THE NEW ZEALAND
Rationalist & Humanist		 Journal of the
New Zealand Association of
Rationalists and Humanists
A JOURNAL ON PHILOSOPY . SCIENCE . RELIGION . SOCIETY
Winter 2001 - Volume 74, Number 2

Contents

 Editorial
Bill Cooke

Wills versus Ratzinger
Bill Cooke

Southern Lights
Russell Dear

A right lot of Charlies
Brian Edwards

New Zealand's Freethought Heritage
Jim Dakin

Wisdom from the Bible: Kid's style

Marriage cements east-west relations
Dr K H S S Sundar

Where did "Freethought" come from?
Kenneth Maddock

World Humanism

Four reasons why learning can be difficult
Ron Dultz

Adam's Rib
Anne Ferguson

Current Comments

Book Reviews

Letters to Editor

Oddities


"The Christian God was once a Jew. Now He is an anti-semite."
Anatole France (1844-1924)


Editorial

Between a rock and a hard place

What an appalling tragedy. Two toddlers and a kind neighbour brutally murdered by the hand of a deluded madman. What makes this tragedy even more gut-wrenching is that it was clearly avoidable. Brian Aporo told people that Satan was trying to poison him or was laughing at him. He was observed building rock altars, others heard him say he under a makutu curse. When Aporo went to his friends among the Rawene Baptist Church for help, the responsible thing they should have done was to refer him to the health authorities and not to buy into his delusional states in any way.

But, by the press accounts we have seen, this is not what happened. Instead, we are told, Aporo was specifically advised against this course of action, and one of their number blessed his house room by room. Others prayed with him and spoke in tongues with him rather than encourage him to seek medical assistance.

No one questions the motives of these Baptists, but their judgment has to be in severe question. By resorting to prayer, speaking in tongues and blessings in favour of secular methods of treatment, they bought into and thus reinforced the delusional fantasies Aporo was suffering. This is because both the sane, sensible Baptists and the pitifully deluded Aporo believed in the reality of the supernatural world of God, spooks and other gremlins. And from their point of view, they are fully justified in doing so. The Bible is full of praise for unswerving faith and promise for rewarding people who achieve this condition. Does not St James tell us that 'the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.' (James 5:15) So the Baptists were only doing what their holy book told them to do.

It was interesting then to see an article in the NZ Herald's Dialogue Page from Rev. the lan Lawton, vicar of the ever- liberal St Matthew-in-the-city in Auckland. Like many of us, Rev Lawton was disturbed by the behaviour of the Rawene Baptists and urged his fellow Christians to 'be sensible about divine intervention and supernatural forces.' Satan, we were told is only ever described in the Bible in terms of 'fantasy genre texts'. Rev Lawton pleads with his co-religionists to 'leave behind this tendency to a duality of good and evil,' and to recognise the 'potential of humanity to both unspeakable inhumanity and monumental goodness.' Failure to make this transition will expose the Church to justified criticism, he warns.

Once again, nobody (excepting some fundamentalists) will question the motives of the Rev. Lawton. His motives are commendable. But one has to worry about his authority to make statements of this sort. The fact cannot be gainsaid that the Baptists have the authority of the Bible behind them. Even if they concede that Satan is just a myth, which they will not, they still have all the declarations of the immutability of faith to sustain them.

This is the fatal flaw of religious liberalism. In his book by that name, Duncan Hewlett (Prometheus Books, 1995) shows how weak the religious liberal's case really is. At some point, the religious liberal has to stop explaining away the inconvenient bits of the Bible and put his mark in the sand. They might consign Satan, hell, miracles, crude Biblical morality and misogyny, even the divinity and resurrection of Christ to the dustbin of history. But at some point they have to say "In this I do have faith." Where this point is set depends on the individual.

While the religious liberals are desperately trying to reconcile their faith with modern knowledge which sees no room for the supernatural, the fundamentalists, like our Rawene Baptists are at least consistent. They can say, "We don't have to abandon this or that piece of Bible truth, because we accept the whole lot as the truth." In this way, the fundamentalist is terribly, and in this case tragically, wrong, but at least they are accepting the Bible on its own terms. By contrast the religious liberal is aware of the appalling intellectual and moral price to pay for total belief in the Bible, but at the price of having to take on for himself the job of determining which part of the Bible he is going to believe. In short, the fundamentalist is wrong but consistent while the liberal is right but hopelessly adrift.

In most cases this would simply be another case of demonstrating the folly of the churches but in this case we have a tragedy on our hands. The Baptists aren't responsible for the deaths, but they can be accused of gross irresponsibility for giving Brian Aporo advice that is consistent with their beliefs.

Bill Cooke


Return to Contents

Wills versus Ratzinger

The two visions of Catholicism

Bill Cooke

Tower tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This saying is well known, but what is less well known is that it was said by the Catholic historian Lord Acton (1834-1902) about Pope Pius DC after the infamous decree on papal infallibility was passed in 1870. This is the same Pius IX whom the current pope has beatified.

These two men, Acton and Pius IX, symbolise the two tendencies of nineteenth-century Catholicism. On the one hand Acton wanted to prove to the world that the Roman Catholic Church was not just able to cope with the truth but was its principal representative and supporter. On the other hand Pius IX knew, in an uninformed and dogmatic way, that the office of pope, was, by definition, all the truth that was needed, and so much the worse for any contrary opinion. Their twenty-first century successors could be taken as Garry Wills on the one side and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the other.

Garry Wills is an American Catholic scholar and author who has written an explosive book called Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit. Like some other Catholic intellectuals such as Eamon Duffy and John Cornwell, Wills has been fiercely critical of the Church he belongs to. He laments the widening gap in beliefs and practices between the Catholic laity and their clergy. Worse still, Wills goes into detail on the structures of deceit the papacy is trapped in. 'The arguments for much of what passes as current church doctrine,' Wills writes, 'are so intellectually contemptible that mere self-respect forbids that a man condemns himself in his own eyes if he tries to claim that he agrees with it.' Joseph McCabe said that a upwards of a century ago and was despised as a result. Garry Wills can now say the same thing and be hailed as a religious hero.

On issue after issue; recognising the Holocaust, birth control, abortion, ordination of women, clerical celibacy, the papacy is caught in its own structures of deceit. Wills writes: 'To maintain an impression that Popes cannot err, Popes deceive - as if distorting the truth in the present were not a worse thing than mistaking it in the past.' Even when the papacy might genuinely want to admit past errors and make a clean breast of things, their prior unwillingness to admit that predecessors were in any way in error requires them to dissimulate, to prevaricate, to re-write history and simply to deceive. This is what he means by structures of deceit.

Wills lashes out in chapter after chapter against this structural dishonesty. He is clearly a very angry man; angry that the church he loves is being made a mockery of by these practices. But if Wills was angry while writing his book, he was due for a still greater shock.

From Vatican II to Dominus lesus

Much has been made of the new-look Roman Catholic Church. At the Second Vatican Council, which sat from 1962 to 1965, the Catholic Church made some important acknowledgments of past errors and committed itself to some new practices. And the Church has continued to recognise past misdeeds by apparently apologising for them. But it has become more and more apparent that the gains made by Vatican II have slowly been clawed back by the Vatican. The reaction set in with Paul VI, when he affirmed in encyclicals his commitment to clerical celibacy and opposition to birth control. John Paul II has reaffirmed Paul's strictures and eroded, put on hold, or annulled many of the other concessions Vatican II made to modernity.

Few documents illustrate this rigidification more clearly than the recent declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Congregation, once known as the Inquisition, has issued "Dominus Iesus": On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. The Congregation is led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, one of John Paul's most trusted deputies, and the Declaration was ratified and confirmed by John Paul II on June 16 2000.

Dominus lesus is a remarkable document in an age of globalisation. It appeared at about the same time Wills' book was published and serves as a brutal illustration of everything Garry Wills was criticising. It could hardly illustrate better the sort of structural deceit Wills condemns so fiercely. Conscious of public perceptions, Dominus lesus insists that the era of inter-faith dialogue, first acknowledged meaningfully at Vatican II, is still an important factor in Catholic thinking. But it also says that such dialogue 'does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes, directed toward that "mystery of unity"...' (section 2). If the reader missed the meaning here, a few sentences further on, the point is spelt out.
In this task, the Declaration seeks to recall to Bishops, theologians, and all the Catholic faithful, certain indispensable elements of Christian doctrine, which may help theological reflection in developing solutions consistent with the contents of the faith and responsive to the pressing needs of contemporary culture. (section 3)
This is papal-speak for "Sure, let's dialogue, but only insofar as they end up realising we are right, and have been right all along." Dominus lesus goes on to insist rather threateningly that 'it must be firmly believed that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given...' (section 5, emphasis in the original) Several more sentences follow which present the traditional, dogmatic picture of Christ as the only possible way in which any human being might know God or experience salvation.

The same point is then reiterated in even stronger terms. "Therefore the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complimentary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith.' (section 6) What the Vatican is doing here is making it very clear to the world, and to its own faithful, that once all the 'dialogue' is over, it and only it has the real and actual truth.

Following on logically from this, Ratzinger notes that the 'proper response to God's revelation is "the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26; cf Rom 1:5, Cor 10: 5-6) by which man freely entrusts his entire self to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals and freely assenting to the revelation given by him".' (section 7, emphasis in the original) Make no mistake that obedience to God means obedience to God's vicar on earth and his church. In other words, to two central-European elderly celibates; Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger.

Dominus lesus steps up a gear at this point by warning against undue levels of respect for the sacred texts of other religions. 'Certainly' it acknowledges, 'it must be recognised that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God.' (section 8) The condescension drips from almost every word; note the 'some elements' which 'may be' helpful to these benighted souls. "The Church's tradition, however, reserves the designation of inspired texts to the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, since these are inspired by the Holy Spirit.' (section 8, emphasis in the original) As if that is not offensive enough, Dominus lesus goes on to insist that 'the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.'(section 8)

It should not come as a surprise that Dominus lesus reinforces the supremacy of traditional theology regarding Christ and the Word. These things must be (again, all in italics) firmly believed. This ensures, once more, that no sort of redemption or salvation is possible outside that understood and sanctioned by Catholic theology. In flat contradiction of one hundred and fifty years of biblical and Jesus scholarship, Dominus lesus declares that 'one can and must say that Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute.' (section 15) Soon after this, the central role of the Church ('inseparably united to her Lord') is again reiterated. 'Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single bride of Christ: "a single Catholic and apostolic Church".' (section 16) Furthermore, the Catholic faithful are 'required to profess' (section 16, emphasis in the original) this fact to the unwashed.

