Contents
Editorial
Bill Cooke
Australis2000
Bill Cooke
Southern Lights
Russell Dear
Humanism and Ketchup
Baby Gogineni
Humanist Manifesto 2000
Adam's Rib
Anne Ferguson
New Zealand's Freethought Heritage
Jim Dakin
Why Religion
Gillian Vivian
God and Santa Claus
William Harwood
Eilieen Bone's Legacy
Des Vize
Current Comments
Book Reviews
Letters to Editor
Oddities
"Humanists are allergic to absolutes"
Hector Hawton (1901-1975)
|
|
Editorial
Heads you win, tails I lose
Humanism has been copping some flak of late. The attacks
have come from the two traditional sources. On the right
comes criticism from fundamentalist parsons and on the left
from an urbane liberal who claims to be beyond ideology.
These criticisms show just how complicated Humanist
advocacy can be. On the face of it the fundamentalist criticism
is easier to deal with. Smaller provincial papers often have
space reserved for the local clergy and occasionally one of
them takes a swipe at us.
In Oamaru Pastor Max Martin made a series of hopelessly
muddle-headed travesties of Humanism. He posited a
conspiracy theory by a coterie of well-placed atheists to foist
Humanism on an unsuspecting public. Humanists were held
to be anti-family, anti-tradition, and opposed to hope. He
mentions, without actually quoting, the Humanist Manifesto
I and II, which came out in 1933 and 1973 respectively. He
seems quite unaware of the Unitarian and religious humanist
influence on the Humanist Manifesto I in particular and refers
to it as if it is some sort of Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Anti-semites frequently hold the Protocols up as proof of a
Jewish conspiracy, ignoring the fact that it is a nineteenth-
century Russian forgery. And of course, Pastor Martin was
blissfully unaware that both these manifestos have been
superseded by Humanist Manifesto 2000. In short, his attack
was simply ill-informed and malicious.
Much the more serious criticism has come from Gordon
McLauchlan, regular columnist in the NZ Herald, Auckland's
leading newspaper. A year ago, when the NZ Association of
Rationalists & Humanists exposed the dangerous nonsense
behind the claims of Ellen Greve ('Jasmuheen'), McLauchlan
ridiculed us for being so 'hilariously stupid' to take her
seriously. More recently, he wrote that he had found in some
Rationalists the same bigotry and certainty that his
Presbyterian grandfather had. This seemed odd as Mr
McLauchlan has not darkened the doorstep of our Association
in the fourteen years I have been active in it. Apparently his
father was a member sometime in the sixties, but had a falling
out with the leadership.
I wrote to him suggesting a meeting so we could sit down
and work out whatever misunderstandings existed between
us. Well, Mr McLauchlan was not interested in any sort of
meeting or being brought up to date on what the Rationalists
& Humanists are actually about. This, of course, is entirely
his prerogative. But then, the following Saturday, I found my
suggestion of a meeting brought up in his NZ Herald column.
On the one hand he gave, but then he quickly took away: 'I
have no doubt whatever that some members of the Rationalists
Association (sic) are liberal-minded and generous toward the
ideas of others - but others are not. Organisations based on
common religion or philosophy are susceptible to the
overcooking of ideas and beliefs in the spontaneous
combustion of mutual agreement.'
As a general observation, McLauchlan's point is valid, but
how can he know it's valid about the NZARH if he prefers to
stick with his twenty-year old (at least) knowledge about us?
The answer, of course, is that he can't be sure. At this point
Gordon McLauchlan, the postmodern intellectual, and Pastor
Max Martin start looking disconcertingly alike. Both presume
to take the moral high ground but are nonetheless content to
calumniate Humanism on the basis of out-dated knowledge.
Pastor Martin can be forgiven for being obsolete but Gordon
McLauchlan specifically rejected an offer to hear about our
activities, and still felt justified to accuse us of narrow-
mindedness and overcooking our ideas! This takes some doing.
What these episodes demonstrate is how hard it is to advocate
Humanism publicly. It is easy to be accused of being as
intolerant as the forces we oppose. But there is a difference
between criticism of opponents and intolerance of them.
We criticise many positions we disagree with, but that no way
suggests intolerance. To be intolerant is to demand those we
disagree with should not have the right to make their claim.
Or to criticise people on the basis of inadequate knowledge.
And far from doing that, our Association has a long and
admirable record of defending those we disagree with, or
providing them with space to criticise us, as we did with the
article by an ardent Muslim in the previous issue. And we do
this knowing that this courtesy has not, so far, been reciprocated.
But in defending Humanism against the attacks of
fundamentalists we run the risk of being sneered at by urbane
intellectuals or postmodernists who claim to be 'beyond' any
sort of ideology. This sort of claim is philosophically untenable.
What it means is that they take for granted the freedoms our
secular society has won for us and prefer to demonstrate their
sophistication by scoffing at those who defend those values,
rather than those who seek to undermine them. This position
is less honest than that of Pastor Martin, who at least has the
courage to advance his views in public and call them by their
real name. What all this shows is that defending Humanism is
no easy matter.
Bill Cooke
Return to Contents
Australis2000
Southern regional congress of lHEU
Bill Cooke
Australis2000 was the name given to the first regional
congress of the International Humanist & Ethical
Union (IHEU) to be held in the southern hemisphere.
It attracted important Humanists from the United
States, England, Norway and India, as well as a
respectable contingent of New Zealanders. And the
theme of the congress - 'ethics and values for this new
century' was wisely chosen and allowed for a
maximum of participation. But it has to be said that
Australis2000 was something of a mixed bag.
Australis2000 was the brainchild of Ray Dahlitz and
Rosslyn Ives, both leading Humanists from the
Humanist-Society of Victoria. Soon after taking over
as chairman of the Council of Australian Humanist
Societies (CAHS), the umbrella grouping of all the
Humanist societies around the country, Dahlitz began
putting this event together. The NZ Association of
Rationalists and Humanists was an early sponsor of
the congress, donating A$1000.
Planning for the congress ran into several difficulties,
most notably timing, the IHEU itself and the byzantine
complexity and feuding of Australian Humanism.
Eventually all these problems found themselves solved
or dealt with in one way or another; it was rescheduled
to go back-to-back with the conference held by the
Australian Skeptics and it was moved from Melbourne
to Sydney. Control then passed from the Victorian
Humanists to the New South Wales Humanists, in
particular Ms Affie Adagio.
Humanism as a philosophy of life
Among the high points of the conference was the
coming together of several of the world's most
important Humanists such as Paul Kurtz, Levi Fragell,
Babu Gogineni and Sanal Edamaruku. What was
extraordinary was the way these people were
underused. Paul Kurtz, a keynote speaker, had only
twenty minutes of speaking time, with no time for
questions while some local NSW Humanists were
given other time slots with a full half hour to speak
and a similar time for questions. It often seemed to
work in this congress that those with the least to say
had the most amount of time to say it. Kurtz was quite
critical of the state of Humanism in Australia. He
suggested that Australian Humanists are rebels without
a cause - and let's not be under any illusions that he
was confining his remarks to Australia. He then went
on to outline that cause, particularly as articulated in
the Humanist Manifesto 2000. Humanism, he said, is
primarily an ethical stand, and one based on scientific
naturalism. The ethics of Humanism involve
recognition of human dignity and autonomy, seeking
a good life here and now, and a commitment to
humanity as a whole. And because our commitment
is to humanity as a whole, our Humanism is a planetary
humanism.
I spoke directly after Paul Kurtz, which was very
fortuitous indeed, as my address followed on very
neatly from his. My paper was on 'The Three Steps to
Humanist Ethics'. I also took the Humanist Manifesto
2000 as the starting point, and noted the centrality of
scientific naturalism to Humanism. From there I
wanted to show how to acquire a sound Humanist
ethics from this starting point. What are the three
steps? Atheism, rationalism, science. This seems
important because it avoids the pitfalls of being
halfway-house Humanists. Missing any one of these
three ingredients, our Humanism can be vacuous,
mystical, irrationalist or even religious. This has long
been a disadvantage with the term Humanism.
One of the more interesting speakers was the
prominent Australian broadcaster Phillip Adams. He
was pessimistic about the future of Humanism, and
indeed, of a lot of other things as well. The demise of
the mass media, he foresees, will result in a further
atomising of western society, with groups stuck within
their media loop and having little contact with other
ideas and values. We are moving, Adams Said, into
'ghettoes of choice', where we can stay comfortably
within one channel of thought. The good aspect of
this is that it will lessen the control of the elite of media
barons who are currently in control of a significant
percentage of the world's media. But the danger
inherent in the demise of the mass media is the
breakdown of the uniting themes in our society which
those media are the principal vehicles for conveying.
This can only lead to ignorance of what other sections
of society are doing and thinking, which in turn quickly
leads to intolerance. Adams noted that the word
'public' is becoming a dirty word, dirtier even than
the word 'pubic', particularly among conservatives.
This may well be a mission for Rationalists and
Humanists in the next half-century: to defend the
values of 'public' as vigorously as we do those of
'pubic'. This is closely related to the need I have
stressed elsewhere to defend the secular nature of
our society. Individuals can only make up a 'public'
where all are equal and respected if that public space
is secular. Once the public, domain falls into the hands
of any non-secular faith, the public immediately
fractures into 'us' and 'them'.
This theme was also canvassed by Eva Cox, an academic and
Australian Humanist of the Year in 1997. Cox dislikes
the term 'tolerance' because it has a condescending,
downwards movement to it. She prefers the more
openly positive notion of active respect for difference.
The idea of social capital, the subject of her talk,
involves building up networks of trust. There is nothing
wrong, Cox argued, with conflict of ideas or with
stirrers, for a society without such people would be a
dismal bore. But it is important that the conflict of
ideas takes place within a general framework of respect
for difference. This, of course is the essence of what
have come to be called the values of the
Enlightenment. Among the more recent philosophers
who have written about this include Ernest Gellner
(Conditions of Liberty, 1994), and John Rawls
(Political Liberalism, 1993). Gellner's book is much
the more accessible of the two.
And just in case people think this is airy-fairy
theorising. Associate Professor Peter Woolcock drew
our attention to a move being made in Malaysia at the
moment. The opposition party in that country, the Party
Islam, is campaigning for a change to their laws on
apostasy. Under Malaysian law, all Malays are deemed
to be born Muslim, but there are no obvious penalties
against seceding from that religious identification. But
Party Islam want apostates to be required to undergo
a year-long 'rehabilitation' process. What this
rehabilitation process would entail is left to the
imagination. This proposal is built on the vicious
assumption that seceding from a religious allegiance,
in this case a Muslim one, somehow endangers one's ability
to operate as a civil person. So far the governing
United Malay Party has rejected this proposal, but
they might well find the pressure for this change hard
to resist. Dr Woolcock was also strongly critical of
postmodernism, seeing it as a 'massive self-obsession'.
Humanism as a programme of action
The conference had two quite distinct sections: the
first half dealt principally with Humanism as a
philosophy of life while the second half was more
concerned with Humanism as a programme of action.
The highlights among the activists were Joe Nickell
and Phillip Nitschke. Joe Nickell is a prominent
paranormal-buster in the United States and a very
capable speaker indeed. He told the congress about
some of his recent sham-busting exercises. He gave
examples of several recent cases of weeping icons. It
came as no surprise to be told that virtually all cases
of weeping icons happen where there is a culture of
icons. It's like sightings of the Virgin Mary: these
invariably occur in rural areas in heavily Catholic
countries or regions, and not infrequently by girls on
the onset of sexual maturity. Icons weep different
substances depending on the church they are in,
though. If the icon is held to be weeping myrrh, then
you know you're in an Orthodox Church as opposed
to a Catholic church. Nickell found in his most recent
expose of icon weeping (in Toronto) that the icon had
been smeared with olive oil, which can stay fresh and
tear-like for weeks. And it can shine differently,
depending on the light that falls on it, in a way that is
sure to delight its gasping onlookers. Soon after
Nickell's visit, the Orthodox priest of the church
concerned did a runner. It transpired he had a long
history of fraud and crime behind him. He was
nonetheless a bona fide Orthodox priest. Joe Nickell
had slides to show the congress of his various exploits,
but no slide projector was made available for him.
The other prominent speaker was the Australian
campaigner for voluntary euthanasia, Dr Phillip
Nitschke. He was pessimistic about the chances of
new voluntary euthanasia legislation being passed
in Australia in the foreseeable future. He also
noted that it is quite likely that reactionary forces
in several of the states in the USA will succeed in
repealing the voluntary euthanasia legislation they
have. Since then, of course, we have had the marvelous
victory in the Netherlands to celebrate. But amid all
this gloom came an
idea which impressed him considerably. Someone
suggested to Dr Nitschke that we should establish our
own Humanist hospices. These hospices would run
like any other hospice, with all effort being made to
provide palliative care for the patients. But when the
time comes, the patient's wishes would be taken
seriously. This development may well prove the most
significant thing to have come out of the Australis2000
congress. If that is the case, its place of honour will
be assured. The NZARH has extended practical
assistance to Dr Nitschke by offering space at
Rationalist House where he may conduct clinics for
clients.
