Podcasts about templeton foundation

In this podcast, we sit down with renowned translator and scholar Dr Asim Bakhshi, who is a computer engineer and literary polymath. Dr. Bakhshi holds a PhD in cardiosignal analysis (UET Lahore) while actively working in NLP and machine learning. As a translator, he received the Urdu Science Award (2017) for rendering Charles Peirce's philosophy of science into Urdu under the Templeton Foundation. His literary works include the poetry collection Shahrah-e-Shawq and Dubidha - winner of the 2022 KLF Best Urdu Prose Award for its exploration of philosophical dualities. We explore:

In this podcast, we sit down with renowned translator and scholar Dr Asim Bakhshi, who is a computer engineer and literary polymath. Dr. Bakhshi holds a PhD in cardiosignal analysis (UET Lahore) while actively working in NLP and machine learning. As a translator, he received the Urdu Science Award (2017) for rendering Charles Peirce's philosophy of science into Urdu under the Templeton Foundation. His literary works include the poetry collection Shahrah-e-Shawq and Dubidha - winner of the 2022 KLF Best Urdu Prose Award for its exploration of philosophical dualities. We explore:

Today, we are joined by Dr. Wendy Wood. Dr. Wendy Wood is Provost Professor of Psychology and Business at the University of Southern California, where she teaches classes on behavior change. Given her research over the past 30 years, she is widely considered the world scientific expert on habit formation and change. She has published over 100 articles, and her research has been supported by Proctor & Gamble, National Science Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, and the Radcliffe Institute. She is the author of Good Habits, Bad Habits. Dr. Wood is a popular speaker at scientific conferences and with a broad range of professional groups. In 2018, she gave the inaugural address in Paris for the Sorbonne-INSEAD Distinguished Chair in Behavioral Science. Her work has been featured in The New York Times, NPR, Washington Post, on radio shows like Freakanomics, and in podcasts like the People's Pharmacy. In this episode, Dr. Wendy Wood teaches us the science of habit formation and maintenance. The discussion covers the effectiveness of uncertain rewards in reinforcing behaviors, the significance of repetition, and how to leverage context to build and sustain habits. She also explains habit stacking, habit discontinuity, and the role of rituals. Finally, Dr. Wood emphasizes the critical role of environment in shaping our behaviors, advocating for a focus on creating supportive contexts over relying solely on willpower. Dr. Wendy Wood's Website: https://dornsife.usc.edu/wendy-wood/ - Website and live online programs: http://ims-online.com Blog: https://blog.ims-online.com/ Podcast: https://ims-online.com/podcasts/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesagood/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesgood99 Chapters: (00:00) Introduction (03:53) Tool: The Power of Repetition in Habit Building (07:00) Techniques: Habit Stacking and Swapping (09:00) Tip: Leveraging Life Changes for New Habits (11:05) Tip: Stress and Its Impact on Habits (15:46) Tip: Rituals vs. Habits (19:13) Tool: Context and Environment in Habit Formation (22:13) Addiction vs. Habit (25:25) Conclusion

Today, we are joined by Dr. Wendy Wood. Dr. Wendy Wood is Provost Professor of Psychology and Business at the University of Southern California, where she teaches classes on behavior change. Given her research over the past 30 years, she is widely considered the world scientific expert on habit formation and change. She has published over 100 articles, and her research has been supported by Proctor & Gamble, National Science Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, and the Radcliffe Institute. She is the author of Good Habits, Bad Habits. Dr. Wood is a popular speaker at scientific conferences and with a broad range of professional groups. In 2018, she gave the inaugural address in Paris for the Sorbonne-INSEAD Distinguished Chair in Behavioral Science. Her work has been featured in The New York Times, NPR, Washington Post, on radio shows like Freakanomics, and in podcasts like the People's Pharmacy. In this episode, we cover the science behind our habits and how they influence our daily behaviors. Wendy highlights the significant role of the non-conscious brain and the habit part of our brain that drives much of what we do without our conscious awareness. We also explore the differences between habits and one-off decisions driven by willpower, the process of habit formation through repetition and rewards, and the concept of ideomotor action introduced by William James. This episode touches on the introspection illusion, the critical role of environmental context in shaping our habits, and practical strategies for forming and disrupting habits. Join us for this masterclass on habits! Dr. Wendy Wood's Website: https://dornsife.usc.edu/wendy-wood/ - Website and live online programs: http://ims-online.com Blog: https://blog.ims-online.com/ Podcast: https://ims-online.com/podcasts/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesagood/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesgood99 Chapters: (00:00) Introduction (02:37) Tool: The Power of Habits vs. Willpower (06:38) Tool: The Role of Environment in Habit Formation (10:51) Tip: Defining and Recognizing Habits (12:11) Tip: The Introspection Illusion (14:43) Tip: Situational Control vs. Self Control (20:16) Tool: Context and Habit Formation (23:47) Tip: Debunking Habit Formation Myths (25:25) Technique: The Importance of Immediate Rewards (27:52) Conclusion

In this episode of AUHSD Future Talks, Superintendent Matsuda interviews Emily Gonzalez and Christina Kundrak from the USC Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education (CANDLE). They are joined by AUHSD's Diana Fujimoto (Professional Development Coordinator) and Michael Switzer (English Curriculum Specialist). During the talk, the group discusses CANDLE's partnership with AUHSD, transcendent thinking, learning loss, purpose, finding the right language and mindset, intentional practice to support students, pausing to reflect, the connection between the 5Cs and transcendent thinking, and where can an educator begin with transcendent thinking.Emily Gonzalez is pursuing a PhD in Education at USC's Rossier School of Education. Before entering the PhD program, Emily worked as a researcher at Project Zero. She earned her EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and her BS in Elementary Education from Wheelock College. Emily is interested in promoting equitable educational practices and systems by reimagining educational opportunities for students and teachers. Her research uncovers the biological, psychological, and social processes engaged in effective K-12 teaching practices and dispositions, and how they impact learners' agentic development of interests, scholarly and social identities, and ability to self-author and engage with societal complexities.Christina Kundrak is a Senior Research Associate at the USC Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education (CANDLE). Kundrak received her PhD in Urban Education Policy from USC Rossier School of Education. Kundrak was previously a high school science teacher and also worked in educational technology. She attended Pepperdine University, where she earned her bachelor's in psychology. Kundrak's research interests include neurobiological and psychological factors affecting student and teacher beliefs, motivation, engagement, and learning and the application of the aforementioned topics to educational systems to better support students in their academic and personal growth. Her current projects include an observational and neuroimaging study of teachers, funded by the Templeton Foundation and new work on agentic identity development and meaning-making from the Jacobs Foundation.

Jon tracts the evangelical Christians stories of the week including what Russell Moore said on his podcast recently about racism, what he wrote about slander, what N.T. Wright said about Abortion and Gun Rights, and what J.D. Greear has pushed for a decade at Summit Church and within the SBC.#RusellMoore #ChristianityToday, #gunrights #abortion #slander00:00:00 Intro/IVF00:12:14 Russell Moore00:42:38 Greear00:56:36 Templeton Foundation01:04:30 N.T. Wright on GunsOur Sponsors:* Check out Express VPN: expressvpn.com/MATTER* Check out Roundhouse Provisions: roundhouseprovisions.com/HARRISSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/conversations-that-matter8971/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Dr. Sauer-Zavala is Licensed Clinical Psychologist with over 15 years of experience working with people struggling with anxiety and depression. She is also an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Kentucky (UK) where she develops new treatments for common mental health conditions and tests them in rigorous clinical trials. Dr. Sauer-Zavala is the lead developer of a short-term intervention personality difficulties to address common mental health problems – COMPASS (a loose acronym for cognitive behavioral modules for personality symptoms). Dr. Sauer-Zavala is also the Founder and Director of Compass Mental Health Training & Consulting, through which she has been invited all over the country and the world (Ireland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, South Africa, Hong Kong, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Canada) to train therapists in her potent, parsimonious interventions. Dr. Sauer-Zavala received her doctorate in Clinical Psychology from UK in 2011; she completed her predoctoral residency at Duke University Medical Center and her postdoctoral fellowship at Boston University. Dr. Sauer-Zavala is well-regarded in her field. She has co-authored over 120 peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and an academic book on personality. Her research has been supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the Canadian Institute of Health Research, and the Templeton Foundation. Her work is internationally respected – in 2023 alone, Dr. Sauer-Zavala was invited to give keynote talks at mental health conferences in Sydney, Australia and Cambridge, UK. She also has also worked closely with the Canadian government to develop a mental health prevention program from cadets training to become Royal Canadian Mounted Police (i.e., “Mounties”) officers. 3 Top Tips How to make small changes to your behaviors and thoughts that, when maintained over time, lead to the lasting personality changes that improve mental health and make it easier to more toward relationship and career goals Social Media https://www.personality-compass.com/ instagram: @self.made.personality twitter: @sauerzavala

Key Topics:Blame and Punishment:Examination of blame and punishment as tools for maintaining organizational balance.Discussion on the psychological and organizational impacts of these mechanisms.Norms and Behavior:Importance of norms in guiding behavior and responses to violations.Punishment should be a last resort; other corrective measures are preferable.Takeaways:Harsh punishment can be destructive and damaging to organizational climate.Punishment should be a last resort; other corrective measures should precede it.Importance of norms in governing behavior and responses to violations.Distinction between private and public blame, and the importance of fair and constructive criticism.Exploration of restorative justice as an alternative to punitive measures in organizations.Further Reading:Podsakoff et al. (2006), "Relationships Between Leader Reward Behavior and Punishment Behavior and Subordinate Attitudes, Perceptions, and Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.Trevino (1992), "The Social Effects of Punishment in Organizations: A Justice Perspective" Academy of Management Review.Molemaker et al. (2016), "The Impact of Personal Responsibility on the (Un)Willingness to Punish Non-Cooperation and Reward Cooperation" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.Links to Our Guest:Dr. Bertram Malle, Brown University. Brown University Faculty Directory Social Cognitive Science Research LabGoogle ScholarBertram F. Malle [Guest] earned his Master's degrees in philosophy/linguistics (1987) and psychology (1989) at the University of Graz, Austria.  After coming to the United States in 1990 he received his Ph.D. at Stanford University in 1995 and joined the University of Oregon Psychology Department.  Since 2008 he is Professor at the Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences at Brown University.  He received the Society of Experimental Social Psychology Outstanding Dissertation award, a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and he is past president of the Society of Philosophy and Psychology. Malle's research has been funded by the NSF, Army, Templeton Foundation, Office of Naval Research, and DARPA. He has distributed his work in 130 articles and several books, on the topics of  social cognition (intentionality, mental state inferences, behavior explanations), moral psychology (cognitive and social blame, guilt, norms), and human-robot interaction (moral competence in robots, socially assistive robotics). 

Join Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. of Aquinas 101, Godsplaining, and Pints with Aquinas for an off-campus conversation with Prof. Raymond Hain about the evolution of Catholic education, the role of the teacher in humanities education, how to cultivate a love for the liberal arts in students, and more! You can watch this interview on YouTube here: https://tinyurl.com/3cfn3639 About the speaker: Raymond Hain is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Associate Director of the Humanities Program at Providence College in Providence, RI. Educated at Christendom College, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Oxford, he is the founder of the PC Humanities Forum and Humanities Reading Seminars and is responsible for the strategic development of the Humanities Program into a vibrant, world class center of teaching, research, and cultural life dedicated to the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. His scholarly interests include the history of ethics (especially St. Thomas Aquinas), applied ethics (especially medical ethics and the ethics of architecture), Alexis de Tocqueville, and philosophy and literature (especially Catholic aesthetics). His work has been supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Templeton Foundation, the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation, and the Charles Koch Foundation. His essays have appeared in various journals and collections including The Thomist, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, and The Anthem Companion to Tocqueville. He is the editor of Beyond the Self: Virtue Ethics and the Problem of Culture and is currently working on a monograph titled The Lover and the Prophet: An Essay in Catholic Aesthetics. He joined Providence College in 2011 and lives just across the street with his wife Dominique and their five children.

Dr. Sauer-Zavala is Licensed Clinical Psychologist with over 15 years of experience working with people struggling with anxiety and depression. She is also an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Kentucky (UK) where she develops new treatments for common mental health conditions and tests them in rigorous clinical trials. Dr. Sauer-Zavala is the lead developer of a short-term intervention for personality difficulties to address common mental health problems – COMPASS (a loose acronym for cognitive behavioral modules for personality symptoms). Dr. Sauer-Zavala is also the Founder and Director of Compass Mental Health Training & Consulting, through which she has been invited all over the country and the world (Ireland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, South Africa, Hong Kong, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Canada) to train therapists in her potent, parsimonious interventions.Dr. Sauer-Zavala received her doctorate in Clinical Psychology from UK in 2011; she completed her predoctoral residency at Duke University Medical Center and her postdoctoral fellowship at Boston University. Dr. Sauer-Zavala is well-regarded in her field. She has co-authored over 120 peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and an academic book on personality. Her research has been supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the Canadian Institute of Health Research, and the Templeton Foundation. Her work is internationally respected – in 2023 alone, Dr. Sauer-Zavala was invited to give keynote talks at mental health conferences in Sydney, Australia and Cambridge, UK. She also has also worked closely with the Canadian government to develop a mental health prevention program from cadets training to become Royal Canadian Mounted Police (i.e., “Mounties”) officers. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/new-mind-creator/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/new-mind-creator/support

It's time for episode 4: “Zombie Pseudoscience”!You can find a nice (not Substack-generated) transcript of the episode, as well as a music-free remix, here.I know what you've been thinking (I have theory of mind, after all). You've been wondering, “When are they going to discuss Karl Popper? And Imre Lakatos? And goblins?” Well, in this week's episode, we're delighted to finally connect all this “theory of mind deficit” business with the philosophy of pseudoscience.“Zombie Pseudoscience”Autism research focusing on “theory of mind deficits” seems… off. As we've already discussed, it has suffered from repeated failures of replication, and seems to involve constantly shifting goalposts. So at this point, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of this research is bad science.But what makes “theory of mind deficit” research bad science? And is it possible that this body of research has become so bad that it's no longer science at all?We speak with autistic philosopher of science Travis LaCroix (he/him) and neurodivergent philosopher of science Joe Gough (he/him) about the nature of bad science, when bad science becomes pseudoscience, and how bad science can become a zombie that just won't die.Topics Discussed* Quick recap. (00:30) * The “theory of mind deficit” view of autism seemed to become an unfalsifiable theory over time. (02:39) * Why it's important for scientific theories (at least in quantitative research) to be falsifiable. (03:41)* Amelia's sleepy invisible goblin theory. (03:54)* Karl Popper: good scientific theories must be falsifiable. (06:47)* The “theory of mind deficit” view of autism started off as a falsifiable theory, but became unfalsifiable over time. So, it's not exactly like the sleepy invisible goblin theory; it's more analogous to the flat-earth conspiracy theory. (07:07)* Travis's introduction. (10:10)* Travis explains why we can't simply use Popper's falsifiability criterion to explain why “theory of mind deficit” research is bad science. Historical example: the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. (11:06)* Travis explains why Imre Lakatos rejected Popper's falsifiability criterion. According to Lakatos, scientists should not immediately reject a theory when it makes inaccurate predictions. (15:13)* According to Lakatos, a research program contains a “hard core” as well as “auxiliarity hypotheses.” When a research program makes bad predictions, scientists should tinker with their auxiliary hypotheses first, and only abandon the hard core as a last resort. (15:45)* According to Lakatos, it's time to abandon the “hard core” of a research program when the research program degenerates. A research program degenerates when it ceases to make novel predictions, or when it stops making accurate predictions (in spite of tinkering with auxiliary hypotheses). (18:48)* Travis thinks “theory of mind deficit” research is a degenerating research program. (19:47)* Gernsbacher and Yergeau demonstrate that the “theory of mind deficit” view of autism is a bad auxiliary hypothesis. (20:13)* Why Travis thinks “theory of mind deficit” research has degenerated to the point of being pseudoscience . (22:21)* It's often not clear what “theory of mind” means. Different researchers measure it in totally different ways. (24:36)* Joe's introduction. (25:17)* “Theory of mind” in autism research: reasoning explicitly about the mental states of other people disqualifies you from having “good theory of mind.” (26:24)* “Theory of mind” in animal psychology: reasoning explicitly about the mental states of others is essential for having “good theory of mind.” (28:14)* Cross-talk about theory of mind in autism research and in animal psychology dehumanizes autistic people, by creating a (misleading) link between autistic people and non-human animals. (30:02)* “Theory of mind” pops up all over psychology. Is any of this research salvageable? (31:54)* Joe thinks researchers need to get rid of the concept of “theory of mind.” (33:16) * According to Joe, “theory of mind” research isn't much methodologically worse than other types of psychological research. But in autism research focusing on theory of mind deficits, the moral stakes are high—and that makes the normal level of “messiness” in psychology unacceptable. (33:46)* Why Joe thinks that the “theory of mind deficit” view of autism is no longer a real theory; it's more like a bad summary. (34:49)* The origin of that bad summary? Stigma, and perverse institutional incentives. (36:07)* Where Joe thinks “theory of mind” research is going—and where he thinks it should go. (37:54)* Look-ahead to episode 5. (39:08) Sources Mentioned* Karl Popper, Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft (1934). Translated into English in 1959 under the title The Logic of Scientific Discovery. http://philotextes.info/spip/IMG/pdf/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf * Imre Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (1970). Republished in The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (Philosophical Papers: Volume 1) (1978). http://www.csun.edu/~vcsoc00i/classes/s497f09/s690s08/Lakatos.pdf* Travis LaCroix, “Autism and the Pseudoscience of Mind”: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22817/* Joe Gough, “The many theories of mind: eliminativism and pluralism in context,” Synthese, Volume 200, Number 4 (2022). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361904137_The_many_theories_of_mind_eliminativism_and_pluralism_in_context* Papers in which researchers claim that autistic people “hack out” answers to (i.e., cheat on) theory of mind tests, include:* Frith, Happé, and Siddons, “Autism and theory of mind in everyday life,” Social Development, Volume 3 (1994), pp. 108-124.* Happé:* “An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding of story characters' thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Volume 24 (1994), pp. 129-154.* “Annotation: Current psychological theories of autism: The “theory of mind” account and rival theories.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, Volume 35 (1994), pp. 215-229. * “The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism.” Child Development, Volume 66 (1995), pp. 843-855.* Baron-Cohen, “The hyper-systemizing, assortative mating theory of autism,” Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, Volume 30 (2006), 865-872.* For an example of “the logical problem” in animal mind-reading, see Penn and Povinelli, “On the Lack of Evidence that Non-Human Animals Possess Anything Remotely Resembling a ‘Theory of Mind'.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 362 (2007), pp. 731-744.* Joe says, “Much higher stakes means a higher evidential bar, that seems like just part of doing science responsibly.” For more on this idea, I suggest reading work by the philosopher of science Heather Douglas. For example, see her paper “The Role of Values in Expert Reasoning,” Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 22, Number 1 (January 2008).CreditsHosting, Research, Fact-Checking, Script-Editing: Amelia Hicks and Joanna LawsonGuests: Travis LaCroix and Joe GoughMusic and Audio Production: Amelia HicksThank-YousMany thanks to Travis LaCroix and Joe Gough for speaking with us about bad science, pseudoscience, and “theory of mind deficit” research! Be sure to take a look at Travis's new paper about autism pseudoscience and theory of mind, as well as other neat projects associated with his new grant, titled “Philosophy on the Spectrum”: https://autphi.github.io/about/. Also, over the next three years, Joe will be researching legal and medical assessments of decision-making capacity, and how those assessments misfire for neurodivergent and cognitively disabled people—I'm really looking forward to seeing the work that comes out of that post-doc.And thanks to the Marc Sanders Foundation and the Templeton Foundation for their support of the show. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit neurodiving.substack.com

Hi everyone!This week, we give you episode three: “Violins and Violas.”You can find a nice (not Substack-generated) transcript of episode 3, as well as a music-free remix, here. In this week's episode, Joanna and I speak with the psychology researcher Tobi Abubakare about the bewildering history of psychology research connecting autism and theory of mind, as well as the harmful legacy of that research.“Violins and Violas”In the early 1980s, Simon Baron-Cohen, Uta Frith, and Alan Leslie conducted an experiment. They administered verbal false belief tests to a few autistic and non-autistic kids, and their results suggested that the autistic kids had a unique deficit in theory of mind. So they wrote up their results, and published a paper that would end up shaping autism research for decades.But here's the catch: those early experimental results couldn't be reliably replicated. And instead of giving up on the “theory of mind deficit” view of autism, researchers decided to go looking for new ways of measuring theory of mind in order to vindicate the “theory of mind deficit” idea.Tobi Abubakare (they/them), an autistic autism researcher and PhD candidate in clinical psychology, explains what caused those replication failures, why researchers clung to the “theory of mind deficit” view in spite of those failures, and how this type of research has affected autistic people. Plus, they have some important advice for researchers–with the help of a musical analogy.Topics Discussed* Baron-Cohen, Frith, and Leslie's paper, “Does the autistic child have theory of mind?” (00:31)* Why researchers got so excited about the “theory of mind deficit” view of autism. (03:11)* The failures to replicate Baron-Cohen et al.'s results, and the “methodological arms race” to develop new measures of theory of mind that would vindicate the theory of mind deficit view of autism. (06:27)* Tobi's introduction. (09:40)* Tobi's first explanation for those replication failures: small sample sizes. (11:26)* Tobi's second explanation for those replication failures: poorly characterized samples. (13:20)* Tobi's explanation for why the theory of mind deficit view remained influential, in spite of those failures of replication: it confirmed what researchers already believed about autistic people. (16:48)* Value-laden assumptions in autism research, and in research on race. (18:55)* How scientists (including autism researchers) can end up performing “mental gymnastics” in order to hang on to their theories. (20:46)* The strange notion that autistic people who pass false belief tests are “cheating” on the tests. (21:33)* How the theory of mind deficit view of autism causes real-world harm. (23:13) * Tobi's story about how the “theory of mind deficit” view of autism has impacted them personally. (23:54) * How the “theory of mind deficit” view of autism shapes many of our everyday interactions. (29:18)* Tobi's recommendations for researchers: when you're looking for a difference, ask yourself why you're looking for that difference, and then interrogate your assumptions about that difference. (30:41)Sources Mentioned* Simon Baron-Cohen, Uta Frith, and Alan Leslie, “Does the autistic child have theory of mind?” Cognition, Vol. 21, Issue 1 (1985), 36-47. https://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/1985_BC_etal_ASChildTheoryOfMind.pdf * DSM-III (The American Psychiatric Association, 1980). https://aditpsiquiatriaypsicologia.es/images/CLASIFICACION%20DE%20ENFERMEDADES/DSM-III.pdf * Morton Ann Gernsbacher and M. Remi Yergeau, “Empirical Failures of the Claim that Autistic People Lack a Theory of Mind,” Archives of Scientific Psychology, Vol. 7, Issue 1 (2019), 102–118. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2019-75285-001.html * Oluwatobi Abubakare, “An Unexpected Autistic,” Autism in Adulthood, Vol. 4, No. 4 (2022). https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/aut.2022.0004 * Press release about the first in-person meeting of the Black Empowerment in Autism Network (BEAM): https://ed.unc.edu/2023/06/15/creating-new-momentum-in-autism-research/CreditsHosting, Research, Fact-Checking, Script-Editing: Amelia Hicks and Joanna LawsonGuest: Oluwatobi “Tobi” AbubakareMusic and Audio Production: Amelia HicksAdditional Voicework: Rach Cosker-RowlandThank-YousAnother thank you to Rach Cosker-Rowland for lending us her voice to read some pieces of text for us! We're also grateful for her editorial advice.Many thanks to Tobi Abubakare for speaking with us about the (very confusing) history of theory of mind deficit research. Tobi has been incredibly generous with their time and knowledge, and we're very grateful to them for helping us understand this piece of the history of autism science. You can read more about Tobi's experiences and how those experiences shape their approach to autism research in their recently published paper, “An Unexpected Autistic.”And thanks to the Marc Sanders Foundation and the Templeton Foundation for their support of the show. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit neurodiving.substack.com

