Event report: Prof Volker Sommer - 'Apes Like Us: Confessions of a Primatologist'

Time: 2 February 2012, 19:00 - 21:00
Place: Gavin de Beer LT, Anatomy Building, University College London

UCLU ASHS welcomed Volker Sommer, Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at UCL, to give us a talk on our tendency to distinguish ourselves from animals, and what he believes is the true relationship between human beings and non-human primates. His research revolves around the behavioural ecology of apes in the wild, much of which is covered in his upcoming book, Apes Like Us. 

Prof Sommer began his talk outlining the deep-rooted folk view of defining a dichotomy between humans and animals. As we like to construct our knowledge of the world using heuristics, or rules of thumb, we like to perceive the world in dichotomous terms, i.e. black vs. white, human vs. animal, and enlightened vs. primitive. This is echoed in the Cartesian dual-mind hypothesis, namely that body and soul, or matter and mind, are separate entities. This separation of ourselves from animals started falling apart, however, with Darwinian theory and a paradigm shift towards the notion of human and other animals having a shared common history. Thus, 'longitudinally', Prof Sommer explained, 'dichotomy disappeared.'


What followed was the view of naturalism, which posited that not only are other animals mechanistic or machine-like governed by nothing but natural laws, but that humans are merely machines as well. Humans are the result of nature and evolution - like other things including plants and bacteria, 'we also consist of stuff'.

Hence, we should advocate the view of materialism and monism, rather than dualism. Nevertheless, there is a human tendency to want dualism: Prof Sommer refer to the German word Sonderstellung, i.e. 'special place', as a way to describe our desire to be unique and establish that there are qualitative differences between humans and other animals. With the sentiment of 'of course evolution took place, but humans are very, very special!', people increasingly substitute the lack of body-soul dualism by reinventing a divide between humans and animals. This concept of Essentialism, i.e. that humanity is essentially something different and special, Prof Sommer argued, is even shared by 'enlightened people who want to feel connected to the cabbages and the chimpanzees and the cockroaches and so on.' This is further reflected in Humanism, in which humans are perceived have individual value and inherent human rights, setting us apart from animals.

Prof Sommer then went on to advance his own view, Gradualism, which is the paradigm of contemporary evolutionary anthropology. The gradualist view is that we are all unique, both humans and other animals, yet there is a similarity in hardware between the two that you cannot discuss away with Essentialism. He argued for this view by providing several examples of studies with apes and monkeys, both in the wild and with domesticated animals. Chimpanzees in the wild intentionally make brush ends of sticks from trees in order to create a spoon-like tool to get honey out of nests of bees. They are also able to use tools in succession, e.g. using a large stick to try and find a spot where they can insert a smaller stick in tree trunks and on the ground to look for termites.

Prof Sommer also showed several videos of non-human primates displaying tool use, intent, and high cognitive abilities.




Prof Sommer's take home points were that, in nature, there is gradualism, and thus we should be against the notion of specism in the same manner we are against sexism and racism. He advocates an enlargement of the community of equals and that great apes should be entitled to legal rights under legal bodies, similarly to humans. 

Following a Q&A session covering topics such as social constructivism and whether non-human primates can exhibit suicidal tendencies, Prof Sommer joined us at the Bentham for further enlightening discussions.

Event report: Philip Satherley - 'The Case for Assisted Dying'

Time: 19 January 2012, 19:00-21:00
Place: Ramsay LT, Christopher Ingold Building, University College London

We invited Philip Satherley, the Research and Policy Officer of Dignity in Dying (DiD), to give a talk on assisted dying.



DiD is a UK organisation campaigning for the legislation of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. They work alongside Compassion in Dying, a partner organisation focused on informing and supporting terminally ill individuals concerning their current choices and rights at the end of life.

To introduce the topic, Satherley sought to clarify what is meant by assisted dying, and its definition relative to similar concepts:

• Assisted dying applies to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who are medically deemed to have less than 6 months to live; and who have met strict criteria and safeguards, including psychological tests. This involves the patient receiving life-ending medication, which they will self-administer at their own will - quite often this is done at a very advanced stage in their terminal illness. Assisted dying is practiced legally in Oregon and Washington. 
• Assisted suicide applies to not only terminally ill individuals, but also chronically ill and disabled individuals who wish to receive assistance to terminate their life. This is legalised in Switzerland. 
• Voluntary euthanasia allows a medical doctor to administer life-terminating medication - usually injection - directly to the patient. Strict safeguards and tests are still undergone. Voluntary euthanasia is practiced in the Netherlands and Belgium. 
• Non-voluntary euthanasia applies to cases where the patient has lost all mental capacity, yet a third-party administers life-ending medication without the explicit consent of the patient. This is not to be confused with involuntary euthanasia, which is when euthanasia is performed against the will of the patient. While illegal all across the world, non-voluntary euthanasia is practiced in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol.

Satherley stressed that DiD campaigns for assisted dying only, specifically addressing critical safeguards such as appropriate mental capacity, 18 years of age, the patient having a terminal illness and voluntarily and repeatedly having requested assisted dying.



