Gore tells scientists to be vocal

By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Al Gore released a movie about climate change this year

The former US Vice President Al Gore has told scientists to speak out more on the issue of climate change.

In a keynote address at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, he said it was imperative people understood what was happening to the world.

The year's biggest gathering of Earth scientists has heard further evidence of how the planet is warming.

Mr Gore said he was shocked by the report this week that suggested the Arctic may soon lose its summer ice.

Observational and computer modelling studies had indicated the northern polar region was fast approaching a tipping point that could lead to the loss of perennial ice cover by 2040.

"It's time for scientists to play a different role in asserting the value of scientific insight and defending the integrity of the scientific process, and becoming far more active in directly communicating to the American people about the meaning of the research you have underway..." he told his audience.

Mr Gore echoed the views of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) who on Wednesday issued a statement signed by 10,600 researchers complaining about political interference in their work.

The UCS claimed to have documented hundreds of cases of scientists working for US federal agencies being asked to change data to fit policy initiatives, or simply to bury the information.

Alluding to his recent movie on global warming, the Democrat politician said efforts to censor "inconvenient truths" should be resisted.

"We now face a climate crisis without any precedent in all of history and it's imperative that those who have the best evidence of what's occurring spread the knowledge beyond the small discipline in which these studies are usually disseminated," he told the BBC after his speech.

Larger-size clothes should come with warning to lose weight

Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor

Clothes made in larger sizes should carry a tag with an obesity helpline number, health specialists have suggested. Sweets and snacks should not be permitted near checkouts, new roads should not be built unless they include cycle lanes and food likely to make people fat should be taxed, they say in a checklist of what we might “reasonably do” to deal with obesity. Writing in the British Medical Journal, the team says that “pull yourself together, eat less and exercise more” is an inadequate response to obesity, voiced only by “less perceptive health professionals” and the media. What fat people need is help, advice and sympathy to overcome their addiction to food, says the group of public health professional, which includes Sir George Alberti, the Government’s national director for emergency care. Their checklist of possible actions includes: Printing a helpline numbers for advice with all clothes sold with a waist of more than 40in for men and 37in for boys, women’s garments with a waist of more than 35in or size 16 or above, and more than 31in for girls Banning the placement of sweets and fatty snacks at or near shop tills and at children’s eye level Taxing processed foods that are high in sugar or saturated fat Introducing health checks for all school leavers, both primary and secondary Allowing new urban roads only if they have cycle lanes Establishing a dedicated central agency responsible for all aspects of obesity

Can an atheist be a fundamentalist? by AC Grayling

Are there people who believe only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - or only part of a god?

AC Grayling

Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile

All AC Grayling articles
About Webfeeds

May 3, 2006 11:06 AM | Printable version

It is time to put to rest the mistakes and assumptions that lie behind a phrase used by some religious people when talking of those who are plain-spoken about their disbelief in any religious claims: the phrase "fundamentalist atheist". What would a non-fundamentalist atheist be? Would he be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - perhaps that there is only part of a god (a divine foot, say, or buttock)? Or that gods exist only some of the time - say, Wednesdays and Saturdays? (That would not be so strange: for many unthinking quasi-theists, a god exists only on Sundays.) Or might it be that a non-fundamentalist atheist is one who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves - and still do?

Christians, among other things, mean by "fundamentalist atheists" those who would deny people the comforts of faith (the old and lonely especially) and the companionship of a benign invisible protector in the dark night of the soul - and who (allegedly) fail to see the staggering beauty in art prompted by the inspirations of belief. Yet, in its bleeding-heart modern form, Christianity is a recent and highly modified version of what, for most of its history, has been an often violent and always oppressive ideology - think Crusades, torture, burnings at the stake, the enslavement of women to constantly repeated childbirth and undivorceable husbands, the warping of human sexuality, the use of fear (of hell's torments) as an instrument of control, and the horrific results of calumny against Judaism. Nowadays, by contrast, Christianity specialises in soft-focus mood music; its threats of hell, its demand for poverty and chastity, its doctrine that only the few will be saved and the many damned, have been shed, replaced by strummed guitars and saccharine smiles. It has reinvented itself so often, and with such breathtaking hypocrisy, in the interests of retaining its hold on the gullible, that a medieval monk who woke today, like Woody Allen's Sleeper, would not be able to recognise the faith that bears the same name as his own.

For example: vast Nigerian congregations are told that believing will ensure a high income - indeed they are told by Reverend X that they will be luckier and richer if they join his congregation than if they join that of Reverend Y. What happened to the eye of the needle? Oh well, granted: that tiny loophole was closed long ago. What then of "my kingdom is not of this world"? What of the blessedness of poverty and humility? The Church of England officially abolished Hell by an Act of Synod in the 1920s and St Paul's strictures on the place of women in church (which was that they are to sit at the back in silence, with heads covered) are now so far ignored that there are now women vicars, and there will soon be women bishops.

One does not have to venture as far as Nigeria to see the hypocrisies of reinvention at work. Rome will do, where the latest eternal verity to be abandoned is the doctrine of limbo - the place where the souls of unbaptised babies go. Meanwhile, some cardinals are floating the idea that condoms are acceptable, within marital relationships only of course, in countries with high incidences of HIV infection. This latter, which to anyone but an observant Catholic is not merely a plain piece of common sense but a humanitarian imperative, is an amazing development in its context. Sensible Catholics have for generations been ignoring the views on contraception held by reactionary old men in the Vatican, but alas, since it is the business of all religious doctrines to keep their votaries in a state of intellectual infancy (how else do they keep absurdities seeming credible?), insufficient numbers of Catholics have been able to be sensible. Look at Ireland until very recent times for an example of the misery Catholicism inflicts when it can.

