Ethics and Religion

Notes to Contributors. Preface. Part I: Attacks on Religious Belief:. 1. Is Evil Evidence against Belief in God?. Evil Is Evidence against Theistic Belief: William L. Rowe (Purdue University). Evil Does Not Make Atheism More Reasonable than Theism: Daniel Howard--Snyder (Western Washington University) and Michael Bergmann (Purdue University). Reply to Howard--Snyder and Bergmann. Reply to Rowe. 2. Does Divine Hiddenness Justify Atheism?. Divine Hiddenness Justifies Atheism: J. L. Schellenberg (Mount Saint Vincent University). Divine Hiddenness Does Not Justify Atheism: Paul K. Moser (Loyola University, Chicago). Reply to Moser. Reply to Schellenberg. 3. Does Science Discredit Religion?. Science Discredits Religion: John Worrall (London School of Economics). The Demise of Religion: Greatly Exaggerated Reports from the Science/Religion Wars: Del Ratzsch (Calvin College). Reply to Ratzsch. Replay to Worrall. Part II: Arguments for Religious Belief:. 4. Is God's Existence the Best Explanation of the Universe?. Explanation and the Cosmological Argument: Bruce R. Reichenbach (Augsburg College). Why Traditional Cosmological Arguments Don't Work, and a Sketch of a New One that Does: Richard Gale (University of Pittsburgh). Reply to Gale. Reply to Reichenbach. 5. Does Religious Experience Justify Religious Belief?. Religious Experience Justifies Religious Belief: William P. Alston (Syracuse University). Do Mystics See God?: Evan Fales (University of Iowa). Reply to Fales. Reply to Alston. 6. Is It Rational for Christians to Believe in the Resurrection?. It Is Rational to Believe in the Resurrection: Stephen T. Davis (Claremont McKenna College). It Is Not Rational to Believer in the Resurrection: Michael Martin (Boston University). Reply to Martin. Reply to Davis. Part III: Issues within Religion:. 7. Can Only One Religion Be True?. How to Sink in Cognitive Quicksand: Nuancing Religious Pluralism: Keith E. Yandell (University of Wisconsin). It Is Not Reasonable to Believer that Only One Religion is True: Peter Byrne (King's College, University of London). Reply to Byrne. Reply to Yandell. 8. Does God Take Risks in Governing the World?. God Takes Risks: William Hasker (Huntington College). God Does Not Take Risks: Paul Helm (Regent College). Reply to Helm. Reply to Hasker. 9. Does God Respond to Petitionary Prayer?. God Responds to Prayer: Michael J. Murray (Franklin and Marshall College). God Does Not Necessarily Respond to Prayer: David Basinger (Roberts Wesleyan College). Reply to Basinger. Reply to Murray. 10. Is Eternal Damnation Compatible with the Christian Concept of God?. Eternal Hell and the Christian Concept of God: Jerry Walls (Asbury Theological Seminary). No Hell: Thomas Talbott (Willamette University). Reply to Talbott. Reply to Walls. 11. Is Morality Based on God's Commands?. Divine Commands Are the Foundation of Morality: Janine Marie Idziak (Loras College). Ethics Is Based on Natural Law: Craig A. Boyd (Greenville College) and Raymond J. VanArragon (Asbury College). Reply to Boyd and VanArragon. Reply to Idziak. 12. Should a Christian Be a Mind--Body Dualist?. Christians Should Affirm Mind--Body Dualism: Dean W. Zimmerman (Rutgers University). Christians Should Reject Mind--Body Dualism: Lynne Rudder Baker (University of Massachusetts). Reply to Baker. Reply to Zimmerman. Index

At the end of the nineteenth century, in his famous essay ‘The Ethics of Belief’ the well-known mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford offered a powerful argument against religious beliefs. This article first gives an extensive analysis of Clifford’s evidentialist argument by placing it against the background of his evidentialist epistemology. Second, some arguments of William James, Clifford’s most famous critic, are expounded and criticised. Although there is some plausibility to these arguments, they are insufficient to refute Clifford’s evidentialism. Third, the author presents some problems for Clifford’s evidentialism, having to do with evidentialism as a moral thesis and with doxastic involuntarism, and offers some new arguments against Clifford’s evidentialist argument. Clifford’s argument against belief in God, as it stands, turns out to be untenable.

