Regular science reading for humanists?

The 90 minute TV version used the results of a poll to some 10,000 people in ten different countries: UK, Russia, India, USA, S.Korea, Nigeria, Mexico, Israel, Indonesia and Lebanon. Answers to the questions raised in the poll were presented to the viewers in the form of bar charts showing the response of the different countries and of the main faiths. The questions, the polled answers and the consequences were then discussed by a studio panel consisting of Andrew Motion, our poet laureate who declared himself an Anglican but a little in ebb; James Jones, archbishop of Liverpool; Susan Greenfield, neuroscientist, who expressed an inability to accept anything outside the human mind which itself had a mind; Sister Wendy Becket, Carmelite nun and art historian; Sean Hughes, comedian and writer brought up a Catholic but now a non-believer; Imran Kahn, cricketer, politician and firm believer in the God of Islam.

In the opinion poll the percentages answering ‘yes’ to the question, “Do you believe that God or a higher power created the universe?” were: Indonesia 99%, Lebanon 96%, Nigeria 90%, India 89%, USA 85%, Mexico 83% Israel 75% at one end of the chart and Russia 55%, UK 52%, and S.Korea 43% at the other. The many other questions threw up similar profiles with Russia, Britain and S.Korea showing a consistently low level of religious belief.

As well as conducting the opinion poll and listening to his studio panel, the presenter, Jeremy Vine, also sought comments from selected ‘personalities’ situated in studios in other countries. These included Jonathan Miller in the USA, an avowed atheist; a S.African Catholic archbishop; An American Baptist; Rana Kabbani, writer and broadcaster, in Paris; a rabbi in Jerusalem and several others.

The poll results were more or less as expected though the presenter gave the impression he was revealing one great surprise after another, a standard formula for this type of entertainment. I am fairly certain there would have been similar results if the 10,000 participants had been quizzed on matters that were less religious but equally ‘profound’ such as, “Do you believe in Astrology?”. Susan Greenfield thought otherwise.

The studio discussion was well controlled by the presenter, and there was no strong tendency to tear at each other’s throats. The rapid pace of the show left little room for carefully worked out discussion between the six members of the studio team and their comments came out in fairly well measured sound bites.

By and large, the clerics, or professional religionists, whether Jewish, Moslem, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist came across poorly. They were utterly predictable and seemed to think that such matters are best dealt with by those, like themselves, who display little or no independence of thought. There was perhaps a little tension between them as they attempted to be polite rather than indulging in their usual “my religion is better than yours” fisticuffs. Without saying so, I suspect each of them thought they had the right answers and the polls showed that Muslims clearly do think that way. The lay people and scholars provided us with more colourful and possibly more thoughtful considerations of the questions under discussion - after all, they were not trying to defend chosen careers. But there was one surprise. Sister Wendy Becket, the Carmelite nun, a very serious religious professional fully decked out in her old-fashioned habit, outshone all the others in the clarity of her thought and expression. No mealy mouthed religionist, she came top of the class for her careful consideration of the meanings of words and she took nothing for granted. She challenged the basis on which the questions had been formed and even suggested that the word God was a non-word. Now there’s good fighting talk for you. Her thoughtful views contrasted seriously with the rote diatribes of the Rabbi in Israel and the Baptist in New York. These men simply sounded off their uncompromising party lines. The Baptist said how shocked he was at the very reduced role of religion in the UK despite having the Anglican church (though some might say, because of it). On the other hand, Jonathan Miller in New York was troubled that, in the USA, there is such a strong association between religion and patriotism and between religious belief and nationalism.

All in all, the programme was more entertaining than I had anticipated but I can hardly say it was informative. So, what does the World think of God? The answers to this overall question were, as expected, as variable as are the cultural varieties of the nations quizzed. Peoples’ answers simply follow the prescribed behaviour patterns that are maintained and manipulated by their priests and politicians. The programme confirmed that we, in this country, are a free thinking lot. But did we need to be told that? The US Baptist had a moment of clarity when he observed that the more religious they get in the USA, the more decadent their society! And, as the very serious minded Rana Kabbani, reminded us, the British people are moral without being religious. So you see, we may conclude from these two almost incidental observations that humanism and secularism are much to be desired. I strongly suspect that, under her voluminous habit, Sister Wendy is a real humanist and, in the matter of prayer, she rightly pointed out that words are useless. And that goes for much of the wordiness of this very long TV programme.

