The Great Census Religion Con

Probably most people are aware there has been some debate about the census question on religion in the upcoming census. At the last census, in 2001, the same question was asked as this time: ‘What is your religion?’ It was placed directly after the Ethnicity question, and responders seem to have read it as another question about their background.

I say this because the most recent British Social Attitudes Survey split the question into two parts:
1.‘Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?’ and
2.‘What religious tradition, if any, were you brought up in?’

Answers to the second question closely match the 2001 Census return: only 18.5% said ‘No religion.’ But answers to the first question gave 50.7% of responders saying ‘No religion’ – almost three times as many. This is a strong reason to believe that people understood the census question to be about their religious background rather than about their religious practice. However, the answers are interpreted by decision makers in terms of religious practice for things as diverse as Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' and funding for Faith Schools. They argue that less than 20% of the population are not religious, and therefore they should provide for the remaining 80%. In truth, as the answers to the first Social Attitudes survey show, the reality is somewhere close to 50:50.

The British Humanist Association tried to get the question for this census revised to be closer to the more carefully phrased one on the Social Attitudes survey. But resistance of the census authorities to any change was resolute. An item in Radio 4’s 'Sunday' on 27th February threw a clear light on the cynicism which lies behind this. The Deputy Director of the Census explained that the reason for keeping things as they are is that the users of this particular item in the 2001 census data want the question left as it was. Of course they do. The reason they are ‘users’ is that it gives them the answers they want. If it were changed now it would mean that their policies over the last decade had been unfounded. Who goes looking for egg on their face?

Speaking on the same programme for the Church of England, Linda Barley said that the question ‘is not about believing’. That made me sit up with a jolt! How is that so? Let's hear it again: ‘Religious affiliation is not about believing.’ Up to now I thought that the religions claimed that membership was entirely about belief and demanded respect, and even exemption from some laws (such as those discrimination against gays or women) on the basis of that deeply held (but unjustified) conviction. I am amazed that someone speaking for the church was prepared to admit on air that people who claim to be religious may not in fact believe a word of it. What they want is, for example, to manipulate access to a certain school, an opt-out for their prejudices, or some similar benefit. I am as glad as anyone to see the church admitting to the cynicism of those on their roll of members. Now I wait for other religious leaders to follow suit.

But back to the point. If you, being non-religious, want public policy over the next decade in matters affected by religious attitudes to be based on the facts, rather than on a carefully and cynically nurtured fiction, make sure that you tick the ‘No religion’ option on the census form.

There is a very nice short presentation on this topic prepared by the Milton Keynes Humanists. Click here to access it.

Thanks to Charles Baily for his help preparing this item.

Islam and Prejudice

Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory Party, is reported as saying that prejudice against Muslims is seen as normal. The BBC claims that she will say (how I hate that - it's not news until it's said, and it's only then that the actual content and context can be judged) in a speech to Leicester University that prejudice has passed the dinner-table test. Well, I am wary of being prejudiced. I certainly try not to be, but I am also aware of having a very negative impression of Islam, a different impression from that which I held when it was the subject of academic study in my student days. But it is right to scrutinise one's views, so let's have a look at what's going on for me.

Obviously there is the effect of terrorism. It's not that Christians (say) haven't adopted terror tactics in the recent past: they have. The murder of doctors involved in abortion in the US comes to mind. Prior to that, the Klu Klux Klan had Christian associations, even though their behaviour defied any reasonable interpretation of Christianity. The divide in Ireland was on religious lines, and even Catholic priests were rather close to active terrorists. I guess the same may be true of the other side, though I know of no accounts. But in Ireland the primary motivation was political, not religious. Religious leaders sometimes spoke out against terrorist activity, though also some did not. But the horrific mass murders perpetrated by Islamist terrorists recently, both against the West and against their own co-religionists so appall decent people it is extremely hard not to be strongly influenced by them. And it has to be said that very prominent religious leaders have encouraged, or supported, such actions. Starting from Ayatola Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, urging the murder of someone who had written a book he disapproved of (probably without reading it) some incredible, horrible, things have emerged from Islam. And, in the UK at least, recent events make one think that being the victim of a terrorist mass murder by someone who is not a Muslim is very much less likely than by a perpetrator who is a Muslim.

