Ethical Record The Proceedings of the South Place Ethical Society Vol. 116 No. 6 £1.50 June 2011 EXPLORING THE UNIVERSE

(NASA) This artist’s rendition shows the Cassini spacecraft approaching the planet Saturn and its magnificent rings. The last two items in this issue refer to the origin of the universe, the basics of which we know very little. Is space-time infinite or finite, does it have four or eleven dimensions (string theory)? What is the nature of: ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’? Are there other ‘universes’ out there with which we can have no contact? Religionists will meanwhile employ their ‘God of the gaps’ to plug any gaps in our knowledge of the universe.

ANGLO-FRENCH FREETHOUGHT CONFERENCE Catherine Le Fur 3 VIEWPOINTS: David Simmonds, David Ibry, Chris Purnell, Asad Abbas, John Dowdle 10 BOOK REVIEW ‘WHY IS THERE SOMETHING, RATHER THAN NOTHING?’ Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing? by Bede Rundle Christopher Bratcher 15 THE GOD HYPOTHESIS AND RICHARD SWINBURNE Barbara Smoker 17 NEW ACQUISITIONS TO THE HUMANIST LIBRARY Cathy Broad 19 ETHICAL SOCIETY EVENTS 20 SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY Conway Hall Humanist Centre 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL. Tel: 020 7242 8031/4 Fax: 020 7242 8036 www.ethicalsoc.org.uk Chairman: Jim Herrick Vice-chairman: Ed McArthur Registrar: Andrew Copson Treasurer: Chris Bratcher Editor: Norman Bacrac Please email texts and viewpoints for the Editor to: [email protected] Staff Chief Executive Officer: Jim Walsh Tel: 020 7242 8031/4 [email protected] Administrator: Martha Lee Tel: 020 7242 8031/4 [email protected] Finance Officer: Linda Alia Tel: 020 7242 8031/4 [email protected] Librarian: Catherine Broad Tel: 020 7242 8037 [email protected] Programme Co-ordinator: Ben Partridge Tel: 020 7242 8034 [email protected] Lettings Officer: Carina Dvorak Tel: 020 7242 8032 [email protected] Caretakers: Eva Aubrechtova (i/c) Tel: 020 7242 8033 [email protected] together with: Angelo Edrozo, Alfredo Olivo, Rogerio Retuerna, Cagatay Ulker Maintenance Operative: Zia Hameed

Obituary We regret to report the death, aged 91, of former Appointed Lecturer at the Ethical Society Professor Richard Scorer. A fuller obituary will appear in the next issue of the Ethical Record.

BACK NUMBERS OF THE ETHICAL RECORD Back numbers of the journal are now available to readers. One year’s issues (usually 10 or 11 issues) may be purchased for £10 post free. Contact the Administrator, specifying the years in which you are interested.

TH THE 5 EDITION OF HUMANISM (2008) A new, revised and updated 80-page edition of Barbara Smoker’s classic book Humanism (for secondary schools and as a general introduction to this important subject) has been published by the South Place Ethical Society. The cover price is £6.50, but is £5.00 (post free) to members of SPES and to anyone for orders of 10 or more copies. ISBN 978 0 902368 25 5 5th Edition Copies of Barbara Smoker’s previous book, Freethoughts (239 pages) are still available from SPES @ £10, post free.

2 Ethical Record, June 2011 ANGLO-FRENCH FREETHOUGHT CONFERENCE Catherine Le Fur Speech given at Conway Hall, Saturday 14 May 2011

I bring you the warmest greetings of the National Federation of Free Thought and I would like to thank first our friends from the Freethought History Research Group for organizing this conference because as you imagine, even though it’s called an Anglo-French conference, they had to handle the ‘intendance’, as we say in France and we hope it will be soon possible for us to welcome you in Paris for a French-Anglo conference. I would like to say that I’m very moved to speak in this prestigious place, so symbolic and full of history. The prospect of rebuilding a new Freethought International in Oslo in August 2011 will lead me to: I come back to the origins of Freethought and emphasize how total separation between Church and State has been part of every struggle for freedom of conscience; II explain why the French 1905 separation law between Church and State, which is the most complete form of the separation, is not a Gallic oddity, as some try to portray it, but a valuable model; III lastly I will demonstrate that a new and authentic International of Freethought is a urgent and pressing necessity. That’s what we want to start in Oslo this summer: rekindle the heritage of the historical 1904 Congress, that of Charles Bradlaugh and Ferdinand Buisson. The Origins of Freethought Movements The first groups of freethinkers arose around 1860 in Europe (France, Great Britain), putting the question of the struggle for freedom of conscience and for the total emancipation of mankind at the heart of the debate. They rooted this in the Enlightenment. If you look at some texts, written centuries ago, you will be surprised at their modernity and enduring relevance. In his 1689 Letter concerning Toleration, John Locke explains that it’s necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. This is already the question of the separation of church and state, the heart of all the democratic demands in every revolution. This question will be also at the heart of the Bill of Rights, imposed upon the British monarchy by the Glorious Revolution in 1689, in support of the struggle against absolutism and for freedom. In 1713 the words freethought and freethinker appeared for the first time in A discourse of free-thinking by British philosopher Anthony Collins. For him, the freethinker can’t be just an atheist – even if he is one, of course, but it’s too simplistic. “Ignorance is the foundation of atheism and freethought is the remedy”, said Collins, giving the whole dimension of self liberation and self education of Freethought. Nearly one century later, the American revolution put the separation of church and state at the heart of the 1789 Bill of Rights with the first amendment Ethical Record, June 2011 3 of the American constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. A few years before, James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers, a member of the Virginia Revolutionary Convention, had tried to disestablish the Church of England in Virginia and to clear the way for an amendment which guaranteed freedom of religion for everybody. Finally in September 1794, the French Revolution, drawing on the English and American revolutions, abolished by decree the Church’s budget and on 21 February 1795, the Thermidor Convention confirmed this separation by a vote on freedom of worship. A few years later, in 1848, the Printemps des Peuples set all Europe alight. The first organized freethinkers’ gatherings appeared. The first world power at this time, England, was at the forefront of this movement. English freethinkers were to leave a mark in the struggle for secularism and republicanism all around the world. In the 1850s, many groups coming from Chartism turned to Freethought and the perspective of a national association arose across the Channel. After some attempts, in 1866, Charles Bradlaugh founded the National Secular Society. The way was clearly marked out: promote human happiness, fight religion as an obstacle, abolish all barriers, and promote Freethought. Throughout his life, Charles Bradlaugh struggled with all his strength for the separation of church and state and for a Republic in Great Britain. In France, the Democratic Society of Freethinkers arose in 1848 but after the December 2nd 1851 coup d’état, its members were scattered. Many found refuge in Belgium, London, Jersey, Switzerland or America where they carried on with their democratic propaganda. And that’s why many December-2nd exiles are among the founders of the International Workingmen’s Association in London in 1864, with Marx, Bakunin and Engels. The Paris Commune Of 1871 In 1871, during the Commune of Paris, the freethinkers were the most dynamic republicans and the most determined revolutionaries. Remember that the Commune of Paris established the separation of Church and State and abolished the worship budget. You will find again the same ‘forty-eighters’ in the Union Army in the United States during the Secession War. Our common friend Fred Whitehead from Kansas City, USA completed a huge and remarkable work about this period. Those veterans, who had to go into exile after the crushing of those 1848 revolutions in Europe, knew perfectly the price of the division and the fragmentation of a nation. They left for the United States because it was, at the time, one of the few countries which had adopted the republican form of the state. Defending the Union naturally became their main objective.

