Evolutionary Origins of Religion

On 11 January Guy Otten, GMH Secretary, looked at the evolutionary origins of religion.  He mapped the evolution of early man from 6 million years ago to the present day, highlighting the factors that led to the growth of religion. He correlated changes in the brain of our ancestors with the development of the conditions that led to the growth of religion.  The elements of intelligence mapped were 1. general intelligence which includes learning by trial and error and associative learning, 2. social intelligence which involves the ability to infer the mental states of others, 3. technical skills relating for example to the use of tools, 4. awareness of the natural world and 5. language skills.  Evolutionary psychologists believe that modern chimps are likely to resemble our ancestors from 6 million years ago.  

At that time they would have had some intelligence, such as minimal technical skills, for example using sticks to reach into bee hives for honey, and some awareness of the natural world, but the various kinds of intelligence were separate. They would have lived in groups and would not have had any language skills as we know them.  Guy talked through the changes to the brain at different periods:  4 million years ago with the appearance of the first early hominines, 1.8 million years ago and the emergence of Homo Erectus, 500 thousand years ago when Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals appeared.  The brain grew in size, there were advances in technical skills, tools were becoming more advanced, and social and communication skills were developing.  Our ancestors gradually moved out of Africa and by the Stone Age reached remote places such as Southern England.  By 100 thousand years ago the areas of intelligence in Homo Sapiens started to overlap, with the barriers between different parts of the brain weakening.  At that time Homo Sapiens could for instance think about the social world using technical ideas or the natural world using social ideas.  This accompanied the development of language, a higher level of consciousness, and a growth of imagination, all caused by cross-fertilization of the formerly separated intelligence domains.  At this time there is evidence of art in the form of beads, necklaces, figurines and burials with grave goods.

Guy talked about the role that the quick reactions of animals play in ensuring sensory responses to threats and their survival generally.  When language abilities are developed, words can describe dangers.  In addition, language can also facilitate the sharing of knowledge of technical skills about hunting and tool making.  With the development of language came story telling, which played an important role in these societies.  Pre-scientific humans, grappling with phenomena that they did not understand, developed stories about hunting, battles with large animals, changes in the environment, weather phenomena, shortage of food, illness and death, and warfare.  Stories about exaggerated mythical ancestors and mysterious forces that caused events, agents of harm and agents who could save, were also common.  These advances in human thinking set the conditions for the growth of religion.  Religion in this sense is a belief in non-physical beings.  Variants of belief systems involved individuals who claimed to be able to communicate with the spirit world.  Evidence of this type of religion appears at the dawn of recorded history with burials in Egypt from 3100 BCE of the Pharaohs with everything they needed to live in the afterlife.  The burial of the Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huang in c 210-09 BCE with his Terracotta warriors to defend him in the afterlife provides a further example.  There were also rituals in the ancient world designed to propitiate the gods.  These form the origins of church services today, which generally include prayers to the deity.  Shamanic types of religious thinking had their own cosmologies to answer questions about the earth’s origins.  Guy questioned whether their ideas are any different qualitatively from those of the Abrahamic faiths.


This array of religious thinking developed in many parts of the world into the polytheisms of ancient history and still prevails in parts of the world today.  From polytheism came monotheism, as was the case with Judaism and Islam, with belief in one god being just the latest development of magical thinking about the spirit world.  There is an association with primitive people and religion and the cargo cult in Melanesia is a case in point.  In Vanuatu there is a cult that believes that Prince Philip is a god.  Guy pointed out that all religious thinking and beliefs in gods emanates from the same beginnings and are completely unfounded evidence wise.  He argues that when one puts the evolution of religion into perspective one can see a history of some 60 thousand years with religious thinking persisting and different religions coming and going.  Guy concluded that there was little reason to think that the current dominant religions would last indefinitely but we should be mindful that at this point we only have a few hundred years of scientific thinking to aid this turnaround.

Trends in Religion, and Dialogue

In November Jeremy Rodell, Dialogue Officer at the BHA,

delivered a talk to the Manchester group on trends in religious affiliation in the UK.

According to the British Social Attitudes Survey 1983-2015, the proportion of people who consider themselves to be non-religious increased from just over 30% to just under 50% though Jeremy questioned whether people are less religious or whether it is more socially acceptable to say that you are non-religious.  The other major changes over this period were a fall in affiliation with the Church of England from 40% to under 20% and a rise in the non-Christian religious from 2% to 8% of the population.  The proportion of Catholics has not changed and remains at around 10%: the reduction in the number of UK Catholic followers has been offset by a steady stream of immigration of Catholic people.  The number of people following Islam is increasing and by 2050 the percentage of the population is predicted to be 10%.  Islam is the most diverse of the religious groups and comprises a number of different sects along a spectrum from liberals to Jihadis.

Jeremy made an interesting comparison of the non-religious proportions of the population as captured by the 2011 Census and the British Social Attitudes Survey 2011.  The Census shows a much lower non-religious proportion of 25% because it asks ‘What is your religion?’ rather than the question asked in the British Social Attitudes Survey ‘Do you regard yourself as belonging to a particular religion?’ which rendered a 46% non-religious proportion.

Jeremy pointed out that according to the 2011 Census Greater Manchester has a very diverse religious population with a relatively high proportion of Muslims and Jews.  Jeremy also outlined some interesting findings on the expression that religion takes for different groups as outlined in a 2013 You Gov survey.  Muslims engage in prayer and attend services more than Christians.  Double the number of men than women are non believers.  The majority of Christian followers are over age 55 and Muslim followers have the youngest age profile. Further information on the above statistics and trends is available on the BHA website.  Jeremy summarised that there is more diversity of religions in the UK today than previously and talked about the challenges that the BHA have correspondingly identified.  These are:

• Increasing polarisation of belief systems and a lack of cohesion.

