'Humanists trust to a scientific and rational approach to finding out about the universe' - Lords Reform Bill debate

During the Lords Reform Bill, Lord Threthgowan asked (at 19:18:55) Andrew Copson, Chief Executive, BHA 'What do humanists stand for?' Watch the debate below:-



In summary Andrew Copson replied (at 19:19:15-19:19:40) saying that 'a good definition of a humanist was someone who had a view of life that was not religious, that located values and meaning in the here and now, who trusted to a scientific and rational approach to finding out about the universe, and to a human centered, present world centered approach to deciding what was the right thing to do and what meaning there could be in life'.

Read the transcript of the minutes featuring the Archbishop of Canterbury, Andrew Copson (BHA) & Elizabeth Hunter (Theos). Note: neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

The exchange in full:-

Q457 Lord Trefgarne: 
Can you give me a clue where you are coming from in all this? I have to confess that I am not as clear as I should be about what exactly humanists stand for.

Andrew Copson: 
I am the humanist. The British Humanist Association is an organisation that has particular aims. A good definition of a humanist would be someone who had a view of life that was not religious, who located values and meaning in the here and now, who trusted to a scientific and rational approach to finding out about the universe and who had a human-centred, present-world-centred approach in deciding what was right to do and what meaning there could be in life. The British Humanist Association is an organisation that promotes education about and public awareness of that view of things. It provides certain community services— for example, non-religious funerals and other services that non-religious people in the community find it difficult to access where those things have traditionally been provided by, for example, religious groups. A third area of work that we engage in is advocacy and public policy issues, particularly in questions of discrimination either in public life or in the treatment of individuals on the basis of religion or belief. Our interest in this particular question is in having a constitution in this country where there is no in-built privilege in favour of or disadvantage against anyone on grounds of their religion or belief.

BHA reports as does PoliticsReligion.eu about the Monday 28 November 2011 JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM BILL at which the Archbishop of Canterbury and Andrew Copson from BHA gave evidence.

BHA Strategy now includes 'science' & 'scientific evidence' in line with H4S recommendations.

Between December 2010 to February 2011, Humanists4Science (H4S) committee members (David Flint (Chair), Josh Kutchinsky, David McKnight, Dr Tom Rees, Andy Pepperdine (Treasurer), Chris Street)  had extensive online discussions about the lack of any reference to 'science' and 'scientific method' in the BHA Strategy (October 2010). 

On February 1st 2011 Chris Street was appointed H4S Chair by the H4S Committee.

On 18th February 2011, Chris Street wrote a letter to Andrew Copson (Chief Executive, British Humanist Association), on behalf of a majority of the H4S committee. The letter said that 'Humanists4Science find it extraordinary that 'science' finds no place in BHA Strategy 2010'. 

H4S recommended  that BHA:-

• 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' 

The 18th February letter said:- 

Dear Andrew, 

Further to our telecom this morning, as Chair of BHA Affiliate group Humanists4Science, I am writing to seek improvements in the BHA Strategy 2010. 

BHA supports science & scientific thinking by campaigning about science, organising public lectures on science and consulting with the scientific community. For instance, BHA organises the annual Darwin Day lecture, campaigns to make Darwin Day a public holiday and responds to guidance about homeopathic products. 

As a full member of International Humanist Ethical Union, BHA presumably endorses IHEU strategy (1 - IHEU Strategy & Aims http://www.iheu.org/node/1531) to promote the IHEU Amsterdam Declaration 2002 on Humanism, the official defining statement of World Humanism. In this declaration, science / scientific method are cited six times (NB philosophy doesn't get a mention) (2). See Note A: - 

In the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 science/scientific method is mentioned six times, "Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world's great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself". A "fundamental of modern Humanism" is that "Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively." … "Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends." The Amsterdam Declaration concludes that "By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. 

Whilst we understand that many special interest groups ask to get a mention, Humanists4Science find it extraordinary that science finds no place in BHA Strategy 2010. 