"Intellectual infancy": the phrase reminds one that religions survive mainly because they brainwash the young. Three-quarters of Church of England schools are primary schools; all the faiths currently jostling for our tax money to run their "faith-based" schools know that if they do not proselytise intellectually defenceless three and four-year-olds, their grip will eventually loosen. Inculcating the various competing - competing, note - falsehoods of the major faiths into small children is a form of child abuse, and a scandal. Let us challenge religion to leave children alone until they are adults, whereupon they can be presented with the essentials of religion for mature consideration. For example: tell an averagely intelligent adult hitherto free of religious brainwashing that somewhere, invisibly, there is a being somewhat like us, with desires, interests, purposes, memories, and emotions of anger, love, vengefulness and jealousy, yet with the negation of such other of our failings as mortality, weakness, corporeality, visibility, limited knowledge and insight; and that this god magically impregnates a mortal woman, who then gives birth to a special being who performs various prodigious feats before departing for heaven. Take your pick of which version of this story to tell: let a King of Heaven impregnate - let's see - Danae or Io or Leda or the Virgin Mary (etc, etc) and let there be resulting heaven-destined progeny (Heracles, Castor and Pollux, Jesus, etc, etc) - or any of the other forms of exactly such tales in Babylonian, Egyptian and other mythologies - then ask which of them he wishes to believe. One can guarantee that such a person would say: none of them.

So, in order not to be a "fundamentalist" atheist, which of the absurdities connoted in the foregoing should an atheist temporise over? Should a "moderate atheist" be one who does not mind how many hundreds of millions of people have been deeply harmed by religion throughout history? Should he or she be one who chuckles indulgently at the antipathy of Sunni for Shia, Christian for Jew, Muslim for Hindu, and all of them for anyone who does not think the universe is controlled by invisible powers? Is an acceptable (to the faithful) atheist one who thinks it is reasonable for people to believe that the gods suspend the laws of nature occasionally in answer to personal prayers, or that to save someone's soul from further sin (especially the sin of heresy) it is in his own interests to be murdered?

As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is "naturalist", denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws. This properly implies that there is nothing supernatural in the universe - no fairies or goblins, angels, demons, gods or goddesses. Such might as well call themselves "a-fairyists" or "a-goblinists" as "atheists"; it would be every bit as meaningful or meaningless to do so. (Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the 20th century; the church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because - you guessed it - of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century.)

By the same token, therefore, people with theistic beliefs should be called supernaturalists, and it can be left to them to attempt to refute the findings of physics, chemistry and the biological sciences in an effort to justify their alternative claim that the universe was created, and is run, by supernatural beings. Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane - and with far greater frequency. But of course, as votaries of the view that everything is consistent with their beliefs - even apparent refutations of them - supernaturalists can claim that science itself is a gift of god, and thus justify doing so. But they should then remember Popper: "A theory that explains everything explains nothing."

In conclusion, it is worth pointing out an allied and characteristic bit of jesuitry employed by folk of faith. This is their attempt to describe naturalism (atheism) as itself a "religion". But, by definition, a religion is something centred upon belief in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe; and not merely in their existence, but in their interest in human beings on this planet; and not merely their interest, but their particularly detailed interest in what humans wear, what they eat, when they eat it, what they read or see, what they treat as clean and unclean, who they have sex with and how and when; and so for a multitude of other things, like making women invisible beneath enveloping clothing, or strapping little boxes to their foreheads, or iterating formulae by rote five times a day, and so endlessly forth; with threats of punishment for getting any of it wrong.

But naturalism (atheism) by definition does not premise such belief. Any view of the world that does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory, or at worst an ideology. If it is either of the two first, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings conducted at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics.

And one can grant that the word "fundamental" does after all apply to this: in the phrase "fundamentally sensible".

Humanist ethical outlook is non-religiously based

Those who are not religious have available to them a rich ethical outlook, all the richer indeed for being the result of reflection as opposed to conditioning.

AC Grayling

Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile

All AC Grayling articles
About Webfeeds

November 21, 2006 10:00 AM | Printable version

The current quarrel between religious and non-religious outlooks is another chapter in a story whose previous main incidents are be found in the mid-nineteenth century and the early seventeenth century, in connection respectively with Darwin's discoveries in biology and the rise of natural science. Both are moments in the slow but bloody retreat of religion; so too is what is happening now. For, despite all appearances, we are witnessing the death-throes of religion: I make the case for this claim in Prospect Magazine.

Here I wish to comment on something that, in the current climate of debate, has been mainly overlooked: the fact that those who are not religious have available to them a rich ethical outlook, all the richer indeed for being the result of reflection as opposed to conditioning, whose roots lie in classical antiquity when the great tradition of ethical thought in Western philosophy began.

For convenience I use the term "humanists" to denote those whose ethical outlook is non-religiously based - which is, in other words, premised on humanity's best efforts to understand its own nature and circumstances.

Consider what humanists aspire to be as ethical agents. They wish always to respect their fellow human beings, to like them, to honour their strivings and to sympathise with their feelings. They wish to begin every encounter, every relationship, with this attitude, for they keep in mind Emerson's remark that we must give others what we give a painting; namely, the advantage of a good light. Most of their fellow human beings merit this, and respond likewise. Some forfeit it by what they wilfully do. But in all cases the humanists' approach rests on the idea that what shapes people is the complex of facts about the interaction between human nature's biological underpinnings and each individual's social and historical circumstances.

Understanding these things - through the arts and literature, through history and philosophy, through the magnificent endeavour of science, through attentive personal experience and reflection, through close relationships, through the conversation of mankind which all this adds up to - is the great essential for humanists in their quest to live good and achieving lives, to do good to others in the process, and to join with their fellows in building just and decent societies where all can have an opportunity to flourish.

And this is for the sake of this life, in this world, where we suffer and find joy, where we can help one another, and where we need one another's help: the help of the living human hand and heart. A great deal of that help has to be targeted at the other side of what the human heart is - the unkind, angry, hostile, selfish, cruel side; the superstitious, tendentious, intellectually captive, ignorant side - to defeat or mitigate it, to ameliorate the consequences of its promptings, to teach it to be different; and never with lies and bribes.