• Uninformed generalisations about other religions 

• Increases in faith based prejudices

• A reduction in institutional privileges

• An increase in conflicting values

Jeremy outlined three ways in which the BHA and Humanists can respond.  The first is to explain and promote secularism which means the state being neutral in religious matters, the universality of human rights, freedom of thought, the equal application of the law, and non-religious privilege.  The second way is through education about religious and non-religious beliefs, seeking an end to state funded schools and faith based admissions to state funded schools, and encouraging a broader preparation for life in a pluralistic society through education on sex, relationships, values and citizenship.  Finally, Humanists can engage in dialogue with other faith groups.  Meaningful dialogue is where one sees the human before the person’s religion, avoids generalisations, and recognises areas of disagreement and areas of commonality.  As the BHA Dialogue Officer, Jeremy talked further on his role and stressed that effective dialogue requires each party to engage with and listen to the other person’s viewpoint.  From this stance, the other person will be more likely to consider the Humanist viewpoint. 

Jeremy saw dialogue as a means of furthering the BHA strategy: “We want a world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values, respect for human rights, and concern for future generations.”  It can complement campaigning by making a positive Humanist contribution to building a peaceful, plural, secular society and by improving others’ understanding of Humanism.  Finally, Jeremy described three types of useful dialogue.  The first is interfaith dialogue which involves representatives from a number of faiths in dialogue with each other.  The second is public events which can allow for representatives from different faiths to reach common ground on issues.   The third is private bilateral/ multilateral dialogue and this is where Humanists can enter into dialogue with specific faith groups on specific issues.

Faith to Faithless

On 12 October Imtiaz Shams, the founder of Faith to Faithless

(FTF), provided Greater Manchester Humanists with an outline of the organisation's work.  FTF was set up in 2015 and continued the work that Imtiaz had being doing to support ex-Muslims since 2012.  FTF provides services to people who leave, or are thinking of leaving their faith group.  As an organisation, FTF is in its infancy and because it has such a small budget, its activities are limited.

He grew up in Saudi Arabia in a practising Muslim family but now lives in England and considers himself to be a Humanist.  Despite this, he described in fond terms his continued engagement and involvement with his family and with the Muslim community.  This approach underpins FTF’s work because Imtiaz is of the view that after a potential initial estrangement very few families disassociate with the apostate.  He considers it important to maintain existing family and community relationships.

Imtiaz has supported people who have left their religion and talked about some of the problems that they encounter; some people face physical abuse, many face financial difficulties, and people often feel isolated.   FTF offers a counselling and support network to these people.  FTF also engages with faith leaders to encourage understanding of people who leave their faiths.  Imtiaz thinks that faith leaders generally ignore the issue because they do not know how to deal with it.

He hopes that FTF will secure funding to expand its research capability to establish the extent of apostasy, to expand its counselling service, to build links with schools and organisations such as the Ex-Muslim Forum and the Samaritans, and to enter into dialogue with faith groups to discuss apostasy

A question and answer session followed Imtiaz’s talk.  There was a discussion around the dislike of the term apostasy mainly because this is a religious term.  Other terms to explain this were suggested; ex-religious, post-religious, enlightened and free-thinking. There was a general consensus that Humanists can assist FTF in its growth phase by advising its members, and the schools that it works with, about FTF’s work. At the end of the meeting a general collection raised £200 for FTF.

Srebrenica

September's Manchester meeting was lead by Ms Heather Fletcher, the Co-Chair of The Muslim Jewish Forum.  She provided the group with an outline of what she learned about Srebrenica during her trip to former Yugoslavia in 2015.  She made the trip with a group called Women of Faith.

Bosnia was part of the Ottoman Empire between c.1459 CE and 1878 CE.  The Ottomans encouraged local people to nominally convert to Islam.  In 1908 Bosnia was formally incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  This caused widespread resentment in neighbouring Serbia which had designs on incorporating it into a Greater Serbia. This led to the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in the summer of 1914 in Sarajevo.  After the First World War Bosnia (and Serbia) were incorporated into the new state of Yugoslavia. During the Second World War the only effective resistance to German occupation was provided by Marshall Tito's communists.  After the War Tito became the ruler of Yugoslavia. Ms Fletcher was of the view that Tito formed one of the most successful Socialist states ever and it was not uncommon to have a Church, a Mosque and a Synagogue existing peacefully on the same street in Sarajevo.  In Tito's Yugoslavia coexistence, inter-marriage and toleration were normal. After the death of Tito the state began to break up into the smaller national entities and a new wave of nationalism and religious bigotry swept the Balkans. The Serbian idea of Greater Serbia re-emerged.  Ms Fletcher's party visited a medical centre which treated women who had been raped during the conflict.  It is said that between 50,000 and 100,000 rapes were carried out during the conflict and many of the attackers were former neighbours, school friends and/or work colleagues. The purpose of rape was to change their ethnic identity or to spoil these women for future husbands.

