(Part 2) Best philosophy of religion books according to redditors
We found 914 Reddit comments discussing the best philosophy of religion books. We ranked the 187 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?
It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:
Colin Howson – Objecting to God
George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God
Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods
Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God
Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science
J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism
J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt
Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism
Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God
Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God
Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism
Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion
Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil
[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0827609086)
Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted
Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus
Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?
Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels
John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary
John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography
Karen Armstrong – A History of God
Mark Smith – The Early History of God
Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?
Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?
Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age
Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus
In general, academic philosophy of religion is dominated by theistic philosophers, so there aren't many works defending atheism and atheistic arguments in the professional literature.
But there are still a few notable books:
I didn't add him because others have already mentioned him, but everything written by Graham Oppy is fantastic IMO. He is maybe the leading atheist philosopher in the field of philosophy of religion. A good place to start with his writings is his 2013 paper on arguments for atheism.
> "Agnostic Atheists": If You Have to Constantly "Correct" How People Use the Words "Atheist" and "Agnostic" Then Its Your Definitions That Are Problematic, Not Theirs
OP, its_not_ibsen, is appears that you are telling me that when I self-describe via the label agnostic atheist, and then when you tell me that I am claiming that Gods do not exist - my response pointing out that I use the phrase to mean a position of non-belief or lack of belief in the existence of Gods (as a result of the continuing lack of a credible and supportable proof of the claim that God(s) exist by Theists where the "proof" provided is no better than the level of reliability and confidence threshold of a conceptual possibility, an appeal to emotion, wishful thinking, the ego-conceit that highly-subjective mind-dependent qualia-experience of self-affirmation that what "I know in my heart of hearts represents Truth" supports a mind-independent actually credible truth or fact value, and/or Theistic Religious Faith (for Theism-related claims), and/or that any logical argument that is presented fails to be shown to be both logically true and irrefutable and also shown to be factual true to the above the significance level identified above, even though the the consequences of the actualization of this God(s)/supernatural construct, or proof that God(s)/supernatural construct does exist, and associated claims, is extraordinary and justifies an extraordinary level of reliability and confidence) can be dismissed because:
'1. You say so
'2. Definitions used in academia source back to the definition of atheism was developed concurrently and conjointly with with the early Schools of Psychological thought. During the 1570s and 1580s, the word "athéisme" was introduced to the French language, and was used in the sense of “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God” and used as semantically loaded language as a pejorative and/or insult. This tradition of using atheist/atheism as an insult continued within the English language ("atheist," "atheism"), especially in the 15th - 17th centuries where being labeled an atheist was to be considered an infidel or heretic where the result was often torture or death. In the 18th and 19th centuries when Christianity was enjoying tremendous popularity in the English speaking world, and when many common words were formally defined as they are used today, "atheist" and "atheism" was still used as an insult and the propagation of the definition of an atheist as one that claimed that God (usually the God of Christianity) did not exist was rather useful for the right-thinking Christian to argue and to maintain their position of moral superiority and righteousness against belief in the one True God and as a 'tradition' are maintained and slow to be modified to reflect changing discourse
and
'3. Definitions used in popular culture, an appeal to popularity, that are strongly influenced by the traditional pejorative usage of atheist as not believing in the God(s) that obviously exists must be more correct than that explicitly stated by the person actually presenting the term/phrase and the definition attached therein.
Really?
From:
[A good reference OP, if you are actually interested in how "atheist/atheism" has been used over the centuries - instead of just sitting on your high horse named Sanctimonious Piety to rag at a group of people.]
The Discourse concludes with:
"To conclude, then, we might resolve that employing a discursive analysis to the study of Atheism is effective on two levels: first, on the level of the subjects under our investigation, it alleviates the need to define the term prior to our examinations, granting us the methodological epoche or agnosticism necessary to carry out an objective inquiry; and second, it deconstructs our own internal discourse so as to further remove any subjective influence, not only in broadening what we might engage with as data, but in how we perceive our subject’s construction of identity with terminology we did not in some way ‘give’ to them. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this removes the temptation to construct our own terminology, infecting our subjects with language created for our own benefit and thus further removes us from the discourse that promotes even more precarious notions such as ‘ir-religion,’ ‘un-belief,’ or ‘non-religion.’"
and
"The precise definition of atheism is both a vexed and vexatious issue." "Even from it's earliest beginnings in Greek and English, however, atheism/atheotés admitted of a variety of competing, and confusing, definitions - often bearing no strict relationship to it's strict etymology." "Even today, [], there is is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term [atheist/atheism] should be used." Source:
With the breadth and variance of the definitions and usages of various identifier terms used over the centuries, if there is ambiguity within the term/phrase as used by a person, ask the person what they mean when they use the term/phrase and use that definition (instead of standing by and saying "na uh, blah blah blah means this, and I don't have the intellectual maturity or integrity to adjust my thinking to your actual position/belief").
>matter came from nothing or always existed, something would have to act on it in order to create motion in the first place
There is no indication that anything "came from nothing." And Aristotle didn't know about inertia, nor did he know that there is energy even in 'empty' space, nor did he know about the forces of nature, such as gravity, the weak/strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetic force. There are ample candidates to explain motion without needing a prime mover.
>throughout time and across culture, and almost always find similarities.
Yes, because throughout time and cultures there are common themes and problems in the human situation. Birth, death, fear of the unknown, the vicissitudes of life. A world to attempt to explain and attempt to influence.
> looking at the stars and creating complete myth cycles based on fabrication would almost guarantee death.
No, just the opposite. Anthropomorphism is built into us, and there are evolutionary reasons for this. Inferring conscious agents all around us is just a subconscious heuristic, a strategy for dealing with an uncertain world. That starts as belief in magic, but as the circle of 'explanation' gets bigger it extends to religion as well.
People like stories, narratives. Narratives make the world more understandable, less threatening. If we can't find a real explanation, our mind start making up stories, spontaneously, to make sense of what we've seen. If the myth cycles provided comfort, social cohesion, inspiration, etc then the creation of the stories would have been evolutionarily adaptive, even if they were just made up.