Another interesting speaker on the voluntary
euthanasia question was Mary Gallnor of the South
Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and
immediate past president of the World Federation of
Right to Die Societies. Gallnor agreed with Dr
Nitschke that the political situation at the moment
looks grim for voluntary euthanasia, but expressed a
determination to continue the fight. She also outlined
the current wording of the guidelines for someone
being able to have the right to choose. They include:
- being incurably ill (note: incurable, not
terminal, because of some of the problems in
defining what constitutes terminal)
- intolerable suffering no further medication available
to the patient
- consistent wish for the right to die from the patient.
One of the motions passed by the congress was to urge
the governments of Australia and New Zealand to enact
legislation permitting people the right to die.
Among the other issues given a hearing included Jan Loeb
Eisler on Female Genital Mutilation. Her talk on this was
passionate and informed. It is thought that 100 million women
have undergone genital mutilation around the world, 13,000 of
them in the United States. Most of the countries where genital
mutilation goes on are Muslim, and the practice exists
now as a sunna, or religious obligation, despite there
being no specific sanction for it in the Qur'an. Jan
Loeb Eisler reported on ten countries in Africa which
have passed laws prohibiting this barbaric practice,
but went on to say that in most cases the laws have
been ineffective as they have forced the practice
underground, thus worsening the risks posed to the
young girls who are mutilated in this way. One country
to stand out at present is Egypt, which is making a
reasonably consistent effort in a programme called
New Horizons to banish the practice and, more
importantly, to educate the people among whom it
is practised. Female genital mutilation is usually
carried out by women for a variety of historical,
religious and cultural reasons, often rather vaguely
understood.
The solution here is simple and complicated at the
same time. Education, education, education.
Postmodernists here will shrug and say
something about not presuming to tell
another culture how to go about its
business. But that is intellectual and
moral cowardice. No progress could ever
be made if people were not prepared to
judge the practices of another culture,
find them wanting, and seek to persuade
them to change their ways. The crucial
point, of course, is that there can be no
compulsion; this struggle can only be
won by better ideas. The struggle to
outlaw and render obsolete female genital
mutilation is a battle between Humanist
principles of science, medicine,
individual rights, gender equality over
primitive religio-cultural superstitions
and prejudices. Postmodernists and
others who consider our world view old-
fashioned should recognise that their
'sophistication' comes at the expense of
a sickening lack of compassion for the
suffering of others.
Several other issues were discussed
Levi Fragell, president of the IHEU
intelligently at Australis2000, including
drug addiction, problems with illiteracy,
and sexuality. Vem Bullough, the veteran
American scholar of sexuality criticised
the popular work Men are from Mars,
Women are from Venus for giving an
altogether too simplistic account of
gender differences. Division between
genders is considerably more plastic than
this book allows, he said.
And finally, there were some thoughtful
addresses by Rationalist and Humanist
activists. lan Ellis-Jones, current president
of the NSW Humanists and of CAHS is a
valuable catch for Humanism in Australia.
Intelligent and compassionate, he is keen
to retrieve Humanism from the margins
that it finds itself relegated to at present.
He stressed that people like being
irrational, and that there is nothing
intrinsically wrong with being irrational.
He disputes whether reason and logic will
prevail. Humanists need to appeal to the
heart as well as the head, and with this in mind, he
lamented the lack of ritual in the movement.
This is all very well, but seems to me to be attacking
straw men. No Rationalist or Humanist I have ever
met wants reason and logic 'to prevail'. It misses the
point to see the situation as a losing battle between
cold logic and warm irrationality. It is not an either/or
struggle. The point about Rationalism is that we value
the process of reason and work to
improving this feature of our
physiological inheritance. We also want
to allow our rationality its deserved place
in determining matters which others leave
to sentiment, tradition, prejudice, habit or
authority. As I said to Ellis-Jones after his
talk, I am a monarchist, and it's difficult
to be more irrational than that. I make no
attempt to justify my commitment to the
monarchy on rational lines. It is a purely
emotional attachment. I don't see this as
in any way compromising my
commitment to Rationalism. What my
rationality does is to act as the golden
mean, keeping my various irrationalisms
in check, and thus making me a better
person, a person more able to respond to
others and to the world in a realistic and
compassionate way.
And finally, it simply has to be recorded.
Where but in Humanism could you find a
dedicated activist who cheerfully talks
over the speaker, distracts the audience by
waving a tatty sign advertising the NSW
Humanists behind the speaker, and has
conversations on her cell-phone (which
rings to the tune of Wagner's Ride of the
Valkyries) while sessions are in progress?
And then, in one of her two allotted speaking
slots, has us blow up balloons? There is
something endearing about a movement
which can accommodate such eccentricity,
although I admit that 'endearing' was not the
word on my lips at the time. There's hope
yet.
As is always the case, there were many other
speakers at this congress and this article
could be extended almost indefinitely to
mention them all, but this summary helps
gives a flavour of the event. On the one hand
Australis2000 was not that well organised,
made poor use of the big names, and
permitted too many poor speakers. On the
other hand a small group of people, who
already have families and jobs, worked
themselves into the ground in their own time
and successfully brought some of the biggest
names in international humanism to Sydney.
No, not perfect, but human. It's now up to
us to convert the talk into action.
Bill Cooke
represented the NZ Association of Rationalists &
Humanists at the Australis2000
southern regional congress of the IHEU.
Return to Contents
Southern Lights
That Time Again
Russell Dear
It's come round again, just like the conker or the
marble season, back with us in our local press. I'm
referring to the creation versus evolution debate. The
one that is most likely to bring all the fundies crawling
from their crevices. None of the arguments are new.
For the creationists there are the usual ones relating
to the missing link, not being able to replicate evolution
in the laboratory and the impossibility of natural laws
without a divine creator.
I wonder why the old fall-back of a 'missing link'
argument is brought out yet again. It stands to reason
that since evolution is a continuous process only
discrete evidence, snapshots as it were, will ever be
found. Photographic evidence of people running a
hundred metres may only show them in specific
positions but this doesn't prove they haven't run the
race.
When presented with arguments based on being unable
to replicate evolution in the laboratory I usually just
laugh. Attempting to represent items of a grand scale
in a laboratory is always a problem, the actual scaling
down destroys the process under study. Tornadoes,
for example, are difficult to study indoors. Something
like the evolution of species that can take millions of
years presents problems, unless one is prepared to
accept computer simulations. Creationists, of course,
are not. Neither do they accept that evolution is change
due to adaptation; observed every time a new virus
strain emerges or bacteria become resistant to new
vaccines, rats to Warfarin. Presented with this
argument Creationists move the boundaries and insist
on change from one species to another. Darwin's
Galapagos finches provided that evidence but it is not
accepted since no-one's seen it happen!
The argument against the possibility of natural laws
existing without a creator is an interesting one. Our
lack of understanding of really deep issues necessarily
gives rise to differences of opinion here. Many
scientists are happy to accept the idea of a creator
defined as that 'Thing' which started it all, the universe.
We naturally feel insecure with ideas that are beyond
our understanding and the belief that the universe
consists of a string of random events is too extreme
for many. How could natural laws result from such a
universe? To introduce the idea to senior high school
students I ask them to imagine a universe consisting
of a sequence of random digits. The digits represent
the objects in the universe and the relationships
between them the 'natural' laws. The students write
down ten such digits obtained from a calculator, or
table of random digits, and look for 'natural' laws.
They are always surprised when such laws can be
found.
Here's an example. My calculator gave me the
following ten digits chosen randomly; 371544
766 9. Here are some'natural laws'of this universe:
- Even digits only occur in pairs.
- Except where consecutive digits are the same,
digits rise and fall alternately (3 rises to 7 which falls
to 5, etc.)
- Multiples of three only occur towards the outer
edges of the universe.
- No 0, 2 or 8s occur in the universe.
Here are four natural laws arising from a universe of
random events. In our own universe, probability theory
abounds with other more sophisticated examples of
models for behaviour and happenstance.
In the past I've often joined in the creation versus
evolution debate in our local press but these days I
leave the new generation to do battle. It is heartening
that there are new voices to argue the rationalist cause.
There's even a sign that people are getting fed up with
the subject. One woman wrote '(The pro-creation and
pro-evolution protagonists) never will agree so why
don't they stop boring us all with their letters.'
Return to Contents
Humanism and Ketchup
Babu Gogineni
I am honoured to be able to speak at the centenary
celebrations of the Rationalist Press Association. The
abiding contribution of the RPA to. the education of
English language speaking parts of the world's society
is yet to be evaluated, but it is good that I have an
opportunity to thank you for keeping alive the flame
of rationalism through what has been described
yesterday as a century of irrationalism. I also bring
greetings from The International Humanist and Ethical
Union, which is made up of a hundred humanist,
rationalist, secularist and atheist organisations from
more than thirty countries, publishing over 180
periodicals in 19 different languages. That is the
breadth and the influence of the modem international
rationalist, humanist and secularist movement of
which the RPA is an important founder member
and participant.
When last month I went for the first time to the United
States of America, the Immigration and Naturalisation
Services Officer at Los Angeles Airport asked me why
I was in the United States. I replied that I was there to
speak at a meeting of the Council for Secular
Humanism, one of the IHEU's American member
organisations, and the officer asked me "Are you a
preacher?" To an infidel like me this was quite an
insult, so I asked "Do I look like one?" And he said -
"No, you speak like one!" The subject I chose for my
'sermon' on this nice Sunday morning, then, is the
much neglected subject of Humanism and Ketchup.
The Humanist Elephant
With all the stimulating conversations and discussions
that take place at our Conferences, we Humanists
generate new questions each time we meet; but
interestingly we also go back to old ones. In the
corridors some one asked yesterday if Humanism was
just another religion; and not too long ago, at another
meeting someone asked if science was of any use to
us; whether our growing knowledge does impact
positively our sense of human dignity... Still other
questions - new and old - have been raised in the
discussions about Humanism yesterday. What, then,
is Humanism exactly, what does it mean for us in the
modem world, and in what sense can it be meaningful
in this new century, and more importantly, how does
it resemble ketchup? These are the questions I wish
to address this morning. Here, then, is my version of
the Humanist elephant!
I believe that when we refer to Humanism, we are
thinking of that modem life stance which is rooted in
rational thinking, and which provides a way of
understanding our universe and our place in it in
naturalistic, rather than in supernatural or theistic
terms. By Humanism we mean a philosophy of life
which offers all of us, both as individuals and as
members of society a secular ethics grounded in
human values. Our Humanism is a living philosophy
of freedom and democracy (Tarkunde), and as
Humanists we are deeply conscious of our common
humanity. We are impelled by a sense of the moral
worth of all human beings; and are guided in our
actions by compassionate reason, and the realisation
of humankind's common destiny. As Humanists we
reject absolute authorities and revealed wisdoms; we
promote free inquiry which is the basis of the scientific
spirit and we defend intellectual integrity, refusing to
let custom replace conscience. Responsible freedom
of thought and action and civilised law are of
paramount importance to us.
Usually this broad understanding lets me get on with
my life. In social life the understanding of human
dignity leads to opposing any trend which makes the
human being an instrument to serve a 'higher' purpose:
God, nation, community, class or creed. Our
attachment to reason and to reasonableness is a guide
to tackling human problems. Our scepticism, for we
are sceptics, not cynics - helps us look critically at our
world and try to improve it for ourselves and for others.
As advocates of secularism we want secular societies:
we aim to achieve not merely the separation of religion
and state but the more complex weaning away of
people from religion, so that humanity can come unto
its own... Committed to ever expanding the frontiers
of human freedom, we are vigilant that this enterprise
does not encounter any hindrance. Enough work for
each of us for several generations, one must say!
But several of us, as Marie Alena Castle of the Atheist
Alliance in the United States said, are victims of
'paralysis by analysis'. We go about discussing
whether Humanism is religious, secular, ethical,
spiritual, transcendental and so on, as I just indicated.
Other Humanists come up with objections saying that
Humanism is too anthropocentric, that we do not pay
enough attention to other forms of life. There is also
the accusation that Humanism, with its emphasis on
reason and science does not value the arts and has no
appreciation of beauty. Yesterday someone spoke
rather scandalously of the cult of rationality. Another
introduced inelegantly - and disappointingly - this
phrase 'haranguing the mosquito' to describe our
work, and some of you laughed. Still others object to
Humanism being too harshly critical and
unaccommodating of other life stances, and insensitive
to the other side's view point. Indeed, some humanists
actually exhort us to concentrate on the positive aspects
of our work, rather than fight religion!
