Reddit reviews Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
We found 13 Reddit comments about Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted (2010)
In this deliciously satisfying book, the author, a New Testament scholar, carefully reviews and assesses the New Testament with a detailed and extremely thorough analysis of the figure we call Jesus. This is not a rant, not an attack on Christianity, this is an objective and critical analysis of the New Testament, showing how the entire Jesus myth and indeed, all of Christianity is a purposely-designed fabrication rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, and sometimes outright falsehoods.
John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist (2008)
If you want a one-stop total critique of Christianity, this is the book you're looking for. The author is a former Christian apologist turned extremely angry and prolific atheist. In this book Loftus attacks the full span of Christianity, addressing the philosophical arguments against theism, the historical incompatibilities and inaccuracies of the Bible, and the contradictions between creationism and modern science, and throughout it all is an undercurrent of personal experience as Loftus explains his own deconversion from devout evangelicalism to enraged atheist.
Concerning atheism.
These are for the people going "Well, I'm an atheist. Now what?" There's more to atheism than eating babies and posting fake facebook conversations on r/atheism. There's much more truth, beauty, and value in a universe without a celestial supervisor, where humans are free to make our own purposes and dictate our own paths. Thinking for yourself and recognizing the natural wonder of the universe is far greater than the false consolation any religion can provide you. These books show how.
Michael Martin - Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1989)
In this book, Martin attempts a two-pronged defense of atheism: first by attacking theistic arguments regarding the implausibility of morality and purpose without God, second by defending against attacks specifically on atheism. In such a manner he makes a strong case for both negative and positive atheism. Though extremely dated, this book is a classic and a must-read for any atheist.
Erik J. Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (2005)
In this book, Wielenberg advances a naturalist philosophy and addresses the problem of nontheistic morality as weakly espoused by the likes of Dostoevsky and C.S. Lewis. First he challenges the claims of theistic morality, next he advances naturalistic ethics and displays how theological justification is unnecessary for a good and moral life. Concepts such as intrinsic morality, inherent human tendencies such as charity and altruism, and the idea of moral obligations are all addressed.
Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God (2005)
In this book, Richard Carrier, perhaps most well-known as one of the major modern debunkers of the Jesus myth, continues the trend of expanding metaphysical naturalism, but this is a more complex and thorough work covering the full spectrum of a developed worldview, addressing nearly every topic beyond just morality, and presents a complete philosophical outlook on life that is easy to comprehend and evaluate. A solid starting point for the newly atheist.
My personal picks.
Now, since this is my list after all, and after typing up all of that, I think I've earned the right to make my own recommendations. These are books that I think people should read that don't necessarily have anything to do with atheism.
Markos Moulitsas - American Taliban (2010)
This book reads like a collection of loosely-related blog entries, some of them written by angry teenagers, and Moulitsas himself is no philosopher or professor, but is still an important read for those of you who haven't been paying attention. In this book, the founder of Daily Kos draws the extremely obvious and transparent similarities between the religious right of America, and the Islamofascists across the pond, and displays how modern conservatism has largely been hijacked and/or replaced by a complex political machine intent on maintaining the power of a small group of white, male, Christian elite.
Chris Hedges - American Fascists (2007)
Okay, time for a more sophisticated take on the issue than Daily Kos stuff. Those of you who plan on staying and fighting in the US rather than simply getting the fuck out while you still can need this book. With a critical and objective eye, Hedges displays the dark and tumultuous underbelly of America and shows how an extremely powerful and well-organized coalition of dominionists is slowly taking over the country and seeking to transform it into a theocratic state. Those of you who are moderate Christians and similarly despise the lunatic fringe of Christians should also read this book. Hedges analyzes this Christian Right movement, allied with totalitarianism and a denial of reality, that has declared a jihad (or a "teahad", if you're a Tea Partier) on secularism and even on Christianity itself, utilizing religion for its darkest and most sinister purpose - committing cruelty and intolerance upon others in the name of divine supervision.
CJ Werleman - God Hates You, Hate Him Back (2009)
This is one of my favorite books and is a great book to unwind with after a critical look at Christianity. The biggest problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, the outright falsehoods, or even the blatantly made-up and ridiculous bullshit about magic and miracles and supernatural nonsense - it's the fact that, taking it all at face value, the God described in the Bible is the single most despicable and terrifying fictional villain ever imagined by humanity. This is a character that seems to actively despise mankind, and in this book, Werleman shows why with a hilarious and thorough analysis of the Bible. This book reads like Monty Python and is just as funny - not meant to be taken seriously of course unless you're a Biblical literalist, but still a great read.
Well, that's all I got. This list took about half a day to compile and is itself also woefully inadequate, there's quite a bit of books I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But, it should be much more sufficient than the current r/atheism reading lists and I've done my best to include the most recent works. If you have any books to add that you feel are noteworthy, please feel free to post them. I hope this list can help many people in their understanding of philosophy and atheism.
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.
Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist by Dan Barker
edit: or Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin
I recommend you read Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosphical Justification. It's one of the best works of rigorous philosophical atheism. Personally I believe his argument for weak/negative atheism is much stronger than his argument for strong/positive atheism, the former of which you seem to fit into.