Humanists distinguish between individuals and the wide variety of belief systems people variously adhere to. Some belief systems (those involving astrology, feng shui, crystal healing, animism...the list is long) they combat robustly because the premises of them are falsehoods - many, indeed, are inanities - and, even more, because too often belief in some of those falsehoods serves as a prompt to murder. Humanists contest them as they would contest any falsehood. But with the exception of the individuals who promote these systems when they should know better, humanism is not against the majority who subscribe to them, for it recognises that they were brought up in them as children, or turn to them out of need, or adhere to them hopefully (sometimes, and perhaps too often, unthinkingly).

These are fellow human beings, and humanists profoundly wish them well; which means too that they wish them to be free, to think for themselves, to see the world through clear eyes. If only, says the humanist, they would have a better knowledge of history! If only they would see what their own leaders think of the simple version of the faiths they adhere to, substituting such sophistry in its place! For whereas the ordinary believer has a somewhat misty notion of a father-cum-policeman-cum-Father Christmas-cum-magician personal deity, their theologians deploy such a polysyllabic, labyrinthine, intricate, sophisticated, complexified approach, that some go so far as to claim (as one current celebrity cleric does) that God does not have to exist to be believed in. The standard basis of religious belief - subjective certainty - is hard enough to contest, being non-rational at source, but this is beyond orbit. It is hard to know which are worse: the theologians who are serious about what they say in these respects, and those who know it for a game.

In contrast to the utter certainties of faith, a humanist has a humbler conception of the nature and current extent of knowledge. All the enquiries that human intelligence conducts into enlarging knowledge make progress always at the expense of generating new questions. Having the intellectual courage to live with this open-endedness and uncertainty, trusting to reason and experiment to gain us increments of understanding, having the absolute integrity to base one's theories on rigorous and testable foundations, and being committed to changing one's mind when shown to be wrong, are the marks of honest minds. In the past humanity was eager to clutch at legends, superstitions and leaps of credulity, to attain quick and simple closure on all that they did not know or understand, to make it seem to themselves that they did know and understand. Humanism recognises this historical fact about the old myths, and sympathises with the needs that drive people in that direction. It points out to such that what feeds their hearts and minds - love, beauty, music, sunshine on the sea, the sound of rain on leaves, the company of friends, the satisfaction that comes from successful effort - is more than the imaginary can ever give them, and that they should learn to re-describe these things - the real things of this world - as what gives life the poetry of its significance.

For that is what humanism is: it is, to repeat and insist, about the value of things human. Its desire to learn from the past, its exhortation to courage in the present, and its espousal of hope for the future, are about real things, real people, real human need and possibility, and the fate of the fragile world we share. It is about human life; it requires no belief in an after life. It is about this world; it requires no belief in another world. It requires no commands from divinities, no promises of reward or threats of punishment, no myths and rituals, either to make sense of things or to serve as a prompt to the ethical life. It requires only open eyes, sympathy, and reason.

Quotes from BHA & MORI - On level of Humanist convictions amongst the British Public.

Quotes from BHA chief executive Hanne Stinson, BHA education and public affairs officer Andrew Copson and BHA Vice Presidents Claire Rayner, Baroness Whitaker and Richard Norman on Ipsos MORI polls (released 24/11/06) on the level of humanist convictions amongst the British public and on how many of the British public believe religious groups and leaders are paid too much attention by Government

(Numbers in brackets refer to endnotes)

Hanne Stinson , chief executive of the British Humanist Association said, �Britain is basically a Humanist country, and this poll shows it. We have always been aware that many people who do not identify themselves as humanists, and this includes quite a few people who do not know what Humanism is, live their lives by what one might describe as humanist principles. People who join the Association often tell us that they have been humanists all their lives, or for the last 20 years or so, but didn�t know it. But it is very encouraging to find that 36% of the British population are not simply non-religious, but actually humanist in their outlook and their morality, and that very many others don�t feel they need religion to understand the universe, or to guide their moral decisions. These people may not belong to the Humanist Association, may not have even heard of Humanism, but they share our attitudes and we speak for them in our campaigns.

�Bishops and Archbishops every day make more extravagant claims about Britain�s alleged Christian values, but here at last is the evidence to show they are wrong. The churches, despite their establishment and institutional privileges, have lost the right to speak for Britain. The Government still makes one concession after another to religion on the basis of that 70% census figure, but if the public resents Government kow-towing to religious leaders almost as much as they resent its subservience to foreign leaders, then ministers really need to think again. They should move towards a secular state in Britain, with the Government neutral on matters of religion and belief, no privileges for any belief system, and public debate conducted in shared language, not dominated by religious pronouncements based on theology.�

Ms Stinson added that her only surprise was that only 42% felt religion got too much attention from Government, and wondered how much higher this figure would have been if respondents had been able to select more than three options from the seven listed. �The other explanation might be a lingering deference to religion that has outlasted mass religious belief. Time and again religious groups get their way against overwhelmingly public opinion. They killed off the Assisted Dying Bill, which 4 out of 5 people supported (1); they have won wide exemptions from equality legislation so they can continue to discriminate against gay people and those who do not share their beliefs; and they will be doing their utmost to defend their 26 unelected members of Parliament when the Government tackles Lords reform this session!�

Andrew Copson, Education Officer at the BHA, said that the result was particularly interesting coming so soon after Government caved in to religious pressure over faith schools: �The government keeps making the mistake of seeing pressure from religious groups as widespread public opinion. Even though poll after poll has demonstrated wide public opposition to faith schools (2), religious groups have fought off all attempts to reduce the harm done by them, and instead have won more privileges and pay scarcely a penny of the costs of �their� schools.�

Claire Rayner, writer, broadcaster and BHA Vice President (and former President) said, �It is such an encouragement that so many of the British public accept the positive values of humanism. I fall over people with just the same views all the time, though they may not call themselves humanists. The local soup run that goes out to the homeless is run by the local churches and synagogues, but when I got involved with them I discovered that at least half of them are �non-believers�. But there is nowhere else they can go if they want to help.

