Reddit Reddit reviews The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism

We found 66 Reddit comments about The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Religion & Spirituality
Books
Agnosticism
The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
Check price on Amazon

66 Reddit comments about The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism:

u/CapBateman · 95 pointsr/askphilosophy

It's hard to answer generally for all philosphers, but I think that the dislike stems from the fact the new atheists are at best shallow in their attempt to engage with philosophical debates and ideas and at worst philosophically illiterate or downright hostile to the field of philosophy.

For example, Richerd Dawkins bashing continental philosophy without even understanding what it is or Sam Harris writing a whole book on meta-ethics without addressing or citing the academic literature or experts in the field because he believes it's boring (I recommend watching the entire video if you have time to spare, it's great). And even when there not outright dismissing philosophy, philosophers are not huge fans, to say the least, of their work, both theists and non-theists.

u/Thomist · 54 pointsr/Catholicism

Catholics do not believe in blind faith, we believe in faith informed by reason.

The scientific method ("replicable and testable evidence") is not always the appropriate method to use in seeking knowledge. It works for that aspect of reality that is material and quantifiable. For other aspects of reality, we must use other methods, such as mathematical or philosophical reasoning. Arguments for the existence of God are mostly of the latter type.

Or in other words, read this.

u/Pope-Urban-III · 27 pointsr/Catholicism
u/trees916 · 24 pointsr/Catholicism

> I want to start going again, but dealing with his anti Catholicism and New Atheist Facebook posts, etc as a practicing Catholic just sounds emotionally exhausting. Plus I'd have to attend church alone with our toddler, who tries to make a break for the altar every time she's set loose.

Going to mass without your husband is better than not going at all. Moreover, other people should not inhibit your ability to practice the Faith. Concerning the New Atheist Facebook posts, if your husband finds that kind of material even remotely convincing, I would recommend he read Edward Feser's The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism.

> Then I start wondering what the point even is because she will probably just end up being an atheist because of his example.

Set a better example than your husband and make an effort to show your child that there are good reasons to be a Catholic. Read and study apologetic books like William Lane Craig's On Guard and/or Trent Horn's Why We're Catholic: Our Reasons for Faith, Hope, and Love so that you are better equipped to defend the Faith. When your daughter is old enough, she can read these books and other apologetics books for herself. Also, it wouldn't be a bad idea for your husband to read these same books. Although, William Lane Craig's On Guard for Students was written specifically for non-Christians; so it might be a better option than On Guard, which is intended for Christians.

> You can only pray for the same thing over and over so many times with no change before it starts feeling hopeless.

Keep praying. If you are not already doing so, pray the Rosary. Even if God is not granting you the request(s) made in your prayers, know that there is a good reason for doing so. The reason(s) may never be known during your time on earth, but do not allow this to damage your relationship with God.

> The prospect of returning just feels so lonely. Our parish is huge and no one ever says a word to me. Does anyone have any advice or encouragement?

Many parishes have bible studies or meetups of some kind that would give you the opportunity to meet other Catholics. It is better to feel lonely and do what is right than not feel lonely and fail to do what is right.

u/NumidianMasnsen · 21 pointsr/Catholicism

I think you have a misunderstanding about angels, they aren't creature made of light with wings who battles demons in duels, if you have this view of Catholicism or of the supernatural it means that you don't understand Catholicism. Rather angels are immaterial, they are a mind without a body.

I recommend that you read Dr Feser's book The last superstition https://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Superstition-Refutation-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y .

Please don't leave RCIA just because you are receiving bad catechism, there is nothing "goofy" or "crazy" about the Catholic view of the supernatural, you think this simply because your idea of it is a strawman.

u/MagicOtter · 21 pointsr/Catholicism

Former fedora atheist here. For a long time, I felt like I belonged to the "skeptical, rational, atheist" tribe. But at one point I became disillusioned with the crowd, and realized that I no longer want to be part of it. I started looking for alternatives, groups I'd want to be a part of, and I settled upon Catholicism. I first approached it from a purely secular perspective, as a serious and reliable institution. But I ended up accepting the faith and God as well.

Here's my progression, what drew me in more and more:

I. The intellectual life. I was always fascinated by science. It was interactions with promoters of dishonest creationism (usually evangelicals) that originally pushed me towards rejecting religion and to become a militant atheist.

Then I read a book that changed how I view the relation between Church and science: God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. I now follow @catholiclab and similar profiles on Twitter, which post interesting facts about Catholic scientists. It's simply astounding how this information is completely absent from contemporary popular culture.

II. Just on an emotional level, feeling "closer" to Catholics. It helped that my family is Catholic. On YouTube, I've watched many videos by Bishop Robert Barron, Fr. Mike. They are very lucid and reasonable in addressing contemporary issues. I'm sure there are many others.

I'm also reading biographies of martyrs who died persecuted in modernity by revolutionary ideologies. My TODO reading list includes books by Thomas Merton, Joseph Ratzinger, and the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola.

III. The aesthetics. I'm subscribed on Twitter to profiles like @Christian8Pics which post a lot of inspiring imagery. Familiarity breeds liking. I also listen to music on YouTube: liturgy, Medieval chants, Mozart's Requiem, Byzantine chants (usually Eastern Orthodox).

All these sideways might seem very strange to a Catholic convert or someone raised Catholic who stayed Catholic. But if someone is immersed in a materialistic, mechanistic and atheistic worldview, there's no available grammar or impulse to even take God or the life of the Church into consideration.

IV. Actually knowing what theism is all about. The "god" dismissed by popular atheist debaters is a caricature of God as understood by classical theism and the actual tradition of the Church. So is the "god" argued for by Intelligent Design proponents, biblical literalists, fundamentalists.

I read 2 books by Edward Feser (Catholic) and David Bentley Hart (Eastern Orthodox) to finally become comfortable with this very simple point. The books I read are, in order:

By Edward Feser:

  • The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism

  • Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide)

    By David Bentley Hart:

  • Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies

  • [The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss] (https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300209355)

    Each author has his own biases, which might trip the reader up at times (Hart is biased against evolutionary psychology for some reason). But these books produced in me a fresh view of where to begin seeking for God. They gave me the confidence to proceed.

    Atheism always addresses "god" as if it's simply one entity among others, part of the natural world, for which one ought to find physical traces and then one simply "believes in the existence of god" (much like you'd believe there's a car parked outside your house, once you look out the window and observe it's there -- meaning it could just as well NOT be there).

    Creationists just muddy the waters with "god of the gaps" and "Paley's watch" style theories, which simply postulate "god" as an explanation for why this or that aspect of the natural world is a certain way, a tinkerer god which molds the physical world into shape, or which created it at some point in the past.

    This has nothing to do with how God is presented by the authors I quoted, and they go to great lengths to make this point.

