Top products from r/ChristianApologetics

>Really? Is there a place I can learn more about this?

I can recommend this publication of Pascal's Pensees, which has an excellent overview of the scholarship surrounding Pascal's postmortem publications.

As far as the errors of Pascal's wager, you shouldn't have too much trouble searching for "atheist responses to Pascal's wager". Although some don't recognize the simplicity of the error (false dichotomy of Christianity vs. Atheism), their responses, generally, are quite correct. Pascal's analysis leaves out the opportunity cost of the risk that Islam or some other religion will turn out to be true, and thus his analysis is incomplete. Also, Pascal essentially begs the question of whether the Christian God really is good. Of course Pascal would take that for granted, but unbelievers can be understandably skeptical on this point, given that this God supposedly killed a whole planet full of people in Noah's flood, and then commanded the Israelites to wage a bloody war against the Canaanites. If it is not established and agreed that the God of Christianity is good, then the cost/reward analysis becomes entirely subjective.

The situation this has created appears to me somewhat like this: Christians perceive the intuitive force of applying game theoretical considerations to the problem of religion, and thus continue to push Pascal's Wager, which superficially appears to them unproblematic, as it represents the problem of religion as it appears to them. But, the problem of religion appears to atheists in a very different way, which makes the problems of Pascal's Wager very obvious in their eyes. In the end, both sides end up talking past each other.

I think my approach could, possibly, bridge the gap. Instead of looking at the problem of religion at the level of "Which of these 4,000 religions is true?", I take the analysis back to the fundamental questions of religions: "Does God exist? and, If God does exist, Is God good?" This amounts to a nested double-dichotomy, and thus a true trilemma. Game theory principles can then be applied in a consistent, coherent way.

>But if something is justified just because it'll make you happier, doesn't that apply to anything?

The fact that something will "make you happier" can only be considered one aspect of the total analysis. And not a very useful one, all by itself. Qualitative judgments like that are not super helpful, unless we have reason to believe that they amount to infinitudes of reward or cost. For example, it is not just that the existence and goodness of God can make me "happy", but that the happiness that that kind of being is capable of giving is INFINITE. Eating dirt might make you happy for an hour or so, but a good God can make you happy forever (at least in principle).

The reason this is critical is because, while it is difficult to compare qualitative elements (and a game theoretical analysis is essentially a comparative analysis), we can nevertheless easily compare infinitudes with finitudes. For example, it is hard to compare the "good" experienced in a moment of heavenly existence (being characterized by peace, pleasure, spiritual fulfillment, love, etc.), and the "evil" experienced in a moment of earthly suffering. Both momentary experiences will be qualitative and finite. However, because the "good" to be experienced in heaven can, at least in principle, endure forever, while on the other hand the sufferings of earthly existence are temporary, we can easily see that the good of the end outweighs the evil of the means.

Now, the game theory analysis is more complicated than that, but the principle remains in effect. Infinite qualities do beat out finite ones.

Did you read the blog post I linked? I tried to be very exhaustive in my analysis of the potential costs and rewards associated with the basic options in the trilemma of the problem of religion. You should see that my argument rests on much more substance than the mere fact that believing in the existence and goodness of God makes me "happy". At least, I hope that one can see that. Obviously, I am open to criticism on that count.

>Is there any known answer to this question?

Hehe. Not that I've found in my research. It looks like there is an epistemological gap, which cannot be bridged by the normal operations of science or reason. There are many proposed arguments on the various sides of the argument, and I'm still working through some of them. Feser's Philosophy of the Mind presents many of the currently and historically popular arguments from all sides, in what is intended to be a fair representation. This book is intended as an introduction, and might be a good pickup for you as well.

While I have "adopted", for the time being, a hylemorphic dualist position, it is early days for me, and this may become subject to change. However, as a personal testimony, it makes sense of things that have always been vague, loose, unconnected bits of understanding for me. As someone else represented to me, learning the A-T metaphysical worldview has been like going down the rabbit hole of Alice in Wonderland, but in reverse. The nonsense in my worldview is rapidly being exposed, and the coherence of reality seems to be coming into focus.

