Skip to main content

What does it mean to be British?

The Humanist Philosophers Group, of which I am a member, submitted for the BHA a view about "What it means to be British". I made only a small contribution, though you can probably guess what was. Go here.

This is part of a Government consultation on values.

Other views are here.

Comments

anticant said…
This is an admirable statement not merely of what it means - or should mean - to be British, but of what it means to be human.

The sad snag is that however uncontroversial these ideas were in the past, there are now very many people - perhaps millions - residing in this country who do not accept that "an open, inclusive and cooperative society from which no group or individual is excluded, and from which no group deliberately excludes itself" is a desireable goal.

The real educational task is to persuade them that they are wrong.

To start with, we should abolish state-aided "faith schools".
December 6, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Paul P. Mealing said…
It reads like a charter and it has high ideals, that go much further than Britain. It’s part of what Dawkins called the modern ‘zeitgeist’, living in a globalised world, where tolerance and trust are the key factors to living a peaceful and, dare I say it, moral life.

I’ve lived for over a half a century in Oz, and seen 3 waves of immigration: first from Mediterranean and Eastern Europe (following WWII), then from Asia (following the Vietnam war), and now from Muslim countries the world over (following conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, to mention a few).

Assimilation occurs with the next generation, who often find themselves conflicted with their parents. It is also why I’m against self-segregated societies. But I think our generic attitude towards religion, of a healthy scepticism, is what separates us from America in particular.

In Oz, religion is something you keep to yourself, and people who attempt to politicise it generally get short thrift. As long as we maintain that attitude, and promote critical thinking I believe we will have stability and a diverse, pluralistic, and harmonious society. Sport and education are the 2 major breakers of cultural barriers, for young people in particular.

Regards, Paul.
December 7, 2008 at 12:35 AM
anticant said…
The problem here, Paul, is that most of the Muslims who have come to Britain over the past thirty years are from Pakistan and Bangladesh which have highly tribalised, traditional, religiously dominated cultures. Their second [and now third] generations have been politicised by our misguided involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and far from becoming more assimilated many of them are listening to the vigorous proselytization being carried out by Wahhabi'ist preachers funded by Saudi Arabia. They are in no mood to espouse the more tolerant values and openness which are essential for a cohesive society.

At the same time, Christian extremists - notably the Roman Catholic heirarchy - are using the heightened profile which Islam gives to religious issues to press for more exemptions from equality legislation on the spurious pretext of 'conscience'.

This is not an easy time for British secularists.
December 7, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more