What do you think?
Rate this book
Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth
Continuing his exploration of the philosophical questions and doubts plaguing civilization today, Dr. Mortimer J. Adler explores where the truth lies in religion and the effects of diversity among religions.
Truth in Religion is the product of Dr. Mortimer J. Adler’s search for a resolution to the age-old conflict between logic and faith.
Aiming to discover where the truth lies among the plurality of the world’s organized religion, Dr. Adler explores the philosophy of religion and its true meanings among civilization as dictated by the principle of the unity of truth.
Truth in Religion is the product of Dr. Mortimer J. Adler’s search for a resolution to the age-old conflict between logic and faith.
Aiming to discover where the truth lies among the plurality of the world’s organized religion, Dr. Adler explores the philosophy of religion and its true meanings among civilization as dictated by the principle of the unity of truth.
180 pages, Paperback
First published November 27, 1990
About the author
Mortimer J. Adler
624 books977 followersNumerous published works of American educator and philosopher Mortimer Jerome Adler include
How to Read a Book
(1940) and
The Conditions of Philosophy
(1965).
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
September 29, 2010
I believe Adler wrote this before his late-in-life conversion to Christianity. This book shows some of the progress of his thinking as we analyzes arguments that "all religions are ultimately the same." He takes on contemporary gurus like Joseph Campbell and Hans Kung. He ends by saying that we need to seriously examine the competing truth claims of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to see which one is true. I wonder if he recorded the steps by which he decided Christianity was worthy of his belief?
March 1, 2017
The late Mortimer J. Adler reminds his reader, "De gustibus non disputandum: about matters of taste, there is no disputing. De veritate disputandum est: about matters of truth, we should engage in dispute..." And dispute he does. Adler's Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth (1990) is chewy, spirited, and oddly argumentative (Adler had some strange beef with Joseph Campbell, who approached religion as misunderstood mythology). A thought-provoking, challenging, and ultimately useful read.
April 16, 2008
about the author:
Mortimer J. Adler, considered America's "philosopher for every man",is Chairman of the Board of Editorsfor the Encyclopedia Britannica and Director of the Institute for Philosophical Research. He is the author of such best selling books as Aristotle for Everybody and Ten Philosophical Mistakes. Dr. Adler lives in Chicago
hmmmm......interesting.
Not as "telling" as I had hoped, but Dr. Adler has some intriguing perspectives
Mortimer J. Adler, considered America's "philosopher for every man",is Chairman of the Board of Editorsfor the Encyclopedia Britannica and Director of the Institute for Philosophical Research. He is the author of such best selling books as Aristotle for Everybody and Ten Philosophical Mistakes. Dr. Adler lives in Chicago
hmmmm......interesting.
Not as "telling" as I had hoped, but Dr. Adler has some intriguing perspectives
December 7, 2009
The book almost has more to say about epistemology and logic than about the philosophy of religion. A good clear headed introduction to the application of logic to religion, and to why pluralism is fine for matters of culture and taste but not for matters of truth and concrete facts.
May 22, 2018
Before remarking on Adler's commended ability to condense similarities/distinctions to religions orthodoxies and orthopraxies applied ontologically, there are numerous faults to be first outlined:
In battle of semantics with a cited named professor O'Flaherty, where she implies that two mythologies are contradictory (differing in narrative enfoldment). According to Adler such are poetical truths which shouldn't be regarded as contradictory, but equally true, he confuses her use of 'contradictory' with her statement not being poetical:''to the same basic question'' probably refers to that regarding the transcendental; as Adler subsequently expresses her sentiment ''I don't believe that there is only one true answer to any great human question'' [ambiguity on religious/absolute questions, a total affirmation/negation can be argued true with equal veracity, where a priori/ a posteriori methods cannot clarify ergo taken as faith.
Adler formulates that knowledge of epistemic uncertainty over quantum wave collapse is ''fallaciously converted into an [ontological] uncertainty''(72), so truth-claims about ontological uncertainty, as affirmation or negation are not verifiable, hence both are equally valid upon faith (& possibly philosophy) alone. Ontological assertions into universally held axioms [Kantian categories of understanding] should be refrained from factual judgements, agnosticism unless they can be empirically validated.
