The idea that God is a “person with whom people can have a relationship” seems right out of Evangelical Christianity.
Yet a new study of religion in America finds that a full quarter of Jews believe in such a personal relationship.
Is that figure high or low, and is it good for the Jews?
It’s lower than the percentage of such believers in the country’s other major faith groups, according to a major survey of religious beliefs released this week. But it’s probably on the rise, and it’s good if Jews with such a personal belief become active in synagogues and other Jewish organizations, says a spokesman for a prominent outreach organization.
It may be bad, however, if personal piety comes at the expense of connections with the wider Jewish community, says a representative for another national Jewish organization.
The release of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life holds few surprises about American Jewry, showing the American Jewish community on the liberal — nearly secular — end of the spectrum on such issues as the importance of religion in one’s life, frequency of attending religious services and divine authorship of Scripture. (Pew interviewed some 36,000 people nationwide during the spring and summer of 2007. The Jewish sample was 682.)
Twenty-five percent of Jews in the Pew study said they believe in a personal God; 50 percent said God is “an impersonal force.” The Protestant figure for a personal God was 72 percent; Catholic, 60; Muslim, 41.
People who develop a sense of personal spirituality, in any faith, often tend to disassociate from communal life ...
Rabbi Yitzchak Rosenbaum, associate director of the National Jewish Outreach Program, says he does not share those fears. “I don’t think the broader Jewish community will suffer if Jews develop a personal relationship with God. It brings them closer — they need a community.”
And, the rabbi says, the concept of a personal relationship with God has roots in the Torah. “It was a Jewish idea before it was a Christian idea. We believe that every Jew prays directly to God.”
Americans believe in miracles, heaven, power of prayer: report
Americans believe in miracles, heaven, power of prayer: report
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Around three-quarters of Americans believe in miracles, more Americans believe in heaven than in hell, and nearly six in 10 pray every day, a report based on a survey of 35,000 US adults showed Monday.
Of those who pray regularly, around a third -- 31 percent -- say God answers their prayers at least once a month, and one in five Americans said they receive direct answers to prayer requests at least once a week, the report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said.
Seventy-four percent of those surveyed for the report, called the US Religious Landscape Survey, said they believed in heaven as a place where people who have led good lives are rewarded, while only around six in 10 believed in hell, where unrepentant evil-doers languish in eternal punishment.
Nearly eight in 10 American adults (79 percent) believe that miracles occur, the survey, conducted between May and August last year, showed.
But perhaps most striking in the report was the near unanimous belief in God, held by more than nine out of 10 Americans.
"While this survey finds that more than nine in 10 Americans believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit, it also shows that there are considerable differences in the nature of this belief," Pew research fellow Greg Smith said.
"Six in 10 adults believe God is a person with whom people can have a relationship, but one in four, including about half of Jews and Hindus, see God as an impersonal force," he said.
Oddly, one in five of those who identified themselves as atheists in the survey said they believe in God.
"But this also shows us the complicated way that people think about their faith. Many people who identify as atheists may not be telling us they don't believe in God, but that they don't like organized religion," he said.
"There is a lot of complexity in American religion," Greene summarized.
The survey also showed that religious affiliation tends to translate into social and political leanings.
"Mormons and members of evangelical churches tend to be more conservative in their political ideology, while Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists tend to be more politically liberal than the population overall," the report says.
As the United States gears up to elect a new president in November, that translates to the simple fact that "there are votes to be had by the Democratic and Republican candidates by making appeals to religious groups," said Greene.
Part II of U.S. Religious Landscape Survey details Americans' religious beliefs and behaviors as well as their social and political attitudes
WASHINGTON, June 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life today released its second report on the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which finds that while many Americans are highly religious, most are not dogmatic in their approach to faith. This new analysis examines the diversity of Americans' religious beliefs and practices as well as their social and political attitudes. It follows the first report of the Landscape Survey, which was published in February 2008 and detailed the size, internal changes and demographic characteristics of major religions in the United States.
"The fact that most Americans are not exclusive or dogmatic about their religion is a fascinating finding," said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum. "Most people will be surprised that a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including a majority of evangelical Protestants, say that there isn't just one way to salvation or to interpret the teachings of their own faith."
Based on interviews conducted in English and Spanish with a nationally representative sample of more than 35,000 adults, part two of the Landscape Survey includes a wealth of information on the religious beliefs and practices of the American public. It also explores the social and political attitudes of religious groups, including members of many small religious traditions - such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics - not typically analyzed in public opinion surveys.
"This report illustrates, chapter and verse, the amazing diversity and dynamism both between and within religious traditions in America," noted John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum. "And this diversity of affiliation, belief and practice matters when it comes to social and political questions."
The second report of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey finds:
* Although many Americans are highly religious, they are not dogmatic in their faith. Seventy percent of Americans with a religious affiliation say that many religions - not just their own - can lead to eternal life. Most also think there is more than one correct way to interpret the teachings of their own faith.
* This does not mean, however, that Americans take religious matters lightly. Most, in fact, say they rank the importance of religion very highly in their lives, and a plurality wants to preserve the traditional beliefs and practices of their faith, while only a small minority wants to accommodate their religion to modern culture.
* There is tremendous diversity of religious beliefs and practices in the U.S. Important religious differences exist between the major religious traditions, but there are also important differences within religious traditions.
* While more than nine-in-ten Americans (92%) believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit, there are considerable differences in the nature of this belief. Six-in-ten adults believe that God is a person with whom people can have a relationship; but one-in-four - including about half of Jews and Hindus - see God as an impersonal force. Similarly, seven-in-ten Americans say that they are absolutely certain of God's existence, while roughly one-in-five (22%) are less certain in their belief.
* Three-quarters of Americans report praying at least once a week, with large majorities among most religious traditions saying they pray on at least a weekly basis. Even among the unaffiliated, roughly one-in-three pray on a weekly basis. At the same time, however, there are those among all faith groups who pray much less frequently; overall, one quarter of the public says they pray a few times a month or less often.
* Almost two-fifths of Americans report meditating at least once a week. This practice is particularly common among Buddhists, but nearly half of evangelical Protestants and Muslims say they meditate at least weekly. About one-quarter of the unaffiliated report weekly meditation. These patterns may incorporate elements of both Christian and non-Christian traditions.
* Politics and religion in the United States are intertwined, and religion is highly relevant to understanding politics in the U.S. Yet while the diversity of religious affiliation, belief and practice translates into important differences on many social and political issues, differences on other issues are less pronounced.
* Religion is closely linked to political ideology. The survey shows that Mormons are among the most politically conservative groups in the population. Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, by contrast, are among the most likely to describe their ideology as liberal.
* People who regularly attend worship services and say religion is important in their lives are much more likely to identify as conservative, and this pattern extends to many religious traditions. For example, within the evangelical, mainline Protestant, historically black Protestant, Catholic, Mormon and Orthodox Christian traditions, those who attend church weekly are significantly more likely than those who attend less often to describe themselves as political conservatives. And among Jews, those who say religion is very important to them or pray every day are more likely than others to be politically conservative.
* The connection between religious engagement and political attitudes appears to be especially strong when it comes to hot button social issues such as abortion or homosexuality. For instance, about six-in-ten Americans who attend religious services at least once a week say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, while only three-in-ten who attend less often share this view. This pattern holds across several religious traditions.
* On other topics covered in the survey, such as views on the role and size of government and foreign policy attitudes, the role of religion is less clear and there appears to be greater consensus across and within religious traditions. For instance, a majority of nearly every religious group supports stricter environmental regulations and believes the government should do more to help Americans in need. Similarly, most Americans, including majorities of most faiths, say it is more important to focus on problems here at home than to be active in world affairs.