Objections considered
As the philosophy of the human being, no doubt,
Humanism tries to help us answer, as best as we can,
the great questions of life: Who are we, What are we,
How did the Universe come about, What is the good
life, and so on. But are these questions religious? Are
we religious when we try to answer them? And is
Humanism a religion because it tries to answer these
questions?
It is true that we try to find out what this world is
about, what we are doing here, and how best to lead a
life which is both personally satisfying and socially
useful. It is also true that we try ourselves to give
meaning to our own lives because we see no set
purpose other than that which we give to it. Here there
is no doubt that we are trying to answer some of the
questions that traditionally religion has attempted to
answer. But philosophy is not theology and Humanism
is not religion. We should be clear in our mind about
the essential difference: while we might be engaged
by those same questions that religion was and is busy
with, our interest is not in religion's eternal answers -
for us what is permanent is these questions. It is the
pursuit of truth that is most important to us, not its
possession (Venkatadri). Humanism is nothing if it is
not a continuous interrogation about our universe and
our place in it.
Two weeks ago I choked over dinner when Parvin
Darabi, an ex-Muslim and a Humanist colleague from
Iran, gave me the information that in Islam the
reparation for the murder of a man would be that the
culprit pays to the victim's family a compensation of
either 100 camels or 200 cows. If a woman were killed,
then the victim's family would receive either 50 camels
or 100 cows. I gasped at this medieval practice just as
you now do: for how can we accept in today's modem
world the gross injustice of equating one camel with
two cows? Yes, you may laugh now, but can you keep
that smile on your face when you have to tell a cow
that it may take a 100 of her kind to equal a woman...?
More seriously, I believe that despite what is being
suggested by our critics, as Humanists we should not
be concerned by the camel-cow equation, but the man-
woman equation. Of course, we need to respect other
forms of life, and live in harmony with the rest of
nature, but it is pointless to object that Humanism -
the philosophy of the human being - is being
anthropocentric.
Then there is the objection that Humanists have no
appreciation of beauty, no aesthetic sense and cannot
appreciate the arts. Is this really true? Science is a
quest for knowledge; in fact it is nothing but the
extension of free thought to the domain of knowledge.
And if truth is but the content of knowledge (M.N.
Roy), and if with Thomas Hardy we can say that the
beauty of truth is as eternal as the truth of beauty, I
think we have given an adequate response to this
objection. Those who cannot tune into the 'rhythm of
the cosmos' through a knowledge of its laws, those
who cannot appreciate the passion in inquiry and the
ecstasy in discovery, those whose spirituality is not
awakened to this wonderful and unique aspect of
human life, those who can see beauty and aesthetics
only in elegant lines and beautiful form have lost the
plot somewhere...
Then, there are those who so often tell us that
Humanism has a positive message, not a negative one;
that we should not criticise religion; that we should
just spread our 'positive' message. This pathetic
tendency is rather widespread in the humanist circles
I encounter in the United Kingdom. But as IHEU's
President Levi Fragell once pointed out, how can we
say that restoration of common sense is a negative
enterprise - have we also forgotten Voltaire: 'those who
believe in absurdities also commit atrocities'. We have
to work hard to fight superstition, to fight religious
nonsense and also those who speak of us haranguing
the mosquito. I am sorry this speaker is absent: does
she know that the mosquito can bring malaria, and
several times religion has brought us much worse.
Have we no interest in making sure that there will be
no dark ages once again, and that the Taliban does not
repeat itself? Should the intolerable be tolerated? And
when we criticise others, is it not clear that we do not
attack the rights of others to hold their ideas; it is
merely their ideas that we put in the crucible of reason.
Which idea is worth holding, that cannot be examined
on 'the dissecting table of reason'? And as to those
who tell us that people need something to replace
religion, my response is that this may well be, but
that is not a priority for us now, because before that
we have to find the best replacement for tuberculosis.
In addition to this, there are two questions that strike
me as most damaging to my conception of Humanism.
The first question is 'If we do not believe in a god,
how does that lead us to our support for human rights?'
The other question that was asked recently was 'Oh
your science is wonderful, but what does it tell me
about human dignity?'
While we have been dealing with woolly-headed
Humanism so far, these last two come from pure
undigested Humanism. Surely, we believe in human
rights, not because we disbelieve in God, but because
we believe in the inherent dignity of the human being?
And now to the other objection: How does science
help me understand human dignity, or become kinder
to my fellow beings? I believe this is a problem of
those who fail to connect knowledge to freedom -
those who fail to understand that unless we understand
our position and place in the universe, we will not be
able to understand our limitations on the scope of our
freedom. As a life stance, Humanism helps us
understand our place in the universe, and we depend
on science to give us the knowledge to do so. Science
empowers us by explaining, by demonstrating to us
our capability to fathom the depths of the universe,
and thereby adding to the dignity and self-worth of
human kind. This does not impede our appreciation
and enjoyment of nature, nor does it make us less
prepared for the creative and artistic enterprise. Let
us just remember the violin in Einstein's hands.
Ketchup is thixotropic - it is both liquid and solid. But
so is Humanism. It can destroy as well as rebuild. It
can destroy the negative, and build anew. This essential
nature should not confuse us or frighten us because
of our own personal inclinations or backgrounds.
Humanism and Natural Selection
Our naturalistic understanding of the universe, the
valuing of the scientific spirit, the concept of the
morally autonomous being, the democratic culture,
the desire to re-build the world, the sense of
responsibility to fellow human beings and to the rest
of nature, our understanding of the true nature of
beauty: all this ties up into a life stance - a life stance
deserving to be adopted by the world. This hope was
so eloquently articulated in the 1970s when Humanist
Manifesto II started off with the grand declaration that
the next century - this one - can be and should be a
Humanist century. So, are we then in that Humanist
century?
Obviously not. There is a confederacy of irrationalism
- of religion allied with the tribal values of nation -
and a widespread disregard for human values which
is regressing us into our social memory of intolerance
and of inconsiderateness to fellow human beings.
Somewhere down the line, we Humanists seem to
have lost the effort to remake the world in the
Humanist image. I suggest we lost because by a
steady process of self-elimination we have pushed
ourselves out of the mainstream of human activities.
Today we do not even preach what the other side
practises! Three hundred years ago the beacon lights
of the world were our spiritual ancestors. Name a
social reformer a few centuries ago, and it's very
likely that this was a Humanist - our spiritual
ancestors were articulators of inspiring visions for
the world and leaders of people - not merely heads
of organisations, as is the case today.
We somehow have lost touch with our grand
Humanist tradition. And I suggest the Humanism of
this century should try to rediscover that same
Humanist tradition which aimed to rebuild the world
- which tried to lay down the blueprints for a new
century. Let us remember one of our spiritual
ancestors, Thomas Paine. When Benjamin Franklin
said 'where there is freedom, there is my country',
Thomas Paine so nobly retorted: 'Where there is
none, there is mine.' That is where we should be:
where there is a deficit of freedom, so that we can
fight for it and achieve it. Are modem day Humanists
at the barricades then? No. Is the RPA the dynamic
force that it once was? Why are there only a hundred
people here to celebrate its centenary? The warning
to organised Humanism is very clear: there is no
reason why Humanism should triumph in the present
day world if we continue to be how we are - after all,
we believe in Darwin's natural selection.
We need a renewal of organisational Humanism. We
need a rejuvenation. Despite our presence in
numerous countries, we need to do more to increase
our influence in a meaningful way. For that, we need
to identify the most pressing problems of the world -
and as groups of concerned individuals, we need to
apply Humanism's liberating principles to the
solution of these problems or to set the direction for
new changes. Today changes are taking place in the
world, and there is a great need for Humanists to play
an active role in the global processes and influence
these developments. In this context I will make a
modest attempt to identify some areas of priority for
Humanism:
Globalisation: the Humanist Response
Even though today's world is a happier place than it
has ever been in the past, there are several disturbing
tends which need to be addressed. As has been
repeatedly said, the globalisation of the world is now
taking place. We are told that a new World Order is
being established - what a misleading term - there is
no discernible order in this new world ...
Today's globalisation is an economic globalisation:
when you ask people in the west, when you read your
newspapers here, other parts of the world are referred
to as "emerging markets" not as people. Not people -
just markets; targets for your economic activity, clients
for your debt industry, customers for your death
peddling arms industry. This predatory attitude must
be combated with all means at our disposal. The
globalisation that Humanists should fight for is not
that of the market, not that of the free market or of the
regulated kind, but of the free mind.
It is the globalisation of the mind, of the
universalisation of our achievements that we must
strive for. Let us not forget that Humanism is a cultural
achievement of humankind, and it matters not a little
bit whether it came from Greece, which it did not, or
if it came from India - even that it did not. I am
astonished at some claims made recently in the east
and in the west as to the origins of Humanism. Also,
it occurred to me yesterday that some of us non-
believers can also be unbelievable! Did you note the
distinguished scientist who spoke yesterday - he is not
here now - he claimed that science was a uniquely
Greek achievement. How funny that we should forget
the Babylonians and the Sumerians and the Indians
and the Chinese. Here I must also share with you my
sense of amusement that until one speaker said
yesterday that Darwin was the most influential Briton,
it had never occurred to me that Darwin was actually
British! To me in India he was mine, and I still think
so of him. Darwin's achievements have no nationality.
He is part of our common human heritage. I do not
feel alienated just because something did not happen
in my back yard; and I think that it is a failing in our
understanding of our common humanity as well as
imperfect scholarship to claim that only some parts
of the world contributed to science. In any case, in
our world 'divided by maps' we need to spread the
understanding that it is enough that it is human. Too
often we are stuck into moulds that are created by
etymology, by chronology, and by geography. Coming
to Humanism, it is important to stress that Humanism
originates in human nature, and it is for that reason
that it is universal, not because it came from the navel
of the world, which for most people here is Greece.
Modernisation, not Westernisation
The west should theoretically epitomise the grandest
achievements of Humanism: democracy, free choice,
human rights, the spirit of science, a spirit of openness
.... But when one looks at those who are at the receiving
end of the countries enjoying these achievements, it
is natural to develop doubts. When you are a citizen
of the third world, when you are in, as an American
Humanist once put it 'not the third world, but the two-
thirds world', then you are under one of the
kleptocracies of the Mobutus or in the Banana
Republics of South America propped up by the active
collusion of the west, or in a country being sold
destructive technologies. Let the West not be unduly
proud: slavery of Africans, adoption of one of the most
irrational of religions, the atom bomb and imperialism
are part of its history. Shameful episodes in human
history.
Let us continue to look around: one fifth of the world
(the West) participates in four fifths of its economic
activity. Of the 23 trillion dollars of global domestic
product, 18 belongs to just one fifth of the world (the
West). If we have to be fair, then the resources of the
world should be equitably shared - not all of it should
'be exported to the West! Even though historically
humanity has benefited from achievements made
anywhere in the world, in the last 100 years,
knowledge has started to be held in chains. Intellectual
property rights they are called. The same rights which
did not apply to algebra, which came not from the
west; for medicine, which came not from the west;
for astronomy, which did not again arise in the west,
suddenly apply to the whole world. Bacterial strains
and genetic information is being patented.
We do want the rest of the world to benefit from the
achievements of science and technology, and we do
hope that this will lead to a better way of life for all
the inhabitants of the planet, but the Western model
of development of consuming so much is not the best
way forward for us.
The West also makes interesting arguments about for
example free trade - no one is bothered whether this
is fair trade! Yesterday, while discussing the problem
of child labour a Humanist from India advocated the
very same arguments that are espoused in the West:
that abolition of child labour would actually harm the
children! When shall we wake from our moral
slumber?
Broadening our Embrace
Humanism combats the despotism of religion on the
mind, but why not the despotism of the market? If the
global society that is to be formed has to be formed
on universal principles, then can we just let the
impoverishment of the planet happen un-challenged?
We need to demonstrate that our values are not just an
elevated particularism, but that they have a universal
significance.
What about politics? Are Humanists to play politics?
I suggest they should. Not the power politics that we
are accustomed to and as British politics too
disappointingly demonstrate. Not the strife of interests
disguised as a conflict of principles as is so obvious
here. Not supporting democracies which are founded
on the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. But
the politics of freedom - a politics of liberating people
by fighting for their human rights. What is Humanism,
if it is not about Human Rights?
The Humanism of this century has to be an angry
Humanism, an all embracing Humanism; a Humanism
not defeated 'by the pessimism of thought, but fired
by the optimism of the will', a Humanism which is
willing to assert itself. Even if the immigration officer
in Los Angeles did not know it, he is right, we need a
new missionary zeal in Humanism. However, this will
have to be Humanism beyond religion; a post-religious
Humanism.