A fragmented Catholicism

All this bodes ill for non-Catholic Christians. Dominus lesus spells their inferiority out. The 'ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptised in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.' (section 17) Because of this structural imperfection of any non-Catholic communion, Catholics are 'not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection - divided, yet in some way one - of the Churches and ecclesial communities...' (section 17). Catholics must, in other words, remember at all times that they and they alone are the bearers of the whole truth, and they must remind other Christians of their superiority. 'It is true,' Ratzinger grudgingly acknowledges, 'that the Church is not an end unto herself, since she is ordered toward the kingdom of God, of which she is the seed, sign and instrument. Yet while remaining distinct from Christ and the kingdom, the Church is indissolubly united to both.' (section 18)

Having set in stone the exclusive salvific properties of the Catholic Church, Dominus lesus makes things clear to the faithful. 'Above all else, it must be firmly believed that "the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church.' (section 20, emphasis in the original) This absolutist claim is made at the beginning of the section entitled 'The Church and the Other Religions in Relation to Salvation'. Again, there is the recognition that 'the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God' and 'some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel', but one 'cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy...' (section 21). Again, the other religions are little more than a preparation to the only full revealed truth as revealed by the Catholic Church.

Showing commendable grace, the Church allows non- Catholic Christians to be considered as equals, but only insofar as they are human beings, 'not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ - who is God himself made man - in relation to the founders of the other religions.' (section 22) One shudders to think where this would leave people who have no religion at all.

The breathtaking exclusivism and arrogance of Dominus lesus is also going to prove, one would imagine, a challenge to people like Garry Wills. Wills admits that the entire papal claim to come in unbroken succession from Peter, in his capacity as the first pope, is 'anachronistic'. More important, he admits that other religions have profound spiritual value. In fact, Wills says at the end of his book, 'She (sic) breathes through all religious life, wherever the divine call is heeded, among Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and others.' But as these words were being written, Cardinal Ratzinger was telling all the faithful, including Garry Wills, that they are 'required to profess' the exclusive majesty of Catholic truth.

It will be apparent to readers that there is little Garry Wills and Cardinal Ratzinger have to say to each other. But both claim to be espousing the essence of Catholicism. Like Lord Acton and Pus IX in the nineteenth century, the Catholic Church is again deeply divided in itself. There is no real room for compromise between such divergent positions. It can only lead to victory for one side or the other.

Bill Cooke is Senior Lecturer at the Manukau Institute of Technology School of Visual Arts and is editor of the, NZ Rationalist & Humanist.


Return to Contents

Southern Lights

Being Frank

Russell Dear

I've noticed, when taking my morning constitutional, that walking seems to encourage mental activity. I'm not sure whether this is due to the increased volume of blood being pumped to the brain or just being alone with one's thoughts. Whatever the cause I find my mind at such times more readily inclined to creativity. This morning, for instance, a passing horse float reminded me of an old friend.

I'd known Frank for fifteen years or so prior to his death six years ago. A confirmed bachelor, he loved his horses - gallopers, thoroughbred racehorses. He had bred and raced them all his adult life with some notable successes and had supported his passion by labouring at a local freezing works and farming. It took the two incomes to support his level of commitment to racing. It was easy to misjudge Frank. He could mix with all strata of society, discussing issues of the day with as much knowledge as the next person. Until one dug deeper, it wasn't obvious that he was also extremely well-read in the classics and could quote Shakespeare, Byron and Keats with aplomb. He would tailor his conversation to the company he was in. He had also written two books. They were an amalgam of racing narrative and Frank's theories on horse breeding - philosophy rather than plot-driven and, admittedly, not best sellers. Over the years, as our friendship grew, interesting aspects of his persona came to light. I discovered, for example, that he was an atheist. In fact, not just an atheist - someone who has no belief in gods - but an antitheist. He felt very strongly that those who held religious beliefs had got it all wrong.

There were two aspects of his philosophy. The first was that religious people were psychologically damaged. Like a thoroughbred horse with bad lineage or a serious deformation which was liable to affect its racing performance, he thought that people who believed in gods were flawed. It was not that they had no contributions to make but that one had to be more discriminatory in listening to their life views, views which Frank felt were liable to misjudgment, being influenced as they were by belief in suspect premises. After all, one would think carefully before investing great sums of money in a horse which had poor breeding or bad conformation.

Secondly, Frank decried strongly the wastage of time and resources spent in religious effort. Not just the hours people wasted in church but the whole input of maintaining the edifice of religion. Take all those hours and dollars, he would say, and put them towards making our world a better place. After all, who would spend time, money and energy on preparing a run- down hack for the racecourse. The right horse and correct philosophy are optimum strategies in the racing game.

When he died, Frank willed us one of his horses. Impeccably bred along the lines recommended in his books, nevertheless the mare was a poor thing, a runt of a horse not particularly well put together. I've often wondered what Frank was trying to say when he made us the gift. Was it that in any endeavour, even when you've got everything right, things can still go wrong? Or was it that if things go wrong when you think you've got it right, maybe you didn't have it right after all? If he was mistaken about racing maybe he was about life too. After all these years I'm still not sure what he meant but I do know it's the sort of conundrum he'd want me to keep thinking about for a very long time.

Good on yer mate!


Return to Contents

A right lot of Charlies

Brian Edwards

Had an email from my old friend Ivan Strahan in Belfast. Ivan's a bit worried about his mortality. People of his own age, and younger, are dropping like flies. "We are," he wrote, including me in this dire prognosis, "in the death-zone."

Death is a no-win situation for atheist. If you're right, you don't get to tell anyone; if you're wrong, everyone, including God, gets to tell you. That's the scary bit.

There is of course an upside to being right - you don't have to worry about being tormented for eternity by some divine psychopath. The downside is that you are inevitably going to find yourself, like Monty Python's Norwegian Blue: "stone dead, demised, passed on, no more, ceased to be, a stiff, bereft of life, snuffed it, up the creek and kicked the bucket, extinct in its entirety, an ex-parrot."

Death is first and foremost an affront to the ego. It's not the fear of eternal damnation that bothers me about dying, not even the terror of the unknown; it's the "no more, ceased to be, extinct in its entirely, ex-parrot" bit that gets up my nose. How dare things go on as usual with me not there! How dare the Earth presume to turn, the sun to rise, the moon to shine, flowers to grow, birds to sing, Judge Judy to smite the wicked! How dare people continue to conduct conversations without seeking my opinion! How dare there be newspapers and magazines and books and radio and television and the internet and yet-to-be-invented forms of mass communication without my being in on them! How dare I not exist!

"Vanity of vanities," saith the Preacher, "all is vanity "And mark that fellow down for the sin of pride.

There is a view among my religious friends that I will undergo a last-minute conversion. I doubt it. If there is a god, I'm sure she's not going to be fooled by a piece of self-interested, panic-induced hypocrisy like that.

And anyway, I just couldn't do it. No need for any sophisticated dialectics here. Belief in god or an afterlife just doesn't make sense. Homo sapiens have been around for four or five million years. Billions and trillions and zillions of us have been born, lived and died, and there isn't a single verifiable example of survival after death, not a shred, not a scintilla, not a scrap, not an iota, jot or tittle of evidence of the existence of a divine being. Thank god for that! The versions we've made so far in our own image haven't been too attractive.

Still, there could be an argument for hedging your bets, just in case. Trouble is, it's not just a simple choice between believing and not-believing, between theism and atheism. It's the Everlasting Cup and there are a stack of runners. Put your money on the wrong nag - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity - and you're a gonner.

"You know the odds," says the celestial TAB, "now beat them!"

I prefer to put my money on the nose. Win/lose. No great dividend either way. But whichever horse romps home, I'll still have kept my dignity and self-respect.

Imagine for a moment that I'm right, that there is no god. Imagine that every time you get down on your knees to pray, you're actually talking to yourself. Imagine that each time you call on god for help in time of trouble, only the wind hears your entreaties. Imagine that for years you've prostrated yourself before, glorified, worshipped, no one. Imagine that the guilt, the self-denial, the adherence to a set of arbitrary, illogical and often punitive tenets have been totally without point or profit.

Imagine the centuries of ecclesiastical ritual, the pomp and circumstance were all mere dressing-up and play-acting. Imagine that the churches, cathedrals, synagogues, temples, mosques are nothing more than monuments to man's despair and delusion. Imagine that all the martyrs to religious belief, all the victims of religious persecution, died in their hundreds of millions for...nothing.

Imagine that everything you were taught, believed, clung to for meaning and comfort is wrong. Imagine that it's all been the most terrible joke, the most cruel hoax conceivable, and you are the butt of it.

Doesn't bear thinking about, does it. Which is why so many people don't.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. God may not be non- existent, he may merely be painfully shy. And if he does exist, there's just the possibility that he may be assisted by a devil with all the wit and style of Rowan Atkinson's "Toby," as he welcomes the latest batch of newcomers to Hell-murderers, looters, pillagers, thieves, bank-managers, adulterers, Americans, sodomites, Christians ("I'm afraid the Jews were right"), everyone who saw Monty Python's Life of Brian ("He can't take a joke after all") and atheists ("You must be feeling a right lot of Charlies!").

Well, that would be embarrassing, I admit. But I'm betting it's never going to happen. I'm betting that god doesn't exist. And have you never had a moment of doubt Brian?

Oh yes - as a twenty year-old student of Germanic languages, standing under a tree during a thunderstorm in Gottingen with lightning strafing the rain-sodden pavement less than a metre from my feet. I did have a moment of doubt then. We atheists hate lightning.

Brian Edwards is an Honorary Associate of the NZARH. This article originally in the Listener, September 30 2000. We thank the Listener and Brian Edwards for permission to reprint this article.


Return to Contents

New Zealand's Freethought Heritage

Chapter 3: The rise and decline of Freethought in Dunedin, 1880-90

Jim Dakin

The Dunedin Freethought Association and The Echo

In 1880 the Dunedin Freethought Association (DFA) was precariously established. It had adopted as its official organ the revived weekly newspaper The Echo, which was owned by the secretary of the Association, Wm Absalom Smith, a tailor by trade.(1) Robert Stout was not only the President of the Association but also the editor of The Echo. Stout had resigned his parliamentary seat in June 1879 in order to give urgent attention to his law practice.(2) He was also enabled by this change to devote more time to the affairs of the DFA. As editor of The Echo he proudly declared that the paper would allow free discussion on all subjects. As evidence of the extent to which Freethought ideas were being disseminated, he reported that Joseph Braithwaite, a bookseller and Vice-President of the DFA, had sold no fewer than 9,000 copies of lngersoll's The Mistakes of Moses and that more copies were being demanded. Robert Ingersoll (1833-99) was an American Freethinker celebrated for his eloquence and forensic skills whose speeches and writings were often quoted in The Echo and other Freethought publications.(3)

The Echo carried a good measure of general news and comment, but tended to give priority to reports and discussions on social, political and religious matters. Typical topics discussed in early editorials were larrikinism, unemployment and the Dunedin School Committee elections. Some leading articles expressed sympathy for the Maori leader Te Whiti and his struggle for justice in Taranaki.(4) The general attitude towards local clergy and their churches was almost fraternal, sometimes with a hint of irony. The Rev. Professor Salmond was congratulated on being awarded a doctorate of divinity and the Catholic Bishop Moran was wished luck in his candidature for a seat in the House of Representatives.(5) The paper also published a series of articles on Spiritualism by the Rev. Samuel Edger in which he ended his discussion of the subject on a note of polite scepticism.(6)

At the end of 1880 Joseph Braithwaite, the bookseller, who was a Spiritualist, acquired the ownership of The Echo.(7) After the change of ownership the editorial policy seems to have remained unchanged, but the relationship between owner and editor proved to be an uneasy one. Braithwaite's notices advertising general and Freethought literature featured largely in the advertising pages of The Echo. When the paper ceased publication in November 1883 its demise was attributed partly to frequent absences of the editor in the North Island and partly to the failure of the paper to make ends meet.(8) It is significant, however, that Braithwaite resigned from the DFA two months later and publicly stated his lack of confidence in the future of the Association. During the period of its existence The Echo gave generous coverage to the activities of the DFA and published reports of the progress of its sister associations that had been founded in Christchurch, Wellington and elsewhere.