    I started by understanding that there needs to be an ultimate answer to certain metaphysical questions which, by definition, can't have a physical answer (e.g. "why does there exist a physical world in the first place?"). There's a qualitative difference between physical questions and metaphysical ones, and the gap simply can't be breached by adding more layers of physicality. Hart makes this point very well (he differentiates between the Demiurge that deists, atheists and creationists discuss, and God as the "necessary being" of classical theism).

    The ultimate metaphysical cause is "necessary" because it's simply a necessity for the physical world to have a non-physical cause which keeps it in existence. If the only thing that existed was a quantum field that didn't produce any particles, or a single proton that always existed and will always exist, the "necessity" would be exactly the same. Nothing would change even if it turned out our Universe is part of a Multiverse.

    Then, through reasoning, one can deduce certain characteristics of this ultimate answer, which ends up forming the classical theistic picture of God as a "necessary being" which continuously creates every aspect of the physical universe. Feser is very good at explaining this part and especially at underlining how tentative and feeble our understanding of the unfathomable is. He also explains why it has to be a "being" rather than an unknown impersonal cause. It's a humbling experience.

    But as Bishop Robert Barron stated in his interview on the Rubin Report, philosophy only takes you halfway there. Looking back, the existence of God simply makes sense and is a no-brainer. Faith doesn't have to do with "accepting that God exists with no evidence". Faith is about what you do once you realize that the existence of God is an inescapable conclusion of rational thought. What do you do once you realize that He exists and is conscious of us? You have to go beyond the impersonal, and engage, interact. Here's where prayer, the liturgical life and spiritual exercises come into play.

    Unlike conversion, faith isn't a one-time historical event, it's a daily effort on one's part to drive one's thoughts towards the infinite and the ultimate cause of everything. This requires individual effort, but it is not an individual venture. One has the entire tradition and life of the Church to guide you: selfless persons who dedicated their lives to help people like you and me.

    Here's how Feser, in his "Last Superstition" book, describes the various ways of conceiving of God:

    >To understand what serious religious thinkers do believe, we might usefully distinguish five gradations in one’s conception of God:

    >1. God is literally an old man with a white beard, a kind if stern wizard-like being with very human thoughts and motivations who lives in a place called Heaven, which is like the places we know except for being very far away and impossible to get to except through magical means.

    >2. God doesn’t really have a bodily form, and his thoughts and motivations are in many respects very different from ours. He is an immaterial object or substance which has existed forever, and (perhaps) pervades all space. Still, he is, somehow, a person like we are, only vastly more intelligent, powerful, and virtuous, and in particular without our physical and moral limitations. He made the world the way a carpenter builds a house, as an independent object that would carry on even if he were to “go away” from it, but he nevertheless may decide to intervene in its operations from time to time.

    >3. God is not an object or substance alongside other objects or substances in the world; rather, He is pure being or existence itself, utterly distinct from the world of time, space, and things, underlying and maintaining them in being at every moment, and apart from whose ongoing conserving action they would be instantly annihilated. The world is not an independent object in the sense of something that might carry on if God were to “go away”; it is more like the music produced by a musician, which exists only when he plays and vanishes the moment he stops. None of the concepts we apply to things in the world, including to ourselves, apply to God in anything but an analogous sense. Hence, for example, we may say that God is “personal” insofar as He is not less than a person, the way an animal is less than a person. But God is not literally “a person” in the sense of being one individual thing among others who reasons, chooses, has moral obligations, etc. Such concepts make no sense when literally applied to God.

    >4. God as understood by someone who has had a mystical experience of the sort Aquinas had.

    >5. God as Aquinas knows Him now, i.e. as known in the beatific vision attained by the blessed after death.

    What I've been talking about is at #3. Atheists and creationists are debating #1 and #2. #4 is a gift to be accorded by grace, and is what people strive for in their spiritual life. #5 is the ultimate goal of the Christian life.
u/Friend_of_Augustine · 20 pointsr/Catholicism

Check out Pints with Aquinas by Matt Fradd. Haven't personally listened to it but his podcast comes highly recommended by a plethora of users here.

A good book that goes over this stuff, among other things, is The Last Superstition by Edward Feser.

Here is a quick and basic rundown of multiple arguments for God's existence with Aquinas's Five Ways in here as well. Breaks it down very well, in my opinion.

u/raoulduke25 · 15 pointsr/Catholicism

The Last Superstition is probably what you're after.

u/[deleted] · 13 pointsr/islam

> God without rational proof.

Take an intro philosophy class (just to get familiar with the basics), and then read this book:

Scholastic Metaphysics by Edward Feser. A very well-written book, explains how neo-atheists misconstrue Saint Thomas Aquinas' 5 ways, re-justifies them, and Mr. Feser, who is essentially a philosopher, came to being forced through philosophy to believe in God (he was formerly an atheist), expanding on Aquinas' 5 ways.

The Last Superstition is also a great book and very well-grounded through Aristotle's Cosmological Argument (different from Kalam's Cosmological Argument).


Here's a short intro to his book at this blog: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.at/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html

It's a really good book -- the first 50 pages are just him explaining metaphysical terms. After that, the actual book begins. As someone studying neuroscience & philosophy, I approve of his book.

>I consider myself a rational person.

Good, then do the above and get back to me. If you don't believe in God by the end of all of that, I expect you to justify your skepticism to me personally.

peace, bro

u/Underthepun · 13 pointsr/Catholicism

You're welcome! Another piece of advice I have is that while I firmly believe conversion is a result of grace, breaking down intellectual barriers to belief is absolutely critical for many atheists. I found I had a lot of baggage and bad history/bad philosophy in my overall worldview previously. I didn't know what I didn't know or believe in. To me, God was a silly, antiquated idea used for control and comfort. Things like classical theism, divine simplicity, act/potency, essentialism, forms, four causes...were either completely foreign to me or unintelligible.

The first part of getting past that was classical philosophy, as I previously mentioned. I don't just mean Catholic thinkers like Aquinas either (though he's the mastermind!). It was studying the metaphysics of Aristotle, the forms of Plato, Ockam's pre-nominalistic, how enlightenment philosophers shifted the thinking towards epistemology and metaphysics; that I think really broke those barriers for me. It turned out that the materialism, reductionism, naturalism, and empiricism that I took for granted...were not on the strong ground I thought they were. Indeed, philosophers like Ed Feser, David Oderberg, Peter Kreeft, GEM Anscombe, Roger Scruton, Bernard Lonergan, James Ross, and even Thomas Nagel (himself an atheist!) have been articulating strong arguments against those things for years. I never knew the power of logic, deductive reasoning, and philosophy. I took the view of scientism as the default truth without ever challenging it. But just knowing how strong the intellectual arguments are against atheism/materialism are, and for theism; has helped immensely in growing in God's grace. And that is to say nothing for my moral realism, courtesy of Alasdair MacIntyre and C.S. Lewis, that was the initial crack in my previous worldview.

