Discussion Group - Basic Income

We had a very lively discussion on basic income, a disarmingly simple idea, a guaranteed minimum income that is given unconditionally to everyone without work requirement regardless of wealth, income or age. On top of a basic income everyone can earn extra in a paid job. Basic income shall allow every human being to fulfill basic living needs.

We touched on the main Pros

• It would reduce unemployment and the stigma correlated to it

• It would tackle poverty and give dignity esp. to the poor and elderly

• It would underpin non-profit, not-well paid and/or un-paid jobs (like charity work, creative jobs, care of children or elderly) 

And main Cons:

• Too expensive to finance

• People would stop working

• No one would do low paid/unpopular jobs anymore

With regard to the last point, the effect of it might be that people would have to be paid much higher wages to do such jobs, which could then be seen as a positive effect.
We further discussed how close we are to making basic income reality in countries like Finland where 65% of parliamentary candidates were in favour of basic income or Switzerland. Even the Green Party in the UK talks about basic income in their current election manifesto. We concluded with the main obstacle/ open question of realising such a simple social idea:  Is basic income possible in the current political system of capitalism - a profit driven system, where the gap between extremely high paid and low paid jobs is still too high? We finally agreed that we as humanists lean towards the idea of basic income with its very humanistic values but we remained sceptical if the time and circumstances of this simple idea have come yet. “Stronger than a thousand armies is an idea whose time has come” (Oscar Wilde).  

The next meeting is on 21st May when the subject will be ‘World Population Issues’. All are welcome; we meet at 8.15pm at The Waterhouse, 67-71 Princess Street, Manchester, M2 4EG.

We are not booking a particular room but will aim to meet in a room at the far end of the building from Princess Street. It would be helpful if you would let John Coss know if you will be coming (email:secretary@gmh.humanist.org.uk or phone@ 0161-430-3463). 

Introduction to Humanism

The April meeting at Stockport was Introduction to Humanism by David Seddon. This is our annual introductory lecture at which we introduce new members to ideas of Humanism.

If Christians were wiped out Christianity could be re-instated using the literature. The same goes for Muslims and other religions with a written body of work. Humanism would not be so easily reinstated because we do not have a creed and the ideas would have to be worked out from scratch.

Religions are named after those who are worshipped and adored. Humanism is named for Human Beings with all of their faults. We don’t know a single Christian or Muslim who has met God or Allah, but we know plenty of Humans and their many unremembered acts of kindness. We know that sometimes they will let us down but we cannot be sure of anything about God. People are doing wonderful things now resulting in a civilised world with art, music, science, the NHS and many other wonderful institutions.

4 ½ Basics

1) God: We have no way of knowing if God exists and people who believe have no way of knowing either. Humanists live their lives as if there were no God. What are people doing when they pray? It seems a strange and meaningless activity although some may use it to order their own thoughts.

2) Death: Primitive peoples invented religion to explain the difference between living and death. Humanists believe nothing supernatural happens after death and adopt a mature philosophical attitude that death is the end of us. We reject the idea of going somewhere else. Some kind of immortality is achieved by remembering famous people or our ancestors.

3) Science and Knowledge: Humanists believe that evidence is needed if something is true therefore we cannot know anything about God.

4) Religion and Evangelism: The basic legal position is that we are a Christian country with an established Church. But do the establishment follow the Sermon on the Mount? Are the Meek important? Are the Peacemakers blessed? (Do we have World Peace?) Do they say’ love your enemy’? Do they turn the other cheek? Humanity is about looking out for one another and making a difference in someone’s life.

5) (4 ½) I think rather than I believe: One needs an awful lot of faith to believe in the resurrection, and how can one believe that flying a plane into the twin towers will let someone in to paradise. Humanists believe that this is the only life we have. Most religious people acknowledge that only a fraction of them will go to heaven. Christians believe in Original Sin - God made us all and people were bad so to compensate God sent his only son so we could be forgiven and go to heaven! They also believe in the perfectibility of man.( If man keeps trying he will make progress.) Humanists believe in the right and ability to be happy, whilst religious people are big on guilt. Happiness should not have guilt attached to it. Religion keeps women in their place, whilst humanists believe in gender equality. Christians believe in suffering, tolerating slavery in the past. If we were all born equal why have the idea that there is someone to worship?

David went on to discuss some important thinkers in the History of Humanism: Epicurus(representing ancient Greece), Shakespeare(representing the Renaissance), David Hume(the Enlightenment), Jeremy Bentham( Utilitarianism), Thomas Paine and Mary Wollstonecraft ( Rights of Men and Women respectively), Charles Darwin (Science), Sigmund Freud (Psychology), and Jean Paul Sartre(Philosophy).

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. 

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

Discussion Group - Free Will (Part One)

The Discussion Group met on 19th February to discuss Free Will.

About 10 people attended.  Most accepted determinism – although at least one felt that the jury was still out and raised issues such as quantum mechanical indeterminacy.  Most felt determinism means that we do not have free will but there was general concern that this is not how things appear.  The question we identified for debate was ‘If we don’t have free will, is there any way we can reclaim it?’ 

One view was that at the level of the self we do have free will because we are the determined person making the decisions. This is close to David Hume’s position that we are acting with free will if our actions flow from our underlying character.  All agreed that retributive punishment was inappropriate versus punishment aimed at rehabilitation and deterrence.  On the face of it the question we debated contains an internal contradiction – we don’t have free will so how can we reclaim it. On reflection it is not far removed from the aim of free will compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett. In Dennett’s view determinacy is irrelevant to ‘practical free will’ which is the ‘type of free will that matters’.  We will be continuing the discussion at the next meeting on March 19th, to cover some of the more subtle views of the compatibilists.  