Equally unnecessary is in his appeal against Joseph's Campbell simulacra of religion with mythology; citing Campbell's deficiencies of ''mental and moral character'' (59), which Adler then confuses with ethics -by his belief that Campbell's term ''follow your bliss'' as contentment is unethical, contrary to Hellenistic virtue. Asking Campbell, he would not perceive 'bliss' as disregarding ethics to ''get what he or she individually wants''(59, Adler: note, I do not necessarily agree with Campbell's theory to refute Adler).
Despite his correctness that God's resurrection as regarded as purely non-physical, a spiritual being; Adler asserts that Campbell's use of the term 'person' should not be anthropomorphic -yet in vernacular usage this is precisely its meaning. ''Campbell offers no scientific proof of his unqualified generalization that all religions are mythologies in disguise... the evidence offered has only rhetorical force and no probative force whatsoever''(62); neither does Adler offer any empirical truth... Such examples refer to Adler's persistent confusing misappropriations and incorrect definitions -despite that an argument asserting that foundational structures of human beings have the archetype/notion/idealization of the supreme entity universally, trans-culturally (e.g. shaman, hero, God, absolute, infinity, leader, divine creative etc); ergo if such a notion resides in the unconscious or conscious mind as a incorporeal idea/corporeal actions resultant, alike to the plural of 'man'; empirically such could be theorized. ''The unproven generalization may be true''(62), Adler acknowledging his unconvincing polemics.
The denial of any knowledge concerning ontology, ''now that mathematics and science have become transcultural''(72) -implies logical truth was not always evident for aforesaid; nor is it currently for Adler in ''Far Eastern societies' [regarding principle of non-contradiction, while conceding both propositions may be false]. This is because, for Adler, logic has no authority in Eastern cultures & religions where contradictions are embraced as seen as inherent in reality [Adler resists ontological claims]. However, this makes one question the need of logical truth to be trans-cultural (that is, consciously accepted). E.g. In empirical discourse, if one does not believe in rigorous theory accepted as true within the currentKuhnian paradigm, this doesn't reduce its truth universally regardless of belief [until the theory is proven false, which means another condition was occurent without exception].
Principles of motion do not care for human thoughts. All previous depends on if seeing the distinctive contradictions as subsumed into one supreme predicate/essence or not.
In his appendix I disagree with ''world peace is impossible without world government''(114); humans will always create conflict hence complete peace is never possible, nor do I think world government can achieve such; since new and unfathomable ideological divisions will arise (statistically evident); man always has an enemy to project his inadequacies/to progress; this will be other men unless displaced wholly onto another grand narrative, technological 'luddites' perhaps? I would also juxtapose his relation of human beings with 'free will':
''Free will or free choice, which consists in always being able to choose otherwise, no matter
how one does choose, is an intellectual property, lacked by nonintellectual animals''(151); simply for the reason that one's choices even if they go against apparent self-interest are not against the (unconscious +/or conscious) individual compelled will. Revoking a will/desire is replacing it with another. This is why physiological degrees of freedom is important to acknowledge.
Also Adler's association that manufactured tools serve a further purpose whereas art supposedly has value only for ''pleasure or enjoyment''(152), is mistaken for without theories, inventions & creative improvements resultant after beholding literature, shapes manifest in an abstract piece, and ideological furtherance impacting societal/individual culture et cetera; these forms would not have been imagined ergo not applied, ignored, and not convincing without artistic reworking of an idea).
''Other animals only live in the present'(152)- not entirely true, even if only conscious of a certain time period previous, they still learn through Pavlovian mechanisms so have some form(degree to be determined) of remembrance of past, applied to future actions. That this is not on the same 'level' of abstraction/intellect as humans is obvious.
''All the habits we form, all the tastes we cultivate, all the patterns of behavior we accumulate are products of nurture''(154) - again not all habits are not inherent from nurture, reflexes (moro/grasping) are instinctively applied from the first day of birth, even if evanescent.
