The ISSN 0014-1690 Ethical Record

Vol. 89 No. 7 JULY/AUGUST 1984

EDITORIAL dissemination of ethical principles". Rationality, The Open Society, At the AGM one member Parochialism and SPES's Aims present suggested the Ethical Record was "parochial" . . . which STEPHEN HOUSEMAN,in his lecture emphasises the need for us to con- Why Man Must be Rational (con- tinue to clarify carefully these aims cluded in this issue), asserts that in terms of what we do, what lec- "understanding is unique among turers and lectures we decide to goals, in that once achieved, it have and what we publish. spreads indefinitely amongst man- It seems to us (the editorial kind", and suggests this must lead "we") that both the ultimate aims, to the development of a more co- purpose and condition of human- operative style of life and one in kind and the life, ideas and acts which competitiveness has no of particular individuals and groups meaning. are matters for appraisal, from Harry Stopes-Roe claims in his which useful conclusions can be lecture on The Open Society (page drawn. So the life of a Humanist 3) that, while has failed like Bill Bynner (Ethical Record, the Open Society, the latter needs March 1984) or the background of Humanism "to press the shared Republican Albert Standley values upon which life depends— (Ethical Record. June 1984) or, reasonableness, co-operation, under- again, the way of living of the standing". Wodaabe nomads (same issue), Thus SPES gets help in defining though perhaps to some "par- "the cultivation of a rational and ochial", are relevant; just as is the humane way of life and the near and more distant future, the advancement of education in fields emphasis that should be placed on relevant to these objects". Open such aspects of our society as over- for discussion are an endless range of topics relevant to our "study and Concluded on pages 18 and 19

CONTENTS Coming to Conway Hall: Dr A. O'Hear, Peter Reales, Professor Richard Scorer, Barbara Smoker... 2 The Open Society: Harry Stopes-Roe . 3 Why Must Man be Rational—Part H: Stephen Houseman . 8 Honorary Representative's Report: Ray Lovecy ... 13 Viewpoints: Roy Simpson, Jim Addison, Barbara Smoker David Ibry, Nigel Bruce, Betty and Sam Beer, Peter Hunot ...... 13-17

The views expressed in this journal are not necessarily those of the Society. Microfilm and reprints available—details on request.

PUBLISHED BY THE SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY CONWAY HALL, RED LION SQUARE, WC1R 4RL Telephone: 01-242 8032 (Answering machine out of hours)

SOUTH:p:LACE .ETHICAL .sociETy

Appoilited Lecturers: H. J. Blackhdm, Lord Broekway; Richard Clements, OBE, T. F. Evans, 'Peter Heala, Harry Stopes-Roe, Hall Manager: Geoffrey Austin (tel. 01-242 8032) Secretary: Jean Bayliss (Wed-Fri, tel. 01-242 8033) Honorary Representative: Ray Lovecy Chairman General Committee:* Deputy Chairman:* Honorary Registrar: John Brown 'Honorary Treasurer: Ben Roston Honorary Librarian:* Editor, The Ethical Record : Peter Hunot *Still to be appointed by the General Committee

COMING TO CONWAY HALL Sunday morning meetings at 11.00 am in the Library July I. DR. A. O'Hemt. Religion and the Rational Man. July 8. PETER HEALes. Working Together.: Theories About Co-operation. July 15. RICHARD SCORER. The Computer Age and Forecasting. There are NO Forums in July Sunday SOCIAL at 3.00 pm in the Library July 15. We have been fortunate to be able to arrange after all a further end-of-Season Social, when BARBARA SMOKER, recently returned from a visit to the United States, will speak on "jmy AMERICAN TOUR". - Tea at 4.30 p.m.

Ramble and Talk with the Forest Group Sunday, August 5. Meet Chingford Station at 11.30 am (with picnic lunch), reached by Underground (Victoria Line) to Walthamstow Central Station, thence by Bus 97 to Chingford Siation. Short walk in Epping Forest led by JOHN BROWN. Tea by invitation of EDWINAPALMER at 12 Maida Way, Chingford. After Tea, JOHN CuNNINGTON, Secretary of the Forest Group will speak on "THE BATTLE AGAINST POLLUTION" ' followed by discussion (out of doors, if fine)

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS London University Extra-Mural Course A 24-session class will be held weekly on Tuesdays from. 7.15-9.15 pm. in the Library at Conway Hall commencing on October 2, 1984. The•tutor will again' be N. lirmAN, B.A:/and the title -Of his'colirse is: ' Zones of Tension and Hope on a Shared Planet 1945-1984. " •

2 • The Open Society By HARRY STOPES-ROE Summary of lecture given on Sunday February 12, 1984 THE OPEN SOCIETY IS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT, particularly for US HUEBRIUMS. Firstly, it is in a very real sense a distinctively Humanist concept. Many religious groups claim to support it; but when it comes to the point those in positions of responsibility find great difficulty in implementing it. Marxists explicitly reject it. Secondly, the Open Society needs our support if it is to come about, and to thrive. These are the matters that I want to discuss this morning. And also the fact that Humanists have failed in their responsibilities to the Open Society. will build up my claims from the historical roots of the concept. The phrase was first used, I believe, by the French philosopher Henri Bergson in 1933. For him, however, it expressed little more than the idea and ideal of internationalism. I do not mean "little more than" to denigrate inter- nationalism; not at all. But his concept meant only that countries should look outside their boundaries, in a spirit of openness and cooperation. Just over 10 years later Popper took the concept a long way forward in his book The Open Society and its Enemies, published in 1945. He looked inside this society that was going to be "open" in Bergson's sense, and he considered how it was to work. But Popper was very much a rationalist. He had (I think one can say) relatively little feeling for the emotional needs of those who are to live in the Open Society. He was concerned with the mechanisms of the Open Society, the institutions, the structure of its leadership, the framework of individual behaviour. Popper conceived the Open Society as one in which "openness" meant openness to reasoned criticism and consequential change. Institutions are open to change; leaders arc open to removal; and each individual makes his own way, on the basis of his own enterprise. This conception of the Open

1984 Voltaire Memorial Lecture This will be given by LUDOVIC KENNEDY 011 October 8. Chairman of the meeting will be SIR ALFRED AYER. The Meeting will be held at Conway Hall at 7.00 pm.

Open Air Theatre Visit Saturday, July 30. Meet at the box office, Holland Park Theatre, 2.15 pm for 2.30 pm performance of NATIONAL FOLK DANCE ENSEMBLE. Traditional songs and dances from Hungary. Tickets (not in advance): OAPs 50p; others £2. Tea afterwards, then walk round the gardens—peacocks, Dutch garden, etc. If wet, visit the Commonwealth Institute. Leader : CONNIE DAVIS (01-328 5038).