And all this is against a background of views that seem to be rooted in the 6th Century CE - if not more primitive than that. You only have to think of the uneducated imam who declared "Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes". This was in a sermon delivered at Tehran University. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8631775.stm) It's not difficult to find other similar examples of a world view that seems to predate the ark. I know you also get idiotic, uneducated views promoted by Christians - the Creation Museum being an outstanding example - but even the brainless lunatics who still think the earth was created in 7 days on 22 October 4004 BCE don't think that the presence or absence of clothing is related to plate tectonics or vulcanism. Mind you, I know a few who think that God takes a personal and detailed interest in their parking requirements, and you only need to watch the NFL briefly to see that many players think he is a football fan and supports their team. Ignorance is a terrible affliction where ever it is found, but Islam seems to take pride in it.

Of course not all Muslims take such unsupportable views, but I wish a few more of those that don't would stand up and say so. It looks as though the authoritarian stance taken by not only teachers of Islam but also followers has something to do with this. Organised religion tends to be authoritarian. The Pope still tries it on from time to time, for example. But in the Christian West the church lost its hold over what people think and do at the time of the Enlightenment. Today most Christians embrace Enlightenment values, not least the freedom to think, and to say, and to write and publish what you believe. They also take the view, by and large, that this is a good thing because it provides an environment in which people can grow to their full potential, and in which something closer to the truth emerges through the discussion and criticism of the various views that people hold. If I cannot defend my views in a reasonable way when under rational criticism, there is at least something missing from my understanding of my own position. It is also rather likely that there is something wrong with the views themselves.

Religious leaders usually don't like educated people criticising or questioning them. On a trivial and local level I have personal experience of this. When I was a clergyman in Northampton I offered a course, an introduction to thinking theologically and realistically (I thought such a thing was possible!) in my own parish. The Vicar of the parish thought the material was good and suggested I open it to all the local churches. So I publicised it to the other clergy, so they could alert their people. Apart from in my own parish, there were no takers. I happened to meet one of the senior local clergy in the street and I asked him why he thought this was so. His reply was that it was because he hadn't told his congregation about it. He did not want them to be theologically educated, he said, because if they were they might start to question him, and that would never do. When the first session was held, in which I opened up some areas for discussion, someone objected and said she'd not be coming again because I was not telling her what to think. No indeed, I wanted her to be able to think for herself, something our predecessors had fought for and given their lives for, but which she was too frightened to do, so cowed was she by successive authoritarian clergy.

But in general, the hold that the church has over the minds of even its adherents, is greatly weakened today, thanks to education, and encouragement to learn, and to think for oneself, and to question things that do not appear to be true. Islam never had its own Enlightenment. The Golden Age in which great Islamic scholars both preserved and advanced knowledge in astronomy, philosophy and mathematics is long past. Just learn to recite the Koran, in a language you may well not understand, and settle for that, seems to be the way. Some think that women should not be educated at all. I guess that's for much the same reason as the Northampton clergy did not publicise my course - it would lead to them questioning the unfounded assumptions of the men, and that would never do.

But none of the above is the primary cause of my worry about Islam. Just recently there has been a terrible, but similar, event in both Islamic Pakistan and Christian America. In both places there has been an assassination attempt on an prominent elected official. In Tuscon, Arizona, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire on Representative Gabrielle Giffords, seriously wounding her and killing several other people. At least, he has been indicted for the crime, and was apprended at the scene trying to reload his gun. In Pakistan Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was assassinated, confessedly by one of his own bodyguards. In both cases, this is not only murder, but also an attack on democracy itself.

