web site hit counter În ce cred cei care nu cred? - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

În ce cred cei care nu cred?

Availability: Ready to download

Traducere de Dragos Zamosteanu Cu participarea lui Emanuele Severino, Manlio Sgalambro, Eugenio Scalfari, Indro Montanelli, Vittorio Foa, Claudio Martelli Un reprezentant de marca al culturii laice, Umberto Eco, si un reprezentant al Bisericii, cardinalul Carlo Maria Martini, isi sustin propriile puncte de vedere privind etica si problemele noului mileniu. Rezultatul este Traducere de Dragos Zamosteanu Cu participarea lui Emanuele Severino, Manlio Sgalambro, Eugenio Scalfari, Indro Montanelli, Vittorio Foa, Claudio Martelli Un reprezentant de marca al culturii laice, Umberto Eco, si un reprezentant al Bisericii, cardinalul Carlo Maria Martini, isi sustin propriile puncte de vedere privind etica si problemele noului mileniu. Rezultatul este nu atit o confruntare, cit un dialog pe marginea valorilor pe care omul modern le pune in discutie: traditia teologica si provocarea tehnologica, limitele impuse femeilor de catre Biserica si semnificatia credintei atit pentru cei care cred, cit si pentru cei care nu cred (sau considera ca nu cred). Din cuprins: Obsesia laica a noii apocalipse • Cind incepe viata umana? • Barbatii si femeile in viziunea Bisericii • Biserica nu implineşte asteptari, ea celebreaza mistere • Tehnica este declinul oricarei bune-credinte • Binele nu se poate intemeia pe un Dumnezeu criminal • Crezul laic al umanismului crestin • Etica are nevoie de adevar


Compare

Traducere de Dragos Zamosteanu Cu participarea lui Emanuele Severino, Manlio Sgalambro, Eugenio Scalfari, Indro Montanelli, Vittorio Foa, Claudio Martelli Un reprezentant de marca al culturii laice, Umberto Eco, si un reprezentant al Bisericii, cardinalul Carlo Maria Martini, isi sustin propriile puncte de vedere privind etica si problemele noului mileniu. Rezultatul este Traducere de Dragos Zamosteanu Cu participarea lui Emanuele Severino, Manlio Sgalambro, Eugenio Scalfari, Indro Montanelli, Vittorio Foa, Claudio Martelli Un reprezentant de marca al culturii laice, Umberto Eco, si un reprezentant al Bisericii, cardinalul Carlo Maria Martini, isi sustin propriile puncte de vedere privind etica si problemele noului mileniu. Rezultatul este nu atit o confruntare, cit un dialog pe marginea valorilor pe care omul modern le pune in discutie: traditia teologica si provocarea tehnologica, limitele impuse femeilor de catre Biserica si semnificatia credintei atit pentru cei care cred, cit si pentru cei care nu cred (sau considera ca nu cred). Din cuprins: Obsesia laica a noii apocalipse • Cind incepe viata umana? • Barbatii si femeile in viziunea Bisericii • Biserica nu implineşte asteptari, ea celebreaza mistere • Tehnica este declinul oricarei bune-credinte • Binele nu se poate intemeia pe un Dumnezeu criminal • Crezul laic al umanismului crestin • Etica are nevoie de adevar

30 review for În ce cred cei care nu cred?

  1. 4 out of 5

    Rebecca

    In a time when academia and scholarly religion seems terribly at odds with the living Catholic faith, two men open a dialogue which is indeed a confrontation. They confront however, not each other, but the issues of apocalyptic perspective, abortion, women in the Church, violence and much more. These two men recognize these issues not as polemics to be tossed back and forth for endless bantering, but as fundamental to outlining a definition of "humanity." Both men are scholars and people of fait In a time when academia and scholarly religion seems terribly at odds with the living Catholic faith, two men open a dialogue which is indeed a confrontation. They confront however, not each other, but the issues of apocalyptic perspective, abortion, women in the Church, violence and much more. These two men recognize these issues not as polemics to be tossed back and forth for endless bantering, but as fundamental to outlining a definition of "humanity." Both men are scholars and people of faith, aware of the cultural and social millieu around them. Although the paperback version claims "A Dialogue" it is most definitely a confrontation that forces the reader to make some decisions or at least consider issues that are all to easily relegated to consideration in a distant sphere rather than our hearts.

