22. Ojas Singh Bhanot on Cultivating Student Groups plus Fostering Scientific Literacy in Society

"Humanism is about human goodness, appreciating reason & potential"  - Ojas Singh Bhanot

This week on Humanism Now, Mark & Nicole join the panel to discuss how illegal faith schools deny children the right to science,  the importance of promoting scientific literacy across society and the impact of scientific fraud.
 
This week's interview is with Ojas Singh Bhanot, Politics and Data Science student at the London School of Economics, where he Founded the Humanist Open Minds Students' Union group. His role involves leading a platform and promoting humanist values within the university community, focusing on open dialogue and inclusivity.

References: 

• Religion for Atheists, Alain de Botton
• Humanists UK at UN: Illegal schools deny the right to science
• Humanists UK campaign: State-funded faith schools & education
• National Secular Society: End Faith Schools Campaign
• Centre for Inquiry: Why Scientific Literacy Matters 
• Humanists UK: Humanist Students
• Fraud in curcumin research is a warning to all of science, FuturoProssimo

About Ojas Singh Bhanot

• LinkedIn
• LSE Students Union Humanist Open Minds 
• LSE Humanist Open Minds on Instagram

Ojas' References:

• Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics, Carissa Véliz

Upcoming events:

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. Why illegal faith schools deny the right to science, why science literacy is so important to society and lessons in setting up a humanist students group, with our guest Ojas Singh Barnett, founder of the London School of Economics Students Union Humanists Open Minds Group, to discuss all that and more. I'm delighted to be joined by two of our regular panellists here Nicole from Leicester Humanists and Mark, my colleague at Central London Humanists. So our icebreaker question this week is what national holiday would you like to introduce if you could? Nicole, great to have you back on the show, and what national holiday would you introduce?

Nicole S: 0:51

hello, lovely to be here, as always. Um, so I would like to introduce something like so I would call it, but basically a secular yom kippur. Um, so I'm sure some of our listeners are aware but Yom Kippur is a Jewish holiday. That is well. It's very religious. A lot of it's about repentance of sin and this sort of thing.

Nicole S: 1:12

But in terms of a secular way of looking at it, it's looking over the way you've spent your year and looking over mistakes you might have made, people you might have wronged, people you might have hurt, and reaching out to them or even if it's just people that you've kind of lost touch with, and things like that. So I think that having a day of space where and if everybody's doing that, then you'll have a great day of uh hearing from people and contacting people, um, this is an idea that ellen de botton talks about in religion for atheists, which is a great book, and I'd recommend it. But, um, yeah, I think that having that space to just kind of think about what we've done, how we've spent our time, and, uh, those that mean things to us and because I think a lot of the things where it's religious is framed as sin. Of course, we don't believe in that. But uh, there's much more humanist angle we can take on that I think that's a great idea.

James H: 2:01

The only trouble is, I think I'd need far more than one day each year to right for my wrongs. But yeah, I think that's something we can definitely learn from Mark. Good to see you again and thanks for coming. And what day would you introduce?

Mark A: 2:15

Thank you, james. Yeah, really lovely to be here and I really like the idea of that day for reflection and repentance, and I suspect there'll be a lot of apology phone calls made throughout the day, a lot of them by me, um. So yeah, I like the idea of having some sort of celebration of democracy and democratic values, because I feel our, our democratic process is quite, quite divisive. I don't know if anyone's picked up on that. It can get quite nasty and fractional, and so I think something that sort of celebrates what actually holds us together and what's good about democracy and what we all agree on, would be something really positive, and I think democracy feels a little bit under threat. So it would be nice to have something that just pointed out the positives and made us all aware of why it's so important.

James H: 3:14

Yeah, great ideas turn what's currently a negative into a positive. Another day of reflection as well, I think, for me. I was thinking about this one. It's Earth Day next month, 22nd of April, and it tends to come and go without much fanfare, but I think that could be one that could easily be turned into perhaps an international holiday and actually spend a day reconnecting with the planet and giving thanks to the Earth. So maybe that's something we could take off as a day in the future. Well, thank you both for that and, again, great to have you with us for this week's show. Now.

James H: 3:51

Earlier this month, humanists UK were invited to speak at the 55th session of the UN Human Rights Council. There is a couple of interesting topics which they published articles on the website and we wanted to reflect a little bit this week. The first was around the role of illegal faith schools and the impact that they have, particularly on science education. So I guess first just to sort of reflect on the article and draw up this topic a little bit more. Nicole, maybe I'll come to you first. What impact do illegal schools have on children's rights and comprehensive education? Why is this an important topic for humanists?

Nicole S: 4:34

Yeah, I think it should be a pertinent topic for everybody, but particularly for humanists. It's the way that these children's education is being set up is an incredibly poor start to their life. The biggest thing that struck me in the article was the children who are born here and can't speak English, and it shows how badly the education system is failing them. That they are born and bred in a country where English is the main language and they can't speak it, like even that alone is going to set them up, for, you know, they have to now learn another language to be able to communicate with most people in the country they are from. Um, and then, along with everything else, education is so fundamental, especially for younger children, when it's the basics of reading and writing, um, and just how to be a person and how to live, and I think it kind of feeds into a wider issue that we've got about education in this country is so I'm sure that we've all memories of school days when you had those terrible teachers who just taught you something by rote, especially with things like history. They just be like here are all the dates that things happened, you have to learn them, and in my mind, that's not, that's not teaching, that's not education, because what have you learned history? They just be like here are all the dates that things happened. You have to learn them and in my mind, that's not, that's not teaching, that's not education. Because what have you learned? Oh, you learned that this war started on this date and this general was called this.

Nicole S: 5:52

Okay, those are important things to know, but what true understanding and true education should be about is critical thinking. How to reason, how to research something that your interest yourself, how to assess evidence. Is this good evidence? What's wrong with it? What is bias? Um, and that's something that, at least when I was at school, uh, certain teachers were quite good at, some were terrible at, and let alone, and look at, really looking at what these um children who are forced to just read scripture and dogma all day. They're not even getting a chance to even learn about things that happen in history, even as a lot. They're just learning pure scripture.

