There was no scheduled talk for our EHA meeting on 29th January and the evening was advertised as ‘Open Discussion’. This format was introduced primarily to allow time for further discussion of topics arising from previous lectures. At the November meeting Brendon Larvor had raised several important issues concerning postmodernism which many of us felt required our further consideration. As this is such a highly specialized subject we sought guidance from Derek Hill who has been deeply involved in studying modern philosophy for several years. Although Derek had not been present at Brendon Larvor’s lecture, he kindly agreed to re-introduce the subject of postmodernism and to bring its main themes clearly to our attention.

In the second half of the meeting a lively debate ensued in which the main protagonists, Derek Hill and Michael McCarthy, gave us a good demonstration of how seriously opposing views can be expressed without coming to blows. By coincidence a visitor who eloquently defended aspects of the radical postmodernist argument turned out to be a retired university teacher of literary criticism (post-structuralism has a prominent place in many English Literature courses). In the true spirit of humanist tolerance, members agreed they would like to hear more in future from their anti-humanist visitor. Argument and counter-argument continued until 10.00 p.m., our scheduled closing time.

This attempt to re-examine a previous lecture topic was, in my view, a clear success.

As a follow up of last November's talk to the EHA by Brendon Larvor on Postmodernism, I reviewed the topic at the January meeting of the EHA. I then said that relativism and its anti-Enlightenment derivatives - postmodernism, post-structuralism and social constructuralism - now virtually dominated university teaching in the UK and in America. Radical left-wing academics in sociology, history, psychology, literary criticism and feminist studies are using postmodernism to attack the Enlightenment values of reason, scientific objectivism and individualism that underpin liberal democratic humanism. This is highly paradoxical for a set of theories denying the existence of any foundations on which knowledge claims can be based.

Central to the anti-humanist case is a claim - by modern French philosophers such as Derrida, Lacan and Foucault - that is contrary to the common-sense view of language as a tool for the communication of concepts. According to linguistic determinism it is not human agency but language that determines our concepts.

I expressed my concern over tutors who effectively deprive students of an opportunity to study humanism by ignoring the existence of all counter arguments, and this while postmodernism is subject to intense criticism from humanist academics.

Geologists estimate that the 217-mile-long canyon in Arizona was fashioned by the Colorado river between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 years ago and contains some of the oldest exposed rocks on Earth.

But now a book sold in the Grand Canyon park official bookshop suggests that it was created by the flood reported in Genesis. (The author is a guide.)

"For years, as a Colorado river guide, I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary timescale of millions of years. Then I met the Lord. Now I have a different view of the canyon, which according to a biblical timescale can't possibly be more than a few thousand years old."

. . . The book has sold out but is being reordered, and its display has been moved from the natural sciences section to - "inspirational reading". . . .

(Extracted from Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry 2004; 8:7 with acknowledgement. Numbering [1] etc, is added.)

In November 2003, the largest ever trial of cannabis for patients with MS was reported in The Lancet, . . . a three-year trial coordinated by John Zajicek from the Peninsula Medical School, Plymouth . . . involving over 600 patients, across 33 centres in the UK. . . .

The primary outcome measure was a change in spasticity scores . . . ; no change was noted. However, significant improvement was demonstrated with the intervention in a secondary objective [1] outcome measure - the 10 metre timed walk. . .

However, the patients told a different story, reporting significant improvement in spasticity, pain and quality of sleep. This highlighted a discrepancy between subjective and objective [2] measurements of spasticity and other MS symptoms.

. . . Should clinicians accept [3] that patients' experience of spasticity cannot be measured scientifically, that the symptom is too complex and inter-related with others for objective [4] measurement to be meaningful?

. . .Meanwhile, therapeutic but illegal use of cannabis by people with MS continues . . .There is strong anecdotal [5] evidence from people with MS of the benefits of using cannabis; indeed it seems unlikely that reasonable [6] numbers would be doing so if there were none.