The Development of a Freethought Programme

The DFA went from strength to strength during the period 1880-1883. There were regular Sunday evening meetings at which lectures were delivered or passages read from the works of such Freethought authors as Paine, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll. Soirees and balls were organised on such special occasions as that when the anniversary of Robert Owen's birth was celebrated.(9) A Freethought Band, a choir and an orchestra were formed in order to provide music at all Sunday and special meetings.

In January 1881 the elections for the school committees in Dunedin resulted in a 'victory for the secularists' over the advocates of Bible-reading in public schools.(10) The secularists were led by William Bolt, then a leading figure in the DFA. In April a Childrens' Progressive Lyceum (a sort of secular Sunday school) was established in the Oddfellows' Hall and met each Sunday at 3 p.m.(11) A Lyceum Guide of 160 pages was published for the use of the volunteer teachers in the Children's Lyceum.(12) In August a visitor to this institution described the manner in which Braithwaite, the superintendent, organised the Children's activities. The children were arranged in groups and wore colourful sashes. There was a good deal of marching and singing as well as some poetry reading. The visitor rather captiously commented:
It is not easy to see what intellectual profit can accrue from exercises as those practised at the Lyceum and it is scarcely likely that their system will ever supersede that of the old-fashioned Sunday School (13)

The Lyceum and the Heyday of Freethought in Dunedin

In October 1881 the foundation stone of the Freethought hall was laid with great ceremony on the site in Dowling Street where the first Christian church in Dunedin had stood.(14) The hall was to be called the Lyceum. At the opening of the completed building at the end of April 1882 there was great junketing. In the afternoon there was a parade of children to the strains of the orchestra and a juvenile band. In the evening Stout arrayed in a purple sash presided over an audience of some 700 people and delivered an address on 'What is Freethought?'(15) He described the DFA as 'a number of men and women banded together for mutual assistance and inquiry in the search for truth'. He went on:
There are freethinkers in many churches and every now and then one is excommunicated. Not all that did not belong to churches were freethinkers. A freethinker is one who sought to learn what man is and what is his relation to the universe - who claimed the right to consider these questions unfettered by any State, any Church, any Society or any individual and who must be guided in his inquiry by those canons of evidence which will enable him to follow his analysis to the bottom.
After the inauguration of the Lyceum hall a typical Sunday programme usually adhered to the following pattern - initial instrumental music by the orchestra and singing by the choir, the reading of a poem or two, a flute solo, an address by a Freethought speaker, more music and a final reading. On special occasions, as on Christmas Day 1882, there was also dancing to music provided by the Freethought Band. A Ladies' Association had by this time been formed in order to carry out charitable work.

During 1882 the connection fostered by Bright between the Freethought movement in New Zealand and kindred movements in Australia was strengthened by Stout's attendance at the Australasian Freethought Conference in Melbourne and by his being elected its President.(16) In 1884 Bright could say that Stout was 'looked upon as the foremost freethinker in New Zealand, if not in the whole of the Australasian colonies."(17)

At the end of 1883 the Freethought movement in Dunedin was probably at its zenith. Nevertheless the disparate elements that made up its membership betrayed its inherent weakness. The committed Spiritualist element led by Braithwaite was the greatest threat to unity. The labour or trade union element led by William Bolt was at this stage still much attached to Stout who maintained a rationalist stance.(18) The progress of the DFA was generally regarded as the personal achievement of Stout as President. In October 1881 the Otago Daily Times considered that 'the be- all and end-all' of the Association was the members' confidence in Robert Stout without whom 'it would resolve itself into its original elements and become heterogeneous once more.' (19) Stout who had remained outside Parliament since 1879 was elected for Dunedin East in July 1884. It was during the period 1880-1884 when he was free from political commitments in Wellington that he was most active in the affairs of the DFA. It was then that it flourished.

The Extension of the Freethought Movement

It was during this period 1880-1884 that the DFA was encouraged by the spread of the Freethought movement outside Dunedin. A Canterbury Freethought Association was formed in 1881 partly as a result of the determination of its members to support the cause of atheist Charles Bradlaugh who, having been duly elected, was denied his seat in the British House of Commons because as an atheist he was not allowed to take the oath of allegiance, even though he had been refused the right to affirm.(20) There had been Freethought activity in Wellington in 1878 and in 1881 but a viable association was not formed until 1883.(21) In 1883 an association of Freethinkers was formed in Wanganui where Stout's close friend and former Cabinet colleague, John Ballance, was editor of a newspaper and a local MHR. (22) Ballance was a Freethinker and for a time edited the Freethought Review, a monthly journal that became the organ of the Freethought movement after the closing down of The Echo in November 1883. At the end of September 1883 a freethought organisation was formed in Nelson.(23) When a similar body took shape in Auckland in December 1883 it assumed the title of Auckland Rationalistic Association, presumably in order to discourage Spiritualists from seeking membership.

At the end of 1883 Charles Bright returned to Dunedin and after lecturing there for some months he returned to Australia in July 1884.(24) In March he spoke at a conference of delegates of New Zealand Freethought associations assembled in the Dunedin Town Hall to discuss matters of common interest. Delegates had come from associations in Dunedin, Auckland, Wellington, Wanganui, Woodville, Nelson and Picton. The conference decided to form a New Zealand Federal Freethought Union. The main aims of this body were to encourage mutual aid and support, to keep a vigilant eye on legislation and to facilitate the dissemination of Freethought. (25) The President of the Union was Robert Stout, the Vice-President was Ballance and the Secretary T Cheyne Farnie, a Dunedin schoolmaster who had been active in the affairs of the DFA. During 1884 the Freethought Review recorded the formation of Freethought associations in Picton, Waverley, Stratford, Inglewood and Norsewood. In 1885 associations with similar aims were reported to be operating in Masterton, Palmerston North, Ngaere and Lyttelton. An association was struggling to stay alive in Timaru.(26)

Dissension in the Freethought Movement

In 1884-5 the Freethought movement in New Zealand had reached the greatest extent of its expansion in the 19th century, but even as it appeared to have set up the machinery which would promote its further expansion, it was weakened in its main centre of growth and source of inspiration. In Dunedin the cessation of the publication of The Echo was followed by the resignation in January 1884 of the Vice-President of the DFA, Joseph Braithwaite, the leading Spiritualist. In a long letter to the Otago Daily Times he wrote:
I think that the Association, in a constructive religious sense, is a failure - the logical result where members' views are so diverse. The compromise on fundamental questions is so complete that practically nothing positive, however true, can successfully be taught.(27)
Braithwaite had indeed hit upon a weakness that can not infrequently undermine the integrity of a freethought organisation when members differ radically in their views and the aims of the organisation become ill-defined and diffuse. Braithwaite went on to explain how this vagueness in basic philosophy made teaching very difficult in the Children's Lyceum of which he was superintendent. In his reply to Braithwaite Stout counted the diversity of the opinions of members of the DFA as a strength and seemed glad to identify theists, agnostics, Unitarians, pantheists and Spiritualists among them. He continued:
We never united to form a new theology....we have recognised that the deeper questions of life can never be solved by all men alike; and we have united to discuss them freed from creeds and to teach our children their duties to themselves and their fellows.
He thought that Braithwaite as a theist should join other 'advanced Unitarians' and found a Unitarian church in Dunedin.(28)

Stout seems to have been unduly optimistic in his hopes of holding together people of very diverse views on religion. Yet it may have been too early in the history of a still somewhat tentative movement to introduce too much rigour into its rationale. The Otago Daily Times expressed pleasure at what it saw as Braithwaite's return to the Christian fold. His resignation and his public statement were publicised in other centres in New Zealand. In Wellington the New Zealand Times whose proprietor was a Spiritualist published Braithwaite's letter in full and remarked that Stout's agnosticism was 'almost dogmatic'.(29)

Local Activities and the Itinerant Lecturers

In July 1884 Bright, who had been lecturing in Dunedin and elsewhere off and on since 1876, finally departed for Sydney. In the same month Stout re-entered national politics and was elected to the Dunedin East seat in the election that caused the fall of the Atkinson government. By August Stout had become Premier.(30) With the departure of Bright and the preoccupation of Stout with national politics, the DFA became much more dependent upon the efforts of its other office-bearers, although Stout did take part and lecture from time to time. William Bolt as Vice-President, T C Farnie, John Stone, a local publisher, and others lectured or gave readings at some Sunday meetings.(31) The Freethought Band and the orchestra both conducted by J Parker proved to be attractions that helped to draw audiences. The choir performed regularly and at times the gentlemen sang glees.(32) The Children's Lyceum continued to hold sessions under the supervision of Robert Rutherford. The programme was, as before, not unlike that of one of the more popular Protestant churches but without the religious component.

In 1884, however, a new feature began to appear in the Freethought programme. Visits by itinerant Freethought lecturers became a frequent occurrence. Although very little, if anything, is known of the workings of Federal Freethought Union of which T C Farnie was secretary, it seems at least to have helped to establish a network of contacts which facilitated the movement of these peripatetic lecturers from one Freethought association to another. In April 1884 Dunedin was visited by the Auckland-based lecturer Joseph Spence Evison who lectured under the pseudonym 'Ivo'. He had gained a considerable reputation as a provocative popular lecturer in the main centres of the country.(33) In July and August of that year George Sawkins, a Freethought lecturer from Adelaide also contributed some lectures to the DFA programme.(34)

This kind of programme provided mainly by members of the Association but supplemented by the contributions of itinerant lecturers was carried on in the Lyceum throughout 1885,1886 and most of 1887. The 1885 programme began with a series often lectures by the English poet and writer Gerald Massey, a former Chartist, who was a Spiritualist as well as a Freethinker. The historian J F C Harrison rates Massey as 'little more than a competent versifier'.(35) Massey lectured to the DFA members on literary as well as Freethought subjects. For his lecture on Charles Lamb, Thomas Bracken, the New Zealand poet and author of 'God Defend New Zealand' was in the chair.(36) Massey was followed as lecturer by Isaac Selby who was then secretary of the Lyceum. Selby was a young man who had been brought up in Dunedin and who had been attracted to Freethought by Bright's lectures.(27) Selby's lecturing proved to be so successful that he was invited to lecture to members of Freethought associations in other centres.

