There has been a huge public debate about whether there is sufficient direct evidence of harm to introduce this regulation.

The players in this debate include academics, mental health organisations, advocacy groups and digital education providers. Few step back to look at the entire research landscape.

Social media has become integral to everyday life.

Not many teens want to be extensively researched, so studies are pragmatic, require consent and findings are limited. As a result, we tend to hear that the effects are small or even inconclusive.

For the public it's crucial to understand all research studies have limitations, and must be interpreted within the context in which the data was collected. To understand any report, we must scrutinise the details.

Several mechanisms are at play

In recent years, anxiety has been on the rise among children and young people.

Understanding why young people are anxious, depressed or overly focused on themselves is no easy task.

When it comes to the potential negative impact of social media, several mechanisms are at play.

To unpack them, data is needed from many angles: examining mood while online, examining mental health over several years, school relationships, even brain scans, to name just a few.

Despite all this complexity, the public tends to mostly hear about it through splashy headlines.

One example is the "small and inconsistent" result from an umbrella study of several meta-analyses totalling 1.9 million children and teenagers.

However, it's important to recognise this umbrella study included many research papers from an earlier time when researchers couldn't measure social media use as accurately as they can now.

One influential data set asked people to leave out time spent "interacting with friends and family" when they estimated their time on social media.

Yet in 2014 to 2015, sharing photos, following, and interacting with people you knew was the main use of social media.

The findings appeared within a larger study a few years later, resulting in one headline that stated: "screen time may be no worse for kids than eating potatoes".

With so many sources of error, it's no wonder there is vigorous debate among researchers over the extent of social media harm. Limitations are par for the course.

Worse, researchers are often not given full access to data from social media companies. That's why we need to pay more attention to big tech whistleblowers who have inside access.

Meanwhile, these companies do have access to the data. They use it to exploit human nature.

Focusing on debates between researchers is a misdirection and makes us complacent. There is enough evidence to demonstrate excessive social media use can be harmful to young people.

Here's what the evidence shows

One argument you may hear a lot is that it's not clear whether depression and anxiety cause higher screen time use, or higher screen time causes more depression and anxiety.

This is known as a bidirectional effect - something that goes both ways.

But that's no reason to ignore potential harms. If anything, bidirectional effects matter more, not less, because factors feed into one another. Unchecked, they cause the problem to grow.

Harms of social media use are shown in studies that examine the effects of sharing selfies, the impact of algorithms, influencers, extreme content, and the growth in cyberbullying.

Social media activates envy, comparisons and fear of missing out, or FOMO. Many teens use social media while procrastinating.

It is through these mechanisms that the links to depression, anxiety, low self esteem and self harm are clear.

Finally, until the age of 16, increased time on social media is associated with feeling less satisfied with appearance and school work.

There is also reliable evidence that limiting social media use reduces levels of anxiety, depression and FOMO in 17-25-year-olds. We ignore this evidence at our peril.

The evidence is sufficient

Understanding the intricacies of how every aspect of modern life affects mental health will take a long time.

The work is difficult, particularly when there is a lack of reliable data from tech companies on screen time.

Yet there is already enough reliable evidence to limit children's exposure to social media for their benefit.

Instead of debating the nuances of research and levels of harm, we should accept that for young people, social media use is negatively affecting their development and their school communities.

In fact, the government's proposed ban of children's social media use has parallels with banning phones in schools.

In 2018, some critics argued that "banning smartphones would stop children gaining the knowledge they needed to cope online".

Yet evidence now shows that smartphone bans in schools have resulted in less need for care around mental health issues, less bullying, and academic improvements - the latter especially for socio-economically disadvantaged girls.

It's time to agree that the harms are there, that they are damaging our community, and that we need strong, thoughtful regulation of social media use in young people.

First published in The Conversation

• Danielle Einstein is Adjunct Fellow, School of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie University

This was the case in India and is still the case today.

While not directly involved in the environmental field, in recent years Jesuits have increasingly taken initiatives in what can be called environmental justice.

Promoting ecological awareness, reforestation, water purification measures, defence of tribal natural resources are some examples. Others have studied biodiversity or created botanical gardens.

One man of science who stands out among Indian Jesuits is Fr Savarimuthu Ignacimuthu (pictured).

He is primarily a biologist, but his scope is very broad, having published over 800 scientific papers and 80 books with two US and 12 Indian patents.

It is worth noting that a species of insect bears his name, Jacthrips ignacimuthui, as well as a natural molecule, Ignaciomycin.

He is one of the top one percent of scientists in the world based on the number of citations of his work by other scientists. We interviewed him.

Father Ignacimuthu, you are a man of science and a man of God; where do you find unity in your life?

The basic foundational experience of the Divine from my childhood and the awe and wonder I experience when I encounter nature have helped me integrate my spirituality of seeing God in all things and all things in God.

Recognition of God's presence in the created beings and things in the universe is the outcome of my union with God.

By means of created things, whether big or small, the divine confronts me, penetrates me and moulds me.

Thus, creation and spirituality converge upon the same view of the reality, that is, vision of God in the concrete world. In this way I experience the unity of being a man of science and a man of God.

What has your work as a biologist taught you?

The most important lesson I learnt from my work as a biologist was the understanding that everything and every life are inter-connected and inter-dependent in this world.

The orderly nature of the universe and the diversity of life forms on earth are very evident everywhere.

They constantly proclaim unity and relatedness.

The complexity of life and its perfect coordination are indeed stepping-stones for awe and wonder.

The mathematical principles that govern everything in this universe and the world are the foundation for this.

For example, the elegance and the organization of the DNA and RNA, their multiple consequences of the copying mechanisms and their implications in expressions are fascinating.

The extensive interaction of miniscule independent cells with one another and the formation of various organs that contribute to life's success are indeed the evidences for the relatedness of all.

My research outputs have contributed to the welfare of the poor in the following ways: Read more

• The Secretariat for Social Justice and Ecology (SJES) undertook this interview: [From "Jesuits 2024 - The Society of Jesus in the world"]

It was a sign of God's action and beauty in the world.

Global wonder

The past week has been dominated by reports from around the globe.

They're packed with striking images and videos of the aurora borealis and aurora australis enveloping the night skies with swathes of green, violet, cerise and blue.

For a brief moment, people paused the trolling, hate, and division that usually monopolises social media to share in a common moment of magnificent spectacle.

This was the first global solar storm of the Instagram age.

People forgot to which tribe they belonged, transcended the everyday, and enjoyed with millions of others a shared moment of awe in a world charged with God's grandeur.

Such heavenly phenomena have inspired humankind and human cultures for thousands of years.

These celestial events have fuelled the myths, tales and superstitions of the ancients and still do today in almost every contemporary culture.

More than science

Like most happenings today, the stunning show was greeted with scientific explanations, in this case solar particles reacting to the magnetic poles and our atmosphere.

However, on this rare occasion when the world's sky was ‘lit up', even the scientists turned to other-worldly forces, even religion, for an explanation.

