Best christian theology books according to redditors
We found 4,168 Reddit comments discussing the best christian theology books. We ranked the 1,297 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 4,168 Reddit comments discussing the best christian theology books. We ranked the 1,297 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Don't buy them a Dawkins book, as /u/Rugger01 suggests. Make it The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel in which Robert Price eviscerates Strobel.
>Leading New Testament scholar Robert M. Price has taken umbrage at the cavalier manner in which Rev. Lee Strobel has misrepresented the field of Bible scholarship in his book The Case for Christ. Price exposes and refutes Strobel's arguments chapter-by-chapter. In doing so he has occasion to wipe out the entire field of Christian apologetics as summarized by Strobel. This book is a must-read for anyone bewildered by the various books published by Rev. Strobel.
Catholics claim to be followers of Jesus. They follow rules from tradition, handed down from Jesus through a continuous succession of popes. They think the Bible is a great book, but not exactly the word of God.
Fundamentalist Christians generally believe that Catholics have drifted from Jesus teachings. Instead, they believe the only true way to follow Jesus is through the Bible. They think that the Bible is the literal word of God and is exactly true.
EDIT:
For those interested in the apparent conflict between science and religion, a great book to read is by Francis Collins, one of the leaders behind the sequencing of the human genome, the current head of the NIH, and a deeply religious man, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
Bingo. Stephen Jay Gould called this "Non-Overlapping Magisteria":
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria
As a religious person, I view religion as a way of understanding the meaning behind it all, and science as a tool for exploring God's creation. Science is about the pursuit of truth, and God is Truth. How could there be any conflict? If religion has held some view (generally for lack of any better explanation at the time, as it was with Geocentrism) that has since been disproven by science (done correctly, that is), then what is a religious man/woman to do but rejoice? Knowledge is a good thing. If God created the universe, then to study the universe is to learn more about His handiwork.
EDIT: I just wanted to take a moment (since this post has gotten a wee bit of exposure and because this will be extremely relevant to a lot of the response comments) to suggest a book that has been instrumental in shaping my views on evolution and the relationship between religion and science. The book is called "Finding Darwin's God", and it's written by Kenneth Miller. Anyone use the green dragonfly Biology textbook in high school? Yeah, that Kenneth Miller.
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
Anyway, this is the book that changed my mind (as a Christian raised with the "evolution is antithetical to our faith" mindset) on evolution. Miller (himself both an accomplished Biologist and a Christian) spends the first 2/3 of the book utterly demolishing every single common argument against evolution. Just... destroys them. "Irreducible complexity", young earth creationism, etc. You name it, he brings it down with logic and relevant examples. Great source for anyone looking for some well-sourced material and examples to bring to a (respectful, let's keep it classy) debate on the subject. Then, with the last 1/3 or so of the book, Miller talks about how embracing science (including evolution, obviously) is actually the only responsible choice for a person of faith. He discusses how the "God of the Gaps" philosophy is really and truly detrimental to belief in a glorious God who created the universe, and talks about how a Christian should not be afraid of new scientific discovery but should instead embrace it.
Anyway. Great book. If I were to list the 5 books that had had the largest impact on my life and views, this one would definitely be in the top 5. Plus it changed my mind on something. It's not often that that happens, especially to pre-college me (I've mellowed out a bit since then). I'd recommend it to anyone, whether you are a person of faith or not.
I'll stick to recommending science communication books (those that don't require a deep background on biological concepts):
---
For books that everyone studying biology ends up reading, my candidate would be Lehninger's Principles of Biochemistry, by Nelson & Cox but that's a textbook.
I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness and I was a staunch creationist, so I feel like I can see both sides of this equation.
I think that this is really a bigger issue than creationism. Evidenced by the comment that the goal of science is to prove the Bible wrong, or exists for the purpose of making Christians feel uncomfortable. This is about a fundamental difference in the way you see the world: approaching the world from the standpoint of belief first, or from the standpoint of observation first. I think that this difference in mindset will absolutely not diminish over the course of your marriage, it will constantly show up. I think your strategy of non-confrontation on this topic will not work long term, this needs to be cleared up if you expect a healthy marriage.
> How did you resist the temptation to cut their views apart with the glorious shears of science?
You don't. If he is a rational, thoughtful, intelligent man, then he is open to debate and personal growth. This is something he is wrong about, it's not insensitive or pushy to help him come a better understanding on this topic. Like I said, I used to be a creationist. I changed my mind because people challenged me, debated with me, investigated the consequences of my beliefs and pointed out logical inconsistencies. They didn't do it in an aggressive or rude way, but in a calm and rational way. I think you need to do the same thing. Sit down and hash this out.
> Tony knows that and is fine with it - we have had many rousing discussions about God, spirituality, philosophy, and what it means to be alive as well as regular intellectual conversations. He has (for the most part) always presented himself as a rational, thoughtful, intelligent man.
This makes it seem like he actually would be receptive to some discourse on this topic. I totally disagree with the other comments recommending bringing this up during pre-marital counseling. This is something that needs to be talked about between you both first. Having a conversation investigating the specifics of his beliefs would help you understand him better.
From personal experience, here are some arguments/lines of reasoning that were particularly helpful in making me realize my creationist beliefs didn't make sense:
It might be worth it for you to read up on Evolution before having the discussion, so you can get some ideas of your own. Maybe Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth or Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. It might even be useful to ask him to read one of the books. If he is an intelligent and rational man like you describe him, he is open to hearing the other perspectives and making an informed decision. If he absolutely refuses to read either book, then you've learned something else concerning about his personality - that he is not willing to make informed decisions, which would be good to learn now before you get married.
You should definitely check out The Language of God by Francis Collins. The guy was the director of the human genome project and is a believer in both evolution and God. Basically, science cannot prove nor disprove God OR atheism, because the mode of science is the natural laws (time, gravity, etc), and if God is supernatural then he exists outside of such laws. We cannot "test" for a creator.
I present to you, the Tiktaalik.
I don't have time to answer your question properly but check out your local library or purchase Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish which will help you achieve a proper understanding of this topic.
Then I'd recommend you read the book Why Evolution Is True by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. At worst you'll end up with a better understanding of just what it is you're rejecting.
Oh, and to answer your question, yes. The existence of a god (yours or any other) isn't just a default answer we substitute when some other answer isn't available--or not one anyone should substitute by default, anyway.
Your Inner Fish is a book about researchers who predicted one of the missing links between fish and amphibians, and then found it. Not a soft tissue prediction, but in the same vein. Great read.
Shubin's Your Inner Fish covered this from an evolutionary/development perspective - an amazingly fascinating read.
In a shortened, abridged summary: The head of a shark is a series of segments where each segment as one vertebra, and in ennervated by nerves from that vertebra, and each vertebra has one gill pair. Nice and logical.
However, in mammals, many of those segments are munged together to create a neck, throat, ears and larynx structures from the gills, and many other components have moved from their original segment into the mess. The new jumbled components are ennervated from their historic segment, leaving some nerves very long and weird paths - for example the recurrent laryngeal nerve exits the spine close to the larynx, loops down to the heart, then back up to the larynx. It all made sense in the shark...
> I don't think I ever was a good muslim except for not eating pork.
Being a "good Muslim" is not a good thing
> My teacher said something about even though evolution is widely accepted it has not been fully proven yet.
Your teacher is wrong, there have been a ton of experiments that further prove why evolution is true.
I recommend reading The Greatest Show On Earth, by Richard Dawkins, it'll teach you quite a bit about evolution
I always recommend Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin because it's less antagonistic and more matter of fact about our evolution. Another good choice might be The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. Again, I'm trying to think of the less obvious and less vitriolic choices than Harris or Dawkins. Handing him something entitled "The God Delusion" is likely to just shut off his brain instantly.
Oh ... to combat the Young Earth mentality, you could consider something like A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
Kind of a combination of things - but in general the age old adage "if it ain't, broke don't fix it" applies here.
See about 500 million years ago the basic body plan for tetrapods was decided upon. From this basic body plan very few modifications have been made. For whatever reason four limbs, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two kidneys, two lungs, two ovaries/testes, but one heart and one liver worked for it so it works for us.
Its not just humans that have these basic structures - birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and other mammals all have this basic body plan. Yes some have lost their limbs - like snakes, and others have lost an ovary - like birds...but underlying it all is that same basic blueprint. You may be interested in the book your inner fish.
It's not that weird. We share a lot of the same neurobiology. The seeds of our emotional brains are present in other animals. The late Jaak Panksepp did a lot a lot of great work on the neurobiology of animal and human emotion. Here's a TED talk by him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65e2qScV_K8
Humans didn't evolve the capacity for emotions out of nowhere, just like we don't have eyes or arms or a spine out of nowhere. (For more detail, I recommend Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish, and Panksepp's The Archaeology of Mind.) The rudiments are there in the animals, whose ancestors we share, though they may have gone onto divergent evolutionary pathways.
You said in another comment below that others were treating you as a troll or an idiot. I don't think that's necessarily the case: many of us are just trying to present the facts, and may be a little bit frustrated due to how YECs typically react. For example, my earlier comment about how creation science does not count as science, and how Geocentrism is incorrect, I did not set out to treat you like an idiot (and if I did, I'm sorry). I did treat you as ignorant, which isn't as bad as it sounds. I'm ignorant to a lot of things. Everyone is. But I love to learn, because I love to expand my knowledge.
Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can't. We encounter wilful ignorance a lot, and it gets very frustrating, so that colours what we say.
If you're genuine about your desire to learn more, I'll drop some suggestions for further inquiry. Some of the language may be abrasive, but please keep an open, skeptical mind:
I'll give you fair warning on this next one: it may have a profound effect on you. At the very least, it will help you understand our philosophical position better as atheists.
For reading:
Hopefully that gets you started.
Hello and welcome! Here are my recommendations for getting those nasty watchtower cobwebs out of your head, in other words, here is what I did to de-indoctrinate myself:
Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.
Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman
Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong
Next, learn some actual science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website.. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.
Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read works by Stephen Hawking
Read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking
Learn about critical thinking from people like Michael Shermer, and how to spot logical fallacies.
For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline..
Read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker
Another great source is the youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.
I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that you can use to become a more knowledgeable person.
You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--
Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."
He DIDN'T say, "This generation will not pass away before I return," he said, "This generation will not pass away until all these things happen," all these things being the things he referenced before this comment in Mt. 24.
I would suggest that, indeed, all those things did happen before that generation passed away.
Here's a book I wrote on the subject: The End Is Near...Or Maybe Not!.
The usual is Why I am no longer a Christian by Evid3nc3, but that's all youtube.
If you want to go old-school angry try out Testament: Memoir of the Thoughts and Sentiments of Jean Meslier (from the 1700s).
>Know, then, my friends, that everything that is recited and practiced in the world for the cult and adoration of gods is nothing but errors, abuses, illusions, and impostures. All the laws and orders that are issued in the name and authority of God or the gods are really only human inventions…."
For a more general and softer approach, try out 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God.
***
If you need someone who was really a "true Christian" try perhaps something from Richard Price or listen to the podcasts of Matt Dillahunty.
>Is there anything else I have to do?
Pray! Fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending Mass every Sunday! Make special note of any feast days or Holy Days of Obligation on your calendar! Spend time in contemplation before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament!
This is a very exciting time for you. You get to discover all of the things that we cradle-catholics often take for granted. Learn about the Church's devotions, Her saints, Her disciplines. Explore different liturgies at different parishes. If you can find a Church with a beautiful choir that sings the Latin propers for Mass, give that a shot, just to experience it! Later on, you may even want to explore the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as well.
