The Proceedings of the South Place Ethical Society Vol. 113 No. 3 £1.50 March 2008
David Hume (1711-1776) Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Christopher Bratcher reviews (see page 3) the writings of two radical thinkers on the subject of suicide and mortality. Neither philosopher held a position in a university. In the case of David Hume, he was denied this because of his supposed atheism. Arthur Schopenhauer believed that God's creation was BEZNADZIEJNA (Polish for HOPELESS).
CAN MATHS PROVE GOD's EXISTENCE? Jennifer Jeynes 2
HUME AND SCHOPENHAUER ON SUICIDE AND MORTALITY Christopher Bratcher 3
SIGN AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ROMANIAN MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH,AND YOUTH Remus Cernea 8
VIEWPOWTS Um Madigan, Ellen Ramsay, David Seymour, P.E. Perry II
VIEWPOIIVT ESSAY:ON FREEWILL Albert Adler 13
VIEWPOINT ESSAY: THE VIRGIN CONCEPTION Barbara Smoker 15
FOSSILS AND FOLKLORE Chris Duffin 17
FEMINISM AND ATHEISM Kyla Greenbaum-Crowcroft 22
ETHICAL SOCIETY EVENTS 24
SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY Conway Hall Humanist Centre 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL. Tel: 020 7242 8034 Fax: 020 7242 8036 Website: www.ethicalsoc.org.uk email: [email protected] Chairman: Giles Enders Hon. Rep.: Don Liversedge Vice-chairman: Terry Mullins Treasurer: John Edwards Registrar: Donald Rooum Editor: Norman Bacrac SPES Staff Executive Secretaty: Emma J. Stanford Tel: 020 7242 8034 Finance Officer Linda Alia Tel: 020 7242 8034 Leaings Officer Carina Dvorak Tel: 020 7242 8032 LibrariaMProgratnrne Coordinator Jennifer Jeynes M.Sc. Tel: 020 7242 8037 Lettings Assistant: Marie Aubrechtova Caretakers: Eva Aubrechtova (i/c); Tel: 020 7242 8033 Shaip Bullaku, Angelo Edrozo, Rogerio Retuerna. David Wright '1 Maintenance Operative: Zia Hameed New Members Nancy Wolfers - London NW8; Karnal Kumar Ghosh - New Jersey, USA (via R. Dawkins'God Delusion); Dr D. Savage, Farnham Humanists (after talk by the Editor) Obituary We regret to report the death of Roderick Macleod of Reigate, Suney who had just been treepted for iiieri frrship of the Society. CAN MATHS PROVE GOD's EXISTENCE? According to thc Times' Ruth Gledhill. the latest recipient of the Templeton Prize has shown how 'maths can offer circumstantial evidence of God's existence'. The Templeton Foundation awards £820.000 yearly for 'Progress towards Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities' and claims that Professor Michael Heller, 72, a Polish priest/mathematician and friend of the late Pope John Paul II has 'pushed at the metaphysical horizons of science'. However, on reading further we learn that 'his theories do not so much offer proof of the existence of God as introduce doubt about the material existence of the world around us by complex formulae that make it possible to explain everything, even chance through mathematical calculation.' His sponsor, Prof Karol Musiol of Cracow, claims that Heller has 'introduced a significant notion of theology of science. He has succeeded in showing that religion isolating itself from scientific insights is lame and science failing to acknowledge other ways of understanding is blind'.This prize is always more than the Nobel Prizes — so gives scientists an ethical dilemma in that they will receive a large sum theycould use for valuable research if they could only bring God onto the last page of their latest tome. [One might say that the two professors arebeznadziejni! {Edli JRJ
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, 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 renowned South Place Sunday Concerts of chamber music. The Society maintains a Humanist Reference Library. The Society's journal. Ethical Record, is issued eleven times a year. Memorial meetings may be arranged. The annual subscription is £18 (£12 if a full-time student, unwaged or over 65).
2 Ethical Record, March 2008 HUME AND SCHOPENHAUER ON SUICIDE AND MORTALITY Christopher Bratcher Lecture to the Ethical Society, 24 February 2008
I'm going to talk about two wildly different philosophers' takes on two life-and-death issues that are often connected: is suicide permissible, or even the right thing to do; and what are our prospects of a future life?
Hume [1711-1776] made his name as an essayist over a wide range of topics, before he became recognised as a philosopher. He wanted to include two pieces, titled Of Suicide and Of the Immortality of the Soul, in a set published in 1755, but was persuaded that it was imprudent to do so. The details of his arguments nevertheless became public (and were criticised by the Church) in his lifetime. In his will, he asked his regular printer to publish them 'if he thinks proper', along with his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, and the essays appeared, anonymously, in I 777, a year later. They are now some of the most famous of his quasi-philosophical writings.
'Of Suicide' Hume's aim is "to endeavour to restore men to their native liberty" by showing "that suicide may be free from guilt or blame, by examining all the common arguments against it." These are that suicide must be a transgression of our duty - either to God, our neighbour, or ourselves.
It is hardly surprising that the greatest part of the essay by far concerns our duty to God. Then and today, the people who oppose suicide most vociferously and in all circumstances do so because of their religious beliefs, and if we were to hope to get anywhere with them, we would have to similarly concede for the sake of argument that there is a God, to whom we conceivably have obligations, and take issue at that point. Hume adopts a Deist position , setting himself solely against 'superstition and false religion'. Those subject to it dare not commit suicide through fear of offending their maker: despite the fact, he says, that the power to do so is one with which "that beneficent being" has endowed them.
Hume's argument is that there is no reason to regard suicide as an exceptional act in the order of things. His account of what is the order of things is a somewhat unholy mixture of determinism and bestowed free-will. As ever with his prose, it is wonderfully measured and detached. God governs the world, providentially, by universal laws of nature, which apply to every event. "All events, in one sense, may be pronounced the action of the Almighty", "nor are the human faculties less his workmanship", and so "when the passions play, when the judgement dictates, when the limbs obey; this is all the operation of God". So far, so good: God, or rather nature, is really doing the killing. "When I fall upon my sword. I receive my death equally from the hands of the deity, as if it had proceeded from a lion, a precipice, or a fever."
At the .same time, he says, "all animals are entrusted to their own prudence [clearly a favourite word amongst the Scots! — by which he means `jud2ementi .,. and have full authority, as far as their power extends, to alter all the operations of nature." "Every action, every motion of a man innovates, and diverts, from their ordinary course, the general laws of motion. Putting together these conclusions, we find that human life depends on [the laws of nature] and that it is no encroachment on the office
Ethical Record, March 2008 3 of providence to disturb or alter these general laws." To think otherwise is a kind of blasphemy. Our acts "are His work equally within the chain of events, which it invades;" and whatever we do, therefore, "we may, for that reason, conclude it to be most favoured by Him. Be it animate or inanimate, rational or irrational, 'Us all a case". It seems that Christians are stuck with Leibniz's much pilloried deduction that all is for the best in a divinely ordered world, if all is providence (and as they teach, we ought to be resigned to it). Hume ends the passage quite magisterially, as if in a court of law: "Divine providence is still inviolate, and placed far beyond the reach of human injuries?'
Hume then demolishes the reasons put up that suicide is the exception. Is human life so important? "The life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster": but even if it were, "nature has actually submitted it to human prudence". Given that "a hair, a fly, an insect is able to destroy this mighty being.. is it an absurdity to suppose that it may lawfully dispose of what depends on such insignificant causes?"
