It's good to be under the microscope.

It's hard to say when I first began to question the things I was told in order to get a better grasp of the truth.  I tell a story about that which goes back to age 6 or so.  Certainly by my teens I was reading theology and philosophy and scribbling notes in the margins.  So for me John Stuart Mill's teaching in On Liberty that freedom of speech was necessary even when the opinions expressed were wrong came as a welcome support.  On the whole, adults and teachers don't like to be pressed in the way that I did – and still do.  Of course there are exceptions.

Mill's argument, in brief, was that there were two kinds of advantages to freedom of expression. 

1. If you are in argument with someone over a position you have adopted, then it may be that you have done so simply following a fashion, or you may have made a serious study of the subject, or something in between.  Being challenged and tested by someone with a contrary point of view can only be to your benefit.  For no matter how slight or thorough your command of the case is, you can only learn more about its strengths and weaknesses when you are called upon to defend it.  Your grasp on the topic can only be enhanced by the experience of a serious challenge.
   
   
2. If all opinions can be expressed in the manner outlined above then there are two possible outcomes.  It may be that, contrary to expectations, the new or challenging opinion wins the argument.  In that case Society gains by advancing to new truth.  But if it loses, then the worst that can happen is that the advantages described above apply and everyone gets a clearer grasp of the issues at stake and a deeper understanding of the truth.

Mill drew a clear boundary – incitement to harm was not to be allowed.  Other than that, anything can be discussed.

Later on I came into contact with Karl Popper's writing.  He made a similar point.  Again only in brief, Popper taught that all knowledge is provisional.  It starts from a problem, and a hypothetical solution is proposed.  It has to be a serious attempt to solve the problem of course, and it has to be testable.  It may simply be adopted for a while but eventually it will be challenged.  Serious challenges will have one of two effects: either the hypothesis will emerge stronger from the test and live to face other challenges, or it will fail, in which case a new hypothesis will be proposed.  Naturally it will be a better attempt to solve the original problem because it will deal with weaknesses in the first hypothesis.  Then the cycle starts again, with more criticism, more refinement, and a new solution to the problem that is better to the one before.  This, he claims, is how science proceeds.  In Conjectures and Refutations he incidentally shows that the same method applies in philosophy.

So challenge and criticism is to be welcomed.  It's a method I applied in my job before I retired and I still think it is the best approach now.  This means I don't have to be defensive when criticised and pressed because the challenge is a welcome opportunity to get closer to the truth.

I've been asked to talk about Humanism to a group in Northampton.  One member has submitted some questions that might be discussed.  I'm looking forward to the opportunity.  Here are the questions she has put forward:

1. Can one be a Christian Humanist, when, by definition, Humanists are either Atheist or Agnostic and Christians believe in the Holy Trinity?
   
   
2. Are we a coincidence of biology?
   
   
3. Are not Humanist ceremonies merely copies of religious/faith-based liturgy?
   
   
4. How do Humanists govern and moderate their views without recourse to some external “higher” source of final arbitration?
   
   
5. Is Humanism a response to the excesses and corruptions committed in the name of “religion”? Christianity as a “faith” would express its human response in almost exactly the same way as Humanism, but includes the element of theistic belief.
   
   
6. How does Humanism avoid becoming a “religion”? (Religion being the human outworking of faith.)
   
   
7. The best school in our area is a church school – as a Humanist should I send my child there?
   
   
8. Should I, as a Humanist, withdraw my child from RE lessons?
   
   
9. What are the main differences between Christian Humanism and secular Humanism?

There is some interesting stuff in here.  I'm going to address the issues on this blog one at a time starting 23 November.