Peter Atkins - On Being - The limitless powers of science - SBHA Conference 2011

Scientific Method - took 1000s of years to be discovered.
,,,

Being religious doesn’t automatically mean you are good

source:  http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/446

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments: Read Andrew Browns Blog in The Guardian & 540+ comments

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has expressed its surprise at the reported remarks of Cherie Booth QC today which suggested that being religious was an indication of good character.

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented, ‘Cherie Booth’s remarks show a default assumption still made by too many in society that you are a good person if you are religious – that there is something intrinsically and self-evidently good about being religious and, conversely, that if you are non-religious you are somehow less moral. This is an assumption that persists despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support it.

‘Being religious does not endow people with some special morality or goodness unattainable by the rest of us. Evidence shows that being religious is not an especially important indicator of doing good works for others, nor does it make people less likely to commit crime, with the numbers of religious and non-religious people in prison being roughly proportionate to the wider population.

‘As our society has become increasingly non-religious, with laws built on secular principles of equality, human rights and freedom, we have actually seen increasing tolerance, respect and morality, becoming a less violent, less racist and more accommodating society than we ever were a couple of centuries ago, when religiosity was more widespread.’

Stephen Fry: "it is essential to nail one’s colours to the mast as a humanist."

source: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/447
FEB 04 2010

The British Humanist Association has welcomed the author, comedian, presenter, and director Stephen Fry to its membership and as a Distinguished Supporter of Humanism.

The news comes during a busy Membership Month in which the BHA has announced that it has doubled in size in the last five years and wants to double again in just half the time.

Stephen told the BHA, ‘At a time when the achievements of the enlightenment are questioned, ridiculed, misunderstood and traduced by those who would reverse the progress of mankind, it is essential to nail one's colours to the mast as a humanist.

‘For me, that is not a turning away from mystery or a cold rational dispute with the numinous and spiritual in life, it is an acceptance of the awesome and splendid responsibility we each have for our own destinies, ethics and morals.

I repudiate the authority of churches, revealed texts and vain unsubstantiated assertions and embrace the shared glories of humanity's intellectual and spiritual struggle to understand the universe into which we are born with honesty, openness and faith in our own natures.’

Stephen Fry has long stated his support for Humanism and his personal non-religious beliefs.  He was interviewed in New Humanist magazine in 2003 and also discusses his views on God and religion in his autobiography Moab is my Washpot.  More recently, he won the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association’s award for services to Humanism and LGBT rights in 2009.

Notes

Find out more about the Membership Drive Month.
The BHA has over 120 Distinguished Supporters. These include cultural figures – authors, artists, actors, comedians – as well as campaigners, scientists, historians, broadcasters and MPs and Peers .  Distinguished Supporters’ work with the BHA varies, including attendance at events, speaking engagements, letters to the press on our behalf and activity in Parliament.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) is the national charity representing and supporting the non-religious and campaigning for an end to religious privilege and discrimination based on religion or belief.

Daniel Dennett - why religion and the promotion of it is harmful

source: Daniel Dennett - BHA link.



update 26 April 2009: View & hear Dan Dennetts one hour lecture on BHA YouTube channel.

Eminent philosopher Dan Dennett addressed a packed-out Conway Hall on 19th March 2009 talked about ‘A Darwinian Perspective on Religion’, in which he drew on and developed the “memetic” approach.

He explained how the evolutionary process of adaptation was the only way to explain not solely life, variety, species and so on but language, communication and, crucially, religions.

Religions have developed in many ways and different parts of religion have evolved for different reasons. In an analogy with Dumbo’s “magic feather”, religion was described as a “crutch”, it is an illusion that we need it in order to have morality, or to make sense of the world and so on. Mr Dennett encouraged us to get rid of that crutch, just as Dumbo got rid of his feather and found he could still fly without it.

Daniel Dennett powerfully – but typically humorously – concluded his lecture with explaining why religion and the promotion of it is harmful and damaging to the rational, scientific world in which we live.

Other Reviews:
Tim Jones Zoonomian Review - Darwin, Dennett and Dumbo’s Magic Feather

Selected slides (in reverse order). View full lecture.

TED lectures by Dan Dennett here (25 mins) and here (17 mins).

Launch of a new student federation

According to BHA Newsline 23 February 2009, last week saw the launch of the AHS - a new federation of atheist, Humanist and secular student societies, affiliated to the British Humanist Association. The BHA was instrumental in initiating the AHS and worked with them to organise the launch, as well as on new resources to help with the setting up of even more student groups. Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs, said, 'Our universities and colleges are places where the rational humanist tradition is at its best: places of free inquiry, of personal development and of community. The launch of the AHS today makes that explicit and we are delighted that we can support such a new group.' You can see photos from the launch on BHA site.

Atheist Bus Campaign

visit http://www.atheistcampaign.org

The Atheist Bus Campaign launches today, Tuesday October 21. With your support, we hope to raise £5,500 to run 30 buses across the capital for four weeks with the slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Donate online now!

Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, is officially supporting the Atheist Bus Campaign, and has generously agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of £5,500, giving us a total of £11,000 if we reach the full amount – enough for a much bigger campaign. The British Humanist Association have kindly agreed to administer all donations.

With your help, we can brighten people’s days on the way to work, help raise awareness of atheism in the UK, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. We can also counter the religious adverts which are currently running on London buses, and help people think for themselves.

As Richard Dawkins says: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion.”