> I would like to see an atheist debate someone like Plantingna
It's not a debate, but if you're interested in a more philosophically-focused response to Plantinga's reformed epistemology, I'd recommend checking out Prof. Tyler Wunder's content. If you just want a brief overview, here's an interview with him covering the content of his dissertation critiquing Plantinga. The link on that site to his dissertation is dead, but I reached out to him via e-mail a while back and he sent it to me. I can forward you a download link if you find yourself interested.
Also, Michael Martin treats much of Plantinga's ideas in some depth in his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. There are plenty of atheist philosophers that are much more careful than Hitchens and co. if you look for them. I'm not interested in an extended dialogue on their arguments, but since you seemed intrigued by Rowe, I thought I'd point out some similar resources. Graham Oppy's Arguing About Gods was recommended to me along with the Michael Martin book, but I haven't checked it out yet. I've only read certain parts of Martin's book too (it's a long read if you were to go straight through).
Books I like The God Delusion myself. That said, I think the best work on Atheism from a philosophical justification is probably Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin. I also like his book The Case Against Christianity.
I could get into this topic down and dirty the best of anyone from /r/Atheism if I really wanted too. But I normally just stick to Isaac Asimov and Stephen Fry.
No, I'm talking about books that are critical of your religion; Sam Harris' The End of Faith, Michael Martin's Atheism: A philosophical justification, et cetera.
Well, as for #1, I can promise that those people will mellow as they age and encounter life a bit more. I certainly did. On the other side, it is pretty easy from the perspective of a scientist [everyone?] to not see much value in spending your entire career writing about a single work of fiction (there are plenty in English departments who spend decades upon a single book). Try presenting them with some serious a/theology scholarship. Alvin Plantinga, in arguing with J. L. Mackie, pretty much killed the entire logical argument from evil single handily. Not everyone agrees with his defense, but to understand the argument requires some serious understanding of philosophy and logic. In response, almost all atheologicans now use some version of the evidential arguments from evil. Working through how those arguments work also requires some serious understanding of philosophy, logic, and probability theory.
If you can afford/borrow a copy of Atheism: A Philosophical Justification that would serve as a solid grounding for why the philosophy department has some serious intellectual chops. Things may improve from there.
First and foremost, I strongly recommend you cross-post this to /r/askphilosophy (and probably also /r/philosophyofreligion) since they'll be much more qualified than here to suggest topics and lesson-plans.
Second, you should probably include the Leibnizian cosmological argument alongside the Kalam, since they are sufficiently different. There's plenty of good material out there on this: Pruss' article for the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (this book is a very good resource, see here for more chapters) is pretty definitive, but both he and Richard Gale have written stuff on this.
Third, I think you should use different atheistic arguments. Drop Russell's teapot: especially given your expected audience you should stick to positive arguments against the existence of God. Russell's teapot you can work in as a side comment that argues that if the negative case (i.e. refuting theistic arguments) succeeds then we should be atheists, but other wise leave it be. Better topics I think would be the Argument from Non-Belief (see also here) and Hume's argument against belief in miracles (I have a bunch of resources on this I can send you, but the original argument in Of Miracles is pretty short and is free online). You might want to read one of Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification or Oppy's Arguing About Gods for a good source of atheistic critiques and arguments.
For Atheism:
For Christianity:
I would also recommend Michael Martin as well.
Impossibility of God
Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
>The "professional philosophers" who use incorrect definitions, on the other hand, I couldn't care less about.
First off, let me be clear again, you're the one using the incorrect definition. We can know that because we have rational minds that can understand rational arguments. And luckily, we have redditors that are very proficient at providing just the rational arguments we need to show that weak atheism is not intellectually viable.
>. If you could be so kind as to point out some of these "professional philosophers" - with sources - so I could dismiss anything they have to say on the matter, it would save me a lot of time.
First, I do so love the overconfidence. You've clearly proven my point there. You're completely unaware of even who these philosophers let alone what they argue, yet you're absolutely convinced of your ability to dismantle whatever it is they have to say.
The question is why would you want to? Clearly you're attached to the label atheist, and you're here so you at least like the impression of being intellectual, so why would you be interested in dismissing the arguments of professional atheists philosophers out of hand? Surely you'd want to at least see what they had to say. In fact, I'd say that you'd want to study and really understand their arguments. But maybe that's just me projecting what I want onto you.
Just in case, here are a few atheist philosophers of religion you ought to be reading up on.
>And just because "professional atheist philosophers" make arguments that gods don't exist, that doesn't change the definitions.
Read all of those links (remember to check your local library or your local university's library!) and you'll see that atheists who aren't a part of the cacophony of the unsophisticated group think do not argue for weak atheism. They do not simply argue against the theist's argument and, convinced they have sufficiently undermined that argument, declared themselves free of any belief. They believe there is probably no God and they argue there is probably no God.
You take pride in your belligerence, but it's a shame that belligerence comes from a position of ignorance. I worry about the status of atheism not because I think the theist arguments have won but because people like you are so completely ignorant of the topic that they can't even get straight what atheism even is, what arguments actually support it, and what obstacles there are for atheists to overcome. And yet you feel justified in spewing your nonsense in the most jackass way you can muster.
You aren't agnostic about fairies. It's a question of realism.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#Scientific_realism
It's very difficult to hold a position of anti realism. This is a good book:
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430
You're probably aware of Russell's teapot and Hitchen's razor. However, you probably haven't read The God Delusion, in which case I direct you to chapter 2, the Poverty of Agnosticism.