Darwin Day Lecture 2016 — pics!

Here are my pics taken at this year's Darwin Day Lecture given by Professor Jerry A. Coyne, at Logan Hall, Institute of Education, University College London:



The BHA's video of the event can be found here:

https://youtu.be/sazo1J4Zsj4

Adam Rutherford's Darwin Day lecture — pictures

Given that I've started to post my photographs of QEDcon it's about time I got round to posting some of my previous pictures. So here are those I took at this year's Darwin Day lecture. I won't reiterate what Adam Rutherford said as I've already talked about it on Skepticule Extra, and if you want to hear (and see) the lecture yourself there are links below.

My pictures:
http://flic.kr/s/aHsjyDPEct


Watch the lecture here:
http://youtu.be/VEsK6hZjOcQ


Or listen to the audio only, but complete with introductions and Q&A:
http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2012/02/13/darwin-day-lecture-2012/


Enjoy!

Free will and naturalism — discussions on Premier's "Unbelievable?"

Over at the Unbelievable? discussion group a thread has opened, prompted by Andrew Copson's statement about free will on last Saturday's show — that he was happy to act "as if" we have free will, even though we don't. This is being challenged on the basis of its supposed lack of integrity or coherence with a naturalistic viewpoint.

To which I would (and did) respond that we act as if we have free will because we have no choice. What would it look like to act "as if" we don't have free will? I would contend that it's simply not possible to do so. Whatever actions we take, they are taken on the basis of something we call decision-making. Even if we say that we are going to decide something on a purely random basis, that in itself is a decision (as is the choice of what means of randomisation we're going to use).

Far from being an abrogation of the naturalistic viewpoint, acting "as if" we have free will is an acceptance of the naturalist position. Here's what I posted in the discussion:

This is an interesting thread, but there seems to be a real confusion derived from the presupposition that dualism is true. One can't prove that the mind affects the brain by assuming that the brain and the mind are fundamentally different but nevertheless physically real things. As far as I'm aware this has not been shown. The mind is a manifestation of our perception of the brain's effects, and arises wholly from or through the brain. It's a one-way process — brain causes mind. Mind does not cause brain (or brain-chemistry), any more than an oil-painting causes brush-strokes on canvas, or than a tasty meal causes its ingredients. The meal may have a description (a recipe or even a menu) but the taste of it is not caused by the recipe.

What we perceive as "mind" is likely a combination of codified perceptions that manifest as patterns within the brain, but that cannot exist separate from the brain. (Fergus quotes neurologist Steve Novella, who is pretty clear on this matter.)

I would take issue with the contention that the mind can causally affect the brain. Attributing causal effects like this seems (as I said above) to be presupposing dualism. If the "mind" is simply what the "brain" does, then at bottom they are the same thing. What we call mind is no more than the product of the brain — so in this sense the brain could be said to cause the mind, but not vice versa.

Also the idea that "free will" is something humans (or indeed "moral agents") have and animals don't is problematic. It places free will as a specific attribute, like colour vision, rather than the emergent property that it most likely is. One might also say that the existence or not of free will is on a par with the existence or not of the soul, both of which I see as properties of cognition — handy short-cuts to understanding the world we live in, but not necessarily truly existing in themselves.

As for whether it's illegitimate to act "as if" we have free will if in fact we don't — we do this because we have no choice. It's not possible for anyone to act "as if" they don't have free will, because that very decision is — or appears to be — an act of free will. It is therefore quite possible that free will is an illusion, and that determinism is true. The question then becomes, determined by what?

Last Saturday's Unbelievable? was about RE in schools, and the supposedly hidden agenda claimed by Mark Roques (Justin Brierley's other guest) that there's an underlying bias towards consumerism. Andrew stated that in his visits to schools he'd not found this. His own familiarity with RE teaching comes from his personal educational experience and his involvement as Education and Outreach Officer of the British Humanist Association, before he became BHA Chief Executive.

Mark's stories seemed to me to be a little contrived, and perhaps even condescending in the faux accents with which he delivered them. Maybe they'd go down well with a particular audience, but I found them mildly irritating.

Andrew maintains that humanism should be taught in RE, as should any system of beliefs, worldview, ethics, etc., and that RE is doubly misnamed — we don't have Historical Education or Geographical Education, and RE lessons should include non-religious viewpoints.

