EGkioco: FeciE The Proceedings of the South Place Ethical Society Vol. 104 No. 10 £1.50 November, 1999 SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM IS BOGUS SCIENCE Professor James Birx refers, in his article on Teilhard de Chardin (page 3) to the cautious acceptance by the present Pope of the fact of evolution, at least up to pre- human primates. Even this modest concession is too much for those 'scientific creationists' who affect to find Genesis literally true.

A particularly dogmatic concentration of such persons inhabits the State of Kansas where they have recently redrafted the school science curriculum. Discussion of the evidence for the transformation of species is removed, although what the creationists term 'micro-evolution' i.e. changes within species is permitted. Nothing contradictory to their belief in the special creation of each species appears in the syllabus. Thus a teacher attempting to discuss such matters as the molecular . and DNA relation between species as evidence for evolution would presumably leave himself open to criticism by vociferous parents or the local school board as going beyond the syllabus.

The creationists maintain that only that can be taught in science lessons which can be demonstrated in the school laboratory, thereby hoping to remove discussion of the 3 billion year process of evolution from the classroom. This is a far too sweeping and totally unnecessary restriction - it would exclude most nuclear physics and astronomy, not to mention most history and geography. It would also exclude the special creation of Tygers by God because teachers do not usually have that 'immortal hand or eye' in their apparatus box.

The creationists will insist that evolution is a theory not a fact. O.K. Imbued as they are with the-technique of indoctrination, they are sure that a teacher talking about evolution to his class is bound to assert that 'evolution is true'. However, science teachers are enlightened enough to present the supporting evidence and the difficulties for Darwinian evolution without requiring the class to assent to them. It is knowledge of and understanding about the evidence for important scientific theories which should be the educational aim.

Pity poor Dorothy in Kansas who is captivated by the marvels of the world. She can only dream of a giant whirlwind which might carry her beyond the clutches of the curriculum and deposit her on the yellow brick road of natural history.

PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN - Dr H. James Birx 3 WHAT'S THE WORLD COMING TO? James Hemming 10 HENRY HETHERINGTON David M Smith 11 THE GEORGIAN HOUSE IN LONDON Oliver Westmoreland 16 LIVING WITH THE ENEMY Barbara Smoker 18 VIEWPOINTS : C. Bondi, A. Williams, P Cadogan, E. Stockton, D. R. Reidy, Barbara Smoker fan letters 20 ETHICAL SOCIETY EVENTS 24 SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY Conway Hall Humanist Centre 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL. Tel: 0171 242 8034 Fax: 0171 242 8036 website: www.ethicalsoc.org.uk email: [email protected]

Officers Chairman of the GC: Diane Murray Vice Chairman: John Rayner Hon. Rep of the GC:Don Liversedge Registrar: Terry Mullins Treasurer: Vacancy (Would anyone wishing to volunteer tor this post, please contact the Admin. Secretary)

Editor, Ethical Record: Norman Bacrac

SPES Staff Administrative Secretary to the Society: Marina Ingham Tel: 0171 242 8034 Librarian/Programme Coordinator: Jennifer Jeynes. Tel: 0171 242 8037 Operations Manager: Frances Hanlon. Tel: 0171 242 8033 Lettings Manager: Peter Vlachos.For Hall bookings: Tel: 0171 242 8032 New Members Valma Cockroft, Barnes, London; Fiona Mathieson, Merton Park, London; Suzi McKenzie, Sydenham, London; Dick Clifford, South Australia. Correction The summary of the lecture on the Baby Milk Scandal (ER, September 1999) was kindly prepared by G.C. member Edmund McArthur. It was delivered by Rosie White and not Patricia Wise. Sunday Concerts For the 1999-2000 season, the concerts are the responsibility of a new charity, London Chamber Music Society (LCMS). Trustees of LCMS are also trustees of the Ethical Society, and for this season at least the name South Place Sunday Concerts is retained but the current view of the Charity Commission is that the concerts are no longer integral to the activities of the Ethical Society. LCMS hires the hall and the piano from SPES (at a considerable discount) for the purpose of providing music. N.B.

SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY Registered 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 all those who reject supernatural creeds and find themselves in sympathy with our views. At Conway Hall there are opportunities for participation in cultural activities including discussions, lectures, concerts and socials. The Sunday Evening Chamber Music Concerts founded in 1887 are renowned. We have a library on subjects of humanist concern. All members receive the Society's journal, Ethical.Record, eleven times a year. Funerals and Memorial Meetings may be arranged. Please apply to the Admin. Secretary for membership, £18 p.a. Concession* £12 p.a. 2 Ethical Record, November, 2999 PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN

Dr. H. James Bint Professor of Anthropology, Canisius College, Buffalo, New York

Are science and theology reconcilable in terms of evolution? As both an eminent scientist and cosmic mystic, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) presented a dynamic worldview. He argued that our species does occupy a special place within a spiritual universe, and that humankind is evolving toward an Omega Point as the end-goal of converging and involuting consciousness on this planet.

With his steadfast commitment to the fact of pervasive evolution, Teilhard as geopaleontologist and Jesuit priest became a very controversial figure within the Roman Catholic Church during the first half of this century. Actually, because of his bold interpretation of our species within earth history and this cosmos, he was silenced by his Pierre Teilhard de Chardin By Keith KW. Kersting of Hawai'i Jesuit superiors for taking an evolutionary stance at a time when this scientific theory was a serious threat to an entrenched orthodox theology. Going beyond Charles Darwin, Teilhard even maintained that evolution discloses the meaning, purpose and destiny of our species within life, nature and this universe.

As a geopaleontologist, Teilhard was very familiar with the rock and fossil evidence that substantiates the fact of evolution. As a Jesuit priest, he was acutely aware of the need for a meta-Christianity that would contribute to the survival and fulfilment of .humankind in terms of both science and faith. Sensitive to the predicament of our species, with its awareness of endless space and certain death, Teilhard as visionary and futurist ultimately grounded his personal interpretation of evolution in a process philosophy, natural theology and cosmic mysticism that supported panentheism (the belief that God and the World are in a creative relationship of progressive evolution toward a future synthesis in terms of spirit).

Galileo Galilei had been put under house arrest, and endured humiliation as a result of his claiming that the earth does in fact move through the universe; a discovery that the aged astronomer was coerced into recanting by his dogmatic persecutor, Pope Urban VIII (formally Cardinal Maffeo Barberini), under the intolerant Jesuit inquisitor, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. As a direct result of the conservative standpoint taken by his Jesuit superiors, Teilhard will suffer alienation and discouragement because he rightly claimed that species (including our own) evolve throughout geological time, or they become extinct; his daring evolutionism discredited fixity and essentialism.

Discovering Evolution As a child, Teilhard showed an interest in both natural science and religious mysticism. Sensitive to his beautiful Auvergne surroundings in France, and Ethical Record, November, 1999 3 particularly drawn to the study of rocks, Teilhard found delight in a plowshare which he supposed was an enduring object free from change and imperfection. However, after a storm, he discovered that his 'genie of iron' had rusted. Teilhard tells us that he then threw himself on the ground and cried with the bitterest tears of his life. As a result of this devastating .experience, he would have to seek his 'one essential thing' beyond this imperfect world of matter and corruption. To be 'most perfect' (as he put it), Teilhard at the age of 17 entered the Jesuit society in order to serve God. Even so, he intensified his interest in geology on the channel island of Jersey. Throughout his entire life, he would never abandon his love for science, concern about human evolution, and devotion to mystical theology (especially eschatology).

In 1905, as part of his Jesuit training, Teilhard found himself teaching at the Holy Family College in Cairo. This three-year experience offered him the opportunity to do research in both geology and paleontology, expanding his knowledge of earth history. It also exposed him to a rich multiplicity of cultures, both past and present, that surely jarred him from European ethnocentrism. Following this teaching obligation, he then finished his theology studies at Hastings in England.

It was during his stay in England that Teilhard read Henri Bergson's major book, Creative Evolution (1907). This metaphysical work had an enormous influence on the scientist-priest, since it resulted in his lifelong commitment to the brute fact of evolution. It is worth emphasising that it was not Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) or The Descent of Man (1871) but rather Bergson's interpretation of evolution that convinced Teilhard that species are mutable, including our own, throughout organic history.