�I was a humanist without knowing it for many years before I found the Association � when I did, it was like finding a sort of home. Here were people with a range of views that matched mine, who shared my respect for life in all its forms and who, above all, did not in any way try to bully other people to follow their beliefs.�

Richard Norman , Emeritus Professor of Moral Philosopher at the University of Kent, author of On Humanism(Routledge), and a Vice President of the BHA said, �What is encouraging about this poll is not just the fact that so many people can thrive without religious belief, but that they are capable of taking a rational and sensitive attitude to moral questions. They recognise that you can do justice to the complexity of moral problems without succumbing to the crude relativism of "it's all a matter of personal preference".�

Baroness Whitaker, a Labour peer and a Vice President of the British Humanist Association said, �Ever since I was at (a Christian) school, I preferred humanism and I joined the BHA not long after I returned from graduate studies in the USA in 1961. As a child I found the religious presentation of sin and virtue uncongenial and as an adult I found the humanist perspective on morality, with its emphasis on reason, persuasive and attractive. It�s heartening to see that, today, so many people feel the same.

�I don�t think that religious beliefs are needed to understand the universe, or to be moral (as even tiny children feel remorse and compunction) � the knowledge that life is finite obliges us to make choices, and our rational nature makes us justify these choices and relate them to each other in a coherent way. This is what creates systems of ethics and values.

�My own humanist values motivate me as a working peer, where I put the case publicly that non-religious worldviews such as humanist ones should be accorded the same status � no more and no less � as religious ones.�

ENDNOTES

(1) 82% of the British public �think that a person who is suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to receive medical help to die, if that is what they want�� (NOP poll, 2004)

(2) eg 64% opposed the idea of government funding for faith schools, ICM poll 2005; 80% believed all schools should be open to those of any religion or belief, MORI poll 2001; 80% opposed the expansion of faith schools, YouGov poll 2001

Analysis of MORI polls - level of humanist convictions

Analysis of Ipsos MORI polls (released 24/11/06) on the level of humanist convictions amongst the British public and on how many of the British public believe religious groups and leaders are paid too much attention by Government.

Full analysis of the responses is available here (pdf)

Click here for commentary on the polls from BHA staff and Vice Presidents.

Those who choose only Humanist statements � �humanists� by this survey�s definition - are more prevalent among:

- younger and middle-aged people (aged 15-54) (41%) compared to those aged 55 and over (26%)

- those in social classes ABC1 (43%) compared to those in C2DE (28%)

- those with children in their household (43%) compared to those without (33%)

- those that live in the South (41%) compared to those that live in the Midlands (30%), with those in the North in between (37%)

- those working full- or part-time (42%) compared to those not working (29%)

- those who read �broadsheets� (51%) compared to those that read tabloids (33%)

- those with qualifications of GCSE equivalent and above (42%) compared to those with no formal qualifications (20%).

The questions and answers in the poll were as follows:

Respondents were asked: �If you had to choose just one of the statements which one best matches your view?� (The * indicates the humanist option in each case: respondents were not shown the *)

Scientific and other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe.* (62%)
Religious beliefs are needed for a complete understanding of the universe. (22%)
Neither of these (10%)
Don�t know (6%)

Human nature by itself gives us an understanding of what is right and wrong* (62%)
People need religious teachings in order to understand what is right and wrong (27%)
Neither of these (7%)
Don�t know (4%)

What is right and wrong depends on the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world* (65%)
What is right and wrong is basically just a matter of personal preference (15%)

What is right and wrong is unchanging and should never be challenged (13%)
None of these (2%)
Don�t know (5%)

Respondents were asked: �People often comment on the level of attention the Government pays to certain groups in society. Which, if any, of the following groups of people do you think the Government pays too much attention to?� and presented with a list of seven possibilities from which they could select up to three responses. Responses were:

%

Leaders of other countries 44

Religious groups and leaders 42

Newspaper headlines 35

Big Business 34

The Royal Family 20

Trade Unions 17

Ordinary people 3

None of these 9

Respondents were asked: �If you had to choose just one of the statements which one best matches your view?�

This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our personal existence (41%)
When we die we go on and still exist in another way (45%)
Neither of these (5%)
Don�t know (8%)

TECHNICAL NOTE ON DATA COLLECTION

Ipsos MORI interviewed a nationally-representative sample of 975 respondents aged 15+ across Great Britain. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, in respondents� homes, between 26 and 30 October 2006. 175 sampling points were covered. Results are weighted to the national GB 15+ population profile.

42%: Government pays too much attention to ‘religious groups and leaders’

17 Million humanists in Britain!
36% of the population!

42% of the population think the Government pays too much attention to religious groups and leaders!

If you count yourself amongst the rapidly growing number of humanists in Britain, or resent the growing influence of unrepresentative 'faith leaders' on Government policy, please join the British Humanist Association today!

We need your support to represent your views.

The figures above come from a new Mori poll.
Click here to see the results on humanist beliefs.
Click here for the results on the influence of religious groups and leaders.

42%: Government pays too much attention to ‘religious groups and leaders’ (24/11/06)

(Numbers in brackets below refer to endnotes)

More people think that the government pays too much attention to ‘religious groups and leaders’ than to any other domestic group according to an Ipsos MORI poll published today.

Asked to select from a list of groups that people might think the government pays too much attention to, more people (42%) chose ‘religious groups and leaders’ than chose any other domestic group. Religious groups and leaders came second only to ‘leaders of other countries’ in a list that also included ‘Newspaper headlines’, ‘Big business’, ‘the Royal family’, ‘Trade Unions’ and lastly ‘Ordinary people’ (see below for full results).