For those of us who are more head than heart, like I suspect you and your wife are, this kind of deep dive into philosophy is a crucial aspect of conversion. If you can articulate the strength of theism and weaknesses of atheism from just a purely intellectual standpoint, you may at least get her to be more understanding of your shift in thinking. I think reading this book is a good start and that this one is slightly more thorough. Feser isn't the world's greatest philosopher but he is very articulate. This book of his helped me greatly in beginning to solidify and defend my own epistemology and metaphysics.

u/tom-dickson · 9 pointsr/Catholicism

There are two (or more) aspects to "proving God exists" - you could prove His existence intellectually and still not feel Him, if you know what I mean.

Books that deal mainly with the intellectual arguments abound, from the Summa contra Gentiles to The Last Superstition or Answering Atheism.

But that doesn't directly address the emotional side; for that I'd recommend things like going to Adoration and just sitting there, and reading books such as The Confessions (this is a good introduction).

u/thrik · 7 pointsr/Christianity

The Last Superstition by Edward Feser.

Feser used to be an atheist.

I'm willing to buy the book for you if you want it.

u/Sergio_56 · 6 pointsr/Catholicism

Ed Feser's books are great:

The Last Superstition, or "Why he's wrong."

Aquinas, or "Why we're right."

And Scholastic Metaphysics: An Introduction, or "As close to the truth as we can get without Revelation."

u/Ibrey · 6 pointsr/Christianity

The Christ Myth is a book from 1910 that argues that the Jesus of the gospels is just a made-up character based on other mythical gods and heroes, and that there is no historical person behind it. This hypothesis is really out of date, and not defended by anyone in academia today. A good book debunking this by a respected mainstream historian, who isn't even a Christian (and therefore can't be accused of a religious bias), is Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman.

The End of Faith and The God Delusion are basically empty rhetoric. The Last Superstition is a book by a Christian philosopher rebutting their arguments with the same harsh and satirical tone they take towards religion, but with rather more intellectual substance.

u/ur2l8 · 6 pointsr/Christianity

Of course.

Aquinas

The Last Superstition

His blog (check out his latest blog post, actually, and read (or listen to) his speech)

Philosophy of Mind - not directly related to religious belief, but gives background to understand some of the inconsistencies in an atheistic worldview

u/jared_dembrun · 5 pointsr/Christianity

So I only saw one other guy give you apologetics material, and another person made the point that life is pointless if there is no God (which I agree is true).

But you're asking for intellectual material.

I would start with Dr. Edward Feser's Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide). It's $12 paperback on Amazon, $5 on kindle if you have a kindle-enabled device.

After this, if you find yourself convinced, I would go with The Last Superstition by the same man, for $15 paperback on Amazon or $12 on kindle.

Next, you can read excepts from the Summa Theologiae at your leisure for free on http://www.newadvent.org/summa/.

If you're very intellectual, Ed Feser's book Scholastic Metaphysics can really get you into Thomism after you've done the above, or you can pick up some MacIntyre.

u/GregoireDeNarek · 5 pointsr/Christianity

A recent work by David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God is well worth reading (it is more philosophical than its title lets on).

Ed Feser's The Last Superstition is good and I would also recommend his Scholastic Metaphysics.


u/elAntonio · 4 pointsr/samharris

Like a week ago Ben recommended this book on his podcast. Preparing for this upcoming podcast maybe?

u/Bounds · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

> I'm looking for reading material, lectures, anything that can help me in my journey back to the church.

I believe that the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, will be the greatest help to you. In the sacraments we encounter Jesus, instead of simply learning about him. Learning is important too, of course.

That said,
more (free) lectures than you can shake a stick at:
https://instituteofcatholicculture.org/

Some spiritual reading (Paid):

How to Resist Temptation A short book that does an excellent job of clearing up some common misconceptions about temptations and how we respond to them.

The Last Superstition A polemical book, which can be off-putting to a meek soul, but it provides a very accessible explanation of the philosophical framework of the Church.



Some spiritual reading (Free):
Story of A Soul The story of St. Therese of Lisieux's "little way," which saw her promoted to be a doctor of the Church.

The Practice of the Presence of God Brother Lawrence describes his spirituality, which involved being in constant prayer.

The Great Divorce A gentle, fictional introduction to Purgatory.

Is there a specific topic you want to read more about?

u/Aelstome · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

The Last Superstition by Edward Feser

u/I_aint_creative · 4 pointsr/Christianity

For the existence of God and the philosophical arguments for such, Ed Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God or his The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism.

For the Christian life, C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity gives a great treatment of what the Christian life is about.

I typically also recommend Bishop Barron's videos to people (they're a little under 10 minutes each):

Aquinas's argument from motion for the existence of God

How to read Genesis

Christianity and ethics

u/Hurrah_for_Karamazov · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

The Last Superstition. It's the book you are looking for.

u/wowzers4242 · 4 pointsr/milliondollarextreme

empiricism implies that we cannot trust our brains. it eventually leads to reductionism (IMO) which implies everything can be (objectively) be boiled down to numbers as a final truth. its a very toxic and very new idea. when numbers become truth it has no other option but to turn society away from God (an atheist society is weak and foundationless) if you are really interested more about my viewpoints on this heres some reading that explains some of it better than i ever could:

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysical-Foundations-Modern-Science/dp/0486425517


https://www.amazon.com/Technological-Society-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394703901

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525

https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political-Control/dp/1587314657 (this one is slightly less relevant but does go into how often empirical science's end goal is looking at humans as machines and how that is dehumanizing and controlling)

https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Against-Modern-World-Julius/dp/089281506X

https://www.amazon.com/Technological-Slavery-Collected-Kaczynski-k/dp/1932595805/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=11DZHECERPHPBMFXWJKR

u/datanalogy · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

It's good that you're considering both the material and immaterial aspects of that with which you're surrounding yourself.

In addition to Kreeft (whose books I've also found helpful, btw), I highly recommend Edward Feser's blog and books.

Feser is a Catholic philosopher who writes about religion, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, ethics and a lot of other things from a traditional perspective, and he's really well informed on modern thought and culture (his background is in analytic philosophy). His style is really fun but his arguments are rigorous.

I'd say more, but this is already starting to read like an advertisement...

I just can't stress the importance of being well informed on the intellectual merits of the Catholic faith (and theism in general) when studying at a secular environment. A lot of the intellectual attacks against our faith will instantly lose their efficacy when we realize that the people making them have no idea what they're criticizing.

u/EcclesiaFidelis · 3 pointsr/DebateReligion

This objection you've brought up is not new. For a detailed introduction to Classical Theism, I would recommend Edward Feser's The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. Feser also has a post on his blog that talks about this, although the post assumes the reader already knows some fundamentals of Classical Theism that you may not know.