  2. 4 out of 5

    M.

    This one was short, but took a little while longer because I was reading it between breaks at college. I found it a bit basic -though unnecessarily grandiose in vocabulary on the secular participants' behalf, maybe trying to prove themselves they were at the height of a cardinal-. Maybe it's a good intro for people looking for a more "dialogue based" approach to the question of faith and reason, though I am more interested in the Benedict XVI / Habermas exchange than this, as of now. Honestly, t This one was short, but took a little while longer because I was reading it between breaks at college. I found it a bit basic -though unnecessarily grandiose in vocabulary on the secular participants' behalf, maybe trying to prove themselves they were at the height of a cardinal-. Maybe it's a good intro for people looking for a more "dialogue based" approach to the question of faith and reason, though I am more interested in the Benedict XVI / Habermas exchange than this, as of now. Honestly, the way Eco tried to argue against the prohibition of women's ordination painting Aquinas as sexist doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem, but sure it's more civilized than what you could find nowadays.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Branche SJ

    "The final topic of discussion is an overall belief in God. This time the roles have reversed and Martini questions Eco on the basic ethical foundation of a layman. He asks what a layman bases his moral behavior on, if not a belief in God. Eco informs him that there are forms of religiosity, even in the absence of faith. There are universal conceptions of constraint and believers with an ethical foundation still sin. One who doesn’t believe in God can still make sense of his own life. However, t "The final topic of discussion is an overall belief in God. This time the roles have reversed and Martini questions Eco on the basic ethical foundation of a layman. He asks what a layman bases his moral behavior on, if not a belief in God. Eco informs him that there are forms of religiosity, even in the absence of faith. There are universal conceptions of constraint and believers with an ethical foundation still sin. One who doesn’t believe in God can still make sense of his own life. However, they both agree that it is important to find a common ground between the secular and Catholic worlds for the betterment of mankind, peace, and justice. I liked how Martini posed the question to Eco this time, and I think Eco does a good job in answering him. One doesn’t need to have a belief in God in order to have direction in his/her life. Just because someone doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean they are inherently evil, and even those who do believe in God still sin. I agree with this whole-heartedly. There are certainly atheists in this world, but they are minding their own business and doing nothing to harm anyone else. And then there are leaders of religious cults, who claim to have a strict belief in God, and yet they take away the identity of so many people and even cause mass self-destruction. This certainly is not right. Eco emphasizes that one can still lead a good life without a belief in God."by Michelle Miller, http://www.worldreligions.psu.edu/bel...

  4. 5 out of 5

    Inder

    An interesting and respectful little conversation between Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (a Catholic and scholar) and Umberto Eco (an agnostic who knows more about Catholicism than ... well, practically anyone) about faith and ethics. There were some moments in this little volume when I felt the language was more flowery than it needed to be, while the depth was less than it could have been. And of course the debate is very Catholicism-centered, as you would expect given the debators (other religi An interesting and respectful little conversation between Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (a Catholic and scholar) and Umberto Eco (an agnostic who knows more about Catholicism than ... well, practically anyone) about faith and ethics. There were some moments in this little volume when I felt the language was more flowery than it needed to be, while the depth was less than it could have been. And of course the debate is very Catholicism-centered, as you would expect given the debators (other religions are not discussed at all). But it's worth reading just for Eco's last chapter, where he discusses the basis for an agnostic ethos. It turns out that agnostics and believers can discuss ethics and religion respectfully and without blasting each others' point of view. This is a refreshing change from the shrill, spiteful, absolutist polemics of the Atheism vs. Fundamentalism debate. If you have any interest in religion at all (even if your interest is in criticizing it), you should read this book just to learn how to talk about belief (and nonbelief) without making a complete ass of yourself.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Brittany Burslem

