21. Valerie Jack on Finding Peace in Grief without God

“The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive.”  ― Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

Episode References:

• BBC News: New extremism definition unveiled by government
• Humanists UK: Extremists ‘negate the fundamental rights and freedoms of others’ – humanists analyse new definition
• ‘Resisting extremism means defending a tolerant society’, Andrew Copson
• Atheist Bus Campaign
• Radio 5: Elis James and John Robins Show

About Valerie Jack;

• Living with Life without God
  • Amazon
  • GoodReads
  • AbeBooks
• Twitter @ValerieJack
• Instagram/Facebook: @valeriejackwrites

Valerie's References:

• How religious and spiritual beliefs explain prolonged grief disorder symptoms, Kim M. Christian, Samar M. Aoun & Lauren J. Breen
• The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker
• Why Death is Nothing to Fear: Lucretius and Epicureanism, Jack Maden, PhilosophyBreak
• Sn

Transcript

James H: 0:05

Hello and welcome to Humanism. Now the podcast from the Central London Humanists. I'm your host, james. This week, we'll be discussing the UK's new definition of extremism, our thoughts on how AI is going to impact the future of human rights and, with our special guest, valerie Jack, we'll be hearing about how do non-believers deal with death without God. To discuss all this and more, I'm delighted to be joined by two of my colleagues at the Committee for the Central London Humanists, katia and Mark, and to introduce this week, in celebration of World Book Day, our icebreaker question is what was the book that you loved growing up as a child? So, katia, welcome back, lovely to see you. And what was the book that you loved growing up as a child? So, katia, welcome back, lovely to see you. And what was your favourite book?

Katia U: 0:48

I think I'd have to go for the Call of the Wild by Jack London. I read it a long, long time ago. I've had it in my to reread list. I also read White Fang, also by London. They are books about adventure and about kind of beating the odds and survival in faraway places. So just a lovely story for a child to read and not dumbed down as well. That was my favourite book.

James H: 1:21

Fantastic and Mark, welcome back to the show. Good to see you. And same question to you what was your favourite book? Fantastic and Mark, welcome back to the show. Good to see you. And same question to you what was your favourite book as a child?

Mark A: 1:28

I'm going to cheat and give you two, because one's a comic. It was Asterix. I was absolutely addicted to Asterix. I loved it growing up and I think it probably influenced me in terms of my interest in ancient history, because it's surprisingly accurate in many ways and it also turns out that it was written for adults. Originally it was a comic strip, really a political analogy in a sort of type of thing in a French newspaper. But also I just want to shout out for a little-known comic boarding school story series called Jennings, which was a sort of PG Woodhouse inspired sort of boy in a boarding school environment with lots of hilarious japes and scrapes, which I thoroughly enjoyed, even though I didn't go to that type of school.

James H: 2:20

It just shows. I think it doesn't matter if it's a magazine, comic strip or books, it's just good to get kids reading. So thank you very much for sharing. Now, last night, the Central London Humanists hosted our monthly discussion group Mark, I know you were present for that and we were talking about something that's very topical, growing, of course, in importance, and that's the role of AI in the future, of causes that are close to humanists. So, science, ethics, human rights, um, a very broad topic to try to tackle. But, um, what's your summary thoughts from this month's discussion group and what did you come away with? Uh, did it change your mind at all thinking about this area?

Mark A: 3:03

uh, I think it's sort of almost beyond change my mind because it informed me about a lot of things I didn't previously understand, which I now have to go away and reflect on to find out what I actually now think.

Mark A: 3:13

So it was really informative A number of people there, including yourself, who were able to contribute in terms of explanation and sort of uh and really sort of um fleshing out some of the the key issues, uh, which I think was really useful. And I think that, understandably, we we sort of maybe tended, in terms of the sort of general participation, to focus on the negatives uh and uh, and those are quite sort of real or particularly around. I mean, I think that the understanding that this is coming, whatever, whether we like it or not, and it's going to have a massive and transformative effect and it is going to affect the nature of work, for example, um, and you know, this could lead to potentially mass unemployment, um, and so that then led to a sort of discussion about how do we shape this, how does society and uh governance come into play in order to ensure it's done for the benefit of all? So that was fascinating. But there was talk also about some of the positives around medical applications, scientific advances and and so forth excellent.

James H: 4:16

Well, thank you, as always, for organizing the discussion groups. It's probably unfair to ask you to summarize such a topic in 60 seconds, but, yeah, I think there's going to be plenty more for us to cover here and for our other events going forward, because this is probably the biggest technical or scientific issue of our age, and one of the recommended books, the Coming Wave, I think, describes it perfectly. This is a wave that's going to influence so many areas of society and our lives, so lots more to talk about going forward Now. Our main news item this week is the UK government's new definition that's been issued for what constitutes extremism, and this was swiftly followed by a response from Humanists UK, and I think it's certainly an area that many humanists would feel they have strong opinions on and certainly impacts a lot of the campaigns that we work on. So, mark, before we sort of examine in more detail, could you just outline what this new definition of extremism states and where any key differences to what was formerly the case have been outlined?