For every Humanist in UK there are 100 Humanists in Norway!

source: IHEU Aug 08 newsletter, pg 25

Proportionally Norway Humanist Association has 100 times more members than BHA & NHS in the UK*! The distinctive Strategy of Norwegion Humanist Association (NHA) is that:

• by a 1981 law NHA gain same financial support from Government as religious groups
  
• members get a reduced or free price for non-religious ceremonies (presumably people join NHA to get a discounted service?)
• 10% of youths participate in a Humanist Confirmation ceremony
  

We do not have separation of government and religion in
Norway today.

We still have a state church with specific
privileges in society, having a firm hold over the mindset
of the people in Norway – usually under the guise of
“our cultural heritage”.

More than 80 percent of the
population are still nominally members of the state
church, even if only less than 10 percent go to church
regularly.

This situation – a lot of minorities and a church that
wants to treat all people alike – is probably why some
people have been fighting for the rights of religious
minorities for almost two centuries. The Humanists fit
well into this fighting tradition, and have succeeded in
building an organisation based on a few main activities,
with this fight as one of them.

There are less than five
million people living in Norway, but the Norwegian
Humanist Association today has 73,000 members – or
just below two percent of the population.

* NB. This compares with some 8,000 members of BHA and 6,000 members of NSS from a total UK population of 60 million (0.02% of the population). Pro rata Norway Humanist Association has 100 times more members than BHA & NHS in the UK.

We have adopted a strategy that differentiates between
long term principles and short term possibilities. It is not
a formal strategy, but has in practice been used to
address many important questions, which are presented
below.

Over the years, some attempts have been made to
change the Constitution so that the state church system
would be abolished and the church would have to
finance its own activities. None of these attempts have
gained much support, so the Norwegian Humanist
Association, which was founded in 1956, in the 1970s
tried to get the same financial support for its members.

First they tried to change the Religious Societies law to
include also non-religious life-stance societies, but did
not succeed. If the Humanist group had called itself a
religious society it would have been included, but the
Humanists insisted on not being labelled as religious.

Based on the international human rights instruments it
was not difficult to argue for equal treatment of nonreligious
convictions, but the politicians were reluctant to
give the Humanists the same rights as religious groups.

Therefore

a separate law was made in 1981, which gave
secular life stance groups (which at the time were only
the Humanists) the same financial support as the
religious groups.

And later, when the Humanists were given the right to
perform marriages, this was implemented as a change to
the Marriages Law and not by changing the scope of the
Religious Societies law or the law on financial support
for life stance societies.

Life Stance Groups
And this is the situation we have today. We have three
levels of life stance groups in Norway – the evangelicals
with state church privileges, the other religious societies
and the non-religious life stance groups. And citizens
who do not belong to any of these groups are not
included at all, but the NHA tries to speak for them as
well whenever possible.

We can clearly see that a dream of a
completely secular society in Norway is
still far away. And even if that is still the
long term goal of many Humanists, we
have to fight for many small issues
along the way towards that goal. Most
of those fights are won based on the
principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination by
the government towards its citizens. One common law
for all life stances would be a good step forward.

Humanist Ceremonies
So much for history and the legal battle. Another
important activity for NHA is performing ceremonies.
They are clearly Humanist ceremonies, but are offered
to members and non-members alike, and

members get a
reduced price for the service.

Non-religious funerals have been accepted for quite a
while, even before the NHA was started. Now,

we have
trained funeral officials that perform their job for a fee,
even if the service is free of charge for members.

Religious confirmation was mandatory until 1912, and
more than 93 percent of the youth participated up to
1960. In 1951 Humanist confirmation was established in
Norway, and now more than 10 000 youth participate
each year. This is about 10 percent of the population in
this age group, and religious confirmation has sunk to
about 67 percent.

Baptism is still a strong tradition, even if it is no
longer mandatory. In 1960 almost 97 percent of all
children were still baptised – and thus became members
of the state church. Today this number has sunk to about
74 percent. Celebrating a new baby is not foreign to
Humanists, and a baby naming ceremony has been
developed and is popular today. Humanists are clear
that such a ceremony can well be a private affair within
the family, but offers a ceremony with other parents a
few times a year, around the country.

Marriages have been another area with a huge church
dominance, but the government has offered civil
marriage as an alternative for many years. The
Humanists’ long term goal is that marriage should be a
legal procedure performed by the government only, and
that religious groups and others could give blessings and
celebrate the marriage without the legal part. The civil
marriage ceremony is a solemn, but simple ceremony,
and does not allow the couple to bring many guests. We
have tried to get the government to be more flexible and
to make the civil marriage ceremony more attractive, but
have had very little response. We, therefore, applied for
a license to conduct marriages just as the religious
communities, and got that a few years ago. We also
wanted to perform same-sex marriages, and started with
the partnership ceremony which is as similar to
weddings as possible.

*Roar Johnsen is a vice president of International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), and past president of the Norwegian Humanist Association.
International Humanist News August 2008 pg. 25

Conservative Humanist Association

Conservative Humanist Association are affiliated to the British Humanist Association and the Conservative Party.

Vikkist4r said (in comments):
Our website:
http://www.conservativehumanists.org.uk/

Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15956064609

YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ConservativeHumanist

MySpace page:
http://www.myspace.com/conservativehumanist

Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

by British Humanist Association

Many of you will have seen the coverage in today's press of a new pamphlet on 'faith schools', published by the Centre for Policy Studies, written by Cristina Odone, which seeks to portray the UK 's state-funded faith schools as inclusive and under attack from hostile secularists.
The BHA's Andrew Copson responded to the pamphlet today on The Guardian's 'Comment is Free' website. You can read the blog and post a comment at http://tinyurl.com/4nze3u

We are also asking our members and supporters to post messages on the websites of these newspapers that have covered the story:
Daily Mail: http://tinyurl.com/5dgdev
Daily Telegraph: http://tinyurl.com/5mv87j
This is London: http://tinyurl.com/6dwhh7

We are also asking members and supporters to write to their own MPs, expressing their opposition to faith schools.