>I believe that they can but I'm having a hard time understanding how they exist. Probably in a more simple way. Does that make sense?

Yes. I think you have good metaphysical instincts.

In my concept map, connecting all of the concepts of A-T metaphysics, God is in the center as Pure Being Itself (as opposed to one being among many). Among the attributes of God which Aquinas proves through the ways of negation, causation... and something else having to do with the Principle of Proportionate Causality... is "simplicity". The attribute of simplicity took me a long time to understand, and I resisted the idea the whole time. But then it made sense.

The reason I wanted to resist it is because I thought that God being "simple" meant He had to be one thing, and one thing only; and by "things" I kind of meant the way I perceive things in the natural order. For example, I have intelligence and power, and these things come through totally different ontological pathways. Thus, in me, intelligence and power are two different things. So I took intelligence and power in God to be the same kind of things as they are in me, and thus took it as nonsense to say that God was both intelligent and powerful, and yet "simple".

That is where Aquinas' doctrine of analogy helps. Intelligence and power still exist in God, but in God, they are not different things from each other. They are still "analogically" like the intelligence and power that are in me, being not exactly the same, while also not being completely different.

These concepts work out so that God's existence just is His essence, which just is His power, which just is His intelligence, and so on.

Now, as we branch out from God, we find things other than God MUST have an essence which is distinct from their existence. It is possible to have both incorporeal things as well as corporeal things in this realm. But corporeal things will be more complex than incorporeal things. That is because the "essence" of an incorporeal thing will not include matter at all, while still having elements belonging to the concept of a "form".

And it is argued that the only kind of "incorporeal substance" can be intellect (and will, but will is something that follows from intellect). So, intellect belongs in the region lying between the perfect simplicity of God, and the accident-prone complexity of corporeality. And we find ourselves as bridges between the incorporeal and the corporeal: rational animals.

Aquinas is not terribly long. I think you would get a lot out of it.

Okay, this is still a very broad question, but one of the best experts to go to on this subject (in my opinion) is professor Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Wallace is currently heading up the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts where he and his team are compiling all known ancient manuscripts and digitally photographing and labeling them so that other scholars can study and read them online. In the process of doing this, he and his team are discovering a number of previously unknown manuscripts (for instance, a possible 1st century fragment of Mark that will be published in scholarly journals this year).

In this talk on the subject, Dr. Wallace mentions Metzger's thorough and extensive academic-leaning work Canon of the New Testament, and the cheaper, more popular level book Reinventing Jesus co-authored by Wallace, J. Ed Komoszewski, and M. James Sawyer. You might also be in interested in Dr. Wallace's New Testament: Introductions and Outlines where he goes into both critical and tradtional examinations of the NT and their inclusion into the canon.

For just a basic outline on canonicity of the NT, most of the books of the NT had to be early (so published in or around the 1st century), had to be authored by an Apostle or someone close to the Apostles. Early on there wasn't much concern for canonicity in the early church. Most of the early church used the Septuagint as their Bible, and just didn't think of the later writings in quite the same way as we do, but they recognized their inspirational nature and valued them. Then a heretic named Marcion came along and formed his own canon. He felt that the God of the Old Testament was evil, and so decided to remove anything pro-Jewish, he reworked Luke, and did a number of other things. The early church was pretty freaked out about this, and decided that they needed to compile an authoritative list of books/letters to ward off heretical manipulation of what had already been received as inspired and authoritative.

One of the early examples we have of the early canon can be found in the Muratorian fragment dating to approx. 170 AD. It includes most of the books of the NT excluding James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. A number of the ECFs (early church fathers... important post-Apostolic Christian writers) mention the authoritative books of the NT by name. The Gospels are mostly anonymous (there are a few internal indicators in Luke and John about who authored them), but the ECFs handed down to us the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. No other authors in the ancient writings were substituted for the name of the traditional authors. By the time Constantine came into power, and made Christianity the state religion, the canon had been closed and pretty much all the major books accepted for a long time with a little bit of disagreement between books like Revelation and Hebrews and a couple of the Pastorals. A number of councils in the 4th century pretty much settled the matter. The earliest complete manuscript copies we have date from around this period as well, so Codex Vaticanus 325-350, Codex Sinaiticus in 330-360, Codex Alexandrinus 400-440, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 450.