Ms Fletcher explained that Srebrenica was once a thriving town which has now largely been abandoned. Over 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed by the Bosnian Serb army there during the massacre in 1995.  Around 6,000 have known graves and the process of identifying the remains is still ongoing.  On 11 July every year a mass funeral takes place for the remains identified in the past year.  Ms Fletcher’s group met with a woman who had lost both of her sons and her husband.  She attended a war crimes tribunal where she met a former Serbian fighter who apologised to her for his part in the massacre.  This woman was not bitter and resentful and gave the fighter her forgiveness as she believed life was too short and it was evil to bear grudges.  Ms Fletcher ended her presentation by saying that their guide during their trip, Rashid, had friends from all the different identities in Bosnia and for this reason he was hopeful for the country’s future. Suggested Further Reading on the Topic: Little, A: Silber, L & Ciric, A: The Death of Yugoslavia.  A book to accompany the TV series and a very good introduction to the disintegration of Yugoslavia.  Clark, C: The Sleepwalkers.  A book about the origins of World War One. It gives a good account of the Serbian angle.  Goldhagen, D : Hitler's Willing Executioners. Along with Browning, C: Ordinary Men. This is a book which shows that normal people do horrific things and relates to events in Poland and Germany.

Brains and Brain Modelling

In May Professor Mark Humphries from Manchester University

spoke to Greater Manchester Humanists on the subject of Brains and Brain Modelling.  With a gentle introduction to the topic, Mark introduced us to a multiply-appendaged soft toy called Ben.  Ben is a neuron, and one of 87 billion in any human brain.  Mark explained that Ben sends electric spikes to other neurons and that these control all bodily functions.  At the present time neuroscience has not mapped all these connections so we cannot understand the cause and effect of each spike.  Here lies the reason for brain modelling which in Mark’s view is one of the toughest jobs in the world as it focuses on understanding how the brain works.  Mark advised that through continued brain modelling all the spikes in a brain will have been mapped in 5 to 10 years!

Mark talked about one of the contributing figures in the early world of neuroscience - Walter Pitts who was born into a disadvantaged background.  He was bright and at the age of 12 he spent three days reading Principia Mathematica in a library.  He then wrote a letter to Bertrand Russell pointing out some mistakes in it.  He decided that he was interested in neuroscience and took on a role as a janitor at the University of Chicago.  Warren McCullock, an expert in the field of neuroscience at the University, recognised Walter’s talent and hired him.  They worked together and in 1943 provided the foundation for the first brain theories showing that the neuron was the basic logic unit of the brain.  Their model continues to be the standard reference in the field of neural networks.  

Mark went on to talk about some known’s.  Before any muscle action there is increased neuron activity or spikes and during the action there is less; the phenomena of blind sight where people who cannot consciously see have an awareness that would normally be attributable to sight, for example they can catch a ball; and the independent consciousness of the right and left sides of the brain and how they talk to each other and fill in gaps for the other side.  

Mark took a number of questions from the audience.  In reply to a question whether computers could be conscious he answered no because computers cannot have sensations.  Another question led Mark to talk about how learning associated with brain functions was being applied by Google and Apple in their artificial intelligence products or programmes.   

Culture

At the April Manchester meeting (after the AGM) Elio Pennisi delivered an interesting brief on culture and how this interfaces with belief.  

Elio touched upon the anthropological concept of culture which argues that simple societies without knowledge and reason had a large proportion of believers.  This, Elio argued, explained why religion was so prevalent during the Middle Ages and how the number of religious followers has reduced since the Enlightenment.

Thereafter followed some interesting discussions in smaller groups on elements of culture.  The following observations were made; that language serves as a cultural determinant; that we can belong to a number of sub-cultures at the same time (music, work, hobbies); that the term “race” is questionable given the level of interbreeding over millennia; that culture is a phenomenon amongst primates and this develops because primates see themselves as superior, and in order to feel this way need to distinguish themselves from other groups.  Elio concluded by asking those present to complete a questionnaire.  

Elio has subsequently collated and analysed this data and reports that those partaking in the questionnaire considered the following to be the determinants of culture :

1. Education in Humanities and Social Science, 
2. Ethnicity, language and kinship, 
3. Education in scientific disciplines, 
4. Moral belief systems, and 
5. Arts (music, theatre, cinema, painting, sculpture…).   

Religion and the Bible in Contemporary Politics

In January Professor James Crossley gave a talk on Religion and the Bible in Contemporary Politics.

The 1960s were crucial to the understanding of religion in politics – British politics that is. It is then that Britain started to see a serious decline in church attendance which has carried through to the present day. But this decline was not accompanied by an equal decline in religious affiliation as nostalgia for a religious past persisted. At this time there were 4 distinct understandings of the bible:
1. The cultural bible – seen as something of a work of literature, part of the British heritage.
2. The liberal bible – seen as a source of democracy, tolerance and the rule of law.
3. The radical bible – seen as a source of socialism in the radical tradition (Tony Benn wrote a lot about the bible in this context at this time).
4. The neoliberal bible – used to highlight all that is good for right thinking people (examples given of some American bible in this vein were: The team bible for girls, The team bible for boys, The team bible for soldiers, etc.).

Margaret Thatcher was a conservative revolutionary who rediscovers her Methodism.  She starts talking about ‘freedom’ and ‘individuality’ with reference to biblical texts and their applicability to the country in terms of entrepreneurialism, a minimal state, free will and such like. She sees the good in Judaism and how it supports the entrepreneur, how Jews support each other and the fact they are not reliant on the welfare state. Later on in her career though, she saw it as a failing that her policies had not made people more charitable, i.e. in the sense of giving, as opposed to judging others leniently.

