Coffee Morning on Saturday, 13 Dec 2003, 10:30 am chez Maggie in Hanwell Discuss whether religion is responsible Discuss whether blame has been shifted

On this occasion the Ealing Humanist Association hosted an unusual drama enacted by Alberto Bona “I, Caravaggio my paintings and my philosophy”. Many of us were taken by surprise when Signor Bona entered the room dressed and behaving as Caravaggio himself. This great and innovative 16/17th century painter had a refreshingly anarchistic attitude to the idealised religious artistic traditions of the day and Bona acted out this extraordinary character quite convincingly.

The brilliant paintings of Caravaggio (1571-1610) are universally admired for their realism and novel use of light and shade, chiaroscuro. The subject matter of his early paintings was refreshingly secular, “The Boy with the Fruit Basket” and “The Young Bacchus”. But he, like all painters of the period, established a good source of income from the princes of the church and he gave them interpretations of New Testament stories usually far more dramatic than they had bargained for. Even at a gathering like ours of people who are deeply opposed to the superstitious practice of religion, the beauty of Caravaggio’s religious paintings was inescapable. Alberto Bona projected several coloured slides and, as he acted out the artist’s volatile and argumentative nature in front of the screen, he seemed at times to be talking from within the picture itself.

The “Calling of St Matthew” shows Christ in a burst of light entering the room where Matthew is counting coins with a group of gaily dressed loafers. The dramatic shadows in the picture and the dynamic poses captured by the artist produced shock and astonishment in the established Roman world of 1601. His painting style was bold and new and rapidly influenced painters all over Europe. Caravaggio’s paintings were indeed the well known New Testament stories, but his were not the stylised angelic portrayals of the Florentine school. They were the real people of the back streets, noisy inns and colourful brothels of Rome painted directly on to canvas without any preliminary sketches, grids or guidelines. His saints were ordinary men and women, who had dirty feet, dishevelled hair and sweaty brows and were all the more convincing for it.

Many of the religious paintings in our great galleries - those gory crucifixions, dying martyrs and pious praying monks - are simply boring reminders of the huge influence of the powerful symbolism of Christianity and, to me, lose much of their artistic merit. Not so Caravaggio; his “Death of a Virgin” with her street-wise features, bared legs and swollen belly is a powerfully symbol of his deep understanding of human nature. The painting was refused by the Carmelites who had commissioned it. They could not accept such a travesty of their cherished views of holiness.

Caravaggio fascinated men of learning with his unusually vigorous style and his brilliant chiaroscuro, but he had mostly negative responses from the Catholic church. Despite this official criticism he succeeded as a painter, enjoying the high society of Cardinals while remaining always a spirited rumbustious character who, throughout his short life, had many encounters with the law. The mysterious circumstances of his death in 1610 at the age of 39 combined with Alberto Bona’s romping realistic performance left us with the illusion that, on that night in Ealing, the great man was very much alive. The subject matter and its manner of presentation may have been unusual for our humanist group but by the end I was quite convinced that Caravaggio himself was nothing if not a full-blooded humanist.

The article shown here has been slightly altered by the author and is different from the printed version, which had been altered by the editor.

During a recent trip to Switzerland and Austria I attended two meetings of local humanist/ freethinker groups. One benefit of the Internet is that you can obtain information on activities of local groups abroad if you access their websites. Two such groups had meetings at the time I happened to be in their cities.

On 29 August 2003 I attended a meeting of the ‘Freidenker-Union Region Basel’, the freethinker group in the Swiss city of Basle. They met at the Restaurant ‘Storchen’ in the city centre, where they have most of their meetings. They don’t have to pay for using the premises, at a reserved table, but participants are expected to consume something in the restaurant. It does of course mean that they don’t have the same privacy as we have in our own room at Ealing Friends’ House, but nobody else in the restaurant seemed to pay any attention to our conversations. As was usual they had no speaker or specific subject, but just got together to talk about topics of interest. At times we all took part in one discussion and at other times we split up into two or three sections, as expected in a group at a large table. I just turned up that evening without notifying or asking anyone, but they made me most welcome. There were 8 of us there altogether, including myself. They said that number was average, there were rarely more than a dozen. Although their membership was over 100 many were very old and did not play an active part in the group any more. Most of our conversation was in the Swiss German dialect, apart from a dialogue with Vivian Aldridge, an English freethinker who had lived in Basle for many years and is one of their committee members.