Annual Shaw Birthday Tribute Arranged by the Shaw Society, this will take place on Saturday and Sunday, July 21 and 22, 6.00 pm in Shaw's Corner garden, Ayot St Lawrence, near Welwyn Garden City. Admission charge £1.50. The play on each day is a professional production of ANDROCLES AND THE LION and extracts from the preface will be read by BENNIE GREEN. On Sunday there will be a coach from Central London (£3 the return trip). 3 Society is the culmination of certain elements in the Western Liberal Tra- dition. But it goes back to the Greek, not the Judeo-Christian source. Popper's Open Society is rational. It uses science to resolve its problems. It works by ameliorating situations; it has a deep distrust of revolution, as epitomizing the failure of reason. Popper used the phrase "piecemeal social engineering" to express his point of view. He rejected "historicist" concep- tions of progress, which claimed laws of social change and historical inevit- ability. These deny the scope of reason in controlling human affairs. Thus Marx was one of his main targets of attack, as an "enemy of the Open Society". (Plato was another.) M all this I think he had right on his side. But there are other threats to the Open Society which Topper did not appreciate. Let us move forward 14 years to the BHA symposium Towards an Open Society of 1969—just half-way between Popper's Open Society and its Enemies and us. Sir Alfred Ayer recognised these problems in his lead paper to this symposium. I would like to read one or two of the things he says. He was concerned with the impact of this society upon the individual. It is essentially a meritocracy: each individual is free to use his or her talents and opportunities as he or she thinks fit. The society will be (as Ayer points out) a fluid society. Just before my first quote Ayer had noted this, and welcomed this fluidity; but he goes on— "Nevertheless, there are some disadvantages and dangers in a fluid society. In such a society there is frequently a search for status. When a society becomes fluid and people do not know what their status is, as they do in a closed society, this can lead to dissatisfaction, particularly in a society like the United States at present, where there seems to be no criterion of status except possessions. . . . In an open, fluid society such as ours is becoming, I think that much more pressure is put on the individual to find his own place in the scheme of things, to work out for himself what things are important, how he wants to live, what satisfac- tion he can find in life." (page 7) He goes on: "This is something which one might approve of. For many of us here this is something which we welcome; we do not want other people, organisations or whatever, telling us how to live. Even so, for many people, perhaps even for some of us here, this is felt as a pressure which one is not always able to bear." (page 7)

The Young Identify with Groups Ayer went on to point out that many people respond to these stresses of personal identity and purpose by identifying with a group. He applied these considerations particularly to young people. He noted how much groups may be closed groups, united by opposition to other groups; he referred to football teams, for example, and noted how football supporters "when their team loses, they indulge in great violence . . these groups are finding their identity within the open society, and because they are still not certain of their identity, not certain that their exclusive group is giving them enough, they re-inforce the group by hostility and violence against other groups." (page 8) Note that this is 1969, before unemployment hit us! Racism is another example that Ayer gave : groups re-inforce their own identity by hostility to other groups. Unless we establish another element in the Open Society, it carries the seeds of its own destruction. Its very "openness" constitutes a threat to the personal identity and emotional security of individuals. They respond by turning for support to closed groups and false values. Popper's concept of the Open Society is excellent—so far as it goes. But if it is to work, its 4 rationalism must be complemented by a system that will give inner strength to individuals, and maintain values. If such a system as this is effective in an Open Society, then people will be able to benefit from its critical use of reason. Meaning and values are the province of the life stance. How, then, can they be maintained in the Open Society? Here is where Humanism comes in, for it alone among the life stances is able to recognise a fundamental fact: we do not know which life stance best expresses the truth. No one can prove their answers now, and it looks to continue thus for the foresee- able future. How, then, can one establish a sense of meaning and value on a secure basis in the Open Society? There is no prospect of one particular life stance being agreed, which can then be established—beyond criticism? —in our Open Society. That is the very negation of the open, rational, critical approach which Popper established in its essence. We must acknow- ledge the Problem of Agnosticism, as I have called it, and build a system in our society that will achieve what is required in a way that is consistent with our basic lack of certainty. I am here using "agnosticism" in its basic, rather wide, sense as T. H. Huxley meant it. He created the word, and he meant it to be neutral, biased neither for nor against God. It represents on openness in they way one holds ones belief, a recognition that one lacks the necessary evidence and argument which would entitle one to require another person to agree. This is our situation as a society, in respect of all the fundamental claims upon which a life stance is built. To acknowledge the Problem of Agnosticism is to acknowledge this fact. It does not deny that many individuals have complete and perfect "knowledge" in a personal sense. It acknowledges that as a society we do not know the answer. From Where Do the Values Determining Choice Come? We each need a life stance in the Open Society. I do not think Popper understood what he wrote, but the need is clear in the wonderful piece of rhetoric with which he closed his volume one: "We must go into the unknown, the uncertain and insecure, using what reason we may have to plan as well as we can for both security and freedom." Whence comes the strength? From where do we get those values and ideals which direct our free choices and our responsible decisions? If we acknowledge the Problem of Agnosticism as a fact, we must allow that each individual will have his or her own life stance. Then two questions must be answered: How does each individual get their individual life stance? What is the pattern of beliefs, values and attitudes that prevails in the society as a whole? Here we come to the failure of Humanism : Humanists have not come to terms with these questions, nor considered what is required for their satisfactory answering. The Open Society of fluidity, reason and criticism requires an underlying structure which will maintain a sense of identity and meaning on the one hand, and a framework of values on the other—for each individually and for everyone collectively. In considering this problem we must bear in mind two facts of human nature. First, the ultimate realities of the world are not so obvious that an honest mind will necessarily see them. You may think that your Ethical Culture, or Humanism (whatever you call your own life stance) is "obvious"; you worked it out for yourself, perhaps. But in this respect you were fortunate : the chances of your life, your environment, the people you met, made this possible:for you. You are not typical. Very many people benefit from support and assistance. They can only find their life •stance if it is made available to them. 5 The second fact of human nature is that people can all too easily fall into attitudes and values which are destructive. Ayer instanced exploitative materialism; and also the fundamental contempt for humanity that issues in group antagonisms and violence as a means of finding self identity. To these must be added escapist mysticism. The life stances competing in our society are not all compatible with the realisation of the Open Society. Certain consequences of these facts seem to me inescapable: each life stance which is able and willing to work within and to maintain the Open Society has the responsibility of providing what is required so that each individual will find the life stance that is best suited for his or her develop- ment; and also what is required so that the-over-all climate of the society will be such that the Open Society will flourish. • The essence of the Open Society is competition. This extends to com- petition between values, between life stances. No life stance can mount such proof that will require assent. Therefore it is incumbent upon each to argue its case well. We may as Humanists feel squeamish about this. Some Humanists do not like the idea of presenting Humanism in competition with other life stances. But it is nonsense to think that Humanism is so obviously right that there is no need for Humanists to do anything! It is dangerous nonsense, for it means that Humanism is not playing its part in forming the values of the Open Society, As I have pointed out, following Ayer, the alternative to Humanism is not a nice cosy enlightened Christianity—it is violence, group antagonism, exploitative materialism. One might call these the "pseudo life stances"; they reject outward-looking responsibility. At best we have escapist mysticism! (That at least is not immediately destructive.)

