FOREWORD

Science and identity are the two related themes dominating our pages in this edition of The Link. Dr. John Robinson discusses the interesting association between physics and religion in 'Does God play Dice?' which refers to the work of Sir John Polkinghorne, and to brain function and spirituality in 'Identity' which discusses the work of Baroness Susan Greenfield. John points out that both of these eminent scientists are deeply interested in the connection between their respective areas of research and religious thought and experience.

Sue Good meditates upon the importance of logos as devices for establishing corporate identities in 'A Picture of What?' and Bill Stephen looks at the role played by science in the various attempts made to establish Utopias, in 'Utopia and Utopianism'.

We are grateful for the continuing financial support of the Scottish Unitarian Association and, therefore, we are happy to feature three articles reporting upon the on-going activities of members of the four Scottish Unitarian Churches under the aegis of the S.U.A. and the Scottish District of the Women's League 'Sightsavers', Barry Bell's 'Hucklow Summer School' and Janet Brigg's report on the recent S.U.A. conference on the current and future situation of the Unitarian ministry in Scotland.

Bill Stephen (Editor)

Back to Contents

PLAYING DICE & ITS IMPLICATION FOR RELIGIOUS THINKING

By Dr. John Robinson F,R.S.E.

Does God play dice? This Was the title of a discussion hosted by the Royal Society of Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago. The discussion was led by Miles Padgett, Professor of Optics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Glasgow. Professor Padgett is one of the world's most distinguished young physicists with an outstanding record of achievement in fundamental aspects of optical angular momentum. Despite its seemingly esoteric nature, Padgett's research on the properties of light is contributing to important real-life problems as diverse as oil prospecting and cancer detection. In choosing, for his discussion at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the title 'Does God Play Dice', Padgett was going back to Einstein who, on the basis of his experiments and those carried out by Sir Isaac Newton two centuries earlier, was adamant that God does not play dice with nature. For Einstein the laws of quantum physics were predetermined. Events in the universe were deterministic. Such a view was understandable; after all, if it were otherwise, Newton's laws on motion could not be used to draw up accurate time tables for events, such as high and low tides, years in advance.

While the idea that God doesn't play dice held true for large objects, early 20th century physicists began to question if this was the case for very small objects such as subatomic particles. At this size-level it was not possible to measure precisely the two key elements in the deterministic hypothesis, namely position and momentum; thus there was no certainty regarding a very small particle's future position. The main exponents of this new hypothesis, now known as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, were physicists working in Copenhagen. In their letters to Einstein they reasoned that, with regard to the fundamental constituents of matter, observations from atomic physics had forced them to abandon the deterministic hypothesis, thus refuting Einstein's contention that God does not play dice with nature. From their viewpoint God was a gambler! Einstein's inner voice told him otherwise. He remained unconvinced by the Copenhagen interpretation and the subject has been debated by physicists ever since. Currently the scientific evidence, including the recent observations of Professor Padgett at Glasgow on the angular momentum of light, indicates that God does play dice.

Would to-day's findings have shattered Einstein's religious perspective and faith? Probably not. While there can be no doubting his unhappiness with the suggestion that 'mechanistic causality' regarding the Laws of the Universe had been questioned by his contemporary physicists in Denmark, his religious faith still remained, as it always had done, in 'humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality'. When one considers the similarity between this view and the view of his predecessor, Isaac Newton, that the 'most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being', there can be no doubting the awe that the unravelling of the physical laws of the universe generated in both Newton and Einstein. But has the suggestion, and now the evidence, that God like the rest of us, is subjected to uncertainty, affected the religious views of modern-day physicists? Well, although it's bound to add scepticism to the claim by Jesus in Matthew, Ch 10 verse 30, that each of is so important in God's sight that he even knows exactly the number of hairs on our head, there is ample evidence to indicate that many prominent research physicists are still religious. Paul Dirac, one of the 20th Century's most notable theoretical physicists, a Nobel Prize winner at the age of 31, the founder of quantum electrodynamics and therefore of electronics, used only eight words to express sentiments similar to Newton and Einstein: they were 'God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world'. Like Einstein he too was humbled by the awe in his discoveries. So too was Sir John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist and Dirac research student, who contributed to the discovery of the quark, one of the two subatomic particles believed to be generated in the' primordial soup' from which all matter evolved, a few millionths of a second after the start of the Big Bang. After 25 years as a research physicist, Polkinghorne was ordained an Anglican Minister in Trinity College, Cambridge in 1982. For him the Quantum Vacuum, that source of the properties of the universe, 'that indeterminate sea of potentiality whose own properties may always remain beyond our understanding', is the closest analogy to God that we have in the physical world. Here the indeterminate nature of the Quantum Vacuum, comprising real particle - virtual particle pairs, is the result of the expression, at the subatomic particle level, of the same Uncertainty Principle that Einstein could not bring himself to accept. Yet for Polkinghorne, the uncertainty, the playing of dice, is an accepted feature of his God.

And what of Stephen Hawking, the best known modern-day theoretical physicist. Although, in his book, 'A Brief History of Time', he concedes that the Laws of the Universe may have been, in the first instance decreed by God, it appeared to him that thereafter God left the universe to evolve accordingly. For Hawking not only did God play dice, God is an 'inveterate gambler', even throwing the dice where it can't be seen. This latter claim requires explanation. It arises from Hawking's discovery that a Black Hole, which is the product of a star that has burnt up all its nuclear fuel, continues to emit particles at random, not in their stable paired configuration, but as one member of the pair, thus making it impossible to see, never mind measure, the position and momentum of its partner that remains in the Black Hole. Therefore, despite the apparent deterministic and stable nature of the laws of the universe, uncertainty at the fundamental particle level is likely to be widespread throughout space. In Hawking's own words, 'the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state.... God still has a few tricks up his sleeve'.