Two weeks later I found the ‘Freidenkerbund Österreich, Landesgruppe Ost’, the freethinker group of the eastern part of Austria, which includes the capital. As was customary they met at the HQ of the Austrian freethinker federation in Geigergasse in Vienna. I arrived there unannounced too, and was again made very welcome. There were only three members there before me. They too had no speaker or specific subject on that day but just discussed topics of mutual interest. At one meeting per month they have a speaker giving a presentation about some relevant subject, but at the other, weekly, meetings they just talk amongst themselves. They were very friendly and, speaking in High German, told me a lot about the freethinker movement in Austria and the political/religious situation. Among members present were Dr. Wolfgang Soos, chairman of the Austrian Freethinker Federation, and Dr. Martin Luksan, secretary of the regional freethinker group. Both are academics, very knowledgeable on the historic and political background of their country. They left me with a copy of the Austrian Humanist magazine ‘Der Freidenker’.

Both were interesting evenings with fellow freethinkers of other countries. If anyone is interested to contact Humanists or kindred organisations I recommend the websites of the International Humanist & Ethical Union (www.iheu.org) or Institute for Humanist Studies (www.humanists.net) for the many contact details from all over the world.

We will need no reminding of the circumstances and immediate aftermath of two recent (on 20th November 2003) attacks in Istanbul. The longer term repercussions appear to be at least as serious as those following 11th September 2001. Following upon thought-numbing shock which is being felt by those of many nationalities and most faiths, especially theistic ones, comes the question "Who is responsible?". We have, now, the denial of Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Rights Commission who says "Apologise, to give an indication that somehow we are responsible when we are not?" (See reproduced article further down.)

Not only Moslem extremists but also believers of all creeds have accentuated their differences with neighbouring faith-communities and still do. The consequences, misunderstandings and hatred, have been evident to us in Northern Ireland, and in Cyprus - as well as further afield in the Indian sub-continent, Chechnya, and Israel.

Massoud Shadjareh touches a raw nerve. Presently it is the theism of the West and Middle East that perpetuates these centuries-old antagonisms. We in the US and UK, it appears, are mostly in favour of our Christian leaders' misguided unanimity on a 'war on terror' and in UK we acquiesce in Tony Blair's defence of one-faith schools.

If you too protest at the general shrugging-off of responsibility then come to our Coffee Morning chez Maggie Adams in Hanwell on Saturday, 13 Dec 2003, to discuss this issue.

The front-cover pictorial representation* (of the "shape" of human information) belongs to "Appendix A. Human Information", a draft in circulation to those humanists, and others, who are at all likely to read it and - if moved to do so - provide comment. It has already been described to me as not anywhere referring to humanism; which is true. Hopefully though "Human Information" will be seen by humanists as highly relevant to humanism.

"Combined Humanism in Ealing" (unpublished) reports on the many discussions that have taken place over the last 6 years and will form a text to which Appendices A and B are to be appended. (For Appendix B see below.) Although there is only one attribution by name (to Arthur Atkinson), if you find yourself - you consider - misunderstood or misreported now's a good time to put this record straight! Second thoughts and any other relevant response will also be welcome.

The glossary shown here, the so-called 'Ealing-Speak', has been compiled by the Editor of the EHA Bulletin, Dr. Raymond Carlisle. The definitions shown below reflect his personal opinion and are not necessarily accepted by any other members of the Ealing Humanist Association.

AGNOSTIC

An alternative term for ATHEIST, BUT one that preserves the subjective concept of everyone holding their own inviolable opinion and still not as generally mistaken as theism.

ALPHA

An earlier term for subjective thinking, borrowed from Christian evangelism, where enquirers are made to feel wanted.

ANIMAL NERVOUS SYSTEMS

The only source of consciousness in the universe, contrary to what theists imply.

ANIMAL SENSE ORGANS

A Godless source of revelation, BUT one which seems to deny human cerebral function. See REVELATION.

ANTHROPOLOGY

may be of greater significance within Ealing Humanist than seems to be generally the case in humanist circles.

ATHEISM (or at least anti-religion)

is something which essential - and evolving - humanism supports.

BIG BANG

An entity which is a scientifically accepted concept despite its being in conformity with the biblical concept of a beginning to the universe. Thus it is essentially unacceptable.

