5. Emma Park, Editor of The Freethinker plus Humanism in Education & Science Communication

This week on Humanism now, Mark & AJ join the panel to discuss the role of science communication & humanism in education, with insights gathered from the New Scientist Conference.

Dr. Emma Park, Editor of The Freethinker, provides a deep dive into the essence of freethought & the consequences of placing any views on an untouchable pedestal. Emma shares insights into the relationship between freethought & free speech, challenges to these freedoms & reviews the current status of non-religious movements.

We end with our listener question: 'Is humanism a religion?'

Episode references:

• Why Humanism is included in ‘Religious Education’ (‘RE’)
• How Humanist are you Quiz?
• UnderstandingHumanism.org.uk
• Humanist UK: Teachers Network
• Humanists UK: School Speakers
• Atheist Bus Campaign

About Dr. Emma Park:
🔗 Emma Park, Homepage
🐦 @DrEmmaPark on Twitter
📖 The Freethinker
📺 Pastafarianism: parody or religion? | Emma Park | CLH Talks 

Emma's book references;

• The Battle for Thought - Freethinking in the Twenty-First Century, Simon McCarthy-Jones
• Freedom to Think - The Long Struggle to Liberate Our Minds, Susie Alegre
• Humanly Possible -  Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Fr

Transcript

James: 0:00

Hello and welcome to episode five of Humanism, now the podcast brought to you by the Central London Humanists. I'm your host, james, and this week we'll hear a report from the New Scientist Conference here in London, discuss how humanism should be taught in schools and the importance of science and humanist communication. We'll also answer the mailbag question is humanism a religion? And here from our guest this week, emma Park, the editor of the Free Thinker, to discuss all of this and more. I'm delighted to be joined by our regular co-hosts here, aj and Mark, fellow committee members here at the Central London Humanists. So, aj, I know you are over representing Humanist UK at the New Scientist Conference this week. How was the event and what were the main themes that you saw?

AJ: 0:44

Yeah, it was our first time attending. It was this past weekend. As Humanist UK, we'd not been there before. I was there wearing my young humanist hat, which is part, as we know, of Humanist UK, the National Charity, and we had an exhibition stand there. We had some of our prominent members of the Humanist UK community in Orbit and UK Humanist movement there who was speaking, jim Alcalely was a headline speaker, alice Roberts as well, so Jim used to be a president of Humanist UK and Alice is our current vice president and, as you can imagine, it was in some sense. I wondered why we hadn't gone there before, but there's so many things that we could do as a National Charity and we can't get to all of them, but I'm glad that we go to this one this year and, by all accounts, it was a fantastic and very successful event and we're going to come back next year as well. As also just targeting a demographic that we think are really sympathetic to Humanist values and the worldview New scientists so people who don't know is a science magazine, so a lot of curious, open-minded, free thinking individuals are all in one place in Excel Center in London.

AJ: 1:59

Over three days was just a feast for the intellect and the senses, you can imagine. Some of the talks are about protecting the oceans. Jim Alcalely spoke about the scientific, rational worldview, plato's Cave and why rationality can really give us the best tools to understand and to tackle the challenges that we have in the 21st century. Alice Roberts was speaking about rituals and burials and how ceremonial aspects of humanism and the human condition are very important to us and some latest research there. So it was a fascinating thing, say, even for adults and from that point of view. And then one of the days was a kids' day, a school's day, so science teachers, rre, humanities teachers and others and also their kids, primary but mostly secondary schools came, which was fantastic. It was just hilarious and just so much fun to interact with them, see their random questions and try to throw us off of Kilda.

James: 2:59

I was going to say did you have any particular kids usually have the best questions, did anyone?

AJ: 3:04

stand out for you. Oh, there were too many to mention. We had a humanist UK quiz. That's also on our website. Anyone can go to howhumanistru. And there were.

AJ: 3:14

You can just see some of the super, super intelligent ones and just sort of who are on it who maybe were exhibiting that old humanist value of questioning the question. They just wouldn't even finish the quiz, they'd just stop and they interrogate how to just use this multiple choice answer. Why am I for big force to choose that? And just in the process of that we were able to just laugh and joke with them and explain to them yeah well, this is what the humanist world views about. There's no right or wrong answers. It's not as if you get higher on that quiz you're a better person or not, just whether you sync with humanist values or not and do you know about humanism. And if you get 90% on the quiz, it's on the humanist UK website, humanistuk. If you do get 90% on the quiz and you don't know about humanism, maybe that's a sign for you to get more involved.

AJ: 3:57

But apart from just having the face to face time with potential followers, supporters and members, we also wanted to really interface with teachers there and tell them about understanding humanism. So if people go to understandinghumanismorguk, there's free teaching and self learning resources there that we've prepared as humanist UK using current teachers and ex teachers and all of the years of experience, lesson plans etc. So that's going to be, that's there for RE teachers, philosophy teachers, humanities teachers, pshe teachers, etc. Up and down the country. Because here in the UK we don't have a national RE syllabus, a curriculum for RE. There's no national standard. It's set locally, in council by council, municipality by municipality around the country, which is a travesty and I think it's intolerable. So to try and counter that, we're trying to at least provide free resources for schools or very often underfunded, especially government funded schools to make sure that they provide their kids a holistic education. So it's also about pushing that campaign.

James: 5:01

But I understand that humanist UK had made some progress in getting humanism included in the RE curriculum. Is that not nationwide?

AJ: 5:10

Yes, so well.

AJ: 5:11

Humanist UK took the government to court the Department of Education in previous years and we did actually win the Supreme Court because we found that the DOV was not following the law in terms of providing that secular module, its optional module, that there should be a module there within the philosophy, faith and belief studies or RE studies that's offered at secondary school and primary school.

AJ: 5:35

There should be that option to be picked alongside Christianity and Islam, etc. And not all schools that should have been following that were. So that is a breach of the law, but the penalties that it carries for a breach of the law are not often enforced and they're not enough to make a nationwide change in the situation. But also, I would say, even if schools do want to do that, they often don't have the resources to do that. So that's where the Understanding Humanism Project and that website with all of the free resources over 200 resources their videos, pdf, you know, booklets, etc. Handouts is there for students and also for teachers in all kinds of educational institutions to make use of that. So telling kids about that and teachers about that face to face was also something that I really appreciated and had a lot of fun doing, and we'll be back again next year.

Mark: 6:28

Just on that point, aj, about the teaching of RE and the inclusion of humanism, do you think there's an element of sleight of hand in the terminology that I noticed that RE courses have often been rebadged as philosophy, for example, and so there's the illusion or the appearance that are more balanced and more secular sort of world study of philosophy and world views is actually already taking place, whereas in fact, when you look more closely, these are essentially RE courses, rea levels under a different name.

AJ: 7:04

We in some sense we support that rebranding because it's a much more inclusive term and I think sort of faith and belief or religion and belief or belief and values. There's a lot of jargon for people who are in this kind of educational space, they know all about that. But so that kind of in some sense tokenistic or symbolistic change is good. It's one step in progress. But that has to be followed by substantive change. Are they actually following and implementing and making use of the substantive materials that should come behind this mere change in the name of the subject? And in many cases we find that they're not, and not entirely of the faults of it.

