Category Archives: Atheism

Ten years ago, in 2012, the nations atheists staged at Reason Rally at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., attracting a big crowd of up to 30,000. Four years later, they tried it again, but hardly anyone turned up.

You would think that atheism is growing, with the number of Nones, people who claim to hold to no religion, shooting up from 19% the year before the rally to 29% today. Back then the rally put forward the goal of creating a political coalition of 27 million atheists to counter the political and cultural influence of the religious right. But that effort seems to have fizzled out.

The online journal Religion & Politics published an article by Aysha Khan entitledA Decade After the First Reason Rally, What Happened to Americas Atheist Revolution?

For one thing, the Nones, upon whom the atheists put so much hope, are not predominantly atheists, with 72% believing in God or a higher power. As we have discussed, they are mostly spiritual but not religious, holding to an inward, self-constructed religion of one member.

Furthermore, it isnt just that Nones dont join churches. They dont join anything. The article quotes atheist blogger Hemant Mehta: The demographic shift is shifting away from organized religion, but not to organized anything else, which makes it all but impossible to ask them to do anything, Mehta said. Because most of them are apathetic. Theyre not atheists. Which makes it hard to get a movement going, much less a political force.

But there are other factors. The flood of New Atheist books in the 2010s seem to have hurt their image. Their hyper-intellectualism and brash anti-religious polemics left an unpleasant taste in the mouths of many non-believers and moderate believers, comments Khan. It became difficult to disrupt the longstanding image of atheists as angry white men in their 50s.

Another problem, in these hyper-polarized times, is that atheists have a hard time getting along with each other. There are right-wing atheists, as in the virtue of selfishness followers of Ayn Rand. And there are left-wing, social-justice atheists, as in classical Marxism.

Some atheists hoped for an alliance with Muslims, Jews, and other religious minorities to push back against the dominance of Christianity in the public square. But that was never going to happen.

Then there is the leadership problem. Comments Khan, Many of the old guard atheist leaders have faded from the mainstream spotlightsome in disgrace, like American Atheists firebrand former president David Silverman, after facing #MeToo-erasexual misconduct allegations.

In light of all of these setbacks, Mehta said that instead of trying to form a political block, atheist activists are now focusing their efforts on issues they care about, such as the separation of church and state and abortion. He also mentioned racial equity, feminism, and the LGBTQ cause, sounding like the sort of woke atheist that right wing atheists oppose.

But atheists shouldnt feel too bad about their setbacks. Though their numbers are smallabout 4% of Americans are atheiststhey exercise an enormous influence on the culture. Christians are far greater in number and have more political clout, but, unlike in other periods, they presently seem to have far less cultural, intellectual, and artistic clout than the atheists do.

As the number of committed Christians declines, perhaps the church can learn how to function so effectively as an influential minority.

Illustration: Sign of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Denver, Colorado, by Jeff Ruane, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Originally posted here:
Whatever Happened to Atheists? | Gene Veith - Patheos

What does atheism mean to you? Is logic ancient history? How is Calvinism changing the world? Put your thinking cap on, earbuds in, and get listening to our curated collection of Very Short Introductions podcast episodes for thinkers.

These four episodeseach under 15 minutes longcreated by our expert authors offer bite-sized introductions to four big concepts: atheism, logic, secularism, and Calvinism.

Listen to the podcast episodes below or subscribe and listen to the Very Short Introductions podcast through your favourite podcast app.

In this episode, lapsed Catholic, failed Methodist, and convinced atheist Julian Baggini introduces atheism, wrongly considered to be a negative, dark, and pessimistic belief characterized by a rejection of values and purpose and a fierce opposition to religion.

But if atheism is not religions inverse, what does it mean to be an atheist?

Listen to Julian explain the historical accident of atheisms emergence in Western civilization and how we can understand atheist worldviews and beliefs.

Or subscribe and listen to the Atheism Very Short Introductions podcast episode on your favourite podcast app now.

God, time and change, truth and existence, language and paradox What I love about logic, personally, is the fact that it has these deep connections to profound philosophical questions.

In this episode, Graham Priest introduces logic, an area which is often wrongly perceived as having little to do with the rest of philosophy and even less to do with real life.

Listen to Graham explain what exactly logic is, why its so integral to our everyday lives, and how he encapsulated this simultaneously ancient and modern subject in a Very Short Introduction.

Or subscribe and listen to the Logic Very Short Introductions podcast episode on your favourite podcast app now.

[Secularism] is about the state maximizing freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of religion or belief for everyone regardless of their religion or belief, up toand only up tothe rights and freedoms of others.

In this episode, academic and activist Andrew Copson introduces secularism, an increasingly hot topic in public, political, and religious debate across the globe that is more complex than simply state versus religion.

Listen to Andrew explain why we must not neglect secularism and why debating and discussing secularism is of pivotal importance for world civilization today.

Or subscribe and listen to the Secularism Very Short Introductions podcast episode on your favourite podcast app.

Calvinism may seem arcane but in fact as recently as 2009, Time magazine chose Calvinism as one of 10 ideas that were changing the world. But that still may not mean people know a lot about it

In this episode, Jon Balserak introduces Calvinism, which has gone on to influence all aspects of contemporary thought, from theology to civil government, economics to the arts, and education to work.

