Reasonable Doubt

This month welcomed the ex-Provost of York University, Dr. John Issitt. He spoke to us about English Radicalism in the wake of the French Revolution and how the beliefs that reason and rationality would inevitably lead to a better society were put to the test.

John used the real life historical figure of Jeremiah Joyce (1763-1816) with which to examine the movement for radical societal and constitutional change inspired by events across the channel. Glazier, Unitarian Minister and tutor to the Earl of Stanhope’s children, Joyce was a member of both the Society for Constitutional Reform and the London Corresponding Society. Both organisations were in the forefront of radical thought.  The ideas that were debated in these groups made him a target of the established order and he was arrested and charged, along with several others, with ‘treasonable practices’. However, due to an overly confident and poorly presented prosecution and an excellent defence lawyer all were acquitted. All of this is covered in far more detail in John’s book ‘The Agents of Reason’.

John explained how whilst today reason and rationality are very much associated with scientific enquiry and an atheistic outlook this was not always the case. In Joyce’s age reason was a tool to strip away all the supernatural revelations, leaving one with an understanding of the mind of god.  In other words, a Deistic approach.

The main subject of the talk was meant to be Joyce and how the bloody outcome of the French Revolution had dented many people’s belief in the power of reason to create a better future. But it became clear that our speaker also had his own doubts.  

John explained how in his earlier years he had been a firm believer in the power of Rationality.  Indeed, he remembered arguments he had with people of faith and how he viewed them as misguided, ill-informed or just plain stupid.  But now, whilst not religious, he couldn’t help feeling that a world where everything choice we make could be reduced to a process of reasoning leading to a logical choice was an arid landscape indeed. Was the enjoyment of a piece of art or a beautiful landscape nothing more than a cold, calculated, logical decision?

In many ways I viewed this talk as an archaeological dig through a particular period in the history of radical thought.  But also a lament by John to his own lost belief in the transformative power of pure reason.  There was a tangible sense as John spoke of how he really wishes he still believed but he can’t. Whilst at the same time he can’t accept the more religious approach to life. Whilst John stated he was an Atheist, one of our audience asked if, in fact, he was really agnostic. That’s for John to work out.

An outstanding Q&A session followed.  Several of the audience spoke up to defend the power of reason.  Believing that the process of Rationality was valid.  It was just that ‘bad data’ was being pushed through the system leading to poor decisions and outcomes.  One believed that the problem wasn’t with Reason itself but the fact that most decisions have to be made so quickly. Our brains simply cannot work our options in a reasoned way fast enough. Therefore, bad decisions are made and poor outcomes follow.

John didn’t feel this was the case. Even if it were, we have the brains that we have. Even if it were possible, are we to change our brains to fit with the needs of Reason? Wouldn’t that make us slaves to Reason and slightly less human?

So, just another evening of light, casual debate in the local………..  

NEXT TIME: NOTE DUE TO THE WORLD CUP THIS EVENT IS A WEEK LATER THAN NORMAL – Alasdair Smith of the Anti-Academies Alliance will be explaining why he believes that Academies & Free Schools are not the way to improve education in the UK.  This will be a cracker. Bedford has so many different models of schools (2-tier, 3-tier, academies, religious schools, and a free school) that it is highly relevant to our town. Spread the word and come along. Thursday 26^th June 7pm at The White Horse. More details HERE.

Spirited Debate

This month we welcomed Chris Snowden along who examined the assertion made by the best selling book 'The Spirit Level' that 'more equal societies almost always do better.'  Chris has penned his own response to that publication entitled 'The Spirit Level Delusion' and his talk sought to examine what he believes are the short comings in the theory.

Chris illustrated his talk with plenty of graphs. They all, basically, attempted to demonstrate the same thing. Whether it be levels of trust, obesity, prison population or just about any other measure of an ill of society those nations deemed more equal were doing better and those with greater inequality were doing worse.

However, when Chris set about examining the data behind these graphs he found some issues.  For example, the authors of 'The Spirit Level' used 6 different measures of inequality throughout their book. This could be argued as moving the inequality goal-posts to make the statistics fit the theory. When Chris added extra nations ignored by the authors of 'The Spirit Level' he found that the much vaunted correlations no longer existed.

