An article appeared in Seed Magazine, discussing the link between spirituality and health.
A Handbook on Religion and Health has been published, reviewing the 1200 studies on the subject. According to co-author Koenig "When you measure religious beliefs, you find that they're related to better mental health, better coping and greater life satisfaction."
Lynda Powell, whose study observed a 25% reduction in risk of mortality in religious service attendees, admitted "We understand that there's an effect but we don't understand why the effect exists." Conducting further research on the daily practices of people of various religous backgrounds, she now suggests that "becoming mature spiritually is akin to being very effective at coping with stress".
Meanwhile, medical schools train doctors to take a detailed spiritual history without imposing their own beliefs on patients, said Koenig. "Doctors are coming out a lot more well-rounded and able to address these issues, and can realize the power that religious faith can have in terms of healing and sometimes in terms of disease, also." Physicians shouldn't proselytize to patients, but connect them with a spiritual care expert if they have any spiritual needs, he added.
5.4.06
29.3.06
Against the Odds
My interest was piqued by an article titled God by the Numbers where Charles White discusses some fairly large numbers and some fairly abstract ones.
He discusses the probability of the universe occuring through pure chance; 1 in 1010123 according to Beckenstein and Hawking.
In biology, he alludes to the Dembksi hypothesis, which suggests that for a one-celled organism to have enough time to evolve into a human being (at least one trillion cells) the universe would have to be 10162 times older than it is.
Then, in theoretical maths he explores the connection between e, pi and i - which is purely baffling. The serendipity of it caused one mathematics professor (an atheist) to write on the blackboard "There is no God, but if there were, this formula would be proof of his existence."
I'm not so sure that numbers or formulas can prove that, but these discoveries do tend to suggest that there is something else going on, that we don't yet fully understand.
To quote the subtitle from the article "Coincidence and random mutation are not the most likely explanations for some things."
He discusses the probability of the universe occuring through pure chance; 1 in 1010123 according to Beckenstein and Hawking.
In biology, he alludes to the Dembksi hypothesis, which suggests that for a one-celled organism to have enough time to evolve into a human being (at least one trillion cells) the universe would have to be 10162 times older than it is.
Then, in theoretical maths he explores the connection between e, pi and i - which is purely baffling. The serendipity of it caused one mathematics professor (an atheist) to write on the blackboard "There is no God, but if there were, this formula would be proof of his existence."
I'm not so sure that numbers or formulas can prove that, but these discoveries do tend to suggest that there is something else going on, that we don't yet fully understand.
To quote the subtitle from the article "Coincidence and random mutation are not the most likely explanations for some things."
14.2.06
No threat
I was unusually impressed with an article i read today about the Pope. In acknowledging the rapid progress of science he noted that
"science and religion are not opposed to each other and Christians should not be afraid to try to understand how they compliment each other in explaining the mystery of life on Earth."The pope hopes that science can help people see "the logic of faith in God" and remarked that the church should not science because God is "the Lord of all creation and all history".
24.1.06
When 1 plus 2 does not equal 3
When i started this blog i thought it best not to open the pandora's box of evolution, intelligent deign, creation etc. Google tells me there are already 227 million web pages that mention evolution, and i doubt that i have anything new to add. However, recently i attended a seminar by Ross McKenzie, in which he noted the following.
Distinctions about evolution:
1. Microevolution (Small changes occur over time within a species. Directly observable in the lab.)
2. Macroevolution (New species arise over long periods of time. Cannot be observed directly, but substantial indirect evidence.)
3. Philosophical Darwinism (Life arose as an accident and has no purpose.)
He points out that scientific validity of 1 or 2 does not imply that 3 is valid. Some scientists (who see human life as nothing more than replicating DNA) propose that there is a logical progression. Up-tight christians (that don't really understand science) say that because 3 is not true, therefore 1 and 2 can't be true. Hence the apparent conflict between "science" and "religion".