Listen to Jon set out the character of Calvinist thought and offer critical assessment of it in this bite-sized introduction to the subject.

Or subscribe and listen to the Calvinism Very Short Introductions podcast episode on your favourite podcast app.

Want to learn more? Subscribe to The Very Short Introductions podcast and see where your curiosity takes you!

Featured image by Jusdevoyage on Unsplash, public domain

See the original post here:
Four Very Short Introductions podcast episodes to get you thinking | OUPblog - OUPblog

Photo credit/ Jennifer Flynn

Bridge to Terabithia has won the John Newbery Medal for childrens literature despite parental backlash.

Booklash is a column exploring the history of Banned Books in the United States, the reasons behind the arguments, and a students take on this attack on literature.

Bridge to Terabithia is a well-known novel that tugs at the heartstrings of readers. After the reader becomes entangled in the unlikely friendship of the two main characters, Jess and Leslie, they are taken through Jess journey of poverty and the struggle to fit in. Once Jess finds his way in life with Leslie by his side, an untimely and heart-wrenching event turns his life upside down.

Through the characters struggles, the reader is taught many valuable lessons that any child or adult could benefit from. This includes lessons of dealing with poverty and fitting in, as well as standing apart from the crowd, friendship, imagination, death, and ways of coping.

The author, Katherine Paterson, delved into this book with a highly religious background, a quality education, and much life experience that in turn helped set the scene for Bridge to Terabithia.

Despite the John Newbery Award and the numerous claims of the novel being a ground-breaking classic for childrens and young adults literature, many parents bristle at the cold-hard lessons found within the novel. These parents argue that the novel is too morbidly depressing for such young minds. There are also points of profanity, proclaimed witchcraft, and potential atheism promotion.

The novel uses words such as hell, Lord, and damn, which parents argue to be profanity that their children should not be exposed to. Other parents may argue that this claim is a bit pretentious and not adequate enough to ban the book for all students.

Within the novel, the characters escape the harsh realities of life by running to their imaginary kingdom, Terabithia. Terabithia is a hidden place among the trees and across a treacherous creek that is found behind their houses. Though the children use their imaginations to create their own little world, as many young children may do, parents unjustly attach the use of imagination to the idea of witchcraft.

Another reason parents attempt to ban this novel is the claim that Bridge to Terabithia promotes atheism. Although Jesss family believes in God and goes to church on Easter, Jess in his young age is unsure of whether he truly believes or not. On top of God already being put in question, Leslies family is said not to believe at all, though Leslie is interested in learning about God and perhaps finding within herself a way to believe. One could argue that perhaps the novel is not promoting atheism, but rather demonstrating a young childs journey in believing. Taking in consideration that Paterson comes from such a religious background and is a believer herself, it can be assumed that atheism was not her intended notion with the novel.

Parents would not be wrong to argue that the novel becomes depressing and may even be a trigger to young children that have experienced loss. However, much as the main character Jess learns to cope with the notion of death, the reader can also learn ways of coping with their own personal grief.

This begs the question, how young is too young to be exposed to death and grief? Against many parents wishes, death is untimely and it can therefore be argued that it is better to prepare children to cope with the resulting grief and to become aware of the notion of death. Being unprepared to face this notion with no understanding of death, children can become confused and angry.

Bridge to Terabithia was an outlet for Paterson and her son to finally cope with a traumatic experience in their own life. Patersons son unexpectedly lost his best friend at an early age. Neither Paterson nor her son knew how to cope with this loss, hence came the inspiration for Bridge to Terabithia, in hopes that the novel could help other young children and their parents if ever faced with such a devastating experience.

Despite the frequent attempts to ban and challenge Bridge to Terabithia, the novel remains an integral piece of literature for any age. The lessons found within can be beneficial to us all. If looking to read this novel, or watch the newer movie adaptation, be prepared for the roller coaster of emotions.

Contact the writer:[emailprotected]

See the original post:
BookLash: Are the cold, hard realities found within Bridge to Terabithia not for young, innocent minds? - The Wood Word

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has started consultation on a major review of data it collects on religions.

The ABS undertakes regular reviews of standards to ensure questions reflect the changing nature of Australian society. According to the ABS, Although the Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups (ASCRG) was updated in 2016, it still reflects the original 1996 version based on the social environment in Australia at that time.

The review, which includes a look at the associated Religious Affiliation Standard (the Standard), will be guided by consultation with stakeholders from religious groups and data from the 2021 census to offer a standard that is more reflective of contemporary society.

ABS documents discussing the scope of the review identify the relative level of sub-classification in Christian and non-Christian religions as a significant area for reform.

Currently, the standard includes a pick list with seven Christian denominations, but only broad categories for Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Although participants are able to fill out any religion in the other category, the inclusion of a pick list compels some respondents to make a choice rather than write which religion they most closely identify with, according to the agency.

The pick list was designed to make completing census forms easier and is similar to other census questions (e.g. Country of birth), the ABS said.

However, feedback indicates that people not affiliated with any of the groups in this list feel excluded.

For example, people affiliated with the Macedonian Orthodox religious group felt they were being asked to mark the Greek Orthodox box because it was in the pick list, and Macedonian Orthodox was not, the agency explained.