>We also are psychologically inclined to believe in deities or to view the world as magical...
Yes, because of anthropomorphism. Magic is the intuitive, default way of viewing the world. This is a built-in cognitive bias.
> and mysterious
To "view the world as mysterious" just means there are things in the world we don't know. Rationalists too acknowledge that. We just don't romanticize ignorance, or think that not knowing is somehow deeper or more beautiful.
> we simply condition ourselves to be rational and materialistic through education and culture.
Yes, we learn. Rationality and the looking for material causes is what actually works. The methods are less comforting, and they are more difficult to learn and apply, and they go against our intuitive, default tendency to default to magical, mystical 'explanations.' But they are also more effective. Magic didn't give you your computer, nor did it cure smallpox or get us to the moon. Rational thinking and the looking for material causes and explanations actually works, and allows us to learn more about the world around us. That's the point.
>When it comes to psychology I like to think the less biased and corrupt stance is likely the original, natural, "correct" one.
It's not "correct" if it has shown itself less effective than rationality and the search for material explanations. It was the default one because it was all we had. The magical, mystical explanations were also attempts at explanation and manipulation of the world. Hence ritual, worship, offerings, prayer. So magic is a failed science.
>We also have thousands of studies showing the benefits of religious beliefs and practices
Meditation works, but that can be easily divorced from religious belief. People find religion comforting, but that doesn't mean the religious claims are true. Placebos are also comforting, but we call doctors unethical when they use them. Gone are the days when defaulting to magical explanations were good enough and did no harm. Now the tendency to believe in magic and 'woo' crowds out scientific explanations, on which our technological society is utterly dependent.
>Even the placebo requires you to literally take something for it to work.
No, you also have to be lied to. If the doctor just puts a big tub of clearly labeled sugar pills by the bedside and says "take however many you want--it's just sugar anyway" the efficacy goes away. What placebos reveal is how psychological, or even psychosomatic, pain sometimes is. But if you're trying to learn about the world out there, "feeling better" isn't really the point. If you're not talking about trying to learn about the world, then we shouldn't try to portray the magical/mystical 'spiritual' methods as anything but self-comfort. We don't have to pretend they're true. Let's just call them comforting and stop pretending they're true.
> I have had personal experiences that I simply cannot deny anymore
We all have personal experiences. All experiences are interpreted. You can engage an interpretation critically, see if you've jumped over more prosaic explanations first, or you can just default to magic/mysticism and then characterize all attempts at critical evaluation as people "dismissing" your experience.
>The ability to almost step outside of nature and look in on it should not have developed as a part of mere nature
I don't see nature as "mere." But I also consider our minds, our brains, to be part of nature. The difference may be that you seem to look down on nature (hence the denigrative 'mere') and consider your intellect to be 'above' that. I do not.
> there is also the Form of the first consciousness that could look around itself and interact with matter, just like we can thanks to the human psyche.
Almost all life "interacts with matter," by responding to stimuli, seeking mates (where applicable) and food, avoiding predation, etc. Some other animals, such as octopi, dolphins, and of course some other apes, are thought to have some degree of interiority. Some people even think some birds have interiority.
Some stuff that's important in contemporary analytic phil religion:
The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie
God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga
God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga
The Coherence of Theism by Richard Swinburne
The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne
Can God Be Free? by William Rowe
Perceiving God by William Alston
Be a good friend and neighbor. Be open about your faith, but not pushy or evangelical. Use your own life as an example of Christian living and compassion. Use rational explanations, and acknowledge when something needs to be taken on faith (ex: because Catholics define love in the way they do [the faith bit, although there is certainly plenty of reasoning still involved], their views on abortion, contraception, etc. follow naturally.) Readily admit there are things you don't know (but could look up), or that you can't hope to speak for every Christian. Introduce him to other reasonable religious people.
I'll bet you're doing all this already though, in which case the most important instruction is: persevere. People's beliefs about religion are set very deep, and it will is likely to take years or decades to change -- imagine how long it might take you to convert your faith!
If you're interested in some arguments which might appeal to an atheist on why religion is not actually bad, check out An Atheist Defends Religion. There's a whole chapter refuting the notion that religion is the main source of evil in the world, and it's written in straightforward language, without a lot of the theological jargon that tends to exclude non-believers.
The one I like is a copy by Ramesh Menon written in two parts. He has also retold the Ramayan and the Devi Bhagvatam in his other books. Links to the Mahabharata on Amazon here and here.
I'd suggest beginning with Brian Davies' "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion or Keith Yandell's Philosophy of Religion: A Contemporary Introduction.
I'd also suggest looking into a philosophy of religion anthology. Louis P. Pojman and Michael Rea edited a very nice anthology. It includes selective writings on the ontological argument, the cosmological proof, the teleological argument, the problem of evil, divine attributes, and much more. Pieces of both historic and contemporary importance are included, ranging from St. Aquinas and St. Anselm to Samuel Clarke and David Hume — all the way up to Richard Swinburne and J.L Mackie. It's a very good anthology.
What's a more likely explanation, that the Book of Mormon is translated from an ancient record of a massive Hebrew civilisation in the Americas which somehow vanished without a trace given what we know about the evidence left behind by older and smaller civilisations, or that it is the product of a nineteenth century frontier American man's fastastical imagination?
What's more likely, that there is some spooky non-material "spirit" stuff that sounds like the fantastical stuff primtive people cook up to explain things that they didn't understand or couldn't cope with (oblivion), or that the human brain is capable of generating the experience of flashes of images or sequences sounds within itself, especially under extreme stress, and given that you already have experience with this property of the brain when you have dreams and nightmares, and you've probably in your line of work had to deal with all sorts of people with malfunctioning brains who have seen, and continue to see, all sorts of crazy shit they "cannot deny" because their inner mentally generated phenomena seems more real to them than whatever accurate information about the real world their senses are conveying to them.