On Monday morning, Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, when interviewed on ABC Breakfast, described the auroras as "God's television set."

And why not?

Why wouldn't God want to turn our attention elsewhere and show each person he walks with us?

With conflicts raging around the globe, a cost-of-living crisis, mental health epidemic and people struggling in every sense of the word, what can be more timely than a rare solar storm sparking a light show that all people can share in?

In a time of trial and tribulation for many, we can give thanks for a sliver of heavenly hope.

It is a type of event that does not demand so much explanation but evokes a sense of faith, gratitude and reverence—the reception of a gift.

Interplay - not conflict

One of the greatest misconceptions in the secular world is there is an incessant conflict between our faith and science.

In contrast, our Catholic tradition and our history bears forth a rich interplay of faith and science throughout many centuries.

After all, it was a Belgian priest George Lemaître who created the Big Bang Theory.

Also engaged in the meeting of these mysteries was Nicolaus Copernicus, geneticist Gregor Medel and Louis Pasteur just to name a few.

Catholics have celebrated the insights of faith and science and harmonised these through a shared wonder of God's creation, including our own.

The truth is that for believers, science can be a form of worship.

The pursuit of discovery is an act of devotion in which we seek to celebrate life, seek truth, and draw closer to a God who draws near.

Faith leads

The Vatican sent a written message last week to the International Network of Societies for Catholic Theology (of which the Xavier Centre of Theology at the Australian Catholic University is a member).

In it, Pope Francis instructed theologians to collaborate with experts from other religions and scientific disciplines.

The Holy Father said "it is part of our Catholic faith to explain the reason for our hope to all those who ask."

This is another way of saying that the largest solar storm in more than two decades, occurring in the midst of global turmoil and covering the majority of the world in a celestial glow, gives us good reason to pause, look upward and look outward.

Sure, we can always seek a scientific explanation.

But there are times when it is better perhaps to simply adore and give gratitude for what God gives us.

Explanation and even science can only ever take us so far. It is faith that takes you the rest of the way.

• First published in The Catholic Weekly
• Marcus Middleton is the Director of Communications & News Media for the Diocese of Sydney

I have spent three weeks at the South Pole Station with the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, which is looking to detect tiny particles called neutrinos which come from cosmic events in deep space and help us learn more about our universe!

The South Pole Station is like a larger International Space Station.

There are only about 150 people here in a single, two-story building, which means you can get to know pretty much everyone and form an awesome community.

The downside is that there is less infrastructure, such as organised religious gatherings.

Holidays like Christmas and Hanukkah are celebrated with fancy dinners from the galley staff, but there aren't religious services, unless you organize them yourself.

McMurdo Station, on the other hand, is more like a small town.

Located on the Ross Sea, McMurdo, or "Mactown", is the largest of the U.S. stations and hosts up to 1,000 people during the summer months.

McMurdo Station boasts more "real-world" amenities like a coffee house, recreation department, multiple bars, and even a chapel.

I got to spend about 10 days in McMurdo Station on my way to and from the South Pole and experience the religious offerings of the station.

On my first trip through McMurdo, I was first struck by the beauty of the continent, and the second was how every high point on station was designated with a cross.

Each cross was a memorial to those who had died on the continent.

The crosses were sobering reminders of the extreme conditions people have and still face here and how lucky I am to be here.

But they were also comforting reminders of faith as I adjusted to my new life for the next month, thousands of miles away from home and anything familiar.

Even from town, I can see the silhouette of crosses against the constantly lit sky and know that someone is looking out for me.

My absolute favourite place on Station is the Mary Shrine on the Hut Point Ridge Trail, affectionately nicknamed "Rollcage Mary" due to the roll cage that attempts to protect her from the harsh winds and weather that unexpectedly sweep across the peninsula she sits on.

It was a beautiful place to chat and pray with my heavenly friends.

One night, I felt overwhelmed and needed to escape the bustling McMurdo Station and my cramped isolation quarters.

I walked up to Mary and just sat in her shelter, cocooned in my parka, watching the skuas float on the windy air streams.

The very first place I went after arriving at the station was the Chapel of the Snows.

It sits prominently at the end of the road overlooking the Ross Sea, with the Royal Society Mountain Range peeking behind on a clear day.

You can't miss it.

Anyone going to or from the dorms, galley, or science lab pass by the unique white and blue building.

The current Chapel of the Snows was dedicated in 1989 after the previous building burnt down.

It is a non-denominational building that serves as a gathering and worship space for all residents of McMurdo Station, as well as the nearby New Zealand Scott Base.

My favourite part of the chapel is the stained-glass window, which features the continent's outline, a chalice, bread, and a penguin!

There are also two cute painted penguins saying goodbye as you exit.

There are chairs, cushions, and lots of books for use by all faith groups residing on station.

Each summer season, the religious communities of McMurdo Station are supported by chaplains provided by the U.S. Navy, the U.S. National Air Guard, or the Diocese of Christchurch, New Zealand.

Usually, the chaplains work out of the Chapel of the Snows, but we had a rare visit from Chaplain Donny Chamberlin when I was at the South Pole Station.

It was amazing to connect and talk faith over a meal, who was passionate about connecting with people.

Each week, residents of McMurdo Station will organize religious gatherings.

There's Shabbat on Friday nights, an interfaith worship service on Sunday mornings, followed by a Catholic service afterwards.

I got to spend one Sunday on station and I was thrilled to attend service.

There were about ten of us gathered, including two volunteers who led us in a lay service since there was not currently a priest on station.

We said the prayers, read the readings and even had a communion service with hosts consecrated by a visiting priest from earlier this season.

Mass has always been a tricky part of my Catholic faith.

It was one of the things I was forced to do as a kid growing up, and it's the main thing other Catholics will tell you you have to do to be a "good Catholic."

Mass often feels mundane, boring, and disconnected from my spirituality, and the parish community tends to drive my will to attend each Sunday.

However, this time, it was AMAZING to reconnect with something so familiar in a faraway place and unfamiliar in every way.

Ten strangers became an instant community in our shared bond of faith.

Staring past the stained-glass window to the Royal Society Mountains behind the Ross Sea, I felt full of peace; I felt at home on this distant continent.

It was definitely one of the most meaningful services of my life and I was grateful for the experience.

• Elaine Krebs is a Roman Catholic Christian currently living in Los Angeles. She graduated from the University of Southern California with a Master's Degree in Marine and Environmental Biology, and now works as both a science teacher at a local museum, as well as Confirmation Coordinator at her local parish. Elaine was first introduced to interfaith work as a member of USC's Interfaith Council, and continues to be involved, especially surrounding the intersection of science and religion. She also enjoys studying and experiencing diversity within religions, especially the different rites within Catholicism.
• First published in Interfaith America.

I was asked these questions after introducing myself and my major at a Bible Study my sophomore year in college. I sat there confused for a few minutes before answering.

I am currently at the South Pole Station in Antarctica with the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, which is looking for tiny particles called neutrinos that hit Earth from distant cosmic events.