You can write to your MP via 'House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA' and you can find details of why faith schools should be opposed at http://tinyurl.com/d7yes

You can read the BHA's press release on the issue at http://tinyurl.com/3qyppc

Humanist Universe by BHA

Great new resource from British Humanist Association courtesy Bob Churchill, the new webmaster.

Humanists appointed to new Government steering group on Religious Education

After many years of urging by the BHA and many others, the Government has now announced a revision of the notorious ‘Circular 1/94’, the official guidance on RE and on SACREs (the local bodies which oversee RE in each local authority - Standing Advisory Council for RE). The process will be guided by a steering group of thirty representatives of different organisations with interest and expertise in RE and we are very pleased that the BHA has two places on this steering group.

They will be filled by Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs and Marilyn Mason, former BHA Education Officer. Over the next 18 months, this group will meet to discuss the many issues to be engaged by the new guidance. Mr Copson commented,

‘Circular 1/94 is the document which is invariably used to exclude humanists from full membership of SACREs and also lays an undue emphasis on Christianity in general and religions in particular which the BHA believes is seriously out of step with contemporary best practice in the teaching about religions and non-religious beliefs.

We are looking forward to working on the steering group to reform these outmoded aspects of the official guidance.’

BHA joins in parliamentary call for children’s right to withdraw from school worship

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has called on the Government to support today’s report from Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights which calls for any child of ‘sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding’ to be given the right to withdraw from compulsory religious worship in schools.

Currently, only sixth form students have the right to withdraw themselves, and other children can only be withdrawn at the request of their parents,

but the Human Rights Committee have said that this violates children’s rights to freedom of belief and conscience.

Writing in support of the Committee’s report to Minister for Schools and Learners, Jim Knight MP, the BHA said, ‘ We agree with the JCHR that the law is clearly inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and that

children of ‘sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding’ should be permitted to withdraw themselves from prayer and other worship.’

Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs, commented,

‘The best situation would be the replacement of the law requiring religious worship with a law requiring inclusive assemblies that would be suitable for all children. For as long as the current law remains, however, children must be allowed to decide for themselves whether they wish to participate. To compel them to pray, or worship in other ways, is a clear interference with their right to freedom of belief – one of the most important rights that we enjoy.’

Humanism Included in Religious Studies GCSE

For the first time, pupils will have the opportunity to study Humanism as part of a Religious Studies GCSE, according to draft proposals for a new Philosophy and Ethics course from exam board OCR

(Oxford, Cambridge and RSA exam boards).

OCR’s Religious Studies suite offers two courses, including a traditional faith-based approach with its World Religions GCSE, where students can study Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism.

The Philosophy and Ethics GCSE takes a modern issues-based approach and encourages students to examine the perspectives which different belief systems take to real-life concerns such as euthanasia and abortion. The course includes units looking at different beliefs on topics such as the Nature of Good and Evil, Medical Ethics and Death and the Afterlife. Students are encouraged to engage with various religious beliefs, with the main focus for teaching on the six main world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism) and Humanism.

Humanism has been added to reflect the increasing number of people sharing humanist beliefs in the UK . Andrew Copson, Director of Education at the British Humanist Association, said: ‘Since the 1960’s the proportion of those whose beliefs and values are Humanist has steadily increased and a MORI poll in 2006 showed that 36 per cent of the UK population shared Humanist views on morality and knowledge. Recent popular works by British Humanists have also helped bring Humanist beliefs and values to greater public prominence. ‘The DfES and QCA have both recommended that Religious Studies should include the study of Humanism so it’s great that OCR has brought Humanism within the scope of their GCSE. We hope that it will make the subject of Religious Studies more engaging for all young people and more relevant to the whole of our diverse society.’

The revised specifications are part of the current nationwide 14 to 19 education reforms and will be ready for first teaching from September 2009, subject to approval from qualifications regulator QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) Teachers and students can view the new specification at www.GCSEchanges.com, along with details of all new draft GCSE specifications from OCR .

A DfES survey of 2004 showed that over 60% of 12-19 year olds said they were not religious and it is a vital part of the BHA’s work to promote beliefs and values education in schools which will be relevant to this majority of pupils and students.

Census 2011 Campaign - help the BHA!

At the BHA we are lobbying the Office of National Statistics to change the ‘religion’ question in the 2011 Census, as we believe that the 2001 question – ‘What is your religion?’ – led to deeply flawed results.

Our objective is to ensure that the question or questions about religion in the 2011 Census give an accurate picture of religious affiliation in the UK.

At least 15.5% of the population is non-religious according to the 2001 Census, making this the second largest ‘belief’ group in the UK, being two-and-a-half times as numerous as all the non-Christian religions put together. This figure, however, is by any sensible reckoning far too low. Firstly, the Office of National Statistics itself admits that the leading nature of the ‘religion’ question meant that many people, especially those with a loose (for example, merely cultural) affiliation to a religion, would have identified themselves as religious when they are not [Office of National Statistics (ONS) (2004) ‘Focus on Religion’, 11th October 2004. http://tinyurl.com/2dpnqw]. This is particularly true of those who identified themselves as ‘Christian’. Secondly, a large proportion of those people who identified themselves as affiliated in some sense to a religion in fact have no active involvement.

