FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JEWISH FAMILY CONCERNS AT THE UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: It is hard to go a day without reading of some new study that looks at longevity. It is equally as hard to watch TV or surf the Web without finding some new “miracle” supplement or cream that guarantees longer life. We are so afraid of aging that we will voluntarily inject poison into our heads to see if we can fight off what is inevitable. Oh well!
We get a more promising view in a recent MSNBC article. The article reports on a new study out of the University of Michigan that may give comfort and relief to millions. Social psychologist Stephanie Brown studied spousal caregiving among elderly couples over a seven-year period and found some surprising results. According to Brown, caring for someone who is ill or elderly may actually be beneficial to the caregiver.
As the article notes:

Brown and her colleagues found that if you accounted for the negative impact of stressing over a loved one’s illness, that caregiving actually led to longer life. During the course of the study, people who spent at least 14 hours a week caring for a sick spouse were almost 30 percent less likely to die during the study period than those who spent no time helping, according to the research recently published in Psychological Science.

The article also highlights similar findings from a study in the journal Stroke:

A full 90 percent of those interviewed reported that their caregiving enabled them to appreciate life more. Many also reported that it helped them develop a more positive attitude toward life.

But why?
Well, it seems that the act of caring for a loved one activates the release of higher levels of a hormone called oxytocin. This hormone has long been linked with reduced stress levels and our desire to connect with others.
While there is NO secret to living longer, there seems to be certain paths that can enhance our lives and provide a sense of meaning and purpose—and, in that sense, lengthen our days. It is the old cliche that our parents spoke about: We need a reason to get up in the morning. Without that reason, we wither and die.

FROM KARL GIBERSON: I have been perusing the new anti-evolutionary Web site from the Discovery Institute, Faith+Evolution. This new site appears to be a frontal assault on the new BioLogos Web site, launched a few weeks ago by Dr. Francis Collins and the BioLogos team, of which I am a member.
The Faith+Evolution site, like most of the products from the Discovery Institute is slick, well-resourced, rhetorically clever, profoundly misleading, and almost completely devoid of any real science.
Take the opening video, with vignettes from Michael Behe, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, and others. The carefully crafted impression that viewers get from the video is that these scholars represent a viable scientific position that is both held by a meaningful group of scientists—what they optimistically refer to as a “growing minority”—and will be explicated on the site, if viewers choose to dig deeper. But this is completely false, and these confident spokesmen know it. Here is how they know it.
A group of scientists committed to a common idea—a “research program,” as it is often called—generally have similar ideas about the broad outlines of that program. At BioLogos, for example, we all believe that the universe began with a big bang, the Earth is billions of years old, and that all life on the planet is related through common ancestry. In sharing these commitments, we are similar to just about every science department across the country. This shared agreement makes it possible to work together, publish in similar journals, and understand each other’s work. Of course, there is great diversity at the level of detail, which is why scientific progress is so dynamic.
The scholars on the Faith+Evolution site have no such shared agreement. Paul Nelson is a young earth creationist who believes that everything appeared suddenly on the earth 10,000 years ago. Michael Behe believes that the earth is billions of years old and that all life is related via common ancestry, which Nelson rejects. And Jonathan Wells accepts neither the young earth of Nelson or the common ancestry of Behe. All they agree on is that evolution is wrong. They have no shared basis on which to conduct joint research.
If you compare the presentations on the two Web sites, you will notice something very interesting. At BioLogos, we present solid evidence in favor of evolution. (We believe that God is the creator and that evolution is the name of the creative process.) We do not simply offer anti-design arguments and assume that we win by default. At Faith+Evolution, they produce no evidence for their position, nor do they even describe the “design model” they supposedly all embrace; all they present are arguments against evolution, with the supposed inference that “design” wins if evolution is defeated. In the final analysis, the site is little more than a exercise in rhetoric—how can we frame what looks like a compelling argument for a position that we can’t even articulate to ourselves.

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: What allows people to live longer? What are the ”key” components of healthy aging? These are the big questions at the center of the longevity revolution.
Recently, The New York Times carried an interesting piece on the members of California's Laguna Woods Village retirement community who meet daily to play bridge. The mental acuity needed for the game and the social support associated with the activity keep showing up as major elements in healthy aging. Scientists are studying the residents as part of The 90+ Study, which looks at health and brain power in the elderly, and they argue that social connections may help delay the onset of dementia.
Dr. Claudia Kawas, a neurologist at the University of California, Irvine, notes:

There is quite a bit of evidence now suggesting that the more people you have contact with, in your own home or outside, the better you do. Interacting with people regularly, even strangers, uses easily as much brain power as doing puzzles, and it wouldn’t surprise me if this is what it’s all about.

There have been longer, longitudinal studies that validate the Laguna Woods data. For more than four decades, Dr. George Vaillant has been the caring keeper of The Study of Adult Development. Started in 1937 as a study of male Harvard University sophomores, the study has tracked the lives of these men and attempted to discover some of the secrets involved in living a long and healthy life. Vaillant recorded much of the results in his book Aging Well and the details of his work are discussed in June's Atlantic Monthly. Like the Laguna Woods study, his research also highlights the importance of social connections. According to the article, Vaillant has found a number of factors that predict healthy aging, including a stable marriage, not smoking or abusing alcohol, regular exercise, and education, yet he once wrote that, “It is social aptitude not intellectual brilliance or parental social class that leads to successful aging." And in a 2008 newsletter to the subjects of his study, he said the research has taught him, "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.”
It's lovely: The science of aging begins and ends with the relationships we create with other people. These relationships build a strong social support, which goes a long way toward maintaining physical and psychological health and a positive outlook, regardless of the number of years we have lived.