And read! Get your hands on a Catechism! Check out "Theology for Beginners" by F.J. Sheed.
Also look at purchasing "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic" by David Currie and "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott & Kimberly Hahn. You won't be disappointed.
The problem is, a lot of the books that Christians here are recommending are very different in both style and direction than the kinds of books that you're talking about with Dawkins and Hitchens. Which, to be frank, ought to be expected. Detailed philosophical argumentation just isn't something most Christians are worried about or interested in since, once establishing faith, theology and discipleship are far more interesting intellectual pursuits to believers.
In any case, here are a variety of more serious academic responses to the kinds of books you've been reading:
Reasonable Faith By William Lane Craig
Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga
Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? by Alister Mcgrath
Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith by Francis S Collins
God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? by John C Lennox
Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target by John C Lennox
Edit: And don't forget that you don't have to buy any of these books to read them! For serious. Library card + inter-library loan system via internet is the way to win.
If I had to pick one, it would be Finding Darwin's God. It's not the best book for understanding evolution, but it is probably the best book to convince a fundamentalist Christian that scientists are not wrong about where species come from.
Francis Collins who headed the human genome project is one. Also Kenneth Miller, who appeared for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover. I highly recommend his book Finding Darwin's God.
Let's dismantle your friend's arguments:
> Because something can't come from nothing...
Prove it. If he can't, his argument already falls apart. People assume that "something can't come from nothing" is a fact, but what evidence backs this up? Every single human being has been surrounded by "something" for every instant of his or her existence. Not once has any person experienced absolute "nothing". Thus any statement about the properties of "nothing" (besides being self-contradictory, as "nothing" cannot have properties) is complete and total Making Shit Up. This is begging the question.
> ...there had to be a being intelligent enough to create it
If something can exist without prior cause, then clearly prior cause is not always needed for existence. Therefore the demand that the universe have a prior cause is unreasonable. Furthermore, the universe is not a "thing" - it is the set of all things. Assuming that the whole must have the characteristics of its parts is the fallacy of composition.
> Because god exists outside of science, he doesn't need a scientific explanation.
"Outside of science" is a nonsensical statement. Please define or stop using this. Also, this is special pleading.
> The chances of abiogenesis occurring is 1 in 10^40,000. Most statisticians agree that these chances are far too improbable for such a thing to occur that it's essentially impossible.
This is Just Plain Wrong. The chance of abiogenesis occurring is not 1 in 10^40,000; people who think so are basing their beliefs off junk science and junk math. See: here for details. By the way, the whole "most statisticians agree..." is a ploy by your friend to hide the fact that he just pulled a random unsubstantiated number (10^40,000) out of the air and expects you to accept it.
>Nearly all genetic mutations are big and negative...
Again, Just Plain Wrong. See this and this. Your friend needs to do a little more research.
> ...therefore evolution having mutations that are small and positive is nearly impossible.
Your friend is showing his ignorance regarding evolution. Mutations are neither positive nor negative without context. A mutation which is helpful under certain circumstances is harmful under others. See the previous two links for more.
> Everything in nature seems perfectly designed for human beings.
Yep, cancer, natural disasters, predators, odorless toxic gases, plagues have all been perfectly designed to suit human beings. Toss your friend alone and naked into the wilderness and see how far that "perfectly designed" environment takes him. Better yet, toss him into the 99.99999999% of the universe that is not Earth and see how long he survives.
Furthermore, saying that "everything looks designed" is self-defeating. Ask your friend to show you an example of something which is not designed. Let's say he suggests X. Point out that, according to his beliefs, God did in fact design X, thus your friend has demonstrated an inability to tell the difference between things that are designed and not designed. In addition, if literally everything around us is designed, then he very concept of being designed loses all meaning (in the same way that theists like to say that good without evil loses all meaning).
> There's no way to explain that/the complexity around us with mutations.
Again, does not understand evolution. He should read this before making more ill-informed statements.
> There had to be a creator.
Even if this were true (it's not, given that every single thing your friend has said above is utterly wrong) - but even if this were true, there's nothing that says that this creator is anything like human notions of "God".
I read,”Why Evolution Is True “ by Jerry Coyne.
It’s an easy read and lays out an argument that I can’t find flaw with.
Only the most obtuse could peruse this scientific aggregate and still try to deny the age of the earth and evolution.
Here's my reading list on Reformed Perspectives on Creation. I don't agree with everything written by all of the authors, but they are all worth reading. The also aren't all written from a Reformed perspective, but many of them are. If you are looking more for a Scientific perspective I'd particularly recommend Collins, Jelsma, and Haarsma since those are the ones written by scientists instead of theologians. If you didn't see it already, I also listed a number of other resources by Collins yesterday in the post about his AMA.
This was what first made me start the process of deconversion. I had for a long time held that some form of theistic evolution must be true. I had read Francis Collins, and John Walton books, and thought my reasoning was logical.
The tiny seeds of my eventual deconversion were planted however in a discussion/debate with my mother-in-law. She is a staunch creationist, doesn't think anyone who believes in evolution can possibly be a christian. We had a long discussion about the issue, and she kind of came around to my point of view--or at least didn't think I was going straight to hell anymore. But in the course of this conversation, she off-handedly made some comment about evolution meaning there was always death. We didn't really talk about the subject any more than that.
But it kept popping into my mind over the coming days. And for some reason, I had never considered this idea before. Months later, after much research, reading and considering, I came to realize that I could find no acceptable explanation for what "the fall" was, if it was a merely symbolic event. If there was always sickness and pain and death from day one, then the world was always "fallen". And without a fall, my understanding of who Jesus was and what he did was on VERY shaky ground. So it was the beginning of the end for me.
Why, that could fill an entire book on its own.
I recently finished reading "Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife". Pretty good book, I think most psychonauts would really enjoy it.
The jist of it is, some brain surgeon doesn't believe in NDE or God or Heaven, then he has meningitis, goes into a comma for 7 days during which the part of his brain responsible for human activity shuts down entirely. He wakes up miraculously after experiencing fantastic, timeless realms, meeting angels, the creator (he calls it Om), and now he believes in NDEs.
His book is freakishly convincing. I'm too afraid to believe in it, because it's just too good to be true. He basically met God and was told that we are always loved and we can't do anything wrong, and that the evil on Earth is only allowed because it makes us grow.
I took salvia multiple times, and there were beings there, or it looked that way anyway. It was always unpleasant and confusing as fuck, so I decided not to integrate anything I learned during these trips. Except for a single trip which had a profound impact on me. I left my body, and could clearly see my entire life, somehow, outside of time, as being such a tiny speck in contrast with who or what I really was, as though it was a short experience I was going through, but that which I really am is so far beyond this human life. A bit like if my entire life was just a game or a play or a dream, although that analogy really doesn't do the trip any justice. That was first hand experiential proof, as scientific as it gets, except for the somewhat alarming matter than it's not easily reproducible (until I get my hands on DMT). Still, I know what I experienced.
I think NDEs are peaks beyond the veil. I think life is in a way death, and death is in a way life, in a way that death makes life look like, well, death. And I think this is why I've had, for years now, this creeping suspicion that life isn't real, it's bogus, it's odd and something is up. The splinter in your brain, as The Matrix's Morpheus said (Morpheus is the God of Dreams haha).
Scientists assume that consciousness arises from matter. I think it's the other way around, or at the very least, they arise mutually. This is how science progresses: they come up with a rule, and roll with it until they encounter an exception or anomaly, at which point they need to come up with a better rule. Dogmatic scientists are hopeless, but true scientists will notice that exception and dare to question the depressing assumption that consciousness is an accidental derivative of matter. And when they do, they'll only be several thousand years behind Eastern philosophy.
A fellow named Francis Collins lead the Human Genome Project. He's an Evangelical Christian according to Wikipedia. I read his "Language of God" book a while back, about the process of mapping the human genome. It is essentially his defense (on the one hand) of why evolution is the way everything happened, and why (on the other hand) he believes the things he does. Interesting read.
> Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
That book cherry-picks scientific facts when it serves its purposes and dismisses others when it does not. The author knows Creationism is indefensible so he settles for the middle ground, Intelligent Design. The scholars cited are at the fringe of their fields of study. There are medical doctors out there who are anti-vax, or who advocate homeopathy. Does that lead any credence to the anti-vax or homeopathic movements? No, it does not. So, the book you presented is a great example of alternative facts, and your sentence "The only alternative facts come from unbelievers who suppress the truth in exchange for a lie such as Dawkins, Harris, and others" is absurd, there are plenty of honest believers out there who spouse untruths regarding a wide range of topics due to ignorance. To be clear, I believe in the Creator, but His modus operandi, His method of creation, is imprinted upon the Earth itself and not to what Christian tradition thinks it should be. As Paul said, God's attributes are perfectly seen through the things that were created.
I in turn respectfully recommend you read The Language of God by evangelical author and one of the heads of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins.
Here are some books, articles, websites and YouTube Videos that helped me on my journey from a hardcore creationist to a High School Biology teacher.
BOOKS
The Language of God - By Francis Collins ~ A defense of Evolution by the head of the Human Genome Project (Who also happens to be Christian)
Only a Theory - By Ken Miller ~ Another Christian biologist who accepts and vigorously defends the theory of evolution
Your Inner Fish - by Neil Shubin ~ The wonderful story of how Tiktaalik was found
Why Evolution is True - By Jerry Coyne ~ A simple and thorough treatment of evolution written for the mainstream
The Greatest Show on Earth - By Richard Dawkins ~ A wonderful and beautifully written celebration of evolution
The Panda's Thumb - By Stephen Jay Gould ~ A collection of eloquent and intelligent essays written by SJG. Any of his collections would do but this one is my favorite.
ARTICLES
Crossing the Divide - By Jennifer Couzin ~ an article about an ex-creationist and his difficult journey into enlightenment.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - John Rennie ~ a nice rundown of the major objections to evolution.
WEBSITE
An index of Creationist Claims - Via the TalkOrigins archive ~ an impressive index of the major problems creationists have with evolution, as well as good, evidence based rebuttals.
YOUTUBE VIDEOS/PLAYLISTS
Why do People Laugh at Creationsts? - Via Thunderf00t ~ a scathing review of outrageous sins of logic committed by creationists. Thunderf00t's style isn't for everyone, since he can come off as smug and superior
How Evolution Works - Via DonExodus2 ~ a nice and thorough overview of how evolution works
The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - Via Potholer54
Evolution - Via Qualia Soup ~ short (10 minutes), simple and well made, this is one of my go-to videos to help logically explain how evolution happens.
Hello and welcome! Here are my recommendations for de-indoctrinating yourself:
Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.
Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman
Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong
Watch this talk from Sam Harris where he explains why "free will" is likely an illusion, which debunks the entire premise of "the fall of man" as presented by most Christian religions.
Watch this video on the Cordial Curiosity channel that teaches how the "Socratic Method" works, which essentially is a way to question why we believe what we believe. Do we have good reasons to believe them? If not, should we believe them?
Watch this video by Theramin Trees that explains why we fall for the beliefs of manipulative groups in the first place.
This video explains why and how childhood indoctrination works, for those of us born-in to a high-control group.
Another great source is this youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.
Next, learn some science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.
Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.
Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
Watch this series where Aron Ra explains in great detail how all life is connected in a giant family tree.
Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
Learn about critical thinking from people like [Michael Shermer] (http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things?language=en), and how to spot logical fallacies.
For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline.
Read The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker.
Watch this Ted Talk by Hans Rosling, the late Swedish Statistician, where he shows more evidence that the world is indeed becoming a better place, and why we tend to wrongly convince ourselves otherwise.