If disposing of human life were wrong, then it would be equally so to preserve it. "If 1 turn aside a stone, which is falling on my head, I disturb the course of nature, and I invade the peculiar province of the almighty, by lengthening out thy life..". Equally, "if my life were not my own, it were criminal for me to put it in danger, as well as to dispose of it." "Tis impious, says the French superstition, to inoculate for the small-pox. 'Tis impious, says the modem European superstition, to put a period to our own life, and thereby rebel against our creator. And why not, say I, to build houses, cultivate the ground, and sail upon the ocean? In all these actions, we produce some innovation in the course of nature. They are all of them, therefore, equally innocent or equally criminal".
Is Hume Convincing? Great stuff, but how convincing would you find it? It is a fair repast for those religiously minded people opposed to inoculation, transfusions, and the like; but their objection to suicide is that you are spurning a gift, not that you are altering the course of nature. (We are not of course in a discemable gift relationship; and do presents inherently have to be used 'al they fall apart?) Finally, to the charge that I am deserting my post, Hume again relies on his 'catch-all' argument that whatever we do must be providentially guided; and if I am so tired of life, "I may conclude that I am recalled from my station, in the clearest and most express terms."
So am I breaching my duty to my neighbour? A man who retires from life, says Hume, does no harm. He only ceases to do good; and I am not obliged to do a small good to society, at the expense of a great harm to myself. But in most cases of suicide, I am a burden to society, and "my resignation of life must not only be innocent, but laudable". True, but self-sacrifice is potentially laudable because of the value of life; we might ask: are we the best people to judge whether we are a burden — and is being so, let alone feeling it to be so, sufficient grounds for topping oneself, if others would gladly accept that burden and do me a 'small good'? What of my neighbour's duty to me?
As to our duty to ourselves, Hume says, famously "I believe that no man ever threw away life, while it was worth keeping": and as for those that have no apparent
4 Ethical Record, March 2008 reason for doing so, "they must be cursed with such an incurable depravity or gloominess of temper, as must poison all enjoyment." Here is another area we might discuss. Of course, chemical "cures" were not available in his time; but surely juvenile despair, curable over time, was common enough. If one makes an exception for young people and say that they owe it to themselves (or to those close to them — whom Hume does not consider) to stay their hand and give life a chance, where do we draw the line? Is it ever right to prevent them from throwing it away? Hume does not discuss the rights and wrongs of intervention — of others' duties to us.
Of the Immortality of the Soul You are unlikely to disagree with anything in this short essay, so just sit back and admire more of Hume's beautifully honed prose. It strikes at the heart of the Christian claim: one can see why this essay in particular was dangerous, and why he chose to top and tail it with deeply ironical nods towards revealed religion: his opening sentence is "By the mere light of reason it seems difficult to prove the Immortality of the Soul." and he ends : "Nothing could set in a fuller light the infinite obligations which mankind have to divine revelation; since we find that no other medium could ascertain this great and immortal truth"!
Again, Hume divides the arguments 'for' into three: the metaphysical, the moral, and the physical. The first rests on the immateriality of the soul. But "matter and spirit are at bottom equally unknown, and we cannot determine what qualities may inhere in the one or the other. We cannot know from any other principle [than experience] whether matter may not be the cause of thought... Abstract reasonings cannot decide any question of fact or existence".
Let's assume, says Hume, that there is a spiritual substance, used by Nature to compose minds as does matter for bodies. Nature uses matter as a sort of paste or clay, setting it in a variety of forms and existences, dissolving them after a time, and erecting anew from the same substance. So it may be with consciousness; its substance may be irnmortal, but the particular form it takes on, and its memory of that form, is not. And, says Hume, "What is incorruptible must also be ingenerable. The soul, therefore, if immortal, existed before our birth; and if the former state of existence no wise concerned us, neither will the latter."
According to Hume, the moral argument derives from "the justice of God, which is supposed to be interested in the farther (sic) punishment of the vicious, and the reward of the virtuous." It is the only instance that I know of where there is a purported claim to get an "is" from someone else's value judgement, rather than the other way around. However, says Hume, "if any purpose of nature be clear, we may affirm, that the whole scope and intention of man's creation, so far as we can judge by natural reason, is limited to the present life." The powers of men are matched to their wants merely in this life, as are animals for their period of existence.
"How cruel it would be for Nature to confine all our knowledge and concern to the present life, if there be another scene awaiting us, of infinitely greater consequence. Ought this barbarous deceit be ascribed to a beneficent and wise being?" Of course the religious would say that we are put on notice of the "ought" and its consequence; but Hume's point is that this is by priestly doctrine, not by Nature
Ethical Record, March 2008 5 The argument is really a peg for him to challenge the justice, "according to human sentiments", of eternal and infinite punishment without any end or purpose, and without proportion to the offence: he concludes: "the damnation of one man is an infinitely greater evil than the subversion of a thousand million of kingdoms". The scenario presumes two distinct species of men, the good and the bad; but "were one to go round the world with the intention of giving a good supper to the righteous, and a sound drubbing to the wicked, he would be frequently embarrassed in his choice." And most tellingly: "Nature has rendered human infancy particularly frail, as if it were on purpose to refute the notion of a probationary state. The half of mankind die before they are rational creatures."
But in any case, Hume says, the physical arguments are the only ones that ought to be admitted. He deploys his favourite argument from analogy: feebleness of body in infancy or old age is matched by feebleness of mind: "dis6rder, weakness, insensibility, stupidity, the forerunners of its annihilation". "The souls of animals (according to Hume, nearly resembling those of men) are allowed to be mortal; their bodies, ditto; yet no-one rejects the arguments from comparative anatomy" [that, note, in 1755]. All the evidence is that nothing in nature can survive tra6splantation into a radically different medium, so "what reason then to imagine, that an immense alteration, such as is made on the soul by the dissolution of its body and all its organs of thought and sensation, can be effected without the dissolution of the whole?" As to the notion that there is one single exception, a something "seemingly the frailest of any, is immortal and indissoluble? What a daring theory is that! How lightly, not to say, how rashly entertained!" Not for nothing does the Church hold to the doctrine of the resunection of the body. But this generates another problem.
"The infinite number of posthumous existences ought to embarrass the religious theory. . .. Every planet, in every solar system, we are at liberty to imagine peopled with intelligent, mortal beings: at least, we can fix on no other supposition. (What a most interesting example of Enlightenment speculation!) For these then, a new universe must, every generation, be created; .. or one must have been created so prodigiously wide as to admit of this continual influx of beings. Ought such bold suppositions to be received ... merely on the pretence of a bare possibility?" Finally, Hume argues, our very horror of annihilation lather proves the mortality of the soul. "For as nature does nothing in vain, she would never give us a horror against an impossible event... Death is at the end unavoidable; yet the human species could not be preserved, had not nature inspired us with an aversion against it."
Schopenhauer —The World A Snare And Delusion Schopenhauer [1788-1860] had, rather, a total aversion to our available life. He is a neo-Kantian: in his view, we can know nothing of how things are in themselves, but only as they appear mediated by the categories of space and time, and by the division of reality into subject and object in cognition. Some C2Oth philosophers, notably Bryan Magee, have held a torch for him; particularly for his ethical emphasis on compassion, and the importance he gives to aesthetic experience as an escape from our delusive condition. For myself, he represents the sad collapse of the Enlightenment project that Hume was fostering a hundred years earlier, as knowing the world became no longer seen as a possibility and inherent blessing, but a snare and delusion. Schopenhauer is sometimes regarded as the first uncompromisingly atheist (and last non-university based) philosopher of our age, and had the project of translating Hume's
6 Ethical Record, March 2008 writing on religion into German (as well as Kant into English: he was for a time at boarding school in Wimbledon!) and for that reason in particular 1 have included him in my talk. He wrote his two essays on our theme as part of a volume called Parerga and Paralipoinena (Greek for Additions & Omissions) [1851], which finally brought him to the public's attention. The particular twist given to matters mortal is the result of the combination of his philosophical agnosticism and his take on life: he was the ultimate Miserable Old Sod, as can be seen from the start of the first essay: On the Suffering of the World.