Apart from the inaccuracy of the data collected on religious affiliation, there are real, practical problems with the use of this data. The Census data on religion says nothing about the actual religious practice, involvement, belief or belonging of the population. However, both central and local government use this data in resource allocation and for targeting equality initiatives. And the figure stating that 72% of the population are ‘Christian’ has been used in a variety of ways, such as to justify the continuing presence of Bishops in the House of Lords, to justify the state-funding of faith schools (and their expansion), to justify and increase religious broadcasting and to exclude the voices of humanists in Parliament and elsewhere.

The Office of National Statistics has written to the BHA telling us that they have done some testing of the question and that their results show that the 2001 Census question on religion should be used again. In light of how the data has been misused, we believe that this is a highly irresponsible decision. In order to strengthen our case, we need evidence that demonstrates the difficulties created by the 2001 Census question.

Therefore, we would be very grateful if you could look out for information in your locality which justifies ‘faith-based’ practices by public bodies based on Census results. Examples of this may include making funding decisions using this data or changes in service delivery or justifying the allocation of resources on the basis of Census data on religion.

If you have any pertinent examples, please let us know so that we can build up evidence showing the misuse of the questionable 2001 data.

All information should be sent to Naomi Phillips, BHA Public Affairs Officer, naomi@humanism.org.uk. Contact Naomi for more information, by email or on 020 7079 3585.

Thank you for your help.

British Humanist Association calls for changes in Primary Curriculum

via Suffolk Humanists & Securalists

British Humanist Association calls for changes in Primary Curriculum

The British Humanist Association (BHA) today made a submission to the DCSF’s Rose Review of the Primary Curriculum, calling for a

reform of religious education (RE), a focus on the development of morals, values and social interaction, inclusive assemblies and the teaching of evolution and scientific method in all primary schools.

Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs, said, ‘Our submission to the Primary Review incorporates a vital and large part of our work in education – the reform of the primary curriculum to suit better the needs of all children, and to ensure that primary education is inclusive and consistent across all maintained schools.’

Mr Copson continued, ‘In our submission, we make clear the need to

reform RE to be a national curriculum subject involving learning about religious and non-religious worldviews, and to promote critical thinking skills. We call for Citizenship Education to be made a statutory part of the curriculum and we make the case, again, for the urgent need to replace divisive compulsory collective worship with inclusive assemblies.’

For further comment or information, please email Andrew Copson or telephone on 020 7079 3584

Read the British Humanist Association’s submission to the Rose Review of the Primary Curriculum here .

www.humanismforschools.org.uk is the first stage of a BHA project for 2008/9 which aims to provide resources not just to teachers but also to teacher trainers, student, parents and governors.

Read the BHA’s policy on religion and schools A Better Way Forward here .

BHA Humanism for Schools - Toolkit 2 - What do we celebrate and why? (ages 7-11)

The new BHA Humanism for Schools website has teachers resources for 5-14 year olds.

Humanism is a non-religious approach to life, which the Government and QCA recommend be studied in schools as an example of a secular philosophy. In practice, this most often happens in RE lessons where pupils are also learning about some religious approaches to life.

Six Toolkits are provided for Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 . Each toolkit has a teaching guide (introduction), lesson notes, worksheets and class presentation.

Toolkit 2: What do we celebrate and why? (ages 7-11)

Introduction
The aim of this toolkit is to explore the humanist idea that our relationships with others are important. Humanists say that it is our human relationships, and the love, commitment, and responsibility in those relationships, which give us the love and support we need in life. Humanists do not believe there is any god who looks after us.

Humanist new baby ceremonies and weddings/civil partnerships reflect this idea. New baby ceremonies focus on the love, commitment, and responsibility of the parents and wider family and friends towards the child. Weddings and civil partnerships celebrate the love, commitment, and responsibility of the couple towards each other and the support which friends and family can give.

Curriculum Links
Religious Education, particularly the themes of 'Beliefs and Questions', 'The Journey of Life and Death', 'Religion and the Individual' and 'Religion, Family, and Community'.
Citizenship/ PSHE 1a, 2a, 2e, 2i, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4f
English, opportunities for speaking and listening, group discussion and interaction, drama, reading, and writing
Opportunities for Art and Music

Lesson Guide

Class Presentation (see bottom of this page)

Worksheets

Humanism for Schools - Toolkit 1 - What makes us Special? (ages 5-7)

The new BHA Humanism for Schools website has teachers resources for 5-14 year olds.

Humanism is a non-religious approach to life, which the Government and QCA recommend be studied in schools as an example of a secular philosophy. In practice, this most often happens in RE lessons where pupils are also learning about some religious approaches to life.

Six Toolkits are provided for Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 . Each toolkit has a teaching guide (introduction), lesson notes, worksheets and class presentation.

Toolkit 1: What makes us Special? (ages 5-7)

Introduction

For humanists, one of the most important attributes of humans is the ability which we have to ask questions about the world around us and investigate those questions.

Humanists do not look to any god or sacred texts for guidance in life, but look rather to our own human ability to ask questions, explore the world, reflect on our own experience, and find answers.

Humanists say that our curiosity, and the intelligence, imagination, creativity, and empathy with which we seek answers to our questions, demands responsibility: we can change the world we live in and we are responsible for our own actions.

Learning Objectives
Pupils are able to give their own answers to the following questions:

• What makes us special?
• How have our questions changed the world?
• Is it always a good idea to think about lots of questions?

Pupils are able to compare their answers with those of humanists and other people.
Pupils are able to explain why humanists say that thinking about questions is special.

