal, all - of such passages ever achieve the purpose for which we recommend them. In other words we wish to add 'assessment' to 'codification' as our main aim.
It is possible that the mass of good advice scattered within the covers of our chosen 3 or 4 dozen books - once it had been fully tested - could be condensed between its own covers to give a handy reference volume. For our purposes we would then have the ideal book but written by readers rather than by writers.
On the other hand some of us feel that reading is an experience which cannot be replaced by any systematic use of quotations, however well developed. Finding a message is no longer of such importance. Then, perhaps, what is needed is simply an extension of the present library with more helpful review of recommended books.
What is your opinion?
Following its review by Maggie Adams (see Book Review: Quality with Clarity) it was agreed that copies of "The Meaning of Things. Applying Philosophy to Life" should be available to all EHA members [- I went to buy mine, at £6.99, immediately after the meeting.] Although impressed by the writer's, A.C.Grayling's, talks on the radio; the subject of philosophy in general was held by Tony Constable to be redundant. It borders on the imponderables, he said, and offers no solutions. At least, on the part of professionals it becomes a mere exercising of the mind. Raymond agreed in respect, anyway, of his recent reading of "Science and Poetry" by the philosopher Mary Midgley. Previously Midgley had written a well-reasoned criticism of Richard Dawkins' 'memes' theory but her impressive semantics had now sparkled on page after page without any elucidation of the contrast between science and poetry, any more than Dawkins himself had given in his recent mingling of these two fields of knowledge. Tony concurred in that, for example, the American philosopher Daniel Dennett had written "Consciousness Explained" without achieving anything of the sort; less indeed than had Steven Pinker, not though a philosopher, in his similarly portentously-titled "How the Mind Works".
Maggie regarded philosophy as a tree of knowledge that had almost innumerable branches upon which blossom and foliage was added by scientists and others. Tony, on the other hand, claimed there was often little or no connection between such sproutings, certainly not that of one tree. This was in stark contrast to those of natural philosophers, nowadays referred to as "scientists", who always first established the connections with earlier work in their respective fields. Perhaps, suggested Raymond, we should be more concerned to unmask all 'unnatural' philosophy.
The BBC 2 television program "The Day I Died" of 3 days previously had presented 3 theories to account for the phenomena known collectively as "near-death experiences". Helen, Raymond's wife (as a career intensive-care nurse) had personally encountered, soon after the event, 'at least 20' who had had at least some of a set of experiences during cardiac arrest. Components seemed to include a concurrence of 'light at the end of a tunnel', 'a viewing from above of the scene in and around the bed', 'a feeling of repose and reassurance', 'the conviction that all knowledge was now available' and 'a feeling of unity with the whole universe'.
The view of psychologist Susan Blackmore was that known physiological processes are responsible; perhaps though in terms of release from inhibition of brain-centres. The program gave chief emphasis, no doubt because of its appeal to mainly Christian viewers, to Parnia and Fenwick's fantasy theory that there is a temporary separation between mind and brain. Finally the theory of Hameroff and Roger Penrose, on the location of consciousness being inside the microtubules of nerve cells, was mentioned as providing a quantum computer which continued to function even during bodily 'near death'. A reprint of an article on the theory was brought along by Tony. Certain consciousness theorists but not quantum physicists appeared to accept it, he told us.
The program's title was, all thought, a complete misnomer in that it concerned experiences of survivors. Nevertheless its selection seemed to echo the results which were circulated of poll taken at the previous Thursday meeting indicating interest in topic number 3 (The alternative to theism must be found, and the best view of death). Accordingly a table of suggestions on obtaining 'more life' (see Article: A second life or (a more meaningful) only one?) was drafted and briefly discussed. [See also Book Review: A longer life or a more meaningful one? Both!] The ideal book was another topic drafted (see Article: The Ideal Book) as a preliminary to the meeting. It was an encyclopaedist approach both inspired by and disclaimed by Maggie, an advocate of action not talk. On the other hand Maggie regarded literature as a treasure chest from which we would want to pick out jewels with none of the suggested codifying and indexing. However good reviews will get a few more people to read. To write a review it was certainly necessary to have the book, but not to do more than skim through. It's the message that counts, she concluded.
Why address the 'thinking layman'? Tony opposed any endeavour by humanists to replace the Bible since it implied the existence of The Truth. As an appropriate alternative the concept 'consensus' was also rejected. Ultimate Truth remained an epithet acceptable to the writer (but to no-one else!), provided it implied the latest knowledge obtainable only by reading the national press for any particular day. "Absolute Truth" is absolute nonsense. The only ultimate, fundamental or most-important truth is current consensus, or the most up-to-date-way-of-things, relative to some given problem. There is a flawed principle of ultimate truth, Tony added, which has nothing to do with truth.
"Thank God", concluded Tony, that there is no humanist bible. Tolerance is needed, he continued. Although a lot of rag-bag thinking goes on, it's a mistake to define humanism too closely. The present world is marked by intolerance exemplified by, but not confined to, Islam. Texan Christian fundamentalists were, he had found, almost their equals in this. Some youths on an Omani beach had been helped (in vain however) for some 2 hours in an attempted rescue of their vehicle by Tony and others. His response, 'no, we are not Moslems' had staggered them.
Raymond concurred that such fundamentalists, as exemplified by the Catholic neighbours of friends of his, were amazed when someone not of their faith displayed altruism. Presumably goodness is unified and is regarded as in their possession only. Humanists don't push their beliefs down others' throats, Tony continued. Christianity, fortunately, is mostly moribund but Islam is far from it. As for philosophers Aristotle more than most was only exercising his mind in what he wrote. That it was taken over, with little need for modification, by the Catholic Thomas Aquinas should tell us something.
Tolerance was cited by Maggie as one of the three more important attitudes valued in the British Humanist Association. There are of course limits to tolerance, such as towards the wife-beating philosophies of Moslems. Here the only way was to show them the error of their ways. Raymond though considered that indulgence - not tolerance - was at times a necessary attitude towards subjective view-points, one's own not excluded, which were incompatible with a consistent objective humanism. He saw no place for tolerance in an objective sense. Furthermore 'occupational' (not 'discovery') scientists should be "forced thinkers" about facts as they were unable to challenge them with a better alternative explanation. Tony, though, set indoctrination and free thinking as opposed. Yes, one has to be a scientist to be a free thinker, to be free to think something that fits. Despite being - in a sense - provisional, science is the best we have: an ideal, a recipe, an evidence-based view. A free-thinker, on this definition, would embrace all the necessary precepts of humanism ... including the EHA "12 commandments". Arthur protested though that only 5 of them could be so regarded.
