Reddit reviews An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion

I think you will learn the most by reading five textbooks, such as A History of Philosophy, volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; or something like Metaphysics: The Fundamentals, The Fundamentals of Ethics, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, and An Introduction to Political Philosophy.

If what you have in mind is more of a "Great Books" program to get your feet wet with some classic works that are not too difficult, you could do a lot worse than:

• Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, often published together under the title The Trial and Death of Socrates. Socrates is so important that we lump together all Greek philosophers before him as "the Presocratics," and this cycle of dialogues is a great window on who he was and what he is famous for.
  
• The Basic Works of Aristotle. "The philosopher of common sense" is not a particularly easy read. Cicero compared his writing style to "a flowing river of gold," but all the works he prepared for publication are gone, and what we have is an unauthorised collection of lecture notes written in a terse, cramped style that admits of multiple interpretations. Even so, one can find in Aristotle a very attractive system of metaphysics and ethics which played a major role in the history of philosophy, and holds up well even today.
  
• René Descartes, Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy, not so much because modern philosophers have widely followed his particular positions (they haven't) but because he set the agenda, in a way, with his introduction of methodological scepticism.
  
• David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I think Elizabeth Anscombe had it right in judging Hume a "mere brilliant sophist", in that his arguments are ultimately flawed, but there is great insight to be derived from teasing out why they are wrong.
  
• If I can cheat just a little more, I will lump together three short, important treatises on ethics: Immanuel Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, and Anscombe's paper "Modern Moral Philosophy".

From the FAQ. For philosophy of religion, Davies's An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion and Yandell's Philosophy of Religion: A Contemporary Introduction.

Further Resources: Mackie's book A Miracle of Theism was a text I used in one of my courses on phil religion. There are more recommendations in this entry from PhilPapers.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is rigorous and reliable, if you want to just browse some of the entries to get a sense of the relevant topics. For example, some arguments for god(s) include:

• Cosmological Argument(s): which "makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God."
  
• Ontological Argument(s): which "are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone."
  
• Moral Argument(s): which "reason from some feature of morality or the moral life to the existence of God, usually understood as a morally good creator of the universe."
  
• Design (or Teleological) Argument(s): which argue "some phenomena within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or interconnectedness that many people have found it natural—if not inescapable—to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena."
  
• Religious Experience Argument(s): which can argue "that the religious experience, as well as being valuable in itself, is also evidence, or even proof, of the objective truth of some associated beliefs. That is, there may be an argument from religious experience to" belief in religious phenomena or being, like god. [quote from Mackie]
  
  And more suggestions in this thread. Also, the IEP is sometimes more accessible than SEP.

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.

> Is it basically an atheist would say "It just is" and a person with belief in God as "God was behind it?"

Yup. If you study naturalistic theology, you'll see some arguments basically like this (but far more articulately):

Either the universe is (i) a sustaining and never ending series of cause and effect, or (ii) there was some effect for which there is no cause.

Some philosophical theists may call (ii) "God" (or "god" if they don't believe in a personal god - perhaps like Einstein - though he's probably rolling over in his grave as I mention his name).

>I'm a heterosexual male that is all for LGBT rights, as I choose to love everyone one no matter their race, sexuality or (dis)beliefs, I was wondering if that is perfectly okay?

I'm heterosexual, married, with children. All for LGBT rights. Church teaching is that sex before marriage is a sin, and that individuals of the same sex cannot marry.

I really struggle with that teaching. It seems to me to reflect outmoded (and scientifically unfounded) beliefs about the natural world, gender, sex, and marriage. A lot of better-than-me Catholics tell me this means I'm a heretic or a blasphemer or that I refuse to assent to the full teachings of the church. I've talked about it with a number of priests (and a couple bishops) who don't try to change my mind - they just encourage me to continue to pray on it. And I do.

Your third question has several parts.
>God is not a "why" because then you have to ask "why did God do the things he did?" and even after you explain that, you can keep asking "why?" ad infinitum.

See above re (i) and (ii). One starts with the simple premise that (ii) is more believable than (i) (though both are logical fallacies), and then we try to infer what we can about (ii) through (a) observation of the world (b) individual experience (c) communal experience (d) scripture (if your faith gets you that far) (e) Church teaching.

The question misframes the argument. An alternative response would simply be, yes, so can a three-year-old, and there is always the oh so compelling epistemological skeptic brain-in-a-vat. Every philosophy starts with a premise.

>-The evidence shows that no god exists, and that no god was involved with either. Reality needs no 'whys'. It certainly has no use for utterly made up 'whys' that explain NOTHING.

I don't know what evidence suggests that no god exists. Conceded, no evidence scientifically proves God does exist, but human kind has, as far back as history allows us to go, experienced something of the divine.

>-Simple logic and reasoning should tell you there isn't a god. Logic/Knowledge > Faith

A good time to quote the Dalai Lama:

>If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

I think the Catholic Church holds the same to be true. An easy example is heliocentricity (though, it did cost a number of good people their lives... hopefully we will learn more quickly from here on out!).

edit: Providing links to my favorite naturalistic theology anthology and its more readable companion. It goes back and forth between really smart atheists and really smart theists, from Aquinas to Descartes to Spinoza to Nietzsche to Plantinga. to Dennett.

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Religion-A-Guide-Anthology/dp/019875194X/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=010VCNYXKDKC4D2E8DVR

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Religion-Brian-Davies/dp/0199263477

This book touches on the many ways that theologians and philosophers have tried to make sense of the suffering that this loving creator has allowed:

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Religion-Brian-Davies/dp/0199263477

Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction by William Rowe

An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies

Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith by C. Stephen Evans & R. Zachary Manis

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion by William Wainwright

Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology by Louis Pojman & Michael Rea

Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide by William Lane Craig

------

The links above are roughly ordered by length, sophistication, and subgenre. Rowe, Davies, and Evans/Manis are short introductions that mostly explore classical Western monotheism. The bottom three are anthologies that hit on more specified areas and explore specific religious traditions such as Christianity (Craig), Buddhism and Hindusim (Pojman/Rea), and even nontheistic concepts of the divine (Wainwright).