Nicole S: 6:27

There's and I assume it doesn't say, but I can imagine that something that's teaching pure scripture all the time. They're not teaching how to be critical or how to think for yourself or how to assess something, um, and they're just missing out on a wide variety of excitement and it's such a narrow start in life like. If you then have to learn how to do maths, how could you ever become? Uh, obviously the big. The thing that kids all want to be is like an astronaut. How could you even start thinking about that if you didn't learn any maths at school?

James H: 6:56

some people listening to this might think this is you know. Uh, this might be a fairly small issue, but mark how big an issue is this, in, particularly in the uk, as we're talking about?

Mark A: 7:07

uh, yeah. So looking at the uh humanist uk uh response, as as uh nicole was talking about, I mean, they identify 6 000 children I think rereading that's just london and that's 6 000 boys who are missing from the um, this educational role, um, so it's it. So that seems like quite a significant number and you also tend to think that that's probably an underestimate because there may well be other people who slip through the net. So nationally it could be quite large. It's probably concentrated in urban areas, I'm guessing, but obviously there are plenty of other cities, large cities, which could well be affected by this.

Mark A: 7:47

So, and I think it is an issue, I mean it's an issue if there's one child who's missing out on their education call a secular education, a broad-ranging understanding of a number of established subjects, the liberal arts, etc. Then that could have quite an impact on society as well as the impact it has on the individuals and their future prospects. So it seems like quite a significant sort of multi-level problem, just both for the individuals affected and also for wider society. Because obviously we're looking at, you know, just looking at economic terms. We have a significant, you know, labor shortages and skills shortages if thousands of people every year, are receiving an education which basically doesn't prepare them for life in the workforce just looking at that in that narrow way, then that's a significant problem.

James H: 8:58

Yeah, it sounds like, from what you've both contributed there, that we need to consider this as an issue, not just in terms of the rights of the individual child and their access to education, but also its impact on wider society as well. And I just wonder, as part of society, should we be concerned with the balancing of religious freedoms with the imperative of a child being provided with, specifically, you know, a science based, critical thinking based education? Nicole, what's your thoughts on that? Do you think there's a concern around balance there?

Nicole S: 9:34

Yeah, I think in theory it shouldn't be difficult because I think a lot of religious people in this country, a lot of the religious people I've met, they kind of see religion as its own thing, as kind of separate to scientific education. And I've met a lot of I'd say the majority of religious people I've met believe in things like evolution and the Big Bang theory. Those are not and those are scientific concepts and some people like us might say that that clashes with a religious understanding of the world and it's not for us to say how religious people might make those two things match up. But a lot of them can and do and recognize that science is very important and also have their faith. Of course that's not all religious people and I think that is something that we need to challenge.

Nicole S: 10:24

If people don't believe, you know things like young earth creationists thankfully quite uncommon in this country, more common in places like america but I think that if the focus is on a wide range of subjects and, like I said before, like critical thinking, thinking for yourself and what science can do, why is science important, teaching everybody, everybody, why what they're learning is important, then I think that's a really good thing. And then the religious freedom side. You know, if people, children, when they get older, want to believe in religion, then that is their choice, but then they weren't encouraged that way or forced into it through an education system and I think the things I think we might have talked before in this podcast in terms of things like freedom of religion and belief. I believe in absolute freedom of religion until it gets into harming people, and if those beliefs or actions that they lead to are harmful, then that's when that ends. And if those beliefs or actions that they lead to are harmful, then that's when that ends.

James H: 11:38

And if somebody believes in a religious understanding of the world that's anti-science and harmful. Then terms of the role of the school versus, I guess, the parents and who should decide what type of education a child is getting?

Mark A: 11:55

Yeah, I mean, these sorts of issues play into that wider debate, don't they about faith schools? I suppose these are faith schools plus in a way, are faith schools plus in a way? But the same general issues, I think, apply in terms of you know, obviously many faith schools don't really pose so much of a problem in terms of having a more sort of fundamentalist approach and objecting to the teaching of science, et cetera, as Nicole was indicating. But there are still issues around aspects of science, et cetera, as Nicole was indicating. But there are still issues around aspects of this, and we've seen examples of state schools, state-funded schools, which inadequately teach science, particularly around evolution and possibly also cosmology and origins, origins.

Mark A: 12:50

So, um, I think, I think my own feeling is that, um, it's the right of the individual rather than, uh, their parents, uh, which is paramount here, and that every child should have access to, uh, you know, a balanced education based on scientific principles. I think, uh, it's parents have the opportunity to, you know, create a religious environment in the home. They can teach the values they they wish there. I think that's a. Some people would question that, but that seems to be like a fair balance. And then schools, I feel, should be essentially secular, or if there is religion there, it should be. It should be tempered.

Mark A: 13:20

Um, I personally, I'm personally not in favor of faith schools to. I had to put my cards on the table, but that would be an issue for a democratic debate and discussion. So, yeah, I think a child has a right to have that education and then they can make a decision themselves, an informed decision, at a later stage. As somebody once said, you know, there's no child is born. There's no such thing, in one view, as a christian child or a muslim child. They're just children and they will, uh, you know, make up their minds in the same way. There aren't sort of labor or tory children.

Nicole S: 13:52

Um, that's something they will decide at an appropriate juncture yeah, I think that's a really good point and it's something that I've certainly experienced. So, um, I only went to state schools, but my um mum is Christian and my dad's Jewish. They decided to tell me about the religions and what all the religions both the religions did, and how they did. But then they didn't say you are this. They were like he's like dad's like I'm Jewish and your mum's this, but let's like, you can decide when you're older and I think that was so great.

Nicole S: 14:21

I'm really grateful for that, because I came to my own own decision and obviously I'm a humanist and my sister went down quite a religious path, but of a different religion. But what I realized that it's what we both chose to do it wasn't that we were just told you are this, so you will be this, um, and I think that it and it just gives you more freedom to act and it's thinking for yourself again.

James H: 14:42

It's that whole thing, uh, with anything, and I feel really sorry for children who, um, feel forced into saying you know, I'm, I'm a whatever, when, like you said, mark, they're not, they're just it's their parents have told them they are and they kind of have to be for now I think that point about the the comparison with teaching politics in school as well, I think is a really good one, because I think if you had different schools that you could send your children to, depending on their political ideology, I think everybody would view that as quite strange and divisive within society that you were going to be.