IceCube is trying to find out more about these tiny particles, as well as where they come from, in an effort to learn more about our universe! I am so excited and honored and grateful to be here.

Religious people are the minority here at the station, and whenever my Catholic faith comes up, I am again asked those same questions I was asked years ago at Bible Study, but in reverse.

How can you be religious? Don't you believe in science?

I grew up Roman Catholic, attended 13 years of Catholic School, and still actively practice my faith as a scientist and a science educator.

I had never seen a conflict between my faith and my scientific endeavours until I was posed with these well-intentioned questions in college.

Through my interfaith work, I have been able to learn and experience more about tensions between spiritual and scientific pursuits.

Many religious people, especially within Christianity, believe in God as a Creator.

According to the Book of Genesis, God said let there be light…and there was light. Over the course of six days, God created water, the atmosphere, plants, animals, and humans.

Some see this tenant of God creating the universe in conflict with scientific theories of how the world came to be, such as the Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe was created by an explosion from one singular point - and that over time - a long time, 13.4 billion years - particles came together to form light and stars and galaxies and planets and eventually molecules and cells and living things.

Some people will say, the Big Bang could not have happened because God created the universe.

Others will say we have evidence of the Big Bang, so there's no way God created the universe.

I do not see the two as mutually exclusive.

And I have found that the conflict between these stances comes from a misunderstanding of the other.

There is room for science in the Genesis creation story.

God said let there be light, but it doesn't say how.

To me, God could have commanded the particles of the Big Bang to form the light. Or maybe He created the natural laws that allowed stars to come into being.

Likewise, there is room for a Creator in the Big Bang Theory.

There are a lot of questions still to be answered like - how did something come from nothing?

What actually "set off" the Big Bang?

Maybe one day we will have more answers, but for me, this is where God fits in.

My position on integrating God and science comes under attack constantly from scientists and religious people.

I take solace in Fr Georges Lemaître, a Jesuit priest who is credited with theorizing the Big Bang Theory.

He is quoted as saying "there are two paths to truth - I chose to follow both of them."

After over ten years of studying both faith and science, I am ready with a response to all those questions: "I believe in God, and I believe in science. God created the universe. Science tells me how."

• Elaine Krebs is a Roman Catholic Christian currently living in Los Angeles. She graduated from the University of Southern California with a Master's Degree in Marine and Environmental Biology, and now works as both a science teacher at a local museum, as well as Confirmation Coordinator at her local parish.
• First published in Interfaith America. Republished with permission.

If the existence of God was even minutely possible, he claimed, then the potential gain was so huge - an "eternity of life and happiness" - that taking the leap of faith was the mathematically rational choice.

Pascal's wager implicitly assumes that religion has no benefits in the real world but some sacrifices.

But what if there were evidence that faith could also contribute to better well-being?

Scientific studies suggest this is the case. Joining a church, synagogue or temple even appears to extend your lifespan.

These findings might appear to be proof of divine intervention, but few of the scientists examining these effects are making claims for miracles.

Instead, they are interested in understanding the ways that it improves people's capacity to deal with life's stresses.

"Religious and spiritual traditions give you access to different methods of coping that have distinctive benefits," says Doug Oman, a professor in public health at the University of California Berkeley.

"From the psychological perspective, religions offer a package of different ingredients," agrees Prof Patty Van Cappellen at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Studying the life-extending benefits of religious practice can therefore offer useful strategies for anyone - of any faith or none - to live a healthier and happier life.

You may find yourself shaking your head in scepticism, but the evidence base linking faith to better health has been decades in the making and now encompasses thousands of studies.

Much of this research took the form of longitudinal research, which involves tracking the health of a population over years and even decades.

They each found that measures of someone's religious commitment, such as how often they attended church, were consistently associated with a range of outcomes, including a lower risk of depression, anxiety and suicide and reduced cardiovascular disease and death from cancer.

Unlike some other areas of scientific research suffering from the infamous "replication crisis", these studies have examined populations across the globe with remarkably consistent results.

And the effect sizes are large.

Dr Laura Wallace at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, for instance, recently examined obituaries of more than 1,000 people across the US and looked at whether the article recorded the person's religious affiliation - a sign that their faith had been a major element of their identity.

Publishing her results in 2018, she reported that those people marked out for their faith lived for 5.6 years more, on average, than those whose religion had not been recorded; in a second sample, looking specifically at a set of obituaries from Des Moines in Iowa, the difference was even greater - about 10 years in total.

"It's on par with the avoidance of major health risks - like smoking," says Wallace.

To give another comparison: reducing hypertension adds about five years to someone's life expectancy. Continue reading

A 2019 Pew Research Center Survey of Americans aged 13 to 17 found that only 50 per cent believed religion was an important part of their lives, as opposed to 73 percent of their parents.

This trend has caught the attention of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which published on its website an article titled "Confronting Secularism Today" by Robert Spitzer, S.J., who posits four causes for this trend:

• A perceived contradiction between God and science.
• A lack of evidence for God from science and logic.
• An implicit belief in materialism.
• A general disbelief in the historicity and divinity of Jesus.

While all these factors may indeed cause some young people to abandon their faith, the list feels incomplete to me. After all, the same Pew survey found approximately 85 percent of teens believed in a higher power.

As a 17-year-old Catholic, I know many people my age who are abandoning their churches and their faith.

I spoke to a few to understand why. (I've used pseudonyms, due to the personal nature of their comments.)

The institutional church, to many of my peers, is seen as antiquated and corrupted by greed, paedophilia and bigotry.

They place the blame for these things on the shoulders of church leaders.

Still, many also feel personal dissatisfaction with the church.

While the answers my friends provided are anecdotal, a common theme emerged: The most prevalent issue that is widening the gap between young people and the church is the institution itself.

Stigmas and suffering

The tone and emphasis of catechesis, especially in preparation for the sacraments, can have a real impact on how young people perceive the church as a whole.

One of of my friends, Jo, talked about an abstinence and pro-life lecture she was required to attend in preparation for the Sacrament of Confirmation, a lecture she found deeply uncomfortable.

She felt the presenters left no room for genuine questions from those who doubted the church's teachings and focused too much on shame.

Jo told me she became concerned that people would assume that she would be similarly closed to the discussion around her politics or personal beliefs based on her religious affiliation.

"I would just [tell people] I'm a Christian, but I wouldn't say Catholic," she said.

The idea that somebody can be turned off by the church because of the church can be tough to grasp.

One of the people I spoke with is a friend of mine named Dominic, who has a strong faith in God and attends church every Sunday.

When I asked him if he thought the church was driving people away, he told me, "I think it is impractical to believe in God in the 21st century because people want to believe in what they see, not something that requires faith alone… They aren't used to the idea that something that cannot be seen can be real."

Dominic's answer also resonates strongly with the belief that people are leaving the institution because of a growing sense of materialism and a feeling that God doesn't have any room in daily life.