The review will also try to answer whether secular beliefs, like atheism and agnosticism, should continue to be distinguished from no religion, and address inconsistencies in the way data for different religions and denominations is coded by the ABS.

The new ASCRG will be released in December 2023, with the new standard expected to be applied in the 2026 census.

Public consultations will run to 18 November, to be followed by additional post-consultation stakeholder engagement. More detailed information is available on the ABS Consultation Hub.

READ MORE:

Millennials growing while religion declines, shows 2021 Census

See the article here:
ABS to consult on religious classifications - The Mandarin

Liberals love to talk about all the words that Shakespeare invented. They love to use words based in mythology. But bring up the influence of the Bible and theyll start hissing like a viper. Everything they claim to be is nothing but a bad imitation of Christianity.

Their delusions have no basis in reality. The Bible has had a greater impact than Shakespeare or Mythology ever could. Not to mention the fact that Shakespeares work, with an estimated 1,350 Biblical references, is proof of this.

As for mythology, the Bible tells a story unlike anything ever told, most of all by myth, which is accurately a synonym for lie.

The Bible is the most influential book ever written.

From the works of Michelangelo to the films of Quentin Tarantino, the Bible is foundational. One of the most powerful scenes in pulp fiction is when Samuel L. Jacksons character quotes Ezekiel 25:17.

Reports about the spread of atheism often imply the death of religion, like its a victory. But really, what they mean is that they hate Christianity. What theyre doing isnt religious, its POLITICAL.

In reality, it could never lead to a post-religion world, because politics is a child to religion, so the collapse of religion would lead to annihilation.

This is not an exaggeration. Society itself is founded on religion. So while atheism may occasionally APPEAR to be on the rise, theres no such thing as an atheistic society.

Some of the Biblical phrases that appear in our everyday language include:

"eye for an eye"land of milk and honeyforbidden fruit"bottomless pit""two-edged sword""God forbid""scapegoatscandalLand of Nodby the sweat of your browapple of my eyefire and brimstoneashes to ashes, dust to dusta man after my own heart"broken heartwits endbite the dustput words in my mouthput your house in order"nothing but skin and bonesby the skin of your teethBehemoth"nothing new under the suna little birdie told merise and shinecan a leopard change his spotseat drink and be merrywriting on the walldrop in a bucketfly in the ointmentfour corners of the earthsee eye to eyesalt of the earthgo the extra milepearls before swinefall by the waysidestraight and narrowwolf in sheeps clothingblind leading the blind"the 11th hourkiss of deathgive up the ghostwash your hands of the matter""the truth will set you freetwinkling of an eyelabor of lovelive by the sword die by the swordfall from gracefight the good fightthe powers that beYou know the famous line from the song Money by Pink Floyd? Its a rip-off of Timothy 6:10.

But the Bible is even more influential than these phrases.

More than a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, the Bible reveals the foundation of language itself. In fact, the philosophical study of language is based on the prologue to the Gospel of John. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Teddy Roosevelt once said that no other book of any kind ever written in English has ever so affected the whole life of a people.

A literary masterpiece written by uneducated men, the Bible is the best-selling book of all time, with between five and seven BILLION copies sold. For reference, an estimated 800 million copies of the Quran, and 200 million copies of A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.

The Bible is also the most shoplifted book.

It was the first book ever printed, after Johannes Gutenberg chose it as the first book for his printing press. Education as we know it is based on the Bible.

Christianity is the foundation of modern politics and law. Leviticus 25:10 (Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof) appears on the Liberty Bell.

When Martin Luther King Jr. gave his I Have a Dream speech on the National Mall, 250,000 people witnessed a sermon. He referenced four scriptures in the speech. Amos 5:24, Isaiah 40:4, Psalm 30:5, and Galatians 3:28.

Without the Bible, freedom as we know it could not exist. Sure, Plato talked about Democracy 300 years before Jesus came to earth. But Democracy is nothing without the political freedom that Christianity gave us.

The right to a fair trial appears in Deuteronomy 19:15 and Exodus 21:2325.

Christian monks founded the earliest health care systems using the principles of the Bible as their guide.

The Lefts obsession with destroying Christianity is the same as their obsession with destroying Western society.

They remind me of Daniel 7:25, which describes the Antichrist, And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

They speak like children, they understand like children, they think like children. Ultimately, theyre just hypocrites, who may be able to evaluate the appearance of the sky, but not the signs of the times.

More:
In defense of the Bible - iHeartRadio

The case of Nigerian humanist, Mubarak Bala has made it necessary to reflect on the situation of atheism in Nigeria. It is imperative to examine how religious minds have demonized atheism and tyrannized the lives of nonbelievers.

Irreligiosity is not a phenomenon that is often linked to the African continent. But in recent times things have started to change. The religious landscape is undergoing significant shifts and transformations. Despite the growing visibility of religion on the continent, irreligious individuals are becoming active.

Groups of nonbelievers are emerging and organizing. There is a need to explore the link between atheist activism and liberation, especially the liberation of nonreligious persons in Africa. It is in investigating this connection that efforts and actions by atheists and humanists to free themselves and society from religious bondage could better be understood. Such an exploration would situate initiatives by godless and faithless individuals to bring about social change and transformation.