For him, happiness and gratification was negative, as the mere abolition of a desire. I-fis sununum bontun is the absence of pain, which was, he thought, most acutely experienced in the frustration of one's will (SPES committee members may agree) — particularly, one's will to live, which traps us in our condition, and is the phenomenal (observable) expression of the purposeless striving force that constitutes reality, notably expressed in our urge to procreate. Salvation lies in an expressly Buddhist form-of renunciation; of denial of this will. I cannot resist quoting two of his passing comments: "Has it not been noticed that sexual desire, especially when concentrated into infatuation through fixation on a particular woman, is the quintessence of this noble world's imposture, since it promises so excessively much and performs so miserably little?" Perhaps Viagra would have transformed his outlook! But probably not: "If the act of procreation were neither the outcome of a desire nor accompanied by feelings of pleasure, but a matter to be decided on the basis of purely rational considerations, is it likely the human race would still exist? Would each of us not rather have felt so much pity for the coming generation as to prefer to spare it the burden of existence, or at least not wish to take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?" Bring on the clowns!
God's Creation Was Beznadziejna I will quote one more passage before looking at his view of survival of death: one which picks up from Hume. "Even if Leibnitz's demonstration that this is the best of all possible worlds were correct, it would still not be a vindication of divine providence. For the Creator created not only the world, he also created possibility itself: therefore, he should have created the possibility of a better world than this one" — God, in short, was a hopeless creator, given, in particular, "the obvious imperfection of its most highly developed phenomenon, man, a grotesque." Try that on your godly friends!
"Consciousness", he says, "is destroyed in death .. But cheer up! — for what kind of consciousness is it? Merely an expedient for an animal to get what it needs." The idea of continued existence, and its opposite, annihilation, are "absurd", as they are predicated on a time-frame. Our real "intrinsic actual" being is timeless, and above and beyond consciousness, and is "as far as we are able to penetrate it, nothing but will..": an objectless (and uncausative) expression of something universal. This metaphysical claim is unsatisfactory: as Professor lannaway puts it, "if knowledge of our acts of will is the nearest we get to the thing in itself, and if even here we do not know it directly, what grounds do we have for claiming to know what it is?" We are offered at best a mystery, for which he coined the term palingenesis; "Death announces itself frankly as the end of an individual, but in this individual there lies the germ of a new being" — and collectively, "the actual germ of all which will live in fiaure, and that these in a certain sense exist already." In what sense? Hume, I'm sure, would have mildly asked.
Ethical Record, March 2008 7 You will hardly be surprised that he castigates the Church for its condemnation of suicide: "by what authority [do] they go to their pulpits and brand as a crime an action which many people we honour and love have performed and deny [them] honourable burial —since they cannot point to a single biblical authority, nor produce a single sound philosophical argument": "it is another instance of the obligatory optimism of these religions, which denounces self-destruction so as not to be denounced by it." "It is obvious that there is nothing in the world that a man has a more incontestable right to than his own life and person"; "if one punishes suicide, it is the ineptitude of the attempt one punishes"! Gone are the kid gloves of earlier times!
Schopenhauer says that the only cogent argument against suicide is that "it substitutes for a true redemption from this world of misery a merely apparent one" —I think he has a special sense of "apparent" here! (the old 'appearance/reality' distinction is rearing its head again) - and that "as suffering is the true aim of this life", escaping it falls short of the highest ideal of conduct. But otherwise, he thinks "perhaps there is no one alive who would not already have put an end to his life, if this were purely a sudden end to existence." The problem is "the destruction of the body —a deterrent, because the body is the phenomenal [q.v.] form of the will to live." But fortunately, we can be eased through that barrier, as great spiritual suffering makes us forget physical pain, even to the point of regarding it as a beneficial distraction! The message seems to be: go for it!
Schopenhauer is a reminder that Humanists come in all sorts of tempers; I even have a suspicion he would have found the odd kindred spirit here: let's see when we have questions! As for the issues, we are still up against an attitude well caught in a Guardian article eight years ago: "The more people come to value their possessions, personal identity and consumer comforts, the harder it is to imagine them vanishing into nothing. It is easy to see why the faint hope of a benign - or at least interesting - afterlife is more attractive than the certainty of nothingness after death. It's like the difference between having a one in 20 million chance of winning the lottery and not having a lottery ticket at all." The issue is who has the lottery franchise, and what is the true cost of the ticket?
SIGN AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ROMANIAN MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND YOUTH
Dear Humanists, You are invited to sign the open letter below to support teaching of the theory of evolution and philosophical approaches on religion in Romanian public schools, by sending us an email at freedomofronscience@gmateom no later than Monday, 24 March 2008. The whole letter is below and the link to the open letter is here (if the link doesn't work, please go to www.humanism.ro and then English and you will find the details on this issue): http://www.humanism.ro/articles.php?pag62&articl223 My best wishes, Remus Cernea, Executive director, Solidarity for Freedom of Conscience
www.humanism.ro [email protected] +4.0727.583.594
8 Ethical Record, March 2008 Mr. Minister Cristian Adomnitei, Put the theory of evolution and philosophical approaches to religion back in biology and philosophy curricula in Romanian public schools!
The elimination from public school curricula of one of the most important and influential scientific theories and of critical philosophical perspectives on religion constitutes a grave threat to the students right to information and education. It is a sufficient reason to remove Romania from the map of countries with a respectable, modern and competitive system of secondary education. In the old biology curricula, valid until the 2006-07 academic year, information on the theory of evolution represented about 15 percent of the informational volume for the 11th and 12th forms (depending on the type of high school). The curricula contained, under the "History of Life" section, themes such as: General presentation of classical and modern theories concerning the origins and evolution of life, Outline of primitive organisms, Proofs of evolution (paleontology, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, comparative biochemistry), The evolution of man, Mechanisms of speciation (selection, determining factors and types of selection, intro- and inter-specific speciation). The old philosophy curriculum, under the chapter "God", offered young men and women the opportunity to study both religiously-inspired philosophical views (such as those of Pascal or Thomas Aquinas), as well as critical perspectives on religion, among which those formulated by philosophers such as Voltaire, Epicurus, Nietzsche, or Camus. There is no reasonable explanation for the decision of Romanian authorities through Order no. 5959 of 12.22.2006 (Appendix 2), signed by former minister of education and research Mihail Heirdeiu, to eliminate this information from the relevant curricula. The statement by the Minister of Education to the effect that the theory of evolution is nevertheless studied "implicitly" is a nonsense and put your institution in a delicate position. In light of Romania's obligations as a member of the European Union and of the Council of Europe, the fact that you have failed to act in order to rectin, this situation, despite the request of the Solidarity for Freedom of Conscience on 9 October 2007, only worsens your position. Ironically, over the past months, an ample public debate on the educational reform in this country and on the new bills on education has been underway. But to violate the students' right to information and education in the manner outlined above effectively voids any principled discourse on reform in Romanian education. Evolution Presented As An Error Of Modern Science During the mandatory 10 years of school students are often familiarized, during confessional religion classes, exclusively with the literal Biblical conception of the world, according to which God created the world in 7 days, woman was created out of one of Adam's ribs, and so on. In religion textbooks, the theory of evolution is presented as an error of modern science. According to one recent study commissioned by the government, only 14 percent of Romanian students regard evolutionism as a correct theory. The mission of a modern education system is to offer children unfettered access to knowledge rather than to indoctrinate them religiously or politically. Resolution no.
