At sundown this Friday, March 4 the 2011 US National Day of Unplugging will begin (powered by Reboot).

Think slow, think sabbath (Abraham Heschel is my favorite thinker on the Sabbath, with his discussion of sanctified time).

To nudge themselves into changing their behavior, some participants will purchase a sleeping bag for their phone.

Others may use the recently-released Sabbath Manifesto app in order to help them to live in tune with the principles of this effort:


1.  Avoid technology

2.  Connect with loved ones.

3.  Nurture your health

4.  Get outside

5.  Avoid commerce

6.  Light candles

7.  Drink wine

8.  Eat bread

9.  Find silence

10.  Give back

As IFTF continues to explore the balance of slow and fast in our lives at our upcoming Ten-Year Forecast conference, we will continue watching this space.  For more on the Sabbath Manifesto app, see NYT article:  “An App That Reminds You to Unplug.”

__________________________________________________

Thanks to Jason Tester for the link!  Note:  Also posted on the IFTF blog, FutureNow.

Yesterday, I got to hear Krista Tippett (of Public Radio’s Speaking of Faith) at a meeting of the Consortium of Endowed Episcopal Parishes.  She shared delightful stories on how her life path led her to create Speaking of Faith, and how she believes that there is a space in our public life to discuss religion and meaning-making in such a way that no one has to check their intellect at the door.

Tippett‘s reflections centered on 3 guiding assumptions that lurk in journalistic depictions of religion, and then refutes or nuances these assumptions one by one:*

Assumption 1:  Religion is a crutch

This assumption comes from misunderstandings of religion as a retreat; towards supernatural comfort an away from the complexity of real life.  To debunk this assumption, Tippett makes the following points:

  • The energy around spirituality today is not a rejection of “rational” disciplines like law, politics or science, but rather is a recognition that those disciplines have limited scope.
  • Religion has a function–to help fill the gaps in the areas those other disciplines can’t teach us:  what matters in life, what matters in death, how to love, how to be of service to one another
  • Religious & spiritual traditions also function as keepers of conversations–especially intergenerational conversations–about discerning truth in everything we do

Assumption 2:  Religion is subjective

Religious convictions have been treated as “soft” in the realm of the public sphere, because it is assumed to be subjective, in distinction from other (also subjective) realms like political analysis or even economic forecasting.

  • Take the example of the economic turmoil we’re in.  The kind of subjective perspective offered by a religious lens in all of this is to help us make sense of the aspects economists weren’t talking about–what the economic crisis meant in terms of what had happened in human and cultural terms…beyond the dichotomies set up by seemingly “subjective” disciplines (the economic turmoil is about predators & victims, about greed & gullibility etc.
  • Tippett & her team pursued these questions and found a lively community of response in a project called Repossessing Virtue.  She referred to an insightful response offered by Martin Marty who draws from Ephesians in making sense of the moral and spiritual dimensions of the economic turmoil:  we are all members, one of another, and we forgot that.
  • Another powerful response from Repossessing Virtue came from Dr. Rachel Naomi Remen, who makes sense of the economic turmoil through the use of a Hasidic legendTippett claims that stories like these are in fact very practical tools in a world so full of images of suffering that would otherwise overwhelm us if we couldn’t do this kind of sensemaking.

Assumption 3:  Religion is about what people believe

Equating religion with belief is one of the most narrowing instincts in American culture.  Yes, convictions are one part of religion, but religion is also about how you live–when and how you work and pray.

  • Religion is more often about the questions people find themselves asking than about the answers (beliefs.)  These questions help us to live more peaceably with the ambiguity all around us that will not go away, regardless of what we believe about it.
  • The risk of the belief language is that it puts religion solely in the marketplace of certainty–a place where religious passions become flattened out, and can be used as blunt instruments.
  • Religion is something that must be understood in its totality–it can’t be treated as an object

*I paraphrase here from the notes I took during her talk, including some of the delightful gems of language that Tippett used (those are as close to verbatim as I could get them.)  I invite fellow conference attendees to tweak my recollection or share a different perspective on what she said.

Which are America’s wealthiest religions?  This graphic points towards Hindu and Jewish people of faith as the wealthiest in the U.S.  In contrast, historically black churches of the Christian tradition as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses have more people in the <$30,000 income bracket than the others.

Good Magazine has an ongoing project on Transparency, of which this is a part.  They call it “a graphical exploration of the data that surrounds us.”  As part of the project, they’ve created this graphic to compare income levels among some of the many religious groups in the U.S. as compared to the U.S average income distribution.

Using data from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Good produced this image together with Column Five Magazine. Here is a close up to give you a sense of the distribution as compared to national average income.

This data visualization has ignited some controversy through comments on the Good site, including outrage over groups that were left out, upset over the presence of more detailed data on Christianity (acknowledging the diversity within that tradition) but not honoring the diversity of other traditions–for example, by breaking down Jewish data into Orthodox vs. Reformed Jews.

Is data like this, provided without commentary, truly useful? I like the spirit of the Transparency project, but when the data doesn’t have any framing interpretation (other than that present by the structures and biases provided in the graphic) it is less illuminating than it could be.  However, maybe the very spirit of having data made visible so that it comes off the page is the whole point.

Just another area where neuroscience is highlighting interesting resonances between previously disconnected domains of human experience:  immersing in a brand versus immersing in a religious experience.

Am intrigued to read Martin Lindstrom’s Buyology:

Verilliance shares a succinct write-up of Lindstrom’s work, with the strong brand example of Apple as the entry point for the comparison of neuroscientific stimulation by religion & brands.  The “pillars” Lindstrom identifies as fundamental to all religions are below:

  1. Sense of Belonging
  2. A Clear Vision
  3. Power over Enemies
  4. Sensory Appeal
  5. Storytelling
  6. Grandeur
  7. Evangelism
  8. Symbolism
  9. Mystery
  10. Rituals

Using these as the basis for the comparison seem off-base to me, but the list provides an interesting framework for the reason that it helps show the ethical quandaries around the potential of neuromarketing in the future.