4 Ethical Record, June 2011 American freethinkers figured prominently at the head of the Union Army. General Ulysses Grant wrote in his memoirs: If a Church established its own laws above the state laws and if both are in conflict, we must fight against this pretentiousness and this must be abolished at any price. Speaking to the veterans of the Tennessee army, he added: “Let us always keep Church and State separated!” How relevant these words remain today! This struggle for the separation of Church and State became the foundation of the freethinkers union in all continents; it became the banner of the gathering at an international scale of all those who work for a total freedom of conscience and for the total emancipation of mankind. Separation of Church and State is not a formal question, but the foundation of citizens’ freedom and the guarantee of equality of rights. This is a fundamental democratic demand. No nation, no revolution can avoid this debate. In different ways and at different times, Thomas Jefferson in 1791, Ferdinand Buisson in 1905, Emilio Zapata in 1917 and Lenin in 1918 took the same tracks to enforce this separation, because real democracy is impossible without this separation in the institutions. The French Separation Law of 1905 This struggle led in France to the December 1905 separation law, adopted thanks to the determination of freethinkers and also republicans, secularists, humanists, freemasons. The two first articles of the law stipulate: Article 1: The Republic safeguards the freedom of conscience. It guarantees the free exercise of the cults under the sole after-mentioned restrictions in the interest of public order. Article 2: The Republic does not recognize, nor subsidises any cult (…) Since its adoption, this law has become a reference on all continents. When this law was passed, Ferdinand Buisson, president of Libre Pensée, explained: “The separation law between church and state is not the last word of the social revolution but indisputably, this is the first one.” I think that the social dimension of this law is the main point, even if some tried to conceal it. What guarantees the place of the Church in the society is what we call the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. Briefly, this allows the few to make the many believe that poverty, precariousness, exploitation, redundancies and so on are God’s will and that we have to accept it today to be free tomorrow. The encyclical Rerum Novarum written by the Pope Léon XIII in 1891 is very clear, explaining: Private property is in accordance with nature (…) There will always be inequalities of condition between citizens, and no society could exist without it, whatever forms of government there may be.