Ethical Record, March 2008 9 158012007 on "The dangers of creationism in education" of the Council of Europe, to which Romania is a party, provides among others that:
15. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fimdamental sciennfic theory is therefore crucial to the fitture of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculums, and especially in the science syllabuses, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny ( ...) 19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to: 19 5. promote the teaching of evolution as a fimdamental scientific theory in the school curriculums.
In order to meet these standards, we respec011y ask you to: Immediately reintroduce, during the current academic year, the theory of evolution in the high school biology curricula. Immediately reintroduce, during the current academic year, in high sch-ool philosophy curricula, the topic "God" as represented in the old curricula, which familiarized young Romanians with both religious perspectives and viewpoints critical of the latter In order to restore the informational balance, in view of the confessional nature of religion classes, to introduce starting with the 2008-09 academic year, in both primary and secondary education, accessible presentations of the theory of evolution.
Signed.
Note: On 26 February 2008 we announcedduring a press conferenceheld at the National Museum of National History, within an exhibition of dinosaur fossils, the start of an ample civic campaign on the issue of the teaching of evolution in public schools. We requested the support of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the University of Bucharest and of other prestigious international universities and research institutes, of the Romanian Academy and other scientific academies abroad, of Romanian and European political parties, public personalities in the country and abroad, important NGOs, of Romanian and foreign press. Last but not least, we asked for the support of students and their parents, teachers, and the Romanian scientific community. You are invited to sign this open letter, as a private individual or as an authorized representative of an institution or an NGO, by sending us an email at [email protected] no later than Monday, 24 March 2008. Please make the media aware of this letter. The more written on it in the international press, the easier it will be to put pressure on Romanian authorities. You may also send the letter above and your signature to the address of the Ministry of Education, by email (at [email protected] ), fax (at +4.021.315.50.99), or registered mail (at Ministerul Educatiei, Cercetaii si Tineretului, Str. Gen. Berthelot 28-30 Sector 1, 010168, Bucuresti, Romania). Should you choose this option, please confirm your signature at [email protected] later than Monday, 24 March 2008. Should the authorities fail to make the requested decision within an acceptable time frame, we will organize a public protest on 26 March 2006 and forward all signatures of support to the Ministry. Remus Cernea
10 Ethical Record, March 2008 VIEWPOINTS Conway And Clifford I wanted to compliment you on the December 2007 Ethical Record. I very much enjoyed Jennifer Jeynes' excerpts from Moncure Conway's Autobiography. He was a fascinating man who deserves to be better known. Among other things he was a good friend of W. K. Clifford, the subject of my dissertation, so I have special fondness for him in that regard! Tim Madigan - Rochester, USA An Example Of Necessary Whistle-blowing This letter is written in response to Gerald Vinten's second lengthy warning (ER Jan 08) about the dangers of whistle-blowing. I would like to point out an example of a circumstance when whistle-blowing may be perfectly acceptable, ethical, and necessary. To those without mortgages, families and other financial responsibilities, to those with transferable job skills, to those who live in a city where there are alternative jobs, and to those who know of competing employers who might respect whistle-blowing on a bad employer or a bad company, there may be ample room to whistle blow. (To a person not in any of these categories it might simply be better to apply for another job and leave the employer.) My example will be my first full time job. As with previous and subsequent employers, I was to do something I considered unethical in order for the employer to make or save money. In this case I was asked to fill out employment contracts when in fact I was told the employer and employee had made a deal for the employee to work for less than union rates. I told my boss that I would not write out the contract. When he asked why and stated that they did it all the time, I explained that as far as I was concemed I would become an accomplice in a crime and I could become the scapegoat if he was caught. My boss became angry and had to take the contracts to his office to draw them up himself. Eventually my boss and the company board did enough financially incompetent things that they were unable to pay salaries and began to lay-off the entire company. Of course, I was the first person laid off, but that didn't matter to me because everyone, including the boss, was laid off by the board three weeks later. I was then told I would not receive my final back pay, and so I immediately went to the local government labour board. Simultaneously, unknown to me, the same thing had happened to one of the other female employees, someone I had little contact with, and she too had immediately gone to the labour board. As it turned out the labour board sounded extremely interested to come down hard on the employer. Employees must be paid their salary first before overhead costs even in the event of a shutdown. Part of the money which had been misspent involved a govemment grant specifically allocated for salaries. The company was in financial problems to the best of my knowledge because they had made the decision to enter into overhead improvements that exceeded their overall operating budget and had dipped into salary money. The result was that the other employee and myself won our back pay and all the Ethical Record, March 2008 I I employees got their money, and the labour board told me that the employer would probably never receive any more govemment grants having done this.
In the meantime, I found work with the same basic skills in another job at twice the salary. I simply told the truth to the new employer — that I had been laid off and that the employer hadn't been very good. I lost nothing at all personally, and hopefully a bad employer was put out of business at least temporarily. After the layoffs, some of the other employees found other work quickly. Some took longer because they only wished to work in this particular sector of employment despite the fact it was notorious for its poor conditions and pay. My action and that of the other employee had no bearing on the other employees because the place of employment was going under financially and we were able to secure their backpay. I only lost three weeks pay by being targeted for lay off three weeks earlier than the others. However, I doubled my salary at my next job and so it was of no consequence to me. - If one is going to whistle blow, and is in the position to, it is advisable to consult the appropriate people for advice and if possible those who can protect the whistle blower; to consider the effects on oneself and other employees in the event it shuts down the employer, seek alternative employment before hand and be honest with the new employer. Every situation is different. Personally I don't like to work with people I consider to be unethical and don't wish to risk the possibility of becoming an accomplice in a crime, or being made a scapegoat by those richer or more powerful than myself. Ellen Ramsay — Toronto
On Being Secular And Humanist Like Jim Herrick (ER Feb 08), I regard myself as a secular humanist. In this respect, the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association are two sides of the same coin, the NSS being defined by what it is against ("Challenging religious privilege") and the BHA by what it is for ("For the one life we have"). Long may we remain both secular and humanist. David Seymour — Crofton Park, London
Who Wrote Frankenstein? On the earth-shaking question of who wrote Frankestein, man or wife, Barbara Smoker claims Shelley as a novelist, quoting Zastrozzi and St. Irvine as evidence. The Cambridge History questions 'How could a man like Shelley could perpetrate such rubbish?'. He was a failed novelist. Neither did I say Shelley was dead when Frankestein was written - even we ex- proles are not that dim. Clearly I referred to Mary's novel The Last Man. As an inveterate male feminist, I persist in believing that Mary S. wrote Frankenstein herself. P .E. Perry - Walthamstow, London
THE HUMANIST REFERENCE LIBRARY
The Humanist Reference Library is open for members and researchers on Mondays from 12noon-4pm and on Tuesdays to Fridays from 2 - 6pm. Please let the Librarian, Jennifer Jeynes, know of your intention to visit the Library.
Tel: 020 7242 8037/4. Email: [email protected]
12 Ethical Record, March 2008 WEWPOINT ESSAY ON FREEWILL Albert Adler Two articles have recently appeared in the Ethical Record as to whether such a condition as 'Freewill' exists, or whether, on the contrary, all thought and action is predetermined by a long chain of causality stretching back even to the very beginning ; of time, if not beyond. The first, by Tom Rubens, entitled Some Arguments For Determinism, featured in the issue for September 2007; the other, by Chris Bratcher, entitled Determined To Do,appeared in the issue for February 2008. I wonder if I could offer my contribution to that discussion.