Hello again, and welcome back! I bet you weren't expecting one of the “four horsemen of New Atheism” (a) to have come up with the most famous way of measuring “theory of mind” and (b) to appear on a neurodivergent philosophy podcast to discuss his smoldering hatred of the very concept of “theory of mind”—but here we are.You can find a nice (not Substack-generated) transcript of episode 2, as well as a music-free remix, here. “An Intellectualist Fossil”In 1964, Daniel Dennett (he/him) watched an Italian puppet show. And that puppet show gave him two ideas. Idea #1: scientists could (sort of, maybe) measure “theory of mind” by testing whether someone can track other people's false beliefs. This idea led to the development of the most well-known way of measuring “theory of mind”: false belief tests.Idea #2: false belief tests should not rely on verbal questions, because that would make the test results impossible to interpret. Instead, false belief tests should look for certain types of spontaneous behavior, like laughter.Unfortunately, psychologists ran with Dennett's first idea, while ignoring his second idea. And thus the ultimate autism mind-myth was born.Topics Discussed* The general concept of theory of mind (00:38)* The theory of mind deficit view of autism (02:08)* Joanna's encounter with the theory of mind deficit view of autism “in the wild” (i.e., at a philosophy conference) (05:32)* How Daniel Dennett came up with the idea of using false belief tests to measure theory of mind (08:59)* Dennett goes to the Punch and Judy show (10:38)* Dennett writes his commentary “Beliefs about Beliefs” (13:06)* Heinz Wimmer and Josef Perner use Dennett's idea to develop a false belief test for young children (14:38)* “Sally-Anne” false belief tests (15:11)* Psychologists' big mistake when deploying false belief tests to measure theory of mind (15:54)* Dennett's alternative to “theory of mind”: the intentional stance (18:05)* On Dennett's view, maybe some autistic people “do” theory of mind more than non-autistic people? (21:58) * Different strategies for perspective-taking, and their respective trade-offs (24:33) * Baron-Cohen, Frith, and Leslie's paper, “Does the autistic child have theory of mind?” (26:55)Sources Mentioned* Daniel Dennett, The Intentional Stance (MIT Press, 1989) and Breaking the Spell (Penguin, 2006).* David Premack and Guy Woodruff, “Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 1, Issue 4 (1978), 515-526. https://carta.anthropogeny.org/sites/default/files/file_fields/event/premack_and_woodruff_1978.pdf * Daniel Dennett, “Beliefs about Beliefs,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 1, Issue 4 (1978), 568-570. https://dl.tufts.edu/concern/pdfs/r207v163n * Jon Thursby's Punch and Judy Show (Punch and Judy Inc: https://punchandjudyinc.co.uk/)* Heinz Wimmer and Josef Perner, “Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception,” Cognition, Vol. 13, Issue 1 (1983), 103-128. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-27705-001 * Temple Grandin describes some of her experiences with perspective-taking (Dennett mentions her first-person account at 22:52): https://www.iidc.indiana.edu/irca/articles/social-problems-understanding-emotions-and-developing-talents.html * Simon Baron-Cohen, Uta Frith, and Alan Leslie, “Does the autistic child have theory of mind?” Cognition, Vol. 21, Issue 1 (1985), 36-47. https://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/1985_BC_etal_ASChildTheoryOfMind.pdf CreditsHosting, Research, Fact-Checking, Script-Editing: Amelia Hicks and Joanna LawsonGuest: Daniel DennettMusic and Audio Production: Amelia HicksAdditional Voicework: Rach Cosker-RowlandThank-YousThank you to Rach Cosker-Rowland for lending us her voice to read some pieces of text for us! We're also grateful for her editorial advice. Thanks to Daniel Dennett for speaking with us about the history of theory of mind. You can read more about the intentional stance in his book titled the Intentional Stance, as well as his book Breaking the Spell.Big thanks to Jon Thursby, a second-generation Punch and Judy man, who was the puppeteer you heard in the crocodile clip from a Punch and Judy show. He runs Punch and Judy Inc, and performs Punch and Judy shows across the UK and Europe. And thanks to the Marc Sanders Foundation and the Templeton Foundation for their support of the show. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit neurodiving.substack.com

My fellow neuro-divers,Joanna and I are thrilled to give you the first episode of NeuroDiving, "A Productive Irritant."You can find a transcript of the episode here. I know that you all are itching for that sweet, sweet "theory of mind" content. It's coming next week! But in this first episode, we give you some crucial background for what's to come.“A Productive Irritant”Dr. Chloe Farahar (she/they) is an Autistic academic, and an astute observer of current tensions in autism research. Along with many other Autistic people, Chloe is challenging the foundations of mainstream autism research--and she has a vision for how autism research could be so much better.Topics Discussed* The importance of focusing on the practical applications of research (00:45, 09:25)* Why Chloe thinks "autism" doesn't exist (but Autistic people definitely exist) (01:20)* The challenge of being autistic and disabled in academia (03:35)* The two main camps in autism research: mainstream and autistic-led (06:19)* Tensions between autism researchers and the Autistic community (10:14)* Spectrum 10K (12:26)* Why we can't simply “follow the science” (16:06)* Why autism researchers need to be honest about their values (17:20)* Philosophy! (18:35)* Theory of mind look-ahead (19:04)* How autism research can improve (20:38)Resources Mentioned* For more about the OG productive irritant in the field of autism research, the late great Dinah Murray: https://monotropism.org/dinah/* I love that Dinah Murray and Chloe Farahar refer to themselves as “productive irritants.” They're real-life gadflies!* In Plato's Apology, Socrates defends himself against the charges of the Athenian state using a gadfly analogy. From 30e-31a: “For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the divine; and the state is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which the divine has given the state and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, awakening and persuading and reproaching you. And as you will not easily find another like me, I would advise you to spare me. I dare say that you may feel irritated at being suddenly awakened when you are caught napping; and you may think that if you were to strike me dead, as Anytus advises, which you easily might, then you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless the divine in his care of you gives you another gadfly.” For a translation of the Apology, see: https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html* Aucademy: https://aucademy.co.uk/ * The National Autism Trainer Program: https://www.annafreud.org/training/health-and-social-care/national-autism-trainer-programme/* Example of autism research being described as "a field in crisis," featuring none other than Dr. Chloe! * Spectrum 10K: https://spectrum10k.org/* Stop Spectrum 10K: https://www.change.org/p/university-of-cambridge-stop-spectrum-10kCreditsHost: Amelia HicksGuest: Dr. Chloe FaraharResearch, Fact-Checking, and Script Editing: Amelia Hicks and Joanna LawsonAudio Production: Amelia HicksMusic: Amelia HicksEven More Thank-YousA huge thank-you to Chloe Farahar for speaking with me about the current state of “autism” research!And thanks to the Marc Sanders Foundation and the Templeton Foundation for their support of the show. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit neurodiving.substack.com

Hi!I'm Amelia (she/her). I'm a philosophy professor, and I'm autistic. A couple years ago, I teamed up with Joanna (she/her)--another neurodivergent philosophy professor--to create NeuroDiving, a philosophy podcast about neurodivergence.A philosophy podcast about neurodivergence?Joanna and I think that philosophy can help all of us think critically about difficult, fundamental questions related to neurodivergence. We also think that good philosophy pays close attention to real people's experiences. So on NeuroDiving, you will hear neurodivergent people tell stories about their experiences, and talk about the deeper implications of those experiences. You'll hear neurodivergent researchers (and a few neurotypical ones, too) reflect on the conceptual foundations of their work. And you'll hear me and Joanna discuss a bunch of philosophical puzzles along the way.When can I hear some episodes?After two years of background research and interviews, we are very eager to serve up Season 1 of NeuroDiving: “Autism Mind-Myths.” You can listen to the Season 1 trailer right here, right now, and we'll begin dropping full episodes on Monday, November 13th, 2023. You can find a full transcript of the trailer here.If you want to be updated when new episodes are released, subscribe to this Substack! Or you can subscribe to the podcast using any of the standard podcast delivery services.Autism “Mind-Myths”?There are so many myths about autistic minds ("extreme male brain" theory, anyone?). But perhaps one of the most puzzling myths is the idea that autism is a "theory of mind" deficit. According to this view of autism, autistic people are extra bad at understanding minds---the minds of others, as well as our own minds. But this view of autism doesn't reflect what many autistic people report about their experiences, and many researchers now reject this view of autism. And yet, the theory of mind deficit view of autism won't go away. It's all over Google search results (go ahead, try Googling for yourself!). It's in psychology textbooks. It's still in many corners of autism research. It gets cited in criminal court cases. It's promoted by people who develop behavioral interventions for autistic children. And, as you'll hear on the podcast, the "theory of mind" deficit view of autism has filtered down into our culture, contributing to the (false) notion that autistic people lack empathy.So on Season 1 of NeuroDiving, we're diving into the "theory of mind" deficit view of autism: what it is, where it came from, how it has affected autistic people, why it has persisted for so long in spite of all its problems, and how we can start doing better research by reflecting on the values that drive scientific practice. We'll also discuss the relationship between "theory of mind" and empathy, autistic experiences of empathy, and the relationship between empathy and morality. Til mid-November,AmeliaThanks to the Marc Sanders Foundation and the Templeton Foundation for their support of the show. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit neurodiving.substack.com

Jennifer A. Herdt is Gilbert L. Stark Professor of Christian Ethics at Yale University's Divinity School.  She is the author, most recently, of Assuming Responsibility: Ecstatic Eudaimonism and the Call to Live Well(link is external).  Her 2019 book, Forming Humanity: Redeeming the German Bildung Tradition(link is external), was supported by a research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.  She is also the author of Putting on Virtue: The Legacy of the Splendid Vices (link is external)(selected as a Choice Outstanding Academic Title), and of Religion and Faction in Hume's Moral Philosophy(link is external), and has published widely on virtue ethics, early modern and modern moral thought, and political theology. She serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Christian Ethics, Studies in Christian Ethics, and the Journal of Religion, and served as the 2020 President of the Society of Christian Ethics. From 2013-2021, she served as the academic dean of Yale Divinity School. She is currently researching more-than-human creaturely agency as a senior member of a research team that has received a $3.9M, 3-year collaborative grant from the Templeton Foundation(link is external) in 2020 to pursue projects in science-informed theological anthropology.

The Ride Home with John & Kathy! Buckle in for a Tuesday full! Like… I Hadn't Committed Suicide. But I Was Spiritually Dead. The prison had ID'ed the wrong man. But the mistake was powerfully revealing (from CT) ... GUEST Hector Vega ...author of “Arrested by Grace: The True Story of Death & Resurrection from the Streets of NYC,” which he has sent to hundreds of prisons across the US. God Speaks Science: what neurons, giant squids, & supernovae reveal about our Creator ... GUEST John Van Sloten ... Calgary-based writer, teacher & pastor who is a regular columnist with the Calgary Herald ... his books include “The Day Metallica Came to Church” and “Every Job a Parable” ... Over the past 10 yrs, he's been awarded 3 Templeton Foundation subgrants for preaching science ... www.johnvansloten.com Plus Does This Make Sense? And more! Thanks for riding with us on The Ride Home with John & Kathy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Ride Home with John & Kathy! Buckle in for a Tuesday full! Like… I Hadn't Committed Suicide. But I Was Spiritually Dead. The prison had ID'ed the wrong man. But the mistake was powerfully revealing (from CT) ... GUEST Hector Vega ...author of “Arrested by Grace: The True Story of Death & Resurrection from the Streets of NYC,” which he has sent to hundreds of prisons across the US. God Speaks Science: what neurons, giant squids, & supernovae reveal about our Creator ... GUEST John Van Sloten ... Calgary-based writer, teacher & pastor who is a regular columnist with the Calgary Herald ... his books include “The Day Metallica Came to Church” and “Every Job a Parable” ... Over the past 10 yrs, he's been awarded 3 Templeton Foundation subgrants for preaching science ... www.johnvansloten.com Plus Does This Make Sense? And more! Thanks for riding with us on The Ride Home with John & Kathy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Death might seem to render pointless all of our attempts to create a meaningful life. But Professor Dean Rickles argues that only constraints―and death is the ultimate constraint―make our actions meaningful. In order for us to live full lives, Dean believes it is the finiteness and shortness of life that brings meaning. In this episode we explore how this insight is the key to making the most of the time that we do have. Dr. Dean Rickles is a Professor of History and Philosophy of Modern Physics at The University of Sydney. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Leeds with a thesis on conceptual issues in quantum gravity. He is also the Co-Director of the Sydney Centre for Time, an Advisor for The Lifeboat Foundation, and Co-leads a Templeton Foundation-funded interdisciplinary project on the flow of time. His primary research focus is the history and philosophy of modern physics, particularly quantum gravity and spacetime physics.  Dean's authored dozens of peer-reviewed articles along with a number of books. He is also a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Foundational Questions Institute.  The primary focus of our conversation was on his latest book, Life Is Short. I personally really enjoyed it, and midway through I set it aside to send Dean a request to be on the podcast as I knew I needed to connect and discuss it.  Life is Short explores how death limits our options and forces us to make choices that forge a life and give the world meaning. Therein Dean writes that people often live in a state of indecision, in a misguided attempt to keep their options open. “By reminding us how extraordinary it is that we have any time to live at all, Life Is Short challenges us to rethink what gives life meaning and how to make the most of it." Dean has said that he, himself feels that that life is too short, so I asked him about some of the ways he lives his, albeit too short life, in full. While this is a deep, deep conversation that covers many disciplines, our specific discussion on Life is Short I think will be of interest to anyone wanting to live their life in full.

Scott Phillips is a Principal and Chief Investment Officer at Templeton and Phillips Capital Management, LLC. Prior to Templeton and Phillips, Scott operated Cumberland Capital, a firm providing equity research to global and emerging market hedge funds. Before Cumberland, Scott worked as a research analyst at hedge fund management company Green Cay Asset Management, and prior to Green Cay, he was a research associate at SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. Scott's other professional activities include serving on the Investment Advisory Sub-Committee and the Finance Committee for the John Templeton Foundation, as well as the Audit Committee and Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Templeton Foundation, Inc. Scott is the author or coauthor of three investment books, including Investing the Templeton Way (McGraw Hill, 2008), Buying at the Point of Maximum Pessimism, and coauthor to the revised edition of The Templeton Touch. Scott received his B.A. from Sewanee: The University of the South. Scott shared his experience of spending time with Sir John Templeton and his first conversation with him. We discussed the concept of maximum pessimism and how it helps in investing, which aligns with Sicart Associates' contrarian approach. Scott emphasized the importance of thrift, frugality, and saving in the value investing mindset, as mentioned in his book "Investing the Templeton Way." We explored Sir John's exit strategy and how he timed his sales to avoid market overheating and bubbles bursting. Scott shared his thoughts on the ideal environment for cultivating the right investor traits. We discussed Sir John's perspective on success, focusing on how his clients' ability to send their children to school or plan for retirement was a measure of his own success, and Scott shared his similar viewpoint. Scott discussed working with his spouse, Lauren, and how they collaborate and invest together, acknowledging that successful duos in the investment profession, especially spouses, are relatively rare. We delved into Sir John's use of history in his investing pursuits and how it helped him be more prepared and less surprised when history repeated itself. The sense of adventure and global travel in Sir John's life was highlighted, from his travels in Europe before WW2 to his global investments. We explored the evolution of an investor's approach, drawing parallels between Sir John Templeton and Warren Buffett, and Scott shared his own continuous evolution as an investor. Scott reflected on the influence of Sir John in his and Lauren's careers and how they emulate his philosophy while also incorporating their unique approach. https://www.templetonandphillips.com/ ---- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Crisis Investing: 100 Essays⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - My new book. To get regular updates and bonus content, please sign-up for my substack: ⁠https://bogumilbaranowski.substack.com/⁠ Follow me on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/bogumil_nyc⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bogumil Baranowski⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sicart Associates, LLC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. NEVER INVESTMENT ADVICE. IMPORTANT: As a reminder, the remarks in this interview represent the views, opinions, and experiences of the participants and are based upon information they believe to be reliable; however, Sicart Associates nor I have independently verified all such remarks. The content of this podcast is for general, informational purposes, and so are the opinions of members of Sicart Associates, a registered investment adviser, and guests of the show. This podcast does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any specific security or financial instruments or provide investment advice or service. Past performance is not indicative of future results. More information on Sicart Associates is available via its Form ADV disclosure documents available ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠adviserinfo.sec.gov⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/talking-billions/message

We at Tree Speech are incredibly grateful to Stephanie Kaza and our mothers, Miriam Robinson, Anne-Marie Roach and Jackie Vandenberg for joining us today. Dr. Stephanie Kaza is Professor Emerita of Environmental Studies at the University of Vermont and former Director of the UVM Environmental Program. She co-founded the Environmental Council at UVM and served as faculty director for the Sustainability Faculty Fellows program. In 2011 Dr. Kaza received the UVM George V. Kidder Outstanding Faculty Award for excellence in teaching. Kaza received a prestigious Religion and Science course award from the Templeton Foundation for her course on Buddhism and Ecology. She lectures widely on topics of Buddhism and the environment. Kaza is a long-time practitioner of Soto Zen Buddhism, with training at Green Gulch Zen Center, California, and further study with Thich Nhat Hanh, Joanna Macy, and John Daido Loori.  She was lay ordained by Kobun Chino Ottogawa in the late 1980s and applied her understanding of Buddhism as a member of the International Christian-Buddhist Theological Encounter group.⁠ ⁠She is the author of the books A WILD LOVE FOR THE WORLD, GREEN BUDDHISM: PRACTICE AND COMPASSIONATE ACTON IN UNCERTAIN TIMES, CONVERSATIONS WITH TREES, MINDFULLY GREEN: A PERSONAL AND SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO WHOLE EARTH THINKING, and others.  Also much gratitude and endless love to our mothers, Miriam Robinson, Anne-Marie Roach and Jackie Vandenberg for sharing their tree stories, and for everything.  To learn more about our podcast and episodes, please visit ⁠treespeechpodcast.com⁠. We're thrilled to be able to offer interviews, creative insights, and stories about the natural world we live in, and the trees who guide our way. ⁠Please also consider supporting us through our Patreon⁠ - every contribution supports our production, and we'll be giving gifts of gratitude including an invitation to Tree House, our new virtual community for patrons of all levels. Please also consider passing the word to tree loving folks, and rate and review us on Apple podcasts. Every kind word helps. See you soon! Tree Speech's host, Dori Robinson, is a director, playwright, dramaturg, and educator who seeks and develops projects that explore social consciousness, personal heritage, and the difference one individual can have on their own community. Some of her great loves include teaching, the Oxford comma, intersectional feminism, and traveling. With a Masters degree from NYU's ⁠Educational Theatre⁠ program, she continues to share her love of Shakespeare, new play development, political theatre, and gender in performance. Dori's original plays have been produced in New York, Chicago, and Boston. More information at ⁠https://www.dorirobinson.com⁠ This week's episode was written and recorded in Massachusetts on the native lands of the Wabanaki Confederacy, Pennacook, Massachusett, and Pawtucket people, in New York on the land of the Lenapee tribes, as well as the lands of the Confederate Tribes of the Siletz Indians, and the Grand Ronde Cowlitz. Special thanks to the ⁠Western Avenue Lofts and Studios⁠ for all their support. Tree Speech is produced and co-written by Jonathan Zautner with Alight Theater Guild. The mission of the guild is to advance compelling theatrical endeavors that showcase the diversity of our ever-changing world in order to build strong artists whose work creates empathy, challenges the status quo and unites communities. For more information about our work and programs, please visit ⁠www.alighttheater.org⁠. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/treespeech/message

PREACHING WITH THE SCIENCES AND THE SCIENCE OF PREACHING - FR. FOLEY'S ABSTRACTThe sciences are seldom employed by Roman Catholic preachers in their homilies. This presentation will narrate how they became important for my own preaching, which in turn generated the grant in preaching from the Templeton Foundation. That grant and our scientific collaborates, homilists, and resulting resources will be described. This work has triggered further wonderment about the sciences, not “in” but “behind” the preaching. Neuroscience seems particularly valuable in gaining new perspectives on what contributes to effective preaching, across languages and even cultures. While this work is preliminary, I will report some of my preliminary findings about the ways the neuroscientific work collaborates some well held wisdom about crafting effective preaching.PREACHING WITH THE SCIENCES REAWAKENING WONDER IN WORSHIP - DR. WOLF-CHASE'S ABSTRACTScience and technology pervade every aspect of modern life. Over the past several decades, their interplay has increased our knowledge of ourselves, our planet, and the Universe, exponentially. Faith is often seen as becoming increasingly detached from “real life” and the multiple challenges our world faces today. Religious leaders have a very important role to play in helping their communities relate science and faith intellectually and meaningfully. However, science offers more than intellectual stimulation; it offers wonderment. Many religious thinkers have pointed out that, in an excessive focus on legalism, religion loses precisely that sense of awe and wonderment that inspired so many of the Scriptures. I'll offer some ways that astronomy, in particular, can help reawaken religious awe and wonder.PREACHING WITH THE SCIENCES: A PROTESTANT REFLECTION - REV. LIU'S ABSTRACTThe sciences rarely make a substantive appearance in Protestant preaching. I will reflect upon how participation in the Templeton Preaching with the Sciences Grant led by Ed Foley has provided opportunity to anchor scientific knowledge and inquiry as foci for preaching preparation and practice in an ecumenical way that has broadened my own homiletic imagination as an ordained United Methodist Minister and the possibilities for enlivening preaching scientifically in partnership with Roman Catholic neighbors. The grant has also helped me to think more directly about how engaging scientific knowledge and inquiry homiletically can strengthen the public relevance of preaching for ethical questions in our contemporary era.

Today's episode is a brief one, and takes us back in time to 2000 and the remarks from Sir John Templeton at the Acton Institute's Annual Dinner. It was at this dinner that Templeton was award the inaugural Acton Institute Faith & Freedom Award for his contributions to civil society as “a pioneering philanthropist with wisdom to understand the tremendous role of faith in the course of human history.”Beginning a Wall Street career in 1937, he created some of the world's largest and most successful international investment funds. Templeton, a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA), was known for starting mutual funds' annual meetings with a prayer. Templeton was knighted Sir John by Queen Elizabeth II in 1987 for his many accomplishments. One of these was creating the world's richest award, the $1 million-plus Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities presented annually in London since 1972. Because of his vision, the John Templeton Foundation continues to give away about $40 million a year – especially to projects, college courses, books, and essays on the benefits of cooperation between science and religion.In 2003, The Templeton Foundation committed to a generous pledge to launch the Templeton Freedom Awards program with Atlas Network. Since that time, Atlas has presented these awards and grants to outstanding think tanks working to improve the public understanding of freedom. The Acton Institute has won two Templeton Freedom Prizes.Subscribe to our podcastsRegister Now for Business Matters 2023Apply Now for Acton University 2023 (Early Bird Pricing) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Taking the time to reflect on our values and goals is an essential practice for living a meaningful life. By considering what is most important to us, we can gain a greater understanding of our place and purpose in this world. It can help us to determine what direction to go in and how to prioritize our time and energy. Reflecting on our values and goals can also help us to stay motivated and inspired as we work towards achieving them. Valerie Tiberius, Professor of Philosophy, is here to provide us with a practical look at how to define and fulfill our values and goals. Through illustrative examples from her book, What Do You Want Out of Life?: A Philosophical Guide to Figuring Out What Matters, Valerie guides us in finding our true purpose in life and how to get there. With her wise words and actionable advice, you'll unlock the power to create the life you want and overcome obstacles to achieving it. Don't let this opportunity pass, take the chance to define your aspirations and make the most out of life! Listen and Learn:  How psychology and philosophy intertwine to improve well-being An introduction to values fulfillment theory of well-being and what it has to offer  Defining values and goals from a philosophical perspective Are some values better than other values? Managing conflict between competing goals Reinterpreting values When is it time to give up a goal that is important to you?  Strategies for figuring out your values and what you want out of life  How our moral values harmonize with our other values Real-world barriers that prevent us from realizing our goals  Resources:  Learn more about Valerie: https://www.valerietiberius.com/ Get Valerie's book, What Do You Want out of Life?: A Philosophical Guide to Figuring Out What Matters: https://bookshop.org/a/30734/9780691240688 Grab your copy of all our favorite books at bookshop.org/shop/offtheclockpsych, including Yael's new book, Work, Parent, Thrive! Check out Debbie, Yael, and Jill's websites to access their offerings, sign up for their newsletters, buy their books, and more! About Valerie Tiberius Valerie Tiberius is the Paul W. Frenzel Chair in Liberal Arts and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota. Her work explores the ways in which philosophy and psychology can both contribute to the study of well-being and virtue. She is the author of The Reflective Life: Living Wisely With Our Limits (Oxford 2008), Moral Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge 2015), Well-Being as Value Fulfillment: How We Can Help Others to Live Well (Oxford, 2018), and What Do You Want out of Life?: A Philosophical Guide to Figuring Out What Matters (Princeton University Press, 2023). She has published numerous articles on the topics of practical reasoning, prudential virtues, well-being, and moral psychology, and has received grants from the Templeton Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. She served as President of the Central Division of the American Philosophical Association from 2016-17. Related Episodes:  116. Building a Meaningful, Values-based Life with Jenna LeJeune 118. Moral Injury and Shame with Lauren Borges and Jacob Farnsworth 138. Exploring Existence and Purpose: Existentialism with Robyn Walser 192. Happier With Tal Ben-Shahar 238. Values During Times of Transition (with Us) 247. Find Your Unicorn Space with Eve Rodsky 275. Work, Parent, Thrive with Yael Schonbrun 280. Choose Growth with Scott Barry Kaufman Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The lecture was given at the University of California, Berkeley on September 23, 2022. For information on upcoming events, visit our website at thomisticinstitute.org About the speaker: Dr. Lawrence M. Principe is Drew Professor of the Humanities at Johns Hopkins University. Professor Principe earned a B.S. in Chemistry and a B.A. in Liberal Studies from the University of Delaware. He also holds two doctorates: a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from Indiana University, Bloomington, and a Ph.D. in the History of Science from Johns Hopkins University. In 1999, the Carnegie Foundation chose Professor Principe as the Maryland Professor of the Year, and in 1998 he received the Templeton Foundation's award for courses dealing with science and religion. Johns Hopkins has repeatedly recognized Professor Principe's teaching achievements. He has won its Distinguished Faculty Award, the Excellence in Teaching Award, and the George Owen Teaching Award. In 2004, Professor Principe was awarded the first Francis Bacon Prize by the California Institute of Technology, awarded to an outstanding scholar whose work has had substantial impact on the history of science, the history of technology, or historically-engaged philosophy of science. Professor Principe has published numerous papers and is the author or coauthor of three books, including The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest.