In conjunction with the release of this report, the Pew Forum is updating its online presentation of the findings at religions.pewforum.org. Updated features include interactive mapping by state, dynamic charts and a variety of other tools that allow users to explore the beliefs and practices as well as social and political views of major religions in the United States.
Subsequent releases will include a re-contact survey that delves deeper into the relationship between religious and political identity, issues related to conversion and attitudes toward religious pluralism in America.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life delivers timely, impartial information on issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs. The Forum is a nonpartisan, non-advocacy organization and does not take positions on policy debates. Based in Washington, D.C., the Forum is a project of the Pew Research Center, which is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life to Release Part II of U.S. Religious Landscape Survey
Posted : Thu, 19 Jun 2008 Author : Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Study details Americans' religious beliefs and behaviors as well as their social and political attitudes
WASHINGTON, June 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a noon EDT conference call for journalists on Monday, June 23, 2008, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life will release the second report of a landmark survey that examines the tremendous diversity of Americans' religious beliefs and practices as well as their social and political views. This new analysis follows the first report of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which was published in February 2008 and detailed the size and demographic characteristics of religious groups in the U.S.
Based on interviews conducted in English and Spanish with a representative sample of more than 35,000 adults, part two of the Landscape Survey includes a wealth of information on the religious beliefs and practices of the American public. It also explores the social and political attitudes of religious groups, including groups that are as small as three-tenths of 1 percent of the adult population.
Topics explored in the report include the importance of religion in people's lives; belief in God and the afterlife; attitudes toward the authority of sacred writings; frequency of worship attendance, prayer and meditation; and views of religion and morality, among others. The report also examines ideological and partisan orientation; attitudes on abortion, homosexuality, evolution and other social issues; views on helping the needy, the environment, and the size and proper role of government; and opinions on foreign affairs.
Subsequent releases will include a re-contact survey that delves deeper into religious-political identity, issues related to conversion and attitudes towards religious pluralism in America.
There's an old saying that when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
This was exemplified earlier this week when Tiger Woods won the US Open Golf Championship, his 14th major championship. Because he'd had knee surgery, he hadn't had tournament play or even much practice in two months. During the US Open he struggled, often limping, but his indomitable spirit of never giving up sustained him, bringing him to victory in a playoff. When asked afterward if he'd been tempted to give up, he replied, "You just deal with it, giving it your best, no excuses, whether 100 percent or not, it's just get up and go. I wasn't going to bag it. It's not my nature to give up."
If we can glimpse the fact that we are spiritual, expressing strength, courage, and fortitude as ideas of God, infinite Mind, the source of all energy, then we won't allow anything to hinder or limit our expression of God's qualities. Denigrating, restrictive thoughts would suggest otherwise, sometimes so persistently that they may mesmerize us or make us afraid. But we can put them out of consciousness by turning to God for a rundown on our real status and condition.
Another example of fortitude was a woman who'd been told by the doctors who were caring for her that she had only a short time to live. That was 10 years ago, and she's now in her 90s. She said that when the doctor told her she was dying, she said to herself, "Well, I have had a good life, I have helped many people, and as far as I know have not done anyone any wrong, so I may as well just pass on." Then she suddenly became aware of the implications of consenting to death in that way. She thought, "If I do, I am committing suicide, and I am not going to commit suicide. I am not going to give up."
She remembered this statement by Mary Baker Eddy: "He is bravely brave who dares at this date refute the evidence of material sense with the facts of Science, and will arrive at the true status of man because of it" ("Miscellaneous Writings 1883-1896," p. 183). She realized that she could be "bravely brave" and indeed refute the mortal evidence with what she knew to be true about her true identity as the child of God. And, within a short time, she was completely healed.
So often we are tempted to stop trying – to just give up – but we have the capacity to reject all such notions, and with this rejection come progress and victory.
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. I John 5:4
About: Jennifer Gibson, PharmD, is a practicing clinical pharmacist and freelance medical writer and editor with experience in researching and preparing scientific publications, developing public relations materials, creating educational resources and presentations, and editing technical manuscripts. Her clients include academic research institutions, international authors, pharmaceutical companies, professional organizations, and public advocacy groups.
Science will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God or any higher power. Isn’t this the cornerstone of faith, after all: a belief that needs no proof? Or perhaps, maybe the proof has been in our brains the whole time.
Our perceptions, emotions, and reactions to the world around us begin at birth, and shape our attitudes and interactions throughout our life. Through these beliefs, we learn who to trust, what to expect, and how to cope. The formation of beliefs involves the complex interplay of various areas of the brain. Though the exact mechanisms cannot be clearly defined, scientists know that the formation of beliefs involves physiologic changes in the brain. Studies have shown changes in activity in primitive areas of the brain at varying levels of belief and disbelief, and religious beliefs are no exception.
How else do we experience God, if not through our brain? Our brain processes every experience we encounter — sensory, somatic, emotional, and metaphysical. The brain must process and interpret our experiences through our beliefs, emotions, and previous encounters, and through the brain’s physical and chemical structure and function. Increased activity in the front portion of the brain has been seen in Tibetan Buddhist monks performing meditation and nuns participating in prayer. However, this portion of the brain also shows increased activity during tasks that require intense focus or attention. While this finding may seem a less than substantial argument for the scientific basis of religion, it is interesting to note that changes in brain activity at baseline were seen in these subjects, even when not involved in focused religious activities. Have their brains been changed from the spiritual practice and beliefs or were their brains more susceptible to having powerful religious experiences from the beginning?
The temporal lobes are known to be involved in religious and spiritual experiences; the amygdala and hippocampus are involved in religious visions and emotions. This calls to mind the connection between brain disorders and supernatural experiences that has been observed for more than a century. For example, patients who experience epileptic seizures, particularly in temporal lobe epilepsy, report experiencing religious premonitions, auras, or encounters in the period surrounding a seizure. Do these findings prove a neuronal mechanism for religious experiences?
The brain seems predisposed to a belief in all things spiritual. Scientists have been able to induce religious experiences and sensations in people by applying a weak magnetic field over the temporal lobes and by injecting subjects with hallucinogens. Further, religion is a heritable trait. Twin studies show that religious intensity is, at least in part, linked to genetics. Can we achieve the same effects from religious practices as we can from drugs? Is the brain just hardwired for religion no matter what our experiences or background?
Christian Theologians Prepare for Extraterrestrial Life
By Brandon Keim 06.13.08
Little green men might shock the secular public. But the Catholic Church would welcome them as brothers.
That's what Vatican chief astronomer and papal science adviser Gabriel Funes explained in a recent article in L'Osservatore Romano, the newsletter of the Vatican Observatory (translated here). His conclusion might surprise nonbelievers. After all, isn't this the same church that imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Earth revolves around the sun? Doesn't the Bible say that God created man -- not little green men -- in his image?
From within, theologians have debated the implications of alien contact for centuries. And if one already believes in angels, no great leap of faith is required to accept the possibility of other extraterrestrial intelligences.
Since God created the universe, theologians say, he would have created aliens, too. And far from being weakened by contact, Christianity would adapt. Its doctrines would be interpreted anew, the aliens greeted with open -- and not necessarily Bible-bearing -- arms.
"The main question is, 'Would religion survive this contact?'" said NASA chief historian Steven J. Dick, author of The Biological Universe. "Religion hasn't gone away after Copernican theory, after Darwin. They've found ways to adapt, and they'll find a way if this happens, too," Dick says.
