Philosophy Discussion Forums

This is a discussion topic about the October 2016 Book of the Month, The Voice of Creation by J. Hudson Mitchell.

What do you like most about the book? What do you like least or think could be improved about it?

I did not read the book and have no intention of doing so. All supernatural thinking is [bull], in my opinion.

I think religious ideas are worth a look. Considering you have not read the book it is hard to stand by such a statement in ignorance.

That said, I would like to see a discussion on an actual philosophical work that is well known many probably read by many members here already?

Being and Time has been title that has interest. Neitzsche would be worth a look for me to. For ease of access maybe Plato or Aristotle?

Just a suggestion. I am not a paying member though.

This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds ... feel free tp remove it.

I agree with burning ghost, I'd rather discuss philosophical works than works on theology, psychology, sociology, etc.

Felix wrote:I agree with burning ghost, I'd rather discuss philosophical works than works on theology, psychology, sociology, etc.

I am not exactlt saying that. It may well be that the paying members have picked these titles to discuss and even if they have not there is room for all kinds of topics, psychology is an area of interest to me.

My belief is that some focus on well known titles that are readily availabke to all may be worth a look. There are numerous pdf's online that anyone can access. It is just a case of how seriously people here are about reading such things and discussing them.

I am quite intrigued bu the current title too. Just not inclined to fork out money for it because I have little knowledge of the author and limited access to such titles ... although I am visiting the Philippines soon so I will keep an eye for it.

I bought the book and I am currently reading it. So far I think it's a great choice. Creationism and evolution would always be at loggerheads. Belonging to one school of thought shouldn't stop you from trying to understand the argument and logic of the other.

I have only read the first chapter (for another thread), but just wanted to state that I don't believe any logical argument can be used to persuade/dissuade someone regarding religious beliefs. They are two entirely separate processes. If someone decides to "believe" after hearing an argument, I maintain that they wanted to believe anyway, and just used the argument as an excuse (whether that is really believing or not I'll leave for another day).

I had a close friend that was a Jesuit priest who stated that no matter how close you may come to belief through rational arguments, there will always be a final step, no matter how small, that will require a leap of faith. So, given that, I see no purpose in any book that is trying to provide an argument for any specific belief.

I basically like to read about this stuff but I just do not believe in it. But the book is worth reading.