News for October

Newsletter 54 is now available for download.

On 13th October a sizeable audience was treated to a talk on ‘the basis of morality’ by well-known humanist David Pollock. As usual his thought provoking talk was followed by an extensive and wide-ranging questions and answers session. Afterwards David was presented with a hardback copy of Richard Dawkins’s latest book “The greatest Show on Earth”.

On Tuesday 10th November (Quakers’ Meeting House, Ludlow – 7.30 pm) there will be talk by the two Tonies on the “Life and Works of Bertrand Russell”. Tony A will give a biographical overview of Russell’s long life, and past chairman Tony Mason will concentrate on some of Russell’s philosophical and ethical writings.

The Winter Social, scheduled for Tuesday 8th December, 7.30 p.m. will once again be held at the Women’s Centre, Ludlow. The centre is located off Church Street, behind the Rose & Crown pub. There will be the usual games and quizzes. To facilitate the catering would people intending to come please confirm to 01584 876759.

Leave a comment »

News for September

The latest newsletter (no. 53) is now available here.

The next meeting is on 13th October, but the meeting in Hereford is cancelled. For details of the October, November and December meetings, please see the Events and Meetings page.

On top of the £100 collection at the summer social for the benefit of the humanist Mustard School in Uganda the group has donated £100 each to the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society. These two national organisations are increasingly having an impact on the zeitgeist in British society and small fry groups like our own should do all in our power to give them maximum support.

Leave a comment »

Religion and science

by Tony Akkermans

Half a century ago my brother and I were waiting outside our RC church in my native Holland for the service to end.  We would pretend to have attended mass by claiming to have sat behind a pillar in the rearmost pew. We feared our parents, if not God.

For us the penny had dropped early. Religion was just silly nonsense wafted down from the dark ages. As teenagers we were increasingly amazed that adult people could be so gullible as to believe in bread turning into the body of Christ and similar voodoo rituals. Knowing that most of the village was still in the grip of medieval  superstition we realised that it would take a while for sanity to rise to the surface but  I remember us confidently predicting that in fifty years time enlightenment would have dawned.

And sure enough, in Western Europe at least, a lot of progress has been made. I recently returned to the place of hardship where we  juvenile apostates had stood and the poor old building looked distinctly sorry for itself. It’s once welcoming imposing front door was locked. Gone were the myriad of bicycles that used to be strewn about the building and hedges. An eerie silence reigned, broken only by the irreverent cawing of rooks nestling in the bell tower. But although religion is down, it certainly is not out.

As I grow older the mystery as to why people entering the 21st century are still able to believe in the concoctions served up by ancient desert tribes is ever deepening. Two thousand years ago religious belief was very understandable. Science was in its infancy and in their eagerness to understand, people were willing to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. But time has moved on, mankind has had the benefit of Galileo, Einstein, Darwin, Attenborough and Dawkins.  By now we should have reached the point where amongst intelligent  people religion had become extinct. A relic of more ignorant times. If religion were restricted  to the uneducated, the gullible and, frankly, stupid then the conundrum could be solved. Educate the ignorant and leave the stupid with the comfort their religion might bring. But here is the dilemma:  research examining religious belief amongst scientists still reveals substantial percentages of believers.  Exact figures are hard to come by, but recent US surveys amongst university educated scientists  average a one in three for god belief.  As might be expected the percentage is lower for eminent scientists (members of the National Academy of Sciences).  A 1998 poll returned the much lower figure of 7 per cent confirming that the higher the calibre of science, the lower the belief in superstition.

A similar study amongst NAS scientists, held in 1914, produced a 28 per cent belief in God, showing that progress is being made. Improving trends or not, the fact remains that even in these modern, more enlightened times a substantial proportion of educated people retain adherence to a religion or a belief in a higher power. This is where we rationalists remain baffled.