Another good thing to check out is this blog post on the Aristotelian Argument for the Existence of God. In short summary, if we admit that there is an "unmoved mover" or purely actual actualizer that sustains everything in existence at any given moment, then we must also attribute what Scholastics have called the "divine attributes" to it - that is, it is immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient. The arguments for why this is the case build upon each other and take a lot of reading to understand, so that's why I recommend checking Feser's books out, since he often writes with an atheist crowd in mind.

If we work from the Scholastic conception of God, that rules out many possible religions, such as paganism or Eastern religions like Hinduism. It doesn't, though, prove that there is any divine revelation, however looking at the attributes which we can philosophically discover about God, the only revealed religions that make the most sense are Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Deism could also be an option, although it depends on which variation you're talking about (the clockwork god of the Enlightenment thinkers would not fit make sense in a Scholastic framework). From that point on, I would say only other kinds of evidence, whether historical or experiential or otherwise, can bring one to believe that God has revealed Himself somehow.

u/kzielinski · 3 pointsr/DebateReligion

Your example suggest that you don't understand what the unmoved mover argument is about at all. Its not about how the universe started, but rather why change is possible at all.

Try reading this book, in between ad hominem attacks against prominent atheists, Feser actually explains the Unmoved mover argument very well.

u/Midwest88 · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

Fuentes is good for some things, like fighting SJW's. He's well-meaning when he defends his Catholic faith, but definitely isn't that competent at it. He's more well-read on political philosophers (he even states this in his earlier vids), so like many, many young Catholics he has a lot to learn about his face on a philosophical and theological standpoint to better understand and defend it. This is not to say that he isn't worth listening to, just to be aware of his strengths and what he needs to work on (of course what's stated above is my own observation; you may think differently).

I haven't read every comment directed to you, but if it hasn't been listed I'd say look at these to become a staple in your "spiritual warfare toolbox":

  • Purchase a rosary. I got mine at ruggedrosary.com. Learn how to say the rosary and try to incorporate it every week for a month then daily the next (like a spiritual/praying workout). Get it blessed by your local priest.
  • Purchase a scapular (various colors means different things). Get it blessed by your local priest.

    Books/Lit (if you have the funds):

  • Bible (I suggest the Douay-Rheims or Knox translation)
  • Baltimore Catechism
  • The Last Superstition by Ed Feser

    Also, read/listen to stories about atheists who turned Catholic:

  • John C. Wright
  • Leah Libresco
  • Holly Ordway
  • Jennifer Fulwiler
u/bslorence · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

I discovered classical philosophy, which is to say the system of thought developed by the greatest of the pre-Christian, pagan thinkers of Greece (principally Plato and Aristotle), and refined and recruited into the service of theology by the greatest Christian theologians (principally St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas).

This system of thought was largely a given in the West in general until about the 17th century, and remains a given in much Catholic theology. It posits a basic metaphysics (i.e., a set of fundamental philosophical principles) without which it is exceedingly difficult to make much sense of anything at all. These principles are not simply asserted but rather are the result of a long tradition of careful reflection and refinement.

Among many other things, the classical philosophical tradition holds that three things quite pertinent to religion can be known with certainty by reasoned argument: (1) the existence of God, (2) some of God's attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and eternity, and (3) the immortality of the soul.

If you spend some time reading Edward Feser you can get a fantastic and easy-to-read layman's introduction to classical philosophy. In particular he has two books for beginners, one non-snarky and one quite snarky.

u/luvintheride · 3 pointsr/DebateReligion

Thanks for saying so. First, Intellectually for skeptics to go from non-belied to from/theism, Dr. Ed Fesers books are a great start. Particularly this one.

The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1587314525/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_HPddAbGK6PB6R

The book goes through how superficial many arguments against God are. They are like speed bumps. If you slow down, you'll find they really don't stand up to scrutiny and are easy to get over.

Feser's journey was much like mine. He summarizes it in this short interview:
https://youtu.be/UaSSSst3JBo.

For Catholicism, Catholic Answers, Sensus Fidelium, Wcbohio, formed.org, churchmilitant.com, Bishop Barron, EWTN, AskAPreist, r/Catholicsm and many others. I was a total skeptic so I watched many debates which you can find on protestant channels like Dr. James White. Everything I found historically and logically supports that Jesus actually founded the Catholic Church on the office of Peter, with apostolic succession. Good ole Pope Francis is 265 down from Peter. Popes are servants, not rulers and there were some bad Popes in history. They never corrupted the official teachings though. The first followers smelled like fish and a few were former prostitutes. We've been making His church look bad from the beginning. One should focus on the Doctrines, not the sinners who run the Church.

u/kjdtkd · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

So what is your problem with it specifically? The argument itself isn't really a 'disproof' of God (indeed, it says so itself), but more of an argument against one specific argument for God. Now I didn't read the 25th point, so maybe this is mentioned there, but the DNA proof for God is essentially a rehashing of Paley's watchmaker argument. While some Christians do believe this, it is actually not based on the same philosophical grounds that Catholicism uses and is founded on. Edward Fesser (someone mentioned his blog already) is a good philosopher to read if you are really interested in this. Particularly, his book The Last Superstition covers a very basic introduction to this, and specifically talks on the flaws of Paley's argument, and how it isn't one that the Catholic Church makes. It's a good read, although I have to say it isn't very charitable to atheists (maybe rightly so, maybe wrongly so) and uses some pretty strong language against them.

u/lanemik · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

You're right to an extent. My view is that your husband is spouting the typical atheist mumbo jumbo that you find too much in here (and elsewhere). The atheist position does incur the burden of proof despite what the "weak" atheists would like to believe.

But that doesn't mean that one cannot come to a rational reason to accept that God doesn't exist (or most likely doesn't exist). Here is one such method:

  1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
  2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
  3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

    This is called the Evidential Problem of Evil by the atheist philosopher of religion William Rowe. This is not a rock solid proof of God's non-existence and there are other philosophical proofs that come to the same conclusions from different directions. However, you'll note that there are also no rock solid proofs of God's existence (though there are very strong arguments for God's existence). From my point of view, it seems things are at an impasse and one can find perfectly rational reasons to accept that God does exist and perfectly rational reasons to accept that God does not exist (and, further, perfectly rational reasons why we cannot have any rational reason to believe in the existence or non existence of God, to boot!). Confused? I know I am and I suspect a lot of other folks are far more confused than they either know or will admit.

