In what follows, I will provide some brief replies to the Position Statements of each of the participants involved in this discussion. To better understand my replies, I would like to point out to the reader that the authors of the Position Statements were asked to present a discussion in the philosophy of religion. As David Stewart explains, this discipline is not to be confused with providing “a systematic statement of religious beliefs (which would be theology or dogmatics)”; rather, it is “a second-order activity focused on the fundamental issues of a given religion”. The task of philosophy of religion is to “submit claims such as those made by religion to a thoroughgoing rational investigation” (Stewart 1980: 6; my emphasis). As such, in addition to providing an explanation of the core fundamental beliefs held by each participant, it was necessary to answer the question (as stipulated in the Position Statement guidelines provided by the editors): What reasons, if any, do you have for these beliefs? And yet, generally speaking, I found very little rational argument in support of the religious beliefs that were outlined in the Position Statements, even as I read very interesting and enlightening expositions of various religious perspectives. As a preliminary, generic response to my fellow participants, I would urge them not to lose sight of the nature of the discipline in which our discussion is being conducted. My specific replies to each of the participants follow.