Humanism is Positive Alternative to Christianity Enlightened Christianity is not, and never again will be, the prime motive force in our society. Its coherence and credibility have been shattered by our growing understanding of the world. Christianity will only maintain real support in its fundamentalist forms, which have responded to this threat by dogmatism. The impressive thing is the extent of power and influence which establishment Christianity does maintain. The reason for this. I think, is only in relatively small part its enormous wealth, and hence full time workers. The important thing, I think, is that Christianity is seen as the only positive alternative to these nihilistic "pseudo life stances". People stomach its inadequacies and others drop into vacuity, because they do not realise that Humanism is available as a positive and effective alternative. And of course, they do not realise this because, in the practical sense, Humanism is not available! Humanists have failed Humanism, and they have consequently failed their fellow human beings who would have found fulfilment in Humanism. These people have been forced to remain in a Christianity that they know in their hearr is not true; or they have fallen into exploitative materialism or group hates. Our situation is worse than that, however. The failure compounds. It is not merely that a few individuals lack what they might have had. Their lack weakens the whole, so still fewer find Humanism. But it is even worse. The over-all style of a society is the net effect of the competition between the different life stances (including the psuedo life stances), each pressing its own conception 'of what society should be. In the absence of effective Humanist pressure, the non-theistic point of view is ineffectual. Many who drop "religion" adopt no positive alternative; so the pseudo life stances flourish, and secure the influence. I will try to sum up. The Open Society, as Popper leaves the concept, is hard and stressful. Its science and rationalism are the tools for creating an ideal society. But Popper failed to take account of human needs,. and 6 of the values that are to direct this powerful tool. Here I quoted Ayer, who illustrated this basic point. The problem for the Open Society is that it cannot have a single life stance which will support, direct and. inspire individuals and community. The Problem of Agnosticism recognises this fact. The work of maintaining values and inspiration must be achieved by a multiplicity of life stances. How is this to come about? Only by each life stance maintaining its own presence and influence. The stipulation of the Open Society is that the framework in which this is done shall be open and fair; but it is the responsibility of each life stance to use this freedom effectively. This requires organisation and resources; only thus can a point of view achieve influence. The final values and standards that are effective in the Open Society are the net effect (so to speak) of all the individual pressures. But it is not a matter of simply counting heads. The net effect is determined to a vastly greater extent by those who speak on the media with the backing of a recognised authority, than by those who mutter in the market place. Further, unless a life stance has public recognition it will not achieve numbers either; unless its followers are very active and devoted. At every point Humanists fail Humanism—and hence they fail the Open Society. The Open Society needs Humanism to press the shared values upon which its life depends — reasonableness, cooperation, understanding. Humanism is required to present the non-theistic position, to counter the hostilities and materialism of the pseudo-stances, to take over from Christianity as it loses credibility. More particularly, the Open Society needs Humanism to establish the basic fact upon which its viability depends: that, so far as ultimate values are concerned, we suffer the Problem of Agnosti- cism; yet, given certain conditions, meaningful cooperation is possible. Only Humanism can provide this effectively, for Marxism rejects Agnosticism one way, the religions reject it another. Neither is prepared to accept the principal of objectivity, fairness and balance which is necessary if different life stances are to live together, and together support the individuals and the community. Humanists must work to establish a Humanist presence, for this is a pre-condition of the Open Society.

References Ayer, A. J. The Character of an Open Society. In Towards an Open Society: Proceedings of a Seminar organised by the BHA. London (Pemberton Books) 1971. Popper, K. R. The Open Society and its Enemies London (Routledge & Kegan Paul) 1945. (Revised edition 1966.)

Full details of the South Place Ethical Society Committees and Sub-Com- mittees will appear in the September issue of the Ethical Record. Meanwhile you should indicate your wish to participate in the work of any of these committees to the convenor.

Have you sent a list of names and addresses of people you know or know about who might be interested in the South Place Ethical Society to the Secretary, Jean Bayliss yet? Details of activities and membership and a copy of the Ethical Record can be sent to them if you do so, witli or without mentioning your name.