Summary of Activities

Pupils explore the humanist 'happy human' logo and watch video clips of humanists talking about their ideas, in order to find out about the humanist idea that being able to think about questions makes people special because it means we can change our world and think for ourselves.

Curriculum Links
Religious Education, in particular the themes of 'believing', 'symbols' and 'myself'
Art and Design, sections 1a, 2 and 3
Citizenship, sections 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e, 2g, 4a, 4b, 5b, 5c, 5f, 5g
English, opportunities for speaking, listening, group discussion and interaction, and drama
ICT, 2a, 2b, 2d, 3a, 3b
Science, 2a, 2b, 2f, 2g

Lesson Guide

Class Presentation (see bottom of this page)

Worksheets

Humanist discussion of Ethics

Here are some excerpts from BHA on the subject of Ethics:

• Humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone:
• Humanists do not refer to sacred texts or religious authorities when making moral decisions.
  
• Humanists base their lives on guiding principles, not dogmatic rules.
  
• Despite that, humanists do not believe that basic moral principles are simply matters of personal preference or that they can vary much from place to place or time to time - humanists are not relativists
• Humanists value ideas for which there is evidence
• Humanists believe that it is reasonable to enjoy the good things in life if we can do so without harming others or the environment.
  
• They think we should all try to live full and happy lives, and that one way to do this is to help other people to do the same. So humanists believe in making responsible choices.
  
• Humanists believe that we should review moral codes in the light of our principles and of developments in society and human knowledge.
  
• The fact that we can do certain things does not mean that we ought to, but who is to decide what we do? Scientists? Doctors? Politicians? Moral philosophers? Religious leaders? Each individual?
  
• reason is what distinguishes human beings from animals and that we therefore ought to use reason to solve problems and make life better.
  
• There are some actions, like murder, that we can generally accept as wrong - we do not have to weigh up the pros and cons every time we are faced with a murder. And, in a democratic nation like the UK , we should obey the law. If humanists think a law is immoral, they work to change it
  
• But there are many moral situations where we do have to think for ourselves. Humanists consider carefully the particular situation and the effects of choices on the happiness or suffering of the people (and sometimes animals) concerned and the wider community. They weigh up the evidence, the probable consequences of the action, and the rights and wishes of those involved, trying to find the kindest course of action or the option that will do the least harm and will not compromise their personal principles or integrity. Often humanist perspectives on moral issues are not very different from those of liberally-minded religious people. However, a humanist view is explicitly based on reason, experience, and empathy and respect for others, rather than on tradition or deference to authority, which often influence religious views.
  
• All this may seem like simple common sense, but it is far from simple in its application.
• Although many people (including many religious people) do make moral decisions this way, others decide very differently.
  
• Some people just obey the teachings of their religion;
  
• others accept the conventional wisdom of the day.
  
• Some people adopt rigid rules which they apply in all circumstances;
  
• others avoid thinking about moral issues at all or let individual personal preference decide the issue.
  
• We are all confronted sometimes with moral choices, perhaps because the situation involves us, or because we are in a position to decide for or advise other people - even voting in an election or shopping might involve making moral choices. As intelligent rational beings, we ought to think about how we make these choices.
  
• Shared values Communities can survive and work efficiently, and increase the welfare and happiness of their members, only if the people who live in them co-operate and accept certain principles, based on shared human values. These include:
  
• looking after the young and other vulnerable people;
  
• valuing the truth and respecting promises;
  
• fair allocation of power and property according to some recognised system which includes merit;
  
• mutual assistance in defence and disasters;
  
• disapproval and punishment of wrongdoers, restraints on violence and killing.
  

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has gained wide international acceptance, and which celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in 1998, is underpinned by a belief in shared human needs and values.
• Statement of values by the National Forum for Values in Education and the Community
• The Golden Rule
  
• Although many of the less important rules vary, all traditions seem to have come up with a version of the "Golden Rule": "Do as you would be done by" or "Treat other people in a way you would like to be treated yourself".
  
• Humanists have been impressed with the apparently universal nature of this rule and with its egalitarianism and usefulness as a basic principle. It is based on human nature and experience, using our need to be treated well by others and our aspiration to live harmoniously with others as its foundation. It can be worked out by anyone, anywhere, by reference to experience. It does not need to be given to us by a deity.
  
• It has been called "a searchlight, not a map", a metaphor which summarises its undogmatic appeal to humanists. The Golden Rule can be the foundation for other principles.
  

• Morality without religion
  
• Humanist ethics makes human beings solely responsible for working out and implementing moral values and codes. Of course, we do not choose these completely arbitrarily - they must be based on principles that respect the autonomy (or personal freedom) of others and the general welfare.
  
• Morality is much more necessary than religion, and in an era of declining religious belief it is a dangerous mistake to confuse the two.
  
• Religious faith does motivate and support some people in living better lives, and that is surely a good thing for the community - the more good people there are, the better for all of us.
  
• But religion and dogmatic authorities are not essential for morality.
  
• Many non-religious people think that it is actually more moral to think for oneself, and to make responsible and independent choices without divine authority or the hope of divine reward in an afterlife. Freely choosing to help someone else could be considered more virtuous than helping someone out of obedience or because you expect a reward

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1222

"Darwin: A Philosophical Naturalist?" by Tim Lewens

The BHA's annual Darwin Day Lecture is held each year on or around Darwin Day (12th February) in the Darwin Theatre at University College London. In 2008 the Lecture was again chaired by Richard Dawkins. The Lecture was given by Tim Lewens whose talk was entitled "Darwin: A Philosophical Naturalist?"