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: A recent study looked at why some kids who witness domestic abuse are more resilient than others. The study reminded me of the need to look at the power of resilience in dealing with so many of the issues that confront us and our families. In congregations, an increasing number of clergy are confronted with issues that result from self-destructive behaviors in their congregations. Having a faith community that is supportive and nonjudgmental is proving to be a powerful tool in helping individuals and families deal with a variety of critical issues.
According to Rabbi Edythe Mencher, who created the program "Resilience of the Soul" for the Reform Judaism movement in North America, resilience is "the idea that we can be taught how to manage life's challenges in ways that promote health and wholeness." Resilience is built when individuals have an opportunity to experience themselves as worthwhile, cherished, and capable; share experiences, express concerns, and have their feelings validated; recall positive ways they have managed in the past; and discover new ways to solve problems, find calm, and draw upon human and spiritual sources of affirmation, cooperation, and hope.
Intimately involved with this concept of resilience is the need for faith in one's own self. We are seeing the importance of this now, as—with increasing frequency—individuals and families are feeling the effects of the current economic crisis. Faith in a goal and faith in one's own worth has never been more in need.

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: Fred Grinnell is a professor of cell biology at Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and the author of the new book Everyday Practice of Science. In a recent piece in The Chronicle Review, he illustrates the differences between science and religion by describing a case in which you find yourself walking on a beach and coming upon a large and unusual rock. There are two possible types of questions you can ask, he says. Questions of the first kind include: What kind of rock is this, how did it get here, and what can be done with it? A second type of question would be: What does it mean that this rock is here sharing this beach with me and what can this rock, or moment, teach me about the meaning of life? “The first set represents science and technology. Knowing the answers enables the control essential to obtain and use the rock according to one’s needs and desires,” he writes. “The second set represents religion and spirituality. It concerns the meaning and purpose of the individual and of life. If your religion requires six literal days of creation, then it clashes with science. But if your religion teaches that the unseen order of the world has purpose and meaning, then is it at odds with science?”
Here we are introduced to a fantastic question, maybe the question of human existence. If there is some unseen order or force or power in the universe, what is my place in that order? It all does come down to finding one’s sense of meaning. This month, much of the world’s religious focus will be on the celebrations of Passover and Easter—both of which focus on the possibilities in life, the potential for renewal and rebirth on both an individual and communal perspective. Both, in the end, ask each of us to look at our lives and how we find meaning. The questions we ask provide the pathway to the answers we seek. At the root of each search is a belief in a type of faith that transcends the individual: Each question is based on a belief, a faith that at the end of our search there is meaning.

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: Some of us may remember the Time magazine cover from the mid-1960s that announced, in rather bold terms, that God was dead. That came as a rude shock to many of my friends and myself, as some of us had planned to enter the clergy and were left to wonder if there was going to be a need for our services. Thankfully, we decided to press on and things never got as dire as the magazine had predicted.
Time does change things, as does Time, for last week's cover package went into great depth on “How Faith Can Heal.” The articles report on several scientific studies on the power of prayer and the spiritual component in healing. One of the more interesting aspects of the articles is a section that highlights the work of Jean Kristeller, a psychologist at Indiana State University who developed a guide for doctors that helps them speak with patients (specifically cancer patients) about spiritual concerns. Her findings seemed to indicate that having a discussion about religious or spiritual beliefs with their physicians actually reduced stress and feelings of depression in patients and brought forth “an improved quality of life and a greater sense that their doctors cared for them.”
Is this for everyone? Maybe not. However, I think it does open up the possibility of developing opportunities for physicians and patients to engage in some powerful discussions about patients’ hopes and dreams and fears. Many religious traditions understand that the link between the mind and the body and the spirit is profound and that treating one without understanding the role of the others can limit success. My own movement has created a sample "spiritual history" form (included in the book To Honor and Respect) as part of our Sacred Aging project. It is a simple guide for people to follow in order to list some of their spiritual and religious beliefs that could impact their own healing process.
The science of healing, as we know, is not exact and is impacted by many nonmedical variables. Perhaps it is time to explore, in a more organized fashion, the role of faith in that healing process.

