World Peace Forum opens in Indonesia focusing on eliminating violence
2008-06-25 00:26:46
JAKARTA, June 24 (Xinhua) -- About 200 leaders in religion, politics and business all over the world including Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono attended the 2nd World Peace Forum opening ceremony here on Tuesday night, to discuss how to achieve global peace.
"Indonesia has demonstrated its democracy with diversified culture and religion in recent years. Though we know how impossible it is to realize true peace in the world, we have to socialize the culture of mutual respect, tolerance, peace, harmony and anti-violence to the younger generation, because they are the leaders of tomorrow," said Susilo in his speech.
The prime ministers of Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, foreign minister of the UK and other politicians conveyed their written messages for the forum by representatives or through video.
The three-day forum, co-hosted by Muhammadiyah (Indonesia's second largest Islamic organization), the Center for Dialogue and Cooperation among Civilizations (CDCC) and the Cheng Ho Multi Culture Trust, is aiming to find solutions to address facets of religious violence at national and global levels.
The conference was founded in 2006 by Muhammadiyah to involve religious and political leaders in addressing world problems.
By CATHY LYNN GROSSMAN • USA Today • June 24, 2008
Newly released data from a major survey find that most U.S. adults range far from knowing or caring about the distinctive teachings of their professed faith.
They believe overwhelmingly (92 percent) in God and 58 percent say they pray at least once a day. But when it comes to specific religions they're all over the map, say the latest data from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Pew's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey questioned 35,000 Americans, nearly three in 10 of whom profess no religious identity but sometimes go to church. Most evangelicals, whose denominations teach that Jesus is the sole route to salvation, instead say people who have "led good lives" go to heaven. Only one in three Catholics say their church should preserve its traditional beliefs rather than change with the times or adopt modern practices.
Pew released demographic data in February from the survey, conducted in May through August 2007. This new installment focuses on questions about religious beliefs and practices, spiritual experiences, and views on society and politics.
Diversity and complexity
This analysis, based on a questionnaire that never mentions Jesus, portrays a nation of "free-flowing spirituality," said Pew Forum Director Luis Lugo, who finds the declining adherence to dogma "stunning."
When Green and Lugo factor in Pew's February findings that 44 percent of adults say they've switched to another religion or none at all, Lugo said, "You have to wonder: How do you guarantee the integrity of a religious tradition when so many people are coming or going or following ideas that don't match up?"
You can't, said the Rev. Frank Page, of Taylors, S.C., immediate past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
Page said people don't know their faith because "Gospel, once clearly preached in virtually every Protestant church, is rarely heard in the 21st century. The number who teach a clear doctrinal Christianity are a minority today. How would people know it when they never hear about how to be saved?" Individualism vs. church
Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, sees in the numbers that Catholics, like everyone else, are shaped by an individualistic culture. "People are trained to trust only their own spiritual experience," he said.
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.
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?
Rebecca Rosen Lum Contra Costa Times 06/16/2008 12:01:03 AM PDT
Losing their religion? Statistics suggest that for college students, it is virtually guaranteed. Studies show as many as 80 percent of college students shed their beliefs and faith practices during their undergraduate years. Reasons range from the rigorous questioning inherent in academic study to robust secular socializing. East Bay religious leaders offered counsel on how to sustain faith throughout the move into adulthood.
Father Wayne Campbell, St. Monica's Catholic Church, Moraga: They often shed their beliefs because beliefs often change. It's the values that we hope are more solid. That's why I always encourage families to not focus so much on teaching beliefs as instilling values. Values create a stable place from which to draw in making choices.
Rabbi Dan Goldblatt, Beth Chaim Congregation, Danville: We live in a world where there is so much pressure to succeed. So many high school students head off to college thinking that they are supposed to know what they want to do, and become. In the Jewish tradition, the act of becoming is itself a very sacred journey. College is one of those rare times in life when the purpose of one's existence is to learn, experiment, seek meaningful stimulation, develop, and immerse oneself in exploration and growth. This is such a precious gift that can be easily squandered by rushing into premature decisions regarding the future.
Rev. Sylvia Vasquez, St. Paul's Episcopal Church: The biggest danger is that their structure has been taken away. They right now live in a situation in which parents are their main source of authority and support and structure. The issue isn't really that they lose their faith or doubt what they've been told, they take advantage of the fact that there is no school Sunday. There's no need to get up out of bed unless somebody comes and bangs on your head. Spirituality is a discipline that gets ingrained. When you learn a language and you are somewhere where that language isn't spoken, well, if you don't use it you are going to lose it. It's a discipline.
Now, longing for God, the knowledge that there is a higher being, that is something I think we are born with. Even though they are on a journey -- and as Episcopal we encourage them to explore ... we are not afraid of somebody looking and doubting and questioning.
Senior Pastor Jon McNeff, NorthCreek Church, Walnut Creek: I encourage students to stay grounded in the word of God and in prayer first of all. The Bible is the only eternal book that doesn't change according to the whims of the crowd or the latest educational fad.
Secondly, I encourage them to read outside their assigned classes. Unfortunately, most college professors are some of the most closed-minded people on the face of the earth. To be truly educated, students will need to read other views in subjects like biology, history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy if they want a truly balanced education. That is hard to do when they have all of the other work required of them, especially if they have to work part time.
Lastly, I encourage them to get involved in a local church. They need the fellowship and perspective of people outside the campus to stay grounded.