Hanne Stinson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, which commissioned the poll, said that her only surprise was that only 42% felt religion got too much attention from Government, and wondered how much higher this figure would have been if respondents had been able to select more than three options from the seven listed. ‘The other explanation might be a lingering deference to religion that has outlasted mass religious belief. Time and again religious groups get their way against overwhelmingly public opinion. They killed off the Assisted Dying Bill, which 4 out of 5 people supported (1); they have won wide exemptions from equality legislation so they can continue to discriminate against gay people and those who do not share their beliefs; and they will be doing their utmost to defend their 26 unelected members of Parliament when the Government tackles Lords reform this session!’

Andrew Copson, Education Officer at the BHA, said that the result was particularly interesting coming so soon after Government caved in to religious pressure over faith schools: ‘The government keeps making the mistake of seeing pressure from religious groups as widespread public opinion. Even though poll after poll has demonstrated wide public opposition to faith schools (2), religious groups have fought off all attempts to reduce the harm done by them, and instead have won more privileges and pay scarcely a penny of the costs of “their” schools.’

For further commentary on this poll click here , together commentary on the Ipsos MORI poll on the level of humanist convictions amongst the British public .

TECHNICAL NOTE ON DATA COLLECTION

Respondents were asked: ‘People often comment on the level of attention the Government pays to certain groups in society. Which, if any, of the following groups of people do you think the Government pays too much attention to?’ and presented with a list of seven possibilities from which they could select up to three responses. Responses were:

%

Leaders of other countries 44

Religious groups and leaders 42

Newspaper headlines 35

Big Business 34

The Royal Family 20

Trade Unions 17

Ordinary people 3

None of these 9

Ipsos MORI interviewed a nationally-representative sample of 975 respondents aged 15+ across Great Britain. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, in respondents’ homes, between 26 and 30 October 2006. 175 sampling points were covered. Results are weighted to the national GB 15+ population profile.

Full analysis of the poll can be found here , together with analysis of the Ipsos MORI poll on the level of humanist convictions amongst the British public .


ENDNOTES

(1) 82% of the British public ‘think that a person who is suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to receive medical help to die, if that is what they want…’ (NOP poll, 2004)

(2) eg 64% opposed the idea of government funding for faith schools, ICM poll 2005; 80% believed all schools should be open to those of any religion or belief, MORI poll 2001; 80% opposed the expansion of faith schools, YouGov poll 2001


NOTES TO EDITORS

The British Humanist Association(BHA) represents and supports the non-religious. It is the largest organisation in the UK campaigning for an end to religious privilege and to discrimination based on religion or belief, and for a secular state.

For further comment, contact:

Hanne Stinson (BHA) by email or on 07764 947249

Andrew Copson (BHA) by email or on 07855 380633

John Leaman (Ipsos MORI) by email or on 020 7347 3000

The following distinguished supporters of the British Humanist Association are also available for comment:

Susan Blackmore by email

A C Grayling by email

17,000,000 British Humanists ...

17 Million humanists in Britain!
36% of the population!

42% of the population think the Government pays too much attention to religious groups and leaders!

If you count yourself amongst the rapidly growing number of humanists in Britain, or resent the growing influence of unrepresentative 'faith leaders' on Government policy, please join the British Humanist Association today!

We need your support to represent your views.

The figures above come from a new Mori poll.
Click here to see the results on humanist beliefs.
Click here for the results on the influence of religious groups and leaders.

7 million British Humanists (24/11/06)

(Numbers in brackets below refer to endnotes)

In the 2001 census 7 out of 10 people ticked the ‘Christian’ box but, with church attendance now below 7% (1) and under 1 in 3 marriages taking place in church (2), this figure was clearly more about cultural identity than religious belief (3).

Today an Ipsos MORI poll has shown that 36% of people – equivalent to around 17 million adults – are in fact humanists in their basic outlook.

They:

- feel scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe (rather than feeling that religious beliefs are needed for a ‘complete understanding’)

- believe that ‘right and wrong’ can be explained by human nature alone, and does not necessarily require religious teachings, and

- base their judgments of right and wrong on ‘the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world’.


Humanism is a non-religious ethical outlook on life and these answers summarise its key beliefs (click here for more details on Humanism today)


These are the key figures from the poll (the detailed results and further analysis are given here , along with analysis of the Ipsos MORI poll on how many people believe religious groups and leaders have too much influence on Government ):

- Overall, faced with the choice, 62% said ‘scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe’ against 22% who felt ‘religious beliefs are needed for a complete understanding of the universe’.

- Similarly, 62% chose ‘Human nature by itself gives us an understanding of what is right and wrong’, against 27% who said ‘People need religious teachings in order to understand what is right and wrong’.

- In the last question, faced with three choices, 65% said that what is right and wrong ‘depends on the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world’. The rest split almost equally between two profoundly un-Humanist views: 15% said right and wrong were ‘basically just a matter of personal preference’ and 13% said what was right and wrong was ‘unchanging and should never be challenged’.

Thirty-six percent chose all three of the Humanist answers, and another 30% chose two out of three. Only 13% chose none of them.


41% believe this is our only life

Another question found that 41% endorsed the strong statement: ‘This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our personal existence’. Fractionally more - 45% - preferred the broad view that ‘when we die we go on and still exist in another way’. Of those choosing all three of the ‘Humanist’ answers, 54% said this was our only life, against 38% who believed in some sort of continued existence. And of those seeing this as our only life, 79% chose two or all three of the ‘Humanist’ answers to the other questions. (Interestingly, 22% of those who endorsed the need for religion in answers to other questions also said this was our only life.)


Commentary (for more click here )

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association said, ‘Britain is basically a humanist country, and this poll shows it. We have always been aware that many people who do not identify themselves as humanists, and this includes quite a few people who do not know what Humanism is, live their lives by what one might describe as humanist principles. People who join the Association often tell us that they have been humanists all their lives, or for the last 20 years or so, but didn’t know it. But it is very encouraging to find that 36% of the British population are not simply non-religious, but actually humanist in their outlook and their morality, and that very many others don’t feel they need religion to understand the universe, or to guide their moral decisions. These people may not belong to the Humanist Association, may not have even heard of Humanism, but they share our attitudes and we speak for them in our campaigns.’