Anyway, correlation does not automatically equal causation.  For example, when looking at the prison population of any given nation you see that Scandinavian countries and Japan have a much lower number of prisoners that the United States.  However, for this to be a valid measure you would need to ensure that all the nations had exactly the same sentencing system.  Of course, they do not.  The sentencing regime in the United States is harsher than in Japan.  So we are not comparing like with like.

Chris then examined the idea of inequality itself.  He maintained that inequality and poverty are not the same thing.  For example, you could have a society where everyone was poor and in that sense they were all equal and inequality would be non-existent.  But would we want to live there?  To Chris the important measure is living standards and that is the measure by which we should be judging success.

In the Question & Answer session with the audience many were outraged that, to them, Chris seemed to be making light of inequality.  I have to say I didn't see it this way.  To Chris inequality is simply a measure of the gap between one part of society and another.  It doesn't necessarily mean that those in the lower half are actually suffering or in poverty.  However, to many in the audience inequality is clearly a social ill in itself rather than a dry statistic.

Personally, I thought it was an excellent evening where people's beliefs were put to the test. It can sometimes seem at Skeptics events that the audience is of a largely liberal persuasion and so are the speakers.  To get a guest who actually makes you examine you own ideas of what inequality actually is and how loaded the term has become was enlightening.

We should be wary of anybody from whatever side of the political landscape who arrives with an easily digestible 'theory of everything' offering a panacea to society's ills. In a complicated world such ideas have a beguiling simplicity to them.  As Skeptics we need to maintain a critical eye however alluring such ideas may be. Especially the ones that chime with some of our core beliefs.

NEXT MONTH:  John Issitt will join us to talk about 'The Limits of Reason' - Thursday 15th May - 7 for 7:30 at The White Horse - More details HERE.

Shame of Thrones

Graham Smith the CEO of Republic, the campaign for a democratic alternative to the monarchy joined us this month.

Graham stated that the monarchy was both wrong in principle and in practice. It undermines our desire to make decisions for ourselves and “is an obstacle to a genuine flourishing of democratic ideals.”

Graham also accused the monarchy of corruption.  If we can define corruption as the abuse of public office for personal gain then Graham cited royal access to ministers to lobby for their own political agenda and using public money for personal use (i.e. £20,000 spent by Prince Charles for a 4 day Scottish holiday) as examples.

The media states that the total cost of the monarchy to be £35 million a year.  But Republic contend that this figure is artificially low as it doesn’t include the costs of security, police, local council costs on visits and that there real figure is more like £200 million.  By contrast the Irish Head of State costs that nation £7 million a year.  But Graham stressed that this wasn’t simply a question of cost. Even if the monarchy cost nothing its existence would erode our democratic potential.

To Graham  just as worrying as the high financial price of the monarchy was the fact that it is “out of control and not open to scrutiny”.  Both Prince Charles and the Queen have an effective veto on any legislation that affects their extensive private interests.  Civil Servants are duty bound to make them aware of any legislation that might do so.  The result is that legislation is changed in advance to avoid it affecting these private interests as Civil Servants know it will have to be amended in favour of the Royals anyway. 

When it comes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) the monarchy is exempt even though it is a publicly funded body.  The Act was later amended so that in addition to any internal Royal correspondence being out of bounds any correspondence between the monarchy and any other public bodies was also safe from scrutiny.  We know that Prince Charles sends plenty of missives to government but we’re not allowed to know their contents.  The Guardian has been fighting a long battle to get access to these letters with the government repeatedly losing in the courts and then putting in motion appeal after appeal. This lobbying explodes the myth that the monarchy is merely a decorative figure 

head, detached from politics.

Another such myth, according to Graham, is that the monarchy brings valuable tourist trade to the UK. 

So what’s the alternative?  Republic campaigns for a fully elected Parliament and an elected Head of State that acts as the Guardian of the Constitution. Graham gave examples of where proposed laws have been vetoed in Ireland when the President has referred them to the Supreme Court where they have subsequently been deemed unconstitutional.  We are not talking about the same style Presidency as Mugabe in Zimbabwe (as some of the audience seemed to think) but for a Head of State that protects the constitution and represents the country rather than running it as a personal fiefdom.