    I fear that much of this book was over my head as I do not have the sort of religious background these men do and perhaps because of that my rating is not fair. However, due to the title "a confrontation" I expected this book to be an actual debate but instead the men focus on finding common ground, so basically they are holding each other's hand telling each other how great they are the entire book instead of actually putting forth any opinions. What is said in 100 pages could have been said in I fear that much of this book was over my head as I do not have the sort of religious background these men do and perhaps because of that my rating is not fair. However, due to the title "a confrontation" I expected this book to be an actual debate but instead the men focus on finding common ground, so basically they are holding each other's hand telling each other how great they are the entire book instead of actually putting forth any opinions. What is said in 100 pages could have been said in 5 without all the extra dancing around.

  6. 4 out of 5

    MariaK

    I read this book twice. The first time was years ago, and I did not enjoy it at all. "Belief or nonbelief? A confrontation" was the title. Where was the confrontation? Just lots of philosophical concepts, things that could have been expressed in a couple of sentences but were explained in long pages in an effort -I assume- to make them politically correct, or perhaps religiously correct. It was totally over my head, too abstract for my taste. I thought that maybe I didn't have the required matur I read this book twice. The first time was years ago, and I did not enjoy it at all. "Belief or nonbelief? A confrontation" was the title. Where was the confrontation? Just lots of philosophical concepts, things that could have been expressed in a couple of sentences but were explained in long pages in an effort -I assume- to make them politically correct, or perhaps religiously correct. It was totally over my head, too abstract for my taste. I thought that maybe I didn't have the required maturity or philosophical knowledge. But it was a book written (at least half of it) by Umberto Eco, I HAD to like it. So I gave it another chance and read it again a couple of weeks ago. It put me to sleep repeatedly. "Intellectually stimulating dialogue" says the inside of the dustjacket. I saw no intellectual stimulation. Only very vague and long answers. And long justifications for certain term choices. Also, I wasn't very impressed with the editing job. First lines of the introduction by Harvard professor Harvey Cox: "When the Italian newspaper La Correra de la Serra invited novelist-scholar Umberto Eco ..." "La Correra de la Serra"? Really?! Shouldn't that be [Il] Corriere della Sera? Other than that, the introduction was brilliant. I don't think the rest of the book deserved such an introduction with such high praises.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Phrodrick

    A thought out dialogue on the logic behind being a believer versus a non-believer: Great Idea, The world needs more of it! Two sophisticated and well educated correspondents, one Catholic and the other a former Catholic represent the rest of us. The pitch sounds `brill'. Belief or Nonbelief does not deliver. The use of a question and answer format seems to limit the freedom of discussion. It does insure that what is printed is measured and thought-out. Every precaution has been made to insure tha A thought out dialogue on the logic behind being a believer versus a non-believer: Great Idea, The world needs more of it! Two sophisticated and well educated correspondents, one Catholic and the other a former Catholic represent the rest of us. The pitch sounds `brill'. Belief or Nonbelief does not deliver. The use of a question and answer format seems to limit the freedom of discussion. It does insure that what is printed is measured and thought-out. Every precaution has been made to insure that the tone is high level and respectful. Unfortunately the discussants, or is questioner and respondent<?> spend too much time being respectful, making sure that the questions are limited and specific but neither contributor tends to make any simple declarative answers. Also the format precludes any follow-up. If this had been part of a series; if we had input from more than just Catholic - s'ok one is a former Catholic, if the dialogue ranged over more than 4 topics, if the format was freer than question , answer (no followups allowed)... too many ifs. The Cardinal and the semiotician are extremely thoughtful and literate . The book is worth reading if you enjoy academic language on a very high level. If you are seeking substantial illumination, keep looking.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Fabio