This lecture was given on September 15, 2022 at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. For information on upcoming events, please visit our website at www.thomisticinstitute.org. About the speaker: Stephen L. Brock is a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei (ordained 1992). He is Ordinary Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, where he has taught since 1990. He received a BA from the University of Chicago and a PhD in Medieval Studies from the University of Toronto. In 1999 he was a visiting professor in the School of Philosophy of The Catholic University of America. In 2017 he is a visiting scholar at the University of Chicago, collaborating in the Templeton Foundation project “Virtue, Happiness, and Meaning in Life,” directed by Candace Vogler and Jennifer Frey; his collaboration has included teaching a course in the Philosophy Department at the University of Chicago, giving two public lectures, directing a reading group, and leading sessions in a summer seminar for graduate students. Since 2008 he has been an Ordinary Member of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. He is the author of Action & Conduct: Thomas Aquinas and the Theory of Action (T&T Clark, 1998); articles on various aspects of Aquinas's thought; and most recently, The Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas: A Sketch (Wipf & Stock, 2015).

Nicholas Epley is the John Templeton Keller Distinguished Service Professor of Behavioral Science, and Director of the Center for Decision Research, at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He studies social cognition—how thinking people think about other thinking people—to understand why smart people so routinely misunderstand each other. He teaches an ethics and happiness course to MBA students called Designing a Good Life. His research has appeared in more than two dozen empirical journals, been featured by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Wired, and National Public Radio, among many others, and has been funded by the National Science Foundation and the Templeton Foundation. He has been awarded the 2008 Theoretical Innovation Award from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the 2011 Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology from the American Psychological Association, the 2015 Book Prize for the Promotion of Social and Personality Science, and the 2018 Career Trajectory Award from the Society for Experimental Social Psychology. Epley was named a “professor to watch” by the Financial Times, one of the “World's Best 40 under 40 Business School Professors” by Poets and Quants, and one of the 100 Most Influential in Business Ethics in 2015 by Ethisphere. He is the author of Mindwise: How We Understand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want.Support the show

A conversation with Nobel Prize Winner and renowned mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Dr. Stuart Hameroff about consciousness and quantum mechanics. Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff have tackled one of the most vexing problems in science -- how does consciousness work? Their theories of consciousness were selected by the Templeton Foundation for study. We will discuss Is the brain a sophisticated computer or an intuitive thinking device? Following on from their conference in Tucson which pitted Integrated Information Theory (IIT) against Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), Sir Roger Penrose OM and Stuart Hameroff discuss the current state of theories that might explain human consciousness and objections to them from FQXI and others. Sir Roger Penrose describe examples of ‘non-computability' in human consciousness, thoughts and actions such as the way we evaluate particular chess positions which cast doubt on ‘Turing' computation as a complete explanation of brain function. As a source of non-computability, Roger discuss his ‘objective reduction' (‘OR') self-collapse of the quantum wavefunction which is a potential resolution for the ‘measurement problem' in quantum mechanics, and a mechanism for non-computable physics. Dr. Stuart Hameroff reviews neuronal and biophysical aspects of Orch OR, in which ‘orchestrated' quantum vibrations occur among entangled brain microtubules and evolve toward Orch OR threshold and consciousness. The nature, feasibility, decoherence times and evidence for quantum vibrations in microtubules, their role and correlation with consciousness, effects upon them of anesthetic gases and psychedelic drug molecules will be discussed, along with Orch OR criticisms and predictions of microtubule quantum vibrations as therapeutic targets for mental and cognitive disorders. Be my friend:

Barbara Marc Hubbard, her influences, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, noosphere, cosmic consciousness, Buckminster Fuller, futurism, Christ consciousness, technology, Jonas Salk, Salk Institute, Abraham Maslow, Laurence Rockefeller, World Business Academy, Institute of Noetic Sciences, The Family, Paul N. Temple, the Templeton Foundation, eugenics, gifted program, Stanford, Lewis Terman, Council for Nation Policy, 23 and Me, remote viewing, parapsychology, "Experiencers," "Experiencers" related to the gifted program, HeartMath. Singularity University, World Future Society, science fiction, nuclear threat, Gorbachev and Hubbard, Hubbard in the modern day truth movement, Hubbard and The Finders Get bonus content on Patreon Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

A conversation with Nobel Prize Winner and renowned mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Dr. Stuart Hameroff about consciousness and quantum mechanics. Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff have tackled one of the most vexing problems in science -- how does consciousness work? Their theories of consciousness were selected by the Templeton Foundation for study. We will discuss Is the brain a sophisticated computer or an intuitive thinking device? Following on from their conference in Tucson which pitted Integrated Information Theory (IIT) against Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), Sir Roger Penrose OM and Stuart Hameroff discuss the current state of theories that might explain human consciousness and objections to them from FQXI and others. Sir Roger Penrose describe examples of ‘non-computability' in human consciousness, thoughts and actions such as the way we evaluate particular chess positions which cast doubt on ‘Turing' computation as a complete explanation of brain function. As a source of non-computability, Roger discuss his ‘objective reduction' (‘OR') self-collapse of the quantum wavefunction which is a potential resolution for the ‘measurement problem' in quantum mechanics, and a mechanism for non-computable physics. Dr. Stuart Hameroff reviews neuronal and biophysical aspects of Orch OR, in which ‘orchestrated' quantum vibrations occur among entangled brain microtubules and evolve toward Orch OR threshold and consciousness. The nature, feasibility, decoherence times and evidence for quantum vibrations in microtubules, their role and correlation with consciousness, effects upon them of anesthetic gases and psychedelic drug molecules will be discussed, along with Orch OR criticisms and predictions of microtubule quantum vibrations as therapeutic targets for mental and cognitive disorders. Be my friend:

A conversation with Nobel Prize Winner and renowned mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Dr. Stuart Hameroff about consciousness and quantum mechanics. Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff have tackled one of the most vexing problems in science -- how does consciousness work? Their theories of consciousness were selected by the Templeton Foundation for study. We will discuss Is the brain a sophisticated computer or an intuitive thinking device? Following on from their conference in Tucson which pitted Integrated Information Theory (IIT) against Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), Sir Roger Penrose OM and Stuart Hameroff discuss the current state of theories that might explain human consciousness and objections to them from FQXI and others. Sir Roger Penrose describe examples of ‘non-computability' in human consciousness, thoughts and actions such as the way we evaluate particular chess positions which cast doubt on ‘Turing' computation as a complete explanation of brain function. As a source of non-computability, Roger discuss his ‘objective reduction' (‘OR') self-collapse of the quantum wavefunction which is a potential resolution for the ‘measurement problem' in quantum mechanics, and a mechanism for non-computable physics. Dr. Stuart Hameroff reviews neuronal and biophysical aspects of Orch OR, in which ‘orchestrated' quantum vibrations occur among entangled brain microtubules and evolve toward Orch OR threshold and consciousness. The nature, feasibility, decoherence times and evidence for quantum vibrations in microtubules, their role and correlation with consciousness, effects upon them of anesthetic gases and psychedelic drug molecules will be discussed, along with Orch OR criticisms and predictions of microtubule quantum vibrations as therapeutic targets for mental and cognitive disorders. Be my friend:

A conversation with Nobel Prize Winner and renowned mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Dr. Stuart Hameroff about consciousness and quantum mechanics. 00:00 Intro 01:00 Happy Birthday to Sir Roger! 05:00 Updates to The Emperor's New Mind 07:00 What about Schrödinger's Cat? Part 2: https://youtu.be/OoDi856wLPM Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff have tackled one of the most vexing problems in science -- how does consciousness work? Their theories of consciousness were selected by the Templeton Foundation for study. We will discuss Is the brain a sophisticated computer or an intuitive thinking device? Following on from their conference in Tucson which pitted Integrated Information Theory (IIT) against Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), Sir Roger Penrose OM and Stuart Hameroff discuss the current state of theories that might explain human consciousness and objections to them from FQXI and others. Sir Roger Penrose describe examples of ‘non-computability' in human consciousness, thoughts and actions such as the way we evaluate particular chess positions which cast doubt on ‘Turing' computation as a complete explanation of brain function. As a source of non-computability, Roger discuss his ‘objective reduction' (‘OR') self-collapse of the quantum wavefunction which is a potential resolution for the ‘measurement problem' in quantum mechanics, and a mechanism for non-computable physics. Dr. Stuart Hameroff reviews neuronal and biophysical aspects of Orch OR, in which ‘orchestrated' quantum vibrations occur among entangled brain microtubules and evolve toward Orch OR threshold and consciousness. The nature, feasibility, decoherence times and evidence for quantum vibrations in microtubules, their role and correlation with consciousness, effects upon them of anesthetic gases and psychedelic drug molecules will be discussed, along with Orch OR criticisms and predictions of microtubule quantum vibrations as therapeutic targets for mental and cognitive disorders. Be my friend:

Bernard Carr is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Queen Mary University of London. As an undergraduate, he read mathematics at Cambridge University and for his Ph.D. he studied the first second of the Universe, working under Stephen Hawking. He was elected to a Fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1975, and in 1980 spent a year traveling around America as a Lindemann Fellow before taking up a Senior Research Fellowship at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge. In 1984 he was awarded the Adams Prize, one of the UK's most prestigious mathematical awards. In 1985 he moved to Queen Mary and he became a Professor there in 1995. He has also held Visiting Professorships at various institutes in America, Canada, and Japan. His professional area of research is cosmology and astrophysics and includes such topics as the early universe, black holes, dark matter, and the anthropic principle. He is the author of around 300 papers and the books Universe or Multiverse? and Quantum Black Holes. He is also very interested in the role of consciousness as a fundamental rather than incidental feature of the Universe. In particular, he is developing a new psychophysical paradigm linking matter and mind which accommodates normal, paranormal, and mystical experiences. He also has a long-standing interest in the relationship between science and religion, especially Buddhism, having been the coholder of a grant from the Templeton Foundation for a project entitled “Fundamental Physics, Cosmology and the Problem of our Existence". He is President of The Scientific and Medical Network and a former President of the Society for Psychical Research. Transcript of this interview Discussion of this interview in the BatGap Community Facebook Group. Interview recorded July 24, 2022 Video and audio below. Audio also available as a Podcast.

Astronomer summarizes  exoplanet (any planet beyond our solar system) that have been detected orbiting distant stars. Guillermo Gonzalez explains how planets are detected through photometry astronomy and spectroscopy and the characteristics of host stars, and detail the planets and their orbits.Guillermo Gonzalez is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy in 1993 from the University of Washington. He has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and at the University of Washington and has received fellowships, grants and awards from such institutions as NASA, the University of Washington, the Templeton Foundation, Sigma Xi (scientific research society), and the National Science Foundation.From the Archives: This live interview was recorded on June 7, 2000 on the nationally syndicated radio program, hosted by Laura Lee . See more at www.lauralee.com

This lecture was given on May 28, 2022 at the 11th Annual Aquinas Philosophy Workshop on Aquinas on the Soul. The handout for the talk can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/mr224yuv For more information on upcoming events, please visit our website at www.thomisticinstitute.org. About the speaker: Michael Gorman is a graduate of St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto (B.A., Christianity and Culture, 1987), The Catholic University of America (Ph.L., Philosophy, 1989), the State University of New York at Buffalo (Ph.D., Philosophy, 1993), and Boston College (Ph.D., Theology, 1997). After serving as assistant professor of Catholic Studies at Saint Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia from 1997 to 1999, he joined the faculty of the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, where he has taught ever since. A fellow of The Catholic University's Institute for Human Ecology, he has also been an Alexander von Humboldt fellow (Leipzig 2004), a Fulbright fellow (Cologne 2008), and a scholar in the Templeton Foundation's Working Group "Virtue, Happiness, and the Meaning of Life" (2015-2017). He works primarily on metaphysics, especially the metaphysics of essence, substance, and normativity, and on applications of metaphysics in areas such as theory of mind, Christology, action theory, and ethics. He is the author of Aquinas on the Metaphysics of the Hypostatic Union (Cambridge, 2017) and over thirty scholarly articles. He is particularly interested in how analytic philosophy and medieval philosophy can be brought together in a way that is historically accurate and philosophically fruitful.