This study examines why conservative Christians decide to run for school board and compares their decisions with those of non-Christian Right school board candidates. Although the study finds many similarities between the two types of candidates with respect to motivating factors, religious beliefs largely differentiate the two. Christian Right candidates are significantly more likely to indicate that their decision to run for office stemmedfrom the chance to "apply their religious or moral beliefs" to education policy. However, this study finds that church attendance-regardless of Christian Right status-is related to whether or not individuals are encouraged to run by fellow church members and pastors. Religious beliefs and practices-often neglected by mainstream political scientists who study political participation-are a vital part of why certain individuals decide to participate in at least one form of local politics. N _umerous studies have been devoted to the analysis of the recruitment of political candidates, although most are geared toward figuring out why certain individuals decide to run for Congress and state legislatures.1 Less is known about citizens who decide to run for local offices such as school boards. In recent years, school board elections involving Christian Right candidates have generated much attention by Christian Right leaders, their opponents, and the media. Yet scholars have not examined the motivation behind conservative Christians' decisions to become candidates for school board.

Previous research found declines in Americans’ religious affiliation but few changes in religious beliefs and practices. By 2014, however, markedly fewer Americans participated in religious activities or embraced religious beliefs, with especially striking declines between 2006 and 2014 and among 18- to 29-year-olds in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey ( N = 58,893, 1972-2014). In recent years, fewer Americans prayed, believed in God, took the Bible literally, attended religious services, identified as religious, affiliated with a religion, or had confidence in religious institutions. Only slightly more identified as spiritual since 1998, and then only those above age 30. Nearly a third of Millennials were secular not merely in religious affiliation but also in belief in God, religiosity, and religious service attendance, many more than Boomers and Generation X’ers at the same age. Eight times more 18- to 29-year-olds never prayed in 2014 versus the early 1980s. However, Americans have become slightly more likely to believe in an afterlife. In hierarchical linear modeling analyses, the decline in religious commitment was primarily due to time period rather than generation/birth cohort, with the decline in public religious practice larger ( d = −.50) and beginning sooner (early 1990s) than the smaller ( d = −.18) decline in private religious practice and belief (primarily after 2006). Differences in religious commitment due to gender, race, education, and region grew larger, suggesting a more religiously polarized nation.

Depression is one of the most common psychological disorders and many people in the world suffer from this disorder. Every year, thousands of suicides occur because of depression. Whilst anxiety is considered a common phenomenon of our era, it has existed throughout human history. Nevertheless, there have always been signs of religion and religious beliefs in the study of human communities and the history of civilisations. Despite rapid advancements made in solving the physical problems of human beings, the science of medicine has not taken an effective step toward solving humans’ psychological issues, although they play a considerable role in the emergence of physical diseases. Religion can affect the mental health of individuals and society through various mechanisms. In general, the role of religion and religious beliefs on the health of the individual and society is very important. A great deal of peace of mind can be achieved based on faith and moral beliefs and practices. People with religious beliefs have an optimistic viewpoint towards life, and their religious beliefs turn a dark life into a bright one even when all hopes are lost in the battle of life. Given the importance of this issue, the present study aimed to evaluate the role of Islamic religious beliefs of Muslim students on depression during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Malaysia. A field study was performed on 3500 Muslim students of Kuala Lumpur in 2021 by simple random sampling method. Data were collected using standardised questionnaires, and data analysis was performed in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). According to the results, people with a higher level of religious beliefs suffered less from depression, which confirmed the negative and significant relationship between Islamic religious beliefs and depression. According to the results of multiple regression analysis related to the components of the independent variable in SPSS, all components of Islamic beliefs had a significant role in reducing COVID-19-induced depression. Meanwhile, action required (t-value: 2.30; beta: 0.55) and religious activities (t-value: 2.24; beta: 0.54) had the most effect on reducing depression induced by COVID-19 disease.Contribution: The findings of this study could be used to treat people’s depression during the COVID-19 pandemic by taking their Islamic religious beliefs into account.