I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that we can use to become more knowledgeable people.
You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--
Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."
>And apparently she thinks that science doesn't back up what Paleontologists have found so far. It's just amazing to me that people are so willing to listen so someone who doesn't even study this shit. Does anyone have any sources I can check out that can point me in the right direction on what's correct and what's not? I'm in the dark and have never looked into evolution or anything like it.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491459123&sr=8-1&keywords=why+evolution+is+true
Read this book. This book is written perfectly for laymen and normal people, explains it all very well. Evolution isn't a "theory." Its a verified fact.
As to the rest of the lunacy, you'll need to list it out a bit more. I take it you're still living with them? Be careful how much you argue with them about it. But don't let creationist baloney hold you back in your scientific education. I never pursued biology and a potential career as a doctor partly because the church told me it was all lies. I'm still mad about that.
Step back and breath. I was just pointing out that the level of this person's usage of facebook is apt for the subreddit /r/oldpeoplefacebook. This is a common practice on reddit, pointing out a comment or post and saying that it would fit into another subreddit.
***
Yep, breakups happen. They suck. I had a girl who I dated for 4 years and was living with break up with me. Often times you can use this as a time of introspection to ask yourself questions and be objective with the answer. Asking things like:
Why did this person break up with you?
I can only speculate, but I'll cover some of the most common reasons.
Was it because you, or they, need to grow more as a person?
Your post history says that You're a freshman, I'm going to assume in High School and not college. Regardless, your experience is real and I don't want to dismiss that. You've both got growing to do, I know High School (and even College) seem like they are the whole world. Being obsessed with popularity and the social games that are played.
It's often said that "the best revenge is a life well lived." Grieve for the loss of the relationship, that's normal, but the best way to move on is to show this person (and everyone else) that you've improved on yourself for yourself.
Were they no longer attracted to you?
You shouldn't change who you are to fit into the mold other people want. You should strive to be the best person you can be. If you do that and you remain strong and confident, then people will be attracted to you. When this happens and you find someone who is at their best, you will make great partners to each other. Focus on improving and growing yourself, when you do that people will recognize it.
Did they find some base reasoning that the relationship could not work?
You said that this breakup came after a discussion on evolution. This can be an aspect of a person's core beliefs. If they are religious evolution often goes against their beliefs and make them feel like you not believing the same as them.
If you want to seek a deeper understanding of the evolution v. religion topic I would suggest this video. I would also suggest Bill Nye's follow up book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. This should give you more information on what science knows and be able to appeal to a source or existing arguments.
I would also check out the /r/CrashCourseYT series Philosophy. This will help you build logical arguments, so that way you can say what you believe, why you believe it, and why they should agree with you. In addition to keeping an open mind in case they also have information that might benefit you.
Was it because of your actions towards them or others?
Being verbally or emotionally abusive. You can assess your actions by reading this article. People can use your behavior towards them or others to identify if you're a good match for them. Generally showing kindness, even when someone is wrong, is key. If you're nice to others, then this can appeal to a possible mate. If you are cruel to others, then this signals people you might be interested in that you could, eventually, be cruel to them.
***
I wish you the best and hope that some of what I have written will encourage you to become the best person you can be.
Edit: fuckin trolled
Ahora que anda el puerta a puerta te recomiendo esto.
Here's a list of books I've read that have had a big impact on my journey.
First and foremost tho, you should learn to meditate. That's the most instrumental part of any spiritual path.
Ram Dass – “Be Here Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Here-Now-Ram-Dass/dp/0517543052 - Possibly the most important book in the list – was the biggest impact in my life. Fuses Western and Eastern religions/ideas. Kinda whacky to read, but definitely #1
Ram Dass - “Journey Of Awakening” - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006L7R2EI - Another Ram Dass book - once I got more into Transcendental Meditation and wanted to learn other ways/types of meditation, this helped out.
Clifford Pickover – “Sex, Drugs, Einstein & Elves…” - https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Drugs-Einstein-Elves-Transcendence/dp/1890572179/ - Somewhat random, frantic book – explores lots of ideas – planted a lot of seeds in my head that I followed up on in most of the books below
Daniel Pinchbeck – “Breaking Open the Head” - https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Open-Head-Psychedelic-Contemporary/dp/0767907434 - First book I read to explore impact of psychedelics on our brains
Jeremy Narby – “Cosmic Serpent” - https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Serpent-DNA-Origins-Knowledge/dp/0874779642/ - Got into this book from the above, explores Ayahuasca deeper and relevancy of serpent symbolism in our society and DNA
Robert Forte – “Entheogens and the Future of Religion” - https://www.amazon.com/Entheogens-Future-Religion-Robert-Forte/dp/1594774382 - Collection of essays and speeches from scientists, religious leaders, etc., about the use of psychedelics (referred to as Entheogens) as the catalyst for religion/spirituality
Clark Strand – “Waking up to the Dark” - https://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Dark-Ancient-Sleepless/dp/0812997727 - Explores human’s addiction to artificial light, also gets into femininity of religion as balance to masculine ideas in our society
Lee Bolman – “Leading with Soul” - https://www.amazon.com/Leading-Soul-Uncommon-Journey-Spirit/dp/0470619007 - Discusses using spirituality to foster a better, more supportive and creative workplace – pivotal in my honesty/openness approach when chatting about life with coworkers
Eben Alexander – “Proof of Heaven” - https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195 - A neurophysicist discusses his near death experience and his transformation from non-believer to believer (title is a little click-baity, but very insightful book. His descriptions of his experience align very similarly to deep meditations I’ve had)
Indries Shah – “Thinkers of the East” - https://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-East-Idries-Shah/dp/178479063X/ - A collection of parables and stories from Islamic scholars. Got turned onto Islamic writings after my trip through Pakistan, this book is great for structure around our whole spiritual “journey”
Whitley Strieber – “The Key: A True Encounter” - https://www.amazon.com/Key-True-Encounter-Whitley-Strieber/dp/1585428698 - A man’s recollection of a conversation with a spiritual creature visiting him in a hotel room. Sort of out there, easy to dismiss, but the topics are pretty solid
Mary Scott – “Kundalini in the Physical World” - https://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Physical-World-Mary-Scott/dp/0710094175/ - Very dense, very difficult scientific book exploring Hinduism and metaphysics (wouldn’t recommend this for light reading, definitely something you’d want to save for later in your “journey”)
Hermann Hesse – “Siddartha” - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/siddhartha-hermann-hesse/1116718450? – Short novel about a spiritual journey, coming of age type book. Beautifully written, very enjoyable.
Reza Aslan - “Zealot” - https://www.amazon.com/ZEALOT-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X - Talks about the historical Jesus - helped me reconnect with Christianity in a way I didn’t have before
Reza Aslan - “No god but God” - https://www.amazon.com/god-but-God-Updated-Evolution/dp/0812982444 - Same as above, but in terms of Mohammad and Islam. I’m starting to try to integrate the “truths” of our religions to try and form my own understanding
Thich Nhat Hanh - “Silence” - https://www.amazon.com/Silence-Power-Quiet-World-Noise-ebook/dp/B00MEIMCVG - Hanh’s a Vietnamese Buddhist monk - in this book he writes a lot about finding the beauty in silence, turning off the voice in our heads and lives, and living in peace.
Paulo Coelho - “The Alchemist” - https://www.amazon.com/Alchemist-Paulo-Coelho/dp/0062315005/ - Sort of a modern day exploration of “the path” similar to “Siddhartha.” Very easy and a joy to read, good concepts of what it means to be on a “path”
Carlos Castaneda - "The Teachings of Don Juan" - The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge https://www.amazon.com/dp/0671600419 - Started exploring more into shamanism and indigenous spiritual work; this book was a great intro and written in an entertaining and accessible way.
Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Mary” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Mary-Magdalene-Jean-Yves-Leloup/dp/0892819111/ - The book that finally opened my eyes to the potentiality of the teachings of Christ. This book, combined with the one below, have been truly transformative in my belief system and accepting humanity and the power of love beyond what I’ve found so far in my journey.
Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Philip” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Philip-Magdalene-Gnosis-Sacred/dp/1594770220 - Really begins to dissect and dive into the metaphysical teachings of Christ, exploring the concept of marriage, human union and sexuality, and the power contained within. This book, combined with the one above, have radically changed my perception of The Church as dissimilar and antithetical to what Christ actually taught.
Ram Dass - “Be Love Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Love-Now-Path-Heart/dp/0061961388 - A follow-up to “Be Here Now” - gets more into the esoteric side of things, his relationship with his Guru, enlightenment, enlightened beings, etc.
Riane Eisler - “The Chalice and the Blade” - https://www.amazon.com/Chalice-Blade-Our-History-Future/dp/0062502891 - An anthropoligical book analyzing the dominative vs cooperative models in the history and pre-history of society and how our roots have been co-opted and rewritten by the dominative model to entrap society into accepting a false truth of violence and dominance as “the way it is”
im not OP but try The greatest show on earth by Richard Dawkins, thats where i got started.
If you are in college, seek out your Catholic Campus Ministries program, if you have one, and speak to the representative about RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults).
If the college has no CCM (or its equal), then seek out the local parish in your area and speak directly to the pastor about converting to the faith.
Before all of this, though, pray.
If the pastor you go to makes you feel like you have to run the gauntlet to join the Roman Church - this is a good thing. We have too many lukewarm Catholics who do not practice what the Church teaches. If you're going to join, we want you to be all-in.
Next, study. Do your own research with the Scriptures, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Canon Law to be your guide.
If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them here (or with your local pastor).
Edit Recommended Reading
I also recommend watching some episodes of Catholicism by Fr. Robert Barron.
>So it doesn't sound like I'm setting up an anonymous strawman, basically.
To be fair, anyone who doesn't consider the Garden of Eden as a literal event can be considered a skeptic. So that means there's plenty of Chrisitian denominations with their own prominent figures that you could write about also.
The only recent "Skeptic vs Literal" debate I can think of is the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate. I didn't get to far into it though so I'm not sure how much they touched on the Garden of Eden. I do know that Bill was so frustrated by the debate that he went out and wrote his book Undeniable afterwards. He might have something.
Generally though, it's going to be hard to find an atheist who's not skeptical of the whole Bible and not just a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden.
If it helps, my realizing that the Bible wasn't inerrant is what helped lead to my deconversion.
EDIT: The book itself doesn't have a chapter that directly addresses the Garden of Eden or problems with the story. I meant he might have criticisms of it on a website or in an interview.
May I recommend a book you might find interesting? It's called The Language of God by Francis S. Collins. He is a prominent scientist and was head of the Human Genome Project. You can pick it up used with free shipping for $5 on Amazon.
Unclean by Richard Beck
The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins
The Lost World of Genesis One by John H. Walton
Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making by Paul D. Simmons
The Authenticity of Faith by Richard Beck
Beyond The Firmament by Gordon J. Glover
All of these were required reads for me as I pursued a biology degree at a Christian university. I hope these help, and I wish you the best! If you have any questions about any of the books, please feel free to ask!!
Biologists virtually all agree that life on this planet has evolved over a period of about 3.7 billion years and that humans and modern fish share a fish-like ancestor (and a single-celled ancestor, for that matter). They have reached these conclusions because they're the best explanations for the evidence we see in the fossil record and in our DNA, among other things. Creationists deny these conclusions because they're not very well-informed or because they're unwilling to let go of a Genesis-based explanation for the existence of life on this planet.
I'm not trying to bash you; it sounds like you have an open mind and that's good. But the "battle" you describe isn't really a meaningful one. The people who know the most about this sort of thing consider the question settled.