AJ: 7:37

We talked to many students and teachers and many who knew about humanism already regretted that either their school wasn't able to or they didn't have the resources or some in other ways. Re and philosophy, faith and belief topics weren't valued at that school. I mean, when I was growing up I also found that as well. It was quite a deep, high subject. Generally in this syllabus and the curriculum Parents didn't have that much emphasis on it unless it was a faith school. For example, we often had PE, physical education teachers teaching RE or art teachers teaching RE. It very rare was depending on the kind of how well the school was performing and how well it could draw in qualified teachers. Often, the people teaching RE didn't even have a history or a humanities or philosophy or any kind of related degree. It would just be who was available and had a free period and didn't mind adding to their workload, which is not how such vital issues should be taught at such a formative age.

Mark: 8:35

Yes, agreed, I'm interested also to the extent to which you talk about how, taking the survey online and just hearing about humanism, a lot of people at the conference were finding themselves naturally aligned, if they weren't already. Humanism I'm interested to how much humanism is penetrated within that community. I mean, often, as humanists. We often find, don't we, that people say what's humanism? I've never even heard of it. What is it? I've heard of it. I had no idea what it is. Was there more sort of humanistic literacy in that community? And also, was there and I think you've already said this, but was there a real sort of enthusiasm, once hearing more about it, to actually sort of maybe adopt it or find out more?

AJ: 9:23

Yes, certainly, and that's what drives our willingness and our recognition to go back again next year. We think it was well worth our investment of time and resources as humanists who go to go there. It helped having Jim Alcalili and Alice Roberts and others in Helen Chelsky I should also mention. She was also there calling out and saying go over to the humanist UK stand or mentioning humanist UK as part of that, especially Jim in his approach to how the audience and his advice to the audience and how they should form their worldview, how they should take forward the learnings after the lecture, the talk that you gave.

AJ: 9:54

So we were flooded by people who were curious about that, based on the call out to these headline speakers. But even before that, people would say, well, yeah, I didn't really know Jim Alcalili or Alice Roberts or they're not known them before. They would do just speak on the program, but they still didn't know about it. Some of them still didn't know about us. Again, it's the new scientist conference, so it's not reflective of the average person on the street, which is why we went there and that's a target group that we think that we could connect with a lot more to our mutual benefit in the future. So, yeah, very excited to revisit that.

James: 10:28

And, mark, you mentioned last week how you came to humanism through the one life course. Do you see that as something which should be, or could be, reflected in perhaps the curriculum for understanding humanism as a philosophical worldview?

Mark: 10:44

Yeah, it's certainly. I mean the one life is pitched at a very accessible level. So I think it probably it could be. Certainly secondary school pupils would certainly be able to access that type of material and it's we could, we could you know something like that, probably slightly more tailored would be, would be really would be a really good idea.

Mark: 11:06

Yeah, and I think also that the you know, the, the, the values of humanism, and this is why I was getting at with, with AJ's experience at this really interesting experience at this brilliant conference, is that that there seems to be a natural sort of connection and sort of synergy between humanist values and scientific values to some extent. So when, if, if, children are learning about scientific values and they also hear what humanistic values are explaining that way, including with you know modules on humanism and science, that there's also sort of a you know, a natural resonance there and people may well think, well, hang on, this is, this is actually chiming very much with you know, the core values of some of the key subjects that I'm learning, and in a completely authentic way, not in any way that is sort of you know, manipulated or it's. That's just the way it is. So I think, I think that is a potential strength in terms of teaching and increasing understanding and engagement with humanism.

AJ: 12:05

And there's a lot of overlap. The same team at Humanist UK who helped us and the other initial local groups who piloted the One Life course. The same team at Humanist UK helped with those materials as helped with the understanding humanism resources that are online for teachers and students. It was basically using the same experience ex teachers who work for Humanist UK.

Mark: 12:26

So it's just a case of getting them out there more and getting more people to engage with them.

AJ: 12:29

Hence, you know, going to the conference, which is a great initiative out there and bang the ports, bang the drums yeah, excellent.

Mark: 12:36

Well done for doing that.

James: 12:37

And a question to both of you. What do you think is the importance of public figures such like the science communicate like Jim Alcaly and Alice Roberts we saw Adam Rutherford at the convention this year and other fantastic speaker. You know Humanist UK has some a wide range of fascinating patrons. What do you think is the importance of public figures coming out and openly saying I'm a humanist? These are the things that I believe. I think it's probably quite pivotal, because that's the that's.

Mark: 13:09

I mean, it's probably always been the way that the people listen to you know, whatever, whatever society and whatever technology of communications prevail, people listen to you know the most influential, the famous, the powerful, and, yeah, but it's particularly the case now. I think that we do need those communicators in the sort of information age we live in and to certainly let's be honest a celebrity culture to some extent. I mean, these may not be, you know, very, very famous celebrities, because obviously that tends to be inversely correlated with, with the worth of your activity, but they are nevertheless pretty famous people, certainly within the sorts of groups that we're looking at or most likely to be drawn to humanism. So I think it's, it's really important and also, going back to what we're saying before, I think it's really interesting that how many of them are scientists? And that, again, that shows that sort of natural, you know, alignment between scientific and humanistic world outlooks, and we'll talk about this a bit later with when we look at the Emma Park interview.

AJ: 14:11

I think science and science, communication and policy making and and how the interface with science will come into that a bit later. But I think what Mark said that was really important about having actual communication to what in the works of at the call face, being good communicators very, very important. You can't always get both and unfortunately, just the way the world is, perhaps the way that if a scientist become become away from the bench or come away from the MRI machine and come away from being at the call face and they become more authors and public figures, maybe there is a bit of a disconnect between the I'm talking about the wider scientific science communication community here, not necessarily people like Jim or Alice Roberts who I think are exemplary figures in this there is a bit of a disconnect and then they become more into that celebrity commenting culture which I think Richard Dawkins, for example, has fallen into and that makes scientists who are actually on the cutting edge, scientists who are actually trying to tackle these, for example, physical physics problems or medical ethics problems, raise an eyebrow. Because often what is said by the super, super famous celebrities and public figures about science and consequently what comedians and and other cultural artists and other cultural representatives convey about science is a bit different and often maybe a bit too overconfident and overstates. The case is to sort of scientism and the philosophy of science and its ability to give us the truth, quote unquote versus the humility that actually some scientists who are working at the call face have because they see day to day how difficult it is with just the realities of publication bias and and the difficulties in getting a certain answer out of the scientific experiment. It does expand our knowledge, but it's not often a binary thing, it's not often black and white, so I think it's important to have both the other.

AJ: 16:05

The other comment I would make is and I was just talking about this one of our members yesterday in CLH the importance of female representatives who are showing that stem career path can be attainable and you can be respected as a public intellectual. Alice Roberts is the professor of public engagement in science to the University of Birmingham, for example, excellent, excellent role model, not just for the humanist stance and worldview and the way she conducts herself outside of her science and broadcasting work and so on, which is also excellent and has fun, and this is very approachable and nice and kind person, so living the humanist values in her personal life as well and on put a social media except, but also doing the hard work of you know Allah. Carl Sagan, the public intellectual representative of science, who can be an ambassador to say you know the discourse and debates with religions and other worldviews. So I think that the importance of strong female figures in sciences is exemplified by some of our patrons and vice presidents and presidents.

Mark: 17:14

For those who don't know, tell us what stem stands for.