References to God, such as this one by Hawking in the communication of his research findings, are common amongst research physicists. Indeed across the research disciplines, some form of religious faith seems to be more common in physicists than non- physicists. The physicists' present- day spokesman on matters of religion, Sir John Polkinghorne, regards this as no coincidence; physicists are impressed with the complexity and, despite the Godplaying- dice phenomenon, the overarching wonderful order of the world. Their tendency towards some form of religious faith stems from their intimate involvement with trying to unravel the complexity of God's 'handiwork'. Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, author of 'The God Delusion', however refute the idea that referring to God reflects, in any way, physicists' religious beliefs. Dawkins claims that such a link between physicists and religion is being used deceptively by believers of a supernatural power to promote their views. Lord Winston, research embryologist and human fertility expert, author of 'The Story of God' and presenter of numerous BBC television programmes including the BAFT A awardwinner, 'The Human Body' and currently, 'Super Doctors', provides a more reasoned commentary, albeit one that has been formulated by his belief, as a practising Jew, that 'humans have a divine spirit which is not explicable in evolutionary terms'. In his view the reason why research physicists are more inclined towards religion than research biologists, for example, is that physicists 'continue to discover more irrational, inexplicable and unbelievable things which make up the universe we're in'. As a result they are more humble and possibly even resigned to the fact that they will probably never fully explain the mechanisms of the universe. Biologists, on the other hand, are often so narrow in their focus they think they can understand the whole world when, in fact, they can only understand their little bit of it. It is Winston's view that, in time, they too will observe so much of the inexplicable and unbelievable in the biology of the universe that they too will be humbled and become more religious. Winston believes that humankind's involvement in science and in religion is based on uncertainty. He also believes that both science and religion are at their most dangerous when they become certain.

But surely if we are to advance our understanding of the impact on religious thinking of subatomic quantum theory, enshrouded as it is with uncertainty regarding particle movement and therefore uncertainty regarding the future of the universe, we should return to Sir John Polkinghorne. He has been there as an eminent particle physicist and now as an eminent theologian. For him God created the wherewithal for evolution to produce the diversity in the universe that we now have. As a major contributor to the identification of what is believed to be one of the particles of the 'primordial soup' formed immediately after the Big Bang and from which it is presumed all matter evolved, his views merit consideration. His faith, rather than being diminished by the 'God- playing- dice' phenomenon in his research discoveries seems to have been strengthened. Uncertainty brings diversity, options and the opportunity to exercise freedom of choice. It also embraces other causal principles that will mould the future and of which scientists, as yet, have little understanding. In Polkinghorne's philosophy the attainment of that scientific understanding will involve an appreciation of the timeless and transcendent role of the Creator in the moment - to - moment holding of creation in being. Since such sustaining activity has no human equivalent it is, in Polkinghorne's view, unique and divine. It is permissive but does not actively desire. A characteristic feature of its achievement is what science is discovering, namely that the integrity of the whole of creation involves the inextricable entanglement of a multitude of natural forces. The dice- playing God, whom atomic physicists have come to recognise, does not possess some magical power to disentangle these forces, so that only good prevails. Disaster, pain and suffering are part of Creation's package. Reading through Polkinghorne's philosophy on science and religion is heavy going and I'm well aware of the over simplification of my interpretation. I'm tempted however to suggest that for Polkinghorne it is not so much 'there but for the grace of God go I,' rather it is 'there but for God's throw of the dice go I'. The idea that God played dice was an anathema to Einstein and no doubt would also have been to his predecessor, Sir Isaac Newton. Their scientific discoveries revealed the precision and predictability of the Laws of the Universe and their religious faith was based on the accompanying awe. Now the strange world of subatomic particle physics, where uncertainty abounds, is bringing its own unique brand of awe. It too would appear to have many, if not all, of the elements that are required to awaken the divine spirit within humankind. Of course, the revelation that God is a compulsive gambler may have its own special attraction!

Back to Contents

SIGHTSAVERS

The Unitarian Women's League's national project for 2008 - 2009 is to raise funds for the Sightsavers Charity which for more than fifty years has been working to combat blindness in developing countries, restoring sight through specialist treatments and eye care. They also help people who are irreversibly blind by providing them with education, counselling and training.

Sightsavers is currently operating in thirty different countries, helping some of the poorest people in the world in East Asia, Africa, South America and the Caribean. In the past year 23.2 million people have been treated for potentially blinding conditions, 244,909 cataract operations have been performed, 9,514 blind people have been helped to lead independent lives and 5,038 primary eye-care workers have been trained. Among the conditions most frequently encountered are cataract, river blindness, glaucoma, child-hood blindness, trachoma and diabetic retinopathy.

The Women's League branches raise money by means of donations from their members, sales of work, cake and candy stalls, competitions etc. Last year they raised £8,3000 for CHASTE the charity to help women victims of the illegal sex-trafficing trade. They regard fund-raising for charity as an important and fulfilling aspect of their outreach work.

Back to Contents

UTOPIAS & UTOPIANISM

By Bill Stephen

In 1516, Sir Thomas More published a hook which was destined to. become a best seller in its own century having been quickly translated from its original Latin, the language of serious scholarship, into English, German, French and Spanish. It had a single Greek word as a title, 'Utopia', which means 'nowhere'. More's best-seller is a fantasy, but a serious one, portraying a perfect society in which all social evils are abolished. There is no poverty, famine, inequality, injustice, intolerance or crime, and all its citizens work together to achieve the best life possible for every individual. It is a land of peace, prosperity, security and contentment because the inhabitants have learned that what is good for one is good for all and everyone deserves a fair share of whatever is available. 'Utopia' is a ~ry clewrs-atire on the governments- of Europe at the beginning of the 16th. century. Henry the Eighth, as ruthless a tyrant as ever ruled a kingdom; is on the throne of England; the great noblemen are driving the peasants off their land, stealing their farms to tnrn them into sheep runs; the king is plundering the monasteries, hundreds of thousands of people are out of work, homele~ destitute and starving to death, famine and disease are rife, hanging is the principal punishment for crime and no one may feei safe from the sudden whims of their unpredictable monarch. Life is grim for almost everyone. Little wonder then that a book which conceived of a benign system of government that cared for the well-being of its citizens, became so popular so quickfy. The author, by identifying the genuine needs and aspirations of the people of his own time and the causes of their distress had created a new intellectual concept What had been no more than a collection of complaints about current social, economic and political abuses were now linked imaginatively with a vision of a world in which such evils could not survive. What had been no more than the daily chitchat and moaning about current miseries had now been shaped into a coherent object of thought, a powerful intellectual tool. A fantasy it might be, but, in addition to giving the concept a name, 'Utopia' it showed a possible way of speculating about social organisation without incurring the wrath of the current rulers.