Father Barnard J. Campbell, CSP, pastor Holy Spirit/Newman Hall, UC Berkeley: I do find in over 22 years in campus ministry work that young men and women are coming and going, connecting, disconnecting, roaming. Yet, at Berkeley and other exceptional vigorous secular environments students articulate and live out their faith commitments. Interestingly, studies that I knew of 15 years ago showed rather consistently that student personal faith commitment was GREATER at the vigorous secular university than at the religious institutions.
In my life with students I have found their struggles best addressed by inviting them into a community of (in my case) Catholics of their own age and hopefully also a varied generational community — including faculty members from the same vigorous secular environment — who are intellectually curious about their faith and their academic discipline, who are spiritually alert and who recognize the need to help their neighbor, locally or internationally.
Rev. Steve Harms, Peace Lutheran Church, Danville: `The mind is a profound gift. Use it to explore everything. Ask endless questions — especially of your faith because that is how you grow. Know that knowledge alone can make you clever but cold. So keep your mind grounded in the heart. To just become a data bank of information is completely unsatisfactory. You will want to learn the ways of wisdom so you can discover real joy in life.
There is nothing to fear: If what you learn is true, it is the Spirit of God. Ideas, views, perspectives change — that is how people mature. Even your ideas about God will change but that doesn't mean the wisdom and compassion of God will dissolve.
J.P. Singh, president, Sikh Center of the San Francisco Bay Area: Religion is something that is passed on in the family. Parents with good communication can help their children reconcile outside pressure with their own culture. I preach to both kids and parents, become good listeners. It has to be done in a friendly way.
We encourage (students) to become part of cultural activities, because that's where they get their strength. The Internet has been very, very good in the respect that Sikh youth groups use it to communicate and solve their problems. They have discussion groups. And there are the national Sikh camps.
Rabbi Mark Bloom, Temple Beth Abraham, Oakland: 1. Don't be afraid to questions your beliefs. God and our 4,000 year old tradition can certainly handle it. 2. Learn from others and their religious points of view. If your foundation is firm, the diversity will only strengthen and enrich your Jewish identity. 3. There's a whole new Jewish world for you to explore as a college student. Try Hillel. Join a Jewish fraternity or sorority. Take a Jewish studies class. Go on a Birthright Israel trip. Attend a rally. Meet Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews. 4. Most importantly, call home every once in a while. By that I mean, come to synagogue during Thanksgiving with your parents on a Saturday morning where you would otherwise be sleeping. Attend your rabbi's get-together for college students.
Rebecca Rosen Lum covers religion. Reach her at 925-977-8506 or rrosenlum@bayareanewsgroup.com.
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.
Institute Poll Shows Americans Oppose Pulpit Partisanship
June 9th 2008
Faith will continue to play a significant role in the political landscape through this year’s election.
Today the Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics released its National Survey on Religion and Public Life. The poll gauged the attitudes of 3,002 Americans, belonging to 18 different religious groupings, about their political attitudes, affiliations and preferences.
The conclusions of the national survey were largely unsurprising. Faith will continue to play a significant role in the political landscape through this year’s election, and congregants have a tendency to vote in a similar fashion to other traditionalists, centrists or modernists, regardless of denomination.
According to the study, mainline Protestants in 2008 have moved away from the GOP and are now more likely to self-identify as Democrats (46 percent) as opposed to Republicans (37 percent). Evangelical Protestants, however, have been moving in the opposite direction. They favored the Republican Party over the Democratic Party 48 percent to 32 percent in 1992, but now lean Republican 54 percent to 25 percent.
While the statistics, similar to those from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life U.S. Religious Landscape Survey of 2007, seem to be generally indicative of 2008 voting patterns like those of 2004, one question raised an issue of particular importance to advocates of church-state separation.
The Henry Institute asked survey participants whether clergy should endorse political candidates from the pulpit. A majority of Americans, across the board, found the practice to be inappropriate.
Fifty-seven percent said clergy should not “be permitted to endorse political candidates during worship services.” Only 28 percent said they should (with 15 percent offering no opinion).
Among Evangelicals, 55 percent opposed pulpit partisanship, while only 29 supported it. Among Catholics, the figures were even farther apart, with 66 percent taking a stand against church electioneering and only 23 percent supporting it.
With the Alliance Defense Fund and other Religious Right groups pressing clergy to violate federal tax law and endorse candidates from the pulpit, it’s good to know the American public won’t say amen to that reckless scheme.
By January W. Payne Special to The Washington Post Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Page one of two: Please click on external source for complete article
An integral part of many people's lives, religion defines patterns of worship and socialization, but its impact, if any, on health is unclear. Some studies show a benefit to religious practice, while others -- including much of the research into prayer -- fail to prove its health value.
The question of the role something as unquantifiable as religious belief might play in health troubles some scientists in an age when mainstream medicine is turning ever more toward epidemiological science to define research protocols and to determine the validity of treatments.
That said, it's not hard to understand why being religious might be good for the body, experts say. Religious people often attend regular services; this puts them in a socially supportive environment, which has widely acknowledged health advantages. And some religions promote healthful diets and discourage unhealthy behaviors such as drinking alcohol and smoking. ad_icon
"Religions package many of the ingredients of well-being to make them accessible to people," said Richard Eckersley, a visiting fellow at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University in Canberra. And the "psychological well-being" that religion can promote is "linked to physical health through direct physiological effects, such as on neuroendocrine and immune function, and indirect effects on health behaviors, such as diet, smoking, exercise and sexual activity."