AJ: 17:17

Science, technology, engineering and maths related subject came out through a discussion with a female member on WhatsApp yesterday in in CLH and she was actually referring to economics, but it also applies to stem subjects as well, and we mentioned Alice Roberts and also the newly awarded Nobel Prize Laureate in physics and really a who's again also an excellent figure that young people coming up, coming through their educational journey, can look up to and say that someone that I want to be, that's an inspirational figure. So I think that's very, very important and having people like Alice Roberts come to the stand, sign books and meet people and she met five year old, six year olds who are just overjoyed to see her and say that we have watched all of your documentaries I think that kind of face to face time and that human element is really, really important to be there in person and not just to have an online presence. So, yeah, very happy with what we managed to achieve at the new scientists conference.

James: 18:20

Just before we close, part one of the podcast, I would like to mention, if anyone is involved in working in a school, or a parent who would be interested having their children learn more about these topics. Humanist UK run both a teachers network and a school speakers program, which is entirely voluntary and anyone any parent or representative from a school can request a speaker, and we will link to both those programs in the show notes. One person who is very much involved in not only challenging religious dogma but also challenging the scientific consensus is guest this week Emma Park, the editor of the free thinker. I was fortunate enough to have a very fascinating and in depth conversation with Emma. Emma Park is a writer, teacher and, since January 2022, the editor of the free thinker, one of the world's oldest surviving secular humanist publications, having been founded in 1881 and since moving purely online in 2014. Emma writes about the arts, literature, culture, classical antiquity and, of course, humanism, secularism and free thought. Emma Park, thanks for joining Humanism Now.

Emma Park: 19:25

Hi James. Thanks very much for inviting me.

James: 19:28

You're very welcome. So I guess the best place to start is as the editor of the free thinker. How do you define free thought?

Emma Park: 19:37

I think there are lots of ways of defining it. I think for the purposes of secular humanism you have to see it within the historical context. The idea of free thinking has historically been defined against religion. I think that's where it originated. So from that perspective, historically it is defined against religion as someone who questions, say, the established church. Originally it was used for people who say would deists or theists or whatever, like Thomas Paine in the late 17th and especially in the 18th century. For me Thomas Paine is a classic example of sort of archetypal free thinker. He was very much politically free thinking as well. He challenged Britain's role in America, he was in favor of American independence and then he also very much questioned the established church in his age of reason, written in the last decade of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century.

Emma Park: 20:38

He himself was some sort of. He believed there was some sort of God in parent in nature, but he certainly didn't believe in priestcraft, which he strongly criticized. So in a way you can see the political and religious sides of free thought is going together in this tradition. On the one hand it is in general, I would say it's about questioning different types of authority. It is questioning views, ideas and political religious structures and hierarchies which are imposed from top down on people who don't necessarily want them. And why are they imposed? They're imposed because someone says so, because they claim to have authority, because you know they're the king or because God says so. So I think that's where it comes from and you can see, from that idea of free thought. I think that was very much what Charles Bradlow, the founder of the National Secular Society in 1866, and his colleagues had in mind and what George W Foot, the founder of the free thinker, who was Charles Bradlow's colleague, had in mind when he founded the Free Thinker in 1881. Now that point is very much free thinker is someone who doesn't agree with established religion and is probably moving in the direction of being atheist. So that's the political, anti religious angle to free thought. However, for me there is also very much another strand to free thought, and this is something I really wanted, I think is incredibly important and goes with the political, religious strand in a different way, and this is intellectual free thought, that is, think literally, just thinking freely, which is actually really hard to do. And I think the people who really represent this tradition and the intellectual, philosophical tradition of jazz mill and Bertrand Russell in particular, wrote quite a lot about free thought. You know he said to be a free thinker, to think freely, a man must be free first of the tyranny of tradition, by which we can include religious tradition, we can include political tradition and the tyranny of his own passions. And this goes back, I think, to an idea which we can trace right back to the ancient world, speaking as someone who started classics for quite a long time. We see it even in say Tacitus he talks about, he wants to write history in the first century in Rome, but he's not a sinner, he read studio without passion or bias.

Emma Park: 23:06

The idea is you're trying to pursue intellectual inquiry without being biased by your own vested interests or your own political inclinations and without being biased by your own other other biases or what your views about particular types of people and without being influenced by your own passions, the standard, you know the emotions, greed in the spy, hatred, love. You know all these things which can make you have a view of things which is which is not truly detached For me. You know, intellectual, objective inquiry which goes, you know, even further back, all the way to Socrates dispassionate, removed from all these things which prevent people from thinking clearly. So for me, free thought is about clear thought. It's about clarity and just trying to gradually, bit by bit, work out you know what work out things for yourself. And this goes really back also to the tradition.

Emma Park: 24:08

The idea of free thought is about independence as well, I think, because for and this is where it marries with the sort of Charles Bradelor, thomas paint type tradition it's about independence. It's about you have to think for yourself. No one can do it for you. You have to come to your own decisions, you have to find your own moral compass. So it is about intellectual responsibility and for some reason that seems to go with challenging established religions, challenging established political ideologies, All these things to go together. I don't know why, but but freedom, all these, these ideas of liberty, come together, I think.

James: 24:51

Yes, no, thank you very much for that and I agree, I think historically they have, they have come together. But I wonder what, with that in mind, a lot of the phrases which you use there in terms of really thinking for yourself, being independent of authority, you know, thinking independently of authorities or establishments that impose you know truth. Are you at all concerned with the growing use of terms like being a three thinker, thinking independently, being a skeptic when it comes to more anti science movements that we see a lot more, particularly online today?

Emma Park: 25:32

Yeah, I'm aware of that aspect. Did you have any particular anti science movements in mind?

James: 25:39

Well, I think, if you look at a lot of conspiratorial movements online or growing, let's say, particularly around hoaxes, you know, particularly the anti, anti science movement related to coronavirus, for example, a lot of the phraseology that's uses people doing their own research, thinking for themselves, you know, challenging the established narrative of what is happening. So this is this is a great sort of creep of terminology which is using a lot of the three thinker language to instead challenge perhaps, perhaps the scientific consensus rather than the religious status quo as it was previously used in the past, or more authority based power structures.

Emma Park: 26:30

Yes, that's an interesting question. Certainly, free thinking has been used in many different ways and it is definitely used by people who you know most people would consider conspiracy theorists in a number of different ways it's also used I mean, if I look, say I've just did a little bit of research prior to this on the idea of free thinking, if you look at, say, from the Telegraph, the Times, the Guardian, they all use free thinking in all sorts of different ways. You know, shakespeare was a free thinker, says some actress. Yes, he was in some sense. You know what else do we have? A frankfield veteran labour politician is considered, is called a free thinker by the Times, the Guardian. We have back an article by them, by Ibn Warak, the anonymous critic of Islam talks about, defines a free thinker rather well, I think, as not in the narrow sense of someone who does not accept the dogmas of traditional religion, but in the wider sense of someone who has the will to find out, who exhibits rational doubt about prevailing intellectual fashions and who is unafraid to apply critical thought to any subject. Now, I would agree with all of that. Definitely, I think the sense of individual responsibility does matter.

