Ethical Record The Proceedings of the Conway Hall Ethical Society

Vol. 118 No. 5 £1.50 June 2013 EDITORIAL – CONFRONTING SALAFI-JIHADI IDEOLOGY The Centre for Secular Space [www.centreforsecularspace.org] has recently published a 112 page book entitled Double Bind – the Muslim Right, the Anglo- American Left and Universal Human Rights , written by Meredith Tax. This tract tackles the problem of how to react to the growth of Salafi-Jihadi ideology. It clearly delineates this pernicious ideology, which includes making no distinction between killing soldiers and civilians in pursuit of its aims. The term ‘double-bind’, deriving from Gregory Bateson, occurs when there appear to be ‘conflicting instructions’. For example, what does one do when the people mistreated by the state are also people who violate the rights of women? Traditionally, the ‘Left’ has answered ‘Leave the question of women’s rights until the state’s oppression has ended’, while the ‘Right’ has reversed this order of importance. The Editorial Group of the Centre for Secular Space formed to support Gita Sahgal (who, in 1989, spoke at the Ethical Society’s meeting at Conway Hall defending Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses ). In 2010, Gita had been suspended from being head of Amnesty International’s gender unit over Amnesty’s partnership with the group Cageprisoners, which advocates the notion of ‘defensive jihad’. It’s now vital for atheists and secularists to clarify their views on these complex issues involving the ‘double bind’. The book is now in the Humanist Library and should be studied.

THE MYTH OF SECULARITY: NONRELIGIOUS CULTURE IN CONTEMPORARY BRITAIN Lois Lee 3 NEW ADDITIONS TO THE HUMANIST LIBRARY Cathy Broad 7 A BRIEF HISTORY OF ANTI-VACCINATIONISM, MMR AND AUTISM Rob Brotherton 8 THE GINGERBREAD HOUSE Superstition and Pseudoscience in Steiner Schools Alex Lewis 14 VIEWPOINTS Robert Morrell, John Severs, Jennifer R. Jeynes 18 JOHN GRAY AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT: A CRITICAL LOOK David Simmonds 20 Book Review: THE SCIENCE OF DISCWORLD IV by Terry Pratchett Chris Bratcher 24 Book Review: THE ATHEIST CENTRE: UNBOUND BY CAGES by Jim Herrick. Norman Bacrac 27 SILENCE ON RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM Elizabeth O’Casey 27 FORTHCOMING EVENTS 28 CONWAY HALL ETHICAL SOCIETY Conway Hall Humanist Centre 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL. Main phone for all options: 020 7405 1818 Fax (lettings): 020 7061 6746 www.conwayhall.org.uk G.C. Chairman: Chris Bratcher G.C. Vice-chairman: Giles Enders Editor: Norman Bacrac Please email texts and viewpoints for the Editor to: [email protected] Staff Chief Executive Officer: Jim Walsh Tel: 020 7061 6745 [email protected] Administrator: Martha Lee Tel: 020 7061 6741 [email protected] Finance Officer: Linda Lamnica Tel: 020 7061 6740 [email protected] Librarian: Catherine Broad Tel: 020 7061 6747 [email protected] Hon. Archivist Carl Harrison carl @ethicalsoc.org.uk Programme Co-ordinator: Sid Rodrigues Tel: 020 7061 6744 [email protected] Lettings Officer: Carina Dvorak Tel: 020 7061 6750 [email protected] Caretakers: Eva Aubrechtova (i/c) Tel: 020 7061 6743 [email protected] together with: Brian Biagioni, Sean Foley, Tony Fraser, Rogerio Retuerma Maintena nce: Zia Hameed Tel: 020 7061 6742 [email protected]

CONWAY HALL ETHICAL SOCIETY Reg. Charity No. 251396 Founded in 1793, the Society is a progressive movement whose aims are: the study and dissemination of ethical principles based on humanism and freethought the cultivation of a rational and humane way of life, and the advancement of research and education in relevant fields. We invite to membership those who reject supernatural creeds and are in sympathy with our aims. At Conway Hall the programme includes Sunday lectures, discussions, evening courses and the Conway Hall Sunday Concerts of chamber music. The Society maintains a Humanist Library and Archives. The Society’s journal, Ethical Record , is issued monthly. Memorial meetings may be arranged. The annual subscription is £35 (£25 if a full-time student, unwaged or over 65)

CALLING MYSTICAL ATHEISTS Alice Herron at the University of Surrey is carrying out an investigation into the spontaneous, transformative, enlightening and/or mystical-type experiences of atheists. If you are an atheist and have had one or more of these experiences and would be willing to participate in this study, please contact me directly at [email protected] . The research has received a favourable ethical review from the University of Surrey. Many thanks for your assistance. Alice Herron, PhD student at the University of Surrey, Department of Psychology. Telephone: 07791219159

Splinter Manifesto An exhibition of oil and water colour painting by Candida Riva in the Brockway Room, Conway Hall on now until the 16 June 2013

2 Ethical Record, June 2013 THE MYTH OF SECULARITY: NONRELIGIOUS CULTURE IN CONTEMPORARY BRITAIN Lois Lee Lecture to the Ethical Society, 13 January 2013 The number of people who say they are not religious but who do not like to identify themselves as ‘atheist’ or ‘humanist’ represents one of the largest groups in Britain. This group of ‘neither/nors’ apparently provides evidence that Britain is significantly ‘secular’: they are people who are so unexercised by religion that they are not even troubled to oppose it. This is the sense of ‘secularity’ referred to in the notion of ‘secularisation’, meaning not the decline of religion per se but religion’s increasing insignificance in society. But is this the whole story? In this article, I draw on new social scientific research to show that the ‘neither/nors’ are not really secular at all. Rather than not really caring, they are in fact engaged with religion in a number of ways and, in affirming their sense of otherness from religion in the process, they should be seen not as non-practicing seculars but as the practicing nonreligious. Shifting our thinking in recognition of this is apparently slight, but in fact represents a fundamental recalibration of what it means to be secular, religiously plural and modern. A Post-religious society? Past understandings and expectations of what it meant to be modern foresaw the advance of secularisation, involving a declining interest in both religion and explicit forms of nonreligion and atheism: religion would decline as societies modernised, and nonreligion, which, the theory said, only exists to oppose religion, would therefore decline with it. We would all simply move on. This vision of post-religious society has failed to materialise. Of course, in places like the UK people decreasingly go to Church or believe in the tenets of orthodox religion. But these same populations have not disengaged from the topic as expected. Professor Kim Knott (University of Lancaster) has compared media coverage of both religion and nonreligion over the past 30 years and has found that the column inches for both have remained broadly similar over time; in fact, the coverage of religion has slightly increased over the period, and the coverage of nonreligion has also increased, also slightly but slightly more. Despite various gains, lobbyist and campaigning secularist groups like the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society still have plenty to keep them busy and their memberships and activity are both growing, not declining. There is, however, one phenomenon which seems to indicate that the post- religious prediction may have some clout yet, and this is the emergence of a large population of atheists who decline to identify themselves as such. That is, they are not religious but apparently don’t care enough to make a song and a dance of it. So, they don’t believe in God, but they don’t like to describe themselves as ‘atheist’ either; they might make use of Humanist ceremonies, but they don’t like to describe themselves as ‘humanist’; they might even describe themselves as religious: only 15.5 % of people described themselves as not religious in the 2001 Census of England and Wales whilst 27% gave atheistic answers to a question about the existence of God in the British Attitudes Survey Ethical Record, June 2013 3 in the year before. This number is based on the 12 % who said they did not believe in God combined with the 15 % who said that they believed it was impossible to know whether God exists – that is, the strong agnostic position. The two together can be considered atheist-in-practice in that both groups live their lives without reference to or interaction with any God or ‘higher power’. Most of the remaining 11.5 % must have identified with some religious grouping. In other surveys, however, 40-50 % of Britons identify as ‘not religious’ – suggesting a certain ambivalence and disregard for their religious or nonreligious identity. This group is arguably – and commonly – understood as being essentially indifferent to religion – as neither religious nor nonreligious. Indeed, many people understand and would identify themselves in these terms. What is more, by some measures, this ‘indifferent to religion’ group represent one of the largest groups in Britain. For example, the first decade of the twenty-first century has seen 40-50 % of Britons identifying as ‘not religious’ on the British Social Attitudes survey, with year-to-year fluctuations. Compared to this, the number of people who have identified as atheist ranges from the infinitesimal (e.g. on the 2001 Census) to the very small (5-10 % on large-scale surveys (Bullivant, 2010)). Subtracting those who explicitly identify as nonreligious from those who say they are not religious leaves the neither/nor group at between 30-45 % of the population. This is similar to the numbers of ‘indifferent to religion’ that Pascal Seigers (2010) has recorded: 35 %. It is clear, therefore, that this group represents one of the most significant aspects of contemporary ‘religious landscapes’, certainly in places like the UK. What is less clear, however, is whether the idea of ‘indifference to religion’ or ‘neither/nor’ status should be taken at face-value.