While on one of his field trips, Teilhard unfortunately became involved in the discovery of the controversial Piltdown skull (later determined to be a fraud). Although he had questioned the validity of this fossil evidence from the very beginning, one positive result was that the young geologist now became particularly interested in paleoanthropology as the science of fossil hominids.

After his stay in England, Teilhard returned to France where, during World War I, he was a stretcher bearer at the front line. It is remarkable that he emerged from his horrific experiences in the war trenches even more optimistic that evolution had been preparing the earth for a new direction and final goal in terms of the spiritualisation of the human layer of this planet. In fact, during the global war, Teilhard had several mystical experiences which he recorded for posterity. It was this emerging mysticism that would eventually allow him to reconcile science and theology within an evolutionary vision of spiritual reality (as he saw it).

In 1923, as a result of an invitation, Teilhard next found himself as a geologist participating in a scientific expedition into inner Mongolia. It was during this time, while in the Ordos Desert, that Teilhard essayed 'The Mass on the World' (a mystical account of his offering up the entire world as a Eucharist to a Supreme Being as the creator, sustainer, and ultimate destiny of an evolving universe). He expresses his dynamic Christology when he writes: 'I, your priest, will make the whole earth my altar and on it will offer you all the labours and sufferings of the world... You know how your creatures can come into being only, like shoot from stem, as part of an endlessly renewed process of volution.''

4 Ethical Record, November, 1999 It is to Teilhard's credit that he never took seriously a strict and literal interpretation of Genesis. Instead, he will continue to devote his life to synthesising science and theology in terms of the indisputable fact of pervasive evolution.

Returning to France, Teilhard ran into serious problems with the Roman Catholic Church because of his unorthodox beliefs. In Paris, he began giving public lectures on evolution. He was even bold enouQh to offer a personal interpretation of Original Sin in terms of cosmic evolution and the emergence of our own species in a dynamic but imperfect (unfinished) universe; he saw this cosmos as a cosmogenesis moving from chaos and evil to order and perfection.

When a copy of his controversial essay fell into the hands of some Jesuits, Teilhard was immediately silenced by his superiors. They, of course, had a failure of nerve in not facing head-on the fact of evolution and its ramifications for understanding and appreciating the place of humankind within nature. Because his audacious vision challenged Christian dogma, Teilhard was censored by the Church: he could no longer teach or publish his own theological and philosophical views, and he was even exiled from France by the Jesuit order (finding himself back in China).

Nevertheless, the ostracised scientist-priest wrote his first bciok, The Divine Milieu (1927), a spiritual essay on the activities and passivities of the human being. He argues that a personal God is the divine Centre of evolving Creation. His position is in sharp contrast to biblical fundamentalism or so-called scientific creationism; views that believe the creation of this entire universe to be a completed event that happened only about ten thousand years ago! Teilhard writes: 'We may, perhaps, imagine that the creation was finished long ago. But that would be quite wrong. It continues still more magnificently, and at the highest levels of the world.'

Fortuitously, Teilhard now found himself a member of the Cenozoic Laboratory at the Peking Union Medical College. Starting in 1928, geologists and paleontologists excavated the sedimentary layers in the Western Hills near Zhoukoudian. At this site, the scientists discovered the so-called Peking man (Sinanthropus pekinensis), a fossil hominid dating back at least 350,000 years but now relegated to the Homo erectus phase of human evolution. Tcilhard became world-known as a result of his popularisations of the Sinanthropus discovery, while he himself made major contributions to the geology of this site.

The Vatican Denies Publication of The Phenomenon of Man Bringing his scientific knowledge and religious commitments together, Teilhard now began writing a synthesis of facts and beliefs. He aimed to demonstrate the special place held by our species in this dynamic universe. After two years, Teilhard completed his major work, The Phenomenon of Man (1938-1940, with a postscript and appendix added in 1948). For other religionists, his evolutionary synthesis was a threat to traditional theology and, consequently, the Vatican denied its publication. In retrospect, it is with bitter irony that this book was so controversial because it does offer an earth-bound, human-centered, and God-embraced interpretation of spiritual evolution that seems more-or-less conservative from today's perspective. The work is primarily an ultra-anthropology grounded in a phenomenology of evolution in terms of emerging consciousness (spirit).

In The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard writes: 'Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforth if they are Ethical Record, November, 1999 5 to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow... The consciousness of each of us is evolution looking at itself and reflecting upon itself... Man is not the centre of the universe as once we thought in our simplicity, but something much more wonderful - the arrow pointing the way to the final unification of the world in terms of life. Man alone constitutes the last-born, the freshest, the most complicated, the most subtle of all the successive layers of life... What makes the world in which we live specifically modern is our discovery in it and around it of evolution... Thus in all probability, between our modern earth and the ultimate earth, there stretches an immense period, characterised not by a slowing-down but a speeding up and by the definitive florescence of the forces of evolution along the line of the human shoot.''

For Teilhard, the Mosaic cosmology is replaced by an emergent evolution within which Adam and Eve become fossil apelike forms! Not surprisingly, the eyolutionary stance found in The Phenomenon of Man resulted in the condemnation of this unorthodox book by the dogmatic religionists of his time.

Teilhard argues that the universe is a cosmogencsis. Essentially, the unity of this universe is grounded not in matter but in spirit (the within-of-things or radial energy); thereby he gives priority to dynamic spirit rather than to atomic matter (the without-of-things or tangential energy). Moreover, Teilhard was a vitalist who saw the personalising and spiritualising cosmos as a product of an inner driving force manifesting itself from material atoms, through life forms, to reflective beings. He discerned a direction in this evolving universe, particularly with the emergence of humankind. However, his alleged cosmology is merely a planetology, since he focuses his attention on this earth without any serious consideration of the billions of stars in fhose billions of galaxies that are strewn throughout sidereal reality.

Of primary significance, Teilhard argues that the assumed order in nature reveals a pre-established plan of a divine Designer, who is the transcendent God as the Centre of creation or Person of persons; the direction in evolution is a result of the process law of complexity-consciousness. Teilhard was deeply interested in and concerned about the infinitely complex that would emerge in the distant future as a spiritual synthesis, rather than occupying himself with the infinitely great and the infinitely small.

For Teilhard, this cosmic law of increasing complexity and consciousness manifests itself from the inorganic atoms through organic species to the human person. Or, this law has resulted in the appearance of matter, then life, and finally thought. Evolution is the result of 'directed chance' taking place on the finite sphericity of our earth. Teilhard emphasised that evolution is converging and involuting around this globe: first through geogenesis, then biogenesis, and now through noogenesis: The result is a geosphere surrounded by a biosphere, and now an emerging noosphere (or layer of human thought and its products) is enveloping the biosphere and geosphere. Nodgenesis is essentially a planetary and mystical Christogenesis.

The idea of a developing noosphere was also explored in the writings of the Russian scientist Vladimir I. Vernadsky (1863-1945). Similar to Teilhard's comprehensive orientation, Vernadsky presented a holistic view of life on earth in his major work, The Biosphere (1926). Teilhard stressed that the process of evolution has not been a continuum: from time to time, evolution has crossed critical thresholds resulting in the uniqueness of 6 Ethical Record, November 1999 both life over matter and thought over life; a person represents an incredible concentration of consciousness or spirit, resulting in the immortality of the human soul. Consequently, Teilhard claimed that the human being is ontologically separated from the great apes (orangutan, chimpanzee and gorilla).

For Teilhard, the ongoing spiritual evolution of our species is rapidly moving toward an Omega Point as the end-goal or divine destiny. His theism maintains that God-Omega is one, personal, actual and transcendent. In the future, God-Omega and the Omega Point will unite, forming a mystical synthesis.

Teilhard's interpretation of evolution claims that the human layer of consciousness engulfing our earth is becoming a collective brain and heart; in the future, as a single mind of persons, this layer will detach itself from the globe and, transcending space and time, immerse itself in God-Omega. The end-goal of evolution is a creative synthesis of the universal God-Omega with a spiritualised humankind. Thus, his panentheism becomes a mystical pantheism. Yet he did not take seriously the possibility of exobiology and exoevolution, e.g., that Omega Point events have happened or will happen elsewhere in this universe.