Audio Transcript: This media has been made available by Mosaic Boston church. If you'd like to check out more resources, learn about Mosaic Boston and our neighborhood churches or donate to this ministry, please visit mosaicboston.com.Heavenly father, we thank you that you have created us and though we rebelled against your will, choosing our own, attempting to supersede your will with our own, we rebelled against you and you didn't leave us in our sins and trespasses. While we are yes, sinners, you sent your son, Jesus Christ. Jesus, you fulfilled the law perfectly from the heart, empowered by the spirit from the heart you fulfilled it perfectly and then you gave your life as a sacrifice on the cross. Today, we remember your sufferings on our behalf. We thank you for your shed blood, your broken body that leads to our healing and the washing of our souls. And we pray Lord that you send us the holy spirit to make us the people that our obedient from the heart not because we're just afraid of punishment but because we fear and love you and seek to delight you and please you and make us some people that seek to serve you in the new way of the spirit and bless our time and the holy scriptures now and nourish our souls. We long for it, we pray this in Christ's name. Amen.We're continuing our sermon series through Romans, in Romans 7:1-6. Today, the title of the sermon is New Way of the Spirit. And one of the things that we need to make clear is everything that God says, everything that God does is because he wants the best for us. We want the best for you, this is why we preach God's holy word and God's best for you is his will. Another way of thinking of God's law because when you think of law, it's often negative. God's law is God's will, this is why Jesus Christ taught us to pray the following, "Our father who are in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," so we are to... In the beginning Jesus says, "This is how you pray. Pray God may your will be done in my life, your will in heaven may that be the same as your will for my life here on earth."Do you mean this when you pray it, do you long for God's will to be done in your life completely? And you say, "Whoa, hold on. What's God's will? God's will, anything that God wills that's what I want?" If there's any hesitation that's called sin where our will fights God's will, that tension in the middle is sin. What's in the way of you living out God's best for you is sin. And the best for you is freedom from sin. This is why Jesus came not just to forgive us the penalty for sin but to remove even the power and ultimately, the presence of sin, the liberation from enslavement to sin, to self, it's not just a freedom from sin but a freedom to obey God, that's the best. So how do we get our will and God's will to be one will in our life? Only by the power of the holy spirit.In Christ, you've been set free from sin and have become slaves of God. We have died to sin and we have died even to the law itself and this is what we'll be talking about today. Would you look at the text with me in Roman 7:1-6. "Or do you not know brothers for I'm speaking to those who know the law, that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives. For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives but if her husband dies, she's released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulterous if she lives with another man while her husband's still alive. But if her husband dies, she's free from that law and if she marries another man, she's not an adulterous. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ so that you may belong to another to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.""For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law. We're at work in our members to bear fruit for death but now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code or the letter of the law." This is the reading of God's holy and infallible, authoritative word, may he write these eternal truths upon our hearts, three points to frame up our time.First, you can't fine a dead person. Second, to whom do you belong? And third, serve in the new way of the spirit. Just to set the context if you missed any of the sermons, by the way they're all online, it's been a tremendous series thus far. Today, we're in seven, one through six which is actually, a continuation of the argument in chapter six, 15 through 23. Originally, we're in St. Paul wrote the text there weren't these chapter verse breaks, he just wrote it as one letter so sometimes the chapter verse breaks are helpful. Here, they are not because it makes it seem like he's starting with a new point. He's not, he's just carrying the argument along in six 15 through 23, Paul rejected the notion that believers are permitted to sin since we're no longer in the law, this is what he said, "We're under grace, we're not under law. And immediately the objection is, "Whoa, hold on. If you tell people they're under grace and not under law, they're just going to sin as much as possible which leads to antinomianism, life conscientiousness, you just live any way that you want."And Paul says, "No. If that's how you think, you have never been born again, you haven't been regenerated, you haven't been justified because if you are justified by grace through faith, you want to be sanctified, you want to delight in the Lord." Seven, one through six, carries this argument one step further and he contends that sin is something that Christians have died to. And sin is actually, what people under the law struggle with because Paul's Jewish opponents contended that freedom from the law opens the door towards sin. And then Paul turns the tables on them and he says, "Hold on. It's actually, the people who insist on the law as the way that we are made right with God. These are the people who are actually, in bondage to sin if they're really honest, because they're not fulfilling the law from the heart because they can't, they don't have the ability to only those who have died with Christ and the law and possessed the holy spirit have the ability to bear fruit for God."So point number one, is you can't fine a dead person and here we get that from verse one, "Or do you not know brothers from speaking to those who know the law, that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives." That's the main point of the text and then he illustrates it and then he applies it in verses four through six. But here he says the law is binding for a person that's alive.Any law, the moral law, the 10 commandments of God is binding to us while we're alive and any kind of the law of the land, it's binding to us when we're alive. For example, if you're driving 150 miles an hour in Store Road Drive, you'd have to be at night because you're lucky to go 25 on Store Road Drive. But just hypothetically, speaking you've gone on 150 miles an hour on Store Road Drive. You broke every single law that there is and you die, you crash, you're dead. And then the cops show up, the cops don't pull you out or whatever's left of you from the car and they do not fine you for going so fast because you're already dead. You're not bound by the law if you are dead, that's what he's saying. He turns his conversation here to believers and he starts teaching believers theology because he assumes that if you've been listening to the letter of Romans this long, thus far you got here, he just assumes you're already Christian.He's already taught that we're all sinners, God created us to worship him, image forth his holiness. We've sinned and he explains that we're sinners, we're rebels, we're degenerates, we're wicked, we're selfish, we're pathetically self-absorbed. Pleasure is our God, truth is our enemy and we as a society hate truth so much that we'll call anything truth except truth itself. Anything can be true as long as you don't say the Bible is true, as long as you don't say that Jesus Christ is the only way, as long as you don't say that's true, everything else is fine. I was invited by a friend to the Harvard Faculty Club this week for this round table discussion and they have these every once in a while where they invite professors from MIT, from Harvard, Northeastern, BU and then they invite some clergy to come as well.And it's all funded by the Templeton Foundation, it's actually, their attempt at proselytizing or evangelizing, sharing the gospel with these professors and the idea is if we invite them and they get saved, well, maybe we can reach Harvard. So okay, I go to this thing and there's a spiritual guru that comes up and he shares about his spiritual experience. And all of it is subjective, all of it, its visions and things that he does and I'm listening to it. After a while, I got tired of listening to him, a guy at my table fell asleep and then finally he's done. And then the food begins and everyone's happy because it's free food and it's open bar and everyone's just chilling. So I sit down and the lady next to me is a professor from Northeast University and I was like, "What do you do?"She's like, "Oh, I teach Economics," and then she's like, "What do you do?" And I was like, "I'm a pastor of a local congregation," as soon as I said that she just turned and she put on her mask and that was the end of the conversation. And the lady next to me on the other side, so I'm like, "I have no choice so I'm going to continue the round table," we're supposed to have a discussion. And then this lady next to me is a professor of Russian History from Harvard and I was like, "Oh, we have something to talk about." So all of a sudden we're talking about Russian history and we're talking about the war in Ukraine. She was like, "How do you feel about that?" And we're talking about that then the facilitator says, "Let's talk about what this guy said about visions and this is how we think about spirituality." And this is what she said very nicely, "Isn't it wonderful that each of us can bring our own perspective of the truth and that everyone's truth is equally true."And I was like, "Am I going there?" And I was like, "Yeah, I'm going there," and I was like, "Yeah, it is wonderful unless the person's truths are all lies and made up." And she didn't like that and then she turned away from me as well. And I was like, "Aren't we supposed to have dialogue so you can talk about any kind of truth?" This guy just got up and I think he just made up half his stuff because he was just rambling. He didn't even know he was supposed to go 45 minutes he's like, "Oh, 45 minutes." Yeah, it's wonderful if your truths have nothing to do with my life and me submitting myself to the truth. We know that God alone is truth, God alone is true. God defines what's true and what's a lie and he does this with his self-authenticating word.When you read the word of God and you read it with an open mind and an open heart and if you read it prayerfully and you say, "Lord, is this your word?" What God does with his spirit is he authenticates, he confirms, "Yes, this is the word." Because as soon as we read God's word, we study God's moral law and we're open about it, what happens is the law written on our heart is confirmed, "Oh yes, this resonates. Oh yes, this is actually, truth that I have been attempting to suppress all of my life." God's word reveals God's law and once we know it does resonate because it's written on our hearts. For example, and I get this example from our text, he's talking about marriage and adultery. We in our society know adultery is wrong. Everyone knows this but we live in a culture that encourages people to be trained up in adultery even from a young age. If we even cared about civilization, we would know the building blocks for civilization are healthy families.And if we do care about marital fidelity and marriages, we would encourage young people to remain celibate until marriage and instead we're teaching kids things that their sweet little innocent hearts are not ready for. And I know because my girls are in the public school system and my youngest is in pre-K and with pride month, they have all the flags up. And all the parents are like, "Isn't this wonderful?" And I'm like, "No, it's not wonderful. I don't want my kids to know... She's four, I don't want," that's why fewer people are actually, getting married in our culture because you think about lifelong fidelity to one person that's impossible yet we all long for it.So St. Paul would say, "Now that we've established that we're all sinners," and he does one, just one command and you can take any other command, "And thou shall not covet," we all transgress that, we're all sinners. He's established that, we've all transgressed the law. What do we do now? The law is binding upon us, God's law is upon each one of us. So how do we get freed from this law? You have two options. Number one, you can disregard God's law as if it doesn't exist, you can do whatever you want but the more you disregard it and the more you actually, sin against it, what happens is the law does punish you and it does through guilt and shame. You break God's law, God's law begins to break you that's how we've been designed.The other side is other than disregard, you say, "You know what? I'm going to be a good person. I will attempt to be holy. I'm going to fulfill God's law," and as soon as you start doing it, you realize that's impossible. So we need a third option and this is where the beauty of the gospel comes in. That the law giver who demands absolute obedience, realizes that we can't do it. So God sends his one and only son, Jesus Christ, Jesus fulfills the law perfectly in absolute obedience. He takes God's will and God's will becomes his will and he's holy and righteous in everything he does. And then he offers his life as a sacrifice, a substitutionary atonement, a propitiation for our sins, absorbing the wrath of God that we deserve, the curse that we deserve for our law breaking. He absorbs upon himself, he dies, he rises, he reigns and he calls us to repent of our sins and submit to Jesus Christ and as soon as we do, we're justified by grace through faith.Now we're in Christ and with Christ we've died to our former life of sin so now we are dead to sin. Christians had the power to not sin because of the holy spirit. And along with being dead to sin, we're also dead to the law. He says we can be free from sin because we're free from the law. The law is no longer binding on you. You're no longer enslaved to the law and he gives us this illustration of verse two about marriage, before we get there... What he's saying is each one of us were born bound to law, married to the law. Now that we're free to law, we've died to the law. You're free to remarry. Remarry whom? Jesus Christ. This is the power of our relationship with God.It's a covenant relationship as strong and if not stronger than marriage itself and now you don't have a law telling you from the outside, "Do this, don't do this. This is God's will, this isn't God's will." It's a lot deeper, you now have the law of God written on your heart and you have the love of God pulsating your heart, the love of Christ telling you, why would you ever cheat on Jesus Christ? Why would you walk away from this great of a savior? So that was the principle verse one, that we are bound to the law unless we're dead and then verse two, he gives an illustration for marriage, here it says, "A married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage." So he continues this explanation of our relationship to the law with analogy from marriage, to explain what it means to die to the law, he uses this illustration.Illustration comes from marriage at the marriage ceremony, we take our vows, we promise to honor, cherish, love one another till death do us part and until we are separated by death. If one partner in the marriage covenant should die, all the obligations upon the remaining partner are now set aside. He says, "For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives," the married woman, the Greek word is huppahandras which literally, means a woman under a man because this is biblical marriage, it's headship. The husband's the head of the wife. This is why scripture says "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." I thought morning service all the wives were like, "Yeah, you've got to love me as Christ loved the church. Yeah, get him." And then the next verse says, "and wives submit to your husbands as it's the Lord and everything it's headship.And he says the woman that is under the man, if, if the man dies, then she is free. Discharged from the law concerning the husband, which creates new opportunity of freedom for her by law, married, women's bound to husband as long as he is alive. Once he dies, she's freed from the covenant and from the law of marriage itself the contrast is clear, the law binds her but his death frees her, more over her release is complete. The law of God does provide for divorce under some circumstances but that's not what Paul is talking about here. A married woman can't lawfully marry another man but a widow can because a widow is completely free in the eyes of God to be married again. The first marriage has no continuing claim on her, that's why Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:14, "So I would have younger widows married, bear children, manage their households and give the adversary no occasion for slander. The law binds, regulates as long as the partner is alive."So he says think of your relationship to the law in the same way, you were bound by the law, when Jesus died you believe in him, you died with him and by your death with him in his death, you're released from the obligation of the law. Set free for another relationship, another way of life and that's relationship with Christ Romans 7:3 he continues, "Accordingly, she will be called an adulterous if she lives with another man while her husband is alive but if her husband dies she is free from that law. And if she marries another man, she's not an adulterous." So to continue the point to make it clear he calls attention to the difference between her situation if the husband were alive, if the husband is alive and she becomes involved with another man lives with another, he says or gives herself to another that's adultery. And his emphasis here is on the fact that the law still binds the married woman to her husband but the husband's death releases her.Now, what does this have to do with us? What's the difference for us? And that brings us to point two, to whom do you belong? He says, "If you died to the law you no longer belong to the law. You no longer experience the condemning effects of the law." So then to whom do you belong? This is Romans 7:4, "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God." So our spouse has not died, the law didn't die to us but we have died to the law. We have died with Christ therefore the law has no more dominion over us. We died in Christ and then Christ is the one who fulfilled the law so we're in him so we fulfill the law in the sense that we're justified. The law has not been removed but Christ has died for us. We no longer carry the burdens of law, the law no longer hangs over our necks like a sword condemning us.That's why in chapter eight, verse one, he says, "Therefore, there's now no condemnation for those who are in Jesus Christ." So the very second that you believe in Jesus Christ, you repent of your sins. You are justified your declared innocent forever, for all of eternity. Your sin is imputed to Christ on the cross, Christ righteousness is imputed to you. Which sin only, the sins that we committed before trusting in Christ? No, all of the sins.Once you trust in Jesus Christ, there will never be any condemnation for you ever, all of your sin past, present and future are nailed to the cross. Martin Luther, the great reformer who actually, went to the Catholic church and he said, "We have lost the point of Christianity. We're teaching people that they are made right with God by keeping the law, observing the law." And Luther at this point was a doctor of theology, he'd been a Christian for decades and he was still wrestling with sin. And he realized that if we were made right with God because of our righteousness, he would never be made right with God because he studied God's law all day, every day and he realized that he's guilty. So Luther emphasized the gospel, we're justified by grace through faith. He taught this in Wittenberg, he just preached the Bible.And one of his favorite things to do was to go get haircuts because he's a monk. So he has to get a very particular haircut, the one you've got to get balled off top. So he developed a tremendous relationship with his barber and his barber was named Peter Beskendorf and he called him Peter, the master barber. And Peter, the master barber came to faith through Luther's ministry and then he asked Luther, "Hey, can you teach me how to pray?" And Luther went home and wrote him a 40 page pamphlet teaching him how to pray in which he just went through the Lord's prayer phrase by phrase. He's like, "This is how you pray. Just meditate in the phrases, 'Our father,' It's not just your father, it's our father." So you've got to be in community. He's a father, he cares for you. Our father, he's intimate, that relationship. Our father who is in heaven, so it's a transcendent relationship, God is above you. Our father who is in heaven, hallowed be thy name and your name be holy so you just went through that thing.So this guy started praying, started growing in his relationship and then something occurred. This guy was a solid believer but then one night he got drunk and in a rage killed his son-in-law, he killed his daughter's husband. He was guilty of the crime, a man slaughter, he didn't deny it. No one disputed any of the facts and actually, took Luther's intervention to keep this guy from getting executed. Instead, he was exiled from Wittenberg but Luther never stopped believing that there was no condemnation for Peter, the master barber. Actually, he told him he's like, "Do you still believe in Jesus Christ?" He said, "Yeah." "Do you still trust in Christ?" "Yeah." "Have you repented your sin?" He said, "Yes." He said, "Then there's no condemnation for you." And we see what a mighty thing our liberation from law is when we contemplate such a result that even a man who committed murder, a Christian who killed another man, a member of his own family, his own daughter's husband because he's in Christ because he died to the law, Christ died for him that he is still justified. Now, how does that make you feel?I know if I were not preaching this text and I was just sitting here I'd be like, "I'm not sure if I like this message." Especially when my kids were sitting here I'm like, "No, give them law. They need more law. Honor your father and your mother, give them law. I want them at home extra obedient." And this is really the tension in our hearts. It's like, "Okay, grace. If we really understand that we're under grace, what does that mean, for whom is grace? And is there anything that we can do to ever lose the grace?" And Paul says, "No. Once you're in Christ, there's no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Now, you can understand why people are like, "No, you are teaching antinomianism that there is no law so you can live any way that you want."And Paul says, "No, I'm teaching grace so that people when they understand grace, that their hearts are captured by grace, it changes your heart. It changes your affection, your desires and then you don't obey God to not just get punished. You obey God because you want to." Galatians 3:10-14, "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of life and do them. Now, it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law for the righteous shall live by faith. But the law is not of faith rather the one who does them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for its written curse is everyone who is hanged on a tree. So that in Christ Jesus, the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles so that we might receive the promised spirit through faith."He said, Christ died on the cross. He took the curse of the law upon himself so we're free. Christians are free from the curse of the law. We are free from earning salvation through the law. However, the law continues to reveal to us what's pleasing to God. He continues in verse four, "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God." So that you may belong to another, he's saying anyone who thinks that they can sin any way they want to live, any way they want they still think that they belong to themselves, they still think that they are autonomous and independent.He said, "No, if you are justified, if you are bought with the blood of Jesus Christ, you are not your own." You're not your own twice over, you're not your own because you've been created by God. And you're not your own because you've been redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. It's a brand new identity. I am not my own, I belong to Christ, I am saved by grace through faith. Of course, I will do everything I possibly can to be righteous before God. I'm not my own for what purpose? In order that we may bear fruit for God. What kind of fruit is he talking about? He's talking about the outward works so once Christ changes our heart, this is regeneration and he fills our heart with the holy spirit now, we want to do what is honorable before the Lord. Galatians 5:16-26. The contrast between the works of the flesh and the works of the spirit, the fruit of the flesh, the fruit of the spirit."But I say walk by the spirit and you will not gratify the desires of flesh for the desires of flesh are against the spirit and the desires of the spirit are against the flesh. For these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now, the works of the flesh are evident, sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies and things like these. I warned you as I warned you before that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the spirit's love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the law with its passions and desires. If we live by the spirit, let us also keep in step of the spirit let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another."This is brand new. It's completely brand new way of relating to God. Every other religion gives you rules and gives you a way to follow God, "Here's the pathway, here's the pillars, here's the rules. Obey them and you are accepted into the kingdom of God if not you are punished and then exiled forever." And then Christ comes and says, "You can't do it." Christ does it for us and then he pays the penalty for our sin and he says, "Trust in me," and when we trust in him, his sacrifice gets counted on our behalf and we're filled with the holy spirit. And now because of the holy spirit we want to obey God to serve...And this is point three, serve in the new way of the spirit. Verse five, "For while we are living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law. We're at work in our members to bear fruit for death." He's saying this is in the past tense while we were living in the flesh, "Our sinful passions aroused by law. We're at work and our members to bear fruit for death," living in the flesh, that phrase translated in other places, "For when we were controlled by the sinful nature," we just did what our nature led us to do. And we, with the sinful nature live in a sinful world and the sinful world exacerbates our sinful nature. 1 John 2:15-17, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes and pride of life is not from the father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires but whoever does the will of God abides forever."You're saying if we are in Christ, we're characterized by the fact that we are dead to both sin and the law. But if we are in the flesh, we're characterized by the certain behavior that is exacerbated, he says by the law. So if you're in Christ, Paul assumes you're no longer living in the flesh, you're no longer controlled by the sinful passions and the doctrine sanctification, it doesn't say, "Just change your life, you'll become a better person." That's like saying to a bad tree, stop bearing bad fruit. No, it says, "Come to the Lord through the gospel, you can get regenerated, become a new tree, bearing new fruit." What in the world does it mean that the law aroused our sinful passions? If you go back to verse five, what does it mean that the law because of the law, our sinful fashions are aroused by the law. Why would God give us a law that leads us into sin?Why would God give us a law that arouses our sin? Well, this is actually, one of the intentions of the law is to reveal to us just how sinful we are. That apart from the spirit, the law inflames our hearts to sin. We're sinful and one purpose for which God gave a law is to expose and excite. There's something rebellious within us that when you tell us, "Thou shall not eat of a certain tree," that's all you can think about even if you don't really like fruit. Thou shall not eat that tree, you're like, "Ah, give me that tree, give me that fruit." By rebels, we thrive in rebellion. Why do we relish doing things that cause us harm, that are self destructive? Why do we do things that as soon as we know that God forbids it, that's all we can think about? That people destroy themselves before they submit to God and the law brings to mind God's will but it provokes our own rebelling. Tell a young person that, "You can't do a certain thing," and then all of a sudden they become intensely interested in that one thing.How often are we seeing children, teenagers disobey for no reason other than they just want to disobey. It's disobedience for disobedience's sake and it's not just children. Adults are just like that, we just mask it better. So he says, "Yes, this is a challenge," don't just preach the law and some churches just do this. They just preach the law, "Don't do this." And all the young people, that's all they want to do and then you lose the young people, you lose the youth, you lose that generation. You've got to preach the law with the gospel together. The law by itself inflames sin, just preaching the law excites, exacerbates our sinful nature and then the law is powerless to help us fight the sin. This is why Paul and the Judaizers or the religious Jews of the day they fought because the Judaizers are like, "No, the law is how we are protected from sinning."And Paul says, "No, actually, the reverse is true. The law sets you on a course of inevitable hypocrisy. You can't, you won't obey the commandments. You pretend to do it and then all of a sudden obedience is redefined superficial terms." And that's why the entire rabbinical system was such a pretense. People are just pretending to obey but their hearts were never in it. And it's not just in synagogues or rabbinical trainings but this is in churches too. If you just preach the law, you just preach the law, you don't preach grace then people turn into hypocrites. Preaching law must also, always be followed by preaching the gospel because it's only the holy spirit working through the gospel that creates us a desire and a power to obey. So he continues verse six, "But now we are released from the law." It's as if we were encaged by the law, he says, "You're released having died to that which held us captive so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code."He says, but now you were in the flesh, you were controlled by sinful passions. The law, all it did was exacerbate sin but now that you're released from the law, you've died to it. Now, you have the ability to serve in a new way. I think about this all the time as a pastor, as a father, I think about my kids because my kids are getting older. I think about my kids, that they are spending more time outside the home than with us. They're with friends, they're with the soccer teammates, they're in school. And how do you teach them to be godly when they're not in the house? How do you teach them to do the right thing when mom and dad aren't looking? Well, the only way that you can do this effectively... And it's the same with pastoring, most of you I do not see you during the week.I pray for you but I don't see you. Most of the decisions that you make in terms of obeying the Lord, following the Lord or not following the Lord it's just you and the Lord. So why in the world would allow people, would make people obey when no one's looking? It's a complete transformation of the heart, where God fills your heart with love for him and love for his word and love for his will. He does that by the power of the holy spirit where God says, "I'm not just going to give them the word, I'm going to write the word on their hearts and I'm going to give them the power of the holy spirit within to do what I call for them to do.Ezekiel 36:24-32, "I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land and I will sprinkle clean water on you. And you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols and I will cleanse you and I will give you a new heart and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers and you shall be my people and I shall be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses and I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. And I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations.""And then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good. And you will loathe yourselves for all your inequities and your abomination. It is not for your sake that I will act declares the Lord, God. Let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel." It's through Jesus Christ that the law, the mastery of the law is broken and now we don't do God's will just because he might punish us for it. We do God's will because he has given us the power to do it where his will and our will come together. He causes us to walk in his ways. The holy spirit has taken up residence in us and has given us a new nature. And then he summons that new nature into expression as we live our lives day by day in following him. It's only the holy spirit that can give us the power to do the will of God.The change must come from above and from the inside out. When we trust in Jesus Christ, when we welcome the holy spirit and we seek to obey God, the father. If you're not a Christian today, we welcome you to become a Christian. All you have to do is repent of all your sin and you say, "Lord, forgive me for my sin. Forgive me of my rebellion. Forgive me of my law breaking. Forgive me of all of it. Lord, I need grace. Lord, forgive me. I want to be yours, I want to belong to you. I want to obey you in everything that I do send me the holy spirit," and the Lord does. And you'll see incredible transformation, you'll wake up with desires you've never had. You want to commune with the Lord, you want to obey him, you want to study his word, you want to be with God's people. It's all a work of the holy spirit.If you're a Christian, you're struggling with some sins, if there's sins in your life that you have not repented of, we call you today. Repent of those sins, trust in Jesus Christ. Take the power of the holy spirit and commit to following him the rest of your days. Jesus, we thank you for the gift of a new heart and a new life and a new way of serving you in the power of the spirit. Where we have a power that's not our own and energy that's not our own, a wisdom that's not our own, desires and affections that are not our own they're foreign to us. But we pray give us more love for you. A deeper desire to honor you and delight you and to fear you and to please you. We thank you that we are now not under law but under grace and because we're under grace, we have an even greater desire to live in accordance to your law because of the great cost by which we were saved. The cost of the son of God himself who died for us.Lord, fill each one of us with the spirit in ways that we have never been led and filled with the spirit before. And continue to make us a people who live in a manner worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ so everything we do, we do because we are yours, because we belong to you, because we have a brand new identity, because we are the children of God. We thank you for the gift of grace, the gift of adoption to your family and we thank you, holy spirit, that you allow us to serve you. What a great privilege that is and continue to take the labors of our hands and multiply them a thousand fold for your glory and our joy and we pray all this in Christ name. Amen.

