HumanistLife

Discussing atheism in highly religious countries

by

With the news replete with stories of humanists and freethinkers killed and persecuted for ‘blasphemy’ around the world, Alex Sinclair-Lack asks ‘How candid can I be about my beliefs’?

Amman’s Citadel in Jordan. Photo by Alex Sinclair-Lack.

All humanists must grapple with the question of when it is appropriate to tell people that you don’t believe in their god, and when, if ever, you might choose to hide your beliefs for fear of causing offence. Across the atheist spectrum there is strong disagreement about how to approach these issues. At one extreme, there are those who keep their beliefs completely hidden. At the other, we have keyboard warriors with an uncanny ability to turn the YouTube comment sections of pop videos and cookery guides into pseudo-theological, venomous outpourings about the failings of the Catholic Church. Frankly, I have a little sympathy for both. However, the dilemma I describe becomes more apparent and important in highly religious countries. During a six-month stay in Amman, Jordan, I discovered my own answer to the question.

Having found comfort and confidence in
shared values of compassion. I made the conscious
decision to tell people of my lack of faith.

As a liberal and a humanist, I had reservations about moving to a Middle Eastern country. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Jordan does not share many of the intolerances of the surrounding nations. In fact, it blows many perceptions of the region out of the water. Surrounded by Iraq, Israel, Syria and Saudi Arabia; Jordan has remained peaceful, safe, and welcoming. While the UK Parliament pats itself on the back for having voted to let in a couple of hundred child refugees, Jordan was taking them in by the million. It is worth noting that King Abdullah II does this in spite of a devastating water shortage because he considers it Jordan’s moral duty to help refugees regardless of nationality and religion.

Having found comfort and confidence in shared values of compassion, I made the conscious decision to tell people of my lack of faith. At first to Jordanian friends, and then to colleagues, and eventually to inquiring strangers. The inquiry comes up more often than you might expect. Reactions ranged from sheer horror, to intrigue, to nonchalance. My personal favourite occurred during filming for an unfinished pet project, a documentary short: Syrian Santa. It was centred on a young Muslim refugee working as Father Christmas in a mall, who when I asked him if my non-belief offended him, replied: ‘Oh please, all of my friends are atheists!’

A multi-faith mural in Jordan. Photo by Alex Sinclair-Lack.

Questions usually followed, and I was happy to answer. Each Q&A session reassured me that these conversations were valuable. This is not because I had any intention of ‘proselytising’ or ‘converting’ or whatever the non-religious equivalent is (de-proselytising, perhaps). Any attempts to convert Muslims or hurt ‘Muslim feelings’ would have landed me a three-year prison sentence. But far more importantly, because it is not my business as a guest of the country to even be considering such an act. I have as little desire to proselytise as I do to be proselytised. My interest lies in conversation not conversion.

Any discussions of faith should be treated with sensitivity and cultural awareness, otherwise they are not only disrespectful and neo-colonial, but counter-productive. I will never preach my beliefs, but I will happily engage with those who are willing. When my admission was met with a grimace, I would follow up with, ‘I realise that atheists do not have a good reputation, but I welcome any questions about my beliefs, if you are interested’.

Reasonable people from all belief systems are keen to understand how non-believers come to ethical decisions and agree that discussion is valuable

The very act of having a friendly conversation…
goes a long way to combating prejudice.

Firstly, the discussion counters widespread misconceptions about what it means to be an atheist. For most people, I was the first openly atheistic person they had encountered. Although my ex-partner might disagree, I like to think that I don’t match up to the idea of an atheist as a nihilistic, ethically reprehensible sinner with a black hole where my heart is meant to be. The very act of having a friendly conversation with a well-meaning, open, and non-pushy non-believer goes a long way to combating prejudice.

Secondly, just by opening a dialogue you create a safe space for other people to explore their own doubt or scepticism, but who are unlikely to have had the same freedoms you have had. This is more likely than you might think. According to a 2012 WIN/Gallup poll, 18% of people in the Arab world consider themselves ‘not a religious person’. That is the equivalent of 75 million people. The percentage rises to as high as 33% in Lebanon and perhaps even more surprisingly, 19% in Saudi Arabia. Even if you do not meet these people directly, you may indirectly inspire tolerance towards them. And there is a reasonable chance you will have enough influence on someone to make them consider before jumping to harsh judgement and disownment. Atheists and agnostics within highly religious countries have one hell of a trail to blaze. What I am advocating is recognising your privilege and using it to help their journey run a little smoother.