COFFEE MORNINGS

A useful forum of discussion in Ealing that was only needing reportage for several new ideas to evolve.

COMBINED HUMANISM (as practised in Ealing anyway)

seeks to unite the positive aspects of essential, of traditional and of evolving humanism.

'COSMIC FAIRY'

Book by Arthur Atkinson recognised by humanists abroad which sets out what is seen by the writer as essential, which deserves to be more widely read and which has given the initial impulse to combined humanism.

CREATIVITY (as opposed to NATURAL SELECTION)

is the concept mistakenly adopted by theists as explaining the appearance of nature - and the concept mistakenly implied too by relativist philosophers as explaining man's contribution to science.

DARWINIAN ENLIGHTENMENT

Part of the 150 years-old expansion of the world of science to succeed religion. BUT see NATURE.

EPISTEMOLOGY

The study of information, or of knowledge, but which apparently fails to distinguish between personal knowledge and recorded knowledge.

ETHICS

Synonym MORALITY.

FALSE RELIGION

No religion is false (E. Durkheim) - i.e. all should be respected OR All religious belief is false.

FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION

God is a -- BUT so is everything, until confirmed or otherwise in our culture. See NATURAL SELECTION.

GOD

At best a hoary hypothesis OR Is scientifically disproved.

HARD ATHEISTS

(K. Soper) Merely expresses a dislike of objectivity.

HEURIST SCIENTISTS

Although all of us should think scientifically, only a few at most, whether or not professionally engaged in research, may have a 'eureka moment' and be eventually responsible for changing human reality (nature).

HIM

Abbreviation suggested for objective Human Information Matrix, as a rival concept to God.

HUMANE

An aspect of behaviour that is of practical importance to all humanists BUT which loses its theoretical significance for the essential humanist.

HYPOTHESIS

An as yet unconfirmed opinion. Could be fact or fiction. See GOD.

LOCAL-COMMUNITY CULTURE

tends to promote belief in RELIGION instead of NATURE. See SCIENTISM.

MORALITY

(synonym ETHICS) refers to conscious improvement of human behaviour and is a key concept for progress.

NATURAL SELECTION

refers, in Darwinian terms, to selection of the species but may be applied also to the selection via a current, widest possible consensus of experts on ideas about nature (contrast CREATIVITY).

NATURE

The more distinctive term 'nature' seems to be often needed, in place of 'science', to distinguish human reality from human technology. The term 'science' has a mysticism linked to a misplaced - see HEURIST - reverence for scientists. However a world of science is the, updated, successor to the world of the religious. See DARWINIAN ENLIGHTENMENT. In this latter sense 'science' (i.e. nature) may be defined as the widest possible consensus of experts at the time in question.

'OUR UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE'

would be more explicit than 'NATURE' BUT the phrase is somewhat pedantic once it is modestly accepted that we can only ever proceed from what we are aware of.

PRIVATE LANGUAGE

Wittgenstein's description, applied - with considerable justice - to the use of novel terms without adequate explanation; hence this Appendix.

PSYCHOLOGY

is barren since its subject matter, the mind - in contrast to the brain - has no existence OR The fastest-growing aspect of nature study.

RELIGIOUS BELIEF

is seen positively as the predecessor of science . . . and, where it persists, negatively as out-dated science (or natural philosophy). Humanism is seen as an 'alternative to religion' since it needs must include practice (with an accompanying idenity and priorities) as well as belief.

REVELATION

is familiar as a concept within theism BUT can be applied also to the essentialist view of the function of ANIMAL SENSE ORGANS.

ROMANTICISM

is linked to subjectivity and to individual creativeness. It is thus free of the objectivity (towards NATURE) that depends upon agreement between those best qualified to be giving a fully objective opinion.

SCIENCE

a word which, in the early 17 hundreds, came into use in place of Natural Philosophy. Over the next 150 years the advent of Darwin's theory of biological evolution objectively speaking outdated religion, and science could be expected to have replaced religious belief entirely. But for an alternative word see NATURE. Here 'Science' requires qualification - as 'total science' (includes all everyday beliefs) or 'contemporary science' (has to be updated) - so as to distinguish it from human technology.

SCIENTISM

An arrogance to be avoided according to traditionalists, who view science as merely another LOCAL-COMMUNITY CULTURE.

SOCIAL INSTINCTS

represent MORALITY, and are distinct from any active improvement of human behaviour which is missing from essential humanism.