Another friend decided to walk away from religion because of a perceived separation between themselves and God.

James, who was raised Catholic and attended Mass every Sunday as a child, is now an agnostic.

While preparing for his confirmation, he began feeling that relying on an invisible God to help him out when times were tough wasn't enough.

Witnessing the long and painful deaths of his aunt and uncle, who were both very religious, also frustrated him.

James reflected on this experience by saying, "I guess it kind of set me back from religion just to realize what God can do to such kind people who also believed in him."

Today, James has abandoned the church and, for the most part, his faith.

James says he only entertains the idea of God existing when someone he knows is religious is going through a sad or painful ordeal.

In those situations, he says that he does pray for that person on the off chance that there is a God listening.

Confronting a secular trend

My friend Andrew is an atheist, raised by Catholic parents, who rarely attended Mass growing up.

For as long as I have known him, he has been vocal about his stance on religion as an unnecessary institution that sets unnecessary rules.

He says he is not against the church; rather, he simply feels no desire to attend. He also says the lack of exposure to religion has made him question its validity.

For Andrew, the concept of faith itself is challenging.

And indeed, Father Spitzer's four reasons do apply in Andrew's case, too, as he believes science and God contradict each other, and that there is little to no appreciable scientific evidence of a creator.

Andrew isn't opposed to going to Mass, but doesn't see himself as the type of person who would join the church.

He told me, "Maybe if the opportunity ever arose, I'd be open to it. But as of now, I don't really see a reason to attend Mass or attend church regularly."

While an intellectual approach may be able to answer some of the questions my secular-leaning friends have—like Andrew's questions on God in relation to science and James's questions on suffering—I believe the church leaders need to approach the issue from another angle, as well. Continue reading

In Islam, forgiveness suggests alignment with Allah.

In Judaism, acts of atonement — or Teshuva — are expected for wrongdoing.

In Christianity, forgiveness is unconditional, by loving one's enemies as oneself.

Throughout human history, religion and science have often been framed as conflicting with one another. Advances in biology, cosmology and neuroscience can challenge traditional religious interpretations.

The tension between what science can measure and what a faith teaches, such as the theory of evolution or stem cell research, can be exacerbated by political concerns rather than underlying theological beliefs and practices.

The modern world is complex, and the challenges we face are multi-faceted and interconnected.

To become more resilient, we must draw upon the best of scientific insight and spiritual wisdom — finding inspiration through religious texts like the Torah, the Bible and the Quran and using the most rigorous scientific methods to shed new light on age-old teachings.

When it comes to the transformative power of forgiveness, scientists and faith leaders agree on its benefits for long-term mental and physical health.

It is clear that the ability to forgive — to transform anger and resentment into hope and healing — can indeed be a restorative and healing act requiring faith.

But forgiveness is also backed by an ever-growing body of scientific evidence, one that refines and extends our faith in new ways.

The distinct realms of science and faith traditions are endeavouring to understand the inner workings of forgiveness and to share that gift of knowledge with people from all walks of life around the world.

A strong example of a faith community practicing forgiveness in the midst of unthinkable violence, loss and deep sorrow is the Amish Community.

The October 2006 shooting at the West Nickel Mines School in the Old Order Amish Community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, left five female hostages dead along with the gunman.

Before news spread of this tragic event, the Amish elders called on the younger Amish community not to harbour anger or seek revenge. "How did the Amish decide so quickly to extend forgiveness?

That question brought laughter from some Amish people we interviewed," writes Donald B. Kraybill in the book, "Amish Grace, How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy."

"You mean some people actually thought we got together to plan forgiveness? … Forgiveness was a decided issue … it's just what we do as nonresistant people. It was spontaneous. It was automatic. It was not a new thing," quotes Kraybill.

The Old Order Amish Community certainly practiced "decisional" forgiveness — modifying behaviour to reduce direct hostility.

They may have practiced "emotional" forgiveness, using empathy and compassion to transform negative emotions into positive ones.

Forgiveness experts would suggest that while the community's approach is rooted in faith, the combination of decisional and emotional forgiveness is continually reinforced by the value it brings to the individual who forgives.

Forgiveness is not the same as justice, which is an equally important but altogether separate concept.

One doesn't need to reconcile with the offender or repair a relationship.

Forgiveness works even when it is unilateral.

We now know that to receive the most powerful benefits of forgiveness, it requires both the head and heart.

Decisional forgiveness, which accesses the cognitive centres of the brain, must be accompanied by emotional forgiveness, which involves a full range of affective consequences.

In addition, over the past two decades, research has delivered high-quality evidence that forgiveness improves overall health and well-being, down-regulates the body's stress response and improves cardiovascular outcomes.

And for those whose ability to forgive may not be as automatic, scientific knowledge based on tested interventions can support the work of spiritual leaders who seek to help their communities with their forgiveness journeys.

Likewise, scientific research has engaged directly with aspects of faith, demonstrating through empirical studies how belief can enhance a person's ability to forgive.

Across dozens of scientific studies in diverse contexts, the physical and mental health benefits of forgiveness have been validated.

At the Templeton World Charity Foundation, we continue to fund these investigations to increase awareness of the incredible potential for forgiveness to improve lives and have partnered with Religions for Peace to drive a larger campaign for individuals to "Discover Forgiveness."

The campaign aims to share the scientific benefits of forgiveness.

Evidence-backed tools such as the REACH forgiveness model, based on more than 30 studies testing its efficacy, provide a way to practice a set of steps that allow individuals to consider forgiving themselves, others and even God.

There are several tools like these, but the articulated steps, studied and verified, are where scientific methodologies prove to enhance spiritual principles.

Religious leaders around the world have seen firsthand that fostering and practicing forgiveness has the power to transform deep-seated responses to memories and legacies of injustice, conflict and war.

It can liberate people from being imprisoned in their pasts and the long-ingrained mental and emotional conditions created by such legacies.

Faith and spiritual traditions have long guided and inspired us to awaken the best of our human potential, to practice love, mercy, forgiveness and reconciliation and to reshape our destinies.

We invite you to continue to reflect on the journeys of forgiveness. We firmly believe that we all need forgiveness in our lives, families, communities, institutions and nations.

• Dr Andrew Serazin is the co-chair of the Discover Forgiveness campaign and president of the Templeton World Charity Foundation. Prof. Dr Azza Karam is the secretary general of Religions for Peace International.
• First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

Several secular universities are already home to many of these institutes.

The aim of the plan is to help make Catholicism's intellectual tradition a vital aspect of academic life, foccusing on the theology, arts, politics and history of Catholicism.

The Lumen Christi Institutes, which will manage the fund, say the independent institutes help Catholic students see the integration between their studies and their faith.

Lumen's acting CE, Michael Le Chevallier, believes Catholic students at secular universities should feel better equipped to ask themselves: "How does this career fit within my vocation as a lay Catholic person?"

One benefit he can see coming from the grant is it will enable several institutes in the network to amplify their focus on science and religion. This is important given the widespread misconceptions and myths around the relationship between science and faith.