    I'm a bit concerned that your husband has bitten off on the /r/atheism style of thought that are proudly (sadly?) on display in many responses to you in this very post. That would be a shame, but it's very common. I can tell you this if your husband has gone down that rabbit hole, there is no amount of arguing with him about God's existence that is going to change his mind. It'll only make him resent you and it will make him consider you stupid and he'll be able to make your life quite miserable. That's the fact of the matter, the typical internet atheist has a massive superiority complex and considers even the slightest wavering from the atheist dogma to be an indication of mental retardation.

    So how would I approach it? That's a tough one. NOT through anger or guilt trips (a la "you committed to a Christian relationship and are backing out without my consent") or debates. Maybe try a simple discussion. Hear him out with a willingness to really listen and absorb all of his thoughts on the subject. Just hear what he is saying and try to understand where he is coming from. That, at least, is a good start and it generally is worthwhile for any time your marriage gets a bit rocky. If you're lucky and if your husband is truly a good person, he'll come around to being open to listening to why you believe what you believe. So now would be a good time to start brushing up on that. From the sounds of it, your days of lackadaisical acceptance of Christianity are behind you. There are plenty of resources for you to learn about how a belief in God is rationally justified. Here are a few books and websites that you might want to start reading:

u/Chief_Stares-at-Sun · 2 pointsr/TrueChristian

The Last Superstition by Edward Feser is fantastic approach from philosophy.

u/youcat · 2 pointsr/atheism

I read his book a long time ago and thought it was great. I don't know what he's like as a debater but from memory, his book was solid. If you're looking to check out apologetics "from the other side", I'd also recommend Feser's The Last Superstition. I haven't read it yet but it's well-known in Catholic circles to be one of the best books written against atheism (tied for #5 on our sub's top 20 books). Someone also recommended this book to me recently, you might want to check it out.

u/stainslemountaintops · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Edward Feser is the author you're looking for. He's a philosophy professor who converted from atheism to theism due to purely logical reasoning.

You can read his conversion story here, it's definitely worth reading.

I suggest you either get his book The Last Superstition or Aquinas. Both are relatively clear and easy introductions to the proof of the existence of God formulated by Thomas Aquinas, along with the metaphysical background.

If you don't want to buy/borrow/pirate these books, you could also check out this lecture Feser did (he starts talking at 2.20).

If you don't want to spend an hour listening to the argument he puts forth, you could also check out the subreddit /r/cosmologicalargument, see here for an index of the posts explaining Thomas Aquinas' "First Way".

Of course neither of these last two options is an adequate alternative to reading a real book, but if you don't want to read a book, they're better than nothing.

u/arinter · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

I'll have to check those out. I would also want to throw
http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Superstition-Refutation-Atheism/dp/1587314525 into the ring as well as Reasonablefaith.com. I don't always agree with doctor Craig (his stance on morality is pretty lack luster) but I do think he makes a good defense of Christianity in general.

u/24v2v24vsvaxva · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Read https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525 as well as his other books probably (aquinas, philosophy of mind)

That book in particular I linked sort of starts off refuting basic Athiest mistakes and then goes into establishing the philosophical foundations of Christianity as a whole.

u/amdgph · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Alright here are some of the best resources I know as a Catholic. Hope they help!

Edward Feser's blog as well as his The Last Superstition and 5 Proofs of the Existence of God

Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

Francis Collin's The Language of God

Anthony Flew's There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Thomas Wood's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

Brant Pitre's The Case For Jesus

Tim O Neill on the Church and science, the Inquisition and the Galileo affair

Jenny Hawkins on Jesus and God, early Christianity and form criticism

Al Moritz on the Fine Tuning Argument

>There is a reason someone should believe in the supernatural and mystical aspects of Christianity. This is a large issue for me. Solely based on supernatural and mystical ideas, from an outsider perspective, Christianity is no different than animism or Buddhism. I can't have faith alone.

Well when you look at the world's religions, Christianity has a clear and impressive advantage in the miracles/mystical department. Historically, in Christianity, there have been numerous cases of Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, miraculous healings and the spiritual gifts and religious experiences of countless Christian saints -- men and women of great virtue whose admirable character only add to the credibility of their testimony. Examples of these include Paul, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Hildegard of Bingen, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Vincent Ferrer, Joan of Arc, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine Emmerich, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi, Genma Galangi, Faustina Kowalska and Padre Pio. We also have a pair of impressive relics, the shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Orvieto. I'll also throw in Catholic exorcisms.

And these Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions and religious/mystical experiences continue to happen today.

What do Buddhism and animism have in comparison?

>Anything that discusses and argues against some common tropes from atheists such as Mother Teresa being a vile, sadistic person.

Honestly, I'm quite stunned at the portrait atheists have painted of her. At worst, she wasn't perfect and made mistakes. She cannot be a vile monster like Hitchens claims she was, that's ridiculous. Here are some articles that defend Mother Teresa -- here, here, here and here.

Check out any of Mother Teresa's personal writings (e.g. No Greater Love, A Simple Path, Come Be Thy Light) to see what she believed in, what she valued and how she saw the world. Check out books written by people who actually knew her such as that of Malcolm Muggeridge, an agnostic BBC reporter who ended up converting to Catholicism because of Teresa and ended up becoming a lifelong friend of hers. Or that of her priest, friend and confessor, Leo Maasburg, who was able to recall 50 inspiring stories of Mother Teresa. Or that of Conroy, a person who actually worked with her. Or any biography of hers. Find out what she was like according to the people around her. Then afterwards, determine for yourself if she resembles Hitchen's "monster" or the Catholic Church's "saint".

u/S11008 · 2 pointsr/atheism

Might as well weigh in on what you should focus on specifically, as one of those philosophically-inclined theists. As for why you should-- given that atheism and theism are both within the field of philosophy, it'd be good to at least have a clear view of the evidence for both sides. I'll be giving books that support theism, since I don't know many that do so for atheism-- something by JL Mackie might help?

Before even engaging in the philosophy backing theism, it'd be good to get some background knowledge.

Intro to Logic

Metaphysics

Given that, you can familiarize yourself with some books on classical theism, attacks on naturalism/physicalism/materialism, and specifically attacks on materialism of the mind.

The Last Superstition

Aquinas

Philosophy of the Mind

All three of those are by the Catholic philosopher, Edward Feser. I usually argue for theism, or against materialism, based on his books.

u/Theoson · 2 pointsr/CatholicPhilosophy

For a slightly challenging but enjoyable assessment of Thomist philosophy read "The Last Superstition" and/or "Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide." They're both by an extremely intelligent Thomist, Edward Feser.