Atheist activism has been misrepresented by pious minds and in pious scholarship. And in consequence, atheist assertiveness has largely been misunderstood and mischaracterized. Atheist activism is designated as militant, fundamentalist, and in some cases, Islamophobic. Nonbelief in religious gods, deities, and dogmas has been presented in the negative sense; as an 'antiestablishment' sentiment, a deviation from the norm, a violation of the sociopolitical order, an epitome of intellectual, or moral debauchery and deserving of suppression and repression.

Little attention has been paid to the notion that religious faiths encapsulate theologies of oppression, persecution, and marginalization. The god idea has become an epithet for dictatorship, a pretext to perpetrate heinous crimes and abuse. The name of Allah has been used to justify bloodletting, savagery, genocide, physical and structuralviolence, and other atrocities. Religions make absolute claims to knowledge, truth, power, and morality. Supernatural faiths do not countenance opposition and disputation. They are totalitarian. Faith groups maintain and strive to control to the minutest details the lives and actions of individuals and societies. Religions sanction socio-economic oppression and political subjugation of others, the religious and non-religious others.

The case of Mubarak Bala shows that misrepresentation of atheism is entrenched, and serves the cause of religious tyranny and despotism in Nigeria. Theocratic governments politicize mischaracterization of atheism to justify denial and erosion of irreligious liberties, violation of the humanity of atheists, the sanctification of impunity, as in the notion of holy war or jihad, and cruel and unjust treatment.

This presentation focuses on two main weapons of religious oppression, apostasy, and blasphemy. It explains the actions taken by Bala to undo these oppressive mechanisms and further his freedom. I argue that atheists' assertion of their rights and liberties are not transgressions but an exercise in social, political, and economic liberation from religious oppression.

Bala came out as an ex-Muslim in 2014. Take note of the expression, 'came out. The profession of Islam is like being locked away in a room and prevented from leaving. Bala might have ditched Islam much earlier than 2014 but the hostage and antagonistic climate did not permit him to go open and public with his non-belief. As I was told, persons who are born into Muslim families are automatically Muslims. Born into an Islamic home, there is no option of choice to belong or not to belong.

One cannot decide not to be a Muslim. Once a Muslim always as a Muslim. One cannot leave or renounce the religion because abandoning Islam is a dishonor to the family and an offense against the Islamic state and community.

But apostasy is not an infraction in any way. It is a right. However, Muslims made it a violation of Islam. As a transgression, apostasy attracts heavy penalties: ex-communication, banishment, honor killing, execution, or extrajudicial killing by nonstate Islamic actors. Thus ittakes a lot of courage to renounce Islam, to scale the religious prison walls. Many who are unable to leave or escape this religious bondage resign to fate; they continue to pay lip service to the religion. They continue to identify as Muslims even when they are not. Many observe the teachings of Islam even when they think and believe otherwise. Simply put, Islamic faith holds its confessors and members captive.

To free himself from this social prison and mental hostage, Bala left Islam. He could not continue to deceive himself. He could no longer pretend to be a Muslim when he was not. More importantly, Bala found the teachings and practices of the religion objectionable, harmful, and incompatible with a reasoned outlook. He discovered that Islam as practiced was outdated, incompatible with human rights, and an improper moral guide to happy and meaningful living in this 21st century.

Bala's renunciation of Islam came at an enormous cost because Islamic gatekeepers put a heavy price on freedom, freethought, free speech, and free assembly. Islamic prison guards placed a price, the supreme priceon liberty which many of its prisoners cannot afford to pay. In the case of Bala, he decided to bite the bullet. He resolved to free himself. But his quest for freedom led to the severance of family ties. Relatives consigned him to a mental hospital where he was shackled and treated as a psychiatric patient. His family regarded his renunciation of Islam as a form of mental illness. They thought he must be out of his mind to leave or to contemplate leaving Islam. They took him to a state hospital for rehabilitation. The family wanted to cure him of apostasy so that he could regain his sanity and return to the Islamic faith.

Bala escaped from the hospital and continued to live, identify and conduct himself as an apostate. In 2020, police arrested Bala for making some Facebook posts. Some Islamists claimed that the posts insulted their prophet and offended their religious sensibilities. One way that Muslims have tried to hold people hostage is to make a violation of their sensibilities an offense, a punishable infraction for other Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Meanwhile, nobody punishes Muslims for offending other religious and irreligious sentiments and sensibilities. Nobody penalizes the Islamicfaithful for casting aspersions on non-Muslims and nonbelievers. Again, Bala refused to be caged or gagged. He continued to speak freely and express his thoughts and ideas about religions and their prophets. Of course, it was not for a long time. After two years of incarceration, Islamic theocrats prosecuted and jailed him.

As the case of Mubarak Bala has shown, Islam has become an oppressive ideology, and a device to hold any real or imagined nonbelievers hostage. Atheist activism tries to undo the oppression and subjugation of infidels and other religious nonbelievers. Atheists in Africa are human beings and have equal rights. Atheists want to be free and to exercise their liberty like religious believers. But theocrats undermine this process of liberation and progressive emancipation. Atheists want to live in a society where people freely embrace, renounce or change their beliefs. But the religious establishment is opposed to freedom and equality of all and for all. Atheists want to live in an environment where individuals are free to say or write whatever they think about anyreligion or prophet. Religious tyrants loathe freethought and free expression. Early in this 21st century, atheist activism has become a liberation struggle against religious tyranny and totalitarianism.