"Unfortunately today, Catholics have inculturated some of the worst divisions between science and Christian faith into our own mental worldview in America," Le Chevallier says.

Many believe evolution is in conflict with modern Catholic faith and many young adults think modern science and the Catholic faith are in conflict — often resulting in their leaving the church, he says.

While the independent network currently includes six Catholic institutes, there are plans for more: after its first year, the network will expand to new members, including ecumenical partners.

Some established institutes, like Lumen Christi in Chicago, have been around for more than two decades, while others like the Nova Forum and the Harvard Catholic Forum were founded in the last two years or so. COLLIS at Cornell will begin programming this summer.

Catholic physicist Jonathan Lunine of Cornell University is looking forward to the new opportunities the funding will offer students.

He has seen how different university environments, "which may be less supportive of their faith," can be for religious students.

It's crucial to create opportunities that allow them to have an informed dialogue with faculty and their peers, he says.

This will help them to "really grow and understand that their faith is not something that's in conflict with science but, it's a part of their core personality.

"Whether they go into science or medicine or law … their faith will provide a source of strength."

He plans to help facilitate programming that looks into how faith and science inform each other when they're in conflict. Talks on sacred music, its history and meaning are also on his radar.

As an astronomer, Lunine, a Catholic convert who was raised Jewish, says his faith helps him approach his work with more humility. It also informs how he appreciates "the beauty and deeper aspects of the cosmos than just the calculations themselves".

Source

• Religion News Service
• Image: YouTube

This was, after all, the same Brian Tamaki whose Destiny Church followers wanted to reclaim Christchurch "for Jesus" in the immediate aftermath of the 2019 terrorist attacks. And who blamed the Christchurch earthquakes on "gays, sinners and murderers".

Those familiar with the branch of modern Christianity known as Pentecostalism would not have been surprised at all. Tamaki's Destiny Church is part of the fastest-growing religious movement in the world, with an estimated 500 million adherents.

Today the average Pentecostal is as likely to be Nigerian, Fijian, Korean or Brazilian as they are to be British, American, Australian or Kiwi.

Aotearoa New Zealand is just one of many places Pentecostalism is flourishing. As well as the more prominent churches such as Destiny, City Impact, the Assemblies of God (AOG) and Elim, a host of smaller congregations exist throughout the country.

Here and elsewhere, Pentecostals' steadfast assertion that the raw power of the Holy Spirit will prevail over the principalities of darkness has run up against the cultural and environmental realities of the modern world.

A record of resistance

Nowhere is this more obvious than in their responses to COVID-19. As nation-states have rolled out public health measures, Pentecostals have seemed unwilling and unable to accept epidemiological explanations and strategies.

Tamaki's actions are the tip of an iceberg of global resistance. Pentecostals have been at the forefront of legal pushbacks against gathering restrictions and insisted only the second coming of Christ would force churches to close their doors.

They have proclaimed COVID cannot survive in the bodies of the faithful, declared a link between the virus and 5G mobile technology, and maintained the pandemic is God's yardstick for distinguishing his loyal servants from pretenders.

While these claims and interpretations can appear outlandish and dangerous, they are not entirely incomprehensible. Rather than view them as nonsense, it is more helpful to see them as a different kind of sense altogether.

Miracles and wonder

Specifically, Pentecostal values are a religious response to the pandemic and a spiritualisation and demonisation of the virus. This goes directly to the Pentecostal obsession with the Holy Spirit.

Pentecostalism is defined, above all, by its intense experientialism. More than any other Christian variant, it is concerned with saturating human existence in otherworldly power.

The Pentecostal vocabulary is not one of ritual, liturgy or structure, but of ecstasy, surprise, miracles and wonder.

From this standpoint, any stricture, rule or earthly imposition that impedes a life in the Spirit is, by default, suspect and anathema. This sets up an overall opposition between the spiritual and the worldly that helps define the difference between good and evil or God and Satan.

Defining Pentecostalism

For the devoted Pentecostal, everything is either one or the other, and to be on the side of the world is to collaborate with the enemy. Several features of this theology directly shape Pentecostal responses to COVID-19.

Triumphalism: Pentecostals are fearless combatants in a spiritual war against Satan. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate weapon in this charge, providing absolute confidence in a Biblically preordained victory. With its long shadow of sickness and fear, COVID-19 bears the Devil's signature.

Framed as an active demonic force, the virus is something that should not - must not - be feared. The triumphalism determined by a total faith in the Spirit to conquer evil immediately establishes an ethos that spurns caution, regulation and withdrawal.

Deliverance and healing: The former expels demonic forces threatening well-being, while the latter cleanses a diseased body affected by those same powers. These religious tools are brought to bear against the pandemic, warding off the Satanic viral threat while healing the afflicted. Logically, vaccination becomes unnecessary, misguided and a betrayal of faith.

Tribulation: Pentecostals are deeply concerned with the end of human history as the precursor to Christ's return and the establishment of God's paradisical kingdom. The Tribulation is a seven-year nightmare of evil and suffering featuring the rise of a nefarious "new world order".

Within this end-times scenario, all humanity is branded with the mark of the beast, a process authorised by Satan. An apocalyptic plague and Satanic mandates for vaccination provide further prophetic justification for a pro-healing, anti-vaccination position.

The Kingdom: Pentecostals are not huge fans of worldly entities and human rules. They prefer divine authority, spiritual inspiration and Biblically sanctified morality. The Kingdom of God is juxtaposed with the debased platforms of government and capitalism (even if countless Pentecostals embrace a divinely sanctioned materialism).

Translated into the pandemic context, the continual legislative and policy directives of the government are, by virtue of their human origin, tainted with iniquity. As always, paramount trust must be placed in the Holy Spirit and the Bible.

Faith and science

It may be tempting to see Pentecostalism as its own worst enemy by denying the science and leaving its followers vulnerable to epidemiological catastrophe.

But it is also a relatively young branch of Christianity and not necessarily uniform in its beliefs. As has been observed elsewhere, "medical science and divine healing […] have never been considered mutually exclusive by the entire movement".

The question therefore becomes, can Pentecostalism reach a détente with the world, as mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Catholic churches have done?

It would seem the tide can be turned, even if compelled by tragedy. For example, after the death of one of its congregants, the Pentecostal church at the centre of the largest sub-cluster of Auckland's current Delta outbreak embraced vaccination, having initially denied its validity.

This is a pattern now being repeated across many pockets of the Pentecostal world, albeit within a church still fixated on spiritual dynamism and miraculous cures. For now, however, it may take more than faith in worldly reason to persuade Brian Tamaki and his flock that vaccines and lockdowns are a blessing and not a curse.

• Fraser Macdonald is a Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, University of Waikato
• First published in The Conversation

With this in mind, there are many people who see universal vaccination as the only way to bring the pandemic to an end, often invoking the mantra of "follow the science."