Although Sir Thomas More in his work had given political wish - fulfilment a respectable and exploitable intellectual form, the general notion had been around for a very long time. More than three thousand years earlier, the anonymous poet of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, within the limits of his knowledge, culture and current priorities, had given an account of a land of pure delight He describes how the Sumerian equivalent of Noah, Umapishim, is discovered taking his ease in a place, 'where the croak of the raven was not heard, the bird of death did not utter the cry of death, the lion did not devour, the wolf did not tear the lamb., the dove did not mourn, there was no widow, no sickness, no old age and no lamentation'. Almost two thousand years later, the Greek poet, lIesiod, the Shepherd, writes of a golden race of mortals who, , lived like gods and no sorrow of heart they felt Nothing for toil or or pitiful old age they cared, but in strength of hand and foot still unimpaired, they feasted daily, undarkened by suffering. They died as if falling asleep; and all good things were theirs, for the fruitful earth unstintingly bore unforced her plenty, and they, amid their store, enjoyed their landed ease which nothing stirred, loved by the gods and rich in many a herd'.

Plato, the Athenian, and pupil of Socrates, describes in exhaustive detail his vision of the perfect state in his 'Republic' which he eventually locates on an Island called Atlantis, which had sunk beneath the sea some nine thousand years earlier. 'The Republic' is a serious piece of political theory which attempts to explore the major topics of justice, citizenship, law making, law enforcement, the exercise of power and so on. Plato wanted his rulers to be rational, well educated and serious - minded. He did not, however, believe in democracy, which, he reckoned, could not guarantee these qualities among its decision makers. He preferred power to be in the hands of a small group of honest, sensible, intelligent men, unself-seeking, whose decisions were made objectively for the benefit of the community.

Although Greek and Latin writers produced several works of a fanciful nature, usually masquerading as history or travellers' tales, describing regions, remote in place and time, where the author's concept of a perfect state flourished, and SI. Augustine had produced his definitive Christian Utopia, 'The City of God' in the 5th. Century A.D. it was More's work that initiated the Utopian genre. Both Increasing knowledge and increasing intellectual curiosity about the world and humankind, produced an ever increasing Utopian literature, until by the end of the 19th century there were hundreds of Utopian works divided into several categories" including religious, political, historical, economic, scientific and technological, and I suppose there may be an argument for including the selfhelp books, personal utopias, which proliferate the shelves of our bookshops today.

Creating Utopias is not confined to writers and thinkers. Many millions people have attempted to build their owu Utopias in lands far distant from their birthplace. Ever since God persuaded Abraham to pull up stakes, leave his native city of Ur of the Chaldees and seek out that promised land flowing with milk and honey in sunny Palestine, migrants have been crossing and re-crossing oceans, deserts and great plains in pursuit of their own private dream of prosperity and contentment in some far off land. The New World was largely colonised by migrants fleeing the tyrannies of old Europe.

Thus far the Utopia concept may be seen as being quite benign. However, wishfulfilment, still retaining much of its fantasy inheritance, loses its innocence, when it encounters the Age of Reason, in the 18th. century, and becomes transformed into Utopianism, a sinister doctrine that blends vision with science, economics and politics. If to this we add impatience and the personal ambition of demagogues we create political revolution, terrorism and totalitarianism.

Reason and science, having made common cause during the Age of Enlightenment quickly took possession of our state of mind and has dominated our intellectual processes ever since. There was a general feeling abroad that science and technology could achieve anything. Poverty, war, disease would be abolished. It was only a matter of time. As the different countries of the world became dependent upon science and the technology it created, they would become more and more alike. A new science based morality would replace traditional religions and ethical structures, as societies accepted that what was really important was the production of goods and the exploitation of earth's resources for the benefit of all mankind. Reason would argue the case for establishing a New Jerusalem and Science would provide the tools with which the visionaries would build it.

These Utopians, however, found themselves in conflict with established governments which resisted their demands for the immediate implementation of their proposals and so the concept of revolution, sudden and violent change, was grafted on to the notion of Utopianism, the first fruits of which were the French :Revolution and its subsequent Reign of Terror. This notion of using Terror to destroy institutions and systems to accelerate the implementation of Utopianism which became established in the 19th century, was, at least nominally responsible for the outbreak of the two world wars, the creation of the Soviet Union and of Nazi Germany. Communism, Fascism and Nazism are based on Utopian schemes (warped, in the case of Hitler) to create a particular kind of perfect world in which the residents, once confirmed in their citizenship, will enjoy every material advantage science can provide.

Unfortunately, even after the defeat of Nazism and the fall of Communism, Utopianism is till alive and well and living in the White House in Washington and in a cave somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border.

The U.S. administration and Al Qaeda each has a vision of a world made in its own image, which will ensure global peace and prosperity. The neocons in the White House have an evangelical belief in democratic capitalism and the free market economy which it everywhere advocates, and which institutions under its influence, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are also required to impose upon its customers. The disastrous war in Iraq, intended to bring about regime change and implement this Neo-con Utopia has been one result and the continuing economic decline of failing and the persistent poverty of failing African states has been another, as they cannot fulfil the demands of the World Bank to allow totally free access to their markets and so cannot access its funds. Al Quaeda has a vision of a world community dominated by Islamic values and Sharia Law, to which end it has assassinated thousands of totally innocent people, created distrust of Moslem communities in Western countries and disrupted international travel, trade and co-operation.

Modern era Utopians have shown themselves to be evangelical, arrogant, intolerant, impatient and aggressive. Where they have encountered opposition, they have abandoned persuasion and negotiation and resorted to violence, destroying what was already in place to make way for their new regime which requires the total obedience of everyone involved. Perfection is totalitarian; any alternative would be second best. Utopians aim at perfection and, therefore, must stifle freedom to maintain it. The catastrophic consequences of Nazism and Communism in the 20th century, and currently of democratic capitalism and Al Qaeda demonstrate that science and reason on their own cannot change human destiny because we cannot change human nature.