Listen to the talk here.

The archbishop adapts to survive by Andrew Copson, BHA

Post your comments here
TODAY 14th Feb (NB. Guardian posts only accept comments for 3 days).

It's no surprise that Rowan Williams wants other religions to be accorded the same sense of privilege as the Church of England

Andrew Copson

Profile

All Andrew Copson articles

February 12, 2008 6:30 PM

Imagine that you are sitting in Lambeth Palace as Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the established church in England. It may not seem an enviable position (even without the fracas of recent days).

Although your church is nominally the national church, most people don't even get married (pdf) in it any more, hardly anyone comes to your services, most people don't believe in the doctrines that your church promotes, they're not religious and a lot of them don't even believe in god(s) at all.

Still, it's not all bad.

You and 25 bishops of your church sit as of right in the nation's parliament, something no other religious group can claim; your church controls a third of all the state schools in the country at almost no expense to itself and the government actually wants you to take on the provision of more public services at no cost

but with potentially positive consequences for your claim to national significance.

But it must nag at you that there is a bit of a mismatch between the power and privilege your organisation holds and the public support it has; you may find it hard to justify the position of a national church when it doesn't any longer represent the nation.

With an eye to the future, you really do need to find another way to shore up your church's position. (The alternative - the creation of a society where no one religion is privileged but all citizens, whatever their beliefs, are treated with impartiality by a state that favours no one religion or non-religious philosophy and is neutral between all of them - is presumably too horrible to contemplate.)

So, if the Catholic church wants exemption from laws to protect gay people from discrimination, you give them your support and even when you have to accept the case for abolishing the legal protection you own religion has from "blasphemy", you can still salvage something by raising the spectre of offence caused to other religions (as the archbishop says, "The grounds for legal restraint in respect of language and behaviour offensive to religious believers are pretty clear"). And

if you want to protect the special status of the church and Christianity in law, then you speak up for the rights of those of other religions to have their religious law recognised

(to quote the archbishop again, "Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences"). Replacing "Church of England" with "faith" makes any defence of special treatment seem a whole lot more reasonable.

Judging by the outraged reaction of so many at Rowan Williams' comments on sharia law, there was considerable surprise that he said what he said. In fact, nothing could be less surprising.

Of course

Williams wishes to argue for the extension of at least some of the privileges enjoyed by his own church to other religions. Such an argument, coupled with the sustained critique (some might say assault) on secularism and other Enlightenment values by a number of bishops in the Church of England, is the best defence the church today has for its own privileged position.

What would have been genuinely surprising would be for an archbishop to come out in favour of universal human rights and state neutrality in its dealings with each citizen, whatever their religious or non-religious convictions; for an end to the archaic privileges of the seats in the Lords, the schools, the state-funded public services, the legally enforceable protection from insult. For as long as we allow the anachronism of an established church, however, we can pretty much guarantee that no Archbishop of Canterbury will ever do so.

For more on the debate on Islamic law, click here

Comments ex: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_copson/2008/02/the_archbishop_adapts_to_survive.html

AntwnPowell

Comment No. 1123932

February 12 18:44

FRA

Excellent article. Lets have a secular state enshrined by a written constitution.

MaidMarian

Comment No. 1123965

February 12 18:58

GBR

The best article I have seen on this issue by a country mile.

freepoland

Comment No. 1124039

February 12 19:35

GBR

Good article. The issue is about public and private spheres. Members of private clubs can have their own rules of behaviour and are entitled to agree what to do with their subscriptions and who to include and exclude. But the law of the land demands that your club members should not break the common rules of the state.

Problem with the C of E is that its schools, its churches and graveyards, its parishes and festivals are part of the civic superstructure. The C of E is not a private club, and the atheists or secularists or humanists among us have a legitimate interest in what it does. When its leader tells us that some of the rules of that and other religious institutions (please let's stop calling them 'faiths') would be a useful adornment to the civil laws, or that they can be considered as parallel (even if not superior) jurisdictions,

we know he feels his Church is in deep trouble.

The one separation needed even more than that between Church and State is that between Belief and Morality. Islamic, Catholic, Jewish and Anglican moralities are wildly different, and have changed wildly over time. They should be ignored, even if we can cheerfully put up with their beliefs. It's hard enough for the law to keep up with all the other moralities on offer.

dionysusreborn

Comment No. 1124133

February 12 20:24

GBR

As C of E attendances have fallen below one million a week, the Archbishop obviously needs to gain allies amongst other faiths if he is to maintain the influence of his church. He's looking for marriage of convenience that is more concerned with the power of religion than its spirituality.

BobChurchill

Comment No. 1124540

February 13 0:29

GBR

This has got to be one of the highest positive to negative responses ratios I've ever seen on CiF!

Paulchina

Comment No. 1124583

February 13 1:16

CHN

Spot on.

As I think many of us had already noted, this plea for respect for another religion is a not-even-thinly-disguised plea to save his own church. And, it is indeed an attack on secularism - A blatant and shameless and totally obvious ploy.

bromleyboy

Comment No. 1124854

February 13 7:41

What people like Copson want is to end all the so-called privileges accorded to religious bodies, including their charitable work, while keeping those privileges for all non-religious bodies. Hardly an unbiassed approach.

This is all part of the secularist myth that religion is, or should be, a purely private activity which individuals should be permitted to practice on the quiet. But the word "religion" means "to bind together", so its nature is ESSENTIALLY communal, not individual. It was the churches which originated nearly all the great charitable work in this country.