What is it that sets us apart? It can’t be mere intelligence. I make no pretence to being particularly clever. On a good day in an IQ test I might score a point or two above the norm but Mensa are not beating a path to my brain. So why is it that I can readily see that it is unlikely that amongst the billions of galaxies in immeasurable space, little planet earth has been earmarked for special attention. That it is fanciful to believe that humans survive in an incorporeal state after death. That prayers have as much chance of being answered as a random throwing of the dice. That miracles and apparitions only happen when witnessed by peasant children. That nature red in tooth and claw is grotesquely incompatible with a benevolent creator. How come that people who are high achievers in certain intellectual tasks can come across as supremely naive in other fields? It must be because a crucial ingredient is missing. Defining this ingredient has been the subject of many learned and not so learned articles in freethought publications. I will venture my own attempt. To escape superstition the necessary mindset is rigorous scepticism. Particularly towards memes. Dawkins has defined memes as viruses of the mind. Beware of attitudes that result in turning baseball caps the wrong way round. Avoid bandwagon jumpers of all descriptions. People who readily adopt clichés. Sheep who run with crowds. The rationalist must stand alone, always prepared to examine the facts before coming to conclusions. But if the facts point to ignominious extinction, as they surely do, then for many people that is too much to take.  For the majority resignation in the face of one’s personal demise is one rational step too far. The emotions rise up to stifle the horrid thought. If science cannot console then something else must. So in the brain an attic door is kept ajar. It leads to a secret room of promising delight. No deep thought may enter here just pleasant notions of make-believe. Thus anaesthetised the religious go through life guiltily aware that hoping it is so doesn’t make it so but not having hope at all is simply unacceptable. So the most formidable opponent of rationalism is not theology but the pitiful frailty of the human condition. It takes a hardy soul who can contemplate oblivion with equanimity. So strongly held is comfort faith that when asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. What’s more, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin’s theory. This reliance on religious faith may help explain why so many people do not see science as a direct threat to religion. Only 28% of respondents in the same Time poll say that scientific advancements threaten their religious beliefs. These poll results also show that more than four-fifths of respondents (81%) say that “recent discoveries and advances” in science have not significantly impacted their religious views. In fact, 14% reply that these discoveries have actually made them more religious. Only 4% say that science has made them less religious.

All findings quoted here are US based. Faith surveys are common there. In Western Europe religion is in rapid decline. In Britain just 18% of the public say they are a practising member of an organised religion. Only 33% describe themselves as religious and  40% claim to believe in a god. The proportion of religious scientists is minuscule at less than 2%.

I have sympathy for religious people, even if scientists, who need invented crutches to cope with the vicissitudes of life. But for those who have had their education, done their thinking and in the cold light of day still come down on the side of revealed religion I can only feel contempt. The first rule of science is to look for evidence before reaching ones conclusions.  Scientists who suspend this basic rule when it comes to their religious convictions are not proper scientists but part timers at best.

Leave a comment »

Future meetings

On 1st September (please note first Tuesday of the month on this occasion) there will be a poetry evening (Quaker’s Meeting House), fronted again by Trevor Innes.

On 13th October we are meeting at a yet to be confirmed venue in Hereford with a view to setting up a new local group. See Hereford Humanist Group Consultation.

Leave a comment »

Newsletter – Summer 2009

Download Newsletter 52 – Summer 2009 here. The newsletter includes articles posted also in this blog.

Leave a comment »

Hereford Humanist group – Consultation

Bearing in mind its rural location the Welsh Marches Humanist Group has been gratifyingly successful but the problem remains that travelling distances prevent many members from attending monthly events.

For this reason the group’s steering committee has given some thought to the possibility of establishing a satellite group, centred on Hereford. The argument goes that if a group in the Ludlow catchment area can thrive then Hereford, with a population more than six times as large, must also be a viable proposition.

It has now been decided to test the waters and a Hereford based meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday the 13th October.

It is not obvious what form this meeting should take and that is why I am sending out this consultation to ask for input and suggestions addressing the following questions:

  • What would be a suitable venue in Hereford for the meeting?
  • The group has a budget of up to £ 300 to advertise the initiative. What would be the most effective way of publicising the event? Are there any Hereford area
    humanists able and willing to play an active role in the project?
  • Should we aim for a separate, autonomous group or a WMHG supplementary group, offering occasional meetings in the Hereford area?
  • There have been positive reactions from non-WMHG member Humanists to Malcolm Rochefort’s letters in the Hereford Times. If an autonomous new group is envisaged are any Hereford based humanists, (members or non-members) interested in putting themselves forward as potential officers?
  • Are there any other aspects relating to the initiative on which you would like to comment?