Interest in researching the impact of religion and spirituality on how we live seems to be surging. David Myers, author of "A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists" (to be published in August) and a professor of psychology at Hope College in Holland, Mich., did a database search to compare recent and past interest in the topic. Between 1965 and 1999, 1,950 study abstracts mentioned religion or spirituality, he found. Myers's search for the same terms in abstracts published between 2000 and 2007 came up with 8,719 hits, he said.
Among that research is some evidence that religion and spirituality offer health benefits and even longer life spans. A national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and mentioned in Myers's book found that people who did not attend religious services were 1.87 times more likely to have died during an eight-year period than those who attended services more than weekly. The life expectancy for infrequent attendees was age 75, and it was 83 for those who attended frequently.
A 1996 study looked at the association of Jewish religious observance with mortality by comparing secular and religious kibbutzim in Israel. Belonging to a religious group appeared to prolong life, and the lower mortality rates seen in the religious group were consistent for all causes of death, the authors wrote. And a 2003 study published in Psychosomatic Medicine found that meditation might alter brain and immune function in positive ways, an effect similarly seen in research involving Buddhist monks.
But researchers have had trouble replicating such statistics in the randomized studies that are the gold standard for medical research. It's hard to show conclusively whether or how a belief system affects one's health; other life experiences might provide benefits to health so similar to religion and spirituality that it's hard to differentiate.
Despite the lack of scientific evidence, some common religious practices are widely thought to enhance health.
It's not unusual for people to pray for their own health and for that of others. In a 2004 survey of more than 31,000 people, 45 percent said they'd prayed for health reasons, 43 percent prayed for their own health, and 25 percent reported that others had prayed for them. About 10 percent said they'd participated in a prayer group for their health, according to the results, released by the National Center for Health Statistics and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
But science says that prayer might not help a person who is ill. A 2003 update to an earlier systemic review of clinical trials on distant healing found that intercessory prayer, which involves someone praying for the healing of a person located elsewhere, with or without that person's knowledge, probably doesn't offer specific therapeutic healing effects.
Any benefit seen from prayer might come from the fact that "knowing that your friends and family are praying for you is part of social support, . . . and [that is] probably really helpful to people, independent of if there is a higher being that answers those prayers," said David G. Schlundt, an associate professor of psychology at Vanderbilt University, who has researched the connection between faith and health.
Survey of Indian Scientists’ Attitudes toward Religion, Ethics and Society
The Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC) at Trinity College in Hartford, CT, recently released the first in a series of ground-breaking sociological studies entitled “Worldviews and Opinions of Scientists.” Each of the studies explores the opinions of science professionals in non-Western societies. The first report focuses on the views and attitudes of scientists in India. Subsequent studies will explore the opinions of science professionals in countries such as China, Japan, Russia and Turkey.
More than 1,100 participants from 130 universities and research institutes in India were surveyed for this research project, which was begun in August 2007 and completed in January 2008. The research team was led by Professors Ariela Keysar and Barry A. Kosmin of the ISSSC at Trinity College.
Among the findings, the study shows that only 8 percent of Indian scientists express ethical reservations about genetic engineering and stem cell research, while 90 percent somewhat or strongly agree with the teaching of traditional Ayurvedic medicine in university degree courses. The vast majority (88 percent) either definitely or probably endorse the theory of evolution.
Other survey questions cover such topics as Reasons for Becoming a Scientist; the Status of Women; Scientific Literacy in India; Ethical Constraints on Science; Belief in God; Belief in Miracles; and Spirituality.
Those queried include engineers, mathematicians, chemists, physicians, physicists, geologists, and those involved with behavioral and social sciences.
The survey was designed in consultation with Dr. Meera Nanda, author of Prophets Facing Backwards, and conducted in cooperation with the Center for Inquiry-India, for which Dr. P.M. Bhargava serves as a chief adviser.
The entire survey is available online at: http://cruller.cc.trincoll.edu/NR/rdonlyres/D98B14DA-CC70-4CA2-B270-EA0A6E9B4006/0/WholeIndiaReport.pdf
i4cp Study Finds Employers Struggling with How to Handle Religious Differences
i4cp Study Finds Employers Struggling with How to Handle Religious Differences
Nearly a third of employers surveyed said they have seen personal clashes in the workplace linked to religion
Seattle, WA, June 09, 2008 --(PR.com)-- According to a recent study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp), nearly a third of employers surveyed said they have seen personal clashes in the workplace linked to religion. Despite the frequency, it’s clear that many of those organizations are still unsure of how to handle religious differences in the work environment.
While 61% of companies said they have made an accommodation for an employee based on the worker’s religious beliefs, just 12% of respondents actually have a written definition of what is considered to be a “religious belief.” And, even though a third of respondents reported that their organization has experienced personal friction over religious beliefs, almost two-thirds of those companies said they do not have a written policy specifically addressing religious bias.
Perhaps because of this lack of clarity, most companies opt to handle disputes quietly and internally. Over half (56%) of the employers surveyed reported that they use in-house mediation to resolve religious disputes. For some, those disputes might be avoided if leaders were better trained on how to handle them. Of the companies surveyed, a mere 29% train managers on how to avoid religious bias in their decision-making.
“Businesses must find ways to handle religious conflicts while allowing room for employees’ spiritual needs,” said Anne Lindberg, research analyst with i4cp. “Effectively handling religious differences not only requires specific attention, but also creativity, empathy and fairness.”
When asked about practices used to attend to religious diversity, 68% of companies reported they “make reasonable accommodations for beliefs and practices,” implying that the remaining 32% don’t. “This is interesting because, by law, all companies are supposed to offer reasonable accommodations,” Lindberg adds.
