<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Understanding grace
Review: I've read this book twice and have underlined a lot of it. I've recently shared it with friends and have discussed some of the concepts the authors describe so well. The idea of the body is in the soul, the soul as field, the connectivity through grace...these are powerful, transforming thoughts. Thank you Matthew for another fine book.
Rating: 
Summary: Honest attempt but shoddy in places
Review: This book is a dialog between the defrocked Catholic Matthew Fox and scienctist(of morphic resonance fame) Rupert Sheldrake. In it they discuss both science, religion and spirituality(mostly Echart and Hildegard) and how they intersect at points as I understand it. Do they do a good job? yes and no. Yes in that both are sincere in their efforts. Sheldrake stands out as the better of the two intellectually. No in that Fox falls down in several areas. 1. He commits a serious epistemological error by confusings metaphysical levels of the spirit and soul with material levels of existence. For Fox A = C this is a big no no. Angels are not atomic paritcles and the soul is not the body. Reification is plain wrong. 2. He bases the bulk of his newly created theology on selected portions of Eckhart, Hildegard and Rumi. This is dangerous, since these were mystics of a high order their writings were never meant to be read as one reads a newspaper or literally as Fox wants to do. Also none the people he mentioned were rebels like himself. These mystics worked within the religous framework of the time. To try to create an exoteric framework from esoteric writings which is what Fox has done is fraught with problems, especially when you are not their equal. This is my biggest problem with Fox. Instead of trying to show the reader the differences between science and religion he's trying to peddle his new religion of creation spirituality. Which is gnosis without gnosis in disguise. 3. As for Fox's understanding of Catholic or Christian religion in general, he has blinders on. Especially when he comments on the great Cathedrals of Europe. He fails to understand or evem see their symbolism, instead he find's solace in their crypts of all places - this is neurotic. This man loves being in the dark and would like to see all new churchs built underground. His attitude is positively Manichean in nature. Sheldrake also confuses the readers with his understanding of science in general. Science deal with the quantitative and measurable aspects of materialism. It cannot deal with qualities nor with metaphysics. To use science to justify religion is sloppy thinking and equivalent to building a house on shifting sands. So my rating is:
** stars
-1 star for lack of a index and specific sources for the quotes Fox used.
-1 star for sloppy epistemology and for Fox trying peddle his new religion instead.
-1 star for using on the back cover "institutionalized science and mechanistic religion" it should mechanistic science and institutionalized religion. Religion may be dull at times but never a machine
The book fails in trying to bring together the strands of science, religion or spirituality. Which nobody has ever really done well. Read E.F. Schumachers "Guide for the Perplexed" which is a must and then Hossein Nasr "Man and Nature". Another good one is Huston Smith's "Postmodern Mind". For a real study on spirituality get Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism" she's a beautiful writer and very well studied on this topic.
Rating:
Summary: God is all...
Review: Well, ran into some deep space in this one. This cosmic equation seems to have some real balence. But as you know love is all there really is> Author write me. Enoch
<< 1 >>
| 