After The Phenomenon of Man was denied publication by his superiors, Teilhard wrote Man's Place in Nature: The Human Zoological Group (1950). This book is a more scientific statement of his interpretation of evolution. With controlled enthusiasm but focusing on our species, he writes: 'Man is, in appearance, a 'species', no more than a twig, an offshoot from the branch of the primates - but one that we find to be endowed with absolutely prodigious biological properties... '

Unfortunately, the publication of Teilhard's third book was also denied along with his request to teach in Paris. In fact, on 12 August 1950, Pope Pius XII issued the Encyclical Letter Humani generis; obviously, this Papal warning was (at least in part) a direct result of Teilhard's unsuccessful request for the publication of his slightly revised version of The Phenomenon of Man written in 1948, as well as his 1950 work on human evolution.

Julian Huxley Sympathetic Leaving Paris for New York City, Teilhard spent the last years of his life reflecting on both human evolution and his mystical vision of a spiritual future for our species. Interestingly enough, the secular humanist Sir Julian Huxley was sympathetic to Teilhard's religious humanism. However, Huxley the biologist could never accept Teilhard's overall commitment to spiritual transcendence rather than seeing evolution as a strictly naturalistic process.

Although Teilhard visited the fossil hominid sites in South Africa, he became removed from the new developments in evolutionary science e.g., the discovery of the DNA molecule and population genetics research. For the evolutionist as materialist, organic creativity is grounded in chance and contingency, not teleology and spiritualism. And even though he espoused a geological perspective and saw our species continuing to evolve for millions of years, Teilhard still held that humankind would never leave this planet. He offers a myopic vision in which our species is nailed to the earth and absolutely alone in this universe. Of course, this suffocating centrology was necessary in order for him to believe in the formation of an unique Omega Point at the end of human evolution on earth. If he were alive today, then what would Teilhard think about the far-reaching ramifications of space exploration and genetic engineering? Ethical Record, November, 1999 7 No doubt, one finds it very disconcerting that the aged Teilhard wept and was depressed about his pathetic ordeal within the Jesuit order. And, one may find it somewhat unsettling that, as a Jesuit priest, he spent considerable time travelling and communicating with several beautiful women whose friendship he encouraged, even though they could never find a lasting intimate relationship with this spiritual and mystical man who gave preference to a transcendent God over those individuals who loved him in this world. Teilhard, struggling with his own beliefs and commitments within an intellectually hostile environment, no doubt needed that human companionship provided by those who found him attractive in every way.

On 10 April 1955, Teilhard died of a sudden stroke. He was buried at Saint Andrew's on the Hudson, in the cemetery of the Jesuit novitiate for the New York Province. By the fall of that year, the first edition of The Phenomenon of Man was published in its author's native language. In 1962, a Monitum decree issued by the Holy Office on Teilhard's works went as far as to warn bishops and heads of seminaries about those doctrinal errors that were held to be inherent in the Jesuit scientist's evolutionary and mystical interpretation of humankind within nature. the Scientific Criticism Teilhard's hopefulness seems to have overlooked the extensive role that extinction plays throughout organic evolution (not to mention the excessive evil in the world): those mass extinctions, that caused all the trilobites and dinosaurs to vanish forever, should tarnish the unbridled optimism of any rigorous evolutionist. Furthermore, Teilhard's vision will not convince many serious thinkers that it was inevitable for our species to appear in this universe. An obvious expression of wishful thinking, the anthropic principle represents anthropocentrism in its most extreme form.

Claiming that everything that rises must converge, Teilhard grounds his philosophy of evolution in teleology and spiritualism: the movement of matter, then life, and finally thought is both forward and upward to a mystical union with God- Omega (the beginning and end of cosmic evolution). The chaos and probability throughout nature give way to order and certainty. But most scientists will not accept Teilhard's directional interpretation of his evolving universe.

Teilhard's severest critic was the British zoologist Sir Peter Medawar, a Nobel laureate who found the mystic's evolutionism to be not only preposterous but also an. attempt at self-deception. Furthermore, the Harvard paleontologist Steven Jay Gould even claims that Teilhard was directly involved with the infamous Piltdown hoax. It is surprising that Gould besmirched the reputation of a distinguished natural scientist without there being a single thread of incontestable evidence to support such a damaging accusation. Invoking 'innocent until proven guilty', it seems only fair to assume that Teilhard is blameless of any wrongdoing in this outrageous perpetration of a false discovery.

Teilhard was committed to science, evolution and optimism despite his daring speculations and mystical orientation. He was a religious humanist: a visionary and futurist who foresaw the collective consciousness of our global species increasing in terms of love, information and technology as a result of God's existence. It is to his lasting credit that Teilhard introduced into modern theology the fact of organic evolution at a time when this scientific theory was rejected by many who saw it as a threat to their religious beliefs and traditional values. Unfortunately, in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, he pleased no intellectual community. Even today, although wisely not opposed to the fact of evolution, the Roman Catholic Church 8 Ethical Record, November, 1999 offers no comprehensive and detailed evolutionary explanation for the origin and history of life or the emergence and future of humankind.

Teilhard focused exclusively on the earth and gave special attention to our own species. In this respect, he was not in step with those modern thinkers who offer a truly cosmic perspective in which humankind is merely a fleeting event in this material universe.

Surprisingly, on 23 October 1996, Pope John Paul Il issued a statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he endorsed evolution as being 'more than just a theory' and thereby both biblical fundamentalism and so-called scientific creationism were dealt yet another blow to their vacuous claims about the origin of this universe and the history of life forms. With bitter irony, it was the silenced Teilhard who had committed himself to the fact of evolution as well as the indisputable powers of science, reason and free inquiry (albeit within a theological framework).

Today, a rigorous evolutionist sees reality grounded in energy (not spirit) and manifesting no evidence of a divine plan unfolding throughout cosmic history. Our species is linked to material nature, and it is presumptuous to claim that a mystical destiny awaits it at the end of planetary time.

Teilhard possessed intelligence, sensitivity and integrity. He experienced both the agony and ecstasy of time and change. His optimistic commitment to cosmic evolution flourished while he served on the blood-stained battlefield of a war-torn• humanity, researched among the rocks and fossils of a remote past, and reflected in the deepest recesses of his profound soul on the meaning and purpose of human existence. As such, Teilhard himself exemplifies the phenomenon of man. References ' T. de Chardin, P. Hymn of the Universe. Harper & Row, 1965, pp.19,22. T. de Chardin, P. The Divine Milieu, rev. ed. Harper Torchbooks, 1968, p. 62. 3 T. de Chardin, P. The Phenomenon of Man. 2nd ed. Harper Colophon, 1975, pp. 218, 220, 223, 227, 228, 277. 4 de Chardin, P. Man's Place in Nature: The Human Zoological Group. Harper & Row, 1966, pp. 15. 25. Further Readings Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution (1907). Mineola, Dover, 1998. Birx, H. James. Interpreting Evolution: Darwin& Teilhard de Chardin. Amherst, Prometheus Books, 1991, esp. pp. 178-222. Cornwell, J. Hitler IsPope: The Secret History of Pius XII. New York, Viking, 1999, p. 340. Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man (1871). Amherst, Prometheus Books, 1998. Refer to the introduction by H. James Birx, pp. ix-xxviii. King, Ursula. Spirit of Fire: The Life and Vision of T de Chardin. Orbis Books, 1996. Kuvakin, Valerii A., ed. A History of Russian Philosophy: From the Tenth Through the Twentieth Centuries. 2 vols. Prometheus Books. 1994, pp. 399-409, 521-534. Lukas, Mary and Ellen Lukas. Teilhard, rev. ed. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1981. Schmitz-Moormann, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: Scientific Works (1905-1955). 11 vols. Olten and Freiburg im Breisgau, Walter-Verlag, 1971. Speaight, Robert. Teilhard de Chardin: A Biography. London, Collins, 1967. Vernadsky, Vladimir I. The Biosphere (1926). rev. ed. New York, Nevraumont/Copernicus/Springer-Verlag, 1998. Also 'The Biosphere and the Notisphere' in American Scientist 33(1):1-12, 1945. Walsh, J. Unraveling Piltdown: The Science Fraud of the Century and Its Solution. Random House, 1996, pp. 128-148.