Two examples of personal stories illustrate the types of cases DiD works with:

• Waltraud Coles: Waltraud's husband wrote to DiD telling them about his wife's struggle with advanced secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Due to excessive fatigue and severely limited mobility, severe side effects from partially effective pain relief, and an onset of pneumonia, she self-terminated her life by refusing all foods and water for 19 days. Her last words were: "Society is making me die in this abysmally cruel way. Society is anybody who cannot be bothered to lift one single finger to change this (current) inhumane law, and thus give completely helpless people like myself, in the very advanced phase of a degenerative illness, no other legal option (than starvation) when we want to end the unbearable daily ordeal which is all that is left of our 'life'."
• Geraldine McClelland: A member of DiD, Geraldine contacted the organisation when she was informed of her terminal illness - lung and liver cancer metastasised from breast cancer. On the day of her death, she wrote a letter to DiD, detailing her actions and what she believed needed to be changed in UK legislation regarding assisted dying. Her condition, which involved serious breathing problems, had confined her to her home. She wanted the option to take life-ending medication to terminate her life surrounded by friends and family. However, as UK laws prevent this, she travelled to Dignitas, an assisted dying organisation in Switzerland. As she could not die in her own country, she pleaded for the UK laws to be changed such that other people would not need to travel abroad in order to die. 

Importantly, and also expressed by Waltraud Coles, Geraldine believed loved ones should not be in a position of breaking the law in such situations. Debbie Purdy, suffering from multiple sclerosis, won a significant case through the House of Lords where she succeeded in arguing that the partner of a terminally ill patient should not be prosecuted when accompanying them abroad for assisted dying.

Satherley proceeded to summarise why DiD strongly believes laws should be changed to allow assisted dying in the UK:

• Personal autonomy: as Sir Patrick Stewart, one of the patrons of DiD, put it - "We have no control over how we arrive in the world, but at the end of a life we should have legal control over how we leave it."
• Research from Oregon: approximately 40% of patients receiving life-terminating medication choose not to use it, but consider the option a great comfort or an 'insurance policy'; most patients are well-educated, medically insured (i.e. no financial difficulty), had no prior disabilities or mental illness, and had cancer as the underlying cause of illness; and while some had symptoms of depression, all patients receiving assisted death had full mental capacity and were able to make rational decisions. 
• Opinions of the general public: the 2010 British Attitude Survey (BAS) found that 82% of the general public supported assisted suicide, and the 2008 BAS found that 80% supported assisted dying. 
• Opinions of religious people: breaking down the survey between religious and non-religious people, the 2010 BAS found that 92% of non-religious people supported assisted dying and assisted suicide, while 72% of religious people did the same.

One important question that was raised during the following Q&A session was why DiD campaigns for assisted dying, specifically, and not the other forms of euthanasia. Satherley stressed the importance of having safeguards in place, e.g. ensuring that the patient has a terminal illness, and not a chronic illness or disability which may be open for improvement of life quality. Moreover, DiD believes it is essential that physicians are involved as there are problems with taking the procedures out of the medical system; and that voluntary euthanasia ultimately takes the final decision out of the hands of the patient by - to an extent - forcing the practitioner to end an individual's life. 

DiD campagins for what the UCLU ASHS believes is a very important cause, and they are always looking for people to get involved. If you want to join the campaign, they can be found on Facebook and Twitter.

Event report: Keith Porteous Wood - 'Religious Threats to Equalities'

Time: 12 January 2012, 19:00-21:00
Place: Harry Massey LT, 25 Gordon Street, University College London

UCLU ASHS welcomed Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society (NSS) to give a talk on the special privileges and exemption from laws given to religious people in society. Having been in his current position since 1996, Wood leads the NSS in lobbying the UK government and Parliament, focusing on universal equalities and human rights. While his job description is to promote equalities and human rights, Wood began his talk saying he is actually fighting religion all of the time, 'so often it's religion that's the problem.'

Wood gave several examples of cases he had dealt with in his work throughout his talk, to illustrate the manner in which religious bodies claim exemption from various codes of conduct. These include the disadvantages faced by teachers in faith schools, the vast majority of whom are not religious, yet work in schools whose authorities can legally employ and dismiss qualified teachers on the basis of their religious beliefs. Similarly, the NSS has been involved in cases of individuals being discharged from job positions on the basis of their sexual orientation. While such instances angered Parliament, the Blair government at the time (2003) let these cases pass  - which 'gives an idea of exactly how much influence religion has in government.' The cumulative effect of having had religious Prime Ministers almost exclusively for the past 30 years is huge.

To further illustrate the kind of fights and their scope the NSS has to encounter, Wood described a case under the Brown government, whereby it was stated there should not be any concessions in VAT for religious places of worship. Wood and the NSS wanted this to be generalised to all public places - however, this request was rejected. It was not until Wood wrote an appeal to Brussels, that the UK government finally gave in. The work of the NSS spans broad horizons, then, as there interventions at a European level and occasionally in the UN. Although the Fundamental Rights Agency has been set up under the EU to look into human rights issues around Europe, tied to e.g. immigration and homophobia, Wood argued that a fundamental problem is the immense power of churches: their historical roots coupled with well-developed and well-funded networks of people part of a large hierarchical organisation, make the fight for human rights and equalities particularly challenging. To illustrate this, he described an episode during one of his visits to the headquarters of the European Commission - purposed to be a secular organisation - where he witnessed a male secretary greet a visiting bishop by kissing his ring.

Another fundamental problem, is the heterogeneity of the religious population: as many religious people are rather liberal and secular, there is a huge mismatch of democracy that religious representatives have so much power. This illustrates a worrying misrepresentation of the religious population. Indeed, in his conclusion of his talk, Wood argued that the entire religious make-up of the country is changing. Roughly 7% of the population go to church on a regular Sunday, at a rate that is constantly dropping, while the average age of church-goers increase at a meteoric rate. Considering this, it is 'absolutely bloody terrifying what they [religious bodies] can do because of their noddy religious status.'