I’m not supporting walking around the holy land with an ‘I love Richard Dawkins’ t-shirt. I only had this conversation when I was somewhat confident that I was safe. I would not be so brave as to openly discuss it in Bangladesh or Saudi Arabia, where the price of standing up for non-belief has been such a tragic one. In at least thirteen countries, atheism is punishable by death. And in these countries, the bravery and dangers faced by activists fighting to protect their right to non-belief is not to be compared with anything I will ever encounter. Nor would I be naive enough to claim that everyone has the luxury to speak so openly about non-belief. But it is recognition of that privilege that motivates me. I have been lucky enough to grow up in a society where I am free from these dangers; most people are not.

Use your wits and your intuition, when you feel unsafe, keep your views to yourself. Check the Freedom of Thought Report before you visit any religious country and only do what you feel comfortable with. Given an opportunity, atheists who live with the privilege of safety have a responsibility to detoxify the debate for those that don’t. For me, it is a risk worth taking. Some of my most humbling experiences were when Jordanian people were telling me that I had helped them combat their prejudices. All humanists have a small part to play.

Alex Sinclair-Lack is a writer with an appetite for travel. You can follow his writing and his exploits on Twitter at @alexsinclair.

Highlights from Young Humanists’ ‘ask me anything’ session with the co-founder of Faith to Faithless

by

Young Humanists is the section of the BHA specifically for humanists aged 18-35. It runs a regular Twitter debate once a month using the hashtag #YHDebate. March’s debate took the form of an ‘ask me anything’ (AMA) with Imtiaz Shams, a BHA trustee who is also the co-founder of Faith to Faithless, which provides support and advice to people who experience discrimination, rejection, or abuse when leaving religion.

Below are a selection of the best questions from a number of young humanists and others in the general public. You can click on any tweet to see Imtiaz’s response.

https://twitter.com/LaurenNicholas2/status/839923433907572736

https://twitter.com/AlfredaEilo/status/839927853806419968

Make sure you join in for the next #YHDebate on twitter on 19 April, which will be on Humanism and conservatism (ooh).

The ‘good news’

by

‘All I had done was to nurse from my heart. How could it be harmful to tell someone about Jesus?’

These are the words of Sarah Kuteh, an experienced nurse, who is suing Darent Valley Hospital in Dartford for unfair dismissal with the backing of the Christian Legal Centre.

Kuteh was dismissed in August following complaints from patients that she had held ‘unwanted discussions’ about her Christian faith with them. She was issued with a written warning in April this year, and claims to have modified her behaviour since; yet the hospital reportedly received three further complaints from patients, after which Kuteh was suspended pending an investigation and ultimately sacked.

There has been predictable outcry from the converted. As one commentator says on the Christian Concern Facebook page, ‘What a wonderful nurse. That is exactly the sort of person I would want nearby for myself or a family member when facing their own mortality in a time of serious illness. This action is totally unjustified and a further example of our PC society gone mad. God bless you!’

But let us imagine for a moment an alternative scenario, in which an experienced nurse is a committed and vocal atheist. When interviewing a frail old lady who volunteers for the Patient Information Form that she is a member of the Church of England, our nurse informs her enthusiastically and with love in her heart that there is no God, and that grasping this truth has made her happy. Supporting a grieving relative, who whispers through his tears the sincerely-held belief that he will see his dead wife again, she butts in to inform him that this is not the case, and assures him that he will find strength and happiness in embracing the truth.

Unthinkable, is it not? Yet it is this kind of cruel and insulting imposition which some Christians defend and practise. My own experience of it has been regular and appalling. Perhaps the worst example was when an evangelical colleague told me that a dead friend was ‘in a better place’; the friend was in his thirties and had died very suddenly, leaving his partner – a much closer friend – with her world and her future smashed to pieces.

The repeated inability of many believers to grasp just how heinous this kind of behaviour is truly baffles me – and yet is Christianity itself not founded upon the principle of sharing the Good News? In Kuteh’s own words ‘how could telling anyone about Jesus Christ really be harmful to any patient?’