Ethical Record, November, 1999 9 WHAT'S THE WORLD COMING TO?

James Hemming* Swnmary of a Lecture to the Ethical Society on the Occasion of his 90th Birtlulay, 24 October 1999

As time passes, more and more people are coming to realise that there is no evidence whatever for believing in an all-powerful divine presence in charge of everything. Instead we have to accept that we humans are primarily responsible for what happens to life on our evolving planet. An asteroid may collide with our planet, but that is unlikely.

Our role becomes ever more interesting as evidence mounts that there is life elsewhere in the Cosmos. On our planet life-forms are to be found from the heights of mountains to hot vents deep beneath the oceans. It seems that wherever the conditions for life exist, life will emerge. It also seems that, in due course, if conditions continue to be favourable, a planet with conscious life will evolve. We are, obviously, at that point on earth. Our conscious awareness James Heauning with Jennifer Jeynes has reshaped our planet.

There is, inevitably, both a positive and a negative aspect to that situation. We humans now have the power to destroy life on Earth as well as to bring it to fulfilment. This is now the primary global issue. How are we to create a caring and collaborative world? This needs a shared philosophy to sustain it. This is where Humanism comes into world affairs. The 'one world' religious myths that Man has depended upon for thousands of years will inevitably lose their grip in the 2Ist century. As the God-myths fade something other than cults, or escapism, is called for. That something is a caring, creative and coherent Humanism, dedicated to carrying life forward on our beautiful little planet. The intelligent young, especially, are eager for this change of vision.

Personal footnote: I started out as the son of a kindly C-of-E vicar. We got on well together, but I found that I had to switch to something more convincing than the ridiculous myths; I imagine that thousands of people are somewhere in that transition right now.

At the conclusion of the question period after the lecture, James Hemming was presented by the Chairman, Jennifer Jeynes, with birthday cake and a card signed by all those present. [Ed.]

*Educational psychologist, life-long humanist, author of Individual Moralicv, The Values of Survival, Sex and Love, etc.

10 Ethical Record, Novembel; 1999 THE 'POOR MAN'S GUARDIAN': THE CAREER OF HENRY HETHERINGTON (1792-1849) David M Smith University of Kent

Lecture to the Ethical Society 7 November 1999

Henry Hetherington was, first and foremost, a printer and publisher who led the battle for the abolition of the Newspaper Stamp Duty in the 1830s, culminating in the reduction of the Stamp Duty, in 1836, from four pence to 1 penny. He published a number of unstamped periodicals, but his crowning glory was the Poor Manic Guardian (1831-35), the longest-running and most influential of the 'illegal' newspapers during what became known as the 'War of the Unstamped'.

Hetherington (b. 17 June 1792) was the son of a London tailor. In 1805 he was apprenticed to Luke Hansard. the Parliamentary printer, and it was as a printer he became known within radical circles. During the 1820s and 1830s he was involved with the establishment of a number of working-class organisations, the most important of which was the National Union of the Working Classes. He soon came to represent Owenite principles and other co-operative theories, allied to which were his beliefs in universal suffrage and a conviction that every man had a right to publish his opinions on any subject without hindrance.

In October 1830 Hetherington began the Pomy Papers for the People, which became the Poor Manic Guardian, and which was published in direct defiance of the law. Hundreds of vendors were imprisoned for selling the Guardian, and Hetherington himself spent three terms in prison. He had his press and type seized in 1835 and made large personal sacrifices in his determination to procure a free press. Following his second conviction he wrote, 'Had I 20,000 lives I would sacrifice them all rather than succumb to such mean, such dastardly, such malignant reptiles.' At his 1834 trial Lord Lyndhurst told the jury that the Guardian was too insubstantial to be a newspaper, and so the Guardian was exempt from the newspaper duties 'and its publisher was exempt from prosecution. So the moral basis of Hetherington's crusade vanished, and with it the very rationale and sales appeal of the Poor Man's Guardian; in December 1835, the Guardian ceased publication.

A 'Martyr' During the publication of the Guardian Hetherington became deeply involved in radical politics, and was regarded as a 'martyr' in working-class circles. He published a number of other radical, unstamped periodicals, and his 'tours' around England on behalf of both his various publications and the National Union of the Working Classes were well publicised. His frequent challenges to magistrates and police officers were regularly reported in the penny papers, and he was to become known to his supporters as 'The Guardian'. Hetherington leant strongly in favour of a reconstruction of the English economic system on co-operative lines, but he downgraded this during the 'War of the Unstamped' in favour of a commitment to universal suffrage and an unstamped and free press for the working-classes. In his view, universal suffrage represented a position of power for the property-less and dispossessed, whilst the abolition of the newspaper duty would provide an opening for the gaining of knowledge: these demands, he believed, complemented each other. His commitment to these principles became somewhat obsessive during the rest of his life, and these, allied to his attachment to 'moral force' after Ethical Record, November 1999 II 1836, was partly due to disillusionment stemming from the failure to achieve either objective. All Hetherington's publications launched strong attacks upon what he called the 'profit-hunters', but these denunciations never included appeals to physical violence, and the papers maintained a faith in the effectiveness of free discussion.

Following the end of the 'War of the Unstamped', Hetherington continued to play a leading role in radical politics. He published the influential London Dispatch (1836-39) and became an active member of the London Working Men's Association, which was opposed to 'physical force' Chartism. He was friend, colleague, and sometimes opponent, of many of the 'great names' in the reform movements of the period, including , , , Francis Place, , Richard Carlite, W.I. Linton, , Richard Oastler, Feargus O'Connor, and George Jacob Holyoake.

Henry Hetherington died on 23 August 1849, a victim of the cholera outbreak which was exacerbated by his strange dislike of doctors and medicines, and a strong belief in the effectiveness of his temperate lifestyle. At his death he left a Last Will and Testament that listed his beliefs as a Freethinker, and which was to stir up quite a debate on the questions of atheism and agnosticism. A Freethinker In the 1820s Hetherington had become a member of the Freethinking Christians, a Unitarian sect who called themselves the 'true Church of God'. They rejected public worship, objected to capital punishment, and kept themselves apart from what they called the 'Unrighteous'. Hetherington remained with this group until 1827, when a split occurred and a number of 'rebels', including Hetherington, were expelled. Nevertheless, Hetherington was to maintain his Freethinking principles for. the rest of his life. Many people claimed that he had been an atheist, but George Holyoake defended his friend as a deist. In fact, Hetherington had earlier declared himself a Christian, but of the practical kind that required no priest to teach it. His Last Will shows that Hetherington believed in the existence of a God who allowed free will, the God of the New Testament, not the Old: 'I have ever considered that the only religion useful to man consists exclusively of the practice of morality, and in the mutual interchange of kind actions. In such a religion there is no 'born for priests...'

'Morality' and 'kind actions' were Hetherington's lifelong beliefs, being the way he performed his duties as a fighter for the rights of the working classes. He published little in the way of his own writings, but when he did they invariably touched on these tenets... In Cheap Salvation he says that, if an examination of Christianity should prove that it 'wholly consists in doing good to each other... that it inculcates a love of truth, justice, liberty, and equality.., that it is so plain as to render altogether unnecessary a hireling priesthood to teach it - then every intelligent man should co-operate to overthrow that expensive, corrupt, hypocritical, time- serving lip-worship.., which is now universally imposed upon the weakness and credulity of human nature as the religion of Jesus.'

And Hetherington wrote about Jesus in the same way as he and other leaders of the working classes were spoken of: 'Jesus, being honest, was, of course, in his day, deemed 'a dangerous character;' but he was only dangerous to those unjust men in power whose plundering propensities he reproved... They sought to destroy him, because he was the poor man's instructor,...' Here, religion is directly relevant to the condition of the working classes. Jesus is 'the poor man's instructor' whilst Hetherington was seen as 'The Poor Man's Guardian.' 12 Ethical Record, November, 3999 The clergy found much to concern them in such words. Hetherington believed they were upset because their congregations might realise that they could do without the clergy. He said that the clergy were more honest than dissenters because 'they wanted the tithes, and they did not care what people believed, provided they got them.' It was odd that 'parsons were always called one way. Nobody was ever known to have a 'call' to receive two hundred-a-year when he was pocketing four hundred.' Hetherington saw priests and ceremonial as pointless, and designed to stifle free thought.

