New Theist

A new breed of theist is emerging in nearly every denomination and religion across the globe, and many of us are grateful to the New Atheists for calling us out of the closet. New Theists are not believers; we’re evidentialists. We value scientific, historic, and cross-cultural evidence over ancient texts, religious dogma, or ecclesiastical authority. We also value how an evidential worldview enriches and deepens our communion with God (Reality/Life/Universe/Wholeness/Great Mystery). New Theists are not supernaturalists; we’re naturalists. We are inspired and motivated more by this world and this life than by promises of a future otherworld or afterlife. This does not, however, mean that we diss uplifting or transcendent experiences, or disvalue mystery. We don’t. But neither do we see the mystical as divorced from the natural. As secular Jews differ from fundamentalist Jews, New Theists differ from traditional theists. While most of us value traditional religious language and rituals, and we certainly value community, we no longer interpret literally any of the otherworldly or supernatural-sounding language in our scriptures, creeds, and doctrines. Indeed, we interpret all mythic “night language” as one would interpret a dream: metaphorically, symbolically. New Theists practice what might be called a “practical spirituality.” Indeed, spirituality for us mostly means the mindset, heart-space, and tools that assist us in growing in right relationship to reality and supporting others in doing the same. New Theists are legion; we are diverse. Many of us continue to call ourselves Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Hindu. We may also self-identify as emergentist, evidentialist, freethinker, neo-humanist, pantheist, panentheist, or some other label. New Theists don’t believe in God. We know that throughout human history the word “God” has always and everywhere been a meaning-filled interpretation, a mythic and inspiring personification of forces and realities incomprehensible in a pre-scientific age. We also know that interpretations and personifications don’t exist or fail to exist. Rather, they are more or less helpful, more or less meaningful, more or less inspiring. New Theists view religion and religious language through an empirical, evidential, evolutionary lens, rather than through a theological or philosophical one. Indeed, an ability to distinguish subjective and objective reality—practical truth (that which reliably produces personal wholeness and social coherence) from factual truth (that which is measurably real) is one of the defining characteristics of New Theists. New Theists are religious naturalists. We do not have a creed (we’re not that organized), but if we did, it might simply be this… Reality is our God, evidence is our scripture, integrity is our religion, and ensuring a healthy future for the entire body of life is our mission. By “reality is our God” we mean that honoring and working with what is real, as evidentially and collectively discerned, and creatively imagining what could be in light of this, is our ultimate concern and commitment. By “evidence is our scripture” we mean that scientific, historic, and cross-cultural evidence provide a better understanding and a more authoritative map of how things are and which things matter (or what’s real and what’s important) than do ancient mythic writings or handed-down wisdom. By “integrity is our religion” we mean that living in right relationship to reality and helping others and our species do the same is our great responsibility and joy. By “ensuring a healthy future for the entire body of life is our mission” we mean that working with people of all backgrounds and beliefs in service of a vibrant future for planet Earth and all its gloriously diverse species (including Homo sapiens) is our divine calling and privilege. Why call ourselves “theists” at all if we’re not supernatural, otherworldly believers? Simply this… All theological “isms” (e.g., theism, deism, pantheism, atheism) came into being long before we had an evolutionary understanding of emergence. Therefore, all such concepts are outdated, misleading, and unnecessarily divisive if they are not redefined and reinterpreted in an evolutionary context. Other terms that have been offered, in addition to “New Theist,” include “evolutionary theist,” “naturalistic theist,” “evolutionary humanist,” “religious humanist,” “post-theist,” “mytheist,” and “creatheist” (pronounced variously, and humorously, as “crea-theist” or “cree-atheist”). Labels are far less important to us than celebrating the fact that we are naturalists who wish to be counted among the religious of the world—no less than all others who are devoted to something sacred and larger than themselves. Whatever our differences, we are evidentialists, committed to living upstanding moral lives in service of a just and thriving future for humanity and the larger body of life. We see this as Religion 2.0.