Deepening our Identity
When we throw our arms wide, how far do we go? I
have heard a suggestion that the Humanist group
should open its doors of membership to even the
religious because Humanism is inclusive. I say that is
society's job, to be all-inclusive and to make sure no
thought process is excluded, and we must indeed work
for such a society. However, a Humanist group should
be open only for Humanists because we have shared
objectives to pursue and common goals to attain.
In our context, we need to think in organisational
mode. The organisational mode has its own hazards
undoubtedly - frequently we are caught up in
organisational identities; and at times the organisation
we belong to becomes our own identity. Our identity
I believe should be as human beings, first and last - an
identity that we realise best through Humanism.
I have just advocated that Humanists have to go
beyond religion and embrace other fields of human
activity, like economics and politics. But I am also
asking for a deepening of our identity at the same time.
We need to be clear about our identity: that we are
children of reason, and as Edd Doerr 'let passion fill
your sails, but let reason be your rudder.' But on the
identity front we are yet to create a global identity for
our way of thinking.
Organised Humanism
There is a job for the Humanist - to recreate the world
according to his conception of the human being; to be
true to the spirit of Thomas Paine. And to succeed in
that grand task which is a cultural project, we need to
re-engage with our grand tradition. As for myself, I
am not a non-believer. I am a believer. It is they - on
the other side - who deny humanity's ability to improve
itself who are the non-believers. We are the believers
and we have changed the world.
As we go out into society and we try to influence
people with our rational, secular, liberating, modem
ideas, we will then work toward humanising of our
society. Whether people join our organisations or not
is less important than achieving a society built on
human values. A society which is built on human
values is a human society and necessarily a Humanist
one. Since we look at our tradition as a human tradition
that exists within and without our groups, we should
be able to build alliances with people, even outside
our groups, to achieve our common purposes.
While we are discussing organisational mode of
working, I would like to emphasise the paramount
importance of having a common global identity,
unburdened by adjectives like ethical or religious or
secular.
Your International Tool for Humanism
Now I want to briefly touch upon what concerns can
be addressed by us within the framework of organised
Humanism - apart from the ones I already mentioned
- with reference to the International Humanist and
Ethical Union (IHEU), of which the RPA is a founder
member.
The IHEU today has 87 member organisations from
37 countries, and has privileged NGO consultative
status at all the important international bodies - at the
UN in New York, Geneva and Vienna, at UNESCO in
Paris, at UNICEF New York, and the Council of
Europe in Strasbourg. As the only international
organization for rationalists, humanists, sceptics,
atheists, agnostics, ethical culturists, how can the
IHEU represent our minority interest and how can the
IHEU advance the aims of Humanism?
Firstly the IHEU represents Humanism, with no
sectarian or qualifying adjective added to it: for a
common and clear identity is most important when
we are forging a tool to achieve our objectives.
Secondly, the IHEU needs to, as should all national
Humanist groups, analyse today's problems, apply
Humanism's universal principles to them, and come
up with creative responses.
This is a time of great opportunity for us: the United
Nations is opening up its doors to the participation of
civil society. In the United Nations, peoples are being
welcomed - in parallel with the nations and the leaders
of nations - to represent their viewpoints, to come with
their creative ideas. The IHEU has NGO representative
status at the UN and there will emerge several
opportunities. We should all consider ways and means
in which we can strengthen OUR representation at the
UN. The challenge for us is not to discuss mere
etymology of Humanism; to be out there talking about
the global citizen and represent the cultural
achievement that Humanism is when discussions of
the global society are being conducted.
More specifically, there is a campaign that the IHEU
would like to take up on a big level: the separation of
religion and state. Many of the violations of human
rights that are so prominently heard are in one way or
the other allied with the Church or religion associating
itself with the state. The IHEU is calling for
consultations on an international conference on the
subject. I hope you will participate. The IHEU has set
up a committee on universal values - a Humanist
declaration on what universal values are. I hope you
will contribute. The IHEU has a committee which is
examining the question of how children's rights are
being violated in the name of religion. And it is not
merely circumcision of women - it's much more. I
hope you can give us input on that. You all have a
brochure of the IHEU. It gives you information. I hope
you will be willing to support YOUR international
organization so that more of our interests are
furthered.
But this is all organisational detail: that should not
make us forget in this centenary year of the RPA that
the crucial challenge for us, and in fact the challenge
to the Humanism of the 21st century will be 'How
shall we extend the values of Humanism to the present
world condition?' The answer to this question shall
hold the key to the future of our hopes, and indeed the
answer to the problem of the Future of Humanism.
Babu Gogineni is Executive Director of the International
Humanist & Ethical Union. This article was originally presented
as a paper at the Centenary Conference of the Rationalist Press
Association, held on 25-27 June 1999 in Birmingham, England.
Return to Contents
Humanist Manifesto 2000
A summary
1. Preamble
Humanism is an ethical, scientific, and philosophical outlook
that has changed the world. Its heritage traces back to the
philosophers and poets of ancient Greece and Rome,
Confucian China and the Carvaka movement in classical
India. Humanist artists, writers, scientists and thinkers have
been shaping the modem era for over half a millennium.
Indeed, Humanism and modernism have often seemed
synonymous, for Humanist ideas and values express a
renewed significance in the power of human beings to solve
their own problems and conquer uncharted frontiers.
2. Prospects for a Better Future
For the first time in human history we possess the means
provided by science and technology to ameliorate the human
condition, advance happiness and freedom, and enhance
human life for all people on this planet.
3. Scientific Naturalism
The unique message of Humanism on the current world scene
is its commitment to scientific naturalism. Most world views
accepted today are spiritual, mystical, or theological in
character. They have their origins in ancient pre-urban,
nomadic and agricultural societies of the past, not in the
modern industrial or post-industrial global information
culture that is emerging. Scientific naturalism enables human
beings to construct a coherent world view disentangled from
metaphysics or theology and based on the sciences.
4. The Benefits of Technology
Humanists have consistently defended the beneficent values
of scientific technology for human welfare. Philosophers
from Francis Bacon to John Dewey have emphasised the
increased power over nature that scientific knowledge affords
and how it can contribute immeasurably to human
advancement and happiness.
5. Ethics and Reason
The realisation of the highest ethical values is essential to
the Humanist outlook. We believe that growth of scientific
knowledge will enable humans to make wiser choices. In
this way there is no impenetrable wall between fact and value,
is and ought. Using reason and cognition will better enable
us to praise our values in the light of evidence and by their
consequences.
6. A Universal Commitment to Humanity as a Whole
The overriding need of the world community today is to
develop a new Planetary Humanism - one that seeks to
preserve human rights and enhance human freedom and
dignity, but also emphasises our commitment to humanity
as a whole. The underlying ethical principle of Planetary
Humanism is the need to respect the dignity and worth of all
persons in the world community.
7. A Planetary Bill of Rights and Responsibilities
To fulfil our commitment to Planetary Humanism we offer a
Planetary Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, which
embodies our planetary commitment to the well-being of
humanity as a whole. It incorporates the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, but goes beyond it by offering
some new provisions. Many independent countries have
sought to implement these provisions within their own
national borders. But there is a growing need for an explicit
Planetary Bill of Rights and Responsibilities that applies to
all members of the human species.
8. A New Global Agenda
Many of the high ideals that emerged following the Second
World War, and that found expression in such instruments
as the universal Declaration of Human Rights, have waned
through the world. If we are to influence the future of
humankind, we will need to work increasingly with and
through the new centres of power and influence to improve
equity and stability, alleviate poverty, reduce conflict, and
safeguard the environment.
9. The Need for Planetary Institutions
The urgent question in the twenty-first century is whether
humankind can develop global institutions to address these
problems. Many of the best remedies are those adopted on
the local, national, and regional level by voluntary, private
and public efforts. One strategy is to seek solutions through
free market initiatives; another is to use international
voluntary foundations and organisations for educational and
social development. We believe, however, that there remains
a need to develop new global institutions that will deal with
the problems directly and will focus on the needs of humanity
as a whole. These include the call for a bicameral legislature
in the United Nations, with a World Parliament elected by
the people, an income tax to help the underdeveloped
countries, the end of the veto in the Security Council, an
environmental agency, and a world court with powers of
enforcement.
10. Optimism about the Human Prospect
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, as members of the
human community on this planet we need to nurture a sense
of optimism about the human prospect. Although many
problems may seem intractable, we have good reasons to
believe that we can marshal our talent to solve them, and
that by good will and dedication a better life will be attainable
by more and more members of the human community.
Planetary Humanism holds forth great promises for
humankind. We wish to cultivate a sense of wonder about
the potential opportunities for realising enriched lives for
ourselves and for generations yet to be born.
Return to Contents
Adam's Rib
Utu
Anne Ferguson
The Greeks had a word for it. The Japanese,
Vietnamese and Russians have a word for it. The
Israelis and Palestinians only too obviously have a
word for it. Even our own Maori have a word for it.
The word? Revenge.
When trying to differentiate between instinctive,
animal behaviour and learned, cultural human
behaviour, it's helpful to compare our own behaviour
in a given situation with that of our near cousins in
the animal kingdom. How would a cat or dog behave?
If a cat is attacked it will, if it can, run
away. If it can't it strives, with tooth and claw, to fight
off the aggressor. From experience the animal learns
to be wary. It may become more timid or more
aggressive and this behaviour development it shares
with humans. What puss does not do is go away and
plot some tortuous and painful revenge. From this we
may conclude that revenge is learned, human
behaviour.
Uniquely human it may be but it is well entrenched
in our psyche. When a person who has done us a bad
turn gets their comeuppance, albeit with no
intervention on our part, who has not savoured a
feeling of smug satisfaction. "It couldn't happen to a
nicer person," we say.
If the desire for revenge is such an integral part of
being human, is it a lost cause to try to eradicate it?
Probably. But we can discourage turning desire into
action. Society requires we put a brake on our baser
instincts. Theft, rape is actively discouraged.
Revenge, though, seems to carry a semblance of
respectability. In the Middle East, while its
populations may deplore the blood-shed which results,
there obviously must be at official level an acceptance
that atrocities meted out by one side should be met
with reprisals by the other. That brief TV image of
the mother - Arab, Israeli, I forget which and it's
irrelevant - vowing that when her son grew up he
would avenge the death of his father was, to those
brought up within western, Christian culture, spine
chilling. Which is not to take a holier than thou stance.
People sometimes ask: "What is the Humanist attitude
to such and such?" Dogma is anathema to a Humanist,
of course. So when replying, a useful rule of thumb
is to ask oneself: "Is it good for human beings?" If
"yes", then it's likely to accord with Humanist
thought. If "no", it isn't. As the practice of revenge is
bad for human beings clearly it's contrary to Humanist
philosophy.
Christianity does not hold a monopoly on the 'forgive
your enemies' concept. Other religions, other cultures,
have preached it too. But, even among Christians,
there's a great reluctance to 'turn the other cheek'. It
seems weak, wimpish, even masochistic. It's like
saying to battered wives: "Let your old man keep on
thumping you." Who willingly opts to be a victim?
One has to have every sympathy with the families of
murder victims, understand their anger, their desire
for revenge. But, in our civilized, democratic society,
direct revenge is not allowed: even gang reprisal
killings are treated as homicide. When they call for
harsher penalties the families of murder victims are
listened to with respect.
It does seem to me, though, that all it amounts to is
an attempt to put a respectable face on the desire for
revenge. Clap the perpetrator in jail. Make him 'pay
his debt' to society. At a cost to the tax payer of
$50,000 odd a year? What strange logic. If criminals
re-entered society as caring responsible citizens, well
and good. As is too distressingly obvious, they do
not. Their incarceration can, therefore, only be
regarded as punishment - vengeance.
The Arab/Israeli mother is a product of her culture.
Our prison system is a product of our culture. Both
cultures, any culture, which advocates revenge creates
a society seriously flawed. While it's fitting society
make the perpetrators of major crimes
understand their deeds are totally unacceptable,
history proves, over and over, that revenge is self-
defeating. It may be sweet but it can also make you
very sick.
The alternative, forgiveness, comes with difficulty but
its healing power must be worth the effort. It is good
for us. As the man said: "To err is human, to forgive
...", well, it's a fine Humanist thing to do.
Return to Contents
New Zealand's Freethought Heritage
Chapter 2: The growth of Freethought in Dunedin, 1871-1880
Jim Dakin
An the 1860s when the Freethinkers in the short-lived
Auckland Secular Association were being publicly
slighted and discouraged, young men of a serious bent
of mind in Dunedin were beginning to form societies
for debating and mutual instruction. Most of these
mutual improvement societies, as they were usually
called, were promoted or sponsored by the churches,
but a few like the Grocers' Mutual Improvement
Association were independent bodies.(1) The
chronicler of the events that led up to the formation of
the Dunedin Freethought Association (DFA) in 1878
refers to this group of grocers' assistants when
describing the origins of the DFA in the newspaper
The Echo in 1881. The purpose of this group of
grocers' employees was described as 'general mutual
improvement and regulating the hours of labour.' A
member of the group was William M Bolt, later a
leading trade unionist and Legislative Councillor. It
was members of this original group who later formed
the Dunedin Mutual Improvement Association. A
Dunedin Mutual Improvement Society seems to have
existed as early as 1863.(2)
At this time mutual improvement societies were
coming into vogue as a mode of adult education for
young men. Their programmes included debating and
such literary activities as essay-writing, all carried out
in a spirit of mutual encouragement and instruction.
