Be Reasonable

No earthly good

The Catholic church are really on a roll this week.

Yesterday it was the official publication of their lovely document explaining that the sex that priest's are not having must be of the heterosexual variety, but condemning discrimination against homosexuals. Do they have their own special branch of Vatican logic?

Today it's the proposal that limbo has been abolished. Catholic doctrine says that the souls of babies who die before being baptised are sent to limbo, which lies between heaven and hell, because they are still tainted with 'original sin'. The Guardian suggests why limbo might be going out of favour:

More than six million children die of hunger every year in underdeveloped countries where the Church is keen to see its support continue to grow.

It is concerned that the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts.

The Church is aware that Muslims, for example, believe that all children go straight to heaven without passing any test.

And, in preparation for tomorrow's World Aids Day the pope has already taken the opportunity to avoid talking about condoms, instead he invokes "the help and comfort of the Lord" for Aids sufferers. Reminds me of that Johnny Cash song "You're so heavenly minded you're no earthly good".

Let them have religion

Umberto Eco, the author and academic, has written a piece in today's Sunday Telegraph entitled God isn't big enough for some people. Eco bemoans the current trend for replacing Christian belief with belief in anything and everything:

"G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything." Whoever said it - he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity."

Eco seems particularly bothered by the cult that has grown up around Dan Brown's The Da Vinci code. This must be especially troublesome for Eco whose academic field is semiotics (the study of things that can be taken as signs) and who writes historical novels. I imagine Eco is frustrated by a readership that cannot tell fact from fiction and an author who plays on this for commercial gain.

Eco, an atheist himself, does seem to value religious traditions:

"I was raised as a Catholic, and although I have abandoned the Church, this December, as usual, I will be putting together a Christmas crib for my grandson. We'll construct it together - as my father did with me when I was a boy. I have profound respect for the Christian traditions - which, as rituals for coping with death, still make more sense than their purely commercial alternatives."

I could be misinterpreting him, but Eco seems to suggest that religion is better that the alternatives and is therefore appropriate for the masses although the enlightened have no need for it.

It does concern me that the alternative to religion seems to be ghosts and horoscopes, but that doesn't strike me as a reason to hold on to religion. Although annoying, these other beliefs don't have such a negative impact on society.

Eco concludes that: "The religious celebration of Christmas is at least a clear and coherent absurdity. The commercial celebration is not even that." I disagree, I don't find the Christian Christmas at all coherent. Although commercial Christmas may be incoherent and absurd, at least it's not claiming to be anything else.

Can we have a chief ethicist, please?

Simon Jenkins has written an excellent article in The Guardian today. He suggests that the government needs a chief ethicist to advise on difficult moral issues.

Jenkins proposes that the chief ethicist would, of course, be a philosopher. Wouldn't that be amazing? Imagine having a coherent ethical basis for issues such as how to address terrorism and how to legislate for advances in biotechnology.

Jenkins describes the role that the chief ethicist would play:

"Before the Iraq war the cabinet sought the view of its chief law officer on whether it was legal. I wonder what view it might have received from a chief ethicist, asked if the war was moral. One day we would have consulted a bishop. Now we need philosophers, and badly, even if they would be sorely overworked."

I think Jenkins is a little optimistic that the days of consulting bishops are completely over, but I do hope they are on the way out. I can't wait for the day when A C Grayling rather than Rowan Williams is routinely involved in government consultations on moral issues.

Why does everyone hate Satan?

I love The Onion.

Why does everyone hate me? by Satan.

You call it rent, I call it interest

I came across an advert offering Halal mortgages in the UK. Shariah, Islamic law, doesn't permit interest to be charged or received because it is deemed to be an effortless profit.

Here's how regular mortgages work:

"It's a legal contract that says if you don't repay your home loan, including loan fees and interest, the lender can take your home away. When you get a mortgage, although you're listed as the 'owner' of the home, the lender actually holds the title until the debt is paid in full." - How mortgages work

And here's how Halal mortgages work:

"In an Ijara based transaction, you identify the property you wish to buy and agree to the purchase price with the seller. The bank enters into a 'Promise to Purchase' agreement with you for an amount equal to the original purchase price and purchases the property. At the same time, you enter into a lease agreement with the bank which details your rights to occupy the property. You make monthly payments to the bank and a portion of the payment is applied toward the purchase of the property with the remainder paid to the bank as rent. Once the purchase price is paid in full, rental payments cease and ownership of the property is transferred to you." - Halal mortgages

Do you see what they did there? That's right, by replacing the word 'interest' with the word 'rent' you make Allah happy.