It was a very civilised discussion, and started to liven up at about 43 minutes in, when Mark challenged Andrew's basis for making reasoned statements (a lot of theists take this tack, whether it's grounding for reason, logic, morality or truth — presuppositionalists especially love this argument). But Andrew Copson has dealt with this kind of thing before, and he answered concisely: "Reason is clearly a product of human interaction with reality." He went on to say, "Logic is the word that human beings have chosen to give to certain processes of reasoning. It has no objective existence. It's a process that we've come up with and that we apply, to discover certain truths..." And he followed this up with an excellent explanation of autonomy (which is what the thread on the discussion forum is about).

Mark Roques' general demeanour seemed to be one of I'm telling you stuff you've not heard before, and you're going to find it surprising. Andrew, of course, has heard it before. Mark also appeared to be on the back foot when he resorted to a variation of Some of my best friends are humanists....

In response to Mark's main thesis Andrew stated that he could not "see any logical connection between philosophical materialism and consumerist materialism." This is, however, what Christians and other religionists often attempt to imply, thereby claiming that the materialist position is nihilistic.

This was a good Unbelievable? — as are all that have Andrew Copson as a guest. As far as I can gather this was his sixth appearance, and all but his first are available for listening in the Unbelievable? podcast archives.

An mp3 of last Saturday's show can be downloaded here:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/f4c368d4-27d7-4b91-8a38-e83acf7b7fb8.mp3

Faith schools: suffer the little children — and they do

The BBC Radio 4 programme Beyond Belief is a mixed bag. Each week Ernie Rae speaks with studio guests and includes a pre-recorded report or interview. I've mentioned a few previously on this blog. Often the subject matter is of only marginal interest to me but this afternoon's edition was about faith schools, featuring the Rev Janina Ainsworth — Church of England Chief Education Officer, Ibrahim Hewitt — former head of Al-Aqsa Primary School in Leicester and now an inspector of faith schools, and Andrew Copson — Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association.

The programme is available as a podcast, and this week's edition is downloadable as mp3 audio here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/belief/belief_20110214-1700a.mp3

Janina Ainsworth seemed convinced that faith schools were inherently a "good thing", while Ibrahim Hewitt's views were all over the place. I particularly liked Ernie Rae's question to him towards the end of the broadcast, as to how probability is taught during maths lessons in a Muslim school. Apparently the children are told that there's no such thing as chance: if you throw dice, the results are not random but willed by God.

During the entire discussion Andrew Copson had the firmest grasp on the issues, seeing through the equivocation and appeals to emotion of the other two guests. I suspect that even Ernie Rae has serious doubts about the validity of faith schools. Given his introduction at the start of the broadcast, I don't think he was merely playing devil's advocate here.

But the most telling point in the programme was a recorded interview with Peter Flack, assistant secretary of the Leicester National Union of Teachers, who believes faith schools are a danger to society. He asked:

"What is so different about children who come from families with religious beliefs, that they need to be educated separately, that they need to be segregated from everybody else?"

Later in the day we had a perfect illustration of the danger Peter Flack warns about. Channel Four's Dispatches: Lessons in Hate and Violence, presented by Tazeen Ahmad and broadcast at 8 pm (with a repeat at 2:40 am), showed precisely what can happen to children if they are left in the clutches of faith-based education. We're not talking only of incitement to violence — these children (some as young as six) were being repeatedly hit. The violence was recorded as part of Dispatches' trademark "secret filming". What's worse, the featured establishments had been inspected and passed as fit places for young children to be "instructed".

A trailer clip of the programme is available here:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/video/series-80/episode-1/lessons-in-hate-and-violence

Those in favour of faith-based education often speak of it enabling children to become part of the community. The evidence suggests, however, that the "community" of which they speak is a narrow one, deliberately segregated from the wider society into which it ought to be integrated.

Are human values moral values?

Revisiting the Unbelievable? online discussion group this weekend after a period of absence, I noted that considerable to and fro was in full swing regarding the show in which Paul Thompson ("Sinbad") debated Mark Roques on the question of "human value". This is a pretty diffuse term to begin with, and the discussion on the show didn't define it with any precision. The debate illustrated a typical clash of mindsets that could not be resolved during the limited time for the show, and although the online forum discussion allows for greater depth, it isn't any more likely to reach a resolution.