Non-practising Seculars or Practising Nonreligious? Conceptualising the secular person as intrinsically indifferent to religion has been a cornerstone of secularisation theory, then, but new research is suggesting that this label may be a misnomer. In fact, people who are apparently indifferent to religious or, indeed, nonreligious cultures are, in my view, very difficult to find. It is possible to find people who do not consider issues and cultures relating to religion to be important in their own thought or identity and will say so; what are much harder to find are people for whom this is actually the case. This is partly just an outcome of the continued role of religion in our cultural lives: religious traditions persist and are encountered afresh as a result of globalisation and the movement of people and cultures around the world; and new religions are formed. Even if religious practice were to disappear entirely, people would still encounter religious ideas and symbols in their history books and in the more embedded but less tangible threads of our cultural heritage. For those who are not religious, the nature of these encounters with religion can be enormously diverse, and social scientists are only just beginning to investigate and account for them. But what we know that they are not is uniformly muted. Whether in relation to cultures and movements around the world, political and social issues in the local community or to meaning systems and understanding

4 Ethical Record, June 2013 in our most intimate relationships, most people will have some feeling towards religion that is important to them. In fact, in the UK today people identifying as nonreligious are far more likely than religious people to say that this status is significant to them. The British Social Attitudes (2008) found, for example, that 26 % of Britons describe themselves as ‘very or extremely non-religious’, compared to only seven per cent who say they are ‘very of extremely religious’. People identifying as religious are far more likely to identify themselves as ‘somewhat religious’ (30 %), whereas the minority (11 %) of the nonreligious identify with this moderate phrase. In addition, whether considered to be a moderate or acute condition, these data also tell us that 27 % of Britons are in fact explicitly rather than incidentally nonreligious – approximately three times as many as the number of self-identifying ‘atheists’. If we consider that identifying oneself as ‘nonreligious’ is something that people are asked to do relatively frequently and sometimes in powerful contexts, the fact that being ‘merely’ nonreligious – rather than proactively ‘atheist’ – may still be socially and personally significant is not surprising. Public announcements of nonreligious status occur in relation to our experiences of religious and nonreligious ceremonies, for example, and ceremonies of our own ask us to make an explicit statement of our own (non)religious position. In public life, identifying oneself in line with a nonreligious position can occur in electing to make an affirmation rather than swearing an oath on a religious book in acting, for example, as a juror. Such occasions are intended to be strongly emotional experiences, drawing forth a sense of solemnity and commitment. They therefore provide a clear demonstration that we would be wrong to dismiss the significance of communal and symbolic aspects of even general, apparently vague nonreligious positions.

This social aspect to being nonreligious is at work in the ‘private’ as well as the ‘public’ domain, and therefore affects not only these important but infrequent ceremonial but our everyday lives and interactions. They might impact, for example, not only how we chose to make a public commitment to our partners, but our choice of partners in the first place. In my research with nonreligious people in south-east England, I found that even those stating a general disinterest in religion and nonreligion could nevertheless provide a clear indication of the (non)religious positions of their friends, families and, most importantly, partners. People who feel they do not care about these positions have often, it turns out, have established what these positions are early in their relationship and, though may cease to explicitly discuss the issue, go forth with their relationship with this tacit knowledge to hand. Try This Experiment At Home Here’s an experiment for you to ‘try at home’: the next time you’re talking to someone who says they don’t care much about religion and all that jazz, ask them if they could imagine being in a romantic relationship with someone whose religious views – or nonreligious views – were markedly different from their own. The hypotheses arising from my research is that they are likely to respond in a variety of ways – they might be instantly repelled; or they might have never

Ethical Record, June 2013 5 consciously engaged in the possibility and be curious to think about it; they might raise concerns but also lines of interest and attraction they might have – but they are likely to care . … and, if you take up the challenge, you might want to email me your findings! Social scientific engagement with nonreligious positions and with religious-nonreligious relations is a new area of research, so, whilst we have mounting evidence that people are engaged with issues relating to religion and nonreligion, we are still building a picture of the range of engagements at hand. As a result, performing this experiment is likely to lead to new insights for the field. The Basis of Nonreligiosity There is not space here to do justice to the variety of ways in which people’s lives are shaped by nonreligious culture that have already been charted. I have not even made mention, for example, of one of the most visible nonreligious interventions into contemporary culture: the ‘new atheist’ broadcasts and publications. However, the examples here are sufficient to show why a shift of thinking is in line, from an idea of contemporary society as one in which religion and nonreligion simply don’t matter, to an idea of it as one in which religion continues to matter to some people and nonreligion matters more than it ever did. This does not quite entail replacing the idea of ‘secular society’ for ‘nonreligious society’ because we are not writing religion out of the story; religious cultures continue to matter to many people and to shape our shared culture. But neither can this society be described as ‘religiously pluralist’, ‘multifaithist’ or ‘interfaithist’ – or with any other term that makes no proper accommodation of the culturally nonreligious. In fact, recognising the secular person as a mythical creature and instead paying due consideration to the rich cultural and social basis of nonreligiosity shakes the language of secularity and multiple faith-based terms at its core – and lays the path clear for a phase for fresh and innovative thinking about how we understand religion and nonreligion in contemporary society. Cited work and further reading Arweck, Elisabeth, Stephen Bullivant and Lois Lee (eds). In press, for publication in 2013. Nonreligion and Secularity . London: Routledge. Bullivant, Stephen. 2010. The New Atheism and Sociology: Why Here? Why Now? What Next? In Religion and the New Atheism: A Critical Appraisal , edited by Amarnath Amarasingam. Leiden: Brill: 109-124. Day, Abby. 2011. Believing in Belonging: Belief and Social Identity in the Modern World . Oxford: OUP. Lee, Lois. In press, for publication in 2013 . Western Europe. In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism , edited by Michael Ruse and Stephen Bullivant . Oxford: OUP. Siegers, Pascale. 2010. A Multiple Group Latent Class Analysis of Religious Orientations in Europe. In Cross-Cultural Analysis: Methods and Applications , edited by E. Davidov, P. Schmidt and J. Billet. New York, NY: Routledge: 387-413 I would like to thank the Blackham Fellowship (Conway Hall Ethical Society, the British Humanist Association) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for funding my research into British nonreligiosity and its development for publication. I would like to extend my particular thanks Jim Walsh for his

6 Ethical Record, June 2013 support over the course of the Blackham Fellowship. This article is developed from a lecture given to the Conway Hall Ethical Society on 13 January 2013 as part of their Sunday Lectures series; I am grateful for the invitation to speak in this series as well as for the thoughtful and illuminating audience discussion at that event, which has informed this article and my thinking. Dr Lois Lee is Associate Lecturer in Religious Studies at the University of Kent and founding director of the Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network (NSRN). She is an editor of the academic journals, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism and Secularism and Nonreligion , and of the website, NSRN Online . Between 2011 and 2012, she had a Blackham Fellowship to complete her first monograph, Nonreligion, Secularity and Society (forthcoming). She has published widely on the topics of secularity, nonreligion and atheism.

NEW ADDITIONS TO THE HUMANIST LIBRARY Amarasingam, Amarnath Religion and the new atheism 2012 De Waal, Frans The bonobo and the atheist 2013 Hitchcock, S.C. Disbelief 101 2009 Jones, Steve The serpent’s promise 2013 McCormick, Matthew Atheism and the case against Christ 2012 Miller, Kristine Meaning, self and the human potential 2012 Pickard, John Behind the myths 2013 Rutherford, Adam Creation 2013 Scrase, Leslie The four Gospels 2013 Stenger, Victor The new atheism 2009 Stewart, Robert B. The future of atheism 2008 Stratmann, Linda The Marquess of Queensberry 2013 York, Richard The science and humanism of Stephen J. Gould 2011 Cathy Broad, Librarian, Humanist Library and Archives

THE HUMANIST LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES The Humanist Library and Archives are open for members and researchers on Sundays to Thursdays from 0930 - 1730. Please let the Librarian, Catherine Broad, know of your intention to visit. The Library has an extensive collection of new and historic freethought material. Tel: 020 7061 6747. Email: [email protected]

THE THOMAS PAINE SOCIETY’S 50th ANNIVERSARY, SATURDAY 8 JUNE 2013 at Thetford Old School 1100-1500 For further details see www.thomaspainesocietyuk.org.uk or contact the secretary, Barbara Jacobson, 19, Charles Rowan House, Margery Street, London WC1. Tel: 02078331395. E-mail: [email protected]