Something else should be mentioned about the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke share many commonalities with one another. So much so, that most scholars believe these books depend on one another in some way. These Gospels are called "synoptic", that is syn-together, or same and opsis-view (like where we get the word "optic" for optic nerve). John is so unlike the synoptics that he's usually handled separately from them, and is also considered later than the others.
Now these similarities aren't so surprising with Luke, Luke tells us that his book is a compilation of testimony (Luke 1:1-4), but that doesn't really explain, for instance, how Matthew is so similar to Mark.

An early church father named Eusebius quotes from an earlier Bishop named Papias about the compilation of the Gospels. Papias lived in the 1st and early 2nd century, and was a student or a hearer of the Apostle John. Papias says,

>Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]

Many modern scholars don't exactly agree with Papias' rendition of things though. The prevailing theory in academia today is the source theory, and in particular the source theory called Markan Priority. Basically its argued that Mark is the simplest, and thus earliest of the synoptics, and that Matthew and Luke knew of and borrowed from Mark as a source for their books. But there also commonalities in Luke and Matthew that are not found in Mark, so its theorized that along with Mark there was probably another book or at least a common tradition shared between them that has since been lost to history. This book or sayings have been labeled "Q", which comes from the German word "quelle", which means "source". ALSO, Matthew, Mark and Luke have completely original material that they share with no other books. Now, there are some scholars (currently in the minority) that buck against this source hypothesis, that reject Q, and suggest Matthean priority. Basically Matthew was first, and Mark borrowed from Matthew, and Luke borrowed from Mark and Matthew. This is called Augustinian Hypothesis.

As for the Old Testament, that's a whole nother story. The OT was compiled throughout centuries. It should probably be kept in mind that academia for the OT is very very secular compared to that of the NT. I'm not really sure what the poster US_Hiker was on about in his reply to you, but anyways, its theorized that the books of the OT weren't written and edited in the periods they claim to be written and edited. The prevailing theory for the OT is called the Documentary Hypothesis. For a long time, the accepted hypothesis was labeled JEPD, and this stands for the following sources: Yahwist (or Jawist), Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly. Its a pretty confusing theory that says that writers of the Old Testament regularly redacted and changed the order of the OT during different periods. And that the OT was compiled from approx. 950-500 BC. The theory has been manipulated and altered a number of times, especially when embarrassing archaeological finds like the silver scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom pushed some writings far further back than were expected by scholars. In my opinion, a great, very thorough, slightly academic book to read on modern theories about the Old Testament would be professor Richard S. Hess' Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey.

Concerning archaeological finds, or the lack thereof for say, the Exodus, I think one's presuppositions have a lot to do with what you accept or not. If you're an unbelieving archaeologist, you might expect to find some noticeable traces of an enormous group of people wandering the desert for 40 years. So far, we can't find any. But, if you're a believer who agrees with Genesis that God provided for these people with manna from heaven that rotted away if stored up, or of clothes that miraculously never wore out, then you're not going to find a whole lot in a desert. There are a handful of scholars that also believe the entire Egyptian dating system that scholars use as a measuring tool for the pre-Roman world is off by a few dynasties. One of the better known archaeologists known for his new chronology of the Egyptian period is egyptologist David Rohl. His ideas are currently on the fringe, but seem to be gaining some traction. His book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest is a beautiful and very interesting book on the subject.

Ok, so, sorry that was so long, but like I said, this is a very very broad subject. If you have any questions, let me know.

Have a terrific day!

> if anyone has any experience with college kids and what they like to ask.

First off, your typical college kid has not read anything on religion as sophisticated C.S. Lewis et al. I think it will be less the kids and more the professors that might ask tough questions. I think /r/atheism is about as sophisticated as college kids will be. So, not that I would encourage you to check out that sub, but those are mainly college kids posting overly simplistic things like "religion starts wars" or "faith is inconsistent with science", "The religious are bigots" etc...

Some professors may have read significantly more sophisticated things then typically show up on the sophomoric memes of /r/atheism. But for every one of them, there is someone like those I list below that have just as sophisticated counterpoint.