. . . Maintenance of the status quo should not be an option. Many people with MS who derive benefit are breaking the law, as well as risking the impurity and variability of 'street' cannabis. Others, who may benefit, deny themselves the possibility of symptom relief because they will not use an illegal substance [7].

. . .It is to be hoped that cannabis-based medicine will be available soon for the treatment of MS on the NHS. One hurdle has now been overcome in that the Home Secretary has now reclassified cannabis as a class C drug. . . . However, the real hurdle will be the NICE appraisal of cannabis due later this year. It is to be hoped that NICE will give due credence to the weight [8] of subjective evidence and not find itself caught in the trap of believing [9] that only 'scientific' evidence has validity.

Comment follows the numeration introduced into the text:
[1] I.e. measurable.
[2] I.e. measurements not taken and taken respectively.
[3] Not if they can help it.
[4] Presently perhaps - but not too complex and inter-related for measurement to be attempted.
[5] Anecdotal implies as I understand that an investigator is without the data to support his or her personal impression. It may be there is an alternative impression though, with adequate data behind it.
[6] Can numbers be reasonable and uncountable?
[7] Would seem to be a matter for legislators, not doctors.
[8] How can unmeasured evidence be weighed?
[9] The belief is correct, surely, and moreover essential.

The original title for the front cover illustration on the printed version of the Bulletin had been 'pigeonholing', since this is the technique there employed; in an effort to bring some kind of order into the Science-Religion-Etc debates. Recently though an unusually straightforward example of confused thinking has I claim occurred in a journal that is distributed free to medical prescribers such as myself. The article responsible is reproduced above minus the parts that are inessential to this argument. What remains is fortunately clearly written for non-specialist comprehension. All that seems needed is to explain that NICE is National Institute for Clinical Excellence, who it also seems deserve some support in anticipation of their current task.

Simply put, subjective impressions will always fall short unless and until they are backed up by objective evidence. And that is the job of the scientist.

I should hasten to add that most in EHA will identify, surely, with the general aims of the authors. And also recognize the viewpoint of the professional clinician - objective except in respect of an individual MS patient. The general aims though are (see note [7] in the article above) a matter rather for the professional politician. Is it altogether fair to expect this help from NICE (see article below), however objective their credence? And can humanists now take up this important debate from the MS Trust?

NIPE, if realised, would be modeled on NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence) and immediately take up the problem of cannabis for MS patients before any more lives are damaged or shortened by laws framed to control recreational use of dangerous drugs. Consideration would also be given to the wider problem of addictions becoming injurious; whether due to alcohol sales, tobacco sales or junk food sales. The latter combines, moreover, with lack of exercise provision. Governmental action is needed in face of the Obesity Time-bomb including all aspects mentioned in the Wanless Report II, as announced this week in the national press. Particular attention would need to be given it seems to the problem in public awareness of 'Lifestyle Illiteracy'.

All of these, and many equally urgent matters, require attention that is objective (scientific) and fully independent of party-political subjectivity.

There has been much talk recently on the topic of teaching atheism in schools alongside some of the religions of the world. I have been quite surprised with the poor quality of the arguments for and against such an idea both in the press and on BBC radio. Perhaps the protagonists have not yet had time to work out the pros and cons of such an innovative move in the direction of political correctness. My own view may be just as inadequate as theirs but I express them here for your comments.

I would personally like to see religion disappear from the school syllabus altogether and not to consider complicating matters by adding atheism to an already saturated diet of religious relativism. Most religious teaching in faith schools is undisguised proselytising and this should have no place in modern education. If older people must impose their own religious beliefs on their children an appropriate form of religious instruction should be undertaken out of school hours in their homes or in the private spaces owned by their religious communities and at no expense to the taxpayer.

Parents' ideas of religion are often very flexible and based on a sort of insurance policy principle, “We don’t know if God really exists but let’s be on the safe side”. Their views largely centre around a superstitious belief in a punitive sky God who, when we die, metes out eternal punishment for gross misbehaviour or a reward of an everlasting place in heaven to those having adhered to a set of prescribed practices of rituals and prayers. Should such a fearful diet be presented as part of the national curriculum? Schoolchildren constitute a captive audience for all curriculum topics and are therefore highly susceptible to the polyglot of weird religious beliefs held by well-intentioned schoolteachers. A good educational system should protect our children from the onslaught of proselytisers. School is not the place to make little Christians, Muslims, Jews or atheists.