Perhaps it is as well to define our terms before we begin discussing the matter. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines Freewill as 'the power of directing our own actions without constraint by necessity or fate'. Its opposite, Necessity, is defined as 'the compulsion prevailing through the material universe and governing all human action; the constraining power of circumstances.' Likewise Fate is defined as that which is destined to happen - or, as it is perhaps more snappily put, the sara, sara!'
On the face of it (and amusingly enough) it seems pointless to even discuss the matter, since if Freewill actually prevails then surely we must also be free to believe that our thoughts and actions are in fact fated, whereas if Predetermination rules the roost then any belief in Freewill must itself be preordained - if you follow me! No doubt this argument may well be found to be at least as baffling as the predicament of Buridan's Ass who, placed exactly between two equally attractive bundles of hay, found it impossible to choose between them (and died of starvation!).
The Principle Of Inertia However, let us try to approach the issue in a purely commonsense manner. In actual practice we do not find ourselves habitually puzzling over what thoughts to think or what actions to take. On the contrary, we follow the grand principle of inertia whereby, in what are or appear to be similar circumstances, our mind acts or reacts in the same way as it has done previously, so that we arrive at that same thought or apply that same action as our past experiencehas given rise to, and which therefore seems appropriate to the situation which we are (or think we are) presently experiencing. So, as long as we possess a solution or reaction which fits or seems to fit the bill presented to us by reality, it is a matter rather of adaptation to the existing circumstances than of either free will or determinism.
Nonetheless it must happen more or less often that our acquired range of actions and reactiOns does not cover the situation in which we find ourselves. What then? I would suggest that in those circumstances we are induced (compelled if you like!) to extend our range of possible actions and reactions and to consider what is necessary to be done or acquired in order to enable us to deal with this novel situation. It is a matter then of "Stop! Think! Devise (if you can!)." Sometimes a solution - maybe only an approximate one - may suggest itself to us almost immediately. Sometimes it may take many hours (or days or weeks) of application and require the developing of new skills and attitudes. It is in this way that we can enlarge that repertoire of responses that makes us the person that we are. Indeed, it is surely in this way that we have acquired that repertoire in the first place!
Ethical Record, March 2008 13 Hence if I am asked whether I believe that we are governed by freewill or determinism I would reply 'By neither, but rather by our developed responses, amongst which not the least important is our ability to carefully consider the demands of any new situation and how they are best met. It is not so much a question of a chain of causation as of a web where the reaction of people to pressures and events generates its own peculiar current which feeds into the private ocean of our acquired responses .. Indeed, I would reformulate Jean-Jacques Rousseau's credo - "Man is born free but everywhere is in chains" as "Man thinks he is born free but in fact from birth he is held in the web of circumstances which influence him - but which he also influences.'
To put the argument in a slightly different way:- one can say that there isadapted will, where experience has led us to employ certain behaviours in certain appropriate situations; and there is adaptive will, where no obvious appropriate behaviour suggests or presents itself, and where we have to devise or discover what in fact would be appropriate and acceptable (if we can). But then, there is neither free nor fate- determined will but only, as said, either adapted or adaptive will and action. And, I would add, it is always opens to us to, at a need, reconsider our established thoughts and actions and decide whether in the light of further experience they still appear to be among the best appropriate to our current situation.
Was Milton Lost? This really concludes what I have to say on the philosophy involved in these issues. However to satisfy what may be purely personal interests I cannot resist the temptation to bring in some, hopefully apposite, literary references to this matter. First of all Milton as he touches on these concerns (in Paradise Lost Bk2, lines 557-561) where the fallen angels have been left to pass the time till Satan's return (from his mission of travelling to earth and seducing Adam and Eve into the horrendous crime and unforgiveable sin of scrumping a forbidden apple). We are told that, while most of the Satanic host amuse themselves in various vigorous activities, Others apart sat on a hill retired, In thoughts more elevate and reasoned high Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will and Fate - Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute, And found no end, in wandering mazes lost.
Wisely enough Milton has no further thoughts to impart on these matters having no doubt found himself also 'in wandering mazes lost' since - among many other improbabilities! - he has propounded a prescient God! One may also note the Church's interesting formulation (no doubt derived from Bunyan's Mr Facing-both-ways) which appears to be that God does indeed know all, foresee all, pre-ordain all - but yet has given man the gift of Freewill (the gift that may be neither spurned nor retumed!) so that ultimately not He but man is responsible for the existence of Evil. Nice one, God!
The difficulty arising from the contradiction between the doctrines of Freewill and Predetermination is beautifully caught in the following extract from Anatole France's witty, indeed uproariously amusing, Penguin Island which I most heartily commend to all fellow or femalow SPESers. The saintly monk Mael, having encountered a troop of penguins in the course of his evangelising mission - after being conveyed over the oceans naturally enough in a trough of stone(!) - has inadvertently baptised a troop of penguins that he mistook for men. When the unfortunate error is
14 Ethical Record,March 2008 discovered in heaven it occasions fierce and protracted argument amongst the host of the Blessed as to the best way of dealing with this irregularity until at last the Lord Himself is forced to intervene, as follows:-
The Lord, by a gesture of his right hand, appeased the quarrel of his elect. 'Let us not deliberate any longer,' said he. The opinion broached by gentle old (Saint) Hermas is the only one conformable to my etemal designs. These birds will be changed into men. I foresee in this several disadvantages. Many of these men will commit sins they would not have committed as penguins. Truly their fate through this change will be far less enviable than if they had been without this baptism and this incorporation into the family of Abraham. But my foreknowledge must not encroach upon their free will. In order not to impair human liberty, 1 will be ignorant of what I know, I will thicken upon my eyes the veils I have pierced, and in my blind clearsightedness I will let myself be surprised by what I have foreseen.'
After that trenchant pronouncement need anything more be said on this vexed issue!
PS. If I can presume still further upon your patience I feel it is not inappropriate to my argument to quote a (typically) short poem from Emily Dickinson, where the issues of freewill and determinism and adaptation may no doubt be considered as represented, respectively, by the sea, the stars, and the planks!
I stepped from plank to plank I knew not but the next So slow and cautiously; Would be my final inch The stars about my head I felt, This gave me that precarious gait About my feet the sea. Some call experience.
VIEWPOINT ESSAY THE VIRGIN CONCEPTION Barbara Smoker
A pre-Christmas survey was carried out by the Spectator among leading public figures in the churches, the arts, the media, and politics, as to whether they believed in the virgin birth of Jesus; obviously aiming at seasonal topicality. However, surely the appropriate Christian festival for this subject is that of the Annunciation, on 25 March — exactly nine months before the heliolatrous date of the supposed birth — as a vir2in birth has to be planned from the outset. The subject therefore becomes really topical this month. Of the 23 replies received and published by the Spectator, no fewer than 15 were positive, four were negative, and there were four more-or-less Don't Knows; while those refusing to reply included three bishops and five politicians (Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, David Cameron, George Galloway, and Liam Fox).
The best reply came from Christopher Hitchens, who wrote: 'I no more believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary than I believe that Krishna was bom of the virgin Devaka, Horns was bom of the virgin Isis, Mercury was born of the virgin Maia, or Ramulus was born of the virgin Rhea Sylvia. As the preceding
Ethical Record, March 2008 15 examples help to demonstrate, parthenogenesis would in any case not be proof either of divine paternity or of the truth of any subsequent preaching. .... Christianity insults our intelligence as well as our innate morality by insisting that we believe absurdities that are drawn from the mythology of paganism and barbarism.' The Most Ignorant Reply The most ignorant reply, from someone called Fraser Nelson, deserves to be quoted in full: 'The basis of Christianity is that Jesus was the Son of God, not the son of Joseph — his DNA was a mix between that of Our Lady and the Almighty. If you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, then The Life of Brian starts to look more like documentary.'