To a believer, this is presumably irrefutable: when your mindset is transfixed by the alternative reality that salvation awaits the converted, the desire to proselytise to those who are touching fingertips with their own mortality must be difficult to resist. But it must be resisted, for the sake of empathy and compassion – which is exactly why the hospital issued guidelines to its staff advising them explicitly to observe restraint when it comes to their personal beliefs. This is not about ‘political correctness’ – it is about professionalism and humanity.

Listening to the interview given to camera by Kuteh, one cannot doubt her sincerity. In her view, she was giving patients strength: “I have had to reassure [patients] based on the joy and peace that I really have found in the Lord.” In the absence of full evidence, I make no comment on the fairness or unfairness of her dismissal, and trust that those involved in the legal processes will make a judgement based upon the detailed evidence brought before them – there may well be a case to answer if the investigation was not handled in the appropriate manner, as Kuteh has claimed.

Yet this story is another reminder that empathy is one of the most crucial characteristics for those who work in health care – the ability to listen to others and to support them without judgement or imposition, whatever their belief-set. Without this capacity at the centre of our approach – and even with the best and sincerest of intentions – we risk insult, harm and distress to those who are at their most vulnerable.

Uncertainty, democracy, and the role of reason

by

This editorial originally appeared in the British Humanist Association’s ebulletin, a weekly briefing to BHA members and supporters covering the latest news, views, videos, events relating to Humanism in the UK. Sign up for the ebulletin to receive the BHA’s briefing each week.

mussolini

It didn’t start in America and it didn’t start with the election of Donald Trump. For months pundits have discussed the phenomenon of ‘post-truth politics’: politics deliberately based on simplification, appealing to the raw emotions of the electorate. Evidence, historical precedent, well-reasoned analyses: all count for nothing. In fact they are repudiated as being the preserve of elites.

This populism replacing reasoned politics is now global and a major threat to universal human rights, to secularism, to reason, and to humanist values.

In India, Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government disparages the open secular framework that has long held the most diverse nation in the world in some sort of social harmony. In Poland, the Government is preparing once again for an aggressive assault on the rights of women, justified entirely through appeals to Catholic dogma. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte indulges in sermon-like attacks on atheists, interwoven with rabble-rousing cries to bring back the death penalty. And in Russia, Putin, re-elected President in 2012, has used aggressive foreign policy to settle domestic political issues while imprisoning those who offend the church or criticise his regime. In Turkey, we see one of the greatest tragedies of our age: a country full of cosmopolitan potential transformed into a police state under Erdoğan, without democracy and without a free press or judiciary. In Hungary, the rule of law is rapidly becoming history. Elections in the next few months threaten the rise of far-right authoritarian parties in Austria, France, and the Netherlands.

When the world is so very far from what we want it to be, there is a temptation to retreat, to tend to one’s own garden and look to the private and the domestic. These are, after all, areas of our lives where we at least have some sort of control, and where we can have some positive effect.

This isn’t entirely the wrong instinct. Just as peace between nations starts with love between people and happiness in societies, our little choices can affect the bigger picture. So much of the BHA’s work is directed to the lives of individuals: our school volunteers encourage young people to open their minds and their sympathies, our pastoral carers give like-minded support to those in personal crises, and our celebrants guide families and couples through some of the highest and lowest points in their lives.

But public crises call for our public involvement, not just private actions.

As humanists, we champion secularism because we believe everyone is treated better when governments and churches are kept apart. We champion human rights not simply because we believe in the equal dignity of every living person, but because we know that this is something all-too easily forgotten by humankind. And we steadfastly champion democracy and the rule of law, along with those civil values that ensure their smooth functioning.

In all that we do, these social values are our guides, along with reason, empathy, and kindness. The future is uncertain and ever-harder to predict. But we must enter it optimistically, rationally, and with a cool head on our shoulders. Our humanist way of thinking has given the world so much over the centuries and its resources are far from depleted. We are entering a dark chapter in the human story, but the light has burned brightly in darker times than this. Today we all have a responsibility to tend the flame.

Getting the word out about non-religious pastoral care

by

Middle Aged Man Having Counselling Session

Non-religious pastoral carers, trained by the Non-Religious Pastoral Support Network, are addressing an unmet need for the 50% of people in Britain who have no religion

For two years now the British Humanist Association has been training and accrediting non-religious people to provide pastoral care in a range of institutional settings throughout the UK. Our network has been rapidly expanding and now stands at over 120 accredited carers operating nationally. All our carers share a common goal in supporting the pastoral needs of patients, students, prisoners, service users, their families, and institution staff at some of the most challenging of times in their lives.