Have you some information, ideas, thoughts likely to be of interest to other readers? Send them in. You can, perhaps, help keep us all in contact with the living, evolving, changing and disturbing society we live in. 7 Why Must Man be Rational?—Part ii By STEPHEN HOUSEMAN A lecture to SPES, Sunday March II, 1984 (Having outlined what he calls "decapitated hierarchy"—Ethical Record, June 1984 issue, page 3—the author here covers "blind-headed anarchy" and goes on to suggest that questioning for its own sake is the supreme human goal). Here the hierarchy of human goals and purposes does terminate in one supreme goal, which tends to be called by some such name as "spiritual union with God". Ranged below this supreme goal are the chief means by which it is to be achieved, which become in turn the higher goals of all the mundane activities of life. Only at the latter level, of action in the world, does rationality have a fully active part to play. What is striking about both the decapitated hierarchy and the blind- headed hierarchy is that each of them is in the end non-rational, or a- rational! Although each of them is patently an attempt to give a rational explanation of what our nature might be and how it might be supposed to work, yet paradoxically each of them in the end denies our rationality. The paradox, however, will not now surprise us. We would expect it. If there is an unresolved contradiction in our very notion of rationality, it is bound to be reflected in the reasoned self-images by which at present we try to live our lives. What then are we to do about this fundamental contradiction in our very notion of rationality, and therefore in our understanding of ourselves? We cannot, after all, repudiate our reason. Our life is a series of prob- lems and decisions which have to be tackled rationally, since we cannot proceed until we have reasoned them out. No solution or answer is forth- coming in any other way. We are thus constantly in need of our hierarchy of goals and subgoals, which has to issue somewhere at its top end. We need it in order to live. Moreover, it is a necessary presupposition of living in a modern civilised society that we must all be "responsible" for our actions. Being responsible means being answerable—that is to say, being able to answer, in a manner that is deemed satisfactory, the full series of questions why about any and every action we perform. In a court of civil law, a blind religious precept is not a sufficient plea; nor is a blind animal passion. A religion might demand human sacrifices, persecution of unbelievers, or holy wars; and animal passions might include revenge, lust, aggression, almost anything. Thus in modern life we are forced to use our power of reason, not only to establish what ends we shall strive for, not merely to discover effective means to those ends, but also to ensure that both our ends and our means are compatible with the smooth running of the community in which we live. So we have to be rational;for very practical reasons. Why, then, does it matter so much if rationality is an incoherent concept? If we are able to use it for our practical purposes, can we not simply leave the theoretical puzzle of its apparent self-contradictoriness for some future generation to unravel, when more is understood about how our brain works? Many of our notions are self-contradictory if pressed too far. Our concept of matter, for example, is full of enigmas. At the sub-microscopic level it seems to our minds that there must be ultimate particles, and also that there can't be. One might conclude that matter is a theoretical impossibility! But this doesn't make our concept of matter unusable at the everyday level. Why, then, should the incoherence of our everyday notion of reason be any more serious or unacceptable? It is unacceptable because our conception of what are our goals so 8 closely determines the way we live our lives. It is, naturally enough, the very source of our aims, of what we think is worth striving for; and hence of our values—what we think is good and worthwhile, what bad and reprehen- sible. If there is doubt and confusion and incoherence at this level, human life is made extremely difficult and painful. We have already seen how man- kind is driven to adopt two conflicting strategies in this situation—the headless hierarchy and the blind-headed hierarchy—each of which is so unsatisfactory. The unsatisfactoriness of each of these strategies does not reside wholly, or even chiefly, at the theoretical level—as is the case with our conception of the nature of matter, or the origin of the universe, or almost any other such intellectual puzzle. The puzzle of what are our goals befit of such everyday importance, it is the practical inadequacy of our two strategies that is most serious. When it comes down to it, they don't work in practice. All attempts to say what are our basic animal drives or passions—and many attempts have been made by philosophers and psychologists—end in vague- ness and confusion; and the strategy turns out to be a purely theoretical manoeuvre, designed to protect our minds from having to admit complete perplexity, but having almost no practical usefulness. Just the same can be said of the religious strategy: the "supernatural directive" or "moral imperative", or whatever it may be, turns out to have no clear or coherent content, and is susceptible • of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. If our theoretical strategies do not give us clear practical guidance-as to how we should live, how then do we decide this vital matter in practice? The answer to this question, if it were not so painful and tragic for us all, would, I believe, be a subject for high comedy. We are forced to act out an absurd kind of charade in our lives. The rules of this absurd game are that although we are totally at a loss about what we are and what we should aim for, we must never admit it. We must appear to know these things precisely. Whom is it that we,have to try and fool by this pretence? Is it God? Is it our fellow-beings? No, it is ourselves. It is our own rational nature that' we have to try and fob off by our antics. The signs that we are playing this game, almost without realising it, are everywhere. Most obviously it manifests itself in the almost universal ambition to "achieve" something in our lives, to "prove,ourselves" in some way or other. This is often referred to these•days as an urge to self-expres- sion, self-fulfilment, or self-realisation. This •ralk is so vague as to be almost meaningless, and yet it is made the hallowed centre of our lives—our "highest goal". It is almost as though one were to say: "I am a 'self', which doesn't actually exist yet, but wait until I have lived my life: then you will see all the things my self has achieved, and then you will know what I was". Given the rules of the charade game, this is quite a clever move, isn't it? We are to conceal our ignorance about what we are, so it is extremely handy to put off the need to answer the crucial question until after we are dead and gone! • Another obvious symptom that we are playing this weird game- is our deep sense of personal inadequacy and insufficiency, perhaps also of sinful- ness and guilt. This deep feeling is sometimes almost completely masked 'by our determination to achieve things and "prove ourselves". But our sense of unworthiness on the one hand, and our determination to prove our worth on the other,•are really two sides of the same coin. What converts the comic game into tragedy, however, is that it leads us to play what (in my book) I call "the Hierarchy Game". With our sense of personal inadequacy and the consequent need, to "prove purselves", and so to "improve ourselves", we become concerned at every turn to measure our performance. Unfortunately we cannot measure our performance, without 9 implicitly measuring ourselves against one another. We cannot have a sense of achievement "in vacuo": it must always be relative to goals and levels of achievement in our community. So "self-improvement" cannot be confined. Whether we like it or not, it implies competition. Competition and social inequality have been universal facts of civilised life. The most widespread form is the economic rat-race, in which we all want more money. The most fatal form is strife among nations. Yet at present we are convinced that competition is necessary, even believing that it is the source of all that is good. Not only is the competitive outlook potentially fatal, however : it in any case turns human life sour. For if there are to be winners, there must also be losers. If to win, or gain precedence in any sense over his fellows, is the highest drive of man, then if anyone is to be fulfilled or satisfied, there must be others who are demoralised and defeated. Even in the moral teachings of religions we find •this appalling logic: the world is regarded as a vale of failure and tears which must exist so that the few can attain heaven or nirvana. Perhaps this brief, rudimentary sketch will suffice to characterise the practical consequences that flow from our present inadequate theoretical strategies in respect of our own motivation and goals. It may indeed prompt us to ask, how could rational man have become embroiled in such a charade, is such a virtual self-deception? A brief, purely schematic history might run as follows. Primitive man is not yet rational, or not fully so. The acid test of this is that he does not answer questions why about his actions by reference to his own higher goals, as we deem necessary. Very soon he introduces into his answers all manner of supernatural spirits and magical agencies. When asked why he did such and such, he does not reply "in order to achieve so and so", but rather that the action was required by some spirit, or to enlist some magical force. Many of his actions themselves, such as rain-making ceremonies or fertility rites, clearly reflect this non-instrumental, non- rational outlook. This outlook of primitive man is possible because •he still lives within a tribe, in which life is determined by tradition, which lays down how every detail of every action is to be performed. Given this background, in which the individual does not see himself as determining how things are done, it makes a far better story to say that they are willed by external forces than that they result from one's own will. For this outlook, however, the fact that other tribes may have entirely different customs and traditions is extremely troublesome. The inward conflict so caused has dramatic consequences, ranging from the creation of elaborate magical explanations to the outbreak of uncontrolled hostilities. Nevertheless, within a tribe man sees himself as a being who has always acted, and must always act, in certain detailed and highly specified ways. He has no problem, that is, about how to see himself. It was in becoming civilised that man became rational, and was suddenly faced with the problem of how to see himself. Civilisation is brought about by the amalgamation of many tribes into one close-knit community. Clearly this cannot happen without the total breakdown of the highly traditional tribal way of life. The process of amalgamation seems typically to have been the painful one in which one tribe conquers and enslaves others, imposing its beliefs and way of life on the resulting society. But over ensuing genera- tions, particularly by intermarriage between masters and slaves, the values of the once-dominant tribe become confused and diluted, with the con- sequent weakening of former certainties. This process cannot occur, of course, without the fundamental problem arising of what is man, and what are his ultimate goals. Yet the puzzle 10 arises without anyone understanding what is happening, or how, or why. It arises in the very process of becoming rational. It is the price, so to speak, that must be paid for the advantages which rationality brings, in terms of greater detachment from one's own actions and goals—and a consequent tendency to try out alternative possibilities. Civilised man, as we know, has become much more capable through his rapidly acquired rationality. But he has acquired an enormous problem. It is startling to think that, in respect of the flexibility of his patterns of behaviour, primitive man is closer to the beaver than he is to us today! He still manages without any grand, logically connected scheme of goals in his brain. Yet in the evolutionary scale of things he is of course no distance from us at all. The only difference is cultural, and it has come about almost overnight. That is how civilised man has come, by a process which he has never completely understood, to be possessed by a terrible feeling that he is an incomplete or incoherent being, who does not know what he is—a feeling so terrifying that he must deny it altogether, inventing for himself whatever identity he can, and relieving the residual anguish due to his inevitable failure by prostrations before an imagined God or supernatural taskmaster, who seems to be accusing him. Is there, then, no answer to the riddle of man's highest goal? I wish to suggest that there is an answer; that this answer is the only possible answer; and that our reason itself can arrive at it. Let us formulate first the theoretical solution to the riddle, and then look at its practical consequences. A rational being must have a supreme goal, yet can't have an unquestioned goal. What, then, is his only possible supreme goal? The answer must be: questioning for its own sake. He can't get any higher than that. In other words, questioning is itself necessarily a capacity or activity of a higher logical order than any of the goals that are questioned. The very fact that man is able to question his goals means that questioning must itself be his highest drive or motive. When we try to end the regression of questions why about any of our actions, we at present find ourselves adopting either the "decapitated hier- archy" or the "blind-headed hierarchy" manoeuvre. We say either: "I did it because this or that animal drive was uppermost in me at the time"; or else "I did it because of a supernatural, non-rational directive". Each of these manoeuvres is a false move. The only possible answer is: "I did it because I'm trying to make the best sense out of the whole of my experience". Our mistake is to think that the power of reason can exist just as a means of achieving goals in better ways, the goals themselves being non-rationally or a-rationally fixed. It cannot exist in this form. For logical reasons it can exist only as an ability to question all our goals, trying to make the best arrangement of them—and thus of our life—and thus of our whole experience. This is possible only if our highest goal is the seeking for order, or the "questioning", itself. The concept of a rational, questioning being is thus saved from self- contradictoriness and incoherence by the fact that only the questioning itself can possibly—and therefore must necessarily—be its supreme goal; and that a fully open, questioning approach must necessarily arrive at this conclusion. But surely, we may think, "questioning" can't be a "goal". A goal is something we must be able to achieve in such a way that we know when we have achieved it, and can feel satisfied. Questions we could go on asking for ever. In this context, "questioning" is but a name that we give to the continu- ing process of trying to find more order—trying to understand better our .total experience. Fortunately this process does break down into a cyclic 11 procedure of locatirig incoherences or puzzles in our scheme of beliefs, choosing ones that we think are of a kind that we can make progress with, and if we are successful, experiencing great satisfaction in the advance achieved. The term "questioning" sums up the way in which a very broad and powerful drive towards greater coherence in our understanding of the world breaks up naturally into manageable goals, or "questions". Now what I believe is implied at the practical level by this solution of the puzzle of our highest 'goal is that ours must be very fundamentally a "questioning nature"; and that therefore it must be possible for us to be more deeply satisfied by a life of questioning than by any other kind of life. The fact that we at present adopt other would-be interpretations of our nature, be it the "headless hierarchy" or the "blind-headed hierarchy", does not mean that we are not rational beings, only that we do not .yet fully understand what it means to be a rational being. Our underlying, questioning and rational nature is at present disastrously caught up in the one, all- dothinating unsolved question of our own nature, and this makes us experience life almost exclusively in terms of the achievements or failures of a "self" which we feel forced to promote. In leaving behind his primitive state, and in the unavoidably painful process of becoming civilised and rational, mankind has had to forge such basic abstract concepts as the contrast between mind and matter, or mind and body. Man has had to invent these concepts, to conjure them as if from nowhere. It is small wonder if it has taken many millennia of tragic mis- understandings for the progress towards rationality to reach anything like completion. Primitive man saw himself only in external terms, as the being who performed such and such closely prescribed action and could be defined in terms of them. We cannot define ourselves in those terms any more, but we are still trying to. We are still trying to see things in terms of the actions and achievements of selves. As we have argued, this is turning our life sour. It is turning us one against the other, by the terrible logic of competition. And it is turning nation against nation. Having created the concepts of mind and matter, we now need to apply them to the full, in order to understand our own highest goals. We need to appreciate that our conscious life is a life of the mind; and the world of matter as perceived by our senses is itself a construct created in and by our mind. What is really "out there" is an unsolved puzzle, which in our science we are trying to tackle. But our own situation is best envisaged as that of a mind which is trying to sort out is own contents into a more coherent order. Prominent amongst these contents are our sense perceptions, but they also include our memories, our imaginings, and our statements made in the form of words. In constant communication through these words with the minds of one another, we are each involved in the process of finding better and better abstract frameworks in which to order the contents of our mind. That is how we may best describe the necessarily communal process of "questioning". If we can grasp this vision of what we are, then we may discover that the necessarily shared and communal nature of questioning leads to a co- operative style of life in which competitiveness has no meaning. Understand- ing is unique among goals, in that once achieved, it spreads indefinitely amongst mankind. It is a gift which multiplies indefinitely in the- giving. If accepted as our highest goal, therefore, it should create a new spirit of harmony amongst us. Rather than seeing this as a Utopian notion, we should regard it as our natural right, which is at present denied us only by our inadequate and incoherent notion of our own nature. Given the present world situation, this would be a discovery of the greatest urgency. 12 The Honorary Representative's Report Of Trustees, Lectures and Funerals