Mark A: 5:20

Yeah, so just sort of really going by what Humanist UK have been saying about this as a sort of initial point of reference. So the definition is well. So the background is a sense that there has been a growing sense that there's been unacceptable extremism in our society which does pose a threat to sort of democratic values, values. So I think there's been and as HUK say, I mean a lot of that was around sort of white, christian or nationalist or Islamist groups, as it's perceived, wanting to overthrow this sort of law-based democratic system, and that something needs to be done to tighten up the definition. And so I think that certainly Humanist UK and other human rights groups were not necessarily opposed to a redefinition. So the definition the government's come up with is that this is the, to quote it, extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance that aims to one, negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. One, negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Or two, undermine, overturn or replace the UK system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights. Or three, intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results of points one or two. So I think the you know, looking at what Andrew Copson says, nature case say that there's a certain relief that this is actually quite a reasonable definition on the face of it, because it's premising that definition on the sort of key aspects of violence, hatred and intolerance, and that should mean that legitimate forms of political expression and campaigning are excluded. So in that sense it seemed to be quite positive.

Mark A: 7:13

Also, I think the focus on tolerance implied by the fact that it's tackling intolerance is a positive in the sense that I think what andrew's saying is that it's, uh, intolerance implies a respect for pluralism within a democratic system and that we, we will have differences of opinion and, and I suppose potentially some people could even be offended by those uh expressions of opinion, but we, we respect that. You know, the freedom of freedom of speech is very important and that, uh, there's a higher threshold, um, you know, which is, you know, based on this, um, this uh, the definition given, um that you know the, that it's violence, hatred or intolerance, that sort of is the threshold. So it's, I think he he feels that it's uh, it's sort of respecting that pluralism by stressing tolerance, but at the same time the point is made that there are which we'll move on to these, but there are concerns that, given the current government's track record on potentially labelling its opponents as extreme, there's some precedent in terms of recent activity that this could be applied to. As Andrew Cotsen says, the label of extremist could be applied to climate protesters, pro-palestinian groups, anti-monarchy campaigners, and so groups that have a legitimate right and a legitimate opinion could potentially be muzzled by a misapplication of this. But again, it's very much a case of how it's applied rather than those underlying principles.

Mark A: 8:56

But there's a slight suspicion that some of these definitions are a little bit loose and vague, particularly point three, intentionally creating a permissive environment, which could imply that by saying something which somebody else then picks up on and makes it into a more extreme point, you are facilitating that attack on democratic rights or destroying fundamental rights and freedoms. So point three, I think, is something which, as Andrew and other ex-UK responses point out, fundamental rights and freedom. So point three, I think is is something which, uh, as andrew and other uk huk responses points out, that we'd like to see that um tightened up and defined more clearly yes.

James H: 9:33

So I guess, to summarize, that even in the first sentence, um uh, to focus on the definition, it says extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance. And then it goes on to the specific aims. Now I think it's interesting that no one would define their own ideology as based in violence, hatred or intolerance. It really does rely in the interpretation. Katia, what was your initial thoughts when you read this new definition in terms of how it might impact human rights and freedoms, particularly here in the UK?

Katia U: 10:07

Yeah.

Katia U: 10:08

So I was disappointed because we've been talking about this now for a while. I mean, it was a couple of weeks ago when Rishi Sunak came out and started saying you know, we are working on this extremism and he said some very shocking things. So he said that there's a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. In reference to the weekly pro-Palestine you know specifically that and the by-election and the by-election. But I thought that was quite a statement to say that it's a shocking increase of extremist disruption in criminality. He also said that he was going to make it so that it was either extreme was going to be that they were working against any extremism on both sides right kind of thing. But in reality, what we all think he is after is more anti-protest laws. He doesn't want protesters disrupting political meetings. Um, and he said something like no I have his exact words here A growing consensus that mob rule is is replacing democratic rule.