The HSBC Bank is a major UK mortgage lender and has an Islamic arm, HSBC Amanah. In their FAQ, they helpfully explain how the 'rent' can be calculated:

"According to the Shariah, the rent in an Ijarah transaction can be set at any value agreed between the buyer and seller. There is no particular reason why a house financed by this method should be any more or less expensive than a house financed by a conventional mortgage. If not ideal, it is certainly halal to use the prevailing interest rate as a benchmark for this rate."

The issue is supposedly about avoiding 'effortless profit' yet the bank makes the same profit for the same amount of effort regardless of whether we call payments rent or interest. Who do they think they're fooling?

Who is Nicholas Buxton trying to convince?

There's a piece by Nicholas Buxton (who was in a reality TV show set in a Monastery) in yesterday's Guardian about why secularism is flawed. Although Buxton acknowledges that religion may be incorrect, he still thinks that it is necessary.

Buxton claims that life without religion would not be worth living:

"If we truly believed that life was meaningless, we would have no reason to get up in the morning - ultimately, the most rational thing to do would be to jump over the edge of a cliff. In other words, religion is our way of making sense out of nonsense, necessary precisely because life, in and of itself, may well be meaningless. To be religious is simply our way of expressing what it means to be human; we could no more cease being religious than cease being artistic or political."

So why don't I feel the urge to throw myself of a cliff in despair at the meaninglessness of life? Because I don't need life to have an extrinsic meaning. Buxton makes it sound like having a life is such a dreadful thing that we need to have a higher meaning in order to get through the day. I'm very sad that he feels like that. Me, I'm happy to be alive.

Buxton moves on to the classic tactic of claiming that secularists are religious really:

"The second mistake secularists make is that they fail to acknowledge the foundational assumptions - "dogmas" by any other name - underpinning their own worldview. ... When it comes to ethics, secularists are forced to assert that we behave morally and responsibly because it is "human nature" to do so. But what do they mean by human nature? This abstract notion is no different from a religious absolute, and performs exactly the same role in the sentences in which it is used as "God" does in the sentences in which He features."

Buxton seems to have a bit of a bee in his bonnet about Marxism and doesn't seem to address secular ethics in general. Humanism is very different from a religious absolute. Humanism treats morality as something we need to constantly assess and improve. "God" provides 'just because' answers to ethical questions, humanism provides 'to the best of our knowledge' answers. I know which I prefer.

Finally, Buxton suggests that religion is needed to keep us in check:

"Secularism has a more worrying implication, however. Without religion's insight that human beings are essentially flawed, we lose all checks on our hubristic pride, and risk making a false god of our own scientific genius, even though there is no evidence to support the belief that society advances in tandem with science."

Why do religious people always assume that rationalists treat science as a religion, or that we worship humanity? The whole point of being rational is that we don't treat anything as sacred. The scariest thing in the world to me is someone in a position of power claiming that they have God on their side - who loses all checks on their hubristic pride then?

All-in-all, the piece reads like a pseudo-intellectual attempt by Buxton to convince himself that religion is necessary because he feels that without it, he would have nothing. Buxton is currently doing a PhD thesis on Buddhist philosophy at the University of Cambridge. I hope they hold him to higher standards of research and reasoning than those exhibited in this article.

Robot Idol

There's an interesting article in the November edition of Wired: Robots of Arabia. There's a tradition of camel racing amongst the ultra rich elite of Qatar and other middle eastern countries. Camels won't race on their own, they need a rider to whip them. The lighter that rider is the faster they go. This problem has traditionally been solved by using four-year old slave jockeys from the Sudan who are starved to keep them as light as possible.

This has lead to a bit of a public relations problem for Qatar so they have turned to technology for a new solution: remote controlled Robot jockeys. Although this isn't exactly good news for the current slaves, they will be shipped back to Sudan with no support, it will hopefully protect future generations from this treatment.

One comment in the article particularly caught my attention. The robots have been given human-looking faces to convince the camels that they have human riders. However, the faces must be removed before the races begin because Islam forbids idolatry.

I'll admit that I didn't understand the extent of the Islamic concept of idolatry. I'm familiar with idolatry as the prohibition against representations of deities, but I hadn't realised that Islamic idolatry forbids any representation of the human form.

That's religious people for you. Starving four-year old slave boys to act as camel jockeys is fine, but putting faces on robots is unacceptable.