For further commentary on the results of the poll from Ms Stinson and from BHA Vice Presidents Claire Rayner, Baroness Whitaker and Richard Norman, along with analysis of the Ipsos MORI poll on how many people believe religious groups and leaders have too much influence on Government , click here


ENDNOTES

(1) Religious Trends 5: 2005/06, table 2.21

(2) 68% of marriages in 2004 were civil ceremonies - National Statistics

(3) For example it was asked in a context of ethnicity and the question was ‘What is your religion?’, rather than ‘Do you have a religion and if so what is it?’


NOTES TO EDITORS

The British Humanist Association(BHA) represents and supports the non-religious. It is the largest organisation in the UK campaigning for an end to religious privilege and to discrimination based on religion or belief, and for a secular state.

For further comment, contact:

Hanne Stinson by email or on 07764 947249

Andrew Copson by email or on 07855 380633

John Leaman (Ipsos MORI) by email or on 020 7347 3000

The following supporters of the British Humanist Association are also available for comment:

Susan Blackmore by email

A C Grayling by email

Beyond Belief - Speaker videos

I wrote about the "Beyond Belief" conference when New Scientist reviewed it November.

The Speakers: Watch videos - about 20 hours over the 3 day conference (source: BobPark.org).

Fascinating.

National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence (NICE) - Obesity Guidelines

Professor Peter Littlejohns, Clinical and Public Health Director at NICE says: “Obesity is the most serious threat to the future health of our nation. Its risks are as serious as smoking and urgent action is needed to tackle this problem now.

Suzanne Lucas, consumer representative says: “The UK is second only to the USA in terms of the numbers of people that are overweight or obese.

For men waist circumference of less than 94cm is low, 94 to 102cm is high and more than 120cm is very high. I measured mine a few weeks ago.. 104cm.

































Physical activity
Adults 1.2.4.18
Adults should be encouraged to increase their physical activity even if they do not lose weight as a result, because of the other health benefits physical activity can bring, such as reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Adults should be encouraged to do at least 30 minutes of at least moderate-intensity physical activity on 5 or more days a week. The activity can be in one session or several lasting 10 minutes or more.

1.2.4.19 To prevent obesity, most people should be advised they may need to do 45–60 minutes of moderate-intensity activity a day, particularly if they do not reduce their energy intake. People who have been obese and have lost weight should be advised they may need to do 60–90 minutes of activity a day to avoid regaining weight.

Appendix D:
Existing guidance on diet, physical activity and preventing obesity

Total fat Reduce to no more than 35% food energy
Saturated fat Reduce to no more than 11% food energy
Total carbohydrate Increase to more than 50% food energy
Sugars (added) Reduce to no more than 11% food energy
Dietary fibre Increase non-starch polysaccharides to 18 g per day
Salt Reduce to no more than 6 g salt per daya
Fruit and vegetables Increase to at least five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables per day



The Food Standards Agency summarises the advice as:
• Base your meals on starchy foods.
• Eat lots of fruit and vegetables.
• Eat more fish – including a portion of oily fish each week.
• Cut down on saturated fat and sugar.
• Try to eat less salt – no more than 6 g a day for adults.11
• Get active and try to be a healthy weight.
• Drink plenty of water.
• Don’t skip breakfast.


The Department of Health advises that men should drink no more than 3–4 units of alcohol per day, and women no more than 2–3 units of alcohol per day.

Sources:

• Obesity Guidelines home
  
• CG43 Obesity: NICE guideline
  
• CG43 Obesity: Quick reference guide 1 for local authorities, schools and early years providers, workplaces and the public.
• CG43 Obesity: Understanding NICE guidance - Treatment for people who are overweight or obese
  
• CG43 Obesity: Understanding NICE guidance - Preventing obesity and staying a healthy weight
  
• 2006/057 New NICE guideline calls for urgent action to stem the rising tide of obesity in England and Wales
  
• CG43 Obesity: Presenter slides

Who are you calling fat?

Four of these men are obese - but didn't know it, until we stepped in

By Denise Winterman BBC News Magazine

Britain is the fattest country in Europe and part of the problem is people don't realise they are overweight, says the government. So what does obesity look like?

How hard can it really be? The rolls of surplus flesh, the tight waistband, not being able to see your own feet - you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out you're carrying extra pounds.

But many people don't consider themselves overweight, according to fitness minister Caroline Flint, who says it's one reason why nearly a quarter of adults in the UK are obese.

OVERWEIGHT ACCORDING TO BMI George Clooney Brad Pitt Matt Damon Calculate your BMI

The government and doctors use the body mass index (BMI) to assess a person's condition; classing us as "underweight, ok, overweight, obese or clinically obese". The calculation is based on comparing a person's weight with their height and does not take into account sex or the proportion of body fat to muscle.

Some medical bodies, including the World Health Organization, say waist size is a more accurate measure, but the government has no plans to ditch the BMI.

"We are aware of criticism and that there has been talk of the hip-to-waist ratio, but BMI is the agreed system and we will continue to use it," says a Department of Health spokeswoman.

So what does obesity look like? The Magazine headed to Stratford, east London, to break the unhappy news to some unsuspecting men, who significantly outnumber women in the fight against fat.

ZAC GOBI - 6FT 4INS - 18 STONE - OFFICIALLY OBESE

"Obese! Not even just overweight. That is a bit of a shock. I think it's ridiculous, I'm 6ft 4ins so I'm never going to be as light as a feather. I think my weight is fine for my height.

Enlarge Image

"To get to the weight slap in the middle of what the index says is right for a man of my height I would have to lose around five stone. That's madness, I'd look ill and as if I had a massive head.

"I eat one big meal a day, it is a really big meal - maybe a whole chicken, rice and peas.

I think the amount I eat and my diet is good. There is a problem with weight in this country but the index is confusing. It doesn't take into account things like muscle."

