Dublin Declaration on Secularism and the Place of Religion in Public Life | Atheist Ireland

"On Sunday 5 June 2011, the World Atheist Convention in Dublin discussed and adopted the following declaration on secularism and the place of religion in public life. Please discuss and promote it with your friends and colleagues, and if you are a a member of an atheist, humanist or secular group, please discuss and promote it with your fellow members, and with the media and politicians."

The Declaration is here:

http://www.atheist.ie/2011/06/dublin-declaration-on-secularism-and-the-place-of-religion-in-public-life/

It's worth looking briefly at the four sections of this succinct document:

1. Personal Freedoms

(a) Freedom of conscience, religion and belief are private and unlimited. Freedom to practice religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights and freedoms of others.
(b) All people should be free to participate equally in the democratic process.
(c) Freedom of expression should be limited only by the need to respect the rights and freedoms of others. There should be no right ‘not to be offended’ in law. All blasphemy laws, whether explicit or implicit, should be repealed and should not be enacted.

Freedom of conscience, democracy and freedom of expression — universal rights encapsulated in a few short sentences.

2. Secular Democracy

(a) The sovereignty of the State is derived from the people and not from any god or gods.
(b) The only reference in the constitution to religion should be an assertion that the State is secular.
(c) The State should be based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Public policy should be formed by applying reason, and not religious faith, to evidence.
(d) Government should be secular. The state should be strictly neutral in matters of religion and its absence, favouring none and discriminating against none.
(e) Religions should have no special financial consideration in public life, such as tax-free status for religious activities, or grants to promote religion or run faith schools.
(f) Membership of a religion should not be a basis for appointing a person to any State position.
(g) The law should neither grant nor refuse any right, privilege, power or immunity, on the basis of faith or religion or the absence of either.

As concise a summary of secular principles as I've seen.

3. Secular Education

(a) State education should be secular. Religious education, if it happens, should be limited to education about religion and its absence.
(b) Children should be taught about the diversity of religious and nonreligious philosophical beliefs in an objective manner, with no faith formation in school hours.
(c) Children should be educated in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge. Science should be taught free from religious interference.

Glad to see education given specific focus — the future of human civilisation depends on it.

4. One Law For All

(a) There should be one secular law for all, democratically decided and evenly enforced, with no jurisdiction for religious courts to settle civil matters or family disputes.
(b) The law should not criminalise private conduct because the doctrine of any religion deems such conduct to be immoral, if that private conduct respects the rights and freedoms of others.
(c) Employers or social service providers with religious beliefs should not be allowed to discriminate on any grounds not essential to the job in question.

Obvious though this may be, it's threatened in the UK by law-making judges who may give special exemption to religious discrimination (though so far the judges have generally been sensible about this). It also addresses the idea of different laws for specific groups of people, as Sharia is supposed to for Muslims. Such agreements to be bound by a subset of national law should only be in the same sense as an agreement — by all parties in a dispute — to arbitration, which itself must be within the law.

If I have a (pedantic) quibble it's that 4(b) seems syntactically ambiguous — it could be read as saying that since religious doctrine deems some conduct immoral, that conduct shouldn't be criminalised, which is nonsensical. I know that's not what it's supposed to mean, but perhaps in this instance they've made it a little too concise.

Not enough 4thought? Channel 4 goes for "balance" on evolution

All this week Channel 4's daily "let's have some controversial views, but not too much — in fact let's keep it down to under two minutes" slot, called 4thought.tv, has been attempting to answer the question "Is it possible to believe in God and Darwin?" An odd question — if to "believe" in something means you think it exists. I think Darwin existed. There's documentary evidence to show that Charles Darwin actually walked this Earth, and — famously — sailed the seas, as well as perambulating the tangled bank, and so forth.

That's not what Channel 4 means, I suspect, which gives us an indication how seriously or rigorously it's taking the real question, which I assume is "Is belief in God compatible with an understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection?" As a further demonstration of their lack of commitment to rationality, on Monday Channel 4's choice of first participant to discuss this important issue was a Young Earth Creationist:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0339-Dr-Sandr%C3%A9-Fourie-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

Dr Sandré Fourie comes out with some dreadful nonsense that makes her credentials as a veterinary surgeon distinctly dubious (note the stethoscope round her neck, to add verisimilitude to her utterly unconvincing contribution — though to be fair I wouldn't be surprised if this medical adornment was at the instigation of the show's art director).