FROM V.V. RAMAN, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS AND HUMANITIES AT THE ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: While a handful of thinkers in the Hindu world debate the right planetary and zodiacal configurations on which to celebrate the birthdays of divinities and other festivals, India also observes National Science Day on February 28 (Gregorian calendar). Started a little more than two decades ago (1986), it is a day that inaugurates a whole month of science-related and science-inspiring activities, and also awards prizes for the best science-popularization efforts in magazines, newspapers, lectures, and books.
Most importantly, the goal of Science Day is to raise science-consciousness among the masses, gradually weaning them away from outworn beliefs, silly superstitions, and a general fear of what science is all about. People are encouraged to watch the skies, locate stars and planets, do experiments, and read science books.
We live at a time when, contrary to earlier hopes and expectations, science has come to be marginalized in the minds of many. The general public has been led to believe that science is just another way of describing the moon or appreciating the rainbow, and has no greater claims to knowledge than mythology, religious revelations, grand poetry, or speculative philosophy. Science is often seen by the public as no more than a tool for games and gadgetry, medical technology, washing machines, and creature comforts. Then again, some zealous scientists, by degrading the religious dimension of the human condition, have created the impression that science is derisively religion-unfriendly and therefore more dangerous than desirable for human culture.
What needs to be emphasized is that the deeper essence of science expands our minds, enhances our appreciation of the world, and uplifts our spirit. These aspects must be reinforced periodically in science courses and through public proclamations like Science Day.
Perhaps the United Nations should follow India’s lead in this regard and declare a whole Science Month in all countries.

FROM V.V. RAMAN, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS AND HUMANITIES AT THE ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: Yesterday we celebrated the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth, and this year marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of his scientific classic, On the Origin of Species. During these 150 years, more pages have been penned on Darwin and his work than on most other scientists and theirs works: more perhaps than on Galileo, Newton, or Einstein, more certainly than on Leonhard Euler, Michel Faraday, or Heinrich Hertz, whose contributions have touched the core of science and altered the course of history no less.
The reason for this is that Darwin’s discovery touches our self-appraisal as beings in the universe far more profoundly than Jovian satellites, gravitation, or the curvature of cosmic space, and much more directly than differential equations, electromagnetic induction, or the transmission of electromagnetic waves. The only time such a jolt had occurred before was when the Copernican discovery summarily kicked our habitat from the prestigious center of the universe and transformed it into an insignificant speck in a vast and silent expanse. Darwin’s work removed us from the pedestal on which we were seen as the crowning jewel in God’s creation. In the view of some, it not only mercilessly reduced us to just another of the countless life forms that crowd the earth, but also revealed our lineage to be simian rather then saintly or, as one wit quipped, not so much the apex as the ex-ape of creation.
It is both biological and cultural to regard oneself as the center of the universe. The sun seems to rise and set from our perspective; we evaluate the world and react to changes with self-preservation as the bottom line. So it is not surprising that practically every religion gives a special place to humanity among the plethora of life forms. Other creatures, bereft of language and scale of values, have never protested this presumption in any biological court of law. Darwin’s suggestion that we were not molded by clay nor fashioned on the sixth day, nor did we come into being from the mind of God, as reported in religious mythopoeia, but that we just emerged as a result of slow changes over the eons, like so many other sister-species, not only contradicts assertions in sacred texts. It also seems to trivialize Homo sapiens and certainly appears to take away all sanctity from this special-to-God creature.
It is both understandable and legitimate, therefore, for traditionalists to resist the Darwinian view of anthropogenesis not only as an affront to human dignity but also as an assault on the religious framework. There are at least three ways of reacting to this predicament. One is to declare cold-bloodedly that the religions are dead wrong on this matter, as they are on many other issues pertaining to the phenomenal world. The other is to proclaim that the Scriptures are revelations by God and thus cannot, by definition, be wrong; it is Darwin who has been misled by appearances that hide the true essence of things, and his theory must therefore be rejected or, at best, be accepted as just another theory formulated by the finite human mind, which can never fathom the ultimate infinite mystery. The third alternative has been to find a reasonable via media by recognizing the role and relevance of religion as an important and meaningful cultural and spiritual experience, and by interpreting religious texts in symbolic and metaphorical rather than literal modes while maintaining the integrity of science and its methodology. The oft-mentioned warfare between science and religion is between the ardent protagonists of the first two schools, while members of the third group write books like, “How to be a good Christian/Hindu/Jew/Buddhist/Muslim and also believe in evolution.”
I am inclined to think that the first two groups, in their own divergent ways, have different perspectives of the truth because they view the matter through different lenses, but the third course is the best for a peaceful world in which science can flourish and religiously inclined people can also find fulfillment. This approach is difficult for those who see every aspect of the human condition in black-and-white terms. When taken to an extreme, this view inevitably leads to intolerance, self-righteousness, and bigotry.
But in situations like this, mutual concession may be the only way. The situation may seem quite simple in the framework of “rationaltry” (worship of the goddess of reason alone) or unquestioning faith (where logic and facts of observation don’t carry much weight). But it is enormously complex in a context in which human intelligence, emotions, culture, sensibilities, and psychology all come into play.
Even with all the problems that have emerged, it is appropriate for enlightened humanity to pay homage to the name and memory of a scientific searcher who relentlessly pursued his quest and uncovered one of the great mysteries of the phenomenal world—namely, the emergence, continuance, and extinction of countless species with an incredible range of properties and propensities that adorn our planet (and of which we ourselves happen to be among the most remarkable). It is no less enriching to regard ourselves as one culminating endpoint in the complex web of terrestrial life that has been unleashed on the planet by the marvelous laws of nature, with potential for further change, than to imagine ourselves to be the most wonderful creation of the cosmic principle that many choose to worship as God.