Robert Stout, the future Premier then an articled clerk
in a law office, became a leading member of the
Dunedin Mutual Improvement Association. By this
time Stout was beginning to make his mark in public
affairs and was engaged in freelance journalism. He
had been brought up in the Shetland Islands in the
bosom of a liberal-minded family which indulged in
open-minded discussion of theological issues, the
implications of Darwinism and other controversial
matters. He arrived in Dunedin in 1864.(3) Stout was
virtually the founder of the weekly newspaper The
Echo which first appeared in late 1869.(4). This paper
published material of a controversial nature that other
papers would then not usually publish, notably on the
'much vexed subject of spiritualism' and on the case
for secular education. So radical was some of the
matter published that the editor, probably Stout
himself, before the closing down of the paper in 1873,
felt it necessary to emphasise that The Echo was not a
'free-thinking paper in a sectarian sense'. It sought to
be impartial, but 'nothing is tabooed to us'.(5)
By 1870 in Dunedin the local interest in spiritualism
could not be dampened down any longer in spite of
its condemnation by the churches. 'Spirit circles' were
then meeting in the city. (6) An anonymous pamphlet
on spiritualism was published in January 1870 and
was dedicated to the Synod of the Presbyterian Church
of Otago and Southland. It represented the main tenets
of spiritualist belief as the immortality of the human
spirit and the ability of human spirits after physical
death to manifest themselves and communicate with
human beings.(7) Spiritualism as a system of religious
belief originated in the United States in the 1840s with
the visions and writings of Andrew Jackson Davis,
the 'Poughkeepsie seer' and spread to Britain in the
1850s. Deist Robert Owen and some of his followers
had become converts to Spiritualism.(8)
In 1870 the Dunedin Mutual Improvement Association
(sometimes referred to as the Mutual Improvement
'Society') as a champion of free speech and debate
decided to provide a platform for Spiritualist speakers.
The first of these was W D Meers who had recently
returned from London. The Mayor of Dunedin
presided over a large audience and the speaker's
exposition of the Spiritualist doctrine of universal
salvation made a deep impression upon him and upon
the audience. The chronicler of the history of the DFA
considered this lecture to be the first Freethought
lecture ever given in Dunedin.(9) Other lectures on
Spiritualism followed. On the occasion of one of the
'magnetic' lectures given by James Smith of
Melbourne the Princess Theatre was 'filled to
suffocation'. The lecture was communicated by a spirit
which was said to take possession of a human medium
whose face was 'transfigured for the time being, the
magnetic light playing about his head.' (10)
In 1872 believers in Spiritualism and sceptics joined
forces to form the Dunedin Society for Investigating
Spiritualism of which Robert Stout was Vice-
President. 11) Thus began a phase in the development
of Freethought in which Spiritualists and sceptical
Freethinkers were to work together for a decade. They
were united in their determination to oppose the
attempts of the churches to curb free inquiry and the
free discussion of the issues raised by Spiritualism.
The Mutual Improvement Association had, in the
words of its chronicler, 'won honours in heresy' and
was dissolved to make way for the new
organisation. (12) In early 1873 a leading American
Unitarian and Spiritualist the Rev. J M Peebles visited
Dunedin in company with a Dr E C Dunn and lectured
on 'Spiritual Salvation and Spiritual Damnation' and
other religious subjects.(13) A deacon of Knox
Presbyterian Church, John Logan, attended
some of Peebles' lectures and on a
Sunday evening appeared on the
lecturer's platform. For these actions he
was excommunicated by the presbytery
of the church and on his appeal to
the Synod his excommunication
was confirmed. Logan, who later
became Stout's father-in-law, was
thereafter a zealous propagandist
for the Freethought
movement.(14)
The opening of the University of
Otago in 1870 introduced into the
Dunedin community a small
group of academics whose
expression of independent,
sometimes radical, views added another
element to the local ferment of ideas. Professor
Duncan Macgregor in particular was radical and
rationalistic in his thinking and was deeply influenced
by Darwinian thought which was beginning to have
its impact in New Zealand intellectual circles.(15)
Stout who in his early life in the Shetland Islands had
been introduced to Darwin's ideas in his family circle
became a student and great friend of Macgregor.(16)
Captain Frederick Hutton who had for a time been
provincial geologist for Otago was appointed to the
University staff as a lecturer in 1873. He had made a
study of Darwin's works since 1860 and had accepted
Darwin's evolutionary theory. He believed that
evolution was compatible with divine revelation - a
view that was then unacceptable to most
churchmen.(17)
In 1875 Stout began speaking in public on evolution.
In that year in a lecture to a Masonic lodge he
eloquently exhorted his audience not to be afraid of
doubt and exalted the idea of evolution as giving
humanity the greatest hope for the future.(18) In
August 1875 Stout was elected to the House of
Representatives in spite of his heterodox views. In
early 1876 he declared that no church was the
custodian of all truths and that the 'law of development
must apply to religion as well as to anything else.'(19)
Stout had absorbed many of the ideas of the agnostic
English philosopher Herbert Spencer who was a
leading exponent of evolutionary doctrine.(20)
Some indication of the clash of opinion on religious
issues in Dunedin at this time is given by the
opposition to what seemed to be the unreasonable
insistence of the Presbyterian Church on strict Sunday
observance. The part played by leading Freethinkers
in the resistance to such pressure is significant. In
January 1874 the Synod of the Presbyterian Church
was deploring the running of trains and even dray
traffic between Dunedin and Port Chalmers,(21) In
that same month in a crowded special meeting of
subscribers it was proposed that the
reading room of the Dunedin
Athenaeum and Mechanics' Institute
should be kept open for four hours
on Sundays. The relevant motion
was proposed by Robert Stout and
seconded by the recently
excommunicated John Logan.
Several Presbyterian ministers
were at this meeting attended by
some 200 subscribers, and so
were Freethinkers such as
Professor Macgregor and
William Bolt, one of the
founders of the Dunedin
Mutual Improvement Association. There was a long
and stormy debate in which the Presbyterian ministers
took a prominent part and during which several
speakers were shouted down. The result of a close
vote in favour of Sunday opening was disputed and it
was decided to hold another special meeting at a later
date. On that occasion the attendance was so great
that the meeting was adjourned to the spacious Drill
Shed. After a long and tense discussion it was decided
by 252 votes to 242 that the Athenaeum committee
should be allowed to open the reading room on
Sundays. (22) Thereafter the reading room was opened
on Sundays.
Charles Bright and the Eclectic Association
At the end of January 1876 Stout and his associates welcomed
to Dunedin the celebrated Australian Freethought
lecturer Charles Bright. Bright was born in England
in 1832 and had emigrated to Australia in 1853. Since
his youth he had been a Freethinker. Settling in Victoria
he engaged in journalism, with some success. In 1869
the Melbourne Argus commissioned him to investigate
'the Spiritualist fad' which was gaining support in
Melbourne. As a result of his inquiries Bright became
a believer in Spiritualism. In 1874 he became a full-
time lecturer for the Victoria Association of
Spiritualists and was also accredited as a lecturer to
the Melbourne Unitarians who approved his lecture
on divine immanence in the natural order. A biographer
describes Bright in the following terms. 'Vibrant and
neat, with a rich crop of white hair. Bright had
presence; his voice was mellifluous, his style
whimsical and hortatory'.(23)
This was the man who on the 31st January 1876 started
his programme of lectures in Dunedin with an address
on 'Yankee Wit and Humour' in the Temperance Hall.
A reporter remarked that there was 'a quiet, quaint
style about his delivery of Americanisms which is
perfectly irresistible.'(24) Bright had begun to woo
the Dunedin public and from the small audience that
attended his first lecture the numbers attending his
lectures began to mount. On a Sunday at the end of
February three thousand gathered to hear him speak
on 'Christianity, Primitive and Political' in a circus
marquee. There he was introduced by Robert Stout,
MHR (Member of the House of Representatives) on
behalf of the committee which had sponsored his
lecture programme. In his address Bright contended
that much paganism had been taken over by the early
Christian Church and that the Reformation and later
the criticisms of Voltaire, Paine and others had helped
to strip away much of the 'accumulated rubbish.'(25)
For his next lecture on 'The Reformation, Past and
Present' Vincent Pyke, MHR, was in the chair. By God,
Bright said at this lecture, he meant the 'the Mind
which animates the orderly and, it seems to me, the
fatherly government of the universe - Nature's soul,
as the poets have it.'(26) Bright gave three more
lectures, two of them with Robert Stout in the chair.
Almost all the ministers of religion deplored these
examples of heterodoxy, but Dr Roseby, the
Congregationalist conceded that there were a good
many points in which he scarcely differed from Bright
at all.(27) When Bright's visit concluded towards the
end of March an appreciative band of gentlemen led
by Stout presented him with a purse of 75 sovereigns.
Bright urged these gentlemen to form 'an eclectic
association similar to that in Melbourne where
orthodox might meet freethought sentiment and
heterodox sentiment.'(28) Bright's suggestion was
acted upon promptly at a meeting in the Athenaeum
Hall on the 30th of March when the New Zealand
Eclectic Association was formed. This association was
active during the remainder of 1876 and throughout
1877.(29)
In the meantime a whole spate of controversy had been
stirred up. The newly arrived Professor of Theology
of the Presbyterian Church, William Salmond,
delivered a series of public lectures on 'The Evidences
of Christianity' which attracted capacity audiences.
His contention that the theory of evolution and
Christianity were incompatible helped to spark off a
lengthy correspondence on the subject in the local
press. Neville, the Anglican bishop of Dunedin, agreed
with Salmond, but the geologist Hutton contended that
evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine could be
reconciled. Robert Stout intervened in the argument
and argued that the two were incompatible. Dr Roseby,
the Congregationalist, agreed with Hutton. In
September 1876 Robert Gillies, an elder of the
Presbyterian Church, presented a paper to the Otago
Institute declaring himself to be an evolutionist and
claiming that his belief in evolution was compatible
with his Christian faith. (30) About this time the
leading Methodist minister in Otago, delivered a
lecture in the Dunedin Athenaeum on 'The Ethics of
Evolution' which was published as a pamphlet. In his
concluding paragraph Fitchett wrote:
And when Evolution reminds man of his lowly
origins, of his affinity with creatures beneath him,
of his liability, under the sway of passion and lust,
to revert to the animal types from which he has
emerged, she is again the helper of Christianity in
the field of Practical Ethics.(31)
This was too much for Salmond and other Christians
of his views. When Fitchett was proposed for
membership of the Dunedin Young Men's Christian
Association, he was blackballed with the acquiescence
of Salmond and others, although Roseby supported
Fitchett.(32)
Some idea of the scope and gravity of the public debate
on the question of evolution can be gained by perusal
of the eight issues of The New Zealand Magazine, a
scholarly quarterly published during the years 1876-
77. This journal to which leading politicians,
churchmen and academics contributed articles reveals
what seems to have been a distinct preoccupation with
the question of evolution. 'Darwin's theology' was
discussed by J E Fitzgerald, editor and Canterbury's
Superintendent. In 'Evolutionary Ethics' the Rev. Giles
sought to work out the implications of the doctrines
of J S Mill and Auguste Comte. Professor Macgregor
in 'The Problem of Poverty' applied Darwinian ideas
to society and argued that 'competition is the basis of
society because it is merely a particular case of a law
co-extensive with organic nature.' Hutton put forward
his well known views in an article on 'The Doctrine
of Evolution'. It was only because it feared that the
University of Otago would appoint Hutton to a chair
of natural science that the Synod of the Presbyterian
Church hesitated to provide funds for an additional
chair at the university. 'Captain Hutton's only crime,
commented the Otago Daily Times is that he is an
Evolutionist.'(33)
Bright in Dunedin and Beyond
It was in this climate of controversy and changing
attitudes to orthodox religion that Charles Bright
returned to Dunedin in December 1876. He lectured
there regularly on Sundays, mainly in the Princess
Theatre, right up to October 1877. He attracted large
audiences which almost invariably applauded his
lectures. He pursued mainly Freethought themes and
kept up a running criticism of orthodox Christianity.
Yet he was at pains to praise Jesus as a teacher, even
calling him 'the most uncompromising freethinker
who ever taught mankind'.(34) At the same time
Bright did not fail to commend Spiritualism to his
audiences. He maintained that it should not be laughed
down, as he believed it merited earnest and careful
inquiry.