Until now, many non-religious people have not been able to access a like-minded service and instead have settled for religious chaplaincy or not engaged with what’s on offer because of its religious content. Whether that be someone facing the end of their life and wanting to discuss existential questions around meaning and purpose; someone locked in a prison cell twenty-three hours a day dealing with the reality of their loss or freedom, or someone unable to cope with the pressures of adolescence combined with leaving home for the first time – our service is there to provide a listening ear and empower people to make sense of their problems. That is not to say that religious chaplains can’t provide excellent support to non-religious people but just as sometimes a Christian may wish to discuss their issues with someone who shares their worldview, a Muslim a Muslim, a Buddhist a Buddhist… it follows that a non-religious person would also like that same choice and opportunity.

The Non-Religious Pastoral Support Network (NRPSN.org.uk) was developed to address two key areas of inequality: 1) to ensure that all non-religious people have access to a like-minded care service, and 2) to ensure that non-religious people have an equal opportunity to provide pastoral care. To ensure we are able to address these two issues we have had to train and accredit a highly professional volunteer base, whilst at the same time work at a strategic level to put agreements in place a promote our network and its objectives. In both these areas we have had major successes of late and now in hospitals, prisons, care homes, hospices, homeless charities, and universities, literally thousands of people have received support from one of our volunteers.

So what can you expect if you speak to one of the Non-Religious Pastoral Support Network? All of our carers’ work is centred around the needs of the individual that they are supporting. They will listen, they will empathise, and they will allow space for individuals to explore their current circumstances without judgement. Being listened to by someone in this way is an incredibly powerful experience and can have huge therapeutic benefits for the receiver. However, in this relatively early stage in our development, it is absolutely crucial to get the message out there and let non-religious people know that this service is available to them. Thousands of people are entering institutions everyday who would benefit from the support we offer but they don’t know it is there. But just because people don’t ask for it doesn’t mean that it is not wanted or needed. Thirty years ago there were only a relatively small number of humanist wedding and funeral ceremonies in Britain each year, but today there are thousands of funerals and weddings taking place across the UK, as more and more people cite their desire to mark significant occasions in a way that represents their beliefs.

The next time you find yourself in a setting that you would expect to find a chaplain or where pastoral support is being offered, and if you find yourself in need of emotional support, ask to see the non-religious carer. The more people that ask for a non-religious option, the easier it will become for us to make our case for greater numbers of our carers volunteering and working in hospitals. That will lead to much greater availability of non-religious pastoral care and more people getting the support that they need when they need it most.

Writing a humanist novel

by

It’s as though a door opened and someone beckoned; I didn’t respond, and the door was closed for always. I was still a non-believer, but not so militant now – perhaps because of that little Madonna, or because of my friend Maria who trusted in that God of hers in spite of everything.

These are the words of my narrator Jane Lambert. She has had one of those uplifting subjective experiences – the kind we call ‘transcendental’ – in front of an exquisite painting of the Madonna and Child, in the company of her Catholic friend, Maria.

My novel Timed Out is about ageing, Internet dating and also about Humanism. Perhaps not an obvious combination.

'Timed Out' by Barbara Lorna Hudson

Timed Out is a new novel about ageing and Humanism from former academic Barbara Lorna Hudson. 

This is how the story took shape. The germ of the idea came when I myself retired and found myself asking what is the point of me? I think a lot of us, especially if we are without close family and have been totally absorbed in a career, do wonder that, and cast around for ways to find fulfilment and a meaning for our retirement years.

My protagonist Jane embarks on a search for a partner via Internet dating, and her longing to love and be loved is the dominant storyline. And as she embarks on her new life, she continues to wrestle with the big unanswered questions. She has her ‘religious moments’ – but do they signify anything supernatural?

‘As you age, you see death approaching and you take stock. You wonder about the future and what it’s all for, and you still have those moments when you get a sort of inkling that there might be more …’ A Catholic funeral, a visit to Auschwitz, and memories of growing up in a village full of bigoted Chapel people, all help Jane to clarify her ideas.

The main challenge of this novel was to weave these strands together – Jane’s relationships (it would have been so much easier to focus solely on her quest for love) and the Big Questions. For example, the funeral episode involves the beauty of religious ritual, the nonsense of religious dogma, Jane’s sense of loss and loneliness, and her relationship with her atheist friends. A visit to Auschwitz leads naturally to questioning of the existence of God and also sets the scene for a growing closeness between Jane and the man she is with.