'What are parsons? Very clever, cunning, crafty men, who have served their apprenticeship to the 'art and mystery' of sermon-making, at certain large factories in Oxford and Cambridge, where parsons are manufactured. What sort of a business is it? Oh, very good; very good; light work, and capital wages... they sometimes deliver sermons that people can understand... after a feasting and drinking bout with a number of peers and parsons... he will deliver to the poor a very excellent discourse upon the virtue of abstinence.., in which he makes it as clear as moonshine, that poverty is a great blessing in this life, and a great help towards attaining to a state of happiness in that which is to come. But then, poverty is good for working people only; peers and parsons... are learned men, and therefore know the way better.'

The Mummery of Religion Hetherington felt that the clergy were set on maintaining an order where the people were so confused by the whole 'mummery' of religion that they would simply follow without question: 'unless we are sadly mistaken, the mummery is kept up chiefly with a view to choke and stifle common sense, and to drive it out of the world.' But Hetherington could not see life in the same way as the clergy. There was always the moral stance, and the looking for good in everybody: 'Let us learn to think more generously of our common human nature.., do not depreciate the noblest work, and the image of God, by attributing to it all that is vile and degrading!'

In the end, as far as Hetherington is concerned, this comes down to the question of free will, and whether man is innately wicked or good:

'One man follows a course of evil conduct and is called a wicked and bad man: another follows an opposite course, and is called an uptight and good man. When we contemplate the life of the first, we are almost tempted to conclude that human nature is innately depraved: when we turn to that of the second, we are disposed to believe the opposite doctrine... The truth is, man is not absolutely either good or bad by nature; but we may safely affirm that he is much more inclined to good than to evil.'

It was difficult for the authorities to do anything about such general comments, but it was a different matter where the Bible was concerned. At this time the Bible was considered to be exactly the word of God, and to contradict it was a serious blasphemy. Under the blasphemy laws of the time anyone could be indicted for selling such blasphemous libels, without having been the author of the piece. So it was that Hetherington found himself indicted in 1840.

In 1838-39, Charles Haslam produced a serious of pamphlets entitled Haslam's Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations, sold by various booksellers, including Hetherington. The Letters were an examination of various Old Testament passages, more especially being a rejection of the miracles ascribed to Moses. Ethical Record, November, 1999 13 Haslam sought to prove that the doctrines the clergy were teaching were 'false, absurd, and irrational: that they are directly contrary to reason' The Church was alarmed and used its influence to push for prosecutions. , a London bookseller, was prosecuted, and then the original publisher, Abel Heywood of Manchester, was indicted. Despite public belief that such prosecutions were indefensible. Hetherington was tried on 8 December 1840.

Hetherington conducted his own defence against the indictment, which read that he, 'being a wicked, impious, and ill-disposed person, and having no regard for the laws or religion of this realm... did publish,.., a certain scandalous, impious, and blasphemous libel.., according to the tenor and effect... 'What wretched stuff this Bible is, to be sure!... 1 would advise the human race to burn every bible they have got... I renounce it as a vile compound of filth, blasphemy and nonsense, as a fraud and a cheat, and as an insult to God,'...' Hetherington expressed surprise that the Government, 'after having encouraged the circulation of cheap knowledge upon all subjects... should have placed me on my trial upon such a flimsy charge as this... when, out of a work comprising nearly 500 pages, the Attorney-General can only find one passage... whereon to found an indictment... In the whole work there is not one disrespectful work about Christianity...'

'Mr Haslam calls upon the clergy to enter into the controversy with him, and to let reason decide between them. Why do not the Government... adopt Mr Haslam's recommendation instead of instituting a prosecution against a bookseller who never read a line of the book till his attention was called to it by this unjust prosecution?... I appeal to the learned Attorney-General, whether my being ruined and sent to a dungeon, make me believe that I ought to be prosecuted for selling the book; or that a man has not a right to promulgate his opinions? I am placed in an awkward position in having to defend a man's right to publish. while I dissent from some of Mr Haslam's opinions, and the manner in which he has thought proper to express them... There was no way of inducing the Attorney- General to stay this prosecution, but by pleading guilty: and although I am well aware that your verdict, if adverse to me, will be my ruin, yet I would rather terminate my existence on the floor of this court than plead guilty to this lying indictment, or admit that I am a wicked, malicious, and evil-disposed person, when I know that to the best of my judgement and ability, 1 am an upright, honest, well-intentioned man. If I believed myself to be the man described in the indictment - which I must do before I could consent to plead guilty -.I would fly to the utmost parts of the earth; for a man is totally destroyed when he has lost all feeling of self-respect, and the esteem and regard of his friends and associates.'

In Prison for Bad Taste? Hetherington asserted that every man had the right to investigate all subjects, whether religious or political, and to publish the results of his investigations for the benefit of society. But, he pointed out, from the earliest times it had been common practice to stigmatise those who introduced new truths, and he quoted a number of Bible verses about the persecution of Prophets, and the attack on Stephen, the first Christian martyr. He admitted that the passage in the eighth Letter was highly objectionable in its phraseology, 'but is that a reason for sending a bookseller to prison, because he has sold a book written in bad taste? It cannot be - all published works must be left to the fiat of public opinion to determine their merit.' And then: `If the sale of a controversial book is to be suppressed, because it contains a few passages in bad taste, and of objectionable phraseology, then the sale of the Bible itself must be prohibited, for that book contains many passages far more 14 Ethical Record, Novembet; 1999 objectionable in the present day than any to be found in 'Haslam's Letters to the Clergy.'

Lord Denman ruled that the selling of a book was legally equivalent to the publication of the same, but he continued by saying that he had listened to Hetherington's defence with 'feelings of great interest.., and with sentiments of respect'. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty, and at the next sessions Hetherington was sentenced to four months imprisonment in the Marshalsea prison, although he only served 6 weeks.

Queen Mab Before his trial had begun, Hetherington sought to show the unfairness of such a prosecution by indicting Edward Moxon for the publication of a one-volume 'Complete Shelley', which included 'Queen Mab', which had been the subject of a conviction for blasphemy nineteen years earlier. Hetherington believed that he was being persecuted on political grounds, whereas Moxon published expensive items that the working classes could not afford. Despite a rather unsavoury campaign, in June 1841 Moxon was found guilty, despite Sergeant Talfourd resorting to the same strategy as Hetherington had at his own trial: in other words, that you must look at the publication as a whole, and not isolate certain passages to suit your argument. With the case in his favour. Hetherington immediately dropped the prosecution: he had won the point.

Fletherington continued to support Freethinkers and Freethought publications. The Oracle of Reason was probably the most aggressive publication to appear under the 'Freethought' banner. Its first three editors - Charles Southwell, George Holyoake and Thomas Paterson - were all prosecuted and Hetherington helped to set up an Anti-Persecution Union to support them. Hetherington defended the right of all these men to air their opinions:

'The atheist ought to be heard as well as others - and doubtless would... He was reminded of an old sailor who stepped on shore in Portsmouth, when a polemical controversy raged, and the walls were placarded with the words, 'Christ is god.' The old tar, not comprehending the change, said, he 'supposed that the old gentleman was dead.' He would stand by the question of free discussion, in the face of all consequences, as he ever had done.'

Aside from the trials and speeches, Hetherington worked hard as a Freethought publisher: he published his own three tracts; Principles and Practice; Cheap Salvation: and a full report of his Trial: plus various other Freethought publications, including: The Questions of Zapata (1843); Robert Cooper's Infidels Text Book: 'Bronterre' O'Brien's Babears Conspiracy for Equality: Atheism Justified and Religion Superseded, by Diagoras Atheos; The Yahoo; The New Ecce Homo, by J.C. Blumefeld, and a translation of D.F. Strauss's Life of Jesus. Probably his piece de resistance was the publication of A Few Hundred Bible Contradictions, A Hunt After the Devil, and other Odd Matters, by John P.Y., M.D. (1843), the largest Freethought publication of the era.