In 1886 musical programmes were often the major features of Sunday evening programmes at the Lyceum. Short addresses by such senior members as William Bolt or Robert Rutherford were but a minor part of programmes billed as 'Grand Musical Nights'.(38) About this time a 'distinguished visiting lady from Britain' was shown over the Lyceum by the secretary of that institution, a Mr Farra, a tinsmith by trade, whom she found to be a very intelligent man. During her visit to the Lyceum she met Robert Stout and Thomas Bracken. A friend of Stout, Bracken was at this stage, and probably during most of his life, a Freethinker.(39) In June 1887 Professor George Chainey who was described as a celebrated American orator and dramatic reader gave several performances in the Lyceum Hall. He and Mrs Chainey were Spiritualists and at times gave psychometric readings to members of their audiences.(40)

The Decline of Freethought in Dunedin

At the end of October 1887 Stout lost not only the Premiership but also his parliamentary seat. Before the election a leader in the Otago Daily Times had observed that he had fallen in public esteem and accused him of 'unscrupulous electioneering tactics and [of making] childish threats of retiring for ever from public life if he is ever defeated.'(41) Stout, however, still enjoyed considerable support from organised labour despite his philosophy of individualism and his rejection of socialism.(42) Stout had accepted a knighthood in 1886 and was criticised for this by many freethinkers and others. The Auckland Rationalistic Association made its disappointment clear: 'In view of Stout's past history and behaviour it came as a shock to Rationalists and to many sections of the community that he should accept a title.'(43)

Stout, who was still President of the DFA, gave three well received lectures in the Lyceum Hall in 1888 and there was a lecture by a Spiritualist. However, the tempo of activity in the DFA had slackened. At the beginning of the year the Association was constrained to give up control of the Lyceum Hall to trustees and thereafter the Association became merely a tenant of the hall paying a yearly rent for its use on Sundays only.(44) The hall was then hired out for miscellaneous activities such as a wrestling contest and it was extensively used as a skating rink. The musical leader J Parker and those associated with him diverted their energies to the formation and development of the Southern Philharmonic Society which flourished under Parker's leadership.(45)

By 1889 the DFA had virtually sunk from public view. When in April 1890 W W Collins, the Freethought lecturer from Sydney, appeared in Dunedin and gave lectures in the Athenaeum Hall, William Bolt took the chair and Stout put in an appearance on at least one occasion, but no claim was made to sponsorship of the lectures by the DFA.(46) The last we hear of its former members engaging in any activity together is when in February 1893 the Hon William Bolt (by then a Legislative Councillor), T C Farnie, Joseph Braithwaite and others appeared on the stage of the Princess Theatre. They were members of a committee convened to investigate the claims of an American 'mystifier' who alleged that he would show that clairvoyance was impossible. In the course of the discussion which ensued Bolt made it clear that he was not a Spiritualist whereas Braithwaite affirmed his continuing belief in Spiritualism.(47) This was a dramatic demonstration of the main division of opinion that had sapped the strength of the DFA from its inception in the 1870s until its demise in 1889.

Notes and References

(1) G H Scholefield, Newspapers in New Zealand, A.H. & A.W. Reed, Wellington, 1858, p 180
(2) W H Dunn & I M L Richardson, Sir Robert Stout, A H & A W Reed, Wellington, 1869, pp 75-85
(3) The Echo, 22.2.1880 (the first issue of the revived paper)
(4) ibid, 5.11.1881 & 19.8.1882
(5) ibid, 18.6.1881 & 3.2.1883
(6) ibid, 16.4.1881 ff
(7) ibid, 4.12.1880
(8) ibid, 10.11.1883
(9) ibid, 22.5.1880
(10) ibid, 5.2.1881
(11) ibid, 16.4.1881
(12) ibid, 18.6.1881
(13) NZ Public Opinion & Saturday Advertiser, Dunedin, 6.8.1881
(14) The Echo, 15.10.1881. See also Isaac Selby, Hinemoa and Memories of Maoriland, Tytherleigh Press, Melbourne, 1925, p 77
(15) The Echo, 6.5.1882
(16) Ray Dahlitz, Secular Who's Who, the author, Melbourne, 1994, p 44
(17) Evening Herald, Dunedin, 9.7.1886
(18) See Erik Olssen, A History of Otago, John Mclndoe, Dunedin, 1984, pp 96 & 106
(19) Otago Daily Times, 7.10.1881
(20) The Echo, 8.10.1881
(21) ibid, 4.6.1881 & 10.6.1881
(22) ibid, 7.7.1883
(23) ibid, 16.10.1883
(24) Evening Star, Dunedin, 2.1.1884 & 5.7.1884
(25) Freethought Review, Wanganui, April 1884
(26) ibid, March 1884 to Sept. 1885, Vols. 6-24
(27) Otago Daily Times, 16.1.1884
(28) Evening Star, 18.1.1884
(29) New Zealand Times, Wellington, 4.2.1884. For the Spiritualist views of Chantrey Harris, proprietor of the New Zealand Times see Freethought Review, April 1884
(30) W.H. Dunn & I.L.M. Richardson, op.cit. pp. 92-96
(31) Evening Star, 26 & 28.7.1884 & 2.8.1884
(32) ibid, 30.8.1884 & 6.9.1884
(33) ibid, 13 & 20.4.1884 & 24.5.1884
(34) ibid, 26 & 28.7.1884 & 2.8.1884
(35) J.F.C.Harrison, 'Chartism in Leicester' in Asa Briggs (ed.) Chartist Studies, Macmillan, London, 1967, p. 145
(36) Otago Daily Times, 19.1.1985 & 4.2.1885
(37) Isaac Selby, op.cit. p.74
(38) Otago Daily Times, 15.5.1886 & 12.6.1886
(39) Typo (a monthly newspaper & library review), Napier, 27.8.1887, p.60. For Bracken's religious beliefs, see W.S.Broughton, 'Bracken, Thomas' in Dictionary of NZ Biography, Vol 2 Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1993, pp. 52-53
(40) Otago Daily Times, 30.7.1887, 6.8.1887, & 8.8.1887
(41) ibid, 26.9.1887
(42) For instance, see The Otago Workman, Dunedin, 13.8.1887 & 1.10.1887
(43) Patrick Campbell, 'Early New Zealand Freethought' in New Zealand Rationalist, Jan/Feb. 1963
(44) The Otago Workman, 21.1.1888
(45) ibid, 7.4.1888 & 26.10.1888
(46) Otago Daily Times, 5-22.4.1890
(47) ibid, 13.2.1893


Return to Contents

Wisdom from the Bible: Kid's style

 These gems purport to have come from a Catholic elementary school where kids were asked questions about the Old and New Testaments. That may or may not be the case, as I got them from the internet. However, they seemed funny enough to share. The spelling is in the original.
  1. In the first book of the bible, Guinessis, God got tired of creating the world, so he took the Sabbath off.
  2. Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree.
  3. Noah's wife was called Joan of Ark. Noah built an ark, which the animals come on to in pears.
  4. Lot's wife was a pillar of salt by day, but a ball of fire by night.
  5. The Jews were a proud people and throughout history they had trouble with the unsympathetic Genitals.
  6. Samson was a strongman who let himself be led astray by a Jezebel like Delilah.
  7. Moses led the hebrews to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread which is bread without any ingredients.
  8. Moses went up on Mount Cyanide to get the ten ammendments.
  9. The seventh commandment is thou shalt not admit adultery.
  10. Moses died before he ever reached Canada. Then Joshua led the hebrews in the battle of Geritol.
  11. The greatest miracle in the Bible is when Joshua told his son to stand still and he obeyed him.
  12. David was a hebrew king skilled at playing the liar. He fought with the Finklesteins, a race of people who lived in Biblical times.
  13. Solomon, one of David's sons, had 300 wives and 700 porcupines.
  14. When the three wise guys from the east side arrived, they found Jesus the manager.
  15. Jesus was born because Mary had an immaculate contraption.
  16. Jesus enunciated the Golden Rule, which says to do one to others before they do one to you.
  17. It was a miracle when Jesus rose from the dead and managed to get the tombstone off the entrance.
  18. The people who followed the lord were called the twelve decibels. The epistles were the wives of the apostles.
  19. One of the oppossums was St. Matthew who was also a taximan.
  20. St. Paul cavorted to Christianity. He preached holy acrimony, which is another name for marriage.
  21. Christians have only one spouse. This is called monotony.

Return to Contents

Marriage cements east-west relations

Dr K H S S Sundar

The marriage between Ms Ratna, adopted daughter of Lavanam, leader of the Atheist Centre in Vijayawada, and Pertti A O Holopainen, atheist and humanist of Finland (now working in Sweden) on December 26 2000 is a milestone in the progress of the international humanist and atheist movements. Perhaps this is the first ever marriage between humanists of India and the west.

The venue of the marriage, Mahatma Gandhi's ashram at Sevagram near Nagpur in India, is also of great significance. It was here that the atheist leader, Gora, Lavanam's father, had talks with Mahatma Gandhi on atheism during 1944-46.

When Gora told Mahatma Gandhi that his eldest daughter, Ms Manorama would be marrying a so-called untouchable, Mahatma Gandhi wanted to perform the marriage himself. When Gora objected to the religious rituals that are often seen with traditional Hindu marriage Mahatma Gandhi rose to the occasion and agreed to celebrate the marriage in the name of Truth, but not of God. Gandhi wanted to set an example before the world and make truth as the meeting point for the theists and atheists. Gandhi was not allowed to live to celebrate the marriage because he was assassinated by a Hindu religious fanatic on January 30 1948. As per Gandhiji's wish there was no reference to God. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, graced the occasion and congratulated the couple. Again in 1960 Mr Lavanam's marriage was celebrated with Ms Hemalata, daughter of Joshua, the famous humanist poet of the Telugu language, in Sevagram Ashram on the same principle of social and human equality.

Now the entire Gandhian family in India and Mahatma Gandhi's ashram at Sevagram encouraged Lavanam to celebrate the marriage of his daughter of the international family in the same ashram. Dr Susheela Nayyar, personal physician of Gandhi and former Minister of Health in the Union cabinet presided over the function. Another reputed Gandhian, Mr Siddharaj Dhadda (92) conducted the marriage proceedings. Nearly two hundred well wishers from the Gandhian, rationalist, humanist, atheist and social reform movements from all over India attended the marriage. Lavanam's personal friends from USA, Canada, Germany and UK joined the function. Congratulatory messages from all over the world poured in.

Pertti Holopainen comes from eastern Finland. He took his Masters' degree in sociology and psychology from Tampere university and a teacher's diploma from a folk high school in Sweden. He has worked for some time as a teacher and social worker, doing, among other things, counselling of prisoners, drug addicts and alcoholics. He has been actively associated with the humanist movement in Finland and Sweden. He attended International Humanist conferences in Oslo, Brussels, Amsterdam and Bombay. Presently he is working for a Finnish weekly in Stockholm.