James H: 15:17

You know, if you had a politics teacher who was only going to teach you that one particular school of thought was correct, then I don't think anybody would support that. So I think that's an interesting comparison to make. It is very odd that it still exists within society that you would divide children like this from an early age and not have them mingle and learn and have the advantages of those mixed influences that Nicole was talking about there those mixed influences that Nicole was talking about there.

Mark A: 15:45

Yeah, just to quickly come in on that, I went to a really lovely choral event which was held in a church the other day and it was predominantly well, it wasn't all actually religious choral music, but the choir was not an affiliate to the church. But somebody said oh, these events count when you're trying to get your children into a C of E school because you know there's a certain number of events you have to attend in order to demonstrate that you're. And it seems to me, you know, here's an example flipping things around the other way, where people are being pressured to attend religious schools and not just send their children. Well, they want to get their children to certain schools which are good, which happen to be church schools, and in order to do so they have to comply with, you know, a certain level of attendance of religious events. So the idea of sort of freedom of choice in the educational arena and in terms of one's faith, it doesn't seem to be particularly being respected on the other side of the coin.

James H: 16:48

Absolutely, and I think this also perpetuates this idea as well, that the particularly state faith schools tend to be the higher performing ones. So parents then compete to get their kids into those ones, and then they tend to be higher performing uh, and that that cycle continues, and that's that's seen in some uh circles as evidence that they're better schools or that it's a better um. Having faith as part of the education or mandatory worship in the morning is is better for children. But, as you say, it tends to be that they just have historically been the better funded schools and so that cycle continues. Before we close out on this topic, the article specifically focuses on science and the level of science education that children are getting. Nicole, why is science literacy so important, particularly in society?

Nicole S: 17:46

Yeah, I think it's massively important. I think things like the pandemic have really shone light on how science illiterate the general population is in Facebook, where misinformation or fudging of things or outright lies were allowed to propagate because people aren't applying any critical thinking or science literacy to what they're reading. I think that there's the quite extreme example where people believe something because of a Facebook post that doesn't even have it, doesn't even pretend to be. They're just like oh, it's just a Facebook post that says something like there's microchips in the vaccine and someone believing that. I think that's quite obvious. What's wrong with that? But then there's the kind of more subtle things where people might use the language of people who are interested in truth or use um, I think it's called scientism, and when you kind of use what looks like, oh, like evidence-based. These are cold hard facts. Here's the, the numbers. But for a multitude of reasons those aren't actually. That's not the uh thing that you should actually get from it, whether it's intentional or not.

Nicole S: 18:56

Um, and for us humanists, obviously we understand that science is just observation. I think that I've definitely heard some religious people talking about the idea that science is a dogmatic system, but of course it isn't. It's always changing. It's not one thing. But science is the best we can get to truth and I think, understanding that and that we can change our minds. We can be pro-science, have 100 scientific, but we can be like, oh, we've either found this new information that shows this now, so what we previously said was wrong. It happens all the time in science and it doesn't mean that it was necessarily wrong, but it's to update it, so it's looking at things with a critical eye and, again, it's all education.

Nicole S: 19:38

I think one really basic concept that humans like talking about is something like correlation, um, and causation. So, um, the the fact, and it is a fact that the more damage a fire costs, the more firefighters, um, appear. And then, of course, you know you can frame that like oh, it's because there's more firefighters, there's more damage at this fire made, but obviously the truth is the fire was bigger, so more firefighters had to come to turn it off, and it's just like you can frame what is a actual fact in a different way and get a different understanding of it, and I think even just simple things like that, more people understood that this, this equals. This is not always true. I think we'd have a much better society, much more open and honest, and people wouldn't be sucked into misinformation as quickly.

Mark A: 20:26

Yeah, I think we sort of, obviously talk about scientific subjects, we tend to have particular ones in mind, but of course, the scientific method, the rational inquiry, the use of evidence, it permeates all the subjects, really, even literary criticism or maybe some certain exceptions, but obviously, well, in terms of the way you're marked, it's always based on some sort of scientific principle. So I think it's something which is so central to the way in which education, our educational systems work, central to the way in which education, our educational systems work, that, um, opposition to that essentially signifies that you, you you're denying sort of any form of rationality, you're essentially embracing a purely dogmatic, uh, approach based on revelation or, um, just, somebody else feels ancient texts or whatever it is, and that is is so in a sense it's emblematic of a rejection of the very most fundamental principles upon which we base education, public policy, the law. I mean, you know, going to a law court, you don't expect somebody to sort of go into a trance and then decide what the outcome is. So I think, in a sense it's, in a sense it's a very general thing In terms of the specific around, maybe a slightly narrower interpretation of science.

Mark A: 21:50

Again, it's something which you know, it's been around for a very long time, but the development of that methodology has been essentially central to the advances that the human society have made and and, as Nicole says, it's the best method we've got for understanding the truth. So what's not to like, really? So, yeah, I can't see any justification for not embracing that, and if people can't subject their ideas to the rigors of that type of uh, rational interrogation, then, you know, I would suggest they've probably got something to hide. They're not very confident in their ideas.

Nicole S: 22:27

so, yeah, I think it's uh, it's central you know, I think people like us, who are explicit humanists, kind of love doing this reason and rationality. Why do I think? Everything, and of course not everyone, has to do that, but it's just a basic understanding of what is science. Um, I was having a debate with somebody once, uh, who believes in a lot of, uh, spiritual things, and they said enduring it. They were like this is outside science. And then I was like do you know what science is? It's just observation. And they were like oh yeah, so, like so if it exists in the world, it like it can be. It either can be seen with scientific methods or it doesn't exist. And it's just kind of amazing that the idea that like, oh, science is this one bubble and then there's other things, it's like no science is, it's not like some magical system, it's, it's just it's, you know, a human construct of how we can get the truth kind of goes back to the pandemic, like I'm saying is in medicine, and applying kind of scientific rigor to our own beliefs about medicine. Um, so, with alternative therapies you know they range from everything like this herb will cure your cold, which is kind of harmless, even if it's not true to. You. Don't need cancer treatment because here's this herb which, um, is not true, um.