Atheist activists have become freedom fighters, social, political, and intellectual liberators of Africa and Africans. Atheist activists have become awakeners of Africa and Africans from religiously induced slumber, oppression and mental slavery.

Read more here:
Mubarak Bala: Atheist Activism And Liberation From Religious Oppression In Nigeria By Leo Igwe - SaharaReporters.com

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

If the Christian is to be consistent, he cannot say that freedom is absolute, for the consequences of that are atheism. If the liberal is to be consistent, he must say that mans essence is freedom or else he gives up his position.

Many rich men dabble in philosophy, once their wealth is of the sort that largely takes care of itself. But a few students of philosophy have even become rich, in part thanks to their love of wisdom. Thales of Miletus anticipated a bumper crop of olives when others expected a bad harvest, and so leased the citys presses as a monopolist. Before he broke the Bank of England, George Soros studied under Karl Popper at the London School of Economics. And Peter Thiel has credited the mimetic thought of his teacher Ren Girard with prompting him to place a very profitable bet on Facebook.

Thiel has continued his studies of philosophy, at the University of Chicago, teaching courses at Stanford, and supporting various intellectual programs besides his fellowships for college dropouts. The incisive British essayist Mary Harringtona contributing editor at UnHerd and probably the good feminist to TAC readers andthat transphobe to otherswas recently on faculty with Thiel for a seminar in Palo Alto put on by the Zephyr Institute. She sat down with Thiel for an on-the-record chat. The conversation was wide ranging and reviewed many now classic observations from the Zero to One author. I encourage you to read all of Harringtons suggestive reflections on it, but one dichotomy or theme in particular stood out to me: what, when we consider the question of technology, is the relationship between nature and grace?

After raising the feardistilled in the 1930s and 40s by figures like Aldous Huxley, C.S. Lewis, and Romano Guardinithat technology has and will continue to outstrip nature, in particular human nature, Harrington writes of Thiel:

He seems to view this as a largely academic question, and not really in keeping with his understanding of Christian civilisation as fundamentally oriented toward the future. I think of Christianity as deeply historical. Some sense of a certain type of progress of history is a deep part of Christianity. And from this perspective, the notion that there exists an unchanging human nature doesnt really fit with the Christian outlook, but belongs as he puts it more in the classical than the Christian tradition.

The word nature does not occur once in the Old Testament, he tells me, while the concept of nature as something thats eternal and unchanging isnt a Christian one either. It seems to me that the Christian concepts are more things like grace or original sin. From this perspective, Thiel argues, the problem with transhumanism isnt that it seeks to remake humanity, but that it isnt ambitious enough in this regard: the Christian critique of transhumanism should be that its not radical enough, because its only seeking to transform our bodies and not our souls. It appears, in other words, that while Thiel is unflinchingly realistic about whats immediately achievable, he doesnt see any given or self-evident limits to what we could set our sights on.

The observation that the philosophers account of naturecosmos as an indivisible whole with no starting point or destinationwas not derived from scripture is a provocative, under-discussed one, and obviously correct. Whether as a self-sustaining chain of fixed natures or being in endless flux, nature in this sense of Western reason is an object of human subjectivity opposed to revelation. But there appears to me to be a missing Christian concept here, in addition to grace or original sin, from both the Old and New Testaments, namely that of creation. As Paul writes in Romans, For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. And in this sense of creation much of the Christian skepticism for what is called transhumanism retains all its force, for while recognizing the becoming implied in a linear sense of history, its teleology of beginning and final judgment retains the possibility of essences: acorns becoming oak trees and human beings becoming more fully human in new creation.

Thiel has almost certainly thought through all of this, and I expect it was covered in discussion at the seminar, but in his conversation with Harrington, and in much of his public writing, he brings the conversation away from postmillenial anticipation back down to earth. Indeed, in an oblique response to this line of objection, he told her, And maybe science and technology arent that much, but I would say if we stop believing in the teleology of science and technology its not that we go back to some Thomistic or medieval concept of teleology. We become fully epicurean. In a historical moment past faith in grace perfecting nature, we are perhaps left as a post-Christian culture with a choice between the secularized providence of hard technology and the profound pessimism of eternal passing away.

Up to this conversation, perhaps the most distilled account of Thiels thoughts on our present technological malaise was a 2015 essay by the futurist for First Things, entitled Against Edenism. The problem, as he sees it, in brief: Technology means doing more with less. In the absence of technological progress, we end up with a zero-sum world, in which there must be a loser for every winner. It is not clear whether a capitalistic economic system could function without growth; and it is unlikely that a representative democracy, which requires the give-and-take of win-win compromise, would continue to function. That is to say, we do not live in a time when technological progress as such has overcome the bounds of human control, but rather when the digitalthe transcending of time and space by manipulation and recording of informationhas outstripped all material developments; the world of atoms and physical engineering stalled somewhere in the 1970s. The promise of a post-scarcity world remains unkept.

Subscribe Today Get weekly emails in your inbox

And this is an insight that can be retained with as orthodox a theology of creation as I can claim (whatever that is). For its focus is the act of dominion mandated to humanity after original sin, and the sweat of our brow, far before it questions whether we must indeed unto dust return. In the twentieth-century tradition of political theology, Thiel makes a grace of growth, but surely there is a grace in growth if we understand it to be the human beings capacity to join Goda city-builderas a subcreator, a namer of animals.