Event report: 'Sharia Law Negates Human Rights' - a debate co-hosted with One Law For All

Time: 8 December 2011, 18:00-21:00
Place: Bedford Way LG04, 26 Bedford Way, University College London


Alongside One Law For All, a human rights campaign opposing Sharia Law in Britain with the view that it violates the principles of equality grounded in UK law, UCLU ASHS hosted a debate on the motion 'Sharia Law Negates Human Rights.' Debaters in proposition were Maryam Namazie, human rights campaigner and spokesperson for One Law For All; and Anne-Marie Waters, human rights lawyer and also a spokesperson for the campaign. Debaters in opposition were Ayazz Mahmood, representative from the UK Ahmadiyya Muslim University of Theology and Languages; and Jonathan Butterworth, UCL Law Faculty lecturer and member of the human rights charity Just Fair. 



Moderator of the debate, 4th year medical student Jacob Ressa, introduced the topic by referring to the recent media attention dedicated to the prospects of implementing Sharia Law into the Western legal systems. He clarified that this was not to be a debate on the existence of Sharia, but its nature and whether it is compatible with human rights.

Each debater was given 20 minutes to put forth their argument, before the floor opened up for Q&A.

Namazie stated that the two terms, Sharia Law and human rights, are 'antiethical, contradictory, and oppositional', highlighting features of Sharia Law's criminal code, which includes stoning individuals to death for adultery and executions for homosexuality. Drawing a parallel between Sharia Law and the history of Christianity, she emphasised that Sharia Law is 'brutal, it's medieval, it's barbaric.'

Further, Namazie stressed that Sharia Law not only negates human rights, but also women's rights, referring to how a woman's testimony is worth half the that of man as, supposedly, 'women are governed by emotion, men are governed by the mind', and that men have unilateral right to divorce while women do not. To further illustrate the subjection of women by Sharia Law, she strongly questioned the Sharia Law argument that 'marital rape is not an aggression, because sexual intercourse is a part of the marriage; calling it 'rape' is an aggression.' A qualifying argument that is often raised, is that individuals subscribing to Islam are free to attend Sharia courts or UK courts as they see fit. Namazie countered this, however, by noting that Muslim women often do not have a choice, but are driven into these courts by their husbands to renegotiate decisions already made in a UK court.



The danger of human rights proponents not speaking up against Sharia Law, Namazie argued, is that it would leave an open space for far-right movement to take on that role. While right-wing extremists have unfavourably hijacked the view of opposing Islam and Sharia Law, she considers right-wing extremism and Sharia Law to be equally anti-human rights and racist.

Finally, Namazie emphasised that while she is of the perspective that 'religions are equal and equally bad', her attack on Sharia Law is not an attack on the religion of Islam, but rather an attack on how Sharia Law 'violates rights left, right and center.'

In opposition, Mahmood stated that Namazie and other human rights activists have a gross misunderstanding of the nature of true Sharia. The Law as presented by Namazie and as acted out in countries such as Iran and Afghanistan, he argued, is not representative of Islam and Sharia. He emphasised that Islamic jurisprudence consists of different schools of thought, each with their own interpretation of Sharia Law. The only authentic source of Sharia is The Holy Koran, according to which Sharia Law does not negate human rights, as it is fundamentally based on principles of humanity.

Mahmood then proceeded to address each of Namazie's and other Sharia Law opponents' criticism of the Law's criminal code with the argument that none of the human rights-violating codes practiced are prescribed in the Koran. For instance, forced marriages are not condoned - rather, the Koran states that the consent of the bride is necessary for marriage.  Moreover, on the violation of women's rights, Mahmood pointed out that Islam afforded rights to women 14 centuries ahead of Western countries. He attributed Sharia opponents' objections to their lack of detailed study of the Koran and misunderstanding of facts; and noted that misuse of Sharia Law is not representative of the true Sharia as originated in the Koran. To draw a parallel, he argued that secular laws have been equally misused in history, e.g. in the world wars and the USSR - but that these are not representative of Western secular values in general.


Nevertheless, Mahmood highlighted that an Islamic government is a secular government, based on equal justice and adherence to human rights, and with no religious compulsion: 'religion does not need to be the predominant legislatory power in a state.' He then emphasised the necessity to join forces and reach a common ground against violations of human rights, by promoting the true Sharia.

Waters countered Mahmood's argument that Sharia Law cannot negate human rights as it is originated in the Koran, by stating, 'Sharia is what Sharia does', i.e. 1400-year-old philosophical origins are not an argument against what is actually happening under Sharia Law in the UK today. While Namazie gave a passionate and moral argument against Sharia Law, Waters set out to provide a legal point of view, to prove that the motion is a matter of fact. Referring to paragraphs in the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights as the UK adheres to, she demonstrated how Sharia Law - as it is practiced today - violates these. Examples of violated articles from the UN Declaration include:

1. Article 4 'No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms': Waters noted that children are still allowed to be married in Yemen, with the argument 'because this happened to the Prophet, we cannot prohibit children to be married'
2. Article 5 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment': in Afghanistan, thousands of women are imprisoned because they have been raped. 

Aware of the counterargument from Sharia proponents that such practices do not represent true Sharia, Waters repeatedly stated, 'Is this not true Sharia? The Sharia councils seem to think so - if you don't like it, then take it up with them.' To emphasise the importance of protecting human rights and its relevance to Sharia Law, her concluding statement was, 'Human rights are all we've got and human beings are all we've got. If human rights apply to women, then we need to get rid of Sharia, because they trample on the rights of women, and that is a fact.'

Finally, Butterworth brought forth the view that both opponents and proponents of the motion arguing for the same case; however, kept talking past each other as they were referring to different notions of Sharia Law. As a recent converted Muslim, he believes that the acts performed in the name of Sharia is 'disgusting' - 'But is it true Sharia? No.'