Nicole S: 23:46

And I think that, again, if people were more confident, looking to research and sometimes these, because alternative therapies really are either things that have been debunked by science or ones that they haven't researched and sometimes people you know, before we had such good medicine, did stumble across things that were correct, even if they didn't really understand why.

Nicole S: 24:07

One good example I think of is acupuncture. Traditional acupuncture claims to work on a system of kind of energy flow and redirecting energy flow, which I think us as humanists don't believe in because there's no evidence for it. However, when they've done clinical trials, it does help with certain muscular issues. So I think it's like we can, yeah, whereas somebody like me, I think, would have always been like acupuncture is obviously bullshit, but yeah, it's like. And then reassessing that, because even something I would have debunked was like actually it does have these ways you can apply it, just not the ones that the traditionalists would say I think that's a great point, by the way, and um, yeah, I've benefited from acupuncture myself, but uh, I I don't really believe in in the energy flows.

Mark A: 24:50

Um, just going back to the point we made at the beginning around science as well, in particular, obviously, there is a particular emphasis, isn't there, on those sorts of uh skills as being, um, really useful in the labor market for people.

James H: 25:04

So, as well, as you know, being a fantastic way of understanding the world, and so, from that slightly more prosaic but important aspect, if these people are not receiving a scientific education, they are going to be heavily disadvantaged in their future lives in terms of getting a good job, and you know that's a tragedy for them as well, as we discussed earlier in terms of getting a good job, and, uh, you know that's that's a tragedy for them as well, as we discussed earlier in terms of the sort of feeding into skills shortages yeah, it's funny, isn't it, that health care is often the area where there is the most controversy around uh application and listening to experts, as, as has become controversial now, um, and I do always find it funny when someone says that they don't they don't like to listen to traditional experts in areas like health care or science um, to ask them, you know, uh, particularly if they work in a highly skilled job say, they're a car mechanic whether you know we should listen to a car mechanic or we should just ask someone who's completely unqualified and deals in alternative engineering you know how best to how best to fix their car? Um, you know. Same. When it comes to you know who would you rather be, uh, flying a plane? Someone who's had seven years of training, or someone who's who's read a facebook post about best way to do it it?

James H: 26:14

But it's interesting how and possibly because our health is so, so personal, so fragile and and can obviously be scary, and that that seems to be the area that does have the most controversies around listening to the science, and potentially because medicine is a very slow-moving and imperfect science because of the risks that are involved, it's not as accurate, as you know, things like engineering, where you can make mistakes and the eventual solutions can be quite much more precise. You know, when you're dealing with people, I think there's a large sample size and lots of things can go wrong that we try to avoid. So I guess I wonder if that's a reason why you know people are more open to subscribing to. You know non-scientific, and can really have an impact over generations. If someone decides they don't trust medicine or they don't trust the health system, yeah, and I guess that also leads back to just having more respect in general for science or critical thinking within society.

James H: 27:37

I mean, mark, you kicked off talking about you know politics being very polarised and it does seem as though now you know even scientific topics things like climate change have become more based on loyalty and which, what you believe politically, rather than actually following the science. And I think, going back to the point Nicole made, being willing to change your mind when the facts change as well. So do you think this is something that we need to consider as a lifelong learning as well, mark? Do you have any thoughts on that in terms of you know, should we continue to have scientific education or learning about critical?

Mark A: 28:17

thinking. I'm glad you asked me that because I've got a bit of a hobby horse critical thinking. Well, I'm glad you asked me that because I've got a bit of a hobby horse. So I suggested this an idea to uh I'm sure it's not an original idea to a, uh, a friend who actually works in science education. He's an editor of a children's science magazine. But, uh, he didn't. He didn't seem that enthusiastic.

Mark A: 28:33

But essentially, I think we should have, uh, the term that nicole's used, science literacy.

Mark A: 28:39

I think we should have an actual science literacy program with the sort of stages of science literacy that anybody could be able to take in order to be able to, you know, above and beyond or parallel to, you know, actually getting GCSEs and A-levels et cetera in scientific subjects. Just a more general science literacy test, just in order to sort of promote the idea that science literacy is a good thing and also to sort of gauge it so people could test for themselves where they are. I'd be fascinated to see my own, my own scores, and I just think it would be something we should just be pushing all the time, and particularly amongst those in decision making roles, so whether they are politicians, civil servants, uh, judges, um, you know, teachers in general teachers, not science teachers, because I think we should be promoting science literacy throughout society and I think, for all the reasons Nicole has been talking about, it's really important in so many ways and, you know, I'd really like to see that pushed a lot further. Yeah, I'd really like to see that pushed a lot further.

James H: 29:42

A lot of what the scientific method is about is removing the individual bias of all humans that are involved, which can include the science teacher themselves. So the more different sources you are referring to and the more times you come back to testing your assumptions that you are getting a wider range of inputs and potentially removing any bias, because science teachers themselves may well be dismissive of, let's say, acupuncture, like you mentioned, nicole, because I think that's something that's been quite controversial in the past. So, yeah, it does need to be revisited and indeed the facts or the best thinking on many topics will change over time. Um, is there any, any other practices you you would like to see included, nicole, things that we we can consider when we're we're thinking about improving science literacy in society?

Nicole S: 30:31

yeah it's difficult to how to engage people outside of an education system. Um, so, you know, if you, because, in theory, if you give children and students the right tools, they should, that can be something. They don't need to be taught anything else about it. It's like here's how to be critical, here's how to look at sources, here's how to think about bias, all these sorts of things. Then, in theory, that the kind of fundamentals shouldn't need to be taught again. But I think we we all can accidentally, even those of us who really try and be rigorous and try to find the closest truth we find that there's certain things we can just assume, and I think that's something that kind of a yearly reminder maybe this could go back to our national holiday a yearly reminder to be like you might have some things that you've just assumed are true but based on nothing and you've never really looked into it. And are you correct? I think that's it like always being aware, like, and that we're we're infallible.

James H: 31:27

You know we're humans, we're not, uh, science robots, that we are, but as long as we're trying, then that is kind of the best we can do education doesn't stop at school, as we know, and our guest this week has actually taken their humanism through to implementing it into their student life as well, at university. So here's my interview with Ojas Singh Barnott, who is the founder of Humanist Open Minds, which is a Students' Union group from the London School of Economics. Ojas Singh Barnott is a politics and data science student at the London School of Economics, where he's also the founder of the LSE Students Union Humanist Opened Minds Group. His role involves leading a platform and promoting humanist values within the university community, focusing on open dialogue and inclusivity. Ojas, thank you so much for joining us on Humanism Now.