While some researchers have reported that religious beliefs are associated with less fear of death (Swenson, 1961), others have reported no association (Kalish, 1963). To explore this, the revised Collett-Lester fear of deatwdying scale (Lester, 1988) was given to 18 men and 18 women enrolled in college courses (M age = 22.7 yr., SD = 4.3). The mean scores were 21.4 (SD = 8.1) for fear of death of self, 29.7 (6.3) for dying of self, 27.2 (6.0) for death of others, and 30.1 (5.4) for dying of others. Scores on the four fear of death subscales were not related to belief in God, an afterlife, or that the subject would go to heaven, to church attendance, or whether the subject considered himself to be a religious person. Fear of one's own death was related to a fear of hell (Pearson r = 0.36, p<.02) even after controlling for age and sex by using partial correlation coefficients. The present analysis then gives no evidence for a strong association between fears of death and religious belief.

Theory and anecdotal evidence suggest that people undergo psychological changes before and after religious conversion and deconversion. Yet, existing research provided inconclusive evidence. Here, we examined psychological change before, during, and after institutional conversion and deconversion in a large-scale longitudinal study. We used 11-wave longitudinal data from a nationally representative sample of Dutch adults (N ~ 20,000) to assess changes in religious beliefs and practices, personality traits, and well-being before, during, and after conversion to and deconversion from Christianity. Converts (N = 181) increased in service attendance and prayer, but not in their belief in God, as they approached conversion. Deconverts (N = 450) declined in religious beliefs and practices before, during, and after deconversion. In terms of personality, converts displayed small, unexpected declines in emotional stability, extraversion, and agreeableness at time of conversion. Deconverts declined in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness at time of deconversion. Neither group showed changes in their well-being. The present findings suggest that psychological changes during religious conversion and deconversion are generally small and mostly manifest as changes in people's religious beliefs and practices. Findings are discussed in the context of person-religion fit, meaning-making, and sociocultural motive perspectives on religious change.

Testing theories of secularization and religious belief in the Czech Republic and Slovakia

ABSTRACTAimTo examine nursing experiences and perspectives regarding conscientious objection in healthcare practice.DesignQualitative Systematic Review.MethodsThe studies were identified, screened and appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) model and appraisal tools to assess the quality of the data and ensure rigorous evaluation.Data SourceFive databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, Emcare, Scopus and PsycINFO, were searched from September 2024 to December 2024 to identify existing qualitative studies on nurses' experiences and perspectives on conscientious objection.Results15 studies from 1998 to 2024 were included in this review from 11 different countries. The synthesised findings identified five themes related to nurses' experiences and perspectives of conscientious objection: (1) Conflict with Moral, Ethics, Religious and Personal Beliefs and Values; (2) Conflicts with Policy and Law; (3) Work Expectations, Team Decisions and Dynamics; (4) Conflict over Care Dilemmas; (5) Forms of Conscientious Objection.ConclusionNurses from various clinical settings reported various perspectives on conscientious objection, identifying different clinical care experiences, personal ethical and religious conflicts, and ways in which they managed forms of conscientious objection in practice. The various conflicts may impact nurses by promoting burnout, stress and emotional exhaustion.Implications for the ProfessionUnderstanding nurses' perspectives on conscientious objection allows clinical managers, stakeholders and policymakers to give nurses an opportunity to object conscientiously based on ethical and religious beliefs and create clear guidelines for ethical decision‐making. Such guidelines allow nurses to conscientiously object while still maintaining professional standards and minimising adverse effects on the care provided to patients. Allowing conscientious objection has important implications for nursing practice, particularly in balancing professional responsibilities with personal and religious convictions.Reporting MethodThis qualitative systematic review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO number: CRD42024599651