I think it's important that we remember that (as wonderful as science is) it is not philosophy. Science cannot explain the purpose or meaning of things, and definitely cannot tell us what is ethical, of value, or just. When Professor Peter Doherty (Nobel Prize winner) was interviewed last year, he said it continued to surprise him that there remained "a lot of confusion" about science and religion. In his words:
Distinctions about evolution:
1. Microevolution (Small changes occur over time within a species. Directly observable in the lab.)
2. Macroevolution (New species arise over long periods of time. Cannot be observed directly, but substantial indirect evidence.)
3. Philosophical Darwinism (Life arose as an accident and has no purpose.)
He points out that scientific validity of 1 or 2 does not imply that 3 is valid. Some scientists (who see human life as nothing more than replicating DNA) propose that there is a logical progression. Up-tight christians (that don't really understand science) say that because 3 is not true, therefore 1 and 2 can't be true. Hence the apparent conflict between "science" and "religion".
I think it's important that we remember that (as wonderful as science is) it is not philosophy. Science cannot explain the purpose or meaning of things, and definitely cannot tell us what is ethical, of value, or just. When Professor Peter Doherty (Nobel Prize winner) was interviewed last year, he said it continued to surprise him that there remained "a lot of confusion" about science and religion. In his words:
Scientists can be very arrogant, and religious people don't often get what science is. But being a committed Christian and being a scientist is not mutually exclusive.
10.8.05
Who is Blaise Pascal?
Does anyone remember Blaise Pascal?
He was the French mathematican/physicist who, despite many mathematical discoveries, is probably most remembered for his work involving the pressure exerted by liquids and gases. In fact, the unit of Pressure - the Pascal (Pa) - is named after this man.
Anyway i was reading the other day that Pascal was quoted as saying "There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus". I didn't think too much about it at the time.
Then, today i was reading an article on climate change. Interesting, the consequences of society's response (or lack thereof) to the issue of climate change was compared to our response to God - as described by Pascal. The analysis offered by Pascal was referred to as 'Pascal's wager' and was described in the article as follows:
"Believe in God though he does not exist, Pascal argued, and you lose nothing in the end. Fail to believe when he does in fact exist, and you lose everything."
------------------------------
PS. In researching the first quote, to make sure i remembered it correctly, i discovered a website of quotes which contains many other quotes of Pascal. The address for Pascal's quotes is http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/blaise_pascal/
He was the French mathematican/physicist who, despite many mathematical discoveries, is probably most remembered for his work involving the pressure exerted by liquids and gases. In fact, the unit of Pressure - the Pascal (Pa) - is named after this man.
Anyway i was reading the other day that Pascal was quoted as saying "There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus". I didn't think too much about it at the time.
Then, today i was reading an article on climate change. Interesting, the consequences of society's response (or lack thereof) to the issue of climate change was compared to our response to God - as described by Pascal. The analysis offered by Pascal was referred to as 'Pascal's wager' and was described in the article as follows:
"Believe in God though he does not exist, Pascal argued, and you lose nothing in the end. Fail to believe when he does in fact exist, and you lose everything."
------------------------------
PS. In researching the first quote, to make sure i remembered it correctly, i discovered a website of quotes which contains many other quotes of Pascal. The address for Pascal's quotes is http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/blaise_pascal/
21.7.05
Ressurection stats
I read today that a Professor Swinburne presented a series of calculations by which he proposes that there is a 97% chance that the resurrection of Jesus took place. Obviously, there are underlying assumptions involved in that calculation, but i found it interesting.
There is an article (and more info) at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/apologia-puts-faith-in-lap-of-the-odds/2005/07/18/1121538922281.html
There is an article (and more info) at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/apologia-puts-faith-in-lap-of-the-odds/2005/07/18/1121538922281.html
Purpose of this blog
A great deal is made of the alledged rift between the "religion" and "science". Aside from the number of scientists who are Christians, there are also quite a few incidents that occur from time to time, where science - far from being the enemy of God - actually pays homage to his existence, and encourages one to seek to discover more about the most mind-boggling of phenomena - a God that is so magnificent and wondrous - yet loves us (the tiny insignificant creatures that we are) in way that is immeasurable - both in magnitude and durability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)