BILLY MURRELL - 5FT 8INS - 14 STONE - OFFICIALLY OBESE

"No way. I don't agree with that - it's crazy. I know I'm carrying a few extra pounds and I am having a cheeseburger for breakfast, but obese? I'm just eating this to kill a bit of time before an appointment, I don't usually have a burger for breakfast.

Enlarge Image

"That classification isn't any good because it doesn't take into account my body frame, muscle or what sex I am, all of which make a difference.

"I'd have to lose around three stone for the government to think I'm the right weight, That's just stupid. I'd look ill and I probably would be ill.

"I know the government has to have a way to measure weight, but this is not it. They need to look at things again."

ANDY WOOD - 6FT 2INS - 16ST 11LBS - OFFICIALLY OBESE

"I know I'm carrying a little bit of extra weight but I'm not obese. I think I am a fair weight for my height and build.

Enlarge Image

"The BMI doesn't take into account things like muscle, which is important. It would class most rugby players and footballers as obese and look how fit they are.

"According to the index my healthy weight is around 12 to 13 stone, but I actually think that is underweight for my height.

"There is a problem with obesity in this country, people don't eat well or look after themselves. But using the BMI is not the right way of assessing the problem, it's not very helpful."

BRIAN MANSFIELD - 5FT 11INS - 17 STONE - OFFICIALLY OBESE

"I knew it would have me as obese. I know I am packing a few extra pounds, but I don't consider myself obese.

Enlarge Image

"I'm big boned but the index doesn't take that into account and it should. I do drive a cab, which means I'm sitting on my bum all day but I wouldn't say I was unhealthy.

"I have lost weight in recent months. I did it by eating healthily, my wife does all that stuff - salads and that. She looks after me very well.

"The BMI is not a helpful way of calculating who's overweight and not. The problem is if people don't trust it they're not going to trust what else the government says about being healthy."

LEE EMBERY - 6FT 2INS - 15 STONE - OFFICIALLY OVERWEIGHT

"I think that's a bit harsh. I know I could do with losing some weight, but only a few pounds.

Enlarge Image

"I'd have to lose about two stone to get to what the government thinks is the ideal weight for me. It's ridiculous, I would look ill, look like a skeleton. I would not look healthy.

"I know there are some things about my eating habits that I could change but on the whole I don't consider myself unhealthy.

"I'd like to see what some of those government ministers are classed as using this index. I would like to see how they react to being called fat."

---

I'm a male 5'8" and 12Stone. If I was built like George Cluney then the BMI wouldn't fit me but then I wouldn't have a double chin or love handles so I guess that I need to loose some weight. The problem is that because so many people are overweight being a bit chunky has become the norm and doesn't look out of place. However the fact of the matter is, if you are overweight then you increase your chances of dying before you should. So be fat or not but don't criticise the government for giving a simple guide to help you.
Paul, Glasgow

Current thinking is that a person's waist measurement is a more accurate way of seeing if they are obese. Many athletes, i.e. weight lifters, shot putters, etc. are very large but it is all muscle and would show as obese if bmi was used.
JILL BOND

I look at these pictures and see men that, mostly, look reasonably healthy. Maybe Britain's problem is not obesity but the BMI index. Its just another nanny state scare story.
Mike Ayres, Bodmin, UK

I challenge all members of parliament to have their weight checked against the BMI index and see how many of them come out overweight and obese.
maureen hodgson, telford shropshire UK

I'm sorry but I think many people in Britain are deluded about their weight. It is easy to disguise several stone of excess flesh by dressing carefully. However, the internal threat to our systems is there none the less. Stay fat if you like but be prepared to suffer the consequences of your denial!! Healthy eating is just a good habit we need to practise. Unhealthy eating is just a bad habit we need to give up. Not rocket science.
OmegaSarah, Huntingodn

These five men are in denial about their size. Of the four men you can see none of them look healthy, they are just hiding their bodies in lose fitting clothes. They all look overweight to me and could do with losing more than their suggested few pounds. Lee Embery sums up public perception of weight when he says "I'd have to lose two stone ... I would look ill, look like a skeleton". People don't see being overweight as looking ill they see being lean as ill. Even though the people with BMI index in the lower half of the ideal weight section have the least health problems.
Andrew Campbell, Southport, UK

Maybe the BMI takes it's baseline from the skeletal celebrities/models rather than real people? Not to take muscle into account is ridiculous as it weighs so much more than fat.
Sue, Cheshire

ig Boned? Given that your skeleton accounts for just 15% of your body weight it's clear that even if you had bones half as big again as the next person this isn't going to have much effect on your overall weight. Lay off the pies, and you'll end up with the correct BMI; people are just kidding themselves.
Ewan, Newcastle Upon Tyne

What a horrible world it would be if everyone conformed to this meaningless measure, and we all pottered about half starved, in our joyless feable frames. Thank god we still have the right to live our lives the way we want to, for now.
Steve Alcock, Colchester

According to the BMI Jonny Wilkinson is overweight and the likes of Lawrence Dallaglio are obese. Need I say more?
Steve Ferris, Gloucester

I have to say I agree with these blokes - they all look fine to me! I am in the ok weight-range on the chart, but then I am female so probably have less muscle than these guys, who all look ok to me. As they say, maybe a couple of them could do with losing a few pounds, but I certainly wouldn't class these people as obese...or even overweight in most cases! Very interesting - I thought BMI was a good way of measuring if someone was overweight or not, but now I'm not so convinced.
Rebecca, birmingham

Its crazy madness i tell you, none of those men look obese!! The chap who uses the example of rugby players is spot on, muscle weighs a lot more than fat. I went ona diet, exercised, changed shape and went down two dress sizes, but for the first few months i put weight on, as i was building muscle. I was told by a qualified fitness instructor NOT to weigh myself as it is misleading!! Utter rubbish this BMI scale, but unfortunatly it needs to be measured, just in a more realistic way.
Suz, Gloucestershire

I am a weight lifter and runner. I ran the Nike Run London 10km in 54 minutes and today I benched 120kg in the gym. At 6'1" and 105 kg I am obese according to the BMI.
Philip Duran, London

