This open discussion meeting was attended by 10 members and one visitor. The main discussion was dominated by the subject of creationism - the literal reading of the bible which suggests that a god of some sort created the universe along with two characters called Adam and Eve claimed to be the unique ancestors of the human race. This whole creative production is supposed to have occurred less than 10,000 years ago and to have lasted a mere seven days - including one day off to have a rest! A rush job, phew!

Biblical creationism is a mediaeval way of thinking long abandoned by rational thinkers. But it remains on the agenda in one form or another by many people who believe in God and certainly by those who interpret the bible literally. There are different forms of creationism - a sort of continuum of ideas ranging from the very foolish to the partly foolish. At the very foolish extreme biblical literalists say the earth is flat and very young - using the power of biblical scholarship, Archbishop Ussher calculated the birthday of the universe to be Sunday 23 October 4004 BC!!. Some creationists still consider the young earth to be an important part of their belief system. At the other extreme are those who believe the bible stories but modify them to embrace Darwinian evolution and usually do not accept that human beings emerged without divine interception.

In many parts of the U.S.A. creationism is taught in schools as an alternative to human evolution. The subject has been called scientific creationism in order to get it on the science curriculum. Scientific creationism (a blatant example of an oxymoron - a contradiction in terms!) is now flourishing in the U.S.A. and there are also schools in this country where it is taught.

We discussed the Peter Vardy Academies that have been set up in the north of England and which, while being academically very successful, are evangelical ‘faith’ schools receiving sizeable government grants. Tony Blair is particularly interested in these schools and took a bit of time off recently to visit one of them (The King’s Academy, Middlesborough). Peter Vardy, chief executive of the Reg Vardy car dealership network is operating the schools as a business venture. He and his died-in-the-wool evangelical partner, John Burn, consider biblical creationism should be taught alongside Darwinian evolution and Burn in particular actively promotes literalist Christian beliefs.

The other Vardy Academy is Emmanuel College, Gateshead and came into the news a year or two ago when the media got hold of the story that Tony Blair approved of their curriculum inclusion of creation science.

In the USA some states insist that creation science be taught alongside Darwinian evolution as an equal alternative. Others go a stage further and simply won’t permit human evolution to be taught at all. In some schools, even in states where Darwinian evolution is not banned, there are science teachers who will not teach human evolution either because they get too much flack from evangelical parents (and pupils) or because they themselves are committed to the biblical account of how the world (including Adam and Eve) was created in 7 days. What sort of science teachers are they?

We in this country are generally not troubled by such unscientific attitudes. But with Christian, Moslem and Jewish fundamentalism hammering away at the doors perhaps we should be concerned. A literal reading of the bible and other ‘divinely inspired’ books is becoming more common - perhaps as a sort of backlash to enlightenment thinking.

For further discussion, after the tea break, Arthur Atkinson produced a newspaper cutting from the Daily Mail written by David Bellamy. The article severely criticised the view that global warming is a direct result of the vast amount of carbon dioxide released by us humans burning fossil fuels - a view described as ‘poppycock’ by the eloquent David Bellamy. Global warming, he claims, is a natural phenomenon and if we try to avert it by adopting the Kyoto Protocol we will be, “... diverting billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that actually doesn’t exist. The waste of economic resources is both incalculable and tragic.” Various views were expressed, not the least of which was that the article was probably not written by Bellamy - it bears the hallmark of an often expressed political viewpoint. The article quotes the American based Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which has produced a petition signed by 18,000 ‘scientists’ who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol. We know that science, environmental lobbyists and politicians make a curious mix, generating a territory where truth, lies and political agendas become seriously entangled. However, media hype notwithstanding, our world really is a very unstable place with its own cycles of warming and cooling. The Milankovitch Cycle is at work and ice ages will come and go regardless of man’s presence on the planet, as the article rightly points out.

However, this does not mean that man’s profligate use of energy should go on unabated. As the world continues through its natural cycles of ice ages, readjusting the balance between solid and liquid water, the human race should take a more responsible attitude to replacing the dirtier forms of fossil fuel energy. We are now nibbling at the problem with windmills with the childish sincerity of a Don Quixote, but the world’s genuine demands for energy are so great that we may have to return once again to the greenest form we know - nuclear power.