Comments please to Tony Akkermans (info@welshmarcheshumanists.org.uk).

Leave a comment »

Thought for the Day

The BBC radio 4 ‘Thought  For The Day’ slot, ever since it saw the dark of day in the sixties, has been a major irritant to rationalists. Not so much because it is important in itself but because it represents the blatantly privileged position that religion still holds in society, even at the supposedly balanced BBC.  It is interesting that hard on the heels of the correspondence quoted below it was announced that Mark Damazer is reconsidering the future of TFTD and that the BBC Trust will report on the matter in the Autumn. Over the years I have had many a go at this religious Trojan horse at the heart of a serious current affairs programme and it would be nice to think that I have played a small part in its reform or preferably its demise.

To Mark Damazer, Controller Radio 4.
Why is it that the BBC with its enviable international reputation for fair and balanced reporting blatantly abandons this position when it comes to dealing with religion?

The Thought for the Day slot normally offers anodyne religious homilies which rationalists tend to suffer quietly but it is a different matter when religious spokespeople are given platforms to give one-sided views on serious and topical issues without opportunity for rebuttal. A case in point was Bishop Tom Butler’s polemic against assisted dying on 9th June.

It is outrageous that his statements about palliative care and the slippery slope should go unchallenged. Would you allow a Humanist to attack a Church of England position without riposte? And please don’t side-step the argument by claiming that TFTD is part of religious broadcasting and not a current affairs item. In that case have the honesty to call it ‘RELIGIOUS Thought for the Day’. That would also make it easier to eject the slot from the excellent ‘Today’ programme where it has no place.

Sincerely,

Tony Akkermans,

Chairman
Welsh Marches Humanists

Reply:

Dear Mr Akkermans
Thank you for your e-mail to Mark Damazer regarding ‘Thought For the Day’ with Bishop Tom Butler on Radio 4, 9 June.

It is always good to receive correspondence from listeners, and to be challenged by it. ‘Thought for the Day’ is set within the Today programme, and has the remit of commenting from a religious perspective on a current news issue. It follows therefore that it is supposed to say something of substance, and that its contributors – speaking from a variety of distinctive faith positions – can stimulate, challenge, provoke, irritate, and sometimes comfort.

There are 360 Thoughts a year, and 30 or more contributors, from many faiths and many denominations – and a balance of view is maintained over a period rather than within every script.

In the midst of the three-hour ‘Today’ programme devoted to overwhelmingly secular concerns – national and international news and features, searching interviews and sometimes heated debate on issues of public policy – the BBC judges it appropriate to offer a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection, at a point in the morning when most of the audience are embarking on their day.

At its best the short talk plants a seed of thought, a spark of spiritual insight that stays with listeners during the day. At times of national event or crisis it also has the capacity to catch the mood of the nation and speak to it.

Although the number of UK church-goers has dwindled in recent decades, the policy remains in place because a significant majority of the UK population (around 70 per cent), including increasing numbers from non-Christian faiths, claim a belief in God or describe themselves as “spiritual.” Also, the level of attendance in religious activities among the Radio 4 audience is higher than the national average.

‘Thought for the Day’ has been a regular feature on BBC Radio for nearly 40 years and therefore the programme’s remit and approach is very well known by listeners and we therefore feel the programme’s title is appropriate and should remain.

The BBC believes that all licence fee payers have the right to hear their reasonable views and beliefs reflected on its output. Within ‘Thought for the Day’ a careful balance is maintained of voices from different Christian denominations and other religions with significant membership in the UK. Speakers are expected to make brief references to their faith and its scriptures, but are not permitted to proselytise on behalf of their religion or to disparage other religions.

