Great interview with Jenny

Here's a great new interview with Jenny at Specusphere. This also stand as a preview of her book, The Priestess and the Slave, which will be published next month from Hadley Rille.

Copy edits checked for Voices of Disbelief

Udo Schuklenk and I have done our check on the copyediting of Voices of Disbelief. The checked manuscript is now back with the publisher, and hopefully we won't have too many problems between now and the next phase. In about April, we should receive page proofs, at which point it will be a matter of fixing up any typos that have slipped through so far ... plus the task of compiling an index, which will be a non-trivial one with a book like this.

The book is on target to be published in September 2009, with a final title of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists.

Here's a roll-call of contributors and essays, in the order of appearance in the book:


Introduction: Now More Important than Ever – Voices of Reason — Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk

Unbelievable! — Russell Blackford

My “Bye Bull” Story — Margaret Downey

How benevolent is God? – An argument from suffering to atheism — Nicholas Everitt

A Deal-breaker — Ophelia Benson

Why Am I a Nonbeliever? – I Wonder... — J. L. Schellenberg

Wicked or Dead? Reflections on the moral character and existential status of God — John Harris

Religious Belief and Self-Deception — Adèle Mercier

The Coming of Disbelief — J.J.C. Smart

What I Believe —Graham Oppy

Too Good to Be True, Too Obscure to Explain: The Cognitive Shortcomings of Belief in God — Thomas W. Clark

How to Think About God: Theism, Atheism, and Science — Michael Shermer

A Magician Looks at Religion — James Randi

Confessions of a Kindergarten Leper — Emma Tom

Beyond Disbelief — Philip Kitcher

An ambivalent nonbelief — Taner Edis

Why Not? — Sean M. Carroll

Godless Cosmology — Victor J. Stenger

Unanswered Prayers — Christine Overall

Beyond Faith and Opinion — Damien Broderick

Could it be pretty obvious there’s no God? — Stephen Law

Atheist, obviously — Julian Baggini

Why I am Not a Believer — A.C. Grayling

Evil and Me — Gregory Benford

Who’s Unhappy? — Lori Lipman Brown

Reasons to be Faithless — Sheila A.M. McLean

Three Stages of Disbelief — Julian Savulescu

Born Again, Briefly — Greg Egan

Cold Comfort — Ross Upshur

The Accidental Exorcist — Austin Dacey

Atheist Out of the Foxhole — Joe Haldeman

The Unconditional Love of Reality — Dale McGowan

Antinomies — Jack Dann

Giving up ghosts and gods — Susan Blackmore

Some thoughts on why I am an atheist — Tamas Pataki

No Gods, Please! — Laura Purdy

Welcome Me Back to the World of the Thinking — Kelly O'Connor

Kicking Religion Goodbye … — Peter Adegoke

On credenda — Miguel Kottow

“Not even start to ignore those questions!” A voice of disbelief in a different key — Frieder Otto Wolf

Imagine No Religion — Edgar Dahl

Humanism as Religion: An Indian Alternative — Sumitra Padmanabhan

Why I am NOT a theist — Prabir Ghosh

When the Hezbollah came to my school — Maryam Namazie

Evolutionary Noise, not Signal from Above — Athena Andreadis

Gods Inside — Michael R. Rose and John P. Phelan

Why Morality Doesn’t Need Religion — Peter Singer and Marc Hauser

Doctor Who and the Legacy of Rationalism — Sean Williams

My non-religious life: A journey from superstition to rationalism — Peter Tatchell

Helping People to Think Critically About Their Religious Beliefs — Michael Tooley

Human Self-Determination, Biomedical Progress, and God — Udo Schuklenk

Boycott Kelloggs

See this wonderful open letter to Kelloggs by Joe Rogan. It's funny, but it has a serious point. Boycott Kelloggs for as a long as you can tear yourself away from its addictive products.

The devil is in the detail

In my previous post, I posted the full text of the non-binding resolution on defamation of religion, passed by the UN General Assembly late last year. We need to be able to consult the full text because the devil is in the detail. Much of the discussion on the internet seems to make assumptions about what it might say, rather than what it actually does say. For a more authoritative publication of the text, go here, where you can find it with difficulty.

It should be pointed out that much of the text is innocuous or even commendable. E.g., it deplores literal (physical) violence, or incitement to violence, against people on the ground of religion. There are also commendable statements about the importance of education to both boys and girls, and much other material that is arguably good stuff for the UN to be saying.

But to see how sweeping and potentially draconian it is in restricting free speech, you need to dig into the detail and try to work out what it would mean in practice.