I'd encourage you to read up on the subject if you're curious. Richard Dawkins recently released a book full of evidence for evolution. And although I don't recommend it as wholeheartedly, Finding Darwin's God was written by a Christian for Christians to make the case for evolution.
Zero evidence equals zero reason to believe. Your understanding of how evolution works needs some help... try reading some non-religious sources. I suggest 'Your Inner Fish' by Neil Shubin.
https://www.amazon.ca/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453
One of my favorites, Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, puts evolution in a wonderful context. It focuses on the evolution of development and shows you just how related you are to all other animals.
You still have your gills. They just turned into mammalian jaws and ear bones, that's all. If its any consolation, you had gills when you were an embryo for a short time.
Read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin for lots more on our fishy ancestry.
I'm not sure if this exactly fits the bill, but how about Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic?
EDIT: formatting
Personally, I think there's a lot of garbage, namby-pamby advice in this thread.
As Venerable Fulton Sheen said, "There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing."
If you believe the Catholic Faith is true, then presumably your end goal is their conversion. If it's not, it should be.
Perhaps the initial explanation won't go well. That's fine. Whatever happens, don't burn any bridges. Unfortunately, since it's today there's not much more prep you can do.
The best advice I can give is to come armed with what they think they know. Beyond the initial, emotional reaction, they will have arguments. Maybe not today, but they'll come. They already know what they're going to say. They already have their "Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon Talking Points" on a 3x5 index card (even if it's just a mental index card.) So what do you do? Surprise them. Steal their lines. Ask questions that they aren't expecting. Since you already know all of the anti-Catholic talking points, you are (hopefully) well prepared to counter them with clarity and charity, using Holy Scripture as your guide.
Also, remember you're not alone in this. LOTS of fantastic people have made this conversion. Here are a few book recs that are relevant.
Catholicism and Fundamentalism
Rome Sweet Home
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic
Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church
I haven't read this one yet, but it also looks awesome. Dr. Brant Pitre also writes on this topic:
The Fourth Cup: Unveiling the Mystery of the Last Supper and the Cross
Some books that have been often mentioned as good introductory texts about evolution for the layman:
Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
Websites with general information:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ (old site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/)
The folks at /r/evolution might be interested in giving their view, too if you have any specific questions.
You could also look into the biology curriculum of your college and check out the introductory biology courses you will soon be taking, and buy in advance the textbook(s) that deal with evolution.
The Science vs. Religion debate is a false dilemma. The debate is between world-views. Science is a mode to discover truth, not a world-view (it makes no claims of morality or oughtness - in fact, it can't make them). Scientism is a world-view centered on science that makes certain moral claims (despite the warnings of David Hume). But when someone is debating science and religion what they are usually debating is scientism and theism (though not always). And because the debate often conflates science and scientism, it is often superficial and misleading.
If you want a very good and thorough treatment of this by one of the leading philosophers read "Where the Conflict Really Lies" by Alvin Plantinga.
If you don't want to dive into a decent-sized book, take a look at these lectures by John Lennox which explore this debate to show the logic of theism (and, as a mathematician at Oxford, he uses the term "logic" deliberately):
This is just the tip of the iceberg on this. But will give someone a good overview of how to properly frame the debate without pigeon-holing into the many false dichotomies/dilemmas people seem to settle into on this.
For more LDS-centric resources, see:
There's also the 2013 Mormon Interpreter Symposium on Science:
> No, I do not see enough evidence in evolution.
As an honest question, have you genuinely looked at the evidence? I feel like many people who say the evidence for evolution isn't convincing, have either not looked at the evidence, or have only very selectively looked at it through the lens of creationism (which often caricatures evolution in a way that many "new atheists" caricature Christianity & religion)
If you were genuinely interested, this book does a fantastic job. Yes, it's written by Richard Dawkins, but the subject is 100% evolution, nothing about God or religion. Even Dawkin's harshest critics on the subject of religion typically agree that he is a phenomenal scientist/biologist and one of the worlds best experts on the subject of evolution. That book basically lays out a lot of the evidence and not only builds a proper understanding of evolution (which many of its critics do not have) but answers many other questions about it you might not even of had.
Yeah, actually most Christians don't believe in it and never have. It's really restricted to evangelical circles (like Southern Baptists). This book by our own /u/im_just_saying covers the topic well. He grew up pre-trib and became a-mil: http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Near-Maybe-Not/dp/1470001772
The Tarot is an entire spiritual path in itself, a superb tool to understand your sub-conscious and the world around you.
Can I suggest you look at Meditations on the Tarot by Anonymous, and, [The Tarot: A Key to the Wisdom of the Ages] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Tarot-Key-Wisdom-Ages/dp/1585424919) by Paul Foster Case.
Both will give you an enormous amount of wisdom. None of them are incompatible with your faith, in fact will reinforce and broaden it.
> I don't disagree with it, but that's just the thing; the Bible is, as far as now, historically accurate in the things we have evidence for
Go spend a few weeks reading archeology and textual criticism, and then try to tell me that with a straight face again.
I recommend starting here. Then you will know enough about the state of the field to go hunt down primary sources from the past 10 years, and see how his thesis has become the mainstream consensus.
Then maybe read a book on the formation of some doctrine, like the doctrine of hell. Hell is a late development in Judaism, and was shamelessly stolen from surrounding cultures, just like most all the rest of the biblical stories and ideas.
> One can't prove that there is or isn't a god, and that seems like a stalemate.
I can't prove there isn't a deity, but I can give strong evidence that irregardless of whether he exists, the bible is a very flawed human creation and all supposed revelation is dubious at best.
I was a fundamentalist a bit over a year ago. Then I actually read a lot of archeology, biblical textual criticism, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science of religion, as well as the best books on Christian evidence like N.T. Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God."
I'm sad to say that the case for naturalism of religion is much much stronger then any of the mutually incompatible claims religionists make by themselves. This is the main reason I am no longer a Christain.
If you want to look into the evidence against what you believe and want a good introductory book, I'd recommend this one. It covers a lot of ground, and then you can go look at any of the sections that interest you in more detail.
I was trapped in a cult called Mormonism. This magazine taught me much about critical thinking and I escaped :
https://www.csicop.org/si
And this :
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805070893/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_XHXIAbHYPT1YR
And this:
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345409469/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_7JXIAbH1KZTJH
> I think I'd like to learn more about it.
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution is a 2000 book by the American cell biologist and Roman Catholic Kenneth R. Miller wherein he argues that evolution does not contradict religious faith.
It turned into science because we found lots of evidence for it.
Here is a short video about it: What is the evidence for evolution? by Stated Clearly.
And a longer book about it: Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.
For your own sake and curiosity, I recommend reading how Kenneth R. Miller argues that the randomness of quantum mechanics is actually how God interacts with the Universe. There's literally no rational explanation for what happens at the quantum level which is why we rationally conclude that it's just meaningless and random. And yet that's how the entire Universe exists in the state that it does - and how every biological mutation occurred in evolutionary theory.
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
As for your sister, though, she's screwed. She's a liberal and a women's studies major at a secular university. Most people in that demographic suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. She also has strong ulterior motives and you're arguing against her dopamine reward system (living with her boyfriend).
This may help you understand her rather than wasting your breath arguing with her.
Why Evolution Is True
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Sure. Well, let me make a couple suggestions:
I wouldn't bother arguing with them. It's notoriously difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get into in the first place.
If you're interested in evolution, by all means learn more about it, but do it for yourself. You can start here for an overview:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://evolutionfaq.com/
And these books will explain in more depth:
https://smile.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649?sa-no-redirect=1
https://smile.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393351491?sa-no-redirect=1
https://smile.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925?sa-no-redirect=1
I would not read On the Origin of Species to get an introduction to evolution. It is quite long winded, but that was the standard of the time.
I would start with Why is Evolution True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins. At this point you should have a good grasp on the basics.
After reading these if you want a more technical introduction I would suggests The Selfish Gene by Dawkins.
I've said it here before, but Bill Nyes latest book Undeniable is great!
> as I have no proof that we evolved from other animals/etc.
Such proof abounds. If you're going to debate these people, you need to know some of it.
I don't mean enough to ask a couple of questions, I mean enough to carry both sides of the conversation, because he'll make you do all the heavy lifting.
Start with talkorigins.org.
First, the FAQ
Maybe the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution next,
then the pieces on observed instances of speciation
See the extensive FAQs index
Here are their questions for creationsists - see both links there
and then read the index to creationist claims
That's just to start. Take a look at the Outline (which starts with an outline of the outline!)
If you're going to talk with a creationist, you either need to get some idea of the topography or you'll end up chasing in circles around the same tree again and again.
Yes, it looks like a major time investment, but once you start to become familiar with it, it gets easier quickly. Don't aim to learn it all by heart - but you should know when there is an answer to a question, and where to find it.
read books like Your Inner Fish and Why Evolution Is True and The Greatest Show on Earth
I list Your Inner Fish first because it tells a great story about how Shubin and his colleagues used evolutionary theory and geology to predict where they should look for an intermediate fossil linking ancient fish and amphibians (a "transitional form") - and they went to that location, and found just such a fossil. This makes a great question for your creationist - given fossils are kind of rare, how the heck did he manage that? If evolution by natural selection is false, why does that kind of scientific prediction WORK? Is God a deceiver, trying to make it look exactly like evolution happens?? Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is true - that evolution actually occurs. (Then point out that many major Christian churches officially endorse evolution. They understand that the evidence is clear)
It's a good idea to read blogs like Panda's Thumb, Why Evolution Is True, Pharyngula, erv (old posts here) and so on, which regularly blog on new research that relates to evolution.
Make sure you know about the experiments by Lenski et al on evolution of new genes
Don't take "no proof" as an argument. The evidence is overwhelming.
New Evidence that Demands a Verdict
More Than a Carpenter
Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels On my to read list.
Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
The Case for a Creator
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus On my to read list.
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ On my to read list.
Besides the apologetics books, you can watch John Lennox on YouTube. He is a very well-spoken and kind (doesn't attack the other debater) debater. Very well thought out responses. The Dawkins vs Lennox debate was awesome! Ditto Gary Habermas as well.
I know a Pentecostal guy who read Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie and found it helpful.
I just began reading Your Inner Fish recently. It's pretty great so far. Definitely a focus on shubins experience with paleontology, but he does go a fair bit into molecular genetics as well.
Can't really say much else until I finish it.
Your Inner Fish is a fascinating book on the evolution of the human body.
Chapters 13 and 14 of Why People Believe Weird Things discuss why people believe the Holocaust was a hoax and then why we know it is a historical fact.
I'm gonna put in a shameless self-promotion for Catholic Word of the Day to get you up-to-speed on some of our vocabulary (along with some trivia).
But also check out Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers for some basic stuff. Bishop Robert Barron also produces good content, as does Fr. Roderick Vonhogen.
Also, check out Rome Sweet Home by Dr. Hahn and Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie.
But also, ask us around here your specific questions! We love answering questions from Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
> As far as I know there isn’t any real hard evidence for it.
For a nice overview of the plethora of evidence for evolution, read Jerry A. Coyne's Why Evolution is True. He gives lots, and lots, and LOTS of examples. It's easy to read.
Even if you believe in creationism, you should still read it. It's really important to look at the evidence that the other side presents so you can make an informed rebuttal.
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga addresses this concern in the excellent book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
From the dust jacket.
"It's astonishing that so many scientists, philosophers, and theologians think there is a serious conflict between science and theistic religion. In this superb book, the world's leading philosopher of religion explains, with characteristic wit and perceptiveness, why none of the main reasons for thinking there is such a conflict are even remotely successful." --Mike Bergmann, Purdue University
Not a book, but the overviews on TalkOrigins.org are a good place to start. Just start at the top and work down. It addresses some common theological issues.
