(Wikimedia Commons; click to enlarge)
My newest column in the Deseret News, in which I enthusiastically recommend a book that I found fascinating:
Incidentally, I don’t argue — and I don’t believe — that large numbers prove religious faith (or a religious faith) true. Some who seem either unable or indisposed to read what a text actually says are loudly faulting me for having made that argument. But I didn’t make it.
While I’m on the topic, though, I do suspect that the virtually human universal sense that there’s something purposive behind the cosmos is a pointer toward the truth of that notion. But it’s only a relatively vague sense, one that appears in an uncountable multitude of religious traditions, both historical and living, and I would never characterize it as a “proof.”
But I said nothing about any of that in my article.
Certain people, so confident that they know what I’m saying that I needn’t ever have said it to have said it, are (as they typically do) leaping to absurd conclusions, and attributing their absurdity to me.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In