DavidPollock

Comment No. 1125188

February 13 10:48

GBR

Excellent article as usual, Andrew.

Of course the ABC has to defend - and try to extend -religious privilege, religious influence on government and religious exemptions from equality and non-discrimination laws, if for no other reason than to keep up with the European churches who are steadily getting their tentacles into the European Union.

What, did you think we saw off the idea of Christian values being written into the European constitution? But that was only ever cover for the real battle - the one we lost.

The Lisbon Treaty now requires the EU to maintain a regular dialogue with the churches.

Already there are regular joint meetings of religious hierarchies with the Presidents of the Commission, Council and Parliament, one-to-one meetings with the governments holding the Council presidency and frequent EU-financed seminars.

Now they are planning what more to demand (see http://www.comece.org/comece.taf?_function=news&_sub=&id=4&language=en - "These talks are indeed necessary but they alone are in our view not enough to satisfy the offer of an open, transparent and regular dialogue").

What they - the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox bishops of Europe - want was revealed in their 1993 contribution to the discussion of the abortive Constitution. They want a special "pre-legislative consultation procedure", regular "dialogue seminars" with the closest advisors to the Commission president, and a "liaison office ... in the [EU Commission] Secretariat General" that would be informed about all "legislative and political initiatives" the churches might wish to have a say on.

What the bishops want in Europe the C of E already has in entirely informal ways in Britain: it has little formal power but (as I have seen myself) huge informal influence over even non-religious Ministers. Now the ABC wants to formalise and entrench that influence before it becomes so blatantly anomalous that it is swept away.

Similarly, as his numbers decline towards extinction, he is trying with strong Government backing via religious corporations and charities to take over central public services - Jobcentres, probation, you name it - so as to build an alternative power base for the church (see http://tinyurl.com/3a4497 and http://tinyurl.com/25w2hb).

The politics is plain to those with eyes to see.

(Incidentally, bromleyboy at comment 1124854 is right that "What people like Copson want is to end all the so-called privileges accorded to religious bodies" - why should there be any privilege for individuals on the basis of their private beliefs, let alone for undemocratic institutions that are largely unrepresentative of their claimed followers? - but entirely wrong that we want to "keep those privileges for all non-religious bodies" - not sure actually what privileges non-religious bodies have, but it is directly against Humanist and secularist policy to accept any such privilege: we want an open soc

Freemind

Comment No. 1125885

February 13 15:03

GBR

The subject of the Archbishop's speech cannot in itself have been responsible for the overwhelming upsurge of public protest that resulted. A few years ago it might well have passed unnoticed. No, what he said acted as a catalyst to open the floodgates of public concern over the perspective of Islam in the UK as often presented by the media and fueled all too readily by the pronouncements and antics of some Muslims themselves. We may recall the recent Islamic marches in London where the purveyors of hate brandished placards that, in their advocacy of criminal acts towards the liberal, Democratic West, demonstrated a freedom of expression denied, at least in public perception, to the rest of us. I will here quote five of theses messages: 'Europe you will pay - extermination is on its way,' 'Europe you will pay - 9/11 is on its way,' 'Butcher those who mock Islam,' 'Freedom go to hell' and 'Islam will dominate the world.'
Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury was not aware of the messages conveyed by this march but he ought to be since according to BBC and Chanel 4 interviews, the opinions of this rabble are far from being those of a fringe minority. The Archbishop of Rochester is at least aware of no-go areas in a number of British towns, as I am, even though some of our politicians claim they are not.
Its adherents claim that Islam is a way of life but those of us who take a broader view of things might instead regard them as besotted by religion in the way Christians were centuries ago. And therein lies the problem: we have a backward looking culture at odds with a largely free-minded, secular society whose material advantages they are eager to accept but not its philosophies. From their threats and propositions are cast the shadow of a new Dark Age.
Now, before anyone shouts 'racist,' I'll remind you that Muslims are not a race any more than Jews and Christians are a race - or people from Yorkshire, if you like. Islam is a culture; so as a freethinking supporter of the Western Democratic system, perhaps I stand as being a 'culturalist,' since that is not, as far as I know, yet been made illegal.
I have gained over the years Jewish, Christian and Muslim friends, something we Atheists can do with more comfort and ease than is apparently the case amongst those who hold differing and strong religious convictions. One thing I will mention: My Muslim friend once pointed out to me that many in the UK holding her religious opinions, albeit to a more extreme degree, regard Usama bin Laden as a hero. Well, I suppose if being a wealthy man in hiding who directs others to waste their own lives in murdering others is seen as such then we need to redefine the word itself. But then she doubtless referred to those in this country and elsewhere who would advocate Sharia law.

marcdraco

Comment No. 1126103

February 13 16:16

GBR

"What people like Copson want is to end all the so-called privileges accorded to religious bodies, including their charitable work, while keeping those privileges for all non-religious bodies." - Bromleyboy

Utter tosh.

You really should engage a bit more with the BHA before you post reactionary comments like that.

An end to priviledges like the Bishops having an automatic seat in the House of Lords is hardly the same as stopping their charitable work, now is it?

And of this charitable work, how much of what is raised do you think goes to admin costs? How much gets swallowed into the coffers of the great churches?

You only get the facts when you look at the whole picture.

Paulchina

Comment No. 1126390

February 13 17:48

CHN

Dear Peitha,

It is the very fact that you cannot see your special priviledge to take our taxes and spend them indoctrinating British children in your religion that is the reason that priviledge should be taken from you. Yes you do pay taxes, so if you want them spent indoctrinating children, spend them yourself. Just your own money. Don't take money from everyone else.

