4-faced Buddha Statue of Angkor Thom (Cambodia)

A. Atkinson
regretted that Charles Darwin was a poor defender of Darwinism in that he never adopted atheism. He needed Humanism to do this for him. Quotations from the Bible illustrated how the image of God had changed from a physical body (Exodus) through a personality (Ecclesiastes) to a father-figure (New Testament). Then in St. Paul, God is a spirit. Victorian poetry progressed too from optimism (Browning) to pessimism (Tennyson) in its attitude to God.
Darwin failed to recognise that his own Theory of Evolution of the Species showed the supposed attributes of God, such as consciousness, had evolved. Consciousness is a feature of animal nervous systems and has no independent existence. The good news however is that social instincts too have evolved, and these can preserve human-kind from the consequences of their natural aggressiveness.

R. Carlisle
identified the first speaker's as theory I on "Why?" now 150 years after the Charles Darwin. As paraphrased it was "Because there are two worlds, real and imaginary, and the theory of evolution only applies in the former." This derived from atheism-is-essential humanism or Erasmus-type Darwinism. Erasmus was the original proponent of evolution of the species and the grandfather of Charles.
Theory II was fundamental to agnostic, tolerance humanism (Charles-type Darwinism), propounded - by Derek Hill - for many years within the Ealing Humanist Association. It presupposed "two worlds ... material and spiritual ... the theory of evolution only applies in the former".
This speaker went on to employ a graphic illustration of personal awareness as contrasted with collective awareness in proposing Combined Humanism and Theory III of "two worlds ... objective and subjective ... the theory of evolution only applies in the former". Full recognition of evolution was delayed already 200 years but hopefully not for much longer, once the personal viewpoint of most humans has become separately objective (scientific) or subjective; to take the place of the persistent confusion of the two viewpoints - as in theism and as in objectivist religion generally.

The distinction - so fundamental, it seems, and yet so easily missed - between an objective viewpoint and a subjective one must be put in the simplest possible terms. Devoting this issue of the Bulletin to the one (and issue number 62, as is intended, to the other) demands no less. Objective viewpoint is of everything, myself included. Subjective viewpoint is of me and others like me. That is all.

The equipment which has been used to erase, as is claimed, the dominance of an area of the brain (in the parietal cortex) over the vast sensory data which is then revealed.

This, it seems, is a key to understanding the record-of-the-senses our President, for one, regards as the reason for an Essential Humanism - or what might be called 'materialist atheism'. The use of concepts, however, is what for others - in Combined (atheism plus tolerance) Humanism for instance - makes us human. Animals it seems are unable to build concepts because of their lack of language, a fact now becoming generally appreciated. Essentially, material things cannot be known to exist independently of humans: and humans only know of mental things.

A second conclusion to be drawn is that scientific fact (or "the truth" which for some of us is a taboo word) is the end-result of concept exchange with the whole of mankind to date, as far as is possible. This conclusion would effectively exclude from discussion the misleading concepts of "the real world" and "knowledge". Suggested substitutes are "scientific fact" and "awareness" respectively.

From the simple matter of having names for things - right up to some people, acting for the rest of us, understanding relativity or genetics - all of this may be called science, or the world of accepted fact. Accepted by us, that is, as a matter of informed consensus: when we are not weaving, or following, fiction. And the existence of 'God' is we believe a fiction, or a scientifically-unconfirmed hypothesis which may be accepted at the individual level but not by society. Combined Humanism is, we can claim, acceptable by all.

As indicated in the song ‘Holiday in Cambodia’ by the American rock group ‘Dead Kennedys’ about 25 years ago, anyone who had ventured into Cambodia then would have been mad, or would have become mad (or dead) soon after getting there. Well things have changed a lot since then. Arch tyrant Pol Pot, competing with Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung for the title of ‘Greatest Mass Murderer of the 20th century’, died in 1998, and most of his Khmer Rouge followers have disbanded, though some of them continue their vicious trade as private bandits in a few remote regions of the country. The main tourist destinations are now relatively safe, though crime is still more prevalent than in neighbouring Thailand and Vietnam. The culture of violence persists, but is rarely directed at foreigners; often political motives or private vendettas are responsible. Just before I entered the country a popular trade union leader was assassinated. But there is no need to be paranoid because of that, I never felt threatened there and most Cambodian people, or Khmers as they are more often called, are helpful and friendly. But sometimes I wondered whether the middle-aged or elderly man sitting nearby in a bus or bar had been a Khmer Rouge killer and torturer, or whether he had been a victim lucky enough to survive.