Echoing Mahmood's closing statements, Butterworth stated that freedom is the basis of both human rights and Islam, and that Islam thus guarantees universal human rights. Referring to J.S. Mill's harm principle as an essential component of freedom, Butterworth acknowledged that Islam is often criticised for violating this principle by advocating religious compulsion. He countered this by quoting the Koran: 'there is no compulsion in religion', i.e. Islam advocates choice and secularism. He further referred to the Koran to demonstrate its promotion of universal human rights - for example, the Prophet Muhammed famously declared that all people are sacred and inviolable.



Butterworth then set out to argue for Sharia's protection of economic and social rights, children's rights, and women's rights. For instance, 2.5% of every Muslim's wealth goes to promote social and economic rights for the most vulnerable members of the population - thus, Sharia takes an explicit human rights approach by acknowledging the rights of those who ask for help and need it. With regards to women's rights, the Koran states that women and men are in equity, but that men are above women in responsibility: 'If Sharia was applied properly, it would be the men who would be complaining.' Finally, the Koran deals with children's rights by stating that those dealing with minors should care for them equally as if they were their own. Thus, Butterworth argued, true Islam and Sharia seek to protect human rights - if it does not, it means it is not true Islam. He concluded by commending the One Law For All campaign for working against the human-rights violating acts that are practiced in the name of Sharia Law today.

Much debate was sparked by issues raised by audience members during the Q&A session. For example, a proponent of the motion sought to provide a source correction by pointing out that there is a verse in the Koran that does condone wife-beating. In response, Mahmood stated that the Koran advocates for married couples that the first step to communicate, the second step is to separate, and only if those two actions do not work, the third step is for the husband to arbitrate when the wife is being severely impossible. Importantly, however, it is stated that the husband is not to inflict any physical pain upon the wife. Namazie and Waters both argued that the Koran allows the husband to get away with domestic abuse by hiding behind a verse. Moreover, Waters questioned the status such a verse gives to women: 'You can be hit, but without a mark?' Another issue raised, was that of citizens explicitly wanting a Sharia government: during the Arab Spring, the niqab was banned under Gaddafi - while the first thing Liberian women did following liberation was to reinstate it. In response, Namazie noted that there is never a case where an entire population is Muslim, nor is every Muslim the same: 'Secularism is not every religion doing what they want in public space'.



It became apparent that the two sides of the motion maintained different concepts of 'Sharia Law', i.e. as it is practiced versus as it is truly described - which concept is the most relevant today is a question to brought forward.

Many thanks to One Law For All and the debate panel for partaking in this successful event on such an important topic.

For those of you who were unable to attend, here is a video of the debate:

Event report: Winterval Quiz & Social 2011

Time: 2 December 2011, 18:00-2200
Place: The Old Refectory, Wilkins Building, University College London

As the second academic term is commencing (and I've finally submitted my 10 000 words of coursework), it's time for a recap of our last two main events of the first term.

Joining forces for the first time with Central London Humanist Group (CLHG) and London Skeptics in the Pub (SitP), UCLU ASHS co-organised Winterval 2011, a fun night of quiz rounds, snacks and socialising to collect money for the Uganda Humanist Schools Trust, a charity organisation working towards offering liberal, humanist education to children in need.

Maneuvering the show was comedian and writer Helen Keen, winner of the first Channel 4 New Comedy Writing Initiative Award. The event attracted around roughly 100 attendees, immersing themselves in questions on atheism, science, skepticism, and humanism; as well as general topics including music, history, geography and film.

7 rounds of questions - with bonus rounds in between - and several drinks later, the victory went to the team 'The Skeptics in the Pub', with 'The British Homeopathic Association', 'Nation of Quizlam', and 'Quizlamic Extremists as close runners-up.


With the combined sales from snacks and drinks throughout the night, donations at the entrance, and a generous contribution from an anonymous donator, we ended up sending off £2437.20 to the Uganda Humanist Schools Trust! This big accomplishment could not have been attained without the hard work of the co-organisers, Alice Fuller and Alex Gilbert, and Helen for running the event so smoothly; nor without all who decided to come for the night. Special thanks to those who volunteered to help out collecting donations and cleaning up afterwards. We hope you enjoyed the night and look forwards to similar events in the future!

 The quiz winners: The London Skeptics in the Pub

Happy London atheists 

Event report: Paolo Viscardi - "Myths, Memes, & Misidentifications"

Time: 03 November 2011, 19:00 - 20:30
Place: Ramsay LT, Christopher Ingold Building, University College London

UCLU ASHS gathered on this rainy Thursday night for a talk on mermaids, the Montauk Monster, and Japanese Monkeyfish, amongst other dubiously existing creatures introduced to us by Paolo Viscardi. As a natural history curator at the Horniman Museum in South London, co-founder of London Science in the Pub, and administrator of askabiologist.co.uk, Viscardi presented numerous examples from both history and his own experiences of the evolution of myths, memes, and misidentifications in society, demonstrating how "members of the public are freaks."

With an educational background in biology and geology, Viscardi applies his knowledge of fossils and bones in his work at the Horniman Museum. As such, he frequently receives inquiries from laymen finding ambigious-looking objects around the country requesting their identification (or confirmation of wacky suspicions, rather), of which he listed several examples: a concreted sea urchin believed to be a dinosaur egg; the all so familiar random toast burns believed to be the manifestation of Jesus and its Muslim equivalent; the Pope in a fire; and the 'polar bear' washed up on the beach in Cornwall. These are all examples of pareidolia, people's tendency to assume things are 'super freaky' because it looks different or has certain features, reflecting the intrinsic human ability to search for and attribute meaning to ambiguous stimuli. When taken to the extreme, pareidolia can also reflect human idiocy, as it were, exemplified by the case of the man who was so convinced the piece of rock he had found was a dinosaur egg containing an embryo, that he kept it for over 20 years and staked his entire retirement on it.