The main purpose seems to be to stop "defamation of religion" which seems to include claims that something in Islam encourages violence and terrorism. So, Fitna would seem to be a classic case of "defamation of religion". But there are other phrases that would seem to require prevention of certain kinds of blasphemy - e.g. the production of images on the internet desecrating religious symbols seems to be condemned by this resolution.

Because it's written in UN-style gobbledegook, it's very difficult to pin down what it would mean in practice, i.e. exactly what laws it would require nations to pass if the same wording actually became a basis for a UN Convention, and if various nations then signed it. That vagueness is itself cause for concern. But the aim does seem to be primarily to stop people saying highly critical things about Islam.

I don't know that anything in such a book as Richard Dawkins The God Delusion would necessarily come under "defamation of religion", although the comparison with other forms of delusion might go close. But anyway, large tracts of Sam Harris's The End of Faith would probably qualify. Likewise the anti-Muslim views of someone like Mark Steyn. It is possible that a great deal of robust criticism or satire of doctrines, religious institutions, holy books, and cultures could end up being prohibited if this resolution were given a higher status than just a non-binding resolution of the Assembly.

I'd be interested in anyone else's interpretations of how it would work if it actually became international law, based on a close reading of the actual text.

Full text of the defamation of religion declaration

79. At the 39th meeting, on 11 November, the representative of Uganda, on behalf
of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Organization
of the Islamic Conference, Belarus and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),
introduced a draft resolution entitled “Combating defamation of religions”
(A/C.3/63/L.22), which read as follows:
“The General Assembly,
“Reaffirming the pledge made by all States, under the Charter of the
United Nations, to promote and encourage universal respect for and
observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction
as to race, sex, language or religion,
“Recalling the relevant international instruments on the elimination of
discrimination, in particular the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, the Declaration
on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in
which They Live and the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to
National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities,
“Recalling also the relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human
Rights and the Human Rights Council in this regard,
“Welcoming the resolve expressed in the United Nations Millennium
Declaration adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2000 to take
measures to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many
societies and to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies, and
looking forward to its effective implementation at all levels,
“Underlining in this regard the importance of the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South
Africa, in 2001, welcoming the progress achieved in implementing the
Declaration and Programme of Action, and emphasizing that they constitute a
solid foundation for the elimination of all scourges and manifestations of
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,
“Expressing concern at the increase in racist violence and xenophobic
ideas in many parts of the world, in political circles, in the sphere of public
opinion and in society at large, as a result, inter alia, of the resurgence of
activities of political parties and associations established on the basis of racist
and xenophobic platforms and charters, and the persistent use of those
platforms and charters to promote or incite racist ideologies,
“Deeply alarmed at the rising trends towards discrimination based on
religion or belief, including in some national policies, laws and administrative
measures that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and
beliefs under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration,
thereby legitimizing discrimination against them, and consequently impairing
their enjoyment of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
and impeding their ability to observe, practise and manifest their religion
freely and without fear of coercion, violence or reprisal,
“Noting with deep concern the serious instances of intolerance,
discrimination and acts of violence based on religion or belief, intimidation
and coercion motivated by extremism, religious or otherwise, occurring in
many parts of the world, in addition to the negative projection of Islam in the
media and the introduction and enforcement of laws and administrative
measures that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims, in
particular Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001, and
that threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
“Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human
dignity leading to the restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents
and incitement to religious hatred and violence,
“Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions
and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular,
“Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief
constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the
Charter of the United Nations,
“Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to
religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of
human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this
burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents
of certain religions,
“Taking note of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary
forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,
submitted to the Human Rights Council at its fourth and sixth sessions, which
draw attention to the serious nature of the defamation of all religions, and
reiterating the call of the Special Rapporteur to all States to wage a systematic
campaign against incitement to racial and religious hatred by maintaining a
careful balance between the defence of secularism and respect for freedom of
religion and by acknowledging and respecting the complementarity of all the
freedoms embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights,
“Recalling the proclamation of the Global Agenda for Dialogue among
Civilizations, and inviting States, the organizations and bodies of the United
Nations system, within existing resources, other international and regional
organizations and civil societies to contribute to the implementation of the
Programme of Action contained in the Global Agenda,
“Welcoming the efforts of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative in
promoting mutual respect and understanding among different cultures and
societies, as well as the forthcoming second forum of the Alliance, to be held
in Istanbul, Turkey, on 2 and 3 April 2009,
“Convinced that respect for cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic
diversity, as well as dialogue among and within civilizations, is essential for
peace, understanding and friendship among individuals and people of the
different cultures and nations of the world, while manifestations of cultural
prejudice, intolerance and xenophobia towards people belonging to different
cultures, religions and beliefs generate hatred and violence among peoples and
nations throughout the world,
“Recognizing the valuable contributions of all religions and beliefs to
modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can
make to an improved awareness and understanding of common values,
“Underlining the important role of education in the promotion of
tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,
“Reaffirming the need for all States to continue their national and
international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among
civilizations, cultures, religions and beliefs, and emphasizing that States,
regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and
the media have an important role to play in promoting tolerance, respect for
and freedom of religion and belief,
“Welcoming all international and regional initiatives aimed at promoting
cross-cultural and interfaith harmony, including the International Dialogue on
Interfaith Cooperation, held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, on 6 and 7 December
2004, and the World Conference on Dialogue, held in Madrid from
16 to 18 July 2008, and their valuable efforts towards the promotion of a
culture of peace and dialogue at all levels, and taking note with appreciation of
the final declaration adopted at the conference on ‘Common world: progress
through diversity’, held in Astana on 17 October 2008,
“Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order
to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures,
religions, beliefs and civilizations, and welcoming in this regard the
Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on
Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned
Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007,