Emma Park: 27:56

Now, during the pandemic, we had this situation where scientists had, were given, or some scientists not all scientists, because not all scientists agreed but some scientists who were in a position of political power were given, were sort of exalted, and we had this idea that science not the sciences, not different sciences with their different approaches, not different particular experiments with different particular results, but science on mass was elevated as a sort of religion. And for me I think that is problematic when that happens, because if you elevate anything, even science, to the status of being unchallengable, then that is no better than anything else. That turns it into a religion effectively. And I think the same. I think one could also say that during the pandemic we had this idea that science should dictate policy. But I think another thing we have to consider is whether science and policy are the same thing, or how they should relate to each other, whether different considerations should be taken into account when deciding how to deal with a particular virus in a particular situation or a particular vaccine in a particular situation. And so for me I think free thought is about making distinctions. This is what philosophy is about. I mean, I was just talking to Alex Bernd of, the Professor of Philosophy at MIT, and he said. Well, you know, what philosophers do is make distinctions. For me, this is absolutely essential.

Emma Park: 29:27

I think one risk with science as it is described in the media, as with anything else, it is very easy to generalize, it is very easy to put something up on a pedestal as this sort of abstract holy idea. But nothing, I think, for the free thinker should be above questioning, nothing should be above criticism. That is not to say that you should be irrational, that is not to say you should be unscientific. Of course I think you know.

Emma Park: 29:58

I think actually one of the challenges of free thought is that it requires thought. Some people are not necessarily capable of thinking thought. Some people take their opinions straight from which have a newspaper they read via the Telegraph of Guardian. They don't necessarily think about every single opinion they have, they just spout what other people say. It's very difficult.

Emma Park: 30:21

We, none of us, can become an expert in everything. It's hard enough to become an expert in one tiny field. Of course you can't become an expert in everything. Of course you have to rely on other people. And if, well, if the scientific consensus is X and I'm not a scientist, then of course I should say well, for now I take that as being the scientific consensus. Of course scientists change their minds. Scientists are not infallible, so that is again something to bear in mind. But it is all about being aware of these different things, weighing up the different evidence that is there.

Emma Park: 30:56

But I do think that you know, given that we have to rely on so many people's knowledge, that we don't have ourselves in so many different fields. Nonetheless, we have a certain responsibility because we, in the last resort, we are each living our own lives and we are each responsible for our own lives. We have to make our decisions and the knowledge there may be, all sorts of knowledge that other people have that we don't have, which we can use the best of our ability with a cum granusalis. You know, a little grain of skepticism, but the moral compass is each person's a link and for me that's, I think, what Charles Bradley really means when he says think for yourselves. You can't necessarily rely on anyone. You can't rely on anyone else If you say, oh, that person made me do X, that's completely taking away from your sense of personal responsibility and self determination.

James: 31:48

Yes, no, I understand. Yeah, totally, and I think it comes out to the point you mentioned at the start that, as much as I think everybody would like to consider themselves a free thinker and thinking independently, it's actually much more difficult than it seems. In a very messy, complicated world where there's everybody's got things that they immediately need to tend to, we can never have perfect information and it's very difficult to find unbiased information. You know there is an. You have to outsource some element of your thinking, and I guess it's being aware of your biases, but also defining what your criteria are for believing something. So I wonder, with, with with that in mind, what? What do you see as the relationship between free thought and free speech?

Emma Park: 32:36

I think there there is essentially interconnected, because in fact I was just recently reviewing a book for the literary review by an academic called Simon McCarthy Jones, who's a psychologist in Ireland, and he read this is fascinating, really interesting, really well researched book called the battle for thought, which I would, would highly recommend to anyone who's interested in this topic.

Emma Park: 33:00

All about the, the psychological implications of what it means to think freely and how we think, based on modern research about, about these topics, and one one thing that he he writes about which I've never really thought much about is this idea of not that thought need not be independent, need not be just the individual. Thought is often really good if you think in a small group thought and perhaps doesn't work so well if you're in a mass of an enormous number of people, because they all end up following the herd or following one speaker. But if you have a small group of individuals who are, all you know, thinking well, coming from different perspectives, that's one of the most effective ways of really coming to a new idea, and that that had never occurred to me, but I think is there an ideal size of the group?

Emma Park: 33:50

I'm not sure. That's a very good question. But he said small group, so I'm assuming a few people. But if you think of it like that, then that is another excellent reason for why speech needs to be free, because of course we need to communicate with each other in speech.

Emma Park: 34:04

Speech is the language of intellectual thought, it is the language of abstract thought is the language of reasoning. It is also the language of the emotions, of expression as well. So speech is inherent to speech and thought are completely inextricably intertwined. They've got to be together. You can't have free thought without free speech. And if you and you know, I think this point was very perfectly demonstrated or illustrated by 1984, george Orwell and I really think for me he is a master text on this issue. He's, I think some, some people perhaps on on the hard left, don't like him these days because they think he's too much in favorite free speech. But I would say that actually, once you get any really entrenched ideology, which which starts to say you can't using certain start, you can't use certain words for things, when someone tells me I can't use certain words, that makes me suspicious, that makes me think. When we're getting to a 1984 situation, all these words have to be used. They have a meaning. Once you cancel out the word, you cancel out the meaning.

James: 35:10

Yeah and yeah. And what do you say is the main threats to free speech currently and therefore, by extension, freedom of thought?

Emma Park: 35:17

I think my view about this is changing and changing and changing. Actually, certainly in the papers in the last few years have been full of issues of cancel culture. That would be the thing that springs to mind most. In a way, I think I wonder whether cancel culture is a bit of a distraction. We had an interesting article in the Free Thinker a little while ago by a law professor from Hong Kong who's now exiled from Hong Kong, in which he says well, cancel culture is actually distraction because what really matters is resisting serious oppression, like the oppression of the Chinese state on people who don't agree with them politically in Hong Kong. Hence why we've had a huge diaspora of Hong Kongers to the UK, for example. So I think it's about getting your priorities right For me.

Emma Park: 36:03

Actually, I would say that the biggest threats to free speech or the biggest problems, the biggest challenges that we really have to think about for the future, come from technology and come from the way that technology is being used the idea that big data can harvest so much information about us that it can tell us what to think by prompting us with adverts which tell us certain things. The idea that companies or the governments can build up an entire profile of who we are, study that and then again just try to manipulate us through speech, online or in other ways too. And, as Simon McAathy-Jones also says in his book, they are developing mind reading tools which are phenomenal. It looks like at some point not too long from now they're even apparently starting to do this already there will be literal brain reading machines which can sort of detect what music you're listening to, detect what words are in your brain at the time.

Emma Park: 37:05

For me that is terrifying and also, I think, another big challenge I don't know if it's the threat, but it's a certain challenge to free speech is artificial intelligence and chat TPPT, for example. Because, well, I think I don't know whether it's a threat, but all I know is we're going to have to entirely rethink what speech means. With chat TPPT, does actually composing something, composing a letter, composing an essay by yourself mean anything? Is it more valuable than letting a computer do it for you? How will our communication be affected by the fact that we can just sort of automate even our communication? Will we ourselves just become extensions of computer programs? So I think these are all issues which are really taking over from any other ones and I don't know where they're going in the future.

James: 37:55

It's fascinating. There was a very excellent talk at the Humanist UK Convention this year by Susie Allegra, who's written the book on freedom of thought from a legal she's a human rights lawyer but specifically looking at the technology developments. So I think we're hoping to have on the podcast soon, but I definitely think that's you know. She highlights again AI and social media as really the biggest threats at the moment to our freedom of thought and the technology wave that is coming for sure. Can we talk a bit about the state of various non-religious movements in the UK? You've been with the Free Thinker now for a couple of years and I know you're previously the host of the National Secular Societies podcast as well. The movement really flourished in the 20th century. I just wonder what you feel like the state of the various humanist, secularist, atheists we think of movements is at the moment and are you seeing any differences in our approaches?