Other findings from the survey:
-Fifty-five percent of companies provide flexible scheduling to allow people to attend religious services, yet only 33% offer paid time off for religious holidays.
-31% said that unsolicited sharing of religious views has been a problem in the workplace.
-13% said that, because of their religious beliefs, employees have refused to do certain work or associate with certain co-workers.
The Taking the Pulse: Religious Discrimination survey was conducted by i4cp, in conjunction with HR.com, in April 2008. A total of 278 organizations participated. The full results of the survey are now available exclusively for i4cp corporate members.
About i4cp, inc.
i4cp is the world’s largest private network of corporations focused on improving workforce productivity. Our vendor-free community facilitates innovation by giving our members – among the largest and most respected organizations in the world – access to:
1. Peers to spark new ideas and prevent “reinventing the wheel,”
2. Research to enable members to understand current practices and next practices,
3. Tools to put ideas and research into action,
4. Technology to enable members to easily access tailored information and execute workforce strategies.
With more than 40 years of experience and the industry’s largest team of human capital analysts, i4cp is the definitive destination for organizations seeking innovative ways to improve workforce productivity.
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.
In Japan, 72% irreligious; 56% believe in supernatural
The Yomiuri Shimbun Survey
Seventy-two percent of Japanese do not have any specific religious affiliation, but many still believe in supernatural forces, according to a recent Yomiuri Shimbun survey.
According to the survey, 26 percent of respondents said they believed in a religion, virtually unchanged from a similar survey conducted three years ago. Only 37 percent said religion was important for living a happy life.
Views of people's religious sentiment were split, with 45 percent of respondents saying Japanese had little religious faith while 49 percent thought otherwise.
However, 94 percent of respondents said they respected their ancestors, and 56 percent claimed to have had some form of supernatural experience.
The results suggested that many Japanese feel little affinity to a particular religion, but many do harbor feelings of respect for things that are scientifically unproven.
The Yomiuri Shimbun interviewed 3,000 randomly selected people across the country face-to-face on May 17-18, of whom 1,837 gave valid answers.
Asked about what happens to people's spirits after they die, 30 percent said they believed they would be reincarnated, 24 percent said they would go to another world and 18 percent answered they would vanish.
The recent popularity of new forms of spirituality and other new age-related beliefs, such as an interest in previous lives and guardian angels, was particularly prominent among female respondents. Although 21 percent of all respondents said they were interested in such thinking--far below the 75 percent who were not--27 percent of women saw the appeal of such beliefs, whereas only 13 percent of men said they felt this way.
To the question about what should be taught as religious education at school, 71 percent said students should be taught about "respect for life and nature," 31 percent said "histories of major religions," and 21 percent selected "the meaning of religion" and "tolerance for people of other faiths." Only 7 percent preferred not to have religion taught at school.
Respondents were allowed to give more than one answer to this question.
Views on religious groups were somewhat standoffish, with 47 percent saying these groups' activities were unclear, and 43 percent believing they use fear-mongering and other aggressive approaches to disseminate their beliefs. Thirty-six percent said they felt these groups were good at raising large amounts of money.
These three answers occupied the top three slots to the same question in Yomiuri surveys in May 1998 and August 2005. (May. 31, 2008)
THE DEVIL'S DELUSION Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions By David Berlinski Crown Forum, 237 pages, $27.95
Despite being at variance with historical experience, the idea that science and religion are opposites is embedded in modern Western culture, and it has been given a new lease on life in the writings of the current wave of "scientific atheism." Writers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have popularized the Enlightenment view that a reductive type of materialism is the only picture of the world compatible with the results of scientific inquiry. Promoting Darwinism as an intellectual orthodoxy - a creed rather than a provisional hypothesis - these writers renew the old quarrel between science and religion. Though controversy has been intense, it can hardly be described as having made any large intellectual advance on the debate that raged in Victorian times.
There is actually very little that is new in the so-called new atheism, whose claim to be based on science is as dubious today as it has ever been. A critique of the contemporary assault on religion is therefore much needed, and in The Devil's Delusion, David Berlinski gives us a polemic that is powerful, erudite and often savagely funny. Berlinski - a mathematician and well-known critic of evolutionary theory, though not a proponent of "intelligent design" - has two targets in his sights: the conventional belief that religious thought is intrinsically superstitious and the materialist philosophy that Dawkins and his fellow "brights" - as members of the atheist community fondly describe themselves - mistakenly identify with science.
The first of these targets is dispatched with in a barrage of devastating arguments. Berlinski quotes Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg as declaring "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Berlinski comments on this, forcefully and unanswerably: "Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons? If memory serves, not the Vatican."
Nothing infuriates atheists more than the observation that people who scorned traditional religion in all its varieties were responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the last century. But Berlinski is pointing to an undeniable truth. The former Soviet Union was an atheist regime from the moment of its inception to the day it collapsed. Applying Marx's philosophy, its leaders looked forward to a time when religion would be eradicated from human life. Lenin and Stalin's "liquidation" of remnants of the old society - in plain words, the mass murder of tens of millions of people, artists and intellectuals, peasants and workers, priests and rabbis - was not done only with the aim of maintaining power.
Atheism was - according to the founders of the Soviet state, and in fact - always an integral part of the communist project. Despite the vehement denials of Dawkins and Hitchens, terror in communist Russia - and Mao's China - was also meant to bring about a utopian society in which religion would no longer exist.