'Humanists4Science have 3 recommendations to give the BHA a renewed sense of purpose and vigour in explaining the important role of science in humanist thought:-

Recommendation 1 - Include science in BHA Vision 

Humanists can lead more fulfilling lives by an appreciation of scientific findings about the natural world. In making important decisions, knowledge about the scientific method can give Humanists a powerful tool to understand what evidence is likely to be most reliable. 

Humanists4Science recommend that BHA include the word 'science' in: "What do we want? (The "Vision") - We want a world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values and respect for human rights. We want non-religious people to be confident in living ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason, science and humanity.

Recommendation 2 - Include science in an 'Our Aim' 

Humanists4Science recommend BHA Strategy includes an 'Our Aim' which mentions science. 

We suggest BHA choose one of three aims (or a combination of these aims): 

Our Aim (option 1) "To help humanists understand that reason and scientific method provide the best ways to understand the universe" (See Note 3 - Humanists4Science February 2011 discussions http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Humanists4ScienceManagement/)

.

Our Aim (option 2) "To help humanists understand that scientific and other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe" (Based on Note 4 - BHA Mori Poll 2007 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=190)

Our Aim (option 3) "To help humanists understand that the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world." (Based on Note 5 - Humanist Manifesto 1980  http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration#science)

Recommendation 3 - Promote science & scientific method 

Humanists4Science recommend a paragraph be included after any of the above 'Our Aims': "We will support initiatives to promote the public understanding of science and the scientific method by organising scientific lectures, campaigning about scientific issues and consulting with the scientific community." 

I attach a presentation incorporating these ideas (BHAStrategy2010-Humanists4Science-Final-comments.ppt) 

Thanks for considering Humanists4Science ideas about Humanism and Science. 

We look forward to our ideas being incorporated into BHA Strategy at the earliest opportunity. 

Chris Street, 

Chair Humanists4Science

On 9th November 2011 Andrew Copson wrote to Chris Street & others saying that the BHA Strategy (November 2011) had been reviewed.

Dear All,

You are receiving this email because you gave feedback on the BHA strategy adopted by the Board of Trustees at the end of 2010. The strategy that was then adopted is intended to remain constant over at least a five year period but the Board decided to review it after one year in light of its novelty. They have now done so.

The various comments received were considered by the Board, which made some changes to the strategy in light of them. I am attaching the final strategy document adopted by the Board. I am sorry if your particular change was not made, but am sure you will understand the large number of often competing responses which were received made that impossible and agree that the final document is an excellent strategy for the BHA.

Best wishes, Andrew


The BHA Strategy (November 2011) ppt file, for the first time, now includes an Aim about 'science' & 'scientific evidence' viz.:-

'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'

 

This is in line with H4S Recommendation 2, Option 1 (18th February 2011 letter) for BHA Aim:-

'To help humanists understand that reason and scientific method provide the best ways to understand the universe'

However... H4S Recommendation 1 to include 'science' in the BHA Vision was not included in the BHA Strategy (November 2011) viz: 

'Humanists can lead more fulfilling lives by an appreciation of scientific findings about the natural world. In making important decisions, knowledge about the scientific method can give Humanists a powerful tool to understand what evidence is likely to be most reliable. Humanists4Science recommend that BHA include the word 'science' in: 

"What do we want? (The "Vision") 

We want a world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values and respect for human rights. We want non-religious people to be confident in living ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason, science and humanity.

Moreover ... H4S Recommendation 3 to include references to 'public understanding of science' and 'scientific method', in BHA Aims, was not included in the BHA Strategy (November 2011) viz:

"We will support initiatives to promote the public understanding of science and the scientific method by organising scientific lectures, campaigning about scientific issues and consulting with the scientific community." 

*******


Maybe these issues will be discussed again in 2015 when the BHA Strategy is reviewed.

What is metaphysical naturalism & methodological naturalism?

Dan Dennett talks about naturalism and methodological naturalism in debating John Haught. What's the distinction between these terms? And what is metaphysical naturalism? 