Even so, it's can't possibly be "all for nothing". I suggest Ronald Dworkin's Religion Without God and Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death.
We don't know. There are theories. Like here and here.
Summary: To explain stuff we don't understand. To create community. To provide comfort. To distinguish my group from your group.
I know this isn't quite what you're asking for, but written debates are better for getting ideas across accurately and they are easier to study in detail.
https://www.amazon.com/God-between-Christian-Atheist-Counterpoint/dp/0195166000
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-God-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0631193642/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467461061&sr=1-3&keywords=plantinga+debate
The former is easier to read, and the latter is more detailed, sophisticated, and thorough.
I too have only Wikipedia'd :)
A pair of great epics that I have read and can give my highest recommendation are the two Hindu epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. They read like mystical, lyrical action adventure books, complete with haughty gods, cruel demons, heroic humans, lots of sex, violence, flying saucers, and battles that span hundreds of pages.
Two very recent books on this very question, with essays by philosophers:
The Mystery of Existence
The Puzzle of Existence
The definition (or, if you'd rather, description) that I favor is that, religion is a body of rituals used to constitute the group or individual's relation to the divine.
Okay, that requires a lot of qualification, and this may get a little technical, but bear with me.
First of all, it should go without saying that the divine need not actually exist for the group or individual to make an attempt to establish a relation to it.
Second, (working backwards) we should be clear on what we mean by divine. In most cases, that's something like a deity, but it need not always be. Nailing it down to a specific quality is difficult, and would probably require a pretty long explication -- something like Rudolf Otto's [The Idea of the Holy][1], although I'm not entirely sure his conception of the [numinous][2] really encompasses everything we need encompassed. Even if we look at non-theistic varieties of Buddhism, we find some intimation of the divine, be it karma, atman/anatman, or samsara. To balance simplicity and specificity, we might say that the divine encompasses anything held by a given religious tradition to be imbued with a quality that makes it ontologically preeminent.
As an aside, I should point out that divine doesn't necessarily translate into "good" or "perfect" or even "supernatural" (which is, as far as I can tell, a relatively modern dichotomy).
Third, I want to emphasize that the point of these rituals (which we'll get to in a moment) is to establish a kind of relation. We tend to think in terms of the sort of relations we know from Western religions -- "salvation" essentially describes a kind of relation that the Christian seeks to establish with God/Jesus; the Covenant is a similar, though distinct sort of relation between Israel and Yahweh. Nirvana can be seen as a kind of relation the Buddhist attains with reference to samsara -- the relation here would generally be described as "escape from", which goes some distance towards illustrating the diversity of relations possible. That also opens the door, incidentally, to practices that some theorists would consider distinct from religion proper, such as magic. Witch-doctors may, for example, attempt to establish a relation of control over demons or gods; the shaman seeks to emancipate his spirit-self from his body; and so on.
Fourth, I want to draw a distinction, with reference to relation, between constitute and establish. I use "constitute" in my definition/description because it seems to me to connote creativity, more so than "establish" which could be taken to involve a kind of patterning. While it's true that all religion eventually takes the form of a pattern (hence, "established religion") the basic act of religion is creative, often profoundly so. The more counter-intuitive a religious formulation (eg. "eat this bread, which is my flesh; drink this wine, which is my blood; this do in remembrance of me"), the more we're looking at a fertile act of creation. The repetition of such rituals and their dissemination to new adherents is as much reconstitution as it is rote.
Fifth, what do we mean by ritual? A ritual is a repeatable operation performed on a symbol or symbols. The best way to illustrate what I mean may be to point to a rather unorthodox example: PZ Myers' Crackergate. It is, in principle, repeatable; it consists of a particular operation; and the substance on which it operates is a symbol. The only way in which Crackergate differs from a religious ritual is that it was intended to deny divinity -- it was practically the model of an irreligious ritual.
And lastly, the preceding paragraph raises the question of what I mean by symbol. It's important to be specific about this, since we call lots of things symbols that wouldn't really fit into our definition. We might say, for instance, that a green light is a symbol for go, but that's not really the sort of symbol we have in mind here. It isn't enough that the symbol convey some meaning, in the way that a red letter A enclosed in a circle stands for anarchy. What we're after is an emblem, in any medium, that not only signifies some other thing, but also takes part in some quality of that thing. In the most basic sense, we say that each religion considers its symbols sacred. But the image of a Crucifix is not sacred in and of itself -- rather, it participates in the sacredness of the thing it symbolizes, namely the sacrifice of Jesus. We gesture towards the range of participation by pointing to, on the one hand, the care religious believers lavish on their houses of worship, and on the other hand, the debate over whether or not transubstantiation results in a cracker and some wine becoming the actual flesh and blood of Jesus.
Anyway... I know that was long and somewhat involved, but I hope you stuck with it. The test of those criteria, I would say, is this: Can we think of any religions that lack fail to fit that description? And secondly, can we think of any things that are clearly not religions that fit it as well as a religion would? For my part, I don't think we can, but I'm open to suggestions.
[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Holy-R-Otto/dp/0195002105
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous
I recommend two interesting books on this topic:
No.
The Oxford Handbook of Atheism
>Even today, however, there is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published in the last ten years:
>‘Atheism […] is the belief that there is no God or gods’(Baggini 2003:3)
>‘At its core, atheism […] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’ (Eller 2010: 1)
>‘[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’ (Martin 2007: 1)
>‘[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’ (Cliteur 2009: 1)
>‘By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean — a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’ (McGrath 2004: 175)
...
>Throughout this volume, by contrast, and unless otherwise stated, ‘atheism’ is defined as an absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods. As with most mainstream definitions of the term, it is simply the fruit of two basic decisions: the meaning and scope of a-, and the meaning and scope of -theism.
Well, it depends on what you want to study. If you want to go for religious experience, phenomenology, and epistemology, Yandell's "The Epistemology of Religious Experience", Otto's "The Idea of the Holy", James' "Varieties ...", and Alston's "Perceiving God" would be good.
