Losing My Religion' by William Lobdell - Los Angeles Times
Several news sources picked up this story yesterday, promoting Mr. Lobdell's new book about his faith journey and how it related to his profession. It always pains me to hear or read of something as tragic as a person losing faith. As a reporter for the LA Times, covering religion in the LA area and abroad, this reporter was disenchanted by what he saw and it lead him away from his one time enthusiastic belief in God. While the numerous articles did not go into much detail about the events that he witnessed that led him to his current position, one can easily imagine that they were not in the least bit flattering to Christianity or to religion in general.
While it always disappoints me to hear or read of such things, I can not do so without thinking about the religious climate that Jesus himself was born into. Much of his recorded ministry in the gospels is confrontational; confrontation with the religious elites of his day. In fact, historically, Jesus was killed by these Jewish elites because of his ongoing and incessant criticism of their misdeeds and self-righteous conduct. Reference was made in the above article about how Mr. Lobdell was disgusted by seeing Bishops and such getting out of limosuines and having their rings kissed while thier constituency suffered tremendous injustices, often perpetrated by the very people these Bishops were known to protect. Similarly, the gospel story tells of leaders who wanted the best seats, brought undue attention to their giving, and loaded their subjects down with religious burdens that they themselves were unwilling to bear.
I look forward to reading Lobdell's book, but I do hope that he will one day rediscover faith. Fortunately, for me, I learned a long time ago that my faith, if it was to survive, could not rest in others and its validity had to exist solely upon what it meant for me and what it did within me as a person. People will fail; the visible respresentations of all the world's major religions are not always perfect examples of the principles they are supposed to represent. Personal faith, however, looks beyond this and is able to gain value even where there is failure and compromise. My prayers are with Mr Lobdell and the many thousands of disillusioned people who legitimately can relate to him.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Yale Daily News - Demystifying the psychology of religion
Yale Daily News - Demystifying the psychology of religion
There has long been a scholastic preoccupation with the demythologizing of religion. Modernity sought for a quantitative method, a measurable cause to the irreducible religious compulsion within man across all cultural, ethnic, geographical, and a host of other boundaries. One refreshing thing about Paul Bloom's approach to answer the why question is that he begins with the universal nature of religious phenomenon as a given rather than something needing to be proved. It is this fact that seems to propel Bloom's inquiry into a psychology of religion.
In this article there is an admission that religious impulses are a part of man's unique constitution; a primordial element to his being. The argument, however, emerges when we see these impulses as merely physical or biological in origin. That is, our minds evolved with these inclinations due to environmental stimulants that were consistent across the board. This is not the first time I have heard of the idea that man's propensity to believe in teleological answers is hardwired into our brains; a biological product developed as a result of our natural evolution in response to the world wherein we developed. While this certainly stands in line with an approach that denies anything greater than the observable world, at least as it relates to any ontological ideal, for those who hold belief in something outside the mundane, however, the argument is lacking.
Many of the answers proffered by Bloom, Kellerman, and others, do not negate belief in a divine. It really is a matter of perspective, as well as the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Did our brains develop with these capabilities and inclinations simply in response to a concrete world that man could not explain, or did these impulses develop to enable the creature to perceive and interact with that which lies outside the quotidian facets of our lives? It really depends upon which presupposition one begins with. If your inclined to believe in a creator/god etc, then you are more likely to begin with the idea that God came first and man was created and evolved with the characteristics necessary to perceive God and relate to him. The physical processes that can be measured and cataloged are simply the organs through this relationship is possible. It certainly does not negate the question of God in any way; that is, unless you want it too. Conversely, you can begin with the idea that God exist only within the intellect of man and this existence is nothing more than the mechanistic features of our brain's development. This is the divide that has long stood between those who believe and those who do not.