After a break to refill glasses and empty bladders (given a whole new twist to the phrase ‘The Royal Wee’) Graham fielded questions from the audience.  Some in the audience believed that simply replacing the monarchy with a presidency wouldn’t change anything and that there are plenty of examples of corrupt Heads of State.  Graham countered that it wasn’t about changing human nature but making those that held high office open to scrutiny and accountable for their actions.  Something that the monarchy patently isn’t.  In addition, it’s impossible to change the status quo without presenting ourselves with “the opportunity to change the system.”

Once again it was a lively debate with even the bar staff joining in.  Personally, what struck me is that for those who believe in the monarchy it very much appeared as more of an act of faith that an evidence based belief.  I was left wondering  why as a Nation many of us feel that this privileged family with no experience of everyday life are an accurate image of Britishness to project to the world and ourselves?  It is a cosy nostalgia for a supposedly simpler time where everyone know their place and things seemed a little more ordered?

NEXT MONTH: Christopher Snowden will challenge 'The Spirit Level' theory that more equal societies always do better.  It's bound to be a controversial stance so do come along. Thursday April 17th, 7pm, The White Horse. Full details HERE.

Alpha Male

Another month, another full pub. I’ve given up counting numbers now – suffice to say, it was packed out – standing room only. This large and loud crowd had come along to listen to Simon Clare’s (@faithlesseye) thoughts on The Alpha Course and what it can teach the Atheist & Humanist ‘community’ about effective outreach.

A god of some sort was clearly worried about what he might have to say as various traffic jams and delays were slung in Simon’s path but he managed to make it even if he was a few minutes late.  But if you’re going to have to wait a bit then where better than a pub?

Simon started by taken us through a few Alpha Course stats;

• Set up in 1977
• 66,000 courses in 162 countries
• 75% of attendees in 18-35 age group
• Available in 85% of prisons
• Big growth in India – 2007: 100 courses  2012: 20,000 courses

The Alpha Course owes its recent expansion to Nicky Gumbel (left), Vicar of the Holy Trinity Brompton (HTB) Church who took the original Alpha Course materials and reshaped them into the highly successful project it currently is. Which. I suppose makes him the ‘Alpha Papa’.  Rev. Gumbel is a very well connected Eton educated ex-Barrister who, it is claimed, had a role in ensuring that the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was ordained into the clergy in the first place. According to Simon, the Alpha Course is “a central part of the Church of England’s struggle to survive.”

Simon found his local Alpha Course leaders friendly and approachable, unlike many of the Humanist groups he’s attended, with food offered, nice lighting and a general air of relaxed inclusion. At the start, at least.  As the course went on Simon was concerned that none of his well thought out questions were answered and became aware that this wasn’t really the point of the course. Despite the fact that Alpha Course adverts often attract punters by offering answers to life’s big questions.  He was also concerned that some of the material was just not being truthful such as a video (see below) about the high-wire walker Blondin taking his Mother across Niagara Falls in a wheelbarrow. In reality, this never happened as she had died many years before.

Simon attended a ‘Holy Spirit Weekend’ where people were subtly urged to let themselves be filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. Simon showed us the script for this particular part of the course. These clearly showed that if the course leaders didn’t have an example of speaking in tongues to call upon they could use the one in the script but pretend it was their own personal experience.

Despite all this, Simon thinks he’s a better person for taking the course as he learnt things and met nice people.  He also came thinking that the Alpha Course approach could work for the Atheist/Humanist community.  Simon thinks that this those of us who consider ourselves part of such a community should be friendlier, more welcoming and stop finding excuses for not doing things rather than reasons for actively reaching out to those who might have no understanding of what Humanism really is.  

Simon himself has given Atheist street preaching a go and is involved in the Brighton branch of The Sunday Assembly. He’s also helping to write a course on Humanism that is less academically based and more rooted in the everyday than much Humanist material usually is.