We have seen how Hetherington maintained his Freethought beliefs throughout his life: from his membership of the Freethinking Christians in the 1820s and up to his death in 1849, and his 'Last Will and Testament'. These beliefs were integral to his views on the condition of the working classes, and the country in general: he believed that organised religion was a tool for the oppression of the Ethical Record, November, 1999 15 people, and that the suppression of free expression was an act of despotism. On 10 June 1844, he gave his longest known speech on Freethought. The final paragraph shows that his commitment had not decreased:

`...He was growing old, and fond of retirement, and was thankful to those young fellows who would battle for liberty for him. But if the Government interfered with his right of free speech, old as he was, and ruinous as it might be to have his home broken up again, he would suffer it, and endure any kind of imprisonment, rather than give up that right.'

On 6 April 1845, Hetherington presided over a Tea and Soiree in honour of Thomas Paterson, and he asked those assembled to 'convey their warmest respect and approbation to him, who... left a quiet retirement to place himself in the thick of danger, and by inflexible defiance, to render the bigots' power abortive, and smooth the path for future friends of freedom.' It is doubtful that better sentiments could have been used to describe Hetherington's own career. But, perhaps a more fitting tribute was the inscription on a granite obelisk which was erected over his grave in 1873, and which included one of Hetherington's favourite quotes: 'The Poor Man's Guardian. His view of religion was that it consisted in promoting the happiness of every human being, irrespective of class, creed, country, or colour. 'It is our duty to leave the world better than we found it.'

Select Bibliography Ambrose G. Barker. Henry Hetherington, 1792-1849: A Pioneer in the Free Thought and Working Class Struggles of a Hundred Years Ago for the Freedom of the Press. London: Pioneer Press, 1938. Hollis, Patricia. The Pauper Press: a study in working-class radicalism of the 1830s. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Hollis, Patricia. 'Introduction' in The Poor Man's Guardian, 1831-1835. A reprint of the original journal with introduction by Patricia Hollis. 4 vols. London: Merlin Press, 1969.• The Life and Character of Henry Hetherington. Ed: George Jacob Holyoake, London: James Watson, 1849. Wiener, Joel H. The War of the Unstamped: The Movement to Repeal the British ,Newspaper Tax, 1830-1836. New York, Cornell University Press, 1969. THE GEORGIAN HOUSE IN LONDON

Oliver Westmoreland Commentary During a Walk around Georgian London, 24 October 1999

The Georgian house, you might say, is a dry and technical subject. You could divide the Georgian architectural period up into early (c1714-c1730), middle (c1730- c1800) and late (c1800-1830s) and find differences between houses of these sub- periods; but the differences - certainly at any rate relative to other architectural historical periods of similar length - are small. The Georgian house in London (whether modest, middling or even grand) usually comes in a terrace, has a flat or flattish fagade, a tidy and geometrical fenestration (ie arrangement of windows), and is narrow and tall. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Georgian houses is their uniformity - not only chronologically but also geographically. Later generations of Victorians were to find this uniformity disturbing; although we in the late 20th century may not necessarily share this negative emotion nonetheless it has to be said that if we are going to detect differences in one Georgian house from another (and 16 Ethical Record, November 1999 particularly if of similar date) we may have to examine them closely and be fairly pedantic.

Bedford Square and Perfect Aesthetics And yet a fine Georgian site like Bedford Square is anything but dry or boring. Bedford Square is of special interest to the Georgian aficionado; it is the oldest intact (or very nearly so) Georgian square in London. It was built in the late 1770s in the mid-Georgian period and was designed or partly designed by Thomas Leverton, surveyor to the Bedford estate, (Sumtnerson, 'Georgian London') There is a wealth of detail here that is worth discussing, but perhaps the most impressive thing about the square is the powerful sense of sedateness and grandeur it engenders.

The 18th century, they say, was a period of Enlightenment; a period of progressive and forward-looking ideas but also a period when classical culture was held in deep veneration. Unlike the situation in the 19th century, classical aesthetics were dominant over medieval ones. Here, in Bedford Square, we see this Enlightenment classicism in action, as it were - but it has a certain Englishness, or even Britishness, about it. Although there are certain features which are obviously classical (of which more shortly) there are others which are equally obviously specifically Georgian and thus British. The very tall first-floor piano nobile windows (a typical mid-and late Georgian feature); the wonderful large glass fanlights, with typical variety from house to housc; the similarly varied iron balustrades on the first-floor balconies; the Coade stone blocks incorporated in the doorcases: these features arc not so much classical or Italian Renaissance in origin as indigenous.

This is, I would suggest, that best way of understanding the Georgian house. It is basically a classical design; to be more specific, it is a design based more or less on Italian Renaissance houses, although sometimes in the so-called Neo-classical period in the latter part of the 18th century some houses were supposed to be designed on Roman or Greek models. But the classical design was modified to suit the likes of the British who designed and lived in them - a classical house adapted to British tastes and requirements.

What is more extraordinarily impressive about Bedford Square is, arguably, the doorcases. There are other similarly grand examples to be seen in, for example, other parts of Bloomsbury, but there they are all neatly grouped together, unspoilt. In architecture, great size can be impressive or intimidating, inspiring or ugly, depending on how it is used; in this case, the aesthetics work perfectly. It is generally the case that the size of the doorway of a Georgian house gives some idea os the latter's social level; these ones are, as it were, top of the range. Their dimensions are increased by the Coade stone ornaments, which are typically vermiculated and incorporate masks in the keystones. The extreme variety of fanlight designs - and, indeed, the variety of their size - adds interest and individuality.

The doorcascs alone make a compelling statement of expansive solidity, but the grandeur is further augmented by the groups of pilasters and pediments (ie temple fronts) in the centres of each side of the square. As is typical of Georgian squares, these centrepieces help to emphasis the symmetrical (or near symmetrical) character of each terrace. (This is the concept of the 'palace front' or 'palace fagade', ie that a tcrrace should be viewed as just one building rather than a group of joined houses.) They are interesting in one sense: they are stuccoed. Stuccoed (ie with brick covered in plaster) or partly stuccoed houses were to become enormously popular in Ethical Record, November, 1999 17 the last years of Georgian period from the 1820s, but this is a precocious example. The purpose of stuccoing was to make cheap brick look like expensive stone.

But they are also interesting in another sense: they constitute what is apparently a glaring solecism. The east and west terraces temple fronts both have four pilasters, which is fine but the north and south ones have five, which is not really. It is true that ancient Greek temples sometimes had an odd number of columns in the front facade, but Roman and Italian Renaissance buildings invariably had even numbers of columns or pilasters in the front. This was so that in the centre there could be, or could be a representation of, a doorway. This, then, is either a mistake or some kind of joke.

But, notwithstanding this peculiarity, Bedford Square is one of the great achievements of Georgiati building in London. Holborn and, more particularly, Bloomsbury have other examples of Georgian houses in the squares and streets; many of Bloomsbury's Georgian streets are still in good condition, although in some cases there is later infilling. Red Lion Square itself has a few, as does Bloomsbury Square. Both these squares are pre-Georgian, and the Georgian houses are thus later additions; in fact Bloomsbury Square, laid out in the early 1660s, is London's third- oldest. But for both technical interest and atmosphere, Bedford Square is hard to beat. CI

LIVING WITH THE ENEMY

Barbara Smoker Talk to the Ethical Socieo; 10 October 1999

I am speaking today about the fly-on-the-wall production of 'my' programme in the BBC2 Living with the Enemy series, to be transmitted in three days' time. I have been shown a video of the edited version, in case there were factual errors to be corrected, but the series producer would allow no other changes to be made. And I must say I would have liked to change quite a lot. Not, primarily, for reasons of vanity, but mainly because the editing policy is concentration on trivia at the expense of anything that might smack of the intellectual - which, to ratings-conscious television moguls, is anathema nowadays for any programme destined for peak-time transmission.

This particular series brings together extremists on either side of a contentious issue, and a great deal of time and trouble is devoted to their selection. At the end of the day, however, the producers are more interested in showing personal antagonism than in allowing the issues themselves to be argued out.

