What have myths to do with Humanism and do we need more of them?  How can rationalist Humanists enjoy the obvious fiction of stories? These were some of the questions asked at this session: note that I have not said talk or meeting, as to describe the event in those terms does not indicate the theatricality and entertainment factor of the evening, and the great stories which were acted out while raising serious and truthful points.  Which, we learned, is what storytelling is all about!

In Act One, Andy described the route which had taken him from reluctant schoolboy to hero of schoolchildren as he performs with his company in schools and elsewhere the great myths of the world such as his performance of the Theseus and the minotaur in his award-winning Labyrinth.  The question what is the purpose of storytelling was one of an array of discussions which occupied the second part or Second Act of the evening, with a wide range of views being expressed: from the idea that all stories would interfere with children’s idea of truth, to the benefit of Santa Claus to Humanists as a first introduction for children to rationalising and logical thinking as well as helping them realise that all they are told by adults is not true.

It was good to have had a chance to think about the role of storytelling in culture generally and in particular in a Humanist context which does not have the well-known narratives of major religions.  This evening helped to raise a number of very interesting issues as well as being a highly entertaining night.

Cathy Crawford  

Be the first to comment on this article

At the meeting the principle issue which was of concern to those Humanists attending was the introduction by the Human Rights Council of a non-binding resolution on defamation of religion which invites countries to pass laws to stop defamation of religions.

What the problem with this is that firstly was it possible to use defamation in relation to religions or was it only appropriate to talk in terms of defaming an individual?  Secondly, and more importantly the resolutions can be seen as part of a wider campaign to impose values on the rest of the international community which are largely unacceptable in liberal democracies. 

Our speaker Dr Donn explained she was not representing the UN, rather the UNA which is a civil society organisation which tries to get the ethos of the UN (furthering peace, security and international co-operation) to the grassroots.  She was able to give us a good general background, and additionally expressed the view that in passing this resolution the United Nations was on a slippery slope.  Her personal view, as it had not been discussed by the Edinburgh UNA was that action needed to be taken to challenge the resolution and to stop it from progressing as far as the General Assembly.  She encouraged people to consider making representations to their elected members such as MPs, MSPs and MEPs. 

I had the feeling that while this issue concerned her once it was brought to her attention, but because there is such a huge range of issues to take up, and her priority currently was non-proliferation, she was going to rely on the Humanists to take up the defamation issue.  We will have to act, rather than pass the buck to the UNA.

So the meeting was indeed very relevant to Humanists, and the issue is one which should not just end at the end of the meeting.  Hopefully, some of those attending will have been sufficiently motivated and informed to take the next step of asking for those who we elect to do what is necessary to avoid the United Nations consolidating a religious world view.  This is something we Humanists do not want to see!

Be the first to comment on this article

Be the first to comment on this article

Presented by the Edinburgh Group of the Humanist Society of Scotland, in association with the Institute of Ideas and the National Library of Scotland on Wednesday 11 February 2009 18:30

Speakers include

Alex McLellan, Founder and Executive Director of Reason Why
Dave Perks, Head of Physics at Graveney School in London,
Christopher Brookmyre, Novelist, including Boiling a Frog
Julian Baggini, writer and philosopher
Marc Surtees, Paradigm Shift

Chair: Dr Tiffany Jenkins, Institute of Ideas
Wednesday 11 February 2009 18:30
Venue: National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, George IV Bridge, EH1 1EW
 
Tickets are free. To book your place(s), get further information, or join the events mailing list, phone 0131 623 4675 or email This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Comments (1)

 Sir Bernard Crick, the distinguished political scientist and self-proclaimed polemicist, has died aged 79. He stood in the tradition of the publicly concerned scholar as exemplified by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, RH Tawney, Harold Laski and GDH Cole, though at a time when it was a much less fashionable role.

He was a prolific author of scholarly works, political tracts and essays which bridged both modes of discourse. Four of his books were of major importance. The American Science Of Politics (1958) cast a critical eye over the then-main schools of American political science. It was typically Crick – being a precociously audacious analysis of a type more usually to be expected at the end of a career.

It was followed by In Defence of Politics (1962), which established his academic reputation. The book reasserted the crucial importance of politics and the nobility of the political vocation to an age that was very largely either apolitical or anti-political in character. It was translated into five other languages and placed on the reading lists of many university courses. Its themes remain relevant today.