The Montauk Monster, in particular, is a case of mistaken identity which received widespread attention. A 'weird alien monster creature with a beak' washed up on the shore of Montauk, spawning a cult movement including Montauk Monster artwork, websites, origami and Montauk Monster on toast, before the truth was finally revealed as retold in this video. Instead of indulging in this the hysteria of pareidolia, Viscardi urged us to look at the Monster's teeth, as teeth are very good indicators of the species. Showing us images of the Montauk Monster's skull next to four comparable skulls of North American mammals, the audience unanimously correctly identified the Monster's skull as that belonging to a raccoon. Its carcass had been in water for such a long time that it had lost all its fur, thus giving it its otherwordly appearance.

Viscardi described further examples of such mistaken identities and manufactured monsters. Travellers, including Christopher Columbus, encountering the then unfamiliar species of manatees and dugongs, would often think they were mermaids. Stories of mermaids have been around for thousands of years, and there is a large body of folklore and myths surrounding these mythological creatures. Naturally, then, sailors knew much more about mermaids than manatees and dugongs. This, coupled with likely mental disturbances, such as hallucinations, caused by long travels, would lead the sailors to believe these squishy creatures were mermaids.

It goes without saying that the phenomenon of pareidolia can easily be exploited for personal gain. Mermen, or Japanese Monkeyfish, were believed to be manufactured by sewing the upper half of a monkey to the lower half of a fish. P.T. Barnum was a notable scam artist who in the mid-1800s misrepresented the so-called 'Fejee Mermaid' with a rich 'background story', 'verification' of authenticity by a 'Dr Griffith' and clever manipulation of newspaper journalists. This caused great uproar among the public, generating substantial sums of money for Barnum. Years later, a Japanese Monkeyfish arrived at the Horniman Museum. CAT scans, x-rays and other examinations revealed the 'part fish, part monkey' to be constructed by a piece of wire, some pieces of wood, a bundle of fiber, some fabric, clay, papiermaché and some fish bones.

In conclusion, then, 'always check your facts, otherwise you'll end up looking like an arse.' Also, there are lots of weirdos out there.

Check out Viscardi's blog for Friday mystery objects or visit the Horniman Museum (supposedly wonderful in the summer for picnic with mates!).

Event report: Paul Sims - "Criticising Islam: Free Speech or Bigotry?"

Time: 13 October 2011, 19:00 - 21:00
Place: Darwin Biochemistry LT, Darwin Building, University College London

Following the successes of past events with Paul Sims, including a talk on the importance of keeping a dialogue with believers, UCLU ASHS was happy to welcome the News Editor of New Humanist Magazine back to chair a debate on the grey area between criticism of Islam and Islamophobia.

Sims introduced the topic with a reference to Conservative minister Baroness Warsi's comment earlier this year on how open criticism of Islam is now so widespread, it has "passed the dinner-table test." This provoked strong reactions from secularists, who assumed the Baroness was criticising the critique of Islam. While he initially agreed with her critics, Sims now find himself seeing eye to eye with Baroness Warsi, citing two important concerns: i) the rise of the EDL (English Defence League) and in particular their intimidating and violent protests against not only Islamist groups, but Muslims in general; and ii) the way in which media, in particular right-wing tabloids, demonise Muslims and portray them as a threat to the country (examples here and here). Is it evident, then, that the Baroness is correct in that constructive criticism has crossed the line to biased bigotry?

We were delighted to see that there were amongst the audience, not only atheists and the non-religious, but also religious debaters discussing the matter from their viewpoints, including those of the Christian faith and members of UCLU AMSA. The debate that followed Sims' introduction explored various issues, some of which are summarised below.

• Where do humanists and secularists stand in relation to Islamophobia? Our friends from AMSA highlighted the importance of not polarising Muslims and humanists/secularists. They explained that while they do not agree with atheism, they consider themselves both humanists and secularists, as they define humanism as the promotion of human welfare, and view secularism a strong root of Islam. Input from the humanist point of view put forth the question of whether Islamophobia is directed towards the religion or towards the religious, and that this is important in distinguishing between religious critique and prejudice. 

• What is the difference between Muslim satire and Christian satire? The cover of the last edition of New Humanist depicts Ricky Gervais posing as Jesus Christ, which was put in contrast with the much-publicised Muhammad charicatures in the Danish newspapers in 2005. A debater argued that although he was personally offended by the magazine cover on the grounds of his Christian faith, he accepted that he is living in a secular and democratic society. He then proceeded to question why Muslims are given privilege when it comes to sensitivity to satire. A response to this from a non-religious debater was that attention should be directed towards whether or not the satire has any real political message, or whether it is meant to only offend - arguing that, unlike Gervais' cover, the Muhammad cartoons only intended the latter. A point raised from AMSA was that religious criticism must be interpreted in the context of the current political climate. For example, the first South Park episode portraying the Prophet Muhammad, albeit after the 11 September attacks, was broadcast prior to the Danish caricatures, and thus received comparatively little response.  

•  Presenting religious criticism in the public sphere versus the non-public sphere: Most debaters seemed to agree that while they all were offended by statements and depictions disparaging their identities, beliefs, lifestyle choices and similar, they would not ban people's right to voice any opinions they might have - but that critics should be encouraged to exercise self-censorship. Sims contrasted this view of the freedom to say and publish anything you like in e.g. newspapers and magazines, i.e. in the public sphere where the public can choose for themselves whether they want to listen/read to it or not, with imposing your views directly on people in their personal space. Here, he made a reference to an incident where a militant atheist posted derogatory anti-religious images in an airport prayer room. In a sense, Sims argued, the atheist's freedom of speech limited the freedom of the users of the prayer room, as they due to personal convictions could no longer use the room.