It is basic to Christian theology (though, at the same time, contradicted by the universal Christian appellation of Our Father, never Mother) that the Almighty is pure spirit, with no body, parts or passions. If so, whence the postulated DNA? As for the immaculate conception, this Fraser obviously thinks it refers to the conception of Jesus instead of that of Mary. (According to Catholic tradition, the immaculate conception occurred fifteen years before the virgin ditto.) And how on earth does the farcical film character of Brian come into the earlier story?
However, the conjuring of divine DNA would at least answer the problem of how parthenogenesis could supposedly produce male offspring. In biological fact, parthenogenesis would presumably result only in a clone of the mother — as in the actual case of Dolly the sheep. None of theSpectator replies (positive, negative, or on- the-fence) mentioned the apparent impossibility of a male child being conceived parthenogenetically, in the absence-of a Y chromosome. (Admittedly, it has been suggested elsewhere that a woman's own recessive Y chromosome might just possibly inject a significant degree of maleness into her parthenogenetic child - who, however, though seeming male, would always lack certain male characteristics: thus presenting theologians with an imperfect god-man incarnation.)
The only Spectator respondent apart from Mr Nelson to mention the immaculate conception was A C Grayling — though he did so, of course, in its correct usage. He imagined that, Catholic theologians having decided in 1854 that they must go back a generation from the virgin birth and preserve Mary herself from original sin, by establishing an immaculate conception for her, they will eventually have to regress another generation and similarly purify her mother, Anne. But what, I would ask, about her father, Joachim?!
Moreover, if God could, prior to the sado-masochistic crucifixion, withhold the inheritance of original sin from even one descendant of Adam and Eve, why not do likewise for all humanity?
Every doctrinal solution to a theological problem seems only to create a worse problem, requiring yet another solution — each being so absurd that one wonders how leading citizens of this country today can bring themselves to believe in them. Small wonder that our political leaders funked admitting, in print, to belief (or disbelief) in the absurdity of the virgin conception/birth. But surely the solicited bishops should have been willing to divulge their faith in it — or otherwise. A reply from Rowan Williams would have been linguistically interesting, if not doctrinally enlightening.
16 Ethical Record, March 2008 FOSSILS AND FOLKLORE Dr Chris Duflin Lecture to the Ethical Society, 3 February 2008
Fossils provide some evidence of the life of the past and include both body fossils (representations of skeletons and, occasionally, soft parts) and ftace fossils (such as burrows, footprints and faeces). Besides their scientific value in reconstructing the pattern of evolution and informing us about the biology of extinct organisms, fossils also have aesthetic and, historically speaking, sociological value. It is obvious from archaeological collections that early man valued fossils and collected them for specific purposes. Some were used for personal decoration: beads, cored for threading by primitive tools, have been made from fossil crinoids (by native American tribes), foraminiferans, belemnites, scaphopods, brachiopods, bivalves, gastropods, trilobites, sponges and shark's teeth. Necklaces of fossil beads may also have had amuletic or talismanic properties ascribed to them. In combining the aesthetic with the useful, at least one Palaeolithic stone tool worker carefully fashioned the blades of a .hand axe around a centrally placed flint echinoid. Some fossils were obviously believed to have been endowed with special significance, having been included on occasion as grave goods from Neolithic to mediaeval times. One famous Bronze Age tumulus on Dunstable Down, for example, had 100 echinoids arranged systematically around the bodies of a buried woman and child. "Folklore" is a term coined in 1846 to embrace the customs, traditions and superstitions of the 'uncultured classes in a civilised nation'; its application has since expanded to include legends, prayers, medicine, songs, costume, popular arts and crafts, as well local celebrations and rituals. The earliest work containing extensive records of the folklore of fossils is that of Caius Plinius Secundus - Pliny the Elder, the Roman lawyer and fleet commander famously killed in the CE79 eruption of Vesuvius; his only surviving work is the encyclopaedic Historia Naturalis, comprising 37 books, collecting together interesting observations from other classical authors, as well as a vast body of contemporary belief. Giants According to Greek legend, the Island of Sicily was inhabited by the Cyclopes, a race of one-eyed giants, the largest and fiercest of whom was Polyphemus, son of Neptune. Homer recounts how Ulysses and his followers landed on Sicily in search of food, which they discovered in abundance in Polyphemus' cave. Trapped and terrorised by the giant on his retum, the Greeks succeeded in escaping only after they sharpened his giant club to a point and plunged the fire-hardened tip into his single, central eye. The Greek philosopher Empedocles thought he recognised the bones of Polyphemus in the rocks of Sicily, and Bocaccio, the author of the Decameron described similar finds in the 14th century. The Jesuit scientist Athanasius Kircher visited Sicily when further reports of such bones came to light in the 16th century. In the first real speleological treatise (Mundus Subterraneus - the Underground World), he interpreted all the fossils he found there as the bones of giants. Bocaccio had suggested that the bones were from a lOOmtall giant, but Kircher cut him down to size - a mere 10m. The bones were actually those of a dwarf Pleistocene elephant with short tusks and the single hole for the eye was actually the nasal opening to the trunk.
