There are some bold, arrogantly proscriptive responses to this letter writer. So, I'll jump in, too, since apparently everyone's an entitled expert:

Before you decide that skepticism is something you should earnestly seek to discard, visit the website WhyDoesGodHateAmputees.com, recently covered in The New York Times. I suspect that as much as you think you'd like to discard reason-based consideration of the question of God--skepticism about God's existence--you're going to have a hard time doing so, because you sound like a reasonable person who strives to be intellectually honest.

If you are going to explore faith, I think you should seek it from clearly "progressive" believers. (One respondent suggested Thomas Merton, Marcus Borg among Christian examples.)

If you are going to remain skeptical but find that unsatisfying, consider beginning an exploration of the enormity of reality and the universe, and the implications for a sense of transcendence it brings, by first reading Carl Sagan's "The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God."

Then, no matter which route you take--or while you're exploring them all at the same time--reach out to others online via forums and websites who are also exploring.

What all of these recommendations may have in common, and the last recommendation helps with greatly, is that they would CARRY YOU BEYOND YOURSELF. They can also all lead to humanism: a focus on human experience and value, which I think is a worthy end in and of itself.

Also, there is a practical consideration here: you're apparently vexed, anxious, depressed in some manner, and as is a fact well-established by numerous psychological studies, thinking in terms beyond your own anxiety, discussing it with others, and--ideally--being part of a community that helps others actively (e.g., volunteer work, educational outreach, etc.) has a good probability of helping overcome some of the sadness you're experiencing.

I want to draw attention to the response by "purple house." It's refreshingly honest, balanced, supportive advice devoid of arrogance, condescension or intellectual dishonesty.

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2007/07/12/will_to_believe/permalink/95d4a5284cfed18b9ca33234e2b88abe.html

Perhaps the most disturbing part of Greenwald's post is fact that Chris Matthews during his MSNBC program referred to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council as a "great man," and described him with this remark: "conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values, rather than election results..."

Huh? Obviously Chris Matthews is ignorant about the religious right--probably never having read blogs like Religious Right Watch, Talk To Action, or DefCon--and fails utterly, inexcusably as a supposed journalist, to understand that the religious right is a political movement by definition.

And obviously Matthews has not looked at what values the religious right holds. The actions of the religious right, as well as their words, tend to be Machiavellian at best, as well as frequently hateful, disingenuous, and demonizing. What is more, the implication of Matthews' comment is that only "conservative people...believe in values." The rest of the world doesn't? That's a deeply offensive and stupid remark.

Thompson is a disgusting candidate who's bad news for the republic.

thank you for this great tribute to a wonderful lady and writer. i will miss her.

A stark and well-written autobiographical narrative essay. It belies the supposedly proven "cognitive impairment" the author cites. Good for Kurth.

I read the War Room everyday, and appreciate Salon's reporting on politics and current affairs. But Salon, laudably, stays true to its name, and as a digital Salon it also welcomes erudition and truth in writing that regards our basic humanity. For instance, Gary Kamiya contributes thoughtful articles on the dangers of America's foreign policy under G. W. Bush; but, he also contributed an amazing essay, "I'm Younger Than That Now," about growing "old[er]." To highlight stark and humane essays such as Peter Kurth's on the front page from time to time is welcome and appropriate.

Salon, laudably, stays true to its name, and as a digital Salon it welcomes erudition and truth in writing that regards not only politics but also our basic humanity. This is how Salons worked in the age of the early Enlightenment when they were born. Intelligence and wit in general are valued even above a commitment to punditry and or the perpetually breathless sound anxiety regarding politics, a breathlessness that many of us wallow in occasionally, and often not without good reason. However, if we are honest, we'll realize that salons are meant to be not only incubators for action beyond the salon's walls--digital, virtual walls in this case--but also *a place of refuge* where participants enjoy each other's contribution to discourse. Again: that is what salons have been historically. To highlight stark and humane essays such as Peter Kurth's on the front page from time to time is utterly welcome and most appropriate, for a salon is about LIFE--yes, defending life against greedy people or reckless ideologues with dangerous power--but also about living life.