The Conway Memorial Lecture was attended by about 100 people. The lecture will be produced in booklet form together with the chairman's address and will be sent to each member free of charge. The cost to non- members will be 50p. At the AGM, the following members were elected to serve on the General Committee for the next 3 years: —Marion Bardas, Richard Hall, George Hutchinson, Ray Lovecy, Edwina Palmer and Terry Mullins. The Trustees appointed were:—Betty Beer, Harold Blackham, Lady Christine Bondi, Louise Booker, John Brown, Antony Chapman, Frank Hawkins, Peter Heales, George Hutchinson, Peter Hunot, Ray Lovecy, Ian MacKillop, Victor Rose and Barbara Smoker. A number of helpful comments were made at the AGM which will be considered by the General Committee. I would like to express appreciation to Frances Coates for donating books for inclusion in our Library and some for sale. Members have asked me when my youngest daughter, Jill, will be coming again to lecture at Conway Hall. I do not think it is likely for some time as with two young children and her work, she has very little spare time. However, in view of the interest, I thought members may like to know that she has written a book jointly with Geoffrey K. Roberts (who is Reader at UMIST in the same Department as Jill) called West European Politics Today, published by Manchester University Press. It describes and compares the varieties of liberal democracy practised by the countries of Western Europe. Existing political systems are situated in their historical context and related to the political, social and economic characteristics of the nations of Western Europe. Some members have asked me how to arrange humanist funerals. I have given the the following names of officiants to contact : Barbara Smoker, Jim Herrick, George Mepham and Nicolas Walter. Barbara has supplied me with a useful paper dealing with an Address given by her to the 1980 Cremation Society Conference. I am having some copies made and if any member wishes to have a copy, please send a s.a.e, to me at Conway Hall or to my private address and I will post a copy back to them. RAY LoveCY Viewpoints Collective Properties of Complex Systems (Reference to Sir Alan Cottrell, Ethical Record, May 1984, pages II, 12). The laws of physics and chemistry are uniform, but every solid object has shape and there is no uniformity of shape. The complexity of living beings and machines is merely one end of a spectrum of complexity, which extends down to the simplest objects, every one of which must have a shape which in some way or other causes it to behave differently from objects which are similar except for shape. Living things do have a special attribute, eg writing or pictures. Specu- latively—thoughts are pictures which are formed in the substance of the brain, and the paradox of non-material thoughts in a material brain, is the paradox of the shape of anything, ie the shape as such is a cause of effects which are particular to that shape, whereas the same matter in a different shape would cause different effects. My conclusion is that the observed complexity of the world as opposed to the apparently simple laws of nature, does not have intelligible and simple explanation, ie the infinity of shapes which can be formed by solid objects, 13 and grasp of this principle would be an important step • towards further understanding of the world which Sir Alan desires. ROY W. SIMPSON