Katia U: 11:37

I think that is. That is a huge statement and, as we say often, when you have a statement like that, you need to back it up with facts. Um, is it really replacing democratic rule? Is it really mob rule that we're talking about? I thought that was a slightly incendiary speech. So now they have put themselves on the spot for redefining extremism, and the definition that they give is actually quite vague, as Mark was setting out. It's vague, and this isn't just you know my personal opinion. There are quite a few people, even from the Conservative Party, who have come out and said, oh, we're not too sure about this. You know, new extremism definition. What is it actually solving? What is it actually for? And this is a thing I feel that happens often with this conservative government that they say they're going to do something and then, when they do it, what they do is quite disappointing, I'm sorry to say so. I think it's an opportunity wasted to actually address extremism and the importance of tolerance, which I agree. We need to be absolutely sure that we can use our free speech and dissent and that we can protest publicly without being arrested.

Katia U: 13:01

And the reality is that right now I mean what has happened lately? People got arrested for holding up Not my King placards, right? So the police were using the laws that they think they have or the instructions that they have been somehow given, and what came from the government said, no, no, you know they were doing, they did the right thing. Right. They got support. The police in general got support from the government in saying you did the right thing, you were acting, you acted correctly. In reality, these protesters were kept from protesting. They hadn't actually done anything. The police themselves recognized that they didn't have that. None of it met the criteria for being arrested at a protest, so I thought that was a very sad chapter.

Katia U: 14:05

I think that that hasn't been addressed properly. Anti-climate protesters have also been arrested. This didn't address any of that. He says. Michael Gove says explicitly that this isn't going to target. So he gives the whole list it's not going to target trans rights, it's not going to target climate protesters. But I have a hard time trusting them just because there has been so much hypocrisy in the past. I think that the real danger here is conflating something like your right to protest, your right to dissent, with extremism. So I think they need to go back and do a better job.

James H: 14:59

So it sounds like, listening to you both, that there's really perhaps a distrust that this new definition will be applied fairly and equally across the range of views. So I guess, how might this definition's sort of broad aspects affect free speech activism? Mark, I know you touched on some of the points, but do you feel like this is potentially going to be a barrier to free speech going forward?

Mark A: 16:10

no-transcript need to tighten up um, this definition of extremism, and it looks a lot like um given the track record of this government.

Mark A: 16:22

I would agree with catcher that this is being and it's also cited in some of the responses, I think including the HUK response that there's a of uh, just as a sort of a you know sort of an executive decision that they're going to do this and initially it's really only going to apply to um governmental functions, but it's, it's interesting I'm just going to get a quote here says that, uh, non-central government institutions, such as arms-length bodies, higher education institutions and independent organisations, including the police and the CPS, will not be obliged to adopt the definition or apply the engagement principles initially, which suggests that there is at least a consideration and potentially an intention to actually expand this definition so that really across the whole of governmental and quasi-governmental activities, then this definition will be adopted. And yeah, so I think there are genuine and legitimate concerns that this will be used in a politically motivated way to essentially silence those aspects of free speech which are not aligned with the values of the current government, the current government, and so, yeah, that would be my concern yeah, absolutely.

James H: 17:48

I think. I think when we're using a word like extremism, we want to make sure it's it's used very sparingly. That this is this is for, by definition, the most extreme cases. Um, it does leave quite a lot of wiggle room for interpretation, um, but much of it was welcomed by Humanist UK and other groups as well. Katya, do you see any aspects of the new definition which are well structured to protect against extremism without harming our liberties?

Katia U: 18:16

I think it's a good thing to start the discussion, the discussion. So now Labour can maybe discuss this new extremism and say how they might propose something that is a little tighter as a definition and that is a little less, that has a little bit less of the problems that this first definition has, or that this current definition has. The advantages are you know, as as andrew copson writes in in humanist uk, that, um, there is this emphasis on tolerance. Whenever you think of extremism, you want to say, well, I am going to be extra tolerant in order that your views, even if I disagree with them, have a place. Yes, so tolerance goes along with free speech and in a liberal democracy.

Katia U: 19:25

The problem is that when a group like this current government that has negated the rights of others in a sense, comes back and lectures about what I think that's what Labour's position is going to be, that you know that this Conservative Party can't really lecture anyone on what tolerance and free speech should be because of all of the trouble that they've had recently.

Katia U: 19:55

So the fact of the timing of this new definition is problematic at best. But you know, again, it is a positive that it's being talked about. It can have such opposition, which it kind of already is getting a lot of opposition, a lot of pushback from, not just from the groups that have been labeled as terrorists and extremists, but from more middle ground people. So I was just reading this morning the Financial Times, which I know our ex-prime minister thinks is an awful newspaper, but I would disagree is an awful newspaper, but I would disagree. Their editorial position is that this definition is too broad and that this definition is making it hard to know what harmful extremism is by expanding the definition way too much. So if it's a first step, it's in the positive direction.