I'm a humanist and I'm ok

I'm a humanist and a member of the British Humanist Association (BHA). I've identified myself as a humanist since I had the term described to me when I was eighteen, I was already a humanist for some time before that, but didn't know it.

The BHA describes humanism as follows:

"Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason - humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text.

Isn't that a wonderful way to live your life? To accept that there's no higher power judging us or telling us what to do. To accept that we must find our own way to live a good life. That morality isn't something set in stone, but something that we must endeavour to improve as we learn more.

Humanism includes atheism but introduces an ethical aspect. The Humanist Manifesto is a not a dogmatic set of principles, instead it captures the current thinking in an evolving world view. There have so far been three versions of the Humanist Manifesto, each taking into account how society has developed and what has been learnt since the previous version.

Humanism is a grown-up lifestance. Humanists accept that just as we are able to look back at those who supported slavery with a sense of moral superiority, future humanists will be able to look back at us with a sense of moral superiority. This encourages us to think about how we could improve our society, for example by eradicating homophobia. We can't just rest on our laurels and believe that if we just follow a particular set of rules then we'll have lived a good life. We have to try harder than that and evolve what it means to live a good life.

Being a humanist makes me feel alive. I know that I have only a limited lifespan and that this life is the real thing, not a rehearsal. I owe it to myself to make the most of it. For me that means achieving personal happiness and fulfilment in the context of aspiring towards a greater quality of life for everyone.

Humanism definitely helps with understanding what personal happiness and fulfilment involves. I've got no higher power to thank or blame for events in my life. That gives me both a sense of empowerment and a sense of responsibility. I don't believe in fate which means that I don't just sit back and wait for things to happen - things happen as a result of the laws of nature and human action. If I want to see a particular outcome then I need to do what I can to influence it, not just sit back and say "well, if it's meant to happen then it will".

Humanism is more demanding than religion. It doesn't give you easy answers, but it does give you the best answers that are available. This makes it far more satisfying.

Priest Idol. Bless Him

I just watched Priest Idol a programme in which Father James McCaskill, a naive middle-class priest from Pittsburgh in the US, takes over the last remaining church in Lundwood, Barnsley in Yorkshire. Lundwood is seriously rundown with high levels of unemployment and a serious heroin problem. The graffiti on the church reads 'Fuck God'.

I was all ready to be outraged by the attempt to manipulate people into thinking that God offers hope. However I couldn't really summon up any indignation.

I was highly amused by the comedy vicars. The previous vicar of the parish is a key character, he's incredibly camp and desperate for the new vicar not to succeed where he had failed. Meanwhile the boss vicar (or whatever they're called) enlists a marketing agency (Propaganda!) to try and sell God. The camp vicar is not impressed with this and says that Jesus made do with a few thick helpers. Yes, he called the disciples thick, this has to be seen to be believed.

I couldn't laugh at James though, that would just be cruel. I spent the whole program saying bless him, poor lad. If I'd been in the village, I think I'd have gone to church and rounded up a few people for him. He was so far out of his depth.

I couldn't even accuse him of indoctrinating school children. They weren't just disinterested, many of them actively disbelieved. One said they couldn't believe that God had created the earth and another compared God to the tooth fairy.

I did get angry at one point though. An interviewer asked James's mother if she thought he would succeed in increasingly the size of the congregation. She replied that James wouldn't do it, but the Lord would do it through him. Poor lad. He's going to work so hard to beg and bribe people into that church and his mum is going to give all the credit to God.

Now back to our regularly scheduled sarcasm and godless indignation.

We are not worthy

Last night Mr Reasonable came rushing into the living room in a state of exitement. He insisted that I come out into the hallway and view the source of his fervour. It was well worth getting up off the sofa for.

Over the weeked we had the plasterers in and the plaster is now drying. As Mr Reasonable came down the stairs he was struck by an image in the plaster:

This is clearly a Yeti (abominable snowman). "I'm so excited, to think this could have happened to us. There must be a reason why we have been chosen." said Mr Reasonable.

We were all set to run a souvenir store from the garage and start charging for viewings when we remembered that the plaster will by dry in a day or so.

Oh well. We feel privileged to have been chosen for this honour, even for such a short time.

Secular Britain? Yeah right.

The BBC is reporting a recent survey on religious attitudes in the UK. 22% of those surveyed say the have no faith, though it's 43% in the 18-24 age group and there's a clear increase in religious belief until we reach the 65+ age group in which only 9% have no faith.

This isn't just a basic religion survey though, they gathered some other information about the participants including sex and social class.

It's probably not a surprise to know that the higher up the social scale you are the less religious you are likely to be, with 26% of the upper middle and middle class ABs having no faith and 18th of the lower working class DEs having no faith. So far so good, as society as a whole gets more educated and more affluent, we should see a drop in religion.

Then I looked at the statistics for gender. 27% of men have no faith whereas only 18% of women have no faith. That's quite a difference. I would have guessed that women would be more religious than men but not to this extent. A bit of it is probably caused by there being more women in the over 65 category which is the most religious. Isn't it sad that women seem drawn to an institution that treats them so badly?

The other thing that stands out in the results is the way the non-believers answered the question: 'The Church has historically had a prominent national voice and British society is often said to be based on Christian values originating from the bible such as human life always being regarded as sacred. How important do you think it is that British society continues to be based on Christian values?'. 44% of non-believers answered very important (19%) or quite important (25%). What's going on there? Secularism clearly has a long way to go in this country ...

Sorry Alan. I'm upsetting you again aren't I ? ;-)

God's bad influence

Amsterdam Forum, an English-language radio programme on Radio Netherlands has produced an excellent programme: God's Bad Influence which is available online to listen to. The transmission date given is tomorrow, not sure if that's mistake or if it hasn't actually aired yet. I listened to it yesterday.

The subject of the programme is Gregory Paul's study Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies in the Journal of Religion and Society. This is the study that was in the news a while back demonstrating that religion does not lead to societal health and in fact secular societies have less societal disfunction.

Gregory Paul himself participates in the discussion along with Bert Dorenbos (comedy fundamentalist Christian, I don't think he's trying to be funny, but he made me laugh) and Prof Peter Derkx (a humanist who is so laid back he doesn't seem to have any strong opinions to voice).

Paul is excellent and makes some interesting points. He's actually a dinosaur paleontologist by background, but has decided to apply scientific methods to the issue of religious influence on society. There's no doubt that Paul thinks that religion is the cause of societal disfunction - his study doesn't actually claim this, although lots of people seem to think it does. Paul plans to do further scientific research in this area. I hope others follow suit.

A British Atheist? What's the point?

Some people might wonder whether there's any point being an atheist in the UK. Haven't we fought that battle and won? Surely religion is on its last legs?

Well, in some ways this is true. Church attendance is very low and although lots of people call themselves Christians, this is more an indication of their heritage than their religious beliefs. The average British 'Christian' would be horrified by much of what is in the bible and just likes the idea of heaven.

The problem is that the Christian church has a grossly disproportionate influence on society, partly because it is the established church with various privileges enshrined in law. Other religions probably have an even more disproportionate influence on society due to ideas of inclusiveness - if the government asks the Christians, then it must ask the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans and worshippers of Ra the Egyptian Sun God.

One example of a ludicrous and outmoded privilege is the Lords Spiritual. The two archbishops and 24 bishops get free passes into the House of Lords, the upper house of Parliament. You can find a good description of the kind of problems they cause here.

I find it utterly objectionable that schools are legally obliged to have a daily act of (Christian) religious worship. I strongly believe that religion, of any flavour, must be kept out of schools.

Politicians also seem to be a scarily religious lot. Tony Blair shows a disturbing penchant for encouraging religious activity, particularly in association with schools.

I'd love to be in the position where atheist was just as meaningless a label as aunicornist, but we're just not there yet.

Paul: irreverant, provocative and sceptical

There's an interesting play on at the National Theatre in London at the moment. 'Paul' is about the life of the biblical Paul and his conversion on the road to Damascus. The play is by Howard Brenton, an atheist, and takes a secular look at faith.

A description of the play can be found here - "Describing it as 'a play about the nature of faith' and a 'secular reading of the story of Christ's resurrection', the National Theatre's director, Nicholas Hytner, admits it is 'irreverent', 'provocative' and 'sceptical', though 'not intended to be controversial or shocking'.".

I'll admit to a strange fascination with Paul. He's completely obsessed with circumcision and the prevention of sex (he even views marital sex as a necessary evil). I find Paul very disturbing - I was pretty shocked when I discovered that this was the kind of thing that Christians believe is inspired by God.

I don't live in London, but I might have to make the effort to see this play.

Hardeep does religion

I just watched an excellent programme that I had recorded: Hardeep Does Religion on Channel 4. Hardeep Singh Kohli is a comedian from Glasgow. He is a Sikh by background and he wears a turban. But he's not religious, he wears the turban because it's part of his cultural history (and his mum would kill him if he didn't). Not only is Hardeep not religious, he wants to see an end to religion.

Hardeep's basic premise is that religion is not needed in order to live a happy, moral life and religion does more harm than good by rejecting abortion and homosexuality. Hardeep talks to young people from a variety of religious backgrounds. Their main justification for religion is that it's needed to provide a moral framework. Is it really the case that such much of religion is based on the idea that people would be immoral without it?

Hardeep tries to start his own religion in which you have to be nice without any promise of heaven. He manages to get a few converts, but many don't like the idea of having to give up the idea of heaven.

Hardeep has an attitude of pleasant bemusement throughout the programme and allows the religious participants to make their own religions appear childish.

The really good part about this programme is that it's part of Channel 4's education output. It's listed on their site under PSHE (Personal, Social & Health Education). I'm really pleased that a programme like this being made for teenagers. It would have been nice to see some humanist young people though, their beliefs would have matched Hardeep's made-up 'religion' pretty well.

What kind of humanist are you?

Just a bit of fun today. I took the 'What kind of humanist are you?' test over at New Humanist. Here are the results:

Haymaker

You are one of life’s enjoyers, determined to get the most you can out of your brief spell on Earth. Probably what first attracted you to atheism was the prospect of liberation from the Ten Commandments, few of which are compatible with a life of pleasure. You play hard and work quite hard, have a strong sense of loyalty and a relaxed but consistent approach to your philosophy.

You can’t see the point of abstract principles and probably wouldn’t lay down your life for a concept though you might for a friend. Something of a champagne humanist, you admire George Bernard Shaw for his cheerful agnosticism and pursuit of sensual rewards and your Hollywood hero is Marlon Brando, who was beautiful, irascible and aimed for goodness in his own tortured way.

Sometimes you might be tempted to allow your own pleasures to take precedence over your ethics. But everyone is striving for that elusive balance between the good and the happy life. You’d probably open another bottle and say there’s no contest.

What kind of humanist are you? Click here to find out.

And there was me thinking I was a militant atheist ;-)

Christian family values?

I just watched a fascinating episode of American Wife Swap with a southern religious couple and a gay couple. The straight man refused to let his male 'wife' sleep under his roof after some incredibly bigoted advice from his priest ('treat them like lepers'). There was lots of talk from the straight partner in each household about how the bible condemns homosexuality. The swap definitely did some good with the attitude of both straight partners improving during the experience and the wife shedding her prejudices entirely.

Anyone who thinks that Christianity and family values go hand-in-hand should really watch this programme.

The gay couple and their two teenage daughters (via surrogates) were pretty much the ideal family. The parents had good jobs, the daughters were well behaved. The family spent lots of quality time together, shared chores and ate healthily.

Meanwhile, the straight couple and their three sons had some serious problems. Only the mother worked, but the father did very little around the house and spent large amounts of money they couldn't afford on his car. The boys were regularly disciplined with a wooden bat. The trailer they lived in wasn't well looked after and the family were overweight and lived on junk food.

And you're trying to tell me that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because it undermines the family unit.

Gene Robinson: The only gay in a mitre

Gene Robinson, the American Anglican/Episcopal gay bishop is currently visiting the UK. I watched his appearance on the Heaven and Earth show this morning.

I find Robinson's story incredibly sad. The poor guy is the target of real hatred from many quarters of the Christian community, including many in this country.

I know it's easy to say that he's put himself in this position and deserves all he gets, but he does seem to genuinely believe that God has called him to be a bishop. Had he lived in a non-religious society it's extremely unlikely that he would have felt this way, his need to belong and to make a difference would have been expressed in some other way.

Religion causes so much unnecessary suffering in the world due to its warped sense of morality. Intolerance towards homosexuality based on a few paragraphs in the old testament is a prime example.

Gene: You seem like a decent guy, why not drop the religion and become a humanist? We don't accept intolerant attitudes towards homosexuality and humanist organisations have long campaigned for gay rights. (You will have to drop all that God business though.)

Remember, remember, ...

Today is November the 5th, Guy Fawkes, Bonfire Night. "Remember, remember, the 5th of November, Gunpowder, treason and plot." goes the rhyme. And we have. I think that most Brits know that Bonfire Night celebrates the last minute prevention of a plot to blow up the houses of parliament.