Travelling by bus from Thailand, I entered Cambodia at Poipet, a border town notorious for gambling and whoring. Gambling is illegal in Thailand, so many Thais pop over the border to indulge in their passion, hoping to get rich. And as prostitutes in Cambodia are cheaper than those in Thailand there is an additional reason for some men to cross the border. At weekends many hotels there are full up. I changed money there and was cheated by a substantial margin, partly my own fault because I had forgotten to check the exchange rate beforehand. In fact you don’t have to change money in Cambodia if you have US dollars as they use American money in parallel with their own currency (the riel), as they do in Vietnam and Cuba.

Continuing the journey from there, the difference between Cambodia and Thailand became apparent right away. While Thailand has a well developed road network and modern air-conditioned busses, many Cambodian roads are in poor condition and the bus I took was overcrowded and uncomfortable, so travelling was slower and tedious. Fortunately I travelled during the dry season, during the wet season the roads are often in a much worse state and the journeys can take much longer. Even so I arrived in Siem Reap a few hours later than scheduled. This city is one of Cambodia’s favourite tourist destinations due to its proximity to Angkor, the famous ancient temple city. I have seen several other ancient temple complexes in various Asian countries, but Angkor is the best I have seen so far. Built between the 9th and 14th centuries CE, when Angkor was the capital of the then mighty Khmer empire, the temples and buildings are spread over quite a large area, and it takes a long time to see all of them, maybe about a week if you want to see all the details. Most tourists take 1 or 2 or 3 days to see the more important ones.

The temples of Angkor are the main cultural heritage of Cambodia, a source of pride to the Khmer people, so that even the fanatical Khmer Rouge fighters, who destroyed many other religious and historic buildings in the country, left them alone. The temples there are associated with the Hindu and Buddhist religions. Not all buildings/ruins are of a religious nature, some had judicial or administrative or social functions.

Today the majority of Khmers are followers of Buddhism, which is again Cambodia’s state religion, as it was until 1975. Between 1975 and 1979 a large number of monks, probably the majority, were killed by the Khmer Rouge and many temples were destroyed or damaged. For the past few years many temples have been rebuilt or repaired, and many new monks have appeared, they are easily identified by their distinct orange or saffron-coloured robes and shaven heads.

The capital Phnom Penh was more attractive than I had expected. Despite the many years of civil war the city has some beautiful monuments and several restored temples and palaces and many nice examples of French colonial architecture. Its position on the Mekong River makes the riverfront area the most picturesque part of the city. Of course there is a lot of building and construction work going on.

Sihanoukville, named after the king, became Cambodia’s first deepwater port; it was built in the 1950s with American financial support. It is also a popular beach resort. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1970 the town’s name changed to Kompong Som, to revert later to its old name again with the restoration of King Sihanouk. From Sihanoukville I travelled by boat to Krong Koh Kong near the Thai border, another town with casinos and brothels competing for your money. From there it is only a short ride by mini-bus or taxi to Thailand.

During the past few years tourism has taken off in Cambodia, but is still on a small scale compared to its neighbour Thailand, and is confined to a few areas of commercial and historic and scenic interest. If the country manages to remain peaceful in future and if the road and transport infrastructure improves then it could become a popular tourist destination. Hotels are already plentiful and good value for money, and in the towns I visited restaurants offering local and international food abound. Due to the high rate of unemployment the tourist trade is a welcome opportunity for thousands of Khmers to find work in hotels and restaurants and shops, or as drivers or guides. Not surprisingly there is a surplus of people trying to sell you refreshments and clothes and souvenirs or offering their services; outside hotels and restaurants and bars frequented by foreigners groups of motorcyclists and taxi-drivers are waiting, and sometimes fighting, for your fare. Many children are selling souvenirs, some of them speak surprisingly good English, but I wonder whether they should have been in school instead. As in Vietnam, French has been overtaken by English as the most common foreign language.