You can also look at an index to creationist claims on the site, which has short answers to many points creationists raise, including a section on philosophy and theology.
You also might look at the unrelated biologos and clergy letter project for more theological support for evolution.
As for book, someone already mentioned "Why Evolution is True". Your Inner Fish is also a good place to start. The Greatest Show on Earth is also supposed to be good although I haven't read it.
If you do become interested in debating, or if you just have questions, it would be better to head over to /r/DebateEvolution, which specializes in the issue and has a lot of people very knowledgeable about the subject.
Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin is a good one. It's short, and easy to read, the author has a very friendly, conversational tone. It is primarily focused on human evolution, rather than evolution in general, though.
Most of the books that people are recommending on here are great, especially Jerry Coyne's. If you're going to read Dawkins, his best for explaining the basics of evolution is Greatest Show on Earth. If you want to read a book by a devout Christian who does an outstanding job of explaining evolution, then explains how he reconciles his understanding of evolution with his religious beliefs, try Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. Good luck on your search, and I salute your hunger for knowledge!
I have "seen" things that have convinced me. Not visually, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually my search for truth has always eventually lead me towards a belief in God. I'm not going to get into the individual things that lead me to be convinced of God as they are my lifetime so far of personal experience, education and seeking. But there is enough personal evidence to convince me to have faith.
I think you haven't seen anything convincing because you're looking for the wrong thing.
I could say that I don't believe in atoms, that I haven't seen demonstrable proof for them, you'll ask what would convince me, and I could say "I'll know it when I see it." You would conclude that I haven't examined the evidence properly. You'd find the fault in my view, not reality. How I look at it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You trust yourself to be the judge of what constitutes adequate proof, but how do you know you're judging that properly.
God is something that would by nature be outside the realm of complete human understanding. We are biological beings with a limited subjective view trying to understand the existence of something limitless, something non-biological, something relational, spiritual, metaphysical. Yet you expect this very thing to physically manifest itself before your eyes before you'll even consider that it exists.
Even if it did physically manifest itself to you, through the lens of science, you wouldn't end up believe in the thing itself, just the bit that physically manifested.
What I'm getting at is that science can only prove the physical, so when asking questions about non-physical things you can't rely on science to reveal them. You can believe that there is only the physical, and science is therefore the only metric you need for assessing the truth. But as science can only measure the physical, you can't use it to prove that a non-physical doesn't exist.
You'll ask why this non-physical, if it does exist, hasn't reached out and confronted you, hasn't revealed itself to you. I'd say it has, but you choose not to listen, because you don't believe in it. You have to open yourself to it first. It's there. What you want is for it to take the last step, to make you believe in it. But you want it to do that on your physical terms.
Someone much more wise and eloquent than I can explain this idea better than I can:
Jordan Peterson on why he believes in God.
For the record I think the scientific case for God is also pretty decent. This book has helped me with that.
This book will blow your mind. A great read for what's waiting on the other side for good hearted people. No doubt there is a God and that he's Great in every way possible.
Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife https://www.amazon.com/dp/1451695195/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_i_Doq.Ab11JC0M5
This might be a good follow up book:
The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert Price
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
I am another Christian who has read it. I know many others who have read it and have come to be more understanding of the atheistic viewpoint. I would also recommend it. :-)
I would also recommend for basic understanding of the Christian viewpoint:
BioLogos is always linked around here. It was founded by Francis Collins, an extremely successful geneticist and former atheist. He wrote a book which I've seen mentioned a lot but haven't read myself.
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is a good book that gives counter examples to creationists. It addresses radio-dating, plate tectonics, cool examples of animals, and missing links. Dawkins is a grumpy old atheist, so he may not be your cup of tea.
Walk around carrying a copy of the latest Bill Nye book.
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
The point is that Stephen Meyer is not an expert in any field of biology. Francis Collins is a Christian scientist who was heavily involved with the Human Genome Project when they were working on sequencing the entire human genome for the first time and is a reputable scholar among the scientific community as well as the current director of the National Institutes of Health. He published a book called The Language of God in 2007 which presents the case for evolution and its implications from a Christian perspective, in case you'd be interested in reading why the heck any scientist would accept as fact that you can trace your lineage back to a common ancestor with a strawberry. Evolution is not an intuitive concept without a decent understanding of the biological evidences that support it.
I enjoyed The Language of God by Francis Collins. I think it's a good book for a presentation of theistic evolution.
Francis Collins, former head of the Humane Genome project.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744
Interesting book.
Here's another good one by the cell biologist Ken Miller.
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427248419&sr=1-1&keywords=finding+darwin%27s+god+by+kenneth+miller
He was also an expert witness in the Dover District school board trial where they tried to introduce Intelligent Design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Some here will disagree, yet I think your cause is a noble one.
My suggestion would be to keep encouraging her to be a freethinker, question everything, and learn all she can about science. If she can be at a point where she understands that "science is more than a body of knowledge, it is a way of thinking" (Carl Sagan), if she can fall in love with the wonders of the creation of the universe and the evolution of life on this world, then you'll be done, as those things will show any thinking person the absurdity of religion as a moral compass.
If she likes to read, here are some books you might consider getting for her:
Edit: grammar
Just gonna throw this out there - most of me and my wife's shelf breakers came from books or film that wouldn't traditionally be seen as related to mormonism. Our brains were just too wired to sniff that stuff out and reject it even if engaging with it. Instead I'd recommend two of the most powerful books I ever read and obiliterated my testimony without so much as a mention of Mormon history:
The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins - Dawkins has a bit of a reputation as a vocal Atheist so your wife may already be biased. But if not - he is a wonderful writer, capable of relaying complex scientific principles in easy-to-understand layman's terms. So clear and levelheaded, it's essentially impossible to read this book and not have a minor stroke from the cognitive dissonance it throws on every concept of a divine creator that's ever existed.
Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan - Carl Sagan was the original 'make science cool and accessible' superstar and in my mind he still hasn't been topped. This book is a supremely entertaining, mind expanding and FAIR mediation on science and belief from one of our generations greatest thinkers.
Hope this helps (cause reading mormon history books if she isn't ready sure as hell won't)
There are two books that I think would be good:
What Evolution Is
Why Evolution Is True
I liked both books. I am not sure how readable they are without a decent understanding of basic biology. Can you tell us how much background you have in biology? That may help with suggestions.
Take a look at Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things There's a chapter in there titled 'Why Smart People Believe Weird Things'
Philip Kitcher's Abusing Science, Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things and Massimo Pigliucci's Nonsense on Stilts are all great reads on this topic. I also highly recommend Naomi Oreskes' and Erik Conway's Merchants of Doubt as an examination of how scientific language can be abused to stymie public policy progress on certain issues.
This is certainly part of the philosophy of science. The problem of how to separate genuine science from pseudoscience is called the demarcation problem, and there's not really any generally accepted criteria that apply to all cases. Some people reject the idea that we ought to draw that kind of principled distinction in the first place. Nobel Prize-winning chemist Irving Langmuir has a great talk advocating for a notion of "pathological science" rather than pseduoscience that's worth reading through.
She has this Bermuda Triangle thing going on. Everyone loves to post the stories about how someone mysteriously disappears in the Bermuda Triangle. I think I read it in this book, but basically some guy started collecting all of these stories about people sailing in the Bermuda Triangle region and getting lost mysteriously. Newspapers would print up all these stories about the mysterious circumstances and how no one knows where these people are. The guy in the book basically called around to look for the people that went missing and found out that almost all of them were eventually found. He called the newspaper to ask them why they didn't print a correction to the original story and they basically said "corrections don't sell newspapers".
I second the recommendation for Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. Very very good and highly accessible. Then, if you want further detail, go to The Greatest Show on Earth.
So I'll recommend two authors, and a blog:
Here's his wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Necessity-Clarendon-Library-Philosophy/dp/0198244142
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
A PDF of warrented Christian Belief: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/plantinga/warrant3.html
You should be able to get these books through interlibrary loan, if your library has an interlibrary loan service. Basically, this allows you to borrow books from other libraries.
Lastly, this blog might interest you: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/
There's a very hot book circulating right now called Knowledge of God, it's a debate between Tooley, a very notable atheist philosopher of religion, and plantinga, another one, who is theistic. Plantinga also has an excellent book called Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Basically, there is a trend in philosophy (naturalism) to make topics in philosophy reduced to topics of science (e.g. to clear up areas that philosophy used to cover and turn them into science fields). This trend is usually taken to be anti-theistic in nature, because the general idea is that God is a non-natural concept, which we receive knowledge of through non-natural means (intuition, a priori faculties, all that epistemological good stuff). Some theists are naturalistic about God (spinoza) but the grand majority think you get knowledge of him not with scientific methods, but with philosophical, mathematical, logical, personal, etc methods.
So there is a current in philosophy that those methods can be undermined as proto-science, and should be fixed by philosophers and turned into science. This current is alive and well today, as according to the philpapers survey, most professional philosophers are naturalists (although some of these naturalists, such as timothy williamson, don't think that philosophy is only a linguistic tool that we use to create sciences, but instead has its own objects of study for research. Nevertheless, the general point is that naturalists are very distrusting of "hocus pocus" metaphysics and epistemology. They don't want to speculate about what exists from the armchair, or at least want to do that as little as possible, whereas the non-naturalist wants to make robust claims using only intuition and personal experience, not science).
Most of these are rather aggressive anti-religion sources, rather than covering the more general sort of "basic atheism" that would be a better starting point IMO.
Something that might be of more use and interest to AtheistsM0M would be to dig up a book like The Portable Atheist, which has a a wide variety of essays and other writings from a variety of different philosophers throughout history. I've read some of it and there's some interesting stuff in there.
But the coached creationist will say, "Macro has never been proven! No new species have been formed! No matter how much you selectively breed dogs, you still end up with a dog that can interbreed with other dogs!"
The proper answer, of course, is to shove Your Inner Fish down their throat... that or smile and back away slowly.
/used to be a well-coached creationist, so hopefully I'm still allowed to make fun of them... >.>
Are you talking about Dawkins or the FreeThought blogger? Read The Greatest Show on Earth, it has plenty of science and clear thinking.
Yes!
I invite you to investigate N.T. Wright's take on "Kingdom Eschatology", a branch of Inagurated Eschatology. There is also a wonderful book on the topic written by /r/Christianity regular /u/Im_Just_Saying, entitled The End is Near: Or Maybe Not!
Eschatology should be good news for the world. Rapture theology is escapism and triumphalism wrapped up in American Exceptionalism, and it's a really weird eschatological development IMO.
The Case Against The Case For Christ
> Dr. Robert M. Price's book The Case Against The Case for Christ.
is this a bit like watching aquatic ape theorists argue against creationism?
I would highly highly recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. It was actually used as a text book for a capstone evolution course at my university it explains the basic and very complex ideas of evolution in a very simple manner.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Show-Earth-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374690719&sr=8-1&keywords=the+greatest+show+on+earth
The study of the origin of life is an ongoing process in the scientific community. A reddit comment is hardly the place to summarize an entire area of ongoing scientific study and research.
If you'd like to know more, wikipedia has a page on it which delves into the many competing and conjoining theories on the origin of life as we best understand it now.
There's also the Miller-Urey experiment concerning the so-called primordial soup specifically. That established the kind of conditions in which simpler organic compounds form more complex ones, and how that relates to early earth conditions. It's all really interesting to read about.