The general opinion amongst the debaters, religious and non-religious alike, was that legislating any form of criticism would not solve any problems, but only make matters worse - especially in a society where freedom of speech is already so entrenched. Rather, any issue should be approached in an intellectual and respectful manner: when used, political/religious satire should have a real message; and negative reactions to such satire should encourage dialogue instead of polarisation.

Following the debate, we made the usual trip to the Bentham where Sims also joined us to continue the discussion. Thanks to everyone who attended - we hope to see more input from our religious co-students (and non-students) in future events!

Event report: Andrew Copson - ‘Objections To Humanism’

Time: Thursday 6th October 19:00-21:00
Place: Darwin Biochemistry lecture theatre, Malet Place, University College London

For the first event of the academic year the society hosted a talk by Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association (BHA) titled ‘Objections to Humanism.’ Andrew became Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association in January 2010 after five years coordinating the BHA's education and public affairs work. His writing on humanist and secularist issues has appeared in The Guardian, The Independent, The Times and New Statesman as well as in various journals and he has represented the BHA and Humanism extensively on television news on BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky, as well as on television programmes such as Newsnight, The Daily Politics and The Big Questions. He is a former director of the European Humanist Federation (EHF) and is currently a Vice President of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU).

Andrew began by pointing out that being aware of the objections raised about humanism enables those who are humanist to be better armed to counter those criticisms raised, he also continued by saying that it is an obligation to be self-critical of one’s own world view including a humanist world view. Andrew went on to structure the talk on the basis of each criticism and how these should be addressed individually, the first being:

1. It diminishes the dignity of humanity.
Andrew points out here that essentially people are arguing that if we accept the evidence that people are nothing more than animals then how are we to act in any other way. His response consisted of the fact that just because we do not like the fact that we are animals it does not change it, being animals does not make us bestial.

2. Humanists can have no morals.
Here he gave an anecdote of a train journey back from a conference detailing his conversation with a priest, in which the priest could not believe how without religious dictate someone ‘wasn’t a rapist.’ Despite the raucous laughter in the room this and similar questions are often faced by many non- religious people. Clearly in response Andrew points out how this is a very bleak and false view of humanity, morals are not given by god, morality is an evolved system we use to coexist peacefully and sociably.

3. Too dry, too rational.
An example he uses is that often people argue that science cannot explain love. He counters this point by suggesting that science is the way to understand much because it is rational, universal and enquiry based, and that science can also be an inspiration.

4. It isn’t the way to explain everything.
In this rebuttal he states that explanations enhance but do not diminish, and that science’s remit is not to answer all the questions but to understand that which we can know.

5. A secular religion or “your pope Richard Dawkins.”
In response to this he describes the major tenets and concepts behind humanism as a movement, in doing so he explains how humanism is a collection of ideals and beliefs that have always existed in society. You cannot be a Christian without ever hearing of Christ, but you can be a humanist without ever hearing of humanism; as humanism describes an implicit belief system that already exists, the beliefs and values are as old as human history and are a permanent alternative.

6. A myth of human progress.
It is pointed out here that humanists are criticised for being too optimistic with an unwarranted sense of utopianism. Andrew talks about how we should be looking cautiously on the bright side, citing the BHA bus campaigns as an example. He also suggests that if you don’t believe in external help then you have to believe that normal men and women will do something, which makes progress more likely.

7. The pointlessness of it all or Nihilism.
To this idea Andrew calls the idea of the universe being meaningless a vain and ludicrous position. He also accepts here that from this perspective people often bring up a fear of death, but he suggests that death is something we should accept and live our life in accordance with reality.

8. What do you mean “that is all there is?”
He begins addressing this point by stating, what do you mean ‘all’? He adds that in making such statements you run the risk of undervaluing all that is here and now, in life the meaning comes in living, emphasizing the one life we have to live principle of humanism.

From Andrew concluding on the merits of the principle of having one life to live, the talk moved to a Q and A with members of the audience. Questions ranged from asking whether he altered his talk depending upon the audience being hostile or a ‘preaching to the choir situation’, Gaia theory, whether truth should be valued above all else, how best to enlighten your religious grandma (A C Grayling being suggested by Andrew) and how one could have hope knowing that people know right from wrong but do not always implement it. Andrew graciously continued the debate in the Jeremy Bentham pub afterward where as usual the conversation extended to various related and non-related topics. We would like to thank both Andrew Copson and everyone who attended the talk in making our first event of the new academic year a huge success.

If you would like to know more about humanism or become a member of the BHA there is a wealth of information at the BHA website: http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

Event report: 'Is agnosticism a logical stance?' - a sit down debate

Time: 17 May, 19:00 - 21:00
Place: G17 Pearson Building, University College London

The usual informal discussions in the pub during our society meetings (and the many amusing directions they can take, ref. Kieran's panda analogy of the Queen) define the essence and drive of this society, namely intellectual curiosity and exchange of ideas. For our second event, we decided to keep a slightly less informal debate out of the pub, centered around a single topic: agnosticism - more specifically, is agnosticism the only logically valid approach to viewing the world?

