In the first chapter of “Religion in World History” I thought this wording to one of the arguments was strong: “without religion, we are less fulfilled, or we cannot exercise our true potential; as human beings. We are flowers that never blossom, tress that never bear fruit.” This could be read and seen as ordinary to other people but, since I truly feel that without religion I’d have nothing to hold on in my weakness, anger or guilt depression would run me over. Religion, has the ability to give u inner light and self forgiveness.

I also understand why there’s an argument about the fact that people suffer and they came up with religion, and a God that is greater to help them cope with their suffering. In the contrary, I still believe that it’s hard to have these inner spiritual inclinations with no God, or external power beyond us as beings.

I thought that the explanation of The Magic section was interesting. Especially the part about magic not having control over God, but “has control over nature or the spirits”.

It’s interesting how David Hume, “in his work on miracles” mentioned that there’s “insufficient evidence to prove” God’s existence nor his non-existence. Ending, up with to me a case that doesn’t go against any party, so all have the freedom to choose what they want to believe in with no ground evidence. Making it all dependent on faith and belief.

The point where Smith’s Reading stated that “Mircea Eliade came to believe that archaic peoples are more spiritual that their descendants” really grabbed my attention. I believe it’s very true, anyone could disagree but I certainly am of the same mind when I say our attachment or in other words the introductions to “external devices” and more sophisticated objects and lives tends to drive us away from spirituality. I won’t label it as a rule in life or a must, but it’s very possible and extremely