Also that's different than evolution. And if we're having an argument as to whether evolution is a real thing, I don't even know where to begin with that. The evidence for it, available from a wide variety of sources, is so voluminous that anyone wanting to seriously learn about the scientific study of the evolution of life can find an abundance of literature discussing evolution of creatures both small and large. Richard Dawkins discusses much of what that is in his book The Greatest Show on Earth.
If you'd like a source from a less controversial figure, Prof Jeffrey Coyne (an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago) has a good book: Why Evolution is True.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli.
Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
The Case Against the Case for Christ by Robert Price would be more opportune.
It's been done in book form, by Robert M Price, no less.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
There is a book by Robert Price, "The case against the case for Christ" where he tears the book apart.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Case-Against-Christ-Testament/dp/1578840058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369043654&sr=8-1&keywords=the+case+against+the+case+for+christ
Another book directly addressing the book in question
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Challenging-Verdict-Cross-Examination-Christ%2522-Cross-examination/dp/0968925901/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369043843&sr=8-1&keywords=challenging+the+verdict
Another review of the book on infidels
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html
TL;DR If you critically look at his arguments, they don't hold up.
Contemplative Masonry: Basic Applications of Mindfulness, Meditation, and Imagery for the Craft
Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation - SUNY series in Western Esoteric Traditions
Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism
There's a sub called holysummoners on the sidebar that you might like to be aware of. It has links in its sidebar to some specifically christian occult subs you should explore as well. Probably they can give you leads. Meditations on Tarot
I'm just going to spitball here. I would say that the important thing for you to explore if you want to explore this is looking beyond language. What are the words in your specific tradition pointing at. Probably not the same things that another tradition is even if it uses the same words.
God's universe is closer to an act of Magic than anything else and by emulating that act of creation we can come to know and love God more. (I typically wouldn't use that language )
The way I see it, Jesus was a magician. Soloman is explicitly a magician. As is Moses.
Popular Christianity as practiced today looks very little like historical christianity in many many ways.
The bible has many levels within it. The exoteric which is taking the book either literally or as stories to strive to live by. Then underneath the surface there are several esoteric, hidden, or occult(means hidden) levels. The bible is about You. Just You. It's also about everyone else but I mean read it as an allegory for your life and development as a soul. It is a retelling of the ancient star myths which also point at the microcosmic story of You. In the old testament the entire text is numerological(not sure about the new testament). It teaches magic. It shows the evolution of a particular lineage of human consciousness. It reveals the code behind creation and the Thoughts of God. Many more levels besides that. It trains you to see the many levels operating in every moment of your experience.
There are demon armies all over. Have been for a while. They just don't look how you imagine they look and demons aren't what you think they are. Neither are angels. No one posts pictures of them doing magic because that would be no proof. Magic directly effects the non-physical. The change that occurs in the physical is typically a string of the oddest coincidences. I'm afraid the barrier between our realities might be too great for me to communicate here. Have you considered that you know nothing? Not saying that your belief in the Bible is wrong, just putting out the possibility that you might be only seeing .0001% of reality and basing your assumptions on that tiny sliver.
In my experience, God wants us to become more and more conscious so that we can give service and aid in creation. And to generally enjoy creation. which is more and more possible the more conscious you are.
Do you think there has ever been a moment when you have been seperate from God?
David Mathisen has a book called the Undying Stars that is an interesting esoteric take on the bible. There's plenty of youtube videos he's made and a recent interview on The higherside Chats podcast that you might be interested in.
Witchcraft isn't inherently evil. It was competition so it was demonized by The Church. Do you mean why do people do so-called "low magic"? If the nature of the universe allows for magic, then making use of magic is just another way of getting things done. Most biblical characters do magic.
You have seen magic I'm sure. If you're looking for Harry Potter you're going to miss it. People all around you are doing it unconsciously if they aren't doing it consciously. This includes you. So it isn't possible to be a Christian and not do magic. It's not possible to be a human and not do magic. Sure you can never do it consciously but by existing you are operating on that plane to some degree.
The easiest magic to point at over the internet is advertising. Some dark black magic there.
Magic is probably both more and less than you think it is. It will boggle your mind if you ever actually see it.
I hear [https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot-Journey-Christian-Hermeticism/dp/1585421618](this book) is a key esoteric christian text.
There is a world more subtle than the physical that you can learn to see. It effects you whether or not you're aware of it. That's why watching a video of someone summoning wouldn't work. They aren't conjuring up a physical manifestation, though they and others might "see" it if they can.
Would you believe Heaven and Hell are within you?
God is the Source. The First Shaman, the Ancient Wizard, The Primal Magician. The Sorcerer. The Source-rer.
I really enjoy the book The Sacred and the Profane by Mircae Eliade atm.
God Bless you.
I think Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale is one of his best. It takes the traditional bacteria to human story of evolution and flips it on its head, escaping the sense of directed progress that so often occurs in evolutionary books. I would also second the suggestion for Shubin's Your Inner Fish.
Your inner fish.
Why People Believe Weird Things - Michael Shermer
Letter to a Christian Nation - Sam Harris
You may find the ideas of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning helpful. I also grew up very Christian (I once went to a camp where the whole purpose was to go minister to people on the streets for a week. Yikes.) and am now atheist AF. It was a struggle for me as well. You may also be interested in the TedTalk and book by Michael Shermer - Why People Believe Weird Things.
The most helpful way for me to think about it is that most religious people didn't come to religion because of reasons. They came to it either by default (raised in it) or by emotional need (tragedy strikes, they need purpose / stability / sympathy / to know things will be okay / etc.) My dad's wife told me that she believed in God because she couldn't stand the thought of not seeing her father again in Heaven. I told her that wasn't really a good foundation for a religion, and she didn't much like that. The real answer is that people believe because they want to believe.
Also, let's not pretend people are rational in other aspects of their life. Once I got into the workforce, I saw that people believed all kinds of silly things to protect themselves (their ego, really). They'll claim that such-and-such method is really the path forward, when it's very clearly not, just because it was their idea. They'll blame other people for their own mistakes. They'll hold down their subordinates because they don't want their employee to outshine them. And on and on it goes. I guess people do act largely "rationally" in these cases, it's just that the goal isn't to be right, it's to feel like they're right. People also really, really, really, really, really hate to admit that they were wrong, especially about something as foundational as religion - but also about anything else. Like, they really hate it.
Finally, there's no punishment for being wrong about this. People believe much more insane things, in the sense that they can easily be proven false - Obama was a secret Muslim bent on enacting Sharia law in the US, the Earth is flat, the Queen of England is a lizard-person, etc. - and nothing bad happens. Sometimes they may air their insanity in public and get laughed at but they go back to the previous paragraph and distort things to protect their vision of the world and themselves. It's not like you'll be sent to prison or fined for believing silly things. So they get a lot out of it (self-affirmation) and nothing bad happens to them (no fines for stupidity) and they don't have to admit they were wrong. They're going to keep on keepin' on.
To me, this is more a psychology problem than a philosophical one. It's more about how people think than what they think and the sad truth is, people aren't great at rigorous thinking. Our ability to argue rewards those who win arguments, not necessarily the people who are right. I can't tell you how many times I've been discussing something contentious with someone and they bring out a 'gotcha' kind of statement - something that people don't hear often so it's unexpected.
For instance, some Jehovah's Witnesses asked me the other day if I trust science. I saw where they were going with this (trying to equate my belief that science works with their faith in religion.) I told them that science is no more a collection of facts than a stack of bricks and wood is a house and that science is a process - it's really a verb, not a noun. Every fact we have is subject to updating given appropriate evidence, and that is where the true strength of science lies. That we don't try to be eternally right, but just the most correct we can be right now given the available evidence. This had obviously worked well for them before, but they abandoned this line of 'reasoning' before they even got to the question, because I'd already explained how they are misunderstanding my position in order to make that argument.
That's my brief explanation for why I, a layman, think this kind of thing happens. I'm no expert, but this is something I've gone through myself, and it's a rough journey, especially with your family and most friends shitting on your new beliefs (I don't know your experience, but that happened to me for a long time.) If you want to chat more about it, feel free to message me or continue the thread and I'll help however I can.
Ok, well it all depends what stage of the journey you are at. Since you have been an atheist, the first priority will be to convince yourself philosophically of what exactly God is, and that God exists. Probably the best concise reference for this would be Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Edward Feser (a professor of philosophy who was, in fact, an atheist himself, and is now a Catholic). Once you are in relative certainty about the existence of God, you need to know why the Christian theology represents a direct revelation of God to mankind. Obviously, the best record to attest to this fact is the Bible itself. I would really just recommend reading through the whole thing front to back if you haven't yet. If you get stuck in some of the Old Testament, flip over and start reading through the New Testament, and just make sure you cover all your bases there. Don't be afraid to come back with questions you might have about any scripture you read. Another good read might be an exposition on why we can trust the narrative on the resurrection of Jesus, where you might be interested in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas, an evangelical Christian scholar. Once you're there, you'll be most of the way along your journey into the faith and you might still question why the Catholic Church is the "right" one. There are dozens and dozens of resources responding to various Protestant objections to the faith, but honestly the best thing you can do is probably Catholic radio and podcasts. And actually, if you listen to "Catholic Answers" podcast (just search it on YouTube, daily podcast that you can listen to on Catholic radio or on YouTube live 6-8PM EST daily), you'll get a variety of quality information that runs the gamut from classic philosophical proofs for God from Aristotelian arguments to details of objections to the historical office of the Papacy in the 16th century, and everything in between, and the guys who do the apologetics on there are really humorous sometimes.
So if you're really detail oriented and want to wade into some books, maybe start by taking a look at those. If you just want an enjoyable and easy way to broach all these topics at once, I'd suggest start looking at the "Catholic Answers" videos. You could even call in to the podcast and get your specific question answered on air!
Hope this helps!
I went through a similar phase in my life, and while I was worried about the fact that there wasn't enough scientific evidence for Christianity, I realized that I also didn't really have scientific evidence for most of anything I believed about morality or free will. And I didn't have a particularly good explanation for why the evidence points towards the universe having a moment of creation and why the universe appears to operate by a reliable set of rules. I realized that most of my life is not lived based on the confidence intervals required for scientific experiments, and I found I could very comfortably justify my faith based on my own life experiences, the testimony of others, and the historical evidence that does exist.
One book that helped me was [The Language of God] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744/ref=cm_lmf_tit_18) by Francis Collins (leader of the Human Genome Project and current director of the National Institutes of Health who became a Christian as an adult). Even if it doesn't convince you to become a Christian, it may help you better understand your girlfriend's faith and how it is compatible with science.
You should read The Language of God by Francis Collins. It's a fascinating book that does a fantastic job of explaining some of the ideas behind that school of thought, whether or not you agree with them. It's had a tremendous influence on my interpretation of Genesis.
I would try to explain how the book changed my views on this topic, but I probably wouldn't do a good job of making it make sense on here.
BioLogos.org deals head-on with this controversy in a polite and open manner. Seriously, they rock.
The Language of God, by Francis Collins, is a great starting point for the science-end of the issue.
The Lost World of Genesis One, by John Walton, is a great starting point for the Bible-end of the issue.
The Bible Project's podcast episode Science and Faith handles this issue wonderfully, as per the norm with Tim Mackie.
There are loads of other places you could go, but these are great starting points that can lead you to other sources of information. They were very helpful for me.
The Language of God by Francis Collins.. I went to a Christian college, and this book was actually my first required reading, before classes even began.
Francis Collins is one of today's leading scientists (he headed the Human Genome Project), and also a devout Christian.
Richard Dawkins is actually a very good writer and very challenging, but from a scientific point of view.
Christopher Hitchens is also very good, a very entertaining writer and speaker. He comes from a philosophical, historical and theological point of view.