Ratna was born in Vijayawada to a conservative lower middle class family. After matriculation she joined the printing works at the Atheist Centre as a worker. She helped training women in printing technology. She took a Master's degree in sociology and a Diploma in Environmental Sciences. She participated in various activities of the Atheist Centre. Then she travelled through Europe and UK, working as an assistant to Lavanam. She has also worked in the Sturatpuram criminal reformation project. Let there be more such marriages leading us towards post-religious and post- national universal human society.

Dr K H S S Sundar works at the Atheist Centre in Vijayawada, India.


Return to Contents

Where did "Freethought" come from?

Kenneth Maddock

As every Sydney schoolboy knows the Libertarian Society originated in the Society for Freethought founded at Sydney University in 1930. Two years later its name was changed to the Freethought Society, with John Anderson as president, a position he was to hold for twenty years. As Jim Baker puts it, the Society became 'the principal forum for [Anderson's] extra-curricular addresses on social and political questions.'1

Recently I have been reading Bill Cooke's history of rationalism in New Zealand.2 His book shows up coincidences with and divergences from Sydney freethought which awaken curiosity and perhaps are worth exploring. The New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Rationalism was formed in Auckland in 1927. Four years later it was renamed the Rationalist Association and Sunday Freedom League. Throughout its history the movement's centre of gravity has usually been in Auckland.

Baker's description of Sydney freethought, that it 'was construed in a broad wayand took in much more than criticism of religion',3 could equally well be said of New Zealand rationalism in some periods, though in others it was narrowly anti-religious and anti-clerical. Both expounded a variety of controversial views through meetings and publications, and were sporadically under public attack, which indeed they could be seen as provoking.

My article is less a review of Cooke's book than a few jottings which range loosely across points of connexion between two interesting movements. As an example of affinity one might take the author of one of the early rationalist publications, a threepenny pamphlet by Arthur Sewell, professor of English at the then Auckland University College.4 Sewell, who arrived in New Zealand in 1933, had already run into trouble with the New Zealand radio authorities which, under a policy of rejecting 'controversial' topics, refused to broadcast his talk on 'Religion and Philosophy as Manifestations of Western Civilisation.'

On 5 August 1934 Sewell spoke on freedom of speech to the Rationalist Association, the talk being repeated a month later to a much larger audience. The published version quickly ran to three printings. Two of his opinions caused outrage. One was that although social and political change would ideally come about only by the power of public opinion, the use of force was justified in societies where freedom of speech was prohibited. The other was that 'perhaps the most dangerous enemy to truth and to right thinking is superstition and religious belief.'

The New Zealand Herald accused Sewell of pandering to 'a minority actively intent on causing trouble.' A government MP mistakenly claimed that he wanted the Soviet system to be installed in New Zealand and then complained that if Sewell 'belong[ed] to the British Empire he would be above mixing with people with those ideas.' A regular contributor to the Herald's Saturday magazine section called for a crusade against the 'armies of anti-Christ.'5

Sewell was not the only radical academic in the public eye at this time. Although indignation at their opinions was perhaps as great as that provoked two years earlier in Australia by Anderson's first presidential address to the Freethought Society, it did not lead to the same disavowal by an official university body.

Where the Sydney University Senate had censured Anderson for 'transgressing] all proper limits' and required him 'to abstain from such utterances in future', the Auckland University College Council passed a resolution recognising that academics might consider themselves under 'a special obligation to speak and, indeed, to make a pronouncement not in accordance with the opinions and traditions of the majority of citizens'.6

Sewell spoke on other occasions to the rationalists, chaired a debate in 1936 on the historicity of Jesus between the Rev W W Averill and Jack Langley, a visiting Australian freethought lecturer, and was a vice- president of the Association from 1934 to 1943. The activities which kept Sewell before the public were not all connected with rationalism in a narrow sense, even when sponsored by the Association. In 1938, just before the general election, he addressed a Rationalist Association evening meeting on 'The "Menace" of Socialism' — the afternoon of that same Sunday had seen a mass Labour Party rally in Auckland. Shortly afterwards he supported a move to amend the Mayor of Auckland's call that thanks be given to God for the peace secured by the Munich agreement (whether Sewell deplored the agreement I do not know, but many rationalists did). In 1941 he chaired a meeting of about 3,000 people in the Auckland Town Hall organized by the Aid to Russia committee.

I understand that Sewell left Auckland University College under a cloud, and that he applied unsuccessfully for a chair at Sydney, where Anderson backed him. Later he became known to people in Sydney libertarian and related circles. He contributed to The Pluralist, no. 7 (June 1969) and, as foundation professor of English at the University of Waikato, was friendly with Jim Baker, who held the foundation chair of philosophy. The writer and historian Michael King, who was a student there, wrote glowingly about them in his book Hidden Places.

Other academics involved with the rationalists included J C Sperrin-Johnson, professor of biology at Auckland, variously described as 'dandified', as 'peripatetic, colourful and scandalously lazy' and as a 'eunuchoid';7 James Shelley, professor of education at the Canterbury University College in Christchurch; and Thomas Hunter, professor of psychology at the Victoria University College of Wellington, all of whom were vice-presidents of the Rationalist Association. Readers of Studies in Empirical Philosophy will recall that Hunter had an early exchange over morals and ethics with Anderson. On the whole, however, New Zealand rationalism never took on an academic flavour, and it was certainly not a university-based movement or even a movement dominated by graduates (this may have changed in recent years). Cooke notes that the typical rationalist during the first few decades, though widely read, 'usually had relatively little formal education'.8

It does not seem that a society of the rationalist or freethought type existed until much later among students, though some students or former students at Auckland — notably A R D Fairburn and R A K Mason, both to become big names in New Zealand literature — were involved in rationalist activities before or during the 1930s. Both are mentioned by Cooke, but not Raymond Firth, later to become famous in anthropology, who was an economics student at Auckland in the 1920s and who remembered Sperrin-Johnson as a dandy.

After joining the Department of Anthropology at Sydney, Firth became friendly with Anderson and in 1932 was elected a vice-president of the Freethought Society. Incidentally the professor of philosophy at Auckland from 1921 to 1955 was John Anderson's older brother William, but he is not mentioned by Cooke and I am not aware that he ever expressed rationalistic or anti-religious views.

Another rationalist pamphlet of Sydney interest was written in 1943 by James Hanlon as a response to attacks made on John Anderson in Australia after his address that year to the New Education Fellowship on religion in education.9 Anderson had argued that 'education is necessarily secular; the more religious instruction there is in any 'educational' system, the less is it truly education.'10

I do not know whether the New Zealand press carried much about the incident, but Hanlon, a journalist, had obviously been following the Australian papers. He praised the Daily Telegraph for giving the 'fullest opportunity for the expression of opinion both for and against Professor Anderson.' Hanlon's pamphlet gave a good survey of Australian reactions to the case, which he saw as an example of 'the forces of ignorance, superstition and intolerance surg[ing] up in an attempt upon our liberties of thought, speech and action.'

Anderson's arguments in his speech to the New Education Fellowship were not only in line with the rationalist position but would have appealed to the local movement because of its determination to defend secular schooling.

A year later the view that religious instruction was 'educationally wrong' was to be made in New Zealand in terms similar to Anderson's by a prominent rationalist, F A de la Mare, at a Ministerial Conference on Education: 'The educational process was one of inquiry; it was to arouse doubt and provoke the question, 'Is this thing true?' The normal procedure would be to ask: Is there a God? Is there immortality? What is religion?... Religious instruction would instil something into the child before it had had any experience.'

De la Mare, a Hamilton lawyer who for many years was on the Senate of the University of New Zealand (which governed the university colleges in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch), was no newcomer to controversy over education, having published a pamphlet on Academic Freedom in New Zealand the year after the attacks on Sewell.12

The founding of the Freethought Society, the controversies which soon broke out around it, and its history and vicissitudes until collapsing twenty years later have often been discussed by libertarian writers. I am not aware, however, of any discussion by them or by the old freethinkers themselves of where the 'freethought' came from which the Society upheld or of its affinities with other groups espousing rationalism or freethought.

Perhaps university societies are inclined to be insular. Nonetheless reading a book like Cooke's brings out that rationalism and freethought were very much in the air in New Zealand during the 1920s and 1930s. Would Australia have been much different? So why does one get the impression that Sydney freethought existed in splendid isolation, especially as one can be certain that Anderson, its main driving force, was exposed to rationalist views in Scotland? Compare the silence on this subject with the attention given to Anderson's left-wing connexions and sympathies.

Anderson, of course, rejected what he called 'rationalism', but this is the name of a philosophical doctrine opposed to what he called 'empiricism' and it is irrelevant to the question I am raising. For our purposes 'rationalism' is loosely synonymous with 'freethought'. For example, Cooke describes the NZRA as 'the longest running association devoted to Freethought in New Zealand'.13

According to Brian Kennedy, during Anderson's boyhood 'his father cast off conventional religion to espouse a doctrinaire socialism of a strongly secular character'. Glasgow, where Anderson did his university degree, was a centre of secularist as well as socialist propaganda.14 In Britain words such as secularist, freethinker and rationalist belong to the same family and can often pass for one another.

Before leaving for Australia Anderson must have known of such organizations as the Rationalist Press Association (RPA) and the National Secular Society. The latter published a magazine called The Freethinker. George Meredith, a writer he admired and often discussed,15 described freethought as 'the best of causes' in a letter to G. W. Foote (1850-1915), a prominent and controversial advocate of it, who was repeatedly prosecuted for blasphemy. Anderson was probably aware that Meredith's description has often been used by freethinkers as a slogan for their cause.16

The New Zealand Rationalist Association took its definition of rationalism from the RPA, which had been founded in 1899: 'that attitude of mind which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience and independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority.'

One aim was 'To generally uphold principles of secularism, and in particular the abrogation of all laws interfering with the free use of Sunday for the purpose of culture and recreation, and the opening on Sunday of public parks for games and recreation'. Another, awkwardly expressed, was 'To stimulate freedom of thought and inquiry in science and the various branches of criticism and reference to religious beliefs and practices'. The latter was amended in 1949 by adding, after 'practices', the words 'with a view to exposing their fallacies' (underlined in the original).17

Compare this with the views adopted in 1931 by the Freethought Society: 'The Society (1) recognises the primacy of science, holding that in every subject, without exception, knowledge is gained only by observation and experiment, (2) supports the widest possible extension of knowledge of all subjects, and (3) is therefore opposed to every form of censorship and restriction of inquiry'.18

The strong interest freethinkers took in left wing ideas would not have marked them off, since similar political and social questions engaged the rationalists in New Zealand, including strikes, communism and political censorship.

