New Humanist Update

Law of the jungle

It's rough being a Darwinist. First you have to deal with the fact that you used to be a monkey. Then you have to accept the fact there is no grand design, or benevolent designer who will rescue you when you max out your credit cards. But the biggest danger seems to be competition from other alpha Darwinists for dominance in what is becoming a very crowded field.

Recently we have had Richard Dawkins staking his claim to be the biggest beast with his three part telly prog arguing that religion is like a virus and fundamentally A Bad Thing. Now we have American Darwinist Philosopher Daniel Dennett on tour promoting his new book Breaking The Spell which attempts to convert even the religious - while religion may have had its evolutionary uses back in the day, he says (or more accurately it was an unexpected by-product of our need for stories which did have an evolutionary benefit) it doesn't anymore, so shouldn't they just pack up the bibles, lock the mosque and go for a bracing walk across the lovely rolling hills lost in contemplation of the intricacies of the finch's beak?

Dennett's book has had a mixed reception in the US - including some very hostile reviews in the New York Times and New York Sun. We asked philospher Jonathan Rée to review it for our next issue of New Humanist(on its way to subscribers and bookstores as I write), and in his usual subtle way he finds much to praise - comparing Dennett at one point to David Hume - but also much to criticise - is it really so easy to do away with religion by explaining that it is factually false?, would we in any case want to do away with everything religion has wrought?

A new twist comes in the shape of an e-mail debate between Dennett and another Darwinist, philosopher Michael Ruse. In a remarkably frank exchange of views (meaninging there are rude words) Ruse accuses Dennett, and Dawkins, of being 'pathetic' in their hardline anti-religious stance, and says the attitude is counterproductive anyway, as if Darwinism inevitably leads to atheism then this means, by the rules of American church-state seperation, it cannot be taught as science in schools. This private exchange seems to have been sent by Ruse to Bill Dembski - an anti-Darwin advocate of Intelligent Design - who posted it on his blog, see here. Did he get Dennett's persmission? We don't know. Yet.

Perhaps Jonathan Rée will ask him - next Monday, March 13, he and Dennett will be 'in conversation' at the Institute of Public Policy Research, Convent Garden, London, 12.45-1.45 (a co-production between NH and ippr). There are still a few tickets left, and it's free but you must reserve a place. Contact r.eldridge@ippr.org if you want to hear what promises to be a fascinating exchange, with no rude words at all. Probably.

While we are on the subject of events don't forget on March 21 the conference 'State of Faith', on religion and politics featuring Charles Clarke, Stephen Eric Bronner, JonathanRée, Kenan Malik, David Aaronovitch, Laurie Taylor, Pippa Norris and more. Again it's free but you need to book a place here.

"Enough now with this turning the other cheek"

The Vatican has called on Muslim countries to offer more protection to Christian minorities. Christians have been targeted by some rioters during the recent cartoon controversy. Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court. told La Stampa: "Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves." More here

Selfish gene thirty years on

More Darwinism: To mark three decades since Richard Dawkins famous book, OUP are putting out a book of essays. Here Steven Pinker says that maybe the groundbreaking idea didn't go far enough.

Teaching creationism

Yesterday Channel 4 broadcast Rod Liddle's investigation of evangelical schools (and the nonsense they are teaching our kids). Today the British Humanist Association put out this statement. Quick off the mark that lot.

Young men of resentment

Is a generation of angry Muslim youth emerging in Europe? The BBC investigates Here.

What price forgiveness

An Anglican vicar who lost her daughter in the 7/7 bombings has stepped down from her post, saying it was too difficult to reconcile her
feelings with the demands of her faith. More here.

Goodbye Linda

You will all now have heard the sad news about the death of Linda Smith, a big advocate for humanism and a very funny lady. There was a lovely special edition of the News Quiz this week which highlighted some of her best moments, and there will be a celebration of her life later this week for which the cream of Britain's comedy talent, and her legions of friends will turn out. We miss her.