This is clearly an apologia for social inequality. That’s why we say, as freethinkers, that the struggle for separation of church and state is also the struggle to establish a free, brotherly society, rid of exploitation. That’s why you can find a lot of republicans but also a lot of men and women coming from the dawning labour movement at the origin of the 1905 separation law in France. It’s often dismissed as a Franco-French approach, the famous ‘French secularism’, or ‘laïcité’, as we say in France. I think that completely disregards the universal aspiration underlying the French law. In nineteenth century Mexico, there was a Concordat between the Catholic Ethical Record, June 2011 5 Church in Mexico and the Vatican in which the Catholic Church controlled government and public services and was the premier landowner of the country. In 1856, the Federalist party assumed power and passed an important agrarian reform: all the Catholic Church’s possessions were given to the farmers. Congregations were banned, religious places nationalised, the Concordat abolished, and a separation law between church and state passed. In Portugal, the October Revolution of 1910 established a republic and at the beginning of 1911, a law was passed. The two first articles of this law are a translation of the French 1905 law. In 1940, the sinister Salazar government tried to give more power to the Catholic Church but the 25 April Revolution in 1974 (Carnation Revolution) put an end to the dictatorship and the constitutional assembly voted the separation between church and state in its article 41. In 1931, the Spanish Republic established the separation in a country where the Catholic Church occupies a huge place but this separation didn’t survive the Franco coup d’état. Don’t forget the Soviet Union of course. The revolutionary government disestablished the Orthodox Church. More recently, Nepal adopted a separation law. The popular assembly in Bolivia in 2009 established the separation too. You can imagine how important it is on a continent where the Catholic Church has had such a huge influence since 1492. No State Atheism There is no secularism of society. Secularism of society implies for example that, in the street, some clothes, some philosophical or religious decorations are banned. This would leave the door wide open to state atheism, which is the opposite of freedom of conscience. In a sense, the French separation law of 1905 is the continuation of the First Amendment of the American constitution which stated “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Those two different texts are the result of the history of the two countries. The first amendment of the American constitution is before anything a protection for religions against the interference of the state, because the United States is a melting pot of people escaping misery, economic oppression and religious persecution, who decided to build a new world. The Law of 1905 goes further, because it was passed 120 years later, and on the contrary it protects the state from religious influence, what we called clericalism. This law is also one of the founding principles of the indivisible, secular and social Republic in France, and many people try today to substitute a communitarianist and multiculturalist view of society as a mosaic of communities with no other aim that shutting up men and women in a so-called community of belonging; this could only lead eventually to the break-up of societies and to civil war. I would like to develop this fundamental concept of universalism. You know the damage caused by multiculturalism, or what is called affirmative action in United States or accommodements raisonnables in Canada. Of course, it’s obvious that our societies, in France, in Great Britain or in every occidental 6 Ethical Record, June 2011 country are deeply multicultural. You can’t deny that but multiculturalism is something else: this is the organization of society according to cultural differences. The citizen and the nation don’t exist anymore but you have the individual and his cultural community. Instead of trying to reduce the differences, or to keep them in a private sphere, belonging to a community takes precedence over everything else and in the name of respect, from right to differ you go straight to the difference of rights and – in times of economic crisis – this could only exacerbate tensions between the different communities. If you shut up someone in a community, in a collective identity, you deny his critical thinking, his own soul-searching. Defenders of multiculturalism are beginning to worry about its consequences and the dangers of separate development of communities… Our organization, Freethought, responded. In 1880, in Brussells, the first international of freethinkers was founded. Charles Bradlaugh, the founder of the National Secular Society, who became famous all over the world for being the first representative at the House of Commons to refuse to take the oath on the Crown and God and the Bible, was one of the main founders of this International along other famous figures such as Louis Büchner, the German materialist scientist, the revolutionary Karl Liebknecht, who protested in Reichstag in 1871 against the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, and Cesar de Pape, who founded the Belgian Workers Party. In 1904, the Rome Congress passed unanimously after a long and passionate discussion, a charter, always included in the principles of French Libre Pensée: Freethought is secular, democratic and social, i.e. in the name of human dignity it rejects this triple yoke: the excessive power of authority in the matter of religion, privilege in the matter of politics and capital in the matter of economy. This charter was reaffirmed at the Luxemburg congress in 1929 and in Prague in 1946. The congress didn’t meet between 1913 and 1919 because of the first world war. In 1920, a congress took place in Prague and some – who defended the ‘Union sacrée’ (the decision by the left-wing in France not to oppose World war I) – tried to condemn the Russian Revolution, although it established the separation of church and state. Their attempt was not successful. The international Freethought movement was scattered. After many years of division, after a partial reunification, a big congress of reunification took place in Prague in 1936. Its president, the famous Belgian freethinker Terwagne, declared that freethinkers had to fight against facism all over the world. In London in 1938, the World Union of Freethinkers was proclaimed and it would be for a long time a true international, sometimes in hard conditions. Charles Bradlaugh-Bonner, the grandson of Charles Bradlaugh and one of the leaders of the NSS, was one of the historical leaders of this International. England was, along with the United States and France, one of the leading countries of this Union. Among its main positions, it supported the atheist organization in USSR and the Spanish people’s struggle against the Franco regime in favour of the Republic.

Ethical Record, June 2011 7 Frank Ridley’s Analysis The second world war and the beginning of the cold war in 1947, combined with the aging of the Union’s leaders, complicated the situation. Let’s point out that the Union also clearly condemned all attacks against freedom of opinion (against the dissolution of the Communist party in Germany) and its struggle against racism was also very clear with the expulsion of an American segregationist group. The World Union also condemned the German and the Italian Concordats. In 1952, Frank Ridley, President of the National Secular Society, explained what a real international of Freethought must be, in his report for the congress of the World Union of Freethinkers :

Freethought and social revolution are not in separate categories. The right to think, to write to speak freely is a hardly won victory of a whole revolutionary process. (…) Nowadays, Freethought cannot oppose social revolution because Freethought is part of it. But Freethought, because of its nature, has to struggle against totalitarianism from left wing or right wing. It didn’t struggle for centuries against Rome and feudalism to renounce human reason in front of Franco or Stalin.

It’s amazing to see how much this analysis remains vividly relevant to this very day... In 1966, Charles Bradlaugh-Bonner’s death marked a turning point, and the World Union began to degenerate. For example, consider the following July 1968 statement by the international council: Considering that the continued aggression of the United States Government in Vietnam, not only adds to the horrors of an unforgiveable war, but also feeds a global climate of violence and insecurity that is contrary to our humanist ideas, notes that the Roman Catholic Church, through its ambiguous attitude towards American militaristic capitalism, constantly betrays its self-appointed role as a force for peace and human fraternity (…). Considering that within the Catholic Church, many sincere and idealistic believers are opposing their hierarchy’s reactionary collusions, it asks free-thinkers to engage them, not in a sterile dialogue on metaphysics, but to help them free themselves from what is left of their passive submission to dogma and clergymen.

Nothing about the Prague Spring (Czechoslovakia was invaded one month later). Nothing about the Civil Rights movement of black people in United States. We are far from the 1904 charter adopted in the Rome world congress. In April 1970, the NSS estimated that the World Union no longer played its role and left it. The following years saw the inescapable decline of the World Union. For example, the shameful support of the United Nations resolutions about the war in Iraq. A New Organisation Needed We can say that today the World Union of Freethinkers is no longer a Union and definitely not an International one. Its President signed a petition acknowledging the Vatican as a State, against the entire historical tradition of International Freethought. This is the reason we want to build a new Freethought International, because the struggle for separation of church and state is a universal aspiration. An international organization gathering all the associations of atheists, secularists and freethinkers is a necessity and we are preparing the ground for that.