Although the Utopian vision was prompted by humanitarian motives, the relief of suffering and the promotion of happiness for all, it was certainly from Plato's day onwards, deeply involved with forms of government and inevitably with politics. Sir Thomas More was writing with the knowledge that his age and culture lacked the means to implement any of his humanitarian dreams. The modern age, however, provided the science and technology to implement all kinds of dreams and in doing so prompted a competition among ambitious Utopians to have their particular vision of the world established as the dominant world vision. People like to have their own way and human nature will have its way so conflicting political aims; refusal to negotiate and compromise inevitably led to violence and the original humanitarian impulse was lost in the ensuing chaos. Utopians are always keen to seize the initiative in case a rival steals a march upon them. But the tragic history of the 20th.century demonstrates that Utopia cannot be built in a day, that Utopia is governed by relativity and in fact, given human acquisitiveness can never be attained. No matter how we progress towards it, we never decrease the distance in between. The dream remains inaccessible and inviolate.

A major contribution to Utopian literature, though I think never acknowledged as such, is the Beveridge Report of 1944 which created the Welfare State and made the National Health Service possible. Clement Attlee did not regard himself as following in the footsteps of Sir Thomas More, but in implementing the Beveridge Report and establishing the N.H.S. be was creating a life-style which a decade or so earlier would have appeared beyond the dreams of any ordinary person. What we now take for granted and frequently find wanting, our health care, our standard of living, our pensions. and allowances, our liberal life-style, our sophistication to anyone living sixty years ago, would appear as miraculous, yet we don't think of ourselves as living in Utopia. We want more.

The welfare state was not achieved nor maintained without political conflict, but it has survived because the majority has always supported it as its humanitarian priorities were never in doubt. On the whole, although it has on occasion sacrificed the interests of the individual for those of the group, it has never been regarded as a system of control, unlike communism or fascism.

As we continue to pursue Utopian aspirations we must not lose sight of their humanitarian origins to abolish poverty, disease, injustice and inequality, to foster prosperity, and security and personal freedom, in fact, to implement the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. We should also recognise that we have allowed ourselves quite willingly physically and mentally to be dominated by science. Science has as great a hold upon us as religion ever had. Science, we should know is a tool, a materialistic force, a state of affairs which suits the physical aspect of Utopia, particularly social Utopias, which are concerned with the physical well-being of people. However, we all have Our own personal Utopias, our aspirations, our dreams which are about our own personal values, our hopes of happiness, our sense of fulfilment, our quest for meaning, our spiritual dimension. The human spirit is greater than science, it is more profound, it has greater potential, has a much wider vision, encompasses the unseen as well as the seen, the metaphysical as well as the physical. Let us use science to improve the lot of humankind, let us employ it as a tool but let us not allow it to become the Vision. Aldous Huxley, several decades ago, warned us about the dangers of surrendering utterly to science in his novel 'Brave New World' a dystopia where humanitarianism and human dignity had been entirely forgotten. Let our Utopias be benign, as Sir Thomas More intended them to be, the product of enlightened dreaming, inspired by love and compassion.

Back to Contents

A PICTURE OF WHAT?

By Sue Good

Unless you have come into the church with your eyes shut over the last two weeks, you must have noticed the splendid new sign on the front of our building. Hopefully, the words "Unitarian Church Centre" will convey to the passer-by the fact that here is a centre of activity, a welcoming venue for meetings, a place where much happens and not all of it just on Sundays. As well as the words, we have a picture; one that will be recognized by Unitarians wherever they may come from, as it is the flaming chalice, the symbol of Unitarianism worldwide. There are many versions of this, some of them representing rather more accurately what I would think of as a chalice, but the one outside is the one currently approved by the General Assembly. The practice of using pictures and sometimes other graphical elements in combination to represent an organisation, an idea or even a person is what I'm looking at this morning. I'll be .talking about the flaming chalice later on, but for now I'd like to go back a bit further in time and look at some of the history of using pictures to convey a message.

If you've ever been to the excavations at Pompeii, you'll have seen the mosaics in various villas depicting ferocious-looking dogs. Even if the townspeople of the time couldn't read the legend "Cave Canem" that goes along with them, they would have known immediately that they were being warned to beware of the dog. The same sort of graphic warnings and pictorial advertisements for particular trades or professions can be seen throughout Pompeii and in other excavations and there are also plenty of examples in thousands of places, large and small, all over the world.

Sometimes the signs are relatively modern replicas of the original pictures. Two examples that come to mind are the use of a pestle and mortar sign outside a chemist, or the striped pole outside a barber's shop, an object that rather horribly indicated the barber's former second occupation as a surgeon. As you would expect, the church was a great exponent of the use of pictures to convey information to a pre-literate society and old churches and cathedrals contain many features that could be read, just like a book, but so much more quickly. If you were looking at the tombs, for instance, you could tell immediately by the presence of a small carved lion that the chief occupant was a knight who had been killed in battle. All around the church every statue or stained glass representation of a saint was instantly recognizable.: St Peter had his keys, St John an eagle, St Christopher carried Christ, St Lucy, eyeballs, St Andrew had a fishing net and St James a scallop shell. There were also different pictorial ways of representing aspects of Jesus, such as the lamb and flag, which showed how he was the sacrificial lamb that atoned for the sins of the world. One representation that is probably much less familiar today is that of Jesus as a pelican. This comes from the legend that male pelicans revive their offspring with their own blood and this was seen as an analogy for Christ shedding his blood for humankind. It's quite interesting that the Kirk of St Nicholas chose to use the pelican as a symbol for its Mither Kirk project in the first stages of raising money to alter the East Kirk. That may seem like an appropriate symbol at first, but if you start to make connections between shedding blood and raising money, I think it becomes quite unfortunate.