Ethical Record, June 2013 7 A BRIEF HISTORY OF ANTI-VACCINATIONISM, MMR AND AUTISM Rob Brotherton Lecture to the Ethical Society, 14 April 2013 Measles is not a trivial disease. Common symptoms include a rash, coughing, and fever. More serious complications can include dehydration and pneumonia resulting in the need for hospitalisation. Occasionally measles can result in blindness, brain damage, or death. The virus spreads easily, making the disease extremely contagious. Before a vaccine was available, measles killed around 100 people every year in the UK alone (Jansen et al., 2003). Measles remains one of the most common causes of death in infants around the world (WHO, 2013). Fortunately, we have a vaccine which protects not only against measles, but against mumps and rubella as well: MMR. Unfortunately, for the last 15 years or so, the MMR vaccine has been the focus of anti-vaccinist sentiment. The MMR vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1988. For the next ten years, national uptake of the vaccine was over 90% (Boyce, 2007). But in 1998 a doctor called Andrew Wakefield published a study which launched the MMR- autism debate (Wakefield et al., 1998). The study claimed to have found measles virus in the intestines of a handful of autistic children. The paper speculates that MMR may have played a role in causing the children’s autism, but points out that the findings are not sufficient to prove the relationship. However, Wakefield took his research directly to the media and greatly overstated its implications. He claimed that the danger posed by MMR was so great that the vaccine should be withdrawn and individual measles, mumps, and rubella shots used instead. The Wakefield Panic We know that the media influences people’s beliefs and behaviour, particularly when it comes to health claims (e.g. Chapman, 2005), and there is no better illustration than the panic over MMR. In 1998, the year of Wakefield’s press conference, a handful of news stories reported Wakefield’s claim, and vaccine uptake began to fall slightly. But it wasn’t until 2001 that the story began to take on a life of its own. For several years around the early 2000s the idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism was the most heavily covered science story in the British media (Boyce, 2007). Much of the coverage was fear-mongering and misleading. As media coverage peaked between 2001 and 2003, national uptake dipped to 80%. Some parts of the country, particularly parts of London, had even lower vaccination rates (Offit, 2011). Unsurprisingly, the falling vaccination rates prompted outbreaks of the diseases that the vaccine prevents - particularly measles. The first outbreak to result from non-vaccination was in Dublin in 2000, where vaccination rates were lower than in the UK. Almost 1,600 cases of measles were reported. Over 100 children were admitted to hospital with serious complications, and three children died (McBrien et al., 2003). A 13 year-old boy died in England in 2006 – the first measles death in England since 1994 (BBC, 2006). In 2008, measles was declared endemic in the UK for the first time in 14 years (Independent, 2008). In 2012 there were over 2,000 cases of measles in England and Wales, mostly 8 Ethical Record, June 2013 affecting children and teenagers whose parents had rejected the MMR vaccine years earlier (HPA, 2013). As I write this, an ongoing measles outbreak in Wales has so far infected over 1,000 children, hospitalising 85 (BBC, 2013). In 2004 it emerged that the entire MMR-autism debate was built on a lie. Investigative journalist Brian Deer uncovered evidence that Wakefield had vested interests in finding a link between MMR and autism. Before beginning his research, Wakefield had been involved in a patent application for an allegedly safer alternative to the combined MMR vaccine. In addition, he had received in the region of half a million pounds from a personal-injury law firm to conduct the research. The same law firm had referred parents who believed their children to be vaccine-damaged to Wakefield so he could use the children in his research. Wakefield, the parents, and the law firm all stood to gain from finding a link between MMR and autism. But failing to declare a conflict of interest was the least of Wakefield’s wrongdoing. It emerged that the study, which involved conducting invasive medical procedures on children, had not been granted ethical approval. Finally, a co-author of the paper revealed that critical test results concerning the presence of measles virus in children’s intestines had simply been falsified (Deer, n.d.). Ultimately the paper was retracted by the journal which had published it, and Wakefield’s license to practice medicine in the UK was withdrawn. As Martin Robbins put it, Wakefield is as discredited as it is possible for a doctor to be (Robbins, 2013). But we shouldn’t necessarily dismiss the hypothesis that MMR causes autism on the basis of Wakefield’s behaviour alone. Nor do we have to: since his paper was published, multiple independent, large-scale, well- conducted studies have found no association between the MMR vaccine and autism (see Gerber & Offit, 2009).

Despite the weight of evidence, fears over MMR have persisted, spread, and diversified. But anti-vaccinationism predates Andrew Wakefield. In fact, this wasn’t the first time a British doctor had gone to the media with trumped-up claims of vaccine-related harm. DPT and Brain Damage The main symptom of pertussis is uncontrollable fits of coughing. The struggle to draw a breath after coughing subsides sometimes produces a high-pitched whooping noise, hence the disease’s colloquial name, whooping cough. The coughing can be violent enough to result in bleeding eyeballs, broken ribs, and hernias. Symptoms can last up to 4 months, sometimes leading to malnourishment, loss of sight or hearing, or brain damage. But pertussis is most dangerous in infants. Infants do not whoop; instead, unable to breathe they sometimes simply turn blue and die. It is estimated that almost 300,000 people die each year from whooping cough around the world, most of them young children (Bettiol et al., 2012). Fortunately, we have a vaccine that protects not only against pertussis, but also against diphtheria and tetanus: DTaP, formerly known as DPT. Unfortunately, in the 1970s and 80s, the DPT vaccine came under fire from anti-vaccinists.

Ethical Record, June 2013 9 In 1973, a British doctor called John Wilson gave an academic conference presentation in which he claimed that the pertussis component of DPT caused seizures and brain damage in infants. In 1974, Wilson co-authored an academic article describing his research (Kulenkampff, Schwartzman, & Wilson, 1974). The study was based only on a small number of children, and it has since emerged that some were misdiagnosed, and some hadn’t even received the DPT vaccine (Offit, 2011). But despite these flaws, Wilson took his findings to the media, appearing on prime-time television in front of millions of viewers. The programme contained harrowing imagines of sick children, and claimed that 100 British children suffered brain damage every year as a result of the DPT vaccine. Unsurprisingly, uptake of the DPT vaccine fell from around 80% in the early 1970s to just 31% by 1978. This was followed by a pertussis epidemic during 1978-79, in which 100,000 cases of whooping cough were reported in England and Wales (Gangarosa et al., 1998). It’s thought that around 600 children died in the outbreak (Offit, 2011). Despite flaws in Wilson’s study and mounting epidemiological evidence against the alleged link (see Offit, 2011), by the early 1980s DPT fears spread to the U.S. media. In 1982 a documentary called DPT: Vaccine Roulette aired on US television. Like its British precursor, it depicted emotive scenes of children who had allegedly been harmed by the DPT vaccine. The documentary stopped short of telling parents outright not to have their children vaccinated, but the implication was clear. One parent, a woman called Barbara Loe Fischer, watched Vaccine Roulette and came to believe that her own child had been injured by the DPT vaccine. She formed a group which spearheaded anti-vaccinationism as an organised movement in the US and abroad. Initially called Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT), they later changed their name to the National Vaccine Information Center. This reflected the fact that their opposition to vaccines had broadened beyond the DPT vaccine. Eventually the group and others like them would question the safety and efficacy of practically every vaccine in use (see Offit, 2011). The MMR-autism debate is in many ways simply an extension of these fears that arose in the 1970s. But anti-vaccinationism didn’t start there. In fact, anti- vaccinationism has been around since the very first vaccine was discovered. The Smallpox Plague Smallpox killed more people than any other disease throughout history. It has plagued humanity since the beginning of civilisation, and shaped the course of history. Battles and wars were won and lost because of outbreaks of smallpox, and monarchs and rulers died in office. Smallpox helped clear the way for the colonization of North and South America by European settlers. It is estimated that as recently as 1967 2 million people died around the world from smallpox in that year alone (Tucker, 2002). Smallpox caused foul-smelling and excruciatingly painful pus-filled blisters to erupt all over the victim’s face and body. Sores inside the mouth poured virus