But...
Who you SHOULD be reading to counter their view is Hitchen's cancer doctor, Francis Collins. He wrote the book I'm reading on now, "The Language of God."
READ THIS BOOK!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744
He's heard every scientific and philosophical argument against God, and writes about them here.
Collins is highly respected by the "New Atheists," and writes a really good book!
I love what everyone is saying here.
Science and faith are entirely compatible. Science is studying how the world works. If you believe in a deity, then science is studying what that deity created.
For a Christian perspective on this, I recommend Francis Collin’s book The Language of God. Francis Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health in the US and was (one of) the leading scientists on the human genome project.
This isn't exactly what you're looking for (it has much more to do with pollination and fertilization than it does germination), but the hammer orchid has a structure that looks like a certain insect. The orchid has evolved a part (the labellum) to look uncannily similar to the female Thynnid wasp (at least to the males). When the male Thynnid wasp tries to copulate with the labellum, the orchid swings the two backward, smashing the wasp against pollen packets, which stick to it. The wasp then flies away and is tricked again by a second orchid. This time, however, the pollen from the first flower enters the stigma of the second and fertilizes it.
I'm just a high school student, so professionals out there please correct me if I'm wrong. I apologize profusely for any errors or misconceptions.
Hope this helps!
Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History available on iTunes podcasts as well.
Steven Pinker’s book The Better Angels of our Nature is a fantastic total annihilation of Watchtower’s constant fearmongering about how much violence there is in the world and how it’s only getting worse.
Basically anything by Richard Dawkins is evolutionary biology gold, highly recommend his book The Greatest Show on Earth
Neil deGrasse Tyson recently released a great book Astrophysics for People in a Hurry that gives so many mind-blowing facts about our universe in quick-to-read fashion. His podcast StarTalk Radio is fascinating and fun as well.
Bart D Ehrman is a fantastic biblical scholar, his book Forged examines the Gospel writers and why many are not who the religious believe them to be.
What convinced me of the truth of evolution was hearing a talk from Dr. Kenneth Miller, author of Finding Darwin’s God. He’s a Catholic biologist who not only soundly explains the science of evolution and refutes scientific explanations for creationism, but also believes that rather than conflicting faith, an understanding of evolution enhances faith.
> I feel like we're getting pretty close to the end game in this field
Not by a long shot. There were people saying the same thing five hundred years ago. It's incomprehensible how much remains to be learned. Our models of everything - the physical world, the functioning of biological systems, the nature of the universe - are fairly crude next to what actually goes on.
To put things in perspective, we learned what the pancreas does less than one hundred years ago.
We figured out how to fly a smidge longer ago than that.
We haven't even left our own solar system yet, and we (humans, not robots) have only ever been to one body other than the earth.
You carry computers in your pocket now that are about the thickness of a deck of cards and can accurately track your location to within a few feet, automatically order a sub sandwich for you at the touch of a button, and will allow you to place a telephone call to Shanghai. Ten years ago, that would have been witchcraft. Today it's commonplace.
In biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, computing science, and a hundred other fields I'm too dumb to even know about... we're still learning.
>The synaptic structure of the brain does NOT explain the mind
Note that you're contradicting yourself here - you just said we're 'nearing the end game' and now you're launching in to how much we don't know.
The synaptic structure of the brain alone doesn't explain the mind. There are neurochemical and other factors to be considered.
It's a highly complex processor, and we don't know what we need to know to accurately model or reproduce it.. yet. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.
Be careful you don't fall into an argument from ignorance fallacy here.
>You trying to convince a christian that a quark behaves depending on whether or not its being observed is about as likely as them trying to convince you that you should act righteous because god is watching.
Are you saying people of faith can't be reasoned with? I'm sure there are a few examples, but by and large... I disagree.
>The only two choices are not science and faith, and I hate to break it to you, but all the arrogant little atheists on reddit come across just as closed minded as somebody who really believes the earth was created in 7 days.
I don't disagree that it's not a dichotomous choice. If you haven't read Ken Miller, I recommend this.
>We need to get faith and science back in bed together.
Erh, I don't think it's so much that as we need to recognize that they're independent and ought to remain as such.
Ken Miller wrote a book called Finding Darwin's God, where he does what you're looking for. He starts with young-earth creationism, moves onto old-earth creationism, and then to intelligent design. It's the best book on evolution I've read so far.
What the heck, I'm in the mood to toy with a troll on a Saturday night.
"People assume evolution is true because they say it's the most logical thing to believe, but I believe that intelligent design is more logical if you examine the evidence with no presuppositions."
First, scientists don't assume anything, and people who have gone to actual schools rather than Christian schools have learned the scientific method and possibly even proven evolution to themselves in a laboratory experiment (yes, it happens in the lab)
If you examine THE evidence? ... with no presuppositions? Funny. Because the Intelligent Design lie was invented by the Discovery Institute, whose mission is to prove that God is behind it all -- i.e. they are starting with a presupposition.
". Evolution has no proof. They have fossils and dating methods that they say is proof, but subjectively they must not truly be proof because if they were truly proof then there would be no intelligent people who believed in creation left"
hahahahhahaa that's a good one! They have thousands of fossils, and dating methods that have been proven... and when they dig where they expect to find certain kinds of fossils based on the theory of evolution, they find them! They have found fish that were able to walk on land, the transitional fossils between the hippo ancestor and the whale, etc.
The fallacy of appeal to authority is no kind of proof especially in this case because you're not appealing to biologists of the modern era, 99% of whom see evolution as the central defining theory of their life's work.
"Evolution has never, in human history, been observed. Their have been many cases of micro-evolution"
Caw! Caw! Caw! You, my friend, are a parrot. You are parroting Ken Ham, which is pretty funny. You obviously don't know that ALL evolution takes place with tiny steps -- i.e., there's no such thing as "macro evolution," so you and the people you parrot are demanding to see something that wouldn't fit the theory of evolution, then claiming that the theory is bunk because the experts haven't provided it. Guess what? That's a dishonest and shameful tactic. You should be ashamed of yourself for mindlessly parroting something so intellectually dishonest.
"3. Evolution goes against the law of entropy." That's just nonsense, again parroting Ken Ham and his ilk. Read this instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy Meanwhile, consider these points: A. How can crystals form if entropy governs everything and B. The sun sends radiation energy to the Earth, so the Earth is not a closed system - additional energy is added every day.
" it's more logical to believe that an all powerful God created everything than things evolving"
No, it's not more logical. Consider: A perfect God wouldn't have given us the appendix, the tailbone (and in some people actual tails), goosebumps, and other vestigial traits. These things are only logical in light of evolution.
So.. show me the proof? You have a computer. You can use google. You are literate. You can read a book. Why should random redditors be challenged to prove what you are too lazy and ignorant to discover for yourself? The evidence is not that hard to find. Try reading Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Read up on fossils -- and not in Answers in Genesis or whatever source you parroted in your OP. Read up on how it's been true over and over and over that fossils are found in layers, in exactly the same order everywhere, and that you can predict which fossils you might find in a layer of ground based on evolutionary theory. Note, nobody has EVER found a fossil in a layer where it doesn't belong. A find like that would at the very least shake up one portion of the story that other fossils have told.
Evidence that points to evolution IS proof.
Look up "equivocation." This is a favorite trick of Ken Ham and his ilk. Don't do it! Stop it! Grow up and accept reality! You don't have to equivocate on words like that to learn science - you only have to do it to cling to the creator-god. The bronze age people who made up that story can't be faulted for believing it because they didn't have the scientific method, the technology to study the world like we do, or centuries of scientific findings that have told a much more interesting story.
But you are not a bronze age person, so let go of that fairy tale and embrace the real world.
Can you afford $10 - $15 for a nice present for him?
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1318986789&sr=1-1-catcorr
> and that means it is the end of the discussion is vapid
No one said that is the end of the discussion. They said it answers the question asked.
> short sighted, and lacks serious contemplation of the issue
Again simply asserted and not argued for.
> On top of all of that, it is overly simplistic.
No its not. In fact, though I doubt you've ever seriously studied evolutionary theory, it is quite complicated.
> In other words, saying we do what we do because of evolution presupposes and begs so many answers and questions that it is often times not a respectable or acceptable answer for those seeking greater understanding...
I don't think you have any idea at all about which questions and or answers are presupposed by explaining any of this in terms of evolutionary theory. A few specific (non-metaphorical) examples would be nice.
Again, you need to be careful: No one is saying everything we do makes sense in direct evolutionary terms. Skydiving doesn't seem to make any sense in evolutionary terms. But excitement, adventure, and thrill seeking do.
> For instance, if I order a pizza and want to know where it came from, Pizza Hut, while a valid answer doesn't address the greater(possible) context.
Answering "pizza hut" answers the question you asked. If you would like to know more, you must ask different, better questions. You didn't ask "where does the dough in my pizza come from?" you asked "where did my pizza come from?". This is not lazy, unimaginative, or vapid, it is accurate to the question asked. If you have a better, more specific question, there are other answers that make perfect sense in terms of pizza hut.
> While some of the questions to which I ask may never be known, to assert them as unimportant or lacking in value shows a bias and a personal prejudice that could very well lead to ignorance.
First, this doesn't follow. Just wanted to call your attention to that. Examining a question to discover that it doesn't really mean anything requires some of the most careful thinking humans do, and no-one could properly show that a question doesn't have value without first understanding what that value or meaning seems to be. And no, doing this does not engender any kind of bias or prejudice, in fact quite the opposite, it requires complete, accurate understanding.
"What is the color of envy?" Certainly green. But wait, that question doesn't make any sense. Emotions don't have colors. The question "why have we culturally associated negative emotions with colors which in certain constituents (vomit, rot, defication) trigger disgust?" is a much better, more meaningful question. But envy doesn't actually have a color, it is an emotion.
Second, nice straw-man. I suspect you're carrying baggage over from previous conversations.
> While I am not directing this at any person here, I am saying that I've seen many atheists lack either the willingness or comprehension skills necessary to consider other arguments/evaluate their own.
Ah yes, baggage definitely carried over from previous conversations. Never mind that this assertion, completely out of left field, shows a pretty gross generalization, I doubt you look any more intellectually capable or willing to them.
> Simply put, claiming that the reason for us being here is because evolution "just is" blindly assumes too much.
Like what? Again, I don't think you have even the slightest idea.
> After all there is no proof of this such a position, and even more so then that, there are good possible arguments to be made to the very contrary.
Oh lordy here it comes.
Read a book. Seriously prove yourself to be not a hypocrite and go buy those two books right now. And read them in full, charitably, even if you're not a creationist.
> Regardless my main point is simply this, many people(atheists) who argue for evolution as an answer worthy of general acceptance within humanity (for our be all end all origins of existence) have given up on the serious consideration of other alternatives
Yes, because the alternatives have been so thoroughly trounced, debunked, and defeated which evolution has been so thoroughly explanatory, consistent, and supported.
> as such are generally not interested in a fruitful discussion but merely want to espouse their dogmatic world view.
"Fruitful discussion" isn't just discussion which includes totally erroneous, impossible things. Upon your asking about where your pizza came from, my suggesting that we pay serious attention to my hypothesis that it was pooped out exactly as is by a superhero I call Pizza Man three minutes ago would not be a means to fruitful discussion. Having a diverse discussion isn't having a fruitful one. A fruitful discussion proceeds toward truth, it doesn't include as many possibilities as possible for their own sake.
> It's a completely different thing to say that since evolution created us we should just believe that is the totality of our origins.