James H: 21:03

Yeah, there is an interesting irony here, isn't there? I agree, tolerance is the central point, which I think we can all get on board and support. This is a key tenet of humanism to ask for tolerance, not just for all beliefs and freedom of thought. But yet by using this broad definition of extremism, it's almost saying well, if you can brand someone an extremist, then you don't have to tolerate them anymore. So there is an inbuilt irony to the definition. But just before we close, Mark, is there any other positives that you would emphasize, particularly in combating intolerance, that you can see from, as Cathy says, just at least having a definition?

Mark A: 21:47

Yeah, I quite like the emphasis on the importance of democracy because, I mean, I think it's slightly tinged in that it's referring to liberal parliamentary democracy, which it could be interpreted as a sort of a sort of sideways attack on uh movements outside of the, you know, which are not sort of party political, some other mass movements.

Mark A: 22:07

But broadly speaking, I think, uh, you know, stressing democratic rights is important, because a broad sense of democratic rights, rather than sort of one person, one vote, one time type uh definitions, it includes freedom of speech, you know, freedom to protest, uh, considerable personal liberty and so, and also freedom from state harassment and, you know, heavy-handed um uh enforcement. So I think in that sense it's that's a positive and what I would like to see from that is also, slightly, if democracy is so important to us, I think I'd like to see a little bit more stress on emphasising what democracy is, because I think it's fully understood. So we can broaden that to sort of, you know, look at how democratic a country we are and whether there are ways that we could improve our democratic function, for example by looking at party funding, which was obviously something that's come up quite strongly recently.

James H: 23:02

Quite, yeah, and I think anyone familiar with that story will know it links directly into the uh comments on what constitutes extremism. Well, katya and mark, thank you very much for providing that summary and your and your thoughts um on this story. Um, we will be back after our interview, which this week is with writer and poet valerie jack. Valerie jack is a distinguished author and thinker in the secular and humanist community, celebrated for insightful exploration of morality from a non-religious perspective. Her groundbreaking work living with death, without god, provides a profound look into how atheists confront and find meaning in the face of death, offering solace and an understanding to non-religious individuals navigating the universal experience of morality. Valerie Jack, thank you so much for joining us on Humanism Now.

Valerie Jack: 23:53

Well, thank you very much for that generous introduction and thanks for the invitation to come on the podcast.

James H: 24:08

It's our pleasure. So, as mentioned, your book Living with Death Without God addresses a deeply personal journey into understanding death from a secular viewpoint. What inspired you to embark on this exploration and share the insights with others?

Valerie Jack: 24:20

What inspired you to embark on this exploration and share the insights with others? Well, it's really emerged from my own death anxiety, which is something that's been with me my whole life, really as far back as I can remember. And then, alongside that, I've also always been non-religious, and those two facts together seem to present me with a problem that I've always felt I needed to somehow solve, because I've never really been okay with the fact that I'm going to die, and so is everyone I love. So it's something that's been with me throughout my life and I have addressed it kind of obliquely in my writing previously. For example, I've had a fascination with coastal erosion and exploring. That really is a metaphor for exploring mortality and what it means. You know that life has changed and we're all going over that metaphorical cliff edge at some point.

Valerie Jack: 25:25

But I guess at some point I felt well, you know, I should look at this head on and really try to address it. I'm driven by curiosity with how other people think and feel, and I had previously used interviews to inform my writing with my poetry and my playwriting, to do a non-fiction project and to kind of crowdsource an answer to that question of how do we learn to live with death, without God. And so I set off on a quest to find answers to that for myself and also in the hope that I could share those insights and those experiences with other people who are going through challenging experiences and may be feeling a bit lost and a bit lonely with that personal stories, and I think it's very interesting that there there aren't a huge amount of resources available, particularly in the secular space, on this, as we mentioned, what is a universal issue that we all have to grapple with.

James H: 26:51

so, in compiling the stories from atheists, in dealing with death, did you discover any common themes or coping mechanisms that were particularly striking or unexpected?

Valerie Jack: 27:06

Yeah, well, I suppose I started from the point of view that generally it's harder to face mortality, to face loss and illness, if you don't have a religious faith, because religion promises a happy ending for believers and lots of people who do have a religious faith do find a sense of comfort, hope and meaning in that when they're going through challenging experiences.

Valerie Jack: 27:31

So I kind of thought that non-religious people are at a disadvantage. So I guess I was surprised that some of the people I spoke to disagreed with me about that only 29,. He told me that he felt being non-religious had helped him to cope with that loss, because he didn't have to torture himself asking why me? And he didn't have to feel burdened by a sense that God was punishing his son or punishing him in some way, and instead he could just say why not me, why not us? And make some sense of the experience through understanding that life doesn't always make any kind of larger sense and there is a randomness to the processes of life and disease and illness. So he felt that he was better able to accept the loss because he was non-religious and that is also supported by studies into outcomes for non-religious people and religious people in terms of coping with grief. So studies have found that actually religious people have higher rates of psychological distress and higher rates of complicated grief when they're dealing with bereavement.