Tony Blair inherits Thatcher’s template of individualism and non-reliance on the welfare state. Many of Blair’s speeches had subtle references to biblical learning that went unnoticed by Blair’s PR guru Alistair Campbell. Blair was unable to see religion as a bad thing: there were good Muslims and bad Muslims but only good religion. His speech at one Labour Party Conference had many allusions to the bible. The press didn’t pick up on them but it’s expected that many of his supporters would have done. Blair believed the origins of Islam show a picture of a good religion with democratic values.

David Cameron talks about the bible as though it’s everything we like; Michael Gove also. In 2012 the government sends a bible to every school in Britain probably knowing people wouldn’t read it, but liking the image it creates. 

The main exponents of the Radical Bible were outside mainstream politics, people like Peter Tatchell, the Occupy movement, Russell Brand and through his influence, Ed Miliband (to a lesser extent). 

Corbyn doesn’t reveal himself as a true Christian, but he did reference the good Samaritan in his leadership speech where he talked about ‘not walking by’.  This reference is well worn by other politicians including Cameron, who also believes that ‘true Islam’ is peaceful, tolerant and non-violent. 

American politics is different, there are over 200 million Christians, so religion is very important and affiliation to it is openly demonstrated. In English politics though there does seem to be a need for politicians to defer to a higher authority, however subtly, for the state to function. 

Mark Twain Opera - Mysterious 44

The November GMH meeting saw Kevin Malone give a talk

entitled Mark Twain Opera “Mysterious 44”.  

Kevin began by explaining his upbringing in a religious Lutheran family. He happily went along with everything he was taught about God and his religion until at the age of 10 he came across a book by Mark Twain entitled Mysterious Stranger. Though originally written by Mark Twain it was unfinished at his death and completed posthumously by his editor. Kevin recalled that this book, “scared the life out of me”, and started him on a path of questioning his faith.  

At age 11 there was a bus campaign in his home town with the message “God is Dead”. This added to his doubts and at this point he stopped going to church. He still battled with his belief in the divine though and managed to resolve his love of science and maths with theism by concluding that they were based on rules and that God therefore had created those rules.  

Later in life as part of his musical studies he moved to Paris to study at the Paris Conservatoire. While there he decided to study the bible in fine detail, to the extent that he mapped out where and when the biblical events were supposed to have occurred. And in so doing, he confesses, he became an agnostic.  

Kevin went on to talk about how the opera came about and how it was constructed. The book itself was set in Austria in 1490 but the events of 9/11 in 2001 were a key influence. In fact the opening of the opera features a piece involving a single cello and recordings of the New York air traffic controllers talking to flight crews in the air space at the time of the attacks on the twin towers. You can clearly hear one controller repeatedly trying unsuccessfully to obtain voice contact with flight ‘American 77’. The cello piece was appropriately entitled Requiem 77. Kevin talked about some of his other influences including the film the Unbelievers and Woody Allen films. 

A key character in the book, hence the opera, is 44 - an angel with supernatural powers. Using a video extract from the opera, Kevin explained how in a scene reminiscent of an old testament story, 44 enables two human characters to magically create their own human specimens which rapidly evolve into less than perfect beings that do wicked things. Consequently the two characters beg 44 to destroy their creations. This whole scene really showed off Kevin’s musical skill as it interwove traditional operatic style musical dialogue with electronic incidental music and classical choral sequences.  

Another key feature of the opera is Richard Dawkins’ voice which features at various points in the opera. 

Richard was also one of the financial backers of the opera along with The Arts Council and the University. Kevin recounted how Dawkins was a willing contributor to the project and an able voice actor but was very hard to tie down time-wise to actually do the recordings.  

Bringing the conversation back to the matter of religion, Kevin talked about how the credibility of an idea or a doctrine is enhanced by performance. Simply reading or stating something evokes one level of consciousness but singing it, as with church hymns, seeks to reinforce that idea, especially when promoted by institutions. Religions have, Kevin surmised, known this and exploited it for a long time. 

You can see the latest version of the opera at the following locations in the New Year: 
25 January  - Manchester premiere at the Royal Northern College of Music, Studio Theatre, starting at 7pm.  Tickets available from RNCM box office 0161 907 5555 and at www.tickets.rncm.ac.uk (they haven't been listed on their website yet). 
27 January at the John Thaw Theatre, Martin Harris Centre for Music and Drama, Bridgeford St, Univ of Manchester.  (Starting time is 7 or 7:30pm - awaiting Centre's decision).  
29 January at Ordsall Hall, Salford during daytime for secondary school children performance.  
1 February at Central Library, Manchester Performance Space 1 (TBC).   

A Secular Conception of Evil

October's Manchester meeting was a talk entitled Can Philosophy Provide Us with a Secular Account of the Idea of Evil by Dr Eve Garrard. 

Eve started by questioning whether there is a secular concept of evil. A quick poll of the audience suggested a majority were against the idea. She however believed there was such a concept and went on to explain why. Initially she examined what the social sciences and history have to say about it and whether there is historical evidence of historians dismissing the philosophical argument in favour of it. 

The Australian author Inga Clendinnen in her book “Reading the Holocaust” dismissed the concept of ‘evil’ as something ‘non explanatory’ and of no use in explaining why people do what they do. Another source described the concept of ‘evil’ as beyond human, implying that it is inhuman. There is however a recognised religious concept of evil. Eve then went on to outline three possible secular concepts of evil:

1. Anything adverse or unlikeable in human lives, e.g. natural disasters.

2. Immorality, e.g. genocide or malicious gossip.

3. Particularly horrifying actions.

The third she believed was the problematic one; the temple massacres of the 20th and 21st centuries and the holocaust cannot be classified simply as adverse, unlikeable or immoral. 