Cooke emphasizes that New Zealand rationalism from the first had a 'radical colouring' because of the influence of such men as Harry Scott Bennett, Pat Hickey, Michael Joseph Savage and Tom Bloodworm. Bennett and Hickey were militant unionists who took part in major strikes. Savage was to become New Zealand's first Labour prime minister. Many of those who formed the original association had belonged to the Socialist Party or its successor, the Social Democratic Party. Cooke makes the point that the 'overwhelming influence of left wing opinion is the first major difference between early New Zealand rationalism and what could be seen as its parent body [in Britain], the Rationalist Press Association.'19Though perhaps smaller in scale and less diversified, the New Zealand milieu would have been quite like that which the young Anderson knew in Scotland and during his early years in Australia.

Now that Sandy Anderson's endowment provides a basis for research into his father's life and ideas someone may find it worthwhile to look more deeply into the background and affinities, in both Britain and Australia, of Andersonian freethought. Cooke's book, though more concerned to give an historical narrative of a movement than an account of ideas, shows that it can be illuminating to take a wider view.

Kenneth Maddock is emeritus professor of anthropology, Macquarie University Sydney, and is an Honorary Associate of the NZARH. This article originally appeared in Heraclitus, and we thank that journal for giving us permission to reprint it.

Notes
1 A. J. Baker, Anderson's Social Philosophy (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1979), p. 90.
2 Bill Cooke, Heathen in Godzone: Seventy Years of Rationalism in New Zealand (Auckland: NZ Association of Rationalists & Humanists, 1998). "Godzone" is a pun on "God's Own", an ironic name for New Zealand.
3 Baker, p. 90.
4 Arthur Sewell, Freedom of Speech (Auckland: Rationalist Association and Sunday Freedom League, 1933).
5 Cooke, pp. 58-9.
6 The Sydney University reaction is discussed by Baker, pp. 92-4. For the Auckland reaction, see Keith Sinclair, A History of the University of Auckland 1883-1983 (Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1983), pp. 160-1.
7 Cooke, p 32; Sinclair, p. 132.
8 Cooke, p. 6.
9 James 0 Hanlon, Free Speech Challenged: A Review of the Professor Anderson Case (Auckland: Rationalist Association & Sunday Freedom League, 1943).
10 Anderson's paper has been reprinted in John Anderson, Education and Inquiry, edited by D. Z. Phillips (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), at pp. 203-13.11 Cooke, p. 95.
12 Sinclair, p. 157.
13 Cooke, p. 4.
14 Brian Kennedy, A Passion to Oppose: John Anderson, Philosopher (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1995), pp. 20,33 for Anderson's father and pp. 27,32-3 for Glasgow.
15 See the many references to Meredith in John Anderson, Art & Reality, edited by Janet Anderson, Graham Cullum and Kirn Lycos (Sydney: Hale & Iremonger, 1982).
16 For a brief account of Foote's career and quotations from Meredith's letters to him, see Nicolas Walter's introduction to the Freethinker's Classics edition of Foote's pamphlet, Secularism: The True Philosophy of Life (London: G. W. Foote, 1998).
17 Cooke, pp. 27, 204.
18 Baker, p. 90.
19 Cooke, p. 12.


Return to Contents

World Humanism

Paul Kurtz Honoured

On May 13th, 2001, Dr Paul Kurtz, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, will receive the university's highest award - the Chancellor Charles P Norton Medal. University President William Greiner and University Council Chairman Jeremy Jacobs will present the medal to Kurtz as part of the University at Buffalo's 155th graduation ceremonies.

Kurtz is the founder and chairman of the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. The citation recognizes Kurtz as a world-renowned philosopher and an authority in the fields of secular humanism and rational inquiry.' In 1969, he founded Prometheus Books, which is widely viewed as one of the world's foremost publishers in such areas as philosophy, science and critical thinking, A fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he is the author or editor of more than thirty books, sixty book chapters, and 650 articles or reviews. Among his most influential writings is his book, The Transcendental Temptation (Prometheus 1986), a seminal work on the subject of secular humanism. Kurtz's observations on the paranormal - translated into many languages - have generated lively debates, and he is a highly sought guest lecturer in the United States and abroad.

Source: Council of Secular Humanism Electronic Newsletter

Flop of the century in Iceland

In June 2000 the Icelandic Evangelical Lutheran Church, the country's state church, decided it would have a huge public event to celebrate a thousand years of Christianity in Iceland. The prime minister was keen, and declared Christianity to be superior to other religions. No expense was spared: full page advertisements, lavish entertainments were laid on, bishops got terribly excited.

But it was a ghastly flop. People stayed away in droves. Only 8,000 people turned up. The punters were outnumbered by the officials, entertainers, wardens and so on. The Icelandic media called it the flop of the century. There were complaints about a waste of public money. On the average Sunday only 2% of the population is at church, even expanding it to once-a-month visitors, the total is only 8%. The next debate Iceland is gearing itself up to having is to disestablish the church.

Source: International Humanist News, May 2001

New Humanist Relaunched

The New Humanist, the journal of the Rationalist Press Association, now in its 116th year of unbroken publication, has undergone an ambitious new look. It has expanded to 44 pages and will be sent to all members of the British Humanist Association as the official magazine of that organisation as well. This is the eleventh significant new look the journal has had in its long history.

The first of the new-look New Humanist took power and politics as its theme. Paul Kurtz looked at the potentially dangerous new situation created by George W Bush's election in the United States, while long-time gay activist Peter Tatchell discussed the next step for the gay campaign in the United Kingdom. Alan Holdsworth, a lecturer in Peace Studies at Bradford University, wrote about Kosovo and Linda Melvern, author of a book on the Rwandan genocide, wrote on that subject. Julian Baggini, co-editor of The Philosopher's Magazine, wrote a review of a new biography of Bertrand Russell.

The new-look New Humanist is part of a brave attempt at inter-humanist co-operation in Britain. It could well presage closer co-operation between the RPA and the BHA - watch this space. The new look is also part of the ever- more difficult business of inducing humanist names' to contribute to humanist magazines.


Return to Contents

Four reasons why learning can be difficult

Ron Dultz

It is usually assumed that when a youngster has difficulty learning the curriculum offered at school, it is caused by the student's inability to comprehend or cooperate, or by the student's lack of initiative. In these instances, the student is usually believed to be the culprit, and is urged by educators and society to improve his or her learning performance.

It is important to establish that there are four other reasons why a young student may have difficulty learning, for which the student should not be criticized or blamed. An awareness of these will increase the learning know-how of the student, and can help clarify the teaching process for educators and others. The four other possibilities are: the quality of the subject matter; the quality of the presentation of that subject matter; the student's preparedness; and the student's approach. I shall discuss them in the order just given.

Subject matter that is introduced to a student can be of poor or good quality. That fact is readily accepted with regard to books. Just because a book is found in a bookstore, or in a school's curriculum, does not mean that it is a good book. The same can be said of all subject matter. A youngster should not be expected to learn subject matter of poor quality, as even the brightest student may have difficulty learning it and would be worse off for it! What is important here is the precise degree to which subject matter warrants being learned. If no such specification is made in connection with the subject matter offered by teachers and schools, one can assume they consider its quality to be beyond reproach. While the subject matter they offer might be very good, it is unfair to expect students to accept it as good prior to satisfying their judgment that it is. And if students do not, on their own initiative, question the quality of the subject matter offered by teachers and schools, it is the responsibility of educators to see that they do, as it is a sound and necessary aspect of learning procedure. Questioning the merit of a particular author or book, of a particular learning activity, or even the value of an entire area of study, should not be out of bounds for any student of any age. Just as much can be learned from disagreeing with an author, or opposing a point of view, as is learned from accepting the subject matter one is studying without dissent of any kind. The fact that the question of quality of subject matter seldom arises in a typical classroom as a topic for serious discussion, but is at best voiced by a lone individual who is usually disregarded by the teacher, shows that something is urgently amiss.

If teachers and schools openly stated their impression of the quality of the subject matter they are presenting and backed up their statements with a meaningful defence, a defense that consisted perhaps of what they had gained from the subject matter or what they see its implications to be, one could at least have some idea of the criteria the teacher or school has for presenting the books, authors, ideas and programs that they do. But if no such defense is voiced, it is logical to assume that teachers and schools do not want the quality of the subject matter they are offering to be questioned by their students. This is very unfortunate because it would generate healthy debate which, while it may interrupt lesson plans and interfere with pat formulas for teaching, invigorates the learning environment like few things can. Teachers who want their students to learn for the right reasons should always examine subject matter of every kind for its quality, and students should be inclined to expose subject matter to every critical test before submerging themselves in acquiring it or studying it. Both teachers and students should realize that inability to learn could well be the fault of subject matter of poor quality.

Just as subject matter may come in all degrees of quality, so can its presentation. Students who have difficulty learning something have every right to question its presentation. Just as attractively presented, good tasting food will encourage us to devour it, well presented subject matter will encourage us to study it. And as an unattractive, terrible tasting plate of food (though it has superb nutritional value) will discourage us from eating it, poorly presented subject matter will discourage us from studying it. If it is a really nice looking shoe, a lady will want to buy a pair if she can spare the money, and then hope her size is available; whereas, though it is a really good shoe and just her size, if it has a dismal appearance, you could not get her to touch it. It is the same with learning. Aesthetics is important. Educators and students should not discount improper presentation of subject matter as the cause of faulty learning prior to establishing sufficient reason why this could not be so.

Preparedness is a factor that is not given proper attention in the learning environment, perhaps because teachers are impatient to get on with the task at hand, and do not want to have to cope with too many complex challenges. But it must be stressed that a student who is not prepared to learn something cannot be said to lack ability to learn. The student cannot even be said to have less intelligence than others. First of all, although a student may not be prepared to learn certain subject matter, he or she may be prepared to learn other subject matter of equal value. This would be simply a matter of suitability of subject matter. Secondly, learning is actually a sub-function. By that, I mean life cannot be measured in its terms. It must be measured in terms of life. Learning is beneficial only if it applies to living and is useful for living. If a student is not prepared to learn certain material as there is not room in the student's life for it, or it does not relate to his or her interests, or other things concern the student more - such as making better use of what he or she already knows, it is not the time for the student to learn it. At another time, it may be appropriate for the student to learn it. A student should not be blamed or criticized when his or her learning needs do not equate with the teacher's choice of subject matter. Teachers and schools must always consider these factors when confronted with a student's unwillingness or failure to learn. And individuals wishing to be good students should always remember that preparedness is a crucial factor affecting their learning skills.

The student's approach to what he or she is studying is another key factor affecting learning skills. The connection between a student and subject matter does not occur automatically; instead, it is determined by the student's approach. Someone else's approach cannot be substituted for the student's approach. If you are to pick up a glass, you must have an approach. If you are to drive a car, you must have an approach. If a man is to kiss a woman, he must have an approach. We forget that walking requires an approach; but, before we were able to walk, we were quite aware of the need for an approach to walk. Anything you are to do requires an approach. If you fail to be able to do something, it does not mean that you are unable to do it. It may merely mean that your approach is inadequate. A student who is poor at learning, or at learning some particular thing, may not have stumbled onto the right approach. Do not be quick to accuse the student of being inept, as underneath may lie great aptitude which merely requires the right approach; which, if the student discovers it, will make his critics appear inept. Hearken to this fact, all you educators, and students also. The proper approach may be all that is lacking to begin a brilliant learning career.