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 32:16

My pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me.

James H: 32:19

Pleasure is all ours. So I think you're the first student representative that we've had featured on the podcast. So firstly, thank you for everything you've done. We'd love to hear more about the group that you've created so, I guess, to introduce to our listeners. Could you give us a brief introduction to yourself and why you chose to set up the LSE SU Humanist Open Minds Group? What was the motivation behind establishing this student group?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 32:46

As you already mentioned, I'm a student of politics and data science, now in my second year at LSE, and Humanist Open Minds, as it says on the website, is a community dedicated to humanism and free thought and the appreciation of human potential and reason. The aim is not just to bring together the non-religious, but also to engage in dialogue with religion and promote an exchange of ideas. As for my motivation, I have been non-religious for quite a while and before I came to LSE, I saw that there are societies representing all the major faiths around the world, but there is no atheist or humanist presence. So I had this in mind even before beginning my studies that I want to go there and start some sort of humanist society, and I went through with this in April 2023.

James H: 33:35

Congratulations, and I know you've also built a very strong team around you that is running and taking the group forward. So did you face any initial challenges in setting up humanist open minds and how did you and your team address those?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 33:44

So at the initial stage, the challenge was to first find people for the core committee to run society, which I did. I put together this really beautiful team we have here and then, according to the student union's rules, we have to collect 20 people's signatures who are interested in the society to set it up. So I did find some like-minded people, including many friends of mine. Afterwards, the challenge was more to get the word out and promote the society so that people know that we exist and we're out there. So we have been doing this using social media and word of mouth as well, as we've got some help from the Students' Union. They're very helpful. They promote societies and their events as well.

James H: 34:18

And I wonder when you were collecting those signatures, did you find that most students had an accurate understanding of humanism, or was there some misconceptions that you had to deal with in explaining what this group would be about and what you would aim to achieve?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 34:37

From my experience I found that people did have some reservations. They hesitated to even put their signatures down, even express their interest in a group which is non-religious. But then, as I discussed with them what humanism is about, they became more comfortable with the idea and I feel that helped a lot for people to understand what humanism is actually.

James H: 34:57

Individuals can be quite concerned by labels Rightfully, I think it's good to be apprehensive of labels straight away. But once you do engage and we're able to explain what humanism is about, what the core tenets are, the main belief system, most people kind of realise that that's something that they would be happy to affiliate with. But yes, congratulations on working through that to get the group up and running. So could you talk us through some of the key activities and the main initiatives that you've undertaken to promote humanism, both through the Open Minds Group and more broadly at LSE?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 35:33

So at our society, our signature event is Dialogue Over Donuts. So these are regular informal discussions on topics relating to religion and we invite people from many faiths to come. A lot of people do come, bring their unique and different perspectives, and we have very interesting conversations between religion and non-religion. We also collaborate with other societies and organizations, sometimes even put on social events that are just pure fun. We want to make it inclusive for everybody to join, regardless of their faiths. I personally, beyond the Society, engage in a lot of other events and with other religious societies. I've had a lot of beautiful discussions with the Christian Society, for instance, at our university.

James H: 36:14

Yeah, I think that engagement, interfaith involvement and engagement is crucial as well for and engagement is crucial as well for, again, the explanation and the broad acceptance of the term. So congratulations and well done for your efforts in building the awareness and acknowledgement of humanism on campus. What advice would you give to fellow students, or perhaps future students, who might be considering starting a similar humanist group at their university or on campus?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 36:47

For any students looking to start a humanist society or similar group at their university. First of all, I would really want to encourage and support you. It's a really great idea. Do go for it.

Mark A: 36:56

And I have three suggestions to keep in mind.

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 36:59

The first would be to present the group as inclusive and welcoming of all. Even something as small as calling the group an atheist society versus a humanist, open minds kind of group changes the appeal a lot because, as we were discussing, people are hesitant to identify with labels associated with strong non-religion. But humanist is something people can actually relate to. The second point would be to engage with other faith societies and if there is a faith center at university, do definitely reach out to them, collaborate with them. At LSE. They have been really, really helpful and there is a lot of scope for joint events as well. The third thing is do not get into any controversy or offend anybody unnecessarily. Such an incident has happened at LSE in the past and it gets you nowhere. It damages the reputation of the group and it doesn't really help at any point. There's no point doing such a thing.

James H: 37:50

Was that an external speaker when there was a you know more of an offence or controversies caused?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 37:57

I think back in 2013 and it was the previous Atheist and Humanist Society, lse, ash, and it was something to do with the welcome fair.

James H: 38:05

Okay, okay, yeah, it's interesting. I mean, we've had a lot of talks recently and guests on the podcast discussing dialogue and you know, politeness and respect goes a long way if you want to change someone's mind, and I think one of the key things, first of all, is building rapport and setting those setting boundaries and respectful dialogue. So, yes, I really do appreciate your approach and you mentioned, of course, that if anybody would like to start a similar group, then you would be happy to help. How can anyone, or what is the best way to get in touch with you if somebody would like to ask any questions or request some support?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 38:46

Well, I'll be happy to help anybody who's considering a similar group. So the best way to reach out would probably be by email, and then I'll be happy to meet in person as well later on.

James H: 38:56

Fantastic, and we'll share some links to Ojes' socials in the show notes if you would like to follow up and contact him. So I'm interested to take a little bit of a step back. You mentioned you're a student of politics and data science. That's quite an interesting mix, but probably one that's becoming more and more important in society, particularly with the rise of data and AI in more and more, not just in the creative but in decision making and business processes. I imagine it's being incorporated into politics as well. I'd be interested to get your views on the rise of AI, particularly your studies in data science, and how that can be used as a positive for humanism. And, I guess, similarly, where do you see the potential risks to humanist values?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 39:50

Well, at our degree, we have been studying a lot of courses around ethics and political impacts, societal impacts of AI, and I feel that well, personally, I find the concern a bit overblown, because AI also provides us with, or might, in the future, provide us with, the potential to advance human values, to create a better world for everybody, which is what humanism also strives for, and, mindful of the concerns that are around AI, I feel that we should definitely treat this as a good opportunity to advance stuff that humanism believes in and create a better world for all.