Valerie Jack: 29:14

So, complicated grief. That's a term that's used when people are still unusually debilitated by bereavement, more than six months on from the loss associated with what some of what I've just mentioned that people feel angry. People may feel angry at their God and if they've previously had some assumptions that there's a just and benevolent creator protecting them and looking after them, and they may believe that God doesn't give you more than you can cope with, and that those kind of beliefs so then the loss can shatter their entire worldview and really leave people feeling adrift. And so, yes, so that was. That was kind of a new way of thinking that I discovered through my, through my reading and through talking to people about their experiences.

Valerie Jack: 30:28

A second thing that I found striking was that Non-religious people, many, many non-religious people like to think of themselves as essentially rational and logical people.

Valerie Jack: 30:45

So something that surprised me in my interviewees was that they sometimes needed to let go of that approach to life and understand that grief isn't always rational and sometimes you just need to do whatever helps you get through.

Valerie Jack: 31:08

So one man who'd lost his wife told me that he tended to go and sit on her memorial bench next to where she was buried and he would make phone calls to his son and kind of catch up on family news, and although he didn't believe that she could hear the conversation, he still found on some level a sense of comfort that she was still involved in those conversations. And then several people spoke to me about writing letters to the person who died. They don't believe that their loved one is up there hearing or able to read those letters, um, but it's about the way that when you lose someone, there's there's a lot of unfinished business and you can feel weighed down by a sense of undelivered communications, and so there's some comfort and meaning to be found in continuing that connection and communication, even though you don't literally believe that there's anyone on the receiving end of it. So that was something that I found interesting.

James H: 32:32

Yeah, it sounds as though almost any idea of a prescriptive way in which people should deal with grief is negative, both for religious and non-religious people. If you're prescribed, this is how you should react. This is how you should feel People aren't going to be allowed properly to grieve, and it seems like a deeply personal experience and completely individual individual. Um, so I can see. I mean one thing I've heard on the for for people who are, who follow a specific belief structure and have very um, uh, defined, uh, ideas about what happens when you die, is that then they kind of don't get the opportunity to properly grieve if they, if they think the person is is, you know, goes on some other way. So so it sounds like for anyone, it's about letting go and just allowing yourself that time to express it in the way that works for you.

Valerie Jack: 33:30

Yeah.

James H: 33:32

And I wanted to come back to this point you mentioned about the existential anxiety and fear of death. The existential anxiety and fear of death I wondered, in the range of responses that you were able to collect, how do you feel atheists or non-belief influences an individual's approach to that existential anxiety and these universal concerns of our mortality?

Valerie Jack: 34:03

So in terms of levels of anxiety relating to death, the research shows that it's an inverted U-shape, so that people who are very confident in their religious beliefs, they're very confident that God exists tend to have, as a group, low levels of death anxiety. And on the other end of the scale, people who are very confident that you know that's it lights out. That's a group that has low levels of death anxiety and then most people are somewhere in the middle, feeling a bit unsure. When I was looking for participants to speak to, I had a few responses who were kind of at that extreme end of the scale that they're very sure what it's all about and so they saw nothing to fear in death and they were kind of saying, well, what's the problem and why is there a book to be written about this? But I think for most of us it is a problem. But I think for most of us it is a problem. I mean, nearly all living creatures have that inbuilt drive to remain living creatures and to stay alive, and so it's kind of operates on a very basic level.

Valerie Jack: 35:37

There's lots of secular philosophers that address the fear of death. So, for example, the argument of symmetry, with Lucretius saying that we were totally unbothered by all that time of non-existence before we were born. So, based on that, why should there be anything to fear in that period after we die? Um? And similarly, epicurus, saying where I am, death is not, and where death is I am not. So, approaching it from a logical perspective, we ought not to be afraid of death then, because that's not going to be a part of our experience.

Valerie Jack: 36:26

And some of the people I spoke to did find quite a lot of comfort in secular philosophy and that really worked for them. That really worked for them. I guess it's worked for me to a lesser extent, and I think it's to do with the fact that death anxiety is a very basic thing and not entirely logical thing and not entirely logical. And, yeah, so Diana Athill, the non-religious memoirist, she said that in relation to secular philosophy, that it might not be effective because death anxiety is brewed in the gut and not in the mind, and I think that's largely the case for me. And in terms of addressing my own death anxiety, I found the experience of talking to people and being with people who have faced and are facing very difficult things. I found that more of a comfort, um, and that that sense of connection and belonging to a wider human community who are in some sense all facing the same kind of challenges.