The psychology of religion is a very interesting field with so much potential for discovery--discovery and exploration into the wonder of our physical being. Perhaps we can better understand how we think and how our minds are developed to interact with an unseen world. While Bloom's work is fascinating, given its starting presupposition, it is of limited value to religious inquiry. However, there are others, most notably the father of the psychology of religion himself, William James. His book The Varities of Religious Experience is still a classic in this field and it is as relevant today as its was in the day the lectures were delivered.
What do you think? Make a comment and join me at disqus to continue this fascinating discussion!
"What I'm interested in is the other story — what all religions have in common," he said. "These universals of religion come from aspects of peoples' brains that everybody shared and that emerged early in development."
From documenting our propensity to believe in teleological (purpose-based) explanations for natural phenomena to the widely held belief that humans possess a soul, a myriad of psychological studies — conducted both here at Yale and at peer universities — now suggest that our brains may be hard-wired to believe in religion.
"The universal themes of religion are not learned," Bloom said. "They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems."
There has long been a scholastic preoccupation with the demythologizing of religion. Modernity sought for a quantitative method, a measurable cause to the irreducible religious compulsion within man across all cultural, ethnic, geographical, and a host of other boundaries. One refreshing thing about Paul Bloom's approach to answer the why question is that he begins with the universal nature of religious phenomenon as a given rather than something needing to be proved. It is this fact that seems to propel Bloom's inquiry into a psychology of religion.
In this article there is an admission that religious impulses are a part of man's unique constitution; a primordial element to his being. The argument, however, emerges when we see these impulses as merely physical or biological in origin. That is, our minds evolved with these inclinations due to environmental stimulants that were consistent across the board. This is not the first time I have heard of the idea that man's propensity to believe in teleological answers is hardwired into our brains; a biological product developed as a result of our natural evolution in response to the world wherein we developed. While this certainly stands in line with an approach that denies anything greater than the observable world, at least as it relates to any ontological ideal, for those who hold belief in something outside the mundane, however, the argument is lacking.
Many of the answers proffered by Bloom, Kellerman, and others, do not negate belief in a divine. It really is a matter of perspective, as well as the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Did our brains develop with these capabilities and inclinations simply in response to a concrete world that man could not explain, or did these impulses develop to enable the creature to perceive and interact with that which lies outside the quotidian facets of our lives? It really depends upon which presupposition one begins with. If your inclined to believe in a creator/god etc, then you are more likely to begin with the idea that God came first and man was created and evolved with the characteristics necessary to perceive God and relate to him. The physical processes that can be measured and cataloged are simply the organs through this relationship is possible. It certainly does not negate the question of God in any way; that is, unless you want it too. Conversely, you can begin with the idea that God exist only within the intellect of man and this existence is nothing more than the mechanistic features of our brain's development. This is the divide that has long stood between those who believe and those who do not.
The psychology of religion is a very interesting field with so much potential for discovery--discovery and exploration into the wonder of our physical being. Perhaps we can better understand how we think and how our minds are developed to interact with an unseen world. While Bloom's work is fascinating, given its starting presupposition, it is of limited value to religious inquiry. However, there are others, most notably the father of the psychology of religion himself, William James. His book The Varities of Religious Experience is still a classic in this field and it is as relevant today as its was in the day the lectures were delivered.
What do you think? Make a comment and join me at disqus to continue this fascinating discussion!
Prayer doesn't belong in schools - NJVoices: Star-Ledger Editorial Page
Prayer doesn't belong in schools - NJVoices: Star-Ledger Editorial Page:
The above story highlights a controversy that has raged my entire life as well as my entire school career. Prayer in public schools was a topic that was frequently brought up in church when I was a child and it definitely was a much stronger political hot button than what it is today. Stories such as the one above serve to remind me that the controversy has not went way.
The idea that removing school sanctioned prayer from the public schools would ultimately lead to a godless secular society is a common argument whenever this topic arises. For much of my life, I accepted it as true. However, as I have become more aware of the religious pluralism in America, I have also had to rethink my position on this issue.