The impossibility of certainty was compared with the need to establish a pragmatic degree of certainty in order to lead a productive life - "Should scientists abandon their jobs by acknowledging everything they don't know?" The existence of god cannot be disproved, hence from a purely logical point of view, there is no right way to live your life other than agnosticism. However, it was pointed out that there is a difference between actively following agnosticism - considered non-progressive - and merely having it in the back of your head. As with all scientific reasoning, where in this case the non-existence of a god is the null hypothesis and the existence of a god is the alternative hypothesis, definite support for the null hypothesis cannot be established. Instead, a certain confidence level to reach conclusions is set, from which you choose a direction to act on and live your life by.

The extent to which something supports a particular hypothesis was further discussed. On one hand, it was argued the concept of proof can only be found in mathematics and logic. In remaining domains, presumption is a matter of how appropriate the justification for something is. This was questioned with the argument that overwhelmingly strong evidence for something, e.g. fossils, is the closest one can get to truth, hence should be considered proof. However, evidence such as fossils is only proof in a pragmatic sense, it was countered, and conclusions are always open to interpretation.

The difference between having a passive stance and an explicit stance with regards to religion was also considered. People who declare themselves to be "not religious" were observed to often dissociate themselves from the "atheist" label, i.e. not knowing is not the same as believing it is impossible to know, and not believing in god is not the same as believing there is no god. Also, it was mentioned that atheists in the U.S. seemed to be more likely to explicitly declare their view on religion compared to less religious societies.

In conclusion, there was a general agreement that agnosticim might be the only logical stance, but not necessarily the most pragmatic stance. Emphasis was put on the importance of clarifying, when discussing religion - particularly with religious people -, that the vast majority of atheists do not claim there is definite proof against the existence of god.

Event report: Prof. John Martin – ’Could a human soul have arisen from Darwinian evolution?’

Time: 3 May 2011, 19:00 - 20:30

Place: G08 Roberts Building, Malet Place, University College London

For our first event of the term, UCLU ASHS invited Professor John Martin, Chair of Cardiovascular Medicine at UCL and Professor Adjunct in Cardiology at Yale University, to hold a talk. With over 25 years of experience as a cardiovascular physician and academic researcher, some of his former roles include Vice President of the European Society of Cardiology and President of the European Society for Clinical Investigation. Additionally, he studied philosophy prior to qualifying from Sheffield University Medical School. He came to us to share his thoughts on human beings – and the human “soul”, in particular – as a qualitative, rather than quantitative, extension from evolution.

Prof. Martin first structured his talk around a number of questions establishing his philosophical view of understanding the universe:

1. Is man machine or not?

Prof. Martin rejected the conventional notion that neurobiology can account for all aspects of human beings as “a load of rubbish”: functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research does not provide any explanations as to what humans are, but merely anatomical observations.

2. Is experimental science the only truth?

Again, he stressed that science is only a series of measurements and observations, which can generate predictions, but not explanations. Whilst he “believed in Darwinian evolution absolutely”, he also expressed a strong belief in Freudian psychoanalysis as a means to discover the truth about yourself - likening knowledge of the origin of the self with knowledge of the origin of the world.

3. What is the cause of the Big Bang?

Here, he made the suggestion that this cause could be the things it produced, including immutable constants such as pi, Avogadro’s number and the speed of light – indeed, that the nature of god could be these constants. A question was raised from the audience of whether he could simply label this “thing” manifesting itself as physical constants as “God”, to which Prof. Martin referred back to psychoanalysis: “you are your psychoanalytic nature more than your neural connections,” hence, although you cannot use scientific methods to explain the nature of the universe, you can reach an understanding of it through a subjective truth – “it feels true to me.” Not surprisingly, this generated a small debate on what “truth” is.

4. Is religion daft?

Having been brought up a Roman Catholic, he emphasised its important part of European history, and the practicality of prayer as a cheap form of psychoanalysis to better understand oneself. He also stressed that acknowledging the usefulness of religion does not necessarily entail believing in the bearded man in the sky. The audience responded to this by pointing out that it is the practice of verbalising thought to clarify ideas rather than the spiritual element that makes prayer useful: religion in itself is daft – however, we can extract useful parts from it.

5. Is art superior to science?

“Absolutely so.” Superior to the purely observational function of science, Prof. Martin argued, is the ability of art to interpret the internal mechanisms of humans: art, unlike science, cannot exist independently of a creator.

6. Does metaphysics exist?

Although it cannot be tested with the scientific method, he argued it does indeed exist, as “an existing thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time.”

From this, he went on to the main topic of the talk: chimpanzees and humans have nearly identical DNA – although “identical” was disputed among the audience -, yet humans are different in that we have free will and abstract thought. Prof. Martin suggested this difference could not have arisen from a quantitative mechanism, but from a qualitative one, i.e. humans have an "abstractor" independent of our constituent biological building blocks. To illustrate this point further, he paralleled this with a symphony existing independently of its constituent notes, or even the difference between a bent and straightened finger existing independently of the finger itself. What we consider the human soul, then, could be a manifestation of this abstractor of consciousness and free will, which at some point in evolution evolved by leaping off the quantitative progression above a certain threshold.

Prof. Martin made several postulations that generated questions from the audience, e.g. how can we know that chimpanzees do not have abstract thought, or even that human consciousness is not just an artifact of biological reflexes? Is it not more parsimonious to argue abstract thought evolved from an expansion of the cerebral cortex, rather than a qualitative threshold event? When determinism was brought up, for instance, he replied he accepts the possibility of determinism, yet acts on the assumption that we have free will, as it enhances his life and gives it happiness and pleasure. In sum, Prof. Martin argued his conjecture was a philosophical one, hence one must look beyond the trivialities of science.

