Comments on: Review: Why Religion Matters by Huston Smith

By: Ralph Ashby

Ralph Ashby — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:15:48 +0000

i.e. “sentient”… sorry.

By: Ralph Ashby

Ralph Ashby — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:13:05 +0000

Some atheists are more zealous than others. As per your metaphor re stamp collecting: people who choose not to collect stamps don’t go around saying that no one should collect stamps. Unfortunately, many of the Dawkinsian “New Atheists” or on the attack. They do not merely choose not to follow a religion — they attack the entire concept (they often claim in “self-defense”, given the zealous nature of some fundamentalists).
As for “evidence of God”???? The Universe is evidence of God. You may disagree if you like.

By: Ralph Ashby

Ralph Ashby — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:06:31 +0000

You’re not really an atheist, right? You sound more like a Deist perhaps. Also, you meant “satient.”

By: Ralph Ashby

Ralph Ashby — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:03:22 +0000

More to the point, the scientific explanations for “how things get done” does not leave less for God to do, but merely explain (partially) how he does things.

By: The Big-Publisher Ebook Scam | The Changelog

The Big-Publisher Ebook Scam | The Changelog — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:07:34 +0000

[...] Smith’s Why Religion Matters included some illustrations, but they were scanned at such a low resolution that the text was [...]

By: Leon

Leon — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:49:28 +0000

Well, the just like the Mennonites, the Church of the Brethren is very diverse. The church I grew up in was not that conservative, but I visted other churches that were. There are a lot of Amish in my home town, and lots of Conservative Mennonites. You don’t have to travel that far, however, to find technocratic Mennonites, similar in nature to the less-conservative elements of the Brethren. :-)

I might take a look at Borg at some point too, perhaps. It does sound like Smith is a more interesting read.

I actually identify best with orthodox Quaker theology; and have attended several unprogrammed meetings. I think that Quakers sometimes get too liberal in their theology, confusing the Quaker’s proscription against browbeating others on matters of faith with a license to believe whatever you want, and confusing respect for others with the need to accept and validate their beliefs.

I think, that in an honest effort to seek out and listen to God, you will inevitably be pulled in directions that you don’t really want to go in, or initially disagree with.

My condolences on the passing of your grandmother. I lost my first grandparent not quite 2 years ago; the other three are still living though.

By: Snowden

Snowden — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:58:58 +0000

“1) The certainty that there is no god or metaphysical existence

2) The certainty that humans cannot know whether a god or metaphysical universe exists

3) The certainty that there is a god or metaphysical universe”

It seems to me this hinges upon the definition of existence. Is it even meaningful to discuss the existence of something that is, by definition, completely inaccessible? For a god to escape the detection of the scientific method, they would have to avoid interacting with anything physical, or accessible, at all. Once they interact, they can be measured by their effects, and then their inexistence will be refuted, destroying their metaphysical status!

By: Snowden

Snowden — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:27:30 +0000

What do you mean by “the supernatural”? Does it simply mean “things that science can’t comment upon”?
I think it’s a fairly big leap from “it is possible that there exist metaphysical things, beyond the reach of our senses and instruments forever”, to “my specific formulation of a deity exists”. I may be willing to accept the former, but I don’t see any reason to accept the latter.

By: Ben Finney

Ben Finney — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:06:22 +0000

> However, to understand God one needs to work on his character by becoming humble, praying etc. ’cause, as e.g. explained in Bhagavad-gita: [if you can't see god it's because you're stupid]

Or that passage from the book could simply be false. Both possibilities explain the observable evidence (i.e. no evidence at all). Which is more likely?

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:34:05 +0000

Hi,

To attempt to return the favor of material to think on, I enjoyed watching Dinesh D’Souza’s first debate with Peter Singer on God and morality, which is available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA

They argued many of the questions brought up by this blog post, including the question of how we should reason about explanations we’re given for events we can’t test with science. (To paraphrase Singer’s answer, which I find persuasive: we can judge explanations that fail to use any evidence to be as likely — or as unlikely — as each other, even when we can’t use science to test each of them individually.)

- Chris.