Pictures on banners, shields and flags have been of the utmost importance when it comes to the shedding of real blood in battle situations. Following your lord with his personal coat of arms painted on his highly visible shield kept you fighting for the right person and capture of the leader's standard signalled that the battle was over. What was pictured on standard and shield was, and remains to this day, one of the most closely regulated affairs, subject to heraldic laws drawn up over the centuries and originally in the personal gift of the king. Heraldry has a language all its own, with beasts couchant or regardant, escutcheons, achievements of arms and colours such as or, argent and sable. A noble person applying for armorial bearings could choose elements with particular meanings, as appropriate. For instance, a hand in armour denoted qualities of leadership, the colour sable indicated constancy or grief, a grasshopper showed that one was nobly bred and a wheat sheaf meant that the harvest of one's hopes had been secured. It was also possible to indicate one's position in the family and so a martlet showed that you were the fourth son, a rose, the seventh and so on. Even the lines on the shield could indicate clouds, water, earth, fortified walls or even difficulties. The resultant coat of arms was awarded to one person and would be a highly personalised picture, easily recognised and also capable of being interpreted by those who could read the language of heraldry. Coats of arms are obviously handed down through families and the original meaning and symbolism can become lost almost immediately. So if you do possess a coat of arms, what you have in effect could be something like a portrait of your many times great-grandfather.

Originally coats of arms were only granted to individuals, but in 1439 it is the Drapers' Company claim that they became the first corporate body in England to receive a grant. This was the Drapers' Guild, or trade association of its day and it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary. It has been suggested that the arms demonstrate that from Mary, through the Holy Spirit, comes the divine Son of God: there are sunbeams that represent the brilliance and light of the Virgin Mary, and a cloud which is a frequent symbol for the Holy Spirit. Mary was deemed to be an empress; the symbol for an emperor/empress is the triple crown which also appears. To the modern viewer, none of that is at all apparent, both crown and clouds being so stylised as to be almost unrecognisable and the rest of the symbolism being unfamiliar. What connection it has with the day to day work of a draper is also hard for us to comprehend. There must be many other company crests and coats of arms that are similarly abstruse, with the result that what began as a statement of aims and purpose is now almost completely meaningless to the ordinary person, a total reversal of the original goal of advertisement.

Notwithstanding the contradictions, the numbers of companies using signs, whether official coats of arms or designs that they adopted for themselves continued to grow. Other groups adopting pictorial badges included all the services emblems regiments, fleets, squadrons etc. and in the area of education to add to the older university emblems there were so many newer establishments plus colleges and schools. When I was at school I can remember one of my weekly comics had a regular page displaying around thirty badges from different schools. There was every conceivable permutation of picture, initials and motto. My particular school badge had the royal swan of Buckinghamshire, identifiable by its gold crown and chain. The relevance of this was never clear, as we were in Slough and nowhere near the river - a blackthorn bush or "sloe" that the town was named after might have been more appropriate. Also on the badge were the initials SHS for Slough High School and the motto "Ad Astra" - to the stars. I've no idea who designed it, but I know that the fashion for getting pupils to submit ideas for school badges was something that was much more popular by the time my children were in school. Both Oldmachar and Bridge of Don Academies acquired badges in that way and although the ideas behind the designs were carefully explained, the execution of the designs was so stylised as to make the meaning more obscure.

Up to now I have been careful to use the terms "badge" "picture" or "symbol". In the twentieth century a new term for the sort of graphic representation I've been talking about came into general use. It is LOGO, which comes from the Greek for" word". Here's one definition of a logo:- A logo is a graphical element, that, together with its uniquely set and arranged typeface form a trademark or commercial brand. Typically, a logo's design is for immediate recognition, inspiring trust, admiration, loyalty and an implied superiority. The logo is one aspect of a company's commercial brand, or economic or academic entity, and its shapes, colors, fonts, and images usually are different from others in a similar market. Logos are also used to identify organizations and other non-commercial entities. Logos are of supreme importance in the advertising of a product and millions will be spent both on the design and then on the sheer work of keeping a logo constantly in the public eye. That keeping a logo in the public eye works is something that we can't doubt. If I were a betting person I would be prepared to bet that everyone here could recognise the twin golden arches that make up a Macdonald's logo, even if you've never bought a Macdonald's in your life. The subliminal effect of advertising, the part that's working away in your subconcious and where the design is so important, is more difficult to spot. The Swiss giant Nestle has a name that is similar to the English word "nestle", which has cosy, home-like connotations. The trademark symbol that they use is a nest, with fledglings being fed by parent birds. So far these are good associations, but Nestle has a very poor reputation for aggressive marketing of powdered baby milk in lesser developed countries in defiance of World Health Organization policies. So which do you see - the cosy, nurturing logo or the ruthless marketeer?

It's not only multi-nationals that use logos. The process of creating a memorable logo is something that many charities invest in, believing that the benefits outweigh the costs. The Spastics Society was set up in the nineteen fifties to help people suffering from cerebral palsy. The word "spastic" has become outdated in medical use, is often a term of abuse and does not actually describe the condition of cerebral palsy. Potential corporate donors were very reluctant to associate the word "spastic" with their company brand or products. For all of these reasons, the society decided to find a new name and logo to reflect more accurately their work. The process was one of painstaking consultation with staff and local groups and included identifying the personality of the organisation, the attributes required of the new name and the key messages and responses that it should evoke from all those who would have dealings with the organisation. Some of the possible new names considered were: CPaction; Portals; NetworkCP and Equus but these were all rejected in favour of Scope. The final new logo consisted of the word Scope in blue capital letters, with the strapline "For people with cerebral palsy" beneath and a sort of gold swoosh mark, like an eyebrow over the top. Much publicity was invested in the re-launch, involving celebrities such as David Dimbleby and Ben Elton and 5 years on from the rebrand, public awareness of the society was measured as reaching 71 %, an encouraging result given the time scale.