8 Ethical Record, June 2011 An Urgent Need To Fill The Gap A few years ago, the French Libre Pensée also decided to leave the World Union of Freethinkers because we considered it was completely linked to the European ‘pensée unique’, or conformism. We considered that it was urgent to fill the gap and that’s why we began to weave links with atheists and freethinkers’ associations from the five continents and on 4 July 2005 we held in Paris a world congress with 29 countries and 250 delegates from all the continents for atheism and freethought. During this congress, we decided to form an international liaison committee of atheists and freethinkers to gather information and to coordinate initiatives for separation of church and state at an international scale. Loyal to the resolutions passed in the 1904 congress, we think that Freethought is a method for individuals but also for societies. This method proposes individual emancipation but also humanity’s emancipation. We don’t ask for a special place for freethinkers in society, we don’t fight to obtain the same rights as religious congregations. We don’t ask for public money as do the religious congregations. We want a society where all citizens have equal rights, whatever their ethnic or religious origin. During the six years since the formation of the international liaison committee of atheists and freethinkers, we’ve had several common initiatives with associations from other countries fighting for separation of church and state: in Canada against the religious courts, in Italy in defence of Judge Tosti (condemned to serve a 7 month-term of imprisonment because he had refused to administer justice under a crucifix) and so on. Last year in Abbeville in France, on 4 July, with our friends from the National Secular Society, we commemorated the martyrdom of Chevalier de la Barre. This young man tortured in 1766 because he refused to bow to a religious procession, became a universal symbol of intolerance and religious fanaticism. With our NSS friends we would like to plan the constitution of a new Freethought international and that’s what we will try to do in Oslo on 10 August 2011. At Libre Pensée we don’t say “we have the French law of separation and this is the model for everybody”. The situation is different in each country. Unfortunately even in France where we have a strong separation law, we are not sheltered from communitarianist, racist and xenophobic attacks. In conclusion, I think we can be optimistic because recent events confirm our opinion that all over the world societies are more secular. When thousands of people march in Beirut saying “Secularism is the solution” in a country where the political system is a mix of communitarianist and religious quotas, when thousands of people march in Tunisia saying “Secularism equals liberty and tolerance”, “For a secular Tunisia”, when twenty thousand people march in London saying “Make the Pope pay”, yes we can be optimistic. In August 2011 in Oslo, we will reaffirm, with others, that we are the heirs to Thomas Jefferson, to Ferdinand Buisson and to Charles Bradlaugh.

The views expressed in this Journal are not necessarily those of the Society.