About the middle of the year a young Spiritualist
medium, Thomas Walker, who was touring the
country, appeared on a Dunedin platform with leading
local Spiritualist Joseph Braithwaite in the chair. The
young medium went into a trance and gave an
impressive hour-long lecture on Darwinian theory.(35)
His performance occasioned much wonderment and
not a little scepticism at the time. It was even reported
that the well-known photographers, the Burton
Brothers, had shown a ghost beside Walker on the
platform.(36) At this time Professor Salmond was
again delivering a series of lectures on 'The Evidences
of Christianity' to large audiences. Bright challenged
Salmond's statements on several occasions in his
lectures and also in the press. He also attacked the
Anglican bishop in his lecture on 'Bishop Neville's
Unknown God'.(37) In his lecture on 'Fallible
Infallibility' which was in part a reply to a criticism
of him published in The Tablet he charged the Catholic
Church with being opposed to science and
progress.(38) Bright was an enthusiastic exponent of
evolutionary ideas and in his lecture on 'The Evolution
of Religion' he cited evolution as the catalytic idea
that would lead to the emergence of a universal religion
out of the existing world religions.(39)
In October 1877 Bright left Dunedin and went on to
Nelson and Auckland. At a farewell soiree attended
by some 300 persons and presided over by Robert
Rutherford, Mayor of Caversham, Bright's supporters
congratulated him and themselves on the progress
made by the Freethought movement. Bright said of
his campaign that 'as an experiment in a comparatively
small community which had not been trained by
having a Unitarian church in its midst, it had been a
triumphant success.'(40) The previous April 'Free
Thinker,' in a letter to the editor of the Otago Daily
Times, could assert that Freethinkers were 'a
recognised power in this community' and that Bright
had been able to 'convert to Free Thought the majority
of Dunedin shopkeepers.'(41) At this time the Eclectic
Association was continuing its activities. In July Stout
addressed it on various political issues and dwelt
especially upon the burning issue of national education
which was then before the House of
Representatives.(42)
Bright went on to Nelson where he gave three well-
attended lectures. A correspondent in the Nelson
Evening Mail marvelled that 'before a Christian
audience in a Christian city he is not afraid to assert
that religion is only for the foolish and weaker portion
of God's creatures.'(43) The Bishop of Nelson,
speaking to his diocesan synod warned that 'we cannot
shut our eyes to the fact that there is a very widespread
disbelief of that very faith - which we are here to
promote.'(44) In Auckland in November Bright gave
five public lectures including his light-hearted lecture-
satire entitled 'A Race of Barbarians - Our Noble
Selves' which was free of religious controversy and
went down well with general audiences. Another
lecture was devoted mainly to Spiritualism and the
three others to Freethought. The lectures were mostly
well attended and well received, but some of his
arguments were challenged in a temperate and cogent
manner by the veteran non-denominational preacher
Samuel Edger.(45)
It was at this time in November 1877 that the New
Zealand Parliament passed the Education Act which
established a national system of primary education
which was to be compulsory free and secular. The
'secular' clause of the Act was introduced in spite of
an intensive campaign by some of the churches to have
religious instruction or Bible-reading instituted in State
schools. From the discussion of the relevant section
of the Education Bill in the House it is plain that the
majority of members voted for the secular provision
mainly for the pragmatic reason that the introduction
of any form of religious instruction or observance
would have proved deeply divisive in New Zealand
society and would thus have made the proposed
national system of primary education much less
acceptable. The denominational systems of public
schools established in the provinces between 1854 and
1876 had been found to be generally unsatisfactory,
but both the Auckland and Canterbury provinces,
which had abandoned their denominational systems,
had proved that public systems that were entirely
secular could work tolerably well. The experience of
the provinces also showed that a plurality of
denominational schools could be wasteful of
resources, especially in thinly populated districts.
There was also the example of the Australian state of
Victoria which had introduced a workable secular
system of public schooling in 1872.
The churches were divided on the issue. The Roman
Catholic Church strongly opposed any non-Catholic
religious instruction in State schools and pressed for
State aid to church schools. The Anglican church and
most of the other churches favoured religious
observance and religious instruction of a Protestant
kind in State schools and State aid to church schools.
The Presbyterian Church preferred religious
observance and Bible-reading only in State schools
and did not approve of State aid to church schools.
Individual members of various churches often held
views different from those of their churches. In this
climate of widely differing opinions it is difficult to
assess the influence of the emergent freethought
movement which strongly supported the establishment
of a completely secular system. In the debate in the
House it was only the free-thinking Robert Stout who
spoke out against the Bible-reading clause in the
Education Bill on behalf of 'a large number of
colonists who do not belong to any church whatever.'
(46) The only other known Freethinker to be then in
the New Zealand Parliament at this time was John
Ballance of Wanganui who did not speak during the
debate.
The emergence of largely amorphous groups of
individuals embracing Freethought or Spiritualism or
both could be regarded as adding only a minor new
element to the already conspicuous diversity of the
religious scene. Yet this was a state of affairs in which
religious bodies could be seen as obstacles to the
national objective of universal education and in which
the secularist principle espoused by Stout and his
'eclectic' associates could offer a solution which many
religious could accept, even if reluctantly in some
cases.(47) With an eye to the future Freethinkers would
have been glad to see the threat of religious
indoctrination in State schools substantially removed.
The Founding of a Freethought Association
In February 1878 Bright was back in Dunedin
lecturing under the auspices of a Freethought
Committee, the secretary of which was W M Bolt who
had been a founding member of the Dunedin Mutual
Improvement Association in the 1860s. At his first
lecture Bright recommended that that the Freethinkers
in the different centres form local Freethought
associations. By May 1878 a Dunedin Freethought
Association had been formed and was sponsoring
Bright's lectures.(48) Bright continued to lecture on
almost every Sunday during the whole of 1878 and in
January 1879 attracting consistently large audiences
according to newspaper reports. Dunedin at this time
provided the lists for the jousting of the champions of
various religious and ideological causes. Bright
clashed with the redoubtable Father Henneberry on
the question of Darwinism and with the eloquent Rev.
Charles dark on the authenticity of the Biblical
record. Bright responded to the challenges of these
two opponents both in the press and in his lectures.
When responding to dark, Bright drew the largest
audience he had so far attracted. He exhorted his
hearers to 'find the God-voice within themselves, to
study Nature and discover that God was as near to
them as he was to any human beings, and that Signal
Hill might prove as sacred as Sinai and any other
mounts around Dunedin as near to heaven
as Calvary itself.'(49) The editor of the Otago Daily
Times was embarrassed by the flood of letters which
commented on the theological points raised by Bright.
A correspondent asserted that there was no more
prominent man in Dunedin than Bright but prophesied
that 'the school of thought which he struggles to found
will be neither large nor enduring.'(50)
The culmination of a year of religious controversy
stirred up in Dunedin by Bright's lectures was the
public debate between him and a prominent evangelist
on the subject of 'The Divine Origin of Christianity'.
The evangelist was the Rev. M W Green, a minister
of the Church of Christ who was in 1881 to be elected
to the House of Representatives by the constituency
of Dunedin East.(51) The debate was held in the
Queen's Theatre the capacity of which was 'tested to
the uttermost, the stage even being crowded with ladies
and gentlemen.' The debate extended over four
evenings. It was recorded in full by a Hansard reporter
and the record was published as a booklet of some
130 pages.(52) The debate which was conducted in a
generally temperate, even urbane, manner traversed a
number of theological issues as well as the subject of
evolution.(53) Bright claimed to be the apostle of
reason 'under God our highest guide.' In the account
of the debate he was described as a deist, but his belief
in a 'Divine Mind inspiring the world now, still
regulating the world in all directions' suggests that he
was more of a theist.(54)
During 1878 local Freethinkers had not been inactive.
In April Stout who was by then Attorney-General read
a paper before the Otago Educational Institute on the
question 'Can morals be taught in Public Schools?'
He argued that the moral sense had grown out of
human experience and that morals could be taught in
secular schools on the basis of fundamental principles
such as order, truthfulness and sympathy without
bringing in religion. The address was published as a
pamphlet.(55) In May at a meeting chaired by Robert
Rutherford, a firm supporter of Stout and the
Freethought movement, Bright proposed the founding
of an 'Eclectic Institute' a kind of mutual improvement
society that could be joined by those disinclined to
belong to any sectarian association.(56) Although the
proposal was approved by the meeting there is no
evidence to show that the resolution was ever acted
upon. By that time the Dunedin Freethought
Association was serving the present organisational
needs of the Freethinkers. Bright left Dunedin after a
final lecture in March 1879. A farewell soiree held in
his honour was attended by over 200 people and he
was later presented with a purse of sovereigns.(57)
Thus after a period of some nine years of public
discussion of contentious religious issues an
organisation of Freethinkers had been established in
Dunedin. Some three years of public lecturing and
other activity by Bright had attracted a great deal of
public attention to the Freethought movement. The
leadership of such a prominent and energetic public
figure as Stout endowed the Freethought organisation
with a driving force and added a measure of prestige.
Indeed the omens appeared to be very favourable.
However, the diverse and largely unspecified beliefs
and aims of the so far loosely organised membership
could prove to be a source of discord in the future.
Those members who like Bright believed in
Spiritualism might not be comfortable bedfellows for
the more rationalistic and sceptical members closer
to Stout.
Notes and References
(1) C Stuart Ross, Education and Educationists in Otago, Wise
(Caffin &Co., Dunedin, 1890), p 250
(2) The Echo, Dunedin, 15.10.1881.See also minutes of
Dunedin Athenaeum and Mechanics' Institute 13.4.1863.
(in Hocken Library, Dunedin)
(3) W H Dunn & I. M L Richardson, Sir Robert Stout (A H.&
AW Reed, Wellington, 1961), pp 18-21
(4) The Echo, 15.10.1881 It had been a daily when it first
appeared in early 1869
(5) ibid, 8.2.1873
(6) ibid, 18.6.1870
(7) Spiritualism, a pamphlet dedicated to the Re. Synod of the
Presbyterian Church of Otago and Southland, 11 Jan. 1870
by 'A Spiritualist'. (in library of Victoria University of
Wellington)
(8) Logie Barrow, Independent Spirits (Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London, 1986), pp 1-6
(9) TheEcho.l 1.6.1870 & 15.10.1881
(10) ibid, 18.5.1872
(11) ibid, 22.6.1872
(12) ibid.l5.10.1881.
(13) ibid, 1.2.1873. Logie Barrow, op.cit., pp 54-55
(14) The Echo, 8.3.1873 & 15.10.1881.
(15) W P Morrell, The University of Otago. A Centennial History,
University of Otago Press, Dunedin, 1969. Pp 39 & 52-53
(16) Robert Stout, 'Social Education. An Autobiographical Note',
Typescript in Victoria University Library
(17) John Stenhouse, 'The Wretched Gorilla Damnification' in
NZ Journal of History Vol.18, No.2, pp 146-7
(18) Robert Stout, The Future (Guardian Printing Company,
Dunedin, 1875)
(19) Saturday Advertiser, Dunedin, 8.1.1876
(20) David Hamer, 'Robert Stout' in NZ Dictionary of Biography,
Vol. 1, (Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1993), p
485
(21) Otago Daily Times, Dunedin, 21.1.1874
(22) ibid, 31.3.1874 & 12.2.1874
(23) Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol.3 p 231
(24) Saturday Advertiser, 5.2.1876
(25) ibid, 4.3.1876. Evening Star. Dunedin, 28.2.1876 & Otago
Witness, Dunedin, 4.3.1876
(26) Otago Witness, 11.3.1876
(27) Evening Star, 28.3. 1876
(28) Otago Witness, 28.3.1876
(29) The Echo, 15.10. 1881, Otago Witness, 2.12.1876. Otago
Daily Times. 10.7.1877 & 24.8.1877
(30) Details of this controversy can be found in the pages of the
Saturday Advertiser, Evening Star and Otago Witness
between May and September 1876
(31) Rev A R Fitchett, The Ethics of Evolution (Mills Dick &
Co., Dunedin, 1876)
(32) Otago Witness, 28.10.1876
(33) Otago Daily Times, 20.1.1877
(34) Saturday Advertiser, 28.7.1877
(35) ibid, 9.6.1877. Otago Daily Times, 14.6.1877
(36) Otago Daily Times. 29.6.1877
(37) ibid, 17.7.1877
(38) Saturday Advertiser, 28,7.1877
(39) Otago Daily Times, 17.1.1877
(40) ibid, 11.10.1877. Saturday Advertiser, 13.10.1877
(41) Otago Daily Times, 28.4.1877
(42) ibid, 25.7.1877
(43) Nelson Evening Mail. 25.10.1877
(44) ibid.30.10.1877
(45) New Zealand Herald, 5-19. 11.1877
(46) NZ Parliamentary Debates Vol. XXV p.227. For a
discussion of the background and circumstances of the
passing of the Education Act see John Mackey, The Making
of a State Education System (Geoffrey Chapman, London,
1967) especially Chaps. 10 &11
(47) For a discussion of the contemporary public opinion on this
issue, see J C Dakin 'Contemporary Opinion and the Secular
Provision of the Education Act 1877' in NZ Journal of
Educational Studies, Vol.21 No.2 pp.189-194
(48) Otago Daily Times, 5.2.1878, 8.5.1878 & 31.1.1879
(49) ibid., 15.2.1878 & 19.2.1878
(50) ibid., 16& 24 .4.1878
(51) G Stholefield, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography
(Government Printer, Wellington, 1940) Vol.1 p 320
(52) The Divine Origin of Christianity, Debate between M W Green
and Charles Bright (Geo T Clarke, Dunedin, 1879)
(53) Otago Daily Times, 28.1.1879
(54) The Divine Origin of Christianity, op.cit.. pp 11,33,76 &
110
(55) Robert Stout, Can Morals be taught in Public Schools?,
Dunedin, 1879
(56) Otago Daily Times, l5.5.W&. Robert Rutherford, who
chaired this meeting and the previous one in October 1877
was not the father of Sir Ernest Rutherford as was stated by
H H Pearce in The Encyclopedia of Unbelief, (ed) Gordon
Stein (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, USA, 1985), p 480.