10 Ethical Record, June 2013 particles into the mouth and throat, meaning that the virus was highly contagious, spread by coughing, sneezing, and even talking. The mortality rate was high. Around one in three infected adults would die, and four out of five children. Those who survived were often left disfigured by scars, or worse - many were blinded, pregnant women miscarried, and children’s growth was stunted (Riedel, 2005). Fortunately, a vaccine was discovered which protected against smallpox. Two centuries later, the virus has now been eradicated from the wild. Unfortunately, the new practice of vaccination gave rise to the kind of anti-vaccination movements which persist to this day. Edward Jenner The vaccine was discovered by Edward Jenner. As a child Jenner had a bad experience with variolation, which was a form of proto-vaccination. It involved deliberately causing a weakened form of smallpox, but occasionally induced the full effects of the disease. One in one-hundred variolated people would die (Riedel, 2005). Fortunately Jenner survived, and became keenly interested in smallpox (Allen, 2008). His interest deepened when he learned the folk wisdom that infection with cowpox virus, a disease affecting cows’ udders, offered milkmaids and other farm-workers protection against smallpox. Jenner was the first person to put this folk wisdom to test. He initially exposed 15 farm workers who had previously suffered from cowpox to smallpox virus. None became infected. Then in 1796 he deliberately infected a young boy with cowpox, and later exposed him to smallpox. The boy did not get sick; the cowpox protected him from smallpox (Riedel, 2005). Jenner published his findings in 1798 (Jenner, 1798). He called the process vaccination, derived from the Latin vaccinus meaning ‘of the cow’. By 1820, millions of people had been vaccinated in Britain, Europe, and the U.S., cutting the number of people dying from smallpox in half (Allen, 2008). However, there immediately arose some sporadic and disorganised opposition to the vaccine. Objections were occasionally religious, economic, or simply based on disgust at a vaccine derived from sick cows, coupled with distrust of the doctors who administered them (Offit, 2011). Just two years after publication, Jenner was forced to defend vaccination from detractors, writing “the feeble efforts of a few individuals to depreciate the new practice are sinking fast into contempt” (Jenner, 1800). This turned out to be overly optimistic. The first truly organised anti-vaccination movements have their origins in the Compulsory Vaccination Acts passed by British Parliament in the 1850s and 60s. The first vaccination law, introduced in 1853, threatened parents who did not vaccinate their children with fines and imprisonment. The law was widely accepted at first, due in large part to a smallpox epidemic which had swept through England the year before. However, vaccination rates fell off again when people realised that the law simply wasn’t enforced. In response, parliament passed a new tougher law in 1867. This time enforcers issued warnings, took parents to court, seized their assets, and could ultimately imprison vaccine- refusers (Allen, 2008).

Ethical Record, June 2013 11 In reaction to these laws, the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1866. By 1900 there were approximately 200 similar anti-vaccination leagues across England (Fitchett & Heymann, 2011). These groups claimed that the vaccine was at best useless, and at worst poison. They were active, distributing pamphlets and posters, writing to newspapers, and staging protests to get their message out. The US followed suit; American anti-vaccination societies began to spring up in the 1870s. In 1898 British anti-vaccinists won. The British government gave in, passing a law which allowed ‘conscientious objectors’ to opt out of vaccinating their children. Vaccination rates fell, and outbreaks of smallpox rose. In neighbouring Scotland and Ireland, where anti-vaccination movements had not gained any traction, the vaccine continued to be readily accepted, and smallpox continued to decline (Offit, 2011). As smallpox became a rare occurrence rather than a part of life, thanks to vaccination and other medical advances, the anti-vaccinists became less vocal. Eventually the most passionate leaders of turn-of-the-century anti-vaccination groups died off, and by the 1930s anti-vaccine sentiment was largely dormant. During the mid-20th Century, new vaccines were invented and mass campaigns urged their use. These campaigns failed to incite strong anti-vaccinist activity. Trust in medical science was high, and where vaccination rates were low, it was largely a result of apathy or poverty rather than active resistance (Allen, 2008). It wasn’t until the 1970s that fears over DPT reignited fears over vaccines.

Anti-vaccinationism arose in the 19th Century with the very first vaccine, re- emerged in the 1970s with fears over the DPT vaccine, and has dogged vaccines ever since. The MMR-autism debate wasn’t the first unfounded vaccine controversy, and won’t be the last. Modern anti-vaccinists continue to use the same fear-mongering, unscientific tactics and tropes as their 19th Century predecessors. Why is anti-vaccinationism so enduring? One reason may be that vaccines become victims of their own success. When a vaccine works, the disease it prevents becomes rare. This means people forget the suffering caused by the disease, and their minds are free to create imaginary horrors. Smallpox has been eradicated from the wild; it isn’t coming back. But measles, whooping cough, and many other vaccine preventable diseases can, and do, come back when vaccination rates fall. Perhaps we should try to keep in mind the suffering that vaccines prevent, and appreciate vaccines a little more. References Allen, A. (2008). Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver . London: W. W. Norton. BBC. (2006). First measles death for 14 years. from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4871728.stm BBC. (2013). Swansea measles: Cases in epidemic rise to 1,039. from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22385218 Bettiol, S., Wang, K., Thompson, M. J., Roberts, N. W., Perera, R., Heneghan, C. J. (2012). Symptomatic treatment of the cough in whooping cough. Cochrane Database of

12 Ethical Record, June 2013 Systematic Reviews, 5 . doi: 10.1002/14651858 Boyce, T. (2007). Health, Risk and News: The MMR Vaccine and the Media : Peter Lang Publishing. Chapman, S. (2005). Impact of news of celebrity illness on breast cancer screening: Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer diagnosis. Medical Journal of Australia, 183 (5), 247. Deer, B. (n.d.). The Wakefield Factor. from http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm Fitchett, J. R., & Heymann, D. L. (2011). Smallpox vaccination and opposition by anti- vaccination societies in 19th Century Britain. Historia Medicinae, 2 (1). Gangarosa, E. J., Galazka, A. M., Wolfe, C. R., Phillips, L. M., Gangarosa, R. E., Miller, E. (1998). Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: The untold story. The Lancet, 351 , 356-361. Gerber, J. S., & Offit, P. A. (2009). Vaccines and autism: A tale of shifting hypotheses. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 48 , 456-461. HPA. (2013). Number of laboratory confirmed measles cases in England and Wales. from a.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1223019390211 Independent, T. (2008). Official warning: Measles ‘endemic’ in Britain. from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/official- warning-measles-endemic-in-britain-851584.html Jansen, V. A. A., Stollenwerk, N., Jensen, H. J., Ramsay, M. E., Edmunds, W. J., & Rhodes, C. J. (2003). Measles outbreaks in a population with declining vaccine uptake. Science, 301 (5634), 804-804. Jenner, E. (1798). An Inquiry Into the Causes and Effects of the Variolæ Vaccinæ . Jenner, E. (1800). A Continuation of Facts and Observations Relative to the Variolæ Vaccinæ, or Cow-Pox. Kulenkampff, M., Schwartzman, J. S., & Wilson, J. (1974). Neurological complications of pertussis inoculation. Archives of disease in childhood, 49 (1), 46-49. McBrien, J., Murphy, J., Gill, D., Cronin, M., O’Donovan, C., & Cafferkey, M. T. (2003). Measles outbreak in Dublin, 2000. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22 (7), 580-584. doi: 10.1097/00006454-200307000-00002 Offit, P. A. (2011). Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All . New York: Basic Books. Riedel, S. (2005). Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 18 (1), 21. Robbins, M. (2013). Giving space to Andrew Wakefield on MMR isn’t balance, it’s lunacy. from http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2013/04/giving-space-andrew- wakefield-mmr-isnt-balance-its-lunacy Tucker, J. B. (2002). Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox . New York: Grove Press. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351 (9103), 637-641. doi: S0140673697110960 [pii] WHO. (2013). Measles. from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ HELP SPREAD HUMANISM IN AFRICA Leo Igwe of Nigeria will distribute copies of Barbara Smoker’s Humanism to schools and groups in Africa which are desperately short of text books expounding the history and concepts of humanism. We have spare copies but need help with the postal charges. Send £10 to Conway Hall Ethical Society to send 10 copies or £20 for 20 copies (marked ‘Africa’). Thank you. 5th Edition SPREAD ENLIGHTENMENT!

Ethical Record, June 2013 13 THE GINGERBREAD HOUSE Superstition and Pseudoscience in Steiner Schools Alex Lewis Lecture to the Ethical Society, 21 April 2013 With the introduction of the Michael Gove ’s Free School programme, t here has been much concern about the problem of creationism creeping into state funded education. Indeed, the Department of Education has had to explicitly state that it “will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum or as an alternative to accepted scientific theories”. [Creationism ‘banned from free schools’ Daily Telegraph 20 May 2011] Evangelical Christians are not the only groups who may want to use the freedom of the Free School system to promote pseudoscientific and superstitious beliefs to children. A few miles from where I live in Somerset, a new Free School has opened based on the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner. The Frome Steiner Academy describes itself as wanting to “awake the creative force that is in every child and letting it grow.” To prospective parents, the School says [http://www.steineracademyfrome.co.uk/about-steiner-school/] When The Steiner Academy Frome opened in September it joined an international community of Steiner schools who share a creative, child-centred approach to education. This tried and tested education builds on the individual ‘s strengths and supports every child to fulfil his or her unique destiny. It emphasises the role of the imagination in learning and the role of creativity in analytic thinking. How wonderful!