Rather than dwell on that particular discussion in isolation, I'll simply point to its similarities with the 11 September 2010 edition of Unbelievable? — a discussion between Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, and Peter D. Williams of Catholic Voices. The show wasn't explicitly about human values, but it showed the same clash of mindsets as the more recent broadcast.

Andrew Copson is one of humanism's most articulate advocates, and the fact that he made no impression at all on Peter Williams during their discussion illustrates the futility of attacking the theist position on the metaphysics of morality. Unfortunately the show's format prevented this aspect of their disagreement being further explored. Not that such exploration would have made much difference, I suspect.

The theist position is that morality must by definition have a transcendent basis. The humanist position is that such a basis is neither proven nor necessary. While it may be too much to hope that theists such as Peter Williams will be swayed by the arguments Andrew put forward, there may have been theists (and others) listening to the show who don't necessarily buy into a fundamentally transcendent nature of morality, and who will see that Andrew's humanist viewpoint is a perfectly valid stance, and one that is based on reality rather than some disputed, unproven supernatural proposition.

Andrew's point at the end of the exchange was well made: as a result of the discussion he said he was more convinced of his own position than he had been before.

In brief, as I see it, the problem with the "moral argument for the existence of God" as espoused by some theists, is mainly one of definition. A humanist may go into some detail as to how he or she derives moral values without a belief that those values are god-given (as I have done myself), but theists are unable to accept such a line of argument because they believe that any values derived from something other than God aren't "moral" values at all. It's as if they define morality as "a system of values dictated by God". Never mind that such a definition impales itself on the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma — which, despite theistic protestations to the contrary, has never been successfully resolved.

Armand Leroi delivers the 2011 Darwin Day Lecture

Without notes and with just a few informative slides, Armand Leroi delivered his captivating 2011 Darwin Day Lecture to a packed Conway Hall on Wednesday evening. His talk, titled "Mutants, and what to do about them" covered the possibilities, practicalities and economics of screening for genetic diseases. Phrased thus, it sounds like a dry subject, but Professor Leroi spoke with commitment and deep knowledge, in clear and expressive language that allowed his succinct points to hit home. His lecture was introduced by Robert Ashby, British Humanist Association (BHA) Board of Trustees Chair, while the lecture itself and its subsequent Q&A was chaired by BHA Vice President Richard Dawkins. The evening concluded with a few announcements from BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson.



Though he did not shy away from the eugenic implications of universal screening of human embryos, he was clear in his avoidance of making moral judgements. It's not necessary here to reiterate these or any other points in his lecture, as you can listen to the entire thing yourself — along with some intelligent questions from the floor. The audio was recorded by the Pod Delusion and is available from their website, which incidentally also allows embedding of the player, as below:

The latest regular episode of the Pod Delusion also contains brief interviews with Armand Leroi and Richard Dawkins before the lecture:


There's also a direct mp3 download link for the above episode 71 here:
http://media.ipadio.com/20110211011055.mp3

---

UPDATE 2011-02-16: Unfortunately the Pod Delusion embedding feature appears a little flaky for its special episodes, so here's a direct link to the lecture:
http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2011/02/09/bha-darwin-day-lecture-listen-live-at-730pm/

Protest the Pope — speeches roundup

Here are some links to recordings of the "Protest the Pope" rally that took place in London last Saturday. The first video (for the attention-challenged) is edited highlights, beginning with Geoffrey Robinson and including Richard Dawkins, Barbara Blaine, Peter Tatchell, Maryam Namazie, Andrew Copson and Johann Hari:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPhKKutehyk


The rally was opened by Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6YOhuVH1jY


Johann Hari:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AASspr178ZY

 

Richard Dawkins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjUZcf9ziIQ


Peter Tatchell (incomplete):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NybcM0vDCe0


Geoffrey Robertson (from the rear):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZJ4k86Jds


Another view of Geoffrey Robertson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBA5Pv-yb2s


Terry Sanderson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDg39js9Djg


Maryam Namazie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprF15iAIT4


Ben Goldacre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtHySxuAo1k


Father Bernard Lynch (from the rear):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-4-aaqmFWQ


The Pod Delusion folks have made available an unedited audio recording of the speeches. While the sound quality isn't great, for those like myself who did not attend the rally the recording does serve to put all of the above clips in sequence and context:



Thanks to the Pod Delusion and all those who made their recordings available. Click on each video to go to YouTube for more information on the recording.