I very much doubt whether recognition of our flaming chalice Unitarian logo would score a similar high public perception rate. The logo, although incorporating existing Christian symbols in fact only dates back to 1941. Dr Charles Rhind Joy was working in Lisbon as Director of the Unitarian Service Committee helping artists, intellectuals, and dissidents escape the Nazis from the only open port in Europe. Many of the refugees fled without the identification papers they needed to cross borders, so the Lisbon office concentrated especially on helping them obtain replacement papers

Joy believed these documents needed a seal. He asked Hans Deutsch, an Austrian refugee artist working in Lisbon, to create one. The result was essentially the flaming chalice as - we know it now.

What did Hans Deutsch have in mind when he created the flaming chalice? For that we have to rely mostly on Joy's report to the headquarters of USC in 1941. In it he said:
"It represents, as you see, a chalice with a flame, the kind of chalice which the Greeks and Romans put on their altars. The holy oil burning in it is a symbol of helpfulness and sacrifice. in ancient and medieval art this chalice is frequently found, and the design itself, modernized and stylized, though it is, reminds one of the signs seen on the old monastic manuscripts. This was in the mind of the artist. The fact, however, that it remotely suggests a cross was not in his mind, but to me this also has its merit. We do not limit our work to Christians. Indeed, at the present moment, our work is nine tenths for the Jews, yet we do stem from the Christian tradition, and the cross does symbolize Christianity and its central theme of sacrificial love."

We have also one more revealing quotation from a letter which Hans Deutsch sent to Joy:- "I am not what you might actually call a believer," he wrote "But if your kind of life is the profession of your faith - as it is, I feel sure - then religion, ceasing to be magic and mysticism, becomes [a] confession of practical philosophy, and, (what is more), [leads] to active, truly useful, social [justice] work. And this religion - with or without a [symbol] - is one to which even a "godless" fellow like myself can say wholeheartedly... yes!"

Planning a logo to represent a company, an organisation or an idea is obviously a major undertaking. As we have seen, it's capable of being changed and updated to reflect growth and development and sometimes to ~void confusion. 50 if we want to use a particular logo, to wear it or to incorporate it in whatever way in our own work, it seems to me we should at least be in sympathy with whatever it symbolises. That's a view that sits very uneasily with many types of corporate sponsorship and also with most highly visible designer labels. But that would give us a whole topic for another day. For now, if I have just one conclusion it is that the logo at our door is worthy of much wider recognition. If it really is a symbol of helpfulness, a sign that we are willing to share with others and to be active workers for justice and if it reflects the realities of our life as a congregation, then the sooner we tell everyone, the better.

Back to Contents

IDENTITY

By Dr. John Robinson

The June issue of the Inquirer had on its front cover, in bold letters, the word identity and underneath it a magnified copy of a finger print. On the inside, the opening verses were by the Rev. Dr. Vernon Marshall, minister of Duckinfield and Denton, and were entitled Inquiring Words. They went thus:

The boy's life was the old man's past,
'twas with mine the story of all three,
From deep inside I knew, at last,
The young man old man, both were...me.

Underneath these verses, in her Editorial, the Editor related how within a day of each other she had received two articles on Identity; one from Lyanne Mitchell, a member of the Glasgow congregation and the other from the Rev. Dr Vernon Marshall. Their writings prompted her to reflect on the struggle each of us has in working out our own identity and tben expressing it. Her concern is, how do Unitarians, with their highly individualistic and disparate beliefs, express a common identity to the outside world. She doesn't attempt to answer this question, nor am I. Rather she refers readers to David Usher's video clips on YouTube which, in her view, do a good job in defining, yet not confining, Unitarians. She also publishes the two articles on Identity. For Lyanne Mitchell, identity is a process of becoming real; for the Rev Dr Marshall, it is the need to become someone else- the Saul to Paul transformation, but not, as in that example through faith in a third person and its accompanying salvation and rebirth, but as he puts it, through a faith in oneself-in one's own ability to live a gentler, more loving life. As I read the Rev Marshall's article my mind immediately began to recall extracts from Baroness Susan Greenfield's recently published book '; ID: The quest for identity in the 21st Century', in which Greenfield has chosen, in the first instance, to define our identity type as either someone, anyone or nobody. Put simplistically, those in the 'someone' category have individuality but not fulfilment, those in the 'anyone' category have fulfilment but not individuality and those in the 'nobody' category have neither individuality nor fulfilment. As Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford University, director of the Royal Institution and the recipient of more than 20 honorary University degrees, Baroness Greenfield is one of Britain's best known researchers of Alzheimer's disease and the physical basis of consciousness. From her research into the influence of age, drugs and environmental factors on neurotransmitter activity and brain development she has come to realize that the human brain is a lot more malleable than was once thought. Her immediate concern is the permanent damage that may be caused to brain development and personal identity of the long hours spent by children playing violent computer games. She argues that the screen-based two- dimensional world that is now so much a part of many children's lives is in danger of bringing about changes in brain development that deletes their ability to identify with reality, to communicate verbally and to think creatively. Add to this new cyber-space environment prescription-based drugs such as Prozac for depression, Ritalin to correct Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Paxil to alleviate shyness, not to mention illegal drugs such as cannabis and heroin, and it is Greenfield's view that we are in danger of producing a generation of individuals devoid of identity her description nobodies.

Much of the recent research into brain function and how it is influenced by early-life experiences is driven by the molecular techniques that were central to the mapping of the human genome. These techniques have given researchers the power to identify and measure the extent to which environmental factors can permanently alter the expression of genes that are intimately involved in moulding our personality and giving us that essential element in all our lives, identity. But Greenfield has additional concerns regarding the erosion of identity. One of these concerns is modern society's pursuit of material goods; the striving, through the acquisition of wealth and possessions, to be 'someone'. In her book this is an identity that provides its own particular brand of greed-driven individuality, but whose possessors often lack fulfilment. She is also concerned about the rising trend in religious fundamentalism which she sees as the abandonment of that essential element of identity, uniqueness, in favour of collectiveness. While this may provide fulfilment it leads to the forfeiting of individuality; this is the 'anyone' identity category. Where such a form of identity prevails, it is Greenfield's view that the dominant emotion eventually becomes unabated anger against those who hold different religious views.