There are about 33 Steiner Schools in the UK (known internat ionally as Waldorf Schools) and we know from Freedom of Information requests that there are about 13 applications for new publicly funded schools. Their web sites are very consistent in describing their progressive, child-centred education with an emphasis on creativity and nature. But these descriptions are no more than clich és and do not begin to describe what the Steiner educational philosophy really is. It is my worry that prospective parents will find these new Free Schools very alluring; places of sanctuary away from the perceived exam mark hothousing of mainstream schools and their apparent impersonality and chaos. Steiner Schools are seen as places of safety, of gentleness and of spirituality. But, inside these schools are supernatural ideas, goals and techniques that are not disclosed upfront. So, how should we understand Steiner Schools? Steiner: the Founder of Anthroposophy Rudolf Steiner was a clairvoyant mystic who founded the occult belief system known as Anthroposophy. Working in the first quarter of the 20th Century, when spiritualist ideas were undergoing a fashionable revival, he borrowed the syncretic ideas of Mad ame Blavatsky that blended Western esoteric spiritualism and Christian Gnosticism with Eastern ideas about karma and reincarnation.

14 Ethical Record, June 2013 Rudolf Steiner believed that the spiritual world was real , but knowledge of this world was not available to our normal senses. In order to fulfil our potential as humans we must gain knowledge of the spiritual world though personal meditation. Such practic e gives clairvoyant access to the occult ‘Higher Worlds ’. He believed this process was scientific in nature and that those privileged to go through a spiritual journey would come to similar repeatable conclusions. People could become initiated into this spiritual knowledge thro ugh meditation, with those most spiritually developed joining the inner circle of Anthroposophy known as the First Class. Steiner ’s visions gave him insights into all areas of human life, including farming (biodynamics), art, dance (eurythmy ), diet, architecture, biology, history, geology, finance, and, crucially for us here, medicine and education. These insights have led to thousands of Anthroposophically inspired organisations including schools, farms, cosmetic and health companies (e.g Weleda), Banks, (e.g. Triodos) and spiritual communities (e.g. Camphill and the Christian Community). The Hierarchy of Races and Occult View of Child Development At the heart of Anthroposophy is the belief that humans are composite beings made up of our bodies and a number of spiritual entities that can be reincarnated. Our spirits enter into our bodies each lifetime in several stages as we grow. The physical body that you are incarnated into will depend on karma. That is, the beneficial or harmful effects you have on the world will revisit you as you reincarnate and determine the sort of physical existence you have. S teiner believed there was a hierarchy of existence that souls could inhabit driven by karma. Most controversially, he believed there was a racial spiritual hierarchy with black people possessing ‘child-like’ souls and the Aryan races possessing the most spiritually advanced, creative and intelligent souls. Through k arma and reincarnation it was possible for souls to move up or down this hierarchy. The schools say their pedagogy is based on ‘Dr Steiner ’s work on child development’. What does this mean? Child development in Anthroposophy is about spiritual development. At about seven years the ‘etheric body ’ incarnates. This incarnation coincides with the appearance of adult teeth and gives ‘ strength to learn ’. At about fourteen years the ‘ astral body ’ incarnates as puberty comes about. Finally, at 21 years, the I, or ego, the ‘ divine selfhood ’ incarnates. This occult view of child development gives rise to the teaching practices Steiner said should be employed in his schools. Steiner advocated delaying reading and writing as this could interfere with incarnation. Eurhythmy , a form of spiritual dance, is practiced every day in schools and is supposed to have spiritual and therapeuti c effects. Children are encouraged to copy and imitate rather than create until their spirits are ready. Artistic materials are limited to media and colours that have spiritual significance. Black is a spiritually negative colour and so black crayons are removed. Peach blossom, on the other hand, reflects the ‘the living image of the soul ’. Technology and science are delayed until about 14 years old as young children may not be ready for the spiritually difficult aspects of such knowledge. History is taught as a set of Eurocentric myths blended with tales of the Ancients.

Ethical Record, June 2013 15 School structure and relationships have a distinct pattern. One teacher may stay with a class for many years dominating a child’s experience of education. The school day is focussed around the ‘ Main Lesson ’ where a single topic may be studied for many weeks. Anthroposophical medicine plays a significant part in the school. A doctor who has undergone training in Steiner’s occult medical beliefs will regularly visit. The doctor may direct a child to receive homeopathy (Steiner embraced this nonsensical medical belief system) or extra eurythmy dance lessons to help develop the child ’s spirit. The doctor typically does not provide more mainstream services such as eye and hearing tests, vaccinat ions and medicines. Whilst the schools are keen to stress that they do not explicitly or tacitly oppose childhood immunisation programmes, the Health Protection Agency views Steiner Schools as ‘High Risk ’ and as ‘ unvaccinated communities ’. [ http://qako.me/13RIe2v] As such, health professionals consider these schools pose a direct threat to the wellbeing of children and their surrounding communities. [Mendip Planning: The Proposed Steiner Academy Frome Summary consultation report. http://qako.me/18e0Daz] Steiner Schools are the Expression of Anthroposophy But what of modern Steiner Schools? How much of Steiner ’s original vision is still enacted within schools? The schools themselves are very keen to point out that they do not teach Anthroposophy. This is misleading as critics do not accuse them of directly teaching Steiner ’s occult philosophy. However, just as on a visit to a doctor you would not get a lesson in medicine, you would expect medicine to be practiced on you. In a similar way, Steiner Schools are the expression of the practice of Anthroposophy. Steiner saw his teachers as undertaking a sacred spiritual task . The activities undertaken in the schools are an expression of Anthroposophical beliefs and that the children are the sacrament in this spiritual practice.

The difference with my medical analogy is though that you are quite aware that a doctor practices medicine. My central concern with the Steiner movement is that they do not disclose to the parents the nature of the education and the beliefs that inform it. Parents may have little inkling of the esoteric philosophy hidden within the school and have chosen the school for superficial, external reasons. Despite not explicitly teaching Anthroposophy to children, superstitious and pseudoscientific ideas lurk in every corner of Steiner teaching books. Rudolf Steiner had some strange ideas: he believed the British Isles floated on the seas held in place by cosmic forces; he believed Atlantis was a real place and crucial in understanding human history; he believed in the existence of gnomes. We know what modern Steiner teachers are taught in training thanks to the availability of the reading list from the recently closed Plymouth University Steiner-Waldorf Training Course [‘ Britain’s only Steiner university course closes ’ The Guardian 5 November 2009]. I have an anatomy book from that course that tells us that humans are bipedal because this allows us to pray. Other texts assert that the heart is not a pump, that homeopathy shows how the atomic model of matter is incomplete and how

16 Ethical Record, June 2013 Darwinism ‘is rooted in reductionist thinking and Victorian ethics’. Teachers were expected to read extensively from the works of Steiner’s occult teachings. Anthroposophy is an initiated, esoteric belief system, and so within schools we are likely to find a range of adherence to Steiner’s worldview. Some teacher s may enjoy the freedom such an environment gives in how they teach and ignore the mumbo-jumbo they see around t hem. Others will be deeply committed to an Anthroposophical perspective and the methods of Waldorf education. Regardless, teachers work within the Anthroposophical framework of Waldorf education with its rituals, curriculum and restrictions. What is common though is an apparent readiness for schools to distance themselves from Anthroposophy. Rudolf Steiner told his first teachers not to make the link explicit otherwise “people would break the Waldorf School ’s neck”. It is difficult to know whether we are seeing an evolved and reformed Steiner movement or one that is still i mmersed in its founding, secretive and esoteric traditions. One would expect though that if the Steiner movement had evolved there would be significant evidence of this documented. I see no evidence that convinces me that Anthroposophy is not still at the heart of the schools. What are the Outcomes? Schools report confident well rounded pupils who go onto many successful careers. The first state funded Steiner school in Hereford boa sted that it secured “some of the best GCSE results in the country”. [http://news.steinerwaldorf.org/2012_06_01_archive.html]. The challenge in accepting this at face value is that the number of pupils entered for exams are very , very small and pupils can only study for a handful of GCSEs, and none of them are technical or scientific. In Hereford’ s most recent Ofsted report, the School was given straight threes (satisfactory) across the board which my teaching friends tell me is unsatisfactory. [http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/filedownloading/?id=1975907&type=1&refer=0] Problematically, we must shift through many anecdotes out there about the success of Anthroposophical schools. In talking about this subject, and having met many Steiner parents and pupils (both current and ex), teachers and Anthroposophists, for every tale of the wonder of Steiner Education there is a parent who has been horrified about what they have found out and have felt lied to, and grown up alumni who have felt they have been denied a proper ed ucation. At the heart of the school is a contradiction between the alluring and gentle promises of a child-centred education and the superstitious worldview that underpins its approaches. After one talk I gave on the subject, a young woman stood up and said, “I am very disappointed in your talk and attitude to Steiner Schools. I come from an Anthroposophical family. My mother and father were Anthroposophists and wrote books on the subject. I went to a Steiner School and had a wonderful time. My sister did die though because she believed in homeopathy”. How that contradiction can be untangled I have no idea.

