And I saw the "Whoosh! Over the head" reactions to it. Either it's an example of willful ignorance, or the connection to a belief is perceived as inconsequential to being religious.
It is a good article, though I have to admit that my education in philosophy is severely lacking. Mostly because I just don't have much interest in reading such things. So the following passage went over my head (or maybe it's just the Allegra clouding my mind) :
The more interesting question is why religions endure in spite of being empirically untrue. There are, of course, millions of fundamentalists for whom God is a literal proposition. Their claims concerning God are empirical and should be treated as such. For many, though, God is an existential impulse, a transcendent idea with no referent in reality. This conception of God is untouched – and untouchable – by positivist science; asking if God is true in this sense is like asking how much the number 12 weighs – it’s nonsensical.
To me, God/Source does indeed exist, and I'm as far from being a fundamentalist as one can get. I simply don't attempt to define Source in terms most religions use. I'm still a dabbler, cherry-picking what sounds good to me, and finding my particular meaning from all that. Yet, I still believe in something larger than any of us, encompassing All (as in the universe, all dimensions, and everything else science has yet to discover.) If my life depended upon me renouncing all of that in order to live, I could certainly say the words, but they wouldn't be sincere. That connection to what gives me meaning in life is as permanent as the coding in my DNA.
= new reply since forum marked as read