There was plenty of interaction from the audience throughout the talk. It was great to see some Christians pointing out where they thought Simon was mistaken and explaining how they had taken the Alpha Course material and reshaped it themselves to better suit their approach.  Plenty of robust conversation, laughter and applause.  Simon has a great, relaxed speaking style which puts the audience at ease but also maintains their interest. Highly recommended to other Skeptics groups.

NEXT MONTH: We welcome Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, the campaign for a democratic alternative to the Monarchy.  He’ll be talking to us about the power and secrecy of the monarchy and what can be done about it.  It’s bound to be another well attended event so if you want to seat then best get there for 7pm. Full details HERE.

Arrested Development

This month we were lucky enough to host Skeptics In The Pub veteran Stevyn Colgan as he gave his 'Skeptical Bobby' talk for the 50th time.

Stevyn took us on a journey from his school days of confrontation with Mr Tuttle over a picture of a Brontosaurus that was clearly a Brachiosaurus, to his service in the Metropolitan Police's 'Problem Solving Unit' and, latterly, his time at BBC TV's 'Q.I' and it's Radio 4 sister show 'The Museum Of Curiosity.'

The bulk of the talk concentrated on how prevention of a problem is far better than a cure.  Stevyn spoke of his frustration as a Police Cadet that the emphasis in training was on how to catch criminals and process them through the justice system.  This seemed odd as the first of the 'Peelian Principles' upon which the police force was set up states;

'The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.'

However, it seems far easier for the police to measure (and politicians and public alike to understand) arrests and convictions rather than the more difficult task of ascertaining the efficacy of crime prevention.  Arrest and convictions statistics might look good but they do not prove that the police force is doing an effective job.  Indeed, another of the 'Peelian Principles' makes this clear;

'The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder; not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.'

Still, Stevyn was unbowed by the line taken by his colleagues and was determined to adopt a curative approach.  An approach no doubt helped by the fact that he did not fear being sacked as he'd only joined the police force as a drunken £50 bet with his father - also a policeman.

Stevyn took great inspiration from the work of Herman Goldstein and his idea of 'Problem Oriented Policing.'

Various issues tackled by Stevyn and his team included;

• Hiring a young Italian magician dressed as Harry Potter to alert unsuspecting shoppers to a card trick scam.
• Diagonal hoarding to prevent fly-posting (and if that didn't work sticking 'Cancelled' notices on top of the fly-posters.)
• Gum targets to cut down on chewing gum on pavements.
• Lollipops for departing clubbers to keep late night noise down.
• See through shop shutters to deter graffiti and also deterring burglars who would normally be shielded from view by normal shutters.
• Organising a Dog Show on a tough inner city estate to get little old ladies with the Yorkshire Terriers and youths with their Pit Bulls taking to each other an promoting community cohesion.

The central thread throughout the evening was that things are better if people talk and listen to each other,  work as a community and seek to find what they have in common to solve their problems.  The solutions needed are often not grand initiatives but thoughtful, localised smaller scale actions.

NEXT MONTH: Simon Clare joins us to explain what taking The Alpha Course as an Atheist taught him about organised religion and what non-believers can learn from it.  Thursday 20th February - 7pm - The White Horse - Full details HERE.

Cruise Controlled?

After having to postpone last month BBC Journalist John Sweeney joined us at The White Horse for what turned out to be a devastating denunciation of Scientology mixed with a boozy swear word scripted pantomime.

 

John proved that his in-your-face style of reporting isn't just for the TV screen by telling the audience that Bedford felt like the North Korean capital Pyongyang in that "it has a sense of itself, but is not just quite right."

 

John made it clear that any views he expressed during the talk were his alone and nothing to do with the BBC or the Director General ("whoever that may be this week") and that to avoid any litigious 

Scientologist lawyers we should point and shout "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!" at him.  This humble blogger did so and if you point and shout "Bigot!" at your screen whilst reading this entry then we should all be safe from any legal entanglements.

 

With audience members taking on the parts of, amongst others, John Travolta, Tom Cruise and L. Ron Hubbard and repeating some of their more seemingly outlandish statements on the subject of Scientology it would have been easy to feel that this was just an evening of easy ridicule.  However, John's central message is that Scientology is a dishonest money making scheme that divides families and displays all the characteristics of a cult rather than a legitimate religion.