The Principle of Indeterminacy (Reference to "Rehabilitating Mechanism" by Norman Bacrac, Ethical Record, March 1984, page 6). The apparent determinism in large scale events is only of a statistical nature. Modern physics, according to Heisenberg, supports a principle of indeterminacy. J. ADDISON

A "Humanist Waffle Club"? The report (Ethical Record, June 1984, page 9) of the March meeting of the Humanist Think Tank suggests to me that thinking came rather low on its agenda. The proposal that Humanism should adopt "good words", such as the word "faith", could well succeed in its presumed intention of giving Humanists and improved public image—but at the expense of our own integrity and of further erosion of language as a vehicle for meaningful communication. One possible definition of the word "faith" is, I suggest, "the gullible acceptance of propositions without scientific evidence". As a scientific Humanist, I want no part of it—unless, of course, the context clearly indicates a special meaning. Since the "Think Tank" connotes a concern with defining terms rather than blurring them, perhaps the project should, in the general interest of terminological exactitude, change its name to the "Humanist Waffle Club"! BARBARA SMOKER (One of the objects of the Humanist Think Tank is to stimulate the discussion of the many topics of theoretical and practical concern to Humanists. Amongst these is certainly to arrive at better definitions. No doubt participants sometimes "waffle" —it happens to all of us. However, meetings are especially open to those who can make useful and constructive contributions—what results will reflect the qualities of those who participate and is aimed at helping Humanists to develop and evolve. Further contributions in writing, as well as in person, will we under- stand be welcomed.—Edirgr).

The Link between Socialism and Humanism (Reference to ColM Mills, Ethical Record, October 1983, page 11 and the correspondence in subsequent issues.) Yes, there is a link between Humanism and Socialism and it is the link in the human minds of some humanists and of some socialists who think likewise. It appears that there is such a link also in the human minds of many opponents of Socialism who link it with Humanism, , etc. In my view, there cannot be any link "per se" between Humanism and any political or moral systems, because it is us, human beings, who interpret reality in a certain way and construe all sorts of mental links. Colin Mills argument that there "ought" to be such a link, is not based on theoretical ground or on factual evidence, but merely on considerations of ethical nature because, in his view, Humanist should be on the side of what he assumes to be "human progress, human welfare and humani- tarianism." To my non-religious mind, this is exactly what religions have been doing and preaching all along. Religions have assumed to "know" what was best for human beings, what was "right" for human beings to do, and always in 14 my opinion, this assumption of "knowing" where human beings "should" go, and how they "should" behave and the mistakes they "should" avoid, has been the cause for immense misery and huge tragedies for the human race. Therefore, I hope that most Humanists will never follow a similar path where they would assume to know the best direction for human progress, human welfare and humanitarianism. Theism as well as atheism should not, in my view, be linked with ethical considerations of what is right or best to do. because such a link would offer supernatural and unopposable approval to whatever system of ethical rules in the case of theism, and would offer the "imprimatur" of assumedly correct human rationality and logic to whatever system of "oughts", in the case of atheism. I think that, whereas religions have invested themselves with the power of dictating world views which implied a set of ethical, social and political rules, Humanism should concentrate on the effort of understanding how we really tick and what we really are, before deciding what we should or should not do. DAVID kW (The above is an extract from a long letter, covering also other aspects of the discussions, but considerations of space limit the amount we can publish—so we propose to close further publication in this discussion for the time being. Letters and ideas arc nevertheless welcome—Editon.

Residential Wing for Outward-Looking Future Centre? Dear Sir, The challenging proposal (Ethical Record, June 1984, page 11) that Con- way Hall should be redeveloped as a club, information and resources centre certainly deserves detailed investigation. This should be done in cooperation with the British Humanist Association and the . Now that the question of charitable status has been clarified by the courts, the tripartite structure of the humanist movement in Britain has become anomalous and irrational. Let us have a single Humanist Centre in London with facilities for the special interests and needs of the various sections of humanist opinion. Let the future Humanist Centre be outward-looking, catering also for humanists visiting London from overseas and from other parts of Britain. It should include a residential wing for short-term visitors, so that a visit to London from ,the provinces would be less daunting and possibly less expensive; plus a canteen, a library with facilities for study and, on the ground floor, a bookshop and an exhibition room. One well-equipped, multi-purpose modern building in exchange for the existing antiquated abodes of the BHA, the NSS, the Rationalist Press and SPESquite an exciting prospect for the average humanist. NIGEL BIZIJCE Convenor, Edinburgh Humanist Group, 21 The Causeway, Edinburgh EH15 3QA (The BHA and NSS are both represented on the SPES Development Com- mittee for Conway Hall—Editor). Humanists in Yugoslavia Humanist Holidays took a party of 16 (including four P.L.) to Lovran in N.W. Yugoslavia and on May 31 they were able to question the deputy mayoress of Opatija about the Yugoslav system of self-management by workers' councils. Each firm is expected to work for a profit but must allow a fixed amount for education, social security, etc. Inventors get a bonus. Small hotels (up 15 to 10 tables) and small farms (up to eight acres) are tolerated. The pension is Lhe average wage of the last 10 years. The firm provides housing. The railways are cheap but not subsidised. Yugoslavia's main exports are furniture to USA and Sweden, ships, petrochemicals (oil from Libya and England): tourism is important. 900/,.of Yugoslavia's students are Aatheists (their pronunciation). The national minorities (Italians, Hungarians, Czechs, Albanians) are taught in their own languages. There are six autonomous republics. Internationally Yugoslavia is neutral and does not want nuclear weapons. The .Prime Minister is a Montenegrin woman—Vesevan Durandin. The party visited the extensive Postojna caves, the Lipica horse-riding school and Venice. The courier who took us to Venice spoke like this: "Good people, so why are you so sleeping? You should be on both sides looking on the way to see Wenice in the B-C-time. Like my pocket the weather changes. Just follow the both sides: it is unforgettable how nice is. looking. I am now going to smell how is looking the kitchen where are the truffles. I will meet you at Thomas Cook's in St Mark's Square, in the Omnibus Restaurant, in Tranchetto or the Rialto bridge. I am not saying where I shall be. It is no good looking in the guiding books. I wish you a good time when you go back to Glasgow—I mean Gatwick." His name was Lala (Tulip). The Opatija bookshop had the following books in Serbo-Croat: Lady Chatterley, Barbara Cartland, six volumes of Orwell, Tolkien and Fowles. BETTY AND SAM BEER