James H: 40:25

Yeah, I see this topic of data ethics becoming one of the key areas of research going forward. It must be fascinating to be studying it, particularly at this time. Is there any resources or areas you would point to? If anybody wanted to get a really good, thorough understanding of data ethics, anything you would recommend?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 40:47

One of my favorites is the Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics. It has a wide range of chapters covering all facets of not just AI and data but all digital technology in general, and I find it a really interesting book to read read in my spare time. It's a great resource to go to for this.

James H: 41:07

Fantastic. We will certainly link to that as well. So, um yeah, with all that going on, how do you balance your academic responsibilities with with running a student group? Uh, like uh humanist, open minds. I was involved in a couple of student groups um many years ago and it's it's very time consuming, uh so to to be a founder and to champion it as well as doing such an intensive course. How do you find balancing those two responsibilities?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 41:28

Well, I find that so far, I have been able to balance them quite well and I'm getting decently good grades as well. So it depends on how much effort you invest into what you're doing and ultimately comes down to good time management, which is something that every student learns at some point. But I feel I have been quite good at it as well right now. So it's it's quite. It's going quite well. I'm able to balance them quite well.

James H: 41:52

Excellent and remind. Remind me how many years of graduation are you at the moment?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 41:57

I'm in my second year, so I will graduate next year in July.

James H: 42:02

Fantastic. So I guess you'll be looking for new joiners to join the committee and and take on the running of the group going forward.

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 42:08

For sure.

James H: 42:11

And with that, what? And reflecting on your your time both at LSE and with Humanist Open Minds, what impact do you feel the group has had on the community and what would you like to see from the next generation of leaders to take the group forward?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 42:29

Well, if I look back, we have managed to successfully revive the humanist presence at LSE after a gap of almost eight years. So we've created a representation for humanism and non-religion, and even the religious people and religious societies are becoming aware of humanism, which also increases the mutual respect we were talking about earlier and going forward for the next future leaders of the society. What I would want to see is a more broad reach, because we have found that a very, very large number of young people are non-religious, but they also quite hesitate to identify with that label and everything. So to broaden the scope and membership of the society, make it bigger. That's what I would want to see in the future membership of the society, make a bigger that's what I would want to see in the future.

James H: 43:14

Uh, yeah, you touch on such an important point and I think this is also a a key issue for lots of local groups, uh, which which we work out with central london humanists and, um, you know, there's a, there's a great network of local groups across the uk and I think a common challenge is how do we engage, uh, more younger people? Because certainly we see that correlation, that the younger generations are less likely to identify with a religious group or religious identity, but they're not, but it's they're not. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to join us in championing humanist causes or doing humanist groups. So what suggestions or recommendations would you have for any local group like ours or any of our we have an international listeners listenership here uh who for how we can engage more young people and and help them to feel comfortable identifying with, with the, with the humanist label, given that they probably already share the values that we have.

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 44:18

Well, I think the single most important thing would be for people to actually be aware of what humanism is about. It's not just about rejecting religion or being non-religious. There are other values. It's about human goodness, appreciating reason, potential, all of these things, and I find that people have initial reservations about humanism when I talk to them about it. But when I explain to them what humanism actually is about, a lot of people find themselves relating to it even more and more, including many religious people as well. So what I feel the most important thing is for people to know what humanism is about, to spread that awareness first, and once that has happened, I feel people will engage more with humanist causes in groups.

James H: 45:04

And I imagine those campus engagements, particularly Freshers' Weeks and just engaging people in conversation and dialogue, is a great way to do that. So, again, thank you for everything you've done and really looking forward to see what comes of Humanists, open Minds and for your own career post university. So, reflecting on your time, well, I guess, looking ahead more, what are your plans post graduation and do you intend to continue your community engagement work and community building?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 45:39

Well, looking beyond university, I do want to stay engaged with the cause of humanism, and so I do intend to get involved in local groups, depending on where in the world I am at that point, and I'm also putting down some of my ideas on humanism and religion, maybe for some blog posts or some longer texts. Let's see what comes out of that.

James H: 45:58

Fantastic. Well, do share those with us when that gets launched, and we do wish you the best with your future endeavors, whatever you choose to do post-university. And again, congratulations on creating humanist, open minds. Finally, our standard question for all of our guests here what's something that you've changed your mind on recently?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 46:18

Well, I have come to appreciate many things recently that I did not earlier Mushy peas, for instance. But more for the topic at hand.

James H: 46:27

Did you visit?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 46:27

the North. I did. I did, but more for the topic at hand. I appreciate the need to engage with religion and understand what and why people believe, rather than just dismiss it or discount it. For the past year, I was avoiding all of the faith societies and the faith center at university because I thought this is not for me. But now I am myself getting involved.

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 46:49

I am reading religious scriptures the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran, the Bible and even if I disagree it allows me to make a principle and very grounded point, and also to be correct and pay due respect to people's beliefs.

James H: 47:00

I think that's so important. And yeah, I mean, has it changed? I guess, when you mentioned having a deeper understanding for why people believe, could you draw that out for us a little. What do you think you've realized through studying by studying the scriptures but also engaging people in dialogue?

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 47:19

when I see. For a lot of people, religion is not just about the rituals or the or the scriptures, it's about a lived experience. And it is that lived experience which I seek to understand by engaging with the religion as well, because, well, while I try to stay out of it, I can only have an outsider's perspective. But I feel, only when you truly understand the other side can you make your own point.

James H: 47:44

Well, Absolutely, absolutely, yeah, and engaging and developing that deeper understanding is only going to help strengthen our reason and our cause as well. So, ojas Singh Banot, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today. Congratulations with the Humanist Open Minds and all the best of luck for the remainder of your studies and whatever you choose to do next.

Ojas Singh Bhanot: 48:09

Thank you so much. It's my pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me.

James H: 48:12

Welcome back to Humanism Now and thank you very much to Oyas for that insightful interview and for everything he's doing with the Humanist Open Minds group. So Nicole and Mark have had chance to listen to the interview as well. So I wondered, mark, what was most interesting to you about Oyas's approach and everything he's been doing at LSE?