Ethical Record, June 2011 9 VIEWPOINTS

A View On Assisted Dying Could I add a few legal and ethical considerations to Michael Irwin’s informative article on the legal background to assisted dying (AD) and voluntary euthanasia (VU), in which he points out the lack of clarity in the law, and the strong public support for AD (ER May 2011)? Emily Jackson, a law professor at LSE, startled her audience at a lecture in 2008 by informing them that “death by killing” was responsible for two thirds of deaths in Britain. A third of deaths is by morphine overdose, administered by doctors in order to allow patients to die painlessly and with dignity; while the removal of life support by medical staff is responsible for another third. Both these life-terminating actions are premeditated and legal. Yet anyone found guilty of assisting a competent person to die (e.g. by giving them a pill to take) could get 14 years in prison, and for euthanasia, voluntary or otherwise, they could be charged with murder, for which a life sentence is mandatory. Further anomalies in the law Related to this is the striking mismatch between the wording and the application of the law. Well over 100 Britons have helped relatives go to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal. On each occasion the Criminal Prosecution Service has had to consider whether to prosecute otherwise law- abiding citizens for helping their loved ones to die, and in every case has decided against. To add to the confusion, the law allows people, on the one hand, to take their own lives (the Suicide Act of 1961), while on the other, defines as a criminal anyone assisting another to die. Thus it is a crime to help someone do something which is not a crime! All these inconsistencies help to bring the law into disrepute. If some laws can be ignored without consequences, then why not other laws? Such anomalies cry out for the wording of the law to be brought into line with practice, and with public opinion. Does improved palliative care make AD unnecessary? Those who oppose AD argue that the great advances in palliative care in recent years have made AD unnecessary; and that the protracted pain and suffering of death is now a thing of the past. However, for many people, physical pain is not the only consideration. There are kinds of physical suffering other than pain. An inability to swallow or breathe properly, for example, could cause considerable discomfort which cannot be relieved adequately with pain killers. Moreover, a loss of control of bodily functions, total dependence on others, and a loss of dignity, may all weigh more heavily on some than physical pain, and for them no amount of excellent palliative care is acceptable. This may be more controversial, but when my time is up, I shall consider it perfectly legitimate to refuse to be a burden on family or society. We all know that medical resources are scarce. Why should the opportunity of acting altruistically be denied to a dying person? A sense of “doing something useful” could help a patient counteract a sense of extreme passivity and despair. Of course great care should be taken to try to prevent terminally ill patients who do not share this view, from feeling a burden. 10 Ethical Record, June 2011 Could AD lengthen life? The suffering of many patients may also be made more bearable with the knowledge that, should their condition become intolerable, a doctor would be available to help them to take their lives. Without this reassurance some patients may commit suicide earlier than they may have wished, in case they lose the physical capacity to do so later. The same applies to those who travel abroad to die: some may do so before they become too ill or incapacitated to travel. It is ironic, therefore, that legalisation of AD may have the effect of lengthening the lives of some patients. One could speculate also that some patients may refrain from jumping off a bridge, or killing themselves in some other violent way, if they had the option of dying peacefully in the company of loved ones, at the moment of their choosing. For Emily Jackson “to die quickly and painlessly, perhaps at home and surrounded by people we love, is obviously preferable to a lonely, protracted, and frightening death”.(1) Fears and Safeguards, and the experience of other countries Opponents of AD and VE argue that legalisation may lead to some patients seeking to die for the wrong reasons, or may increase the likelihood of bullying and even murder by greedy and unscrupulous relatives. Evidence from those countries where AD or VE is legal does not support this fear. The experience in Belgium, where euthanasia was legalized in 2002, shows how safeguards against abuse may be set up. Among the strict conditions which must be met, are that a doctor must explain fully to the patient the possibilities and benefits of palliative care, while a second doctor must examine the patient’s medical history and confirm the degree of the patient’s suffering. When the illness is terminal a third doctor must confirm that the request is freely and competently made, and that a month or longer has elapsed before the final request is made. (A “conscience clause” could of course release any doctors from having to participate in AD if this was against their principles.) Could legalisation lead to some patients being helped to die who may simply be temporarily depressed? There have been some heart-warming stories of people at the ‘end of the line’ and on the point of suicide who have, with help, come through the nightmare and achieved normality. The finality and irreversibility of AD or VE, coupled with the risks of misinterpretation of the patient’s state of mind should, it is argued, stop us in our tracks. Assessments by doctors or relatives are subjective and discretionary, and so could be wrong. The risks are too great. Again, evidence from other countries suggests that this fear is groundless. An extensive report in Oregon found that the overwhelming number of patients who had died as a result of AD had not suffered from depression or related disorders.(2) A number of surveys, for example John Griffiths with reference to Holland, and Dahl and Levy re. Oregon, have also suggested very little evidence in support of the “slippery slope” arguments.(3) The freedom to make mistakes It has to be conceded, however, that even with strict safeguards in place, tragic mistakes could occasionally be made, and lives wasted – for example if someone chooses AD who might otherwise, with time, have pulled through. It could be argued, however, that when individuals have freedom of choice in any sphere, mistakes will inevitably be made. With freedom of choice comes the freedom to Ethical Record, June 2011 11 make wrong choices. But the fact that wrong choices may be made does not mean that the freedom to do so should be denied. To use an analogy, our freedom to drink alcohol means that some will inevitably abuse that freedom, leading to the deaths of others – whether as a result of violence in the home or street, or driving over the limit. But it would clearly be absurd to ban alcohol (prohibition has been tried before!) to reduce the loss of innocent lives. Similarly, thousands of deaths occur each year on British roads as a consequence of selfish or careless driving. Yet few are calling for a halt on the right to drive a car. Clearly, the fact that a right might be criminally abused, resulting in deaths, is not a good enough reason for denying that right. “Only God has the right to take life” The view that life is not ours to dispose of as we like is common to most religions – as “only God has that right”; and I would certainly (as would those humanists among us) defend their right to live and die by their own beliefs, provided they do no harm to others. But why should that same freedom of choice not be granted to all? This was a view eloquently expressed by John Stuart Mill, but our society has still not caught up with one of our great thinkers. Faith, which is private to the individual, should never determine public policy. Towards a more humane society We have autonomy in almost every aspect of our lives today, except when it comes to that most final, private and personal of choices: the manner of our dying. The state decides for us. Surely it is only the most zealous of collectivists who would continue to insist that intensely suffering people should be kept alive against their will. The Suicide Act of 1961 could be seen as one step along a path to a more compassionate and rational society (even though there is something inherently illogical in decriminalizing suicide!) Assisted dying could be seen as the next step along this progressive path. In the words of the columnist Simon Jenkins, writing in 2008, “there cannot be a human freedom so personal as ordering the circumstances of one’s death. Yet Britain is ….. enveloped in prejudice, religion, taboo and prohibition. We are told how to die by the state, with no consideration for individual choice”. For Jenkins, those who stand in the way of “this final and quintessentially personal freedom”, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi, along with most MPs and members of the House of Lords, may be seen in years to come as “not just illiberal, but cruel.”

References (1) Emily Jackson Medical Law: Texts, Cases and Materials, OUP, (2009) p887 (2) L Ganzini et al The Prevalence of Depression and Anxiety in patients requesting physicians’ aid in dying (2008) Brit Medical Journal p1682 (3) Dahl and Levy The Case for Physician Assisted Suicide, (2006) 32, Journal of Medical Ethics. David Simmonds – Epping, Essex

[As a result of a recent Referendum in Switzerland, non-nationals visiting Zurich may have to be there for a longer period and be checked out by local doctors before the process can proceed. Ed.] 12 Ethical Record, June 2011 A Census Problem I read with great interest the Viewpoint on “ A Census Problem “ by Dorothy Forsyth in the May ER. Yes, I fully endorse her point about her doubts on the question of religion as I happened to experience that problem in my youth in Fascist Italy. However my book Exodus to Humanism: Jewish Identity without Religion sets out the thesis that a Jew could be without religion without betraying his or her Jewish past. I interview 25 Jewish personalities from many countries supporting the thesis. Perhaps only in Israel may Jews identify with their country without any religious affiliation, just like English or French people identify with their countries without any religious affiliation. David Ibry – London NW9