Random Notes, News and Viewpoints Anarchism, Radical Feminism, Philosophy Nicolas Walter, one of SPES's appointed lecturers, editor of the New Humanist, peace activist (in, for example, Action 84) and telling writer of letters to editors has recently been "on the media" a good deal. He was in a discussion on LBC at 2.00 pm on June 13, outlining the anarchist view- point, for the acceptance of many aspects of which there seem to be extremely cogent reasons. I was able to take part in the wphone-in" and raised the twin problems of the 82 million per year population increase and the equable distribution of world resources—neither of which I feel can be dealt with effectively by small, co-operative, linked groups (without govern- ment) outlined by him*. As for many people, these two major aspects of our present society (which give the basis for the competition by groups, nations, regions to excel each other in devising means for annihilating the species) did not appear to be fundamental. The day before, at the ICA, the radical feminist philosopher, Mary Daly, enthralled an audience with an intellectual-poetic, humorous outline of the persistent face and domination of patriarchal values and what should replace them. In this view, every religion stands equally condemned. Putting to her a question on the population explosion, I was firmly sat on (though told the question was valid). In the last 12 years Mary Daly had refused to take or answer question from men. The audience, nearly all women, supported this. When men begin to appreciate why this stance is taken, I think they may then be on the way to understanding something of the radical feminist viewpoint (and the real reasons for the oft-expressed indignation on the part of men at so being excluded). Speaking to her afterwards, I suggested that men had an even more difficult course to take to escape from the suffocating values of patriarchal structures of thought and activity. She indicated she had enough to do 16 already. Her new book will be published in the UK in October, and will I'm sure be well worth absorbing into our consciousness and conscience. In my view she is one of the outstanding philosophers of this era, and we would be very stupid to ignore her fundamental messages and rethinking, which is "without" the male, intellectual aridity of much of thought, talk, verbiage and boredom of centuries of philosophical and religious discussion (including some current discussions at Conway Hall). An afterthought on the population question. At the debate at the Oxford Union also on June 13, one speaker stated that 63 cauliflowers (amongst the massive destruction of food to keep the market structure going) were destroyed in Europe every minute of everyday. But that would only keep alive a proportion of the extra people in the world every minute of every day for a very short period—and they will all need feeding for all their lives (short as many of them are). "Centre" is No New Idea With reference to my suggestion for a Centre at Conway Hall Ethical Record, June 1984, page 11), Norman Bacrac, who has been working on the books given over to SPES by the BHA, produced (from this collection) for me to see a small, 20-page booklet, prepared to raise finances to build the present Red Lion Square set-up. It was issued by the Appeal Committee in the late 1920's. Having bought the site for £11,000, SPES was looking for a further £15,000 upwards to bring the £30,000 already held up to the £45,000 needed. If more had materialised, there were plans for larger halls and a second storey on top. But, to me, two other pieces of information were of great interest: one, that the aims of the Society then included . . . -the promotion of human welfare in harmony with advancing knowledgeTh The other was the state- ment that: "It is the aim of the Trustees and Committee to place at the disposal of members and visitors from the Provinces, British Dominions, United States of America and other countries, Headquarters in London, where men and women of advanced thought could meet and enjoy the amenities of social intercourse, with facilities for writing, rest and refresh- ment". This was not the All People's Association scheme to which I was referring—but shows that the idea was felt to be important within the Society as well as in other quarters. PETER MINOT * The "Fourth"-worlders also seem to me to by-pass these problems in their advocacy of decentralisation and the need for "small", and the breakdown of nations, "large" etc. Which does not mean that many of us lack understanding of the corruption of power, politics and gigantism, the fear of world-wide "authorities" and so on. -1 Myitalicising here and below. Fenner's New Programme The National Peace Council met on May 19 and will meet next on September 20. Northern Ireland was discussed and it was recommended that the EEC Report be read by members. A new non-denominational constitution will be required. Use of a Peacekeeping Force by the United Nations, EEC or British Commonwealth was not possible. Copies of the Irish Forum can be obtained from the Irish Embassy. Gadafi had made people realise how important Irish neutrality was. The NPC decided to write to Mr Prior. The Stockholm and Vienna conferences were about manoeuvres and were intended to be confidence-builders. We must demand that the Government tell us what is happening at Vienna. The first session ends in 1986. The 17 prospect of a "Nuclear Winter" was mentioned. Fenner Brockway and others had produced a World Peace Action Programme but the NPC has doubts about the accuracy and suitability of parts of it. There was a long debate covering such matters as verification, conscientious objection and the different situation in the Pacific. Preparations for a demonstration on June 9 against Reagan and other world leaders were discussed. US police searching Greenhorn women would be the subject of a protest. How should the peace movement deal with new weapons and new develop- ments? Debate adjourned. The troubles of Buddhist monks in Vietnam were to be discussed with the Vietnamese Ambassador and the US Government was to be asked to pay indemnity to Vietnam for its war there. The Daily Telegraph's attacks on International Voluntary Service have increased its membership. The meeting concluded after wondering how to handle Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestinians but firmly against British intervention in the Gulf. S.B.