ARC

... inside quotes because the word is only useful in subjective concept-space. In the objective, outside world a consistent meaning cannot be applied. The same problem occurs of course when the slippery word 'God' is used. In particle physics the Higgs boson has recently been called the God Particle and presumably the implication here has something to do with 'basic' or 'ultimate'. Nevertheless the familiar phrase 'God is everywhere' is not used in relation to neutrinos, that are known to be - throughout cosmic space, inside stars, planets and perhaps even black holes - everywhere in the universe. Anything larger than an elementary particle could hardly exist everywhere, certainly not something big enough to carry the extensive logic circuits that would be necessary for intelligence; if we contemplate a God who is an intelligent being.

In subjective space, concepts can well exist independently of any scientific confirmation. The latter only comes as a result of fitting in with most of the latest concepts held by the widest possible consensus of suitably informed experts and this requires a high level of intercommunication. Such intercommunication has so far only been found between human subjects. What would an objective concept space be like inside a possible, future, humanised intelligent computer world or a world of intelligent extra-terrestrials? Possibly very different from ours.

But, potentially at least, scientific confirmation is nowadays available to us human subjects and any concept that is of concern would become 'objective', 'a fact' or 'true' in conformity with the above distinction involving widest possible consensus. However, most concepts are handled and communicated quite without such confirmation. They include philosophical creations, such as those in this box, and others appearing in poetry and all other works of art.

Subjective space may be said to extend over groups of humans, from 2 up to world population size, who in this way share a concept, whether itself objective (scientifically confirmed) or - as with 'spiritual' ones - otherwise. Subjective concepts, but not objective ones, can involve the significant property of identification, which explains the personal appeal of a religious belief (unscience) that is customised. Some better-informed personal appeal itself though is of an importance not to be denied.

RC

...was the title of an article by Michael Baum, professor emeritus of surgery and visiting professor of medical humanities, University College, London (BMJ 329:118, 2004 July 10, from whence the cover illustrations are taken, with acknowlegdement). What was the royal error? Baum writes:

I do beg you to exercise your power with extreme caution when advising patients with life threatening diseases to embrace unproven therapies....The scientific method...starts... with hypothesis...and [it] is then subjected to experiments that carry the risk of falsification. This approach works.

..."alternative" therapy places itself above the laws of evidence and practices in a metaphysical domain that harks back to the dark days of Galen. Many postmodern philosophers would have us believe that all knowledge is relative and that the dominance of one belief system is determined by the power of its proponents.

Michael Baum could have generalised royal error as favouring of an aesthetic, personal selection in place of the process of scientific, or natural, selection. It is of course very widespread, not only in medical advisors but also in legal (as will be examined next month) and, most of all, 'spiritual' ones (in November's issue).

At times it may be hard to say but inevitably the choice of many will get propelled towards the latter by Home Secretary, David Blunkett, in the Government proposal to legislate against religious criticism, as equivalent to race hatred.

Polly Toynbee claims that "Liberals appease Muslims for fear of association with anti-immigrant thugs" (We must be free to criticise without being called racist. The Guardian p18, 2004 August 18). Could it be that appeasers, such as Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, are allowing themselves to be further affected by fear. . . the Fear of Allah? We in the West are accustomed to the phrase "Putting the fear of God into XX" but at least this is no longer so often literally the case, as it was in the Middle Ages. For Muslims the corresponding Fear of Allah has a potency which their moderates try not to invoke but their extremists do evoke. Can we go with the assurances of Islamic moderates?

Alex Hill has filled in with specific detail in his article ('In Defence of Freedom of Expression', see further below). Humanists are anti-racist but are there others in the Association too who will never equate Islamophobia with racism? Please let us know if you agree or disagree.

This, the third such popular annual event, seems to have become an accepted institution - as those who have attended one or more fervently hope. No qualification is requested of guests, apart from having earned or otherwise acquired the modest £5 for food and drink provided. They will not even be asked by your editor to report on the discussion and I will instead merely say that for all but one, non-attender not to be named, it went on for several hours. No account of mine, though, can do justice to the quality and sheer enjoyment provided in the meal and the venue.

