Hi Susan,

Responding to what you say, I am mostly in agreement.

"Where am I going with this. Where I am going with this is that whether the objective realities bear out a life of faith or not, there is something good about having a positive belief system."

I do agree that a positive belief system is good and added to that, I think it doesn't
always require a religious belief system. I think religious and non-religious people
can agree to amenably disagree on what constitutes this belief system. I also agree
that the destructive tendency to tear down what seems to be antithetical to someone's view of reason does no good. I see religious people doing constructive things and in my own view, I interpret that as people just having a good sense of social values regardless of their belief system. I don't see the point of railing against something that I may not agree with. The only time I see religion as destructive is when it becomes a power move on the part of some to exert or exhort their views on others. Many religious people who I admire do not do this. Religion remains a personal experience for them and I am not going to question that. I do not presume to have a knowledge of their personal experience. I can respect them as people and not invade their private codes of belief.


" People have asked me what I'm doing to correct our denominations' wrongs, as if I answer to them; they have no idea that I may very well be doing quite a bit of peace work and just don't care to talk about it here."

It's not necessary for you to feel obligated to discuss anything about your private beliefs.
The US Constitution protects your right of privacy in these matters. I think there are communities of people regardless of their views of religion that are intensely interested in working for peace. We all do it in different ways. We all have different means to address this important issue.

One thing for sure, if we fight about such stuff as belief, we are not promoting peace but an argument that goes nowhere. I have become open minded enough now to respect that people have different experiences and interpretations of life.

I regret that I have made you uncomfortable and wanted to express my appreciation for
what you do musically. I have visited your website and admire the pulling together of the people to make music. This is one of the most important things we as artists can do
to build a lasting world peace.


"More pertinently to this discussion, they also don't tell me what THEY are doing to prevent these hopeless shootings, or how their lack of belief helps kids have hope and stay off that videotape..... so I'm curious how many Mudcatters who ARE helping with THAT social issue DO HAVE a belief system of some kind that involves faith of some kind."

I think that there are many of us who do different things to prevent the violence and irrationality that we see in the world. I think that "belief" in itself is a semantic question and that what we believe is not narrowly relegated to a Christian God. Einstein espoused Spinoza's God which he claimed was not a personal God, but a confluence of elements of the universe that science revealed as kind of "holy". His amazement at the expanse of the universe and it's development through evolved time was his "miracle".


"Hardi also reminded me what one of his aged seminary professors used to say when asked about scientific proof of God. He likened it to proving "love:" a couple comes in to get married. Can they prove, scientifically, that they have the kind of love that will sustain a long and difficult relationship in today's world? No... not with today's science at least; but is it there?"

Here, I think that science can play an important role in the analysis of what a sustained
relationship contains. Psychology is a fledgling science though not perfect as no science can ever be. There are fundamental questions as to what constitutes a loving relationship that is sustainable that can be answered by some scientific perception.

Dawkins discusses NOMA which was developed by the prominent scientist, Stephen J.Gould who suggest that (N.O.M.A.) No Overlapping Magesterium prevents science from
measuring religious systems of belief. I agree with Dawkins that a thorough scientific
investigation of religion is in the best interest of science and theology. Through this,
we may arrive at a useful moral compass to serve humanity.

Dawkins is important in my view because he is a true humanitarian. He doesn't attack people but listens to whatever they say respectfully. His discussions with eminent theologians are fine dialogues and a good model for those of us with different views to reach a common denominator of understanding.

Keep up the good work, Susan. Wish I could sit in on one of your "slow jams".

Frank Hamilton