 

He maintains that he defends people's right to believe in anything they wish. But, unlike established religions, Scientology isn't up front about the basic tenets of its 'faith'.  Whether you believe it or not Christianity is quite clear that they believe 

Jesus was the son of god who died for our sins, then rose again.  

Islam is clear that Muhammad is the last prophet of god and Allah is that god.  However, with Scientology you have to spend a great deal of time and money to actually discover that the basic belief of Scientology is that you are actually possessed by the spirits of dead aliens that were murdered with H-bombs by an evil intergalactic overlord.  

 

There were plenty of fans of John's work in the audience who were vocal in their appreciation his talk.  But also plenty of people who felt that they wanted more history of how Scientology came into being and how exactly any criticisms of these beliefs cannot be levelled equally at other religions.   However, the focus of John's talk wasn't about the weird belief system of Scientology but instead the way that it operates a regime of secrecy and intimidation.  

Hence, the title of the book that accompanies the talk - 'The Church of Fear'. 

Whatever your opinion of the talk, it was certainly a lively, combative night of robust conversation and debate.

 

NEXT TIME: No Skeptics In the Pub event in December.  But please join us again on Thursday 16th January when Stevyn Colgan (from the BBC show 'Q.I.') will be talking to us about  grass-roots skepticism and why we should be critical thinkers in every aspect of our lives.  Full details HERE.  

Pregnant Pause?

Our latest meeting saw the first birthday of Bedford Skeptics In the Pub. Something to be celebrated, no doubt. Skeptically, of course.

And births, or rather several billion of them, and the consequences of such procreation was the subject of our latest talk when John Davies of the charity Population Matters spoke to us.

Population Matters are convinced that unless we all address the issue of population growth then any other measures taken to alleviate environmental problems and global poverty will flounder.  John cited a 2011 YouGov poll which found that 80% of the public believed that both the global and UK population was too high.

Yet time and again, according to Population Matters, the discussion of what might be done to limit population is sidelined by a political elite not interested or too scared to confront the issue. Even when the matter does get raised within the debate on the future of the planet the subject of population is not given equal space on the agenda.  Subjects such as global warming dominate the conversation when, according to Population Matters, the amounts of greenhouses gases created by the vast human population are central to the problem in the first place.

John referred to statistics that showed £4-£6 invested in family planning can abate a tonne of carbon emissions.  According to this data this is almost four times more cost effective than tree planting, five times more than solar power and six times more than hybrid technology. Population Matters calls for a series of actions ranging from balanced migration flows (that is, no more in that out) to the end of state subsidies for large families (except in cases of proven need).  You can read all their goals HERE.

After the usual half time emptying of bladders and re-filling of glasses we screened a TED talk by Hans Rosling on whether some religions have a higher birth rate than others.  It's an excellent and enlightening talk and well worth 13 minutes of your time.

The discussion session after the film was a lively, some might say, sparky affair.  Many in the audience felt that population growth had slowed and that the scientific consensus pointed to a levelling off of human numbers. Furthermore, that population growth in developing countries is a symptom of poverty and inequality rather than its cause.  The debate seemed to return to the central idea that without a fairer distribution of wealth and resources the problems of population numbers will remain.

Whilst it wasn't mentioned overtly on the night was the idea of 'Contraction & Convergence' (see video above) which could provide a scientific formula for both reducing greenhouse gases to a sustainable level and lead to greater financial equality between nations.  A levelling out of global inequality would seem to offer the best route to solve so many of the interlinked issues of climate change, poverty and localised over population.  

To many the practical application of the 'Contraction & Convergence' approach is unacceptable and unworkable in the current social and political climate. But, in the end, we may have to make this choice whilst the choice is still ours to make.


NEXT MONTH: After an unavoidable postponement BBC Journalist John Sweeney will be explaining to us why he believes that Scientology is, in fact, a Church of Fear - 7pm Thursday November 21st at The White Horse. You are advised to get there early to nab a seat if the turn out for Robert Llewellyn was anything to go by.  Full details HERE