Continued from page one action. An American President demonstrates the ignorance of the population, the protection and many who put him in power by better use of the environment, the summoning all of us to a God who role of patriarchy and the insanity cannot exist and to help "put of many of our beliefs and parallel down" a large part of humanity, actions. defined as evil—and so perpetuat- But there is of course also room ing a continual escalation of for other bits and pieces of the antagonisms. pattern—such as the items supplied It was reported in the press that by Sam Beer—about some of which 83 nations attended this year's Edith Washbrook (London) writes, British Arms Fair (sounds jolly— "Thank you for publishing the con- but the idea is to sell weapons of tributions of Sam and Betty Beer death, injury and control to who- in the May "Record". The unusual ever requires them, to "develop" light relief was much appreciated". the industries and to profit those But the resistances—and organ- who share in the companies and ised oppositions to the sort of de- all by revenue to the velopments envisaged by House- state). man and Stopes-Roe, some based The activities in the UK of on an unconscious acceptance of Graham (and that other "visiting" the status quo, others more sinister, evangelist, Luis Palau), backed by such as that described in last year's what a Guardian report calls, Towards 20001 by Raymond Wil- "both are disciples of modern liams as "Plan X"—"a new politics technology", also perpetuates in- of strategic advantage" in the face anities like the belief in the act- of a deeply pessimistic reading of uality of the resurrection and the the future (that there will be an literal truth of the bible. Children indefinite continuation of extreme should be protected, Palau is re- crisis and extreme danger) are vast ported to .have said, "from the and pervasive, reinforced by weird stuff of the religious educa- "modern" global methods of com- tion classes" (but I don't think he munication, persuasion and psycho- meant what secular or rational logical control. humanists would mean! ) Teachers A Billy Graham2 can bring out were even possibly marxist! hundreds of thousands for irra- Thus, these publicists and the tional beliefs such as the promise activities they generate support of a better life after death, sapping the same trends as the politicians— the potential for the right sort of preventing a proper appraisal of 18 COMING FOR YOU The Report of the 1984 Conway Memorial Lecture (the 60th) by Sir Alan Cottrell, FRS. A- copy will be• sent free to all members. The Annual Reunion—this year it will be held on the after- noon of Sunday, September 23 at Conway Hall. Members and friends welcome. - Another seaSoh of Sunday Concerts (the 94th)—the pro- ' gramme will be Sent to all members as 'usual. (11 A programthe of Sunday Lectures and Forum Meetings and monthly Socials. FROM YOU How about a Donation to the Appeal Fund? A donation of Books for sale from the Bbokstall? The South Place Ethical Society, Conway Hall, London

Concluded from previous page aspects of religion. "Politician!' — the world's sittintion by the 1000's one versed in the theory -of govern- of "converts" and supporters. ment. 4 In the Sunday Times colour supple- The endless tale continues: ment for May 27, 1984, a feature "scientists"3 allow themselves -to on Los Angeles ("The LA present work on -equipment of Mass des- is the future for all of us"), the sun- truction; "religious" leaders and tanned Californian blonde wanderS "politicians" advocate population into a shop in LA (called "Price of policies which will certainly destroy His Toys") asking "What can I buy for a man who has everything?" To the species; and those entrenched the request as to how much she in a world financial and power wishes to spend she casually replies structure which works to provide "Up to $10,0007. But the other side them, for the time 'being, with of the "divide" in LA are the im- benefits' beyond the possibility ef poverished "illegal" Mexican immi- all-buf a very • few per million of grants (who provide "cheap" the world's population, use every labour). twist to Maintain the situation An ' article in the American Humanist (May/June 1984) bY (often claiming it is what those Georges Fauriol gives many facts others, not in the club, want). and thoughts relating to this "popu- Will understanding "spread in- lation bomb"; the use of immigra- definitely"? Can Humanists save tion as a "foreign policy weapon" the Open Society? Tough jobs! by some countries and many other What, dear reader, will you actually aspects:- looking, though, at the be doing about them? Well, at problem from a US point of view. least think about it during the summer "break"' in our activities. The Ethical Record will be back again in September: with details of A few random footnotes. the autumn programme and of sub- 1 See page 243 onwards. Published by. commiftees on which you can help Chatto and Windus, 1983, £9.95. if you are within reach of Conway 2 In an interview on BBC's "Sixty Hall.' Other members' further away Minutes? (May 10, 1984) Billy (perhaps right across the world) can Graham said, ?An evangelist is write in'their miggestions and idea (one) who shoots with a rifle". —to the Ethical Record or to the 3 Definitions in the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary include the fol- Secretary, Jean Bayliss—which will lowing: "Scientist" — Man of be welcome. For consideration for Science. ".Science"—the state Or publication ip September, any con- fact of knowirig. "Religious"— tribution should be with the editor exhibiting the spiritual or practical no later than August 1. South Place Ethical Society

FOUNDED ifl 1793, the Society is a progressive movement whose aim is the study and dissemination of ethical principles based on humanism, and the cultivation of a rational way of life. We Invite to membership all those who reject supernatural creeds and find themselves in sympathy with our views. At Conway Hall there are opportunities for participation in many kinds of cultural activities, including discussions, lectures, concerts, dances, rambles and socials. A comprehensive reference and lending library is available, and all Members and Associates receive the Society's journal, The Ethical Record, free. The Sunday Evening Chamber Music Concerts founded in 1887 have achieved international renown. Memorial and.Funeral Services are available to members. Membership is by £1 enrolment fee and an annual Subscription. Minimum subscriptions are: Members, £4 p.a.; Life Members, £84 (Life membership is available only to members of at least one year's standing). It is of help to the Society's officers if members pay their subscriptions by Banker's Order, and it is of further financial benefit to the Society if Deeds of Covenant are entered into. Members are urged to pay more than the minimum subscription whenever possible, as the present amount is not sufficient to cover the cost of this journal. A suitable form of bequest for those wishing to benefit the Society by their wills is available from the office, as are Banker's Order and Deeds of Covenant Forms.

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FORM To THE HONORARY REGISTRAR, SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY CONWAY HALL HUMANIST CENTRE RED LION SQUARE, LONDON WC1R 4RL The Society's objects (as interpreted by its General Committee in the light of a 1980 Court ruling) are the study and dissemination of ethical principles; and the cultivation of a rational and humane way of life; and the advancement of education in fields relevant to these objects* Being in sympathy with the above, I desire to become a Member. I will accept the rules of the Society and will pay the annual subscription of . . (minimum £4 plus £1 enrolment). NAME (BLOCK LETTERS PLEASE) ADDRESS

OCCUPATION (disclosure optional) HOW DID You HEAR OF THE SOCIETY? DATE SIGNATURE *Formally, the objects of the Society are the study and dissemination of ethical principles and the cultivation of a rational religious sentiment. The Ethical Record is posted free to members. The annual charge to subscribers is £4. Matter for publication should reach the Editor, Peter Hunot, 17 Anson Road, London N7 ORR (01-609 2677) no later than the first of the preceding month. Printed by David Neil & Co.. Dorking, Surrey