A number of atheist volunteers were subjected to the selection marathon, which included the filming of several interviews in one's home environment; and I was finally chosen - presumably, as the most vociferous. The 'enemy' with whom I was to lodge for a week was Gerald Coates, leader of a widespread evangelical Christian network, together with his wife and colleagues.

Television is an extraordinary wasteful medium. Though the fly-on-the-wall documentary is by no means the most expensive format, as it saves on studio costs and high celebrity fees, it is by far the most time-wasting. I realised, of course, that

18 Ethical Record, November, 1999 they would shoot many times the film footage required, but was amazed to discover that it was as much as sixty times the requirement - that is, some thirty hours of filming, often employing two camera angles, for a programme limited to 28 minutes.

Needless to say, the whole production team, from the executive producer and series producer down the hierarchy to the director of the production and various technicians, complain that the programme deserves a whole hour, but the inadequate time at their disposal does not mean that they edit out irrelevances and avoid repetition. What it does mean is that they can choose some funny or disconcerting episode as the main theme of the programme.

In our case, it was the alleged miracle of the sudden alchemic transmutation of amalgam tooth fillings into gold, usually during some highly charged religious experience. There was one such occurrence during a 'Toronto Blessing' at Gerald's home church, filmed as part of his selection for the programme. But the ridicule this attracted in the tabloid press made him and his colleagues shy of allowing the recipient of the gold fillings to be interviewed again or of allowing the cameras into the same church during my resident week. So the director of our production team resorted to showing me a video of the event and filming my reaction to it.

Although this was not, strictly speaking, part of the week that was supposed to comprise the programme, it was used as a running gag - the camera shots inside the woman's mouth being repeated at intervals, as though the editors had insufficient material to fill their 28 minutes. I actually feel quite sorry for the woman, who, making a fool of herself, is shown to be both stupid and hysterical, but I cannot help feeling glad that she enabled me to get in the best of my quips that is not edited out: I asked Gerald why, even if she was convinced about the gold miracle, she had ascribed it to God, when it would seem more logical to ascribe it to the tooth fairy.

The one head-to-head argument that I would have particularly liked to retain was my attack on the immoral doctrine of salvation through vicarious atonement - which, though the very cornerstone of Christianity, is inexplicably overlooked by most atheist philosophers. (Carefully avoiding hard words like 'vicarious', I used the analogy of the whipping-boy, but it was obviously still too serious for peak-time viewing.) Gerald's response, that the Saviour had willingly accepted crucifixion for the sake of humanity, hardly makes the scenario either moral or rational; it merely makes Christ masochistic so as to excuse the Father's capricious sadism.

Gerald, like any politician, was generally evasive when answering my questions; but he was always gentlemanly to me - rather too smooth, in fact - whereas I was my usual abrasive self. However, I quite enjoyed the week, and only once lost my cool. Needless to say, that moment was seized on by the editors as being good screen fodder. It took place during the only communal dinner of the week, to which Gerald and his wife had invited four of their evangelical activists. So there I was - one missionary pitted against six assailants, and trying to eat at the same time: not the most relaxing situation. In the end, I turned on one of the four guests - the one, as it happened, whom I found the most sympathetic - and told him he was weak-brained. Had I simply said that he was allowing his emotions to get the better of his reason, it would have sounded less rude. As it was, some humanist viewers are likely to think I let the side down there.

On the whole, however, I trust they will think I did a fairly good job on their behalf, even though my best polemic finished up on the cutting-room floor. Ethical Record, November, 1999 19 I also trust that no one misconstrues my willingness for the kind-hearted ladies who run a weekly 'prayer station; to pray over my chronic tingly fingers in a hopeless attempt at faith-healing, though I did warn them I had no faith whatsoever in their ministrations. Afterwards I was asked what I would have said had my fingers thereupon improved, and I had to admit that, following David Hume, I would have put it down to coincidence, which would be so much more credible than the supernatural suspension of natural law - the agreed definition of a miracle.

Since my week with the evangelicals I have been asked by several people whether it moderated my atheism. Now that wou/d be a miracle. CI

VIEWPOINTS A Response to Nicolas Walter While I have a good deal of sympathy with Nicolas Walter (ER, Oct 1999) in his disillusionment about the Humanist movement, I feel that his sentiments arise because he has a rather different perspective on what being a Humanist is all about from that of many of us. Clearly he would not be impressed by my own experience, namely that in my young days many freethinkers kept their thoughts to themselves whereas today we are respected for our stance.

There are many reasons why one may decide to describe oneself as a Humanist (as distinct form being nothing at all). An important one is in order to get in touch with others of like mind for largely social purposes. In a sense the success of Humanist ceremonies is a manifestation of that. There was no political bar to that success and without devaluing in any way the tremendous amount of thought and energy that has gone into building up the large group of officiants we now have, the fact is that we were pushing at an open door. The same is not true of the education situation, where the religious organisations have had a long tradition. But even so the extent to which we have managed to infiltrate many of our ideas both in RE and in most other aspects of the curriculum is considerable and may well not be appreciated by those not directly in touch with mainstream education.

This is not to be complacent. We have not been successful in diminishing the number of religious schools or reducing the power of the Bishops. But not all of us want to think of our organisations as being part of politics. It would certainly be a welcome change if some politicians from all parties publicly declared themselves to be freethinkers, but we cannot have that and also, as an organisation, a specific political view. If that is what Nicolas wants, I wish him well in pursuing things from that angle and hope he will continue to publish in his own inimitable way. Christine Bondi - Impington, Cambridge The 55 Year Cycle and Religious Resurgence The lecture about secular millennialism by David Nash (ER June '99) was interesting but the conclusion is a bit too pessimistic and there is a question at the end which has an answer.

In my view the biggest factor in explaining the current resurgence of religious ideas is that of Kondratieff cycles in the economy of the industrialised world which now means almost all the world economy. A summary in the 1920s by a Soviet economist who studied about 200 years of financial records showed that booms and

20 Ethical Record, November, 1999 slumps were endemic in the capitalist world but there was no final crisis of capitalism (Stalin didn't like that bit.) A long wave of about 55 years could be detected as well as shorter waves of growth and retrenchment. At the top of the boom there is over-confidence, over- investment, inflation and liberalisation of social mores. At the bottom of a trough there is the opposite of each including a move to more conservative values which partly shows as more support for religions. Detecting the booms and slumps seems easy but it isn't. Also, politicians are now aware of this analysis and think they should try to buck the trends. They want to try to even out the slumps but not the booms. That idea is nonsensical but they keep trying. They 'can't stop the basic pattern but they can shift boom and bust slightly by manipulations which simply make the whole pattern more unstable. The basic cycle is believed to be related to patterns of investment in new technology, different on each cycle, and the pattern of work and decisions over an individual's lifetime. • The last top of a cycle was round the early 1960s and led to the whole 60s thing. The last trough was round the mid-1980s and ,we are still living with the consequences of having to work our communal way out of it. Enter, the first end of millennium since the Industrial Revolution and we have millennium problems combined with a Kondratieff trough. The new millennium would feel completely different if we were at a boom instead of a bust. As it is we have religious cranks feeling the general insecurity of the trough as well as rehashing specific prophecies, and not forgetting that the commercial world (which used Christian year numbers across the whole world) has generated a real problem in the form of the millennium bug in the computers. Once the millennium has been and gone the whole industrial world will be working itself out of the current problems and a new period of liberalisation will develop where the big religions have less influence. To answer the question posed by David Nash, the beginning of this century saw the industrial world nearer the top of a cycle than we are now so of course it feels different. Hang on to get past the millennium and then we can get down to working on . the big problems (overpopulation, clean water, food and energy supplies) with more confidence than in recent years. Adrian Williams - London, N5

South Place Sunday Concerts During all my years as the General Secretary of South Place (1970 to 1981) I was very conscious of the fact that we had, in effect, two societies: the Sunday-go-to- meeting Society and the Sunday-go-to-concert Society - and ne'er the twain did meet. That was nobody's fault. It was just the way things had worked out. Relations were distant but quite good and we had a valuable overlap in that Colin Barralet of the Concerts Committee was the Treasurer of SPES. Perhaps we were all at fault. Meetings-people didn't go to concerts and vice- versa. It would be interesting to find out just how relations worked out in and after 1887, when and why the great divide began. The simplest answer is that there are ideas-people and music-people and it is right and proper to provide for both. There is a significant historical factor that we woUld be as well to be aware of, viz., that splitting and dividing and going separate ways is a sign of strengt6 and Ethical Record, November; 1999 21 vitality. It was how the early Puritans and the early socialists made history. And look at the history of the Methodists! It means decentralisation and more power at the grass roots. So I say: 'Good luck to an autonomous Concerts Society - we are proud to have been party to your genesis. We will stay friends.'