The Reform of Parliament (1964) was important for its timing, coinciding closely with Richard Crossman's leadership of the House of Commons in Harold Wilson's Labour government and his attempt to enhance the select committee system.

While Crick could be something of a maverick, he was essentially a moderniser rather than a radical in the context of political reform. He was an original signatory to Charter 88, the pressure group for constitutional reform, but soon quibbled with its programme and resigned. He was a leading member of the Study of Parliament Group, consisting of academics and clerks of both houses, which sought to update the procedures and processes of the legislature rather than advocate anything more adventurous. His main concern was to improve the traditional forms of government.

George Orwell: A Life (1980) was, for Crick, his magnum opus. It was the first major treatment of the author who, in many respects, Crick sought to emulate in his own essays and journalism and, especially so, in his editorship of the Political Quarterly from 1966 to 1980. He remained connected with the journal long afterwards, writing the history of its first 70 years. For one who found difficulty in maintaining close ties, it was an association that was uncharacteristically enduring.

Crick was born in London and educated at Whitgift school, Croydon; University College London, where he gained a first; and the London School of Economics, for his doctorate (1950-52). He then taught successively at north American universities – Harvard, Massachusetts (1952-54), McGill, Montreal (1954-55), and Berkeley, California (1955-56) – before returning in 1957 as an assistant lecturer to the LSE, where he remained for eight years.

As a moderate socialist and congenital gadfly, he did not fit easily with the prevailing ethos of the LSE government department, which was heavily permeated by the conservative scepticism of Michael Oakeshott and his acolytes. Neither Crick nor the Marxist Ralph Miliband were promoted to the professorships they merited, and both had to move to northern universities to gain preferment.

Crick was appointed professor of political theory and institutions at Sheffield in 1965, and the title could not have been more apt given his range of interests. He inherited a somewhat motley crew, being a mixture of aging ex-Marxists and young tyros. One of his students, later his patron, was David Blunkett. Crick was restless in Sheffield, maintaining his London home, sleeping weekdays in his office until detected by the cleaners, and commuting thereafter.

He was relieved to return to a London posting, becoming the foundation professor of politics at Birkbeck college in 1971. While the students of Birkbeck, being part-time and adult, would have stimulated him and, even more, reflected favourably upon his own self-image, he failed to build up a strong or distinctive department.

He abhorred routine academic administration and, while often a good talent-spotter, he found difficulty in sustaining close relationships. He was too much of an individualist and too self-engrossed – attributes that served him well as a man of letters and a man of affairs – to be either a team player or an effective manager.

It is not surprising that he took early retirement in 1984, setting off for Edinburgh to be with his partner, Una MacLean. He remained domiciled there, becoming an ardent proponent of a Scottish parliament.

His ambition was not sated by his high academic reputation, which was recognised in the award of four honorary doctorates. He was made a vice-president of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, which also gave him a lifetime achievement award on its 50th anniversary in 2000. He hankered after more. Professionally, he would have liked a chair at Oxford or Cambridge, and applied whenever there was a vacancy. But his face did not fit.

He later sought more formal public recognition. One of his minor interests was the politics of divided societies, notably South Africa and Northern Ireland. He courted Neil Kinnock, when leader of the Labour party, fancying he might become high commissioner to Pretoria in the event of a Labour general election victory. He then hoped for a life peerage, but had to be content with a knighthood.

In the event he had to settle for chairing the committee on teaching citizenship in schools to which David Blunkett, then secretary of state for education and employment, appointed him in 1997. It was a task for which he was both intellectually and temperamentally suited and, while his proposals were diluted by the government, it remained a suitable monument to his career.

In 1998, he was appointed, again by Blunkett, to chair the committee to devise a test of minimum competence in English language and British culture which immigrants should undergo before being given permanent residence. He continued to advise the Labour government on integration and naturalisation issues till 2005, and in 2006-07 was a visiting professor at Glasgow University.