Emma Park: 39:07

Yeah, that's an interesting question. I probably consider myself a secular humanist. I certainly consider myself a classical humanist, with a slightly different meaning of humanist.

James: 39:17

Could you, would you mind drawing out your difference in the distinction then?

Emma Park: 39:21

A classical humanist in the set and there were sort of a sense of someone who is approaches the world through literature and language and literary criticism. I mean, from my background, philosophy, that sort of thing, but also inquiry and, in a Socratic sense, which I think, the secular humanism and humanism, as in humanist UK they've tried to drop the word secularism in order to have just be humanism. For me that makes it too. I think that's not right because there are so many different types of humanism. But I think that sort of secular humanism, modern humanism, scientific humanism, is quite political, which I don't know that I necessarily am, because I tend to have quite a fairly open-minded approach to politics. I like to hear lots of different points of view. But yeah, so I would say yeah.

Emma Park: 40:17

Freelance podcast did, as a freelance writer, the podcast for the National Secular Society. I am a member of them, the National Secular Society, currently, but I'm not an employee or anything like that. The Free Thinker is an independent organization. We are not funded by the National Secular Society. We're not told what to do by the National Secular Society. We occasionally publish articles by the National Secular Society when they're interesting and we try to maintain good relations with them, but we certainly are not. There is no influence one way or the other. So just to make that clear, humanists UK have gone slightly off in their own direction, which is a little bit different, and National Secular Society is very much still. It's campaigning on specific issues about the separation of church and state and related issues to do with religion versus equality for everyone, I think is the basic principle. So I can't speak for them as someone with authority, but I can just speak from my own experience of seeing what they do. I think they do a great job in their different campaigns and they're definitely very targeted.

Emma Park: 41:21

Humanists UK is a much wider movement in that it tries to have a whole philosophical worldview into which is comprised secularism, human rights law and various other things, a sort of quasi philosophical approach to life and so yeah and things like celebrating births, marriages and deaths, that sort of thing. So they do slightly different things. They all come from a basically non-religious stance. It's actually quite ironic because right up until the turn of the millennium the National Secular Society were always very much the militant atheists, and humanists UK were ways that let's work with all the co-religionists we can who are nice and also, I should say, historically probably not the case anymore, but historically the secularists were the working class people, the humanists were the middle class, educated people, and that is very important. To bear that background of mine, I think. I don't think it's the case anymore, but that's what you've got to think about that when you think of the clashes that have occurred over the decades between the two organizations.

Emma Park: 42:37

And then suddenly something strange happened in the 2000s with the rise of new atheism.

Emma Park: 42:43

For some reasons which I don't know, I can't speak for, this National Secular Society decided they weren't going to be specifically militant atheists, they were just going to campaign for equality about matters of religion, but without taking a stance on religion itself.

Emma Park: 42:57

And I don't know where exactly they're going with that now. But that's what they were doing in the 2000s, which was perhaps, unfortunately, looking back on it, bad timing, because that was the time of new atheism. Luckily for the humanists they had this wonderful ability to capitalize on this new human, new atheist movement, because they have Richard Dawkins as patron and they got the atheist bus movement. And I think that, as when I was talking to Andrew Copsson, the head of Humanist UK, he said you know, that gave a big boost to our membership and I'm not surprised. It was, I think, one of the defining moments of the 2000s the atheist bus campaign, which is really funny and with the idea it was the idea of ensuring the comedian and with Richard Dawkins there as well, it was just a great feel good way of saying, look guys, we don't need religion anymore. But since then I wonder, because things have changed so much since then, I wonder where atheism, humanism and secularism will go at this point.

James: 44:01

Where would you like to see them go?

Emma Park: 44:03

In a way, I wonder whether religion I personally don't necessarily think that religion is the most important issue I think that the most important issue is trying to find within Britain, trying to find our identity as a country, trying to work out, trying to foster a culture in which, despite having many differences, people with different views can talk to each other. And for me, brexit, followed by the pandemic, just ripped apart disability of different sides to talk to each other. There was, as of course you will remember, during Brexit, there was so much lying, there was so much deceit, there were the standards on both sides, I think, went down among the political parties went down so low. I think politicians certainly lost any respect for a sort of common ground debate and now they just ended up all shouting at each other and they're being abusive and I think things just went really wrong and I think they went worse. The pandemic and, as a result, we're now in this situation where it's.

Emma Park: 45:08

I think there are a lot of rifts between people. But I think, unless you can talk, I think you've got to be able to talk freely, you've got to be able to agree as a culture to be able to talk freely with each other. And if you can't agree on that, then you're not going to be able to talk at all. If you say you can't say that, you can't say this, we're going to talk about this because you guys aren't going to. That breaks people apart, but you're never really going to progress, I think, as a society, unless you can agree. Look, we all have different points of view. Let's be tolerant, let's talk about it. Let's realise that this is the only way. Maybe we can find things we have in common, but I think we have to get back to that situation of a common culture which we had before Brexit.

James: 45:49

Do you think those movements have an important role to play, and should we be more aligned?

Emma Park: 45:54

Well, I think it would certainly be great if humanists, secularists, free thinkers and atheists could all talk to each other a bit more and could recognise the things they had in common. I have been doing my best as the free thinker. I really would like very much to have more humanist, atheists and secularists all writing the magazine.

Emma Park: 46:15

I think, yeah, I think that you know, we have to also make a very important distinction between people and organisations. A lot of people I've talked to at various humanist and non-religious events I've talked at say, well, we like both humanist UK and the National Secular Society, we're members of both. We think they're both great. But I think organisations have to have their own brand which may, and they may, have their own different campaigning aims. But I certainly think that individuals I think we should definitely, you know, try and find out as much as possible that we haven't come in between these different groups, and I think that certainly the organisations should talk to each other more and try and find out what they have in common.

James: 47:02

So usually at this point I ask my guests something that they've changed their mind about recently. But I think you've shared quite a few areas that you've changed your mind on lately, but is there anything else you'd like to share at this point?

Emma Park: 47:13

Well, I'm always changing my mind about things, but I think I try, as someone who cares about free thought, I try to have a sort of fairly open-minded attitude, and I think that is a problem. I sort of end up just in a state of what, in platonic terms, would be aporea, a state of being at a loss, because there are so many different points of view and there's so little time to consider them all. You just have to try and do your best, but yeah, I would say, rather than swinging from one extreme to another, I try to sort of forge a slightly more middle ground, sort of gradually adjusting opinions.

James: 47:46

Yeah, I think that's a great approach to take Stay on the path rather than particularly landing on one point of view and then defending it. Yeah for sure, perfect. So what are you working on next?

Emma Park: 47:58

Well, in terms of humanism and secularism. My next big project is an essay for New Humanist, which I'm also going to be giving a talk about at various humanist events, which is on the place of humanism between the arts and humanities on the one hand and the sciences on the other, and historically how that's changed. Because I think, as I mentioned briefly before, you have these different strands of humanism. One is a sort of more and older humanities humanism. One is a more modern science humanism. So can they be reconciled?