Despite my USP of an older woman and Internet dating, Timed Out was judged to be ‘not commercial’ by several agents. A report by a senior figure in one of the major publishing houses stated unequivocally that the reading public do not want to read about religion – whether for or against. Novels have always been explorations of the human condition. How can we interest readers in stories that do this from a humanist perspective? I think an absorbing story and non-believer characters they can identify with should help. It’s not easy, though. I wish more humanist novelists would take up the challenge.

Barbara Lorna Hudson is a novelist, as well as a former psychiatric social worker, marital therapist, and an Oxford don. Her novel Timed Out is available to buy on Amazon.

Opinion: Remain in the EU for peace, security, women, and our economy

by

This blog is part of a series of perspectives on the EU referendum from prominent humanists on either side of the debate. Each puts forward a humanist case for the United Kingdom either remaining a member of, or leaving, the European Union. All six perspectives are linked in the image below.

2016-06-16-LW-v1-EU-blogs-headerComplete-board

Joan Smith Mary Honeyball David Pollock Matt Ridley Crispin Blunt Kelvin Hopkins Default

Mary Honeyball: Remain in the EU for peace, security, women, and our economy

We must never forget where and how the European Union was born: It followed two devastating World Wars and great anticipation and significant expectation followed. Nothing like those atrocities could ever or would ever happen again. And so the European Union was born.

And let us not forget that a fundamental principle of the European project is to secure common shared European values and to protect people’s fundamental and human rights.

Today, we must not seek to isolate ourselves from 27 of our nearest neighbours; instead we must work in collaboration with others to fight the threat of terrorism, to tackle climate change, to trade freely and simply and to protect the most vulnerable in society.

When our neighbours face serious terrorist attacks like the recent atrocities in France and Belgium we must stand side-by-side in solidarity and neither turn our backs or run away.

Part of what makes us safer as a nation is our ability to cooperate with other member states to exchange and share information. Being part of the European Union and having access to institutions such as Europol is a huge benefit to all member states security.

Of course the European Union, like all organisations, is imperfect and there are things we must improve. We must not run away from the European project but embrace it, work with it and continue to be at the heart of it. We are better and stronger together.

Meanwhile while myself and colleagues continue to fight for it, the Brexit campaign has played on people’s fear of immigration. I’m not dismissing those fears, but the truth is that whether we remain in the European Union or vote to leave, immigration will continue.

Official figures from the Office of National Statistics reveal that immigration from outside the EU is higher than from those within the EU. So for those who have a problem with immigration- it simply will not go away by voting to leave.

‘Much of my work since I entered the European Parliament has concerned women and gender equality. I know that some parts of the Europe have anti-gender mobilisations and the European Union is an important safeguard against such far-right beliefs.’

An Australian points based system has been floated among euro sceptics as an answer to the ‘problem’, but closer examination of the model reveals that immigration has increased in Australia since the introduction of the system. In the UK we rely on immigration, just look at the care sector where one in five of those people working this industry is from outside the UK. We are living and working for longer we need enough people within the sector to support us.

If people come to the UK, pay taxes and contribute more to the economy than they take out then surely it is a good thing?

But the question is not and should not be confined to immigration. The IMF, the OECD, the World Bank the Governor of the Bank of England all warn of the consequences to our economy if we leave. How often does such a varied and learned group of people agree on such a huge issue? If you believe all of these world experts are wrong, then cast your vote as you wish, but do so with great caution.

And what happens in the event we do vote to leave. Our economy may not collapse overnight but we will be under huge strain. The clock starts ticking on negotiations immediately. There will be a period of around two years to negotiate with 27 countries. If we fail to reach a suitable negotiation in that time, then we revert to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms. An example of the consequences if we are forced to abide by the WTO terms is clear immediately. Currently the UK exports some 2000 cars a day to Europe and because we are members of the European Union they enter tariff free. Under the WTO terms, the UK will be forced to pay a 10% tariff like The United States and Japan.

There are also concerns over our continued loss of sovereignty from the Brexit campaign who claim we relinquish our ability to be sovereign to the European Union. We are and remain sovereign state and two clear examples show unambiguously how we have maintained our sovereignty: We decided not to be part of the Eurozone or part of the Schengen free zone either.