Lenin's Bolsheviks were not a bunch of skeptics. They were fanatical believers in a vision of a future world, more fantastic than any religious myth, which they claimed was based on science. The same is true of the Nazis, who in claiming that race was a scientific category, opened the way to history's supreme crime. The atrocities perpetrated by atheist regimes during the 20th century did not come from believing in nothing. They are testimonies to the destructive ferocity of faith when it is detached from traditional religions and invested in pseudo-science.
Berlinski's second target is the materialist theories of evolution and of the origins of the universe advocated by contemporary atheists, and here his polemic is less successful. No doubt correctly, Berlinski argues that Darwin's account of natural selection and current theories of cosmology leave a good deal that is not adequately explained. More contentiously, he suggests that these gaps in understanding may give support to ideas of intelligent design. Here Berlinski follows atheists such as Dawkins in thinking of religion as a type of explanatory theory, different from that which is presented in prevailing science.
The truth of the matter is that religion and science are not competitors, but fundamentally different responses to the human situation. Religion begins where science leaves off. Theories of how humanity or the universe came about are strictly beside the point. Claiming to have a better explanation of the natural world than orthodox science - as creationists do - does nothing to advance the cause of faith.
Religion expresses the human need for meaning, not a demand for explanation. For those who have it, faith entails understanding the limits of the human mind and an acceptance of mystery. Even if all the problems of science are some day solved, humans will still be searching for purpose in their lives, and for that reason alone they will need religion.
John Gray is the author of Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia and is emeritus professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics.
_____________________ From The Devil's Delusion,
Chapter 3.
The idea that we must turn to the sciences in order to assess our religious beliefs owes much to the popular conviction that so long as we are turning, where else are we to turn to? The proper response is a question in turn. Why turn at all? And if we must turn, why turn in the wrong direction? To ask of the physical sciences that they assess the Incarnation, or any other principle of religious belief, is rather like asking of a rather powerful Grand Prix racing car that it prove itself satisfactory in doing service as a New York taxicab.
The claim that the existence of God should be treated as a scientific question stands on a destructive dilemma: If by science one means the great theories of mathematical physics, then the demand is unreasonable. We cannot treat any claim in this way. There is no other intellectual activity in which theory and evidence have reached this stage of development.
If, on the other hand, the demand means merely that one should treat the existence of God as the existence of anything would be treated, then we must accept the fact that in life as it is lived beyond mathematical physics, the evidence is fragmentary, lost, partial, and inconclusive. We do what we can. We grope. We see glimmer.
Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam By Bruce Chilton. Doubleday (New York, 2008). 260 pp. $24.95.
Do Judaism, Christianity and Islam share a common ancestor whose obedience to God taps into the root of today's violence in the name of religion? Bruce Chilton, professor of religion at Bard College, rector of an Episcopal church in Barrytown, N.Y., and former member of the Jesus Seminar, poses this very thought in his book, "Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam."
The thesis of Chilton's work rests upon the idea that the violence we see in the three major monotheistic religions of today (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is spearheaded by the "Aqedah," or God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, in the Book of Genesis. Chilton bookends his work with references to the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001, and examines the common thread that links violence to religion. He pursues his argument that most violence in the name of religion can be traced back to this "Aqedah" with excerpts pulled from the Scripture and the Quran.
In the Genesis account according to the Hebrew Scriptures, Abraham obeys God's command to sacrifice his son on Mount Moriah, but at the last moment an angel stops him, saying Abraham has proved his faith by his willingness to obey. God himself points to a more suitable sacrifice: a ram caught in a thicket, which signals to many the end of human sacrifice in the name of God.
Chilton maintains that the original meaning of the story is that human sacrifice is not God's will. He successfully shows how all three religions, in times of persecution, have twisted this meaning to glorify martyrdom.
The title of the book is somewhat misleading as the reader may expect a survey of the many acts of violence and war in the holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, the author overextends the idea that almost all acts of violence in the name of religion stem from the "Aqedah" account in Genesis. Chilton omits the concept that the sinfulness of man is often a root cause or explanation for violence.
Chilton expends much effort in the early chapters aiming to prove his point about the "Aqedah." However, he overreaches in his exegesis, forcing many occasions of violence found in the Scriptures to this one event. Obedience to God is the focus of the call of Abraham's sacrifice of his son, not violence. Throughout the first 90 pages of the book Chilton references extrabiblical texts and legends, muddled in clarity, to the text we find in Genesis. Unfortunately, this can be confusing for the reader.
Throughout the book there are references made that are not in line with Catholic theology. One glaring example is when Chilton says that "Jesus did not originally refer to his own personal body and blood" in the meals he shared with his disciples but the meaning came later, "in the Hellenistic environment of St. John's Gospel." If Jesus did not communicate the teaching that his "flesh is real food," then one can naturally question which Scripture passages are authentic and which are made up by the community. Chilton's association with the Jesus Seminar assemblage is evident in such interpretations.
In St. Paul's writings to the Galatians, the "Aqedah" is the occasion where the Abrahamic covenant takes on its greatest theological significance. This event serves as the pinnacle when Abraham's faith and God's promise reach their fullest expression. God's promises to Abraham and, in turn, Abraham's faith, are the two strands from which St. Paul eloquently explains his theology and the promise that follows. The faith of Abraham brings to completion the divine promise to all generations --- not an act of violence. Chilton does not mention St. Paul's interpretation which should be included because of St. Paul's influence on Christianity.