The Ethics of Assassination In your Editorial (ER May 2011) you make the case, based on established principles of justice such as the rule of law, for Osama bin Laden to have been captured and put on trial rather than assassinated. Similar arguments have been advanced by Ken Livingstone (Evening Standard) and Chris McLaughlin in a Tribune editorial. I would point out that ‘doing justice’ is not necessarily the same as putting someone on trial. Two questions are germane. First, could Osama bin Laden have received fair treatment by the Court? Second, how could justice have been done if more lives had been lost in attempting to capture than simply to kill him? The answer to the first question is that OBL might have been tried in a US Court of Criminal Jurisdiction or before the International Criminal Court or perhaps before a Special Tribunal. He would not have recognised any of these Courts’ authority because none of them would have been constituted according to the principles of Sharia law. If he were tried before a US Court, it is unlikely that any jury could have been found that would have given him a fair hearing. The horror of 9/11 and its effect on almost all US citizens and bin Laden’s posture that the massacres were justified mean that there was no chance of acquittal so there could not have been a fair trial. The second question is more basic. If Obama had been told that US servicemen’s lives would be likely to be lost in the attempt to capture OBL alive, how could he in justice do other than order his death? ‘Doing justice’ in this situation was not easy so it was only feasible for Obama to act out of expediency. Chris Purnell, Barrister – Orpington, Kent

To receive regular Society news and programme updates via email, please contact Ben Partridge at [email protected]. Similarly, if you have any suggestions for speakers or event ideas, or would like to convene a Sunday afternoon informal, get in touch with Ben on 020 7242 8034.

Ethical Record, June 2011 13 Monarch or President? When discussing the choice between monarch or president, the spectre of electing a controversial president is usually raised (Viewpoints, ER May 2011). However, it is never made clear whether it is believed that monarchs are uncontroversial by temperament or by the constraints imposed on them by the constitution. Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher were cetainly controversial politicians but why? Because they pursued controversial policies when exercising power, which their role allowed them to do. Are monarchs allowed at all to exercise power or pursue any policies – controversial or otherwise ? Shorn of any power, and with a fixed grin on his face, Tony Blair may not have done too badly as a nominal head of the state. He may even have been quite a popular people’s prince! There is also a tendency to choose for comparison the best representative of the House of Windsor and the worst representatives of the House of Commons in terms of their controversial ratings. Why Blair or Thatcher ? Why not Roy Hattersley or Chris Patton or Shirley Williams? It may be that the Queen does temperamentally avoid controversy but can that be said of Prince Charles? It is true that abolishing the crown will not change capitalism but it will surely undermine the principle of privilege derived from inheritance. Charles Bradlaugh, deeply committed as he was to capitalism, fiercely opposed monarchy because he objected to the principle of heredity on moral grounds. Asad Abbas - Kent Reason and Rationality In Moral Thinking: Foundations, Approaches and Applications by Henry Haslam (Ethical Record, March 2011), discussing the concepts of reason and rationality, Haslam cites a quotation by George Bernard Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.” Haslam goes on to state “So the idea of basing morality on reason or being reasonable doesn’t seem to have much going for it, does it?” Haslam is conflating concepts such as ‘reason’, ‘reasoned’ and ‘reasoning’ with the more colloquial meaning of the term ‘reasonable’. When Shaw uses the term ‘reasonable’, he clearly does not mean it to equate with concepts such as ‘reason’ or ‘rationality’. Haslam is guilty of using two different terms as though they were one. Haslam is not the first religionist to deliberately employ half- or mis- truths to support an argument, either accidentally or by design, and he will probably not be the last, either. Should he not have higher ethical ideals? This example encourages rationalists to be on guard at all times whenever religionists advance arguments that are ostensibly ‘reasonable’. John Dowdle

14 Ethical Record, June 2011 ‘WHY IS THERE SOMETHING, RATHER THAN NOTHING?’ A comment on Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing? by Bede Rundle Oxford 1994: ISBN13: 9780199270507 and ISBN10: 0199270503 Christopher Bratcher