Next, on Tuesday, we have a voice of sanity with Simon Watt, an evolutionary biologist, who makes several valid and relevant points — including that the Bible story is not meant to be taken literally and is in a completely different category from what science has shown us about evolution, and that he's not irrevocably wedded to the theory of evolution. If something better comes along, he's ready to take on new scientific ideas:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0340-Simon-Watt-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

Wednesday we heard Dr. Alastair Noble, director of the Centre for Intelligent Design, telling us that if something looks designed, it must have an intelligent cause. Not that Channel 4 mentions Noble's affiliations anywhere, only that he's been involved in science education (he's actually an ex-inspector of schools) and that he thinks science should take the "theory of intelligent design" seriously. A scientific theory, however, should make specific, testable predictions, which intelligent design has so far failed to do. Noble claims that evolution (he calls it "Darwinism") is inadequate to explain the complexity seen in living things. But then he says that intelligent design is a sufficient explanation, when it clearly isn't an explanation at all. ID is a philosophical idea — there's nothing scientific about it. He mentions that the cell is very complicated, and that anywhere else such complexity is observed (he means in engineering) we infer a designer. As usual he leaves out an important component in this inference: what we actually infer when we see such engineering is a human designer — every time. Even William Paley inferred a human watchmaker. We have no other examples of design intelligence, apart from human intelligence. ID proponents make an invalid extrapolation from an inadequate sample size:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0341-Dr-Alastair-Noble-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

Thursday and we're back to real science with Alanna Maltby, who announces that she's an evolutionary biologist and an atheist. Echoing Simon Watt she mentions the elegance of Darwin's theory, and the overwhelming evidence in support of it. She also hopes that there aren't too many people who believe in six-day creation and a 6000-year-old Earth. I hope so too, but so far in this series we've had two evolutionary biologists, a Young Earth Creationist and an intelligent design proponent:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0342-Alanna-Maltby-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

On Friday Dr. Ruth Bancewicz began by saying "My Christian faith tells me who made something out of nothing. Science can't answer that question." She ought to realise that though science does not at present have an answer to that question — if indeed it's a valid one — the idea that her Christian faith does have an answer is obviously absurd. Christianity, or any other religion, just makes up an answer. There's no compelling evidence or reason supporting it, only variable interpretations of ancient texts of dubious provenance. Dr. Banciewicz goes on to tell us she has a PhD in genetics, and she thinks the word creationist has been hijacked by the young-earthers. She prefers to think of all people who believe that God set things in motion — including evolution — as creationists. I think she could  be fairly described as a theistic evolutionist, but of a particularly vague and woolly kind:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0343-Dr-Ruth-Bancewicz-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

Is it significant that of the five contributors so far, all three of those claiming that evolution is untrue, that "Darwinism" is inadequate, or that Goddidit — have "Dr." in front of their names?

There are two more "4thoughts" on this subject to come — I'm guessing we'll have one believer and one non-believer — as if such a near even split is representative of scientific opinion as a whole.

Burnee links for Thursday

The Insidiousness of Catholicism « Choice in Dying
Eric MacDonald on the death and life of Jack Kevorkian, and the religious resistance to assisted dying.

I guess that saga is now done : Pharyngula
Premise Media, responsible for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, has folded. Good riddance.

Maryam Namazie: The Islamic Inquisition
The text of Maryam Namazie's keynote speech at the recent World Atheist Convention in Dublin.

Gay Teen Girl Abducted and Tortured at For-Profit American “Re-Education” School(s) | violet blue ® :: open source sex
This sounds like a horror film. Are these establishments actually legal in the US?

Follow-up to the above:
EXCLUSIVE Interview: Abducted Queer Teen Xandir to Appear in San Francisco Today | violet blue ® :: open source sex

Gonzalez & Richards back-to-front in Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God

"Designed for Discovery" by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards is the nineteenth chapter of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God. It appears to be a book-promotion disguised as a litany of fine-tunerisms. Gonzalez and Richards have written a book titled The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, and if this chapter is representative of it then they've got a problem. The whole thing is upside down and backwards. Let's face it, the idea that the universe is specifically designed so that the human race can "discover" things about it is ludicrous.

Here's what's wrong with the fine-tuning argument. Suppose you invent a teleportation machine, but there are a few snags with it, such that the first time you use it, it transports you to a completely random location in the entire universe. What do you think the chances are of finding yourself in a part of the universe where you can survive for more than a few seconds? A location, for instance, where you can breathe, where you're not immediately frozen solid, fossilised or incinerated, or subjected to lethal radiation. Pretty slim, I'd suggest. In fact your chances of survival would be infinitesimal. The universe is not fine-tuned for life.

As for being "designed for discovery", Gonzalez and Richards go through a list of recipes that their "cosmic chef" would need to compile in order to produce an environment suitable for inquiring human minds to explore, but they do it as if the human race is here first — as if everything has to be adjusted to meet the needs of pre-existing humanity (or at least a humanity whose characteristics have been predetermined). That, in case they haven't noticed, is not how it happened. This is such an obvious flaw in their argument I'll belabour it no more. I'll simply quote the late, great Douglas Adams and his famous sentient puddle:

"...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

(From Biota)

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952941

Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die — BBC2, Monday 13 June, 9 pm

Click to enlarge

The cover of next week's Radio Times is in no doubt as to the most significant broadcasting event during the seven days of the listing magazine's coverage. Sir Terry Pratchett peers out from the bottom of this inelegantly designed cover, his stern visage dwarfed by ominous red-on-black typography: "5 minutes of television that will change our lives..."