    Proof that discussion around religion (at least in other latitudes) can be elucidating and even cordial. As usual, Eco draws heavily from european (mostly medieval) history, and Aquinas, to make incisive points, not so much about the non-existence of god, a topic which he is too old to really be arguing like a village atheist, but to reveal the subtleties of doctrine and the historical, cultural, and theological issues of topics like the ordination of women and abortion. Readers looking for boori Proof that discussion around religion (at least in other latitudes) can be elucidating and even cordial. As usual, Eco draws heavily from european (mostly medieval) history, and Aquinas, to make incisive points, not so much about the non-existence of god, a topic which he is too old to really be arguing like a village atheist, but to reveal the subtleties of doctrine and the historical, cultural, and theological issues of topics like the ordination of women and abortion. Readers looking for boorish atheist rhetoric a-la Richard Dawkins are bound to be disappointed, same as believers looking for one of their own teaching non-believers a big lesson. Non-believers interested in historical arguments and notes in clever discourse around christianity grounded in the common sense that no individual can tell a group what rules they make for their own club any more than the group can impose those rules on non-members, will find these epistles a treat, full of lessons in proper thinking, rarely articulated this eloquently in religious debates.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Doreen

    Definitely thought provoking. Very pleased with how respectful these gentlemen were towards each others beliefs, especially with the hot topics we are experiencing during this election time.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Cristian Necșulescu

    Some notes I made during the reading: Cardinal Martini 1. 'Any external imposition of principles or religious behaviour on the nonconsenting violates freedom of conscience.' 2. 'The delicate game of democracy provides for a dialectic between opinions and beliefs in the hope that such exchange will expand the collective moral conscience that is the basis of orderly cohabitation.' Umberto Eco 1.[ ...without considering the atheist (a figure whose psychology eludes me because, like Kant, I don't see how Some notes I made during the reading: Cardinal Martini 1. 'Any external imposition of principles or religious behaviour on the nonconsenting violates freedom of conscience.' 2. 'The delicate game of democracy provides for a dialectic between opinions and beliefs in the hope that such exchange will expand the collective moral conscience that is the basis of orderly cohabitation.' Umberto Eco 1.[ ...without considering the atheist (a figure whose psychology eludes me because, like Kant, I don't see how one can possibly not believe in God, can maintain that it is impossible to prove his existence, and yet also firmly believe in the nonexistence of God, maintaining that this can be proved)] 2. 'Let them learn to think hard, for neither the mystery itself nor the evidence is easy.' 3. 'We should, above all, respect the physical rights of others, including the right to speak and think.' 4. 'What I have defined as a secular ethic is at its root a natural ethic, one that not even a believer denies. Isn't natural instinct, carried to proper maturation and self-awareness, a basis that offers sufficient guarantee?' 5. 'I'm not in favour of instituting a clear-cut opposition between believers of a transcendental God and those who don't believe in any notion of a superior being.' 6. 'This is why I believe that on fundamental points a natural ethic - worthy of respect for the deep religiosity that animates it - can match the principles of an ethic founded on faith in transcendence, which cannot but recognize that the natural principles were carved into our hearts in anticipation of salvation. If there are still - and of course there are - smaller matters that don't harmonize, the same happens in the confrontation of different religions. And in the conflicts of faith Kindness and Prudence should prevail.'

  11. 5 out of 5

    Alex Lee

    This short book follows the formula of a dialogue between the now secular (once Catholic) Umberto Eco and the Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini. It it, they ask and answer each other questions dealing with believers and non-believers. The two gentlemen are gentlemen, ever clear, honest and respectful in how they speak to one another and express their views. One of the greatest flaws people often have in dialogue with others of differing values is that they don't have a framework in which to approac This short book follows the formula of a dialogue between the now secular (once Catholic) Umberto Eco and the Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini. It it, they ask and answer each other questions dealing with believers and non-believers. The two gentlemen are gentlemen, ever clear, honest and respectful in how they speak to one another and express their views. One of the greatest flaws people often have in dialogue with others of differing values is that they don't have a framework in which to approach another in a way that is both respectful and satisfies curiosity. What these two have done is find a way to do so, exactly that... but not in a way that asks mundane questions, but to dive deeply into the differences between them such as, "what framework do non-believers have to justify ethics?" and "what is the role of women in Catholicism?" In their honesty they are able to reach into the deepest recesses of what makes us all human, to find common ground that despite the (non)religiosity of many of us, we do have things to talk about: to learn from each other and come to understanding that we are among one another. Difference doesn't need to be destroyed. In fact, it should be cherished, as each of us explore our lives in our own way, and come hopefully, through honesty and bravery, to better understandings about who we are and how we should be.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Jacob