Indeed, in our current-day fight between degrowth proponents demanding that Americans, for the sake of nature, learn to live degraded lives and men like Thiel, who remain hopeful that human ingenuity and spirit can construct a better use of the material weve been given, I am reminded of nothing as much as Christs parable of the talents:

For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lords money. After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them.

So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, "Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them." His lord said to him, "Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord." He also who had received two talents came and said, "Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them." His lord said to him, "Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord."

Then he who had received the one talent came and said, "Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours."

But his lord answered and said to him, "You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents."

"For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Visit link:
Between Grace and Nature - The American Conservative

1. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, high religious and spiritual (RS) practices were negatively associated with the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression.

2. Furthermore, there was a positive association between RS practices and life satisfaction, meaning in life, social relations, and psychological well-being.

Evidence Rating Level: 1 (Excellent)

It is expected that one in five seniors will experience some form of mental illness (e.g. depression, anxiety) late in life. An increasing number of studies support the finding that involvement in RS activities enhance mental health status; however, a specific pooled analysis of reviews on the older population is still needed. As a result, the objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to investigate the association between RS and the prevalence, severity, and incidence of mental health conditions in older adults.

Of 44 180 identified studies, 62 were included in the final meta-analysis from inception to July 2021. Studies that evaluated the association between RS and mental health in people aged >60 years old were included. Studies were excluded if they compared the prevalence of mental health parameters among different religious affiliations without a comparison to no religious identification or atheism. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). A random effects model and sensitivity analysis was performed.

Results demonstrated that high religious and spiritual (RS) practices were negatively associated with the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression. Furthermore, there was a positive association between RS practices and life satisfaction, meaning in life, social relations, and psychological well-being. However, the present study was limited by the inclusion of mostly cross-sectional studies, thereby limiting inferences of causality. Nonetheles, the studys results provide further support for the utility of RS in enhancing the mental health of older adults.

Click to read the study in Frontiers in Medicine

Image: PD

2022 2 Minute Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved. No works may be reproduced without expressed written consent from 2 Minute Medicine, Inc. Inquire about licensing here. No article should be construed as medical advice and is not intended as such by the authors or by 2 Minute Medicine, Inc.

The rest is here:
Religious and spiritual practices may improve mental health in older adults - 2 Minute Medicine

The Garden of Earthly Delights

AMERICAN NEWSApr 21, 2021 8:47 PM EST

AHA strips Richard Dawkins of Humanist of the Year award after famed author criticizes transgenderism

It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue."

Too late.

American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins

He isalso a bigot.Who would ever suggest such a thing?! (Smug Arrogant Look) Im not going to post his vile, bigoted remarks here. Read them for yourself.

KPFA cancels Richard Dawkins speech because of his tweets about Islam

Well of course he does. Bigots are usually the last people to find out they are bigots.

Ive beensaying this in the last 2 or 3 diaries. I wasexcoriatied and subjected to abusefrom some ignorant individuals,not everyone, just those who believe Dawkins is a legitimate scientist. I get the sense themajority of the commenters here might preferto keep their personal beliefs to themselves, and no wonder, if the vile rancor I was subjected to is any metric, after being beaten down and ridiculed for merely stating an actual fact:Atheism is just another unsubstantiated belief, nothing more, andIm just an agnostic, who wouldnt?

Im no stranger to it.Ive worked with convicted felons, gangbangers and people with severe substance use disorders.I can handleinternet trolls. Idont believe I must condemn all beliefs of others that I dont share, which is apparently what one must do to be a Good Militant Anti-Theist. Again, Im just an agnostic, and I dont know any more than anyone else. Gnosis. Look it up.This is the agnostic position, just like Socrates. Any view you happen to holdis a belief, unless you can back it up with proof.And I really dont care forbelief. It is a very low level of consciousness. You either know something or you dont. I know I dont know about the existence or non-existence of any such spiritual beliefs - and I have never read Dawkins until now, and now that I have, Im shocked how accurate my take on this crackpot was.And of course the bigot never thinks hes a bigot. Dawkins is nothing more than what I said, a bigot and a quack. Pseudoscience and theories that are controversial and border on Junk science for the ignorant public

When giants likeE.O. Wilson and Steven Jay Gould ripyou a new one, stick a fork in yourself, youredone, as far as serious science is concerned. And E.O. Wilson is Serious Evolution Science and natural selection is a very complex operation: Game theory.

Scientists, plural, dont like him, and they just volunteered their opinions, very unusual for scientists and academics. I certainly have no inhibition about ripping Dawkins as a fraud and a crackpot, and bigot, because he is, and I studied Wilson. And there may be one or two things Dawkins gets right, thats not enough. I agree with the T-shirt but thats nothing new. 40 years ago this was obvious as DNA came into its own and Mitochondrial DNA was first as evidence in a trial. EVIDENCE

I realize this might cause all kinds of pearl-clutching and gnashing of the teeth. What a shame, the truth often hurts. John Maynard Smith never heard of Sayres Law. And he was British.Academic politics makes real politics look like a tea party.This is true, and Ive experienced it many times but academics are loathe to allow the public to see this side of it.