Is it advised? In the UK at least NewScientist indeed seems a possible choice, presently, for any humanist wishing to be objective. One EHA member has received its weekly delivery for many years and circulates issues to others. His response, when I mentioned the 'proof that even insects have minds' article (see front cover illustration above), was to dismiss that as too controversial for comment. If so controversial it should be recognised, surely, that the boundary has moved forward considerably over our lifetimes; to transform part of what was once seen as scientifically controversial into presently-accepted fact.

And are any of us prepared to consider ourselves experts in more than a narrow, possibly irrelevant, field? I'm afraid - and however inconsistent it may seem - recognising this important need for humility does not prevent my criticism of past attempts to mix any clearly out-of-date science in with humanism.

There are those who find the Ealing Humanists too argumentative. Although for long having encouraged discussion in our meetings our president himself failed to take notice of what seemed opposed to a simple atheist, in his view, 'essence of humanism'.

After Arthur Atkinson the most important person in the history of Ealing Humanism, and not only in my opinion, has been Derek Hill. His was a source of significant disagreement, over tolerance (and ethics); persisting for many years.

At one stage I - alone it seemed so I desisted - had called this "alpha thinking". The disagreement now appears in some danger of being lost sight of (and, I fear, with it a possibility of an early unified humanist solution to the major problems of the world of today). Can it ever work to gloss over such an important difference?

Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of The Christ” was discussed on The Moral Maze, BBC Radio 4, Thursday 3rd March and has been extensively dealt with in the press. One concern raised in the radio discussion was whether the film might be anti-Semitic, or simply anti-Jewish. The protagonists discussed the possibility that the film should be banned, and they debated whether such a gory representation of Christ’s passion was a sincere expression of Christian faith. Without seeing the film it is difficult for me to form anything but a tentative opinion but, from what I have heard and read about it, I don’t think I will rush out to see it when it is released in this country. Film makers looking for box-office profits make good use of the powerful techniques now available to create realistic “explosions and pools of blood” wherever possible - much to the delight of the largely adult, though evidently adolescent, cinema audiences. Using these methods, Mel Gibson has taken the opportunity to tell the story of the cruel manner the Romans used in dealing with their terrorists. The film could, therefore, be a reflection of America’s psychological mood in their current war on global terrorism. Christ’s torture and death by crucifixion is a well established iconography as seen in the gory representations in churches, art galleries and in certain well known theatrical re-enactments. This new film follows the tradition and attempts to outdo its predecessors. Christians in the USA are rushing to see the film and using it as a platform for promulgating their quaint beliefs. It is curious, though not at all surprising, how religions remain so addicted to the notion of bloody sacrifice and its continual renewal in the form of ritualistic practices.

How extraordinary is the muddled mind of some Christians that, in this age of gory scenes of massacre in Iraq, they revel in a similarly gory re-issue of the crucifixion. The film, despite all its messages of forgiveness and gentle love, detracts somewhat from the claim that this particular old Eastern religion may be a serious participant in humanity’s search for morality. It will be the subject of debate for a while but I suspect passions will soon subside as other matters emerge to grip the popular imagination.

• Recent TV and radio programs
Prominent among those discussed was the 'What the World thinks of Religion' (see article above) which confirmed the well known facts about the distribution of religious belief throughout the world. The programmes were entertaining if not informative.

• Agree or disagree?
Returns of a questionnaire on Manifesto III, as part of a survey of EHA opinion by Tony Constable, were incomplete. "A summary of your views", he said, "will be reported in due course". A separate survey, of Coffee Morning participants' opinions, had been circulated but this was based on Raymond Carlisle's impressions and would need correction - on an on-going basis.

• Superiority Complex
The view of Charles Rudd, that John Gray had written a valid article with this title in The Guardian of 2 March, was supported. Raymond had earlier thanked Charles for bringing the article, which he had missed, to his attention, but took a dissenting view.

• Other matters
There was a negative response to a question from Alex Hill about their political affinities affecting the findings of scientists. And, also from Raymond, a remark on one's own opinions of current science being devalued in emphasising the 'science' of the distant past. Tony considered that one could refer to the genuine humanistic attitudes of a pre-scientific age without in any way devaluing those which have developed in more recent times.