-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
- Thread starter Weird
- Start date
- Status
Enlightenment is understanding the value of humanity
There isn't one specific belief that will get you there but based on interpretation beliefs can will keep you from ever achieving it.
The purpose of this thread was to illustrate the evolving nature of science.
There is no place for bias in discussions like this so I ardently oppose it whenever I see it.
If your only agenda is being entertained. playing internet douche bag becomes quite apropos
There are enough of you for a party, 4/20 is coming soon, you guys should plan a 4/20 meet and greet.
Bahá'í
Main article: Bahá'í Faith and science
A fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá'í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.[48][49][50]
Buddhism
Main article: Buddhism and science
Theories of Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous sources.[51] Some philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon)—the principal object of study being oneself. A reliance on causality. philosophical principles shared between Buddhism and science. However, Buddhism doesn't focus on materialism.[52]
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, frequently spends time with scientists. In his book The Universe in a Single Atom he wrote, "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation." and "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
neither being mutually exclusive.
I don't participate in either yet I admire their values.
Main article: Bahá'í Faith and science
A fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá'í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.[48][49][50]
Buddhism
Main article: Buddhism and science
Theories of Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous sources.[51] Some philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon)—the principal object of study being oneself. A reliance on causality. philosophical principles shared between Buddhism and science. However, Buddhism doesn't focus on materialism.[52]
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, frequently spends time with scientists. In his book The Universe in a Single Atom he wrote, "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation." and "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
neither being mutually exclusive.
I don't participate in either yet I admire their values.
actually, i'll expound a bit further for you... so you know, but i got things to do today..
early 90s i dated a girl for over three years. she's the daughter of some mexican mafia don (LFM). she keeps me a secret from her family.
now people tried to warn me about her family, but i'm a fucking nerd from another fucking coutnry. all i know about are polite people and chocolate fucking cakes. i'm an erudite, civilised motherfucker. i don't know they keep people chained up and chop them into bits and then do things to the bits. i'm from a socialist country with a good education and all i ever try to do is make solutions for people to improve their lvies. even if they have different skin or accents.
life is stressful, we break up, then girl crashes her suv (it was like the 5th suv she owned, i should have got the clue, but i never did).
ten years to the day after she crashes her suv... well, things had been getting weird for a few months.. but 10 years to the day after her crash.. i come home and find the doors to my house ripped off and my studio being used in the house across the street. LFM owned like the entire street. i saw the families move in. the cops are like.. the cops.. one cop, and he showed up several hours later, right before it gets dark, and they're coming to finish me off, haha. he's like, well good luck.
the "gang stalking" intensive began then. i ran, and ran, i went to australia, but, LFM, and masons!
which means, LFM, and the australian government, or the american government, or pretty much most places nowadays i guess.
it gets complicated because i'm a "cultural advocate" and "do things to make people smarter" so maybe that "helped" people believe i'm a worthy target for "domestic counterintel". will stop now, the more i say, the more cross examination, it's like if you were trying to totally prove that you didn't eat a cake last week, pointless exercise. let's forego questions and further details. typical story, lots of TIs who "pissed off some person with more wealth/connex".
my advice, avoid the wealthy and powerful, especially if you're trying to get shit done.
early 90s i dated a girl for over three years. she's the daughter of some mexican mafia don (LFM). she keeps me a secret from her family.
now people tried to warn me about her family, but i'm a fucking nerd from another fucking coutnry. all i know about are polite people and chocolate fucking cakes. i'm an erudite, civilised motherfucker. i don't know they keep people chained up and chop them into bits and then do things to the bits. i'm from a socialist country with a good education and all i ever try to do is make solutions for people to improve their lvies. even if they have different skin or accents.
life is stressful, we break up, then girl crashes her suv (it was like the 5th suv she owned, i should have got the clue, but i never did).
ten years to the day after she crashes her suv... well, things had been getting weird for a few months.. but 10 years to the day after her crash.. i come home and find the doors to my house ripped off and my studio being used in the house across the street. LFM owned like the entire street. i saw the families move in. the cops are like.. the cops.. one cop, and he showed up several hours later, right before it gets dark, and they're coming to finish me off, haha. he's like, well good luck.
the "gang stalking" intensive began then. i ran, and ran, i went to australia, but, LFM, and masons!
which means, LFM, and the australian government, or the american government, or pretty much most places nowadays i guess.
it gets complicated because i'm a "cultural advocate" and "do things to make people smarter" so maybe that "helped" people believe i'm a worthy target for "domestic counterintel". will stop now, the more i say, the more cross examination, it's like if you were trying to totally prove that you didn't eat a cake last week, pointless exercise. let's forego questions and further details. typical story, lots of TIs who "pissed off some person with more wealth/connex".
my advice, avoid the wealthy and powerful, especially if you're trying to get shit done.
"it can wait.." (it can't..)
i love telling.
couple months after that (i fled on bicycle because i had no doors, no guns, car out of order, and they were saying they were coming back and some other stuff where i'd been set up eg. a bunch of junk dimped on my property the day earlier so i looked crazy)
a couple months after that.. i'm rolling out of town and stop at the ranger station (saguaro national park east) to report thit guy assaulting me.. i'm fleeing to survive however i can but i figure i better report it in case they do something et c..
and the ranger (jason griswald) decides to lock me up. i'm assaulted again (three guys) and sent to a looney bin (palo verde) - i escape. yes, i have escaped from a looney bin! i can truly say that. here's how:
check in. cop is super fat, friendly. basically immobile. check in area has double glass inner wall adjacent to office, so you can hand them your wallet and stuff i guess. addendant goes off. there's someone there all depressed looking at ground. we talk. i look up. office area has a false ceiling - the area is open. it's like the architect left a way out for optimists who look up instead of down. still like at least 8'4" maybe 9" i broke my heel dropping down but didn't notice immediately. happens when you don't know how to drop (common injury known as whorehouse heel or something).
my survival plan was somewhat imperfect - the cops had given me my wallet for check-in.. i'm wearing tiny jeans cutoffs and a tank top with a bloody bandage around my head from where they'd bashed it into the sidewalk. i bought a ticket to hawaii, i was a stranger to using my credit beforehand and fed myself while recuperating on the beach.
someone took a photo of me in waikiki - when i got off the bus, i sat right down as i could only hop due to the broken foor and was tired - the corner i sat on used to be occupied by the "queen of pain" tatoo parlor, which had closed but the sign was still there. i was all bloody haha. someone i know has a photo but i don't.
lived on ala moana beach for two months .. mom and pop.. sam.. sat in deck chairs in a circle aroudn a tiny u.s. flag... fun time.
*got my first implant there* at least that i know.. had this black dot in the middle of my eye that didn't move.. found reports of others with the same, youtube presidential bioethics committee hearings..
that was removed in 2009 before i flew out of the u.s. - woke up, involuntary.. they did a good job of it though.. vertical incision.. fold mark on eaither side.. disappeared.. still junk in my eye from it. sleep barricaded, probably makes no difference.
so i've been through all kind of shit, that was only the beginning, most people don't know about.
some thnigs are "unexplainble" though.. i've seen things i just cannot tell people about because no one would believe. real trivial, i went back to SNME a few months later to get my backpack, like december january, not much hopping.. this "foreign guy" let's call him comes in while i'm waiting for a ranger to get it and talks to the park attendant..
she rattles on "normally there's somethnig blooming at every time of year, but there's no colour out there now"
and our friend says "oh? that's funny, because i saw a little spot of red on the sidewalk.." or something like that and she froze.. like she understood that he was talking about the blood they knocked outt of me.
i love telling.
couple months after that (i fled on bicycle because i had no doors, no guns, car out of order, and they were saying they were coming back and some other stuff where i'd been set up eg. a bunch of junk dimped on my property the day earlier so i looked crazy)
a couple months after that.. i'm rolling out of town and stop at the ranger station (saguaro national park east) to report thit guy assaulting me.. i'm fleeing to survive however i can but i figure i better report it in case they do something et c..
and the ranger (jason griswald) decides to lock me up. i'm assaulted again (three guys) and sent to a looney bin (palo verde) - i escape. yes, i have escaped from a looney bin! i can truly say that. here's how:
check in. cop is super fat, friendly. basically immobile. check in area has double glass inner wall adjacent to office, so you can hand them your wallet and stuff i guess. addendant goes off. there's someone there all depressed looking at ground. we talk. i look up. office area has a false ceiling - the area is open. it's like the architect left a way out for optimists who look up instead of down. still like at least 8'4" maybe 9" i broke my heel dropping down but didn't notice immediately. happens when you don't know how to drop (common injury known as whorehouse heel or something).
my survival plan was somewhat imperfect - the cops had given me my wallet for check-in.. i'm wearing tiny jeans cutoffs and a tank top with a bloody bandage around my head from where they'd bashed it into the sidewalk. i bought a ticket to hawaii, i was a stranger to using my credit beforehand and fed myself while recuperating on the beach.
someone took a photo of me in waikiki - when i got off the bus, i sat right down as i could only hop due to the broken foor and was tired - the corner i sat on used to be occupied by the "queen of pain" tatoo parlor, which had closed but the sign was still there. i was all bloody haha. someone i know has a photo but i don't.
lived on ala moana beach for two months .. mom and pop.. sam.. sat in deck chairs in a circle aroudn a tiny u.s. flag... fun time.
*got my first implant there* at least that i know.. had this black dot in the middle of my eye that didn't move.. found reports of others with the same, youtube presidential bioethics committee hearings..
that was removed in 2009 before i flew out of the u.s. - woke up, involuntary.. they did a good job of it though.. vertical incision.. fold mark on eaither side.. disappeared.. still junk in my eye from it. sleep barricaded, probably makes no difference.
so i've been through all kind of shit, that was only the beginning, most people don't know about.
some thnigs are "unexplainble" though.. i've seen things i just cannot tell people about because no one would believe. real trivial, i went back to SNME a few months later to get my backpack, like december january, not much hopping.. this "foreign guy" let's call him comes in while i'm waiting for a ranger to get it and talks to the park attendant..
she rattles on "normally there's somethnig blooming at every time of year, but there's no colour out there now"
and our friend says "oh? that's funny, because i saw a little spot of red on the sidewalk.." or something like that and she froze.. like she understood that he was talking about the blood they knocked outt of me.
"haha"
i mean, why am i alive, "she loves me?"
ritual abuse. people talk about it all arouind. pure abuse. maybe satanic, i don't know. they have technology, and whatever.
why am i alive? here comes my twenty. should i piss about it? was i prepared by the guy shooting at me?
it's retarded. and i can point the way to a lot of other really innocent people who have had their lives fucked up by .. cia rapes, catholic rapes, england politician whatever. people, i can't tell them. *i guess we need to figure it out for ourselves*.
just for balance, i have seen amazing shit for good too. i don't hate everyone in LFM or mason or government. sometimes people know what's right. but act. solve problems. stop things. come up with a stopper. know society is up to some shit or business, really bad for people shit. "i'm good okay" haha. arcologies motherfuckers! memetics and shit.
Yep, little witchy people. lol
Sure it was, you were talking about your interpretation of Christianity. The way you see it the interpretation and Christianity is the belief. You reap what you sow can't be answered as strictly true or false, it is subjective. Many of the poor see the rich as sowing greed but they don't feel the rich are getting what they deserve for their greed. If you were to ask a rich man though he might see it differently.
Like I said, written by several men separated both Geographically and historically. What you writ above is saying the same thing just in a different way. The only difference is you claim that God made it happen that way on purpose.
Okay maybe he did, if so then why did he allow mankind to go another dozen or so centuries before all of it was collected into what we call the bible today? Why did he allow the dark ages to happen and keep his finished His-story so hidden mankind almost forgot Christianity? Also if all of these writings, these books were God's written word for man then why has God allowed some of these books to be edited out, then edited back in and some of them back out (reference to the Apocrypha)?
You know what else happened? The Old Testament became irrelevant. The Old Testament was written for a different time and a different people. One of the things the led to Christ being crucified is that much of what he was preaching seem to go against the teachings man had extrapolated from the Old Testament and therefore were felt to be blasphemous.
Well if you add up the numbers it comes to 8210 years from the creation of Adam to the death of Noah, then add the 5000 - 5500 from the flood until now you get somewhere between 13210 years to 13710 years. That would be wrong though since none of those people from Adam's line fathered their sons just before their deaths. So to draw anything meaningful from those numbers you would need to need to include how old each were when they were born.
Adam had Seth at age 130, Seth had Enos at 105, Enos had Cainan at age 90, Cainan had Mahalaleel at age 70, Mahalaleel had Jared at age 65, Jared had Enoch at age 162, Enoch had Methuselah at age 65, Methuselah had Lamech at age 187, Lemaeh had Noah at age 182, Noah is said to have had his 3 sons Shem, Ham and Japheth by age 500 and since his sons were included in the story of the Great Flood one can conclude Noah was in his 500's when the flood happened. So the proper calculation from Adam to Noah at the time of the flood is approximately 1556 years which when added to the 5000 to 5500 years you came up with brings us to 6556 - 7056 which falls right in line with what many Christians who take the Bible literally say is the age of the earth. Which we all know thru science is not true.
There are some other things which just doesn't sit right especially for a God who does not tolerate adultery and incest. If Adam and Eve were the first true humans then who did Seth beget Enos by? His Mother? One of his sisters? For that matter before Seth when Caine slew Able, who was Caine so afraid of killing him that God had to mark him to ward off would be killers? By all accountings at that time the only people on earth should have been Adam, Eve and Caine. Unless you accept that there were other sources creating people besides Adam and Eve and that these people were somehow different from Adam and Eve.
I don't got time to mess with this long dissection of what was original one long topic. I imagine though it was deliberate on your part as it is a common tactic in debating online since most people have lives that don't allow them to stay online for hours arguing minutia. So I'll just end with this. God is said to be all knowing and all seeing and he created Adam. Therefore he had to know Adam and Eve were going to disobey him. Why didn't he make Adam more obedient? Could it possibly be because the story of Adam is just that, a story? Something to wrap up how the world and man came to be in a nice simple package easy for primitive minds to grasp?
APA Resolution on Religious, Religion-Based and/or Religion-Derived Prejudice
At the San Francisco convention, the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives passed the following resolution regarding the relationship between religion and psychology. It should referenced as: American Psychological Association Council of Representatives. (2007). Resolution on Religious, Religion-Based and/or Religion-Derived Prejudice. August, 2007.
August 2007
That Council adopts the following resolution as APA policy:
Resolution on Religious, Religion-Based and/or Religion-Derived Prejudice
Introduction
Prejudice based on or derived from religion and anti-religious prejudice have been, and continue to be, a cause of significant suffering in the human condition. APA’s policy statement on Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination provides operational definitions for prejudices, stereotypes and interpersonal and institutional discrimination. The resolution specifically states, “prejudices are unfavorable affective reactions to or evaluations of groups and their members, stereotypes are generalized beliefs about groups and their members, interpersonal discrimination is differential treatment by individuals toward some groups and their members relative to other groups and their members, and institutional discrimination involves policies and contexts that create, enact, reify, and maintain inequality (American Psychological Association, 2006) .” Prejudice directed against individuals and groups based on their religious or spiritual beliefs, practice, adherence, identification or affiliation has resulted in a wide range of discriminatory practices. Such discrimination has been carried out by individuals, groups and by governments. Examples of non-governmental discrimination based on religion include social ostracism against individuals based on their religion, desecration of religious buildings or sites, and violence or other hate crimes targeted towards adherents of particular faith traditions (U.S. Department of State, 2004).Prejudice and discrimination based on religion and/or spirituality continue to be problems even in countries that otherwise have achieved a high level of religious liberty and pluralism. Governmental discrimination based on religion has taken both covert and overt forms. Current examples of covert religious discrimination include government surveillance of religious speech, pejorative labeling by governmental bodies of certain religious groups as ‘cults’ with a resulting loss of religious freedoms, and a lack of legal protection for citizens that are from non-majority faiths who are victims of religious hate crimes (Center for Religious Freedom, 2001, 2003; U.S. Department of State, 2004) Prejudice based on or derived from religion has been used to justify discrimination, prejudice, and human rights violations against those holding different religious beliefs, those who profess no religious beliefs, individuals of various ethnicities, women, those who are not exclusively heterosexual, and other individuals and groups depending on perceived theological justification or imperative.
Indeed, it is a paradoxical feature of these kinds of prejudices that religion can be both target and victim of prejudice, as well as construed as justification and imperative for prejudice. The right of a person to practice their religion or faith does not and cannot entail a right to harm others or to undermine the public good. This situation is further complicated by the increasing tendency of individuals to identify as ‘spiritual’ apart from any identification or affiliation with a religious tradition (Hill & Pargament, 2003). It is as of yet unclear what impact on the relationships between spirituality and prejudice this increasing trend towards non-institutionalized spirituality may produce.
While many individuals and groups have been victims of anti-religious discrimination, religion itself has also been the source of a wide range of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors towards other individuals (Donahue & Nielsen, 2005). Several decades of psychological research have found complicated relationships between measures of religiousness and measures of prejudice (Allport, 1954/1979; Allport & Ross, 1967; Gorsuch & Aleshire, 1974; Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 2003). Dozens of studies have reported positive linear relationships between measures of conventional religiousness, such as frequency of church attendance or fundamentalism scale elevations, and measures of negative social attitudes such as prejudice, dogmatism or authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1988; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992, 2005). Yet, Allport (1950) and his colleagues (Allport & Ross, 1967) observed that the relationship between religion and prejudice is curvilinear rather than linear, with highly religious individuals having lower levels of prejudice than marginally religious adherents. This finding has been relatively robust over numerous subsequent studies on religion and prejudice using self-report measures (Batson & Stocks, 2005; Gorsuch & Aleshire, 1974). Recent research, using non-self report measures, has found an even more complex and varied sets of relationships between diverse types of personal religiousness and prejudice indicators (Batson & Stocks, 2005). As Allport (1954/1979) concluded “the role of religion is paradoxical. It makes prejudice and it unmakes prejudice” (p. 444). While religious motivations and rationales for violent conflicts, social oppression of religious outgroups or norm violators, and the reinforcement of prejudicial stereotypes are readily adducible, it is also true that religious motivations and rationales have been key factors contributing to prosocial developments such as the abolition of slavery (Harvey, 2000; Herek, 1987; Hunsberger, 1996; Rambo, 1993; Rodriguez & Ouellete, 2000; Silberman, 2005; Stark, 2003). This complex relationship between religion and psychosocial variables has led to multiple models of the relationship between forms of religiousness and psychological adjustment (Allport, 1950; Altemeyer, 2003; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993; Krikpatrick, 2005; Watson, Sawyer, Morris, Carpenter, Jemenez, Jonas, & Robinson, 2003). A common motif across these models is that it is the way one is religious rather than merely whether one is religious that is determinative of psychosocial outcomes (Donohue, 1985).
It is important for psychology as a behavioral science, and various faith traditions as theological systems, to acknowledge and respect their profoundly different methodological, epistemological, historical, theoretical and philosophical bases. Psychology has no legitimate function in arbitrating matters of faith and theology; and faith traditions have no legitimate place arbitrating behavioral or other sciences. While both traditions may arrive at public policy perspectives operating out of their own traditions, the bases for these perspectives are substantially different.
WHEREAS religion is an important influence in the lives of the vast majority of people, is ubiquitous in human cultures, and is becoming increasingly diverse throughout the world (Brown, 2005; Eck, 2001; Hoge, 1996; Genia, 2000; Richards & Bergin, 2000; Shafranske, 1996); and
WHEREAS the American Psychological Association opposes prejudice and discrimination based upon age, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or physical condition (American Psychological Association, 2002); and
WHEREAS, psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people and are committed to improving the condition of individuals, organizations, and society; and psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences among individuals, including (but not limited to) those based on ethnicity, national origin, and religion (American Psychological Association, 2002); and
WHEREAS the American Psychological Association has recognized the profound negative psychological consequences of hate crimes motivated by prejudice (APA council, 2005), and
WHEREAS prejudice against individuals and groups based on their religion or spirituality, and prejudice based on or derived from religion continue to result in various forms of harmful discrimination perpetuated by private individuals, social groups, and governments in both covert and overt forms (Balakian, 2004; Center for Religious Freedom, 2001, 2003; Marshall, 2000; Yakovlev, 2004; U.S. Department of State, 2004); and
WHEREAS the experience of pluralistic cultures which embrace religious liberty shows that a variety of religious faiths and non-religious worldviews can peacefully co-exist while maintaining substantial doctrinal, valuative, behavioral, and organizational differences, (Byrd, 2002; Eck, 2001; Marshall, 2000); and
WHEREAS understanding and respecting patient/client spirituality and religiosity are important in conducting culturally-sensitive research, psychological assessment and treatment (Hathaway, Scott, & Garver, 2004; McCullough, 1999; Richards & Bergin, 1997; Shafranske, 1996; Worthington & Sandage, 2001); and
WHEREAS evidence exists that religious and spiritual factors are under-examined in psychological research both in terms of their prevalence within various research populations and in terms of their possible relevance as influential variables (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003; Hill & Pargament, 2003; King & Boyatzis, 2004; Miller & Thoresen, 2003, Weaver et al., 1998), and
WHEREAS contemporary psychology, religious and spiritual traditions all address the human condition, they often do so from distinct presuppositions, approaches to knowledge, and social roles and contexts and, while these differences can be enriching and may stimulate fruitful interaction between these domains, they also can present opportunities for misunderstanding and tension around areas of shared concern (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003; Gould, 2002; Haldeman, 2004; Miller & Delaney, 2004; Van Leeuwen, 1982), and
WHEREAS religion and spirituality can promote beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviors that can dramatically impact human life in ways that are either enhancing or diminishing of the wellbeing of individuals or groups (Allport, 1950; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992, 2005; Silberman, 2005; Stark, 2003),
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association condemns prejudice and discrimination against individuals or groups based on their religious or spiritual beliefs, practices, adherence or background.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association condemns prejudice directed against individuals or groups, derived from or based on religious or spiritual beliefs.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association take a leadership role in opposing discrimination based on or derived from religion or spirituality and encouraging commensurate consideration of religion and spirituality as diversity variables.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages all psychologists to act to eliminate discrimination based on or derived from religion and spirituality.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages actions that promote religious and spiritual tolerance, liberty, and respect, in all arenas in which psychologists work and practice, and in society at large.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association views no religious, faith or spiritual tradition, or lack of tradition, as more deserving of protection than another and that the American Psychological Association gives no preference to any particular religious or spiritual conventions.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association will include information on prejudice and discrimination based on religion and spirituality in its multicultural and diversity training material and activities.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages the dissemination of relevant empirical findings about the psychological correlates of religious/spiritual beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors to concerned stakeholders with full sensitivity to the profound differences between psychology and religion/spirituality.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages individuals and groups to work against any potential adverse psychological consequences to themselves, others or society, that might arise from religious or spiritual attitudes, practices or policies.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that psychologists are encouraged to be mindful of their distinct disciplinary and professional roles when approaching issues of shared concern with religious adherents.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that psychologists are encouraged to recognize that it is outside the role and expertise of psychologists as psychologists to adjudicate religious or spiritual tenets, while also recognizing that psychologists can appropriately speak to the psychological implications of religious/spiritual beliefs or practices when relevant psychological findings about those implications exist. Those operating out of religious/spiritual traditions are encouraged to recognize that it is outside their role and expertise to adjudicate empirical scientific issues in psychology, while also recognizing they can appropriately speak to theological implications of psychological science.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that psychologists are careful to prevent bias from their own spiritual, religious or non-religious beliefs from taking precedence over professional practice and standards or scientific findings in their work as psychologists.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages collaborative activities in pursuit of shared prosocial goals between psychologists and religious communities when such collaboration can be done in a mutually respectful manner that is consistent with psychologists’ professional and scientific roles.
References
Allport, G.W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan.
Allport, (1979). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (Original work published 1954).
Allport, G.W., & Ross, M.J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (2003). Why do religious fundamentalists tend to be prejudiced? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13, 17-28.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2005). Fundamentalism and authoritarianism. In R.F. Paloutizian & C.L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 378-393). New York: Guilford Press.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association Council of Representatives. (2005). Resolution on Hate Crimes. February, 2005.
American Psychological Association Council of Representatives (2006). APA Resolution on Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination, February, 2006.
Balakian, P. (2004). Burning Tigris, The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response. New York: Harper-Collins.
Batson, C.D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W.L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C.D., & Stocks, C.L. (2005). Religion and prejudice. In J.F. Davidio,
P. Glick, & LA. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. (pp. 413-427). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bergin, A.E., & Jensen, J.P. (1990). Religiosity of psychotherapists: A national survey. Psychotherapy, 27, 3-6.
Brown, K. (2005). Does psychology of religion exist? European Psychologist, 10, 71-73.
Byrd, J.P., Jr. (2002). The challenges of Roger Williams: Religious liberty, violent persecution and the Bible. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Center for Religious Freedom (2003). The rise of Hindu extremism and repression of Christian and Muslim minorities in India. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for Religious Freedom (2001). Massacre at the Millennium: A Report on the Murder of 21 Christians in Al-Kosheh, Egypt in January 2000 and the Failure of Justice. Washington, DC: Author.
Day, Dorothy (1997). Loaves & fishes: A history of the Catholic Workers Movement. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Donahue, M.J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419.
Donahue, M.J., & Nielsen, M.E. (2005). Religion, attitudes, and social behavior. In R.F. Paloutizian & C.L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 274-291). New York: Guilford Press.
Eck, D.L (2001). A new religious America. San Francisco: Harper.
Emmons, R.A., & Paloutzian, R.F. (2003). The psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 377-402.
Gallup, G., Jr., & Lindsay, D.M. (1999). Surveying the religious landscape: Trends in U.S. beliefs. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse.
Genia, V. (2000). Religious issues in secularly based psychotherapy. Counseling and Values, 44, 213-222.
Ghandi, M.K. (2001). Nonviolent restistance. London: Dover Publications.
Gorsuch, R.L., & Aleshire, D.(1974). Christian faith and ethnic prejudice: A review and interpretation of research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348-354.
Gould, S. J. (2002). Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York: Ballantine Books.
Haldemen, D.C. (2004). When sexual and religious orientation collide: Considerations in working with conflicted same-sex attracted male clients. Counseling Psychologist, 32, 691-715.
Harvey, P. (2000). An introduction to Buddhist ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hathaway, W.L., Scott, S.Y., & Garver, S.A. (2004). Assessing religious/spiritual functioning: A neglected domain in clinical practice? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 97-104.
Herek, G.M. (1987). Religious orientation and prejudice: A comparison of racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 33-44.
Hill, P.C., & Pargament, K.I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American Psychologist, 58, 64-74.
Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility towards homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6, 39-49.
Keller, R.R. (2000). Religious diversity in North America. In P. S. Richards & A.E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and religious diversity (pp. 27-55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
King, M.L. (1969). Why we can’t wait. New York: Signet.
King, P.E., & Boyatzis, C.J. (2004). Exploring adolescent spiritual and religious development: Current and future theoretical and empirical perspectives. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 2-6.
Kirkpatrick, L.A. (2005). Evolutionary psychology: An emerging new foundation for the psychology of religion. In R.F. Paloutizian & C.L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 101-119). New York: Guilford Press.
Marshall, P. (2000). Religious freedom in the world: A global report on freedom and persecution. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
McCullough, M.E. (1999). Research on religion-accommodative counseling: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 92-98.
Miller, W.R, & Delaney, H.D. (2005). Psychology as the science of human nature: Reflections and research directions. In W.R. Miller & H.D. Delaney, Eds., Judeo-Christian perspectives on psychology: Human nature, motivation and change (pp. 291-308). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Miller, W.R., & Thoresen, C.E. (2003). Spirituality, religion and health: An emerging research field. American Psychologist, 58, 24-35.
Rambo, L.R. (1993). Understanding religious conversion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Regan, C., Malony, H.N., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1980). Psychologists and religion: Professional factors and personal beliefs. Review of Religious Research, 21, 208-217.
Richards, P.S. & Bergin, A.E. (1997). A spiritual strategy for counseling and psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Richards, P.S. & Bergin, A.E. (2000). Toward religious and spiritual competency for mental health professionals. In P. S. Richards & A.E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and religious diversity (pp. 3-26). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rodriguez, E.M., & Ouellete, S.C. (2000). Gay and lesbian Christians: Homosexual and religious identity integration in the members of a gay-positive church. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39, 333-347.
Shafranske, E.P. (1996). Introduction: Foundation for the consideration of religion in the clinical practice of psychology. In E.P. Shafranske, (Ed.), Religion in the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 1-17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Silberman, I. (2005). Religious violence, terrorism, and peace: A meaning-system analysis. In R.F. Paloutizian & C.L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 529-549). New York: Guilford Press.
Spilka, B., Hood, R.W., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R.L. (2003). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (3rd ed.) New York: Guilford Press.
Stark, R. (2003). For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
U.S. Committee for Refugees (2004). World Refugee Survey 2004. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of State (2004). Annual report on international religious freedom. Washington, DC: Author.
Van Leeuwen, M.S. (1982). The sorcerer’s apprentice: A Christian looks at the changing face of psychology. Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.
Watson, P.J., Sawyer, P., Morris, R.J., Carpenter, M.I., Jemenez, R.S., Jonas, K.A., & Robinson, D.L. (2003). Reanalysis within a Christian ideological surround: Relationships of intrinsic religious orientation with fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31, 315-328.
Weaver, A.J., Kline, A.E., Samford, J.A., Lucas, L.A., Larson, D.B., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1998). Is religion taboo in psychology? A systematic analysis of research on religion in seven major American Psychological Association journals: 1991-1994. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 17, 220-232.
Worthington, E.L. & Sandage, S.J. (2001). Religion and spirituality. Psychotherapy, 38, 473-478.
Yakovlev, A.N. (2004). A century of violence in Soviet Russia. (A. Austin, translator). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
At the San Francisco convention, the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives passed the following resolution regarding the relationship between religion and psychology. It should referenced as: American Psychological Association Council of Representatives. (2007). Resolution on Religious, Religion-Based and/or Religion-Derived Prejudice. August, 2007.
August 2007
That Council adopts the following resolution as APA policy:
Resolution on Religious, Religion-Based and/or Religion-Derived Prejudice
Introduction
Prejudice based on or derived from religion and anti-religious prejudice have been, and continue to be, a cause of significant suffering in the human condition. APA’s policy statement on Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination provides operational definitions for prejudices, stereotypes and interpersonal and institutional discrimination. The resolution specifically states, “prejudices are unfavorable affective reactions to or evaluations of groups and their members, stereotypes are generalized beliefs about groups and their members, interpersonal discrimination is differential treatment by individuals toward some groups and their members relative to other groups and their members, and institutional discrimination involves policies and contexts that create, enact, reify, and maintain inequality (American Psychological Association, 2006) .” Prejudice directed against individuals and groups based on their religious or spiritual beliefs, practice, adherence, identification or affiliation has resulted in a wide range of discriminatory practices. Such discrimination has been carried out by individuals, groups and by governments. Examples of non-governmental discrimination based on religion include social ostracism against individuals based on their religion, desecration of religious buildings or sites, and violence or other hate crimes targeted towards adherents of particular faith traditions (U.S. Department of State, 2004).Prejudice and discrimination based on religion and/or spirituality continue to be problems even in countries that otherwise have achieved a high level of religious liberty and pluralism. Governmental discrimination based on religion has taken both covert and overt forms. Current examples of covert religious discrimination include government surveillance of religious speech, pejorative labeling by governmental bodies of certain religious groups as ‘cults’ with a resulting loss of religious freedoms, and a lack of legal protection for citizens that are from non-majority faiths who are victims of religious hate crimes (Center for Religious Freedom, 2001, 2003; U.S. Department of State, 2004) Prejudice based on or derived from religion has been used to justify discrimination, prejudice, and human rights violations against those holding different religious beliefs, those who profess no religious beliefs, individuals of various ethnicities, women, those who are not exclusively heterosexual, and other individuals and groups depending on perceived theological justification or imperative.
Indeed, it is a paradoxical feature of these kinds of prejudices that religion can be both target and victim of prejudice, as well as construed as justification and imperative for prejudice. The right of a person to practice their religion or faith does not and cannot entail a right to harm others or to undermine the public good. This situation is further complicated by the increasing tendency of individuals to identify as ‘spiritual’ apart from any identification or affiliation with a religious tradition (Hill & Pargament, 2003). It is as of yet unclear what impact on the relationships between spirituality and prejudice this increasing trend towards non-institutionalized spirituality may produce.
While many individuals and groups have been victims of anti-religious discrimination, religion itself has also been the source of a wide range of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors towards other individuals (Donahue & Nielsen, 2005). Several decades of psychological research have found complicated relationships between measures of religiousness and measures of prejudice (Allport, 1954/1979; Allport & Ross, 1967; Gorsuch & Aleshire, 1974; Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 2003). Dozens of studies have reported positive linear relationships between measures of conventional religiousness, such as frequency of church attendance or fundamentalism scale elevations, and measures of negative social attitudes such as prejudice, dogmatism or authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1988; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992, 2005). Yet, Allport (1950) and his colleagues (Allport & Ross, 1967) observed that the relationship between religion and prejudice is curvilinear rather than linear, with highly religious individuals having lower levels of prejudice than marginally religious adherents. This finding has been relatively robust over numerous subsequent studies on religion and prejudice using self-report measures (Batson & Stocks, 2005; Gorsuch & Aleshire, 1974). Recent research, using non-self report measures, has found an even more complex and varied sets of relationships between diverse types of personal religiousness and prejudice indicators (Batson & Stocks, 2005). As Allport (1954/1979) concluded “the role of religion is paradoxical. It makes prejudice and it unmakes prejudice” (p. 444). While religious motivations and rationales for violent conflicts, social oppression of religious outgroups or norm violators, and the reinforcement of prejudicial stereotypes are readily adducible, it is also true that religious motivations and rationales have been key factors contributing to prosocial developments such as the abolition of slavery (Harvey, 2000; Herek, 1987; Hunsberger, 1996; Rambo, 1993; Rodriguez & Ouellete, 2000; Silberman, 2005; Stark, 2003). This complex relationship between religion and psychosocial variables has led to multiple models of the relationship between forms of religiousness and psychological adjustment (Allport, 1950; Altemeyer, 2003; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993; Krikpatrick, 2005; Watson, Sawyer, Morris, Carpenter, Jemenez, Jonas, & Robinson, 2003). A common motif across these models is that it is the way one is religious rather than merely whether one is religious that is determinative of psychosocial outcomes (Donohue, 1985).
It is important for psychology as a behavioral science, and various faith traditions as theological systems, to acknowledge and respect their profoundly different methodological, epistemological, historical, theoretical and philosophical bases. Psychology has no legitimate function in arbitrating matters of faith and theology; and faith traditions have no legitimate place arbitrating behavioral or other sciences. While both traditions may arrive at public policy perspectives operating out of their own traditions, the bases for these perspectives are substantially different.
WHEREAS religion is an important influence in the lives of the vast majority of people, is ubiquitous in human cultures, and is becoming increasingly diverse throughout the world (Brown, 2005; Eck, 2001; Hoge, 1996; Genia, 2000; Richards & Bergin, 2000; Shafranske, 1996); and
WHEREAS the American Psychological Association opposes prejudice and discrimination based upon age, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or physical condition (American Psychological Association, 2002); and
WHEREAS, psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people and are committed to improving the condition of individuals, organizations, and society; and psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences among individuals, including (but not limited to) those based on ethnicity, national origin, and religion (American Psychological Association, 2002); and
WHEREAS the American Psychological Association has recognized the profound negative psychological consequences of hate crimes motivated by prejudice (APA council, 2005), and
WHEREAS prejudice against individuals and groups based on their religion or spirituality, and prejudice based on or derived from religion continue to result in various forms of harmful discrimination perpetuated by private individuals, social groups, and governments in both covert and overt forms (Balakian, 2004; Center for Religious Freedom, 2001, 2003; Marshall, 2000; Yakovlev, 2004; U.S. Department of State, 2004); and
WHEREAS the experience of pluralistic cultures which embrace religious liberty shows that a variety of religious faiths and non-religious worldviews can peacefully co-exist while maintaining substantial doctrinal, valuative, behavioral, and organizational differences, (Byrd, 2002; Eck, 2001; Marshall, 2000); and
WHEREAS understanding and respecting patient/client spirituality and religiosity are important in conducting culturally-sensitive research, psychological assessment and treatment (Hathaway, Scott, & Garver, 2004; McCullough, 1999; Richards & Bergin, 1997; Shafranske, 1996; Worthington & Sandage, 2001); and
WHEREAS evidence exists that religious and spiritual factors are under-examined in psychological research both in terms of their prevalence within various research populations and in terms of their possible relevance as influential variables (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003; Hill & Pargament, 2003; King & Boyatzis, 2004; Miller & Thoresen, 2003, Weaver et al., 1998), and
WHEREAS contemporary psychology, religious and spiritual traditions all address the human condition, they often do so from distinct presuppositions, approaches to knowledge, and social roles and contexts and, while these differences can be enriching and may stimulate fruitful interaction between these domains, they also can present opportunities for misunderstanding and tension around areas of shared concern (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003; Gould, 2002; Haldeman, 2004; Miller & Delaney, 2004; Van Leeuwen, 1982), and
WHEREAS religion and spirituality can promote beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviors that can dramatically impact human life in ways that are either enhancing or diminishing of the wellbeing of individuals or groups (Allport, 1950; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992, 2005; Silberman, 2005; Stark, 2003),
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association condemns prejudice and discrimination against individuals or groups based on their religious or spiritual beliefs, practices, adherence or background.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association condemns prejudice directed against individuals or groups, derived from or based on religious or spiritual beliefs.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association take a leadership role in opposing discrimination based on or derived from religion or spirituality and encouraging commensurate consideration of religion and spirituality as diversity variables.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages all psychologists to act to eliminate discrimination based on or derived from religion and spirituality.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages actions that promote religious and spiritual tolerance, liberty, and respect, in all arenas in which psychologists work and practice, and in society at large.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association views no religious, faith or spiritual tradition, or lack of tradition, as more deserving of protection than another and that the American Psychological Association gives no preference to any particular religious or spiritual conventions.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association will include information on prejudice and discrimination based on religion and spirituality in its multicultural and diversity training material and activities.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages the dissemination of relevant empirical findings about the psychological correlates of religious/spiritual beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors to concerned stakeholders with full sensitivity to the profound differences between psychology and religion/spirituality.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages individuals and groups to work against any potential adverse psychological consequences to themselves, others or society, that might arise from religious or spiritual attitudes, practices or policies.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that psychologists are encouraged to be mindful of their distinct disciplinary and professional roles when approaching issues of shared concern with religious adherents.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that psychologists are encouraged to recognize that it is outside the role and expertise of psychologists as psychologists to adjudicate religious or spiritual tenets, while also recognizing that psychologists can appropriately speak to the psychological implications of religious/spiritual beliefs or practices when relevant psychological findings about those implications exist. Those operating out of religious/spiritual traditions are encouraged to recognize that it is outside their role and expertise to adjudicate empirical scientific issues in psychology, while also recognizing they can appropriately speak to theological implications of psychological science.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that psychologists are careful to prevent bias from their own spiritual, religious or non-religious beliefs from taking precedence over professional practice and standards or scientific findings in their work as psychologists.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages collaborative activities in pursuit of shared prosocial goals between psychologists and religious communities when such collaboration can be done in a mutually respectful manner that is consistent with psychologists’ professional and scientific roles.
References
Allport, G.W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan.
Allport, (1979). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (Original work published 1954).
Allport, G.W., & Ross, M.J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (2003). Why do religious fundamentalists tend to be prejudiced? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13, 17-28.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2005). Fundamentalism and authoritarianism. In R.F. Paloutizian & C.L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 378-393). New York: Guilford Press.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association Council of Representatives. (2005). Resolution on Hate Crimes. February, 2005.
American Psychological Association Council of Representatives (2006). APA Resolution on Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination, February, 2006.
Balakian, P. (2004). Burning Tigris, The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response. New York: Harper-Collins.
Batson, C.D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W.L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C.D., & Stocks, C.L. (2005). Religion and prejudice. In J.F. Davidio,
P. Glick, & LA. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. (pp. 413-427). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bergin, A.E., & Jensen, J.P. (1990). Religiosity of psychotherapists: A national survey. Psychotherapy, 27, 3-6.
Brown, K. (2005). Does psychology of religion exist? European Psychologist, 10, 71-73.
Byrd, J.P., Jr. (2002). The challenges of Roger Williams: Religious liberty, violent persecution and the Bible. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Center for Religious Freedom (2003). The rise of Hindu extremism and repression of Christian and Muslim minorities in India. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for Religious Freedom (2001). Massacre at the Millennium: A Report on the Murder of 21 Christians in Al-Kosheh, Egypt in January 2000 and the Failure of Justice. Washington, DC: Author.
Day, Dorothy (1997). Loaves & fishes: A history of the Catholic Workers Movement. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Donahue, M.J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419.
Donahue, M.J., & Nielsen, M.E. (2005). Religion, attitudes, and social behavior. In R.F. Paloutizian & C.L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 274-291). New York: Guilford Press.
Eck, D.L (2001). A new religious America. San Francisco: Harper.
Emmons, R.A., & Paloutzian, R.F. (2003). The psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 377-402.
Gallup, G., Jr., & Lindsay, D.M. (1999). Surveying the religious landscape: Trends in U.S. beliefs. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse.
Genia, V. (2000). Religious issues in secularly based psychotherapy. Counseling and Values, 44, 213-222.
Ghandi, M.K. (2001). Nonviolent restistance. London: Dover Publications.
Gorsuch, R.L., & Aleshire, D.(1974). Christian faith and ethnic prejudice: A review and interpretation of research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348-354.
Gould, S. J. (2002). Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York: Ballantine Books.
Haldemen, D.C. (2004). When sexual and religious orientation collide: Considerations in working with conflicted same-sex attracted male clients. Counseling Psychologist, 32, 691-715.
Harvey, P. (2000). An introduction to Buddhist ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hathaway, W.L., Scott, S.Y., & Garver, S.A. (2004). Assessing religious/spiritual functioning: A neglected domain in clinical practice? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 97-104.
Herek, G.M. (1987). Religious orientation and prejudice: A comparison of racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 33-44.
Hill, P.C., & Pargament, K.I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American Psychologist, 58, 64-74.
Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility towards homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6, 39-49.