From the Islamic viewpoint, Chilton points to multiple texts in the Quran and incidents throughout Islamic history that use the Abrahamic sacrifice or the "Feast of Sacrifice" as a touchstone that likens the "Aqedah" in Judaism and Christianity to the Muslim faith. Again, this premise is designed to link the "Aqedah" to violence in all three religions.
Overall, Chilton offers an interesting perspective on the origin of violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He does provide food for thought on the violence that exists today, all alleged to be done in the name of God.
Cover the religious landscape for any time and it’s obvious that belief runs too deeply to suggest one group of believers found and embraced the real truth, while the rest are just lost souls, floundering in falsehood.
Lawn Griffiths on Spiritual Life
That’s why I find real hope in the ecumenical and interfaith efforts — those of faith with courage to learn from each other without any obligation or intention to abandon their own core beliefs. They welcome chances to discover the beauty and integrity of other faith systems. They find awe in the common ground. They celebrate that some from other faiths truly seek to live out their beliefs authentically no matter how radically they may differ from their own. They don’t judge, and they don’t feel that consorting with other kinds of seekers will dishonor their own religions. In their own ways, they strive to understand the mysteries of God. They balance teachings of their formal traditions with their own line of reasoning and free agency. It’s called a “faith journey.” They work cooperatively to share their best for peace and understanding.
Clearly some religions encourage open-mindedness and stretching so that a follower truly owns and embraces what unfolds and evolves in their own distinct experiences.
Other faiths, however, are far more strict and legalistic, insisting that adherents absorb their solid, historic teachings and not stray. They are warned of the dangers of what might seep into their minds from the “outside.” Orthodoxy now, orthodoxy forever.
I value people having transforming experiences that impel them to abandon bad habits, destructive behavior, self-centeredness, greed, hostility ... In truly loving Jesus, for example, they can honestly say they are new people, a new creation. I distrust, however, those so mesmerized by charismatic teachings that they cede away critical thinking.
So much of the whole discussion falls into just two areas — 1) escaping the pain and struggles of life on earth for life everlasting salvation; or 2) the social gospel that calls on the believer to love, to work for justice and to bring comfort to the poor and disenfranchised. All week, the words of theologian Brian McLaren, as expressed May 10 in this Spiritual Life section, have resonated with me. He talked about the difference between mercy and justice. We can strive to provide relief from the pain of the moment or we can make systemic changes to end injustice so that changes made for good actually last. McLaren said unjust systems keep throwing people into misery, and “mercy brings us to relieve some of their misery, but until we confront the unjust systems by doing justice we’re never going to make a change ... I think what churches in America, especially evangelical churches, are just waking up to is the way we have to deal with systemic injustice, not just charitable giving to people in misery.”
Three weeks ago, I was among 10 people and some organizations that the Arizona InterFaith Movement honored at Phoenix Convention Center with Golden Rule Awards. (www.interfaitharizona.com). The fourth annual award recipients included Arizona Cardinal Kurt Warner and his wife, Brenda (Courage in Sports award); the dean of Valley rabbis, Rabbi Albert Plotkin (religion award); and Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa (government award). I won in the media category. More than 900 folks, representing a wide range of faiths, turned out. It was fascinating to watch six-minute videos on the recipients and see authentic ways people have devoted their lives trying to bring light to the darkness.
When AFM’s executive director, the Rev. Paul Eppinger, notified me of the award in February, my immediate reaction was one of unworthiness and a realization that we media types have a too-easy opportunity to be Golden Rule-esque in simply showcasing the great good. And I realized Arizona has a shortage of media people focused on spirituality and faith and the honor may have come my way because of the small pool of media folks dealing with faith.
Then I quickly remembered the late Darl Andersen, the Mesa man who worked tirelessly to promote living the Golden Rule, giving away bumper stickers touting it and seeking religious understanding. He belonged to several interfaith groups and was famous for taking clergy of many faiths to lunch to help them understand his faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He’d invite his dinner companions to educate him on theirs.
I wrote several features on Andersen, including one when he died in 2000. Andersen and I talked over lunch four or five times across a dozen years, and the one-time Mesa Unified School District governing board president was always effective in making his point and just being a smiling bundle of love made flesh.
He never lived to see the annual Golden Rule banquet with more than 900 attendees from dozens of diverse religions, nor the new Golden Rule specialized Arizona license plate, nor Arizona being declared, in 2003, the nation’s first “Golden Rule State” with a program through the Secretary of State’s office to recognize people for “good deeds and acts of kindness.”
It is appropriate that one of the awards given was the Darl Andersen Award, presented by his son Wilfred Andersen, one-time Arizona spokesman for the LDS Church. This year, it went to Dennis Barney, who combined charity and civic and church duty with successful development work and family life.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It’s so simple. It’s a universal message that is said many ways in all the languages and religious creeds. If we would really live it and believe in it, justice and peace could follow.
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.
Participants agreed that to develop critical thinking skills, students must know about religions in a balanced way, neither emphasizing negative features nor promoting the religion in a devotional style more appropriate to a mosque or church setting.
Saturday, May 10, 2008 By Spero News
The Mid-Atlantic Muslim Catholic Dialogue met on April 23-24 in Washington DC and looked at inter-religious education in the United States.
The meeting, which was convened by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and Catholic representatives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, explored teaching about different religions in private and public institutions. Discussion was guided by the experiences of the Institute on Religion and Civic Values, represented by Shabbir Mansuri and Munir Shaikh.