Much of my work since I entered the European Parliament has concerned women and gender equality. I know that some parts of the Europe have anti-gender mobilisations and the European Union is an important safeguard against such far-right beliefs.

Those who have a traditional view of the family, gender and reproductive rights are launching anti gender mobilisations. This isn’t an abstract or baseless fear- it’s happening across Europe, now.

Such groups claim that the European Union is promoting a gender ideology and that it is trying to break down traditional gender roles. In fact, the European Union is progressive in all of these areas.

It has been influential in starting to change women’s position in the workplace, family and society as a whole. It promotes gender parity for women on boards and advocates a system of quotas to redress the imbalance. We need to be part of the European Union to encourage the UK to drive forward progressive change for women and gender equality. In addition, EU laws ensure that women are guaranteed the right to at least 14 weeks’ maternity leave as well as protection from maternity related discrimination.

It’s not just within the workplace that the European Union is working to improve the lives of women, it also seeks to protect them against violent individuals, abusive criminal gangs, traffickers and other areas of organised crime. The Victims Directive guarantees specialist support and protection from repeat victimisation. In addition, the European Protection Order and the Mutual Recognition in Civil Matters both protect women from perpetrators when they travel to any part of the European Union. And the Anti Trafficking Directive is a comprehensive framework which supports victims of this crime- 80% of which are women.

The European Union is progressive. It seeks to promote peace over hate and fairness over discrimination. It is something we must continue to be part of for our own sake and for that of future generations.

Opinion: Religious skeptics should be EU skeptics

by

This blog is part of a series of perspectives on the EU referendum from prominent humanists on either side of the debate. Each puts forward a humanist case for the United Kingdom either remaining a member of, or leaving, the European Union. All six perspectives are linked in the image below.

2016-06-16-LW-v1-EU-blogs-headerComplete-board

Joan Smith Mary Honeyball David Pollock Matt Ridley Crispin Blunt Kelvin Hopkins Default

Matt Ridley: Religious skeptics should be EU skeptics

My biggest reason for voting leave this month is the European Union’s democratic deficit and bureaucratic surplus, which makes it an ill-suited organization for bringing prosperity and peace in the evolving and emergent global world we increasingly inhabit. It’s too top-down in philosophy, and too parochial in mindset. My euro-scepticism is dead in line with my religious skepticism, though you certainly don’t have to be an unbeliever to vote leave: I don’t like being told what to do by a priestly class.

‘My euro-scepticism is dead in line
with my religious skepticism, though you certainly don’t have to be an unbeliever
to vote leave: I don’t like being told
what to do by a priestly class.’

There is a certain similarity between the way fans of the European Union talk about Brussels and the way believers talk about the Almighty. Benevolent, omniscient, and remote, the European Commission sees far into our hearts and knows exactly when we need to be told through a directive not to buy something, not to make something, not to build something. It’s currently trying to tell us not to vape, for instance, at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry which has a nice little earner in prescription nicotine replacement, even though it is now clear that vaping is massive life-saver.

The entire basis of the EU is that leaders know best. It was set up by people horrified by what demagogues had done in the twentieth century, and were determined to put technocrats in charge instead, and insulate them from the democratic winds. It’s a stretch to call this religious, but the parallels with the papacy in its pomp are all too clear.

In Britain we nurtured a very different tradition, broke with Rome, killed a king who thought he had a divine right to rule and gradually absorbed the message of the enlightenment that the world is not run by great men, let alone deities, but is changed by ordinary people through trade, innovation, habit, and fashion. More than any other European country we resisted the urge to worship a leader and lend him (never her) the power to tell us what to do.

It is in that tradition that the current movement to leave the European Union should be seen. We do not like the imposition of a single currency, with the acute pain it has caused to many people, just as a way of forging a united polity. We do not like the fact that more than half our laws originate in the European commission and are justiciable by the European court, neither of whom is answerable to the people. We do not trust priesthoods and never have.

In the 1950s, when central planning was in its heyday, when we in Britain also still lived under a thicket of rules about what we could eat, buy or do, it was no surprise that the fore-runner of the EU began as a centralized, top-down, dirigiste bureaucracy. That was the way of the future then, before the collapse of living standards in Russia, China, and more recently Venezuela shows just where central planning’s faults lay.