Keller, R.R. (2000). Religious diversity in North America. In P. S. Richards & A.E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and religious diversity (pp. 27-55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
King, M.L. (1969). Why we can’t wait. New York: Signet.
King, P.E., & Boyatzis, C.J. (2004). Exploring adolescent spiritual and religious development: Current and future theoretical and empirical perspectives. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 2-6.
Kirkpatrick, L.A. (2005). Evolutionary psychology: An emerging new foundation for the psychology of religion. In R.F. Paloutizian & C.L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 101-119). New York: Guilford Press.
Marshall, P. (2000). Religious freedom in the world: A global report on freedom and persecution. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
McCullough, M.E. (1999). Research on religion-accommodative counseling: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 92-98.
Miller, W.R, & Delaney, H.D. (2005). Psychology as the science of human nature: Reflections and research directions. In W.R. Miller & H.D. Delaney, Eds., Judeo-Christian perspectives on psychology: Human nature, motivation and change (pp. 291-308). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Miller, W.R., & Thoresen, C.E. (2003). Spirituality, religion and health: An emerging research field. American Psychologist, 58, 24-35.
Rambo, L.R. (1993). Understanding religious conversion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Regan, C., Malony, H.N., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1980). Psychologists and religion: Professional factors and personal beliefs. Review of Religious Research, 21, 208-217.
Richards, P.S. & Bergin, A.E. (1997). A spiritual strategy for counseling and psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Richards, P.S. & Bergin, A.E. (2000). Toward religious and spiritual competency for mental health professionals. In P. S. Richards & A.E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and religious diversity (pp. 3-26). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rodriguez, E.M., & Ouellete, S.C. (2000). Gay and lesbian Christians: Homosexual and religious identity integration in the members of a gay-positive church. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39, 333-347.
Shafranske, E.P. (1996). Introduction: Foundation for the consideration of religion in the clinical practice of psychology. In E.P. Shafranske, (Ed.), Religion in the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 1-17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Silberman, I. (2005). Religious violence, terrorism, and peace: A meaning-system analysis. In R.F. Paloutizian & C.L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 529-549). New York: Guilford Press.
Spilka, B., Hood, R.W., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R.L. (2003). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (3rd ed.) New York: Guilford Press.
Stark, R. (2003). For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
U.S. Committee for Refugees (2004). World Refugee Survey 2004. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of State (2004). Annual report on international religious freedom. Washington, DC: Author.
Van Leeuwen, M.S. (1982). The sorcerer’s apprentice: A Christian looks at the changing face of psychology. Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.
Watson, P.J., Sawyer, P., Morris, R.J., Carpenter, M.I., Jemenez, R.S., Jonas, K.A., & Robinson, D.L. (2003). Reanalysis within a Christian ideological surround: Relationships of intrinsic religious orientation with fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31, 315-328.
Weaver, A.J., Kline, A.E., Samford, J.A., Lucas, L.A., Larson, D.B., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1998). Is religion taboo in psychology? A systematic analysis of research on religion in seven major American Psychological Association journals: 1991-1994. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 17, 220-232.
Worthington, E.L. & Sandage, S.J. (2001). Religion and spirituality. Psychotherapy, 38, 473-478.
Yakovlev, A.N. (2004). A century of violence in Soviet Russia. (A. Austin, translator). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hardwired for belief?
Neural correlates of religious experience
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...=neural basis of religious experience&f=false
The Limbic System and the Soul: Evolution and the Neuroanatomy of Religious Experience
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0591-2385.00343/abstract
Investigation of mindfulness meditation practitioners with voxel-based morphometry
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/1/55.short
Is our brain hardwired to produce God, or is our brain hardwired to perceive God? A systematic review on the role of the brain in mediating religious experience
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-009-0261-3
The role of the medial prefrontal cortex in human religious activity
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(03)00377-3/abstract?cc=y
Neural correlates of religious experience
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...=neural basis of religious experience&f=false
The Limbic System and the Soul: Evolution and the Neuroanatomy of Religious Experience
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0591-2385.00343/abstract
Investigation of mindfulness meditation practitioners with voxel-based morphometry
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/1/55.short
Is our brain hardwired to produce God, or is our brain hardwired to perceive God? A systematic review on the role of the brain in mediating religious experience
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-009-0261-3
The role of the medial prefrontal cortex in human religious activity
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(03)00377-3/abstract?cc=y
Attachments
If you really believe that crap, you are even dumber than I originally thought. Mind numbing. Have you ever had an original thought? Or is it just "bible says this", and "the bible says that", therefore it must be true. The garden of Eden, Adam & Eve, the snake and the apple and all that crapola. You actually believe that rubbish? They are stories, not meant to be taken literally, but that escapes you.
Albert Einstein wrote a letter in which he dismissed belief in God as superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.Primitive. That's what you are.
Yes, all of "us" have been duped. If only we had your insight!
One thing that can't be debated: you certainly are full of yourself.
Said the self appointed intellectual who has a problem communicating in intelligible English.
"Statistics" you say?
This is what one brilliant man had to say about statistics:
“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
― Benjamin Disraeli
More quotes about statistics:
“If your experiment needs a statistician, you need a better experiment.”
― Ernest Rutherford
“99 percent of all statistics only tell 49 percent of the story.”
― Ron DeLegge II
“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.”
― Mark Twain
“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
― Joseph Stalin
Oh, yes, that must be it. I "learned" the word "diatribe" from you. If not for one of your posts that I probably didn't bother reading, I learned the word "diatribe". I never would have known about it if not for you. You really are full of yourself. The reason why escapes me.
"Diatribe is a big word? Maybe to you.
The reason there is poverty is religion. The two biggest religions have been breeding out of control, hence: overpopulation, leading directly to poverty. Birth control is forbidden to Catholics, and Muslims are waging the war of the womb, with the stated intention of overwhelming the world and ridding it of "infidels".
Christian "occultists".
By the way, you seem to think that by posting innumerable snippets of information that you interpret as truth is some sort of proof.
Yet, for every link you post, I could post a link to an opposing opinion.
Means nothing. But would be remarkably tedious and boring. Not going to go there. You may have nothing better to do, but I do.
One thing is perfectly clear: you are angry, and way full of yourself. You take it personally, and absolutely MUST be "right".
- Status