Let me make it clear that I think religious prayer is important irrespective of the venue in which it is practiced. Most religions have some form of prayer as a part of its practices. This prayer should not be inhibited or censored by the government or state in any way. Furthermore, one form or ritual of prayer should not be held in higher regard than another. Students across our nation should be free to practice whatever form of prayer they feel compelled to engage in, or be free from doing so should they not want to participate. If freedom is genuine, then it must extend to all person's the right to practice whatever religion they choose and be free to not engage in religious practices should they so choose.
Allot has changed in this country since I was a child. In my elementary school, I would venture to say that the majority of students came from Christian homes where prayer was a regular part of their lives. Today, however, in many places across our country, this can not be said. While the majority may still have Christian proclivities, there is a growing and significant minority within many of our communities where this simply is not the case. Children from Buddhist homes, Muslim or Hindu homes, and a myriad of other religious traditions are represented in almost every school system in our nation. Is it fair to subject these students to school sanctioned prayer that is Christian in nature and thereby exclude the prayer practices of others? How can school officials, teachers, ect, engage in such without adding a seal of approval and acceptance upon one form of prayer and by virtue of exclusion, denounce another? Would these same leaders be open to a Muslim prayer or a Buddhist meditation prior to a game or some school function? I highly doubt it.
The religious freedoms of this country mean nothing if they do not extend to and protect the least of all religions among us. As we become more and more of a religious melting pot, as the religious face of America reflects the variety in the religious practices of everyone as a whole, we must become more conscientious and careful in how we practice our freedoms so as not to inhibit or violate the rights of others. Additionally, respecting the rights of others should never be misinterpeted as compromise, at least, not in a negative sense. Cooperation builds community and being sensitive to the religious rights of everyone in a given community extends the value of relious practices rather than purely secularizing a community.
No doubt this discussion will rage on. What do you think? Do you see the regulation of prayer at public events and in public institutions a means of secularizing our society? How do we reconcile the fact that our Congress opens with prayer and yet our school days can not begin with it? What changes does our society need to make in order to show respect and give different religions their respective rights to practice as well as freedom from discrimination? Finally, is the charge of secularization a particulary bad one? Join me at Disqus to discuss these issues as well as others.
Prayer doesn't belong in schools
The above story highlights a controversy that has raged my entire life as well as my entire school career. Prayer in public schools was a topic that was frequently brought up in church when I was a child and it definitely was a much stronger political hot button than what it is today. Stories such as the one above serve to remind me that the controversy has not went way.
The idea that removing school sanctioned prayer from the public schools would ultimately lead to a godless secular society is a common argument whenever this topic arises. For much of my life, I accepted it as true. However, as I have become more aware of the religious pluralism in America, I have also had to rethink my position on this issue.
Let me make it clear that I think religious prayer is important irrespective of the venue in which it is practiced. Most religions have some form of prayer as a part of its practices. This prayer should not be inhibited or censored by the government or state in any way. Furthermore, one form or ritual of prayer should not be held in higher regard than another. Students across our nation should be free to practice whatever form of prayer they feel compelled to engage in, or be free from doing so should they not want to participate. If freedom is genuine, then it must extend to all person's the right to practice whatever religion they choose and be free to not engage in religious practices should they so choose.
Allot has changed in this country since I was a child. In my elementary school, I would venture to say that the majority of students came from Christian homes where prayer was a regular part of their lives. Today, however, in many places across our country, this can not be said. While the majority may still have Christian proclivities, there is a growing and significant minority within many of our communities where this simply is not the case. Children from Buddhist homes, Muslim or Hindu homes, and a myriad of other religious traditions are represented in almost every school system in our nation. Is it fair to subject these students to school sanctioned prayer that is Christian in nature and thereby exclude the prayer practices of others? How can school officials, teachers, ect, engage in such without adding a seal of approval and acceptance upon one form of prayer and by virtue of exclusion, denounce another? Would these same leaders be open to a Muslim prayer or a Buddhist meditation prior to a game or some school function? I highly doubt it.