    Perhaps better titled "Belief or Nonbelief in Catholicism" as while Eco claims to be a non-believer, the focus is squarely on debating the church's views. The brevity of the dialog makes it very accessible but also doesn't allow for much back and forth. The format is of open letters between Eco and Martini published in a newspaper. Eco opens the dialog with questions for the first three sets of letters. In my view Martini's responses were a bit typical. Essentially, 'there are so many mysteries Perhaps better titled "Belief or Nonbelief in Catholicism" as while Eco claims to be a non-believer, the focus is squarely on debating the church's views. The brevity of the dialog makes it very accessible but also doesn't allow for much back and forth. The format is of open letters between Eco and Martini published in a newspaper. Eco opens the dialog with questions for the first three sets of letters. In my view Martini's responses were a bit typical. Essentially, 'there are so many mysteries in this world that how can we know it's right for us to change our opinions?' The best is saved for the end when Martini asks Eco how a layperson can have ethical foundation to their life without belief. Eco reviews the nature of individuals and community and lays the foundation for the concept that god is a creation of man. It would be interesting to see Martini's response to the last 10 pages containing the best of his 'nonbeliever' writing.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Sancho

    An interesting exchange of letters between Umberto Eco (a secular man) and Carlo Maria Martini (a catholic cardinal), discussing topics that normally divide believers and non-believers. In most of the book, Eco starts with a question and the cardinal answers it. The conversations are very polite and charged with philosophy and literature. The topics discussed are: the concept of apocalypsis, the beginning of human life, and the roles of men and women in the catholic church. At the end, the cardin An interesting exchange of letters between Umberto Eco (a secular man) and Carlo Maria Martini (a catholic cardinal), discussing topics that normally divide believers and non-believers. In most of the book, Eco starts with a question and the cardinal answers it. The conversations are very polite and charged with philosophy and literature. The topics discussed are: the concept of apocalypsis, the beginning of human life, and the roles of men and women in the catholic church. At the end, the cardinal asks Eco a question: (if not in some deity) where does the secular man find goodness? Six more persons are invited to dicuss their opinion on this exchange at the end. It was definitely an interesting read, sometimes at a very high level. The cardinal actually recognizes that some readers asked him to use a simpler language, in order for them to understand better. However, Eco invites him to keep the pace: it is the readers' responsibility to improve their literary skills.

  14. 5 out of 5

    ♥ Ibrahim ♥

    The book is not big but it is full of substance. I am a big fan of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. I try to read everything which he wrote and sit at his feel learning the lessons of the Gospel and try to soak them in. He is one of the best people that impressed me with his dialogue with Atheists and Agnostics. Very respectful. A book like this I can read to just learn the art of dialogue and thinking. Each have their convincing reasons for their arguments and each sounds attractive in his own int The book is not big but it is full of substance. I am a big fan of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. I try to read everything which he wrote and sit at his feel learning the lessons of the Gospel and try to soak them in. He is one of the best people that impressed me with his dialogue with Atheists and Agnostics. Very respectful. A book like this I can read to just learn the art of dialogue and thinking. Each have their convincing reasons for their arguments and each sounds attractive in his own intellectual merit. The European flavour of Christianity, especially coming from a New Testament giant scholar like Martini is so amazing. Anybody can read Martini and enjoy his devotionals. Be careful: you might end up being addicted to his writings like me, and what sweet addiction!

