Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development
The Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2008 issue of the Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence (SSNV) Research Newsletter has been posted. The theme this month is: "Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development." The link is: http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n01.html The summary (abstract) is pasted below. I would be grateful for any feedback (positive/negative/in-between). Please let me hear from you. With best wishes for a good 2008, Luis ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY The theme of the month is "religious dimension of sustainable development." There is a religious dimension to the United Nations' "Millennium Development Goals" (MDGs), and there is a religious dimension to human nature and everything we do. Religion is both indispensable and dangerous. It is indispensable to attain full human development beyond the physical, biological, and intellectual levels. It is dangerous when it degenerates into fanatical delusions about the absolute superiority of any particular religion, and then leads to religious intolerance and religious violence. Many consider religion to be a controversial topic. But, after millennia of misconceptions about religion, we now have scientific evidence (initially via the Swiss Psychiatrist Carl Jung) that religion is essential for human beings to become fully human. This being the case, our 2007 analyses of the MDGs is incomplete as long as some insight of the religious influences on the implementation of the MDGs is not provided. A difficult subject, but it cannot be avoided. In particular, religion is often an incentive (positive or negative) for the transition from patriarchy to solidarity, sustainability, and human development. Granted that financial gain (or loss) will probably remain as the key incentive for people to change behavior during our lifetime, futures research entails considering all conceivable possibilities. For instance, Abraham Lincoln once stated: "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." Lincoln's "religion" many not qualify as religion in some quarters, but it points to the fact that, deep in the human psyche, there is the voice of conscience; the voice of God who abides in us but is bigger than us. After a brief summary of the MDGs (or "MDGs+1" when religious development is considered), evidence is presented that a cultural transition is needed to support both social justice and environmental justice at all levels. This cultural transition will entail changes in human behavior that often cannot be accomplished even when there are financial incentives. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any such transition happening without incentives that are stronger than financial gain and/or resources for domination. Since the power of religion as incentive for changing human behavior (for good or bad) is pervasive, it seems reasonable to research this angle next. This religious dimension has not been absent from any of the previous issues of this newsletter, but now it will become central. Incentives from a religious perspective are discussed for overcoming patriarchy and fostering social solidarity, environmental sustainability, and human development. In considering this material, it is essential to distinguish between "religion" and "religious institutions." Authentic religion is the expression of our relationship with God, and it is "good, good, good." Institutionalized religion can be "good, bad, or some mix of good and bad." Some specific religious institutions are mentioned. The intent is never to deny the significant amount of good done by those institutions. However, nothing human is above criticism. Religious institutions often need reformations, just like all other human institutions often need reformations. Some religious persons may feel uncomfortable. As always, we shall adhere to the principle of analysis based on objective evidence. Updates of the SSNV-MDG knowledge taxonomy and links database continue as time permits. The current version shows the links sorted by mega-disciplines, and within each mega-discipline by MDGs. This is "work in progress" but you are cordially invited to take a look at this resource and download it (free) for your own use (two options: HTML Web Page or EXCEL Spreadsheet). This month's invited paper is "Two Wings of a Bird: The Equality of Women and Men," a reflection by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, published in 1997. The Baha'i religious tradition emerged in Persia (now Iran) in the 18th century. It is the first major religious movement that explicitly includes gender equality as a core belief.
I'm amused that you've just told me I'm subhuman. I'd like to see some of this 'scientific proof' that religion is necessary. -- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://youdecide2007.org ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: 07 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J SUMMARY The theme of the month is "religious dimension of sustainable development." There is a religious dimension to the United Nations' "Millennium Development Goals" (MDGs), and there is a religious dimension to human nature and everything we do. Religion is both indispensable and dangerous. It is indispensable to attain full human development beyond the physical, biological, and intellectual levels.