Conway Hall is South Place's greatest achievement. Conway Hall is London's Temple of Dissent, the ultimate defence (and assertion) of the freedoms of speech and association. If people have nowhere to meet, then what price those freedoms? It is a jewel in the crown, not just of the Society, but of London itself. In 1979 I put a great deal of work into the Memorial Lecture on the 50th Anniversary of the opening of the Hall. It was published in full in the Ethical Record and it tells a great story. I suggest that it might be off-printed and made available to all members old and new. The recent up-dating of the Hall reflects great credit on the Society - long may it prosper! Peter Cadogan - London NW6 Egoism and Altruism Donald Rooum (The Egoism of Max Stirner, ER Oct 99) makes a brave but ultimately unsatisfactory attempt to establish egoism - 'seeking to satisfy only oneself' - as a credible ethic.

He can attempt to do this only by invoking enlightened self-interest. Thus he writes of co-operation as arising from both parties happening to be wishing, for their own respective purposes, to 'move a table'. Again he writes that 'all benevolence satisfies the giver, one way and another'. Donald hopes to keep his thesis intact by smuggling in an element of chance, in the one case, and an element of altruism in the other.

By altruism I mean the practice of acting solely for others but.., wait a moment... if I choose to be intelligently altruistic (analogously to Donald's attempt to be an intelligent egoist) then, in order to serve others, I must maintain my own health and strength sufficiently to be able actually to do so. If I am an aid worker in a community being decimated by pestilence and if the appropriate vaccine, or whatever, is in short supply then I must keep back some to inject myself; I cannot help others if I go down sick; if I do go sick then I become yet another burden upon the already overstretched relief organisation. My altruism only works if I smuggle in an element of egoism. I am no good dead; I am worse than no good ill.

The fact is that the egoism/altruism issue is a classic case of spurious polarisation. Ethically effective action rests upon the appropriate mix of the two and what that mix actually is should be a matter of well schooled intuition - at the time - based upon critical reflection upon one's previous attempts to act ethically.

It is perhaps worth noting that the characteristic trap in egoism is special pleading - 'what is good for General Motors is good for America'. Likewise the characteristic trap in altruism is heavy intrusion - do we not recall the famous quip by CS. Lewis that 'she lived for others; you could recognise the others by their hunted look'? Eric Stockton - www.orknet.co.uk/godiva/ A Loophole for God's Morality I enjoyed your article on Utilitarianism (Utilitarianism - A Humanist View, ER Oct 99) but I have one adverse comment that you might care to consider.

22 Ethical Record,Rovember, 1999 The well rehearsed argument... that if God's will is synonymous with what is good then morality becomes mere conformity to authority while if God is merely the vehicle whereby morality reaches us then God is superfluous... seems to me to be loopholed. It is logically possible that morality, while being independent of God, may well be understood only by Him and that, therefore, moral knowledge comes to us only via God because He alone understands it and passes it on to us as His informed will.* Admittedly this possibility, that God is merely needed as a transmitter of morality, will not please those who believe Him actually to be what is moral; that is the believers' problem - not ours. Eric Stockton - www.orknet.co.uk/godiva/

*How do we know a priori that what God passes to us is worthwhile moral knowledge? [Ed.]

Living with the Enemy I am writing with reference to the above BBC2 programme which was broadcast on 13 October 1999. (See Barbara Smoker's report on page 18 [Ed.]) I found Ms Smoker's attitude throughout one of hostility and antagonism. She had very few sound arguments, was keen to personalise everything and at times was plain abusive. If this is the best candidate the rationalists could put up, I shudder to think of the calibre of the rank and file! D R Reidy - Coulsdon, Surrey

Note: Barbara Smoker received a large postbag, a few extracts of which follow:-

I have just seen you in Living with the Enemy and I admired your continuous good humour and consistent restatements of the simple secular humanist position. How right you were about pressing for evidence of those gold teeth! Paul Chennington - Henley-on-Thames

Gerald - 'my name means spearhead and I'm always at the forefront' - Coates was unable to answer her sensible questions about God and declared her 'extremely reactionary and hostile'. Barbara reckoned Gerald 'targets lonely people', that he was 'not entirely honest' and 'he's ready to tell people what they want to hear'. She won hands down. Graham Young, Birmingham Evening Mail

Many congratulations on your Living with the Enemy tour-de-force. You came over brilliantly. I can't think how you kept your temper with the 'enemy' at all! But certain you scored all the points... Jane Wynne Willson - President, British Humanist Association

I want to thank you for giving people views other than the religious nonsense pushed down our throats. You have probably brought out closet atheists and people who needed reminding that there is more to life than religion. You were very forceful and had the guts to stand your ground and I took great pleasure from the programme. H Livesey - Pendleton, Lanes

The views expressed in this Journal are not necessarily those of the Society. Ethical Record, November, 1999 23 PROGRAMME OF EVENTS AT THE ETHICAL SOCIETY The Library, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, WC1R 4RL. Tel: 0171 242 8037/8034 Registered Charity No. 251396 Website address: www.ethicalsoc.org.uk email: [email protected] NOVEMBER 1999 Friday 19 6.30 pm Art Soiree - Sources of Inspiration .\.to The Artist's View Vladimir Dirsh (illustrated); The Psychologist's View: Dr Alick Elithorn (illustrated) Malcolm Rees chairs. Talks from c7.00 pm. All Welcome. Refreshments Sunday 21 11.00 am DOCTOR-ASSISTED DYING - LEGALLY INEVITABLE? • Dr. Michael Irwin, Vice-Chair of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. (Living Will candidate in Kens/Chelsea By-election) 3.00 pm MYTHOLOGY, LEGEND & FOLKLORE. Len Smith Sunday 28 11.00 am THE BIBLE AND ETHICS - Is it Possible to Get From One to the Other? Prof. Philip Davies, University of Sheffield. 3.00 pm FUTURE PROGRAMME - OPEN FOR IDEAS Jennifer Jeynes DECEMBER Sunday 5 11.00 am QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLAINED (for beginners) Dr Stephen Szanto aims to show how various current theories explain the emergence of consciousness. 3.00 pm TOPICAL DISCUSSION Terry Mullins Sunday 12 11.00 am Sz`WALKING WITH DINOSAURS' FACT OR FANTASY? 3.00 pm Illustrated Talk & Discussion on the Controversial 6 part television series, led by Mike Howgate, Natural History Museum. In association with the Dinosaur Collectors' Club. Tuesday 14 7.30 pm ETHICS WORKSHOP: WAR & PEACE with Philosophy For All. Rick Lewis, Ed of Philosophy Now. Sunday 19 11.00 am YULETIDE DISCOURSE 3.00 pm ANTI-MILLENNIAL FESTIVITIES, rcfreshments. - Meetings resume Sunday 9 January 2000 at 11.00 am.

SOUTH PLACE SUNDAY CONCERTS AT CONWAY HALL at 630 pm. Tickets £5 November 28 DANTE STRING QUARTET HAYDN: Op. 76/4, BRAHMS: Op.67, JANACEK: No. I 'Kreutzer Sonata December 5 RUBINSTEIN PIANO TRIO BRAHMS: Op.8, SHOSTAKOVICH: Op.67, TCHAIKOVSKY: Op.50 December 12 VANBRUGH STRING QUARTET MOZART: K465, SHOSTAKOVICH: Op.110, STRAVINSKY: Three Pieces, BEETHOVEN: Op.95. Season's programme from D. Morris, PO Box 17635, London N12 8WN (send S.A.E.) Published' by the South Place Ethical Society, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, WC I R 4RL Printed by .I.G. Bryson (Printer) Ltd. 156-162 High Road, London N2 9AS ISSN 0014 - 1690