She went on to talk about two real life examples of a belief in evil. The first related to the Harold Shipman murders and a report from the daughter of one of the victims who said “I tried and tried to understand and explain what he did but could only conclude he was evil”. 

The second was a radio interview with two politicians commenting on the Military Wives Choir’s 2011 Christmas single. One of the politicians was from the far left and the other a centrist. The one from the far left described the choir as vicious, evil and vile. The centrist in response questioned what kind of person it took to call someone like that evil. The point being here that neither party needed an explanation or definition of evil to understand what the other meant. So it has an acceptable use even if we don’t have a theory of it. 

Eve noted that Inga Clendinnen, while discounting the concept of ‘evil’ per se, does believe there is such a thing as an evil doer or monster which fits with the religious definitions of evil. A secular theory of ‘evil’ would need therefore to negate any metaphysical definitions. When we hear of some tortures or other evil acts that humans have committed on others we do regard them as monsters. So, Eve deduced, we need to understand ‘monsters’ to have a secular theory of evil. The problem is that there are too many theories of what would be described as evil acts. She outlined the following three:

1. An act which produces demonstrably bad outcomes.

2. An act in which one person takes pleasure from inflicting suffering on others.

3. An act in which the agent deliberately ignores its moral ramifications.

The first can be contradicted by the case of the voyeur who doesn’t contribute to the evil act. For the second, Eve cited the case of the Eichmann trial in which he was described (by Hannah Arendt who’d researched his personality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil) as being utterly banal. Meaning that he wasn’t taking pleasure but just carrying out orders. 

As to the third example, Eve made the point that some people may do this but they believe they are doing the right thing. Some people, she said, believe the ‘right thing’ is following a set of moral rules like for example the 10 commandments; this is known as the ontological theory. The trouble is that there is no universal agreement about what is right, though there is a general understanding. And the same can be said for evil. 

Eve concluded that there is no reason therefore to refrain from using the concept of evil. The question and answer session following the talk was lively; many saw the concept of evil as being an entirely religious one. A few expressed the opposite. Many philosophical questions were raised and Eve mainly responded with the appropriate philosophical answers, although in some cases she admitted that days, weeks or months would be required to give a complete response.

Right to Free Speech vs Right to Insult

Last month’s Manchester meeting was a talk entitled The Right to Free Speech versus The Right to Insult by Anjum Anwar. 

Anjum started the session by stating that she believes in freedom of expression and free speech; she believes it’s critical for the development of societies. But it’s a question of how we exercise our freedom of speech, she said. She believes it has limits. Expanding on this she talked about the meaning of sharia which literally means ‘watering hole’, which in a desert setting could be seen as a life line. So sharia is seen as a way of offering a life line. Thus having to think about one’s duty (to others) not so much about one’s rights. This means that if she doesn’t undertake her duty to look after her neighbour she has not been good. Consequently she doesn’t believe she has the right to insult anyone, and questioned why anyone would have the need for such.

At this point in the proceedings Anjum broke away from her prepared talk to answer what turned out to be a barrage of questions from the audience. And chair, I was called on to chair the questions, which meant I could no longer take notes.

Here are just a few of the questions raised:

• Is it right, from a free-speech perspective, to allow people to deny the holocaust (several believed it was)?

• Why is it not ok to show a depiction of Muhammad, and if the reason is that of idolatry why do so many Muslims call their boys Muhammad.

• If any question about the origins of Islam or Muhammad is going to be seen as insulting to Muslims then how can they be open for discussion? And there were many, many more.  

An interesting remark by Anjum during these questions was that she holds Muhammad in such high esteem that she loves him more than her own son. She also said that she doesn’t like to be called a liberal Muslim (she doesn’t know what it means) though the audience clearly felt she was. At times the questioning from the audience became quite heated but Anjum held her ground well and was assertive in her responses, which while being reasonably objective did not always seem to fully answer the questions to the satisfaction of the questioners. 

Our Greatest Moral Failing

The August GMH Meeting was a Discussion: In 2115, what will our descendants condemn as our greatest moral failings?

John Coss opened the meeting by summarising an article written by Stefan Klein and Stephen Cave entitled, What will morality look like a 100 years hence? The authors point out that norms and values change, e.g. in 1915 – sexism, racism, imperialism, anti-Semitism and homophobia were not just accepted, but expected, even required.  The authors self-identify as ‘progressive’ and are glad that these attitudes are increasingly unacceptable. But OUR values will also be supplanted – and not always in ways we will welcome.

What is the proper reaction to such change? A good start is to CONSIDER HOW OUR VALUES MIGHT CHANGE OVER THE NEXT 100 YEARS.

Secondly, there is an idea of moral progress that can help us see how values might change in ways that we today could accept as FOR THE BETTER even though it may not be easy for us. This alerts us to the contingency and particularity of our own moral views. It pricks our illusion that we are at the pinnacle of moral progress. It is different from asking ‘what are you or I doing wrong’ which implies we are not living up to CURRENT moral standards. Instead, it addresses our moral
IMAGINATION. Rather than speculation about future norms, we can look at underlying trends that are still unfolding, and ask where we are failing not individually but COLLECTIVELY as a moral community. In other words we can imagine a better world and in so doing may help to make it real.