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469425497&sr=1-1&keywords=the+last+superstition

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908

u/P1Hornet · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I'm not a philosopher and I have aspergers so articulating thoughts is not my forte at all. The best thing I can do for you is point you to Edward Feser's blog and these two books Aquinas and The Last Superstition. I'm really sorry I can't personally explain it to you. I really wish I could. Also if you do end up buying the books then for the love of all that is Holy please do not buy the Kindle editions. You HAVE to reference the footnotes and it is really difficult to do so on a kindle. I'm probably going to end up buying the paperbacks here soon because of that. Again, I apologize for just throwing you to some books.

u/polychaos · 1 pointr/Catholicism

See the following books:

Ed Feser's: The last Superstition

Trent Horn's: Answering Atheism

Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker's: Answering the New Atheism

u/RunForWord · 1 pointr/Catholicism

Hey, sorry I never replied to this! Aquinas is who I read, primarily. And the philosophers in his tradition who come after him. I think he probably presents the strongest arguments, but to consider them for what they actually are, you have to have a basic understanding of Aristotelian metaphysics. You're probably not looking for this, but I would recommend these books, in this order:

The Last Superstition

Aquinas (A "Beginner's" [quotes mine; not all that beginner-ish imo] Guide)

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction

The first one is a polemic, so beware. But it lays out a pretty decent modern cultural context for Scholastic metaphysics. That last one is especially good if you're interested in how science plays out in Thomism. The second one (and the bulk of the last one) though is kinda meaty technical stuff. But I think that series prepares you to understand the arguments of all different sorts of metaphysicians quite well.

It is a lot of work though. I won't deny that. It sort of pissed me off at first, but truth doesn't necessarily have to be easy to comprehend. Of course that's not to say that the difficulty of all this is meritorious or anything in itself.

u/Veritas-VosLiberabit · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

It doesn't contradict:

>1. An angel rolls away the stone from the tomb before sunrise (Matthew 28:2-4). The guards are seized with fear and eventually flee.
2. Women disciples visit the tomb and discover Christ missing (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1).
3. Mary Magdalene leaves to tell Peter and John (John 20:1-2).
4. Other women remain at the tomb; they see two angels who tell them of Christ's resurrection (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke 24:4-8).
5. Peter and John run to the tomb and then leave (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-10).
6. Christ's First Appearance: Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb; Christ appears to her (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18).
7. Christ's Second Appearance: Jesus appears to the other women (Mary, mother of James, Salome, and Joanna) (Matthew 28:8-10).
8. At this time, the guards report the events to the religious leaders and are bribed to lie (Matthew 28:11-15).

Moving on...

>I'm sure you've heard of the Odyssey.

The Odyssey does not include little irrelevant details like the one I have pointed out.

>Here's a fun link.

Oh, we're allowing links now?

Here's a fun one from an atheist PhD historian: https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/did-jesus-exist-the-jesus-myth-theory-again/

Your article excludes crucial details, for example (this is just pulling out one, there are many more errors I could if I wanted to devote the time) we know that the second reference in Josephus could not have been interpolated for the following reason:

>Since it is wholly unlikely that a Christian interpolator invented the whole story of the deposition of the High Priest just to slip in this passing reference to Jesus, Mythicists try to argue that the key words which identify which Jesus is being spoken of are interpolated. Unfortunately this argument does not work. This is because the passage is discussed no less than three times in mid-Third Century works by the Christian apologist Origen and he directly quotes the relevant section with the words “Jesus who was called the Messiah” all three times: in Contra Celsum I.4, in Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17. Each time he uses precisely the phrase we find in Josephus: αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου (“the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah”). This is significant because Origen was writing a whole generation before Christianity was in any kind of position to be tampering with texts of Josephus. If this phrase was in the passage in Origen’s time, then it was clearly original to Josephus.

If you have the time I would recommend the following book actually, it's quite good: https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443

Ehrman is an atheist scholar.

>I can see you are prone to ad hominem attacks.

No, I'm simply pointing out that your argument is incorrect because you don't even know what Aquinas is saying. If you don't know what his argument is, then how could you know that it has been "refuted"?

I would recommend the following book which provided me the impetus to convert from atheism to Christianity, it goes over that argument specifically: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1587314525

u/aquohn · 1 pointr/Catholicism

> What exactly is problematic with a normative paradigm that involves respect and civility?

There's nothing wrong with such a paradigm. There is something wrong with embracing and enforcing such a paradigm while disavowing normativity/morality as such. No-one's talking about religion here - the only thing we're discussing is morality. The point I'm trying to make here is that normativity just is morality - if you disagree, name one plausible difference between a normative paradigm and a moral paradigm - so a normative/moral paradigm that disavows morality/normativity is simply and plainly absurd.

>First and foremost only certain people are asking for your guidance on what is good for them in the temporal or eternal sense. I for one don't need or want it.

It doesn't matter who's asking for guidance. That does not make the matter any less true, nor divest one of his duty to convince others of the truth. If you see a man suffering the symptoms of a certain kind of poisoning and attempt to inform him so, him angrily telling you, "I didn't ask for your opinion!" doesn't change the fact that he is being poisoned, or make walking away and ignoring him the moral/"civil"/"respectful" thing to do.

>Religion is based on faith, which in itself is a beautiful thing, but can't be forced or imposed.

Wrong. First off, if by "faith" you mean "belief without justification" then I have no idea what you're talking about, since such a belief ought be called delusion. The justification for Catholicism is really quite simple:

P1 Jesus preached what he did, including claiming to be a divine messenger.

P2 Jesus performed miracles, witnessed by many.

P3 These miracles convinced many men to undergo great hardships and sufferings for comparatively little gain.

SC1 (P1, P2, P3) Jesus' miracles were divine, and acted as a divine stamp of approval for his teachings.

P4 The record of his teachings and miracles has been passed down through the generations by the Catholic Church, to which he has granted authority to interpret his teachings.

C Faith in the Catholic Church is justified.

Of course, for the intelligent and inquisitive, a deeper and stronger understanding can be had from the study of theology. Classical theology typically builds upon a metaphysical edifice that is quite foreign to modern minds. The Last Superstition is a good entry-level book that argues for an Aristo-Thomist metaphysics and shows how belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, and some of the moral conclusions you ridicule here, arise from it.

But as you can see here, belief in Catholicism - including the attendant moral beliefs - can be entirely reasonably and objectively justified. So I do not see the problem with believing and acting as though they were universally binding objective truths, since that is indeed what I think they are.

>You don't respect those disordered homosexuals. I get it.

No, you don't respect homosexuals. You reduce their identities entirely to their homosexual desires, so a condemnation of those desires is in your understanding equivalent to a condemnation of them as people.

I honestly cannot understand how such egregious doublethink can be maintained. One does not say that condemnation of a sociopath's desires and punishment of his resultant destructive behaviour is somehow fundamentally disrespectful to the sociopath.