James H: 38:01

Yes, I can see that connecting on the fear and the universal nature of that this is coming for all of us is a good way to deal with it, and I do find those logical, philosophical takes yes, they're very rational, but, yeah, I this is something which, as you say, rational and reason kind of go out of the window really, when we're trying to. It doesn't offer any comfort. Um, yeah, when considering that it's coming for all of us. The concept of legacy is significant across belief systems. Uh, how do non-believers you've encountered conceive of their legacy and the idea of immortality without an afterlife?

Valerie Jack: 38:45

Yeah, so I think for most non-religious people, the idea of some symbolic form of immortality is still compelling and feels important. Compelling and feels important. So for lots of people, of course, they find that genetically, through children and grandchildren, and for many people they find a satisfaction in the thought that they've contributed through their work, life and maybe through volunteering, through being part of causes they believe in. Many people find a sense of being part of something bigger than themselves through a connection to the natural world, um. But obviously there are limits, um, and if you don't believe in an eternal life, in, in, in heaven or some some other realm, then you need to accept that we're not truly immortal and we will all be forgotten and everything will all come to an end.

Valerie Jack: 40:07

Ernest Becker in the Denial of Death, he said that the essential problem for human beings is that we have two conflicting impulses that we want to stand out as individuals and have a kind of permanent meaning, but then, on the other hand, we also want to merge and belong um to all of creation, um, and, and he said that that's, that's a conflict that can't be solved, but I think maybe it can to some extent, and that both can be true, that you can stand out as an individual, but also that you can accept that you're a small part of humanity and creation.

Valerie Jack: 40:57

And you can, you can I think you can balance those two ideas and come to a place of acceptance with that. So, with the concept of rippling, we can find comfort in the idea that we, our actions do, can influence the world in a positive way and that our lives do touch the lives of others. Um, and we will, we will be remembered, um, but also that um, ultimately, we're not immortal and we can, we can be okay with that. So just kind of having a sense of proportionate legacy, I suppose, and be okay with the idea that we're a part of the world and we can merge back into that and be okay with that.

James H: 42:15

I had it explained to me. It's like in you know, in time, travel stories people will often talk about. You know, if you go back in time and you change one thing, you know how different the world would be, and it's a good exercise to think that that's happening in the present all the time. You know your actions now. You don't know what ripple effects they will have in the future. Ripple effects they will have in the future and you know, if you influence one or two people and if you put out, as I think we advocate for, kindness, compassion and curiosity, you know, hopefully, that that has a ripple effect forward through time.

James H: 42:48

So, being part of that I think you can find a greater meaning. So, no, it's um, it's very reassuring. Certainly, and reflecting on the narratives and insights from conducting the interviews and what you've expressed in your works, how have your own perspectives on death, meaning and the human experience evolved through compiling the book?

Valerie Jack: 43:09

Through the project I came to understand a bit more about how our brains work and that our brains do have a negativity bias and that our brains do have a negativity bias which is there to protect us from threats, so that we notice the predator on the savannah that's coming for us in terms of our ancestors, or that we notice that there's a speeding car that's just come around the bend. It's important that we notice that before we take in the beautiful view. So, um, but I also come to understand that for our mental health, that negativity bias can be very problematic and that we can train ourselves to flip that view. So for most of my life I've had this strong feeling. You know, isn't life sad? Isn't it sad that we all have to die?

Valerie Jack: 44:15

And through the reading that I've done and also the many conversations I've had with people for this project, I've got a bit better at flipping that round and thinking isn't it lucky that we get to be alive? And having a sense of gratitude for that experience and understanding just how long the odds were of that being the case. So there's a Snoopy cartoon that I came across during the course of the project where Charlie Brown says one day, snoopy, we will all die and Snoopy replies, yes, but on all the other days we won't, and that's a better way to think, I think.

James H: 45:05

Yeah, yeah, embrace the day for sure. If our listeners would like to follow you or find out any more about your work, where would be the best place to get in contact?

Valerie Jack: 45:16

So I'm on Twitter at Valerie Jack Well, sorry X and Instagram and Facebook at Valerie Jack Writes. I hope that people may be interested to read the book. I spoke to more than 70 people for the project and I'd really love to be able to share their stories more widely so that the book is available for order from independent bookshops, as well as from Waterstones and Amazon and other retailers.

James H: 45:56

Perfect, thank you. Yes, and we will include links to to buy the book and also to socials to get in touch with Valerie Before we go, our standard closing question, and this could be related to our topics today or something independent. What's something that you've changed your mind on recently?

Valerie Jack: 46:16

I'm going to say vegan cheese.

James H: 46:21

To a positive or away from.