As I expected beggars were a common sight. Some of them quoted their country’s recent events as a reason for begging: "I no school, no work, Mama and Papa killed by Pol Pot". This claim may well have been true in many cases, others just used it trying to get your sympathy. Some had one or more limbs blown off by land mines, which are still plentiful in the countryside. The Cambodian Holocaust will affect the people there for a long time.

In the Apr 2004 bulletin you print an article by John Gray (Guardian 2 Apr), edited in such a way as to indicate your own views--a novel editorial practice on your part and one which doesn't make it easy to see what your views are. I have numbered the paragraphs for ease of reference. Gray is the author of Straw dogs (Granta, 2002) in which he attacks humanism for what he sees as the belief, inherited from Christianity, that humans differ radically from other animals. You appear to agree with Gray that this belief is part of humanism, but unlike him believe it is justified. You (re)write (para.9) "The idea that other animals exist solely to serve humans [...] has its place in secular thought"--I rather hope not. I do not believe that most humanists have the human superiority complex that Gray attributes to them. Most humanists accept Darwin's theory of evolution and, as Gray says, if humans are the product of natural selection rather than of special creation, then they can have no unique mystical (by which I take it Gray means "supernatural") worth. It is ironic that Gray puts this view so well, calling it "naturalistic" (which I think most humanists would be happy with), yet attributes the opposite view to humanists.

Gray does use emotive language, but your rewriting of the first paragraph leaves a rather bland impression in the light of the first sentence, which I note you have not modified. The experiment is described in hideous terms, whatever the circumstances in which it was conducted, and unfortunately Gray does not make it clear whether it was (supposedly?) within Home Office regulations. You (re)write (para.2) "Inflicting brain damage on captive monkeys in order to advance medicine is for them [sc. the animalists, by which I take it you mean those who believe that humans are not (morally) superior to other animals] no more defensible than using helpless humans for the same purpose." For them, but not for you? Would you support experiments on mentally handicapped humans in order to advance medical research? If not, why would that be indefensible or less defensible?

In the sentence beginning "Equally, there is no rational basis..." (para.7), the opposite of "must always come first" is "need not always come first" and not as you have written. But then the following sentence, "Such a view..." no longer makes sense after what you have just written about the "animalists", since their view is not the Christian one.

There are some big issues here, such as the old question of ends and means in this context. In what ways do humans differ from other animals? Gray is not very clear on this, as his argument centres on the ways in which he believes we are not different--a weakness which you pick up at the very end of his article. You mention concept-building and language skills, and I agree, but are they relevant to the way we treat animals?

Transfer from heaven
(with acknowledgements to Pivate Eye)

"The Blombos beads present absolute evidence for perhaps the earliest storage of information outside the human brain", according Christopher Henshilwood of the University of Bergen in Norway, the director of the project that led to their discovery in a cave near the Cape in South Africa.

"From 75,000 years ago, the 41 shell beads are at least 35,000 years older than the earliest undisputed African ornaments - some ostrich eggshell beads found in Kenya - and are the first evidence of artistic creativity and symbolism in a creature otherwise known only for stone tools and weapons.

Agreement is widespread that personal ornaments such as beads incontrovertibly represent symbolically mediated modern behaviour".

Despite his migrating from Africa to Asia 1.9 to 2 million years ago 'H.Erectus was still in essence a tropical animal' that 'regularly resorted to head-bashing to settle disputes' - hence his massively thick skull.

A recent article² by an anatomist and an anthropologist gives evidence from several sources, including their own work at the site near Beijing where H.Erectus fossils were first discovered in 1920. They also conclude that 'these hominids were incapable of speaking as we humans do, since their brains were just three quarters the size of ours. It is only with the evolution of complex language that our ancestors would have been capable of the sorts of behaviours we think of as uniquely human'.