>I personally think that a lot of those mental processes are disordered

The object of sexual intercourse is procreation. This is objectively the case, in the same way that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood or the purpose of the bladder is to store urine. Yes, you can pump a bladder with air and use it as a rugby ball but that doesn't change the fact that its purpose qua body part, objectively speaking, is to store urine. Likewise, the purpose of one's sexual faculties is procreation. To use them in such a way that this purpose is deliberately frustrated, such as using one's wife's hand to masturbate or attempting to ape sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex despite such activity being intrinsically non-procreative, is what we call "disordered", since it deliberately frustrates the purpose of the act.

I hope you realise by now that "disordered" is not just Catholic-speak for "wtf" or "ew gross".

In brief conclusion:

  • All normative paradigms are moral paradigms, and vice versa. Hence a normative paradigm disavowing morality is a normative paradigm disavowing normativity - a contradiction.
  • We hold our moral opinions to be objectively true and hence universally binding, regardless of other people's opinions on them.
  • (Irrelevant digression) Delusional "blind" faith is not the basis for religious belief, but rather an entirely justified chain of reasoning for most people, sometimes supported by a rich edifice of theology and philosophy in the case of theologians, apologists, and internet enthusiasts.
  • Condemnation of behaviour or desires is not equivalent to condemnation of people. Not an important point but bloody annoying when people keep making this claim.
  • There is an objective, philosophical reason for us to pronounce certain acts as disordered and hence sinful.

    I believe these points suffice for an answer to any you have raised in this post.
u/ToughPill · 1 pointr/Christianity

There are quite a few that come to mind right off the bat.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Superstition-Refutation-Atheism/dp/1587314525

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dawkins-Letters-Revised-Challenging/dp/1845505972

http://www.amazon.com/Illogical-Atheism-Comprehensive-Contemporary-Freethinker-ebook/dp/B00D19LIVW

The first is written by Edward Feser, and manages to explain the mechanics of the Aquinas argument from the First Mover while providing some of his own polemical broadsides in return to Dawkins. This book was actually instrumental in my own conversion to Christianity.

The Second is a series of rather friendly letters which were written in response to Dawkins book which ended up getting put onto the old Dawkins website before he shut it down for getting out of control.

The third is a longer book which focuses on critiquing all of the major New Atheist arguments. Great price it comes from the perspective of someone who isn't even necessarily arguing for Christianity- but is simply pointing out all of the philosophical and logical holes in the emperors new robe.

Those are just the first three that come to mind. Ask if you want something a little more academic.

u/DKowalsky2 · 1 pointr/IAmA

The original question didn't request a philosophical premise for God's existence. It questioned the definition of faith, and those are the two links I provided. The analogy of "knowing" someone through rationality vs. experience isn't Bishop Barron's proof for God's existence. For better discussion on that from him, you'll want to look here:

u/jz-dialectic · 1 pointr/Catholicism

I think you would be well off to read some solid theology and philosophy.

The Last Superstition by Edward Feser changed my life. Until I read this book, I always struggled to harmonize my faith with reason. Feser showed me how. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525
He also runs a blog: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/?m=1

Fr. Thomas Joseph White is a terrific teacher of the faith in the Thomistic intellectual tradition. His book The Light of Christ will explain some of the fundamental Catholic dogmas. https://www.amazon.com/Light-Christ-Introduction-Catholicism/dp/0813229715

u/DJSpook · 1 pointr/AskAChristian

You can't just assume that you don't have the sufficient means for coming to an intellectually satisfied faith in Christ by the time you die and then hold that against God. I commend you to read The Last Superstition by Edward Feser (one of the eminent analytical philosophers of religion today) for an excellent academic response to the "New Atheism" championed by secular figures such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris in recent years.

The essay therein is an incisive exposition of their arguments and his attempted refutations--a piece of analytic philosophy worthy of anyone's consideration, especially if they want to honestly pursue an informed opinion on the matter of whether belief in God is rationally justified or not and take God up on His promise to reveal Himself to those who will seek Him.

Additionally, I believe you would find the following resources helpful in your pursuit of truth:

The Absurdity of Life Without God

Archeology and the Historical Reliability of the new Testament

Another great article on the historicity of the New Testament by analytic philosopher J.P. Moreland

Audio resources by Dr. Timothy McGrew

An essay on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, explicated with the Bayesian Theorem of probabilities

All other religions can be dismissed as nonfalsifiable or for lacking an equally strong case, as analytic philosopher and NT Scholar William Lane Craig has said.

u/QuietBravePhantom · 1 pointr/Incels

Ohhh, I thought you were someone else. Anyways here read this

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525
(you can find an ebook version online easily)

TL:DR - Objective Good exists and it is God. This is proven and demonstrable through logic and reason.

You exist and you can become a child of this goodness if you so choose. This is fulfillment and meaning as a human being and we exist to enjoy this infinite Truth and Love. We aren't aimless creatures mere byproducts of chance but divinely created beings loved immensely.

u/mynuname · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Here is a good article on the topic. Feyer's book, 'The Last Superstition' goes into a lot of detail on it.

u/Dharma_Monkey · 1 pointr/Christianity
u/Holophonist · 1 pointr/dataisbeautiful

>I don't need to. The assertions is that a physical thing can't create another physical thing. That is demonstrably untrue. You're placing restricting characteristics, not me.

It's not that a physical thing can't create another physical thing (even though it would actually be a physical thing creating a physical thing out of nothing), it's that the werewolf, a physical thing, would have nowhere to be while creating the universe, and no time to do it in.

>If a wearwolf doesn't exist, it can be whatever definition I'd like. Just like your god.

No this is idiotic. The word werewolf has a definition. You can't just change the definition however you'd like. If you can, then the conversation is meaningless because you'll just change it to be exactly like god, and then we're not talking about werewolves anymore.

> I would need to know why you think anything is likely in order to demonstrate why my wearwolf is likely. You would have to present your argument for why god is likely to have created the universe. I can then replace god with anything, and the argument will probably not change, if it's any of the popular ones. To be clear. Any argument I present would be a straw man of whatever you actually believe God is. I don't know how else to explain this.

Wrong. What I have to do is show why a werewolf is less likely to have created the universe than god, and I have. You don't seem to have anything to say in response.

>It is informed. Not sure that infants have developed morals, but I'm sure you have a well thought out argument on why slavery and genocide are cool.

I never said slavery and genocide are cool, I said you have an infantile understanding of religion.

>They're equally likely within the context of an argument for the likelihood of any being creating a universe. I personally don't think the likelihood of either is even measurable. If you say god is likely, because of reasons. I could replace god with a wearwolf, and the reasons wouldn't need to change.

Yeah you keep saying this and it's not true. You get that you're supposed to be making an argument, right? All you're doing is repeating that they're same over and over, and not explaining how. Prove to me that they're the same likelihood. Why are you saying anything else? All you should be doing is proving that, or taking back what you said.