James: 48:29

Yeah, I recently read Humanly Possible by Sarah Blakewell and it really opened my eyes to the fact that humanism was born out of that same strand, as you mentioned, of classical humanism, of it being more part of the arts than what I'd grown up with thinking this was a purely scientifically driven movement. So, yeah, I think that's a really interesting area to explore.

Emma Park: 48:55

Yes, and when I interviewed Sarah Blakewell for the free thinker, that was certainly very interesting to hear her views on that and I think her book is important because she is not aligned with humanist UK as an organisation, although she's obviously sympathetic to them, and I think that her argument sort of has three different strands of humanism Renaissance humanism, 18th century Enlightenment humanism and then modern humanism. And again it's a question of seeing whether, testing whether, those work together.

James: 49:23

She's a free thinker, so she's not aligned.

Emma Park: 49:25

yeah, yeah, and then definitely she defines humanism as partly as being about the free thought, and I think that's actually essential to humanism.

James: 49:32

Before we go, could you tell our listeners in 30 seconds why they should subscribe to the free thinker?

Emma Park: 49:39

If you're interested in an irreverent, lighthearted take on sometimes lighthearted, sometimes serious take on issues about secularism, humanism and broader flashpoints of debate, I guess looking at things from a non-political, non-politically aligned viewpoint then try the free thinker.

James: 50:02

Emma Park. Thank you so much for your time and thank you for joining us on Humanism Now. Thanks, james. Emma Park there, always fascinating, always engaging. Really was a pleasure to speak with her again, mark, now that you've had chance to listen to Emma's interview and I know we met we heard from Emma last year live at one of our events as well I wonder but based off of that, how would you define a free thinker?

Mark: 50:28

Yes, I think I'd probably piggyback on some of the ideas that Amber expressed there. So I really like the idea that it's about sort of really making an effort to be objective and to try to detach oneself, insofar as one can, from one's own personal biases and prejudices and emotions. This is obviously not something that can ever be achieved to a complete extent, but I do think that that is sort of something which is very much also at the heart of the humanist project. Well, in my view, to try to apply a rational and sort of objective approach to life insofar as we can. And so, yeah, I really liked that. But also it's sort of recognition that's not easy, it's a struggle and you have to be sort of comfortable with being uncomfortable, I think, in order to try to attain that.

Mark: 51:26

And it was really interesting when she came to speak to us last year about a slightly more lighter subject but which nevertheless had some real heft behind it around the I'm going to get the terminology wrong, but it's the unified church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or one of the chapters, or Do you be respectful? Yeah, apologies to any of the devotees of the church if I haven't got it completely right. Yeah but that was a fascinating event as well, but we could reflect on as well.

James: 51:58

AJ, was there anything that you wanted to comment on from the interview?

AJ: 52:03

I thought it was a fascinating interview. Yeah, thanks for including her and I hope to hear more from her in the future as well. Her, I mean. She covered a lot of fascinating points. I mean science and policy making we mentioned this a bit earlier in the episode and how we should view science not as some kind of a monolithic ultimate source of all truth, you know, as a philosophical concept, because that's where we can get, as Emma said, we can get tripped up in almost treating, for example, the chief medical officer or the chief scientific officer in the UK during the COVID pandemic lockdowns as some kind of infallible profit making proclamations or predictions, prophecies about how the virus will behave. I think the public understanding of the philosophy of science and how that interfaces with policy making and where there's a role for democracy because, for example, in many ways the scientific approach isn't a democratic one, in the same way that the voting in of political representatives is or, for example, citizens assemblies are, in determining what policies a society may wish to follow. Scientific consensus you know the 97% of scientists believe X or the science being produced as the marker for what an evidence-based, empirical and investigative approach will say about some medical issue. I think that's not very helpful and I try and avoid that personally myself saying the science or this is what scientists believe. We can say that there are theories, there are hypotheses, there are ideas that we want to test and then see how useful that model is in terms of delivering us results, and we pick and choose the best ones. So not only do our political representatives have to be scientifically literate, but also there has to be a general education amongst the populace for that and we've mentioned this before I mean the reserved places for the 26 bishops in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of our parliament in the UK. We have to turn an eyebrow at that, especially when we consider that there was a problem with how science was being understood and Emma mentioned the pandemic, that's why I'm mentioning it during the pandemic, but also with other things generally, when it comes to euthanasia or when it comes to how the NHS should be run, or when it comes to sort of anti-smoking campaigns or the classification of recreational drugs.

AJ: 54:35

In so many areas, what the philosophy of science is actually and what it's perceived to be sort of in the public and, as you said, sometimes by the popular proponents and allies or humanists and scientific rationalists. It's sometimes overstated, and no wonder if people put science on that pedestal and then they realize that actually science does get things wrong sometimes we have to reevaluate our opinion and actually a core part of science is changing our theory, our opinion, our view of the world based on evidence. That shouldn't be a weakness, that shouldn't be science being somehow being exposed. That's actually the core strength of science that it is flexible, as opposed to some other world views and life's dances that say we've got this belief and this belief will see us through for the next thousand years, the rest of human civilization. That's precisely what science isn't. So that was one thing that I really found valuable.

AJ: 55:32

The other thing is how you both talked about how people in some sense want a free lunch. They like the idea of being a free thinker who wouldn't to compliment oh, you're a very free thinker, you're a very bold thinker, you're a radical, you're a maverick. That's an easy compliment to take, but that comes with a lot of baggage, that that comes with a lot of requirements and responsibilities. Some people just want the free, but they don't want to do the thought. So I found that quite amusing what you and Emma said, the skeptical and critical engagement being good for thee but not being good for me.

AJ: 56:07

That's also a problem and that ties into a natural human psychology, which Emma also mentioned there, about group dynamics and coming to a consensus and how do we have good discussions. It pricks our ego to be exposed to the same kind of critical engagement and skepticism that we're happy to put on others but we don't apply it to our own views. And Emma has a lot of experience of understanding conspiracy theories and her magazine writes a lot about that. So I think that's the honesty of looking in the mirror and applying that critical and skeptical eye to both what our own views are as well as to others is important, not just as the humanist values and honesty and a humility in that, but also for addressing some wider societal ills, especially as it relates to populism and conspiratorial thinking culture, especially online.

Mark: 57:01

Can I just come back on.

Mark: 57:02

I'm really interested in what you said and also how that ties in with what we were talking about earlier in terms of free thought and the right approach to a true scientific approach, being a questioning mindset, not dogmatic, being prepared to change. When the evidence changes, the worldview changes as well, and it's interesting how, as you were talking about populism and conspiracy theories that maybe there are a lot of people are comfortable with or perhaps been conditioned to take their views from authority or from those who have the loudest voice in our society, and that what you were talking about earlier about science education and the importance of promoting science within society, as the new scientists trying to do, getting that across to children early age so that they actually start to understand what science is and what it isn't, and therefore, and how free thought is embedded in that, that you can question, that you don't take anything as a given without it being properly supported and debated and interrogated. I think that's a there's a useful connection there to be pursued, which is obviously what a humanist UK are doing.