RC

Politicians have been discussing in recent months whether a new law banning ‘incitement to religious hatred’ ought to be introduced. Not surprisingly such new laws are demanded primarily by those who have done much of the religious hate-mongering themselves (i.e. fundamentalist Muslims). Religious fanatics have a one-sided view of the freedom of speech, they defend it only when it suits them. In my opinion there is no need for such a new law as existing laws, if applied properly, are sufficient to protect any citizen from hate attacks.

Unfortunately that proposed law is supported not only by religious maniacs but also by some so-called politically correct people with relativistic points of view, and by some politicians who worry that Muslims might no longer vote for their party. They argue that racists have been so inhibited by the law on incitement of racial hatred that they have switched to inciting hatred against Asians as Muslims rather than on race grounds and have thus avoided prosecution, and say there is a clear need for new legislation. However I fear that such a new law could be used to suppress the right of free speech and the freedom to publish dissenting opinions. Just because some hooligans and fascists have used abusive language when describing Asian Muslims does not mean that everyone should be prevented from criticising some of the more horrible aspects of Islam. The right to criticize other religions/ideologies is of paramount importance in a (more or less) free society. For that reason I would defend Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, when he described Islam as a vicious and wicked religion (as he did recently on a BBC TV program). The fact that some of his other statements are not in agreement with our ideas of a free society makes no difference in this aspect, he should have the right to criticize Islam without fear of prosecution. I believe that Islam is as vicious/wicked/wrong as fascism, and that we have a right (some would say duty) to oppose those views (and, even more so, oppose certain actions perpetrated by those defending those beliefs).

If such a new law were to be introduced it would be very difficult to define and apply it fairly. What some people consider free speech is considered aggressive provocation by others. It could even be used to ban the Bible and Koran on the grounds that these books attack people of other faiths and, in certain circumstances, condone violence (though I doubt whether any judges would interpret it that way if such a case came to court). In fact a similar new law has been introduced in parts of Australia, and has already given rise to some controversy. It is quite possible that such a law might hurt those who advocate it just as much as their intended enemies (different religious communities might accuse each other of incitement to hatred).

Alex Hill

Subtitled ‘The New Challenge Of a Darwinian Approach To Humanism’ Atkinson provides a series of short essays on several Humanist themes. Thought he book can be read as a single narrative, most chapters really read quite independently of one another too. Dismissing God as a Cosmic Fairy product of wish fulfilment, Atkinson probes into the implications for humanity of finding that we are alone in the universe. He first explains why he feels that defining God as an intelligent ethereal spirit entity affecting the material world is itself a contradiction in terms. As intelligence is a product of brains and a complex ‘nervous system’, a being with no material body, nervous system or brain, is hardly likely to be able to have the intelligence, know how or ability to create a complex Universe. "But knowledge implies sensation. Sensation implies a brain. How can God possess one? Brains have evolved in animal organisms. Up to now, humanists have failed to lay sufficient tress on this fatal Darwinian conclusion."

Atkinson makes some common arguments sound excitingly fresh. His language throughout the book is that of common sense without ever patronising the reader, though his use of the royal ‘we’ as a point of reference can be irksome at times. Some of his observations make for profound and eminently memorable one liners. Death is an unnecessary fear for humans. "Death cannot be experienced. We cannot ‘be’ dead." If death is the end of bodily sensation then we cannot experience death in any way. We can experience the pain of dying, but beyond that, nothing can ‘be’ for us. Thus, there is nothing to fear.

Atkinson shares our concern at the ambiguity of the word Spiritual, to which he adds the word ‘mind’, but his suggestion that we abolish such expressions altogether seems unnecessary. He feels that ‘mind’ is often used as a euphemism for brain and memory activity; and lists a whole page of common phrases we use with the word ‘mind’ in them, and offers a brain or memory alternative to each,. "I saw it in my mind’s eye - I imagined it. To my mind - In my opinion. Cast your mind back - Try to remember." If mind is recognised as being a simile of such phrases, there’s no reason why we can’t keep the word in use.

The highlight of the book is the series of replies Atkinson received from several Bishops to whom he addressed the question of how a spiritual entity can affect the material world as they suppose of God. They generally compare God to other intangible non-material or invisible things; i.e., love, air, etc, and effectively play right into the author’s hands.

