Modern Hymn Writers Aim To Take Back Sunday – NPR

Modern Hymn Writers Aim To Take Back Sunday – NPR

Modern Hymn Writers Aim To Take Back Sunday – NPR

by  —  July 08, 2013 3:28 PM

Modern hymn writers Kristyn and Keith Getty run through their song "In Christ Alone" at their home near Nashville's Music Row.

Modern hymn writers Kristyn and Keith Getty run through their song “In Christ Alone” at their home near Nashville’s Music Row.

Courtesy of Stephen Jerkins

There was a time when hymns were used primarily to drive home the message that came from the pulpit. But then came the praise songs.

Matt Redman’s song “Our God” is the most popular piece of music in Christian churches today. That’s according to charts that track congregational singing — yes, there is such a thing. But approaching the Top 10 is a retro hymn: “In Christ Alone,” co-written by Keith Getty.

Keith’s wife, Kristyn, sings the hymn, while he plays the piano in their home near Nashville’s Music Row. The couple came to town to write songs not for individual artists, but for what Keith Getty calls “the congregation.”

“Our goal is to write songs that teach the faith, where the congregation is the main thing, and everybody accompanies that,” he says.

================================================

Read more at the link  — http://www.npr.org/2013/07/08/200013769/modern-hymn-writers-aim-to-take-back-sunday

The Cowbell Curmudgeon (a Conundrum)

Whose child is this?

Twisted Running's avatartwisted running

So, today I got to cheer for some of the 60,000 runners who undertook a wet, soggy Peachtree Road Race. I was supposed to run, but am trying not to aggravate a slow-to-heal injury from Ragnar Chicago. I was very responsible and decided to forego the race and serve as chauffeur/cheerleader for my husband, sister, brother-in-law, and friends.

So that is how I ended up outside the Flying Biscuit in midtown at 7:30 this morning, ready to cheer on runners at the busiest corner of the race. The intersection of Piedmont and 10th streets is just .2 miles from the finish, on the middle of an uphill push to the end. Also, it allows easy access to, you know, biscuits. And coffee. I was all coffeed up, outside and ready to cheer by the time the elite women went by.

I was alone, but I had brought my trusty cowbell…

View original post 551 more words

We are the Chicago Sun-Times photography department

We are the Chicago Sun-Times photography department

We are the Chicago Sun-Times photography department

After the Chicago Sun-Times laid off its entire photography department, CNN commissioned former staffer Brian Powers to shoot this series of portraits of his colleagues holding something meaningful from their careers. Several of the photographers said they feel like they lost more than just a job.

Praying Atheists – Washington Post

Praying Atheists – Washington Post

Praying Atheists – Washington Post

By  — 24 June 2013

Some excerpts:

New research on atheists by the Pew Research Center shows a range of beliefs. Eighteen percent of atheists say religion has some importance in their life, 26 percent say they are spiritual or religious and 14 percent believe in “God or a universal spirit.” Of all Americans who say they don’t believe in God — not all call themselves “atheists” — 12 percent say they pray.

………….

Atheists deny religion’s claim of a supernatural god but are starting to look more closely at the “very real effect” that practices such as going to church, prayer and observance of a Sabbath have on the lives of the religious, said Paul Fidalgo, a spokesman for the secular advocacy group the Center for Inquiry. “That’s a big hole in atheist life,” he said. “Some atheists are saying, ‘Let’s fill it.’ Others are saying, ‘Let’s not.’ ”

…..

Gordon Melton, a historian of new American religions, said that it’s only been in the past decade that atheists have become organized and the range of their views has therefore become more known. Sociologists have also just begun asking more complex questions about faith to a wider range of respondents.

Can you be a lady without being modest?

Read this!

Chelsea's avatarmorelikemomma

I saw a girl over my lunch break the other day that was wearing a teeny-tiny little dress.  It was a strapless dress that she kept tugging to stay up, and it barely covered her bottom when she sat down.  With summer upon us, I think it is an excellent time to talk about modesty.  Last summer I was at a baseball game on the 4th of July in Kansas City and it was HOT.  It was so hot and humid and miserable that I wanted to strip down to my underwear and run through a sprinkler.  But I do know even though it is difficult and takes effort, it is possible to dress modestly even on the hottest days.

shortswhite dressgreen dresscutoffs

(striped top from shabby apple, white dress from etsy, green dress from shabby apple vest outfit from a pretty penny)

“But I tell you that anyone…

View original post 797 more words

Move to part-time profs provokes possible censure – chicagotribune.com

Move to part-time profs provokes possible censure – chicagotribune.com

National Louis’ move to part-time profs provokes possible censure – 

chicagotribune.com

By Ron Grossman, Chicago Tribune reporter  —  June 13, 2013

Paul Gross shared his love of biology with students at National Louis University for 18 years and, like most academics with tenure, figured he was guaranteed a job for life.