Overall however despite aforesaid, the crux of formulation is as follows:
- Plurality of poetic, irrational, prescriptive/normative truth, value judgements (philosophy, religion, mythology, preferences, societal mores/'laws'). Dispute as only over matters of taste. Cannot be proved by logical method however can be disproved, must be taken on faith/belief.
- Unity of logical, factual, descriptive, affirmative/negatory truth (universal, transcendent to individual belief/action, trans-cultural-i.e. mathematics, natural sciences, technology). Rational dispute to resolve incompatible contradictions.
- History, philosophy, social sciences may become trans-cultural and logical in future. Until such epoch natural sciences are to inquire into their validity/relevance. When this occurs philisophical theology (which doesn't have to presuppose religious belief in God & accompanying rituals/prayers/commitments) can best examine religious claims to logical and factual truth.
- Thomas Aquinas (explicit that truths of faith and reason are subsumed into logical factual truths; no incompatibility in the transcendent realm) and Averroes (truths of faith and reason in irreconcilable compartments because of recognized incompatibility) as both incorrect: they conflate poetical truths with logical truths. Religion is poetic and contains contradiction so cannot be logical (cannot coexist with non-contradictory unifying truth). To become closer to making with relevance the logical factual claims it espouses, religion must discard its precepts incompatible with scientific Aristotelian logic/empiricism.
- Beliefs beyond realm of proof and if proved discredited as superstitions.
- Never will logical factual truth reside in cosmological religions, or polytheistic ones (have to be monotheistic & credal)
- Universal human nature (capacities) despite surface differences from nurture, au contraire to overwhelming similitude of inherent+surface in other animals. Distinction between differences in degree (human behavioral traits) versus those in kind (vertebrates/invertebrates)
- A ''world cultural community''(156) can alleviate human violence and bring unity to superficial aspects (ideology, dress, customs, mores, cuisine, 'laws'); which will overcome unnecessary difference to reconcile with the fact that ''there is only a human mind and it is one and the same in all human beings''(156).
In battle of semantics with a cited named professor O'Flaherty, where she implies that two mythologies are contradictory (differing in narrative enfoldment). According to Adler such are poetical truths which shouldn't be regarded as contradictory, but equally true, he confuses her use of 'contradictory' with her statement not being poetical:''to the same basic question'' probably refers to that regarding the transcendental; as Adler subsequently expresses her sentiment ''I don't believe that there is only one true answer to any great human question'' [ambiguity on religious/absolute questions, a total affirmation/negation can be argued true with equal veracity, where a priori/ a posteriori methods cannot clarify ergo taken as faith.
Adler formulates that knowledge of epistemic uncertainty over quantum wave collapse is ''fallaciously converted into an [ontological] uncertainty''(72), so truth-claims about ontological uncertainty, as affirmation or negation are not verifiable, hence both are equally valid upon faith (& possibly philosophy) alone. Ontological assertions into universally held axioms [Kantian categories of understanding] should be refrained from factual judgements, agnosticism unless they can be empirically validated.
Equally unnecessary is in his appeal against Joseph's Campbell simulacra of religion with mythology; citing Campbell's deficiencies of ''mental and moral character'' (59), which Adler then confuses with ethics -by his belief that Campbell's term ''follow your bliss'' as contentment is unethical, contrary to Hellenistic virtue. Asking Campbell, he would not perceive 'bliss' as disregarding ethics to ''get what he or she individually wants''(59, Adler: note, I do not necessarily agree with Campbell's theory to refute Adler).