I'm 18 years old, and have lost 5and 1/2 stone in just over a year. My BMI states that I am right in the middle, if not towards the top end of the right weight for me (being 5ft 8 inches, weighing 1o stone 5 pounds) yet some people in my family have recommended that I need to put on 1/2 a stone to be at the right weight. I think that all the BMI can be used for is a vague benchmark for people, and is unreliable, and inaccurate.
Richard Durkin, Sheffield

Well, I'm 6'4" and approx 85kgs so with a BMI of about 22.5. Recently I weighed about 10kgs more than that, realised I was getting podgy and lost the weight. It's really not that hard, you've just got to stop deluding yourself that you're healthy. Theres a hude difference between International Rugby players and us common mortals.
Duncan, Cambridge

I'm 5'7", about 14st, broad-shouldered and stocky. The charts say I'm around 3.5st too heavy, and class me as obese. The charts lie. I had a medical a while ago (I weighed more then) that measured my actual body fat percentage. They calculated my ideal weight range to be only 1-2st less than my current. BMI is a fiction that succeeds only in setting unachievable targets, and making healthy people feel insecure in themselves.
Jon, Cambridge UK

Obesity: the prevention, identification, assessment and management of overweight and obesity in adults and children

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has issued guidelines on treating obesity and preventing people becoming overweight.

NICE says the NHS in England and Wales needs support from local authorities, schools and employers.

A quarter of England adults are obese, costing £3.7bn a year. It causes more harm than smoking, alcohol or poverty.

A Department of Health report published in August predicted a third of adults and a fifth of all children under 15 will be obese by 2010.

Presenter Slides (ppt file download)

Associated comorbidities in Adults:

• type 2 diabetes
• coronary heart disease (CHD)
• hypertension
• various cancers
• osteoarthritis
  

Associated comorbidities in Children and teenagers:

• hypertension
• hyperinsulinaemia
• dyslipidaemia
• type 2 diabetes
• psychosocial dysfunction
• exacerbation of existing conditions
• orthopaedic problems

Source: NICE booklet - Preventing obesity and staying a healthy weight.

If two people have the same BMI, the one with the bigger waist measurement is more likely to develop health problems as a result of being overweight. If you are a man, your chance of developing health problems is higher if your waist measurement is more than 94 cm (37 inches), and higher still if it is more than 102 cm (40 inches). If you are a woman, your chance of developing health problems is higher if your waist measurement is more than 80 cm (31.5 inches), and higher still if it is more than 88 cm (34.5 inches).

Target waist measurement: 94cm

•

The Scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof.

From Evolution v Creationism, Ashley Montague in 1984 wrote "The Scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof." For bigot read religious.

World's oldest person dies at 116

An American woman officially recognised as the world's oldest person has died at the age of 116.

Elizabeth "Lizzy" Bolden died at a nursing home in Memphis, Tennessee.

Born in 1890, she married at 19 and was widowed in the 1950s. She suffered a stroke in 2004 and spoke little after that.

Mrs Bolden had 40 grandchildren, 75 great-grandchildren, 150 great-great-grandchildren, 220 great-great-great grandchildren and 75 great-great-great-great grandchildren.

She assumed the title of world's oldest person following the death of Esther de Capovilla of Ecuador in August - also at the age of 116.

Her successor looks set to be Emiliano Mercado del Toro of Puerto Rico, who is 115, according to Robert Young, adviser to Guinness World Records.

Flavonoids

Flavonoids (wiki)

Biological effects

Flavonoids are widely distributed in plants fulfilling many functions including producing yellow or red/blue pigmentation in flowers and protection from attack by microbes and insects.

Flavonoids have been referred to as "nature's biological response modifiers" because of strong experimental evidence of their inherent ability to modify the body's reaction to allergens, viruses, and carcinogens. They show anti-allergic, anti-inflammatory^[1] , anti-microbial and anti-cancer activity. In addition, flavonoids act as powerful antioxidants, protecting against oxidative and free radical damage.

Consumers and food manufacturers have become interested in flavonoids for their medicinal properties, especially their potential role in the prevention of cancers and cardiovascular disease. The beneficial effects of fruit, vegetables, and tea or even red wine have been attributed to flavonoid compounds rather than to known nutrients and vitamins.

Good sources of flavonoids include all citrus fruits, berries, onions, parsley, legumes, green tea, red wine, seabuckthorn, and dark chocolate (that with a cocoa content of seventy percent or greater).

Citrus

The citrus bioflavonoids include hesperidin, quercetin, rutin (a sugar of quercetin), and tangeritin. In addition to possessing antioxidant activity and an ability to increase intracellular levels of vitamin C, rutin and hesperidin exert beneficial effects on capillary permeability and blood flow. They also exhibit some of the anti-allergy and anti-inflammatory benefits of quercetin. Quercetin can also inhibit reverse transcriptase, part of the replication process of retroviruses (Spedding et al. 1989). The therapeutical relevance of this inhibition has not been established. Hydroxyethylrutosides (HER) have been used in the treatment of capillary permeability, easy bruising, hemorrhoids, and varicose veins.

Green Tea

Green tea polyphenols are potent antioxidant compounds that have demonstrated greater antioxidant protection than vitamins C and E. Green tea may also increase the activity of antioxidant enzymes. Green tea polyphenols may inhibit cancer by blocking the formation of cancer-causing compounds and suppressing the activation of carcinogens. The major polyphenols in green tea are flavonoids (catechin, epicatechin, epicatechin gallate, epigallocatechin gallate(EGCG), and proanthocyanidins).

Though both green tea and black tea are derived from the same plant (Camellia sinensis), they possess different antioxidants. In producing black tea the leaves are allowed to oxidize, during which enzymes present in the tea convert many polyphenols to larger molecules with different biological effects. However, green tea is produced by lightly steaming the fresh-cut leaf, which inactivates these enzymes, and oxidation does not occur.