The father of Sir Ernest was James Rutherford of
Brightwater, Nelson (see G.Scholefield, op.cit,. Vol II p.267.)
(57) Otago Daily Times, 31.1.1879 & 17.2.1879
Return to Contents
Why Religion?
A personal view
Gillian Vivian
When a former religionist exchanges faith for reason,
the transition will only be successful if the process is
taken slowly, step by step. The conscience - that most
delicate organ of all - has to be re-educated and
reassured. Long-standing rationalists may be
interested in the step-by-step thought processes taken
by the writer to re-evaluate religion and its influence.
Why religion? It was a question I once never thought
I would ask. You have to admit it's a big one. An entire
library could be filled with volumes outlining the
origins, history and social impact of religion.
I found myself asking this question and a raft of others
when the Christian fellowship, of which I had been a
member for two decades, fell into factions quarrelling
over structural and doctrinal matters, the leaders all
staking a claim for members' tithes and the
unquestioning loyalty due to them as representatives
of God. I am grateful this happened, for it necessitated
my stepping back and examining everything I believed.
My first concern at these holy bunfights was to know
which faction I should follow. I did not at this stage
doubt the doctrines I had espoused. But one thing was
niggling away. Why was a supernatural power so
pitifully short of worthwhile representatives out of a
whole population of human beings? Could religion,
that is, the formal organisation of "spirituality", be
nothing more than a human invention? A product
looking for its market share? Cynicism, the prodigal
son of reason, stirred in my brain cells. But was I in
danger of adding blasphemy to my (short) list of sins?
Careful thought was required.
The various leaders turned these factional splits into
opportunities to advance their own pet doctrines and
preferences. One could not therefore make a valid
choice without much study. I suppose at this stage I
was beginning to read the Bible with more of an open
mind. I began to see that any number of interpretations
on a large range of issues was possible. I noted the
evolution of the Christian doctrine, from the simple
teachings of Jesus in the gospels to the complex
doctrines of the apostles in their letters, Paul in
particular. I began to see that the Bible was anything
but an incontestable book with an unambiguous
message. Why should I suppose I was any more correct
in my practices than other Christian groups were in
theirs? Ah, but was this just a blinding vision on the
road to damnation?
I needed to question why I had embraced religion in
the first place. When I came to understand that, I was
able to see the whole phenomenon more clearly.
Humans are self-aware - self-conscious. This
characteristic marks the growth of intellect from mere
instinct. An inherent awareness of individuality and
the need of the individual to act independently brings
with it an awareness of the same condition in others.
Responses once appropriate under the control of
instinct have to be re-examined and re-defined.
As far as we can tell, this characteristic of self-awareness
is either non-existent or severely limited in other species.
(Some would disagree. This is a subject variously open
to debate, speculation and wishful thinking). Each
human is aware of himself, of his relationship to others,
his place in relation to society, the planet, the universe.
This awareness is profound but frustrating - it produces
more questions than answers.
It is easy to imagine early man, experiencing this self-
awareness, directing his thoughts to the whys and
wherefores of the forces of nature: the sun, the moon
and stars, the wind, the rain, the oceans, thunder,
lightning, earthquakes, seasons and harvests. Early
man knew his very being and welfare was directly
related to the forces of nature. He wondered about
them, why they exerted so much influence over him,
and whether he could ever control them to his benefit.
Man wanted to know why and how.
His desire and need to control the forces of nature,
but his powerlessness to do so, caused him to conclude
that there must be other beings, like himself but greater,
who could and would exert influence, either for good
or bad, to reward or punish the efforts of man
accordingly. In some respects this was a natural
enough outgrowth of the instinct of children to look
to a seemingly all-powerful parent who protects and
teaches and from whom all good things come.
From here sprung the early religions - the nature-
reverencing religions. It was the day of the gods of
the forest, the ocean, the thunder, the sun, the fertility
gods of seed and harvest. The sun was so important it
was a god itself. These gods needed to be worshipped
and placated in order that blessings of warmth and
harvest would be bestowed. The modem festive season
surrounding the 25th December has its historical
origins in an ancient festival celebrating the winter
solstice (northern hemisphere) and the pleasing of the
sun-god whose good graces were needed to ensure
the days would once again lengthen and so continue
life for another year.
As communities grew and became more
interdependent and people pooled skills and resources
to produce benefits for all, the forces of nature must
have seemed less threatening, less all-invasive. In
reality they had not changed but perceptions changed
and fear lessened. Man turned his growing intellect to
other aspects of self-awareness and asked questions
of the meaning of life and the consequences of good
and bad within human relationships.
The deeper-thinking "theological" forms of religion
arose, where gods had appetites and purposes
somewhat similar to man's, but of an omnipotent
nature with the right to reward or punish along moral
grounds in spectacular fashion. Not surprisingly,
because religion itself arose from man's intellectual
capacity (the same capacity to reason can also
Imagine), man centred himself as the principal object
of a god's interest, and the "perfecting" of man, with
a view to bestowing blessings, including immortality
in one form or another, was declared to be a chief
goal of the gods. Separate nations would likely have
separate gods, each credited with the intention of
bestowing particular blessings to benefit a nation over
and above its neighbours.
So far so good. But it's one thing to look at religion as
a whole, to nod one's head sagely and speculate on
how this phenomenon may have developed. It's
another to understand why, in this age of knowledge,
individuals still turn to religion as a much-needed
lifeline. Why I did, for example. Why, in spite of your
protestations to the contrary, you could also. The key
lies in a theme already emphasised in this article.
Control. Religion is about control, and the need for it
is as great today as ever.
As already observed, the ancients felt frustrated in
being unable to exercise the control they desired over
their environment. Imagination (the entertainment
channel of the intellect) is ever inventive. Someone or
something must control the environment, and if that
power could be wooed and placated, then it would
surely exercise the control it had in a manner
favourable to its devotees. Wouldn't it?
Modem humans are equally frustrated by a lack of
control over their everyday lives. However intelligent
we are, we cannot control the weather or the ravages
of a mad dictator. We cannot prevent the loss of a loved
one, avoid broken hearts or personal rejection by
others. We can't guarantee job security or that an
earthquake won't swallow up our homes and us with
it. But there must be someone who exercises an overall
control, and who does so on our behalf, unfathomable
and wondrous though the ways of that benefactor may
be at times. Mustn't there?
You and I are capable of reaching a point of despair
or emptiness in our lives where we simply wish to
yield control to another who is stronger, wiser, more
capable. From that point on, everything that happens
has a purpose, including suffering. Christians are told
that they are made perfect in suffering. But the one to
whom they have yielded also promises them great
blessings - of a size and substance out of their personal
control to organise. Immortality, for example. The
surrender of will for the reward of eternal life seems a
fair swap in many ways.
It is interesting to note that some individuals, at that
point of commitment to a deity, feel the decision has
been thrust upon them in the form of a sudden
revelation and they experience an all-encompassing
flooding of the mind with a sense of peace and
understanding. Such an experience is called an
"epiphany". When it happens, it is very real. Not
surprisingly, such an individual tends to reach out to
the dominant deity in his or her culture and interprets
the experience as a direct call to its service. The
experience may be accompanied with visions of the
deity, or messages heard in the mind from him/her/it.
If these experiences always led people to the exact
same brand of the exact same religion, one could argue
the validity of a supernatural calling. But they don't.
It is clearly linked to relief felt at the surrender of free
will and the responsibilities free will entails, and as
such deserves further psychological investigation.
Where does all this leave religion in a practical
everyday sense? It cannot be denied that religion is a
valuable crutch for many people. It gives real purpose
and structure to human lives. It shapes their
consciences and cannot be snatched away by others.
It can only be discarded by the individual concerned,
as and when he or she is ready.
The danger of religion lies not in the comfort it gives
one person, but in its predilection to become political.
And how could it be otherwise? It's about control,
after all. If the gods have controls we don't possess, it
comes as no surprise that those with an eye for the
main chance appoint themselves as representatives of
the gods with rights to exercise rulership over the
common rabble, religious and non-religious alike.
Even the followers - the meekest and mildest little
old lady for example - can earnestly believe that the
whole of society should be structured to please her
god. If it came to the crunch and she had the authority,
she might very well ban you from mowing your lawn
on Sunday! Why? The justification for this has its
origins in the primitive notion that unified worship
pleases the gods and ensures blessings on the
community. Today, in many parts of the world, as in
history, unions of ecclesiastical and political control
uphold the mandate of religion over whole
communities despite the benefits of education and
democracy.
So the immediate question is not, why religion? - but,
why the continued existence of religion? The answer:
As long as enough people are unable to face life's
problems, realities and limitations with the sometimes
cold comfort of rational thought, and instead reach
out for the balm of imagination and wishful thinking,
there will always be within our cultures, firstly, gods
willing to share their superior strength with us to our
benefit, and, secondly, methods of preserving those
gods in structured faiths - sometimes peaceful,
sometimes oppressive.
Religion is a very powerful train with an interesting
array of carriages. The passengers have all paid the
fare with varying amounts of self-determination and
reason, though they differ in their hope of the final
destination. This former passenger took a good hard
look backwards at the point of origin, pulled the cord,
and disembarked...
Gillian Vivian lives in Hamilton and runs a word-processing
business and also publishes and edits Write Now Magazine, a bi-
monthly collection of short stories and poetry. This is her first
article for the NZ Rationalist & Humanist.
Return to Contents
God and Santa Claus
A letter to a little girl from William Harwood
Yes, Virginia, there is an entity that lives forever,
rewards and punishes, and is not bound by the laws
of reality. It lives in the imaginations of children,
where it is called Santa Claus, and in the imaginations
of childish adults, where it is called God. Belief in
Santa Claus enables the chronologically handicapped
to escape into a fantasy world in which they receive
presents and grown-ups do not. Belief in God enables
the intestinally handicapped to escape into a fantasy
world in which they live forever and their imagined
enemies do not.
Santa Claus rewards good little boys and girls who
obey everything their parents tell them, no matter how
capricious, and believe everything their parents tell
them, no matter how absurd, and ignores those who
disobey. God ignores those who obey and believe
everything their priests, ayatollahs, gurus and dead
lawgivers tell them, and sics his vigilantes onto those
who do not contribute to the extermination of the
human race by overpopulation and starvation in
obedience to laws invented by persons who lived and
died at a time when the world was underpopulated.
So, Virginia, we should not feel contempt for children
who believe in fairy tale creatures. It is not their fault
they lack the maturity to recognize that flying reindeer
can live only in the world of the imagination. And we
should not feel contempt for Peter Pans who believe
in adult mythology. It is not their fault they lack the
intestinal fortitude to face the reality that death is
forever, and that entities such as God and Captain
Kirk who regularly violate the laws of reality can live
only in fantasy literature. Yes, belief in gods has been
used to justify fifty million murders in the western
world alone. But do you really think the perpetrators
of such atrocities as the Crusades and the Inquisition
would not have found some other justification if they
had not had a god to blame? What god was Stalin
obeying?
So you go on living in your imaginary world, Virginia.
And if you never outgrow it, and simply replace Santa
Claus with God, that will not be your fault. Either
you were born educable or you were not.
Return to Contents
New Humanist Trust Established
Eileen Bone's Legacy
Des Vize
Eileen Bone will be remembered (amongst other
things) as a tireless worker for Humanism in New
Zealand and for the Humanist Society of New Zealand
(HSNZ) in particular. It was Eileen's wish that her work
should continue after her death (on 10 February 2000)
and she left a generous sum of money to support her
favourite Humanist causes. As one of Eileen's executors
and her main beneficiary, I have decided to carry out her
wishes by establishing a trust to administer her bequest.