There are countless different approaches to most everything we might learn or do, many of which we will never discover. This should be remembered; and if it is, discouragement with trying to learn something we are interested in learning will not precede a large amount of experimentation with approach.

I have next an example of a number of approaches to learning the same subject matter, and I show how result varies with approach. The object of our attention is a student studying a given set of historical material. If the student studies it with no particular approach, the student should not be surprised to arrive at no particular outcome. If the student's approach is primarily an aesthetic one, the student would visualize the material and obtain information from it in terms of its entertainment value, cultural value, and so on. If the student's approach is primarily a philosophical one, the student would visualize the information and obtain data from it in terms of the profound truths inherent in it. If the student's approach is to understand his or her own society by picking up facts about such matters as the development of governments and economies, that is likely what the student will gain from studies of history. If the student's approach is just for laughs, the student may well end up contributing to a career as a budding comedian through his or her studies of history. As approach varies, so does the result.

For a more specific example of how learning approach affects learning outcome, imagine a classroom in which the children are being introduced to carpentry. The teacher decides that since the students are very young and need to improve their coordination, dual goals can be accomplished by getting them to work at pounding nails into blocks of wood, sawing lengths of wood and planing blocks of wood into cylindrical spheres using simple hand-held tools. So the teacher helps the students get started at those tasks. One of the students, a little girl, proves to be a terribly poor pounder of nails, has little strength for sawing wood, and shows no interest in using the carpentry tools. Instead of participating joyfully with the others, she simply pouts and complains. Obviously she has not discovered the right approach for her.

Now suppose the teacher is imaginative, and gets some of the shavings from the wood being planed by the other students and some glue, and introduces the little girl to the type of model building that occurs in beginning architecture, something which he has never before tried in his class. And the little girl likes the activity a lot, excels at it from the start, and busies herself turning out little models of buildings, some of which are quite good by semester's end. And the activity ultimately leads her to a successful career as an architect.

In the preceding example, the girl's stubborn refusal to participate in pounding nails, sawing or planing wood proved to be a successful response for her. Had she not stuck to her aversion to using the carpentry tools, and simply submitted to the approach to learning that suited the other students, she would have made a big mistake because she may never have been diverted in the direction of her future career.

The four causes I have cited for inability or unwillingness to learn should demonstrate clearly that both inability and unwillingness to learn can be appropriate student responses to assigned subject matter, and to learning requirements of all kinds. And they should demonstrate that an incapable or unwilling learner can be the best compass for educators to follow in rethinking the curricula they offer and the teaching methods they endorse.

People of all ages who express little enthusiasm for learning are missing out on a lot of the best that life has to offer. I am not suggesting that anyone should learn just because they are told to; but that all people should find something they really want to learn, and keep working at learning it until they stumble upon the right approach for them. It is usually not due to inability, or even to absence of initiative, that a person is a poor learner. It is more likely caused by one or more of the four reasons for poor learning I have just presented.

Note: This essay is excerpted from a 168 page book entitled Educating the Entire Person by Ron Dultz © 1998. Price of the book is $10, which includes free shipping. Copies of the book can be obtained by writing to: Ron Dultz; P.O. Box 370985; Reseda, CA 91337. U.S.A.


Return to Contents

Adam's Rib

Heaven's Above!

Anne Ferguson

A book I've been reading recently answered a question I'd never actually thought to ask before: how did the concept of God and Heaven being up in the sky come about?

We all know that primitive man perceived the Earth to be flat. He had no reason to think otherwise. On Earth occurred the cycle of the seasons, the cycle of life and death. With no means or reason to record anything - history, the number of baskets of apples harvested - life on Earth was perceived as circular, constantly repeating itself. If progress was made, it was so slow, so haphazard as to instil in new generations the idea that the world is as it is. Always has been. Always will be.

Primitive man looked at the sky. He saw the sun, the moon, the stars. There from his earliest memory, there all his life, there still as he lay dying. The gods of the Earth which he believed were in charge of all earthly affairs - the weather, crops, fertility - were unreliable, capricious gods which had to be flattered and cajoled to do what he required. Up there, though, the sun, the moon and the stars were unchanging, reliable and eternal. There, thought primitive man, must be where the very best gods dwelt. All quite logical, really. Making deductions from observable phenomena, a totally respectable pastime.

"What keeps the sky up. Mum?" - the classic child's question. In Ancient Egypt the answer would have gone like this: "The sky is in fact the body of Nut, the sky-goddess, who is doing a press up. She is supported by earth gods and spirits. Her body is studded with jewels. You can't see them during the day but at night she swallows the sun and then you can see the stars - her sparkling jewels." The child in its turn would repeat the same taradiddle to its children, embroidered and embellished as the teller saw fit - as I have seen fit!

All peoples, all over the world, have dreamed up stories to explain the world around them, loved telling them, loved listening to them. And look how all the ancient, traditional tales of gods so faithfully mirror the foibles of human beings - an everlasting, constant, source of interest to their fellows!

The makers of Coronation Street and other TV serials report how, if a character has a baby, a flood of congratulatory mail arrives - cards, booties. Do the senders really believe the character has had a baby? Is it what they want to believe? Or do they know it's all make-believe but send their little offerings anyway, just for fun? Perhaps something of the same shades of belief have been at work all down the ages with regard to gods. The ancient Greeks philosophers, before Christianity and Islam, tried to persuade their contemporaries that gods were all make believe. They were as unsuccessful in this aim as are Humanist societies today!

Judaism, with its novel idea of one God, who made a covenant with the Jews that he'd look out for them if they kept his commandments, represents a significant step forward in man's ethical evolution. A focusing, if you like. One God, one code of ethics.

Since biblical times scientific knowledge has accumulated, percolated through society at large. Now, when junior poses the question: "What keeps the sky up?" conscientious Mum will promptly plan a visit to the library to get out books of child level astronomy. Even in a highly religious home, the child will be told the Earth is round and that there is a lot of space out there.

Modem astronomy tells us that the ancient assumption of the eternal nature of the heavenly bodies was false, that the Universe itself is in a constant state of flux. Stars are born, live, then die. Our own galaxy is finite. And it all started with a Big Bang, they say. But that doesn't stop the questions, What caused the Big Bang? What was before the Big Bang? Room still remains for explanations in the realm of make believe.


Return to Contents

Current Comments

 Major New Attack on Secular Humanism
Secular humanists should be aware of a new book recently published, Mind Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New Millennium, by Tim LaHaye and David Noebel. This book is a call to arms of evangelical Christians against secular humanism. LaHaye is co-author of a series of eight Left Behind tribulation novels, best sellers today, for some 23 million copies of these books are in print.

LaHaye is founder of the fundamentalist Creationist Institute and the conservative Heritage Foundation. David Noebel is the head of Summit Ministries and an outspoken opponent of secular humanism. Their book repeats the litany of libelous charges against secular humanism first aired by LaHaye in his earlier book, Battle for the Mind (1980). This book was influential two decades ago is opening up a major fusillade against secular humanists; and it helped to galvanize both religious and political opposition to secular humanism during the early Reagan years. The attacks on secular humanism subsided in the 1990s, as the religious right turned to other enemies.

The main theses of LaHaye and Noebel is (a) that secular humanism is a 'religion'; (b) that the secular humanist ideology dominates all of the major institutions of American life (c) that secular humanists have 'undermined the moral fabric of America'; (d) that evangelical Christians (80,000,000 strong) need to gear up for an all-out battle to root secular humanists out of public life; and (e) that the bottom line is: 'No humanist is fit to hold office.'

What is unique this time around is that Mind Siege concentrates on Humanist Manifesto 2000, which was first published in Free Inquiry in the fall of 1999, which is held to be, along with Humanist Manifestos I and II, 'the bible of humanists.' LaHaye and Noebel deplore 'scientific naturalism' and 'planetary humanism' as undermining Christian faith and American patriotism. Their scholarship is highly questionable, for they shift back and forth between the various Manifestos, even though the older ones were written decades ago when global political and economic conditions were different.

The Council for Secular Humanism has explicitly and repeatedly denied that it is a 'religion,' and we have affirmed that secular humanists can lead a moral life and be a good citizen without religious faith. Secular humanism is an ethical, philosophical, and scientific outlook. I have called this a eupraxsophy - good wisdom in practice - and explicitly denied that it is a religion.

One reason why the critics of secular humanism sought for years to pin the religion label on secular humanism is that they sought to extirpate it from the schools as a violation of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Secular humanists should be apprehensive about this new vicious attack. Let us hope that it is not the beginning of a major new assault, and that it will not be used by the religious right or their cohorts in the Bush administration and the conservative media to restrict the rights and freedom of secular humanists.

This item is by Paul Kurtz and is courtesy of the Council for Secular Humanism website.


Floriduh
Having emerged from the nightmare of Ronald Reagan enjoying two terms as the most powerful man in the world, we are all now faced with returning to this scenario. But it is worse now. At least the Republican Party which Reagan led was elected to power by comfortable margins. But, as we all saw, the Florida fiasco (or Floriduh, as the natives call their state) and Bush's subsequent 'victory' says more about the political predilections of five Supreme Court judges than about millions of American voters.

But no sooner had this man been prised into office in such a questionable manner, as he began to unleash his even more questionable programme. Within hours of taking office, funding for international agencies which offer birth control advice was cut. Attention soon turned to what are euphemistically called faith-based organisations. Bush has insisted that these organisations are not replacements to state-run welfare agencies and that it is not his intention to fund religious activities. But one has to be sceptical. One of Bush's chief advisors in this area is on record for saying the government funds should be used for organisations for homeless which insist on daily prayer as a condition of entry. Martin Kettle, the Guardian Weekly's US correspondent has warned that the evangelical agenda of these faith-based organisations 'has been seriously under-recognised.' (Guardian Weekly, Feb 8-14 2001, p 6)

And note that Kettle says evangelical. The organisations close to Bush and which look to becoming the principal beneficiaries are all evangelical Protestant ones. Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and other organisations are 'little more than window dressing.' One can imagine the reception humanist organisations would receive! Truly, it's a dangerous time for the separation of church and state, and for the open society in America generally.


Return to Contents

Book Reviews

 Theism vs Atheism, The Internet Debate
Phil Fernandes and Michael Martin (IBD Press, Institute of Biblical Defense, Bremerton, WA, USA, 2000)

This book consists of eight chapters, four of these have been written by Phil Fernandes and four by Michael Martin. The 114 pages have been fairly equally divided by the two authors. Fernandes has written the opening chapter, whereas Martin has written the last chapter.