As to what counts as moral progress, the authors argue that morality means giving common concerns or the wellbeing of  others as much weight as one’s own self-interest. The tricky question then is: WHO COUNTS AS THE ‘OTHER’? They conclude that moral progress means including ever more people (or beings) in the group of those WHOSE INTERESTS ARE TO BE RESPECTED. In these terms we have come a long way. But there is room for improvement, and so a key aspect of moral progress is imagining HOW THE CIRCLE MIGHT WIDEN STILL FURTHER.

The authors claim that recent research supports the view that the more people feel connected with others, the more moral they are. Hence they hope that an increasingly globalised interconnected and interdependent world will also be an  increasingly benevolent one, with ever more people (or beings) drawn into the circle of concern. But these changing values have a price. For many of us, they will mean sharing or giving up privileges that we have long enjoyed, admitting that our comfortable lifestyles are based on industries of exploitation, or otherwise recognising that we have in a hundred ways been wrong. This is not a message we rush to hear! But debating the question of what we will be condemned for in 100 years may be a way of easing the transition.

The authors then put forward four suggestions as to what they think we might be castigated for in 2115, which they regard as natural extensions of progress so far. 

1. Rights for future generations, i.e. extending the circle of moral concern IN TIME. This will involve massive  restrictions on our freedom of action, since current activities have impacts on people far into the future 
2. Rights for other conscious beings: non-human animals feel pain and many other emotions 
3. ‘Opening the floodgates’: in 100 years, our descendents may be impressed by current levels of welfare and prosperity in the developed world, but appalled that access to them depends on where you are born 
4. Healing criminals: in 100 years, no one will believe in absolute free will or that anyone chooses to become a criminal but we will not find it easy to decide who to treat, how radically and when, nor to extend sympathy to those who commit the worst crimes 

The authors acknowledge that there are many other changes they could imagine, and say they have barely touched on the  question of INEQUALITY. For many who live through them, these changes will be extremely uncomfortable – but they will not be troubling for those who grow up with them.

John suggested that the discussion should focus on societal norms in modern technological societies and how these are likely to develop, assuming that civilisation develops continuously from the present but the position of humanity in 2115 is significantly less favourable relative to how things would have been if current environmental challenges had been
adequately addressed in a timely manner.

A lively and healthy debate ensued. One of those present suggested at the conclusion of the discussion that we (GMH) should consider getting involved with H4BW - Humanists for a Better World, a BHA special interest group. See https://humanism.org.uk/about/h4bw/. The meeting was well attended, especially given that it was August, with a lot of new people in attendance.

Amnesty International

The July GMH meeting was a talk and interactive workshop on Amnesty by Anne Walker.  Anne is a voluntary member of Amnesty and as such confesses to not being a specialist in human rights law. Her main involvement is in the Amnesty Trainers Network where she helps develop material for local campaigns for Amnesty International UK (AIUK).

Amnesty is based in London and has 5 hubs globally. Its vision: ‘is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other international human rights instruments’.

Although it started out as an organisation supporting prisoners of conscience, its mission now is: ‘To undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of these rights’.

The Manchester branch of AIUK to which Anne belongs has four campaigns underway currently:
1. Stop Torture Campaign which is focused on 5 countries: Nigeria, Mexico, Morocco, Uzbekistan and the Philippines.
2. Save the Human Rights Act
3. Country Specific Campaigns in:

• Burma

• Southern Africa

• Countries in South America (esp. Venezuela) 

4. My Body My Rights - The My Body My Rights campaign comes from the belief that ‘sexual and reproductive rights are human rights that belong to us all’. Furthermore they entitle us to:

• Make decisions about our own health, body, sexual life and identity without fear of coercion or criminalisation 

• Seek and receive information about sexuality and reproduction, and access related health services and contraception

• Choose our intimate partner and whether and when to marry

• Decide what type of family to create

• Live free from discrimination, coercion, violence, including rape and other sexual violence, female genital mutilation, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, forced sterilisation and forced marriage.

It is noteworthy that the UDHR does not cover sexual and reproductive rights (SRR) and does not apply to the unborn child. However some international human rights law does now cover SRR and has made recommendations to states to adopt it.

In Latin America in places where there is no access to contraception and no sex education there is the highest rate of teen pregnancy. And where there is additionally a total abortion ban 57% of teen deaths in pregnancy are due to suicide.

Some of the reasons given for not allowing or providing contraception are:

• Suspicion – belief that it has another purpose

• Trust – some men believe it leads their women to infidelity

• Tradition – large families are seen as a good thing

• Affordability – it has to be paid for and women are afraid to ask their husbands for the money 

Campaigns in support of SRR are underway in:

• Burkina Faso – to promote access to affordable contraception

• Nepal – to prevent uterine prolapsed due to women being put to work very soon after pregnancy

• Maghreb – where rape victims are forced to marry their rapists. This has its foundations in old French law that was only repealed in France in 1994. Morocco has changed its law but Algeria and Tunisia still have it.

• El Salvador – to end a total ban on abortion.  Anne gave an example of a pregnant woman for whom after 3 scans it was shown that the foetus had brain damage but an abortion was denied. An international campaign forced the government to allow an intervention, but they delayed till much later so that it could be classed as induced labour.  In another case a doctor was given a prison sentence for carrying out an abortion which was in fact a miscarriage.

Anne also mentioned the law in Ireland where in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland abortion is illegal except in limited circumstances. The maximum sentence for carrying out an abortion in N. Ireland is life and in the Republic it’s 14 years.