The central conundrum posed to Christianity by alien contact would involve the Incarnation -- the arrival of Jesus Christ as God's representative on Earth, his crucifixion and the absolution of humanity's sins through his forgiveness.
Some propose that the Earthly incarnation of Jesus some 2,000 years ago redeemed all intelligent creatures, in all places and -- since a space-faring race is likely older than us -- in all times. Others have suggested that Jesus could take multiple forms.
"Just as Jesus is human like you and I, you would find an alien-specific Jesus," said Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary professor Ted Peters.
But Peters and others also say that aliens may not have fallen into sin, instead existing in a state of grace, neither having nor needing Jesus. In that case, missionaries would have no call to convert them.
All this, however, assumes that humanity not only encounters new forms of life but also understands them. Other intelligences may be incomprehensible to us, thus intensifying another doctrinal question: What does it mean to be made, as the Bible proclaims, in God's image?
Many astrotheologians argue that God's image refers to our spiritual nature, with our physical forms being irrelevant. Not everyone, however, agrees.
"If there are aliens, the Bible specifically does not say that they were created in his image," said Mark Conn, pastor of the Noble Hill Baptist Church in Springfield, Missouri. "God created many other intelligent beings on this planet, and they were not created in His image."
Conn's church recently met to discuss the issues posed by extraterrestrial contact, ultimately deciding that "if they're there, they're there. It doesn't change a whole lot."
Unlike Peters, Conn suggested that missionary work may be required, something the aliens may not welcome -- especially if, as many postulate, they are technologically superior to humanity and do not have religions of their own.
"Maybe they'll say that they used to need religion but have outgrown it. Some people say that would be a great blow to religion, because if an advanced civilization doesn't need it, why do we?" said Douglas Vakoch, director of interstellar message composition at SETI.
"I don't buy it, though. I think religion meets very human needs, and unless extraterrestrials can provide a replacement for it, I don't think religion is going to go away," he continued. "And if there are incredibly advanced civilizations with a belief in God, I don't think Richard Dawkins will start believing."
There's a surprising amount of overlap between seekers of extraterrestrial life and seekers of God.
Not that the folks at SETI are actually hoping to detect the deep-space transmissions of a bearded deity from SGR 1900+14, handing them off to Vatican astronomers for inscription on silicon tablets. Far from it. But in my reporting for an article on the religious implications of finding extraterrestrial intelligence, I noticed that much research was produced in collaboration between scientists and theologians.
Why this partnership between parties whose relationship typically amounts to a truce, and an uneasy one at that?
In part it's practical: Christianity boasts a small but rich history of so-called astrotheology, particularly within the Catholic Church. It makes sense that they'd run in some of the same circles as the SETI crowd. And since discovering aliens would prompt religious self-examination -- if God is universal, maybe the image of God isn't a hairless biped called homo sapiens -- and perhaps devotion, it's probably good that they're already talking.
But after speaking this morning to Lutheran theology professor Ted Peters and then to Douglas Vakoch, the generally secular (he's Unitarian) director of interstellar message composition at SETI, I couldn't shake the feeling that something else was going on -- some union of the like-minded, nominally separated by their titles and duties.
Towards the end of the interview, after Vakoch had explained the incredible unlikelihood of both receiving and comprehending interstellar signals, I asked him what it's like to dedicate a career to something that would almost certainly not be realized in his own life, and perhaps not ever.
"One of the greatest misconceptions about SETI is that we know in our hearts that there is life out there, and the question is whether we're going to be the generation that finds it. That's false," he said. "SETI requires an acceptance of ambiguity. If there's a virtue to SETI, it's that it's making ambiguity acceptable at a time when people are focused on the concrete and short-term. It is very often uncomfortable not having the answers, but we need to accept that. We try to recognize that, in this domain, with what we now know, the best we can do, the most honest thing we can do, is live with a sense of ambiguity."
"That sounds deeply spiritual," I told Vakoch. He asked what I meant. "The act of coming to peace with the unknowable," I said.
"It's not necessarily a matter of being at peace with it," he replied. "There's a passage in the Bible -- 'Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.' In a sense, I think science and religion are not ultimately in opposition to one another. They are both attempting to understand things as they are. They understand different aspects of what is."
Now, before those of us conditioned by ugly fights against anti-evolution classroom sabotage paint Vakoch as a young earth creationist who stole a SETI lab coat, he's certainly not insisting that religious principle trump testable hypothesis. He's talking humbly about the Big Questions, and acknowledging the difficulty of answering them -- something that truly religious people tend to do, too.
Book Review: A University of Calgary professor is trying to bring science and religion closer together. In his latest book, Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion, Dr. Stuart Kauffman argues society needs a new worldview that accepts the inability to fully understand the universe through science alone.
For over four centuries, pioneering scientists such as Galileo, Newton and Descartes promoted a philosophy called reductionism, the view that all phenomena can be reduced to and understood in terms of interactions between basic particles governed by natural law. This view suggests that life can be reduced from biology to biochemistry to chemistry and eventually to physics. However, Kauffman finds a problem with this view.
"Our biosphere cannot be completely understood or predicted by natural law," explained Kauffman. "Science leaves a gap in our understanding."
The problem with reductionism, he argues, is that it cannot predict biocomplexity-- when biological systems emerge that are not created by a single pattern or rule. Darwinian preadaptation, an example in his book, is when existing anatomical features evolve to serve a new purpose that cannot be predicted based on biological, biochemical or physical laws. In nature, this has been illustrated by dinosaurs using feathers for insulation or sweat glands evolving into mammary glands. Thus, argues Kauffman, science alone is an inadequate tool to explain our evolving universe.
"If we accept that Darwinian preadaptations cannot be reduced to physics, then what we've believed for the past 400 years is wrong," he said.
As the world becomes smaller, the rift between science and religion seems to widen. Religious and scientific fundamentalism is becoming increasingly common as cultures and ideals clash. Kauffman maintained recent books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, which have been highly critical of religion, even suggesting that a belief in God is a delusion, are not helping matters.
"These books aren't doing any good," he suggested. "It's time to move past some of these old ideas and find the middle ground. We have to rethink everything. We need a second enlightenment."
Traditional Christianity credits a creator God as the sculptor of our world. By contrast, Kauffman believes that honoring the emergent creativity of the universe is far more awe-inspiring than believing that a supernatural God created the universe in six days.
"Do we need the Creator or just the creativity?" he asked. "We need to consider that emergence and biocomplexity is the creativity of a fully natural God."
He added that the concept of God and the sacred values that God represents have also evolved along with what devotees collectively consider sacred.
"The [book] title is controversial as hell," said Kauffman. "But how many gods have we worshipped down the eons? It seems to me that we're telling God what we consider sacred, not the other way around. Perhaps it's time to consciously consider what we hold sacred for ourselves."
A recent book launch tour in the United States has received a warm reception. Afterwards, Kauffman will be returning to Canada to continue his research as director of the U of C's Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics. He plans to expand on his theories with research of biocomplexity and the physics of the origins of life. For the moment, Kauffman hopes that his proposal of a marriage between science and God will provide a starting point for a new scientific world view, although he acknowledges that this concept may upset some.
"If this view holds, we will undergo a major transformation in our understanding of science," he said. "If we reinvent the sacred to mean the creativity in the universe, biosphere, human history and culture, are we not also inevitably invited to honour all life on the planet that sustains it?"
As religion-versus-science debate rages, 3 physicists come out on side of God
Don Lajoie, Windsor Star Saturday, May 31, 2008
Page 1 of 2: Please click on external link for complete article
God versus science. That most ancient of debates has been raging in academic circles, popular culture and in the media with increasing ferocity since the fundamentalist religion-inspired attacks of 9-11.