Fernandes has earned a PhD in philosophy of religion and is the president of the Institute of Biblical Defense, an organisation which specialises in Christian apologetics. Martin is a retired professor of philosophy at Boston University and is regarded internationally as a leading theorist of atheism.

In the book, Fernandes defends theism, that is for him belief in the existence of a personal, infinite God. He has chosen what he takes to be cumulative case for the existence of God. He examines nine different aspects of human experience that in his opinion are more adequately explained by theism than by atheism. The thesis which Fernandes defends is: it is more reasonable to be a theist than it is to be an atheist.

For the purposes of the debate, Fernandes defines God as 'the eternal uncaused Cause of all that exists. This Being is personal (ie, a moral and intelligent being) and unlimited in all his attributes. This Being is separate from His creation (transcendent), but He is also involved with it (immanent)'. In short, Fernandes argues that the God of theism exists (p 1).

Michael Martin defends atheism. He first argues that the concept of God is incoherent, it is like a round square or the largest number. Martin then argues that another good reason to disbelieve in God is the existence of the large amount of evil in the world. How can a perfectly good and all powerful being allow this evil? According to Martin, the simplest and most plausible explanation of this evil is that God does not exist. A third main reason for disbelieving in God that Martin presents is the large number of unbelievers in the world.

At the end of the discussion, which to some extent proceeds at cross-purposes, Fernandes remains a theist and Martin an atheist. But who had expected anything else? The book contains a number of notes with references to further literature, but does not contain any separate bibliography, nor an index. Among the omissions to further literature may be mentioned a similar book by John JJ Smart and JJ Haldane: Atheism and Theism (Blackwell, Oxford, 1996)

As a whole, Theism vs Atheism, The Internet Debate is an excellent introduction to some aspects of contemporary theism and atheism and can be warmly recommended.

Finngeir Hiorth, retired lecturer in philosophy, University of Oslo, is an Honorary Association of the NZARH and author of many works of philosophy, rationalism and humanism.


Humanism for Kids
Written by published by Family of Humanists, PO Box 4153 Salem, Oregon, United States.

It seems that there are hundreds of books turned out every year introducing young people to religion, and Christianity in particular. There simply aren't enough books written for children about what it means to be a humanist.

Perhaps that's the main reason I have become quite enthusiastic about Humanism for Kids. Quite simply, this little book has come some of the way to filling a large void that should never have been allowed to exist for as long as it has.

On the inside of the cover thee is a brief rundown about who is responsible for producing the book, and why they produced it. It says:
This book is a result of the efforts of several adults, youth and children. It was developed to teach and discuss humanism. The search for a way to state our beliefs and their application to life is an education for all of us.
Well, the good news is that this earnest group of people calling themselves the Family of Humanists has succeeded rather well in their quest. As a co-operative effort it literally made me green with envy, simply because I doubt if any non-religious group in this country could summon up even half the number of 'doers' that it took to launch something like this publication.

Humanism for Kids is not a work of literary genius. It wasn't meant to be. For me its success lies in its uncluttered and straight-forward presentation. It doesn't labour on for too long about the subjects that it's explaining, but generally it makes its points with clarity and sincerity.

It has encompassed a wide number of issues, from 'What does 'God' mean?' to chapters of human behavioural attitudes, and what works in life, and what usually doesn't. Although it was written more or less specifically for children, you could give this book to any adult of average intelligence who has just asked you that wondrously difficult question, 'what is humanism?'

The NZARH has sold one of the four copies that were purchased and we intend to hold one back for the library. Members are welcome to order copies through the office, the cost working out at NZ$13.

Humanism for Kids is softback, just under A4 size, and has 40 pages of text. It also carries some black and white illustrations. Every school library should have a copy of this book. Also listed on the inside front cover are three other publications by the Family of Humanists, namely Why Evolution?, Our Philosophy and A Little Book (of quotations). This group also puts out newsletters and journals ranging from across the age spectrum from the very young to twelve years and over.

Peter E Hansen, is vice-president of the NZARH.


Within Reason: Rationality and Human Behaviour
Donald B Calne (Pantheon Books, New York, 1999)
ISBN 0-375-40351-5

This is a useful book. It will help dispel some of the more prevalent myths about rationality. Donald B Calne is director of the Neurodegenerative Disorders Centre at Vancouver Hospital and professor of neurology at the University of British Columbia, so he is coming at this from a scientific perspective. Calne is a staunch defender of reason but he is also quite clear about its limitations. This, indeed, is the purpose of his book. His principal thesis is that reason 'is simply and solely a tool, without any legitimate claim to moral content. It is a biological product fashioned for us by the process of evolution to help us survive in an inhospitable and unpredictable physical environment.'

Calne then proceeds through a series of chapters developing and justifying this theme. He discusses reason in the context of language, social behaviour, ethics, government, religion, art and science. Some of these chapters are a little thin; it is clear he is out of his comfort zone in some of these areas, and he tends to rely on disputable sources and makes one or two unnecessary generalisations. But his general point remains valid. Once he returns to the human sciences, where his expertise lies, he is on safer ground.

Having stripped rationality of some of the grander notions that philosophers and theologians have been wont to give it, Calne placed it firmly in the body as a biological mechanism. The last three chapters are excellent. In accessible language, but clearly from a perspective of detailed knowledge, Calne takes us through the various minefields of 'mind' and 'soul', genetic input, and the role of emotions in our reasoning. As you would expect, there is no easy answer. The essential point, he concludes it to find the balance between reason and motivation.

This is where reason is now, and it is important for rationalists to be familiar with these arguments, because as long as we use that word, we are going to come in for criticism about rationality versus emotion. Within Reason is valuable because it reveals that criticism to be misplaced and, more importantly, because it demonstrates the continuing importance of reason, but the different context in which its importance manifests itself.

Bill Cooke


The Thinker's Guide to Life
Edited by Marilyn Mason (RPA, London, 2000)
ISBN 0-301-00002-6

The Rationalist Press Association begins the century of with a small book of quotations. With one quotation per page, The Thinker's Guide to Life is an easy-to-hold, easy-to-use pot-pourri of thoughts and reflections from a whole range of people who can in the broadest sense be thought of as humanists.

The RPA has a long record of this sort of publica- tion. Perhaps its best known was a 1938 book called The Wisdom of Life, compiled with the assistance of Somerset Maugham and Charles Watts, the RPA's founder.

The Thinker's Guide to Life can find use as a bed- side companion, or something for the glove-box of the car when faced with a high blood-pressure-inducing delay. The most poignant quotation, for me, is the very last one, a love letter to life written by the dying Carl Sagan. I am disappointed there is not a single quotation from Joseph McCabe, though.

Bill Cooke


Return to Contents

Letters to the Editor

 Dear Bill

Your review of my Who's Who in Hell states that, although a massive undertaking, it is flawed. I am sure no New Zealand humanist or rationalist will want to spend US$125 for a flawed book, so you are to be commended for warning them that from your viewpoint it is not Gordon Stein's Encyclopedia of Unbelief.

Quite frankly, that was one of my goals, particularly after hearing some British rationalists complain that the Stein work although academic contains inaccuracies, is not much fun to read, and is too narrow in its scope. I plead guilty, however, to using various Stein works along with dozens of scholarly works in what you describe as containing 'topical entries . . .eclectic collections of bits taken from here and there' and alphabetised, user-friendly, A to Z, rather than placed at the tail end in an index. Sir Arthur C Clarke in Sri Lanka and Mrs Isaac Asimov in New York have informed me they greatly enjoy the tome, including the humour, but Sir Arthur did complain that my 7-pound baby although beautiful is heavy on the wrists.

I am working on a second edition to complete the 20th century listings, and your comments about Robin Mowat, John Bowden, Richard Bithell, and Lord Ritchie-Calder have been quite helpful volume, by the way. I'd like even more suggestions of names to include, again differing with you in your view that my book should be slimmed-down and more rigorously selected (for I hold that Robin Mowat and other 'little people' often frowned upon by people with doctorates really do deserve listings and priests on their deathbeds, or about to be guillotined for their beliefs, who refuse to kiss the cross and denounce their alleged blasphemies?

And, yes, I know that Bryan Magee (whom English secularist Colin McCall liked) was critical of rationalist humanism, but my aim has been to be the messenger who includes criticism even of freethought itself. So Stalin was an atheist, so I included him along with the lovely Marlene Dietrich and Superman (Christopher Reeve), contemporaries most would not guess are non- theists. Jack Nicholson, Warren Buffet, Charlie Chaplin, Franz Kafka, Claude Debussy, Bill Gates, Peter Ustinov, and several dozen Nobel Prize winners who are non-theists also are not to be found in the various Stein volumes, of course, but surely they are typical of the freethinkers cited from time to time in your journal, are they not?

If the book is unavailable to readers, I encourage them to ask Mr Cooke to share his copy. Better yet, they should demand that their library buy a copy. Meanwhile, readers who are on the Web, unless they have no sense of humour, are invited to see how CNN covered my book.

Warren Allen Smith
New York State

Editor's response: the comment about sharing 'my copy' is unnecessary. I never considered the copy to be mine. It is the property of the NZARH and is in the association's library.


Dear Bill

I had my say and you've had yours, and that's okay by me. One thing, though: 'Apparently his father was a member sometime in the sixties but had a falling out with leadership.' Not good enough to cover a guess with 'apparently.' He may have been a member in Wellington in the sixties - but I doubt it. What I'm sure of is he wouldn't have had a falling out with the leadership. He wasn't the sort of bloke to have 'a falling out' with anyone in an organisation. He would simply have folded his tent and gone.

Regards

Gordon McLauchlan
Auckland


Return to Contents

Oddities

Honorary Associates - Focus on...

H James Birx has taken a leading role in organising a conference on 'Darwin, Evolution and Values', held in Moscow in June.

Fifty Years Ago

The Peace Congress can be fairly considered as having been a great success and an important step in the consolidation and extension of the Peace Movement in New Zealand. There were three overseas visitors - Mr Crowther, a British scientist of distinction, the Rev Brand of Sydney, and Mr Tom Robertson, of Sydney. All made a deep impression on the Congress by their sincerity and grasp of the factors imperilling peace. Delegates in new Zealand came from Wellington, Christchurch, Westport, Palmerston North and many other centres. Altogether 270 delegates, observers and visitors attended, the majority being delegates. Members of the Rationalist Association Council will be interested to know that points made by Mrs Soljak and Mr O'Halloran were favourably commented upon by Professor Crowther in his summing-up of session business.

NZ Rationalist, July 1951

The Last Word

In his appeal on your Dialogue page for churches to be sensible about divine intervention and supernatural forces, the Rev. lan Lawton presents himself with a Catch 22 situation since religion is predicated upon these fanciful notions. Churches can't be sensible about them - if they were sensible they wouldn't exist.

Jim Bell, Papakura
NZ Herald, April 10 2001


Return to Contents

Copyright © NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists. 1999-2004.  All rights reserved.