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: At a recent workshop that I was teaching on “The Art of Caregiving,” a participant and I meandered into a conversation about his recent retirement. He had worked at the same job for decades and was not quite used to his new stage of life. During a break, he asked to follow up on some of the workshop discussion on meaning. The group and I had been talking about the writings of Abraham Joshua Heschel, who described human beings as creatures “in search of meaning” and emphasized the power of being needed in the world. As this 60-ish man stirred his coffee, he turned to me, looked me straight in the eye, and said: “That is the issue, rabbi, no one needs me now.”
I was struck by his honesty, and also, the comment touched me in a very profound way. What a lonely place it must seem to reach a stage in life and feel that you are no longer needed. What is it like to wake up every morning and look into a day in which you see no reason to get out of bed? Herein lies one of the challenges that will impact increasing numbers of people: With the longevity revolution now upon us, one of our more interesting discussions as a society and as individuals will be how to live our expanded lives with a sense of meaning and purpose. In an age of science and technology, the voice of religion must also be present in this search for meaning. Indeed, the impact and contributions of science and technology can be the means through which people engage in finding a sense of meaning; yet, the search is, by definition, an individual one and subject to increasing variables, such as health, family circumstances, and economic pressures. For many right now, the luxury of one’s search for meaning may be back-burnered by the necessity of having to work an extra job or postpone retirement so as to boost a floundering pension or 401K.
Every one of us wants to live a life that has meaning—I believe that completely—but meaning in one’s life cannot be scientifically measured. It is more a feeling, a sense, an emotion that what I do and who I am counts for something and contributes to a legacy of life. Often, like the gentleman at my workshop, we define that meaning through our work. “I am a dentist”, or “I am a teacher." And what happens when that definition is removed? We are given the challenge of really finding an answer to our own predicate. This can be frightening and empowering, daunting and liberating, all at the same time. For in our society and our schools, we rarely educate for meaning. Rather, we educate for tasks.
Here, then, is a major challenge for religion in the coming years. Really, it is the same challenge that we have faced for centuries. How do we educate people for meaning? How do we teach that this life is a gift and that it is our charge to live it so that it has meaning and provides a legacy that can be lived through future generations? Religion has too often been corrupted by fanatical fundamentalism that uses God as a reason to promote political agendas. In doing so, the search for personal meaning is abandoned and subverted. In this age of growing angst and personal questioning, it is time for the leaders of religious communities to affirm the basic call of their faiths. Heschel is right, we are “creatures in search of meaning,” and too many of us now wander in our own wilderness in search of that “holy grail.”

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: In our lifetimes, we have been blessed by the benefits of science and technology. Our life spans have been lengthened, and our conveniences have been multiplied. Yet, as powerful as these advances have been in providing a new type of security, the randomness of life always seems to present us with age-old questions for which there seems to be too few answers. There is no doubt that these are “challenging” times.
When everything is going well, we hardly seem to take into consideration the powerful and fear-inducing reality that randomness can create. The fear of the unknown, the fear of what will come next, is a powerful force.
One of the strengths of religion is to provide a balance in life, a sense of being rooted, especially when life throws us off course. This is not religion as a “crutch.” It is religion as a reminder that in difficult times, it is important to remind ourselves that we are part of something greater than ourselves. This is not religion as “fear” in the sense of a belief in a punishing, vengeful God that demands obedience through terror. This is the “fear” of God in the sense of the Hebrew root of the word, which reflects a sense of awe and respect (as in the commandment to “fear" one’s parents—to respect them). People do need to sense that they count for something, are part of something, and that life has meaning. In these difficult times of economic and political uncertainty, a sense of this respect for a greater meaning in life is especially relevant.
Rabbi Shalom Carmy is the editor of the Modern Orthodox journal Tradition. In the recent issue, he writes about the role of fear (as respect) in relation to science. He asks if “modern science” has actually made us feel more secure. “Can we honestly claim,” he asks, “that our lives are free of uncertainty in the areas that count?” He cites the changes now taking place in the employment field and the reality of uncertainty that pervades so many workplaces. He cites the uncertainties of contemporary family life. “Because sheer physical survival is not your primary problem in life, these anxieties and tribulations are more important to you than they would have been in another era," he writes. "No, science certainly doesn’t bestow upon you an easy mastery over your life.”
Mastery of our lives rests within our own hands and choices. Faith in oneself to make those choices sacred is supported by and enriched through faith. But faith in what? A blind faith is appealing because it may provide answers to everything. However, the operative word may be “blind.” Real faith, the kind that sustains, I feel, is faith that is open to possibilities. Doubt, questioning, and change may be the glue that binds true belief.
And at the heart of the matter may be the understanding that life is rarely a “black and white” situation. Indeed, navigating life’s challenges (be they good or less than good) requires the ability to deal with shades of gray. In all of this is the basic religious concept that we are not alone; we, as Ecclesiastes 1 reminds us, are part of an eternal flow of history. In that flow, we strive to seek our own sense of mission and meaning. Science can help us make sense of and understand the world around us, even the world within us. Yet, it will be the role of religion to help give meaning to those understandings. In the end, science and religion help create the kind of world and person that we become.