In the 1970s, it just about made sense for Britain to join this regional bloc, which was at least partly dominated by the highly liberalized and free-market German philosophy of Werner Ehrhard. But now, in an era of cheap container shipping, free Skype intercontinental phone calls, budget airlines, rock-bottom World Trade Organisation standards, and global trading rules negotiated industry by industry at the global level, the regional focus of the European Union is an irrelevance and an anachronism. It perpetually tries to dictate rules for consumers and citizens within one continent, ignoring the wider world where we all trade.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the tech sector and the digital industry. Europe has not manage to negotiate a trade deal with America despite years of trying, yet that does not stop you or me buying software and hardware from the big American digital firms all the time. The EU has a dismal track record in creating digital start-ups, throttling them at birth with petty rules, so that we have not one to compare with Apple, Google, Facebook or Amazon. (One of our best candidates, Spotify, is threatening to leave the EU for America.)

The parallel with Humanism is pretty obvious. Humanism means suspicion of superstition, but is also means respect for human beings’ wishes. People have voted for a digital world with great enthusiasm over the past few decades by buying digital products, joining digital networks and embracing egalitarian values. Into this world lumbers a bunch of highly paid, lowly taxed, richly fed Eurocrats, who never saw this coming, saying things like “we must have a minimum of boring French films on Netflix” or we insist that hyperlinks respect intellectual property, or whatever the latest wheeze big companies have breathed into their ears over a four-course meal in Brussels.

In the sixteenth century, admittedly for carnal reasons, the English got a chance to tell a wealthy and parasitic priestly class, answerable to nobody and with a top-down view of the world, to get stuffed. We have the same chance again today.

Matt Ridley is a journalist and Conservative Party peer who is a member of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group. He is also a patron of Conservative Humanists.

Opinion: Lead a more democratic Europe from outside the EU

by

This blog is part of a series of perspectives on the EU referendum from prominent humanists on either side of the debate. Each puts forward a humanist case for the United Kingdom either remaining a member of, or leaving, the European Union. All six perspectives are linked in the image below.

2016-06-16-LW-v1-EU-blogs-headerComplete-board

Joan Smith Mary Honeyball David Pollock Matt Ridley Crispin Blunt Kelvin Hopkins Default

Kelvin Hopkins: Lead a more democratic Europe from outside the EU

The European Union is anti-democratic, anti-socialist, and failing economically.  With low and negative economic growth, 25% unemployment and 50% youth unemployment in some member states, living standards cut by a quarter in Greece, forced privatisations and restrictions on collective bargaining rights as conditions of bailouts, the true nature of the EU is now plain to see.

Free movement of labour is designed simply to reduce wages and reduce wage bargaining strength.  The Laval and Viking Line cases where the European Court ruled in favour of employers and against trade unions made a nonsense of the supposed EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and were a clear indication of the direction of travel being steered by the EU’s masters.  Raising up the market and market forces against elective democracy was evident from the start in its original name, the Common Market, and was opposed at the time by British socialists including Hugh Gaitskell, Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan.

In a Commons debate in 1989, Tony Benn MP said, ‘I was brought up to believe, and I still believe, that when people vote in an election they must be entitled to know that the party for which they vote, if it has a majority, will be able to enact laws under which they will be governed. That is no longer true. Any party elected, whether it is the Conservative party or the Labour party can no longer say to the electorate, “Vote for me and if I have a majority I shall pass that law,” because if that law is contrary to Common Market law, British judges will apply Community law.’

Labour’s policies of public ownership such as returning the railways to the public sector will not be possible if EU free-market rules are applied.  The franchising of Britain’s railway operations as supposed ‘privatisation’ is especially bizarre when Deutsche Bahn, the German state railway owns much of Britain’s public transport services, with British passengers effectively subsidising Berlin commuters.

The recent EU Fourth Railway package will soon be forcing continental EU state railways into the same mould as that in Britain.

Some people of faith say that membership of the EU is primarily a matter of values not economics.  I say that does not cut much ice if you have no home, if you have no job, or if the government is forced to close down or sell off public services at the behest of the European Central Bank.  The reality is that the EU is an arm of neo-liberal capitalism which is and has failed across the world and which even the IMF has now concluded.  By remaining in the EU the UK will find itself dragged down in a sinking vessel.