Audio Transcript: This media has been made available by Mosaic Boston church. If you'd like to check out more resources, learn about Mosaic Boston and our neighborhood churches or donate to this ministry, please visit mosaicboston.com. Heavenly father, we thank you that you have created us and though we rebelled against your will, choosing our own, attempting to supersede your will with our own, we rebelled against you and you didn't leave us in our sins and trespasses. While we are yes, sinners, you sent your son, Jesus Christ. Jesus, you fulfilled the law perfectly from the heart, empowered by the spirit from the heart you fulfilled it perfectly and then you gave your life as a sacrifice on the cross. Today, we remember your sufferings on our behalf. We thank you for your shed blood, your broken body that leads to our healing and the washing of our souls. And we pray Lord that you send us the holy spirit to make us the people that our obedient from the heart not because we're just afraid of punishment but because we fear and love you and seek to delight you and please you and make us some people that seek to serve you in the new way of the spirit and bless our time and the holy scriptures now and nourish our souls. We long for it, we pray this in Christ's name. Amen. We're continuing our sermon series through Romans, in Romans 7:1-6. Today, the title of the sermon is New Way of the Spirit. And one of the things that we need to make clear is everything that God says, everything that God does is because he wants the best for us. We want the best for you, this is why we preach God's holy word and God's best for you is his will. Another way of thinking of God's law because when you think of law, it's often negative. God's law is God's will, this is why Jesus Christ taught us to pray the following, "Our father who are in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," so we are to... In the beginning Jesus says, "This is how you pray. Pray God may your will be done in my life, your will in heaven may that be the same as your will for my life here on earth." Do you mean this when you pray it, do you long for God's will to be done in your life completely? And you say, "Whoa, hold on. What's God's will? God's will, anything that God wills that's what I want?" If there's any hesitation that's called sin where our will fights God's will, that tension in the middle is sin. What's in the way of you living out God's best for you is sin. And the best for you is freedom from sin. This is why Jesus came not just to forgive us the penalty for sin but to remove even the power and ultimately, the presence of sin, the liberation from enslavement to sin, to self, it's not just a freedom from sin but a freedom to obey God, that's the best. So how do we get our will and God's will to be one will in our life? Only by the power of the holy spirit. In Christ, you've been set free from sin and have become slaves of God. We have died to sin and we have died even to the law itself and this is what we'll be talking about today. Would you look at the text with me in Roman 7:1-6. "Or do you not know brothers for I'm speaking to those who know the law, that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives. For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives but if her husband dies, she's released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulterous if she lives with another man while her husband's still alive. But if her husband dies, she's free from that law and if she marries another man, she's not an adulterous. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ so that you may belong to another to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God." "For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law. We're at work in our members to bear fruit for death but now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code or the letter of the law." This is the reading of God's holy and infallible, authoritative word, may he write these eternal truths upon our hearts, three points to frame up our time. First, you can't fine a dead person. Second, to whom do you belong? And third, serve in the new way of the spirit. Just to set the context if you missed any of the sermons, by the way they're all online, it's been a tremendous series thus far. Today, we're in seven, one through six which is actually, a continuation of the argument in chapter six, 15 through 23. Originally, we're in St. Paul wrote the text there weren't these chapter verse breaks, he just wrote it as one letter so sometimes the chapter verse breaks are helpful. Here, they are not because it makes it seem like he's starting with a new point. He's not, he's just carrying the argument along in six 15 through 23, Paul rejected the notion that believers are permitted to sin since we're no longer in the law, this is what he said, "We're under grace, we're not under law. And immediately the objection is, "Whoa, hold on. If you tell people they're under grace and not under law, they're just going to sin as much as possible which leads to antinomianism, life conscientiousness, you just live any way that you want." And Paul says, "No. If that's how you think, you have never been born again, you haven't been regenerated, you haven't been justified because if you are justified by grace through faith, you want to be sanctified, you want to delight in the Lord." Seven, one through six, carries this argument one step further and he contends that sin is something that Christians have died to. And sin is actually, what people under the law struggle with because Paul's Jewish opponents contended that freedom from the law opens the door towards sin. And then Paul turns the tables on them and he says, "Hold on. It's actually, the people who insist on the law as the way that we are made right with God. These are the people who are actually, in bondage to sin if they're really honest, because they're not fulfilling the law from the heart because they can't, they don't have the ability to only those who have died with Christ and the law and possessed the holy spirit have the ability to bear fruit for God." So point number one, is you can't fine a dead person and here we get that from verse one, "Or do you not know brothers from speaking to those who know the law, that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives." That's the main point of the text and then he illustrates it and then he applies it in verses four through six. But here he says the law is binding for a person that's alive. Any law, the moral law, the 10 commandments of God is binding to us while we're alive and any kind of the law of the land, it's binding to us when we're alive. For example, if you're driving 150 miles an hour in Store Road Drive, you'd have to be at night because you're lucky to go 25 on Store Road Drive. But just hypothetically, speaking you've gone on 150 miles an hour on Store Road Drive. You broke every single law that there is and you die, you crash, you're dead. And then the cops show up, the cops don't pull you out or whatever's left of you from the car and they do not fine you for going so fast because you're already dead. You're not bound by the law if you are dead, that's what he's saying. He turns his conversation here to believers and he starts teaching believers theology because he assumes that if you've been listening to the letter of Romans this long, thus far you got here, he just assumes you're already Christian. He's already taught that we're all sinners, God created us to worship him, image forth his holiness. We've sinned and he explains that we're sinners, we're rebels, we're degenerates, we're wicked, we're selfish, we're pathetically self-absorbed. Pleasure is our God, truth is our enemy and we as a society hate truth so much that we'll call anything truth except truth itself. Anything can be true as long as you don't say the Bible is true, as long as you don't say that Jesus Christ is the only way, as long as you don't say that's true, everything else is fine. I was invited by a friend to the Harvard Faculty Club this week for this round table discussion and they have these every once in a while where they invite professors from MIT, from Harvard, Northeastern, BU and then they invite some clergy to come as well. And it's all funded by the Templeton Foundation, it's actually, their attempt at proselytizing or evangelizing, sharing the gospel with these professors and the idea is if we invite them and they get saved, well, maybe we can reach Harvard. So okay, I go to this thing and there's a spiritual guru that comes up and he shares about his spiritual experience. And all of it is subjective, all of it, its visions and things that he does and I'm listening to it. After a while, I got tired of listening to him, a guy at my table fell asleep and then finally he's done. And then the food begins and everyone's happy because it's free food and it's open bar and everyone's just chilling. So I sit down and the lady next to me is a professor from Northeast University and I was like, "What do you do?" She's like, "Oh, I teach Economics," and then she's like, "What do you do?" And I was like, "I'm a pastor of a local congregation," as soon as I said that she just turned and she put on her mask and that was the end of the conversation. And the lady next to me on the other side, so I'm like, "I have no choice so I'm going to continue the round table," we're supposed to have a discussion. And then this lady next to me is a professor of Russian History from Harvard and I was like, "Oh, we have something to talk about." So all of a sudden we're talking about Russian history and we're talking about the war in Ukraine. She was like, "How do you feel about that?" And we're talking about that then the facilitator says, "Let's talk about what this guy said about visions and this is how we think about spirituality." And this is what she said very nicely, "Isn't it wonderful that each of us can bring our own perspective of the truth and that everyone's truth is equally true." And I was like, "Am I going there?" And I was like, "Yeah, I'm going there," and I was like, "Yeah, it is wonderful unless the person's truths are all lies and made up." And she didn't like that and then she turned away from me as well. And I was like, "Aren't we supposed to have dialogue so you can talk about any kind of truth?" This guy just got up and I think he just made up half his stuff because he was just rambling. He didn't even know he was supposed to go 45 minutes he's like, "Oh, 45 minutes." Yeah, it's wonderful if your truths have nothing to do with my life and me submitting myself to the truth. We know that God alone is truth, God alone is true. God defines what's true and what's a lie and he does this with his self-authenticating word. When you read the word of God and you read it with an open mind and an open heart and if you read it prayerfully and you say, "Lord, is this your word?" What God does with his spirit is he authenticates, he confirms, "Yes, this is the word." Because as soon as we read God's word, we study God's moral law and we're open about it, what happens is the law written on our heart is confirmed, "Oh yes, this resonates. Oh yes, this is actually, truth that I have been attempting to suppress all of my life." God's word reveals God's law and once we know it does resonate because it's written on our hearts. For example, and I get this example from our text, he's talking about marriage and adultery. We in our society know adultery is wrong. Everyone knows this but we live in a culture that encourages people to be trained up in adultery even from a young age. If we even cared about civilization, we would know the building blocks for civilization are healthy families. And if we do care about marital fidelity and marriages, we would encourage young people to remain celibate until marriage and instead we're teaching kids things that their sweet little innocent hearts are not ready for. And I know because my girls are in the public school system and my youngest is in pre-K and with pride month, they have all the flags up. And all the parents are like, "Isn't this wonderful?" And I'm like, "No, it's not wonderful. I don't want my kids to know... She's four, I don't want," that's why fewer people are actually, getting married in our culture because you think about lifelong fidelity to one person that's impossible yet we all long for it. So St. Paul would say, "Now that we've established that we're all sinners," and he does one, just one command and you can take any other command, "And thou shall not covet," we all transgress that, we're all sinners. He's established that, we've all transgressed the law. What do we do now? The law is binding upon us, God's law is upon each one of us. So how do we get freed from this law? You have two options. Number one, you can disregard God's law as if it doesn't exist, you can do whatever you want but the more you disregard it and the more you actually, sin against it, what happens is the law does punish you and it does through guilt and shame. You break God's law, God's law begins to break you that's how we've been designed. The other side is other than disregard, you say, "You know what? I'm going to be a good person. I will attempt to be holy. I'm going to fulfill God's law," and as soon as you start doing it, you realize that's impossible. So we need a third option and this is where the beauty of the gospel comes in. That the law giver who demands absolute obedience, realizes that we can't do it. So God sends his one and only son, Jesus Christ, Jesus fulfills the law perfectly in absolute obedience. He takes God's will and God's will becomes his will and he's holy and righteous in everything he does. And then he offers his life as a sacrifice, a substitutionary atonement, a propitiation for our sins, absorbing the wrath of God that we deserve, the curse that we deserve for our law breaking. He absorbs upon himself, he dies, he rises, he reigns and he calls us to repent of our sins and submit to Jesus Christ and as soon as we do, we're justified by grace through faith. Now we're in Christ and with Christ we've died to our former life of sin so now we are dead to sin. Christians had the power to not sin because of the holy spirit. And along with being dead to sin, we're also dead to the law. He says we can be free from sin because we're free from the law. The law is no longer binding on you. You're no longer enslaved to the law and he gives us this illustration of verse two about marriage, before we get there... What he's saying is each one of us were born bound to law, married to the law. Now that we're free to law, we've died to the law. You're free to remarry. Remarry whom? Jesus Christ. This is the power of our relationship with God. It's a covenant relationship as strong and if not stronger than marriage itself and now you don't have a law telling you from the outside, "Do this, don't do this. This is God's will, this isn't God's will." It's a lot deeper, you now have the law of God written on your heart and you have the love of God pulsating your heart, the love of Christ telling you, why would you ever cheat on Jesus Christ? Why would you walk away from this great of a savior? So that was the principle verse one, that we are bound to the law unless we're dead and then verse two, he gives an illustration for marriage, here it says, "A married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage." So he continues this explanation of our relationship to the law with analogy from marriage, to explain what it means to die to the law, he uses this illustration. Illustration comes from marriage at the marriage ceremony, we take our vows, we promise to honor, cherish, love one another till death do us part and until we are separated by death. If one partner in the marriage covenant should die, all the obligations upon the remaining partner are now set aside. He says, "For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives," the married woman, the Greek word is huppahandras which literally, means a woman under a man because this is biblical marriage, it's headship. The husband's the head of the wife. This is why scripture says "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." I thought morning service all the wives were like, "Yeah, you've got to love me as Christ loved the church. Yeah, get him." And then the next verse says, "and wives submit to your husbands as it's the Lord and everything it's headship. And he says the woman that is under the man, if, if the man dies, then she is free. Discharged from the law concerning the husband, which creates new opportunity of freedom for her by law, married, women's bound to husband as long as he is alive. Once he dies, she's freed from the covenant and from the law of marriage itself the contrast is clear, the law binds her but his death frees her, more over her release is complete. The law of God does provide for divorce under some circumstances but that's not what Paul is talking about here. A married woman can't lawfully marry another man but a widow can because a widow is completely free in the eyes of God to be married again. The first marriage has no continuing claim on her, that's why Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:14, "So I would have younger widows married, bear children, manage their households and give the adversary no occasion for slander. The law binds, regulates as long as the partner is alive." So he says think of your relationship to the law in the same way, you were bound by the law, when Jesus died you believe in him, you died with him and by your death with him in his death, you're released from the obligation of the law. Set free for another relationship, another way of life and that's relationship with Christ Romans 7:3 he continues, "Accordingly, she will be called an adulterous if she lives with another man while her husband is alive but if her husband dies she is free from that law. And if she marries another man, she's not an adulterous." So to continue the point to make it clear he calls attention to the difference between her situation if the husband were alive, if the husband is alive and she becomes involved with another man lives with another, he says or gives herself to another that's adultery. And his emphasis here is on the fact that the law still binds the married woman to her husband but the husband's death releases her. Now, what does this have to do with us? What's the difference for us? And that brings us to point two, to whom do you belong? He says, "If you died to the law you no longer belong to the law. You no longer experience the condemning effects of the law." So then to whom do you belong? This is Romans 7:4, "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God." So our spouse has not died, the law didn't die to us but we have died to the law. We have died with Christ therefore the law has no more dominion over us. We died in Christ and then Christ is the one who fulfilled the law so we're in him so we fulfill the law in the sense that we're justified. The law has not been removed but Christ has died for us. We no longer carry the burdens of law, the law no longer hangs over our necks like a sword condemning us. That's why in chapter eight, verse one, he says, "Therefore, there's now no condemnation for those who are in Jesus Christ." So the very second that you believe in Jesus Christ, you repent of your sins. You are justified your declared innocent forever, for all of eternity. Your sin is imputed to Christ on the cross, Christ righteousness is imputed to you. Which sin only, the sins that we committed before trusting in Christ? No, all of the sins. Once you trust in Jesus Christ, there will never be any condemnation for you ever, all of your sin past, present and future are nailed to the cross. Martin Luther, the great reformer who actually, went to the Catholic church and he said, "We have lost the point of Christianity. We're teaching people that they are made right with God by keeping the law, observing the law." And Luther at this point was a doctor of theology, he'd been a Christian for decades and he was still wrestling with sin. And he realized that if we were made right with God because of our righteousness, he would never be made right with God because he studied God's law all day, every day and he realized that he's guilty. So Luther emphasized the gospel, we're justified by grace through faith. He taught this in Wittenberg, he just preached the Bible. And one of his favorite things to do was to go get haircuts because he's a monk. So he has to get a very particular haircut, the one you've got to get balled off top. So he developed a tremendous relationship with his barber and his barber was named Peter Beskendorf and he called him Peter, the master barber. And Peter, the master barber came to faith through Luther's ministry and then he asked Luther, "Hey, can you teach me how to pray?" And Luther went home and wrote him a 40 page pamphlet teaching him how to pray in which he just went through the Lord's prayer phrase by phrase. He's like, "This is how you pray. Just meditate in the phrases, 'Our father,' It's not just your father, it's our father." So you've got to be in community. He's a father, he cares for you. Our father, he's intimate, that relationship. Our father who is in heaven, so it's a transcendent relationship, God is above you. Our father who is in heaven, hallowed be thy name and your name be holy so you just went through that thing. So this guy started praying, started growing in his relationship and then something occurred. This guy was a solid believer but then one night he got drunk and in a rage killed his son-in-law, he killed his daughter's husband. He was guilty of the crime, a man slaughter, he didn't deny it. No one disputed any of the facts and actually, took Luther's intervention to keep this guy from getting executed. Instead, he was exiled from Wittenberg but Luther never stopped believing that there was no condemnation for Peter, the master barber. Actually, he told him he's like, "Do you still believe in Jesus Christ?" He said, "Yeah." "Do you still trust in Christ?" "Yeah." "Have you repented your sin?" He said, "Yes." He said, "Then there's no condemnation for you." And we see what a mighty thing our liberation from law is when we contemplate such a result that even a man who committed murder, a Christian who killed another man, a member of his own family, his own daughter's husband because he's in Christ because he died to the law, Christ died for him that he is still justified. Now, how does that make you feel? I know if I were not preaching this text and I was just sitting here I'd be like, "I'm not sure if I like this message." Especially when my kids were sitting here I'm like, "No, give them law. They need more law. Honor your father and your mother, give them law. I want them at home extra obedient." And this is really the tension in our hearts. It's like, "Okay, grace. If we really understand that we're under grace, what does that mean, for whom is grace? And is there anything that we can do to ever lose the grace?" And Paul says, "No. Once you're in Christ, there's no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Now, you can understand why people are like, "No, you are teaching antinomianism that there is no law so you can live any way that you want." And Paul says, "No, I'm teaching grace so that people when they understand grace, that their hearts are captured by grace, it changes your heart. It changes your affection, your desires and then you don't obey God to not just get punished. You obey God because you want to." Galatians 3:10-14, "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of life and do them. Now, it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law for the righteous shall live by faith. But the law is not of faith rather the one who does them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for its written curse is everyone who is hanged on a tree. So that in Christ Jesus, the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles so that we might receive the promised spirit through faith." He said, Christ died on the cross. He took the curse of the law upon himself so we're free. Christians are free from the curse of the law. We are free from earning salvation through the law. However, the law continues to reveal to us what's pleasing to God. He continues in verse four, "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God." So that you may belong to another, he's saying anyone who thinks that they can sin any way they want to live, any way they want they still think that they belong to themselves, they still think that they are autonomous and independent. He said, "No, if you are justified, if you are bought with the blood of Jesus Christ, you are not your own." You're not your own twice over, you're not your own because you've been created by God. And you're not your own because you've been redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. It's a brand new identity. I am not my own, I belong to Christ, I am saved by grace through faith. Of course, I will do everything I possibly can to be righteous before God. I'm not my own for what purpose? In order that we may bear fruit for God. What kind of fruit is he talking about? He's talking about the outward works so once Christ changes our heart, this is regeneration and he fills our heart with the holy spirit now, we want to do what is honorable before the Lord. Galatians 5:16-26. The contrast between the works of the flesh and the works of the spirit, the fruit of the flesh, the fruit of the spirit. "But I say walk by the spirit and you will not gratify the desires of flesh for the desires of flesh are against the spirit and the desires of the spirit are against the flesh. For these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now, the works of the flesh are evident, sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies and things like these. I warned you as I warned you before that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the spirit's love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the law with its passions and desires. If we live by the spirit, let us also keep in step of the spirit let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another." This is brand new. It's completely brand new way of relating to God. Every other religion gives you rules and gives you a way to follow God, "Here's the pathway, here's the pillars, here's the rules. Obey them and you are accepted into the kingdom of God if not you are punished and then exiled forever." And then Christ comes and says, "You can't do it." Christ does it for us and then he pays the penalty for our sin and he says, "Trust in me," and when we trust in him, his sacrifice gets counted on our behalf and we're filled with the holy spirit. And now because of the holy spirit we want to obey God to serve... And this is point three, serve in the new way of the spirit. Verse five, "For while we are living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law. We're at work in our members to bear fruit for death." He's saying this is in the past tense while we were living in the flesh, "Our sinful passions aroused by law. We're at work and our members to bear fruit for death," living in the flesh, that phrase translated in other places, "For when we were controlled by the sinful nature," we just did what our nature led us to do. And we, with the sinful nature live in a sinful world and the sinful world exacerbates our sinful nature. 1 John 2:15-17, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes and pride of life is not from the father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires but whoever does the will of God abides forever." You're saying if we are in Christ, we're characterized by the fact that we are dead to both sin and the law. But if we are in the flesh, we're characterized by the certain behavior that is exacerbated, he says by the law. So if you're in Christ, Paul assumes you're no longer living in the flesh, you're no longer controlled by the sinful passions and the doctrine sanctification, it doesn't say, "Just change your life, you'll become a better person." That's like saying to a bad tree, stop bearing bad fruit. No, it says, "Come to the Lord through the gospel, you can get regenerated, become a new tree, bearing new fruit." What in the world does it mean that the law aroused our sinful passions? If you go back to verse five, what does it mean that the law because of the law, our sinful fashions are aroused by the law. Why would God give us a law that leads us into sin? Why would God give us a law that arouses our sin? Well, this is actually, one of the intentions of the law is to reveal to us just how sinful we are. That apart from the spirit, the law inflames our hearts to sin. We're sinful and one purpose for which God gave a law is to expose and excite. There's something rebellious within us that when you tell us, "Thou shall not eat of a certain tree," that's all you can think about even if you don't really like fruit. Thou shall not eat that tree, you're like, "Ah, give me that tree, give me that fruit." By rebels, we thrive in rebellion. Why do we relish doing things that cause us harm, that are self destructive? Why do we do things that as soon as we know that God forbids it, that's all we can think about? That people destroy themselves before they submit to God and the law brings to mind God's will but it provokes our own rebelling. Tell a young person that, "You can't do a certain thing," and then all of a sudden they become intensely interested in that one thing. How often are we seeing children, teenagers disobey for no reason other than they just want to disobey. It's disobedience for disobedience's sake and it's not just children. Adults are just like that, we just mask it better. So he says, "Yes, this is a challenge," don't just preach the law and some churches just do this. They just preach the law, "Don't do this." And all the young people, that's all they want to do and then you lose the young people, you lose the youth, you lose that generation. You've got to preach the law with the gospel together. The law by itself inflames sin, just preaching the law excites, exacerbates our sinful nature and then the law is powerless to help us fight the sin. This is why Paul and the Judaizers or the religious Jews of the day they fought because the Judaizers are like, "No, the law is how we are protected from sinning." And Paul says, "No, actually, the reverse is true. The law sets you on a course of inevitable hypocrisy. You can't, you won't obey the commandments. You pretend to do it and then all of a sudden obedience is redefined superficial terms." And that's why the entire rabbinical system was such a pretense. People are just pretending to obey but their hearts were never in it. And it's not just in synagogues or rabbinical trainings but this is in churches too. If you just preach the law, you just preach the law, you don't preach grace then people turn into hypocrites. Preaching law must also, always be followed by preaching the gospel because it's only the holy spirit working through the gospel that creates us a desire and a power to obey. So he continues verse six, "But now we are released from the law." It's as if we were encaged by the law, he says, "You're released having died to that which held us captive so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code." He says, but now you were in the flesh, you were controlled by sinful passions. The law, all it did was exacerbate sin but now that you're released from the law, you've died to it. Now, you have the ability to serve in a new way. I think about this all the time as a pastor, as a father, I think about my kids because my kids are getting older. I think about my kids, that they are spending more time outside the home than with us. They're with friends, they're with the soccer teammates, they're in school. And how do you teach them to be godly when they're not in the house? How do you teach them to do the right thing when mom and dad aren't looking? Well, the only way that you can do this effectively... And it's the same with pastoring, most of you I do not see you during the week. I pray for you but I don't see you. Most of the decisions that you make in terms of obeying the Lord, following the Lord or not following the Lord it's just you and the Lord. So why in the world would allow people, would make people obey when no one's looking? It's a complete transformation of the heart, where God fills your heart with love for him and love for his word and love for his will. He does that by the power of the holy spirit where God says, "I'm not just going to give them the word, I'm going to write the word on their hearts and I'm going to give them the power of the holy spirit within to do what I call for them to do. Ezekiel 36:24-32, "I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land and I will sprinkle clean water on you. And you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols and I will cleanse you and I will give you a new heart and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers and you shall be my people and I shall be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses and I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. And I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations." "And then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good. And you will loathe yourselves for all your inequities and your abomination. It is not for your sake that I will act declares the Lord, God. Let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel." It's through Jesus Christ that the law, the mastery of the law is broken and now we don't do God's will just because he might punish us for it. We do God's will because he has given us the power to do it where his will and our will come together. He causes us to walk in his ways. The holy spirit has taken up residence in us and has given us a new nature. And then he summons that new nature into expression as we live our lives day by day in following him. It's only the holy spirit that can give us the power to do the will of God. The change must come from above and from the inside out. When we trust in Jesus Christ, when we welcome the holy spirit and we seek to obey God, the father. If you're not a Christian today, we welcome you to become a Christian. All you have to do is repent of all your sin and you say, "Lord, forgive me for my sin. Forgive me of my rebellion. Forgive me of my law breaking. Forgive me of all of it. Lord, I need grace. Lord, forgive me. I want to be yours, I want to belong to you. I want to obey you in everything that I do send me the holy spirit," and the Lord does. And you'll see incredible transformation, you'll wake up with desires you've never had. You want to commune with the Lord, you want to obey him, you want to study his word, you want to be with God's people. It's all a work of the holy spirit. If you're a Christian, you're struggling with some sins, if there's sins in your life that you have not repented of, we call you today. Repent of those sins, trust in Jesus Christ. Take the power of the holy spirit and commit to following him the rest of your days. Jesus, we thank you for the gift of a new heart and a new life and a new way of serving you in the power of the spirit. Where we have a power that's not our own and energy that's not our own, a wisdom that's not our own, desires and affections that are not our own they're foreign to us. But we pray give us more love for you. A deeper desire to honor you and delight you and to fear you and to please you. We thank you that we are now not under law but under grace and because we're under grace, we have an even greater desire to live in accordance to your law because of the great cost by which we were saved. The cost of the son of God himself who died for us. Lord, fill each one of us with the spirit in ways that we have never been led and filled with the spirit before. And continue to make us a people who live in a manner worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ so everything we do, we do because we are yours, because we belong to you, because we have a brand new identity, because we are the children of God. We thank you for the gift of grace, the gift of adoption to your family and we thank you, holy spirit, that you allow us to serve you. What a great privilege that is and continue to take the labors of our hands and multiply them a thousand fold for your glory and our joy and we pray all this in Christ name. Amen.

We at Tree Speech and Alight Theater Guild are incredibly grateful to Stephanie Kaza for joining us today. Dr. Stephanie Kaza is Professor Emerita of Environmental Studies at the University of Vermont and former Director of the UVM Environmental Program. She co-founded the Environmental Council at UVM and served as faculty director for the Sustainability Faculty Fellows program. In 2011 Dr. Kaza received the UVM George V. Kidder Outstanding Faculty Award for excellence in teaching. Kaza received a prestigious Religion and Science course award from the Templeton Foundation for her course on Buddhism and Ecology. She lectures widely on topics of Buddhism and the environment. Kaza is a long-time practitioner of Soto Zen Buddhism, with training at Green Gulch Zen Center, California, and further study with Thich Nhat Hanh, Joanna Macy, and John Daido Loori. She was lay ordained by Kobun Chino Ottogawa in the late 1980s and applied her understanding of Buddhism as a member of the International Christian-Buddhist Theological Encounter group. She is the author of the books A WILD LOVE FOR THE WORLD, GREEN BUDDHISM: PRACTICE AND COMPASSIONATE ACTON IN UNCERTAIN TIMES, CONVERSATIONS WITH TREES, MINDFULLY GREEN: A PERSONAL AND SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO WHOLE EARTH THINKING, and others. Also much gratitude and endless love to our mothers, Miriam Robinson, Anne-Marie Roach and Jackie Vandenberg for sharing their sapling stories, and for everything. If you've enjoyed this episode, please like us on social media, and rate and review us on apple podcasts. Every kind word helps. To learn more about the episode see our show notes and visit us at treespeechpodcast.com, and on instagram @ treespeechpodcast. Tree Speech's host, Dori Robinson, is a director, playwright, dramaturg, and educator who seeks and develops projects that explore social consciousness, personal heritage, and the difference one individual can have on their own community. Some of her great loves include teaching, the Oxford comma, intersectional feminism, and traveling. With a Masters degree from NYU's Educational Theatre program, she continues to share her love of Shakespeare, new play development, political theatre, and gender in performance. Dori's original plays have been produced in New York, Chicago, and Boston. More information at https://www.dorirobinson.com This week's episode was written and recorded in Massachusetts on the native lands of the Wabanaki Confederacy, Pennacook, Massachusett, and Pawtucket people, in New York on the land of the Lenapee tribes, as well as the lands of the Confederate Tribes of the Siletz Indians, and the Grand Ronde Cowlitz. Logo design by Mill Riot. Special thanks to the Western Avenue Lofts and Studios for all their support. Tree Speech is produced and co-written by Jonathan Zautner with Alight Theater Guild. The mission of the guild is to advance compelling theatrical endeavors that showcase the diversity of our ever-changing world in order to build strong artists whose work creates empathy, challenges the status quo and unites communities. For more information about our work and programs, please visit www.alighttheater.org. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/treespeech/message