You refer to over-subscription to faith schools. Precisely the argument. The government should spend money on all schools equally, concentrate on giving them all a decent 'ethos' and have them all oversubscribed. Who says that ethos must be christian or muslim or any other weird belief.

And I repeat the argument. Children do not have a religion, because they are children. How can you take your over-subscription list to your nice christian school and weed out the non-christians? Colour of their skin? Test them or test their parents?

There should be no religion (beyond the personal) in the functions of the state, and that means in schools.

And yes, if it is an irrational belief system, then arguments for it I will call propaganda. When I have an irrational belief system, complete with fairies and virgins and walking on water, I will be sure to send you one of my own propaganda leaflets (at my own expense).

++++++++++++ Andrew Copsons' Reply +++++++++++++

cathpal

Comment No. 1124108

February 12 20:12

GBR

Rowan is recognizing that there are some menacing signs for faith holders being presented in the public domain recently.Things that have been taken for granted as red by faith holders are suddenly under scrutiny, faith schools for instance.Catholic doctors never before under questioning by others, for their right to opt out of abortions, now under some dialogical pressure with the why should you when in the NHS? Abortion is after all an absolute human right in most secularist atheist perceptions, so the right not to perform one is under pressure if these norms are to be enforced. One example of the development of this growing pressure is to be found in the universities.Two Christian unions have had to fight for their right to be supported by their university guilds.There has been a protacted tug-of-war between CUs at Birmingham and Exeter universities and their respective student guilds.These groups have existed unnoticed for years, now they are under attack. There is a militancy asserting itself in the secularist agenda, which those with faith are on the receiving end of, Rowan is attempting to articulate a workable way through.

greymatter

Comment No. 1124599

February 13 1:30

GBR

cathpal
Comment No. 1124108
February 12 20:12
"..Rowan is recognizing that there are some menacing signs for faith holders being presented in the public domain recently.Things that have been taken for granted as red by faith holders are suddenly under scrutiny, faith schools for instance.Catholic doctors never before under questioning by others, for their right to opt out of abortions, now under some dialogical pressure with the why should you when in the NHS? Abortion is after all an absolute human right in most secularist atheist perceptions, so the right not to perform one is under pressure if these norms are to be enforced."
==

Yes indeed. This is also becoming a growing problem with some muslim (sigh!) medical students, where there have been cases of refusing by 'religious' objection to engaging with issues of alcohol-relate disease, or STDs, and even of male students refusing to attend female patients. The solution is simple - kick them out of the profession.

cathpal

Comment No. 1126294

February 13 17:19

GBR

greymatter
"Yes indeed.....The solution is simple - kick them out of the profession."

So from your comment you don't seem to think then Catholic/Muslim/Jewish/other doctors should be able to assert their consciences in issues of abortion (you agree with the pressure)? Basically you think the secularist moral norms laid down in the law should be enforceable on all workers in the public sphere as being carried out in a pro-active way?

Andrew Copson says:

Kharin: The presence of bishops in the Lords is not the only privilege for the Church of England; there is also the state funding of schools, chaplaincy and other aspects of their 'mission'. Apart from legal privileges, there is the informal influence that comes from a generalised feeling that 'faith' is important; this is certainly something that the Church seeks to take advantage of and it can only be bolstered if religions other than the Church of England are apparently brought into the mix.

Kharin

Comment No. 1126785

February 13 20:12

GBR

I think there's a lot to this theory and it certainly mirrors a lot of my own thinking on it. However, there is one flaw, namely that Anglicanism doesn't have any special privilege with respect to the current law structures. The only respect it does have any privilege there is in terms of seats in the House of Lords and it could have addressed that by advocating Imams to be allowed to sit there as well (as Rabbis already have).

Andrew Copson says:

Kharin: The presence of bishops in the Lords is not the only privilege for the Church of England; there is also the state funding of schools, chaplaincy and other aspects of their 'mission'. Apart from legal privileges, there is the informal influence that comes from a generalised feeling that 'faith' is important; this is certainly something that the Church seeks to take advantage of and it can only be bolstered if religions other than the Church of England are apparently brought into the mix.

bicker

Comment No. 1127030

February 13 22:37

CAN

I disagree with Mr Copsons analysis.

The is no vast conspiracy here to enhance the CofE's social standing or influence.

Nothing of the sort.

The ugly truth is Rowan Williams actualy IS so misinformed about Islam that he would advocate shari law.

The ABC gleaned his info on Islam from none other than *progressive* Tariq Ramadan, radical Islam's point man in Europe and a purveyor of lies, deceptions and half-truths about the true nature of the religion.

*Beardy* isn't making ANY powerplay. The frightening truth is that he is sorely misinformed about Islam, like so many others in positions of responsability.

I mean, you'd have to be utterly clueless to invite T. Ramadan to lecture at Oxford, wouldn't you?

Rowan Williams awkward foray into the fray is yet another example of what a systemic and systematic campaign of misinformation about Islam's threat can achieve.

The bishop is just a symptom of the absolute stupidity of our times.

Sadly, he has no ulterior motives!

Andrew Copson says:

Bicker: I'm not saying there's a 'vast conspiracy' and it may well be that Rowan Williams' advocacy of sharia is the result of misinformation received by him. But there still has to be an explanation of why he is willing to advocate for other religions in the first place. Part of the explanation, I think, is that the bringing together of other religions under the general banner of 'faith' in general serves to increase the apparent significance of religion in the lives of people in Britain and so apparently justify the continuing privileging of the churches.