SELECTION

Commonly Natural Selection, a term first used by Darwin to describe the mechanism of biological evolution of the fittest but it could also be applied to scientific advances (though relativists would disagree). The opposite concept, that of human creativity, is not relevant In science - in the way that it is in the world of art.

THEISM

A confusion of subjective and objective that sees a supra-human source of REVELATION in the universe.

UPDATED SCIENCE

would be more explicit than SCIENCE or NATURE, but again appears to be pedantic. After all, why should we adopt an outdated view of anything; except of course in a historical context?

YOUNG ANIMALS

Untrained children. See SOCIAL INSTINCTS.

The poem 'Depression' will leave many of us, its readers, stunned and sad. Was that the writer's intention? We are stunned because of its masterful focussing of our own emotions - its being true to our lives, at times. We are sad because of the poet's unduly sombre and sick on-going emotion, born perhaps of her individual repeated encounters with adversity. (Such a source has been shown from recent studies.¹)

Having had the privilege of hearing Maggie Adams define her work, I can vouch for the emotion being genuine. The outside world is seen as depressing in its bleak reality. No wonder some curtaining is needed, to make things tolerable.

But the writer's need is the product of an over-subjective view (as with saying 'sunset' when referring to the whole earth's daily rotation). The poet shuns the usually effective medication, Prozac or Seroxat, and insists that the bleak view is the only one valid for her . . . but to do so is projecting a private pessimism onto our world-in-common outside.

At a recent Thursday meeting of the EHA the speaker was challenged, "Are you an optimist?". Similar honesty then is demanded of those whose world view differs (in mood). One could sense the clash between an optimistic speaker and a pessimistic questioner. So who is right? 'Both,' would be the poet's reply, 'we live in separate worlds'. But isn't this is all from the subjective aspect, where no two people can agree very far? What though of an objective view of the world? A glass can be both half empty and half full. And surely if we side with the writer of the poem in taking the bleak view it would reveal our own similarly depressed mood, but little else.

Can we proceed further in our thought about differences in outlook and in mood? It is familiar enough to us all and we accept as much. What though does it mean? Whose world is it that lies outside the differences between the optimistic and the pessimistic individuals? Most traditionalists would answer "Why, . . . God's!" An agnostic hesitates, "Well, we don't know whose, if anyone's at all". But an Ealing Humanist of the objective kind could say "The world you speak of is a world in common for us all, since the beginning of human time". There are others, perhaps most, who think of it as the 'real world' - of things - but it is a world present in, and not out of communication with, our human culture (speech, books, computers as well as the things around us, as interpreted directly by our cultured senses). Maggie Adams may see it as darkly as she chooses, but her poem I believe is passing now to that world nevertheless, to posterity.

The Europe minister, Dennis MacShane, was forced into an embarrassing climbdown last night after he prepared to challenge UK Muslims to choose between the "British way" of political dialogue or the way of terrorists.

In the text of a speech to be made to his Rotherham constituents, he wrote: "It is time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to make a choice: the British way, based on political dialogue and non-violent protests, or the way of the terrorists against which the whole democratic world is uniting."

But the leaked speech, one day after 27 people died in the Istanbul bomb blasts, was branded "outrageous" and "disgraceful" by British Muslim organisations and Mr MacShane quickly altered the text to soften his language.

He still maintained that British Muslims had to choose, but made it clear that he was speaking up for much wider democratic values shared not just by the UK, but by the US and Turkey, devastated this week by terrorist bombings.

"It is time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to make a choice", he told the meeting. "It is the democratic, rule of law - if you like, the British or Turkish or American way, based on political dialogue and non-violent protests like the one we saw in London yesterday - or it is the way of the terrorists."

"I hope we will see clearer, stronger language that there is no future for any Muslim cause anywhere in the world that validates, or implicitly supports, the use of political violence in any way," he said.

Mr MacShane later stressed that the advance text was merely a draft from which he had always intended to elaborate. He was "flabbergasted" at the reaction to the speech.

But Muslim anger was directed not at the apparent suggestion that UK Muslims did not share British values, but at the need for them to condemn terrorism.

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "The Muslim community has consistently condemned terrorism and we condemn this attack on the consulate and HSBC in Turkey."

Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: "What does he want us to do? Apologise, to give an indication that somehow we are responsible, when we are not?"