The European Union project moved slowly and by stealth at first, later accelerating following the 1980s Single European Act.  It was clearly intended to promote the dismantling over time of the post-war social democratic structures which brought such massive benefits to millions of working people across Western Europe.

The current secretive negotiations to impose TTIP, the proposed EU/USA trade deal which would give massive power to the giant private corporations to be able to prosecute democratically elected member state governments is conclusive proof – if further proof were needed – about the true nature of the EU.

It is time for democratic member state governments once again to stand up for their peoples and to reject the EU.  The United Kingdom has an opportunity to take the lead in that process by voting ‘Leave’ in the coming referendum.

That being said, I always emphasise that the European Union is not Europe.  The European Union is simply a political construct covering many of the countries of Europe.   Europe is a sub-continent of great peoples, beautiful countries and superb culture.  Democracy, socialism and trade unionism were all created in Europe.  We can have a great Europe without the EU, a Europe of international friendship and solidarity which will not sell out working people to the global corporations.  Britain can lead the way to that different Europe as other countries in the EU see the advantages of independence and a renaissance of democracy.

The unbearable lightness of information

by

Artificial intelligence expert George Zarkadakis explores the idea of consciousness, and just what it is that makes us human.

Can data ever describe, or produce, consciousness? And what would it mean for humanity if it could? Photo: Christiaan Colen

Can data ever describe, or produce, consciousness? And what would it mean for humanity if it could? Photo: Christiaan Colen

Many notable scientists, including Stephen Hawking, believe that in the not too distant future it will be possible to upload one’s consciousness and live forever inside a computer. Indeed, one of the tenets of ‘strong artificial intelligence’ is that human consciousness can be replicated in a computer.

There is an underlying assumption to such claims, an assumption so deeply embedded in our modern, nay digital, world that we seem to take it for granted: that everything is, ultimately, information. This assumption is so powerful that it has jumped from electronic engineering and computer science – its original craddles – and has made inroads into the ultimate bastion of rationality and the experimental method, namely physics. Profound mathematical similarities between thermodynamics and information theory has led many physicists to ponder whether a more suitable description for the universe ought to be one based on information, a concept beyond matter and energy. Just think of the definition of a black hole: a rupture of time-space knowable only by the absence of information.

So what about the mind? A physicalist would probably argue that the mind is the product of the brain, the result of neurobiological processes.  But what if we could account for all the connections and all the processes that take place inside a brain and stored this information in a computer system? What if we could capture a thinking brain as a piece of information, a long coded sequence of noughts and ones? The ‘Human Brain Project’ – ironically headquartered on the opposite bank of lake Geneva from where Mary Shelley penned Frankenstein – aims to do exactly that: to painstakingly record the ‘human connectome’ and upload it on a vast farm of computer servers. It’s a huge scientific ambition and an enormous undertaking. Till today we have only managed to decode the connectome of humble C. Elegans, a hapless worm; and have recently uploaded its ‘worm mind’ unto a tiny robot that rolls around wildly, and presumably just like their real thing. Would the uploading of the human connectome produce a similar result: a robot running around in search of meaning? Seeking revenge from its creators, perhaps? Or longing after a digital lover? Or will nothing happen?

Personally, I expect the latter. And not only because I find the idea of reproducing gothic horror in the age of computing nauseatingly banal. It is mostly because if I am truly just information, and if information is immaterial, then what is the purpose of my body? And what is the purpose of all this matter and energy around us?  Besides, this immaterial information idea smells too much like the concept of the soul and of the body as an entrapment; for the believer in pure information there is no matter or energy; everything is mind, pure consciousness, a never ending streaming of bits. As a computer engineer I know this not to be true. But do not take my word for it. Go visit a computer farm, and observe the physical aspect of information, the dull rectangular buildings, the endless corridors of humming machines, the complexity of cement, metal and plastic coming together in multifarious combinations, the asphyxiating heat that this multi-billion dollar physical aspect of information generates. This is the body of information which, despite being material to the core, has somehow become invisible.

George Zarkadakis has a PhD in Artificial Intelligence and is the author of ‘In Our Own Image: Will Artificial Intelligence save us or destroy us?’ (Rider Books). He tweets at twitter.com/zarkadakis.

 George is one of the many great speakers exploring all that it means to be a human being and a humanist at this year’s BHA Annual Conference in Birmingham. Tickets to the Annual Conference are available to buy at humanism.org.uk/BHA2016.