For Medieval philosophy you really can't beat Aquinas. Since the SCG and ST are pretty hefty, it'd be good to start with Aristotle's metaphysica and physica (late late late edit: not just that, but read his works on souls as well as his other works). McKeon's "The Basic works of Aristotle" is an okay translation. There's a better one, but the name eludes me. After that, Aquinas' "On Being and Essence" is a must-read for metaphysics. Then either flip through the SCG or ST, or even better, find a companion for the two works (Peter Kreeft, Feser, and Sir A. Kenny are all decent). Beyond Aquinas, and a bit earlier than him, are Augustine and the Church fathers. I can't really say much on them because I'm not too familiar-- I fell in love with the Medieval philosopher-theologians before I converted, I didn't really pay much mind to those earlier than them in the Christian tradition. However, Augustine is usually the man I've heard recommended.
Beyond the books, philosophy papers between, say, Bergmann, Pruss, Almeida, et al. are wonderful. Almeida's "On Vague Eschatology", "A New Cosmological Argument Undone" (in response to Pruss), Almeida's refutation of Rowe's new evidentialist argument from evil, and his reply to Alston's skeptical theist response to Rowe's new evidentialist argument. Usually these will be followed by a response, and counter-response, etc.
For Oderberg, and in general for the Neo-Aristotelians, Tahko's collection of essays by varying neo-Aristotelians in "Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics", Oderberg's "Whatever is Changing...", and Oderberg's "Real Essentialism" are not explicitly Christian or related to the philosophy of religion (except the second, that is explicitly about the First Way of St. Thomas Aquinas) but implicitly related via the essentialists (particularly the Aristotelians) in the Christian tradition.
edit: Question for you: Which works of Plantinga? Also, by Zacharias, you mean Ravi Zacharias? I've never read much on him but I've heard he's okay. What is your take on him?
Empfehle zu dem Thema auch unbedingt Factfulness von Rosling: https://www.amazon.de/Factfulness-lernen-Welt-sehen-wirklich/dp/3550081820
​
Wohlstand definie e ich für mich indes nicht mit regelm Fliegen und/oder Fleischkonsum etc. - aber das ist halt subjektiv.
Happy to olbige! First, I am not sure if there is just one reason for my faith. I would say, rather, that there are multiple reasons. The most fundamental reason I would say (at least, it is the I always go back to) is the religious experiences I have had. These experiences can be feeling of the love of God during times when life gets rough, or they can be the feeling one gets when looking into the night sky and feeling the majesty of God. Moreover, I do think such experiences can support rational belief in God. For more on this, I highly recommend William P. Alston's "Perceiving God.". Alston is a terrific philosopher and a great writer.
Also, I think that there are some arguments for the existence of God that offer inductive (evidential) support for God's existence. A terrific book on evidential reasoning for God's existence is Richard Swinburne's "The Existence of God.". Hope this is what you are looking for!
Pretty broad question. If you want any meaningful answers you will have to be more specific. See the SEP article on existence. This may also be of interest, perhaps the introduction anyway. Book can be found here.
Ah, I see. I've only ever read his book Nihilism, and I thought he was pretty sharp as an observer of culture.
A more accurate way to state the theists' point: Atheism is idolatry. Worship of, devotion to, something that ain't God.
It's not a new idea. I think it runs through Nietzsche. Like, dig deep enough into anyone's ideas and you'll find hopes, loves, commitments, devotions, passions, etc, that are very faith-like, very much like "religion."
For a pretty clear recent statement of the idea: Religion Without God by Ronald Dworkin.
The Religion Virus: Why We Believe in God
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Virus-Why-Believe-God/dp/1482371006
Nihilism by Fr Seraphim (Eugene Rose), an Orthodox priest.
This book remains the most compelling philosophical argument against Liberalism (in my mind). Every time I think about the natural end state of modern Western civilization, I find the logic of this very short book inescapable. Many parallels to Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind.
It sounds like diving in with an introductory book will be fine. The links below include texts that would be suitable for, if not freshmen+, then sophomore+ students.
The FAQ post mentions these two: Davies's An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion and Yandell's Philosophy of Religion: A Contemporary Introduction.
In my undergrad, we used Mackie's book quite a bit: https://philpapers.org/rec/MACTMO-8
And PhilPapers recommends Rowe's: https://philpapers.org/rec/ROWPOR
The FAQ also mentions these, from the history of philosophy:
Plato's Euthyphro [A good translation: here, with commentary], Leibniz's Making the Case for God, Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Immortality of the Soul, and Kant's Religion Within the Boundaries of Bare Reason.
Some of these can be more difficult to folks who haven't read philosophy before, but everyone starts somewhere! And all those links are free, so there's no harm in taking a look.
If you want a more systematic compilation of sources, this anthology is pretty good (and unlike others doesn't completely ignore non-Abrahamic religion): Pojman, Philosophy of Religion - Anthology 7th ed
Doors of the Sea by David Bentley Hart
God without Being by Jean-Luc Marion
They don't necessarily have to do with your topics, however you can get some of the answers based on inference. The first one goes over the problem of evil and the second one goes over what one means by the term "God". David Bentley Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian and Jean-Luc Marion is a French Catholic Philosopher.
Care to explain what "standard Darwinian thought" is?
standard darwanian thought. evolution of morality is a process of natural selection. religion has it's basis in providing a moral order (necessary for survival as a cohesive group) which eventually stems out to sermonize against irrelevant things that make up 99% of religious thought.
on of these sermons is to attack every other moral order (religion) based, not on the legitimate 1% that's common between them but on the 99% that's pure fabrication, often exposed to be just another method of control that the powerful use to keep these religious fuck-nuts from concentrating on what's really important. the illegitimacy of power, thus snugly fitting into the definition of "the survival of the fittest"
books you can read about these (english)
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=pd_sim_b_5
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Science-Bertrand-Russell/dp/0195115511
http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Forgotten-Ancestors-Search-Who/dp/0394534816
books you can read about these in sanskrit: none, since it's impossible to translate anything form english to sanskrit. all dictionaries being flawed and all that.
