credit: turnbacktogod

When Kathy Nance and other new Civil Religon bloggers gathered at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the other morning, we got to talking about who we were and what religion we represented. When Kathy used the word “pagan” to describe herself, I asked her to define the word. She was good enough to do just that in her first post, A Pagan’s Primer.

Well, what about Catholicism? Who are we and what do we believe? Every Sunday at Mass we answer that question when we stand to recite a summary of our faith, the Nicene Creed. This affirmation of faith occurs after we have heard the first reading, joined in the responsorial psalm, heard the second reading, heard the Gospel and the homily.

We stand to say the Nicene Creed.

The creed I’m introducing  below is the new translation which will come into use in 2011 or 2012. This translation is from the…

That’s the subtext to The New York Times columnist David Brooks‘ recent piece on religion and science, “The Neural Buddhists.” He’s taking up recent developments in neuroscience, and coming to the conclusion that present and future debates between religion and science will not be over the existence of God, but over whether or not organized religion contributes to or harms the brain’s intuitions toward transcendence and spirituality.

Thus, the title: science leading to a “neural Buddhism.”

Or, as he says: “The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.”

In other words, it’s the standard line: “I’m spiritual but not religious.” Whatever that means.

But, consider Brooks’ summary of recent literature in neuroscience:

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different…