On Monday 13 June at 9 pm BBC2 will broadcast a specially commissioned documentary about assisted death, and it will feature the actual final moments of someone who has chosen to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland to be assisted in dying. Inside the magazine is an extensive interview with Sir Terry, whose investigations into assisted dying are documented in the programme. It's this interview (and the BBC press release) that forms the basis of several news reports:

Terry Pratchett's BBC documentary reopens debate on assisted dying | Books | The Guardian

Millionaire hotelier Peter Smedley named as man whose assisted suicide was filmed by BBC - Telegraph

'He drinks a liquid, falls into a deep sleep and dies'... the moment a man commits suicide in front of BBC cameras | Mail Online

The Mail article has comments. As of this writing there are a few saying that an actual death is not a fit subject for TV, but none claiming that assisted dying is wrong. Most say the documentary should be shown, and that assisted dying should be legal.

After his impassioned and closely argued plea for the legalisation of assisted dying, delivered as the Richard Dimbleby Lecture last year, Sir Terry was the obvious choice to front this documentary. I look forward to watching it.

---

UPDATE 2011-06-14:

Choosing to Die is now available on the iPlayer for a week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0120dxp/Terry_Pratchett_Choosing_to_Die/
The Newsnight Debate following the documentary should soon be available here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012119k/Newsnight_Choosing_to_Die_Newsnight_Debate/

New episode of Skepticule Extra available for download

The latest edition of Skepticule Extra, featuring a discussion with Professor Paul Braterman of the British Centre for Science Education, is now available for download and delectation:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/06/skepextra-006-20110529.html

As well as creationism, the discussion ranges across intelligent design, faith-healing, creationism, debating William Lane Craig (didn't I say I was done with Craig?), intelligent design, spam, creationism, morality, intelligent design and ... creationism.

And we now have a forum, where you can come and tell us at length how much you disagree with everything we say:
http://skepticule.yuku.com/

Burnee links for Sunday

Writing, the True Sunday Experience | Godless Girl
People write for a variety of reasons. Here's one.

The Meming of Life » Pushing the point…or not » Parenting Beyond Belief on secular parenting and other natural wonders
The book sounds interesting, I look forward to its publication. But this post is actually about the incompatibility of science and religion:

Also problematic is the idea of the soul. If other animals are without this lovely thing, God must have chosen a moment in evolutionary history when we were “human enough” to merit souls. Since evolution is an achingly incremental process, there was no single moment when we crossed a line from “prehuman” into “human.” And even if there was, we’re left with the odd prospect of a generation of children who are ensouled but whose parents are not, or some similarly strange scenario. I’d be very happy to hear an argument for ensoulment (of the species, not the individual) that makes more sense, but have not yet.

I'd be happy to hear an argument for ensoulment at all, but I don't expect anything remotely convincing.

The Meming of Life » What, me worry? End Times Edition » Parenting Beyond Belief on secular parenting and other natural wonders
Another from Dale McGowan — this time he's talking to his kids about end-of-the-world predictions, and his post includes this wonderfully graphic line:

"The malformed chicken that is the human brain is in a state of perpetual defecation...."

(Hyperbolic metaphors aside, McGowan is a brilliant writer. I'm tempted to buy his book even though I'm not a parent.)

Atheism Is the True Embrace of Reality | The Hibernia Times
Why atheism? Paula Kirby relates her journey of faith.

REFLECTIONS ON SCIENCE, MORALITY & THE MORAL MAZE « Pandaemonium
Kenan Malik gives his thoughts (and regrets) on last week's Moral Maze discussion — in which he participated.

Kids who spot bullshit, and the adults who get upset about it – Bad Science
It's hard to believe that "Brain Gym" is still in use in British schools.

Prescient words « Why Evolution Is True
Theology may be old, but so, apparently, is disrespect for it.

Muslim creationists, same as the old creationists : Pharyngula
P. Z. Myers encountered some Muslims at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin. He relays their arguments, finding them unsurprisingly familiar.

Is there enough room in the Big Society for the non-religious?
That depends how big it is, I suppose. "Big Society" is an appallingly bad name. It connotes size, which is irrelevant to what David Cameron says he wants it to achieve. It's one of those phrases thought up by PR consultants who think it would sound good in speeches and look good on ads, but it means precisely nothing. (Or it can mean anything, which at the other end of the scale is equally useless.)