“Recalling its resolution 62/154 of 18 December 2007,
“1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General and the
conclusions contained therein;
“2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or
belief still evident in the world;
“3. Strongly deplores all acts of ideological and physical violence and
assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion
or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural
centres and places of worship, as well as targeting of holy sites and religious
symbols of all religions;
“4. Expresses deep concern at the programmes and agendas pursued by
extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, and
incitement to religious hatred in general, in particular when condoned by
Governments;
“5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of
defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,
including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the
aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
“6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism and the
reaction to counter-terrorism measures, defamation of religions, and incitement
to religious hatred in general, become aggravating factors that contribute to the
denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as
well as their economic and social exclusion;
“7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and
wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
“8. Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an
integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy,
which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September
2006, and which clearly affirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should
not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group,
stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to
promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national
and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs
or cultures and prevent the defamation of religions;
“9. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media,
including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence,
xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion,
including Islam, as well as targeting of religious symbols;
“10. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law,
everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to
freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these rights carries with it
special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations
as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or
reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public
health or morals;
“11. Reaffirms that general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee
stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon
racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and
expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious
hatred;
“12. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion
and expression to continue to carry out their work as mandated by the Human
Rights Council in its resolutions 7/34 and 7/36 of 28 March 2008;
“13. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary
legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States
to take resolute action in this regard;
“14. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and
constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred,
discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of
religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, to take all possible
measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the
understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with
intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;
“15. Also urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including
members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators,
in the course of their official duties, respect people regardless of their different
religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of
their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or
training is provided;
“16. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and
incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing
actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through
education and awareness-raising;
“17. Urges States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and
in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both
girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based
on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of
any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial
segregation in access to schooling;
“18. Calls upon the international community to foster a global dialogue
to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights
and diversity of religion and belief, and urges States, non-governmental
organizations, religious bodies and the print and electronic media to support
and participate in such a dialogue;
“19. Affirms that the Human Rights Council shall promote universal
respect for all religious and cultural values and address instances of
intolerance, discrimination and incitement of hatred against members of any
community or adherents of any religion, as well as promote ways to
consolidate international efforts in order to combat impunity for such
deplorable acts;
“20. Welcomes the initiative by the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights to hold an expert seminar on freedom of expression and
advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility and violence, which was held on 2 and 3 October 2008, and requests
the High Commissioner to continue to build on this initiative, with a view to
preventing and eliminating all such forms of incitement and the consequences
of negative stereotyping of religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the
human rights of those individuals and their communities;
“21. Takes note of the efforts of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights to promote and include human rights aspects in educational
programmes, particularly the World Programme for Human Rights Education
proclaimed by the General Assembly on 10 December 2004, and calls upon the
High Commissioner to continue those efforts, with particular focus on:
“(a) The contributions of cultures, as well as religious and cultural
diversity;
“(b) Collaboration with other relevant bodies of the United Nations
system and regional and international organizations in holding joint
conferences designed to encourage the dialogue among civilizations and
promote understanding of the universality of human rights and their
implementation at various levels, in particular the Office of the United Nations
High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations and the unit within the
Secretariat mandated to interact with various entities within the United Nations
system and coordinate their contribution to the intergovernmental process;
“22. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the
implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation
between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and
hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth
session.”
80. At its 46th meeting, on 24 November, the Committee had before it a revised
text of the draft resolution (A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1), which the representative of
Uganda orally revised by replacing, in the eighth preambular paragraph, the words
“illegal immigration” by the words “irregular immigration”.
81. At the same meeting, statements were made by the representative of Egypt and
the observer for the Holy See (see A/C.3/63/SR.46).
82. Also at its 46th meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution
A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstentions
(see para. 182, draft resolution IV). The voting was as follows:
In favour:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire,
Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt,
El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras,
Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan,
Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho,
Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria,
Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan,
Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab
Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen,
Zimbabwe.
Against:
Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco,
Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal,
Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining:
Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti,
India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia,
Nauru, Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Timor-
Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu,
Zambia.
83. Before the vote, statements were made by the representatives of India, the
United States and France (on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations
that are members of the European Union and associated States); after the vote,
statements were made by the representatives of Nigeria, Chile, Colombia, Brazil and
Singapore (see A/C.3/63/SR.46).

