On Saturday 14th April 2012 Dr. Tom Rees gave a presentation in Bournemouth to Dorset Humanists, on the topic 'Fear and God'. Tom is a committee member of Humanists4Science and lives near Brighton.
In the talk Tom reviewed many of the studies he has covered on his blog Epiphenom, looking at how and why fear and anxiety provoke religious responses, and the link between unstable and dangerous societies with greater levels of religion. He also looked at some of the consequences of the anxiolytic effects of religion on behaviour.
The talk was aimed at a general, non-scientific audience (although it does cover a lot of science), so if you're looking for an easy to digest introduction to this topic, then you might find this interesting! The talk itself runs for 50 minutes, with another 20 minutes of questions at the end.
Contact Humanists4Science or Tom directly if you'd like Tom to talk to your Humanist or similar Group.
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
Spreading science's values
Last week I heard Dick Taverne (Lord Taverne in private life) give the Sense About Science annual lecture. He claimed that science increases democracy, tolerance and compassion - you can hear the whole lecture on the Guardian website here. He also said that scientists' values were irrelevant to the value of their scientific work. I challenged this - here's why.
Firstly some values are built into science. Science requires openness to new ideas, without which it cannot advance. It requires a willingness to listen to ideas from any source, since authority is a poor guide to truth. And it requires respect for reason and evidence, since we are all prone to believing what we'd like to be true. As Huxley put it "The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Science is a social process and it works best in societies that share these values.
Secondly, though scientists, like most of us, work for money, they have reasons for choosing to work at science. Perhaps the commonest reason is the intrinsic satisfaction of learning more about the world; of adding to humanity's store of knowledge. This matters. I see this store of reliable knowledge as humanity's greatest achievement but that's because I value reliable knowledge. That is a value. Many people, in practice, think money, or feelings or the confirmation of their prejudices to be more important.
And many scientists are motivated by humanitarian concerns or by concern for the natural environment. Of course having the right goals doesn't guarantee that you'll reach them or even do good science but it does guide at least some scientists in their choice of topics. It also helps to connect science with the concerns of everyone else - since everyone wants health and most people want an environment that is living not dead.
But here's the problem. Scientists can only do research that someone will fund. In practice that usually means a corporation, a government or a private philanthropist. The funders must value what science can DO, or they would not fund it, but they may not value what it IS. And they often have values that are alien to science. Corporations want to profit by monopolising some piece of knowledge. Governments want support for policies decided by prejudice or public opinion. Neither of these concerns is conducive to good science and some branches suffer severely from their effects.
So the values inherent in science are of limited effect unless they also guide the funding of science. That means holding corporations and governments accountable for the ways in which they fund, direct and publish research. It also means looking at what they fail to fund, misdirect and censor.
Science could be greater than it is if its values were shared by more of the people and institutions that shape our societies.
Firstly some values are built into science. Science requires openness to new ideas, without which it cannot advance. It requires a willingness to listen to ideas from any source, since authority is a poor guide to truth. And it requires respect for reason and evidence, since we are all prone to believing what we'd like to be true. As Huxley put it "The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Science is a social process and it works best in societies that share these values.
Secondly, though scientists, like most of us, work for money, they have reasons for choosing to work at science. Perhaps the commonest reason is the intrinsic satisfaction of learning more about the world; of adding to humanity's store of knowledge. This matters. I see this store of reliable knowledge as humanity's greatest achievement but that's because I value reliable knowledge. That is a value. Many people, in practice, think money, or feelings or the confirmation of their prejudices to be more important.
And many scientists are motivated by humanitarian concerns or by concern for the natural environment. Of course having the right goals doesn't guarantee that you'll reach them or even do good science but it does guide at least some scientists in their choice of topics. It also helps to connect science with the concerns of everyone else - since everyone wants health and most people want an environment that is living not dead.
But here's the problem. Scientists can only do research that someone will fund. In practice that usually means a corporation, a government or a private philanthropist. The funders must value what science can DO, or they would not fund it, but they may not value what it IS. And they often have values that are alien to science. Corporations want to profit by monopolising some piece of knowledge. Governments want support for policies decided by prejudice or public opinion. Neither of these concerns is conducive to good science and some branches suffer severely from their effects.