  15. 4 out of 5

    Kevin Sexton

    A tedious correspondence with no big surprises. The writers spend a quarter of the book with formalities and congratulating each other on rigour. It gets into some interesting territory, like questioning the church's stance on women, but doesn’t begin to feel honest and meaty until the final correspondence. Then the book ends. It's a reminder that discourse between believers and non-believers can be civil, and that’s about it. A tedious correspondence with no big surprises. The writers spend a quarter of the book with formalities and congratulating each other on rigour. It gets into some interesting territory, like questioning the church's stance on women, but doesn’t begin to feel honest and meaty until the final correspondence. Then the book ends. It's a reminder that discourse between believers and non-believers can be civil, and that’s about it.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Roberto Cardona

    The last letter by Eco was really good. I was pleasantly surprised to hear him talk about the idea of a universal morality.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Богдан Вълков

    I don't really think that Umberto Eco's answer was good. We all agree that religious people do evil and non-religious people do good, but that is not the concept of the question. The quesiton is where does the understanding that good is good and evil is evil come from? If there isn't an Absolute of good then everything is relative. Even Richard Dawkins confessed that if we should consider the theory of evolution as true, we should admit that evil and good do not exist. This is the right answer. I don't really think that Umberto Eco's answer was good. We all agree that religious people do evil and non-religious people do good, but that is not the concept of the question. The quesiton is where does the understanding that good is good and evil is evil come from? If there isn't an Absolute of good then everything is relative. Even Richard Dawkins confessed that if we should consider the theory of evolution as true, we should admit that evil and good do not exist. This is the right answer. If there isn't an Absolute justice that determines that courage, sacrificial love and clemency are good, then what does then? Our feelings? There are egoists that feel good being egoists. Actually most of the contemporary people are living egoistically and feel good. There are so many thiefs (from crooks to politicians) that feel good about it. I can tell you one thing for sure - there is no way a psychological confrotantion (cognitive dissonance) does not occure if a man really believes in the Transcedental Justice and commits an act of injustice. I cannot say the same for one that does not believe in It.

  18. 4 out of 5

    L.

    It's refreshing to see a religious debate where the competitors are so unfailingly polite and respectful of one another, but one gets the sense that it isn't a true conflict at all, given Eco's self-admitted Catholic upbringing (& obvious interest in Aquinas et al.). Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all is the fact that both participants seem committed to dumbing themselves down for the sake of their newspaper audience. A debate means nothing if it is conducted at the level of the lowest co It's refreshing to see a religious debate where the competitors are so unfailingly polite and respectful of one another, but one gets the sense that it isn't a true conflict at all, given Eco's self-admitted Catholic upbringing (& obvious interest in Aquinas et al.). Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all is the fact that both participants seem committed to dumbing themselves down for the sake of their newspaper audience. A debate means nothing if it is conducted at the level of the lowest common denominator. It seems a mark of laziness to not engage with higher-level argument merely because the general reader wouldn't understand it. The general reader is too stupid to care about issues of ethics or metaphysics in the first place; if you're going to engage honestly with such subjects at all, you should at least have a little more respect for your audience than that.

  19. 4 out of 5

    José Ángel

    Unfinished discussion and not a real secular thinking is represented in Eco. Partial vision of what religion is in the world. It just proves that Catholicism is the only religion in the European minds. Eco pretends the reading of the book is too elaborated but it’s not really and the use of the language is unnecessarily complex about the simplicity of the ideas exposed.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Yuni Amir

    The best confrontation between a believer and a non-believer on ethics, women in church, abortion and the apocalypse. I need to read more of this type of literature. Any suggestions?