Three scientists from the University of Windsor, professors Gordon Drake, Mordechay Schlesinger and Tim Reddish of the school's physics department, have stepped gingerly on to the slippery rocks of the discussion, coming out -- some might say surprisingly -- on the side of God.
The religiosity of the three scientists may be surprising, since some statistics, including a Scientific American study in 1999, show that, while up to 90 per cent of the general North America population profess some belief in a God, only about 40 per cent of scientists do. And the numbers of scientists believing in God keep dropping, particularly among "eminent" scientists, with as few as 10 per cent believing.
However, poll results on the topic vary. A Rice University survey in 2005 demonstrated that only 38 per cent of natural scientists polled considered themselves to be "non-believers."
"Why should a physicist, studying the laws of nature, countenance a belief in God?" asked Drake, a practising Anglican, recently named principal of Canterbury College. "Because, as physicists, we're more aware of what we don't know. And the book of the unknown keeps getting larger."
Added Schlesinger, a Jew: "You can look at it another way. Our modest success in scientific research allows us to marvel at God's handiwork."
Reddish, a Christian with a Protestant background who does not adhere to any particular denomination, said God gave him a mind to use and "it would be a disservice to not use it to the fullest extent." His rumination, he said, leads him back to God. "My faith enhances my life."
Their declarations of faith out of the way, the three doctors of science sat down recently to state their case.
Drake began by suggesting the latest flareup in the old debate has its roots in the terrorist attacks of 9-11 on New York and Washington.
The fact the suicide pilots claimed to be acting out of Islamic fundamentalist zeal led to a backlash against all religion as an abomination to mankind, leading to intolerance, violence and war, he suggested. The backlash resulted in a spate of books such as God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.
The atheist point of view has become ever more visible on cable news and talk radio, usually countered by an equally animated "believer's" position.
"The debate has existed since creation," said Drake. "But 9-11 intensified it, gave it focus, the idea that religion could do more harm than good, that God could make you fly into a building.... But should you throw out religion because of 9-11? It's the same as asking should you throw out science because of the atomic bomb."
They said that the debate has been framed on the premise that science and religion are polar opposites used to explain existence and the two ideas cannot be reconciled. But, they say, that premise, put forward in Dawkins' book, is flawed.
Has science made belief in God obsolete? Two scholars debate the Templeton Foundation’s latest ‘Big Question.’
When confronted with the inexplicable and uncontrollable, people often invoke a higher power to make sense of the world around them. But at a time of staggering advances in areas such as genetics and reproductive technology, has science made belief in God obsolete?
The Templeton Foundation posed that question as the third in its series of “Big Questions.” It asked 13 leading scientists, scholars, and commentators—from across the religious and political spectrum—to respond in essay form. At a recent American Enterprise Institute event, two of the essayists, Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine and a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and William D. Phillips, a professor at the University of Maryland and a Nobel Laureate in physics, squared off in person.
Shermer, who wrote in his essay that the “veracity of a proposition is independent of the number of people who believe it,” said that, while science probably makes God obsolete, it certainly has not made belief in Him obsolete. According to a 2007 Harris Poll, 82 percent of adult Americans believe that there is a God. In 1916, Shermer noted, a survey found that 40 percent of practicing scientists believed in God. That figure is roughly commensurate with the percentage of scientists today who affirm faith in God.
Phillips, himself a scientist and a practicing Christian who talks openly about his faith, wrote in his essay that “a scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter.” At the AEI conference, he was eager to find common ground with Shermer, particularly on the lack of empirical proof of God’s existence. Phillips said that examining belief in God from a scientific vantage point was the wrong approach, since one cannot measure God scientifically. “I do not believe that science is ever going to prove the existence of God,” he explained, “nor do I believe that science is ever going to disprove the existence of God.” The real question, Phillips said, is not a scientific one, and it should not be dealt with in a scientific paradigm. He maintained that people want to experience religion the way they do art, music, or love.
Shermer, however, insisted that religion cannot be separated wholly from science, because “at some point, if you believe in God, you just have to believe that he’s…entering our world. And if he’s entering our world, isn’t he doing it in some measurable way? And now we’re back to the natural world.” Phillips, while assuring Shermer that he believes God does work in the world—he is a theist, not a deist—said that he “has a hunch” that God does so in “undetectable” ways.
If one cannot trace God’s actions or presence in the world, “what’s the difference between an invisible God and a nonexistent God?” asked Shermer.
“For you, none,” Phillips replied. “But for me, I claim that I can feel God’s presence in my life.”
He continued: “The problem here is that you’re thinking . . . the whole question is about whether or not God exists. I already have an answer to that. It’s not a scientific answer. My question is: what does God want me to do?” Shermer, recognizing that Phillips’s insistence about the question not being a scientific one was a refusal to engage the issue on the given terms—whether science makes belief in God obsolete—suggested that the conversation was at an end.
Shermer said that he understands the draw of transcendence, of finding “something grander than me.” Religion is the ultimate source of explanation, Shermer added, and while he may not need it, he understands why other people do. Phillips was unflappable. “It’s not like I’m without my doubts, but I’m comfortable with those doubts,” he said.
Christy Hall Robinson is an associate editor at the American Enterprise Institute.
Happiness, it turns out, increases with age. At least, that’s what a new study has found. Older people are happier than any other age group.
And the main reason why this holds true? According to what Professor Yang Yang, the study’s leading researcher, has told Reuters News Service, it’s largely due to an increase in self-esteem.
She also found that “happiness in later life is closely related to early-life conditions and formative experiences.”
You may have your doubts, but the study looks solid. It comes from the University of Chicago and is based on surveys of Americans conducted over a 30-year period.
The researchers interviewed between 1,500 and 3,000 people each year. So the findings do not rest on a slim sample.
That it began three decades ago suggests that happiness has been a subject of interest for a lot longer than one might have thought. I had considered it something of a fad that sprouted only recently.
For the past few years, it has been of serious interest to social scientists, part of the so-called Positive Psychology movement.
Defining happiness, however, turns out to be difficult. Tal Ben-Shahar, who teaches a course about happiness to packed rows of Harvard undergrads, sees it as a combination of pleasure and meaning. For him, you need both to make you happy.
In his delightful book “Stumbling on Happiness,” another Harvard psychologist, Daniel Gilbert, writes: “The you-know-what-I-mean feeling is what people ordinarily mean by happiness.”
He then shows in detail how the subject is a lot more complicated than this definition (and this column) might lead you to believe.
The findings of the Chicago researchers run counter to received opinion. Left to themselves, most Americans might have classified old people as basically unhappy. Don’t they have to put up with a lot more grief than young people?
Though not myself a researcher, I judge these findings consistent with experience of many of my age peers. An oft-repeated sentiment that one hears from people from 30 on up: I wouldn’t ever want to go through my 20s again.
(Incidentally, that is not a sentiment I exactly share. I would welcome another shot at it. Of course, this time I would get it right.)
In my more rational moments, however, I do relate to the findings of the survey. My happiness quotient has indeed increased, and I now claim higher marks than previously.
For fear this be mere grade inflation, however, let me qualify this claim. Almost surely, my current happiness will undergo serious tests and resulting ups and downs. I fully expect things to go wrong.
But that belongs to the uncharted future. The present looks quite good to me, despite the ongoing chagrin I harbor over many events. The damage the neo-cons have done to this country, for example. And the grief I feel for the people of Burma/Myanmar, of China, and those living in other parts of this troubled world.
Like many others among my age peers, I got off to a good start with happiness. One of the first things I read as a child came in Sunday school from a little book full of questions and answers.
The second question asked why God made me. And the answer, if I may here abridge the words a bit, told me it was for me to be happy.
Of course, the slings and arrows of actual living tend to weaken our hold on happiness. Life surprises us with unexpected blows that move us off course. The deaths of dear ones, for example, make happiness sometimes feel remote.
But, even then, self-esteem continues to promote happiness. That means openness to loving and being loved. And that loving begins with loving yourself and being ready to forgive and be patient with yourself.
As suggested above, I think that spirituality promotes happiness. Among human goods, having an interior life rich in spirit surely deserves a high rank.
Among other ingredients for happiness, one of the most important is being at peace with others. It astonishes me how many people are at odds with their relatives or former friends and associates.
It is hard to imagine anyone being happy without a sense of humor. Unless you can laugh at certain human predicaments, you will almost surely become unhappy.
Closely related to a sense of humor is a sense of perspective. If every little happening can upset you, how in the world can you stay even reasonably happy?
Do something for other people. Almost by itself, I have found, being willing to reach out to others will promote happiness. Even if you are largely incapacitated, a word or gesture directed toward another person has the potential to make you feel better.
Finally, writing makes me feel happy. You may not feel the same way about this activity but to make something — a sweater, a bookshelf, a garden — can prove a powerful source of happiness.
Richard Griffin of Cambridge is a regularly featured columnist in Community Newspaper Company publications. He can be reached by e-mail at rbgriff180@aol.com or by calling 617-661-0710.
Thirty thousand people die in a cyclone, messaged my friend, and you're off to a happiness conference? You can see his point, though there's no real connection. But the thronging happiness delegates in Sydney last week would probably answer thus: you help the world best by first being happy yourself. Like the bit in the flight blurb that says, "Mothers of small children should don their own oxygen mask first, before assisting the child."
But how selfish is happiness, actually? And is it, as most conference speakers insisted, not just a basic human right but almost a duty?
For the Austrian psychoanalyst Viktor Frankl, happiness was only ever a by-product. "Don't aim at success," he advised, "… for success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue … as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself … Happiness must happen … You have to let it happen by not caring about it." Frankl spoke from experience. A four-year Auschwitz survivor, he noted that, even there, the most enduring were those most able to help others.
But for last week's conference, happiness was no byproduct, no don't-look-now kind of accident. Happiness was it; not just a product but the product. Everything else, it was argued, from love to wealth to brilliant career, we desire for the happiness so promised. Happiness alone do we desire in and of itself.
There's a sophistry here, of course, since it means even melancholics are really seeking the happiness sadness brings. It also makes happiness, as product, the ultimate easy sell, the one thing we all reliably want.
But a conference? Can a conference deliver happiness? Or was the Reverend Bill Crews right when declaring from the stage: "Don't worry about happiness. You lot should throw away your notes and just go out and do it."
Crews - notwithstanding the happy-clappy, back-slappy feel to the, uh, congregation -was the conference's token Christian. Most speakers were either Buddhists (like Tenzin Palmo, an East-Ender who spent 12 years in a high-altitude Himalayan cave and still craved more) or high-profile circuit-psychologists such as Martin Seligman, Stephen Post, Richard Davidson and Daniel Gilbert. Some, like B. Alan Wallace, were both.
All fastidiously avoided mentioning God, morality or the afterlife carrot. There was no trace of a suggestion you should act thus because it's right, or written, or expected and no sense of authority - except, of course, science.
It's as though some marketing genius somewhere has decided that this well-off secular-humanist baby-boomer audience - the market, if you will, for happiness - having been cured of all pressing fears except the fear of death, will comfortably swallow Eastern religion and Western science but never, never Western religion.
Yet the wildly dominant take-home message, from all persuasions and professions, was, if you'll pardon the term, Christian; that to be happy is to be good, and to be good is to be compassionate, loving and altruistic.
The difference is in the packaging. Where once the message could be forced home, now it has to be packaged to appeal to self. So speaker after speaker detailed the personal benefits of happiness: better health, longevity, acuity, earning-power and career, each effect repeatedly demonstrated by science.
Plus all the old Thatcherite shibboleths about hard-wiring for selfishness and genetic destiny are once again up for query. The implication, it will not have escaped your notice, is that happiness is something we can choose.
The Pennsylvania academic Dr Martin "I'm a pessimist and a depressive" Seligman is revered as the father of positive psychology. He scientised morality further still, postulating three categories of happiness: the Pleasant Life, the Engaged Life and the Meaningful Life.
The Pleasant Life runs on emotional pleasure, what Seligman calls "happyology". The Engaged Life means entangling your finest self with the world, what he calls "being one with the music". And the Meaningful Life means dedicating these same strengths to some greater cause.
Each happiness-type, he says, is measurable and buildable, but while there are "pleasure shortcuts" to happyology, there are no shortcuts to the Engaged or Meaningful Life. Which is a shame, because these kinds of happiness are not only more reliable and redemptive, but also lend meaning to ordinary base-level pleasure.
Seligman's Engaged and Meaningful Lives closely parallel theology's traditional distinction between the immanent and transcendent view of god; the god of good works and the god of mystic communion. But drop even a hint, a whiff of old school theology at such a conference and the best-willed happiness-seeker will stop clapping, hold her nose and run.
The market demands wisdom, to salve its remaining fear, but such wisdom must be either control-tested, dot-pointed and peer-reviewed, or couched in lyrical cave and water metaphors. It must also demonstrably benefit the self.
So, full-circle: if happiness requires altruism but is motivated by self-benefit, is it, or isn't it, selfish? TS Eliot's Thomas Beckett describes this as "the greatest treason, to do the right deed for the wrong reason." But the happiness push has a market to consider. Fine, it answers. Forget it. For each year of proven happiness your health premium will halve. That'll make ya happy.
In his column yesterday, The New York Times’s David Brooks, lately on a neuroanthropological kick, tackles the religious implications of modern neuroscience, saying its research portends disaster for orthodox believers—Christians, Jews, Muslims—although perhaps accommodating a generalized belief in some non-God supreme being.
“This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism,” he writes. “Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.” According to Brooks, neuroscience is moving the atheism-theism debate from culturally entrenched—thanks to the tireless militancy (and bestselling polemics) of antitheists like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and the other Four Horsemen—to irrelevant.
Because neuroscientific advances take what Christians call religious experiences and demystify them physiologically into, say, an increase in blood flow and synaptic activity in one’s prefrontal and parietal cortices, a worldview informed by modern neuroscience doesn’t have to be averse to God per se—just to a personal, miracle-working God like Christianity’s.
These recalibrated emphases on neuroscientific studies could shift the atheism-theism debate from believer and nonbeliever to Bible (or Quran) believer and Buddhist (or Wiccan, or Scientology) believer. That is, writes Mary Martin at Animal Person, cognitive scientists are “merely explaining that the feelings associated with god might not come from outside us,” and, in turn, helping to validate nontheistic religions.
Brooks maintains that, right now, “[i]n their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God.” But that “was the easy debate”: He predicts the real challenge will come “from people who feel the existence of the sacred”—i.e., again, like Buddhist nontheists—“but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.”
Though Jewish, Brooks demurs from joining the hand-wringing, saying he’s “not qualified to take sides” even though he is watching the neuroscience science community “joining hands” with mysticism “in unexpected ways”—by which he presumably means “any at all.” The result, he argues, is a new science-based movement that emphasizes “self-transcendence” over “divine law or revelation.”
Orthodoxy will be under attack more than ever, as a defense is laid for neural Buddhism. “Orthodox believers,” he says, are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. . . . We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution. It’s going to have big cultural effects.”
As proof of where this path leads, Brooks cites a prescient Tom Wolfe essay from Forbes in 1996, written well ahead of the curve, lamenting neuroscience’s Nietzschean move to bury God and make science soulless, sending “modern man plunging headlong back into the primordial ooze”—the very move cheered by Hitchens and the anti-Expelled crowd, particularly Dawkins, who appears in the film.
Is there a specific part of the brain for feelings of spirituality? Many lines of evidence suggests it is the temporal lobes. Dr. David Comings, a renown human geneticist, neuroscientist and physician proposes that spirituality is genetically hardwired into a specific part of the brain, is pleasurable, is critical to the evolution and survival of man, and will never go away. Understanding the biology of the spiritual brain can help us to develop a rational spirituality where are rational brain and spiritual brain can live in peace.
More doctors recommending dose of God for their patients
Tribune staff report May 2, 2008
You might think a hospital sounds like an odd place to launch a spiritual quest. But for some patients, that's precisely where they find religion.
In fact, some doctors even rely on divine intervention to assist them in the healing process.
Tribune reporter Joel Hood's story this week about a continuous prayer week held in Adventist Bolingbrook Hospital illustrated how some hospitals recognize and embrace their role as a spiritual destination.
Dr. Yong Kim was one of the staff recruited to pray. An elder at his Korean Methodist church, Kim spent several hours praying for his patients' recovery. He told Joel that prayer is vital to a patient's recovery.
Kim is one of a burgeoning number of doctors who factor prayer into treatment, said Dr. Robert Klitzman, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. In interviews with 50 doctors, Klitzman learned that many are oblivious to patients' spiritual needs until they become patients themselves.
Has the threat of a serious illness prompted you to reassess your relationship with God? Do your doctors tend to your spiritual well-being too?
Discovery of the God Module Results in New Field of Science: Neurotheology
Saturday, April 19, 2008 by: Barbara L. Minton
(NaturalNews) During the concentration of prayer, the encompassing peace as we draw near death, a mystical revelation, or the sense that God is talking to us, we experience the most intense experiences of our lives. Since the beginning of time, people have imbued such experiences with religious significance. But in recent years, scientists have begun to explore this spiritual realm, asking their own questions about what goes on in our brains during these extraordinary events. They have been coming up with some fascinating answers that have given birth to a new field of brain science: neurotheology, the cognitive neuroscience of religious experience and spirituality.
Early Studies and Results
In a vanguard experiment on the physical sources of spiritual consciousness, Michael Persinger, Ph.D., professor of neuroscience and psychology at Laurentian University in Canada, isolated an area of neurons in the brain's temporal lobes that repeatedly fire bursts of electrical activity when one contemplates God or has feelings of spirituality. Attempting to try to stimulate these bursts, Persinger isolated an area near the front of these temporal lobes, the amygdala, an almond shaped organ that infuses events with intense emotion and a sense of meaningfulness.
He then passed a controlled electrical current through coils on the head of his 80 subjects, creating a magnetic field that mimicked the firing patterns of the neurons in the temporal lobes. This resulted in an induced spiritual experience. The subjects reported an "opiate-like effect with a substantial decrease in anxiety, a heightened sense of well-being" that gave them the sense of not being alone. This sense was described by some as a religious experience.
At the same time While Persinger conducted his experiments, Vilayanur Ramachandran, Ph.D., director of the Brain and Perception Laboratory at the University of California at San Diego, also tuned in to the cosmic consciousness. He announced that he had discovered the 'God Module' in the brain which could be responsible for man's evolutionary instinct to believe in religion.
Ramachandran and his team studied the brains of people with an unusual type of epilepsy that affects the brain's temporal lobes. The study compared epileptic patients with normal people and a group who said they were intensely religious. Electrical monitors on their skin, a standard test of activity in the brain's temporal lobes, showed that the epileptics and the deeply religious displayed a similar response when shown words invoking spiritual belief.
According to the Ramachandran led research team, the most intriguing explanation is that the seizures cause an over-stimulation of the nerves in a part of the brain dubbed the God module. "There may be dedicated neural machinery in the temporal lobes concerned with religion. This may have evolved to impose order and stability on society." The results indicate that whether a person believes in a religion or even in God may depend on how enhanced is this part of the brain's electrical circuitry.
The idea of a single God module is regarded by most scientists, including Ramachandran, as too simplistic. A Canadian researcher, Mario Beauregard, and his student used a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the brain activity of Carmelite nuns while they were reliving the experience of unio mystica, an intense sensation in which they report feeling the presence of God.
With fMRI imaging, changes in blood flow in the brain may be monitored in almost real time. This allows researchers to see which regions of the brain become more or less active in different conditions. Beauregard observed that the nuns' ecstatic state was associated with a distinct pattern of activity in several areas of the brain. The researchers concluded that "mystical experiences are mediated by several brain regions and systems".
Other researchers have probed the experiences of people with temporal lobe epilepsy with interesting results. In Switzerland, Olaf Blanke and his colleagues found that electric stimulation of specific brain regions can trigger repeated out-of-body experiences. Although these experiences are somewhat common, they were not rigorously studied until Blanke came upon a case of a woman he was treating for epilepsy.
A part of the woman's brain near the junction point of the temporal and parietal lobes was stimulated with an electrode, producing the experience. Every time that part of her brain was stimulated, she described the experience as floating above her own body and watching herself.
Brain Mechanisms and Religious Experience
Shahar Arzy, a colleague of Blanke's, purposed that the junction between the temporal and parietal lobes may have played a part in some of the pivotal events in world religions. As Arzy and co-authors pointed out, many of the world's religions feature revelation experiences that take place on mountains. Many non-religious, non-mystic mountaineers have also had similar experiences while in the mountains. Time spent at high altitudes may affect the brain, according to Arzy, and "facilitate the experience of a revelation".
Arzy suggests mechanisms that could be involved in this experience. High altitudes have a significantly reduced level of oxygen which can affect the temporo-parietal junction. Stays at high altitude, particularly in solitude, might lead to low resistance to stress and loss of inhibition.
History is full of charismatic religious figures. Could any of them have been epileptics? Were the visions of Bible characters like Moses or Saint Paul reflective of temporal lobe epilepsy? There is no way to know.
Researchers suggest that these issues may have played a part in one of the mystical phenomena of ancient times, the oracle of Delphi. George Papatheodorou, an emeritus professor of geology at Patras University, and his colleagues examined the narrow cave where the Delphic priestesses were believed to have delivered their messages. They found high levels of methane, ethanol and carbon dioxide in the cave's air. "The site lies on a fault where gases leak out. These gases cause an oxygen reduction that induces a mild hypnotic state that could well produce hallucinations," he told the Greek Kathimerini newspaper.
Brain Mechanisms and Near-Death Experiences
Neurophysiologist Kevin Nelson, a researcher at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, is exploring the powerful spiritual phenomena of the near-death experience. His results have led him to believe that these experiences may be dream-like states triggered by stress and a common sleep disorder known as sleep paralysis. When people with this condition begin to awake, part of their brain stays in the random eye movement (REM) phase of sleep. They experience inability to move, resulting in frightening hallucinations.
Nelson studied 55 people who experienced near-death phenomena in a range of circumstances, including heart attacks, traffic accidents, and fainting spells. He found that about 60 percent of them reported symptoms of sleep paralysis. In a matched group of 55 healthy volunteers with no near-death experiences, only 24 percent had symptoms of sleep paralysis. Nelson concluded that his findings "anticipate that under circumstances of peril, a near-death experience is more likely in those with previous REM intrusion".