With that said here is my advice:

1. Don't close your mind at college. There are many great truths the "secular world" knows and you need to treasure them all up. Don't become the Christian who thinks humans rode dinosaurs like horses. Be prepared to learn and work hard to learn.
   
   
2. Though I argue way too much, be careful when arguing/debating about religion that you never lose your cool. Always be civil and respectful. I have seen more people converted by "good examples" then by intellectual argument.
   
   
3. When you see intellectual things tugging at your faith, please allow the Christian Philosophers to also give their side of the story. Some here troubling things and give up way faster than they should. Some notable Christian Philosophers to follow: William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Alexander Pruss, basically the several authors of the chapters of this book which are all top notch philosophers and deeply faithful, this site has some contributors that are top notch, etc...
   
   And some of them like William Lane Craig have sections of their website devoted to answering questions so if you have any tough questions do be afraid to ask these people. Just please, no matter what confusing question you run into, know that there are incredibly smart and respected intellectuals who have already addressed that confusing issue.
   
   Also, follow their blogs, newsletters, youtube debates and websites (as well as check out their books) so you always stay on top of the latest Christian arguments.
   
   
4. The sophomoric posts of /r/atheism are literally being posted often by college kids so that sub is a good example of what you will find other kids bring up.
   
   
5. And what ever you do, always make sure you do the "little things" like pray and read the scriptures. One danger intellectuals sometimes have is ignoring these little things that bring power like a grain of mustard seed.
   
   

Hi /u/KDTHEDESTROYER,

I've been through seasons of intense doubt. I nearly walked away from my faith at one point. I've been on a long journey, exploring the reasons why I now think Christianity makes the most sense.

On your question about prayer - God wants you to pray to him about anything and everything. He loves you and is with you through every struggle. Prayer is your way of spending time with Jesus and talking to Him about your troubles. He loves you so much, cares about them all, and just wants you to spend time talking to him.

If you're having trouble praying, a really good strategy I've heard is to pray the book of psalms. They help remind us that we can come to God with any problem and any emotion. We can just vent to God, because He loves us and wants to listen to us, and He wants us to rely on Him and share everything with Him.

If you're having serious doubts, the best book for me was The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller

It covers a wide range of topics (and is pretty heady), but I find that the issue of doubt goes wider than any one issue.

Here is a really great (and free!) sermon series to start with:

https://gospelinlife.com/downloads/the-trouble-with-christianity-why-it-s-so-hard-to-believe-it/

A good book about heaven and the afterlife is Surprised by Hope by Tom Wright.

Again, this is some heady stuff. If you're okay with simple answers, PM me and we can talk through some stuff. And if you want deeper, complex, and nuanced answers, I can try to help direct you to some good resources that will be helpful for you.

One last thing - when I was going through doubts, reddit comments and internet searches almost never helped (they often made me feel worse!) Good books, community, and overall the work of God in my life is what really helped me through.

>To be fair to myself, I feel that I have to put God aside for a moment, and look at the facts, plainly, and as objectively as I can. And follow the evidence where it leads.

This is good. Start your investigation as an agnostic. Make truth your goal. So often, I hear that Christians doing investigations/research are committed to God no matter what. Well, then their investigation is biased from the start. Now, we're all biased no matter how hard we try not to be, but committing oneself to God before investigating one's religious beliefs seems like, for you, a bias that you're attempting to mitigate, and for that I applaud you.

When I was in your shoes, some Deist writers (like Thomas Payne in The Age of Reason) really got me thinking at first, and helped me to see that while there might be a God, there are some serious challenges to whether that God is the God of the Bible. For a while I started calling myself a Deist. I still flirt with the idea.

One interesting idea I initially learned from Payne is that Genesis mentions a place called "Dan" but the Bible doesn't tell the story of how the city of Dan was named until much later (like Joshua/Judges). Here's a blog post by a prof at a Baptist seminary explaining the issue in more detail.

For archaeology, especially that of the Exodus story, I'd look into writings by William Dever. He's more moderate than Finkelstein. The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible includes some writing by Dever, and also covers some other issues you're interested in - e.g. textual criticism, especially that of the book of Daniel, which is very interesting to me.