A creationist bleats about Dawkins (again)

In the light of Richard Dawkins' latest TV programme on More4, Faith Schools Menace? the Creation Science Movement has posted an article about Dawkins and the British Humanist Association on its website: "Richard Dawkins, the BHA and a New Inquisition".

Dawkins in fact wishes to abolish faith schools, but he acknowledges that their teaching standards are often better than secular schools. So good in fact that he would be willing to lie to get his children into one. He comments that he does not blame those atheists who pretend to be religious in order to get their children into the best faith schools, and comments that as he has 'absolutely no belief at all, I wouldn't be betraying anything' by lying and pretending to be religious.

Dawkins' point was that he would be prepared to lie about his lack of religious belief in order to counteract the inequitable availability of state schools. Faith schools discriminate against children whose parents have contributed to the funding of these schools. It's wrong that such children should be arbitrarily excluded.

What Dawkins fails to understand is that the quality of the education in faith schools is to do with their ethos.

What the (anonymous) author of this article fails to mention is that the "ethos" of the school is only part of the story. Faith schools practice selection on the basis of parents' religion. As was made clear in the programme, such selection tends to filter out less able children due to their background (their parents' willingness to do what it takes to gain admission for their offspring is a major part of that background).

Dawkins own words reveal that he is willing to destroy the very thing, the inherent values, that make faith schools so good.

As outlined above, it's not the inherent values that are the cause of good league-table performance.

The BHA has lobbied the Education Secretary Michael Gove and reports suggest that the policy developed will seek to exclude 'extremist groups' from taking over schools, and furthermore there would be no creationism taught in science classes.

Quite right too.

Andrew Copson of the BHA is concerned about the 'dangers of the influences of fundamentalist groups in our school system.' Presumably he doesn't mean to imply that the BHA owns the school system by use of the word 'our', but the faux pas is evident nonetheless.

This is a telling criticism that exposes CSM's misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the state school system. Voluntary aided faith schools are state schools. Over 90% of funding for these schools comes from the taxpayer — they are indeed our schools.

He is perhaps too blinkered to know that true pluralism must respect those who have different religious beliefs to his own and allow them to have an equal voice in education.

Andrew Copson is not the one who is blinkered. In the matter of education funded by the taxpayer, "those who have different religious beliefs" are not entitled to "an equal voice". In the case of voluntary aided faith schools, they are entitled to — at most — 10% of a voice.

The BHA wants us to believe that secular humanism is religiously neutral, but it is not. It is instead biased in favour of atheism.

First, atheism is not a religion. Second, the author of this article clearly doesn't know the definition of "secular" (1. not religious, sacred or spiritual; 2. not subject to or bound by religious rule; Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed).

So the BHA's claim that it seeks to develop 'totally inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none' is entirely bogus. The BHA wants atheistic humanism to have a dominant position in schools and by its actions wishes to treat those who have religious and scientific convictions about creation as second-class citizens.

Not "atheistic humanism", secular humanism; there's a difference — see the definition above. It's entirely right that state-funded education should be secular in nature, without giving preference to any religious belief over another. As for scientific "convictions" — these need to be ratified by the scientific community before they are included in the school curriculum.

We wonder why the BHA should have such influence in society that greatly exceeds its popular mandate, especially when advocating such extreme views. Christians and other religious groups greatly outweigh the membership of the BHA.

Popular mandate? BHA members are not elected by the British public, but neither are Christians and other religious groups. The BHA, however, recognises that Christians and other religious groups have disproportionate influence in society, and therefore seeks to bring that influence down to more equitable levels.

Children must be given the opportunity to learn skills in the critical analysis of complex arguments and data; skills that are the hallmarks of true education.

This is precisely what the BHA is campaigning for.

We would ask that children and students be allowed to learn skills in critical thinking within the science class and be allowed to question the problems with evolution while respecting their faith. Anything less is not science, but humanistic, religious dogma of a fundamentalist nature.

Children and students should indeed be encouraged to learn critical thinking skills, but primary and secondary education science classes are not the places to discuss theories that have no evidential base. Creationism is not science, it is religious dogma of a fundamentalist nature.