This sounds so much more definitive! Of course, whether or not it’s true is another matter altogether: probably more research is needed. After all, the followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon could hardly be characterized as “unhappy,” could they?

Interestingly, as Dr. Michael Nielsen has reported, “A study by Argyle and Hills (2000) found a modest negative correlation between mysticism and happiness, meaning that people who had mystical experiences also tended to report lower levels of happiness.” And in the Christian tradition, there is much talk of joy and sorrow being intertwined: you can’t have one without the other. Orthodox monastics cultivate a state known as charmolypi, joy-sorrow: tears for the woes of the world, and gratitude for God’s mercy.

But that’s a bit difficult to sell as a door-knocker these days.

This sounds so much more definitive! Of course, whether or not it’s true is another matter altogether: probably more research is needed. After all, the followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon could hardly be characterized as “unhappy,” could they?

Interestingly, as Dr. Michael Nielsen has reported, “A study by Argyle and Hills (2000) found a modest negative correlation between mysticism and happiness, meaning that people who had mystical experiences also tended to report lower levels of happiness.” And in the Christian tradition, there is much talk of joy and sorrow being intertwined: you can’t have one without the other. Orthodox monastics cultivate a state known as charmolypi, joy-sorrow: tears for the woes of the world, and gratitude for God’s mercy.

But that’s a bit difficult to sell as a door-knocker these days.

“Today” was September 27, 2005, and the research being reported on was much less definitive than Ruth Gledhill’s breathless article might indicate.

“An important thing to keep in mind whenever you read about social science research is to look closely at the way the variables are conceptualized by the researcher(s). Whether you find that research on religion supports or challenges your current assumptions, a central question is ‘What ‘religion’ are we talking about?’”
What religion are we talking about?

Here’s the decidedly non-sexy conclusion to the actual article:

The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

In other words, more research is needed. As you’d expect.

There’s some interesting stuff coming out of the World Values Survey. Basically, there are a range of correlations between factors. One interesting one, heard on the radio yesterday morning is that “…religious people tend to be happier than non-religious people. This is true in most of the world, so, … I would say having a clear belief system, having faith is conducive to happiness too. And that’s something that seems to favour economic development.”

“I think secularization is something that tends to go along with economic development, and rich countries clearly are happier – they tend be higher on happiness – so there’s this complicated, paradoxical relationship where economic development tends to go with secularisation, and thus secular people – secular countries – like Denmark or New Zealand are relatively high on happiness. But, within any given country, religious people tend to be happier. And when you control for income levels, the difference is even bigger.”

ka kite
Steve

“Today” was September 27, 2005, and the research being reported on was much less definitive than Ruth Gledhill’s breathless article might indicate.

“An important thing to keep in mind whenever you read about social science research is to look closely at the way the variables are conceptualized by the researcher(s). Whether you find that research on religion supports or challenges your current assumptions, a central question is ‘What ‘religion’ are we talking about?’”
What religion are we talking about?

Here’s the decidedly non-sexy conclusion to the actual article:

The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

In other words, more research is needed. As you’d expect.

There’s some interesting stuff coming out of the World Values Survey. Basically, there are a range of correlations between factors. One interesting one, heard on the radio yesterday morning is that “…religious people tend to be happier than non-religious people. This is true in most of the world, so, … I would say having a clear belief system, having faith is conducive to happiness too. And that’s something that seems to favour economic development.”

“I think secularization is something that tends to go along with economic development, and rich countries clearly are happier – they tend be higher on happiness – so there’s this complicated, paradoxical relationship where economic development tends to go with secularisation, and thus secular people – secular countries – like Denmark or New Zealand are relatively high on happiness. But, within any given country, religious people tend to be happier. And when you control for income levels, the difference is even bigger.”

ka kite
Steve

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

A wonderful new film that includes excerpts from the writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vBco4OOrYM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

A wonderful new film that includes excerpts from the writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vBco4OOrYM

There is always the argument that he had no business attempting to analyze the handwriting of an original document to which he had no access. Any conclusions derived therefrom would be doubtful at best.

Farsi script is a complex cursive script, but it is not synonymous with swirly scribbles. But if an “expert” cannot tell our different scribbles apart, why bother consulting one in the first place?

Let us concede for the sake of argument that you are correct: the LWT is a manifest fraud. If that is the case, what was to prevent these perpetrators of fraud from committing even more fraud? Shoghi Effendi died intestate; why not manufacture another fraudulent will? Why not adopt a child, issue him with a false birth certificate, and impose an identity on him? There is no end to the conspiracy theories.

Was Shoghi Effendi a rank homophobe? I used to think so until I read the observations by Sen and Sonja on the production of letters by an army of anonymous secretaries. Most people in similar positions to his at the time were not a little homophobic (not that this excuses current Baha’i actions and invective against so-called practicing homosexuals; on the contrary, it makes it even more egregious). But Shoghi Effendi never claimed to be inerrant, did he?

[quote]There have been lies and more lies.[/quote]

I would say that there *are* lies and more lies, and that these lies are enabled by others, notably Baha’is who fail to speak up because they fear reprisals. For example, in his book “Alain Locke: Faith and Philosophy,” Christopher Buck writes (p. 197): “As a lifestyle, homosexuality stands in conflict with received Baha’i values, both then and now.” Aside from the utter lack of definition around what constitutes “received Baha’i values” (a phrase which seems to hold about as much meaning as “da do ron ron”), the fact that a university professor refers to homosexuality as a “lifestyle” (in the sense that it’s something you “choose”) in a book about a Baha’i philosopher who happened to be homosexual reveals how abysmally entrenched systemic homophobia is within mainstream Baha’i culture, and how completely lacking in credibility any Baha’i arguments against it really are.

Except, of course, among the aristocracy and royalty … I mean the true believers and apologists … who will insist that black is white and wrong is right if its suits their purposes, and will never be persuaded otherwise, unless they are instructed to do so by the authorities responsible for their programming.

As long as these towers, temples and mosques
are not deserted –
So long the path of the Lord
can never be attained.

–Sachal Sarmast

There is always the argument that he had no business attempting to analyze the handwriting of an original document to which he had no access. Any conclusions derived therefrom would be doubtful at best.

Farsi script is a complex cursive script, but it is not synonymous with swirly scribbles. But if an “expert” cannot tell our different scribbles apart, why bother consulting one in the first place?

Let us concede for the sake of argument that you are correct: the LWT is a manifest fraud. If that is the case, what was to prevent these perpetrators of fraud from committing even more fraud? Shoghi Effendi died intestate; why not manufacture another fraudulent will? Why not adopt a child, issue him with a false birth certificate, and impose an identity on him? There is no end to the conspiracy theories.

Was Shoghi Effendi a rank homophobe? I used to think so until I read the observations by Sen and Sonja on the production of letters by an army of anonymous secretaries. Most people in similar positions to his at the time were not a little homophobic (not that this excuses current Baha’i actions and invective against so-called practicing homosexuals; on the contrary, it makes it even more egregious). But Shoghi Effendi never claimed to be inerrant, did he?

[quote]There have been lies and more lies.[/quote]

I would say that there *are* lies and more lies, and that these lies are enabled by others, notably Baha’is who fail to speak up because they fear reprisals. For example, in his book “Alain Locke: Faith and Philosophy,” Christopher Buck writes (p. 197): “As a lifestyle, homosexuality stands in conflict with received Baha’i values, both then and now.” Aside from the utter lack of definition around what constitutes “received Baha’i values” (a phrase which seems to hold about as much meaning as “da do ron ron”), the fact that a university professor refers to homosexuality as a “lifestyle” (in the sense that it’s something you “choose”) in a book about a Baha’i philosopher who happened to be homosexual reveals how abysmally entrenched systemic homophobia is within mainstream Baha’i culture, and how completely lacking in credibility any Baha’i arguments against it really are.

Except, of course, among the aristocracy and royalty … I mean the true believers and apologists … who will insist that black is white and wrong is right if its suits their purposes, and will never be persuaded otherwise, unless they are instructed to do so by the authorities responsible for their programming.

As long as these towers, temples and mosques
are not deserted –
So long the path of the Lord
can never be attained.

–Sachal Sarmast

“But was he an expert in Farsi language script? Ah, there’s the rub.?

They never let him inspect the original document. Once you start hiding something there is a probabity there something to hide. And when you compare my swirly scribbles to yours on the same paper, do you think an “expert” can tell our different scribbles. There have been lies and more lies.