This question is a perennial one. Children ask it, theologians rest their case on it, even some atheists ponder it as somehow left over as a question mark over the existence of existence, when they have put an end to questions about God. It, or rather, the question whether the question is a valid one to ask, is the title and subject of a book by Oxford philosopher Bede Rundle. As one of those atheists, I am sharing my thoughts on the question, and in some final few comments, on Rundle’s line of argument. The question is different from ‘What caused there to be something’, although it can be interpreted as such: it is tempting to think of all ‘why’ questions as questions about cause or antecedents, because questions about particulars in or of the universe are answered that way. Deists, in positing (or defining) God as the Creator and First Cause of all there is, take the question in just that way. The obvious rejoinder is that this leaves a question mark over God, as to what caused him/her/it to have being, and not merely(!) why he has the nature and role he is supposed to have. Defining God as uncaused or eternal, or slightly more subtly as ‘outside time’, is not only arbitrary and, I suggest, word- wrenching, but does not help. The question would still remain, ‘Why (non- temporally, and even non-spatially, if you can make sense of either) is there that something, rather than just nothing?’ The Nature Of ‘Nothing’ This, incidentally (if I can use that term in discussing a non-temporal being!) brings out the point that the notion of Agency – the defining property of a Creator and First Cause – depends on a Universe/setting – call it what you will – in which Causation, and Time, in which agency takes effect, exists. Borrowing or bootstrapping from a world of causation and time to bring Causation, Time and that World into being is putting the metaphorical cart before the Horse. At which point, at least in this article, we can thankfully leave God, and other words in capitals, out of the equation. Theoretical physics may seem to answer the question in the notion – on which I am sure some of you can correct me – that an initial state of nothing, in quantum physical terms, could have given rise, by virtue of quantum fluctuations inherent in that condition, to an energy state constituting the something that becomes (via the Big Bang) the Universe. Difficult as it is to grasp the reality of quantum borrowing and fluctuation at the scale of quantum events, it is even more difficult to accept that the notion can be applied the Ur- or Proto-Universe as a single state. Such an extrapolation seems to go beyond what can possibly be demonstrated. But suppose we do accept, for the sake of argument at least, that the Universe came into being that way, or in some such way that I cannot, and need not, describe. This does not exhaust the question. I think it can be asked of the initial quantum state of ‘nothing’. It is not ‘nothing’ in the sense of the question. It is not property-less or without attributes. It has, Ethical Record, June 2011 15 at least in potentia, the property of fluctuation (or whatever). ‘It’ existed/had being, and was in a state that theoretical physicists can strive to describe, and that is not what we mean by ‘nothing at all’. And how, one may ask, did that ‘something’ property or condition come about, or to be? Not A Non-Question It would seem that neither theology nor science can answer the question. So what sort of question is it? It is about the existence of anything, not ‘some thing’: which is why it is not amenable to scientific answer. That does not make it, to my mind – and this is where I no doubt part company with many of you – a non- question. .The fact that there can be no answer in terms of a cause only prevents it being a causal-type question. As Rundle puts it: “The universe may neither have, nor be susceptible of, a causal explanation, but the why-question seemingly remains. Not “why does it exist” where a cause of becoming is sought, but (one) where the query is motivated by considerations of modality: the universe need not have existed, surely, so the fact that it does calls for explanation”. Some philosophers, notably, Peter Van Inwagen, try to dissolve this question by arguing that there are an infinity of possible universes/’somethings’ and only one ‘nothing’, and therefore purely on grounds of probability there should be something; hence no problem. I haven’t followed the argument in detail, but if one may ‘weight’ the probability of nothing against any ‘something’, it seems to me obvious that ‘nothing’ – requiring nothing to be so – is inherently so probable that it outweighs the sum of all possible somethings. Hence the ‘problem’, whether or not recast in terms of probability. Rundle however goes on to try to demolish the question by challenging the intelligibility of absolute nothingness. He points out, that in ordinary speech, when we say there is nothing in the cupboard, we are talking about an existing world none of whose contents are there. We are back to the difference between ‘no thing’, and ‘nothing’, as we were between ‘something and ‘some thing’. Rundle suspects that in attempting to conceive of total non-existence we are always left “with something, if only a setting from which we envisage everything having departed, a void which we confront and find empty…” (p. 110). The suggestion that there might be “literally nothing, rather than a domain we might speak of as becoming progressively re- or de-populated, seems not to make sense” (p. 112). We might imagine the disappearance of everything in the world, but he thinks we would be left with a void, a vacuum, empty space; a possible state of affairs that in terms of formal logic, is not to be identified with nothing at all. Granted the latter is not a thought of how ‘things’ might have been, or of an empty but otherwise in some sense existent universe, but of some alternative else, I nevertheless find such a distinction, resting as it does on an analysis of the conditions in which we ordinarily use words, unconvincing. It goes without saying that positing ‘nothing’ or ‘non being’ as an alternative to the totality of what is, or might otherwise be, is a somewhat recondite application of a negative term, but what follows from that? To suppose it is unintelligible is to tie meaning rather too closely to use. I leave you now to decide whether, and in what sense, all this is ‘much ado about nothing’. (The play is part of the Globe season this year!) 16 Ethical Record, June 2011 THE GOD HYPOTHESIS AND RICHARD SWINBURNE Barbara Smoker

In his latest book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking gives credence to the prevailing cosmological notion that this vast universe of ours, comprising many billions of stars with their satellites in each of many billions of galaxies, might actually be no more than one of billions of different universes, known as the multiverse. If these universes were to have variant laws of physics, this would greatly enhance the possibility of at least one of them containing at least one galaxy with at least one solar system that includes a planet (Earth) with the fine- tuned parameters necessary to bring about life. Those who reject this theory argue that the existence of a billion universes that cannot produce and sustain life would not make it more likely for ‘the next universe in line’ to have random fine-tuned life-permitting parameters. True; but the fallacy is in looking at ‘the next universe’ in isolation. If we consider the multiverse as a whole, the question becomes statistical. If you keep tossing a coin and it comes down tails ten times in succession, the chances are indeed no more (nor less) likely than 50-50 (despite the superstitious gut-feeling of many gamblers) that the eleventh throw will result in a head — but if you keep going for a thousand throws, then the numbers of heads and tails will approach equality. Thus, a statistical sample of universes might well increase the probability of random occurrences of the fine-tuning of physical laws and conditions required to bring about life. Dragging in a creator is not only unnecessary; infringing Occam’s razor, it serves only to multiply the philosophical problems of existence. An eternal uncaused first cause? We can all accept that — but why assume that it had consciousness? It is surely more credible if it were some sort of incipient energy/matter, rather than a supernatural personage with a sudden grandiose creative urge. And another thing: on the evidence of the suffering sentient creatures on our own little planet, the supposed purposeful, omnipotent creator must lack morality as we conceive it. Swinburne’s Non-Explanation Last April, in a special issue of the New Statesman devoted to god-belief, a number of mostly Christian public figures were asked their reasons for faith in God. The reply by one of them, Richard Swinburne (Emeritus Professor of philosophy, Oxford University) began, ‘To suppose that there is a God explains why there is a physical universe at all’; yet he made no attempt to explain the existence of his supposed deity; and an explanation that entails something unexplained is no explanation at all. But my letter to the New Statesman’s editor pointing this out was not published. So when I saw that Swinburne was to take the positive side in a public debate the following month on the perennial question ‘Does Science Support Belief in God?’ I had to go along to take him up on it.