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: A few weeks ago, I found myself at a communal “religious” event, a “miracle” of sorts that has occurred only twice in my lifetime. I was standing at Broad and Ellsworth streets in Philadelphia, surrounded by (well, joining with) some 2 million fellow worshipers as we witnessed the parade celebrating the Phillies’ World Series victory. How curious that in the midst of such great social and economic friction and fear, so many people came together to celebrate. Then again, maybe it was not so curious after all, since the need for community and connection has never seemed more self-evident.
Last week, Stephen Post expressed his passionate belief in the power of giving—again, a reminder that being with and involved with people is a healing and transformative act. I am especially mindful of this in light of the current economic challenges. Perhaps there has never been a greater need for acts of communal support, altruism, and caring than now. I am concerned that many of our religious institutions may not see this as a major opportunity to really actualize their message of caring and support, though I know that within the Jewish community, a growing number of congregations are creating both educational programs and people-centered “in-reach” programs to provide a supportive ecology for their people. These includes loan programs, food banks, resource support, mental health support, and financial planning help.
One additional thought has emerged as well: Many people may, as a result of the current economic circumstances, feel isolated and alone. There are profound psycho-spiritual issues involved if one looses a job and is cut off from the therapeutic social context of work. Likewise, there may be older adults within a community whose “fixed” incomes have been damaged and their lifestyle may be compromised. This is the time for caring volunteers to make sure that we keep in contact with these people who may fall through the cracks. Calls, visits, and contacts need to be maintained to make sure people are not being forced to choose between a meal and a full dosage of their medication. Isolation, be it physical, economic, social, or spiritual leads to a slow and painful death of the soul.
As Jewish tradition reminds us, we are each responsible for the other. Personal interaction, friendship, and community involvement can help reduce anxiety and fear. This is a time when communities of faith need to speak messages of hope and support. Who knows what these encounters may create?

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: Increasingly, studies are uncovering the value and benefits of health, and awareness of what constitutes a healthy lifestyle is a major factor in creating an ecology of healthy aging. Last month, The Week magazine cited a study from the Harvard School of Public Health that looked at the health record of thousands of people over a three-decade span. No surprise, they found that healthier lifestyles equated to longer lives. In my work with the Sacred Aging project of the Union for Reform Judaism, it is not unusual to observe that baby boomers and the elderly have greater concern for and involvement with their health than do their children and grandchildren.
Gradually, there seems to be growing interest in studying the relationship between extended life and health (no doubt driven by the boomers' own aging process). These studies have validated some religious approaches to this issue. And several years ago, the journal The Gerontologist noted that, “Because of the growing recognition that religious and spiritual beliefs and practices are widespread among the American population and that these beliefs and practices have clinical relevance, professional organizations are increasingly calling for better training of clinicians concerning the management of religious and spiritual issues in assessment, treatment and research.”
Jewish tradition is no stranger to these discussions. The link between health and the spirituality of an individual is part of the daily prayer ritual of the Jew. Judaism is a “holistic” medical model. Health is a commandment that is mandated so that each individual, mindful of his or her relationship with God, can remain in that sacred relationship. Thus, health is a pathway to the sacred and we are commanded to care for the body, which is a gift from God.
In his own medical practice and writings, Maimonides supported this notion that health is a divine path, and he validated the notion that bodily movement is essential to the maintenance of health. In his essay “Preservation on Youth”, Maimonides notes that exercise is the main principle involved in staying healthy and in the repulsion of most illnesses. “And there is no such thing as excessive bodily movement and exercise," he wrote. "Exercise removes the harm caused by most bad habits, which most people have. And no movement is as beneficial, according to the physicians, as body movement and exercise. Exercise refers to both strong and weak movements, providing it is movement that is vigorous and affects breathing, increasing it.”
Health, movement, exercise and their impact on aging are now part of the science and religion discussion—and they're sure to stay. The scientific study of healthy aging is a sacred task.

FROM V.V. RAMAN, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS AND HUMANITIES AT THE ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: Last Wednesday, India launched its first unmanned rocket whose destination is the moon, the celestial body that has been chanted in the Vedas, visualized in Hindu myths, and worshiped in rituals. It will forever be a memorable day in the history of India.
Without diluting the reverence and poetry associated with the moon, Indian scientists calculated its orbit and position relative to Earth, and basing themselves on the knowledge and information derived from modern science, they used today’s technology to shoot for the moon. This not only filled a billion Indian hearts with pride and a sense of achievement, but also showed the world that India is a complex and multifaceted country where astrologers evaluate the influence of the moon on human life and the stock market, while no-nonsense scientists set up projects to map the lunar surface.

India deserves to be congratulated on this spectacular accomplishment, not only by well-wishers, but also by those who respect the positive contributions of science and technology.

FROM KARL GIBERSON: I vented yesterday about the comments that creationist critics were putting on Beliefnet in response to my debate with Ken Ham. If those comments were typical of evangelicals as a whole, things would seem discouraging. But I had a rather different experience yesterday that puts all this in perspective.
Yesterday, I was a guest in a sophomore biology class at Gordon College in Massachusetts. The students had read the Beliefnet debate, as well we the piece I wrote and the interview I gave to Salon.com, where I got vilified from the left. Some of them had read my book Saving Darwin. I spent an hour with this class and walked out elated at how intelligently these students were dealing with the topic of evolution and the Christian faith. Gordon College has a lot of conservative students and many of them come from Christian schools and home schools. Faculty report that evolution is almost impossible to discuss when they first arrive. But the students are very bright and Gordon is quite demanding. As a result, sophomores are ready to move beyond a knee-jerk rejection of evolution into a more serious engagement of what it means to think of evolution as God's creative process. They still had some of the same concerns as those who left comments on Beliefnet, but clearly saw these concerns as things with which to wrestle, not quickie refutations of theistic evolution. And all of them seemed very open.
So there is hope....