This a thoughtful, penetrating series of essays, which also show that the author can communicate with devout Christians on his views without offending their own beliefs. The introduction by practising Christian, David Bellamy is also very well written. He challenges the view expressed by many Humanists and non-believers that human evil towards other people is the fault of religion. He asserts quite rightly that (Inhumanity) "was there in homo habilis, Lucy and the line of primates and vertebrates long before religion took its hold. A hyena is in competition for the lion’s prey and so are the lesser males around the pride." Atkinson’s willingness to allow his critics such a say without counter-arguement gives his case a cogent sense of honesty. There are essays here on child education, morality, life, and mortality. They are essays for reading, rereading and thinking over more than once. It’s also of tremendous value that this book has been published as a mainstream work, rather than by the BHA or the RPA, which means it will be read by many people who haven’t heard of Humanism before, and it will be a very rewarding introduction for them as well.

Arthur Chappell

An appreciation, from a Manchester humanist, has now appeared on the internet. (See review above.)

There is mostly praise, particularly in the initial and final paragraphs of this internet review, concerning the simple facts that Arthur has set out so well - and that we in EHA join too in acknowledging. These simple facts will be returned to below. Negative comment comes in between though, here as well as in Chappell's critique. The significance of points raised can be measured by the numbers of serious thinkers on both sides of each argument.

(1) "Death cannot be experienced" is approved by Chappell. In our Coffee Mornings though it has usually been seen as an unfeeling Job's Comfort to say that by the time death occurs we are unconscious anyway. Nevertheless there is something more than mere semantics here. Perhaps we should use progressive observation periods that are exponentially smaller, as with Achilles and the tortoise in Zeno's paradox. Does 'dying' cover the lifetime, years, weeks, hours, seconds, milliseconds or less forever at the end of life? The crux of the matter is that the experience is subjective only; and thus subject to all the 'distortions' of the observer's emotions. This though could provide humanist carers with a genuine opportunity for comforting - for self-comfort too.

(2) As already contested in the website review, Arthur considers 'Mind' an unnecessary tautology of 'Brain'. Such a wildly unscientific dismissal needs though to be fully confronted. Mind is generally accepted as an emergent property of brain - and far from being its sole function. The meaning to be assigned to 'spiritual' is considered in the article 'Spiritual' above. There are bland assumptions about all subjective values in Arthur's book which effectively sweeps them under the carpet from the outset.

(3) God is intangible, non-material and invisible alright but that alone does not constitute proof of non-existence, witness Chappell's examples: love and ('wind' is a better one) air, whose existence cannot be denied.

Aside from Arthur's out-dated materialism, particularly in Chapters 11 and 12, the book does have an eloquence and directness of appeal that engages enquirers who seek more objectivity in personal and social matters of concern.

RC

•Chairman Tony Constable read the Essay by Anthony Grayling which appeared in The Times that morning. The title was “On the Rule of the Irrational”. Grayling began by stating that, “Police who deal with religion-motivated terrorism say that some of the most dangerous of the suspects are converts”. Religious conversion, says Grayling, is prompted more often by emotion than by reason which he describes as being at least non-rational - leaving the term ‘irrational’ for the more committed critics of religion. Conversion might be harmless or even a comfort to those experiencing it but when a set of beliefs is adopted from non-rational motives, it has a special likelihood of turning toxic. We must be alert to the toxicity of unreason. He illustrates the situation we face with the Goya etching of a sleeping man surrounded by demons and which bears the title ‘the sleep of reason produces monsters’. The great cities of the world are masterpieces of forethought, planning, engineering, management and maintenance - all children of reason. Reason has been constructively at work throughout history from ancient flints and axeheads to irrigation canals, animal husbandry, science, technology and the rule of law. Despite its many diversions into such chilling byways as the efficient gas chambers of Auschwitz and beautifully engineered torture equipment, reason has triumphed in producing a way of life infinitely better than the life of unreason experienced by our ancestors and by many people outside the traditions of the ‘Western’ world. “Two thirds of the world”, says Grayling, “still lives under the historic government of unreason - of superstition, ignorance, and the imperative emotions”. Western reason should not fall asleep when contemplating that fact, for it might never wake up.

•Grayling’s essay, as usual, provoked thoughtful discussion. The discussion, as usual, branched off into unexpected territory and even a little argument well lubricated by the finely engineered cup of coffee provided, as usual, by our hostess, Maggie Adams.

ARC