Which countries still have some liberal credentials?

Go and have a look at which countries voted Yes, Abstain, or No for a non-binding UN resolution against defamation of religion late last year.

Now for the forthcoming vote on a binding resolution.

Was Christianity good for Europe?

Many Christian apologists, perhaps most prominently Dinesh D'Souza, argue that even secular people should be grateful to Christianity for the heritage of its dominant position in Europe during, and for long after, the Middle Ages. Indeed, I have often heard, or seen, secular thinkers such as Jurgen Habermas accepting this general point, even though I find it, myself, to be (to say the least) implausible.

Of course, there's a trivial sense in which we can all feel glad for everything that happened before we were, as individuals, conceived, since Who Gets Conceived And Born (or which sperm cells fertilise which oocytes and produce which zygotes) is ultra-sensitive to all prior events. Moreover, the existence of all the good things that we have in the world today has been highly sensitive to the actual course of history that led to them (but the same applies to many bad things in the world). Is there some sense, more substantial than these, in which the world - particularly Europe - is better off as a result of the centuries-long hegemony of Christianity?

That really depends on what the realistic alternatives were. We could imagine a worst-case scenario in which barbarian warriors dominated the Dark Ages with no influence from Christianity or from classical learning. All traditions of philosophy and science might have been lost, and perhaps we (or our equivalents) might have ended up as worshippers of Wotan or Thor.

Conversely, we might imagine scenarios in which classical learning survived and thrived in Europe through what we know as the Dark Ages.

It would be foolish to imagine that the actual course of history was the very worst it could plausibly been, so, insofar as Christianity may have prevented some even worse outcomes, perhaps we should be glad and grateful. But does that mean that the Dark Ages, as actually experienced, were an improvement on pre-Christian classical paganism? Were they a ferment of learning and innovation, misnamed by Enlightenment ingrates who failed to appreciate what was achieved under the aegis of the Church during the centuries after the fall of Rome?

Andrew Bernstein is one commentator who thinks not. See this ferocious critique of Christianity's contribution to European civilisation. I must say that Bernstein's occasional genuflections to Ayn Rand, a third-rate thinker at best, and the provenance of the article in a Randian journal, don't add to the author's credibility. But it's easy to ignore the references to Rand, on which nothing in the argument depends, and to replace the brief discussions of Randian epistemology with something more plausible (some kind of post-Popper philosophy of science, perhaps). Once that's done, the article is interesting and (perhaps) persuasive. Have a look and let me know what you think.

Do you have biblical morals?

Your morality is 0% in line with that of the bible.

 

Damn you heathen! Your book learnin' has done warped your mind. You shall not be invited next time I sacrifice a goat.

Do You Have Biblical Morals?
Take More Quizzes

Gigs

A couple of up-coming local gigs.

On 10 March I'll be talking to the Atheist Society on the topic "Voices of Disbelief". This relates to the book that I'm editing with Udo Schuklenk, and I'll doubtless have a bit to say about my own motivation for wanting to edit such a book, and why I think this is a good time to be expressing our disbelief in the claims of religion. It's free (though you'll have an opportunity to make a gold coin donation) and no booking is required. Just turn up at the Unitarian Hall, 110 Grey Street, East Melbourne, at 8 pm.

On 26 March I'll be talking to the Humanist Society on the topic "Liberalism, humanism, and freedom of speech: The trouble with religious vilification laws". I take it that title is self-explanatory. The venue is Balwyn Library, 336 Whitehorse Road, Balwyn (Melway map reference 46 E8). Again, it's free, though a gold coin donation at the door is encouraged, and no booking is required. Turn up at 8 pm.

US edition of Dreaming Again

A couple of copies of the US edition of Dreaming Again arrived chez nous yesterday. It's a nice package.