The Limits of Learning: Habermas' Social Theory and Religion

Habermas' view that contemporary philosophy and social theory can learn from religious traditions calls for closer consideration. He is correct to hold that religious traditions constitute a reservoir of potentially important meanings that can be critically appropriated without emptying them of their motivating and inspirational power. However, contrary to what he implies, his theory allows for learning from religion only to a very limited degree. This is due to two core elements of his conceptual framework, both of which are key features of his account of postmetaphysical thinking. The first is the requirement of ethical agnosticism; this requires philosophy and social theory to refrain from offering guidance on questions of the good life. The second is his language‐immanent conception of truth in the domain of practical reason; this follows from his rejection of any source of validity beyond human communication in this domain. I make the case for a more robust account of learning from religious traditions and metaphysical worldviews, arguing that for this purpose Habermas must modify his requirement of ethical agnosticism and relinquish his language‐immanent conception of truth.     

Religion, Social Capital, and Health

Religion??s association with better physical health has been partially explained by health behaviors, psychosocial variables, and biological factors; but these factors do not fully explain the religion?Chealth connection. In concert with the religion and health literature, a burgeoning literature has linked social capital with salubrious health outcomes. Religious organizations are recognized in the social capital literature as producers and facilitators of social capital. However, few studies have examined the potential mediating role of social capital in the religion?Chealth relationship. Thus data from the 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey were analyzed for 10,828 adults. The composite unstandardized indirect effect from religion to social capital onto health was significant (???=?0.098; p?<?0.001). The unstandardized direct pathway from religion to self-reported health (???=?0.015; p?=?0.336) indicated that social capital is a mediator in the religion?Chealth relationship. Among the demographic variables investigated, only age and income had a significant direct effect on self-reported health.     

Religion and Bio-Psycho- Social Health: A Review and Conceptual Model

This paper presents a research-based conceptual model respectively linking three dimensions of religious experience (religious practices, spiritual beliefs, and faith community) with three dimensions of health (biological, psychological, and social). The model is used as a framework to highlight findings in the religion-health knowledge base and to provide a broad survey of this domain of inquiry. Considerations for future research on religion and health are addressed.     

Codes of Professional Responsibility (2nd Ed.) (Book)

As employee assistance programs (EAPs) have evolved and expanded their scope in the past decade, many factors have contributed to meeting the demands of conflicting client constituencies in a multifaceted client environment. This article enumerates several of these factors, notes consequences of ensuing conflicts, and ultimately proposes some methods to counter some of these ethical dilemmas in the future. It is the hope that greater recognition and understanding of ethical conflicts in client loyalty within a host organization will foster increased sensitivity on the part of the EAP practitioner toward resolving these conflicts.     

Conceptual Constructs and Social Classes: A Review of Capitalizing Religion

Capitalizing Religion is a good addition to the growing number of works in the last decade that examine the intertwinings of religion, spirituality, and capitalism in the neoliberal present. Through an examination of scholarly discourses on modern religion and contemporary fiction and spirituality manuals, Martin demonstrates how, within the consumer capitalist present, the ideologies of individualism, consumption, quietism, and productivity shape conversations, habits, relationships, and fantasies. Martin tells us that the goal of social theory should be to account for how individuals and their choices are propelled by the material, historical, and structural forces that constitute them. He is a writer who has long been particularly attentive to the fact that “religion” is not some particular entity that exists “out there” that can be examined, but rather a bounded construct whose definition – through processes of inclusion and exclusion – performs works of distinction that benefit some interests, groups, and individuals to the detriment of others. Capitalizing Religion reminds us that the choices that many sociologists of religion make in dividing social formations into categories such as “religious,” “spiritual,” “institutional,” “individual,” or “paranormal” don’t just describe the world, but rather attempt to constitute it through taxonomies that are anything but natural and given.     

宗教与科学是两种不同的社会意识

今天,谈到宗教与科学的关系,人们往往想到,在科技昌明的美国,仍有90%以上的人相信上帝的存在;世界上著名的科学家中,信仰各种宗教的人的比例在整个20世纪基本保持在40%;却常常忽略了中世纪的宗教裁判所,忘记了火刑柱上的布鲁诺。实际上,宗教与科学属于不同形式的社会意识,是人们在特定历史条件中形成的两种世界观