Not surprisingly, given Greenfield's research into brain function and her desire to gain an understanding of the physical basis of consciousness, she has a yearning to provide insight into the neuroscience of ethics and morality, and the development of our spirituality. In the acquisition and strengthening of religious beliefs she contrasts the impact on the brain of the high frequency, low arousal rituals characteristic of the daily repetition of set prayers and creeds with the low frequency, high arousal type that is akin to Paul's epiphany. While the former may be regarded as necessary for the imprinting of doctrinal orthodoxies, the science so far suggests that they suppress and personality; in a generation of individual creativity. In the case of the low frequency, high arousal ritual, this is seen by Greenfield as causing a 'blurring of the waking/dreaming interface, a heightening of emotion and the surrender of individuality.' It is at this point that one gets the feeling that she is hankering .after an alternative type of.. religious faith but is uncertain about its form. She is highly critical of that other well known Oxford scientist, Richard Dawkins, author of the God. Delusion, who claims that religion is a virus, invading one's brain in a manner analogous to a virus entering a computer. Despite her uncommitted position regarding religion she is intrigued by the chemistry of the believing brain and the influence of religion on our identity. She sees disgust and intolerance as the believing brain's virus scanner, with these features displayed to extreme in religious fundamentalism when they erupt into hatred and anger. Ironically, Greenfield sees Dawkins as one who has developed non-belief into a belief system all of its own. His non-belief, in her view, also adopts the same brain protection mechanism of disgust and intolerance of others that is displayed by the believing brain.

From Greenfield's position as a neuroscientist trying to define human identity in terms of brain function, her wealth and possession driven 'someone' identity, her mob-driven 'anyone' identity and her up and coming cyberspace, drug-dependent 'nobody' identity, all fail to achieve the goal of self fulfilment and that unique sense of identity that is so important in all our lives. In attempting to create a better future she proposes a fourth form of identity, the 'Eureka' identity. This identity would aim to harness the new environmental stimuli provided by modern technology in a way that ensures that the malleability of the human brain is used for the promotion of individual creativity. Children's computer games would not have the predictable outcomes that they now have; the human brain and not the computer would be the driving force. The creativity generated by reading books would have to become part of the computer's repertoire. The answer-rich world of the computer touch-button would have to be adapted to ensure that we can probe and question in constructive and meaningful ways. Plagiarism from the internet in student essays would have to be seen not just as cheating but as highly damaging to the development of creative writing skills and the associated expression of individual identity.

Concerned that the TV and computer in the bedroom may enhance the expression of innate solitary tendencies in children; apparently there are more than a million young people in Japan who live a computer- screen life devoid of human contact; Greenfield feels a duty to alert society to what this may be doing to their identity. For her the speed and thrill of a screen life in its present form does not provide the time to savour the written word and acquire the intellectual mastery that, in the past, came from reading books. We are in danger therefore of losing the ability to generate the conceptual framework that is needed to formulate our personal views on important issues such as democracy, integrity, freedom, tolerance, the meaning of life, and the soul, which are all components of our identity. The time to look up from the book, stare out the window at nature and reflect on the range of views expressed within books on these subjects is lost in this new cyber- space world that young children now inhabit. The challenge therefore, in Greenfield's opinion, is to find a method of using the computer screen to present conceptual frameworks in a style that grips the viewer yet promotes and provides time for reflection and reason.

Greenfield is under no illusion that despite the limitations of the 'someone' and 'anyone' identities they do have their place in society; even for short periods it may be advantageous to be a 'nobody'. She admits that even her 'Eureka' category, characterised by its creativity has its limitations. What she is seeking to achieve is a balance that is best for the individual and best for society. For her the issue of identity and the threat that it is currently under is as important to our future as global warming. It is Greenfield's view that the challenge for society is to increase our understanding of environmental influences on the neurochemistry of the brain thereby providing a scientific basis for how best to use modern technology to personalize our brain into our mind, into our consciousness and into our human nature.

Not surprisingly Baroness Greenfield has her critics; the suggestion that modern technology is in danger of transforming our children into nobodies is bound to offend. Even her sternest critics do, however, accept that she is a brilliant neuroscientist; it is when she embraces anthropology and philosophy, which obviously she does quite frequently in her book, that they become annoyed. But I do wonder if her ideas in these areas are as shallow as her critics suggest. She is clearly a great believer in the creative value of books and reading in! the acquisition of personal identity. Ralph Waldo Emerson considered books second' only to nature in terms of their influence on the spirit of the scholar. In Emerson's words 'great and heroic men have existed, who had almost no other information than the printed page. I only would say that it needs a strong head to bear that diet. One must be an inventor to read well'. Replace 'be an inventor' with 'be creative' and Greenfield's views on the value of books could have been paraphrased directly from the writings of Emerson, yet I doubt if she has ever heard of Emerson. The philosophy that she applies to her neuroscience research findings and those of other notable brain researchers throughout the world fit comfortably into a Unitarian setting where reason, freedom and tolerance are central features. Because of the importance of our spirituality to who and what we are she is anxious to advance her understanding of its neuroscientific basis. Her concerns that identity, 'the very essence of what it is to be human' is facing unprecedented changes should be a wake up call for more open debate. In her own words, 'our children and certainly our grandchildren will not thank us if we put off the discussion much longer'.

Back to Contents

HUCKLOW SUMMER SCHOOL

a personal account

by Barry Bell

I was persuaded by the Secretary of the national Unitarian Fellowship, Joan Wilkinson, that I would both enjoy and gain a lot from attending Summer School at Hucklow. I had real reservations about the likelihood of these expectations being realised. I was very aware of my limited interest in the areas of Dance, Poetry, and Art which seemed to be the backbone of the morning workshops that are a major part of the Summer School experience. I was also however extremely keen to meet other active Unitarians, and where better to do so? The Summer School describes itself as "Religious Education in its widest sense", and had as its theme for this year" Reclaiming the Language of Faith" - a real challenge for me as I have significant difficulty with such language, as do many Unitarians. I thought this particularly so for those Unitarians like me who find their prime spiritual focus outside mainstream Christianity.