Further discussion of Prof. Martin's ideas (objections to them, by and large) followed at Jeremy Bentham's, before it dissolved into various topics - including the recent Royal Wedding. We hope all who attended enjoyed the talk and the break from revision for those who had exams!

Click here for an article Prof. Martin wrote on the topic covered in the talk.

The AHS National Convention 12-13 March 2011

This weekend, UCLU ASHS attended the AHS third annual National Convention since its conception in 2008. It was held at Conway Hall, Holborn on Saturday's Speakers Day, and in the Cruciform Building, University College London on Sunday's Committee Day. The full programme for the entire weekend can be found here.

A fair was held throughout Saturday in which UCLU ASHS participated with our own stand along with various other organisations and student societies promoting atheist, secularist and humanist interests (a full list can be found in the above link).

The early-afternoon speakers included Lord Warner of Brockley, Labour member of the House of Lords and chair of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group; Gerard Phillips, Vice-President of the NSS; and Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the BHA. The late-afternoon speakers included stand-up comedian Robin Ince; Johann Hari, journalist for The Independent and The Huffington Post; and the distinguished philosopher, author and BHA Vice-President A.C. Grayling. Topics ranged from the implications of religious figures in the House of Lords and the Census Campaign, to faith schools and whether lack of religion leads to
nihilism. In particular, Ince and Hari - the latter humourously introducing his talk with the time the Dalai Lama called him fat - elicited much enthusiasm amongst the audience. The Pod Delusion recorded podcasts of the talks.
A performance by the BHA choir - including a lovely rendition of John Lennon's Imagine and Every Sperm Is Sacred - marked the end of an excellent day. Lively debate was subsequently carried out in the nearby pub, The Enterprise.

Sunday was specifically tailored for atheist, secularist and humanist student society committees. In addition to UCLU ASHS, delegates from universities of Aston, Bristol, Durham, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, LSE, OU, QMU, Southampton, Surrey, UAL, as well as UCC were present. The day began with a reprise of the BHA choir's performance of Do You Realize?? from the day before, this time by the delegates themselves. This, as well as the workshops on how to start a new society; sustainability and finance; debating (with Andrew Copson pretending to be Christian for the occasion); dealing with the media; and running a "Reason Week" were all well-received.

In the second half of the afternoon, the EGM resulted in the election of James Murray from Leeds Atheist Society as the new AHS Treasurer; and the decision to expand the AHS to cover Ireland - both by unanimous vote.

Following the launch of the AHS campaigns initiative to encourage societies to campaign for e.g. BHA issues around campus, as well as an AHS member feedback session, society awards were handed out. Adding to our sense of self-importance, the announcements of these were made by A.C. Grayling - although admittedly via video recording. Congratulations to UCC Atheists on winning Best Single Event for their talk by Daniel Dennett; Oxford Atheists Society for Best Reason Week; Aston Humanist Society for Most Raised During Non-Prophet Week; and Bristol Atheist, Agnostic and Secular Society on winning Best Society.

UCLU ASHS was very pleased to receive two awards: Best Collaborative Event jointly with LSE, QMU and UAL for the Intercollegiate Atheist Charity Pub Quiz on 17 February, which helped raise £500 for Non-Prophet Week; and Best New Society jointly with Bradford Atheist and Humanist Society. These are great testaments to what we have accomplished since our initial formation in mid-2010 and subsequent affiliation in January 2011, and provides further encouragement to the future of our society.

Many thanks to President of the AHS, Richy Thompson, the BHA and all others involved for organising an outstanding event - we greatly look forward to next year's convention.

Photos: Andrew West, The AHS

Event report: Paul Sims - "Is there any point in talking to believers?

Time: 2 March 2011

Place: Bentham Seminar Room 3, Bentham House, UCL

UCLU ASHS hosted a talk by Paul Sims on the topic, "Is there any point in talking to believers?" Paul Sims is the News Editor of New Humanist Magazine, published by the Rationalist Association since 1885, and runs the New Humanist blog. His magazine features have explored topics ranging from Islamic extremism to creationist zoos.

Sims introduced the talk by expressing his personal opinions on the public reaction to the four-day Papal visit to England and Scotland in September 2010. Acknowledging that the Vatican does have much to answer for regarding the allegations of child abuse, he deemed the debate surrounding the visit "hysterical" and "over-the-top." In particular, he criticised Richard Dawkins' speech at the Protest the Pope rally, during which Dawkins considered the Pope "an enemy of humanity." Sims questioned what is actually achieved when an atheist spokesperson such as Dawkins publicly expresses aggressive atheism to this extent, fuelling anti-religious hostility amongst the public. Must secularism and religion be framed as a battle between two camps? On the contrary, Sims stressed that reasoned debate between individuals, and constructive criticism would be significantly more beneficial - for secularists and religious people alike.

Subsequent questions from the audience sparked interesting debate: can reasoned discussions achieve any more than aggressive atheism can, when people enter debates, not with the intention of changing their minds, but of forwarding their own views? It was argued that people rarely, if ever, are converted in either direction via debate alone; and that aggressive atheism may in fact raise awareness and shock people into critical thinking. To this, however, a remark was made about the interesting outcome of the Intelligence Squared debate, "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?", whereby a substantial number of audience members changed their initial "for Catholic Church" or "undecided" views, to believing the Catholic Church not to be a force for good.

Furthermore, the issue was raised of whether a nuanced middle ground between secularism and religion is in actuality possible, or whether the existence of both in society necessitates polarisation. While balanced teaching of religion and critical thinking can be promoted in school, the role of the state in de facto discouraging religious devotion was questioned.

After the talk, speaker with audience members relocated to the pub for more informal discussion.

Feel free to add any comments below, and keep an eye on our Facebook group for upcoming events!