In the Arizona case, there has been a lot of heart-searching, and some wild accusations, from both sides of the political divide. No-one approves of murdering members of the body politic no matter how much their views differ from one's own. The assumption at present is that the assassin is in some way mentally ill. In Pakistan too thousands mourned Governor Taseer. But, and it is an enormous but, in Pakistan some religious leaders have praised the governor's killer. (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12116764) Why? Because he was a liberal, a man who believed and said that Pakistan's blasphemy law is draconian and needs to be changed. Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri confessed to the murder and people gave him garlands. One religious leader said "No Muslim should attend the funeral or even try to pray for Salman Taseer or even express any kind of regret or sympathy over the incident". Some people supported Governor Taseer because he spoke up for minority rights. Other supported his murderer simply for religious reasons. The New York Times reported that the assassin "was showered by hundreds of supporters with rose petals and garlands. Moderate religious leaders refused to condemn the assassination, and some hard-line religious leaders appeared obliquely to condone the attack". (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html)

The difference is clear, and I don't think it is prejudice. In America those for and against Mrs Giffords' policies were equally horrified at the assassination attempt. Everyone sees and condemns it as an attack on democracy itself. In Pakistan while that view was also found, so was a vocal element, encouraged by some religious leaders, that supported the assassin for purely religious reasons. Christianity is not without its kooks and an insane fringe who will stoop to the murder of their opponents. They are a tiny minority condemned by almost all. In Islamic Pakistan those who support murder on religious grounds are at the very least a significant minority, maybe much more, and too large a proportion of more reasonable voices are intimidated into silence. That fundamental factor, a religious authoritarianism that is closely related to Fascism and is all too frequently found in Islam, is the source of my deep unease with Islam. I don't think it is prejudice. And it is opposed to all the human values I believe in. If a British Muslim leader would condemn such views and support Governor Taseer and human, Enlightenment, values I would be delighted. So far I have heard no such comment.

As everyone knows, my position is that religion is at best a mistake, one powered by deep emotional factors. But at least some adherents of religion retain human decency and value humanity itself. Others do not, and the sad fact is that Islam gives the impression of having the largest contingent of those whose fervour not only overcomes all reason but all human feeling as well.

Humanism, Science and Knowledge

Ollie! I have had an epiphany. I now understand why i am not a humanist - it is the humanist love of LOGIC. I do not love science, I no more believe in an objective world that we can uncover through recourse to logic and scientific investigation than I believe in god. It's all just another way of seeing the world, any of which can be correct for anyone. I believe that we construct meaning about our worlds. I'm surprised its taken me this long to be able to articulate it. The reason i was uncomfortable with humanism is because it required faith in logic. So while I don't believe in god, I can't get overly excited by logic either. Kayte.

Sounds like you've been visited by the Spirit of Thomas Kuhn, Kayte, in paper form (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962) maybe! This isn't the place for a discussion of his ideas. There are plenty of learned critical articles on the web. Suffice it to say that Kuhn himself denounced some of the applications of his ideas that his less level-headed followers espoused, and that non-Western critics accuse him of being taken in by a totally Western paradigm.

Now, I'd better take your main points seriously - Humanism and Logic, and belief in anything.

I don't think it is true that Humanists necessary love Logic. I do think it's true that Humanists say that they are rational, and that they reject the irrational. But that's not the same thing. Formal Logic, it seems to me (and I am not a Logician) holds irrespective of time and culture in the same way that arithmetic and algebra do. Thus 365 and 101101101 are the same thing whether a culture uses decimal or binary numbers. But whether they agree it is the number of days in a year (which also has to do with Solar and Lunar calendars) is another matter.

Rationality is more woolly than Logic, and what appears rational to one person may not appear so to someone from a different thought background.

That leads many Humanists into a problem, because Humanists assert that they are ethical. I don't know if any research has been done about what is meant by this, and how individual Humanists deal with conflicts between the different ethical schools. But because they tend also to be humane, many of the Humanists I know are caught between a respectful approach to cultures that leads to relativism in ethics, and a desire for absolutist ethics, so that some things (at least) can be condemned as unethical and definitely wrong at all times and in all places.

Fortunately most Humanists are tolerant, and as far as I know there are no schisms in Humanism along these lines, just lively and healthy discussions. For me one of the main attractions of Humanism is that this discussion can take place, founded on a general agreement that Humanity is somehow important and that people are valuable in themselves.

So I think there is a link between Humanism and Rationality, but quite where it leads is another matter.