This was an interactive presentation whereby audience members were allocated into groups and asked to present back their own views regarding the issues of women’s rights and what could be done about them. It generated a lot of lively discussion within and amongst the groups all of whom seemed appreciative of the opportiunity to participate.

If you’re supportive of Amnesty’s campaigns, there are a couple of online petitions that you might be interested in:

Save the Human Rights Act http://www.amnesty.org.uk/issues/Human-Rights- Act
Abortion Law Reform - Republic of Ireland  http://www.amnesty.org.uk/issues/Sexual-and- reproductive-rights http://www.amnesty.org.uk/issues/Sexual-and- reproductive-rights

Rise of the Religious Right and the Impact on Women

June's GMH Meeting was a talk about the rise of the religious right and the impact on women in the UK, given by Sandhya Sharma.

The talk started with a video dating back 20 or so years showing how women in minority, primarily Asian, communities in London started to demonstrate against the then rise of religious fundamentalism and how they were ignored by the anti-racist and leftist movements. Also how women in Bradford around the same time started to demonstrate against domestic violence in their communities and how the religious leaders and the political left tried to shut them up.  Moving on to more recent times Sandhya explained how there’d been a gradual shift from state sponsored secular services, e.g. welfare and housing services, towards services run by religious institutions. Austerity measures from the government had heightened the effect with almost no public money going into entirely secular services like the Asian Refuge (for women and children fleeing domestic violence or forced marriages) with which Sandhya was involved.  However the people providing the services run by religious institutions are often from the very communities the women are seeking refuge from. And rather than holding the perpetrators responsible for their immoral, and sometimes illegal, actions, e.g. in matters related to domestic violence and abuse, their preference is often to take a conciliatory approach and unite the parties again.

History of Humanism

John Coss gave the May meeting at GMH.

The talk was divided into the four headings of: A. Humanism – meaning and language B. Key themes of humanist thinking C. Some key thinkers in the development of humanist thought D. Organised humanism 

The first of these, Humanism – meaning and language, covered both the modern interpretation and the evolution of humanist thinking through its notable phases: ancient Greek and Roman thinking; Renaissance humanism; Enlightenment humanism; the 19th century ethical movement. It also covered an overview of 19th century activists like Owen, Carlisle and Holyoake, and included an explanation of words related to humanism, e.g. freethinking and secularism. 

Moving on to Key themes of humanist thinking John expanded on: non-belief; rational explanation and scientific thinking; freedom, individualism and secularism; non-religious morality; and human rights. 

The talk then went on to cover Some key thinkers in the development of humanist thought, e.g. Epicurus - ancient Greece, Erasmus - the Renaissance, Hume - the Enlightenment, J S Mill - 19th century, and Abraham Maslow - 20th century. Women and Humanism was also discussed in this part of the talk.  

Lastly John gave an overview of the history of Organised Humanism in England. It covered the organisations we know today, e.g. the BHA, the National Secular Society and the Rationalist Association, some of the key buildings like South Place Chapel and Conway Hall, and a brief history of the Freethinker publication.

Mind the Gap - The Difference between Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Insult

The GMH March Meeting shoud have been "Mind the Gap - The Difference between Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Insult” by Anjum Anwar MBE. Unfortunately she was not able to speak due to her father being taken ill suddenly. 

Since many of those attending would not have had the opportunity to read the email forewarning of this it was decided to change the format of the meeting to one of open discussion on the same topic. And as a reference point for the discussion we would use Kenan Malik’s recent blog outlining some of the arguments against the frequently touted ‘I believe in free speech but …’ statements. The meeting thus proceeded on that basis. While there was general agreement with Kenan Malik’s arguments, on the part of most of those present, there was nevertheless a lively discussion. Vice chair Guy Otten was able to proffer the Muslim viewpoint in appropriate places and Aisha Ahmed herself an ex Muslim explained how through her own experiences of dealing with Muslim friends and family, she has observed that: many Muslims; a) are not exposed to critical thinking, b) see any sign of irreverence against the prophet, almost as a personal attack on themselves, but c) don’t wish any physical harm on the perpetrators as a result.

Questions were raised about why some Muslims see it as necessary to kill people for their disbelief, while members of other religions don’t take such a view (although during the time of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition quite the opposite was the case). No conclusion was reached on this point. Other points discussed included the right to offend, not looking for a fight, discussing one’s views in the workplace (or not) and the need to work productively with others with differing beliefs in the workplace.  There seemed to be a general consensus at the end of the meeting that despite the speaker’s absence the meeting had been worthwhile. And it was suggested that we should repeat the session but from a non-Muslim standpoint, so involving speakers from other (perhaps extreme) religious backgrounds. 

David Hume

The January Meeting of Greater Manchester Humanists was a presentation about David Hume the Humanist Philosopher by Robin Grinter.


David Hume, a Scotsman, was born in 1711 and died in 1776, which coincidentally is the year the US wrote the Declaration of Independence.  He was one of a number of distinguished Scots involved in the Scottish Enlightenment. He was also among other original thinkers of that period in Western Europe whose aim was to shine the light of reason into the darkness of superstition. Other such renowned thinkers were Voltaire from France, Kant from Germany as well as Thomas Paine and Jeremy Bentham from England.  (Voltaire is said to have referred to the Scottish Enlightenment as a hotbed of genius.)