Final Exam project 2012-13 Second semester

Final Exam 2012-2013 Second Semester Final Exam, SO 101, Film Analysis 1. This is your final semester exam. The weight of this work is 50 points. 2. You are to group yourselves into 3 person per group. You can do an individual work or in tandem. 3. You are to select a film of your choice (to be approved by your teacher) in which you are going to analyze the film and using sociological terms that you have understood in our lesson. 4. A minimum of 30 sociological terms will be used in your film analysis. 5. Parts of your work: A - Title Page which contains the groups member's names, section and schedule. B - One page summary of the film. C - Film Analysis. Written essay tackling the film's theme, the problem or conflict involved or how it was resolved. D - Individual reflection of the members on how it is working with your group mates. E - Trivia of the film. F - Expenses in coming out with the production of the film analysis. 6. You can select any English or Tagalog film available at the market. The CD will be submitted with the film analysis and will not be returned. Thus purchase a CD that is affordable. 7. Deadline of the film analysis will be TTh -... , WF ... will be announced. 8. Ask for the model of the film analysis from your teacher. It is available for you to view. On our regular meeting, I will be needing at least 3 suggested titles that you wanted to analyze. Please submit the list in our class. Draft work will be shown: 5 & 6 March. Video on culture: 25 pts. Flag re-conceptualize 25 pts. Final film analysis: 50 pt.

Globalize This

The jobs are now being done for lower wages. This is, after all, the main reason manufacturing has moved to the third world; to take advantage of lower wages. This lowers costs, enough to pay for relocation and even added shipping costs. Efficient, right?

Digital ethnography, how does it affect you?

Digital ethnography and a new world. Click on the link. http://www.youtube.com/user/mwesch?feature=results_main

RH Bill and Case against academic education? Assignment

Read the article written by Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ and view the Case against academic education found in this blog spot. Discuss the paper and the video with your group members comprising of 4 members. If you agree with some of the ideas presented, write why you agree with it. If you do not agree with some of the ideas presented, write why you do not agree. Not exceeding 3 pages. Same format. Deadline: TTh, 30 Aug. WF, 31 Aug. Submit to your section paper collector for signing. Do not forget to indicate the date, your section and your class schedule. Thus, you are going to submit two group work.

RH bill a view from a religious

RH bill: Don’t burn the house to roast a pig By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J. Philippine Daily Inquirer 12:51 am | Monday, August 6th, 2012 6975 6103 A little over a year ago, or on May 22, 2011 to be exact, I wrote an article for the Inquirer titled “My stand on the RH bill.” With the vote on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill approaching, people have asked me whether my stand on the bill has changed. Let me restate the salient points I made then. First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. I know that some people consider me a heretic and that at the very least I should leave the priesthood. But my superiors still stand by me. Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception, which is very much at the center of the controversy. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief, nor may churchmen pressure President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church says: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community (like the Catholic Church) might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups”; and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” Third, the obligation to respect freedom of religion is also applicable to the state. Thus, I advocate careful recasting of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, in addition to the free exercise of religion, there is the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12) Fourth, the duty to care for sexual and reproductive health of employees should be approached in a balanced way so that both the freedom of religion of employers and the welfare of workers will be attended to. In this regard it may be necessary to reformulate the provisions already found in the Labor Code. Fifth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Thus, for instance, it may be legitimately spent for making available reproductive materials that are not abortifacient. Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution. Sixth, we should be careful not to distort what the RH bill says. The RH bill does not favor abortion. The bill clearly prohibits abortion as an assault against the right to life. Seventh, in addition, I hold that abortifacient pills and devices should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. However, determining which of the pills in the market are abortifacient is something for the judicial process to determine with the aid of science experts. Our Supreme Court has already upheld the banning of at least one device found to be abortifacient. Eighth, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible. Ninth, I claim no competence to debate about demographics. Tenth, I have never held that the RH bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. I hold that the approval of the RH bill today will not end all debate about it. It will only shift the arena for debate from the raucous and noisy rally fields to the more sober judicial arena where reason has a better chance of prevailing. Finally, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles which are desperately needed especially by poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved even if we must litigate later about those which we disagree on. In other words, let us not burn the house just to roast a pig.

Case against academic education?