Sayres Law: Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.

The late British biologist John Maynard Smith (1920-2004) is famous for applying game theory to the study of natural selection. In 1973 Maynard Smith formalised a central concept in game theory called the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). His ideas, presented in books such as 'Evolution and the Theory of Games', were enormously influential and led to a more rigorous scientific analysis and understanding of interactions between living things.[Listener: Richard Dawkins; date recorded: 1997]TRANSCRIPT: I think that the... the article in the Science of the People... sorry, by the Science for the People, people in, I think, the New York Review of Books, of which I think both [Richard] Lewontin and [Stephen Jay] Gould were signatures of this, was disgraceful, because it didn't... the point is, you can disagree with people, you can disagree with your colleagues as passionately as you like, but you can't go around calling them Fascists and enemies and so on. You have to treat it as an intellectual disagreement. And so I think that the whole of that business, leading up to pouring water over him at the... at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I think all this was... was ridiculous. But it was predictable.

British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins

Most British scientists cited in study feel Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

Although the researchers did not ask questions about Dawkins, 48 scientists mentioned him during in-depth interviews without prompting, and nearly 80 percent of those scientists believe that he misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public engagements. This group included 23 nonreligious scientists and 15 religious scientists.

Elaine Howard Ecklund, the study's principal investigator and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences at Rice, said that some scientists, independent of their religious beliefs, do not view Dawkins as a good representative because they believe he conveys "the wrong impression about the borders of scientific inquiry."

"Scientists differ in their view of where such borders rest," said David Johnson, an assistant professor at the University of Nevada in Reno and the paper's lead author. "And they may even view belief in a deity as irrational, but they do not view questions related to the existence of deities or 'the sacred' as within the scope of science."

The investigation into science's public image didn't even ask about the atheist professor, but it got an answer anyway. Very unusual. Academics eschew controversy.

I had never looked into Dawkins before this because I dont do Junk Science.And thats all Dawkins does. Any so called scientist who is that certain of his own bullshit is never right about anything. A charlatan.

Its the publish or die rule, and sometimes all they can publish is bullshit.I never needed him to tell me that Intelligent Design was anything more than what it was:Bullshit. But his response to that Bullshit was more bullshit of his own. And no one cares now anyway.Hitchens was not a clown. His anti-theism was never anything that impressed me, but at least he had an excuse: Hewasan actual journalist, and alcoholic, and a very unhappy man. Punching down is just not something agood person does,and attacking Mother Theresa, what an embarrassment. My opinion of Dawkins was always less than zero. Now Im feeling less kindly about Hitchens, but let the poor man rest in peace. We know hes not in heaven, or hell. The Jews dont even believe in the whackHeaven and Hell the earlyChristian Church sold after Jesus was allegedly crucified.I doubt Jesus did, if he even was a historical person. No one knows. Thats why they call it faith, and belief. You can disagree, youre wrong. So is your God, Dickie Dawkins. Hofstadfter once told the class, when asked about the speed of light: To a photon, space is infinitely thin. Ametaphor, but thats not what Dawkins is doing. Some clowns like the implications but its just a piss poor theory.Gene-centric evolution? Horseshit. Dawkins has no understanding of natural selection, or Darwin.

I expect few here have familiarity with the subject, and sadly, your PhD does not impress. Jordan Petersen has a PhD. So does David Duke. Im just a High School dropout with a GED, likeMike Perry. He did alright for a drop out with a GED. One of the smartest people I know, and I only know smart people, people who can learnand understand the nature of knowledge and understanding.Tolerant people with lots of experience.Lots of experience. Neurodiversity.

The gene-centric view has been opposed by Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, David Sloan Wilson, and philosopher Elliott Sober. An alternative, multilevel selection (MLS), has been advocated by E. O. Wilson, David Sloan Wilson, Sober, Richard E. Michod,[31] and Samir Okasha.[31]

Writing in the New York Review of Books, Gould has characterized the gene-centered perspective as confusing book-keeping with causality. Gould views selection as working on many levels, and has called attention to a hierarchical perspective of selection. Gould also called the claims of Selfish Gene "strict adaptationism", "ultra-Darwinism", and "Darwinian fundamentalism", describing them as excessively "reductionist". He saw the theory as leading to a simplistic "algorithmic" theory of evolution, or even to the re-introduction of a teleological principle.[32] Mayr went so far as to say "Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian."[33]

Gould also addressed the issue of selfish genes in his essay "Caring groups and selfish genes".[34] Gould acknowledged that Dawkins was not imputing conscious action to genes, but simply using a shorthand metaphor commonly found in evolutionary writings. To Gould, the fatal flaw was that "no matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing that he cannot give them direct visibility to natural selection."[34] Rather, the unit of selection is the phenotype, not the genotype, because it is phenotypes that interact with the environment at the natural-selection interface. So, in Kim Sterelny's summation of Gould's view, "gene differences do not cause evolutionary changes in populations, they register those changes."[35] Richard Dawkins replied to this criticism in a later book, The Extended Phenotype, that Gould confused particulate genetics with particulate embryology, stating that genes do "blend", as far as their effects on developing phenotypes are concerned, but that they do not blend as they replicate and recombine down the generations.[11]

Since Gould's death in 2002, Niles Eldredge has continued with counter-arguments to gene-centered natural selection.[36]Eldredge notes that in Dawkins' book A Devil's Chaplain, which was published just before Eldredge's book, "Richard Dawkins comments on what he sees as the main difference between his position and that of the late Stephen Jay Gould. He concludes that it is his own vision that genes play a causal role in evolution," while Gould (and Eldredge) "sees genes as passive recorders of what worked better than what".[37]

Selecting Richard Dawkins as your personal fountain of truth is a religion with an ideology of intolerance.