Scientists often say that science is beautiful, that their discoveries are beautiful, or that beauty is one criterion when evaluating theories or outcomes. The problem with such statements is that it's entirely unclear to the uninitiated what this beauty consists of (if even). Additionally, it appears to me that one needs to be fairly knowledgeable to see that beauty. See also this blog post for both ideas: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/truth-and-beauty-in-science/
So in that respect, it appears to be an unreasonable demand to think that poets will write about the beauty of string theory, or new pharmacological molecules or whatever.
But anyway, it isn't strictly true. Philosophers have talked about science, perhaps not in the language of beauty, but otherwise words of admiration for a long time. Ronald Dworkin's Religion without God is a recent example, there's also a lecture podcast available: http://www.einsteinlectures.unibe.ch/fruehere_vortraege/2011_ronald_dworkin/index_ger.html
Another way to come at this, instead of abstract reasoning, is to learn the history of religions--how they evolve, what functions they serve in society and so forth. Then you see that the religion you were raised in is one in the history of these belief systems at a specific point in time, with no more validity than any of the others, some of which we think of as silly. The evolution of religion, Why Would Anyone Believe in God Breaking the Spell.
In other words, religion can be explained as a natural phenomenon, rather than because it is correct.
>Capital Punishment, anyone? Oh, wait, we still do it! Didn't we hung Sadam Hussein, not many years ago? We would have probably hang Bin Laden too, if he wasn't a friend of Bush and thus remains at large.
Really? I mean ... really? Did we hang Sadam Hussein? Nope, the Iraqis did ... after a lengthy trial. How is this comparable to, say, feeding Christians to lions? You're a master at false equivalences which is why you can say that ancient Rome had equivalent morality of modern day industrial societies without being so embarrassed that you have to delete your account and never use the internet again.
>Slavery in Rome is not a simple topic. It is interesting how people talk about Rome as if Rome was an empire that lasted like 5 years, and things that we common during its early ages remained common until its end. Do not forget that slavery existed in United States till late 19th century, and by the end of it, slaves were treated in USA in a much worse and harsher manner than they were in Rome. Slaves were expensive in Rome, and it was in the best interest of the master to treat them well. Slave rights in Ancient Rome increased steadly over time, until slavery was effectively abolished by turning into a system of serfdom.
facepalm So early Rome had slaves and later Rome had agricultural laborers that were bound by a feudal system to work on their lord's estate? Oh right, well that's totally like our morality today. My bad.
As for slaves in the US (and elsewhere), I'll argue that modern morality wasn't developed fully until sometime after slavery had been abolished (and no, I'm not suggesting slavery was the deciding factor). That is to say that victorian era morality was much worse than the ideals we set forth for our society today since they did not value all humans equally. Parts of the south still have this problem today; however, the vast majority of people abhor that racism and have taken steps to counter act it by enacting federal laws.
>This is incorrect, sorry. None of Galileo's findings provided any evidence for the heliocentric model,
Nonsense. You can deny it as much as you'd like, but Galileo's observations most certainly did provide evidence to support the heliocentric model.
> I see that you have stopped quoting the article, because the article directly contradicts what you keep saying. There was no proof.
Eat shit and die. I've stopped quoting the article because everything in it has been quoted fucking 5 times. I quote the relevant parts when necessary.
>The philosophers opposed him. The Jesuit priests repeated his experiments.
FTFA
>>one of the Jesuit scholars on the faculty, sympathized with Galileo’s theories, but was asked to defend the Aristotelian viewpoint by Claudio Acquaviva, the Father General of the Jesuits.
The Jesuits, as an organization, argued in defense of the Church doctrine against Galileo despite the fact that some Jesuits were sympathetic to Galileo's findings. Furthermore, it was, in fact, the Jesuits that Galileo was objecting to when he wrote Kepler:
>>My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."
> You're so ignorant of history that your only case of the 'church being opposed to science' is a myth about an event that happened in the 17th century. Given the fact that the church very much ruled over science for about 1500 years, if they were so opposed to science, you would have been able to point out a plethora of examples. Yet, the only example you have is a myth created by atheists about something that happened on the 17th century.
eyeroll Here is 272 pages that covers 4 centuries of conflicts between religion and science.
>A 'literalist, iron fisted, holy war fighting, heretic burning' Church that cannot be historically demonstrated to have ever existed. Another myth.
Just a second, I need to clean coffee off my monitor. Did you just imply that the Catholic Church was never biblically literalist, never ruled with an iron fist, never fought holy wars, and never burned heretics? Wow.
>Galileo dared write a book on theology where he used his unproven scientific opinion as a basis to reinterpret multiple passages of the Bible that he believed to be in direct conflict with his theory, and then publish it as true.
Galileo gave his opinion on how to interpret theology once the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was abandoned. He had to address these passages because they implied that the sun was moving across the sky and that the earth was not moving. The findings of the inquisition show that a major reason they found Galileo guilty was because he held the heretical opinion that the Earth was motionless at the center of the universe.
>Because you're hanging at straws to hold yourself to your dear myth, despite the fact that history wholefully contradicts you. Because you can't let it go. You can't admit being wrong. If you ever dared admit being wrong, it would shatter your precious atheist worldview where you can freely demonize the church for non-existent crimes and feel good and superior about it. You would have to admit that your circlejerking community lied to you, that you've been fooled by your 'rational' community that preaches skepticism to others but never to itself and led to believe in a lie because of this lack of skepticism. And that would hurt your little pride of 'never believing things without evidence.'
tl;dr: You hate atheists and are willing to sell yourself any lies you can to justify baseless personal attacks. Gotcha.
>Heliocentrism was never popular.
facepalm
>Kepler found that the form of an ellipse matched the data about Mars position...
Your opinion of the merits of Kepler's work has nothing to do with the point I was making. Go re-read if you can't manage to comprehend that.