The religious freedoms of this country mean nothing if they do not extend to and protect the least of all religions among us. As we become more and more of a religious melting pot, as the religious face of America reflects the variety in the religious practices of everyone as a whole, we must become more conscientious and careful in how we practice our freedoms so as not to inhibit or violate the rights of others. Additionally, respecting the rights of others should never be misinterpeted as compromise, at least, not in a negative sense. Cooperation builds community and being sensitive to the religious rights of everyone in a given community extends the value of relious practices rather than purely secularizing a community.
No doubt this discussion will rage on. What do you think? Do you see the regulation of prayer at public events and in public institutions a means of secularizing our society? How do we reconcile the fact that our Congress opens with prayer and yet our school days can not begin with it? What changes does our society need to make in order to show respect and give different religions their respective rights to practice as well as freedom from discrimination? Finally, is the charge of secularization a particulary bad one? Join me at Disqus to discuss these issues as well as others.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
BBC NEWS | Europe | Vatican hosts Darwin conference
BBC NEWS | Europe | Vatican hosts Darwin conference
I heard about this recently on NPR. Reading the press release, I found it interesting that the Catholic church never condemned Darwin or his theories. There are scholars from all over the world taking part in this discussion; a discussion that I think is well overdue and may serve to bring science and faith a few steps closer. These two entities are often at odds but do not necessarily have to be. Science should inform our faith not destroy it.
Here are a few related articles worth reading:
Cardinal says atheist's theories "absurd"
Cardinal says Dawkins' theories 'absurd'
I heard about this recently on NPR. Reading the press release, I found it interesting that the Catholic church never condemned Darwin or his theories. There are scholars from all over the world taking part in this discussion; a discussion that I think is well overdue and may serve to bring science and faith a few steps closer. These two entities are often at odds but do not necessarily have to be. Science should inform our faith not destroy it.
Here are a few related articles worth reading:
Cardinal says atheist's theories "absurd"
Science cannot disprove faith, cardinal argues
Cardinal says Dawkins' theories 'absurd'
Monday, March 2, 2009
SOF with Krista Tippett: Interview with Janna Levy
American Public Media's, Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett, produced a show last week entitled Mathematics, Truth, and Purpose. In this show, Tippett interviewed Janna Levin, a theoretical physicist and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Barnard College in New York City. In addition to her academic career, Levin is also a novelist. The interview concentrates on Levin's most recent book entitled: A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines. Here is an excerpt from the show's transcript that explains the subject of Levin's book:
Her 2006 novel, A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, explores great existential questions by probing the lives and ideas of two pivotal 20th-century mathematicians, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing. Turing is known as the father of modern computing, and his insights were made possible in part by Gödel's discoveries. In 1931, Gödel shook the worlds of mathematics, philosophy, and logic with his incompleteness theorems. He showed that some mathematical truths can never be proven or, as he says in Janna Levin's novel, that mathematics is perfect, but it is not complete.If you missed this edition of SOF, then I highly recommend you go to their website and download either the podcast or the unedited version of the broadcast. It deals with unsettling but pertinent questions such as truth and the essence of free will. There are simply some things that lie outside of the observable region of empirical science. Levin's novel explores this idea, its implications, and how these questions were lived out in the lives and thinking of two great scientist whose lives are chronicled in the novel.To see some truths, you must stand outside and look in. This notion also held deeply unsettling human implications. It posited hard limits to what any of us can ever logically, definitively know. Janna Levin's novel imaginatively evokes the force of this idea in the classrooms and coffeehouses of Gödel and Turing's day, and in her own life as a 21st-century urban scientist. When we spoke in 2007, she told me she began her undergraduate studies with little active interest in science, convinced instead that philosophy was asking all the big questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)