So the values inherent in science are of limited effect unless they also guide the funding of science. That means holding corporations and governments accountable for the ways in which they fund, direct and publish research. It also means looking at what they fail to fund, misdirect and censor.
Science could be greater than it is if its values were shared by more of the people and institutions that shape our societies.
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Ben Miller explains 'Nothing' on Qi
Brilliant Ben Miller!! I learn that Miller started a PhD in quantum physics but gave it up for a career in comedy. Comedys gain, sciences loss!
Friday, 27 January 2012
Friday, 20 January 2012
The Atheist's Guide to Reality by Prof. Alex Rosenberg, Conway Hall, London
Organisers: WW Norton & Chris Street for AtheismUK, Humanists4Science & HASSNERS.Date & Time: Saturday 25th February 2012, 2-3.00 pm.
Email me to reserve a seat. Just a couple of seats left. Its now essential to reserve a seat asap. Email me your name, and Atheist / Humanist Society affiliation.
Free entry, donations appreciated.
Prof. Alex Rosenberg (wiki) is chair of the Philosophy department at Duke University and co-director of Duke Center for Philosophy of Biology. Alex has written 12 books about the philosophy of biology and economics. He describes himself as a 'Naturalist'.
Alex Rosenberg is visiting the UK to talk about his new book 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality - Enjoying Life without Illusions', published by WW Norton.
'takes the sin of scientism as the ultimate virtue. Alex Rosenberg has sheared the nature of things down to the bedrock, and exposed our common vanity'. EO Wilson
'presents a brave and compelling treatise on why you should accept the universe for what it is, rather than what you would wish it to be. The Atheists Guide to Reality, like the best scholarship and science, removes you from your comfort zone and that is the only way to gain new and better perspectives on our place in the cosmos' Lawrence Krauss
'Rosenberg's philosophical temperament is a dead ringer for David Hume's, and his wit isn't far behind either'. Rebecca Goldstein'This eccentric, funny treatise on "scientism,"...takes a perverse delight in "nice nihilism." Rosenberg doesn't believe in free will, morality, or secular humanism ...this dismemberment of mainstream worldviews abounds with clever barbs and dry one-liners.' Village Voice
We can't avoid the persistent questions about the meaning of life-and the nature of reality. Philosopher Alex Rosenberg maintains that science is the only thing that can really answer them all of them. His bracing and ultimately upbeat book takes physics seriously as the complete description of reality and accepts all its consequences. He shows how physics makes Darwinian natural selection the only way life can emerge, and how that deprives nature of purpose, and human action of meaning, while it exposes conscious illusions such as free will and the self. The science that makes us nonbelievers provides the insight into the real difference between right and wrong, the nature of the mind, even the direction of human history. The Atheist's Guide to Reality draws powerful implications for the ethical and political issues that roil contemporary life. The result is nice nihilism, a surprisingly sanguine perspective atheists can happily embrace.
Read Alex Rothenberg talking about The Atheists Guide to Reality' at Indyweek.com
The publishers WW Norton have booked a room in Conway Hall in Central London (2 minute walk from Holborn Tube station).
Thursday, 12 January 2012
H4S Science Resolution Revolution Competition
During 2012 do YOU resolve to discuss science?
Enter the Humanists4Science Science Resolution Revolution Competition!
Enter the Humanists4Science Science Resolution Revolution Competition!
New Year Resolutions are often all about ME! ... I'm going to go on a diet, get fitter - join a gym etc etc. During 2012 join the revolution and make a Science resolution.
Resolve to discuss anything scientific with somebody. That can mean discussing scientism or scientific method with a friend. Or maybe you could discuss scientific evidence or scientific thinking?
Enter the Humanists4Science (H4S) Science Resolution Revolution Competition.
Revolution Resolution by British Humanist Association (BHA) is inclusive and open to all, regardless of religion or belief. H4S are affiliated to BHA.
- Everyone is eligible to enter the H4S Science Resolution Revolution Competition
- Your resolution MUST include the words 'science', 'scientism' or 'scientific'.