Episode 103 We are so excited to welcome Dr James Stump to the podcast today. Jim is the Vice President of Programs at BioLogos and hosts the podcast, Language of God. He is a passionate speaker, author, and organizer in the field of science and religion. He has written multiple books on science and religion, and has the uncanny ability to bring disparate groups together for meaningful and respectful conversation.  We sat down for an hour to talk about the work that BioLogos does, what he's most excited about, and how to have productive conversations with people who disagree with each other.    Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast   More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/   produced by Zack Jackson music by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis    Transcript  This transcript was automatically generated by www.otter.ai, and as such contains errors (especially when multiple people are talking). As the AI learns our voices, the transcripts will improve. We hope it is helpful even with the errors.   Zack Jackson 00:04 You are listening to the down the wormhole podcast exploring the strange and fascinating relationship between science and religion. Our guest today is the vice president of programs at BioLogos. And host of the podcast the language of God is a passionate speaker, author and organizer in the field of science and religion. He's also the author of four views of creation, evolution and intelligent design, science and Christianity in Introduction to the issues, how I changed my mind about evolution, and the Blackwell companion to science and Christianity. We are so excited to welcome Jim stump to the podcast today. Welcome.   Jim Stump 00:42 Thanks, Zack. Good to be here. Thank you, Ian.   Zack Jackson 00:44 Yeah. And thank you so much for taking this time out of your day. I know that there's so much going on right now with BioLogos. We were just talking before the podcast started about the conference that you have just a couple of days, which, unfortunately, by the time that this podcast airs will be over. So   Jim Stump 01:02 there will be virtual recordings available to see if you're interested in that sort of thing. Yeah.   Zack Jackson 01:08 Oh, excellent. That was gonna be my first question. So for the folks who did not register, because they are just hearing about it after the fact, they can go watch   Jim Stump 01:17 those. So I think the way it works is you can register for the online portion. And it's a pay what you can kind of thing, and those are going to be available for three months after after the conference. And then there may be free versions that that come out. Don't hold me to that. I'm not entirely sure about that. But I think that's the way it works.   Zack Jackson 01:40 Excellent, wonderful. So you heard it here. First, folks. Actually, you probably already here last point. So for those of our listeners who are not all that familiar with BioLogos, could you take a minute here and explain a little bit about what it is that you that you all   Jim Stump 01:57 sure the BioLogos elevator speech. We are a nonprofit organization, founded by Francis Collins, who was the leader of the Human Genome Project, and then became the director of the NIH is currently the President's science advisor. He wrote a book in 2006, called the language of God after which our podcast was named. And in it, he shared about how he is this world class scientist, he didn't call himself a world class scientist. He's too humble for that. But he is a world class scientist, and how he came to understand these scientific things about the world, but then also how as an adult, he came to faith in Christ, and tried to show how those two things fit together in his own life. And after the publication of that book, he got lots and lots of questions, emails, even letters at the time, from people asking follow up questions. And he quickly got overwhelmed with all of that and put together a group of people to write out answers to frequently asked questions and they put it on a podcast or sorry, they this is a podcast, they put it on a website and call it BioLogos. And that's how biologists got started, it was answers to frequently asked questions about primarily science and evolution at the time, just after that podcast, after that website went live was when he was tapped by President Obama to become the director of the NIH and had to separate himself from bio logo. So it became a little more organized and incorporated and started having things like conferences and doing a blog and writing some other books and those kinds of things. And so here we are, 12 years later, or so that we're now a staff of 1414 people. We have a speaker's bureau, we have this podcast, you mentioned the website is still kind of the main hub of what we do. We had over 2 million unique visitors to the website last year, lots of them interesting, interestingly enough, still landing on these pages of frequently asked questions that Milo has gotten started with. So somebody does a Google search on something related to human beings and Adam and Eve and evolution or these days, we also talked about climate change and vaccines and those kinds of topics as well. And I think it's fair to say we've become a pretty trusted organization within the Christian community for people who are trying to take their faith seriously, but also want to take the findings of contemporary science seriously.   Ian Binns 04:35 Yeah, yeah. So   Zack Jackson 04:36 you've been with them since 2013. Or so I   Jim Stump 04:39 started in 2013. Half time I was a philosophy professor and split my time between BioLogos and the college I was teaching at for a couple of years and then went full time starting in 2015.   Zack Jackson 04:55 But what about your trajectory of your life led you to that point to the place.   Jim Stump 05:00 So I did a PhD in philosophy and was always interested in science. My undergrad degree was in science education II and I would have had you as a professor somewhere along the, along the route. And my father was was trained originally as like a middle school science teacher, he eventually became, became an administrator. But I, and we grew up in a Christian family, a very conservative Midwest Christian community. And so I was always interested in these two things and was never really forced into the kinds of positions you hear lots of people from conservative Christian families were creation science or young earth creationism or something we I was never forced into those kinds of positions, and was always encouraged to investigate and ask questions and look at the natural world as a good place, and was always interested how that fit with the Christian commitments that I had. And so I did this undergrad degree in math and science education, thought I might become a high school or middle school math and science teacher. And then immediately after college, my wife and I went to Africa actually to teach in a mission school for a while. And there I started Reading, Reading books more seriously than I did as a math major and in college. And so it was primarily the 19th century fiction shelf in the library in this little school way out in the middle of, of the jungle, actually. And somewhere in that conjunction between the math and science analytical training I had and then Reading 19th century fiction like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and Melville and some of these great ideas that came out somewhere in the conjunction of those two things out pop philosophy, and I'm not the first person I've heard to say that, that they were attracted to philosophy through literature, but came back from there and went to grad school and philosophy, wanted to do something related to science and religion in a philosophy PhD, but was said no, you can't really do that in this department. But you could do science and, and metaphysics science and philosophy more generally. So I did a I did a dissertation that was kind of historical in nature, the scientific revolution, how the advancing scientific theories interacted with, with the advancing philosophical theories of the time, and how these two disciplines interacted with each other, all with an eye toward how does this affect science and religion. And so then started teaching in a small Christian liberal arts school where you teach about everything and don't have too much time to research yourself. But I got a fellowship one year through the Templeton Foundation to go to Oxford, for to do some projects in science and religion. And that was where I was introduced more specifically to the academic discipline of science and religion and really liked it, and started doing some things there. In 2013, BioLogos had a new president who was from Grand Rapids, Michigan, the BioLogos offices were previously in San Diego, the the past president was a professor at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego. But when Deb haarsma became president, she said, I'm in need to move the headquarters to where I live in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and only two of the staff wanted to move from San Diego to Grand Rapids, Michigan. Surprise, surprise. And so she put out a call looking for some new staff. And in particularly, she wanted somebody in philosophy and theology that could help to curate some of the resources for the website, and so on. So I responded to that saying, I am really interested in this and the work BioLogos is doing. And I think I could help in, in what you need, but I'm not ready to quit my full time, full professor tenured position to do that, can we work out some other deal? And to my surprise, she said, Yeah, let's do this. So for two years, by oligos, bought out part of my faculty contracts so that I could do each of them half time. And that was with the full, full permission of the administration from this little college where I was teaching and but then as word started getting out to some of the broader constituents in that community, it made them nervous that there was a faculty member, so closely aligned with BioLogos that accepts evolution, you know, so sort of long. We called it a dialogue started, but it was more of a one way monologue, I'm afraid and ended with some of the documents that faculty have to sign every year being changed. And it kind of forced me to say, I probably don't belong here anymore, and biogas wanted to hire me full time. So in 2015, I started working for them full time. That was a very long answer to your question of how I got here, but that's the know the nitty gritty like taste a lot of her.   Zack Jackson 09:57 I feel like a lot of our listeners can resonate With that, there's a lot of folks, especially those of us, who come from a more conservative background and more evangelical background, who we dip our toes into this world, we realize we're not alone in the people who really want to engage with science with integrity, and maintain our spirituality. And we discover this new and beautiful and exciting world that God has made. And there's a new life in us. And then we're met with a brick wall of opposition from the people who used to accept us where our identity used to be. And they've now changed, that'd be the fact that they changed their covenant that you could no longer sign in. Very similar thing happened to me in a church once, but is one of the things that I really appreciate about BioLogos of all of this sort of organizations that that are tackling these issues. You all seem to have the best inroads into the evangelical world, where there is, you know, historically, anyway, a lot of science denialism. What is it about about your organization that, that gives you this ability to speak, to speak science speak truth into a world. So full of denialism?   Jim Stump 11:17 That's kind of you to say that, and I wonder if one day somebody in the sociology department might write a write a big dissertation and do a big study related to science and religion organizations in the US because it's, it's a fascinating territory. BioLogos in its earlier days, so soon, after Francis Collins had to disassociate himself with the organization, there was one group of people that came in, and you can go, you can still find some of the the early articles that were written, more so you find when I travel, people who reacted in a certain way that wasn't very positive, I think there's a natural, I think there's a natural kind of progression for people that start to entertain these kinds of ideas. That leads them away. Part of what happens when you when you're trying to figure out how to reconcile evolution with Christian faith, and particularly with the Bible is your interpretation of Scripture, you start to realize has to be a little more nuanced, and, and not quite. So look, I just read this in the Bible, and therefore that's it. And we come to think that that wasn't a good way of interpreting scripture anyway. But what it does is it opens the doors for you to reconsider lots of other things, right, that you see, this is harder, this is messier than, then perhaps the community I came from had led me to believe. And I think there were some instances in those early days of BioLogos, where that was almost pushed down people's throats a little too harshly. And they felt like BioLogos was saying, Oh, you poor benighted evangelicals, let me help straighten you out. And let me you know, show you the truth. And you'll come to be just like we are, then that's that's maybe not a charitable way of interpreting that. But that's the kind of message I hear from people who were only acquainted with BioLogos in some of those early days, and then there was a very intentional decision for a kind of kinder, gentler approach, and the hiring of people that identified themselves as evangelicals, and we're still part of this world. And so I think we took on more of an aura of trying to reform from within rather than taking potshots from the outside, that's a little too simplistic and is perhaps a caricature of what was actually happening. But I think that's, that points to some of it that we have very intentionally tried to keep one foot in the evangelical world, even though you know the way the culture wars have bundled issues together. Science is on one side, and religion is on the other side, way too often. And we find ourselves in that No Man's Land out in the middle. But instead of just going with the flow of saying, well, then we're just going to become this progressive organization that sneers at evangelicals. You know, we've said no, we're, we're still part of this and many of these impulses we share. And so it's much more an issue of how do we articulate within, you know, the the framework that makes sense to that community? So I don't know it's a it's a really good question, and we are not a perfect organization and we misstep and stumble all the time, but It's a it's a one of our one of our values. I mean, our, in our founding documents, our values, say, rigorous science, Christ centered faith and gracious dialogue. So it's not I think too many people use the speak the truth in love verse as a weapon that gives themselves permission to club people over the heads with the truth as they know it now. And we're much more concerned about, you know, winning people through graciousness than just clubbing them with the truth.   Ian Binns 15:35 So I'm curious, I'd like that idea. You talk about the having the conversation, right, making it so that you can actually have a conversation? Which I really liked that how do you approach those who? I mean, I'm certain there are individuals or groups maybe who've started off maybe more antagonistic, or they've started off their conversation with you in an attacking type manner? How do you handle that? Or Or do you initially do? Do you know what I mean? More? I'm trying to get out here like it. People who maybe approach more with my way or the highway? I am correct. You were wrong. type of approach. What have you done in the past?   Jim Stump 16:20 Yeah. So thankfully, those people are the outliers. Actually. They're the ones that get the most press. They're the loudest voices out there. But it's not the norm. We commissioned a sociological survey origins a few years back, and it was really fascinating to see, yes, you can if you only ask the question, like, How old do you think the earth is? Or do you think human beings evolved? evangelicals? Still, the majority of them, say our, you know, young earth creationists or old earth creationist at least saying that there's no such thing as evolution. But when you dig a little deeper and ask, and how important is this to you? It's a really small percentage, it's like less than 10%, who pound their fist on the lectern and say, I'm a young earth creationist Darnit. And it has to be that way, or you're all going to hell or you know, that you hear those voices on the internet, particularly, but that's not the majority of people. And so there's a, there's a middle ground of people who are, you know, either don't really care that much about the issues, or they say, this is interesting, but it's not hugely important to me, and I'm not going to get into fights over it. So that's the first response to your question in is that it's not as many people doing that, as you might be led to believe, by if you only follow these issues on Twitter, right. But then there are those people and one of the things BioLogos has done is that we don't really do debates. I mean, that became that became part of the DNA, I'm afraid of evangelicalism and apologetics, to say we're gonna get up and, you know, have a debate and trot out all our fancy reasons and show people why, you know, we're really just as smart as you are actually smarter. Because we believe the truth. We've said, we're not doing that. We're happy to have conversations with people, but we vastly prefer those conversations to come out of relationship that has happened. So just as an example of that, reasons to believe is another science and faith organization out in California, founded by Hugh Ross, who is an astrophysicist, became a Christian later in his life and started this as an apologetics ministry. They're old earth creationists. So they accept the science of physics and geology that points toward the ancient age of the Earth in the universe, but they don't accept evolution. And we've had really good, interesting, productive talks with them. But it's only because we've spent a lot of time with them. And when I say spend a lot of time with them, it's not a lot of time on stages, talking in front of other people, or even doing this kind of thing on a podcast where you're having a conversation, but secretly, you're just trying to talk to your own audience, you know, preach to the choir, in some sense, we spent a lot of time with them behind closed doors out of the public eye just getting to know each other. So four or five representatives from our organization would get together with four or five representatives from their organization. And we'd talk about the common ground we have we talk about our differences. We'd also pray with each other and we'd hear each other's spiritual journey and stories and we'd eat a meal together. And so I often have said in response, in reaction to that and to these kinds of questions, that it's a lot harder to be snippy over the internet at people with whom you've prayed. People that you people that you have out with people that you know, their testimony, their stories, in when when you have that kind of a relationship, it's it's way harder to be uncharitable toward them. Where when it's people that you don't know anything about, you read a quote, or two, and you make all these assumptions about who they are and what they must be like, and you just go from there. So developing relationship has always been really important in the BioLogos approach to these things.   Ian Binns 20:30 Yeah, I like that, if you're talking about debates, you know, I've never found debates on these types of issues, worthwhile. And when I was faculty at LSU, for three years, from 2008, to 2011. And Louisiana, you know, at times has historically said trouble with teaching of evolution in schools and, and they still do, and I was testifying a lot down there against efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution, and also to undermine curriculum materials. And right before we moved back to North Carolina, I don't remember the name of the person. But someone reached out to me from a small group in Canada, wanting to set up a debate as a way to come after me. And I immediately turned it down. But I reached out to some of my mentors about it. And they just said, it's, it's not worth it. So you're, you're going the right way. But it was it was interesting to finally get on someone's radar that way. But again, I just saying it's not worth my time. So   Zack Jackson 21:30 there seems to be a fine line between a debate and a conversation. Right, and you are a podcast host? Do you find yourself in situations where things start turning into a debate over a conversation? And?   Jim Stump 21:49 Not very often, not very often. And I'm sure part of that comes through the selection of the people we have on the podcast to talk with. Most of them are people who agree with us to start with we we do consciously try to look over the course of a season or over a calendar year to make sure we're talking with people that are outside the tent, and outside the tent in different directions, whether that's they don't agree with us on science, or they don't agree with us about Christianity. And but those have those who have never, like gotten ugly or nasty or anything, so.   Zack Jackson 22:28 Okay. And so for those of you who are listening who are not familiar, Jim is the host of the the language of God podcast, which is saying before, one of the only regularly updating podcasts that tackles science and religion on a regular basis with any kind of intellectual integrity is how I think I would put it, but but I do regular Google searches because, well, you know, one of the reasons we started this podcast was because there wasn't a whole lot out there. And we were in conversation, the five of us and I, we realized there was not a whole lot of content out there. And there wasn't a whole lot of organization of people, everyone kind of felt like they were on their own. And so we wanted to create a community of people who, who at least were asking similar questions, if not on the same page. And you do that on a regular basis. So first of all, thank you for doing that. And I wonder if you might take a little, a little bit of time here and tell us a little bit about what is sort of the driving ethos behind your podcast and what you're trying to do with it?   Jim Stump 23:47 Yeah. One of the most frequently requested resources we had it BioLogos, in the middle teen years of the 21st century, was to have a podcast and we always replied with Yeah, that would be great. But we just don't think we have the resources to do it. Both the human resources as well as money we had known and that that answer was fairly, an uneducated, but we didn't, we didn't we just didn't know about podcasting. And I had a chance, depending on your theology, you might say providential conversation with a former student of mine, at a party one night, I asked him what he was doing. And he said, I started this new business, and I'm a consultant for podcasters. And I'm like, seriously, there is such that you can do that. And he said, Yeah, lots of people want and I said, What does it take to do a podcast? And we had this conversation for about an hour and at the end of that hour, I had the whole plan in mind to go back to the leadership at BioLogos and say, we need to do this. We can do this. It's not as complicated as I thought. It's doesn't take as much money as I thought. and using somebody like this, we can figure out how to do it well BioLogos we're, we're funded entirely through grants and donations, we don't sell anything. So our only revenue comes from those. And so anytime we have a new project, we ended up pitching it as a grant proposal, or we find a donor who's interested in that way, we really thought we needed to hire one more person than we then we had to be able to devote time to doing it. And so we ended up getting, we ended up getting a grant to start it to start it off. And to do that, you have to write up this big document saying this is what we want to do. And essentially, it was taking the academic conversations of science and religion that you guys know that that go on at all sorts of levels. But it doesn't often trickle down into the people in the pew. So this was a grant that was intentionally pitched to say, we want to bring the kinds of conversations that the scholars in our network are having regularly and to try to translate that for a general podcasting audience. For people that say, Yeah, I'm kind of interested in where humans came from. I'm interested in what the Bible has to say about this. And I'm interested in the latest scientific discoveries, but to take that and package it in a way that would that would be interesting for, for for those kinds of people. So it's designed very much to take the all the topics that BioLogos is is interested in and engaged in and to find the interesting people to talk to about that. My only qualifications as a podcasting host. Before starting this were that I was I was the announcer for the women's basketball team at the college where I was teaching for a number of years. And so I had practice speaking into a microphone in that regard. But I was something I thought I can I'd really like to do this, I think I can do this. And there was some skepticism going into it, whether this was really the right fit for me to be the podcast I was about, we started doing a few and people said, Yeah, I guess you can do that, that I guess, announcing three pointers translates Okay, and talking about science and faith, so, so now it's, it's like half of my job. It's and it's been one of the most enjoyable things that I've done. I really enjoyed having these kinds of conversations with with lots of people. So we just like you have recently hit the 100 episode mark, and have continued, continued on for we'll go for at least another couple of years. And we'll see what happens then.   Zack Jackson 27:42 Yeah, I only just realized that you all launched your podcast just about just a couple of months before we launched our podcast. Yeah, it was we must have lost at the same   Jim Stump 27:52 time, we must have sent the same need out there.   Zack Jackson 27:56 I think we probably did, it sounds like we sent the same need anyway, the the taking the from the the academy and bringing it back down to the people as it were. So in the past 100 and some odd episodes, what what are some of the things that you've learned that stand out to you?   Jim Stump 28:17 So, I mean, I think I've learned how to be a better podcast host than I was at the beginning. I've learned I mean, just through conversations with people, one of the things you see over and over again, is that what people believe is really deeply connected to who they are, where they live, the community that's around them, the ideas that we have aren't just floating around in, you know, some ether, that they're deeply connected to the people that we are to the communities that that we're part of. And that can be troubling to people sometimes if you think that leads you down this road of relativism of some sense, but I think instead it shows the embodied pneus of our faith, it shows that our faith can take on particular particular guises depending on where we are and who we're around. And that shouldn't be threatening, that should be an indication of the incarnational element of Christianity. Right. And so it's it always gives me I think, great hope to hear people different people's expression and articulation of their Christian faith dependent on the circumstances that they've found themselves in. And there are obviously commonalities through that. And different challenges. It's similar challenges that come out and are expressed in in similar ways but it it doesn't take away from the kind of uniqueness and embeddedness of of the faith in our in our lives as we find them. Use if   Ian Binns 29:59 Zach knows this. We've been friends for a long time night, I always bounce back and forth. And you were talking earlier. Jim, when you're talking about your journey, and you refer to a fellowship that you did, I think you said it was with Oxford maybe or something. Can you delve more into that a little bit? And what was that experience? Like? So what was it then? What was that experience for you?   Jim Stump 30:19 The John Templeton Foundation is the major funder of all things science and religion in, in this country and in several other countries. And they started a program designed for primarily for faculty at Christian colleges to get more engaged in the academic discipline of science and religion. And so this was, it was actually three summers in a row held at Oxford University. Wickliffe Hall is one of the colleges, one of the halls of, of Oxford University. So three summers in a row, I went over there for four weeks, each two of those summers, I even got to bring my family with me. And it was really transformative time. For me as a scholar and understanding deeper the the issues involved in science and religion. So we each had to pitch a project of some sort to work on throughout those times. And then there was a cohort of about 35 people who were there, and we got to know each other and became friends, and had these kinds of conversations a lot. And so I came back and started working and writing more seriously in the academic field of, of science and religion. And that's kind of what led me to BioLogos then, too, so yeah, and they've done so Templeton has done this several times with different cohorts. I was I was part of the second cohort. So it was see if I have my dates, right. 2003, four and five. Were the years that the summers that I was there, there was a three year program immediately before that, too. And since then, I think they've been doing just two year cohorts, but have had similar programs for quite a while. Yeah.   Ian Binns 32:01 That's because just for me, personally, that's something I'm interested in. And obviously I work at a secular institution, but of the fellowship that brought all of us together. Sinai's snaps as it was, was something that, you know, obviously was very powerful for me personally. And it led to the five of us becoming very good friends in this podcast. But it's something that I am more interested in trying to find other avenues just because, you know, as Zack mentioned, of the five of us, I'm the only one that's not as engaged, I guess you could say, within the religious community, as the others just because of my work. And as a science educator, which is not a bad thing. It's just something that I crave. So   Jim Stump 32:47 I think, when we have so when BioLogos has these conferences, like the one you mentioned, that's, that's coming up here this week, that's, that's what we hear most from the people who come and attend that they've been just craving fellowship around like minded people. Because for too many for too many people in their, in their religious communities, they find it challenging and difficult to talk openly about science. And for many scientists, then in their work situations, they find it difficult to talk openly about their faith commitments. And so again, we're kind of in that no man's land between those those two ideological camps. And so but there really are a lot of people out there like us that are interested in both of them. So it's, it's very, very nice to have a community of people that are involved in both.   Ian Binns 33:38 Well, and thankfully, my my church community, I'm an Episcopalian. And within my Episcopal Church, community, immediate community, at least it is very much welcomed. You know, I've taught several classes from my church, with my former Rector and my current Rector is a huge fan of our podcasts. And he actually was a high school biology teacher before he went to seminary. So it's an area that I get to talk about a lot, but you know, academically, you know, I get to do work on it and write about it. But you know, I do, I'm trying to get to know people in our religious studies program, for example, but also to to get to know people at different institutions around the country and seminaries and things like that as a way just to kind of collaborate more of science and religion centers as a way to collaborate more, because it's something that I find very fascinating, obviously, since we do this. Good. Yeah.   Zack Jackson 34:31 So you've, you've done a lot of work on with with BioLogos in the in building resources, right, with answering Frequently Asked Questions for for faith leaders for Christians, across the board. But what is it that within this, this fear this this, this world of science and religion, this relationship between the two that that just gets you jazzed? That That makes you excited that you could talk about for an hour.   Jim Stump 35:03 Yeah. So I got into this work primarily, because I'm teaching at this Christian College. And I started hearing more and more former students after I'd been there long enough former students, I'd start hearing that had left their faith, because they got out of the bubble that we were part of, and saw how science works in the real world. Maybe it was just watching the Discovery Channel, seeing nature, and, and somewhere deep inside them, whether it was ever articulated this way explicitly, or not, somewhere deep inside them from the religious communities they had grown up in, we're like, this doesn't fit. This doesn't work this with my faith, this view of the world doesn't, you know, I can't reconcile this. And I'm feeling that I got to choose, am I either going to double down and be part of this religious community? Or am I going to say, Yeah, this is the way the world works, and the what scientists told us, and they would feel at this fork in the road of having to choose between these two. And so I got into this because I was tired of hearing that of hearing people think that somehow they had to choose between science and, and faith. And so I said, I gotta sort some of this out myself. I gotta I mean, I've, as I told you before, I've I've never really tempted by things like young earth creationism, but neither was I ever completely sure how to reconcile, in my own mind, things like what Genesis says, with evolution. And so it was through some of my own Reading through some of the work in this Templeton group that I was talking about in Oxford, where it was like, Okay, now I'm starting to see the way that it's not like you have to compromise somehow, on your faith, it's that I need a little better, more sophisticated under understanding a way of interpreting scripture, that's actually better. It's not somehow, you know, shirking responsibility, but it's like, no, these, these documents didn't fall from heaven, that they were written in a time and place. And so coming to understand that just like, opened my eyes to say, Okay, I'm free. Now, I feel like I'm free to explore the scientific evidence and let that lead me where it will, because it's not going to threaten this commitment to faith that I have to this understanding of the Bible, even as this inspired document that that is, you know, been so important to our, to our tradition. So that in my own journey, led to I think I can show this to other people here now, too, I think, I think we can help people come so that they don't get to a crisis point the way so many of my former students had. And so that part of understanding in one bigger, more coherent picture has been really important for me, and I think, is is one of those things that keeps me juiced up and in talking to other people about this, that, that you can take both of these seriously, right, so that it's not not giving up on one or the other. More recently, so BioLogos, here about three years ago, made an intentional decision to expand the topics we talked about. Earlier on, it was mostly evolution and origins related work. And that was an intentional decision also to try to unbundle it from the other issues, because as we talked about on these culture wars, that too often the culture wars come as prepackaged bundles of of issues and topics and that you have to take all of one or all of the other and BioLogos said, No, we're not trying to get you to we're not trying, we're not talking about climate change. We're not talking about homosexuality, we're not trying to get you to vote democratic. We're just trying to talk about evolution as a way of unbundling that, but after doing that for about 10 years, we said we think we've earned enough credibility and trust that maybe we do need to talk about some other scientific topics. That was a at a strategic planning meeting in 2019. And we thought that 2020 was going to be the year of climate change and creation care for BioLogos. And then COVID happened. And we pivoted really hard in 2020, then to trying to provide scientific resources from a Christian perspective that people might trust related to COVID and really ramped up very quickly in that regard. And so then by about 2021, by the middle of 2021 or so we we started thinking more seriously and developing more resources on climate change. And that's become an issue now for me, that keeps me animated and sometimes keeps me up at night. And seeing that just the psychology of the way this is an issue works, that it's just far enough away that it doesn't feel like a crisis right now. But it really is a crisis right now. I mean, the things we're we have this short window right now as a civilization, to make the right kinds of choices, and to show how this ought to flow out of our faith. You know, rather than again, it being bundled on the opposite side of the culture wars from where many people of faith are. And they think that's what those liberal people are worried about. I'm not worried about that, well, to show that this ought to flow out of our faith, that we ought to be caring for creation, and that we ought to be worried about the justice have we in the in in the Western world, the industrialized world who have caused almost all of this are going to suffer the least from it, it's going to be the people who didn't cause it that are going to suffer the most. And what does our what does our faith commitment have to say about that? Right? Shouldn't? Shouldn't we of all people be most concerned about what the poorest and the least of these around the world are going to suffer as a result of what we've done over the last few generations? Yeah, yeah,   Zack Jackson 41:19 I was just Reading that the, you know, the Solomon Islands are probably going to be the first nation that is completely eradicated by the sea level rise, and they're trying to purchase large swaths of land in Asia is or   Jim Stump 41:32 relocate a country   Zack Jackson 41:34 to create a new country, as theirs is disappearing. We hear our are saying, well, you know, maybe it's 100 years out. I think we're all pretty, pretty aware. If you're listening to this podcast, you are probably fairly aware of the awful parts of climate change and the things that we shouldn't be doing. And there's perhaps, a sort of paralyzing nihilism to it. For those of us who think about this a lot. Is there anything happening in this in this realm that brings you hope, right now?   Jim Stump 42:12 Right at the end of 2021, we did a series on hope. And I've been thinking about it a lot lately, because in the in the sense of, is it possible for me to be hopeful, and yet not terribly optimistic? Because when I read the data, when I read the new IPCC report, I'm not very optimistic. And is that something different than hope, and I'm persuaded that I can be hopeful as an intentional choice of commitment, as a way of saying, this is how I'm going to look at the world. I'm committed to seeing it as God's creation as a place where God is sovereign, not in the sense that God controls every detail that happens, but in the sense that the good guys win. In the end, I'm committed to that view of life that, that God will work all things together for good. I'm not very optimistic about the the way things are going. But that ultimately, I'm not. I'm not even called to be effective. We had a podcast guest use this line that I just think is super powerful that we are not called to be effective. We're called to be faithful. And what does it look like to be a faithful Christian in these days? When it doesn't look like we're being very effective at convincing people to do the right thing? What does it mean to be faithful in that, in that kind of circumstance, and I think it's to continue to say that God's on the throne, Jesus is the Lord, within our tradition. These are the phrases we use that order our order our lives, and that we're going to continue to love our neighbor, and love our enemies, and to honor God with our hearts and souls and minds and strength. And hope then becomes the kind of outflow of looking at the world in that way and of being committed to that, to that way of looking at the world, that hopefulness can be and affect an outcome from the commitment to being faithful. And again, I think it's possible to have that attitude while at the same time the sort of emotional risk sponsz to immediate circumstances is not always very good. But that optimism or pessimism I see is that emotional reaction to what I see right now. Whereas Hope is the commitment to what I believe the way things are going to be, ultimately, much longer perspective, eternal perspective that hope derives from as opposed to optimism or pessimism.   Zack Jackson 45:28 I think you've just described Isaiah as call from Isaiah chapter six, where God says, you know, Whom shall I send to bring a message to the people and Isaiah says, ooh, pick me. And God says, Here's your message. Tell them to repent, but they're not going to do it. Thanks for that. I know from the outset that this is going to fail, but I need you to do it anyway. Oh, I like that, that a call to faithfulness, not effectiveness. Because there's a we, we just had a section in, I teach confirmation in my in my church, and we've got eight teenagers. And we were talking about Christology and talking about Jesus. And we got to the section on Christ's return. And they have a lot of questions about what it's going to be like, when Jesus comes back. Is it going to be like, when he came the first time? Is he going to be a baby? Is he already here? Is it going to be dramatic in the sky? And the big question was when, and most of them, uh, kind of agreed amongst themselves, without my prodding, that it was probably just going to be when the climate gets too warm, for humans to live anymore. And that we are going to once we destroy the world, that's when Jesus will come in. And so they were just talking amongst themselves about how bad it has to be first, before Jesus will come and set things right. And like the fact that this is the sort of casual conversation happening among 13 year olds, it was like a shot to the heart to me, because, you know, this is something that's deeply important to me as well. But when I was 13, I was certainly not thinking in these terms. Right? When I was 13, my, the limit of my understanding of the environment was that in all those six pack from soda rings, were going to kill turtles. You know, Captain Planet was the extent of my understanding of what we were doing to the world. But for them, they see this as a present reality. And I think the rest of us need to wake up to that.   Jim Stump 47:35 This is part of what has urged us at BioLogos. To make this to make this one of the core topics that we deal with the origins issues are interesting, they're important at some level, and have implications for things like how you understand scripture, and so on. But whether there was a historical Adam or Eve is not going to affect too many people's lives and livelihoods and caused countries like the Solomon Islands to have to relocate, right? I mean, there's a different sort of immediacy and importance to the topics of climate change that we've got to get this one, right, or it's not just going to result in splitting of denominations, it's going to result in inability to have a sustainable planet anymore.   Ian Binns 48:22 When you think about to, you know, there are still indigenous cultures out there that are completely cut off from the industrialized world, or the technological world, I guess you could say, you know, where they still live the way they've always lived. And we know they're there, but don't have any communication with them that those cultures and those communities, especially ones that are on islands will be wiped off the face of the earth, because of our actions, and then   Jim Stump 48:55 even the ones that aren't on islands, the ecosystems are going to change so dramatically already in Africa and South America, the kinds of crops that you can grow, and when you can grow them are changing pretty rapidly. And those kinds of indigenous cultures that have always done things the same way are not going to be able to keep doing those.   Ian Binns 49:14 Yeah, and it but it's very tragic that, you know, the Western world has to be has to know that its impact, at least the general thought seems to be that some believe that, well, it's not in my backyard. I guess that's the best way of saying that. Yeah.   Jim Stump 49:31 And that again, is part of this, like, that's part of the psychology that makes this so difficult to communicate because it's not immediate and in your face, it's off down the road or in another part of the world or something like that.   Ian Binns 49:45 Sure. And that's the loving others. Yep. Right. And so, you know, obviously if you identify as Christian, you can use Christian scripture to help you with that. But even if you don't identify as Christian or even if you don't benefit as a person of any faith whatsoever, you can still recognize the importance of loving others of caring about other people. So, to me, this is another Ask whatever your motivation is to help you care for others.   Jim Stump 50:13 This is another aspect of communicating to to two people that about these issues that again, span or try to at least span the culture war issues, that the theoretical side of this so we do this a lot in practice and have lots of stories to tell about trying to communicate to people in that regard. But there's a really fascinating theoretical aspect behind it. I don't know if you guys know that social psychologist, Jonathan Hite and his book, The righteous mind from a few years ago. And these moral foundations that people intuitively use to make their decisions and the research that he's done on the political left and the political right, primarily, and which of those moral foundations are most important to them. And you, you see pretty clearly that people who identify as liberal or progressive rank the highest on these moral foundations of care and fairness, and many of us that are on that at least lean that way, think that we can make these arguments just by appealing to Shouldn't we care about these other people? Isn't this fair, in order that the people who have, you know not caused this problem, they shouldn't have to be the one suffering from it. And the way you and I both just talked about this issue, that's what we were appealing to, whereas most people on the political right end of the spectrum rank way higher in these moral intuitions on liberty, and authority. And one of the challenges we face is how do we appeal to those kinds of moral foundations to talk about these issues? Because for them, they hear well, this isn't fair. Well, but their response is, well, you can't take away my liberty, you can't take away my choice. Right? Life isn't fair. Yeah, life isn't fair. Sorry, but or appeal to some other authority that they accept. So I think that's one of the big challenges for us in this business of how do we talk about these issues that are so important in ways that tap into the moral intuitions of people who are different than we are people who, who don't value is highly some of those other things that we value   Ian Binns 52:34 was obviously the last two years of this pandemic have made that that contrast even more, even more,   52:40 even more? You're right,   Zack Jackson 52:43 so we need a good alien invasion. Some some common enemy. So   Jim Stump 52:48 I'll tell you though, at the beginning of this pandemic, we at BioLogos said this is going to be what rallies the church to take science more seriously. We thought this is really the opportunity. And within a few months, it was no, the opposite of that has happened. Yeah. So   Ian Binns 53:06 yes, very tragic. Those witness.   Zack Jackson 53:10 Yeah, definitely solve those ideologies take over. And they made certain issues, political that I never imagined a million years could be political. And then I learned so much during that time about what it means to communicate with people and understand other people's values and try to communicate through them to find find some common language, not even common values, but a common way of communicating truth that I'm still working on very much. So   Jim Stump 53:39 there's another book if I can point it to. That's been very helpful for me in this regard to by a legal scholar by the name of John in NA zoo, the books called confident pluralism, which I think is really, really important. I actually just did a podcast interview with him about two months ago on our feed, you can find it but confident pluralism is he's coining this phrase to try to talk about how do we hold to our own convictions in a society where we can't, and probably shouldn't just impose them on other people. So the confident side is this isn't relativism, where we just say anything goes I really believe this is the truth. And I think it's really important, but the pluralism side is, I recognize that my neighbor down the road believes something different with the equal amount of fervor that I believe. So how do we in that kind of society have meaningful conversations? How do we try to break through these culture war bundles that that are there and the he talks primarily in terms of Supreme Court cases in the book because that's what he is. He's a scholar of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court, but really pushes us towards thinking within our communities. How do we move towards tolerance Where again, it's not just in some wimpy sort of anything goes, but rather, to be tolerant that I know other people don't all believe the same the way I do, and I shouldn't just exile them. And tolerance kind of plays off of certainty in a in a certain sense, where maybe toning down my certainty helps to communicate with people a little bit more, but he tries to push towards tolerance and humility and patience, that I think those are all really, really helpful ways of trying to engage people who believe differently than you do.   Ian Binns 55:36 I appreciate that recommendation.   Zack Jackson 55:39 Absolutely. Thank you for that. And we'll make sure to put those those links in the show notes, as well as links to your books that folks can can purchase and read, and all the resources that you've mentioned from BioLogos as well. Here at the end of our time together, first of all, I want to say a huge thank you absolutely half of the rest of our hosts and all of our listeners for spending this time with us. And before you go, what's coming up on the on your podcast that we can look forward to?   Jim Stump 56:12 Yeah, so this conference that we have coming up, we're going to do a live a live recording, which always sounds funny, because it's not like any recording isn't live, but we're gonna have a studio audience. That's what I should say, we're going to have a studio audience in front of us to record a conversation that I'll have with the artist Makoto Fujimura. To talk about creation, what does it mean to be creative, and to be made in the image of God? And what are the consequences that we find between science and art in some of those in some of those ways. We're going to do a whole series on climate change coming up in the not too distant, not too distant future. We did a we did a series last summer on what it means to be human that was a little different from the typical episode where I sit down and talk to somebody for an hour like we're doing here. But it's a little more highly produced, where we go out and talk to two experts in a number of different fields, and then have a narrative where we weave in, weave in quotes from from them. Throughout that. We are going to do a conversation with NT right about the resurrection for the week, right before Easter that will be coming up that I look forward to that we just recorded last week, an episode with Bill McKibben, who's one of the leading scientists, climate change activists, that was a pretty fun conversation than otherwise, we are looking toward the summer and putting together a couple of other series. One of them is related to a new project that I have going on. That is what I'm calling the spiritual journey of Homo sapiens. How did we become the kind of creatures that we are? And can we see in the journey of our species, something analogous to a spiritual journey of us as an individual, the highs and lows that we go through that helped to shape us and form us into into what we are today? So   Zack Jackson 58:21 we're looking at like, Paleolithic spirituality?   Jim Stump 58:26 How did this get started, I have a trip to Europe, hopefully, this next fall, where I'm even going to look at some of the cave paintings as some of these earliest sort of sorts of intimations of, of at least the records we have of our ancestors, looking at something else feel, you know, in a symbolic way of trying to figure out why we're here and who we are and all that. So I'm our series   Zack Jackson 58:53 on human evolution was one of them. It was my favorite series that that is where my, my brain is these days, and what gets me excited. So that's wonderful to hear that you're doing that as that   Ian Binns 59:03 sounds fascinating. Let me know if you need someone to go with you to hold your carry your suitcases. That just sounds fascinating.   Jim Stump 59:15 We'll see if it happens. That's the plan right now.   Ian Binns 59:18 Good luck with that. That sounds really interesting. Yeah. Yeah. And as that moves forward, if that does happen, we'll have to have you back on to talk more about that. Because that that really does sound interesting. I'd be happy to.   Zack Jackson 59:30 Yeah, well, once again, you can listen to that and 109 other episodes of the language of God podcast, you can find that on BioLogos or wherever it is that you find your podcasts wherever you're listening right now. You can also find the language of God podcast. So thank you so much, Jim, for being here today and for spending this time with us. was a really wonderful hour with you. Thanks, Zack.   Jim Stump 59:53 Thanks, Ian. Happy to do it. Thank you