>If a being needs to be capable of creating a universe to create a universe, then that is the only characteristic necessary for creating a universe. Adding additional requirements only makes it harder to prove. My wearwolf can be both a wearwolf and have the ability to create a universe. That ability wouldn't make it less of a wearwolf. It could possibly be more likely, because the characteristics of a wearwolf can be found in nature. Whereas the common characteristics given to a god are found NOWHERE. So what seems like a bigger stretch? But again, if you assert that additional characteristics are required to be capable of creating a universe, the onus is on you to argue that assertion.

The fact that there were men and wolves in nature absolutely does not make it more likely that a werewolf created the universe, because NOTHING about men or wolves would indicate that they can create universes. In fact, we know so much about them that it makes it way less likely. God, being defined as an all-powerful metaphysical being is much more likely to have created the universe, because nothing about the nature of god, as is traditionally defined, prevents it from doing so.

>A omniscient god would know. Otherwise, we could start with any that is measurable and predictable, and work our way towards a reasonable conclusion.

An omniscient god would know what?

>I don't have an argument to present unless you give me your reason for believing a universe creating being is likely at all. Then we can discuss why a wearwolf is as equally as likely as a that being. I have no idea why you think what you think, and I'm not going to guess from a wiki page.

You're very confused. I'm not proving to you that god exists, I'm proving to you that it's more likely that god created the universe than a werewolf. The fact that there is a long line of argumentation for god is itself evidence, because there is no corresponding argumentation for a werewolf creating the universe. If you have some, feel free to present it. Since you flippantly dismissed the fact that I gave you a wikipedia page to introduce you to apologetics, here are some books:

https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509549912&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V2XKAWX4HD8JGV0KGHDZ

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V2XKAWX4HD8JGV0KGHDZ

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333

u/PlasmaBurnz · 1 pointr/Christianity

> Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. - GK Chesterton

It sounds like you're looking around for somewhere to hang your hat. Keep reading, watching, and learning.

u/FrancoWasRight_en · 1 pointr/Christianity

You should find an ebook of this sometime. It would help out a lot of your questions and conceptions about Christianity I'm sure https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525

u/haploid-20 · 1 pointr/Christianity

Hap hap hello there! I am a bot and you linked to Amazon.

This comment contains 1 pricing graph(s)

____

Product 1: The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (1587314525)

Imgur pricing graph

||Amazon|3P New|Used|
|--:|:--|:--|:--|
|Cur|$14.69|$11.55|$13.79|
|Hi|$19.00|$999.00|$121.42|
|Lo|$12.54|$9.28|$7.35|
|Avg|$15.85|$11.81|$9.61|

_____

^^I'm ^^a ^^bot. ^^Please ^^PM ^^any ^^bugs

u/Dice08 · 0 pointsr/politics

Not to be confused with The Last Superstition, I'm sure.


I'm not sure what the point of the focus on Evangelicals supporting Trump is. They obviously support him for things beyond his sins. Are they telling him his sins are okay? It's like the hefty criticism won't be satiated until Trump's Evangelical base falls away.

There is loads of reasons to not like Evangelicals and I'm against them for a number of reasons but this one seems overblown. The dominant political and social views in the group are well known.

u/slipstream37 · -1 pointsr/DebateReligion

I read Feser's first part and some of his second part before I realized he was just making stuff up. Then I realized he is a conservative and a Roman Catholic. Obviously biased. Then I realized he was an author and looked him up on Amazon. Finally, some people taking issue with his work. These 1-star reviews about his critiques on New Atheism seem to destroy the credibility of him. I don't want to get into a debate about any particular one, I read a couple and they seem to be consistent. I would be more likely to consider dualism if an atheist who was not biased towards it advocated it. Are there any atheists who are dualists? I always find that dualists regress into nearly impossible word choices and metaphysical arguments that only make sense in the context of addressing their confirmation bias when it comes to proving God.

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/1587314525/ref=acr_search_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&showViewpoints=0

u/SK2018 · -1 pointsr/Christianity

I can recommend some books.

For general theology:

u/Raptor-Llama · -1 pointsr/Christianity

I am in such a relationship at the moment. My advice: make it clear that marriage is not an option if you don't reach an agreement in regards to this matter, and set some physical boundaries. I hope you really love this guy, because these relationships are not easy. The level of physical intimacy between Christians and non-christians is quite different and you'll probably have to figure that out. I'm still trying to do that.

It sounds like unfortunately he's got a bad case of New Atheism, which is philosophically bankrupt. The people he's reading are routinely mocked in all serious philosophical circles by philosophically inclined atheists and theists alike. The question of God is not one which even in principle could be proven with empirical evidence. It is a question squarely in the domain of philosophy. If you want to give him a good dispelling of that give him this. At the very least after reading that hopefully he can come up with some better arguments.

I don't know what sort of christian you are, though I'm assuming you're a protestant. I have had the honor of witnessing several non-religious people began converting to Christianity recently. In my experience at least they tend to go for more of the High Church, Eastern Orthodox, some Roman Catholic, perhaps even some Anglo-Catholics, though I personally don't know any. If he finds your version of Christianity lacking, and feels like he wants to delve into these things deeper, consider suggesting the resources of these churches.

I am not asking you to try to convert him, I don't think you should try to convert anyone. St. Seraphim of Sarov said "Acquire peace and thousands around you will be saved". But do not gloss over this issue. You don't want a marriage where you disagree on these things. Make finding agreement a necessity. That means either he converts or you apostatize. I wouldn't recommend the latter (unless it meant conversion to Orthodoxy!), but I don't know if you've changed your views in your past. My relationship exists in part because I did convert from something, namely Evangelical Protestantism to Holy Orthodoxy, and so I knew my worldview was subject to change, and my girlfriend also has had her views changed before. We are also both philosophy majors so we can pretend we're equipped to deal with these things. I do not know your situation, your grounding in theology, or your philosophical or theological background, nor his. If you are not well grounded this might be a great opportunity to learn more about your faith.

I wouldn't recommend sweeping it under the rug. You need to learn how to discuss this respectively (I've been trying to learn that myself), but this has to be a conversation you guys have. If you don't it's going to bottle up and lead to problems later. You don't have to talk about it all the time, and that's difficult to do, but don't totally avoid talking about your faith. It's a tough thing to do but it's necessary.

God bless, it's a difficult thing but speaking for my own case, it's worth it. You have to examine your case and see if it's worth it for you though. This is a very difficult situation. All I'd say is don't take it lightly.

u/MediocreEconomist · -2 pointsr/coaxedintoasnafu

Well for one thing they don't believe in a literal bearded old man in the sky. But if you're actually interested, you should probably read some books written by intelligent, well-educated religious people that address exactly these sorts of issues. The Catholic philosopher Edward Feser's book The Last Superstition is a good place to start.

u/tantaemolis · -5 pointsr/atheism

There are lots of arguments for God’s existence. Edward Feser is a good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525

He has a blog, too: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/?m=1