‘Thought for the Day’ speakers are not questioned or interrupted on air, but their choice of subject and the content of their scripts are subject to careful scrutiny and frequent re-drafting in collaboration with an experienced producer working to strict BBC guidelines on impartiality. In addition, the mix of regular contributors to the slot represents a wide range of theological, social and political views to ensure further balance across a period of time.

Non-religious voices are also heard extensively across the general output. Occasional programmes give voice to atheist and humanist viewpoints. The vast swathe of general programmes makes little reference to religion, but approach the world from an overwhelmingly secular perspective: news, current affairs, documentaries, talks, science, history; which includes, of course, the other 2 hours 57 minutes of the ‘Today’ programme.
Outside ‘Thought for the Day’, the BBC’s Religion & Ethics output maintains a balance of religious and non-religious voices, through programmes such as ‘Sunday’, ‘Beyond Belief’, ‘Moral Maze’, and ‘Belief’ . In these programmes, atheists, humanists and secularists are regularly heard, the religious world is scrutinised, its leaders and proponents are questioned, and the harm done in the name of religion is explored.

We do not suggest that the only people with anything worthwhile to say about morals or ethics are religious people but that does not mean that the ‘Thought for the Day’ brief is not a legitimate one for listeners of all faiths and those of none. Some of the programme’s strongest support and most positive feedback comes from people who begin, “I am not a religious person but I do enjoy ‘Thought for the Day’”…

Nevertheless, I would like to assure you that we’ve registered your comments on our audience log for the benefit of the programme makers, channel controllers, and other senior management within the BBC. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content and ensure that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Regards,  Stuart Webb

Follow-up:

Dear Stuart Webb,

Thank you for your remarkably good defence of the TFTD slot. So good in fact that it almost convinces…… but not quite. The unanswerable fault with TFTD is that it offers the religious an unopposed platform in the middle of a flagship current affairs programme, something the BBC would (rightly) never extend to the non-religious. This carries with it the unavoidable corollary that good thoughts are the exclusive domain of the religious. You make the point that the remaining 2 hrs 57 mins. of Today are largely devoted to secular issues but you must know that when it comes to discussing such issues you always make sure that non-religious viewpoints are fiercely contested, often with the religious spokesperson being given the last word. If the TFTD content were restricted to exhortations for moral living that would apply to people of all faiths and none it would still look out of place within Today but it might be more acceptable. But when speakers such as Tom Butler take blatant advantage of their Trojan horse like privilege to give a one-sided and unanswered take on a contentious issue such as ‘Assisted Suicide’ then it is bound to raise the hackles of any listener with a sense of fairness. Surely the purpose of TFTD is to spread reflection and goodwill, not to offend consistently a large proportion of listeners as you must be aware it does.
Best regards,

Tony Akkermans

Leave a comment »

Education, education, education

Take Action! Children deserve balanced and thorough teaching on important topics like personal and social education, science, and beliefs and values. The BHA is asking you to help determine policy in these three important areas which are currently being debated.

Leave a comment »

Creationists crashing the Darwin party

Leave a comment »

Keep libel laws out of science

free debate
The use of the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence discourages debate, denies the public access to the full picture and encourages use of the courts to silence critics. The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic through an open discussion in the medical literature or mainstream media.

On 4th June 2009 Simon Singh announced that he was applying to appeal the judge’s recent pre-trial ruling in this case, in conjunction with the launch of this support campaign to defend the right of the public to read the views of scientists and writers.

Join the campaign! In a statement published on 4th June 2009, over 100 people from the worlds of science, journalism, publishing, comedy, literature and law have joined together to express support for Simon and call for an urgent review of English law of libel. Supporters include Stephen Fry, Lord Rees of Ludlow, Ricky Gervais, Martin Amis, James Randi, Professor Richard Dawkins, Penn & Teller and Professor Sir David King, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government.

Please help us with this campaign, sign the statement and ask everyone you know to sign it. With every additional 1000 names we will be sending the statement again to Government until there is a commitment and a timetable from the parties for the necessary legislation.

Click here to read more details of the background and the campaign to Keep Libel Laws out of Science.

Richard Burnham

Leave a comment »