James: 58:20

Yeah, I definitely think there should be more education around teaching kids how to think, rather than just science being presented as a list of facts that does present it as almost an authority, and these are things which cannot be challenged. But actually carving out maybe a separate course or a separate part of the curriculum which is around, okay, how can we evaluate evidence? How do we know something to be true? How would we weigh up to different sources? Critical thinking as a skill, being a free thinker as much as it is a compliment, aj, I think you're right. I think most people would like to think of themselves. It's actually an ongoing challenge to constantly be assessing your potential biases, assessing your assumptions, and who are you relying to outsource your thinking to on certain topics, because we can't all be an expert in everything. So it's fascinating and I think, if you're not already, do subscribe to the free thinker, because I think Emma goes into a lot of these topics in a lot more detail.

AJ: 59:21

If I can also mention something about the circling back to the psychology of public communication and public health and public intellectualism as it relates to science. There is an element of behavioural dynamics here, or game theory, and we saw this again during the pandemic. How do you get a populace or a population, a group of people who may or may not be scientifically literate and sometimes even when people do, know what the quote unquote right thing is or responsible thing is to do, based on all the evidence? You know that they've seen the vaccination numbers, they've seen other people carefully laying out the reasons why they should do something. Human psychology is such that still we may not want to do that. You know we won't take the evidence as given. Be careful what you wish for. If you want the evidence, here it is. But people will still say, well, because they want to believe something else, it's more comfortable, it's more convenient to not get vaccinated or to not be careful of hands, face and space. There is a game theory element in there, because people and I think scientists sometimes be, and that's where that that boundary comes in between the sort of at the call face scientists, who often has a mind full of nuance, as a mindful of caveats as a mindful of limitations and probabilistic approaches, and also the public communicators, who understand that necessarily to reach to send a message out to the wider population, the nuance may not survive, that the people with the average person on the street just wants results, just wants action. They may understand that scientists are complicated business where they say, well, you figure it out, you do the complicated stuff, you look at the p values and the statistics and you digest it and then you give it to me and you tell me what to do. In some sense, not because they're, not because they're believing that science is a religion and they shouldn't do that. If they do, that needs to be fought. But even if they understand that science isn't that, they still, because of their time capacity and so on, as you say, james, they want the, the, the political representatives or other experts to in a sense make that, do the hard work for them and give them a responsible model to follow. So the, the exposure of almost you know, all of the nuances and all of the caveats can sometimes be quite tiring. I mean not to patronize people.

AJ: 1:01:38

I think, and big believer in Cartesian common sense and the intelligence and the wisdom of the common person, the lay person, as you said. We're all lay people in so many fields that's not especially this field or feel that we may have been educated and and all of us went to university, but there is an intelligence and a wisdom there, but it's more about the realities of the pragmatics of someone's daily life and how much, how many hours they have to spare. So there's that's where I think we need the best and brightest minds of all ages you know, sexist genders, etc. As you mentioned before, having those role models to ensure that we do have, we do harvest that intelligence that's there within our communities and our species and put them towards science, communication, rather than maybe some other kind of less productive financialization or other aspects of the economy where you know those minds could be better served. I think. I think there's a that's a disparity and unbalance that I see at the moment in how we're directing our young minds.

James: 1:02:36

Yeah, I think that there is a clear challenge for science communicators in that cutting edge. Science is going to be uncertain and may may change Just based on the fact that these are things that haven't been discovered before, but I think I think what we're all getting towards is people are much more convinced by a message that is delivered with confidence and uncertainty. So this is where you know sign particularly, science communicators, or those who are presenting the latest information to the public, have to try to very fine line, I think.

AJ: 1:03:12

Yes, yeah, absolutely. And we have to be transparent. I mean, it's okay, I think people can understand. You want to be planned to understand? Okay, we're not. We're not entirely sure about what the best course is here, for example, it's a new virus. But if we're transparent with people and say we know that there is a, here are the risks, just as a doctor may explain to a patient Okay, it's not, it's one to one communication as opposed to one to many. If you know, anthony Fauci or the chief medical officer here in the UK stands up and gives a message or a speech to the whole nation. It's a bit different, but it's. The psychologists aren't a million miles apart. Having that transparency and having that openness, I think, ultimately will reward us, and it's definitely better than trying to be deceptive or trying to be somehow insecure about the things that we, that we don't know. And it's important to be transparent about the limitations of our current worldview and what model of understanding we're currently using.

James: 1:04:04

You led us on quite nicely a minute ago, aj, talking about you know people considering science is a religion. You led us on quite nicely to our mailbag question this week. So just to recap, each week we take one of the questions that's been sent in by our listeners and we take one of the questions that's been sent to our panel to close out the show, and we've had a lot of questions around the nature of humanism, but it's probably summed up in best in this very short question from Natasha in California, who just simply says is a nonconformist Christian religion. So who would like to have a stab at that first? Shall I just come up?

Mark: 1:04:42

Yeah, I was going to say well, I mean, I've recently been doing a little bit of reading about the history of humanism and it's interesting how it's sort of it evolves. It is sort of sort of nonconformist Christianity to in this country anyway, I think in America as well, and Unitarianism in particular, and that in fact in the early stages, say the 19th century, it was often described as well. It wasn't described as humanism at that point. It was some sort of an ethical society and they were. They were sort of still wedded to the idea of describing themselves as a religion to some extent, the sort of South place ethical society and the and also they, they were quite keen to maintain a sort of religious type order of service and organization, so they would have gatherings with hymns and and sort of homilies or, you know, the equivalent of those sorts of, you know, of a traditional church service to a large extent.

Mark: 1:05:46

And it was really later that it started to evolve into something more focused on a more intellectual, scientific and sort of something more of an academic sort of model. So yeah, I think, I think there's an element of that in its, in its DNA, and there's a debate within humanism about the extent to which, having that, having that sort of element and we were talked a little bit earlier about, I think, alice Roberts talking about the importance of ritual a J reference to that. Again, you know, if ritual is important to human beings, then maybe that's something that humanism can reflect. But, yeah, so that's an aspect of of that. But I'll let a J talk about whether it actually is a religion or a religion.

AJ: 1:06:37

Yeah, I would advise listeners to look at some of our earlier episodes, or we have covered this quite a lot. I mean there's no one definitive answer to this, but we are developing this idea as we go along and can happy to revisit it Again. It is part of the humanist outlook to always be questioning our precepts and our on our axioms. I mentioned this before belief, belonging and behavior from the sort of sociological, anthropological point of view, not to be too academic about things, if we put humanist as a tribe under a microscope and compare it to other similar tribes and sort of humans under the scope of our behavioral dynamics and our behavioral psychology, we do tend to congregate, whether it's a football team, whether it's a somewhat other kind of cultural association you know music, a bit of fans as well, you know grateful dead or some of these other decades long music movements and fans or whether it's a faith and belief system and a life stance and a worldview like humanism shared belonging, shared beliefs and shared behavior, behavior being rituals that we mentioned before as well. That's often what we see as the defining aspects of what could be called a religion. Now the important part is, I think the distinction is if we are going to make the case that humanism isn't a religion. It will be because humanism doesn't have a belief in a supernatural power or realms and also there's no afterlife. In pretty much all religions there is that aspect. As part of my interfaith work, I was with their Brahma Kamaris the other day, who are another group, sort of offshoot from Hinduism. Now they, as parts of sort of getting their charity registration, they told me that they almost had to ally themselves as saying we are basically Hindu under the Hindu umbrella because there's so many structures in our society, legally and if you were trying to form a charity, that don't quite understand if you fall between the gaps. Now, humanist UK is a charity. We are recognized as a secular worldview, but the point is that there's no neat formula that can tell you how to differentiate whether something is a religion or not. So it is a bit up for debate. That's the argument for because we don't have an afterlife and a supernatural belief, that we're not a religion. And belief, belonging and behavior we do exhibit all of those because we're a naturalistic, rational and empathetic movement. We don't want to hide that part of ourselves. We're proud of it. Humanists are proud of the new scientist conference we're talking all about. Okay, well, you're a Europe, maybe a science nerd, as it were, a science geek, but did you know that we also have, if you want to get married, or funerals, namings, baby namings? We also provide that from a humanistic, naturalistic point of view. I mean, there's no scientific way to have a baby naming or a funeral perhaps, but there is a naturalistic way, which is the other parts of the world, sort of atheism or agnosticism, science and plus. So it's a holistic outgrowth rather than just a lack of something, a lack of belief in God. Humanism provides that positive outgrowth and holistic life stance. So it's for the listener to ask that question.