As for treatments of the Resurrection from the "other side" I'd recommend Doubting Jesus Resurrection by Komarnitsky.

Lastly, I found it helpful to find areas where consensus arguably exists among scholars of a given area of study. For example, while there is disagreement about the applicability of the Documentary Hypothesis, it's my understanding there's still consensus that multiple authors composed the Pentateuch. Other areas of consensus include late authorship of the latter part of Daniel where prophecies are made (which is relevant to the Christian because Mark, the earliest gospel, interpreted these prophecies as being about Jesus and the 1st century).

Anyway, I hope I've given you some interesting things to look at. Good luck!

These are four books and a lecture series that would certainly be good at getting you started, all of them are academic rigor level, so not something that you'll be able to flip through at the bus stop. They take a bit of time to digest.

• Evidence that Demands a Verdict- good summary of the reasons we have to think that Christianity is historically true.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198
  
  
• Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology- Natural theology, the arguments from reason for why we have good reason to think that there is a God. Written by academic philosophers.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854
  
  
• Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Worldview- Another excellent book providing a systematic narrative from the ground up.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Christian-Worldview-Moreland/dp/0830851879/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6HXK5P412QMRNR2XB37B
  
  
• New Essays on Divine Hiddeness- If God is real, then why doesn't he just appear to me? This collection of essays from both atheists and Christians explores that argument and offers (what I think) are some pretty good responses.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Hiddenness-Essays-Daniel-Howard-Snyder/dp/0521006104
  
  
• Faith and Reason Lectures by Peter Kreeft- Excellent lecture series by a philosopher who approaches the topic of religion from an introductory level and takes the time to examine the arguments for and against. A great place to start since it covers everything from a general perspective.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Reason-Philosophy-Religion/dp/B001JHT8DI

You might be interested in the book Heaven: A History By Colleen McDannell and Bernhard Lang. It describes different ideas of Heaven throughout Christian history.

For the best collection of descriptions of the Mormon version of Heaven, I strongly recommend The Plan of Salvation: Understanding Our Divine Origin and Destiny by Matthew B. Brown.

One of the best descriptions of Mormon Heaven, come from the near-death experience of Jeddediah Grant. He described everything from enhanced senses to plants with flowers of multiple types and colors on the same vine.

If you're talking about Libet's experiments, these don't eliminate free will. They show that actions are preceded by brain activity before the person is conscious of making the decisions to act. The problem with interpreting this as meaning the unconscious brain activity determines the act is that there are also experiments in which a person is able to override that previous brain activity at the last minute.

Another problem with interpreting Libet's experiment as eliminating free will is that the results were only recorded in case where a person moved their wrist. If a person's brain ramped up prior to moving their wrist, and then they did not move their wrist, it was not recorded.

You should check out Alfred R. Mele's book, Free: Why Science Hasn't Disproved Free Will.

If you're a compatibilist, then Libet's experiments wouldn't be a problem even if they did show that our actions are determined by antecedent conditions. Under compatibilism, we are responsible for our actions as long as we do them on purpose, and to do something on purpose is to act on your own antecedent desires, motives, plans, intentions, etc. That means your antecedent mental states do determine your actions, and that's precisely why you're responsible for them.

Christianity doesn't depend on libertarian free will, and a lot of Christianity doesn't support that idea anyway. According to Jesus, a person's decisions are determined by the condition of their heart. He said, "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart" (Luke 6:45). That sounds a lot more like compatibilism than libertarianism.

I think I've heard more than one systematic theologian define it as the effort to make Christian doctrine comprehensible to a contemporary audience. That definition may be technically a good one, but I think it's also potentially misleading. It makes it sound as though systematic theology is almost a form of evangelism, where theologians try to address their audience's "felt needs." That's not a good description.

If you actually read a work of systematic theology, such these by Wayne Grudem or Louis Berkhof, you'll see that they are a topic-by-topic explanation of what, in the view of the author, Christianity teaches. Conventionally they begin with "theology proper", which is the study of God himself: the doctrine of the Trinity, God's perfection, His omniscience, omnipotence, etc. They'll cover things like the nature of revelation, creation, the fall, salvation, and so on. Usually it's not just the author sharing his thoughts. He's interacting with and responding to the work of his contemporaries and to concerns that contemporary people have with respect to Christian doctrines.