All are welcome; we meet at 8.15pm at The Waterhouse, 67-71 Princess Street, Manchester, M2 4EG. We are not booking a particular room but will aim to meet in a room at the far end of the building from Princess Street. It would be helpful if you would let John Coss know if you will be coming (email:secretary@gmh.humanist.org.uk or phone@ 0161-430-3463).

David Kemmish 

Is Man Just Another Animal?

For Darwin Day on February 12th we were fortunate enough to have a talk by Professor Steve Jones - Professor of genetics, science writer and broadcaster, and a Patron (formerly Distinguished Supporter) of the British Humanist Association.

International Darwin Day marks the birth of British scientist Charles Darwin.  It celebrates the contribution of Charles Darwin and the wider scientific community to human understanding and development. Co-organiser of the event, David Milne, explained: “International Darwin Day seeks to encourage us all to reflect on the principles of intellectual bravery, scientific thinking and hunger for truth demonstrated by Charles Darwin”.   

Summary of Steve’s presentation: Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ is the real beginning of biology. Evolution equals genetics plus time; it is ‘descent with modification’. Natural selection is design without a designer. In fact ‘evolution makes me feel more important not less’. 

We can observe evolution before our eyes in the development of the HIV/Aids virus. It spread rapidly from the early 1980s to infect 33 million today. Infection rates in some African countries such as Botswana reached 30/40% at one point. It is now thought the virus started in the 1910s/1920s when cities were developing in Africa. However, we would have been unaware of what it was until, with the advent of cheap air travel, it spread to American and European cities– leading to research and identification of the virus. The virus would have come from chimpanzees that, in fighting with other animals, spread it to bush animals. Eating bush meat would then have infected the human population. The origin is tracked to an area of Cameroon. 

Humans split from chimpanzees about 7 million years ago, but were susceptible to viruses carried by them through being of the same genus. Humans have lost many of the genes that in chimpanzees produce big teeth, big muscles and thick hair. We cannot now survive without cooking food – if we ate only raw food we would eventually starve to death. 

Humans are very similar genetically all over the world, whereas the DNA differences between chimpanzee sub-groups, which all live in Central or West Africa, are much more marked. However, humans adapted mentally by evolving large brains (more than half of a new baby’s metabolism is dedicated to the brain). 

Language: as well as passing on DNA, humans pass on culture and learning through language. Other animals do not do this. Even chimpanzees do not teach their young – though the young may learn through imitating the adults. Our modern languages probably originated 60,000 years ago. Evolution in our DNA is not enough to explain the development of humans and all the differences between them. Humans uniquely developed large brains, languages, and the ability to cooperate which sets us apart from other life forms. Thus man is NOT just another animal. 

There followed a lively Q & A session with Steve. Some of the topics touched on were: The recent mitochondrial debate; the fact that, though animals do display altruism, humans are the only species with a sense of self; we don’t know if our species killed off the other types of humans; we don’t need to evolve as much today as we have created environments that are more suited to our species (e.g. we don’t have to fight- off sabre toothed tigers); Dawkins vs EO Wilson. The origin of life is problematic, a unique event, not the same as evolution. It either happened once or many times.  In 1400 there were probably about as many people with white skins as there were people with black skins. By 1900 there were twice as many whites as blacks. In 2015 there are about the same number again. By 2065 there will be twice as many blacks as whites. All people are getting taller (e.g. the Dutch have grown three inches since WW2); we don’t yet understand why this is. 

Richard Sandover 

Mastery of the Mind - from a Buddhist perspective

In February Kusal Ariyawansa (aka Ari) talked to the Stockport group about Meditation and Destiny.

Ari originally came from Sri Lanka where he grew up in a traditional village with a temple at its centre, where people offered flowers and said prayers on a daily basis. Once he was living in the UK someone suggested that he go on a meditation retreat.

The retreat involved waking at 4 am to start meditating in the lotus position from 4.30 to 8.00 am. Breakfast was from 8 to 9 am during which they were taught rules such as abstaining from killing, from lying and from alcohol. Further meditation was from 9 to 11 am. Lunch was from 11am until noon but they weren’t allowed to speak. Meditation from 1 pm to 4 pm was followed by drink and food then more meditation from 6 to 8 pm. By day 6 he was having psychotic episodes with flashbacks to previous scenarios. He also experienced a great desire to sort out injustice and put the world to rights.

After a brief life history of Buddha, Ari went on to talk about Dhamma, the path to liberation. This can be considered non-sectarian for all faiths where liberation means freedom from impurities in the mind resulting in freedom from suffering. It is necessary to practice training the mind persistently, ardently and diligently and each individual has to work out his own path. It is necessary to abstain from sinful actions and pious actions can bring harmony.

He discussed a threefold pathway consisting of Seela (the right morality, involving no killing, no lies, no stealing, no sexual misconduct and no toxicants), Samaadhi (the right concentration, involving mental effort, mental awareness and a wholesome base), and Panna (Wisdom, listening to, understanding and living the wisdom).

Mind precedes everything. There are six senses; hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, touching and feeling. If one observes rather than reacts to sensations (e.g. ignoring an itch), there can be changes to patterns of mind at the deepest level.