Dan Dennett on Scientism

source: http://richarddawkins.net/videos/517674-daniel-dennett-on-scientism




my quick and rough synopsis...


Dr John F. Haught (from start)
Religious fundamentalism is literalistic. Scientism is a type of fundamentalism & literalism. Both religious fundamentalism & scientism are saying that their is a 'certainty' or certitude. Scientism says takes nothing on faith - yet it takes faith to embrace scientism. Scientific Naturalism is the view that nature is all that there is. You bound your sense of reality with a type of certitude says Haught.

Dan Dennett (from 4min 55s)
Scientism: I don't know anybody who is guilty of it. Scientism is a strawman used by people who object to science 'poking its nose into places it shouldn't be.' Reductionism / Scientism. Scientists are naturalists -  methodological naturalists which is just built into the scientific method. That isn't to say there couldn't be supernatural things but the burden of proof is on the person who wants to invoke them - thats methodological naturalism. We are not going to let any scientist say 'well my experiment depends on a supernatural element and if you don't believe in it then you won't get the experiment. We don't permit that - thats completely out of bounds - thats naturalism. Comparing a fundamental religionist with scientism - I don't recognise that person who is supposed to be into scientism!

The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion

video source - play until 8:59PM Thu, 17 Nov 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tw1tl/The_End_of_God_A_Horizon_Guide_to_Science_and_Religion/
First Broadcast September 2010: historian Dr Thomas Dixon explores the troubled relationship between religion and science. From the creationists of America to the physicists of the Large Hadron Collider, he traces the expansion of scientific knowledge and asks whether there is still room for god in the modern world.

Sources of Knowledge: The Scientific Method v Revelation
@ 5:00 Galileo saw moons circling Jupiter - the earth rotates the sun - Heliocentricity of Nicolaus Copernicus & Johannes Kepler is right. Heliocentrism is opposed to geocentrism (Earth at centre). Church thought that bible supported geocentrism - convicted Galileo of heresy. 
@ 5:34 Who owns knowledge. What makes one source of knowledge more reliable than another? The scientific method uses observations and logic to produce hypotheses and predictions which are tested over and over again comparing it the evidence then refining hypothesis.
@ 7: 29 Repeatability, accuracy, rigour and relevance is at the heart of the scientific method - not foolproof but in last 400 years has uncovered fundamentals of our world.
@ 8:30 The religious claim to get knowledge through revelation - direct communication from God.


Creationism v Evolution
@ 15: 40 Creationism was taught in American schools and Evolution teaching was banned from 1925 (Scopes trial) until 1987 when the highest court in America ruled that creationism was unconstitutional violating separation of church and state - Creationism was banned from the science curriculum.
@ 16:02 for scientists ancient religious texts are not sources of knowledge about the natural world and to treat them as if they are is absurd. There is no room for biblical creationism in modern science.
@ Creationist & Biochemist Michael Behe claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex, could not have evolved and must have designed in its complete form, by an intelligent designer. This idea was refuted by Kenneth Miller - found examples of simpler flagellum which worked.
@ 20:00 in 2006 Dover court trial ruled that teaching Intelligent Design was unconstitutional, unscientific, was a religious theory; banned from biology classes in public schools
@25: 20. The proposition that an intelligent designer could have created life was not scientific.

God of the Gaps
@26:12 Placing god in the gaps of scientific theory is not a good strategy because the history of science shows that these gaps have a tendency to be filled.
@28:00 Colin Blakemore (Distinguished Supporter of British Humanist Association) visited Lourdes and concluded that the placebo effect could explain 'miracles'. God of the Gaps - healing people has been explained by the science of the mind.

The Sensed Presence - why our brains are god receptors
@35:00 Using the controversial 'god helmet' Michael Persinger suggests that the 'sensed presence' (ie feeling the presence of something bigger than oneself) could be stimulated by activating the right hemisphere temporal lobe. However the helmet could not give a religious experience to Richard Dawkins!
@39:00 in meditation blood flow (red) in the parietal lobes reduces - our sense of time and place is reduced with a loss of sense of self. People who meditate and pray have same brain chemistry effects.