But on April 16, 2012, he was disabused of that notion by an administrator who told him he was out of a job at the end of the semester and could come back only as a part-time teacher. He did, teaching one course a term for $1,440.

Gross’ abrupt tumble down the academic ladder has become an increasingly common story as colleges and universities across the country increasingly rely on less expensive, part-time faculty, said Anita Levy, a senior staff member at the American Association of University Professors. “It’s not a trend, but a fact.”

While adjuncts now do most of the teaching on all campuses, Chicago-based National Louis slashed its full-time staff so severely that an AAUP committee recommended the school’s administration be censured for violating the academic freedom of Gross and 15 other tenured professors.

The professors were among 63 full-time faculty dismissed in 2012 by National Louis, long known as a teachers college although it started as a business college in 1989. Over a two-year period, the university cut its full-time faculty in half.

National Louis President Nivine Megahed said the decision to jettison full-time faculty was necessary because of a nose dive in enrollment that put the school in financial peril. She predicted that other college presidents will confront the same tough choice.

“Either there will be a lot more censures or a lot more universities will close their doors,” said Megahed, who became president in 2010, just as the university was experiencing a steep decline in enrollments and tuition income.

The recommendation for censure is expected to be ratified during the AAUP’s annual meeting Saturday.

There are about 40 schools on AAUP’s censure list, and complaints to the organization based on this shift to adjuncts have been on the rise. Censure by the AAUP carries with it no legal penalty, but is a strike against a university’s reputation: Job applicants might look elsewhere; students could worry that it casts a shadow over their credentials.

Levy said schools often cooperate with her organization by taking measures to get their censure lifted.

Tenure, the other academic issue in this case, is widely seen as a vital protection of freedom of inquiry. Without it, professors might be tempted to pull their scholarly punches for fear of offending administrators or trustees and losing their jobs. Still, even tenured faculty can be fired in a few, specific situations.

Gross was told his discharge was because the biology department was being abolished and, with it, the courses he taught. The AAUP investigators rejected that claim, since science courses continued to be listed in the school’s catalog. Indeed, he was invited to teach one — as an adjunct.

“The replacement of a tenured faculty member with adjunct or nontenured faculty to teach the same or similar courses seems to us to be a clear violation of tenure,” the AAUP reported.

The drastic cuts Megahed said were necessary to balance National Louis’ books cost Gross and the other professors dearly. His salary and benefits as a full-time professor totaled $75,000 a year. In addition to a deep cut in pay, there was a psychological blow to his drop in status.

Biology wasn’t just a way to earn a living for Gross but a passion, as witnessed by his modest suburban home. Inside and out, it reflects the great two divisions of his field: botany and zoology.

The lawn and backyard are planted in tall prairie grass. He and his wife share the family room with a dog named Willie Bear and a parrot named Olive. In the soft-spoken but authoritative voice Gross brought to the classroom, he explains how the bird will “regurgitate into (the dog’s) mouth, just like a mother bird feeding her young.”

Gross’ story can be read as a cautionary tale by families about to send a child off to college. Today, two-thirds of college instructors are not professors, but adjuncts. Add in lecturers and others on year-to-year contracts and the numbers of “contingent,” or nonpermanent, faculty rise to about 75 percent, according to Levy. At Chicago’s DePaul University, part-time instructors make up 64 percent of the faculty, for example.

College days for students used to involve not just listening to lectures but after-class contact with faculty over coffee. That informal dimension of higher education becomes more rare with adjunct teachers, who often hop from campus to campus to cobble together even a modest income.

“We call them Roads Scholars,” said Tom Anderson, an adjunct professor in Michigan who is vice president of two union locals that represent nontenured faculty.

Adjuncts are often assigned a course on the eve of a semester. Courses they teach are attributed to “staff.” The situation was satirically referred to in the title of a 2012 study released by the Center for the Future of Higher Education: “Who is ‘Professor Staff’ and How Can This Person Teach So Many Classes?”