Ethical Record, June 2013 17 VIEWPOINTS

The Origin of the Leicester Secular Society In the course of his interesting article on Joseph McCabe published in the May issue of the Ethical Record , Norman Bacrac repeats Bill Cooke’s assertion that the Leicester Secular Society had been founded by G. J. Holyoake ( A Rebel to his Last Breath . p.37). While it’s perfectly true that Holyoake, in the course of his lecture tours, urged local freethinkers to organise, it is unclear to what extent this influenced those freethinkers in Leicester who were behind the formation of a secular society in the town. The first moves to do so were taken on 7 January 1861, when at a meeting held at the home (and business premises) of a Leicester businessman, W. H. Holyoak, the formation of such a society was proposed and agreed to ( The Reasoner , 27 January). The first formal meeting of the new society celebrated the birthday of Thomas Paine. From then until April the following year notices announcing the society’s meetings were announced weekly in Bradlaugh’s National Reformer . Nothing more was heard of the society, from which one can only conclude that it had ceased to exist in a formal sense, until on 26 August 1867 the National Reformer carried a report of a meeting held in the town to consider the formation of a Secular Society there. This was agreed and the following month the paper gave details of the new society’s elected officers and committee. One wonders whether Dr. Cooke had confused G. J. Holyoake with W. H. Holyoak, the name being spelt without the final ‘e’? Although not listed on the new society’s committee or as one of its officers, Holyoak was active in the society’s affairs and gave it financial support. Robert Morrell - Northampton

Too Many Enemies of Science I read with great interest the account in the May edition of the Ethical Record of Will Storr’s lecture on Adventures with Enemies of Science. His analysis of the problems with trying to win arguments using evidence and analysis exactly parallels my own experiences in writing to local papers on the twin topics of global warming and evolution. On global warming I gave an account of the actual situation and the dangers of continuing to release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, detailing evidence and its sources, suggesting that opponents research the reports for themselves. Did they do this? No – they simply quoted discredited claims or used points that I had already shown were false. As Will says, they do not want to know the truth, only what they think can be used to support their arguments. Evidence? Certainly not. One Guardian Diary butt, Godfrey Bloom, Yorkshire UKIP MEP, even used the state of his runner beans in support of his rejection of global warming. A physics professor at Durham University wrote asking why the rejectionists never had any evidence for what they claimed. Evidence? Who needs evidence when instinct is more than enough, when the red tops or David Bellamy puts them right. Similarly, evidence for evolution or natural selection, including an 18 Ethical Record, June 2013 on-going, widely based project at the University of Chicago, failed to elicit support. There’re just too many people, like Lord Monkton, who just know they are right. Why bother with evidence? John Severs - Durham City The Latest (Royal) Fellow of the Royal Society The Royal Society ‘for the improvement of natural knowledge’ was founded in 1660, during the scientific revolution that heralded the age of Enlightenment. The name derives from its royal charter kindly, and of course graciously, granted by Charles II recently returned from exile in France. Most Fellows (FRS) are elected, naturally enough, on the basis of their scientific achievements – and who could not but be impressed by the scientific calibre of early members such as Christopher Wren, Robert Hooke and Robert Boyle. Even more prestigious initials followed the name of Isaac Newton – PRS, or President of the Royal Society. There is a separate category, however, Royal Fellows, who are members of the Society by virtue of ‘royal blood’. As far as I know this egregious sanguinary fluid has not been subject to deep biochemical analysis in a centrifuge but there is no evidence that its haemoglobin colours it even slightly blue rather than the plebeian red of us millions of subjects; self-evidently it fails to confer intellectual superiority except possibly in betting on horses at the races. The Patron of the Royal Society is the monarch. If Prince Charles, well versed in the hereditary principle if not the hereditary science of Mendelian genetics, succeeds to the throne and therefore the patronage, the Royal Society’s patron will be someone who is known in the blogosphere as the Quacktitioner Royal and who seems proud of being accused of being an enemy of the Enlightenment.

Royal fellows at present comprise Princes Philip and Charles, Princess Anne and the Duke of Kent. Also Prince William - he no doubt took the opportunity to study aeronautical science using the expertise of his degree subject, history of art, while up in the air in the occasional sorties of his search and rescue helicopter. The latest to be elected is Prince Andrew – psephologically speaking this was rather unimpressive as when put to the vote, there was only one option provided – to vote ‘yes’. Eleven per cent of the electorate meekly acquiesced but 87% did not even bother to return the voting form. There is dissent, however, orchestrated by David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology at University College London (UCL), FRS since 1985. He pointed out that Prince Andrew was ‘an unsavoury character’ who should not be associated with the Royal Society. His concerns, itemised on his blog, Improbable Science – dcscience.net, include the way Prince Andrew railed at British anti-corruption investigators who queried a deal with that beacon of middle eastern democracy, Saudi Arabia; his close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who was convicted in Florida for soliciting an under-age girl for prostitution; his close friendship with the brutal and corrupt president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. Another rich friend conveniently bought the mansion he and (divorced wife) Fergie had lived in for £3m over the asking

Ethical Record, June 2013 19 price. Let’s not forget the prince’s work as a UK trade envoy, from which he was obliged to step down due to the bad publicity – he did not receive a salary of course, that would require terms and conditions but claimed so much in travel expenses to exotic places often with golf courses he wished to patronise, he earned the soubriquet, Airmiles Andy. Professor Colquhoun feels the category of royal fellow is outdated in the 21st century. Now a poll of the Society’s 1350 members shows that 53% of those who responded say the ‘election’ had damaged the Society’s reputation and 43% do not wish to elect any more members of the royal family. Jennifer R. Jeynes MSc(Earned), UCL, History & Philosophy of Science JOHN GRAY AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT: A CRITICAL LOOK David Simmonds I first encountered the philosopher John Gray some years ago on Radio Four’s ‘Start the Week’ with Andrew Marr, attacking ‘the Enlightenment’, the ‘Whiggish view of progress’ and humanism. Not one of the panellists, including Marr, put him on the carpet for his breezy assertions, which sound almost plausible until you examine them more closely. He has in fact many admirers, including JG Ballard, Will Self and Joan Bakewell. He has written at least 3 books since 2005: Straw Dogs (2005), Black Mass (2007) and most recently The Silence of Animals . He has also been interviewed twice in the New Humanist and both times given a rather easy ride. The ‘Whiggish’ Concept of Progress Gray considers himself an arch enemy of humanism, and his main objection seems to be its ‘na ïve belief in the inevitability of progress’, and the ‘essential goodness of man’. He makes the repeated assertion that modern secularist/humanist thinking is utopian in aspiration, something it has inherited from Christianity, but has failed because its belief in progress towards ‘the perfect world’ is wholly illusory. Firstly this is a caricature of humanist thought. Of course progress is not inevitable (we may even destroy the planet), but what the majority of humanists and secularists do believe is that our species has at least the capacity for making progress, through the use of reason and a scientific approach, and that we ought to be striving to do so. In a scathing critique of Gray in 2008 AC Grayling wrote: “Trying to make things better is not the same as believing that they can be made perfect. That is a point Gray completely fails to grasp, and it vitiates his case.” But Gray, strangely, does not even think we can make things better at all. What comes across from his books is that the world is dark and in a bad way (his last but one book was aptly named Black Mass ), and that there is nothing we can do about it. Just don’t bother. In similar vein Gray pours scorn on the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century, such as Montesquieu, Diderot and Condorcet, for their Panglossian belief in progress. The charge of nihilism against him is well deserved, and one which he does not appear to disavow.

20 Ethical Record, June 2013 The Case for Progress I would argue that progress has been indisputable over many centuries, however we define it, especially in those countries which, with all their imperfections, have taken on board the ideas of pluralism, freedom of expression, secular democracy, a scientific approach and other ‘enlightenment’ values. Let’s take Britain. In 1953 Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray diffraction techniques made a crucial contribution to the discovery of the DNA molecule, was having to eat her sandwiches in the kitchen at Cambridge University, since the common rooms were for men only. The year before that, the great mathematician and code breaker, Alan Turing, whom Churchill suggested helped to shorten the war by as much as two years, had to choose between imprisonment and chemical castration for his homosexuality. He chose the latter, and committed suicide not long after. Go back a century before that and we were forcing a very reluctant China to buy our opium, and sending children under 10 down coal mines for 12 hours a day. Go back another century and some Jacobite prisoners were being hung drawn and quartered. We could talk about the burning and torture of heretics under Mary Tudor, and the killing of witches, throwing Jews off the Tower of York in the 12th century, or our attitudes to slavery, the insane (punishment from God) and so on. I would say that we have moved forward. Going further afield, not long ago every single Latin American country was ruled by a repressive military junta, but now all are democracies. In Africa there are 21 democracies, some more flawed or fragile than others (and with economic growth exceeding the global average), but 40 years ago there were perhaps two or three.