Read Jeremy Hardy's tribute to her here

Read Laurie Taylor's interview with Linda for New Humanist (Sept 2004) here

Book review

Punishment: The Supposed Justification of Punishment
Ted Honderich
Pluto Press
264pp

Ted Honderich was born In Canada in 1933. He moved to London in the late '50s to work with Alfred Ayer and is currently Emeritus Grote Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic at University of London.

Hi rather dizzyling back catalogue includes Violence for Equality: Inquiries in Political Philosophy (1980): How Free Are You? ( 2001): After the Terror (2002); Terrorism for Humanity:Inquiries into Political Philosophy (2004) Conservatism:Burke, Nozick,Bush, Blair? (2005),and he has edited a number of philosophy books including Essays on Freedom of Action (1973), Social Ends and Political Means (1976) and Philosophy Through Its Past (1984) and is Editor of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The edition of Punishment: The Supposed Justification under review is the 2006 revision.

This philosophical exploration of punishment is not a light read and demands a considerable investment in time and effort in order to reap a reward.

The author explores in some considerable detail a range of theories and philosophies that have influenced and shaped the current application of punishment in western democracies. The reader is invited to consider a number of these long held bases for punishment and to reconsider those in a modern, democratic and humane society. The book is of interest to humanists as it attempts to apply principles of humanity to the law and punishment. The theories in general are; retributive; reform; utilitarian; and determinism.

The main thrust of Honderich’s criticism of these theories is that they are based upon emotion and belief rather than logic and reason. He questions the commonly held tenet that the punishment should fit the crime and that it is deserved. He believes strongly that retribution is an emotive rather than rational basis for punishment and therefore should not underpin theories about punishment in the 21st century. He explores the idea of equanimity in punishment where an offence creates an imbalance of fairness, justice and commonly rights to hold property. Punishment is seen as a mechanism that will allow fairness, justice and property rights to be brought back into balance. Honderich argues against these theories because he sees them as means of making people feel better rather than dealing with justice and fairness. The Utilitarian view is one that takes into account prevention, deterrence and recidivism.

Punishment here is necessary to the law and is justified if (a) it reduces offences; (b) produces a greater total satisfaction in society than would occur if the punishment was not imposed and (c) there was no other response that would achieve a better outcome. The difficulty for Honderich in this context is victimisation were an individual might be punished for an offence yet to be committed. Suspected terrorists are held at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or the UK on this basis. He also explores determinism in relation to free will, cause and effect. If life is determined should we be punished for our actions? The basis for retributive, reform, and utilitarian theories of punishment is free will. If our actions are determined then the theories are suspect.

In the final chapter Honderich reveals his hand. We live in an unjust society and our theories of punishment reflect the inequalities of that society. In economic, political and social terms the legal system reinforces these divides. In an unequal society punishment is also unequal. He argues that our system must defend and strengthen political and social conventions. Our laws protect private property and yet not all have private property. Honderich supports his criticism by indicating the significance of what is omitted from the law. There is no law against self profiteering; there is no law against false advertising or from profiting from what was once public property.

In his conclusion he states that our inhuman societies give rise to crime and hence punishment and that the greater cause of offences does not lie within offenders. Therefore we are wrong to seek to prevent crime through punishment. Honderich would advocate that punishment should exist within a decent and human society that does not subscribe to the support of dominance, power politics and disadvantage on a global scale. Finally he asks that we stand up to the corporations and that we work towards being decent and humane.

Although I am pleased to have read the whole book there were times during the first seven chapters when I felt like giving up and I am glad that I didn’t. The eighth and final chapter was inspirational. The first seven were detailed beyond reason and seemed to be drifting without context. I kept imagining a dissection where you get into such detail you lose sight of the whole body or that it is a body you are inside of, but also afraid of missing something vital. It is not a book to scan or to read in short bursts.

In the final chapter Honderich seems to come alive. He writes with a passion that is missing earlier and he creates context for the preceding chapters. The experience had left me with a much greater grasp of punishment in our society and in particular how humanism can contribute to a fairer process.

Christopher Murray