Mark A: 48:34

Yeah, I thought he came across extremely well. He's obviously a very intelligent person, very committed to a good cause and that is of spreading an understanding of humanism. So I thought what particularly interested me about that was the type of approach he'd adopted and the context being that they'd had a previous attempt, maybe more than one, but certainly the last attempt to launch and sustain a humanist group in the university union had been, I think, eight years previously, something like that, and had sort of run out of steam which, as we know, is something that happens quite a lot, as we know is something that happens quite a lot uh and I think he'd learned a certain lesson from that that the previous uh iteration had been um, had been somewhat mired in some sort of controversy. We don't go into too much detail about that, but it was. I think it was. There was a sense that it had been um, maybe it had taken quite well to frame it another way that he was concerned about taking too adversarial approach. So he was.

Mark A: 49:33

I thought it was really interesting that he was much more interested in focusing on interfaith dialogue, working with other groups, maybe also trying to have sort of fun social events which didn't have anything to do with the actual sort of serious examination of topics.

Mark A: 49:52

I'm sure they do do events which are more like ours, where we have sort of discussions about humanist themes etc.

Mark A: 49:57

But it it seemed to me that he was uh adopting a very um I suppose you yeah collaborative and um, um, non-controversial, non-confrontational approach, uh, which was quite interesting because obviously that's something which, as humanists we know, comes was quite interesting because obviously that's something which, as humanists we know, comes up quite a lot, uh, that some people are very uncomfortable with taking sort of what they see as a sort of robust, um and critical attitude towards religion.

Mark A: 50:24

They prefer something which is a little bit more, uh, sensitive and empathetic and uh, and he's very much seems to have leaned into that approach, which was which was interesting I don't know whether that that's a sign of the times or whether it's something specific to his understanding, because he was saying how he'd had these uh very rich um experiences of sort of engaging with people of faith and discussing their ideas and, uh, I think, finding some common ground without in any way losing his humanist beliefs. So I thought that was yeah, it sounds like a very interesting and positive approach, possibly one also that requires quite a high level of time commitment and I don't want to say intelligence, but certainly a very empathetic personality. So, yeah, there was a lot in there that was very rich and interesting.

James H: 51:17

Yes, his approach reminded me a lot of my interview with Jeremy Riddell, I think, on the dialogue side of things, and he clearly sees the role of the humanists as being part of a much wider group and integrated with the rest of the the faith groups in the university. Nicole is one of our representatives from Young Humanists UK. What can we take and look to replicate, both in terms of Ayas and his approach within the Students' Union, but also creating that pathway for recent graduates to get more involved in other local groups?

Nicole S: 51:54

The transition can be quite hard and I think that is a moment when a lot of people kind of fall off. Humanist activism, let's call it Partly and I mean a big thing and it's something we find in young humanists is that after university a lot of people you know they're putting themselves headfirst in their careers and in early careers and you have to work quite hard to get into certain things or things like having families and things like that. So kind of life gets in the way, for lack of a better word. I think for lots of people, because when you're in uni you do have a lot of time to dedicate to those sorts of like interest things. So but I think if you have the external um influence then that's easier to stay into um. So, for example, joining the local humanist group and I think for local humanist groups, making sure you've got that connection if there is a humanist student group to be like hey and maybe do some events together, so that there's not, they're not just turning up to a bunch of strangers, they've already known them through the student one and keeping those connections. It's interesting that I guess talked about the both the failed group before, because I think there's a, it's a two sided thing that partly it's what kind of events, you know, what do people want out of a humanist group, understanding that?

Nicole S: 53:07

But it's also the waves of atheism, humanism. Waves of atheism, humanism um. There was a big wave um I've heard of there wasn't around in the 1970s, um, based on um. I'm not actually sure why that was, but a big wave and kind of atheist, humanist understanding, especially in student groups. And then the. There was a big wave when I was at university and that was because it was the generation of people who grew up reading the god delusion, um, which was its own flavor of atheism. And, like you touched on, mark and Oya said, it's like that kind of combative, cold, rationalist way that I think has kind of fallen out of favor. And so the kind of this new batch of student groups that are hopefully emerging now will have that more kind of interfaith dialogue, all this sort of like the nice elements, rather than being really brutal.

James H: 53:58

Yeah, increasingly, groups, I think, are looking to reflect humanists in terms of what we stand for rather than what we're not or what we stand against, which I think, as you say, was that last wave, particularly around the new atheists, was very much a backlash against religion, or particularly extreme religion, whereas now, I think, people are much more engaged with creating a society and a community and standing up for what we do believe in. It's great to see Oyas and other local groups and the young humanists, of course, who are leading the way for the next generation and having these more um collaborative conversations. I think there's it it's.

Mark A: 54:34

It's really an interesting point around um, not just um. You know the, the tenor or the flavor of the of contemporary humanism as being maybe less less adversarial and maybe a a bit less um, um, macho, uh, that that also. This ties in with something else that I just mentioned, which is around a lot of people not understanding what humanism is or having a misconception about what it is. And he said how people were often suspicious at first. He was surprised how wary they were when he sort of introduced the subject. When he explained to them what it was, they felt much more reassured and people began to engage.

Mark A: 55:13

And I think it's that sense, that sort of dual sense, based on what Kel's saying about how, yes, it's not understanding humanism and not necessarily it's a thing in and of itself. It's not just a critique or an aggressive critique of religion which puts a lot of people off, but also then, you know, going on to say this is what it is, because a lot of people just don't know. You know on to say this is what it is because a lot of people just don't know. You know they may not even know anything at all about it and it's a complete revelation to them and we find that all the time, don't we with um, with, with, uh, what we do, which is why you know we're making efforts to try to sort of as a group uh, central london humanists to help explain to people, provide opportunities for people to learn about what humanism is, which is a pretty foundational, entry-level type of humanism. But it's really important that universities are a perfect place to do that.