>And you have Galileo and his own stupidity to thanks for that. Until he came and decided to go beyond his authority and become the new pope by rewriting theology, no one had any trouble with their researches. And if Galileo hadn't screwed up everything, no one would have had.
So now Galileo was responsible for the actions of the Catholic Church? Oh, okay. And are you now suggesting that there did exist contemporaries of Galileo (something you flatly denied previously)?
> The Jesuits repeated his experiments as soon as they got their hands on telescopes.
And then officially argued against his findings in support of the Church. White is black, after all.
>There was no evidence supporting Galileo's position that the Earth moved.
Keep telling yourself that.
>"if there were conclusive proof, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false." Which was exactly what Galileo didn't. He not only lacked conclusive proof (or any proof whatsoever) but he declared himself the sole arbiter of truth, and that the scientific community and the church were wrong, and that he was right, despite lack of evidence supporting his positions.
Wow, I think you mis-represented the meaning of Bellarmine's quote entirely. He's suggesting that the scriptures are absolutely right and anything that contradicts them must be able to be proven beyond any doubt and that any evidence, no matter how strong, should never be seen as contradicting the bible. In other words, exactly what I've been saying. Bellarmine wasn't interested in what the truth was, he already thought he knew what the truth was: the bible. This is exactly the charge that I leveled against Christians that started this entire retarded tangent in the first place. I can't imagine why you think this supports the idea that the Church was open to ideas that contradicted the scripture. Bizarre.
> Some "bizarre twist of reality"? Are you aware that Christians are being killed in Afghan and Iraq right now as we speak because they hold the opinion that Jesus died for our sins? Persecution is a constant on the Christian history. I don't need "a twist" of reality. It IS the reality.
You completely ignored my question. Try again.
>No, the issue is that he broke the law. The content of the law is irrelevant as the Church was the State.
It's relevant to the charge that I leveled in the first place: the religious are not interested in finding out the truth, they are interested in supporting what they already suspect to be the truth.
> Because he is a spineless coward that does not understand the fact that Christians are not supposed to compromise. Specially not for political reasons.
Whoopse! Inconvenient fact alert! Set your word phasers to wound!
>I am here to speak the truth and clear out those stupid myths that the atheist community likes to keep propagating. If that hurts or shocks you, so be it.
No you're not. You're here to get your jollies by trash talking. You're not interested in the truth. You think you represent the truth and everything else must be fought to the death. The great, the legendary LEHAN out to slay the idiot atheists! YARRRR! No Atheist can answer my questions! YARRRR! Edit: All you stupid atheists have avoided my questions! YARRRR! (an atheist answers your questions directly and at length and suggests you make another update to reflect that) WHY SHOULD I?!?! I AM LEHAN, YOU ATHEISTS ARE NOT WORTH MY EFFORT! YARRRRRRRRR!!!11!!!!
Read the one star reviews on Amazon
Dorothy called - she wants her strawman back.
First of all, that's not agnosticism.
Secondly, Huxley and Spencer's agnosticism made a fair bit of sense in the 19th century, but they've not aged well with discoveries on the limits of knowledge in the 20th. That is, you don't get the formally agnostic Will to Believe from James (inexpertly presented recently as Life of Pi) and get to banish Russel's discussion of the matter.
Note that the overlap between atheism and agnosticism isn't new, radical, or limited to reddit. It's reasonably well documented by both the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the recently published Oxford Handbook. The former should be required reading on the topic, you can view how the latter discusses this debate using Amazon preview.
Unter anderem, da meine Mutter hat möglicherweise die AfD gewählt, lasse ich sie diesen Test machen und schenke ich ihr das Buch: Factfulness: Wie wir lernen, die Welt so zu sehen, wie sie wirklich ist. Sie liest gerne Bücher auch wenn bisher keine Non-Fiction, aber dieses Buch ist gut geschrieben.
Daytime reading: God According to God by Gerald Schroeder.
Evening reading: Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen.
My husband and I also regularly listen to books on tape, usually of the C. S. Lewis variety. We practically have The Great Divorce memorized at this point.
I enjoy fiction and nonfiction alike, but it's gotta tickle my brain. If it leaves me feeling brain dead, I toss it quickly.
There Is a God
At a certain point, I just ran out of objective problems that I could fix to reasonably improve my quality of life, which was not good.
I realized my problems were not objective, but subjective, so I made it a goal to focus on the subjective, experiment, and try to understand my subjective interior world and it's relation to my objective and subjective condition.
What I learned over about 2 years, is hard to explain to a materialist. But I was once a skeptic, and I'm now convinced by direct experiment that my actions in subjective states do lead to objective results, although I cannot explain the mechanism by which that should be so.
And my quality of life has improved a lot!
And having opened up this world of possibilities, the occult seems like the best way for me to personally explore, since it's basically the best repository of subjective technology from previous generations.
I recently was recommended the book "The Flip: Epiphanies of Mind and the Future of Knowledge" by Dr Jeffrey Kripal which goes into the phenomena of eminent materialists who decide to adopt mystical viewpoints. It seems like that might offer a better and def better presented explanation of some of the angles that changed my mind.
​
https://www.amazon.com/Flip-Epiphanies-Mind-Future-Knowledge/dp/1942658524
I might be downvoted but forget the philosophy part; that is mostly subjective and they are like two sophisticated twitter trolls are discussing a never ending topic. don't waste your time by pondering on such fruitless texts .
However, if you really want to read some philosopher, my pick would be "bertrand russell", who was also an expert mathematician , especially the book of "Religion and Science" is right for your taste : https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Science-Bertrand-Russell/dp/0195115511 his other books are worth reading as well.
as for science books, just pick any richard dawkins book and continue immersing them . but if you lack scientific background, I would advise "magic of reality" : https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Reality-Know-Whats-Really/dp/1451675046 I can assure you that your perception of the world will totally change in a scientific way. this book is targeted for all people from 7 to 70, and although I have a science degree I learnt a lot from it. the language of the book is simple, yet quite effective.
also, you should watch richard dawkins's documentaries, I learnt a lot watching them, they are just as beneficial as his books; here, "root of all evil" is my favorite one:
I repeat, stay away from philosophy books, they will suck your passion and you will have left disappointed after reading their vague, and subjective, never-ending discussions. instead, lean towards science books written by atheist authors, they already cover enough philosophy when need arises. besides, these books are much more concrete than the abstract philosophy books.