- There is no limit on the number of resolutions per entrant to the competition
- Add your resolution onto the Revolution Resolution website by 29th February 2012.
- Email a copy of your H4S Science Resolution Revolution Competition entry to Chair, Humanists4Science. Include your name, address & phone number by 29th February 2012.
- Winners will be announced March 2012.
Examples
Prizes- I resolve by May 2012 to give a talk to my local primary school about 'My Passion for Science'.
- By June 2012 I resolve to discuss what I mean by 'scientific method' with 'J'.
- During March 2012 I resolve to discuss the science of stem cell research with 'A'.
- In 2012 I resolve to discuss with my creationist friend 'C' the scientific evidence for evolution by natural selection.
- I resolve to discuss during by May 2012 with 'D', the difference between 'science' & 'scientism', 'scientific' & 'scientistic'.
- All H4S Science Resolution Revolution Competition entrants receive 'Thank You' certificates.
- A minimum of 20 people entering the Competition triggers prize giving.
- Winner receives 'Magic of Reality - How we know what's really true' by Richard Dawkins (BHA Vice President)
- Runner-up receives 'On Being - A scientists exploration of the great questions of existence' by Peter Atkins (BHA Distinguished Supporter)
- Chris Street, Chair of Humanists4Science and David McKnight, H4S Co-Founder.
- Judges cannot enter the competition.
In line with February 2011 suggestions from Humanists4Science, for the first time the November 2011 British Humanist Association Strategy includes 'science' and 'scientific evidence' in the BHA Aims:-
- Humanism involves a naturalistic view of the universe.... humanists strive to be rational, looking to science in attempting to understand the universe.
For the first time BHA includes 'scientific method' in its definition of Humanism:-
- We support significant initiatives to meet global challenges, showing how these initiatives rest on our principles of accepting scientific evidence...
- Humanists have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe ...
'A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition.'
British Humanist Association Vision
'A world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values and respect for human rights.'
Celebrities discuss New Years Resolutions with Susan Blackmore
BHA definition of Humanism now includes 'scientific method'
Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission is "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society." and the Humanists4Science (H4S) Vision is "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."
In February 2011 Humanists4Science made written recommendations to the BHA Board to include 'science' and 'scientific method' in the BHA Strategy viz.
1) include 'science' in BHA Vision.
2) include in BHA Aim “humanists understand that reason and scientific method provide the best ways to understand the universe“
3) include in BHA Aim 'public understanding of science' and 'scientific method'
From November 2011 the BHA Strategic Aims mentions 'science' & 'scientific evidence':-
and
Today I'm pleased to report that the BHA website has a new definition of humanism mentioning 'scientific method' twice:-
Humanism
Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making.
and
Defining 'Humanism'
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
I'm delighted to advise that in the last year H4S has achieved its aims of including 'science' & 'scientific evidence' in the BHA Strategy and 'scientific method' in the BHA definition of Humanism.
Chris Street,
Chair Humanists4Science
13th January 2012
In February 2011 Humanists4Science made written recommendations to the BHA Board to include 'science' and 'scientific method' in the BHA Strategy viz.
1) include 'science' in BHA Vision.
2) include in BHA Aim “humanists understand that reason and scientific method provide the best ways to understand the universe“
3) include in BHA Aim 'public understanding of science' and 'scientific method'
From November 2011 the BHA Strategic Aims mentions 'science' & 'scientific evidence':-
'humanists strive to be rational, looking to science in attempting to understand the universe'.
and
'We will give philosophical and practical support to significant initiatives to meet global challenges, showing how these initiatives rest on our principles of accepting scientific evidence'
Today I'm pleased to report that the BHA website has a new definition of humanism mentioning 'scientific method' twice:-
Humanism
Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making.
and
Defining 'Humanism'
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
- trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
- makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
- believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.
 |
| BHA Defining 'Humanism' (click image for larger view at 13th January 2012) or click following link for todays view http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism |
I'm delighted to advise that in the last year H4S has achieved its aims of including 'science' & 'scientific evidence' in the BHA Strategy and 'scientific method' in the BHA definition of Humanism.
Chris Street,
Chair Humanists4Science
13th January 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)