FROM KARL GIBERSON: I just read the 12 responses to my last post in the Beliefnet debate with Ken Ham. Most discouraging. They all assaulted me for suggesting that science had its own integrity and might be a useful corrective in interpreting the Bible when it speaks of the natural world. Living in Boston and working at two colleges (Eastern Nazarene and Gordon) that are far from the fundamentalist fray, I have forgotten the intensity of the biblical inerrancy controversy.
The inerrancy controversy has developed its set of canonical responses, which are trotted out by very uninformed people who think they are saying something profound and unassailable:

–If you can't trust every sentence in the Bible then you can't trust any.
–If you can't be absolutely certain, then you can't have any confidence whatsoever
–Because an argument against absolute truth would have to be absolute to be valid, such an argument collapses under the weight of it own circularity. Therefore, we do have absolute truth.
–Conclusions are just extrapolations of starting points, so anyone who arrives at a belief in evolution must have started out with a total rejection of the Bible to get there.

And then there is the amazing but vacuous confidence that young-earth creationism has a lot of solid science behind it. This conversation is so self-contained and the debate partners so vilified that the position has become immune to correctives from outside. It seems there is nothing that can be said of any consequence to these true believers.
And, of course, there is the final arrow in their quiver: You aren't really a Christian if you think like this.
My guess is that every one of the posters is Protestant and evangelical, labels that I wear with increasing discomfort. The Protestant tradition has allowed the most fanciful and ungrounded
views of Scripture to take root and flourish and, absent a genuine magisterium to address them, they remain healthy and continue to do their work of making it hard to be a thinking Christian.

Thanks to Randall Stephens, a history professor at Eastern Nazarene College, for sending us his latest thoughts on psychiatric experiments with hallucinogens (which also appear on Religion in American History):

All things come back in style, given time. Ratt reminded us long ago, in the lyrics of their radio scorcher "Round and Round": "What comes around goes around." Look around your campus or local mall and you'll see undergrads wearing stove pipe jeans, skinny ties, checkered shoes, and ill-fitting jackets as if they're on their way to see Dwight Twilley, the Jam, XTC, the Squeeze, or the Romantics. (I'm waiting for a bollo tie revival.) Even the economy has been struck with retro fever. It's the 1970s all over again. Sit down on a shag carpet and enjoy some fondu next to a roaring fire.
So, too, the pharmacological religious experiments of yesteryear are again being sponsored by a major research university. Minus Tim Leary, and minus the religious compound for the young and hopeless.
In Baltimore's City Paper, Michael Hughes reports on an interesting study William "Bill" Richards, psychiatrist and scholar of comparative religion, is conducting on the Bayview campus of Johns Hopkins University:

[I]n a room affectionately referred to by both the scientists and the volunteers as the "psilocybin room, [a participant is] taking part in the first study of its kind since the early '70s—a rigorous, scientific attempt to determine if drugs like psilocybin and LSD, demonized and driven underground for more than three decades, can facilitate life-changing, transformative mystical experiences.
The study, which took place from 2001 to 2005, and was published in 2006 in the journal Psychopharmacology with a follow-up in 2008 in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, made news around the globe and was greeted by nearly unanimous praise by both the scientific community and the mainstream press. Flying in the face of both government policy and conventional wisdom, its conclusion—that psychedelic drugs offer the potential for profound, transformative, and long-lasting positive changes in properly prepared individuals—may herald a revival in the study of altered states of consciousness.

The trippy religious narratives of participants would make for good fodder in a religious studies course. I can only imagine what sorts of conversations might occur around the seminar table after reading this:
Another remarked:

"It's so hard to put into words. It's like you truly understand oneness—that everything is one, everything is God. And you know that in your mind, and in your heart, but to feel it in your entire being, and to have no boundaries, to be part of everything that is beautiful and loving ... there are no adequate words to explain it."

Totally ...