They CAN be backed up, and there are several hundreds of books doing just that. My personal favorite is God According to God. So, they can be, don't you worry about that.
No probs. If you want a basic overview of CSR, this is good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqEgVSLkGE
Toward the end he addresses the issue of the atheist's fallacy by criticizing Stuart Guthrie's Faces in the Clouds but it is very brief.
http://www.amazon.com/Faces-Clouds-New-Theory-Religion/dp/0195098919
This recent book on the subject was pretty well-received. Unfortunately, it's also fairly pricey.
The Prosblogion, a philosophy of religion blog, reviewed each of the essays in the book, and links to each of the reviews can be found here.
There's a lot of possible answers depending on what sorts of philosophers you're into, so I'll offer one possible interpretation.
Heidegger sees the history of western thought as slowly but surely aiming for more precision, since modern technology and modern science are highly efficient ways of doing things. Precision and efficiency are great, but the problem is we often think that precision is the way to approach things. While it's great for things like engineering, we often want to force the data-driven model onto fields where it doesn't really make sense, such as religion or the arts, when these fields aren't trying to be precise. This is what he means when he talks about ontotheology, which is defining God and pinning down exactly what he is, but in the process eradicating the possibility of experiencing any awe or wonder during worship.
Jean-Luc Marion follows this into similar territory, saying that Nietzsche's statement "God is dead" really refers to the demands of metaphysics that turn God into a cog in some metaphysical system, joining a tradition of thinkers such as Pascal and Kierkegaard who find it impossible to worship the 'God of the philosophers.'
Sorry I took this in an more religious direction than your question asked, but I think that there's a significant overlap between the lack or respect for religion and the lack or religious reverence; we've demanded of reality that it be measurable and quantifiable, and in the process have lost our ability to experience it through other means, such as literature, art, religion and philosophy, since such fields don't always offer the same level of precision as the sciences (yes, I know some philosophers are very technical and precise, but I have thinkers like Kierkegaard and Heidegger in mind when I say that, largely because I'm a filthy continental).
Good sources if interested:
Heidegger - The Question Concerning Technology
Jean-Luc Marion - God Without Being
IMHO Faces In The Clouds, by Stewart Guthrie is a very interesting look at how sane, ordinary people, in ancient times and now, tend to assume that events are caused by (supernatural) beings.
>Since [for human beings] other humans and, after them, animals are the most important things in our environment, it is vitally important to take them into account when they are there — important enough that erring on the side of caution means accepting regular anthropomorphic and animistic "errors".
>The result is that our conceptual and perceptual schemata incline us to animism and anthropomorphism.
- http://dannyreviews.com/h/Faces_in_the_Clouds.html -
In other words, when something happens, human beings have a built-in bias to guess "somebody caused that".
We're frequently wrong about that, but it's more important for us to suspect conscious agency when its not there than to miss it when it is there.
This means that early people automatically assumed
- http://www.amazon.com/Faces-Clouds-New-Theory-Religion/dp/0195098919 -
- http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html -
It all depends on the goal. If OP wants to send a message, then choosing The God Delusion or God Is Not Great would certainly send that message. If OP wants a book that's a good read, both are still good choices, but now there're other books that are equally good choices.
The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, The Portable Atheist, On Bullshit, On Truth, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, The Moral Landscape, The Demon Haunted World, Religion and Science, and many others are excellent reads, but don't send that little (possibly unnecessary) jab.
There's an excellent book from an academic perspective dealing with the harmful bias in science against (the overwhelming number of) stories that don't fit the established narrative. I'm partway into it and highly recommend, it's called "The Flip" and features a ton of stories of scientists who have their entirely world views rattled (and are afraid of going public) after their own paranormal encounters.
https://www.amazon.com/Flip-Epiphanies-Mind-Future-Knowledge/dp/1942658524
Even from an Atheist stand point religion is very fascinating. Remember that it helps a lot of people find meaning in their lives and as trivial as it may seem from a point of view such as ours it doesn't preclude any merits.
There's a nice book you may want to look into called "An Atheist Defends Religion." I think you might find it interesting. It's an earnest defense of religion from a sociological standpoint.
Here's a link.
Exactly! The Religion Virus by Craig James explores this further, and much of what he writes about was previously laid out more generally by Dawkins and others.
I wouldn't worry about college; you'll be studying things more attuned to your interests, and you'll be surrounded by similar sorts of people. College is actually great for figuring yourself out for this very reason, since you'll be exposed not just to all sorts of different types of content and perspectives, but you'll also get some chances to go more in-depth on particular topics of interest, especially once you start taking upper-level courses that expect specialization. My favorite college memories are actually of afternoons in the library reading, taking notes and putting papers together. I loved this so much I've even started writing my own stuff post-college.
As for getting to know yourself, I'd recommend reading. Since this is the INTJ-sub, I know everyone here prefers things to be a bit more direct, and while I certainly read more nonfiction, I've found things like art, music, poetry, film and fiction are great ways to understand yourself better than any nonfiction work could tap into. I got into fiction via Joseph Campbell, a literary critic who himself was heavily influenced by Jung, and from there it was writers like Hermann Hesse, James Joyce, George Saunders and Olga Grushin that taught me things about myself that I doubt any nonfiction work could. This isn't to downplay the importance of nonfiction (Heidegger, Marion and Kierkegaard have all been huge for me as well), but since fiction and the arts in general don't seem as valued throughout reddit, I thought I'd throw that out there. Read.
> I simply don't see the value of religion. If you could explain what merits it has that would be helpful.
