Science and The Left

At our May meeting, Paul Fitzgerald (a.k.a political cartoonist Polyp www.polyp.org.uk) talked to us about how political ideology can influence science acceptance. We are aware that the political right can deny science - particularly evolution and climate change. However Paul is increasingly worried that his "tribe", the green/liberal left, have their own problems in this area. He gave us a number of examples:

1. Nuclear power. There might be cogent arguments to be made against using nuclear power, but currently hysteria and exaggeration seem to dominate the discussion. Famously a Fukushima radiation map was widely circulated, without a key to the colour coding and with added apocalyptic imagery. Greenpeace issued a statement to try to calm the hysteria and dispel misinformation.
2. Genetically modified organisms. Paul admitted that he was initially opposed to GMO's and even took part in some direct action. But there is now more evidence of safety. Much of the ideologically driven anti-GMO rhetoric relies on very bad, discredited science.
3. Corbyn's election chances. Given the opinion-poll statistics it is almost certain that the Conservatives will win the election. However, when Paul pointed this out on social media it generated a great deal of opposition which he took to be data-denying. This produced prolonged discussion during the Q&A.
4. The naturalistic fallacy. "Things that are Natural are good", "Chemicals are bad".
5. The myth of the noble savage - a romanticised view of the past. This might stem from valid criticism of Western industrial societies, our colonial legacy and our unsustainable lifestyle. But it can go too far in assuming (against the evidence) that tribal societies are naturally co-operative, peace-loving, democratic and live sustainably.
6. Reluctance to criticise victim groups. Seen most clearly in the use of the term "Islamophobia" against anyone who raises criticisms of Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls this the "racism of low expectations".
7. Anti-Semitism. Paul has observed a casual anti-Semitism from some of the (otherwise) liberal left.
8. Denial of difference. It seems to be controversial in some green/left circles to acknowledge that people have different abilities. The "blank-slate" view of humanity is common, putting all the responsibility on how people are raised. This denies innate (genetic) differences - dealt with well by Stephen Pinker's book, The Blank Slate.

How can this tendency to deny or ignore science be countered? Paul introduced the ideas of two philosophers of science; firstly Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies) argued that "falsification" is the basis of science. Any truly scientific idea can be falsified by observation and experiment, leading to a gradual improvement in knowledge.

Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) on the other hand argued that the scientific community could be reluctant to change and would defend the current consensus ("paradigm") until forced to accept a new one - a "paradigm-shift". Post-modernists took this to mean that scientific theories are merely social constructs. Paul sees this thinking, leading to cultural relativism, as having infected the left. He suggests that Popper's idea can be the cure: when we state our ideas we also say what would make us change our mind. Unfortunately Margaret Thatcher liked Karl Popper so there is little chance of him being accepted by the left!

It is a cultural norm to think that having strongly and consistently held beliefs is a virtue. Paul suggested that this is ridiculous, and we all need to be more open to evidence.

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. 

Is Humanism a Leftist Philosophy?

At the Stockport August meeting we had a debate on ‘Is Humanism a Leftist Philosophy?’

Speaking for the motion David Seddon opened his remarks by saying that if he had been writing an essay he would have started by defining the terms Humanism and Leftist, but he was limited by the time constraints of the meeting. He did say that Humanism is a philosophy and that Right and Left ideas are political ideologies. Humanism is not political.

Throughout history Humanism has been about equality and democracy the same as socialism. Modern Humanism started with Erasmus who was a Christian but began to think more about people than Heaven and Hell. Jesus was a socialist as evidences by his exhortations on ‘Blessed are the meek, suffer little children…, Easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle…', and giving money to the poor.  The Quakers ,formed in 1652, searched for God in everyone, even paedophiles.

With the enlightenment we had philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau. The American revolution promised Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, whilst the French revolution shortly afterwards promise Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.  Both countries rejected religion as an integral part of Government. 

We need to value everyone whether they are on benefits or trying to leave Calais. We all inhabit one planet and as a race we are destroying it. Children who do well at school are not entitled to a better life than those less fortunate. All children should have a good education. Socialism and Humanism look to greater equality and agree about republicanism. We have one race and one planet, we need to work together.

Speaking against the motion Brian Stanyer said he believed he was as much a Humanist as David even though his politics were very different. He is also an republican and wants to see an end to the House of Lords. However, he is pragmatic and doesn’t believe that socialist thinking achieves what it sets out to do.  He believes that Socialism does not encourage people to strive and does not accept that people have different qualities. 

He does not believe in equal pay for everyone because if people at the top are not encouraged they stop working.  Nationalised industries were run inefficiently.  The philosophy is lovely but the results are disastrous.  He wants harsh attitudes to drugs and wants to  motivate people to do the right thing.  