Maybe the abstract ought to make use of the word 'spiritual' instead of 'religious'? Just a thought. I expect that 'religious' may create some closure around the subject. 'I don't need no religion' any more than did the erstwhile deputies in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre needed badges. Sorry, but I wouldn't point this out if presumptions weren't so evident in the abstract. Regards, Lisa On 1/7/08 9:51 PM, "Barry Saunders" <b.saunders@qut.edu.au> wrote: I'm amused that you've just told me I'm subhuman. I'd like to see some of this 'scientific proof' that religion is necessary. -- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://youdecide2007.org ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: 07 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J SUMMARY The theme of the month is "religious dimension of sustainable development." There is a religious dimension to the United Nations' "Millennium Development Goals" (MDGs), and there is a religious dimension to human nature and everything we do. Religion is both indispensable and dangerous. It is indispensable to attain full human development beyond the physical, biological, and intellectual levels. _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Of course, this all depends on what one calls "religious." There are lots of anthropologists who would argue that everyone engages in religious behavior, whether they call it that or not. Perhaps that argument is made directly somewhere in the literature, but its implicit in much of the anthropological literature that specifically discusses religion and ritual. Consider, for instance, the literature in the communication field concerning the ritual view of communication (see James Cary's work and that by his students, like Rothenbuhler), which suggests that much if not all communication is ritualistic. Consider also the specifically religious and spiritual way in which we think about communication, as described by John Peters' Speaking into the Air. --Christian Nelson On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Barry Saunders wrote:
I'm amused that you've just told me I'm subhuman. I'd like to see some of this 'scientific proof' that religion is necessary.
-- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://youdecide2007.org ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: 07 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J
SUMMARY
The theme of the month is "religious dimension of sustainable development." There is a religious dimension to the United Nations' "Millennium Development Goals" (MDGs), and there is a religious dimension to human nature and everything we do. Religion is both indispensable and dangerous. It is indispensable to attain full human development beyond the physical, biological, and intellectual levels. _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
indeed, but i'm interested in the scientific proof. Anthropological evidence doesn't really count as 'scientific proof'. No disrespect to anthropology intended though - I'm curious as to how anyone could scientifically test the hypothesis - particularly how they judge what a fulfilled human is. -- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://youdecide2007.org ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: 07 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Christian Nelson [xianknelson@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:52 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development Of course, this all depends on what one calls "religious." There are lots of anthropologists who would argue that everyone engages in religious behavior, whether they call it that or not. Perhaps that argument is made directly somewhere in the literature, but its implicit in much of the anthropological literature that specifically discusses religion and ritual. Consider, for instance, the literature in the communication field concerning the ritual view of communication (see James Cary's work and that by his students, like Rothenbuhler), which suggests that much if not all communication is ritualistic. Consider also the specifically religious and spiritual way in which we think about communication, as described by John Peters' Speaking into the Air. --Christian Nelson On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Barry Saunders wrote:
I'm amused that you've just told me I'm subhuman. I'd like to see some of this 'scientific proof' that religion is necessary.
-- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://youdecide2007.org ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: 07 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J
SUMMARY
The theme of the month is "religious dimension of sustainable development." There is a religious dimension to the United Nations' "Millennium Development Goals" (MDGs), and there is a religious dimension to human nature and everything we do. Religion is both indispensable and dangerous. It is indispensable to attain full human development beyond the physical, biological, and intellectual levels. _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I hope you'll pardon me if observe that your response is kind of funny--it finds anthropology "sub-scientific," something that a lot of anthropologists would find quite disrespectful, though you've objected to the implication that you are "sub-human." On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Barry Saunders wrote:
indeed, but i'm interested in the scientific proof. Anthropological evidence doesn't really count as 'scientific proof'.
No disrespect to anthropology intended though - I'm curious as to how anyone could scientifically test the hypothesis - particularly how they judge what a fulfilled human is.
it's not sub-scientific. it's just not scientific. completely different approach. you can't get a scientific proof from an anthropological approach. -- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://youdecide2007.org ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: 07 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Christian Nelson [xianknelson@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:21 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development I hope you'll pardon me if observe that your response is kind of funny--it finds anthropology "sub-scientific," something that a lot of anthropologists would find quite disrespectful, though you've objected to the implication that you are "sub-human." On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Barry Saunders wrote:
indeed, but i'm interested in the scientific proof. Anthropological evidence doesn't really count as 'scientific proof'.
No disrespect to anthropology intended though - I'm curious as to how anyone could scientifically test the hypothesis - particularly how they judge what a fulfilled human is.
The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development
it's not sub-scientific. it's just not scientific.
completely different approach. you can't get a scientific proof from an anthropological approach.
1) there are different standards of proof, and different methods, used by different fields. 2) there is no one thing called "scientific proof" that is commonly held as a standard - you're bashing on anthro with something that doesn't exist. 3) your view of anthropology is quite ... constipated. --elijah
Dear all, The philosopher of science / philosopher of religion in me thinks that this could be an excellent topic for such an intentionally interdisciplinary list as ours. Let me suggest that the discussion turn to greater elaboration of the basic definitions and underlying assumptions of "science" as a mode of knowledge. I'm not sure, of course, in advance what will happen should it do so - but as some suggestions from history, the following high points might be useful references: 19th century positivism, taking physics and mathematics as the sole paradigms of knowledge, thereby requiring the reduction of all empirical evidence to the quantifiable and what can be expressed in (deductively certain) cause-effect relationships; and so, with physics and mathematics (as a formal / axiomatic / deductive framework) as the sole paradigms - an epistemological "either/or" arises: something either _is_ a scientific claim to knowledge (because it fits the positivist paradigm) or it is _not_ (because it fails to fit). Not surprisingly, such domains as philosophy and religion are thus written off wholesale (along with literature, etc.) But: more and more problems arose, e.g., as sciences such as biology were not always able to fit the positivist paradigm neatly ... Relativity theory the rules of physic are absolute (Einstein later regretted the misleading nature of the name "relativity" theory) - but simply within the framework of the observer Quantum Mechanics transforms 19th ct. positivist assumptions about causality to statistical probabilities, thereby reducing the absolute certainty of the "knowledge" claimed by positivists as a ground for making physics and mathematics the sole paradigms of knowledge. (There's also, of course, the whole business of the uncertainty and complimentarity principles - often badly misinterpreted and distorted for the sake of new age nonsense. Let's just not go there for now, except to say that they likewise relativize 19th ct. assumptions about the absolute certainty and completeness of physics and mathematics.) Gödel's proof (1932): demonstrates that a formal axiomatic system can either be complete - but inconsistent: or incomplete - but consistent. Another blow to 19th ct. positivist assumptions regarding the possibility of achieving a mathematical account of the universe that would be both complete and consistent (along with certain). There are plenty of people on this list who know far better than me the parallel developments in the philosophy of the social sciences and efforts to defend especially qualitative approaches as legitimate and justified knowledge. It would be interesting to hear what they think of as similar highlights. Finally, while not wanting (a) to go into all the reasons in the philosophy of science in the 20th century that likewise contribute to forcing us to reevalaute 19th ct. positivism (e.g., the failure of Popper's effort to use falsification as a marker of real science, the problems that emerge with linguistic analysis, etc.), or (b) reviewing the rise and at least modest fall of strong social constructivism in the late 20th ct. - I do think it's defensible to say this: Both developments within (relativity / QM / Gödel) and beyond the boundaries of physics and mathematics have persuaded most philosophers of science known to me these days that (a) 19th century positivism is simply incoherent - which means in turn that (b) 19th century assumptions about a simple and clear either/or between science and everything else as nonsense likewise no longer hold. What this further would seem to mean is that we're better off trying to think of knowledge as something that occupies a continuum of possible certainties and methodologies (rather than the 19th ct. either/or) - which certainly makes plenty of room for the social sciences; and it might make room for philosophical and religious claims as well. The key question then becomes: what does anyone define knowledge ("science") to be - including its acceptable language(s), methodologies, sources of evidence, goals of its theories, etc. - and, even better: how would one _justify_ these claims (which, for better and worse, usually pulls one out of "science" as such and into - gasp! - philosophy [or worse] ...)? (Because without some sort of rational justification, the danger is that one can fall into a sort of unjustified dogmatism about one's foundational assumptions - at which point it become difficult to distinguish between the scientific and religious dogmatist?) and then: given any such definition and justification - why does it further follow that alternative knowledge claims are (a) not science - but also (b) thereby total nonsense? (Without an either/or at work, "b" does not follow straightforwardly, but must be further justified.) Hoping this helps - and looking forward to the discussion! - charles ess
Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development
it's not sub-scientific. it's just not scientific.
completely different approach. you can't get a scientific proof from an anthropological approach.
1) there are different standards of proof, and different methods, used by different fields.
2) there is no one thing called "scientific proof" that is commonly held as a standard - you're bashing on anthro with something that doesn't exist.
3) your view of anthropology is quite ... constipated.
Thanks to those people who have been bringing up these philosophy of science questions, I think they are very important for the grounding of Internet Research. Charles Ess in my view has given a great overview of how positivistic knowledge that focuses on reductionism and the natural sciences has been challenged during the 20th century. In my view another important influence on the challenge of reductionism and positivism has been self-organization theory and systems thinking, because they stress emergent properties and are transdisciplinary in character, which can overall help advance the role of philosophy, social sciences, etc. I think the important outcome is that philosophy, social sciences, ethics, etc. are taken more seriously today than in former times. The main concern that I have about contemporary positivistic approaches is that they only focuses on how reality is, not as it could be, not on the inherent potentials that could be developed by agency, it is missing societal goals, question about totality, normativity, etc. - and through tsuch a focus on positivism academic thinking becomes uncritical. For Internet Research, I think this means whether one wants to strictly focus on empirical analyses of Internet usage, or furthermore considers critical theory, ethics, philosophy, etc. in addition as important groundworks. This then means if we should only ask the question "How does technology change society?", or also normative questions like "In which society do we want to live?", "How can sustainability be brought about?", "What are dimensions of "good ICT-society" (Gunilla Bradley)? "What is the role of critical theory in informational capitalism"? "Are there alternatives to the capitalist information society?" "Which ones?" Etc. My personal opinion is that the second type of questions are very fundamental for Internet Research. There is also one development brought about by the post-positivistic science that troubles me: This broadening of knowledge has also resulted in an increasing importance of esoteric, religious, spiritual, mystic thinking in science. Whereas I would argue, that metaphysics are needed in the form of an immanent transcendental view on society and in the form of dialectical thinking, I think that focusing on discussions of the role of God in the world, on mystic forces - as is frequently done today - is really a dangerous development because it brings about irrationality, "false consciousness", and manipulation, and that hence such esoterical forms of metaphysics are dispensable. I wouldn't define religion as a focus on world-views, it is more than that, always involves a belief in God or another invisible force located outside of the material world and outside of society. I think the troubling aspect of religious studies and esoterical knowledge is that the existence of their object of study is already questionable. Hence I think it would be better to argue that generally speaking not religion, but a discussion of world views and philosophical issues is important for philosophy of science discussions, generally speaking and for Internet Research in particular. Christian -- _____________________________ Univ.Ass. Dr. Christian Fuchs Assistant Professor for Internet and Society ICT&S Center - Advanced Studies and Research in Information and Communication Technologies & Society http://www.icts.uni-salzburg.at University of Salzburg Sigmund Haffner Gasse 18 5020 Salzburg Austria christian.fuchs@sbg.ac.at Phone +43 662 8044 4823 Fax +43 662 6389 4800 Information-Society-Technology: http://fuchs.icts.sbg.ac.at http://www.icts.uni-salzburg.at/fuchs/ Managing Editor of tripleC - peer reviewed open access online journal for the foundations of information science: http://triplec.uti.at New Book: Fuchs, Christian. 2008. Internet and Society: Social Theory in the Information Age. New York: Routledge. 408 Pages. http://fuchs.icts.sbg.ac.at/i&s.html http://www.routledge.com/shopping_cart/products/product_detail.asp?sku=&isbn... PETITION: http://www.austria4arigona.at
Dear AIR-ers- This might help someone. Interestingly, he takes an epistemological approach. Here is a quote I recorded from his preface: "Lyotard distinguished between narrative and scientific knowledge as two distinct species of discourse which can both fufil legitimate functions" (1984: 29f.) He then goes on to evaluate theology for its discursive value. van Huyssteen, J. W. (1998). Duet or duel? Theology and science in a postmodern world. London, SCM Press. Denise N. Rall, PhD Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Tues: Room T2.17, +61 (0)2 6620 3577 Mobile 0438 233 344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/esm/staff/pages/drall/ Virtual member, Cybermetrics Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/index.html Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
Denise Rall posts:
This might help someone. Interestingly, he takes an epistemological approach. Here is a quote I recorded from his preface:
"Lyotard distinguished between narrative and scientific knowledge as two distinct species of discourse which can both fufil legitimate functions" (1984: 29f.) He then goes on to evaluate theology for its discursive value.
van Huyssteen, J. W. (1998). Duet or duel? Theology and science in a postmodern world. London, SCM Press.
This complements Christian who raises a critical issue, one that would be applauded by most who work in the arena of futures, futures studies and similarly labeled disciplines within The Academy and outside. This is not the area of projecting the future, as you, also, suggest; but it includes thinking about possible futures and their consequences as well as paths that might realize or prevent attainment. To that point, the invention of the WWW transcended its original purpose and intent giving us the opportunity for this exchange. Thus we must be open to serendipity . Also, to the point, one must realize that the Enlightenment, while in part a reaction to religious hegemony, also took a very wrong turn when its members accepted the idea that the tools and practices of science could create a similar "science of humans". Perhaps two of its failures, as identified by the political philosopher, John Gray, in the most mathematical of the social arena, economics, has been Marxism and Capitalism. Thus we must take care that we do not, in the beginning, accept the revisionist versions, such as neo-marxism, which by fiat rejects, out of hand, ideas based on "faith" which, in its formality might manifest itself as religion and, perhaps even "science". Science is simultaneously inductive, developing models from empirical data, and deductive, building of mathematical models which can be the basis of experimental verification. Research, by fiat, evokes the disciplines that have broken from philosophy by such practices. And it is validated by its seeming successes in the natural world. So, Lyotard is right- science and philosophy or religion can be separated, as Pope Urban did for Galileo, science deals with cause and philosophy and religion deal with purpose. Where social studies falls depends. . . With the rise of virtual worlds and multiple or connected "metaverses" the questions get more interesting and cross disciplinary boundaries. Where this takes AIR is an interesting question. tom dr. tom p abeles, editor On the Horizon _________________________________________________________________ Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause
Barry, As a potential doctor of philosophy I encourage you to have your own views. My view is that, other than in fields like math which create their own realities, you can't get scientific "proof" of anything. Science is an attempt to understand phenomena with a degree of confidence. In the real world it is not possible to prove anything. I think it was Einstein who said "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Qualitative studies tend to have less "proof" than quantitative studies as much of the interpretation of the data is through the lens of the investigators' personality. This does not invalidate qualitative results but, as you point out, the reader should consider the possibility that they do not share the same assumptions as the researcher. One interpretation of Godel's incompleteness theorem is that no system can understand itself. I.E. Humans cannot understand humans. All the best, Charlie Balch MEd, MBA, PHD -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Barry Saunders Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:56 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development it's not sub-scientific. it's just not scientific. completely different approach. you can't get a scientific proof from an anthropological approach. -- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://youdecide2007.org ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: 07 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Christian Nelson [xianknelson@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:21 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development I hope you'll pardon me if observe that your response is kind of funny--it finds anthropology "sub-scientific," something that a lot of anthropologists would find quite disrespectful, though you've objected to the implication that you are "sub-human." On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Barry Saunders wrote:
indeed, but i'm interested in the scientific proof. Anthropological evidence doesn't really count as 'scientific proof'.
No disrespect to anthropology intended though - I'm curious as to how anyone could scientifically test the hypothesis - particularly how they judge what a fulfilled human is.
The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Even though we have been asked to not post on this. I suspect it is worth pointing out that anthropologists firstly do not 'define' religion in a way that they all agree with, and secondly they may also not mean by the term 'religion' quite the same as people in western english speaking societies generally mean by it. Many anthropologists I know of would tend to talk of 'cosmologies' and 'world views' for example to avoid the connotations of religion. We could talk of the 'rituals of science' without supposing a compulsory or necessry 'belief in god'. While we are at it, anthropologists can also spend a lot of time arguing about the cross cultural applicability of terms like 'belief', 'ritual', 'magic', 'nature', 'biological' etc. Statements like Religion is "indispensable to attain full human development beyond the physical, biological, and intellectual levels" seem to presume an awful lot to me as well as being hopelessly unclear. jon -- UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
While no doubt a fascinating topic of conversation, I am not able to see that this directly relates to Internet research and would like to politely suggest we nip this conversation in the bud immediately. There are more appropriate forums. -Alexis On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Luis Gutierrez wrote: ::The Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2008 issue of the Solidarity, Sustainability, ::and Non-Violence (SSNV) Research Newsletter has been posted. The theme ::this month is: "Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development." :: ::The link is: http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n01.html :: ::The summary (abstract) is pasted below. I would be grateful for any ::feedback (positive/negative/in-between). Please let me hear from you. :: ::With best wishes for a good 2008, ::Luis ::----------------------------------------------------------------- ::SUMMARY :: ::The theme of the month is "religious dimension of sustainable ::development." There is a religious dimension to the United Nations' ::"Millennium Development Goals" (MDGs), and there is a religious ::dimension to human nature and everything we do. Religion is both ::indispensable and dangerous. It is indispensable to attain full human ::development beyond the physical, biological, and intellectual levels. It ::is dangerous when it degenerates into fanatical delusions about the ::absolute superiority of any particular religion, and then leads to ::religious intolerance and religious violence. :: ::Many consider religion to be a controversial topic. But, after millennia ::of misconceptions about religion, we now have scientific evidence ::(initially via the Swiss Psychiatrist Carl Jung) that religion is ::essential for human beings to become fully human. This being the case, ::our 2007 analyses of the MDGs is incomplete as long as some insight of ::the religious influences on the implementation of the MDGs is not ::provided. A difficult subject, but it cannot be avoided. :: ::In particular, religion is often an incentive (positive or negative) for ::the transition from patriarchy to solidarity, sustainability, and human ::development. Granted that financial gain (or loss) will probably remain ::as the key incentive for people to change behavior during our lifetime, ::futures research entails considering all conceivable possibilities. For ::instance, Abraham Lincoln once stated: "When I do good, I feel good; ::when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." Lincoln's "religion" ::many not qualify as religion in some quarters, but it points to the fact ::that, deep in the human psyche, there is the voice of conscience; the ::voice of God who abides in us but is bigger than us. :: ::After a brief summary of the MDGs (or "MDGs+1" when religious ::development is considered), evidence is presented that a cultural ::transition is needed to support both social justice and environmental ::justice at all levels. This cultural transition will entail changes in ::human behavior that often cannot be accomplished even when there are ::financial incentives. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any such transition ::happening without incentives that are stronger than financial gain ::and/or resources for domination. Since the power of religion as ::incentive for changing human behavior (for good or bad) is pervasive, it ::seems reasonable to research this angle next. This religious dimension ::has not been absent from any of the previous issues of this newsletter, ::but now it will become central. :: ::Incentives from a religious perspective are discussed for overcoming ::patriarchy and fostering social solidarity, environmental ::sustainability, and human development. In considering this material, it ::is essential to distinguish between "religion" and "religious ::institutions." Authentic religion is the expression of our relationship ::with God, and it is "good, good, good." Institutionalized religion can ::be "good, bad, or some mix of good and bad." Some specific religious ::institutions are mentioned. The intent is never to deny the significant ::amount of good done by those institutions. However, nothing human is ::above criticism. Religious institutions often need reformations, just ::like all other human institutions often need reformations. Some ::religious persons may feel uncomfortable. As always, we shall adhere to ::the principle of analysis based on objective evidence. Updates of the ::SSNV-MDG knowledge taxonomy and links database continue as time permits. ::The current version shows the links sorted by mega-disciplines, and ::within each mega-discipline by MDGs. This is "work in progress" but you ::are cordially invited to take a look at this resource and download it ::(free) for your own use (two options: HTML Web Page or EXCEL Spreadsheet). :: ::This month's invited paper is "Two Wings of a Bird: The Equality of ::Women and Men," a reflection by the National Spiritual Assembly of the ::Baha'is of the United States, published in 1997. The Baha'i religious ::tradition emerged in Persia (now Iran) in the 18th century. It is the ::first major religious movement that explicitly includes gender equality ::as a core belief. :: :: :: :: :: :: ::_______________________________________________ ::The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list ::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org ::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org :: ::Join the Association of Internet Researchers: ::http://www.aoir.org/ :: + -------- redheadedstepchild.org ------- +
indeed. i'm not quite sure how the original post relates to this list, for that matter. /nipped -- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://youdecide2007.org ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: 07 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Alexis Turner [subbies@redheadedstepchild.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:05 AM To: AIR-L Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development While no doubt a fascinating topic of conversation, I am not able to see that this directly relates to Internet research and would like to politely suggest we nip this conversation in the bud immediately. There are more appropriate forums. -Alexis On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Luis Gutierrez wrote: ::The Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2008 issue of the Solidarity, Sustainability, ::and Non-Violence (SSNV) Research Newsletter has been posted. The theme ::this month is: "Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development." :: ::The link is: http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n01.html :: ::The summary (abstract) is pasted below. I would be grateful for any ::feedback (positive/negative/in-between). Please let me hear from you. :: ::With best wishes for a good 2008, ::Luis ::----------------------------------------------------------------- ::SUMMARY :: ::The theme of the month is "religious dimension of sustainable ::development." There is a religious dimension to the United Nations' ::"Millennium Development Goals" (MDGs), and there is a religious ::dimension to human nature and everything we do. Religion is both ::indispensable and dangerous. It is indispensable to attain full human ::development beyond the physical, biological, and intellectual levels. It ::is dangerous when it degenerates into fanatical delusions about the ::absolute superiority of any particular religion, and then leads to ::religious intolerance and religious violence. :: ::Many consider religion to be a controversial topic. But, after millennia ::of misconceptions about religion, we now have scientific evidence ::(initially via the Swiss Psychiatrist Carl Jung) that religion is ::essential for human beings to become fully human. This being the case, ::our 2007 analyses of the MDGs is incomplete as long as some insight of ::the religious influences on the implementation of the MDGs is not ::provided. A difficult subject, but it cannot be avoided. :: ::In particular, religion is often an incentive (positive or negative) for ::the transition from patriarchy to solidarity, sustainability, and human ::development. Granted that financial gain (or loss) will probably remain ::as the key incentive for people to change behavior during our lifetime, ::futures research entails considering all conceivable possibilities. For ::instance, Abraham Lincoln once stated: "When I do good, I feel good; ::when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." Lincoln's "religion" ::many not qualify as religion in some quarters, but it points to the fact ::that, deep in the human psyche, there is the voice of conscience; the ::voice of God who abides in us but is bigger than us. :: ::After a brief summary of the MDGs (or "MDGs+1" when religious ::development is considered), evidence is presented that a cultural ::transition is needed to support both social justice and environmental ::justice at all levels. This cultural transition will entail changes in ::human behavior that often cannot be accomplished even when there are ::financial incentives. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any such transition ::happening without incentives that are stronger than financial gain ::and/or resources for domination. Since the power of religion as ::incentive for changing human behavior (for good or bad) is pervasive, it ::seems reasonable to research this angle next. This religious dimension ::has not been absent from any of the previous issues of this newsletter, ::but now it will become central. :: ::Incentives from a religious perspective are discussed for overcoming ::patriarchy and fostering social solidarity, environmental ::sustainability, and human development. In considering this material, it ::is essential to distinguish between "religion" and "religious ::institutions." Authentic religion is the expression of our relationship ::with God, and it is "good, good, good." Institutionalized religion can ::be "good, bad, or some mix of good and bad." Some specific religious ::institutions are mentioned. The intent is never to deny the significant ::amount of good done by those institutions. However, nothing human is ::above criticism. Religious institutions often need reformations, just ::like all other human institutions often need reformations. Some ::religious persons may feel uncomfortable. As always, we shall adhere to ::the principle of analysis based on objective evidence. Updates of the ::SSNV-MDG knowledge taxonomy and links database continue as time permits. ::The current version shows the links sorted by mega-disciplines, and ::within each mega-discipline by MDGs. This is "work in progress" but you ::are cordially invited to take a look at this resource and download it ::(free) for your own use (two options: HTML Web Page or EXCEL Spreadsheet). :: ::This month's invited paper is "Two Wings of a Bird: The Equality of ::Women and Men," a reflection by the National Spiritual Assembly of the ::Baha'is of the United States, published in 1997. The Baha'i religious ::tradition emerged in Persia (now Iran) in the 18th century. It is the ::first major religious movement that explicitly includes gender equality ::as a core belief. :: :: :: :: :: :: ::_______________________________________________ ::The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list ::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org ::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org :: ::Join the Association of Internet Researchers: ::http://www.aoir.org/ :: + -------- redheadedstepchild.org ------- + _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
participants (13)
-
Alexis Turner -
Andrew Calabrese -
Barry Saunders -
Charles Ess -
Charlie Balch -
Christian Fuchs -
Christian Nelson -
Denise N. Rall -
elw＠stderr.org -
Jonathan Marshall -
Luis Gutierrez -
McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr. -
tom abeles