Despite his correctness that God's resurrection as regarded as purely non-physical, a spiritual being; Adler asserts that Campbell's use of the term 'person' should not be anthropomorphic -yet in vernacular usage this is precisely its meaning. ''Campbell offers no scientific proof of his unqualified generalization that all religions are mythologies in disguise... the evidence offered has only rhetorical force and no probative force whatsoever''(62); neither does Adler offer any empirical truth... Such examples refer to Adler's persistent confusing misappropriations and incorrect definitions -despite that an argument asserting that foundational structures of human beings have the archetype/notion/idealization of the supreme entity universally, trans-culturally (e.g. shaman, hero, God, absolute, infinity, leader, divine creative etc); ergo if such a notion resides in the unconscious or conscious mind as a incorporeal idea/corporeal actions resultant, alike to the plural of 'man'; empirically such could be theorized. ''The unproven generalization may be true''(62), Adler acknowledging his unconvincing polemics.
The denial of any knowledge concerning ontology, ''now that mathematics and science have become transcultural''(72) -implies logical truth was not always evident for aforesaid; nor is it currently for Adler in ''Far Eastern societies' [regarding principle of non-contradiction, while conceding both propositions may be false]. This is because, for Adler, logic has no authority in Eastern cultures & religions where contradictions are embraced as seen as inherent in reality [Adler resists ontological claims]. However, this makes one question the need of logical truth to be trans-cultural (that is, consciously accepted). E.g. In empirical discourse, if one does not believe in rigorous theory accepted as true within the currentKuhnian paradigm, this doesn't reduce its truth universally regardless of belief [until the theory is proven false, which means another condition was occurent without exception].
Principles of motion do not care for human thoughts. All previous depends on if seeing the distinctive contradictions as subsumed into one supreme predicate/essence or not.
In his appendix I disagree with ''world peace is impossible without world government''(114); humans will always create conflict hence complete peace is never possible, nor do I think world government can achieve such; since new and unfathomable ideological divisions will arise (statistically evident); man always has an enemy to project his inadequacies/to progress; this will be other men unless displaced wholly onto another grand narrative, technological 'luddites' perhaps? I would also juxtapose his relation of human beings with 'free will':
''Free will or free choice, which consists in always being able to choose otherwise, no matter
how one does choose, is an intellectual property, lacked by nonintellectual animals''(151); simply for the reason that one's choices even if they go against apparent self-interest are not against the (unconscious +/or conscious) individual compelled will. Revoking a will/desire is replacing it with another. This is why physiological degrees of freedom is important to acknowledge.
Also Adler's association that manufactured tools serve a further purpose whereas art supposedly has value only for ''pleasure or enjoyment''(152), is mistaken for without theories, inventions & creative improvements resultant after beholding literature, shapes manifest in an abstract piece, and ideological furtherance impacting societal/individual culture et cetera; these forms would not have been imagined ergo not applied, ignored, and not convincing without artistic reworking of an idea).
''Other animals only live in the present'(152)- not entirely true, even if only conscious of a certain time period previous, they still learn through Pavlovian mechanisms so have some form(degree to be determined) of remembrance of past, applied to future actions. That this is not on the same 'level' of abstraction/intellect as humans is obvious.
''All the habits we form, all the tastes we cultivate, all the patterns of behavior we accumulate are products of nurture''(154) - again not all habits are not inherent from nurture, reflexes (moro/grasping) are instinctively applied from the first day of birth, even if evanescent.
Overall however despite aforesaid, the crux of formulation is as follows:
- Plurality of poetic, irrational, prescriptive/normative truth, value judgements (philosophy, religion, mythology, preferences, societal mores/'laws'). Dispute as only over matters of taste. Cannot be proved by logical method however can be disproved, must be taken on faith/belief.
- Unity of logical, factual, descriptive, affirmative/negatory truth (universal, transcendent to individual belief/action, trans-cultural-i.e. mathematics, natural sciences, technology). Rational dispute to resolve incompatible contradictions.
- History, philosophy, social sciences may become trans-cultural and logical in future. Until such epoch natural sciences are to inquire into their validity/relevance. When this occurs philisophical theology (which doesn't have to presuppose religious belief in God & accompanying rituals/prayers/commitments) can best examine religious claims to logical and factual truth.