Possible Conclusions
According to the Ramachandran team, it is not clear why such dedicated neural machinery for religion may have evolved. One possibility they saw was the encouragement of tribal loyalty or reinforcement of kinship ties and the stability of closely knit clans. These scientists emphasized that their findings in no way suggest that religion is simply a matter of brain chemistry. "These studies do not in any way negate the validity of the religious experience of God," the team cautioned. "They merely provide an explanation in terms of brain regions that may be involved."
As Ramachandran has said, "We are only starting to look at this. The exciting thing is that you can even begin to contemplate scientific experiments on the neural basis of religion and God."
Religion Not Just a Private Affair, Affirms Pontiff
Encourages Prelates to Remove Obstacles to Encounter With God
WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 16, 2008 (Zenit.org).-
Benedict XVI says that any tendency to treat religion as a private matter should be resisted, and that faith should permeate every aspect of life.
The Pope affirmed this today in an address to the bishops of the United States at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. His discourse ranged in topics from immigration to the formation of priests. As he left the shrine, the prelates sang him "Happy Birthday," -- the Pope turns 81 today.
The Holy Father emphasized the key role of bishops during his address, asking how, "in the 21st century, a bishop can best fulfill the call to 'make all things new in Christ, our hope'? How can he lead his people to 'an encounter with the living God'?"
"Perhaps he needs to begin by clearing away some of the barriers to such an encounter," the Pontiff proposed.
He explained: "While it is true that this country is marked by a genuinely religious spirit, the subtle influence of secularism can nevertheless color the way people allow their faith to influence their behavior.
"Is it consistent to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death? Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel."
Obstacles
Benedict XVI proposed further obstacles to this "encounter with the living God," perhaps particularly faced by Americans. One such barrier is materialism, he said: "People today need to be reminded of the ultimate purpose of their lives. They need to recognize that implanted within them is a deep thirst for God.
"It is easy to be entranced by the almost unlimited possibilities that science and technology place before us; it is easy to make the mistake of thinking we can obtain by our own efforts the fulfillment of our deepest needs. This is an illusion. Without God, who alone bestows upon us what we by ourselves cannot attain, our lives are ultimately empty."
Another possible obstacle, the Holy Father affirmed, is an overemphasis on freedom and autonomy, which makes it "easy to lose sight of our dependence on others as well as the responsibilities that we bear toward them."
"This emphasis on individualism has even affected the Church, giving rise to a form of piety which sometimes emphasizes our private relationship with God at the expense of our calling to be members of a redeemed community," he noted. "If we are truly to gaze upon him who is the source of our joy, we need to do so as members of the people of God. If this seems counter-cultural, that is simply further evidence of the urgent need for a renewed evangelization of culture."
Public life
The Pontiff further encouraged the bishops to give priority to education and to participate in the exchange of ideas in the public square.
"In the United States, as elsewhere, there is much current and proposed legislation that gives cause for concern from the point of view of morality, and the Catholic community, under your guidance, needs to offer a clear and united witness on such matters," he said. "Yet it cannot be assumed that all Catholic citizens think in harmony with the Church's teaching on today's key ethical questions.
"Once again, it falls to you to ensure that the moral formation provided at every level of ecclesial life reflects the authentic teaching of the Gospel of life."
In this context, the Bishop of Rome encouraged the formation of families: "How can we not be dismayed as we observe the sharp decline of the family as a basic element of Church and society? Divorce and infidelity have increased, and many young men and women are choosing to postpone marriage or to forego it altogether.
He added: "To some young Catholics, the sacramental bond of marriage seems scarcely distinguishable from a civil bond, or even a purely informal and open-ended arrangement to live with another person. Hence we have an alarming decrease in the number of Catholic marriages in the United States together with an increase in cohabitation, in which the Christ-like mutual self-giving of spouses, sealed by a public promise to live out the demands of an indissoluble lifelong commitment, is simply absent."
"It is your task," the Pope told the prelates, "to proclaim boldly the arguments from faith and reason in favor of the institution of marriage. […] This message should resonate with people today, because it is essentially an unconditional and unreserved 'yes' to life, a 'yes' to love, and a 'yes' to the aspirations at the heart of our common humanity, as we strive to fulfill our deep yearning for intimacy with others and with the Lord."
Einstein's religious views have been a matter of considerable controversy. Max Jammer, the well-known Jewish historian and philosopher of science, wrote a thoughtful book, Einstein and Religion, concluding that for Einstein 'religion' was definitely not 'atheism'. Einstein himself said that: 'You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling'. Yet in his best-selling and much-publicised atheist polemic, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, who takes most of his Einstein quotes from Jammer, categorises Einstein as 'atheistic'.
Einstein, in fact, spoke and wrote of God extremely frequently; for example his most famous way of criticising the random nature of quantum mechanics was to say 'God does not play dice'. He described himself as 'an intensely religious man', but also, equally interestingly, as 'a deeply religious non-believer'.
A crucial point is that Einstein stated categorically that he did not believe in a personal God, of the kind assumed by most practising religious people. He had not always been this way. Though brought up in a very liberal Jewish household, at the age of six he became fervently religious, obeying all the religious prescriptions. However, when he was 12, he read various scientific texts and came to believe that much in the Jewish bible could not be true. This was a crucial period in his life, in which he became an intense freethinker, first over religious matters, later over orthodox scientific beliefs.
So what was Einstein's religion? He called it 'cosmic religion' and it was a sense of awe at 'the nobility and marvellous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought'. He believed that throughout history the greatest religious geniuses have followed cosmic religion, and that exploring this order in the laws of science was the motivation for the most celebrated scientists such as Newton and Kepler. Without this feeling of confidence in order and simplicity, science, he felt, degenerated into uninspired empiricism.
Einstein felt closest to the nineteenth century Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, who also rejected the idea of a personal God. Like Einstein, some considered Spinoza intensely religious while others judged him an atheist. Spinoza's firmest belief was in a universal determinism; all events, including the actions of human beings, followed a precise law of cause and effect. There was no free will, and thus no justification for punishment of offenders. Einstein broadly followed Spinoza in these beliefs. As is well known, as well as realism, he was a strong believer in determinism; one of his main arguments against quantum mechanics was that it respected neither. Spinoza's belief in the unity of nature was paralleled in Einstein's long search for a unified field theory.
Einstein's view of traditional religion was somewhat ambivalent. He detested any idea of indoctrination or fundamentalism, but admitted that conventional religions had a role in setting ethical standards. Dawkins would disagree, considering that 'the cause of all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance is religion itself'. Einstein also venerated the founders of the major religions, especially Jesus and Buddha; Dawkins might be more sceptical. Einstein even found the elements of cosmic religion in the Psalms and the Proverbs of the bible, and particularly in Buddhism.
An interesting question is whether Einstein's beliefs, like those of Spinoza, were pantheistic, in the sense of actual worship of Nature, giving it the status of God. At times Einstein seemed close to accepting this label, but he was clear that God was to be found in the laws of the Universe, not in Nature itself. Jammer suggests that Einstein's theology may be called a naturalistic theology, in which one searches for God by study of the Universe.
So at last we reach the question: Could Einstein be considered a mystic? Awe about the Universe might lead to some direct spiritual experience of 'God', however 'God' might be defined. However Einstein explicitly rejected such ideas, saying: 'Mysticism is the only reproach that people cannot level against my theory'. Whatever his feeling of wonder about the Universe, his exploration into its laws was always entirely rational. He believed that scientific knowledge could not be obtained through direct supernatural perception, and incidentally considered any idea of personal immortality or the suggestion of any contact with the dead ridiculous.