AJ: 1:09:38

It depends where you're, what you define by religion. Even often people ask me do you believe in God? And my first response will be what do you mean by God? What's your understanding of God? And then I can tell you whether I believe in it or not, in the same way as religion is.

AJ: 1:09:51

For some people, religion is just a checklist of you're born, you know, you do this, you get confirmed, you work in this where you get married, you die, you pray and you go to heaven. If that's your checklist of certain things that you just do you know? Humanism offers much more than that, I would say. But the important thing is to join, I think, if you're, if you like the views and the way that we engage with issues, being part of the movement and you can actually influence that. We've modified, for example, the declaration of modern humanism to be more appreciative and recognition included there of sentient organisms, for example. So humanism is evolving and it should evolve as the challenges of the 21st century also evolve. So we're not set in stone, but we do have certain fundamental principles that I think spring from our, from our human nature. So whether we're a religion or not as a label, I think maybe is a bit of an overrated as a question, but thinking about it is certainly valuable because it helps understand ourselves better.

Mark: 1:10:47

Yeah, I think that's really interesting, aj, and I would also sort of maybe frame that in the sense that, as a humanist, we would see religion as man made and therefore that many of the characteristics that the sort of movements you describe have will be found across a whole range of human organisations and societies, and the fact that religions exhibit those, and so do we, is not surprising.

James: 1:11:10

I feel much more comfortable coming down the side of saying no. I don't think that humanism means the criteria of a religion, mainly because I think, if you look at most of the definitions of what it means to be humanist, there is usually this one of the shared views is being non religious. So, and also thinking about some of the definitions that the more formal definitions that we see, you know, particularly the Amsterdam Declaration, as you mentioned, aj, from humanist international, as an alternative to religion. So I agree, in terms of there are shared, there are some generally shared beliefs, there may be some shared behaviors, but in terms of those, those 3B, the 3B definition of religion, I think what, what humanism doesn't have is sort of directions of this is how you should behave or this is how you should what you should believe. It's much more what more kind of a self forming group of like minded thinkers.

James: 1:12:07

And I think the final reason why I probably wouldn't call humanism a religion is that most of the people I would say almost everyone I've met who is would call themselves a humanist, would not call themselves religious or would not say it is a religion, and I think it's good to be respectful of people within a group if they don't view that group as a religion, to say to agree that it's not. And I think we also see this with other political movements or philosophical movements that people start to call it a religion, usually as a criticism. It's usually people outside the group saying, oh it's, it's become a religion, as a criticism. So most of the time that humanism is called a religion it comes from the critics and most of the people who actually supported and part of the part of that community themselves tend to say that they are not religious. So that's why I would come down the side of saying I don't think it meets the criteria.

AJ: 1:12:59

Which can be quite self serving, though if it is in danger of becoming a religion or a cult, the people inside of it will be the last people to say it, for obvious reasons, because no one likes to think of themselves in that kind of a bad light. But yeah, I agree, I think the academic three Bs in sociology and anthropology aside for the average person on the street and also how I express myself, I do say it's a non religious movement. I don't think I'm a religious person in that sense, but again, the same with like a belief in God. I mean, einstein had a belief in God's been those I did. So there is a to be true to our humanist roots.

AJ: 1:13:32

There are a bit more nuances and complexities and gray areas in there, which are always there, but as a as just as an elevator pitch and to answer a simple question, I agree with you, james. I think it's. It's not a religion because, specifically because there's no belief in an afterlife and there's no belief in a supernatural force, which all religions have, even the Brahman-Kamaris, they have a belief in the soul existing afterwards, even though they don't have a book, they don't have a leader, they don't have a prophet and many of these more spiritual but not religious religions or belief systems will have that, but I think the key things are belief in an afterlife and supernatural realms or forces or existence of the soul after death, which humanism definitely doesn't have.

Mark: 1:14:14

There's also an element of hypocrisy in the charge, in that many of those making it are themselves religious. So there's an element of accusation. You're just a religion, but it's coming from the other Come down to a level. Exactly, yeah, but also, then, the evolution of that approach is to say well, actually you are, even if you don't think you're religious. You are really because you're piggybacking on on religious ethics or, in fact, the existence of God, which makes everything you do possible. So there's a sort of an evil.

Mark: 1:14:41

But tell California you can check out Exactly. Yeah, she may not think you're religious, but really you are. But there's no answer to that really Other than school. I would suggest.

AJ: 1:14:52

If you're so desperate we said this before if you're so desperate to label us a religion, okay, that's fine. If that's what you need to float your boat, that's okay. We would say we're a non religious movement and there's an academic debate to be had in good faith. But if you're doing it in bad faith, then I think there's not much time we have to waste time with that, absolutely.

James: 1:15:10

Well, I think we could easily talk about this for a whole episode and I think we've managed to raise more questions than we've answered again. But, natasha, I hope that has given you some more information about how to define humanism and if you have a burning question for us, please do send in your questions or anything you'd like us to talk about here at Humanism. Now, just before we go, I'd like to open the floor to plug any upcoming events.

AJ: 1:15:38

An upcoming few upcoming events that we've got coming up is the Trans Day of Remembrance on the 20th of November, which is a really important event. That's marked sort of outside of the humanist movement as well, but Humanist UK and LGBT Humanists we played an important part in that and that's going to be in London on the 20th of November to Remembrance ceremony and then kind of a social media afterwards. So please do go to the Humanist UK website to look that up. And then a bit before that, on the 14th of November, there's one of our headline lectures of the year in one of our Voltaire lecture, which is going to be on a fascinating anthropological topic this year, and I'm going to be there as well with many other young humanists. So if you're interested, please do look that up as well on Humanist UK website and socials and hopefully see you there.

Mark: 1:16:27

Yeah, I'd also like to give a shout out for an upcoming talk that we have at CLH, in association with the Association of Black Humanists, which is going to be held in October 31st at the Old Dior Armour Art Centre, where we have our talks, and this is to celebrate Black History Month and there's going to be yeah, join us for an evening of reflections and we'll be making new connections and hearing from a fascinating group of speakers assembled by APH and, yeah, there'll be plenty of opportunity for discussion and socialising and it should be a really, really enjoyable and interesting evening.

James: 1:17:09

Thank you, aj and Mark, and we will include links to all of those events in the show notes and we hope to see many of you there. And thank you, listeners. We'll speak to you next week on Humanism Now.