Valerie Jack: 46:23

A positive. So I've been vegan for around seven years. For around seven years, before I became vegan, I used to enjoy my cheese quite a lot, and it was. It was quite sad for me to give that up. Most supermarket vegan cheeses are not that nice. They can be quite rubbery and a bit weird tasting um, but I could say I've changed my mind in that I've discovered vegan cheese can be amazing. Um, I I've discovered, uh, faux marjorie, so okay, they, they make amazing, uh delicious, uh, plant-based cheese. Um, so I treat myself to that occasionally.

James H: 47:11

Yeah, I think that's one way. You've got an uphill battle convincing people, but I'm glad to hear that you found a brand that works for you. But, valerie Jack, thank you so much for joining us on Humanism Now.

Valerie Jack: 47:23

Thank you very much for having me.

James H: 47:25

Welcome back to Humanism Now and thank you once again to Valerie Jack for that interview, and I'm delighted to say that Valerie will be joining us as our guest speaker this month at Central London Humanist. The event is already sold out, but we are hopeful to post the video on our YouTube channel very soon. So, katia, just reflecting on Valerie's interview there, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts, and also, do you think these topics are more difficult for non-religious people to talk about? When we're talking about dealing with this universal issue of death?

Katia U: 48:07

Yes, I guess I can only speak from the perspective of a non-religious person. I've never been religious, but I do think that it's just more difficult when you can't openly talk about the fact that you are non-religious. You feel that you have a lot of explaining to do and in certain spaces that are a lot more conservative, you might be escalating disagreements instead of at a moment when we're facing death. Sometimes the last thing we want to do is upset people. So I can tell you from my personal experience, I wouldn't bring up the fact that I am a non-believer in the circumstance of someone is about to pass and I am going to reassure the person by telling them don't worry, they've had a good life and there's nothing to fear in death, because I don't think that that would necessarily be the most you know, the thing that would avoid conflict. And in my family this has already happened. When my grandmother was passing, my mother had already you know, quote unquote lost her faith and she didn't say anything to anyone about it. And whenever someone said, oh, you know, your mother is now going to be in heaven looking after you, my mother didn't believe this for one minute and she didn't find it a consolation, but she didn't say anything. And I think today in Mexico, sadly, I would do the same.

Katia U: 49:55

I wouldn't challenge other people's views. I think for myself that it makes it easier for me because all of my life I've lived as if I had one life. I believe I have one life and that I will not be, you know, going to hell or anything like that. I think that is a wonderful thing to celebrate the life that you have now and here, depending on your own moral compass and not on what some book tells you or what some elder religious authority. I don't like authorities telling me what I should believe. So it's a mixed picture. It's one of those things where I'm not quite sure what I would do or how I would feel. Yeah, I think it's a very important thing to talk about. We can talk about it amongst ourselves, amongst humanists, but maybe we should also be taking on the challenge of talking about it, with talk about it when there aren't any tensions, kind of pre-ent these things coming into our lives later on.

James H: 51:18

I think it's important, isn't it as well, to sort of separate the sentiment when people are providing these wishes with, you know, also being respectful of what we might believe as well. And it raises again the importance of normalizing and being open and honest about our own beliefs throughout our lives, so that, when these events happen, people are prepared to be respectful of our views as well. And you know a lot of people will always want to wish that you provide their good wishes in their own, in line with their own belief systems, and I think that that that's that's fair enough. But of course, you do want to be able to, as you say politely, um, advise people that of how to be respectful of our own, our own beliefs, or all the beliefs of the person who has passed in particular, which I think is probably the most important thing, um, at that time. So, yeah, I, I think it's it's where there's a clash.

James H: 52:09

It can be even more difficult to have those conversations, but, yes, I think I think, um, uh, balancing we come back to our point about tolerance, don't we? In balancing respect for, for everybody's beliefs at these times mark, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as well. I know, as mentioned, valerie's going to join us as a guest speaker next week. Is there anything you'd be keen to hear more about from from what was discussed there?

Mark A: 52:32

yeah, I'm really looking forward to to that uh talk. I mean, based on the interview it sounds like she's got, I mean I was really impressed by what she had to say. I thought it was fascinating uh, so I look forward to that talk. Yeah, I think uh probably uh. Well, just to say in terms of my sort of overall uh beliefs about, um, uh about you know what, how I feel about uh the issue, I'm very much aligned with what katja was saying and I think it's interesting.