In this episode, Ekemini and Christina are joined by Dr. David Daniels and Dr. Vince Bantu to discuss the history of Christianity in Africa and its spread to America during chattel slavery. Get ready to unlearn and relearn this history and prepare for the of longheld myths to be busted. You'll want to take notes during this episode because they take us to school! Pull up a chair and have a seat at the table with us! Dr. David Daniel's Bio: David D. Daniels III is the Henry Winters Luce Professor of World Christianity at McCormick Theological Seminary where he joined the faculty in 1987. He has taught as an occasional professor at seminaries in the Philippines and Ghana. Dr. Daniels earned his Ph.D. degree from Union Theological Seminary-NYC. He has authored over sixty scholarly book chapters, academic journal articles, and general essays, publishing on topics related to the history of African American Christianity, Global Pentecostalism, African Christians in 16th century Europe, and World Christianity. He has served on U. S. research projects funded by the Lilly Endowment, Luce Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, and Templeton Foundation. He has also participated on funded-research projects in Germany and Norway. Dr. Daniels has served on the various editorial boards, including current membership on the board of the Journal of World Christianity. He has delivered public lectures and conference papers at over twenty-seven colleges and seminaries in the United States as well as in more than 14 other countries. His academic guild involvement has included serving as president of the Society for Pentecostal Studies and co-chair of units of the American Academy of Religion. Dr. Vince Bantu's Bio: Vince Bantu is the Ohene (President) of the Meachum School of Haymanot and is Assistant Professor of Church History and Black Church Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. Vince's assignment from the Lord is to proclaim that the Bisrat (Gospel) of Yeshua is for all nations, tribes and tongues and to do this by teaching on the earliest history of Christianity in Africa and Asia. Vince is the author of A Multitude of All Peoples (IVP), Gospel Haymanot (UMI) and The Bisrat (Jude 3 Project). Vince is also the Ohene (President) of the Society of Gospel Haymanot (SGH), an academic society of theological Gospelism—Afro-rooted theology committed to the universal Lordship of Jesus, biblical authority and the liberation of the oppressed. Vince also serves as the Katabi (Editor) of the publication of SGH—the Haymanot Journal. Vince, his wife Diana, and their daughters live and minister in St. Louis and they love to travel, watch movies and bust some spades.

Joseph Outa chats with Professor Fiery Cushman, professor of psychology at Harvard University. Fiery directs the Moral Psychology Research Lab where he investigates how people make decisions in social contexts; he focuses on questions like why and how did punishment evolve, what are the emotional systems that prevent us from doing harm, and how do humans make sense of each other's behaviors. He received his BA and PhD from Harvard University and has been bestowed with various awards and fellowships including the APA Distinguished Award for Early Career Contributions, the Stanton Prize from the Society of Philosophy and Psychology, just to name a few. He has written over 50 journal articles and is published in prestigious journals like Cognition, Psychological Science and the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), and his research has been continuously funded by organizations such as NSF, the Templeton Foundation and the Office of Naval Research. In this episode, Joseph and Fiery talk about an unpublished manuscript titled "The Possibility of Violence" which examines how our morals constrain the possibilities we consider when making decisions, as well as a case study of a violence-reduction program in the Chicago Public School system.

Prof. Gorman's handout is available here: https://tinyurl.com/mubnsywe This lecture was given on December 18, 2021 at the Dominican House of Studies during "Of the Father's Love Begotten: An Intellectual Retreat on the Incarnation" for the Thomistic Institute's Texas-area campus chapters. For more information on upcoming events, please visit our website at www.thomisticinstitute.org. About the speaker: Michael Gorman is a graduate of St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto (B.A., Christianity and Culture, 1987), The Catholic University of America (Ph.L., Philosophy, 1989), the State University of New York at Buffalo (Ph.D., Philosophy, 1993), and Boston College (Ph.D., Theology, 1997). After serving as assistant professor of Catholic Studies at Saint Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia from 1997 to 1999, he joined the faculty of the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, where he has taught ever since. A fellow of The Catholic University's Institute for Human Ecology, he has also been an Alexander von Humboldt fellow (Leipzig 2004), a Fulbright fellow (Cologne 2008), and a scholar in the Templeton Foundation's Working Group "Virtue, Happiness, and the Meaning of Life" (2015-2017). He works primarily on metaphysics, especially the metaphysics of essence, substance, and normativity, and on applications of metaphysics in areas such as theory of mind, Christology, action theory, and ethics. He is the author of Aquinas on the Metaphysics of the Hypostatic Union (Cambridge, 2017) and over thirty scholarly articles. He is particularly interested in how analytic philosophy and medieval philosophy can be brought together in a way that is historically accurate and philosophically fruitful.

This lecture was given on December 18, 2021 at the Dominican House of Studies during "Of the Father's Love Begotten: An Intellectual Retreat on the Incarnation" for the Thomistic Institute's Texas-area campus chapters. For more information on upcoming events, please visit our website at www.thomisticinstitute.org. About the speaker: Michael Gorman is a graduate of St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto (B.A., Christianity and Culture, 1987), The Catholic University of America (Ph.L., Philosophy, 1989), the State University of New York at Buffalo (Ph.D., Philosophy, 1993), and Boston College (Ph.D., Theology, 1997). After serving as assistant professor of Catholic Studies at Saint Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia from 1997 to 1999, he joined the faculty of the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, where he has taught ever since. A fellow of The Catholic University's Institute for Human Ecology, he has also been an Alexander von Humboldt fellow (Leipzig 2004), a Fulbright fellow (Cologne 2008), and a scholar in the Templeton Foundation's Working Group "Virtue, Happiness, and the Meaning of Life" (2015-2017). He works primarily on metaphysics, especially the metaphysics of essence, substance, and normativity, and on applications of metaphysics in areas such as theory of mind, Christology, action theory, and ethics. He is the author of Aquinas on the Metaphysics of the Hypostatic Union (Cambridge, 2017) and over thirty scholarly articles. He is particularly interested in how analytic philosophy and medieval philosophy can be brought together in a way that is historically accurate and philosophically fruitful.

Dr. Wendy Wood is a best-selling author and Provost Professor of Psychology and Business at the University of Southern California. Given her research over the past 30 years, she is widely considered the world's scientific expert on habit formation and change. She has published over 100 articles, and her research has been supported by Proctor & Gamble, National Science Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, and the Radcliffe Institute. She is the author of Good Habits, Bad Habits. Her work has been featured in The New York Times, NPR, Washington Post, on radio shows like Freakanomics, and in podcasts like the People's Pharmacy. A 2008 Radcliffe Institute Fellow, and 2018 Distinguished Chair of Behavioral Science at the Sorbonne/INSEAD in Paris, Wood has advised the World Bank, the Centers for Disease Control, and industries such as Proctor & Gamble and Lever Bros. In 2018, she gave the inaugural address in Paris for the Sorbonne-INSEAD Distinguished Chair in Behavioral Science.  IN THIS EPISODE…Wendy and Joe talk about her research and ideas in her book, Good Habits, Bad Habits: The Science of Making Positive Changes That Stick. Wendy Wood describes the “what the hell” effect when it comes to dieting and so many more case studies she shares with us. The best part of today's episode is you will take away so many actionable tips you can start using today.

This week Cint and Dawson sat down with Lauren Templeton. Lauren is the founder and president of Templeton and Phillips Capital Management, LLC. Lauren is the Independent Director for Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, Fairfax India Holdings Corporation, and Canadian Solar, Inc. Lauren is the great niece of Sir John M. Templeton and is a current member of the John M. Templeton Foundation, the Templeton World Charities Foundation and a Trustee of Templeton Religion Trust. Professionally speaking, Lauren began her career working with managed portfolios and investments in 1998. In 2001, Lauren founded Templeton & Phillips Capital Management. Lauren is the Co-author of Investing the Templeton Way: The Market Beating Strategies of Value Investing's Legendary Bargain Hunter (2008, McGraw Hill) She is a frequent speaker and financial commentator. Lauren comes from a very adventurous family and she shares family stories going back to her Grandmother's climbing and rafting trips, to a cross country trip in a hearse. Lauren also shares life and financial advice and keeps us laughing and smiling throughout the podcast. Lauren also hosts a podcast, Zenvesting Podcast, on a weekly basis. Zenvestingpodcast.com. Thanks for listening! Find all our episodes at dayfirepodcast.com This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

The name listening ALCHEMY came to Raquel Ark in the middle of the night, evoking ideas of how art and science could combine to distil and purify the act of listening.Soon after, she was asked to deliver a number of workshops on listening, giving her the confidence to build a career around the subject to which she has devoted her life and turn listening ALCHEMY into a business.As her recent TED talk testifies, listening is the centre of Raquel's work as a communications coach, public speaker, mentor of leaders, and host of the Listen IN podcast. Raquel's mission is to give listening a voice, and she teaches people how to listen in a way that creates true connection, leading to change and action at an individual level and a broader, systemic level.In our conversation, Raquel shares powerful insights about her life and work, including a metaphorical tool for getting present in coaching sessions, and wisdom about how people's minds really work when they are listening.In this episode, we talk about:The power of playfulness in opening doors to new coaching methodsCoaching as a meditation on presenceHow to make sure you are understood in the way that's important to youListening circles and how to ensure everyone's voice is heardRaquel explains how listening is about more than words, and you will learn how to allow your clients to listen to themselves.For more information about Raquel, visit https://listeningalchemy.com/ or email her at contact@listeningalchemy.com.For information about Robbie's wider work and writing, visit www.robbieswale.com, and to buy his book, click here.Music by My Good Man William: listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/4KmeQUcTbeE31uFynHQLQgTo support the Coach's Journey, visit www.patreon.com/thecoachsjourney and to join the Coach's Journey Community visit www.thecoachsjourney.com/communityThings and people we mentioned (that you might be interested in):- Robbie's book, How to Start (a book, business or creative project) When You're Stuck https://geni.us/startwhenyourestuck - Vera Janke https://www.linkedin.com/in/verajanke/- International Coaching Federation (ICF) https://coachingfederation.org/ - Transformational Presence: How to Make a Difference in a Rapidly Changing World, by Alan Seale https://transformationalpresence.org/transformational-presence-book/ - Coaches Rising, The Power of Presence https://www.coachesrising.com/powerofpresence/ - Robbie's article on recommitting https://www.robbieswale.com/writing/2018/5/23/recommitting-is-the-journey - Raquel's TED talk on Growing your Listening Superpower https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wgFrKRjYiA - Raquel's conversation with Colin Smith https://listeningalchemy.com/2021/11/15/stop-doing-listening-and-start-being-a-listener-with-colin-smith-2/ - Presencing Institute https://www.presencing.org/ - Jodie Goulden https://keynotewomen.com/speaker/jodiegoulden - Niels Van Quaquebeke https://www.the-klu.org/faculty-research/faculty/resident-faculty/niels-van-quaquebeke/- Mike Toller https://www.thecoachsjourney.com/podcast/episode-32-mike-toller - Myles Downey https://www.thecoachsjourney.com/podcast/episode-31-myles-downey - Guy Itzchakov https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guy-Itzchakov-2- Templeton Foundation's Listening and Learning study https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/blog/listening-and-learning-changing-mindsets-and-emotional-responses-promote-human-flourishing - Avi Kluger https://www.avi-kluger.com/about-me- Raquel's podcast, Listen In https://podcasts.apple.com/br/podcast/listen-in/id1457489060?l=en- Listen In episode with Corine Jansen https://listeningalchemy.com/2019/08/12/practical-insights-for-leaders-to-bring-listening-into-their-organizations-that-have-real-impact-with-corine-jansen-part-2/ - Raquel's Listening Playgrounds https://listeningalchemy.com/listening-playgrounds/- Rebel Wisdom https://rebelwisdom.co.uk/

Michael J. Beran is Professor of Psychology and Co-Director of the Language Research Center at Georgia State University.  He received his B.A. in Psychology from Oglethorpe University in 1995, his M.A. in 1997, and his Ph.D. in 2002, both from Georgia State University.  His research is conducted with human and nonhuman primates, including chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, capuchin monkeys, and rhesus monkeys.  He also has done research with bears, elephants, and robins.  His research interests include perception, numerical cognition, metacognition, planning and prospective memory, self-control, decision making, and language acquisition.  Dr. Beran is a Fellow of Division 3 and Division 6 of the American Psychological Association and a Fellow of the Psychonomics Society.  He was the inaugural Duane M. Rumbaugh Fellow at Georgia State University.  He received the Brenda A. Milner award from the APA in 2005.  He has served as the President of the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology, the Southeast Psychological Association, and the Society for Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology (Division 6 of APA).  He is the current Editor of Animal Behavior and Cognition and has served on numerous editorial boards including Cognition, Animal Cognition, Frontiers in Comparative Psychology, the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, the Journal of Comparative Psychology, Learning and Behavior, and the International Journal of Comparative Psychology.  He has published over 200 peer-reviewed journal articles and contributed chapters to over 50 edited books and encyclopedia.  He also is the co-editor of Foundations of Metacognition (2012, Oxford University Press), the author of Self-control in Animals and People (2018, Elsevier), and the co-editor of the forthcoming Primate Cognitive Studies (2022, Cambridge University Press).  Mike gets 2 pics because I love this slideHis research has been featured on numerous television and radio programs and in magazines, including Animal Planet, BBC, New Scientist, the Wall Street Journal, and Scientific American Mind.  His research is supported by funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Templeton Foundation, and the European Science Foundation.  In addition to the fun things he gets to do in his lab and with his students and colleagues, he enjoys beekeeping, hiking, paintball with friends (and enemies!), travel, and the occasional good bourbon.  And, of course, ‘Bama football.  Roll Tide.mp3 download

Welcome to the Authentic Dad Podcast!  I'm David Waranch and I coach dads on having a greater impact in the world, living on their own terms, and flourishing in their relationships. Today, I'm joined by Dr. Martin Shuster.  Dr. Shuster is associate professor of philosophy at Goucher College where he also holds the Professorship of Judaic Studies and Justice and where he directs the Center for Geographies of Justice. He is a specialist in ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and philosophy of religion, and has fellowships or received grants from the Templeton Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In addition to many essays and articles, he is the author of three academic books: Autonomy after Auschwitz: Adorno, German Idealism, and Modernity; New Television: The Aesthetics and Politics of a Genre; and How to Measure a World? A Philosophy of Judaism. In addition to this academic work, he has published in popular venues like The Forward, The LA Review of Books, Public Seminar, and others. His research and teaching is interdisciplinary ranging from philosophy of humor to genocide studies.  If you're a dad who needs support in your relationships and are looking to make a greater impact in the world, I would love to hear from you. My theme music is by Isaac Lourie.  Check him out on Instagram @isaac_lourie_official. Please visit www.furthur.coach to say hi or schedule a free 30 minute coaching call. Instragram:  @furthur_coaching TikTok:          @furthurcoaching Thanks for listening!  Please consider giving us a 5 star review and subscribing to the podcast.      