As a slogan it would seem to have a certain appeal, but the evidence suggests that the catchphrase has not actually been particularly effective at increasing vaccination rates.

After all, a significant portion of the population has still refused to be vaccinated and indeed is skeptical of the science.

I am the director of the Vatican Observatory.

That means that I am both a scientist and an official within the Catholic Church.

I am well familiar with both scientific and clerical authority. And while I am all in favour of vaccinations, I also find myself troubled by that phrase, "Follow the science."

It implies that the authority of science is infallible.

But, of course, science is not infallible.

Yes, the vaccine prevents the disease for the overwhelming majority of people who receive it, and even for breakthrough cases, it reduces the severity of the disease.

But the vaccines are not perfect.

Fully vaccinated people can, and do, come down with Covid—sometimes with serious effects, even if this happens rarely.

To the vaccine sceptic, the fact that such failures happen at all suggests not only that the vaccine is not perfect, but it also gives credence to their fear that "following the science" blindly can be dangerous.

As much as we hate to admit it, that fear of blind trust in science does have an element of truth to it.

Sometimes "the science" is wrong.

I am a scientist, and I can name any number of papers I have written that have turned out to be embarrassingly incorrect.

But more so, there are times in our history when "the science"—or at least how it is presented to the general public—has turned out to be not merely imperfect but horrifyingly wrong.

The popularizers of science in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—people like H. G. Wells, Alexander Graham Bell and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes—all promoted the idea of eugenics.

They insisted that we could perfect the human race by eliminating supposedly "inferior" people.

It was an idea so self-evident to these figures that anyone (including the church) who opposed it on moral grounds was seen as dangerously backward.

As a result of the popular acceptance of eugenics, it is estimated that 70,000 women, mostly minorities, were forcibly sterilized in the United States during the 20th century.

Such programs continued well into the 1970s. And, of course, this was also the logic of Nazi death camps.

Because popular science had been so wrong in this case, does it logically follow that science should never be trusted?

Obviously not.

For one thing, science eventually got it right; indeed, eugenics had been long discredited in scientific circles decades before the fad of forced sterilizations was finally halted. (Of course, even if the science had been true, forced sterilization still would have been immoral.)

One could argue that the villains in this tragic situation were the popularizers, who succumbed to the temptation of promoting oversimplified views of the science in question.

But that does not excuse the scientists who got it wrong in the first place.

It goes deeper than that.

The fight over "following the science" is really a fight over the reliability of authority in general.

At the end of the day, both those who promote science and those who disdain it are looking for certainty in an uncertain universe.

It is an almost Calvinistic intolerance of error; the world is black and white, and "failure is not an option."

If only we could be certain, we tell ourselves, if only we could be without doubt.

You only become a scientist when you are able to look at something you thought you understand and they say, "Hmm, that's not right."

The irony is that science itself is actually a process based on doubt and error, and of learning how to analyze that error.

In science, it is essential to know that you don't know all the answers: That is what drives you to work to learn more and to not be satisfied with what you already know.

Sadly, though, that is not how we teach science.

In the introductory courses at least—and how many people ever get past the introductory courses?—"success" in your science class means getting the same answer as you find in the back of the textbook.

True, doing such rote problems in science is probably the fastest way to immerse a student into a sense of what it feels like to practice science successfully.

In the same way, you have to learn to play the scales before you get to play the music. But scales are not music, and getting the "answers" is not science.

You only become a scientist when you are able to look at something you thought you understood and then say, "Hmm, that's not right." Until you can do that, you will not even know to start looking for what went wrong.

In science, failure isn't an option; it is a requirement.

Doubt plays a role parallel to that of faith.

The writer Anne Lamott summarized it perfectly when she said that the "opposite of faith is not doubt; the opposite of faith is certainty."

It is not just that if we did not have doubts we would not need faith.

It also means that doubt is the essential driver that keeps us looking for God and will not let us be satisfied with just accepting, or rejecting, the stuff we learned when we were kids—like in science.

Accepting doubt, accepting the inevitability of error, also means accepting a tolerance for other people even when they have been wrong.

I still enjoy the stories of H. G. Wells, I still admire much that Oliver Wendell Holmes did as a chief justice, and I still use Alexander Graham Bell's telephone, even as I abhor those people's views on eugenics.

I can accept that heroes sometimes are also sinners, even serious sinners.

Science and religion seem to be in conflict only if you think of both of them as closed books of rules and facts, each demanding infallible credulity.

But that's not religion; that's fanaticism. And that's not science; that's scientism.

Science does not give you the perfect truth.

But it can tell you the odds.

Science and religion seem to be in conflict only if you think of both of them as closed books of rules and facts, each demanding infallible credulity.

We trust the vaccine because it vastly improves your odds of not getting sick. (The trouble is, of course, that most of us are lousy at understanding how odds work, which is why casinos and lotteries are so successful.)

There is a further irony, of course, seen in some of the vaccine-skeptic crowd.

Just after they announce that they are too clever to be fooled by the experts, they then start self-dosing with some utterly inappropriate and dangerous drug that they heard about on the internet.

The same folks who urge us not to be sheep are the next minute trying to cure Covid by taking drugs meant for sheep.

Why would anyone trust their lives to some random site they found on the internet?

Why would we reject religion in favour of a philosophy we can read on a T-shirt or a bumper sticker?

We should recognize the temptation.

It is the allure of gnosticism, a desire to embrace "secret knowledge."

This is an urge that has been around since the Church Fathers in the second and third century, and indeed since the ancient Greeks performed esoteric rites.

But rather than heaping scorn on those who fall prey to this urge, perhaps we might want to look at where we have gone wrong in the way we teach our science and our religion.

If we promote "follow the science" with the implication that the scientists deserve to be followed because they are smarter than you, aren't we just feeding a dangerous fallacy?

If your sense of self-worth comes from thinking that you are smarter than the average person, that you are the smartest guy in the room, then a great temptation arises to never agree with the consensus of the majority—never to be a "sheep."

If you are smarter than everyone else, then presumably you must know something that no one else knows.

And if your beliefs come at a high cost—for example, because of the scorn you endure for holding them—then you become so invested in your peculiar stance that you can't ever admit you were wrong.

And so I think this comes to the root issue: the identification of intelligence or cleverness as a criterion of superiority.

Certainly, the history of the church should tell us otherwise, if only we were paying attention.

There were many learned theologians in the 19th century, most of them at each other's throats; nearly every one of them is long forgotten in the history of the church.

Instead, the saints of that era were people like Bernadette; Francis de Sales; and Thérèse of Lisieux, the "Little Flower."

The simple people who were not concerned so much with scoring theological points as experiencing God.

Trying to understand the universe, from astronomy to medicine, is only possible when it is a response to love.

It depends on loving the unlovable; trusting even when trust is uncertain; willing to forgive and learn even from those who have gone wrong in the past; living with uncertainty, even as we learn to trust.

After all, the only certain thing in life is God's love and mercy—and our need for both.