Jason Lisle - The Ultimate Proof For Creation - a great starter book on the subject and easier to read.

Then you have anything by Greg Bahnsen (Read/Listen to "The Great Debate" with Gordon Stein) or Cornelius Van Til (father of presup.).

5 Views of Apologetics is good as well - http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0310224764

Nah, I'm totally with you on the importance of semantics. My old grad school mentor was really particular about it and I now see why. You're also dead on about the whole need for language/Japanese-speaking/etc example. I've just run into some people who confuse nature with ability so I wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

The book I was actually referring to is actually called "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem. (genius title, right?) I got a chance to read it in college and I found it to be useful. Granted, that was 10 years ago and I'm sure the whole field has progressed but as far as I know, it's still relevant. You probably can find it cheap on half.com as well. It's quite a huge book but I found it to be quite interesting.

You may not know at all what he's going to ask until he asks it. Best you can do is be prepared for anything 1 Pet. 3:15, be gentle, be loving, be understanding, be very aware that what he's going though is different than you and that you may not (in his mind) have the right to talk to him about grief and loss, much less God.

If you haven't already, grab a copy of Tactics, it a great nuts-and-bolts book.

I didn't do so well, but really enjoyed that. Thanks for posting.

I took a hit on Darwinism. I don't think simple Darwinism explains natural selection. But I don't think natural selection didn't happen either. Even Darwin had his doubts, as referenced by Stephen Meyer.

If anyone who is interested prefers a physical edition. I've also added an explanation for the price differences in my blog.

Update: Due to popular feedback, I decided to make split versions of the ebook edition for anyone who found 2554 pages too daunting but are still interested in reading my book. In case any of you are still interested.

Part I Only.

Part II Only.

Explanation on pricing can be read here.

1. Second Michael Kruger! He's great.
   
   
2. Likewise, OP, take a look at Don Carson and Doug Moo's An Introduction to the New Testament for a solid scholarly overview of all the NT books including a defense of their authenticity, canonical status, and authorship. In the case of Revelation, Carson and Moo argue for apostolic (Johannine) authorship based on factors like early Christian testimony and internal evidence. They further respond to arguments against apostolic authorship and show why these arguments fail in their academically informed and considered view.
   
   
3. Also, you might be interested in a free-to-read online introduction and commentary on Revelation from Vern Poythress (PhD, Harvard) who is a professor at Westminster Theology Seminary in Philadelphia, PA. It will help you see the big picture of Revelation and how it fits into the rest of the Bible. I think it's an excellent introduction to Revelation.

Good God - https://www.amazon.com/Good-God-Theistic-Foundations-Morality/dp/0199751811

God and Cosmos - https://www.amazon.com/God-Cosmos-Moral-Truth-Meaning/dp/0199931216

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism - Tim Keller

Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target - John Lennox

The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God - John Frame

Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis - Greg Bahnsen

The last two are more in-depth philosophy-wise than the first three.

This is an interesting argument, one that Francis Collins calls the "signpost" argument - that the fact that we have this tendency for belief is evidence (not proof, but evidence) the G-d wants us to seek him. Fair enough. But it doesn't follow that our god-sense evolved for a purpose, let alone that purpose (where's the selection pressure? Who's failing to reproduce for lack of a god-sense?).

An alternative, and I think more parsimonious, explanation is that belief in a higher power is a side-effect of certain psychological capacities that, in the proper context, are highly adaptive. In particular, I'm talking about theory of mind: our ability to perceive other people as thinking agents, like us but independent of us. Robert McCauley gives a detailed treatment of it in his book Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not, but this article is much quicker and to the point: we apply theory of mind where it doesn't belong, and the consequence is religious belief.

The God Delusion
while reading David Robertson's responses chapter by chapter in
The Dawkins Letters

> James' death is recorded in acts

Oh, well if it was written in an ancient text, it must have happened. Like everything else written in ancient texts, right?

> it strikes the question of why Christians have had such a long history of persecution.

Yes it does.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527