Ethical Record, March 2008 17 Figure 1. Unicornum verum, "true unicorn horn" (inammoth tusk); title page of a medical dissertation published in 1734. Unicorns • In 1703 one physician burned some bone fragments ascribed to the unicorn and, seeing that "an evanescent urinous spirit along with stinking oil" was released, proved that they truly had an animal origin. Local pharmacists pulverised the teeth and bones to produce a medicinal powder that was administered for a wide range of diseases. Many unicorn remains can now be traced to rhinoceros horn, narwhal tusk and cow horns, but in the 17th century, especially in Germany, mammoth ivory quickly became establisherd as unicorn verwn (true unicorn; Figure 1), while the others were scorned as unicorn falsum. Dragons The mountains of central Europe are full of 'dragon' caves, hills and grottos, each with associated local myths and legends. Probably the most famous is the Drachenfels in the Siebengebirge where, according to the Niebelungenlied, Siegfried famously slew the dragon called Fafner. Patersonius Hayn, a German physician who settled in Hungary, explored some Carpathian dragon caves, and wrote his results up as a monograph entitled Dragon skulls in the Carpathians. Another contemporary article described Transylvanian dragons. These accounts were both based upon Ice Age cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) remains. Hunting dragons proved to be remarkably productive for the German palaeontologist G.H.R. von Koenigswald in his search for fossil man. Since the 1870s, fossil mammal specimens had been collected not from the field, but from Chinese apothecaries' shops. By 1910 over 200 species of rhino, deer, antelope, giraffe, hyaena, sabre-toothed cat, elephant etc. had been described from such collections. Following in the footsteps of a long list of naturalists and missionaries, von Koenigswald visited many chemist shops in China, and then Java. His approach was to show the proprietor pictures from a popular German fossil book (professing it to be a great medical work); he was immediately swamped with fossil brachiopods, 18 Ethical Record, March 2008 ammonites and trilobites all of which were common simples in the long pedigree of the Chinese materia medica. On being presented with pictures of fossil mammal teeth, one chemist retrieved a fossil rhino tooth, chipped and scarred through working for medicinal properties. The apothecary smiled and said that this dragon tooth 'was only available on prescription'. Duly armed with an appropriate prescription, von Koenigswald eventually amassed large numbers of fossil panda teeth, and from Hong Kong some teeth of Gigantopithecus blacki. The Chinese history of dragons is very complex. but some icons are undoubtedly partly based upon antlers of the Tertiary deer, Cervocervus. The remains of these and other mammals form the apothecarial dragon-bones (lung-ku) and dragon teeth (lung chih). By the 5th Century CE, recipes were well-established for their use; Lei Hiao (420-477 CE), for example, recommended dragon bones of 5 colours as being best; the black ones were the least desirable. Those collected by women were deemed to be utterly useless! The preparation of the bones tool place as follows :
'First boil some aromatic herbs. Wash the bone twice in hot water, then reduce it to powder and place it in bags of thin stuff. Take two young swallows and, after removing their entrails, stuff the bags into the swallows and hang them over a spring. After one night, take the bags out of the swallows, remove the powder and mix it with a preparation for strengthening the kidneys. The effect of such a medicine is as if it were divine.' By the 1920s, the recipe had been simplified to pulverising the bones and adding the powder to a cup of tea. It was a wide-ranging medicine prescribed for dysentery, gallstones, fevers, paralysis, women's maladies, malaria and liver disease, amongst many others. Echinoderms Pliny records fossil echinoids as being the Ovum anguinum or Snake's egg of the druids who used them as powerful antidotes against snake toxins. Supposedly generated by snakes intertwining at midsummer, they were exuded as balls of froth, and tossed explosively into gos the air. If caught in a cloth before hitting the ground (Figure 2), the 'egg' retained great magical power, although the captor had to ensure his safety by making a quick getaway across a river which afforded a barrier to the snakes. The ovum anguinum was believed to give success in battle and in other disputes, especially legal ones. As "Zebedee" or "Thunder stones", echinoids were believed throughout north west Europe to fall to earth during lightning; the sound of their strike was marked by a te •11 thunderclap. Since lightning never strikes in the same place twice, it was safest to carry an Figure 2. Collecting the Ovum echinoid on your person if there was any Anguinum ("Snake's Egg"— a fossil danger of a storm. There are also many folk sea urchin); Mediaeval woodcut,
Ethical Record, March 2008 19 beliefs related to milk; they supposedly prevented milk-souring and increased the cream content by being placed in the chum, and prevented accidents generated by witchcraft during the churning process (a witch could take the butter-luck away!). In France, Miocene sand dollars were carried by wet-nurses up until 1889 in order to stimulate copious milk flow. In the South of England, fossil sea urchins are commonly known as 'Shepherd's Crowns', 'Shepherd's knees' and 'fairy loves'. The latter belief states that if kept in a house the family will never go short of bread. Alternatively, they were commonly lined up on the window sills to accomplish the same task, or placed on dairy shelves to prevent milk souring. In 1725, John Woodward wrote that the 'Chalk eggs' quarried at Purfleet were esteemed as a marvellous cure for sea-sickness. Closely related to echinoids, the isolated stem ossicles of crinoids are referred to in Germany as Saint Boniface's Pennies and are considered to be fairy money. Further ecclesiastical associations come from Northumberland, where they are commonly called Saint Cuthbert's beads. Sir Walter Scott's poem Marmion refers to his rosary beads thus : But fain Saint Hilda's nuns would learn/ If, on a rock by Lindisfarne/ Saint Cuthbert sits, and toils to frame/ The sea-borne beads that bear his name. Ammonites Ammonites, closely resembling the coiled ram's horns of the god Jupiter Ammon, have a serpentiform shape and are often called `snakestones'. A legend from Whitby claims that the Saxon Abbess Saint Hilda (614-680) turned Whitby snakes into stone in order to clear the site needed to build a convent. The snakes threw themselves off the Yorkshire cliff, were decapitated and tumed to stone in one fell swoop. The legend was perpetuated by sales of 'restored' ammonites with sculptured heads especially in Elizabethan times. Keynsham, near Bristol has a similar story in which Saint Keyna converted snakes living in the wood into stone through the power of her prayers. On the Isle of Skye, ammonites are called 'crampstones', being used in the 16th and 17th century to cure cramp in cows; the affected part was washed with water in which the ammonites had been steeped for several hours. Ammonites collected from the Gandaki River in the Nepalese Himalayas are used in Hinduism as fetishes, being avatars of the god Vishnu. These `Salagrama-sila', when steeped in water, are said to wash away sin and secure temporal welfare. In North America, many plains Indian tribes and Navajos carried ammonites (Wanisugna) in their medicine bags. Members of the Blackfoot tribe call them 'Iniskim' or 'Buffalo Stones', using them in spiritual ceremonies prior to the hunting and coralling of bison herds. Ancient lapidaries refer to ammonites as Draconites — stones obtained from the heads of snakes or dragons, and said to dispel poisons, especially those due to attacks by venomous animals. Belemnites The name of this fossil comes from the Greek 'Belemnon' - a dart. Like echinoids belemnites have also been ascribed to thunderbolts, as well as being called Devil's or St Peter's Fingers. In Scotland, as 'botstones', they were once steeped in water which was then given to horses in order to cure them of the worms which cause distemper.
20 Ethical Record, March 2008 Employed as cure for rheumatism in men and horses in Southern England, they were also pulverised to a dust which was blown into the eyes as a treatment for sore eyes. In Scandinavia, they were called 'Vetteljus' - gnomes lights or candles — and were believed to afford protection against unchristened children being transformed into changelings by trolls. Further beliefs include protecting horses against the night mare. Drinking powdered belemnite powder also supposedly 'prohibits lustful dreams and witchcrafts' (Nicols, 1659).
Figure 3. Devonian brachiopod used in Chinese medicine, and its explanatoly leaflet.
Brachiopods Known in China as `Shih-yen', brachiopods have been employed as a medicine there since the 13th century. G.H.R. von Koenigswald found that spiriferid brachiopods had been imported into Indonesia and were available on prescription from apothecaries in order to treat a wide range of diseases (Figure 3). A leaflet accompanying the purchase of some of these 'stone swallows' from a Singapore Apothecary states that the drug made from them is 'sweet and cooling, good for treating rheumatism, skin diseases and eye troubles'. One Chinese materia medica from 1762 says that the best shih-yen are those which move when being placed into vinegar (effervescence); they were particularly efficacious for calcium deficiency in the Chinese diet.
References and further reading CJ. (2005): The Western Lapidary Tradition in early Geological Literature : Medicinal and Magical Minerals. Geology Today, 21 (2), 60-64.
Duffin, CJ. (20066):Stones for the Stone : minerals and fossils in the treatment of renal calculi. Pharmaceutical Historian, 36 (4) : 56-60.
Duffin, CJ. (2008):Fossils as drugs : pharmaceutical palaeontology. Ferrantia, 54 : 1-83.
Mayor, A.(2000): The First Fossil Hunters. Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. xx + 361 pp. Princeton : Princeton University Press.
Mayor, A. (2005):Fossil Legends of the First Americans. xxxix + 446 pp. Princeton : Princeton University Press. Oakley, K.P. (1978) : Animal Fossils as Charms. In Porter, J.R. & Russell, W.M.S. (eds.)Animals in Folklore. 208-240,276-281. London : Folklore Society.
Ethical Record, March 2008 21 FEMINISM AND ATHEISM Kyla Greenbaum-Crowcroft Extracts from a talk to the Ethical Society, 24 February 2008
This talk was inspired or provoked by Sue Mayer's piece on Mind Games, Religion & Social Control (ER Dec 07). It was a frank and forthright talk which raised many questions. One can answer a few of them, perhaps. Firstly, I must make my own position clear. I'm not a believer, nor am I a believing atheist. I have some reservations about religion but I would like to see it quite separate from the State. I'm reluctant to say I'm an agnostic; it seems too wishy washy! I guess I'm still thinking about it.
