My personal view is that this is a 'discussion' list and that as long as
the discussion does not get out of hand, it is worth maintaining it.
Laurie could open a new discussion on one of the important themes he
raised. The volume and size of the mails generated is not so high and,
indeed, I am personally much more bothered by mails with large
attachments when a web link would serve just as well. I suppose, though,
restraint is needed in all this, and there comes a time when a list
moderator should step in any say, "this thread is now closed" ...
Paul
Dr Paul Stubbs
Senior Research Fellow (znanstveni savjetnik)
The Institute of Economics, Zagreb
tel: +385 1 23 62 239 (new direct line)
tel: (switchboard): +385 1 23 62 200
fax: +385 1 23 35 165
www.eizg.hr
Visit my personal home page at
www.paulstubbs.pbwiki.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirk Mann [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Not speakers corner.
Would it be possible for all the believers - humanists and those who
think there is some sort of thing that has special powers (other than
the Chelsea manager) but chooses not to use them, to conduct their
discussions between themselves?
As a "born again" atheist I do not feel the need to upset well meaning
religious folk but nor do I feel the need to convert them, or to get
all these emails.
Please remove me from this tiresome discussion!
Kirk Mann
-----Original Message-----
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists on
behalf of Francis Owtram
Sent: Thu 25/01/2007 10:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: How many Humanists? This train of of thought is absurd
Attention is being given to this topic because the role of religion in
society, both in the UK and globally, is of critical importance. For
example the Catholic churches opposition to contraception is a
contributing
factor to the spread of AIDS in Africa which has massive implications
for
poverty levels there. Therefore, discussion on issues to do with the
attitudes of people in the UK are of interest. I do not find this
discussion absurd.
Francis Owtram
_____
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Laurie Joshua
Sent: 24 January 2007 16:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How many Humanists? This train of of thought is absurd
With all the challenges confronting social policy [local, national,
regional
and global] why is so much attention being given to this rather archane
line
equiry. Globally over 2 billion live below the $1 a day poverty line,
climate change threatens livelihoods, and the international architecture
for
development and trade is creaking - albeit within a framework of larger
aid
flows - at the seams.
I doubt very much whether the survey methdology or questionnaire design
used
to determine how many 'humanists' there are in the UK will make a blind
bit
of difference to the global challenges that confront humanity!
So can you please stop this absurd flow of emails at the earliest
opportunity.
Thanks
_____
From: Paul Ashton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Paul Ashton <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: How many Humanists?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:48:39 +0000
>I received a couple of emails off-list asking why I thought the British
>Humanist Association's claim that it "campaigns on behalf of the UK's
>17 million Humanists" was ridiculous. Just to clarify, I should say
>that it was the the organisation's stated belief that there are 17
>million Humanists in the UK, rather than its ability or right to
>campaign on behalf of how ever many there are, that I found absurd.
>
>The BHA's figure of 17 million is not based on actual membership of
>Humanist organisations in this country but extrapolated from the
>results of a survey they commisioned which asked rather loaded
>questions. The responses to just three (of only five) questions which
>were answered in an 'appropriate' way was deemed to represent an
>adherence to Humanist beliefs. (Rather in the same subjective way that
>some poverty researchers deem that someone is in poverty if they answer
>a chosen proportion of questions in a certain way, e.g. Breadline
>Britain). Respondents were asked to choose between two or three
>'opposing' views in each question:
>
>1. Scientific and other evidence provides the best way to understand
> the universe / Religious beliefs are needed for a complete
> understanding of the universe.
>
>2. Human nature by itself gives us an understanding of what is right
> and wrong / People need religious teachings in order to understand
> what is right and wrong
>
>3. What is right and wrong depends on the effects on people and the
> consequences for society and the world / What is right and wrong is
> basically just a matter of personal preference / What is right and
> wrong is unchanging and should never be challenged
>
>4. This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our
> personal existence / When we die we go on and still exist in
another
> way
>
>5. Which, if any, of the following groups of people do you think the
> Government pays too much attention to?
>
>Leaders of other countries
>Religious groups and leaders
>Newspaper headlines
>Big Business
>The Royal Family
>Trade Unions
>Ordinary people
>
>None of the respondents were actually asked if they considered
>themselves Humanists but as some 36pc of them fitted the BHA's
>pre-determined definition of holding humanist beliefs from their
>responses to three of the above 'objective' and 'revealing' questions,
>the organisation claimed that there are 17 million Humanists in the UK.
>It is this method of defining a Humanist that I find absurd.
>
>Paul Ashton
>[log in to unmask]
>2007-01-23
|