Tess of the D'Urbervilles, written by Thomas Hardy, a British critical realist writer at the end of the nineteenth century, is hailed as the gem of British literature and the world literature.The author successfully creates many tragedy characters, in which the image of Tess is the most typical one.This paper aims to search for the causes of Tess's tragedy in the aspects of social unrest, the patriarchal culture, and the religious and moral beliefs of bourgeoisie brought by social transformation in Victorian age and the practical significance.

This article presents a comparative analysis of teachers’ perspectives on their faith, spiritual convictions, and approaches to religious education in Catholic primary schools in Ireland and South Korea. The study shows that teachers’ religious beliefs significantly influence how they perceive spirituality, teach religion, and approach interreligious engagement. Some teachers prioritise transmitting faith, while others, even without belief in God, express a sense of the sacred connected to spiritual awareness. They seek to appreciate the sacred in every moment and nurture children’s innate spirituality, fostering a connection to the meaning of life. The research highlights the role of teachers’ beliefs in shaping their pedagogical approaches to interreligious education beyond the boundaries of a singular Catholic tradition. It particularly underlines their understanding of the broader context of spirituality, whether rooted in religious beliefs or not, and how it relates to the intersection between secular and faith worldviews. While Korean teachers often emphasise Catholic identity more prominently, both, Irish and Korean teachers integrate interreligious learning and align their teaching with broader spiritual values that enrich the diverse educational landscape. This paper contributes valuable insights into the complex interplay of religious beliefs, spirituality, and engagement in interreligious contexts.

Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose

ABSTRACTCompensatory Control Theory (CCT) suggests that religious belief systems provide an external source of control that can substitute a perceived lack of personal control. In a seminal paper, it was experimentally demonstrated that a threat to personal control increases endorsement of the existence of a controlling God. In the current registered report, we conducted a high-powered (N = 829) direct replication of this effect, using samples from the Netherlands and the United States (US). Our results show moderate to strong evidence for the absence of an experimental effect across both countries: belief in a controlling God did not increase after a threat compared to an affirmation of personal control. In a complementary preregistered analysis, an inverse relation between general feelings of personal control and belief in a controlling God was found in the US, but not in the Netherlands. We discuss potential reasons for the replication failure of the experimental effect and cultural mechanisms explaining the cross-country difference in the correlational effect. Together, our findings suggest that experimental manipulations of control may be ineffective in shifting belief in God, but that individual differences in the experience of control may be related to religious beliefs in a way that is consistent with CCT.

This study assessed the contribution made by knowledge of religion and religious belief in moderating the effect of the grieving process on 57 subjects who had reported a significant bereavement within the last 5 years. Degree of Christian knowledge or depth of commitment to Christian beliefs did not moderate either depression OT hopelessness. However, reporting a belief in God, irrespective of the degree of this belief, did appear to be associated with lower levels of both depression and hopelessness.

The growing secularism generates considerable interest in the manifestations of religious unbelief. In this study, conducted in Finland, Denmark, and the Netherland (N = 4404), we asked participants which of the following terms best describes their religious/spiritual identity: religious believer, spiritual but not religious, spiritual seeker, atheist, anti-religious, agnostic, nonbeliever, secular, or other. We also examined the participants’ God beliefs and their attitudes toward religion. While connotations of identity terms varied considerably across individuals and countries, the nonreligious identification groups consistently differed in the strength and certainty of God belief, and by the valence, ambivalence, importance, and reflection of the attitudes toward religion. The anti-religious had the most negative and unequivocal attitudes, and the agnostics, seculars, and spiritual seekers had the most uncertain God beliefs. By associating distinct attitude profiles with non-religious self-identification labels, the findings improve our understanding of why people choose a specific label in surveys on non-religiosity.