Hume was one of a number of influential thinkers of the enlightenment who were part of an intellectual discussion group that debated philosophical and secular ideas. Others of the group and their respective subjects, of which they were recognised as the founders, were:

Adam Smith – Economics
Adam Ferguson - Sociology
James Hutton – Geology
Joseph Black - Chemistry [this was challenged by members of the audience]
James Barnet - Linguistics 

The view of this group was that their thinking should be practical with a view to improve the world. Only one of the group however was a non believer – Hume.
Although today Hume is recognised as a great philosopher, in his day he was better known as historian. Hume went to university at the age of just 12 but was later unable to pursue an academic career as a professor because of his non-belief; this despite him being something of a monarchist and politically conservative. 
Among his publications were:

An Enquiry into Human Understanding - 1740 
An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals – 1751
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - 1779

The latter of these is notable because it examines the concept of intelligent design; it says that design and order in nature is not evidence for the existence of God. Hume was very much a scientific thinker who needed evidence for the belief in anything. He campaigned against speculative thinking, saying that miracles are subjective and violate the laws of nature. 

He believed that common sense could explain the ways of the world: understand why things happen through observation; recognise patterns based on constant connections; predict likely outcomes. But being a realist he accepted that you can never be 100% sure about your conclusions from observation. 

He also questioned the religious view of morality saying effectively that all religions are dogmatic and they can’t all be right. He believed you could be good without God, deriving your morals by looking to reason, to compassion and the benefit both for oneself and society; and to the ability to see right from wrong based on personal observation and experiences.

Another philosophical conundrum he dealt with was that which we might now call free will but which he referred to as freedom of action and the incumbent responsibility of it. He believed we relied on patterns and connections in life to allow us to understand how to act. And while this could result in us always taking the same action given the same patterns and connections (perhaps with negative consequences for ourselves and/or others) we have the ability to recognise the pattern and the freedom to act differently to improve the outcome. 

Shakespeare The Humanist

This was a talk given by David Seddon at the November GMH Meeting.

David began by stating that while much has been written about Shakespeare, little is actually known. He then summarised what we do know from the historical record:

• He was christened on the 29th April 1564 and that in those days it was the tradition to perform the christening within the first month of the birth – so his exact date of birth is not known. 

• He died on the 23rd April 1616.

• His father was probably a glove maker.

• In 1582 aged 18 he married Ann Hathaway who was 26 at the time and gave birth to their first baby some 6 months after the marriage. 

• He went to a Grammar School in Stratford. 

• Within a few years of being married he moved to London. 

• In 1585 his wife Ann gave birth to twins Judith and Hamlet, but sadly Hamlet died at the age of 11 in 1596. (There’s no reason to believe that the play Hamlet which was written in 1599 had any association with his son of the same name.)

David next talked briefly about Shakespeare’s life as a playwright in London where he wrote 37 plays which were performed in the various theatres of the day including the Globe.  Some years later Shakespeare returned to Stratford to live. Several reasons have been proposed for this including that it was due to a gay relationship but the fact is nobody really knows why. 

David then moved on to the topic of the talk, i.e. Shakespeare the Humanist. He addressed this by referring firstly to the 3Rs: Renaissance, Reformation and Revolution (the French one). The Renaissance, he explained, was the rebirth of classical thinking; the re-examination of classical history and literature from the Romans and Greeks; of scientific learning from the Arabs; of dangerous ideas like democracy from the Greeks; and the creativity of the Italian masters like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. He also highlighted the work of Erasmus who was more interested in the human than the divine. It was known, David explained, that Shakespeare had read Erasmus’s works; he’d also read Thomas North’s translations of Plutarch’s works on Roman history. From these influences Shakespeare starts to think about people’s motives for their actions in history; and in the context of Roman history therefore, the story of Julius Caesar, Marc Anthony, Cleopatra, Augustus et al which feature in the play Julius Caesar.

As well as his attention to people’s thinking, David identified Shakespeare’s use of rhythm and language as something unique in his writing. Shakespeare frequently used phrases based on 3 stressed beats to a line as well as the more common iambic pentameter of his predecessors (5 to a line).  One other feature, he said, was Shakespeare’s lack of references to God, referring instead to ‘nature’, which is a more humanist expression.

Moving on to the Reformation David referred to the period between 1483 and 1546 when people like Martin Luther started to critically examine religious doctrine, and to expose the nonsense of original sin and the power of the Catholic Church. Luther, David continued, makes the point that individuals matter. So it is on the back of this thinking that Shakespeare talks about individuals.  He introduces in his plays the motives, thoughts, actions and ways of behaving of individuals, and uniquely he uses the soliloquy as a form of expressing and individual’s thoughts to the audience. 

David observed how this idea is developed in the book, Shakespeare the Invention of Character by Harold Bloom, where Bloom talks about the ability of Shakespeare’s characters to over look themselves (meaning to think about themselves). And that in this book Bloom also proposes that Shakespeare created the two greatest characters ever in the form of Hamlet and Falstaff; two complete extremes character wise. Hamlet because he starts out being self satisfied but ends up full of self loathing. And Falstaff who is a complete rogue who steals, lies, womanises, and basically does whatever he wants but is entirely likeable nonetheless. David’s own view is that Lady Macbeth is another extreme of character. The play Macbeth is all about her strength of character and her use of psychology to encourage Macbeth to commit murder against his will. This play also delivers the idea that when life is over – it’s over - a very humanist idea.     
David finished by saying that while Shakespeare’s humanism doesn’t conform to our views of humanism today, he invented the idea of what we now call personality. And while there’s a lot of politics in his plays, most of all they are love stories. If there were ever a perfect piece of literature, he believed, it is Romeo and Juliet.