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: The end of the month of September brings an interesting confluence of major religious events. In the Islamic community, they observe the end of Ramadan, a month of introspection and focus on personal spiritual goals. Likewise, in my community, we greet a new year this evening. Rosh Hashanah calls us with the sound of the ram's horn (the shofar) to enter a 10-day period of reflection and transformation. There is much looking backward as we are called to take stock of the previous year.
This is a period of time in which we are given permission to change and create a new “self.” This may be a particular challenge for the exploding older adult population of our community. The aging of the baby boomers is changing how our society deals with aging and has sparked an increase in scientific studies on what it means to age and what may be essential components of “healthy aging.” This quest is not new; we have always harbored a desire to deny the inevitability of our own mortality. In mythologies of the past, we sought fountains of youth or made curious deals with supernatural powers to extend life. Now, in a curious marriage between science and religion, we have invested countless hours in the search for a modern magic bullet to try to unlock the secrets of life.
There are studies looking at the genetic links to aging in an attempt to one day restructure the genetic code that breaks down as we age. We could create an extensive bibliography of texts and studies that have emerged in the last decade that look at the links between lifestyle and positive aging. The MacArthur Study of Successful Aging of the 1990s showed us that how we choose to live may be of equal or more importance than how our genes are wired. The potential benefits of ongoing research into this new age of longevity are echoed in Robert Butler’s recently published book The Longevity Revolution, in which he writes that it “is also time for a nationwide private sector effort to mobilize the resources of the private nonprofit and corporate sectors as well as individual philanthropists to both support aging research and to push our government to continue and expand support of the NIH and NIA."
What so many of these studies have shown is that as important as pushing back the age barrier may be (and there is significant debate as to the value of expanding life spans), equal emphasis must be given to enhancing the quality of the life that is being lived now. Indeed, a key to that is social interaction, which is important for people no matter what their age, but especially as they grow older. Being with people, not being isolated and “alone,” can do much to enhance, extend, and add to one’s quality and quantity of life. This comes as no great scientific breakthrough. It is common sense. It speaks to the basic human need to be loved and to be needed and to count for something and to be with someone.
This is why, I think, Genesis instructs us that it is “not good” to be alone. The context of the verse introduces the need for Adam to be with another person, Eve. Yet, there is a deeper meaning than just companionship. I think the text is also reminding us that we cannot allow, as a family or a society, for people to be cut off from others, to live isolated, alone, unloved, and uncared for. One of our greatest challenges in the coming decades will be to ensure that our society does not allow people to age in isolation, to grow old in facilities that cut them off from social interaction and the basic need to be with people, to be needed, and to be loved.

Rabbi Richard Address, director of the Department of Jewish Family Concerns for the Union for Reform Judaism, will regularly share his work and thoughts on science, religion, and aging.

Thanks to Mike McCullough, a professor of psychology and religious studies at the University of Miami, for sending us his latest thoughts on sex differences in revenge (which also appear on his own blog and The Huffington Post):

A lipstick-adorned pit bull who hunts big game and shoots wolves from an airplane.
Unless you've been in a coma for the past month, you've probably noticed that the McCain campaign has put quite a bit of effort into portraying Senator John McCain's running mate as, umm, comfortable with the tools of aggression.
The evident appeal of the "Palin the Hunter" meme resonates with something else I've heard quite a bit recently: the claim that women are much more vengeful than men are. As you might know, I recently wrote a book about revenge, so I've gotten to hear a lot of different people's opinions on the subject, but until the past couple of months, I'd never heard so many people—mostly women, in fact—make this particular pronouncement with such conviction. In light of all the attention that the "guns and ammo" section of Gov. Sarah Palin's CV has received in the past few weeks, I just had to figure out where the "women are more vengeful than men" meme originated.
It turns out that it came from Patricia Cohen's New York Times piece, "Calculating Economics of an Eye for an Eye." Cohen was reporting on a recent research paper by Louisiana State University economist Naci Mocan which seemed to show that this is the case. At first glance, it seemed like a reasonable thing to conclude from Mocan's clever study, but honestly, women more vengeful than men? I had my doubts. Now that I've read Mocan's study myself, I'm even more skeptical. So before this becomes the next great urban myth about women (remember when we learned that single women over 40 stood a greater chance of being killed by a terrorist than finding a husband?), I thought I'd set the record straight.
In Mocan's massive survey of almost 90,000 people from 53 different countries, respondents were asked to recommend an appropriate sentence for a young man who has been convicted of burglary for the second time. (This time around, he has stolen a TV.) Respondents who recommended jail time were then asked to recommend how much time he should serve (from a month or less to life).
Mocan reasoned that the desire for revenge would show up as the excess amount of punishment recommended by respondents who had recently been burglarized themselves (about 7 percent of the sample) in comparison to people who had not been burglarized: Revenge, as Mocan observed, can only be executed by someone who has been wronged. He went on to discover that recent experience with being burglarized was linked to an 85 percent larger increase in the amount of punishment that women recommended than in the amount of punishment that men recommended. In other words, recent victimization changed women's judgments more dramatically than it changed men's judgments. And it was on this basis that Mocan concluded that females are the more vengeful sex.
But hang on: Why interpret this excess preference for stern punishment among burglarized women as the desire for revenge? Why not interpret it as the fear of revictimization? Which sex, do you suppose, would be more fearful of having a man break into their homes (remember, our hypothetical villain has stolen a television)? If it's the fairer sex, as I'd surmise, then the previously victimized women's elevated responses here may reflect not an elevated desire to return harm for harm, but rather, an elevated desire to keep criminals behind bars so that they're less likely to invade people's homes. We just can't be sure from the facts at hand.
A second problem: This study looked at people's guesses about how they would act in a hypothetical situation (prescribing a sentence for a hypothetical crime)—not how they actually responded to a choice with real consequences (as when a jury has to impose a sentence on a real criminal). Researchers have made careers out of showing how bad people are at these sorts of conjectures about their own behavior. If you're interested in people's surmises about their revenge behavior, then by all means, study their professed responses to hypothetical victimization scenarios. But if you're interested in what people actually do when they're wronged, ignore the conjecture and watch real behavior instead.
Speaking of behavior, the third reason to doubt that women are more vengeful than men is the mountain of behavioral research contradicting it. Consider this study from a couple of years ago—also reported in The New York Times—which showed that men had higher activation in brain areas associated with the anticipation of reward than women did when they watched someone who had previously harmed them experience physical pain. Conversely, women experienced higher activation in areas associated with empathy than men did in this situation. These sex differences suggest that men find enjoyment in seeing their provocateurs suffer, whereas women are pained by it.
Consider also this research on retaliatory homicides in St. Louis, Missouri. The researchers found that women committed about 10 percent of the nonretaliatory homicides, but only 4 percent of the retaliatory homicides. Sure, men do almost all of the killing in this world, but when it comes to revenge murders, they've practically got a monopoly.
Or how about this extensive review of laboratory experiments, which shows that men respond with more aggressive retaliation than women do when someone has done something nasty to them?
And what about anthropologists' studies of revenge around the world, such as Christopher Boehm's descriptions of the strong sexual division of labor in the blood feuds of tribal Montenegro, or Roger Gould's historical work on vendettas in 19th-century Corsica? Most of these studies show that it's quite rare for women to become actively involved in seeking revenge, although they often play important roles as goads to men who might otherwise lose their resolve to go forward with their bloody plans. Revenge, the anthropologists tell us, is (mostly) man's work.
Don't get me wrong—I liked Mocan's study in many ways and I'm glad to get my hands on it. But women more vengeful than men (i.e., pit bull plus lipstick = hockey mom)? Sure; it's one of those annoying little ideas that sticks in your head, and that can get your presidential ticket a little more attention, too, but as a legitimate statement about human nature and real behavioral differences between the sexes? Thanks but no thanks.