• Guy Consolmagno, S.J., is the director of the Vatican Observatory.
• First published in America Magazine. Reproduced with permission of the author.

Early candidates like the temporal or parietal lobes never panned out. And differences in how researchers define spirituality has also complicated things, because different areas of the brain light up when we use moral reasoning vs when we experience awe.

But what has remained clear is more than 80% of humans worldwide report being spiritual or religious.

Now, a group of researchers have used a method known as "lesion network mapping" to find the home of spirituality in the brain.

In their study, published in Biological Psychiatry, the researchers report that they have located a specific brain circuit for spirituality, found in the periaqueductal gray (PAG).

Only time will tell if that finding holds true or goes the way of other potential god spot candidates.

But spirituality, which can be broadly defined as a sense of connection with something greater than the self, is worth studying.

Many of the components associated with spirituality, namely connection, awe, empathy, altruism and compassion, are also solidly associated with happiness in the research.

The brain's spiritual circuit

For this study, the researchers used a technique that has a long history in neuroscience, namely using the location of lesions in the brain to figure out what certain areas do.

Using a previously published dataset that included 88 neurosurgical patients with lesions in a variety of different places in their brains who were going to have the tumours surgically removed.

They compared their results with another dataset of >100 patients who experienced penetrating head trauma from combat during the Vietnam War.

These are two very different datasets, reflecting the challenges of doing this kind of research.

The surgical patients were surveyed about spiritual acceptance as contrasted with religiosity, with questions like "Do you consider yourself a religious person?" before and after their surgeries.

Before and after their neurosurgeries to remove brain tumours, 30 of the 88 patients showed a decrease in self-reported spiritual belief, 29 showed an increase, and 29 showed no change.

The researchers mapped this self-reported spirituality mapped to a particular brain circuit in the PAG. Continue reading

The inscription translates as "I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise".

Who were the wise?

The wise were scientists and philosophers who thought that knowledge could be acquired through observation of phenomena, engaging in inductive reasoning to make general statements about the phenomena, and then moving through to increasing higher levels of generality to form what we now call theories.

From theories testable hypotheses could be derived which the "wise" would seek to falsify or disprove in experiments.

Hypotheses not falsified (disproven) added to the credibility of the theory (or modified it in certain ways).

This became "the scientific method" and its application has helped all branches of science to progress.

Aquinas knew this was wrong; the church said so and taught so.

Knowledge did not come from reasoning; it came from God. And God said that the sun went around the Earth whatever the observations of "scientists" might say to the contrary. They were blasphemers and heretics, people whose views had to be expunged from society lest they corrupt more people.

Fortunately, we don't accept Aquinas's theory of knowledge anymore (nor his cosmology).

However, since at least the 1930s we have seen much pseudo-science; findings that seem to have the trappings of genuine inquiry but on close examination are not fully in accordance with the principles of the scientific method.

The late Professor Sir Karl Popper assailed the propagators of such work as perverting science and thought their aims were ideological, not scientific.

He reserved particular contempt for Marxists and their fellow travellers who wanted to use science for propaganda, not for education or learning, or to promote freedom (see The Open Society and its Enemies).

Misuse of science and intellectual falsehoods in the name of "truth" and "for the greater good" undermined democratic values and open debate, he argued.

These days there is a lot of "this is the official line, which shall not be questioned, and is indeed unquestionable because the science is settled". For ‘‘science'' equally read ‘'history" or ‘'truth''.

I don't think that nutters and people who are plainly wrong should be allowed free rein to peddle complete nonsense which could alarm the public, but I am not sure I want to be overly vigorous about stamping out their views. Continue reading

• John Bishop is an experienced journalist across all media, business, economics, politics features, and profiles. He also has an interest in travel and writes at www.eatdrinktravel.co.nz

The conference titled "Extraterrestrials, AI, and Minds Beyond the Human" will take place at the Hilton Hotel from June 4-6. The event will also be live-streamed.

Conference discussions will provide scientific and theological insights on the subjects of real and hypothetical intelligences. There will be emphasis 0n extraterrestrial and artificial intelligences.

Dr Stephen Barr, president of the Society of Catholic Scientists, said four of the invited speakers will discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life from their respective fields. These fields are astrophysics, astrochemistry, evolutionary biology, and Catholic theology.

"There's a lot of excitement because in recent years, astronomers have discovered large numbers of planets orbiting other nearby stars. They could learn a lot about these planets. For example how far they are from the star, how big the planet is, even things about the chemistry of the planet in some cases", Barr told CNA.

The conference will also include two Poster Sessions. One for presentations on the conference's theme and another for presentations on topics such as the correlation between science and faith.

Barr said the SCS conference provides an open forum for reflections on the intersection between science and the realms of theology and philosophy. He said the conference's goal is the same as the goal of the Society of Catholic Scientists. That is to foster community among Catholic scientists and to be a witness to the world. He emphasized the importance of promoting a successful collaboration between science and faith.

"[It's] very important nowadays because there are many people out there who think that science and faith are incompatible," he said.

"I think if people see that there's a large organization of a large number of scientists, [who are] devout, practicing Catholics, I think it has a witness value and is stronger evidence for people in the science department."

Sources

Catholic News Agency

Collective Evolution

But Dr Juliet Gerrard says whether that would come to pass if the country voted to legalise recreational cannabis is unknown.

The report says evidence for overseas outcomes is uncertain, reflecting:

• The short time since reforms were made
• Different regulatory approaches
• A commercial industry that isn't yet fully established

Pre-existing or time-lagged trends in health and social impacts also contribute.

The evidence may never become entirely 'certain', and interpretation will require value judgements.

The Aotearoa experience will depend on the nations unique environment and specific regulatory approach and implementation.

"We're pretty sure of the situation at the moment. We're much less sure of what will happen if we legalise it," Gerrard told the New Zealand Herald.

She has led an expert panel of academics, researchers and health and social experts - co-chaired by Auckland University Professor Tracey McIntosh - in gathering information to inform the debate in the lead up to September's vote.

The panel's work, peer-reviewed internationally and nationally went, live on Wednesday and contains a wealth of information.

A new poll shows 48 per cent of Kiwis would support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill at the referendum this year, compared to 43 per cent who are opposed.

The UMR poll was commissioned by the Helen Clark Foundation and surveyed 1,128 New Zealanders 18 years of age and over. The margin of error is 2.9 per cent.

It showed support had increased by two points since the last UMR poll February, while the opposition had fallen by one point.

Read What might happen if you vote

Read The whole report

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• pmcsa.ac.nz
• Image: nzherald.co.nz

The Catholic church has famously struggled to accommodate scientific research in its past, but recently there has been evidence of a healthier relationship developing.

In many ways, Pope Francis has embraced science as a way of learning about the world. Notably, his encyclical has urged people to care more for the environment and climate change.

His message moves away from the concept of having dominion over the earth, and instead encourages stewardship of it. This stance has resonated with Catholics and other religious people world over.