- Thomas Aquinas (explicit that truths of faith and reason are subsumed into logical factual truths; no incompatibility in the transcendent realm) and Averroes (truths of faith and reason in irreconcilable compartments because of recognized incompatibility) as both incorrect: they conflate poetical truths with logical truths. Religion is poetic and contains contradiction so cannot be logical (cannot coexist with non-contradictory unifying truth). To become closer to making with relevance the logical factual claims it espouses, religion must discard its precepts incompatible with scientific Aristotelian logic/empiricism.
- Beliefs beyond realm of proof and if proved discredited as superstitions.
- Never will logical factual truth reside in cosmological religions, or polytheistic ones (have to be monotheistic & credal)
- Universal human nature (capacities) despite surface differences from nurture, au contraire to overwhelming similitude of inherent+surface in other animals. Distinction between differences in degree (human behavioral traits) versus those in kind (vertebrates/invertebrates)
- A ''world cultural community''(156) can alleviate human violence and bring unity to superficial aspects (ideology, dress, customs, mores, cuisine, 'laws'); which will overcome unnecessary difference to reconcile with the fact that ''there is only a human mind and it is one and the same in all human beings''(156).
October 15, 2015
If knowledge can be understood as having a divine source through revelation, can it be said to be truth in the same way truth is achieved in science and math, which use the powers of observation, measurement, and experience? No, it's not the same. Truth in science is not religious truth since religious truth involves faith and intuition. Adler makes this point numerous times and in numerous ways in this book.
September 28, 2016
As an academic, Adler presents his views thoroughly in this work. I was less than compelled with the content, but that was not its purpose. Students of philosophy and those interested in human nature may enjoy this title. I'm pleased to have completed it and am glad to move on...
June 22, 2013
excellent
April 13, 2021
Overall, I found this helpful instruction and stimulating thought. However, the cruising Adler can quickly swerve his bus of thought and hit the darting squirrels, Joseph Campbell, Hans Kung, and the post-colonial critics who dare dash in front of him.
I particularly liked learning about the two groups of opinion makers: a) de gustibus non disputandum est, or "about matters of taste there is no disputing," and de veritate non disputandum est, or " about matters of truth, we engage in disputes. These tidy expressions directly separate the wheat from the chaff.
For all his focus on truth inside religions, I missed reading his insight about the necessity of having faith. The philosopher Adler focuses on logic to the exclusion of belief and faith, and in my view, works that reveal faith show me what religion should be.
Still, the message of pluralism clearly gets full reportage here. Unfortunately, Adler's disparaging remarks about Joseph Campbell show me that he harbors resentment against the Mythologist. Adler attempts the same thing as Campbell; the philosopher seeks universality of logical truth as found in the major religions and Campbell sought the universality of narrative mythology.
I also liked Adler's use of poetical truth and logical truth. The former has its expression concern narratives and the latter concerns logical, scientific foundations in religion. Both are true in relation to triangulating the truth in religion.
I particularly liked learning about the two groups of opinion makers: a) de gustibus non disputandum est, or "about matters of taste there is no disputing," and de veritate non disputandum est, or " about matters of truth, we engage in disputes. These tidy expressions directly separate the wheat from the chaff.
For all his focus on truth inside religions, I missed reading his insight about the necessity of having faith. The philosopher Adler focuses on logic to the exclusion of belief and faith, and in my view, works that reveal faith show me what religion should be.
Still, the message of pluralism clearly gets full reportage here. Unfortunately, Adler's disparaging remarks about Joseph Campbell show me that he harbors resentment against the Mythologist. Adler attempts the same thing as Campbell; the philosopher seeks universality of logical truth as found in the major religions and Campbell sought the universality of narrative mythology.
I also liked Adler's use of poetical truth and logical truth. The former has its expression concern narratives and the latter concerns logical, scientific foundations in religion. Both are true in relation to triangulating the truth in religion.
April 28, 2024
I enjoyed giving this a read after reading two of his other books. Very practical in distinguishing between religions and their truth (although they’re always clashing with science). Actually, he cleaned up his writing quite nicely in the conclusion by mentioning the leap of faith and articles of religious faith which are necessary to believe in religion. Another enjoyable read although this book got me thinking again.
May 12, 2021
get it together mortimer
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews