Until the early 1800s few people doubted the bible 'creation' story. Most also believed that species were fixed in form (i.e. immutable) and that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. By the mid-1800s this bible-based view was under challenge, as fossil evidence and geological data on the great age of the Earth became more widely known.
Charles Darwin entered this world on 12 February 1809. He grew up to become a naturalist and made a five year journey around the world (1831-6), collecting specimens and recording observations of nature. Upon his return to England, he soon married and with income from his father settled down to raise a family and to ponder what he had seen. After decades of research he published The Origin of Species (1859), an influential book in which he detailed a convincing argument as to how species change or are 'mutable'.
Other thinkers, as far back as Aristotle, had suggested that life forms could change or evolve, but they could not adequately explain how this might occur. By the mid-1800s the accumulation of human knowledge was such that two men, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace*, also a naturalist, were able to independently propose a method by which species could change. Called 'natural selection' it is similar to what humans had been doing with domestic animals and plants for thousands of years, i.e. selecting certain variations to breed future generations.
In The Origin of Species Darwin reasoned that if artificial selection can produce the many domestic varieties, then, given enough time (millions of years), nature could produce all the different species on Earth, including humans. Darwin's book gave humankind a convincing argument with which to challenge the long-accepted belief that all life forms had remained unchanged since they had been specially 'created' just a few thousand years ago.
To celebrate Darwin's contribution to human knowledge, February 12 has been designated as Darwin Day. And around the world, in recent years an increasing number of scientists, and Humanist and other groups, have marked this day with activities such as lectures, debates and supplying material to students.
The HSV plans to celebrate Darwin Day more formally next year, with the aim of making a significant contribution in 2009 - the bicentenary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species. Member involvement in the HSV Darwin Day project is invited.
* Wallace needed to earn a living. Hence his intellectual contribution has been overshadowed by Darwin's, who had the time to write and amend book length versions of their shared idea, 'natural selection'.
Humanism and spirituality have an uneasy affinity, because of the close association of spirituality to religion. Having rejected the latter, Humanists find it difficult to embrace the former.
Any parleying by Humanists with spirituality is seen as evidence of residual religiosity. While a rejection of spirituality is taken by many, as evidence that our Humanist life stance is non-serious, shallow and materialist. We are thus misunderstood either way.
Those who have considered this conundrum, opt for acknowledging that spirituality refers to something of significance shared by all humans. This 'something' is the sense of being connected to the rest of the universe - from tiny algae to distant galaxies. This sense of connectedness is typically evoked through music, the arts, relationships or the beauty of nature. It is an intense, emotional feeling of being part of something much bigger than ourselves and our humdrum of daily lives. Humanists experience this 'something' without necessarily calling it spiritual.
Richard Norman, in his excellent book On Humanism, while expressing distrust over the word 'spirituality' and describing it as 'inherently slippery', goes on to talk about experiences that 'lift the spirits'. He identifies these as:
He goes on to write "[t]hese, we know, are the things which enrich our experience. There would be no need to state the obvious, were it not for the suggestion that a life without religion and religious 'spirituality' is somehow impoverished."
In answering why experiences that 'lift the spirit', on their own, may not be enough, he suggests; first it is because they are fragile, and second because even when present they may not provide a deep meaning to life. Hence, it is not surprising that religious believers claim that only religion can give an in-depth meaning to life.
Norman rightly rejects this, and argues that the arts, especially literature and other narrative arts, can and do fill this meaning-giving role which religion claims exclusively to fill. He argues that the arts are not just valuable as self-contained pursuits but because of the way in which they help us think about how we should live.
Indeed, for centuries Humanists have found understanding of, and respect for, all humanity through the arts. Whether we call this connectedness 'spiritual' is a mute point.
As a program manager at the International Conflict Resolution Centre at the University of Melbourne, Melissa Conley Tyler collaborates with other lawyers and psychologists to assist with a range of conflicts, from the international arena to the inter-personal setting. The Centre trains people in mediation and other strategic skills and also works in a practical way on many issues. Her talk covered both global action as well as citizenship action to prevent armed conflict and war.
War is still regarded as a legitimate tool of statecraft despite the efforts of the anti-war movement in the last 100 or so years. At the end of the 19 th century the International Peace Conferences were widely supported and after the First World War the Paris Peace Conference gave birth to the League of Nations. Although by the Second World War those initiatives had been quashed there was nonetheless an unprecedented level of condemnation following the hostilities and the subsequent United Nations Charter outlawed war except in self-defence, as well as formalising positions about genocide and human rights.
