Belief and Unbelief

It has been said that atheism is a belief without content. It is not so much a belief as the absence of a belief. It is the refusal to believe in absurdities. Does my position that there is insufficient evidence to claim that there is a transcendent power controlling existence itself constitute a faith? There are people who think it does, but atheism is the rejection of faith in favour of reason. Isn’t the position I describe agnosticism? I don’t like the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Sensible atheism always assumes an implicit agnosticism. That you don’t know what you don’t know is an obvious tautology. To be dubious of a claim that is not supported by the available evidence is just common sense. So what do atheists believe in and why do I go on about it so? I think that knowing what you believe and why is one of the most important things in life because actions follow from beliefs for good or ill. We believe in what is left when you have cleaned out all of the worn out ideas of theism, but what specifically? Some of us describe ourselves as Humanists because this suggests a positive assertion about what we believe in. Humanism assumes atheism but not all atheists are Humanists. Anyone wanting to find out about what Humanism adds to atheism could do worse than explore the spiffing new website of the British Humanist Association, but in brief, I would suggest that our scepticism extends beyond questions about the existence or otherwise of deities. Humanism is concerned with the good life and the right way to live. Humanist beliefs are provisional, a work in progress. Humanists think that for there to be human rights, there have to be human rights for everyone, they have to be universal. The kind of society that Humanists defend is that which is open, democratic and free from the tyranny of the past. Not everyone believes in these things and they should not be taken for granted. Humanists believe in reason and science as methods for guiding our lives. Not everyone agrees, some are hoodwinked by mumbo-jumbo and the latest pseudoscience fad. Humanists think that people are valuable as ends in themselves and not just as means to some greater future. Rather than being ascetic, Humanists value pleasure and appreciation of the arts. Humanists value learning and personal development as a desired goal in itself and not just as a means to economic prosperity, though economic prosperity is also an important part of the good life. Is it only Humanists who believe in these things? No, but the more a person’s focus is shifted in the direction of the proximate concerns of this life rather than thinking about something beyond this world, the more humanistic they become. Thinking about the world as it could be made does not have to be wishful idealism. Indeed, some of the people from the past who were responsible for thinking up some of the best ideas for our way of life described themselves as Humanists. Humanism is an invitation to exuberant creative living. It is an optimistic embrace of our bright future in this world.

I took the photo of the Albert memorial when I was in London the other week.

Thought for the Day for Everyone

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has a long running campaign to allow non-religious speakers on the Thought for the Day which is broadcast on BBC Radio 4 every weekday morning as part of the Today programme.

(see http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/broadcasting/thought-for-the-day).

I can’t believe it is 7 years since the BBC allowed Richard Dawkins to broadcast an unofficial Thought for the Day from the atheist perspective. The campaign has been in the news again recently and Revd Giles Fraser has written a piece in the Guardian entitled “Atheists should get a life and leave our slot alone”.

(see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/06/religion-another-thought-for-the-day).

The question is, is it “their” slot. Given that recent human rights legislation has outlawed discriminating against people because of their lack of belief, is it not anachronistic to continue to pretend that it is only people with a “faith” position that have something to contribute to a commentary on current affairs related to contemporary ethics, morality and the good life. Many Humanists are increasingly taking their place at the table of “interfaith” dialogue, taking part in "Interfaith Forums" which should be renamed "Religion and Belief Forums", serving on local Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education (SACREs) which now have 85 Humanist representatives nationally, talking to schools about secular ethics and beliefs and appearing on local radio “God slots”. There are people just like me up and down the country playing their part in multi-faith and multi-belief Britain and so why is it still fair to exclude us from the national “slot”?
One of the points Giles Fraser makes is that the character of the TftD slot is such that the contributors do not take pot shots at other people’s beliefs (the religious commentators on our local radio certainly do). A good example of this is Christopher Brookmyre’s “Ditch the bitch, she won’t be missed” monologue on the Humanist Society of Scotland Thought for the World, which is being re-launched this morning in collaboration with the Guardian newspaper and the excellent A.C. Grayling is the first speaker (see http://www.thoughtfortheworld.org). The assumption is that someone like Dawkins coming on and referring to religious beliefs as “infantile regression” undermines the ethos of the slot. I suppose the view you take on this depends on whether you see TftD as a hallowed God only slot, in which case it should be renamed Religious Thought for the Day or if you see the slot as having the potential to be a genuine conduit for religion and belief commentary.