A lively debate followed. Here are some of the comments from the floor:

Christianity and Capitalism support the existing social order and are resistant to change.

Religion is right wing.

Inheritance of wealth perpetuates social inequality.  Inheritance tax closes the door after the horse has bolted. We need to avoid letting people get rich in the first place.

The right wing is socially conservative whilst socialists want change.  

The right wingers also want change in a different way. 

You could not call yourself a Humanist and be on the far right.

Human nature determines your policies whether selfish or co-operative.

Are people motivate by money or by interesting work?

Many people have an idealistic streak as evidenced by the large number of volunteers.

Society should be change in the long term but we need to respond to emergencies now.

Most people just want to earn enough to live a reasonable life.

The Chair tried to get the debate back on track and the debate was wound up with a discussion on Free speech.

Hustings at Stockport

On Wednesday March 18^th Stockport Humanists had a pre-election Hustings with five speakers.

For UKIP Darran Palmer emphasised his desire to pull out of the EU which he said was undemocratic and bureaucratic. He wanted an Australian-style points system for immigrants. Savings made by leaving the EU would be spent on the National Health Service and issues of health tourism and too many middle managers in the NHS would also be addressed.

For the Conservative Party Sid Lloyd said that Labour had ruined the economy although it was not responsible for the recession. He shared the UKIP view of leaving the EU. He defended the coalition and said that there was now a faster growth rate that would be even faster if they had a majority Conservative government.

Martin Miller for the Labour Party announced that he was a Roman Catholic and also works for the Anglican diocese of Manchester. Labour had failed to regulate the markets which had failed to balance supply and demand. They took unprecedented risks with our money and the subsequent collapse in tax revenues led to the deficit. The Tories failed to address the deficit by not getting in the tax revenues. Many people are on zero hours contracts. The economy is smaller than before the recession and investment is needed.

Iain Roberts for the Liberal Democrats wants a fairer society and a stronger economy for everyone. Fewer than 60 Liberal Democrat MPs had made a real difference. He was proud of the pupil premium, the scrapping of ID cards, the apprenticeship scheme, green deals. Under the coalition rich people pay more tax and the poor less. He thinks we need immigrants. He wants to stay in the EU, increase spending on the NHS by £8bn by 2020, have an evidence based drugs policy, build more houses and have a liberal international policy.

Charlotte Farrell for the Green Party believes that humans are rooted in the environment and that a healthy society depends on co-operation. Whilst other parties talk of growth, Climate change means the growth cannot continue indefinitely because of an unsustainable pressure on resources. There is a great deal of debt to the private banking centre much of it involving the poorest 90%. Debt sucks money out of the economy. There needs to be a change in the monetary system so that it is taken from the banks and given to democratic control. The Green Party is the only one with realistic policies to tackle Climate Change.

Questions were asked on:

Religious Selection in Faith Schools. The Greens wished to put admissions policy back to local authority control, UKIP prefers state schools and would revert to Grammar and Secondary Modern schools, the rest had no plans to change the existing system

Retention of the Human Rights Act. UKIP would pull out of EU HR Act and have a UK Bill of Rights. The Conservatives were split and the others would retain it.

Wealth Tax. Greens wanted wealth tax of 2%, Labour would reinstate top rate of income tax and tax assets and wealth, Lib Dems wanted more tax and less welfare reduction, Tories want reduction in tax and more cuts, UKIP would fund everything by withdrawing from EU

How to Restore Faith in Democracy. Lib Dems want better local infrastructure and some devolution; Greens want to give power back to local authorities; UKIP says if roads had been kept up to date it wouldn’t be costing so much; Conservatives point to the Devolution to Manchester of Integrated Health and Social Care; Labour wanted to grow the economy.

Humanist Marriage. Lib Dems were in favour; the other parties had no plans but would personally not oppose such marriages.

Rights for Non-married Couples (same as married?).UKIP wanted to extend Civil Partnerships to non-gays; Labour didn’t want to interfere with the different models of family; Lib Dems wanted no special favours for married couples; and the Greens wanted children and parental responsibilities to be taken into account.

Asylum Seekers. All were agreed that we had a duty to take in genuine Asylum Seekers but should we be taking them from other safe countries such as EU?

Assisted Dying. Labour and Liberal Democrats had not party line and it would be a matter of conscience, Greens thought the law was outmoded as medical science has advanced so much, UKIP wanted a public referendum on the issue, and the Conservative hope he would never be put in that position as right to life superseded everything.

Safety Around Abortion Clinics. None of the candidates wanted women to be intimidated even when they were personally opposed to abortion. But buffer zones were clearly something they had not thought about.

Why Have Faith Schools at all. The Liberal Democrat was uncomfortable about State funded religious schools, but thought there were more important things to worry about, the rest were happy that they should remain.

The evening ended with a brief summing up from each of the speakers