The shift to more part-time teachers comes even as tuition has soared. Debra Humphreys, a vice president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, reports a paradoxical relationship between tuition inflation and the increasing dependence on adjuncts: Even as colleges hire more adjuncts, the savings never seem to catch up to the increasing cost of running a campus.

The average undergraduate student at National Louis, long known for training teachers, pays a full-time tuition rate of $16,000 per year, a figure that takes into account scholarships and discounts, a university spokeswoman said. Average graduate program tuition ranges from $14,000 to $30,000

Megahed sees National Louis’ belt-tightening measures, and the risks she took implementing them, as in the university’s tradition of being an educational innovator.

The school was founded in 1886 to train kindergarten teachers by Elizabeth Harrison, a pioneering advocate for what is now called early childhood education. In 1930, when after several name changes it became the National College of Education, it established the first four-year teacher-training program in Illinois.

In 1990 it was renamed National Louis University in honor of a major donor, Michael Louis, whose generosity had enabled it to add degree programs in the humanities, the social sciences, the fine arts and a business school.

Fully accredited (its accreditation is being renewed during its current crisis), National Louis got a larger footprint on the national scene by establishing satellite campuses in Florida, Wisconsin and various locations in Illinois over the past 25 years. Its original campus in Evanston has been transplanted to Skokie.

In 2011, on the eve of the cutbacks, it had about 10,000 students. Most were part-timers, many who’d had a smattering of courses earlier at other colleges. When the American economy took a hit, so to did National Louis’ enrollment — a major disaster for a school that mostly turns out teachers instead of corporate executives whose donations can grow a university’s endowment.

“We went over a waterfall,” Megahed said. “Enrollment dropped 40 percent in five years.”

By 2012, when the AAUP’s investigation began after an appeal from some of the fired faculty members, Megahed said she and other administrators were working “24-7” trying to keep the university afloat.

She doesn’t dispute the AAUP’s charge that she refused to cooperate with their investigators, saying it wasn’t a priority, given all the problems she confronted. She was willing to roll the dice by declining the university’s best shot at justifying the dismissal of tenured faculty.

According to the AAUP’s guidelines, a university can dismiss tenured professors when confronting a financial exigency — a claim she didn’t make.

“The AAUP’s censure is less damaging than proclaiming a financial exigency,” Megahed explained. “That could cause lenders to call in our loans.”

She said other university presidents have congratulated her for getting the school through its financial crisis, which she takes as a sign that National Louis’ reorganization will be a model for others to follow, notwithstanding the pain it produced.

“2012 was the worst year of my career,” she said.

Yet it also was painful for those whose careers were ended and aren’t likely to find a silver lining. Among them is Ofra Peled, who as the head of biology was Gross’ superior.

When it was announced that cutbacks were in the offing, she figured she’d be the one who would be forced to tell a member of her three-person department they no longer had a job. It was a decision she dreaded.

“I was saved from having to make it,” Peled said. “They fired me, along with the other two.”

rgrossman@tribune.com

 Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-national-louis-university-adjuncts-20130613,0,4525416,print.story

The Atlantic: Listening to Young Atheists – Lessons for a Stronger Christianity

The Atlantic: Listening to Young Atheists – Lessons for a Stronger Christianity

Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity – The Atlantic Online

When a Christian foundation interviewed college nonbelievers about how and why they left religion, surprising themes emerged.
 JUNE 6 2013, 8:07 AM ET

whitefieldhumeban.jpg

Left, the pastor George Whitefield; right, the philosopher David Hume (Wikimedia Commons)

“Church became all about ceremony, handholding, and kumbaya,” Phil said with a look of disgust. “I missed my old youth pastor. He actually knew the Bible.”

I have known a lot of atheists. The late Christopher Hitchens was a friend with whom I debated, road tripped, and even had a lengthy private Bible study. I have moderated Richard Dawkins and, on occasion, clashed with him. And I have listened for hours to the (often unsettling) arguments of Peter Singer and a whole host of others like him. These men are some of the public faces of the so-called “New Atheism,” and when Christians think about the subject — if they think about it at all — it is this sort of atheist who comes to mind: men whose unbelief is, as Dawkins once proudly put it, “militant.” But Phil, the atheist college student who had come to my office to share his story, was of an altogether different sort.

Phil was in my office as part of a project that began last year. Over the course of my career, I have met many students like Phil. It has been my privilege to address college students all over the world, usually as one defending the Christian worldview. These events typically attract large numbers of atheists. I like that. I find talking to people who disagree with me much more stimulating than those gatherings that feel a bit too much like a political party convention, and the exchanges with these students are mostly thoughtful and respectful. At some point, I like to ask them a sincere question:

What led you to become an atheist?

Given that the New Atheism fashions itself as a movement that is ruthlessly scientific, it should come as no surprise that those answering my question usually attribute the decision to the purely rational and objective: one invokes his understanding of science; another says it was her exploration of the claims of this or that religion; and still others will say that religious beliefs are illogical, and so on. To hear them tell it, the choice was made from a philosophically neutral position that was void of emotion.

Christianity, when it is taken seriously, compels its adherents to engage the world, not retreat from it. There are a multitude of reasons for this mandate, ranging from care for the poor, orphaned, and widowed to offering hope to the hopeless. This means that Christians must be willing to listen to other perspectives while testing their own beliefs against them — above all, as the apostle Peter tells us, “with gentleness and respect.” The non-profit I direct, Fixed Point Foundation, endeavors to bridge the gaps between various factions (both religious and irreligious) as gently and respectfully as possible. Atheists particularly fascinate me. Perhaps it’s because I consider their philosophy — if the absence of belief may be called a philosophy — historically naive and potentially dangerous. Or maybe it’s because they, like any good Christian, take the Big Questions seriously. But it was how they processed those questions that intrigued me.

To gain some insight, we launched a nationwide campaign to interview college students who are members of Secular Student Alliances (SSA) or Freethought Societies (FS). These college groups are the atheist equivalents to Campus Crusade: They meet regularly for fellowship, encourage one another in their (un)belief, and even proselytize. They are people who are not merely irreligious; they are actively, determinedly irreligious.

Using the Fixed Point Foundation website, email, my Twitter, and my Facebook page, we contacted the leaders of these groups and asked if they and their fellow members would participate in our study. To our surprise, we received a flood of enquiries. Students ranging from Stanford University to the University of Alabama-Birmingham, from Northwestern to Portland State volunteered to talk to us. The rules were simple: Tell us your journey to unbelief. It was not our purpose to dispute their stories or to debate the merits of their views. Not then, anyway. We just wanted to listen to what they had to say. And what they had to say startled us.

This brings me back to Phil.

A smart, likable young man, he sat down nervously as my staff put a plate of food before him. Like others after him, he suspected a trap. Was he being punk’d? Talking to us required courage of all of these students, Phil most of all since he was the first to do so. Once he realized, however, that we truly meant him no harm, he started talking — and for three hours we listened.

Now the president of his campus’s SSA, Phil was once the president of his Methodist church’s youth group. He loved his church (“they weren’t just going through the motions”), his pastor (“a rock star trapped in a pastor’s body”), and, most of all, his youth leader, Jim (“a passionate man”). Jim’s Bible studies were particularly meaningful to him. He admired the fact that Jim didn’t dodge the tough chapters or the tough questions: “He didn’t always have satisfying answers or answers at all, but he didn’t run away from the questions either. The way he taught the Bible made me feel smart.”

Listening to his story I had to remind myself that Phil was an atheist, not a seminary student recalling those who had inspired him to enter the pastorate. As the narrative developed, however, it became clear where things came apart for Phil. During his junior year of high school, the church, in an effort to attract more young people, wanted Jim to teach less and play more. Difference of opinion over this new strategy led to Jim’s dismissal. He was replaced by Savannah, an attractive twenty-something who, according to Phil, “didn’t know a thing about the Bible.” The church got what it wanted: the youth group grew. But it lost Phil.

An hour deeper into our conversation I asked, “When did you begin to think of yourself as an atheist?”  He thought for a moment. “I would say by the end of my junior year.”  I checked my notes. “Wasn’t that about the time that your church fired Jim?”  He seemed surprised by the connection. “Yeah, I guess it was.”

Phil’s story, while unique in its parts, was on the whole typical of the stories we would hear from students across the country. Slowly, a composite sketch of American college-aged atheists began to emerge and it would challenge all that we thought we knew about this demographic. Here is what we learned:

They had attended church

Most of our participants had not chosen their worldview from ideologically neutral positions at all, but in reaction to Christianity. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. Christianity.

The mission and message of their churches was vague

These students heard plenty of messages encouraging “social justice,” community involvement, and “being good,” but they seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Listen to Stephanie, a student at Northwestern: “The connection between Jesus and a person’s life was not clear.” This is an incisive critique. She seems to have intuitively understood that the church does not exist simply to address social ills, but to proclaim the teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ, and their relevance to the world. Since Stephanie did not see that connection, she saw little incentive to stay. We would hear this again.

They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life’s difficult questions

When our participants were asked what they found unconvincing about the Christian faith, they spoke of evolution vs. creation, sexuality, the reliability of the biblical text, Jesus as the only way, etc. Some had gone to church hoping to find answers to these questions. Others hoped to find answers to questions of personal significance, purpose, and ethics. Serious-minded, they often concluded that church services were largely shallow, harmless, and ultimately irrelevant. As Ben, an engineering major at the University of Texas, so bluntly put it: “I really started to get bored with church.”

They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously

Following our 2010 debate in Billings, Montana, I asked Christopher Hitchens why he didn’t try to savage me on stage the way he had so many others. His reply was immediate and emphatic: “Because you believe it.” Without fail, our former church-attending students expressed similar feelings for those Christians who unashamedly embraced biblical teaching. Michael, a political science major at Dartmouth, told us that he is drawn to Christians like that, adding: “I really can’t consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn’t trying to convert me.” As surprising as it may seem, this sentiment is not as unusual as you might think. It finds resonance in the well-publicized comments of Penn Jillette, the atheist illusionist and comedian: “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward…. How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?” Comments like these should cause every Christian to examine his conscience to see if he truly believes that Jesus is, as he claimed, “the way, the truth, and the life.”

Ages 14-17 were decisive

One participant told us that she considered herself to be an atheist by the age of eight while another said that it was during his sophomore year of college that he de-converted, but these were the outliers. For most, the high school years were the time when they embraced unbelief.

The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one

With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons. But as we listened it became clear that, for most, this was a deeply emotional transition as well. This phenomenon was most powerfully exhibited in Meredith. She explained in detail how her study of anthropology had led her to atheism. When the conversation turned to her family, however, she spoke of an emotionally abusive father:

“It was when he died that I became an atheist,” she said.

I could see no obvious connection between her father’s death and her unbelief. Was it because she loved her abusive father — abused children often do love their parents — and she was angry with God for his death? “No,” Meredith explained. “I was terrified by the thought that he could still be alive somewhere.”

Rebecca, now a student at Clark University in Boston, bore similar childhood scars. When the state intervened and removed her from her home (her mother had attempted suicide), Rebecca prayed that God would let her return to her family. “He didn’t answer,” she said. “So I figured he must not be real.” After a moment’s reflection, she appended her remarks: “Either that, or maybe he is [real] and he’s just trying to teach me something.”

The internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism

When our participants were asked to cite key influences in their conversion to atheism–people, books, seminars, etc. — we expected to hear frequent references to the names of the “New Atheists.” We did not. Not once. Instead, we heard vague references to videos they had watched on YouTube or website forums.

***

Religion is a sensitive topic, and a study like this is bound to draw critics. To begin with, there is, of course, another side to this story. Some Christians will object that our study was tilted against churches because they were given no chance to defend themselves. They might justifiably ask to what extent these students really engaged with their Bibles, their churches, and the Christians around them. But that is beside the point. If churches are to reach this growing element of American collegiate life, they must first understand who these people are, and that means listening to them.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this whole study was the lasting impression many of these discussions made upon us.

That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable. I again quote Michael: “Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven’t seen too much of that.”

Sincerity does not trump truth. After all, one can be sincerely wrong. But sincerity is indispensable to any truth we wish others to believe. There is something winsome, even irresistible, about a life lived with conviction. I am reminded of the Scottish philosopher and skeptic, David Hume, who was recognized among a crowd of those listening to the preaching of George Whitefield, the famed evangelist of the First Great Awakening:

“I thought you didn’t believe in the Gospel,” someone asked.  “I do not,” Hume replied. Then, with a nod toward Whitefield, he added, “But he does.”

Gallup: Older Americans’ Moral Attitudes Changing

Gallup: Older Americans’ Moral Attitudes Changing

Older Americans’ Moral Attitudes Changing

Moral acceptance of teenage sex among the biggest generational divides

by Joy Wilke and Lydia Saad — June 3, 2013 

PRINCETON, NJ — Americans across the age spectrum are in broad agreement on the morality of a variety of societal issues, and older Americans’ views on several once taboo matters related to sexuality — such as premarital sex and gay relations — have significantly evolved. Nevertheless, young adults are far more accepting of two such matters — pornography and sexual relations — than older adults, possibly signifying an eventual cultural shift on these.

dmlqw1xvwe6802y6dvvsfw.png

These data are from Gallup’s 2013 Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 2-7. Gallup has tracked Americans’ views on the moral acceptability of 12 issues annually since 2001 and several others annually since 2002 or later. This is the first year the poll has measured public views on sex between teens.

As previously reported, Gallup’s trends show majority acceptance of two — having a baby outside of marriage and gay or lesbian relations — being reached in the past decade, while acceptance of others has increased over the same time from a smaller to larger majority.

For many of these items, moral acceptance has seen significant change across all age groups, with the largest changes in acceptance of certain issues among Americans aged 55 and older. This is particularly true in Americans’ attitudes toward gays and lesbians and having a baby outside of marriage, resulting in a shift from majority opposition to majority support over the past decade.

Other items — such as divorce, premarital sex, and embryonic stem cell research — have seen a slight increase in support among younger Americans and a dramatic increase among older Americans. Only on one issue — attitudes toward animal testing — has acceptance significantly declined, with the shift concentrated among those aged 18 to 34.

Older Americans’ Support for Gay Relations Up 25 Percentage Points Since 2001

Americans’ attitudes toward gay or lesbian relations have shown the greatest overall change over the course of Gallup’s tracking, with moral acceptance increasing 19 points between 2001 and 2013.

Much of this change has occurred across the age spectrum. Acceptance of gay or lesbian relations among Americans aged 55 and older is now 25 points higher than it was in 2001. While Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 have consistently reported support for gay and lesbian relations at higher levels than older age groups, their support has also risen by 22 points in the past 12 years.

fh1a_plr3umnlj38kqk7bg.png

Those Aged 55 and Older Now More Accepting of Having a Baby Outside of Marriage

The percentage of Americans who say it is morally acceptable to have a baby outside of marriage has risen markedly over the past decade, from 45% to 60%, with the majority threshold first crossed in 2003 and consistently staying at that level since 2005. Since 2002, acceptance is up 16 points among adults aged 18 to 34 years and up 28 points among those aged 55 and older.

0twlgc-4keic8yjdlxob_g.png

Overall Greater Acceptance of Premarital Sex Result of Older Americans Acceptance

Americans aged 55 and older are largely responsible for the overall 10-point increase in moral acceptance of sex between unmarried men and women since 2001, from 53% to 63%. Among this group, acceptance of premarital sex has increased by 22 points in 12 years, while these numbers have risen slightly among Americans younger than age 55.

6s-6dadbb0kp1mooadk0dw.png

Older Americans Also Driving Overall Increased Acceptance of Divorce

The overall change in Americans’ opinions on divorce is also largely a result of shifting views of those who are 55 and older. These Americans are now 21 points more likely to find divorce acceptable than they were in 2001. Meanwhile, attitudes toward divorce among those younger than age 55 have remained relatively flat.

-y91ktsgykq-bhu7lf7k7w.png

55+ Population Warms to Stem Cell Research

Much of the increase in moral acceptance of stem cell research has been driven by a change in the opinions of adults aged 55 and older. Acceptance among this older age group has risen by 20 points over the past 11 years. At the same time, support among Americans aged 35 to 54 has fallen off somewhat since its peak of 66% in 2005, but it remains about six points higher than it was in 2002. For the past few years, acceptance of stem cell research has leveled off among all age groups.

jm0gttpaukiyfnltj5el-g.png

Less Support Among Younger Americans for Medical Testing on Animals

Though opinions on animal testing were essentially uniform across age groups in 2001, that pattern has changed over the past 12 years, as the overall percentage supporting it has declined from the mid-60s to the mid-50s. The greatest change has been among Americans between the ages of 18 and 34, for whom support for medical testing on animals has dropped by 18 points. Older Americans are now slightly less supportive of medical testing on animals compared with 12 years ago.

0iogordrkeuzrjnaxjsxiq.png

Bottom Line

Americans’ fundamental views on several issues that define the nation’s culture have changed in important ways since the start of the last decade. Gallup trends by age show that (in every case) increasing acceptance of several matters relating to sexual relations, as well as divorce and stem cell research, have moved closer to the views held by the youngest generation of Americans. In some cases, this has resulted in transformative change, with majority acceptance emerging in the past decade, and in others, it has resulted in expanded majority acceptance. Pornography and teenage sex now stand out as issues that could emerge as more broadly accepted in the future. However, this will largely hinge on whether today’s young adults maintain these views into middle age — i.e., teen parenting — or whether they soften. Currently, overall acceptance of both is low, but this masks large generational gulfs with nearly half of young adults supportive versus roughly one in five adults aged 55 and older.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 2-7, 2013, with a random sample of 1,535 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cellphone numbers are selected using random digit dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, cellphone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup’s polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

A Weary World – Gary Henry – WordPoints.com

A Weary World – Gary Henry – WordPoints.com

A Weary World – Gary Henry – WordPoints.com

“All things are full of labor; man cannot express it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing” (Ecclesiastes 1:8).

TO BEINGS MADE FOR FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD, THE WORLD OF TEMPORAL THINGS BY ITSELF CAN NEVER BE WHOLLY SATISFYING. What we find is that the world, even at its best, exhausts us and leaves us longing for Something More. “O God! O God! How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world” (Shakespeare).

It is a frustrating, disappointing task to try to hold forever things that are essentially impermanent. We may spend many of our years grasping for the wind, but at some point most of us come to see that temporal things simply can’t fill eternal longings. When we try to make them do so, we place upon the things of this world a greater burden than they can bear. “It shall even be as when a hungry man dreams, and look — he eats; but he awakes, and his soul is still empty; or as when a thirsty man dreams, and look — he drinks; but he awakes, and indeed he is faint, and his soul still craves” (Isaiah 29:8).

We would get more real joy from this world if we would pay more attention to the world to come. Our problem is not asking too much of the world, but too little of God. C. S. Lewis said, “Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures . . . We are far too easily pleased.” To seek the greater things of God is to get more from this world, not less. “He sins against this life who slights the next” (Edward Young).

The tiresomeness of temporal life by itself ought to be a clue to the fact that we were meant for more. There are many good things here to enjoy, but if we pretend that this world is all we need, we cheat ourselves. We “satisfy” ourselves with so pitifully little, when our hearts were made for so much greater joy. But even so, God keeps enticing us to be TRULY refreshed!

“For when we approach God and seek to live according to his purpose, he knows and we know whence we have come: from the restlessness of the world, from the tribulation of human events, from the feeling of discouragement, from the lack of faith, from the failure to hear the message, from the twilight of moral and spiritual exhaustion” (Paul Ciholas).

Gary Henry – WordPoints.com

Footnote 20 – Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False

Footnote 20 – Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 3-7, 9-11.

Thomas Nagel is University Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the School of Law at New York University.  He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy.  In 2008, he was awarded the Rolf Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy and the Balzan Prize in Moral Philosophy.

Excerpts from the Introduction:

“One of the legitimate tasks of philosophy is to investigate the limits of even the best developed and most successful forms of contemporary scientific knowledge….Scientists are well aware of how much they don’t know, but this is a different kind of problem – not just of acknowledging the limits of what is actually understood but of trying to recognize what can and cannot in principle be understood by certain existing methods.”

“My target is a comprehensive, speculative world picture that is reached by extrapolation from some of the discoveries of biology, chemistry, and physics – a particular naturalistic Weltanschauung that postulates a hierarchical relationship among the subjects of those sciences, and the completeness in principle of an explanation of everything in the universe through their unification.  Such a worldview is not a necessary condition of the practice of any of those sciences, and its acceptance or nonacceptance would have no effect on most scientific research.

“… for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes.”

“…It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naïve response, not in favor of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples.”

”…My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative.  It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life…. I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science.”

“…doubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we learn about the intricacy of the genetic code and its control of the chemical processes of life, the harder those problems seem.”

“…In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture from a very different direction: the attack on Darwinism mounted in recent years from a religious perspective by the defenders of intelligent design.  Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves.  Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.

“Those who have seriously criticized these arguments have certainly shown that there are ways to resist the design conclusion; but the general force of the negative part of the intelligent design position – skepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductionist view, given the available evidence – does not appear to me to have been destroyed in these exchanges. At least, the question should be regarded as open. To anyone interested in the basis of this judgment, I can only recommend a careful reading of some of the leading advocates on both sides of the issue – with special attention to what has been established by the critics of intelligent design.  Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrine – that the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical law – cannot be regarded as unassailable.  It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.”

More follows.