Mark A: 52:58

She talks about the one life, which was we have the one life course uh, which is our, the humanist uk name for the introduction to humanism, courses that some groups, including our own, uh periodically run, and I think that that encapsulates a positive message that I think humanists have on it that in fact, we accept the reality as we see it, which you know, based on evidence that there is no afterlife that anybody has been able to convincingly demonstrate exists. Therefore, we frame our lives on the basis that this is not an antechamber to uh the afterlife, but uh the the main event or the only event, and therefore you should make the most of your life and also other people's as well. So I think it's actually a, a positive framing and I think that, um, yeah, that that uh, humanists have been, um, I think humanists have been quite upfront about talking about, have been quite up front about talking about um, about death. I mean, after all, the assisted dying campaign is one of the main sort of headline um campaigns of humanist uk. So I don't think you could be much more up front about it, I mean, than tackling an issue like that. And I think also, uh, in my experience as a non-religious person, is similar to catches in a way.

Mark A: 54:13

But but growing up in the uk where, although we are sort of formally quite theocratic, in reality it's a very, very non-religious and increasingly secular country, actually, this is, this is an area death where I think that that non-religious people and humanists in particular, are actually feeling much more comfortable and have a message which a lot of people chime with.

Mark A: 54:36

So we know that the, the number of um, as will be discussed, uh, when we have a sort of a funeral celebrant, the number of humanists or non-religious funerals is just going up massively and even, like, I think, three or four years ago, I remember hearing that there were now more, uh, non-religious funerals than religious in the northeast for some reason, and so it's a. I actually feel it's the other way around. I feel that, um, as humanist natives, we've got, we've got a good story to tell and we're actually pretty comfortable. And because I mean just, I think for me, um and you know, this is that goes back to the humanist bus campaign there's probably no God. Now, stop worrying and enjoy your life. Actually, if I did believe in God, I could potentially worry about what was going to happen to me after I die, but because I don't, it doesn't come into play. So in fact, for me it's very much the other way around, although not everybody will feel the same.

James H: 55:33

Yeah, and we can focus much more, as I think has been mentioned here, on the one life that we live and the legacy that we leave behind. And, yeah, I think a lot of people are finding humanism particularly through funeral celebrants and humanist ceremonies and humanist ceremonies because of their emphasis on the individual and on celebrating their life, which I think chimes with people from all backgrounds and all faiths, because I think we can all unite behind that. It's not then going to be divisive of the people in the room. But thank you very much for your comments there and thank you once again to Valerie for joining us not only on the podcast but as our guest speaker with the London Humanist Group, and again, we will link to the recording of her talk as well in the show notes. Just before we go, we have our regular question to the panel if anyone has changed their mind and I believe, mark, you're going to nominate a topic this week for something you've changed your mind on uh, yes.

Mark A: 56:33

So, um, there's a, there's a radio show I listen to a lot uh, which is, um, ellis john, and so ellis james and john robbins, on radio 5, and there's an associated podcast and I got into it heavily and then I I got slightly annoyed with one of the presenters, uh, their political views uh being expressed, to be honest, and I stopped listening for a while. But then I went to see that comedian his name's John Robbins, live, and it was such a brilliant performance and it was also the exploration of his own demons, which was alcoholism, as he publicly talks about. I fell back in love with it and now I'm catching up on all the podcasts I missed and I'm I'm, uh, I've become more tolerant of uh somebody else's uh disagreement with me and uh seeing the positives rather than the negatives and uh enjoying the comedy as a consequence.

James H: 57:27

Fantastic. What's the name of the podcast so we can refer to that?

Mark A: 57:32

I think it's Ellison John, I think it's called. It's on Radio 5 on Fridays BBC Radio 5 on Fridays.

James H: 57:40

Fantastic. Thank you for sharing. So with that we come to a close for another episode of Humanism. Now Just to mention as well, if you're interested in joining any upcoming events with the Central London Humanists. We have a variety of talks online and in person discussion, socials talks. Our next in-person lecture will be with Humanists International. Our speaker is Emma Wadsworth-Jones, who leads their global campaigns, and she'll be talking about how we can all help protect humanists at risk around the world, and that's on the 10th of April in London.

James H: 58:15

We'd love to see as many of our listeners there as possible for what is a very important topic. So, and just a reminder as well, please do like, share and review the podcast. It really helps us expand our audience, helps more people find us. We're delighted with the number of international listeners that we found and we hope we're going to provide a community for those around the world who maybe don't have access to a local humanist group like we do here in London yet.

James H: 58:43

And, of course, if you are keen to start your own humanist group, do get in touch. We'd be happy to help put you in touch with other local listeners. And finally, if you, if you would be generous, please do support us on patreon um, we'd love to have, um, uh, grow our supporter base and again, that just helps us uh, produce the produce the show and reach a wider audience, audience. And, of course, you can follow us at humanism now pod on all social media. So with that, I'd like to thank Mark and Katia for joining us here and thank you very much for listening to us once again on Humanism Now.