Russians believe in God and in the Church’s role in support of social mores
03/18/2008
by Maria Anikina
A survey shows that 42 per cent of those interviewed considers themselves religious and that 16 per cent prays one or more times a day. For 45 percent the degree of influence the Church exerts on politics is satisfactory.
Moscow (AsiaNews) – Most Russians believe in God, consider themselves religious and Orthodox, view faith as the first source of meaning for life and eternity and that the Church’s main role is to support social mores, this according to a survey conducted in February by the Levada Analytical Center.
According to the findings, 42 per cent of the Russian population is religious; 33 per cent is not very religious and only 20 per cent says they are not religious at all.
Religious beliefs are stronger among people at the lower end of the socio-economic scale but also for those with high social status; among women (51 per cent vs 30 percent among men) and the elderly (29 per cent among in the 18-24 year age group; 38 per cent in the 25-39; 44 per cent in the 40-54, and 49 per cent for those 55 and over).
As for membership in the Russian Orthodox Church, 71 per cent of respondents say they feel a part of the Church (compared to 60 per cent in 2004 and 69 per cent in 2007). Muslims constitute 5 per cent; Catholics are 1 per cent; Atheists 5 per cent and 15 per cent do not follow any religion.
When it comes to specific beliefs, a third say that “God exists’ and had “no doubts” about his existence; 21 per cent “believe that God exists but sometimes have doubts” about it; another 14 per cent believe from time to time. One tenth does not believe in God’s existence; 9 per cent is not sure and does not believe one can prove his existence; 11 per cent believes in some higher power (but not in God.)
Answering the question “What do people find in religion?”, 31 per cent said “moral norms of everyday life;” 12 per cent of them gain “consolation and relief from pain;” 11 per cent of Russians find in religion “salvation, a way to eternal life;” the same number of believers chose “purification of soul. “
For 36 per cent of respondents, religion gives meaning to life; 29 per cent believe it helps people to be more tolerant and support hardships; 18 per cent believe that it is necessary for them as believers. However, for 22 per cent religion means nothing in their lives.
As for prayers, 34 per cent said they never do, compared to 7 per cent who do it several times a day and 9 per cent who do it once a day. For another 10 per cent weekly prayers are compulsory, whilst another 16 per cent prays few times a month. The remaining 24 per cent prays but rarely.
As for the Church’s social role 46 per cent believe that is has a role to play in supporting social mores; 37 per cent for spiritual needs; 31 per cent for charity and ideas of mercy; 30 per cent for help to the poor; and 29 per cent to help maintain cultural traditions.
By contrast, 15 per cent believe that religious organisations should not interfere in social life at all (compared to 11 per cent in a 1998 survey). Fewer people (22 per cent vs 27 per cent in 1998) believe the Church should support social, national and political consensus.
Overall 45 per cent of Russians view positively the Church’s influence on politics; 18 per cent believe it is excessive; another 18 per cent believe it should be greater, whilst 19 per cent could not answer.
As she accepts her 2008 TED Prize, author and scholar Karen Armstrong talks about how the Abrahamic religions -- Islam, Judaism, Christianity -- have been diverted from the moral purpose they share to foster compassion. But Armstrong has seen a yearning to change this fact. People want to be religious, she says; we should act to help make religion a force for harmony. She asks the TED community to help her build a Charter for Compassion -- to help restore the Golden Rule as the central global religious doctrine.
The Creator and the Created: the 2008 Templeton Prize
By Hasan Zillur Rahim
Michael Heller, a polish theologian, cosmologist and philosopher, was awarded the 2008 Templeton Prize “For Progress toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.”
In accepting the prize, professor Heller said, “Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence. The paradox is that these two great values seem often to be in conflict. I am frequently asked how I could reconcile them with each other. When such a question is posed by a scientist or a philosopher, I invariably wonder how educated people could be so blind not to see that science does nothing but explore God’s creation.”
Heller wrote 30 books, almost all of them dedicated to the creative dialogue between science, theology, and philosophy. Heller’s seminal contribution was to see in these seemingly distinct realms of human understanding a profound synergy, and he used his considerable intellect and insight in clarifying the nature of this synergistic relationship for us.
Attention to Heller’s work comes at a critical time. Scientists such as Richard Dawkins and atheists/secularists such as Christopher Hitchens have declared a war on religion. Their books are best-sellers. Many religionists have responded in kind, polarizing the religion-science issue further. What we seem to overlook is that inflexible ideologies, both secular and religious, drive common senses away, a loss for all humankind. It is this loss that Heller is determined to stem, by engaging our collective common sense and without minimizing the complexity involved in reconciling the knowable scientific world with the mysterious, and ultimately unknowable, nature of God. Through a rare combination of scientific acumen and theological insight, Heller addresses fundamental questions of knowledge and meaning in a holistic context that go far beyond the parochial arguments of the secularists and the religionists. In doing so, he also rejects a “God of the gaps” theory that uses God to explain what science cannot.
Michael Heller’s concluding statement after winning the Templeton Prize for 2008 should become a basis for public discourse on religion and science in America and elsewhere: “When thinking about science as deciphering the Mind of God, we should not forget that science is also a collective product of human brains, and the human brain is itself the most complex and sophisticated product of the universe. It is in the human brain that the world’s structure has reached its focal point – the ability to reflect upon itself. Science is but a collective effort of the Human Mind to read the Mind of God from question marks out of which we and the world around us seem to be made. To place ourselves in this double entanglement is to experience that we are a part of the Great Mystery. Another name for this Mystery is the Humble Approach to reality … The true humility does not consist in pretending that we are feeble and insignificant, but in the audacious acknowledgement that we are an essential part of the Greatest Mystery of all – of the entanglement of the Human Mind with the Mind of God.”
A Polish physicist and priest has won the annual million-dollar Templeton Prize for “progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual realities”.
Michael Heller walks away with $1.7 million for investigating questions including whether the Universe needs to have a cause (press release). This is the largest annual prize given to an individual (just bigger than the $1.6m Nobel), and comes from the same foundation that has previously funded studies into whether prayer can heal the sick, and how a nun's religious experience looks under a brain scanner.
“I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence,” Heller told the New York Times.
According to the London Times:
His theories do not so much offer proof of the existence of God as introduce doubt about the material existence of the world around us. He specialises in complex formulae that make it possible to explain everything, even chance, through mathematical calculation.
Physics World says Heller has worked on various branches of cosmology and mathematics, and is currently working on non-commutative geometry. From Physics Today:
Heller’s current work focuses on noncommutative geometry and groupoid theory in mathematics which attempts to remove the problem of an initial cosmological singularity at the origin of the universe. "If on the fundamental level of physics there is no space and no time, as many physicists think," says Heller, "noncommutative geometry could be a suitable tool to deal with such a situation."
He says he will use the money to set up a centre for the study of science and theology in Poland.
“He’s one of the key contributors in the international scholarly community dedicated to the creative dialogue on science, theology, and philosophy,” says Robert John Russell, director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley (Christian Science Monitor).
New Scientist’s Short Sharp Science blog admits to some unease about the Templeton Prize, about which it says: “It’s as if rather than fighting against science the way some religious factions - like creationists - do, they figure, we'll just buy science and use it for our own ends.”
...God is mutating, becoming slightly less appealing as a dogmatic force of sit-down-and-shut-up paternal scowling and becoming perhaps more dynamic, unspecified, something you actually want to take into your heart and into your mouth and lick until you find the rich, creamy center and then define that taste for yourself, blissfully independent of what your parents or priest or