Of course, there's a little more to it than that. The event took place 400 years ago in 1605 and was an attempt by disgruntled Catholics to assassinate the Protestant James I (the King James of  King James Bible fame) and his Parliament.

Do you think contemporary atheists would be shocked if they had known that religious terrorism would still be going on 400 years later?

And yes, it seems that there were contemporary atheists. It was around this time that Francis Bacon felt the need to write his anti-atheist essay Of Atheism. It would have been prudent for a prominent scientist such as Bacon to attack atheism. Heresy was a very serious crime. In 1593 the playwright Christopher Marlowe had been accused of atheism but he was murdered before he could stand trial.

Is secularism a fallacy?

The term secular society is often used to describe a society in which religion is a private affair and does not have an impact on politics or public life outside of the religious sphere. I've often heard humanists advocating secularism and saying that they have no problem with private religion.

Although this sounds ideal, I struggle to understand how private religion is possible. It seems to misunderstand the meaning of religion. I can't understand how anyone could be serious about their religion and yet not have it strongly inform their opinions. When someone holds a viewpoint because they believe it is based on a revealed truth, there doesn't seem to be any way to explain their opinion in a secular manner. I really can't imagine a society in which religious leaders voluntarily stay out of political and ethical debates or restrict themselves to secular viewpoints. I know there are religious secularists, but I don't understand how this can work in general.

There was an interesting BBC radio programme on this topic as part of the Beyond Belief series. Julian Baggini argues for secularism and doesn't address this issue to my satisfaction. Baggini does seem to acknowledge that you can't keep religion out of the picture completely.

I find myself conflicted in that I completely respect the right of others to be religious unless it has an impact on public life. This seems to be a contradiction. I want a society in which religion has no place in public life, but from what I understand of religion, this means a society in which their is no religion (or in which religion is unwillingly repressed, which is definitely not a good idea).

If I'm honest I have to say that I would like to see humanity achieve a non-religious society. I do respect people's right to have religious beliefs, but I also wish they'd hurry up and work out that their beliefs are daft so we can get on with developing a grown-up society.

Are you a humanist?

Today there was a House of Lords Select Committee meeting in which the BBCs responsibilities with respect to religion were discussed. Hanne Stinson, Executive Director of the British Humanist Association was present and the Guardian reports that:

Ms Stinson said there was a growing number of people with no religious beliefs who share humanist beliefs but would not call themselves humanists, simply because they do not know the name, "and the BBC is partly to blame for that".

This is a good point. Most people have no idea what a humanist is. The British Humanist Association defines humanism as follows:

"Humanism is the belief that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. Humanists make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves. We take responsibility for our actions and work with others for the common good."

I think Stinson is right, that many people in Britain would identify with this description. I certainly do. I came across the term quite by chance as a teenager when a boyfriend's father explained that he was a humanist and what that meant. I'm not sure when I would have come across the term if it hadn't been for that event.

Humanism is rarely mentioned on television or in the media. I always have to explain the term if I mention that I'm a humanist, even to people who would describe themselves as atheists.

I think the BBC does have a duty to cover both belief and disbelief adequately. Surely it's not too much to expect that there should be sufficient coverage that the average Brit would come across humanism at some point?

Ghosts more convincing than God?

According to an informal Halloween poll, significantly more Brits believe in ghosts than in God. A staggering 68% of those surveyed believe in ghosts while only 55% believe in God.

The sample wasn't random so we can't treat it as entirely scientific, but it did get me thinking. If the survey is accurate then there are a lot of people who don't believe in God but do believe in ghosts.

This means that their reason for not believing in God is not a generic rejection of the paranormal. People are finding the evidence for God unconvincing, but the evidence for ghosts convincing.

For me, Gods, ghosts, horoscopes and UFOs are all the same. If there's no evidence, I don't believe it. This obviously isn't the way that many people see it. If we can believe the survey, then many Brits are specifically rejecting the idea of a Christian God while being open to the paranormal in general.

Although Brits aren't particularly religious we do still seem to be a superstitious lot. I do find belief in ghosts troubling, but it's a lot less disturbing than religion because it has far less of an impact on society.

Fortunately, ghost-believers don't have special representatives in the House of Lords, there's no mandatory daily seance in schools, and the media don't routinely ask senior ghost-believers for their opinions on abortion and euthanasia. Even if 68% of Brits do believe in ghosts, I don't think they would expect any of these privileges. So why when only 55% of Brits believe in God are the corresponding religious privileges accepted?