Such a history tends to lead to the view that war is an inevitable human activity, but this need not be the case. To some extent psychologists would argue that it is a conditioned response which results from a period of intensive indoctrination. And consider that in the case of international conflict a long time is required to assemble the military resources for war. All of which over-rides the innate wish to avoid harm and destruction. Disputes may be inevitable, but war as an outcome owes more to factors such as the psychology of the leaders and the military institutions rather than the mere existence of the conflict. When war breaks out there is frequently a disjunction between the interests of the nation and those of the national leader. War seldom serves the national interest as it is grossly expensive, albeit the costs are often underestimated at the outset, e.g. the recent US invasion of Iraq. But for the leader it may be a way to entrench support at home or prestige abroad. The availability of a large military machine can also tip the balance unfavourably. When war is the outcome it may reflect the ethical stance of the leaders themselves or their visions of statehood and the presence of political checks or opportunity for challenge may be decisive. The failure of creative thinking to find an alternative outcome is more likely when leaders are under pressure. In summary, armed conflict hinges on many external factors which are therefore amenable to change.
Changes originating from civil society can promote agendas which build a culture of peace:-
1. In 2003 the Global Action to Prevent War, which is active in eight countries, recommended:
2. The Global Partnership against Armed Conflict, which is a UN-sponsored initiative has set up a series of regional consultations, with a final collaborative report outlining an action agenda for peace due to be handed to the UN in July 2005. The Australian consultation took place in March this year and will be followed shortly by the regional meeting in Fiji.
3. A high-level panel of experts (which includes Gareth Evans) has presented a report, "A More Secure World: Threats, Challenges and Changes" to the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. It recognises that since the inception of the UN the nature of threat and insecurity has broadened to include nuclear terrorism, transnational crime, state collapse and rapid global transmission of infectious disease. It also emphasises that in the last 50 years more conflicts have been ended by negotiation than in the previous 200 years. Kofi Annan, in March 2005, sent a report to the General Assembly advocating change based on the recommendations of the high-level panel. It addressed changes to the Security Council and a revitalised Human Rights Council, but stopped short of recommending changes to the right of veto in the Security Council.
At a personal level, there is a great deal that can be done to promote a culture of peace, an outlook which goes far beyond an anti-war stance. UNESCO has declared this as the International Decade of Culture, Peace and Global Partnership Against Armed Conflict. But without much promotion there is little recognition that we are in the middle of it at present. Eight keys for a culture of peace are stated:
These are as relevant in the workplace and the child-care centre as the international stage and help to positively promote a culture of peace and non-violence. If we consider that the abolition of slavery seemed impossible not so long ago, or recall the radical changes that have occurred with respect to racial inequality and gender inequality in recent times, it should not be impossible to conceive of a world without war, where negotiation is possible, where it is not necessary to de-humanise those with whom we disagree and where creative energy can develop non-violent strategies. As individuals, we therefore, can all contribute to a culture of peace in accordance with these tenets.
Humanists have social hopes that the world can be a better place. We consider that by respecting human diversity and working together with trust and cooperation, progress can be made towards a more truly global, cosmopolitan, egalitarian, classless and casteless society.
Our Humanist hopes for a better future are built on a Darwinian account of humans as animals doing their best to cope with their environment by developing tools which enable them to enjoy more pleasure than pain. This enlightened approach to life requires personal and social responsibility, community involvement, valuing the pursuit of knowledge, the use of reason and critical inquiry, and a willingness to live with uncertainty.
Current circumstances, however, both within Australia and the wider world, have the potential to blunt our Humanist optimism. Daily we are assailed with the consequence of life threatening problems that include:
The enormity of these problems, grossly distorted by many media outlets, and the unwillingness of those with the power to put in place effective solutions, is creating social impotence and fear. Instead of openness and engagement with the wider society, many people are turning inwards and shrinking their horizons to the comfort of a small circle of family and friends.
Along with narrowing social horizons, many seek the certainty of simple, black and white answers. Hence the growing support for fundamentalist religion and conservative politics, evident in the recent success of the Family First Party and the return of the Howard government. The strength of conservatism, in Australia and more particularly in the US, signals that the socially progressive achievements of recent decades could well be reversed.
For open-minded people this is a very disturbing prospect. Our social hopes for a better world, cannot advance when people are fearful and disengaged. And as people becoming unwilling to trust and cooperate, especially with those who are different or 'other'; relations within communities and between nations deteriorate into hostility.
From history we know that when social hopes are high humans do great things, such as the flowering of the arts and civic living during the Renaissance, and more recently the formation of the United Nations.
Through our regular Public Lectures, discussions and publications, Humanist have an important role to play in progressive ideas. In the coming months the HSV will be announcing several new Humanist projects made possible by member bequests. These, we hope will contribute to keeping our social hopes alive and furthering our purposes as an organisation.
This page was last updated on 06 June 2005