By aligning the papal agenda more closely with what science tells us, what impact does Pope Francis have on how people of faith engage with and appreciate science?

Catholics accepting science

There are a few potential motivators behind Pope Francis and the modern church's dedication to the discussion of scientific issues.

First, it becomes harder all the time to refute basic scientific findings. Thus, it makes sense to accommodate new findings rather than isolate yourself from them.

Apart from the pardoning of Galileo for the heresy of believing in the heliocentric solar system, an interesting example of this comes in the form of Vatican Observatory director Guy Consolmagno saying he would happily baptise an alien.

Another factor is that some scientific findings and advances are so significant that they present urgent moral issues. It is here, in the ethical implications of developing science, that the church finds traction.

In 1936, Pope Pius XI started the Pontifical Academy for Life to advise the church on scientific matters.

Today, the academy explores solutions to ethical issues in topics such as artificial intelligence, bioethics, human genome editing, and robo-ethics.

Furthermore, it's possible the church has a genuine interest in promoting and contributing to science through its own research initiatives, of which the most famous is the Vatican observatory.

The observatory was originally created because of the need to precisely moderate the religious calendar. For centuries it has contributed significantly to modern astronomical research.

Faith and facts are not always at war

Catholics as a group seem quite amenable to the idea that science is compatible with the theory that God created the Universe.

In 2017, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate found that Catholics, compared with other religious groups, were more accepting of scientific world views.

As an example of this relative ease with science, the Church has allowed serious discussion around evolution since at least 1950, when Pope Pius XII said evolution could coexist with Catholic doctrine (even though the following paragraph of his statement mentions the Biblical Adam as a real person).

This engagement with evolution was strengthened by John Paul II, who said evolution was much more than a hypothesis. He also won a lot of scientists over by formally acquitting Galileo of heresy.

Today, Pope Francis is quite open about his belief in evolution, albeit as a means by which God created humankind.

Perhaps because of this series of developments, American Catholics are ahead of their evangelical counterparts in accepting that life has evolved, rather than being created in its current form.

Of science, faith, or both?

There's an old adage that science is about discovering empirical facts about the world and religion is about the meanings we find in it, but this is a shallow conception of both.

Religious teachings are often grounded in simple and immediate acts of living, and science gives us powerful narratives that help us understand our place in the Universe.

Many great scientists were Catholics, including Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Gregor Mendel, and Louis Pasteur. One could argue this was the result of cultural and philosophical norms at the time.

Of course, many modern scientists are people of faith, but the percentage of scientists who profess no faith is much higher than among the general public.

Even so, The Pontifical Academy for Life includes some of the world's leading academics and scientists. While they may not be Catholics themselves, their willingness to engage with the church and advise them on critical issues is noteworthy.

This would not happen if the church and Pope Francis himself were not seen to value scientific expertise.

Leading the way ahead

The Catholic church is not a scientific institution, and it would be foolish to suggest it is.

Its religious purpose may be compatible with many aspects of science but, unlike science, its core tenants are not open to revision, even though these core tenants have seemed somewhat malleable over the centuries.

Despite this, the relationship between science and the church looks better now than ever before. The development of this relationship will have a significant impact on the public's understanding of and engagement with science.

Considering the crucial role science and technology play in our prosperity as a species, we can only hope future popes continue to respect and act on the best scientific advice possible.

I would be happy to take that imperative as an article of faith.

• Peter Ellerton is a Fellow of the Rationalist Society of Australia. Lecturer in Critical Thinking; Curriculum Director, UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland.
• Image Tedx Brisbane.
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission.

Students from Hato Paora College took part in a programme.

The photograph above shows Hato Paora College students trying to build a hydraulic arm powered by syringes.

"We're building a Lego robot that can move by using syringes and minimal materials," said Ihaka Komene, one of the students.

During the day, the students did six challenges related to different Maori legends.

One legend was the battle between Maui and the sun, which tells the tale of Maui slowing down the sun to make the days longer.
Students created a maze to slow down the journey of a marble so it would reach the bottom of the path at specific times.

The day was part of the Amua Ao programme, an initiative to raise Maori participation and achievement in STEM subjects led by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and Puhoro.

Puhoro Stem Academy was launched in 2016 in response to low national engagement of Maori in STEM-related career pathways.

That subsequently leads to lower numbers of Maori representation in science and technology industries in Aotearoa.

Puhoro seeks to change this space and recognises that a STEM workforce is required for an innovation-focused future society.
The programme works directly with secondary school students and their whanau across the country.

It provides students and whanau with mentoring, tutoring, wananga (experiential learning/field trips) within culturally appropriate settings.

These experiences help them navigate career pathways into science and technology-related industries.

"Source

• stuff.co.nz
• puhoro.co.nz
• ipu.ac.nz
• Image: stuff.co.nz

But the Government says there are no plans to change New Zealand's cautious approach to genetic engineering, and any changes are many years away. Continue reading

In 1739, she told her father she wanted to become a nun. He balked, but agreed to let her spend more time studying mathematics and theology.

Agnesi never entered a convent, but she also never married or had children, taking an alternate path as a lay Catholic who devoted her life to acts of charity. Read more

And now you can visit it — virtually, anyway — in the nation's capital at the interactive "Tomb of Christ" exhibit of the National Geographic Museum that unifies cutting-edge science and technology with faith.

The science has been deployed to conserve and shed new light on the ancient building.

The faith stirs the feelings of every Christian who approaches those places where Our Savior suffered, died and rose again, according to a tradition that goes back until at least the fourth century.

The latest scientific tests confirmed the presence of rock-cut Jewish tombs dating back to the first century, when Jesus lived.

The sediment in samples from the mortar was measured for its most recent exposure to light using Optically Simulated Luminescence (OSL).

Contrary to many researchers who claimed that the shrine was built only 1,000 years ago at the time of the Crusades, the mortar and marble slab covering the original burial bed have now been found to date back to 345 B.C., when Roman Emperor Constantine built the shrine around the tomb, according to National Geographic.

The exhibit celebrates the recent preservation of the Edicule of the Holy Sepulcher built by Franciscan friars in 1555.

Led by an interdisciplinary group of engineers, researchers, stonemasons and professors from the National Technical University of Athens, the work began in 2016 and was completed in time for Easter 2017.

This precious complex has undergone many cycles of destruction and rebuilding since Constantine, the first Christian emperor, first visited in 325.

Constantine tore down a Roman temple that had been erected to counteract growing Christian fervor and built the first church on the site.

It was wrecked under Arab rule in the seventh century. In 1009, Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the church to be burned down. Earthquakes and fires wreaked further havoc. Each time, it was rebuilt.

The constant traffic of visitors and the destructive impact of water, humidity and soot from gas lamps and candles have undermined the stability of the building.

The stone walls of the Edicule were "starting to buckle outward," according to National Geographic Society chief archeologist Fredrik Hiebert. Intervention was urgent. Continue reading

Source and Image:

• National Catholic Register article by Nora Hamerman, who writes from Virginia.