Where does creativity live in the brain, and why does it matter? We talk to Rex Jung, a clinical professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico, a research scientist at the Mind Research Network, and a practicing clinical neuropsychologist in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Jung talks about how standard measurements of creativity correlate with the structure of the brain, and how the brain can “rewire” itself to take on challenging or unfamiliar tasks. This is especially important in our early years, but still effective as we grow older. TRANSCRIPT: Intro: 0:02 Inventors and their inventions. Welcome to Radio Cade the podcast from the Cade Museum for Creativity and Invention in Gainesville, Florida, the museum is named after James Robert Cade, who invented Gatorade in 1965. My name is Richard Miles. We’ll introduce you to inventors and the things that motivate them, we’ll learn about their personal stories, how their inventions work and how their ideas get from the laboratory to the marketplace. Richard Miles: 0:40 Where does creativity live in the brain and why does it matter? Welcome to Radio Cade. I’m your host Richard Miles today, I’m talking to Rex Jung, a clinical professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico, a research scientist at the Mind Research Network and a practicing clinical neuropsychologist in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Dr. Jung studies, both brain disease and what the brain does well, a field of research known as positive neuroscience. Welcome to Radio Cade , Rex . Rex Jung: 1:09 Thanks for having me. Richard Miles: 1:10 So you have done a lot of fascinating research and a lot of very interesting areas, including traumatic brain injury, lupus, schizophrenia, intelligence, and creativity. So Rex, we can either make this the first of 18 episodes on your work, or we can pick one. So I say, let’s talk about creativity if that’s okay with you. Rex Jung: 1:27 Sounds good. Richard Miles: 1:29 So I took a look at some of your recent research on creativity. And one thing that jumped out to me as a layman, I don’t have any special expertise in the background was your use of tests to determine baseline levels of creativity. I noticed that you mentioned something called the creative achievement questionnaire, and you also use something called a musical creativity questionnaire. So we can start with what your working definition of creativity is, which I assume these things measure these tests measure, and then tell us, how were those tests developed? How do you know they’re accurate? And then how do they differ from other tests that have been around for instance, to test on divergent thinking? Rex Jung: 2:07 So at the onset, I should say that as a neuropsychologist, I’m very keenly aware of test reliability and validity. And the tests in creative cognition are universally somewhat crappy. That’s not a technical term, but it is a term that kind of captures the fact that we’ve only been trying to capture this construct in the last 50, 70 years, and only really aggressively trying to study this in the last 10 or 15. So we inherited measures that came to us from the past and the creative achievement questionnaire, as you mentioned, first is perhaps one of the better of these that it just measures your achievements in 10 different domains. It was a test created by Dr. Carson at Harvard, I believe and it really quantifies or attempts to quantify creative cognition across things from most generally in the sciences and the arts more specifically in things like inventions versus culinary arts. So it really quantifies things across those domains to answer a different part of your question. The definition is not one of mine of creativity, but one inherited from Dr. Stein in the 1950s who defined creativity as the production of something novel and useful. And that dichotomy is really interesting looking at novelty on the one hand utility on the other. And there arises from that brain mechanisms that could tap novelty versus utility. And finally you’re mentioned of divergent thinking is one of the measures of novelty generation that has been used since the 1950s. And that is okay, but not the only measure I’m hopeful as we move forward in this field, that we can develop better metrics and measures of creative cognition. Richard Miles: 4:06 Well, that helps a lot Rex and creativity on one hand, it’s very popular in that people like to talk about creativity in terms of musicians and artists and what makes them tick. But it seems like there are also a lot of fairly common misconceptions about how creativity actually works in the brain like, Oh, well, creative people, they’re using their right brain and it’s uncreative people using their left brain and that sort of stuff. How definitively does the research show that those conceptions misconceptions are either serious or inaccurate or flat out wrong? The way it works in the brain for most people sort of a black box, right? They just think something happens in there . Some of us are creative, some are not. What does the research show in terms of how it actually is working neurologically? Rex Jung: 4:49 I’ll correct a misconception that just arose in your description of that. Some of us are creative and some of us are not. I think, in my research and did my hypothesizing about creativity. It is clear to me and research our research and other research supports this, that creativity is a type of problem solving. And so everyone has to have that at some level. It’s either more or less of it. And if creativity is a type of problem solving for very low incident problems, it is valuable in the fact that we are able to think outside the box and come up with something novel and useful, that would address problem. That is less prevalent in our day-to-day life. I like to think about creativity as being somewhat dichotomous, but overlapping with a construct of intelligence where it’s also a type of problem solving, but it’s problem solving for things that happen on a more regular basis, as opposed to once in a hundred years with a hundred year flood, for example, what am I going to do? My house is going to be underwater. I need to figure out something really novel and useful to get out of this particular. So there are a number of what we call neuro mythologies about creativity. And you mentioned one of them that creativity resides in the right brain or right hemisphere. This arises from work with neurosurgeon theory, I believe, and a neuroscientist who looked at patients that had epilepsy and they separate the corpus callosum, which is the central connecting structures between the left and right hemisphere. And they discovered that the left and right brains function somewhat differently. The left is more logical and linear and reading and math tend to be localized in that have a hemisphere. And then the right hemisphere is more synthetic and adaptive and some artistic capabilities might reside more over there. So that is where this neural mythology of left brain right brain or right brain locus of creativity emerged from our research has found that, and others have found that it takes nearly your whole brain to be effectively creative. And it doesn’t reside in one hemisphere or one lobe of the brain, but it’s an integration of different parts of the brain that are critical to creative success. Another myth is that you have to be extremely intelligent to be creative. A genius, Einstein and Newton, Picasso, and Michael Jordan are particular examples of genius in their particular domains. But as I tried to dispel the myth that you somewhat articulated earlier, everyone has creative capacity. It’s, it’s a matter of more or less than how you use it, what domain you use it, but creativity in my conceptualization is a critical problem solving capacity. Another myth is that you have to be kind of crazy to be creative, that there has to be some sort of neuro pathology in order to express creativity. And , and we have every number of examples of the mad genius from Vincent van Gogh to John Nash, who won the Nobel prize in economics. The movie A Beautiful Mind was formed after there is an equal number and greater number of the averse that no hint of neuropathology is associated with the creativity of Michelangelo or Edison. So these neuro myths prevail because we continue to view creativity as somehow elusive and a capacity that is given to us from the gods when actually it is a critical component of everyday thinking. Richard Miles: 8:26 So a lot of progress has been made generally in the field of neuroscience, particularly since the development of the functional MRI. What in particular strikes you say from the last couple of years in the field of creativity in neuroscience, that you’re excited about, that points to deeper or higher levels of understanding of how creativity operates in the brain, this sort of stuff that hasn’t made it yet into the popularized science articles. Rex Jung: 8:49 I’m most excited, perhaps about this studies of interplay between intelligence and creativity. There have been issues in neuro-psychology and one coming out in the journal of intelligence, which explore the interplay or overlap between intelligence and creativity, because my hypothesis is centered around these both being problem solving capacities. It’s important to understand where there’s overlap and where there is different . So I’m most excited about neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies, which look at brain networks that underlie intelligent problem solving as opposed to, or in addition to brain networks that are involved in creative problem solving. And I think that will really give us some insight into whether these problem solving capacities are rather similar. If one is hierarchically located above the other, like intelligence is very important and creativity comes from intelligence, or if they’re rather disparate or different from each other. I think that is exciting research. Richard Miles: 9:52 I’m guessing that a lot of people are looking at research or your type of research that you’re doing and seeing, does this have useful implication for, for instance, educators in particular at the preschool and primary school levels, or what are your preliminary conclusions or findings in terms of, are there ways that kids learn that perhaps should be changed with an eye towards enhancing their ability to learn more creatively or be more creative? Rex Jung: 10:17 I do have some preliminary ideas about this. It is very hard to translate neuroscientific research to actual life, but I think that there are some preliminary indications that there are things that we might consider doing differently. One thing that I usually recommend is adequate time for downtime that lets your brain meander or cogitate or think about ideas in a very non-linear way. And so the best example I have for this is for my own life where I think one of the most valuable classes for me in elementary school was recess. And so recess, what is it just play or is there something else going on? And I think there’s something very important going on where people are taking the knowledge that they’ve learned in the classroom in their life and being more playful with it and more nonlinear with it. And so that downtime, I think is incredibly important. I know caring stories from the students and teachers, our pre COVID educational paradigm was centered around a lot of homework and a lot of knowledge acquisition, which is an important aspect of creativity and intelligence and learning, but not the only one. There has to be time to put ideas together in novel and useful ways that requires a different approach and requires a more relaxed approach than is provided by just drilling towards knowledge, acquisition and testing. Richard Miles: 11:52 So may be an example of actually where popular consumption gets it , right. When you think about these stories of the Eureka, you know, Archimedes in the bathtub where after a period of relaxation, or like you said, the mind wandering and meandering, they hit upon, or the circuits come together and they have this insight, but obviously based on knowledge, they already possessed, right? Most of the people have these insights are happen to be experts in the field. Rex Jung: 12:13 Yeah, you have to have some thing in your brain to put together in a novel and useful way. So there is a knowledge acquisition part that is critically important to gather the raw materials necessary to be creative. But then Archimedes is perhaps the best example of sitting in the bathtub and figuring out how you would measure the amount of gold and a crown and water dispersion and Eureka. I have it where you have figured out a way to measure something in a very non-intuitive way. And so that downtime, and oftentimes people describe this arising from taking a bath or a long walk or run or doing something that is very non-cognitive where ideas are jumbling around and merging in unique ways and even sleep where they can come up with an idea that otherwise would have been elusive. Richard Miles: 13:02 So one problem I face is that my wife has all of her creative ideas, right I’m about to go to sleep. And she wants to tell me about them. And then we’ve learned how to solve that problem. I say, no, tell me in the morning, because I can’t deal with your creative idea right now. Rex Jung: 13:15 It’s interesting because she is telling you those ideas right before she falls asleep. When her mind is in a very relaxed state, when the day’s tasks are behind her, frankly, a perfect time to explore those. But perhaps she should explore those on her own because there’s no one size fits all. Richard Miles: 13:35 Yeah. The unfair thing is she can tell me the idea and fall asleep and I solved the problem in my head and I can’t fall asleep. Rex Jung: 13:40 Yeah. You’ll take up that idea and really start working it and then not be able to go to sleep. So, and that’s an important thing to consider too, is that there are different creative styles and some people really want to offload if you will, those creative ideas before she falls asleep, but then other people really want to work them and form them and look at them from different angles. And that’s a creative process too, is to really be deliberative about that creative process. And there’s a major theories that talk about spontaneous versus more deliberate creativity. And it sounds like you and your wife are matched well and that you have complimentary styles, but she should perhaps write those down and then you can start working on them in the morning. Richard Miles: 14:26 Well , I was going to say that most of my creative thoughts used to happen when I’d go running and an idea would pop in my head, but it just occurred to me that for the last year or so, I listened to podcasts instead while I run and I actually don’t have as many creative ideas. Right. Cause my mind is distracted listening to the story or two people talk. Rex Jung: 14:42 It’s working on information. Yeah. And on your internal process. Richard Miles: 14:47 So Rex , one thing I think you can probably say about Americans in general is that there’s this tremendous thirst for anything related to self-improvement and self-health so in the realm of creativity, sometimes h ere versions of this, particularly people my age mid to late fifties, I know you can rewire your brain. You can teach yourself new things, you stave off dementia and so on. And again, I’m not asking you to speculate too much, but is there anything in your findings that provide ammunition for those who say, Hey, we can all rewire our brains, become Picasso, or is it more i n the direction of, sorry about a year or two old and s et i n your age. So just keep playing golf and watching reruns. Is there any way for those later in life, let’s say m iddle-aged and beyond, do they still have a significant ability to increase their level of creativity? Rex Jung: 15:32 Yeah. So I think neither of those things are true in their extreme. You can neither massively rewire your brain to be something that it has not developed to be over decades, nor is it hopeless on the other side of the spectrum. But I think some middle ground is probably appropriate. I mean, we know that the brain is incredibly plastic when we are infants and learning things and acquiring new information and forming neural networks that underlie language, visual process as motor processing that decreases over the lifespan and it decreases in known way is the capacity to change your brain by changing your mind. And while you can modulate your brain function through concerted effort, that becomes harder over time. So if you are making a decision to make a major change in your life in your fifties and you and I sound like we’re the same age, although you’re quite a bit less gray than I, I would say it’s going to take a bit more effort and a concerted effort to do that. And that while the fantasy or hype about neuro-plasticity would imply that we can completely change our brain by doing this different thing. That’s probably more a factor of one to 3% change in terms of cognitive capacity. So I would encourage people at any age. And I think as our brains change in our fifties and up there is more of an opportunity to make more disparate connections than we would when we were younger. And we had many more tasks in front of us. You were talking about listening to podcasts on your runs and yeah, that changes your run from a free-wheeling kind of associative process to a knowledge acquisition process. And it’s going to be significantly harder to do that creative thing when you are consuming the creative product of other people and learning. So it’s important to do both learning and creative expression simultaneously, but that has to be balanced. And in older people like you and me , I think that’s really critical to set aside time to do nothing or do less or not acquire knowledge anymore . But extrapolate that be my best advice. Richard Miles: 17:50 I’ve read a couple of good articles in the popular press . I’m sure you’ve probably seen them too. Hypothesizing the connection between boredom and creativity and particularly in young kids, right? When your bored is where you think of perhaps a fantasy game, or you tell a story to yourself or make up a story because you just want occupy your mind. But if your mind is occupied, as you said, with a TV show or a video game or whatnot, you’re probably less likely to find the need to create something in your own head . Rex Jung: 18:16 Yeah. Boredom is kind of the bane of our modern existence. People talk about it as a bad thing, but it actually is an important aspect of our lives that force us, or invite us to use our brains in ways that can transcend our current experience. We can imagine. I mean, I can go anywhere in my mind’s eye from countries that I visited in the past to traveling to different planets in the galaxy. I can imagine just about anything and boredom invites us to use our imaginative ability to create different realities and create different ideas that might not have existed before. Richard Miles: 18:57 So I guess I have to be careful how far I take this example because then of course people go, well, I’m not gonna listen to your podcast because then you’re going to distract me from thinking great thoughts . So we’ve got to keep this within reason. Rex Jung: 19:08 Well, it’s a both thing. Like I said, I listened to the podcast to acquire knowledge, but then find some recess time to do your own thing and to put those ideas that you’ve acquired together in novel and useful ways. And I think that is the correct balance as far as the literature would suggest. Richard Miles: 19:25 So Rex, I like to ask all my guests a little bit about themselves and their background. And you’re originally from Boulder, Colorado, your mother was a technical writer. Your dad was a hospital administrator. So first question, what was it like to grow up in Boulder? I’ve only been once or maybe twice. And what was your first clue that you’d be spending your career studying the brain? Rex Jung: 19:43 Well, that’s a big question, but I loved growing up in Boulder. Boulder was a fantastic rich environment of very diverse kind of experiences from Buddhism and the Naropa Institute high-tech centers of engineering and NCAR is their National Center for Atmospheric Research. I mean just a real smorgasbord, if you will, of opportunities to see different ways that one might want to spend one’s intellectual life. Unfortunately, I chose as my undergraduate degree. Well , I don’t know if it’s unfortunate. It’s hard to say I’d studied finance business and got a degree and went into the business world and was not super happy about the intellectual opportunities for me in the world that I had chosen. So I quit that job started volunteering for Special Olympics with friends of mine, and really became interested in bringing structure and function in brains that work well and brains that work differently and really started to pursue the path of, well , you know, what’s going on in these brains and what is happening to create an individual who is intellectually disabled, but has incredible artistic capabilities. And I’m not talking about the art that your children produce that you put up on the refrigerator, but Alonzo Clemons, who is an autistic savant, creating just massively, technically detailed representations of animals that will sell for thousands and thousands of dollars. These brains are fascinating in their variability. And I wanted to go into studies and a career that looked at that. And that’s kind of what brought me here all these many years later, Richard Miles: 21:29 Growing up in Colorado, where you outdoorsy, were you a ski bum? Did you do a lot of hiking or how has that sort of influenced you? Rex Jung: 21:35 I wasn’t in anything bum, but I really enjoy camping and going out on my own and camping on the continental divide in Colorado and did a lot of that. So a lot of time to think I would bring, I have this somewhat embarrassing book , uh , memory of bringing Dante’s Inferno to read while I was camping on the continental divide. And then this lightning storm almost killed me and I thought I was going to go straight to hell. So , uh , I mean really a lot of time to be by myself, to look at the stars to revel in natural beauty of Colorado. I skied, I hiked, I ran , I did all of the things, but I wasn’t a bum of any of those. I wasn’t an expert in really any of those, but I just really loved growing up in Colorado and a very fun memories. Now that I’ve brought to New Mexico, a lot of natural beauty here, fewer people, I’m an outdoors guy, I guess, at my root . Richard Miles: 22:31 Yeah. One thing we always tell foreign friends for visitors, you really have not experienced the United States unless you’ve had a chance to drive out West long distances for long periods of time. And then you really appreciate the profound nature of our country in terms of physical beauty and so on. Rex Jung: 22:46 I totally agree. And most people who visit us from foreign countries spend time in LA or New York, or maybe Florida at Disney World, but there’s a vast opportunity to explore something on a more meandering route through the middle parts of the country. And the West is certainly got a big place in my heart. Richard Miles: 23:04 So Rex final question that will allow you to be a little bit philosophical here, a lot philosophical if you’d like, but being a pioneer researcher sounds really cool to most people, but by definition people in your field or people like you are studying things that haven’t been studied very much and reaching conclusions that may seriously undermine conventional wisdom. So you’re at the age, as you said, where you start getting asked for advice by younger researchers or students or so on, and who may be in the process of picking a career or picking a field, what do you say about that subject or that potential obstacle? That there are a lot of fields now, which they’re going to probably encounter particularly research fields and kind of resistance or criticism of some sort. How do you prepare them for that? That it’s not just all pulling down awards and citations and accolades. Some of it can be serious resistance or criticism. Rex Jung: 23:53 It’s a very good point. And I can’t say that my journey has been peaches and cream throughout the way. I mean, I was told by my graduate advisor, I was studying intelligence at the time that that would destroy my career. I should stop that immediately and pick something more conventional. Otherwise I would not be a successful researcher. I’m glad I didn’t take that advice. It’s good advice. There’s two paths that I’ve seen in being a successful researcher. One is a very deliberate and somewhat obsessive path of just hammering out the details of a concept that has been discovered previously. This is called normal science. And I think a lot of good work comes out of that. And it depends on your personality style. If you’re a very conscientious and somewhat agreeable person, you will do very well in writing grant. After grant, after grant, that gets rejected until the one gets accepted and you can do very good work in that area, but you have to be extremely conscientious and extremely agreeable because it is a field that rewards conformity. There’s another path. And I think it’s the path that I’ve chosen. I may be deluding myself, but it is a path where you really identify what you feel passionate about and what you feel excited about studying. And these are more paradigm shifting ideas or revolutionary ideas from the Thomas Kuhn nomenclature. And it can be very rewarding, but it’s a less successful path. You will always have to fight against opposition and granting and funding agencies that are not willing to take risks. But if you have excitement and passionate about your work and less conscientiousness and agreeable is frankly, you can succeed. And I think I’ve had some measure of success in my career that has been rather unconventional. You should always have in your back pocket studying something conventionally . And you talked about my studies in traumatic brain injury and lupus and schizophrenia, but there should be some passionate involvement with these issues that allow you to go back and forth between your true passion and something that keeps you funded. So I think those are the two major paths for researchers. Neither of them are right or wrong. Both of them involve incredible amounts of work, but one involves something that you really get excited to wake up every day and do. And the other involves being extremely persistent over long periods of time. Richard Miles: 26:29 So your secret is to be unpleasant and annoying. Rex Jung: 26:34 I’m sticking with that. Your words, not mine. Richard Miles: 26:37 I’m sorry. I , I, that was a cheap shot. No, I was going to say Rex. So the way you described it, we interview a lot inventors and entrepreneurs on the show. And when we ask them, like, why did you stick with this idea or this business? And a lot of times they say a version of, you know, if I didn’t believe in it, it would be too hard at a certain point in their journey. They could objectively say or have said to them, this isn’t worth it. And so the number of said across different types of fields that, you know, it’s just resilience. It’s the ability to just hang in there and keep going is what explains my success. Now they’re all a bunch of other factors, obviously that contribute, but at that’s refusal to give up, but not be delusional about it, right? Rex Jung: 27:16 I started to have a trickle of success. And then I had a stream of success. And then I had a flood of success by identifying this area that hadn’t been explored before creative neuroscience and really starting to work the problem. And I felt really passionate about it and no NIH funding out there for that. There’s very little NSF funding. I found the Templeton Foundation, which was willing to fund this crazy idea that I had, and it yielded dozens of publications and other grants. And now a new generation is taking the mantle and really starting to explore the limits of creativity, neuroscience. And I couldn’t be more pleased with my stubbornness. Richard Miles: 27:57 Well, and it really points to the importance of seed funding, right? Again, you see similar parallels in the business world. If one person can manage to make significant progress, then they themselves might not reap all the rewards or the riches, but they have taken the knowledge or taken the research to another level so that other people can then capitalize on that. We had one of our inventors say, you know, the most important thing about a patent is not that you’re going to be able to cash in the patent and get rich, but you have added to the body of knowledge. So you’ve made things in a sense, easier for people coming after you because you’ve solved a piece of the puzzle and they can now use your research to maybe go on and carry that down the road. And once they put it like that, I go, yeah , that makes total sense. Because most researchers who get patents, don’t get rich. Rex Jung: 28:44 I have a patent, I’m not rich. Richard Miles: 28:46 There you go. But yet they know that they have solidly advanced their field of knowledge and that other people can use this in a constructive way, may use in a constructive way. Rex Jung: 28:54 It couldn’t be better said you really are carving out an idea space that you know, that you can’t solve yourself. And that will rely on others to take up the mantle . And I’m very happy in this field and both intelligence and creativity, that a number of people will become excited about this area of research and find it to be productive in terms of their grant applications and scholarly activity. And it’s enormously rewarding to know that I and other people was a part in starting this process. Richard Miles: 29:27 Well, Rex , it’s a great note to end on. And as I said, this is actually just part one of an 18 part series in the lifetimes of Rex Jung, really enjoyed having on the show. I hope we can have you back at some point, I learned a lot and I hope this was fun for you. Rex Jung: 29:39 It was great. Thank you for the opportunity. I really enjoy talking to you in this audience is particularly important with entrepreneurs and idea generators. I think it’s a perfect opportunity. Thanks. Richard Miles: 29:50 Thank you. Outro: 29:52 Radio Cade is produced by the Cade Museum for Creativity and Invention located in Gainesville Florida. Richard Miles is the podcast host and Ellie Thom coordinates inventor interviews, podcasts are recorded at Heartwood Soundstage and edited and mixed by Bob McPeak. The radio Cade theme song was produced and performed by Tracy Collins and features violinist Jacob Lawson.

Frederica interviews Rod Dreher about his new project with the Templeton Foundation, BigQuestionsOnline.com.