During meditation... 

blood flowing to parietal lobes is reduced

How did our Universe start?
@44:00 god is being pushed into smaller and smaller crevices.
@49:00 the Higgs Particle if found at LHC may explain the 75% of the universe is Dark Energy
@51:00 gravity strength is just right. Paul Davies (Goldilocks Enigma) says the universe is a 'put up job'. Some have seen the sheer improbability of our existence as evidence of a higher being but Stephen Hawking disagrees. Their may be an infinite number of (multiple) universes or multiverses. But if multiverses cannot be tested for, is science and religion so different after all? Why does anything exist at all? Why do humans finds ourselves on this Earth? And whats it all for?

Will the idea of God ever go away?
@56:00 Thomas Dixon asks: When scientists have a total understanding of our universe (scientism) will the idea of gods go away? TD says probably not because science can not give something that religions offer - meaning and purpose to our lives. Religion has extreme tenacity (a digression: Richard Dawkins interviewed by Jeremy Paxman about The God Delusion). Whether or not God exists it seems we find it very easy to believe in him, because the brain has evolved to believe in the god hypothesis.

'Science is independent of humanism' Julian Baggini

Science is independent of humanism, atheism and religion says Julian Baggini (Distinguished BHA Supporter) in The Guardian.  He says some atheists believe that not only is science 'on their side', but it is their saviour too. This is scientism - the idea that if science cannot speak, we must remain silent. By contrast, some say that, as science leaves many questions open, in such cases, man is entitled to base his judgements on non-scientific grounds.

Science can threaten secular humanist ideas. For example, humans have been viewed as autonomous, free, rational individuals. However science has shown that human beings are far less autonomous, rational and free than some secular humanists might suppose, says Baggini.

Atheists are naturalists (the universe contains only natural entities and forces). H4S take a naturalistic view, believing that science is a fundamental part of humanism and that science provides the best way to understand the universe.

Can science be applied to problems of human welfare (2002 Amsterdam Declaration), asks Baggini? In Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape (subtitled "How science can determine human values") Harris talks of science as though it is the source of all the knowledge and wisdom we need to live by. But, says Baggini, science can never tell us what we should value, because when it tells us how things are, we are always left with the question, what ought we to do about it? This is David Humes' famous is-ought argument. So can or should science be directed to humane and ethical ends, as some H4S suggest?

Baggini says science can tell us that X produces more happiness than Y, but it cannot tell us that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest happiness (Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mills' Utilitarianism).

***********

Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission is "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society"

H4S Vision is "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."

Pinker's Angels

Steven Pinker is in town. The Harvard Professor of Psychology has a new book to push and in the last three days alone he's spoken at the LSE, the RSA and the Royal Institution.

And that's good because Steven's new book - The Better Angels of our Nature - is important.

In his RI lecture he presented a vast amount of data showing that human violence has declined over thousands of years. Looking at deaths relative to population he traced falling rates of death in war and by private murder. The showed the second half of the 20th century to be a peaceful period - and the first decade of the 21st century to be even more so. These findings will surprise many and shock some - even humanists sometimes forget how bad the past was - but the evidence, from history and archaeology, is overwhelming.

Steven traces the decline in violence before, say, 1700, to the establishment of states, trade and the rule of law. For the last three centuries he also pointed to literacy, printing, the Enlightenment and the 'decline or domestication of religion' as causes. His data suggests at least one further factor - the sheer destructiveness of modern warfare between major states has made those states avoid such warfare - at least with each other.

This is a profoundly optimistic view. It's not optimistic despite the facts but because of them. It holds that things have got better fairly consistently over a long period and that they can continue to get better.

It also a humanist view - ascribing the improvements to the spread of reason, the rule of law and an expanding circle of compassion. And it shows, as H4S believes, that scientific method is applicable to history, politics and even morality.

Steven Pinker. Photograph: Graeme Robertson