Like Dawkins theory

I see no reason to stop exposing this charlatan, and I dont believe in much. Less than any atheist at least, and Im not hostile to any religions, or other ridiculous beliefs. Buddhism isnt religion. Academics can disagree about a great many things, but definitions are the one thing that must be reached by consensus. Definition of terms and classification ARE how science is done. science. Euglena may not be definable, is it an animal or a vegetable? But the rest of it is pretty well defined, or it aint science. Its religion.

See the original post:
If You Meet Richard Dawkins On The Road... - Daily Kos

Since 2015 I have been traveling America and speaking globally in an attempt to bring people of different faiths closer together. My particular area of focus is explaining the common stereotypes that non-Muslims hold towards Muslims and the religion of Islam. In hundreds of conversations on the topic, I have listened to questions from Christians, atheists, Hindus, Jews, and agnostics. The most apparent conclusion from years of trying to help people understand one another is that the people that most often speak for a religion are not the ones who should be. The result of so many extremists speaking loudly about their religion is that all religions are losing favor.

One of the questions I receive is about the speed ofgrowth of Islam. In response, I discuss the most recentpolling data that shows that by the second half of the 21st century, Islam will become the largest religion. I explain that most religions birth rates primarily account for their size decline. As Judaism in America will soon lose its spot as the largest non-Christian population to Islam, many people ask me what I think of all the pending changes.

I answer by first pointing out thatwhile Islam will soon overcome Christianity as the largest religion in the world, the issue they should focus on is something else. The faith group that is growing at an alarming rate in comparison to Islam or Christianity is the group of people who want nothing to do with faith. I spend my days thinking about why thefaithless are growing so quickly. I come from a long line of New England preachers dating back to the 1800s, and I often talked to my grandfather about this.

Atheism is growing globally for many reasons, some political, some personal, and some we will never know. One thing that people of faith can work to remove from the equation is extremism. When I talk to people who have left religion or never joined one, they often explain that most religions dont seem to be focused on their core goals. They complain most often about the extreme voices inside religions that spend most of their energy condemning others, even killing others, instead of helping others.

You dont have to look very far in the modern world to find extremists in any religion. There are so-called Christians who tout racial supremacy, use violence to gain political power and demand that women be subservient babymakers who stay in the home. There are also Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish sects and persons who do very similar things. At this moment, the Haqqani-Taliban regime has taken control of Afghanistan and instituted the most extreme misogynistic laws in the world. They are killing women who do not follow their rules.

When most religious leaders and laymen are confronted with the issue of extremists in their religion, they quickly try to pivot and point out even worse behavior in other religions or sectsthat is not a solution. Today, twenty million women in Afghanistan are asking the Muslim world to denounce the regime destroying their lives and to stop the injustice. Yet no Muslim leader is stepping forward to stop the insanity. That is just one example of the cowardice that is destroying religion.

Every time religious believers fail to stop and silence the extremists in their religion, atheism grows. It is that simple. Young people dont want to join a religion that claims to stand for forgiveness and justice if all they hear and see are calls for revenge, violence, and injustice. As a religion teacher, I have studied the teachings of many faiths.I know that forgiveness and being helpful to your fellow man are key parts of most religions. The failure of other religious leaders to step up and stamp out violence and hatred in the name of religion might be the worst sin of all.

Right now, I do not see any remedy to this problem on the horizon. Religious groups spend a lot of money holding global interfaith and internal events that condemn violence and hatred. However, they are only being listened to by the other folks at the conferences. Religious leaders can make the most difference at the ground level in churches, mosques, Rotary and Kiwanis clubs, schools, and even living rooms. But no one funds the efforts of people at the grassroots level that are helping people unlearn the hatred they have for other religions.

I wish I could wave a magic wand that would stop the decline of religion and refocus religious groups on helping others and being a force of good that stamps out the evil voices. But no one can do that. This wont resolve itself unless religious people demand that those who are tearing down their religion stop. So please dont ask me what I think about the growing atheism movement or Islamic religion. Do something to improve the religion you are in, instead of demanding other religions straighten themselves out. Do not blame atheism or other religions for the decline in your house of worship; blame yourself.

Jason Criss Howk is an interfaith leader who helps people understand Islam and Muslim cultures. He is a professor of Islamic Studies at the US Air Force Special Operations School and is the author ofThe Quran: A Chronological Modern English Interpretation. His award-winning Quran has been studied by Islamic and Quranic scholars from Duke to Johns Hopkins, and Iran to Indonesia. Jason is a retired US Army officer and spent half of his uniformed service as a South Asia and Arab regional specialist. He holds an MA in South Asia and Middle East studies from NPS and is a Malone Fellow in Arab and Islamic studies.

Image: Reuters.

See more here:
Why the World's Religions Are Dying a Slow Death - The National Interest Online