  21. 5 out of 5

    Yates Buckley

    Curious literary exchange between two big minds about religious mostly catholic faith. I enjoyed the discussion but it had little impact on my thinking.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Isabel

    An interesting book. It presents a not unknown question, beliefs. What to people who say don't belief belief in? It makes you think about ethics, good, bad, normal, expected behaviors and ways of thinking. Showing the similarities and differences between catholics and "non-believers" it's a nice reading to look inside ourselves a bit more. To see more than what we believe in, what makes us believe. An interesting book. It presents a not unknown question, beliefs. What to people who say don't belief belief in? It makes you think about ethics, good, bad, normal, expected behaviors and ways of thinking. Showing the similarities and differences between catholics and "non-believers" it's a nice reading to look inside ourselves a bit more. To see more than what we believe in, what makes us believe.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Michael Laflamme

    I found this book a bit of a disappointment considering the two geniuses that were behind it. The format, a correspondence between the two via the auspices of a newspaper, leaves little room for the the topics to be deeply explored. Each topic by both men is given barely an overview. Points are brought up and then not explored. I would like to see this type of approach in a longer, more thorough format that allows these two great minds to delve into the topics at hand.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Andrew

    An enlightening discussion between two cultural heavyweights. As one very familiar with Martini and his viewpoints, and generally sympathetic to them, I especially enjoyed Eco's subtle but at times very thought-provoking explanations of a secularist, realist viewpoint of the world. As many have said, if nothing else, the works is a great testament to the level of civility that is possible for a dialogue between viewpoints that ultimately are not only different but opposed. An enlightening discussion between two cultural heavyweights. As one very familiar with Martini and his viewpoints, and generally sympathetic to them, I especially enjoyed Eco's subtle but at times very thought-provoking explanations of a secularist, realist viewpoint of the world. As many have said, if nothing else, the works is a great testament to the level of civility that is possible for a dialogue between viewpoints that ultimately are not only different but opposed.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Mark

    An excellent example of the possibilities of transcendent dialogue, demonstrating that what seems at times an unbridgeable gap between the religious and the secular can indeed be bridged, respectfully and engagingly. Eco and Martini trade questions and observations at a high level. The introduction even provides a possible answer why this sort of thing seems so impossible in America.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Conrado Villaseñor

    This books is really a jewel......it is a epistolary conversation between Eco and Martini who is a cardinal and provides insight into Eco's religion beliefs. It shows Eco and Martini's respect for each other and their great sense of humor, particularly in a topic that becomes easily in a minefield. This books is really a jewel......it is a epistolary conversation between Eco and Martini who is a cardinal and provides insight into Eco's religion beliefs. It shows Eco and Martini's respect for each other and their great sense of humor, particularly in a topic that becomes easily in a minefield.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Fred Kohn

    Honestly, I was disappointed. I expected more from a person with the reputation of Eco. I felt he danced around issues quite a bit. On the other hand, Cardinal Martini was a joy. So, all in all, I'm happy to have read the book. Besides, I learned a great new word: cosmophage; which seems to fit our species perfectly. Honestly, I was disappointed. I expected more from a person with the reputation of Eco. I felt he danced around issues quite a bit. On the other hand, Cardinal Martini was a joy. So, all in all, I'm happy to have read the book. Besides, I learned a great new word: cosmophage; which seems to fit our species perfectly.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Jose Alfredo

    The book is too short for the interesting and relevant issues discussed. Both Eco and the late Cardinal Martini show their impressive intellectual and exegetical skills,although -in my opinion- they're a bit too polite to each other. The book is too short for the interesting and relevant issues discussed. Both Eco and the late Cardinal Martini show their impressive intellectual and exegetical skills,although -in my opinion- they're a bit too polite to each other.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Mark G

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. A stimulating read from two erudite and considered thinkers. Would have liked there to have been responses to the responses. Love this type of dialogue style book when both authors are clear, challenging yet respectful. So much better and edifying than any of the New Atheist type books

  30. 5 out of 5

    PJ Jumonville

    Taken from a series of editorials between Eco and Cardinal Martini in a Milan paper, this is the best and most respectful discussion of the nature of faith that I've ever read. Taken from a series of editorials between Eco and Cardinal Martini in a Milan paper, this is the best and most respectful discussion of the nature of faith that I've ever read.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...