FROM THE REV. DR. ROBERT LeFAVI, AUTHOR OF THE 2:4 SOLUTION: Within hours of Gov. Sarah Palin's nomination for the vice presidency, the evolution-creation controversy was resurrected by the media. As the election nears, this issue will only draw more attention and may be a flash point in the race for Palin, who has gone on record supporting the teaching of creationism along with scientific evolution in public schools.
Does this issue mandate that we pick sides? Does science have to be pitted against religion in a winner-take-all battle? And what about those who espouse Judeo-Christian beliefs who also have grown to value science and all it has to offer? Must they cast aside one or the other? Can creation and evolution ever be reconciled in a way that gives credence to both sides?
The creation-evolution debate requires that we address these questions—questions I tackle in my book The 2:4 Solution, which is well-suited for study groups at churches and universities.
Using the best of science and theology, the book attempts to reconcile for readers the different answers to the question of our origins, and it's aimed especially at those who value science and might discard an orthodox concept of God because of what they see as a naive and outdated biblical understanding of creation. Can you be a good Christian and not believe in a literal six-day creation? My answer is "Yes!"

FROM RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM: In his satirical novel Boomsday, Christopher Buckley creates a scenario of the not too distant future in which, given the rush of baby boomers into Medicare and Social Security, the government develops a unique program to save money. They offer a two-week, all-expense-paid “honeymoon” to anyone—as long as these same people, upon turning 65, agree to kill themselves.
In reality, access to health care is no joke; it’s one of the major issues confronting our society today. And the religious community is beginning to turn its attention toward creating a faith-based dialogue.
Last weekend in Columbus, Ohio, I spoke about this issue—from the Jewish perspective—during a panel discussion at the Islamic Society of North America annual convention. Islamic and Christian speakers also shared the approach their faith traditions take to the issue of equality of access. We didn’t emphasize political positions, but instead based our talks on classic texts that mandated the care of the poor, the right to equal access, the importance of health, and the care of the body.
The “mood” of the Jewish tradition is to favor the idea that society should provide equal access to basic health care to all citizens. In part, this feeling is drawn from a concept of justice (the Hebrew term t’zedek or t’zedkah) and often springs from the belief that all people are created equal, in God’s image. We are mandated to create a society that puts all people on an equal footing.
Yet Jewish tradition also understands that “rationing” takes place in the real world; there are rising co-pays, limits on the time that can be spent with a doctor. There is even discussion within the tradition of a hierarchy of access that would place those who contribute to their health’s decline—those who insist on smoking, for example, or abuse drugs—on the bottom.
It’s important to note, however, that those who are without insurance or adequate health care are alone, cut off from good health and support, and in Genesis, we are commanded that it is not good to be alone; the Hebrew word for this concept is l’vado. A society that allows so many citizens to be alone, without, cut off from access, is a society that courts internal chaos. In a sense, people’s “alone-ness” allows them to be besieged by the threat of illness. It is the community’s challenge, and responsibility, to remove those threats and that fear by providing a basic level of support and care.
The stance of each religion—which all favor a program of equal access—comes face to face with the challenges of resource allocation. All are aware that there is a finite amount of money and that health care, like it or not, may have to compete with money for schools or a crumbling infrastructure. Society at large may have to face the prospect of increased taxes to fund the ideal of universal access—and that goes against the grain, to some degree, of our American ethic of individuality and autonomy. Yet if we approach this issue from the perspective of faith, regardless of the faith tradition, it will allow us to see that the good of the society at large must take precedence over the needs of the individual.

Rabbi Richard Address, director of the Department of Jewish Family Concerns for the Union for Reform Judaism, will regularly share his work and thoughts on science, religion, and aging.