I am delighted to tell you that the experience of Summer School in general was much more than I would ever have expected. Yes, as hoped for I met and engaged with many other active Unitarians (some of whom I already knew from my time participating in the Hibbert Trust Collaborative Inquiry into the Future of Liberal Religion). But there was so much more! I met a significant percentage of the Ministers currently employed within the UK movement. I met Nancy Crumbine, a respected Unitarian Universalist Minister &om the U . SA. I heard some of these same Ministers talking publicly about the language of faith and learned from it. I also heard these and other Ministers talk about our challenges, and our possible ways forward. I was given the opportunity (and grabbed it) to hear, and take part in, discussions involving them, both formal and informal But perhaps most surprisingly, I gained a great deal &om my participation in the five morning workshops which used hands-on Art (Ugh!) as the medium for spiritual learning.

I am not reporting on the "meat" of the theme talks, as this is an account of my personal Summer School experience. I can report that the main things I came away with were greater clarity about the challenges and hopes for the movement, and a much more positive way of relating to those within our movement whose personal faith encompasses much more of the otherwise creedal elements of Christianity than mine. I think that is a pretty decent outcome!

There you have it! You now know (as the members and ends who access the N.U.F. internet Forum http://www.nufonline.org.uk already knew) that I am no shrinking violet. I am proud (perhaps far too much so) to be as active as I can be in promoting the quite wonderful strengths which are central to Unitarianism and other Liberal Religion. I strongly recommend the Summer School experience!!

Barry Bell, Spiritual Humanist and aspiring Unitarian Celebrant

Back to Contents

THE FUTURE OF MINISTRY IN SCOTLAND

In mid-October a meeting of Ministers, Lay Speakers and Church Officers took place in Dundee to discuss the future provision of large and small 'M' ministry in the four Scottish churches. The current position is that two of our churches, Dundee and Edinburgh have full-time Ministers, while Aberdeen and Glasgow do not. St Mark's in Edinburgh has this month appointed Rev. Maud Robinson, and we met her for the first time. Rev.Bob Wightman in Dundee is Vice President of the General Assembly, and already his duties take him away from his church several times a month, so that services have to be taken by their Secretary, Sandra Ogilvie or by Bob's wife, Mary Wightman. Next year when he becomes President, he will be even busier. There are two other trained Ministers in Scotland, Rev. John Clifford, who is in very active retirement, and Rev. Ann Wicker, who is not well enough to take on active duties.

Until recently, the Aberdeen and Glasgow churches were sharing the part time services of a young Minister, Rev. Cathal Courtney. Since his departure, the Aberdonians miss very much being able to call on him, while the Glaswegians have embarked on a programme of change in management structure, Constitution, and even in their use of the office building that is their Unitarian Centre. Consequently, they are not concerned to have the services of a qualified Minister until these matters have been resolved. It must be said that the Glasgow congregation is fortunate in having several lay members who are eager to conduct services, as well as being wel! accustomed to listening to leaders from other faith traditions, as guests. It has to be recognised that a great deal of responsibility falls on the shoulders of too few volunteers, in the absence of a dedicated Minister, and that with th~ best Will in the world, such volunteers may not be able to inspire confidence in some of their church members.

Rev. Bob is a member of the G.A.'s Future Ministry panel, and he was able to tell us that between now and next April, small teams of facilitators will be sent out to those Districts that are worst off for Ministerial support, to discuss whether the short-term intervention of a Minister might enable the whole District to organise itself better, in terms of both cover and growth - because numerical growth is essential for our continuance. When these teams report back, one district [or, possibly two] will be chosen for a pilot scheme [for three years], funded in part by the G.A., and this will be announced at the G.A. meetings in April. Scotland will be one of the Districts to be visited. Bob emphasized that ministry is for every day, not just for Sundays. Ralph Catt;;; added that we should not be looking to the General Assembly to provide money. If development is to be sustainable, funding has to come from the district concerned.

Retired Rev. John Clifford is going to run a training course, starting in November, for lay members who want to be able to lead services, and to conduct rites of passage. This will be partly done as Distance Learning, and the trainees will meet once a month. Using money from the McQuaker fund and the Ministers' book grants, the S.U.A. will help these trainees with the expenses they incur, in books and in travelling. It is intended that the course will run for ten months. After that, anyone who is interested to do so [and who is assessed positively] will be able to go on to the G.A. Training Schemes for Lay Leaders. Ten people have. signed up for this course, including volunteers from all four Scottish churches. All of them said they would be prepared to travel, by arrangement, to conduct a service in a church other than their own. If as a result of this, S.U.A. funds become significantly depleted, the quota that each church pays on behalf of each member (currently £5.50) will be increased.

There is a significant shortage of active Ministers throughout the Unitarian community (fifty-odd Ministers to nearly two hundred congregations, only a minority of them serving single congregations). So it might be said that Scotland is better supplied than the average. However, in not too many years, Rev. Bob will retire, and who can say whether Dundee will be able to replace him? Finances in Aberdeen will not stretch to a full-time incumbent. And Glasgow has grown used to the variety of having many visiting speakers. Add to that the undeniable truth that it would be greatly beneficial to our profile if several Unitarian Fellowships could be launched in some of the other towns. We feel that a Liberal Religious approach should prove attractive to some of those who are either lapsed from traditional creeds, or struggling to find a spiritual path in a material 21st Century. Interest was therefore expressed in the concept of District Ministry - a Minister or Ministers attached, not to one particular church, but jointly funded by all four - and any future groups - who would serve all the congregations, and oversee their activities. (Would we expect them to live in mobile homes?) Perhaps the distances are too great for this to be feasible, especially if we include (as well we might) the two churches of the so-called North Eastern District, Newcastle and Stockton, also without Ministers. However, there was a suggestion that the S.U.A. might facilitate co-operation between the churches, so that a District [preaching] timetable could be worked out, offering fairer shares of Ministerial cover to all of the member congregations, because many members feel that Ministers are uniquely trained to pay attention to the social and spiritual needs of individual members. Rev. Clifford firmly expressed his faith in the ministry of all members of a religious community with the "Minister" having the job of helping members exercise their ministry. This needed the best trained leadership and support that could be obtained. We all have our part to play.

Janet Briggs (S.U.A. Secretary).

Back to Contents