Now about belief - you use the phrase "I believe that we construct meaning..." As you know, I am a Sceptic in the tradition of Pyrrho. Their position was to criticise beliefs without advancing any of their own, because if they claimed to believe anything they were vulnerable to their own criticism. In general Scepticism is not convinced that we know what we think we know. That's a bit of an understatement. Some Sceptics would go much further. I'd be prepared to defend the position that it borders on the ridiculous to advance a belief without any sort of evidence. Is that what you're doing? How do you know we construct meaning, for example? What makes you think that? There are arguments, but is there any evidence?

Beware - I am not claiming that evidence justifies a belief, far less proves it. But it does make one work harder to disprove it. There is a better (more rational) case for accepting a belief that has some supporting evidence than for one that has none, and better still if the evidence against is strong.

For as long as I've been thinking seriously at all I have started from the Sceptical point of view: it has long seemed to me that the general arguments are strong, and for even longer I have been impressed by the ease with which some cherished beliefs turn out to be built on sand. But now - really recently - there are at least 3 types of evidence that make the Sceptical position appear stronger still.

First there is work of the kind done by the biologist Andrew Parker who seems to show that colour is created in our brains and does not exist in the external world, or even in the eye. Second there is the kind of work done in Cosmology which seems to show that we cannot detect at least 75% of the Universe that is actually out there (and all around us). What we can detect is necessarily a selection that proved enough for evolution, and what we make of it is necessarily an interpretation of that selection. Third there is the kind of work done by Psychologists working with Illusion - how we can be quite sure that something is before our very eyes (or another sense) when demonstrably it is not.

So I am leaning towards the view that, at very least, we create a lot more of the world than we think. What we think we know is a lot less certain than we normally assume. I could go further and cite the work done with twins that seems to show that our decisions, interests and habits of thought are much more influenced by our genes than most of us would find comfortable. Certainly we do not choose what we are thinking about, what we like, or to whom we are attracted. Nor do we choose what arguments we find convincing. These things come, somehow, from below.

With this background, belief becomes a far more dangerous and interesting topic! But what has any of that to do with science? I think there are a few things to say.

1. Science uses reason to test knowledge, but reason cannot establish knowledge. Great advances do not come from deduction or induction but imagination. There is first the hypothesis, and then the prediction of what will be the case if the hypothesis is correct, and then the testing regime. But then, you knew I am convinced by Karl Popper.

2. The results of science exhibit certain charactistics:
* they work - we fly the Atlantic and use computers and microwave ovens and go to doctors and undergo cardiac surgery.
* they are repeatable, i.e. they can, in principle, be tested independently by anyone, anywhere, any time.
* they are provisional, always ready to give way to a better explanation of the observed facts.

3. It isn't true, as some people think, that new discoveries overthrow old. At least, not necessarily. The Phlogiston Theory was demonstrably wrong. But Einstein did not disprove Newton. He did show that Newton's assumption of a fixed space and time was inadequate at speeds close to that of light, but Newton's Laws of Motion are incorporated in General Relativity and work perfectly well at normal speeds. And neither General Relativity or Newton's Laws of Motion are susceptible to cultural changes.

And what has that got to do with Humanism? Humanism respects Science in a way it cannot respect religion because the characteristics of Science place it on the side of reason, and religion is on the other side. But it is more concerned with Ethics, and living life well, giving people as good opportunities to live their lives to the maximum of their potential as possible. I find that to be something I am enthusiastic about.

Atheism and Humanism

Sometimes I'm asked about the difference between atheism and Humanism.  It is important: there are some items in New Humanist this month that say more or less the opposite of what I think. One is by a philosopher who thinks we have enough "isms" and the other by an atheist who thinks that atheism is the end of morality, and that is something to be desired.

No, I don't agree.  Atheism asserts that there is no God, or, as I prefer to say, that there is no evidence that this universe is anything other than material.  Humanism says that, because there is no God, we must take care of each other and treat each other with the same tolerance, respect and compassion we hope to receive. I add that this is based on a precept, the Golden Rule, which is older than any of today's religions.