You have come into a place called /r/religion when you plainly say you don't see value in religion. I think you have started your journey in the wrong place. I am going to suggest you try this, a book written by an atheist that defends religion. I think an author like that will be better suited to your particular worldview. If that appeals to you then I would suggest you move onto books like Intellectuals Don't Need God.
The format of comments on the internet like this simply won't give you what you are looking for, this topic is much deeper than a Reddit conversation will allow.
Good luck.
>conflicts between science and religion
By religion I mean the texts that make up a religion - not the popular interpretations of those texts. (This argument works for Judaism, Christianity and Islam - it may not hold true for other religions)
So there are three possibilities:
So there is not really any conflict between science and religion, there is only conflict in heads of those who cling to dogma rather than use their capacity for reason.
You might find these books interesting:
Genesis and the Big Bang
God According to God
You might be familiar with some of this already, but I'm going to explain it as though you have no familiarity with this subject.
Philosophy of religion explores topics such as the existence of God, concepts of God, religious language, religious belief, miracles, and so on. Philosophyofreligion.info presents a good primer for the subject.
It seems like your primary interest is in the existence of God. Natural theology, although the approach of doing theology without the assistance of special, divine revelation, in philosophical circles is basically synonymous with arguments for the existence of God. Natural atheological arguments, as some have put it (i.e. Plantinga), are arguments for atheism.
Popular arguments for the existence of God would be the various cosmological, teleological, ontological, and axiological arguments. There's almost too many of them to keep track. Popular arguments against the existence of God would be the various kinds of the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, and attacks on the coherence of theism.
"The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" is perhaps the best single resource on arguments for and against the existence of God, although it is highly advanced. "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" is also a very solid resource. "The Existence of God" by Swinburne is classic, as is his "Coherence of Theism." Again, all of those are fairly advanced. Swinburne has a shorter, more popular level version of "The Existence of God" titled "Is There a God?" Stephen Davis also has a similar book titled "God, Reason and Theistic Proofs." If you're going to be reading Oppy and Sobel, I recommend reading their counterparts in any of these books above (barring the "Cambridge Companion to Atheism," of course), that way you have a good balance of perspectives.
With regards to the philosophy of religion a bit more broadly, William Rowe, C. Stephen Evans, and Brian Davies each have solid, brief introduction books. Michael Murray and Eleonore Stump have a more thorough introduction; Louis Pojman and Michael Rea have a great anthology; and William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, and Michael Rea have perhaps the greatest single resource on this subject.
Moreover, William Lane Craig has dozens of debates on topics concerning the existence of God (and other topics) available on YouTube. Here is a fantastic list of his debates with links available in the table. You'll see some popular figures in the list that aren't good philosophers (i.e. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, etc.), but there are quite a few very high caliber philosophers on that list too (i.e. Michael Tooley, Quentin Smith, Peter Millican, Stephen Law, etc.).
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Good luck!
This is a frequently asked question. See: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Here are some books:
https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Existence-Something-Routledge-Metaphysics/dp/0415624657 (reviews: 1 2)
Bede Rundle, Why is there something rather than nothing
Here are some papers:
by Inwagen which depends on arguments in this paper.
Conee
Here's a more accessible article by Derek Parfit:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/derek-parfit/why-anything-why-this
Dazu kann ich das hier als Lektuere empfehlen.
Das hilft zwar jetzt nicht direkt mit Erdogan on kreuzfahrenden mitt-50ern, aber es gibt einem eine gute Perspektive darauf, was wichtig ist und was nur Laerm.
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.
Call me what you want, but I really don't know if theism is true or not. I'm truly balanced almost evenly. You should read one of the best debates on this topic there is. The two sides are very closely matched.
I think I can add some pointers here.
If you want to believe in God, look around you. Although the argument for the intelligent design is old and beaten, it stills strike me a true. There is simply far too much complexity in nature to be all pure luck. You may want to read the most recent book by Anthony Flew. Although he is not a Christian (rather, he calls himself a deist), he argues a good point.
christian here: no, the base of my faith is not absurd.
i did (and still do) spent time searching and thinking, and reading etc. until i decide to put my faith on Jesus.
its not blind faith. think of it like this; its like putting faith that your chair you're sitting on wont break, after you did some shaking/testing. or you put your faith to your friend who always kept his promises in the past. like that; but in a higher level...
anyway, my decision in accepting christian God is after several logical process: similar process was experienced by CS Lewis (who was a brilliant professor and an atheist until his 30-40s)
lets talk about the main atheists statement: "there is no God"
to me,that is absurd:
how can time+chance produce the universe with its fine-tune constants, all matter and energy follows the same logical mathematical formula. what about DNA? which is information?
which one do you think more logical: you see a long coherent sentence on a paper, then assume an intelligence being wrote it; or assume it was a big random spray of ink on billion pieces of paper and somehow one of it produce a proper sentence?
or you think DNA was a product of alien civilization? (as mentioned once by richard dawkins). which one is more absurd?
read Anthony Flew last book:there is a God
fyi:Flew was one of (if not) the most prominent atheis thinker in modern era. he was believed to have beaten cs lewis in a debate.
he was a great thinker and very skeptic in his way of thinking, and I admire him for that.
On their early days, dawkins and hitchkens regularly sent their draft to Flew before they publish their books (thats why their latest books are not as good as their early ones.. and often badly criticized by the skeptic community itself)
in Flew's last book "there is a God", he said "i need to go where the evidence leads me" and that to keep believing that there is no God when all the scientific evidence convince you otherwise IS Absurd.
(no, he never -at least not in record- assume that this God is a Christian God. but he did ended in a conclusion that the creator must be an intelligence, a person. not just some universal force, and the judeo-christian-islam version of God is the closest)
My personal journey lead me to Jesus God incarnate. everything become coherent after that.
but this is another topic for another time
for you, start your should do your own logical journey to find out: is there a God?
PS: most probably Flew, CS Lewis, Francis Collins, Isaac Newton, Euler, Faraday, Pascal had a more advanced logical thinking than you. and they all believe in God.
> Anyone have a good resource or something?
Yes. Close YouTube. Hit the books.