The above examples refer to progress in moral awareness, and not medical and other technological advances. Clearly, if we include the latter, the case for progress is even stronger. Nazism and Stalinism and the ‘Illusion of Moral Progress’ Of course there have been ups and terrible downs, recent genocidal wars and other abominations. The horrors of Nazi Germany and of Stalinism are the usual examples given by Gray to show how thin is the veil of civilisation, and why the hopes for moral progress are illusory. Germany after all had produced Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, Schiller, Einstein and innumerable other great people. What a fall! However, it could be argued that in neither of these countries, had the enlightenment values of democracy, pluralism, and freedom of expression and person taken root. In Russia there was no democratic tradition at all, while in Germany the Weimar Republic introduced its Bill of Rights, universal franchise and so on only in 1919. This did not give it enough time to take root, before the Nazis were able to sweep it all away. Moreover, the Weimar constitution stated in article 48 (its main weakness), that the president did not need the Reichstag, but could issue decrees in an emergency. The problem was that it did not define

Ethical Record, June 2013 21 ‘emergency’, and in the end this allowed Hitler to become chancellor and take power legally. Taking a longer view of Germany, however, if we compare it today with any other period of its history, considerable progress is undeniable. In most parts of the world, especially in the west, the overall trend is upward. In his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, [This book is now in the Humanist Library {Ed.}] Harvard Professor Steven Pinker presents persuasive evidence for the long-term decline of violence, from the beginnings of recorded human history. This is despite the major wars of the 20th century, and despite a common perception that we are living in unprecedentedly violent times. This he attributes to a number of factors, an important one being that, as more and more people become accustomed to rational thinking, (in other words taking on the values of the enlightenment) and reject irrational prejudices, the justification for violence against our fellow human beings recedes. This recalls Voltaire’s famous maxim: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”. Humanism Just “Another Religion” or “Another Narrative” Gray’s other way of needling humanists and secularists is by lumping them all together with religions; indeed humanism and secularism are not only like other religions, they are the logical product, the child of religion. By blurring the distinction between a religious and a humanist/rationalist outlook Gray appears unaware of the huge gulf between them. The latter, in following a broadly scientific approach, are characterised by doubt. We do not base our ideas on revealed wisdom or claim a monopoly on ‘truth’. This is why we, and the enlightenment thinkers, believed in pluralism. Devout believers, on the other hand, ‘know’ the truth, truths which are eternal – who we are, why we are here, where we’re going and so on, and they also differ fundamentally from each other on these ‘truths’. Those who questioned these doctrines of faith, whether Christian, Muslim or Hindu have, in many historical periods, been killed, exiled or forcibly converted. In the words of Dr. Stephan Moreton: “People who base their ethics on ancient texts of dubious provenance, will find their ethical systems straight-jacketed by the mores and superstitions of the past. Once a mistake has been elevated to the status of ‘word of God’ there is no room to admit the error, remedy it, and move on.” Gray goes further. Not only does he give the secular enlightenment Christianity for a parent, he also gives us Nazism and Stalinism for children. (Because they also tried to create the perfect world, or ‘golden age’!) If Gray were not so highly esteemed by otherwise sensible people, such silly assertions are probably best not dignified with a response. Let’s let AC Grayling do the honours: “His case for this [humanism and secularism giving birth to Nazism and other totalitarian ideologies] is so massively wrong in its premises and so contradictory in its details that, alas, I should need as much paper to correct the mistakes as he consumes in making them.”

22 Ethical Record, June 2013 Can it be that Gray genuinely does not understand that totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Stalinism, with their techniques of thought control and enforced conformity, were essentially counter-Enlightenment projects? They demanded submission to a monolithic ideal, just as religions had done for many hundreds of years, and still do to some extent (think Taliban, Papal declarations about the sinfulness of condoms, the sinfulness of homosexuality etc.) It is the opposite of progressive secularism. Grayling again: “Most of what was achieved in the history of the West from the 16th century onwards was wrested from the bitter reactionary grip of religion inch by painful and frequently bloody inch. How can Gray so far ignore this bald fact of history as to make the modern secular West the inheritor of the ideals and aspirations of what it fought so hard to free itself from (and is still bedevilled by)? His accordingly is a bizarre fantasy-version of history.” There is much more to take issue with in Gray’s writings, and also a lot which is much less controversial (if unoriginal). Many of us may agree with his views, for example, on cruelty to animals, on the morals of the Iraq war, that we humans will never transcend our animal instincts (yes and no!), that advances in technology are often simply used to make more destructive weapons and so on. The AC Grayling critique can be read on line, or in the New Humanist of July/August 2007, and JP O’Malley’s interview with Gray was in the March/April NH of 2013.

VIRgINIA WooLf AND MADNESS: TRAUMA NARRATIVE IN Mrs. Dalloway by Suzette A. Henke A monograph based on the Virginia Clark Memorial Lecture delivered on 9 July 2008 to the Ethical Society. £5 inc post from the Society.

Camden Poetry a reCital of loCal Poems by dinah livingstone Camden Town Poet & CHES Member tuesday 7.15pm 4 June 2013 FREE ENTRY Camden Local Studies & Archives Centre 2nd Floor, Holborn Library, 32-38 Theobalds Road, London WC1X 8PA

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

Ethical Record, June 2013 23 Review of THE SCIENCE OF DISCWORLD IV by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen Ebury Press (Random House) 2013 ISBN 9780091949792 Chris Bratcher You may wonder why a review of a book set in a fantasy world should appear in the Ethical Record . A reason for doing so is that, on 24 April, Waterstones launched the book from Conway Hall to a packed audience; and Terry Pratchett is a very active patron of Dignity in Dying and a Distinguished Supporter of the BHA. If you know anything about Terry’s phenomenally successful Discworld series of books (worldwide sales, 75 million), it will be that it is set on a world in the form of a disc supported via elephants on the back of a star-trekking turtle, its physical laws are largely magic, and frequently the protagonists that save the day are generally incompetent elderly academic wizards and rather more street – or rather, people-wise witches. Surely, you may think, we can’t be having with that! Yet I declare myself a huge fan; I have read the canon more often than any other individual book, and not merely for entertainment. The audience at the launch, substantially in the 25 -50 age range, would have all been humanists in one sense or another, because the books attack through ridicule the notion of gods (who idly live in ‘Dunmanifestin’, their sport to try to toy with the denizens of Discworld whose strength of belief alone causes them to exist), and more seriously, to lampoon the vicious and intolerant practises of organised religion that blight various countries, remarkably like our own, in Discworld. As you will have gathered, the latter is an extremely wise and witty analogue of our so- called Roundworld, which also exists in the books (accidentally created by a hapless senior faculty member poking his finger into a High Energy Magic experiment!).

Roundworld is the explicit subject of The Science of Discworld series; it should properly be called the Science of Our World. The books are a framework for Pratchett’s co-authors, mathematician Ian Stewart (who was awarded the Michael Faraday medal for furthering the public understanding of science), and biologist, Jack Cohen, to explain the practise and basis of the sciences in depth, in interleaved chapters around a Discworld story based on responsibility for what has fictionally gone wrong in Roundworld. For example, in The Science of Discworld III, set in Victorian England, religion has stunted the progress of science, and in particular, Charles Darwin has not set sail in the Beagle, and has written the best-selling Theology of Species : cue, a first-rate exposition of Darwinism on the back of Roundworld’s (comical, but as we know, ultimately successful) attempts to retro-engineer the course of history away from a future of barbarian superstition. (Pratchett repeatedly shows in his books his fascination with the ‘many worlds’ (or the perpetually dividing ‘trousers of time’) interpretation of quantum mechanics). The Discworld plot in Volume IV is, frankly, trivial: an attempt in court to argue that Roundworld is religious property; with no more than guest appearances of familiar Roundworld characters. The book is essentially Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen’s. 24 Ethical Record, June 2013 Explaining the Higgs Particle I take as an example part of their exposition of the Higgs particle, which piggybacks on an account of the status and function of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (mirrored in the Discworld where the wizards have a unit, run by the only dons with a scientific outlook, where high energy ‘thaums’ or magic particles are collided). In theory, “The Higgs boson creates a Higgs field: a sea of Higgs bosons. The unusual feature is that the strength of the Higgs field is not zero, even in empty space. When a particle moves through this all pervasive field, it interacts with it, and the effect can be interpreted as mass. One analogy is moving a spoon through treacle, but that misrepresents mass as resistance, and Higgs is critical of that way of describing his theory. Another analogy views the Higgs as a celebrity at a party, who attracts a cluster of admirers.” Interesting, and relatively clear! – I hope. “The actual evidence for the Higgs is a tiny bump on a statistical graph. In what sense can we be confident that the bump actually represents a new particle? It is impossible to observe a Higgs boson directly, because it splits… very rapidly into a swarm of other particles. These collide with yet other particles, creating a huge mess. It takes very clever mathematics and very fast computers to tease out of this mess the characteristic signature of a Higgs boson. Since they are very rare, you need to run the experiment many times and perform some sophisticated statistical analysis. Only when the chance of that bump being coincidence falls below one in a million do physicists allow themselves to express confidence that the Higgs is real. We say ‘the’ Higgs, but there are alternative theories with more than one Higgs-like particle – eighteen fundamental particles; or nineteen, or twenty. But now we know there is at least one ..” I find this a particularly well written account for the layman, because it sets the Higgs discovery in context. They go on to say: “Even understanding the aspect of ‘mass’ involved (did you know that mass had ‘aspects?) and which particles it applies to, is complicated ... so in what sense can scientists claim to ‘know’ how the universe behaves?” The authors then discuss the interpretative aspects of science. The major theme of the book is that our default interpretation of the world is in human terms as a reflection of ourselves; explanation is in terms of purpose and agency: essentially the religious point of view, in contrast to the ‘universe centred’ view. A snippet: “in a human centred view, souls make sense. In a universe-centred view, they look like a philosophical category error.” Now does the book seem more attractive to those philosophers of science amongst you? A similar up to-date account is given of theories of the centrality of ribosomes in understanding life as an emergent property by arrangement from chemistry, with further philosophical discussion. You can get insight into the different perceptions of evolution by Simon Conway Morris and Stephen Gould, and into what is wrong with the arguments of Michael Behe, the chief proponent of ‘intelligent design’. Varieties of the Anthropic Principle are well discussed. Your cosmological knowledge will really be brought up to date, e.g., with the consequences of the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which is consistent with a positive non-zero cosmological constant,