Good behaviour based on an understanding of morals and ethics constitutes the basis of a thriving civilisation. No religion has a monopoly of these profound principles and yet most claim to have acquired the secrets of morality from some sort of revealed truth. It might be better argued that human intelligence has unearthed the essence of morality and, in the process, acquired a hodgepodge of religious trappings. The trappings themselves constitute the sectarian ‘truths’ about which theologians agonise whereas the distilled moral essence is something we, in the civilised world, can mostly agree about regardless of creed or absence thereof. Surely the school curriculum can impart a high standard of moral teaching without any interference from the divisive religious faiths which, traditionally, have jealously clung to their supernatural guardianship of morality.

By and large the school curriculum should be selected from those subjects which can be clearly contained within a range of tenets that are reasonably acceptable to the community of scholars, pedagogues, academics, craftspeople and artists etc who make up the rich variety of talent of our teaching profession. There may have been a time when Christianity was so ingrained into our culture that religion might well have fallen into that category although, when they had that opportunity, religious teachers tended to abuse their power with an overemphasis on the trappings to the detriment of good morals. Today, in a truly multicultural society, and in one which has benefited so much from the enlightened approach to all knowledge, it completely fails to do so.

In the course of a good broad education, children should learn about the history of the human race and its continuing upward struggle to attain civilized order. This would include a historical survey of the mythology of Greek, Egyptian, Semitic, Roman and European cultures. In so doing, they would acquire enough knowledge of the history of Christianity, Islam, the Jewish faith and atheism in all their varied forms taught in a non-prejudiced manner by well-educated teachers who know their history. At no stage should our educational system be burdened with the task of recruiting young people into religious commitment. And atheism is for grown-ups.

The following quotation comes from a reported discussion between Dr Grayling, Reader in Philosophy, and the editor of the Birkbeck Magazine, in which it appears (2003 July 14, p21).

Dr Grayling adds, "I think it is a form of child abuse. You take a child of 4 or 5 and tell them that what these ancient superstitions say are true. Of course, there should be lessons in schools about all the different religions but let us start by saying that the Middle East, thousands of years before Christianity, had versions of the dying and resurrecting God in all kinds of different forms".

"At Christian schools, intellectually defenceless children are taught that the Christian version is absolutely the right one, but it isn't. It's just another version. To tell children that it's true is blasphemy against reason".

The full interview should be read for Dr Grayling's remarks which led up to this expression of view: and the August issue of the same publication for the copious correspondence which it provoked. Needless to say the overwhelming response from the academics there represented was a bitterly opposed one.

• Reports in the media
Following a local reporter's telephone interview of John Bennett a draft had been supplied, somewhat reluctantly, by her editor and was now approved except on 3 points. The title of the EHA was corrected, an implication of age discrimination in our membership denied and our independence of the organisations to which we are affiliated was affirmed.

• Handout for tomorrow
Sheets were to be made available to members of the Conway Hall audience on 15 February which was the day following that of the Coffee Morning. One side contained details of Raymond Carlisle's talk to SPES at Conway Hall, see below.

• The job of the editor
Two participants at the meeting protested changes which had made their past submissions to the Bulletin initially unrecognisable. Raymond Carlisle, as editor, defended his bringing of texts into line with a uniform house style (he gave the example of punctuation and reference quotes) but admitted going overboard on occasion. In the case of a report on the Tate Gallery visit he had inserted details of his own wandering off. In conclusion a promise was reaffirmed to always show their edited draft to contributors for approval if at all possible. E-mail both ways is preferred.

Theory 1:
Because there are two worlds: real & imaginary.

Theory 2:
Because there are two worlds: material & spiritual.

Theory 3:
Because there are two worlds: objective & subjective.

The theory of evolution of species only applies in the former.