Theist Bus Campaign

It has been reported that a number of Christian groups are going to begin a new round of bus advertising in response to the much discussed Atheist Bus Campaign. The advert shown above has been proposed by Revd George Hargreaves, leader of The Christian Party which is a right of centre political party which recently won a seat on the Greater London Assembly, beating UKIP. I first became aware of Revd Hargreaves, bizarrely the writer of the 1980s pop song So Macho by Sinitta, in the 2008 Haltemprice by-election when David Davis resigned and then stood for re-election. Hargreaves was one of the candidates and polled just 76 votes, being beaten by both The Miss Great Britain Party and the Monster Raving Looney Party. Even David Icke had more votes. Needless to say I didn’t vote for Hargreaves, choosing to support David Davis on his civil liberties ticket. If you would like a taste of Revd Hargreaves views, reading about his campaign to remove the dragon from the Welsh flag is sure to cause amusement: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_headline=christian-group-wants--evil--welsh-flag-changed&method=full&objectid=18700606&siteid=50082-name_page.html
Ridicule aside, this story raises the important question about whether religious people should mix their politics and religion. Though the United States was founded on the secular ideals of a separation of church and state, recent decades have seen the increasing use of the pulpit to explicitly promote a political agenda, usually right-wing, involving the turning back of the clock on abortion rights and civil liberties for the LGBT community, sometimes extending to ministers instructing their flock as to which politician to vote for. This has to be bad for democracy and I would suggest that right-minded religious people would not want to see the increase of political parties which are explicitly tied to a particular religious creed. I for one don’t want to see 21st century politics informed by bronze age superstitions.
The other question is to ask if the new advert contravenes the Advertising Standards Agency rules. This is taken from the ASA website:
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.
This is partly why the BHA adverts used the phrase “There probably isn’t a god”. I would agree with the probably in any case because the agnostic position is the correct Humanist view. God existing or not is definitely the case (I am not a relativist) but the proposition that “There is definitely a god” is not capable of objective substantiation and so I don’t think it should contravene the rules. I don’t think that “There definitely isn’t a god” can be said to contravene the rules either, for the same reason.
The BHA position has been stated by Hanne Stinson, it’s Chief Executive:
“We entirely support free expression and freedom of belief, and so fully support the right of these Christian groups to place their ads on buses. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”

Founder of Humanist movement dies aged 105

The founder of the British Humanist Association, H.J. Blackham, died this week. Believe it or not, this methuselah of Humansim was 105 years old. Blackham was one of the originators of the worldwide Humanist movement and that he was still alive in 2009 underlines the fact that organisations to promote ethics and the good life without any religious basis are a relatively recent phenomenon. I bought a copy of one of Blackham’s books on eBay a few years ago. Simply titled “Humanism”, it was first published in 1968, the year of my birth. Voltaire said “One owes respect to the living, to the dead one only owes the truth” and to be honest, with the exception of some memorable quotes, I don’t think his writing was particularly readable when compared to contemporary Humanists such as Alfred Ayer or Bertrand Russell. However, it is clear that Blackham was instrumental in bringing Humanists together in the 1950s and 1960s and that he played a huge part in elucidating what constituted the Humanist view. The part of his book that I found most memorable was the first sentence which sums up a minimum criteria for considering oneself a Humanist:

“Humanism proceeds from an assumption that man is on his own and this life is all and an assumption of responsibility for one’s own life and for the life of mankind..”

BHA Vice-President Sir Bernard Crick Dies

One of the Vice-Presidents of the British Humanist Association, Professor Sir Bernard Crick died on Friday aged 79. He will be remembered as the philosopher and constitutional expert who invented citizenship education and devised the 'Britishness' test for immigrants to the UK. The thing that I will remember him for is his articles in the Guardian and the New Humanist magazine where he insisted that Humanists need to be less fussy about working with the religious who share our commitment to social justice, saying that this age of fanaticism is no time for non-believers to make enemies of moderate, liberal religious people. He was of course referencing the probably apocryphal story of François-Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire, on his deathbed, when a priest bursts in on him crying, "Renounce the devil and all his works!", to which Voltaire replies, "This is no time to make enemies." I would agree with Crick that Humanists should build good relations with moderate believers of all persuasions in order to unite against the enemies of enlightenment, democracy and freedom. I am a member of the Hull and East Riding Interfaith (www.heri.org.uk) and recently gave a talk about my own beliefs and how they contrast with the beliefs of religious members of the community. I would prefer this kind of dialogue to be called a "Religion and Belief Network" rather than "Interfaith" because I don't consider Humanism to be a Faith, but by any name, these meetings can help to create mutual respect between diverse believers, even if they do not increase respect for the diverse beliefs themselves. We can still maintain our intellectual honesty and criticism of religious belief and our commitment to rationalism, science, scepticism, freethought and the open society.