His three marriages ended in divorce. He is survived by Una and his sons, Oliver and Thomas, by his first wife, Joyce Morgan. Bernard Crick, academic, political thinker and writer, born 16 December 1929; died 19 December 2008. Written by Trevor Smith in The Guardian

Bernard's funeral took place at Warriston Crematorium on Tuesday January 7th, 2009, complete with a four piece Dixieland Jazz band and an (edited) rendition of the Red Flag.

Be the first to comment on this article

Speaker: Roger Redondo.  Chair: Jack Gold

A fine talk from Neuroscientist Roger Redondo, HSS Edinburgh Group  Committee Member, and ex-President of Edinburgh University Humanist Association. Roger's talk was aided by OHP, laptop presentation including video and various other imaginative aids. I estimate around 90 people turned up, a large gathering by any standards.

Roger kicked off by asking us to memorise different objects hidden around the hall under cups to later test our capacity to remember.  I had the impression he was a little surprised that most folks DID remember where the toy pineapple and other items were to be found, and not just the £20 note.

If we ever had any doubts about the complexity of the human brain they were soon dispelled. Roger clearly explained what goes on inside the brain, how and why the brain functions, what makes us human and how it can all so easily break down.

Comparisons were made with other creatures, whose brains are simple compared to our own but are absolutely right for the correct functioning of those creatures in their particular environment  - fewer brain cells for such creatures would prevent proper functioning; too many more brain cells would be too 'expensive' a strategy.

Audience volunteers were connected to each other by coloured ropes, from wrist to wrist, that were then selectively disconnected to demonstrate the cooperative and cumulative learning process of brain cells, a process that results in progressively successful human behaviour.  This was a great demo and a lot of fun.

Two kinds of brain cells deserved special attention from Roger. 'Place-cells' help creatures know where they are and how to navigate successfully. A firework display of sparking neurons happens every step we take (at least on simulations!), some neurons apparently  'recognising' particular locations and working collectively with other cells to navigate spaces or avoid obstructions.  Successful Place-cells are rewarded; unemployed or navigationally challenged cells drop away.  'Mirror cells' appear to help us empathise with other humans as, through our senses, we recognise body language, facial expression, moods etc.  This may even be the keystone of consciousness according to Roger.  Anyone familiar with David Chalmers' 'Hard Problem' that differentiates human self-knowledge, subjectivity, self-consciousness from HOW the mind and body works, could be forgiven for considering Mirror cells a possible solution.  After all mirror cells apparently help us empathise with others, therefore why not the mother of all empathies Roger asks - with the person we spend most time with - ourselves? Could this not explain consciousness?  If, that is, the same system is in operation?

Roger demonstrates video footage of robots benefiting from what we know about brain cells - robots that learn a kind of spatial awareness, and a kind of self or bodily awareness that apparently aids its navigation - or at least it is meant to - their attempts to walk or crawl seemed quite haphazard.  Roger hints that the more complex such robots become the more species-like they will become.  Perhaps they could even pose a threat, he ponders, were they able to reproduce (manufacture other versions of themselves) I wonder.

My comments, to finalise (if I may)

Sorry Roger, I disagree about the robots thing.  Complexity of transistors may simulate human complexity but inside that robot machine it is DARK.  Compared to our subjective minds, lit with creativity and qualitative perception, these machines will always be artefacts made by humans to mimic humans, but they will never be human - or even a parallel 'species'.  

Put more simply, I love the smell of a rose and so do most people. We know what each other means when we describe the smell of a rose to each other.  But words fail the actual sensation we each get as individuals - the real joy is somehow special to us like the smell of coffee, a great piece of music or a lovely sunset.   My point, finally (!) is this; Roger, you can build a robot to appear to appreciate those subjective sensations, the ones that make us human, and that will be a marvellous achievement - but a robot will never smell a rose or appreciate music as we do - it will always be a zombie and always be dark inside.

(Feel free to disagree!)

Be the first to comment on this article

click on the image above to see full size version

This is just a bit of Humanist, humorous fun really, but also with a serious side. Just for a moment, suspend your disbelief - Edinburgh District Council has agreed to celebrate Darwin 200 big time. OK, they haven't really, however this image represents what Edinburgh might look like if they did. See how many references to Darwin and evolution you can spot in the image above. To see all the detail, click on the image and view the full size version. (Image created by Jack Gold, Edinburgh Group)

Comments (2)

Be the first to comment on this article