James H: 56:03

More news on how we will be educating people about humanism very soon, mark, I'm sure. But I think you're right. Universities is probably the best place to to to educate, but also, you know, capture people while they're open to new ideas and see if it's something that resonates with them. But yeah, definitely this reeducation of what humanism is, explaining it to people and seeing if more people feel like that's something that they can get on board with or what they already believe is, is a wonderful initiative. So once again, thank you to IAS for everything he's doing and best of luck for him and the team at Humanist Open Minds, and hopefully the new students will be taking that forward in the future. So, before we close out this week, we just have our regular feature to ask one of our panel if there is something which they have changed their mind on recently. And this week, nicole, I'm going to put you on the spot to ask you if there's anything which you've changed your mind on.

Nicole S: 57:06

Yes, so I have changed my mind something very recently, just this week, and it also feeds in very well to what we've been talking about about science literacy. So, um, I'm sure we've all heard that, uh, turmeric and the active component in it, curcumin, is really, really good for you, um, and there's all these purported benefits. But, uh, that is now up in the air, at least for me. It's not bad for you, of course, it is just a spice, so at least there's that. Um, there's no, that's not uh up for the way, but basically, uh, one of the lead researchers um into this so is a american biochemist, um, uh, he's called uh, barrett b agarwal and, um, he was interested in curcumin because his background, um, he is a proper medical doctor, but he was interested in looking at Ayurveda, which is very obsessed with turmeric, and he authored more than 120 articles about the compound of curcumin and he was really quite grand things.

Nicole S: 58:03

He was like, oh, it might have implications for cancer, alzheimer's, you know, it wasn't just general immune system and he recommended taking a 500 milligram curcumin supplement for daily health.

Nicole S: 58:19

But, as it turned out, he has probably been paid off for that. He's um big sponsorships with supplement companies, particularly those making curcumin supplements, and um, a cancer center launched a research fraud probe against him and 30 of his articles were retracted, which is one of the highest amounts of scientific people's being retracted by a single person, I think ever. Um, and and then, looking into a lot of the research, a lot of it was failed ethics about how much, how many tumors they were injecting into mice and things like this and um, lots of things like technically, the active elements are there, but how do they cross, kind of the blood-bane barrier? How do they get into, how do they get absorbed? Um, yeah, so basically there's lots, lots of. I think that the consensus among people casually is like oh yeah, it's great for you, tamarik, but yeah, now I'm not so sure that it is actually the miracle spice that people once thought.

James H: 59:07

Yeah, thank you for that public service announcement as well, and I think it brings us full circle to to our conversation in part one as well, and this is, I guess, why there are, or these scandals are often, why people do, um, have, you know, serious doubts and mistrust of scientists because, uh, when there is a scandal like this and it has happened from time to time um, that papers have to be retracted or that it turns out that someone has acted fraudulently, it's incredibly damaging to the sector as a whole. So that was fascinating, and it does seem as though it always seems to be.

Mark A: 59:43

Any time there's a fad diet or something which is supposed to be the new cure, it never really lasts very long well, strangely enough, um, I've recently started taking that as a supplement because it's supposed to be particularly good for, uh, the condition of chronic pain, which I I do have, unfortunately.

Mark A: 1:00:00

And um, it's interesting, I recently, about a year ago, I attended a uh conference about a scientific conference about, um, chronic pain research and uh, probably similar to what you're just describing, it had, uh, an astonishingly high sort of above average level of, um, well, scientific fraud or just, just, you know, papers that had to be withdrawn or which were shown on analysis to be inadequate in terms of sample sizes and ethno failing ethics and things like that. So it it just shows that, whilst the scientific principle is perfectly sound, there will always be those who, for various reasons whether it's to get paid large amounts of money by vested interests or to advance their own careers will be quite happy to undermine the integrity of that system, and something we always have to be wary of, and that is itself, isn't it part of the scientific process?

James H: 1:00:58

Absolutely Well. Thank you very much for sharing that, nicole, and we will be requesting more either listener or panel member, things they've changed their mind on and, as ever, if you would like to submit a question to our panel, please do get in touch. The email and form to get in touch with us for recommendations or questions is in the show notes. So that's everything we have time for this week on Humanism. Now, before we go, mark and Nicole, just a quick plug for your groups and any events that you have coming up. Nicole, anything you'd like to flag with the Leicester Humanists or Young Humanists?

Nicole S: 1:01:34

Yes, so Leicester Humanists have our first Humanist Assembly coming up, which we're very excited about. So that's going to be on Sunday, the 14th of April, at the Phoenix Cinema. Everybody's welcome but you do have to register because we have a limited space. But we're really excited. I'm sure people have heard about the kind of Sunday assembly movement. That's the kind of thing we're going for An exciting humanist gathering with lots of thoughts and ideas.

James H: 1:02:08

And yeah, it should be really good. Yeah, we'll have to have a session on the Sunday assembly and present that on the podcast a little bit and the different feelings there are towards that style of, uh, atheist group. So, yeah, best of luck with that. We will include links in the show notes. Um and mark, thanks once again for joining us. Uh, anything you'd like to mention from the central london humanists?

Mark A: 1:02:25

uh, yes, so I'm very much involved uh, with, with james's support and support others, uh, in running our discussion group and uh, we're having a bit of a tie-in with the uh book group where they're going to be talking about uh, is it robert sapolsky's book, determined, I think it's called a slightly longer title, but that's the headline word. And uh, that will be. Forgive me, but it's the second thursday in april. I can't actually remember what the date is, but you'll find it on meetup with all our other events. Uh, when it's uh, when it's posted up.

James H: 1:02:54

Yes, um, I think there's some quite strong views within the group around free will, as there is, I think, across any group. It's it. That's one topic, uh, controversial topic. That I don't think is um aligned uh by uh with other beliefs. So you tend to get lots of interesting views from that. So that should be a really interesting discussion and debate amongst humanists.

James H: 1:03:16

And finally, I'd just like to mention that our next in-person event in with the central london group will be our open mic poetry night, which will be on the 15th of may at our regular venue, the old diorama arts center in central london. It's hosted by alex williams, who has been a guest on the podcast previously and is well known as a fantastic poet and event host here in london, and it's going to be in tribute to the great benjamin sephania as well. So if you would be interested to perform or just come along and support us, we we will be live in London on the 15th of May from 6 pm. So with that, I'd just like to thank Mark and Nicole for their time. Thank you, listener, for joining us. Please do rate and review. It helps more people find us and spread the positive word about humanism. And please do if you would like to support us on Patreon and follow us on all social media, and we look forward to seeing you next time.