Ethical Record, June 2013 25 and why this calls in question the standard model of the cosmos, the Big Bang. The authors explain the selective interpretations of Einstein’s field equations that led to it and other topologies, as well as one could wish without recourse to maths. Cosmology really is in the melting pot. The sticking plasters: dark energy and dark matter, propped up by untestable theories of supersymmetry to solve the problem of galactic rotation curves, look to be just that. The supposed inflation of the Universe by a factor of at least 10 78 between 10 -36 and 10 -32 seconds after that event is (according to Roger Penrose) more improbable by a factor of one googolplex (ten to the power ten to the power 100) than the improbable initial conditions that don’t require inflation. (Did you (want to) know that “it is now realised that if an inflaton (sic) field exists, it doesn’t conveniently switch on once and then cease to operate, which is assumed in the usual explanation of our universe.”?) Instead, some are reviving a version of the steady state universe; “redshift is to be caused not by expansion, but by gravity. Dark matter is not needed to explain rotation curves: instead, relativistic inertial dragging.... might do the job.” The universal application of Einstein’s general theory of gravity is even being questioned (by Martinus Veltman (Nobel prize winner); ‘Coming to terms with the Higgs’, Nature 490 (2012) S10-S11: p 245). New modifications are being conjectured: the authors cover contributions to the 2011 Royal Society journal issue devoted to the issue. I have only scratched the surface of an amazing effort to review and explain every fundamental area of science, coupled with a trenchant case for atheism that comprehends the pitfalls that have caused religious belief to this day. I have no space to cover their exposition of Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell , by reference to their own review of belief systems and the application of Bayesian decision theory (why we stick to beliefs in the face of evidence). They close with the following, on the claim that atheism is just another form of belief: “The default is to disbelieve. An atheist is not someone who believes that God doesn’t exist. It is someone who doesn’t believe that God does exist. If you think these are the same, ponder this statement by the comedian Penn Jillette: “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.” Keep on not collecting!

THE 80 th CONWAY MEMORIAL LECTURE JEREMY BENTHAM: PROPHET OF SECULARISM by Philip Schofield Copies available at £4 inc post from the Conway Hall Ethical Society

family Values? J.s. mill on liberty reconsidered Talk by Greg Claeys, Professor of the History of Political Thought 1900 Thursday 20 June 2013 at the Bishopsgate Institute For further details www.bishopsgate.org.uk or call 020 7392 9200

If you have any suggestions for speakers or event ideas, or would like to convene a Sunday afternoon informal, get in touch with Sid Rodrigues at [email protected] or 020 7061 6744.

26 Ethical Record, June 2013 BOOK REVIEW – THE ATHEIST CENTRE: UNBOUND BY CAGES by Jim Herrick. Published by the Atheist Centre (2012) 88pp. US $ 5. The Atheist Centre, Benz Circle, Vijayawada 520 010, India. www.atheistcentre.in Norman Bacrac Jim Herrick opens his tribute to the seminal ideas of the founder of Positive Atheism in India, Gora (1902 – 1975) with this poem: Whatever the world may decree I shall not be bound By the cage of caste and religion For, I am a Universal man Gurram Joshua , a Telegu Dalit Poet Jim Herrick, who is currently writing a history of the South Place Ethical Society, is a long-time friend of the Indian Atheist and Secularist movements. He was invited to spend two months at the Atheist Centre, Vijayawada, last year. While there, he inaugurated a conference in honour of the centenary of the birth of Gora’s wife, Saraswathi (1912 – 2006), who worked together with her husband for India’s independence and the intellectual freedom of its people from the prevalent superstitions. The book recounts the major events in the evolution of Gora’s thought, from being born into a traditional Hindu family, through expulsion from it for non- conformity, setting up a school for Untouchables (Dalits), conversations with Ghandi and much political work. His book, Positive Atheism, first published in 1938, asserted that atheists should be active towards the universe. This recalls Marx’s lament that the point of philosophy should be to change, not merely to understand the world. A copy of Jim’s interesting, illustrated book is now in the Humanist Library at Conway Hall and is well-worth a read.

SILENCE ON RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM An extract from the NSS’s Newsline , 22 May 2013, written by Elizabeth O’Casey, NSS Council of Management A press release about the launch of a new website, Safe Campus Communities, made no mention of religious extremism as something to combat specifically. Instead, it contained only a vague phrase about ‘inter-faith relations’. Through its use of opaque language and absence of any reference to religion, it gives the worrying impression it is reluctant to confront one of the core elements of extremism in universities: that is, religious extremism. Any group serious about promoting the equality, safety and freedom of students, needs to have the courage to acknowledge publicly the central role that religious extremism plays. It needs to acknowledge the central role religious extremism plays in marginalising and manipulating the vulnerable. It needs to acknowledge the central role religious extremism plays in consistently undermining women’s rights and intimidating women on campus and the central role religious extremism plays in helping develop a generation of segregated, radicalised and, potentially, very dangerous individuals.

Ethical Record, June 2013 27 FORTHCOMING EVENTS Conway Hall , 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, WC1R 4RL. Tel: 020 7405 1818 Registered Charity No. 251396 For programme updates, email: [email protected] Website: www.conwayhall.org.uk Admission to Sunday morning lectures is free for members of CHES and £3 (£2 conc) for non-members. For other events, no charge unless stated. JUNE 2013 Sunday 2 THE RISE OF THE LAPTOP LIZARDS – fighting misleading 1100 advertising Alan Henness , Director of the Nightingale Collaboration

1300 90TH BIRTHDAY OF BARBARA SMOKER. Drinks and buffet lunch 1400 Tributes from representatives of associated organisations 1500 Tea and birthday cake. All Welcome

Saturday 8 Centre for Inquiry UK and Conway Hall Ethical Society present 1030-1400 CAN SCIENCE SOLVE EVERY MYSTERY? Peter Atkins, David Papineau, Peter S. Williams Can science answer every question? Are science and religion “non- overlapping magisteria”, as the scientist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, or is science capable of showing that religion is false, as Richard Dawkins believes? Presented and chaired by Stephen Law (Provost of CFI UK). £7 (£4 students) Free to friends of CFI UK. Tickets on door. Sunday 9 ONE LAW FOR ALL: Campaigning against Sharia and religious laws 1100 Anne Marie Waters

Sunday 16 BEHIND THE MYTHS – The foundations of Judaism, Christianity 1100 and Islam John Pickard

Sunday 23 THE DRILLER, THE BANKER AND THE MINISTER 1100 Tom Rubens

Sunday 30 SPIRITS ON THE BRAIN: Insights from psychology and neuroscience 1100 Chris French , Professor and Head of Anomalistic Psychology, Goldsmiths U of London

JULY Sunday 7 MARQUESS OF QUEENSBERRY . Oscar Wilde’s nemesis 1100 Author, Linda Stratmann

Sunday 14 DO ATHEISTS HAVE MYSTICAL-TYPE EXPERIENCES? 1100 Alice Herron (U of Surrey)

Sunday 21 UNNATURAL PREDATORS: MORE FOLKLORE OF FEAR 1100 Deborah Hyde Published by the Conway Hall Ethical Society, 25 Red Lion Square, WC1R 4RL Printed by J.G. Bryson (Printer). 156-162 High Road, London N2 9AS. ISSN 0014 - 1690