Why do people cling to religion? It's difficult if not impossible to kill an idea. The idea of god or gods has been with us since time immemorial. The old Greek philosophers of that famous period c500 BCE debated and discussed religious ideas with complete freedom and intellectual rigour, but when Aquinas got hold of them he twisted and distorted them shamelessly to underpin the dogma of the Catholic Church, so they were lost to us for some centuries. Even now (as Sue Mayer points out), real debate is mostly in academia, not in public. Nevertheless the religious establishment has become much more liberalised and reformed. We do now have women priests and rabbis. Religions were the repositories of ethical systems.
What Kind of Society Can We Have Without Religion? Two obvious examples of societies that tried to abolish religion in the 20th Century were Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Both ended in disaster, Maybe this was because they both had fanatical philosophies. I suppose you could say that fanaticism is a kind of religion.
I can only think of two experiments that seemed to work: the syndicalist community in Catalonia before the Civil War in Spain and the Kibbutzim in Israel. Both were co-operatives and mainly secular societies. Sadly, they were eaten up by bigger fish. But the dream of utopia doesn't die. Freud in his book The Future of an Illusion argues that religion is the 'biggest single obsessional neurosis of mankind'. He was, of course, thinking of the Oedipus complex i.e. the phylogenetic memory of a crime committed in primordial times. Sons kill their father (whom they also admire). Then they eat him. The guilt they suffered on account of this could only be assuaged by creating a patriarchal religion where the stem father, immortalised, now has the power to punish or forgive forever. Freud saw all religion therefore as an irrational attempt to solve a neurotic problem. He himself hoped for a society based on science with no place for religion. Pessimist that he was though, he didn't think many people were mature enough to accept such a society.
The arts have always been associated with religion in all cultures. I can only speak here of music, but of all arts, music reached its apotheosis in Western Christianity. It's unique in its grandeur of expression, its inspirational power and the huge number of works of genius produced. It's unique too in its universal appeal. If I listen to the 'Dove Sono' from Mozart's Figaro I might think of a mother consoling her child - a lullaby perhaps? But Mozart's lullaby is on a different plane. If I listen to the 'Dona Nobis Pacem' from Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, I hear intimations of immortality. But, as it has been said many times, beauty is not proof of the existence of God, yet it is a very powerful witness to the idea of God. But then I ask, naively I 22 Ethical Record, March 2008 suppose, where does the inspiration come from? Cynics will say, of course, 'from the very rich patrons in the Church'.
New Ideas Needed We need to formulate some new ethical ideas to inspire a more advanced social structure. How could feminists share in such a project? Feminists, like all other women, have experiences that men don't and can't have (and vice versa of course). So it's imperative that women make a strong and equal contribution to such a project of research Many if not most women have an innate drive to protect and nurture their offspring and will do so under the most terrible circumstances. This requires a degree of altmism not innate to men. Men can and do learn to be altruistic of course. Women can go against their genes and limit the size of their families. If we knew how to export this practice successfully it might help in this time of astronomical growth of world population. It's probably one of the biggest moral problems of our age.
Let us turn to something more cheerful. A new utopia perhaps? Devised by women? After all, historically utopias have carried the dreams of men. I remembered one the other day. It's definitely multi-cultural!
No occupation; all men idle, all; And women too, but innocent and pure; All things in commonnature should produce Without sweat or endeavour: ...... Sword, pike, knife, gun, or need of any engine, Would I not have; (Gonzalofrom The Tempest,Act II Scene I)
Richard Dawkins in his The Selfish Gene refers to the evolutionary development of self consciousness (oddly, for a fervent atheist he calls its origins `mysterious'). Self consciousness is a quality unique to the human species (as yet anyway!). Its origin is mysterious. No one really knows when, where or how it first arose. It seems to emerge from a new brain which is still developing. In practice it appears to be self-generating so you might say it's the nearest thing we've got to immortality. (If that's true Dawkins won't like it!) Its potential is enormous and because it is self aware it should have a greater capacity for the understanding of others or other selves - empathy. Kropotkin might have called it 'an increase in the potential for mutual aid'. I wish I could talk about this in a less speculative way, but I'm not a neurologist or brain scientist. •
To continue in an optimistic vein I would like to mention Schumacher. An increase in mutual aid could benefit greatly our new utopia, and Schumacher proposes the thesis that only in small communities (many of them if necessary) can empathy and understanding be at the heart of human relations. Big cities are dehumanising. Small communities with local management are much more feasible today with modern communications. Perhaps with the advance in self-consciousness utopia doesn't have to be just a dream. On the other hand if Freud is right about religion and the Oedipus complex, and if the world population continues to increase at its present rate, the modem hordes may well rise up and kill the older men - and older women too. In a secular society who will stop them?
The views expressed in this Journal are not necessarily those of the Society. Ethical Record, March 2008 23 PROGRAMME OF EVENTS AT THE ETHICAL SOCIETY - The Library, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, WC IR 4RL. Tel: 020 7242 803718034 Registered Charity No. 251396 Website: www.ethicalsoc.org.uk email: [email protected] No charge unless stated MARCH 2008 Easter Sunday 23 March — no meeting Sunday 30 1100 ON BEING JEWISH: historical, sociological, personal reflections Isaac Ascher 1500 PURSUED BY DEMONS: A rational approach to the drink problem. Terry Liddle APRIL Sunday 6 • 1100 POLITICAL EDUCATION. Nita McCrossan, Goldsmiths College Lecturer (in the Brockway Room) 1500 CONTROVERSIAL ETHICAL DISCUSSION (library) Thursday 10 SPES BOOK CLUB 1900 Natural Law by Robert Anton Wilson. Facilitated by Steve Ash. Sunday 13 1100 CUTTING GOD IN HALF AND PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER Nicholas Maxwell 1500 Stephen Hawking — Master of the Universe, Pt 1 (video) Prof. Bernard Carr appears Sunday 20 April 1100 THE CAMPAIGN TO MAKE WARS HISTORY. Chris Coverdale 1500 Stephen Hawking — Master of the Universe, Pt 2 (video) Prof. Bernard Carr appears Monday 21 CONWAY HALL JAZZ CLUB 1830
SOUTH PLACE SUNDAY CONCERTS AT CONWAY HALL (by LCMS) 630pm. Tickets £10. For programme details Tel: 020 7483 2450. March 30 JOAQUIN PALOMARES (VIOLIN) & BRUNO CANINO (PIANO) Mozart — Sonata in Bf K.526 Poulenc — Sonata for Violin and Piano Rodrigo — Sonata Pimpante para violin y piano Brahms — Sonata in D minor Op.108 April 6 VIENNA MOZART TRIO Gabriel Fauré — Piano Trio in D minor Op.120 Shostakovich — Piano Trio no.1 in C Op.8 Schubert — Piano Trio in Ef 0.929 April 13 530pm Pre-concert talk in the Brockway Room Composer Hugh Wood will discuss his music with Peter Fribbins CHILINGIRIAN QUARTET & NICHOLAS COX (CLARINET) Beethoven — String Quartet in F Op.135 Hugh Wood — Clarinet Quintet (London premiere) Mozart — Clarinet Quintet in A K.581 Published by the South Place Ethical Society. Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, WC I R 4RL Printed by J.G. Bryson (Printer) Ltd. 156-162 High Road, London N2 9A5 ISSN 0014 - 1690