However, after some thought, I have extended the scope
of the trust to administer not only Eileen's bequest but
also any similar donation from supporters of Humanism
in New Zealand. Each donation will be administered
separately and in strict accordance with the wishes of
the donor by the New Zealand Humanist Charitable
Trust.
The named beneficiaries in the Trust deed are HSNZ
and the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and
Humanists (NZARH) but the scope can be widened to
include any other group within New Zealand affiliated
to the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU).
Beneficiaries can apply to the Trust for monies from any
of the funds appropriate to a particular project. For
instance, HSNZ might apply for money to support any
future work with refugees; NZARH might apply for
funding for a visit by an overseas speaker on voluntary
euthanasia. Provided these applications meet the criteria
for a particular fund (and money is available) the
applications will be approved. Initially the only fund
available is Eileen's bequest and applications will have
to be considered against Eileen's wishes, which she set
out in a letter.
Donations directly to any Humanist group are to be
encouraged and it is not the intention of the Trust to
discourage them. Rather it is hoped that the Trust will
provide another option for those who do not wish to
donate to Humanist groups directly. For example, the
Trust will respect the wishes of those Humanists and
non-Humanists who only wish to support welfare
projects undertaken by Humanist groups.
New Zealand Humanist Charitable Trust
The Public Trustee will administer the Trust.
The purpose of the Trust is to:
- Provide funding for seminars and other educational
activities to promote public understanding and
discussion of ethics and Humanism;
- Assist any charitable activities by any Humanist
Group within New Zealand;
- Make loans or advances to any Humanist Group
or similar non-profit body in New Zealand for projects
similar to the above.
The guiding principles for all activities of the Trust will
be the principles of Humanism as defined in the Humanist
Manifesto I, Humanist Manifesto II and Humanist
Manifesto 2000.
"Humanist Group" includes HSNZ, NZARH and any
other similar organisation in New Zealand the members
of which are also members of IHEU.
The Trustee will be advised by a Committee of 3-7
members appointed by the Protector of the Trust. The
Committee members must be members of IHEU directly
or through an affiliated body. To begin with I will carry
out the role of Protector but on my resignation or death
the role will be assumed by the Trustee in consultation
with the presidents of HSNZ and NZARH.
The members of the inaugural Committee will Geoffrey
Palmer, Joan McCracken, Peter Offenberger and myself.
For purely practical reasons I have restricted membership
to people in the Wellington region. All of us have been
national office holders in HSNZ and all are members of
NZARH. Most of us are not currently active in organised
Humanism and appointment to the Committee provides
us with an opportunity to resume our contribution without
placing a further load on those who are working
elsewhere in the movement.
The Committee will meet two or four times a year to
consider applications for funds. The Trustee will lodge
a copy of the Trust Deed with both HSNZ and NZARH
and will provide a statement annually to the AGMs of
both organisations. I hope that the Trust will benefit all
Humanist groups in New Zealand and that they in turn
will support it through advertising.
The Trust will exist in perpetuity and I hope it will be a
fitting legacy for Eileen Bone.
Donations or bequests should be made to:
New Zealand Humanist Charitable Trust
Public Trust
PO Box 5024
Wellington.
Return to Contents
Current Comments
Volume 74, Number 1
Five years ago our journal began to sequence its issues
by the seasons, but the time has come to change this
method once again. We have been finding that our
northern hemisphere readers, of which we have a
respectable number, find reading an issue entitled
'Summer 2000' rather disconcerting when they are up
to their necks in snow. So, largely in deference to them,
as of this issue, we are Volume 74, Number 1. Why
74? Because this is the 74th unbroken year of publication
of this journal. The NZ Rationalist & Humanist is the
oldest extant periodical in New Zealand.
Victory for Voluntary Euthanasia in Holland
Yet again the Netherlands has shown itself to be one
of the most civilised countries on earth. It has passed,
by a convincing margin, legislation permitting
voluntary euthanasia in their country. This has
provoked the usual outbursts of alarm by the moralists,
but nothing can really disguise the fact that this is an
issue whose time has come. Humanists have been
advocating liberal legislation regarding euthanasia for
decades. But while other issues humanists have
campaigned on like divorce, abortion and
homosexuality, have largely been won, the right to
voluntary euthanasia remains, in New Zealand, as far
away as ever.
The Dutch legislation prompted a series of opinion
polls and the results were encouraging. The first, and
least reliable, of the three was on the Holmes show of
November 29 2000. Of the 12,3000 people who rang
in 69% were in favour of voluntary euthanasia and
31 % opposed. Little value can be attached to that poll
of course because it is entirely voluntary as to who
rings in, and people can ring in as frequently as they
wish. This said, the Holmes result was confirmed a
fortnight later by a poll commissioned by TV3 News
and which featured as a news item on December 13
2000. This showed a 76% to 19% majority in favour
of permitting voluntary euthanasia. And then a
fortnight later again, the NZ Herald thought it would
get in on the act. Its poll, published in the December
28 (page3) revealed a 61 % to 27% majority in favour.
The lower majority was probably due to the word
'voluntary' not being part of the question. On the same
day it published its poll, the Herald was careful to
feature an article on its Dialogue Page which was
bitterly critical of the euthanasia legislation in the
Netherlands.
It is to be hoped that New Zealand First MP Peter
Brown will get the nod to proceed with his private
members' bill seeking to permit voluntary euthanasia.
He will know that he has the majority of country
behind him.
Lloyd Geering, OM
Lloyd Geering, New Zealand's most senior theologian
was recognised in the New Year's Honours List,
becoming a principal companion of the New Zealand
Order of Merit. Few people would dispute his
deserving of this honour. But of the few who have,
most of them seem to be his fellow Presbyterians. The
Rev Ross Thompson of the St Andrew's Presbyterian
Church in Manurewa was quoted in the NZ Herald (3
Jan 2001) that 'the government is recognising that
people like him, working within the Church, broke
down the standards of absolutes, the whole tradition
of morals on issues like abortion and homosexuals. It
is recognising that he was a key to breaking down the
Christian values that built our society.'
Is it possible to take paranoia to more grotesque
extremes? From the passages quoted. Rev Thompson
comes across as seriously positing a vast secular
conspiracy to destroy all that is Good and Christian
(read: everything Rev Thompson holds dear). It
implies Professor Geering is a scion of some sinister
secular conspiracy.
This is, of course, quite ridiculous. It is also bad
history, in that the 'standards of absolutes' Rev
Thompson alludes to are no such thing, but are
strongly-contested opinions even within the church,
positions which have a history that can be traced. It is
difficult to seriously argue divine sanction for ideas
that historians can trace the development of. And of
course, it is simply wrong to say that the values New
Zealand was built on (whatever that means) were
Christian ones.
Professor Geering will doubtless not be interested that
we wish him well and congratulate him on his honour
- but we do anyway.
Return to Contents
Book Reviews
Embracing the Power of Humanism
Paul Kurtz (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland, 2000)
ISBN 0-8476-9966-8
Paul Kurtz is the most significant single humanist living
today. His achievements for humanism have not simply
been in the field of academia; he has worked unceasingly
for more than thirty years to build up humanist and
sceptic organisations, magazines, periodicals, and
networking conduits. So when another book by Paul
Kurtz comes out, it is worth while taking notice.
This book is not so much new Kurtz as anthologised
Kurtz. The chapters focus on The Exuberant Life,
Independence, Altruism, Humanism, and Ethical Truth.
Segments have been taken from his extensive writings
in these areas to provide a summary of his outlook.
The book revolves around question of how to live the
good life. 'How can the free, autonomous, self-reliant,
and rational person find life meaningful, exciting, an
vibrant, and yet learn to harmonise one's dreams and
values with others in moral communities? How can the
free person become the responsible person, aware of the
needs, interests, suffering, pain, and demands of others?'
The answers to this question are taken from the entire
range of Kurtz's writings into relatively short chapters.
While those who read Kurtz's previous works will be
familiar with some of the writing, there are enough
chapters taken from obscure or difficult-to-find material
to make the book worthwhile even for the veteran of his
other books. The selections are well chosen for their
emphasis on the actual real-life issues of what being a
humanist means.
This book is ideal for the beginner to humanism or for
the person without the leisure to read all his other books.
Hopefully the reader, on putting the book down, will be
as enthused about living, both the fun bits and the hard
bits, as Paul Kurtz is.
Bill Cooke
Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics
Richard Holloway (Canongate, Edinburgh, 1999)
ISBN 1-84195-007-6
Here at last is an accessible summary of humanist ethics.
Richard Holloway, a prolific author, journalist and
broadcaster, has avowed that the use of 'God in moral
debate is so problematic as to be almost worthless.'
We can debate with one another as to whether this or
that alleged claim genuinely emanated from God, but
who can honestly adjudicate in such an Olympian
dispute? That is why it is better to leave God out of
the moral debate and find good human reasons for
supporting the system or approach we advocate (page 20)
Things improve from what is already a promising
beginning. Holloway acknowledges that 'the formative
influence of the early millennia in the development of
our species' needs as much attention as the formative
years of our lives require when understanding the
complexities of ethical decision-making.' He is scathing
about the tendency to appeal to tradition in an attempt to
win an ethical argument. What he calls 'command
moralities' come in for criticism. Ethics, Holloway
writes, is not like the intricately planned out symphony.
It is more like jazz; you have to improvise as you go
along.
Holloway's case for godless ethics is classic humanism.
He advocates what humanists have often called situation
ethics. But Holloway is equally clear that this sort of
ethical understanding does not mean there is nothing left
but moral relativism.
Going through the main array of current moral dilemmas;
abortion, euthanasia, drugs, homosexuality, genetic
engineering, Holloway is compassionate, intelligent and
humane. There are no easy answers, and certainly no
answer books we might lazily refer to. We have to use
our reason and our compassion.
It's almost too good to be true. And it is. The 'but' in all
this is that Richard Holloway is Bishop of Edinburgh,
Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, and Gresham
Professor of Divinity in the City of London. While it is
gratifying to welcome this distinguished man of religion
into the community of civilised humanism, I cannot help
wondering just how honest all this is. Clearly Richard
Holloway is a civilised, intelligent man. But given his
commendable ethical position, is it not slightly dishonest
to remain Bishop of Edinburgh, Primus of the Scottish
Episcopal Church and Gresham Professor of Divinity in
the City of London?
What Holloway is doing is recognising the bankruptcy
of two thousand years of Christian ethics. Two thousand
years of God, authority, sin, guilt, heaven and hell - all
for nothing. Maybe if it is good enough to speak so
compassionately of a godless morality, it is time to accept
the moral and intellectual consequences of the 'godless'
part of the equation. Holloway suggests that 'our attempt
to live morally as though there were no God might be
the final test of faith.'(page 5) Surely it is more honest at
this stage to acknowledge that if we can - indeed must -
be godless in order to live morally, then we should also
be churchless?
Bill Cooke
Return to Contents
Letters to the Editor
Dear Bill
While fully understanding your reluctance to accept
the outlandish claims made by some practitioners of
hypnosis, I cannot allow that all who make use of
induced sleep treatments are tricksters. While
acknowledging that there are limitations to what
hypnotherapy may achieve for the' individual, my
experience leads me to firmly believe that within the
perimeters of those known limitations there are definite
gains to be had for certain patients.
It should be stressed here, perhaps unnecessarily, that
clinical hypnotherapy, which is what I believe you
have criticised, is something totally different from the
nonsense used in the vaudeville type stage shows once
so popular here, and still reasonably prevalent in the
United States. The showmen who conduct those
displays-pick their participants with care, and the
majority of people, when placed upon a stage under
such circumstances will, when asked to act up in a
particular way, get into the spirit of things and oblige,
especially if the atmosphere is electric enough and
the hypnotist has a sufficiently charismatic personality.
The TV evangelists are a prime example of that.
However, I think that it should be agreed that one-on-
one psychological counselling, employing
hypnotherapy as a means to relax a patient, and then
extending it when possible to have the person talk more
readily about his/her problems, is something altogether
different. It is obvious from your comments that you
don't see such a therapeutic eventuality as a possibility.
I can tell you that in some cases it most certainly is.
Hypnotherapy is being more widely used today by
many conventional medical practitioners, who have
found the benefits that the technique has in relaxing
some patients. It can on some occasions be employed
as an alternative to using drugs, especially in cases
where pharmaceuticals may be harmful, or have an
undesirable effect upon a patient.
I will again stress that induced sleep therapy has its
limitations. It cannot be used successfully on those
who are either unable or unwilling to initially accept
it. Naturally, I do not believe that magical cures for
physical ailments can be attained by using
hypnotherapy anymore than you do. I can, ho | |