The discussion follows upon a meeting in 2007 where Safaa Zarzour described the development of a Muslim-Catholic educational exchange by the Council of Islamic Societies of Greater Chicago and the Archdiocese of Chicago. Zarzour chaired a panel of Muslim representatives at the April 23-24 meeting.
Mansuri, Shaikh and Zarzour noted there already is consensus on the need to educate about world religions in public schools, thanks to the work of the First Amendment Center in Washington DC. Discussion at the April meeting focused on the many audiences for inter-religious education: seminarians, university students, school teachers, public and religious school children.
Sandra Keating PhD related the discussion to theological and pedagogical principles. From a pedagogical perspective participants looked at effective ways to educate about other religions, and said the most effective approach should not only provide basic information but also draw attention to the spiritual values of a religion. They said maintaining a positive tone in curriculum content can help correct a bias against religion that exists in some educational and political environments.
Participants also agreed that to develop critical thinking skills students need to know the story of religions in a balanced way, neither emphasizing negative features nor promoting the religion in a devotional style more appropriate to a mosque or church setting. Participants also noted that sensitivity in how one communicates and works with other traditions should be part of any program and stressed particular attention to the training of religious leaders and school teachers for all school systems.
Rev. Gregory Fairbanks presented a curriculum for ecumenical and inter-religious training required by Catholic seminaries and recommended for clergy and lay leaders. He cited documents of the Second Vatican Council and other more recent church documents. He highlighted U.S. pastoral concerns, including inter-religious marriages, social justice cooperation or tensions, and educating non-Catholic children in parochial schools.
Imam Ahmed Nezar Kobeisy offered reflections on the training of imams for U.S. mosques. He highlighted efforts, such as psychological and marriage counseling, that would not be so urgently required of imams in majority-Muslim countries.
In other remarks, Bishop Dennis Madden, co-chair, recalled the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI. He reminded participants of the pope’s call to achieve what the pope called the "truth of peace" while maintaining "a clear exposition of our respective religious tenets."
The next meeting of this round will be in May, 2009, and focus on “Developing a Strategic Plan on Interreligious Education.” In the coming months, a survey on inter-religious education will be sent to Muslim and Catholic educators.
Keeping the faith? More people look inward to find peace
By Amie Jo Schaenzer The Reporter ajschaenzer@fdlreporter.com
People, apparently, are pretty wishy-washy when it comes to religion.
A recent study conducted by the Pew Forum -- one of the largest and most extensive of its kind -- shows Americans are switching religions and choosing to be "unaffiliated" more than ever before, said Brian H. Smith, chairman for the department of religion at Ripon College.
Organized religion throughout the nation, as well as locally, is on the decline, with nearly 16 percent of all men and women today not belonging to any particular affiliation.
The extensive survey released in February shows more than one-quarter of American adults, 28 percent, have either left the church they were raised in or have chosen no religion at all, according to the PewUnited States Religious Landscape Survey.
Smith said the sharp increase locally in contemporary, non-denominational Christian churches shows residents are opting for the more "upbeat services" over the traditional types of worship offered by mainstay Catholic and Protestant churches.
Ken Nabi heads one of the largest evangelical churches in Fond du Lac, Community Church, and says his congregation has seen steady growth over the past 28 years, with a current weekend attendance of 850 to 900 members.
He said many choose Community Church, N6717 Streblow Drive, because the message offered is more in-tune as to what people today want to hear.
Why?
Today, more than in years past, people are looking inward to find peace and longstanding types of worship do not offer the type of spiritual escape they want, Smith said.
"Today, people want an emphasis on the goodness of a person and not so much that they've sinned and they're bad," Smith said. "Traditional services do not nourish their spirit."
Likewise, the Pew research shows the makeup of some of the more traditional types of religion is changing: While 51.3 percent of Americans today claim to be Protestants, the group is fading, according to the survey.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church experienced one of the greatest net losses because of affiliation changes, according to the survey, with one in three Americans being raised Catholic and only 1 in four sticking with Catholicism today.
Despite the changes, the vast majority is still affiliated to a Christian religion. According to Pew research, 78.4 percent of Americans are Christians, while 4.7 percent belong to other religions, including 1.7 percent who are Jewish and 0.7 percent who are Muslim.
In Fond du Lac, changes in religious affiliation have proven gradual, said Michael Ketterhagen, associate professor of theology at Marian University.
Traditions among young people
One in four Americans ages 18 to 29 say they are not affiliated with a religion, according to the survey. Many in this age group —whom Smith teaches at Ripon College — he refers to as "nightstand Buddhists." They keep a Buddhist statue on their nightstand, he said, read Buddhist text because they like the message, but do not practice the religion.
This translates into cherry-picking highly individualized ways to be spiritual and seek faith, Ketterhagen said.
"They pray at night and they get involved in organized religion less," he said. "They still have a strong commitment to connect with God or their own personal spirituality that they call all different types of names. It's more personal and they will pray at night, meditate or go out in the woods to be closer to nature."
In the past, young people have left the church during their high school and college years only to return when they got married and settled down. The Pew survey suggests that is less likely to happen with today's youth.
Smith thinks this demographic niche will continue to mix and match religions to fit their needs, instead of returning to their childhood church. He envisions a type of spiritual smorgasbord — drawing upon Buddhism, for meditation; Judaism, for ethics; and the Lutheran religion for its Christmas and Easter services.
In February 450 churches celebrated Charles Darwin’s birthday with sermons arguing that religion and evolution do not contradict one another.