Ethical Record, June 2011 17 Under the auspices of the Centre for Inquiry UK, the debate took place on 10 May at Conway Hall — which was filled to capacity, despite there being an admission charge. (How does the CFI do it?) Swinburne’s opponent, on our side, was Prof. Herman Philipse of the University of Utrecht. Handouts by the two debaters were distributed before the meeting — though they were both too academic to be as helpful as they might have been. In the actual debate, Philipse did lighten his style and introduce analogies, but Swinburne continued to use the sort of obscurantism on which theology traditionally depends. Swinburne’s God Is Not Simple One of his more accessible statements (taken verbatim from his handout) was that ‘God being a being to whose existence, power, knowledge and freedom there are no limits, is the simplest kind of person there could be.’ Really? It strikes me as the most complex, not the simplest. However, if the professor is right, how could all the complexities of the universe be brought about instantaneously by a creator less complex than itself? It demands evolution by trial and error. Even more mind-boggling is Swinburne’s arrogant belief (though shared by millions of god-believers) that the whole complexity of the universe, of space and time, was designed by God with the one motive of producing human beings on Earth, as objects of his love. I liked his opponent’s fairy-tale mockery of this idea: a fly, finding itself in the Palace of Versailles, looks around in amazement at the size and splendour of the structure and its decor, and thinks ‘Fancy, all this has been created just for me!’ By sitting in the front of the hall, I contrived to be called when the debate was opened to the floor so as to make my verbal assault on the absurdity of Swinburne’s explaining the existence of anything at all by postulating a god whose existence is itself unexplained. He replied at great length, but to little elucidation.

L VIRGINIA WOOLF AND MADNESS: CA HI TRAUMA NARRATIVE IN MRS. DALLOWAY ET TY N W IE IO E OC AT by Suzette A. Henke N S IC BL PU A monograph based on the Virginia Clark Memorial Lecture delivered on 9 July 2008 to the Ethical Society. £5 post free from the Society.

The Conway Hall Jazz Appreciation Group normally meets on the third Tuesday of each month, except August, to listen to, discuss and enjoy jazz music in a relaxed atmosphere. We gather at 6.30pm for a 7.00pm start and the sessions are about two hours long. Events are usually free, with donations accepted for light refreshments.

18 Ethical Record, June 2011 NEW ACQUISITIONS FOR THE HUMANIST REFERENCE LIBRARY, MAY 2011 Cathy Broad, Librarian Card, Claudia Confronting evils 2010 Comte-Sponville, A. Book of atheist spirituality 2009 Friedlander, Zelda Until the heart changes 1967 Gosden, Roger Designer babies 1999 Grayling, A.C. The good book 2011 Hinde, Robert Why gods persist 2009 Hitchens, Christopher God is not great 2007 Humphrys, John In God we doubt 2007 Jones, Mervyn Michael Foot 1994 Keynes, Richard Fossils, finches and Fuegians 2003 Lauritzen, Paul Cloning and the future of human 2001 embryo research Leakey, Richard Origins reconsidered 1992 Lewis, Bernard The crisis of Islam 2003 Lewis-Williams, D. Conceiving God 2010 Lustig, Abigail Darwinian heresies 2004 Magnusson, Roger S. Angels of death 2002 Palmer, Clare Animal ethics in context 2010 Rogers, Heather Green gone wrong 2010 Schaeffer, Frank Patience with God 2009 Warnock, Mary Making babies 2003

THE HUMANIST REFERENCE LIBRARY The Humanist Reference Library is open for members and researchers on Mondays to Fridays from 0930 - 1730. Please let the Librarian know of your intention to visit. The Library has an extensive collection of new and historic freethought material.

Members are now able to borrow books from the Library. Readers will be asked to complete a Reader Registration Form, and must provide photographic ID, proof of address and proof of membership. They will be issued with a Reader’s card, which will enable them to borrow three books at a time. The loan period is one month. Journals, archive material, artworks and other non-book material cannot be borrowed. Full details of the lending service are available from the Librarian. Cathy Broad, Librarian Tel: 020 7242 8037. Email: [email protected]

Ethical Record, June 2011 19 PROGRAMME OF EVENTS AT THE ETHICAL SOCIETY Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, WC1R 4RL. Tel: 020 7242 8031/4 Registered Charity No. 251396 For programme updates, email: [email protected] Website: www.ethicalsoc.org.uk No charge unless stated Sunday meetings are held in the Brockway Room. JUNE 2011 Sunday 12 FREE EXPRESSION, FREE THOUGHT AND LEGAL COERCION 1100 David Allen Green, New Statesman

Sunday 19 PSYCHOANALYSIS, EMOTIONS AND LIVING A GOOD LIFE 1100 Michael Lacewing, Heythrop College

1500 THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 0F SANCTUARY AND ASYLUM Linda Rabben

Monday 20 JAZZ APPRECIATION CLUB 1900 Early Jazz

Sunday 26 THE BRITISH 18TH CENTURY ENLIGHTENMENT 1100 Jim Herrick

JULY Sunday 3 UNDERSTANDING GRAMMAR: 1100 A FIRM BASIS OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS

Sunday 10 THEIR PROPAGANDA, OUR PR: THE ENGINEERING OF 1100 CONSENT IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY Graham Bell

Saturday 16 HUMANIST PHILOSOPHERS’ DAY CONFERENCE 1000 – 1600 THE PLACE OF RELIGION IN PUBLIC LIFE Tickets £5 from the BHA

Date for your Diary: Thursday 27 October 2011: THE CONWAY MEMORIAL LECTURE will be given by Professor Philip Schofield, Director of the Bentham Project at University College London on the latest findings on Jeremy Bentham’s writings.

SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY Reg. Charity No. 251396 Founded in 1793, the Society is a progressive movement whose aims are: the study and dissemination of ethical principles based on humanism and freethought the cultivation of a rational and humane way of life, and the advancement of research and education in relevant fields. We invite to membership those who reject supernatural creeds and are in sympathy with our aims. At Conway Hall the programme includes Sunday lectures, discussions, evening courses and the Conway Hall Sunday Concerts of chamber music. The Society maintains a Humanist Reference Library. The Society’s journal, Ethical Record, is issued monthly. Memorial meetings may be arranged. The annual subscription is £20 (£15 if a full-time student, unwaged or over 65).

Published by the South Place Ethical Society, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, WC1R 4RL Printed by J.G. Bryson (Printer). 156-162 High Road, London N2 9AS. ISSN 0014 - 1690