Similarly, atheism says there is no life after this. Humanists agree but go on to say that because this is so, we should do our utmost to live this life fully and well, for our own sakes and for the benefit of others. 

I have noticed that atheism has negative connotations for many people. They say things like, "I'm not an atheist, I just don't believe in God" or "I'm not an atheist, I'm just not religious".  In that event I stress the positives of Humanism, an approach to life without belief in God or religion, but which insists that because of this we must treat each other well, and with respect, and try to make the most of this one life we have, both for ourselves and for others.  I find that these positives are well received by almost everyone.

For religious callers...

Religion is an illusion at best and a lie at worst. The alleged benefits it offers are false. The methods it uses to secure more followers are immoral. There is no shred of evidence in support of religion or its claims. The mountain of evidence suggesting the contrary is overwhelming.

Religious scriptures are full of ridiculous claims, impossible requirements and contradictions. I have studied the bible in both of the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, which is a claim very few doorstep evangelists can make. I can support the statements in the first sentence of this paragraph, and indeed pile up examples. Others who are native speakers of Arabic say the same of the Koran.

Let's just take one simple example, the claim that there will be life after death. Everything we know about the human body says that who we are, our awareness and our consciousness, is a product of the electro-chemical activity in our brains. The effect on personality that brain injury has is just one small piece of supporting evidence. Current research in neuroscience indicates that what we take to be deliberate conscious decisions are in fact made deep in our brains long before we become aware of them. That's just another small piece of a jigsaw that wipes out any doubt, when it is all taken together, that who we are depends on our physical bodies. That when our body dies, we stop existing is the inevitable conclusion.

It seems to me that the principle benefit of religion is to assuage the fears of those who are about to die – to give them hope that they will in fact go on living in some way. It's a false claim, but it seems to offer some comfort to some people. I don't believe in lying to anyone, even those, perhaps especially those, who are about to die. Non-existence is not something to be afraid of. We did not exist for the first 13.7 billion years of the Universe's existence. Not to exist for the remainder cannot be a problem.

If you want to believe fairy tales and soothe yourself with false hopes, that's up to you. It is deeply immoral to encourage others to do the same. Reality is always better than lies or illusions. This life is better for being only the only one we have, and more to be savoured for being short.

Why I am a Humanist

I found two comments on the British Humanist Association forum which I felt I had to respond to.

1)  We all only live once. Only humanism tells you this, which is why everybody in the world should be humanist.

I have a problem with this: it's a rather dogmatic approach.  It isn't that I believe I only live once because that's what Humanism tells me.  That approach is far too like a religion, and illustrates why some atheists I have met are so ready to denigrate Humanism as just another belief system.

It's actually the other way round.  All the evidence I have seen about who were are, what we are, how our consciousness happens, how much our personality depends on what's going on in the electrical circuits and pharmacology of our brain, it seems inescapable that when our brain stops, we stop.  There doesn't seem to be any magic stuff floating around somewhere inside us that is not dependent on our brain.  So it's clear to me that any kind of survival after death is so much wishful thinking.  We cannot imagine not existing, so we assume that somehow we will continue in some other world which, were it not for that wishful thinking, there would be no reason to think exists.

That much is clear to me.  And because it is clear to me, then one of the reasons I am a Humanist is that this view is the Humanist view too.

2)  This means that humanism must be only about improving the quality of life of all people on this planet, whether they are humanist or not.

Another problem: I cannot see any logical reason why only having one life means that we must be about improving the quality of life for all people.  It is just as rational to say that, for the same reason, I am determined to get the maximum pleasure for myself in any way that appeals to me, and everyone else can go whistle a happy tune.

It so happens that my temperament is to be an ethical person.  That's where it starts.  I then work out my ethical response to the problems that life throws at me - how best I can live, which for me involves maximising the common good.  I think it is probably true that if we all acted that way life would be better, more enjoyable, than if I was a blinkered hedonist, but I can't be sure.  However, it's good enough for me and that's the way I live. 

So another reason I am a Humanist is because I notice that this is the way Humanism presents itself to the world.

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.