Called Evolution Sunday, the event grew out of a project organized by Dean Michael Zimmerman and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. They wrote an open letter signed by nearly 200 clerics in response to a 2004 resolution by the Grantsburg, Wisconsin, school board requiring that biology classes incorporate “various models or theories” of the origin of life. Later that year, the Grantsburg board backed down a bit, modifying its curriculum resolution to stipulate that “students shall be able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.”
Noting the ongoing evolution wars in the United States, Zimmerman decided to expand the project beyond the borders of Wisconsin. The result was “An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science,” which has received endorsements from 10,000 clergy members around the country. Most endorsers hail from relatively liberal mainline Protestant denominations. (There were just seven endorsements from Southern Baptists, almost all of whom were associated with hospitals or academic institutions.)
The open letter declares: “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as ‘one theory among others’ is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.” So far, so good.
The letter goes on to draw a distinction between “two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.” Religious truth, according to the letter, is “of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.” The divines seem to be reaching for the proposed accommodation between science and religion devised by the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould.
Gould argued that science and religion are two “nonoverlapping magisteria.” According to Gould, “if religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution.”
But can this formulation survive the continuing scrutiny of religion by science? While it is true that science has nothing to say about whether souls are divinely infused into people, religion is still part of the world’s empirical constitution.
I have no doubt about the ability of religion to “transform hearts.” Religion motivates the charitable works of the Salvation Army; it helped President George W. Bush stop drinking; and it inspired 19 Muslims to slam airliners into buildings. It is an undeniably powerful force in human lives. Something that has such a far-reaching influence cannot escape the scrutiny of humanity’s most powerful techniques for uncovering the facts of the world.
According to Gould, “The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value.” Possibly because he despised evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, Gould was comfortable making this distinction. But in a sense, values are facts about human beings and as such can be studied by scientists. Today researchers into evolutionary psychology, neuroeconomics, genetics, and other fields are elucidating the sources of human morality and how it functions.
Dean Hamer, a biologist at the National Cancer Institute, even claims to have found “the God gene,” which affects how certain mood-regulating chemicals are transported in people’s brains. This variant of the VMAT2 gene seems to make people who have it more susceptible to spiritual beliefs.
Of course, theology is still a long way from being reduced to biochemistry. Scientific research into the sources of religious belief is just beginning, so any of the current findings could be rejected or revised as further evidence becomes available. Nevertheless, the magisterium of science is surrounding and constricting the magisterium of religion. Zimmerman’s letter declares, “We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.” It may well be that that same capacity for critical thought eventually leads us to understand how the universe and humanity came to be in such a way that God fades away, and we no longer need to believe in Him.
There is no doubt that the state of Israel with its over 7.2 million citizens has great achievements. First of all, it is rare to find a state that has succeeded to make out of people, who were dispersed through centuries in different parts of the world, a renewed nation. In this process, it successfully absorbed through the years waves of immigrants (close to three million) who came to build a new life—and many arrived after experiencing trauma.
From the beginning the emerging society succeeded in developing a democratic structural system in a region where authoritarian regimes are the rule rather than exception. With the years, this society developed a tradition of freedom of information and media openness, with daily newspapers, many other types of publications, a few TV channels and many radio stations, all carrying vivid debates about Israel and the world. In addition, the Israeli public has openings to various world channels of commutation, including Arab ones, to absorb information and knowledge. During the last decades the society also witnessed the accelerated development of civil society that consists of hundreds of NGOs which raise many different issues and serve as a place for involvement and participation. These trends also indicate a positive ongoing process whereby different excluded societal sectors enter political and social arenas and expand the scope of issues that the society debates.
Also many of the founding fathers, being influenced by socialistic ideas, established a state that took the responsibility for the weak, sick, elderly and needy. Thus Israel enacted already from the beginning a wide range of social legislation and set up extensive social programs for all Israeli citizens and especially for the needy to provide them with a broad range of benefits and assistance. In 1995 The National Health Insurance Law came into effect. This law assures provision of a standardized basket of medical services, including hospitalization, for all residents of Israel. Israel's extensive medical network and high doctor-patient ratio are reflected in the low infant mortality rate (4 per 1,000live births) and high life expectancy (82.2 years for women, 78.5 for men). This reflects a high standard of medicine in Israel and high-level training for medical professions, including a very advanced research level.
Similar achievements should be noted in education, in spite of the recent setbacks. School attendance is mandatory from age 5 to 16 and free through age 18, though less than half obtain matriculation which serves as a passport for higher education. Higher education with over 270,000 students is well regarded and plays a pivotal role in the development of the country. The universities are well known and developed and serve together with other R&D (research and development) institutions as vehicles for scientific achievements and technological development. Today, the percentage of Israelis engaged in scientific and technological inquiry and the amount spent on R&D in relation to its GDP are among the highest in the world.
The described achievements are related to economic success. After having enjoyed for many years one of the fastest GDP growth rates of all world economies, Israel is now continuing the economic recovery that began in 2003. Israel’s GDP has been rising at about 5 percent a year, per capita income reached about $21,000 (in 1980 it was about $5,500), unemployment has steadily decreased to 6.6. percent in 2007, inflation is under control, and foreign debt has been eliminated, with Israel becoming a creditor in recent years and very attractive to international investors. This was achieved with very tight budget control and cuts in public expenditures.
International level strides have been made in the fields of medical electronics, agro-technology, telecommunications, fine chemicals, computer hardware and software, food processing and solar energy. Hi-tech industries, which accounted for only 37 percent of industrial product in 1965, grew to 70 percent in 2006 ($29 billion plus another $5.9 billion of hi-tech services)