Again, the stench of baggage here is heavy. First, if evolution created us, evolution created us, that is the totality of our origins. The question you're trying desperately to beg includes evolution creating us by the hand of a sky wizard. If that were the case, it wouldn't be evolution creating us. It would be evolution and a sky wizard. No evidence of the sky wizard, no reason to think he created us through evolution. No reason to think he didn't either, but in order to think he did (and that's what were worried about, if he did), ya need evidence.
And again with the straw-man. No one is saying that since we understand our evolutionary origins necessarily and sufficiently, we must now never consider any further possibility or amendment at all, ever. Quite the opposite, science is constantly doing it's best to discover that evolution is wrong- this is part of the scientific method. It doesn't seem to be able to do a very good job to that end (indeed more and more support keeps showing up), and that's why we take evolution so seriously.
We we don't do is give every random suggestion or hypothesis automatic credence as equally likely to be true just because some guy thought of it. You must have evidence that your hypothesis is true, or it is tentatively, parsimoniously considered not true (not 'false' mind you, 'not true'- as in lacking established truth value).
The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Portable-Atheist-Essential-Non-Believer/dp/0306816083
There's a book about this, and it's wonderful.
I think the most common response I get after whittling away all the bullshit reasons people use to justify their beliefs is some variation on "Faith." Personal experience, feeling very strongly that something is true, wishful thinking, etc.
In debates, I give people one retreat to this answer for free. I point out how terrible it is as a path to truth, how indistinguishable faith is from gullibility, how just wanting something doesn't shape reality, and so on. The second time they do it, I point it out and close the conversation. There's no more progress to be made at that point.
"50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" is a great choice: http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672
Yeah, I'll second that book too. As you said, very short and very dense. He has a whole rap about how he's been teaching trig for decades and he can't figure out why they insist on making it an entire-semester course when he can teach it in an hour. Pretty cool book, but, man, do you ever have to sit down and crunch out the material on your own. Kudos to you!
By the way here's the Amazon link.
Siddhartha by Herman Hesse
http://www.amazon.com/Siddhartha-Hermann-Hesse/dp/081120068X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377155668&sr=1-8&keywords=Siddhartha
Fictional life story of Siddhartha, a contemporary of Guatama Buddha. This is a story of a man seeking spiritual truth through sensual and worldly experience, ultimately achieving similar spiritual heights to the Buddha, yet by a path that many of us might find much more familiar and relatable than a life of renunciation. Beautifully written, poetic, mystical and almost fairy-tale-like in tone. Some of Herman Hesse's finest work.
Be Here Now by Ram Dass
http://www.amazon.com/Be-Here-Now-Ram-Dass/dp/0517543052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377155603&sr=1-1&keywords=be+here+now
Autobiographical, blissed-out, art-infused, eloquent and insightful rant about a journey that begins with the Harvard psychology department's early LSD research and culminates in a journey through the Himalayas leading to deep transformation with the help of a wandering mystic and an epic guru. Ram Dass beautifully weds the best parts of hippy and psychedelic culture with the ancient truths of hinduism, vedanta and yoga. The annotated reading list at the back is a treasure trove of eastern awesomeness.
The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels/dp/1590308352
Honestly the best introduction/summary I've read of several schools of Eastern Thought. The book is intended to show parallels between ancient spiritual truths and scientific principles discovered in quantum physics. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Zen (and I think a couple more) get meaty, well written and well researched treatments by Capra, and curious minds benefit from having all this info in one spot. Capra gives in-depth focus to each tradition and highlights the similarities and differences of each path. Awesome graphics too. Highly recommend to any western mind wanting to encounter eastern thought.
Namaste!
edit: grammar
I've never read it so I can't endorse it personally, but you might want to look into "The Tao of Physics".
https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Mysticism/dp/1590308352
50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God is good, and broken up in such a way that you can read the objections to your own reasoning.
You might also want to check out r/Atheism's FAQ's. They have a lot of good book recommendations and a nice summary of common questions.
https://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300 is a good start. Reading through the principia mathematica could also be useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
50 Reasons People Give for Believing In a God is a good book that explains different reasons people believe and while it doesn't tell them they are wrong, gets people to critically think about if that reason is a good reason or not.
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
Francis Collins has great stuff on molecular stuff. He was the head of the Human Gene Project under President Clinton back when we were still mapping it. The Language of God is a good one.
I suggest you take a look at these two AMAs from this past year:
Notable comment from the thread with further resources:
>My biggest recommendations would be:
> [The Language of God*](http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400689255&sr=8-1&keywords=The+language+of+God), by Francis Collins (the founder of BioLogos; a great treatise about how science and faith can work together)
Buy her a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth.
"The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. It is a very easy to follow book about evolution, how it works, and why we know it's fact.
Here are some other good books not included in the Bible.
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=nodl_
https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/ref=mp_s_a_1_2_nodl?crid=9RMC18R4FOG4&keywords=misquoting+jesus+by+bart+ehrman&qid=1554250427&s=gateway&sprefix=bart+ehrman&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=mp_s_a_1_3_nodl?crid=35QQAVAV7QDZC&keywords=richard+dawkins&qid=1554250354&s=gateway&sprefix=richard+dawkins&sr=8-3
https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins-ebook/dp/B003JTHWJQ/ref=mp_s_a_1_2_nodl?crid=35QQAVAV7QDZC&keywords=richard+dawkins&qid=1554250354&s=gateway&sprefix=richard+dawkins&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Isaac-Asimov-ebook/dp/B000FC1PWA/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=12RC9CDG804CS&keywords=isaac+asimov&qid=1554250561&s=gateway&sprefix=isaac+asimov&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/Gone-Girl-Gillian-Flynn/dp/0307588378/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=3CFDSBUJ5BQBR&keywords=gone+girl&qid=1554250625&s=gateway&sprefix=gone+giel&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/Green-Eggs-Ham-Dr-Seuss/dp/0394800168/ref=nodl_
I think the best thing to do here (especially if you enjoy reading) is to do some study into the good reasons why Christianity is believed to be correct. William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith is one of the best, most cohesive defenses of the reasonability of the Christian faith I've ever read but there are plenty of other good sources too (Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God and The Coherence of Theism, J.P. Moreland and Bill Craig's Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview, Paul Copan and Bill Craig's Come Let Us Reason, Craig Keener's Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, and Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief just to name a few).
Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig
http://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Faith-Christian-Truth-Apologetics/dp/1433501155/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345835288&sr=1-1&keywords=reasonable+faith+by+william+lane+craig
Definely an interesting area of study, I appreciate Sir John Eccles parallel between the brain and the mind being like that of a piano and a piano player, with the music being the stream of consciousness.
So, if we switched the piano, what would happen to the music?
Quite a few interesting possibilities, perhaps the person would know they are themselves but need to learn how to play with a new instrument. What would be the implications of this?
Perhaps God has placed the part he gives to consciousness in a part or the whole brain which would lead to one personhood being in charge over another.
This seems to be the question your asking and I find it intriguing. It should be noted that any results could be interpreted to be in favor of dualism, so this isn't really the brain vs the soul. Theist are open to follow the evidence where it leads, by contrast, the atheist cannot, if for example, the person wakes up being the same person after surgery.
Have you heard of the neurosurgeon Eben Alexander that wrote a book on his near death experience while his brain wave activity was being monitored? If there are states of consciousness when there is no brain activity going on, then brain wave activity is not a necessary condition of consciousness.
Have you seen the studies by Benjamin Libet?
Libet discovered that prior to a person’s awareness of his decision to press the button, a brain signal had already occurred which resulted in his finger’s later moving. So the sequence is: (1) a brain signal occurs about 550 milliseconds prior to the finger’s moving; (2) the subject has an awareness of his decision to move his finger about 200 milliseconds prior to his finger’s moving; (3) the person’s finger moves. On a second run of the experiments, Libet discovered that even after the brain signal fired and people were aware of their decision to push the button, people still retained the ability to veto the decision and refrain from pushing the button! This is precisely what a dualist interactionist would expect to see.
Yup, pretty much.
If you are interested in learning more about this then I recommend two books:
That is exactly what I am interested in doing! So since I have spent quite a lot of time thinking about this I believe I can help. As for what to read: I started with Your Inner Fish because it brings human evolution back to when we first got out of the water and explains very, very early brain evolution and development of the brain in utero. Also an easy read. Next I have been tackling "Evolution of the Human Brain" by Lieberman (can't find an amazon link for it, sorry). I'll admit it is not an easy read and it is not impeccably edited but I believe all the facts are there and it is very comprehensive. You can learn a lot from this book. I will also suggest The Brain. Now, I can't speak to the quality of this one because it has just come out, but the guys who wrote it are incredibly smart and I expect nothing but great material from them.
As for schools: you must know now that it really all depends on the person you want to work with. They could be anywhere in the world. I mentioned before, this is my thing, so I can tell you that the schools I have interest in because they have one or more people researching this area are: UC San Diego, George Washington U, possibly NYU if you can tie it into neuroscience and work with the medical center, then there are people abroad as well if that's something you would consider.
Hope that helps.
edit: the book is called "Evolution of the Human Head" not Brain.
I Recommend Your Inner Fish
I've heard Your inner fish is good. They did a the part show on the book for PBS. I've only seen the first part so far, but it was really good. I don't remember any mention of religion although it's possible I missed it. You could watch it together.
Edit : [Here] ( http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/) is a link to the show.
Edit 2 : [The book.] ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307277453?pc_redir=1408253690&robot_redir=1)
Edit 3 : I also highly recommend DHW as illusive atheist mentioned. Great book for the pros of science and skepticism.
On the question of people and their blind spots, I recommend going to the library and borrowing a copy of Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. (I'd be remiss if I didn't specifically call out chapter 18, "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things" in the revised edition.)
This book is decent It also has a chapter on Ayn Rand objectivism as a cult.
Also see another book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct/dp/1250008808/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=128C3144EKDPV7SQPYRY
Among the Truthers is also not bad.
You didn't write very much, so this is a shot in the dark. Please disregard if this isn't true. You seem to want to be convinced. Frankly, I don't think its anyones job to convert or convince you. This should be your decision, based on your decisions and research. Your post comes across as intellectually lazy. You also seem to want this to be a religious experience ("want to be Atheist") with some sort of conversion. I don't think thats the way to go, making a decision based on some feeling.
Now that I got that out of the way, here is a brief overview of my story. I am a new unbeliever. What started me down this path was realizing that god is never there. He calls himself a father, husband, and brother, but he is never there. I was going through a hard time and I would ask for him to show himself to me like he did to Moses or Elijah or Paul or Ezekiel or Joshua or Gideon or Stephen. I didn't want the hard times to end, I just wanted to have a conversation with him. I wanted to see him and talk to him. I wanted a father. Can you honestly imagine a human father treating their kids like god has treated humanity? CPS would show up and put him in prison for extreme neglect. I started seriously doubting gods existence.
I thought that emotions are not always a great indicator, so I looked into the historical evidence for the resurrection. Go for the heart of the matter. I watched several debates and the Christian arguments didn't come close to standing up under the scrutiny. Here is a list of the debates I watched:
I should say that I watched these videos after I had read Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona, so I was familiar with the theistic side of the debate. I was actually mostly convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, but to be intellectually fair I wanted to hear what the other side said. The other side convinced me.
Why Evolution is True -Great intro to evolution
The Blind Watchmaker- Dawkins' best introduction to evolution book. If it intrigues you have a look at his other works.
Definitely watch this. One of the best and most simple lecture series on Evolution. By none other than Dawkins himself. Very basic in presentation and entertaining series:
Growing up in the Universe
Why dont you take a university class on Evolution? Or just take a bio 101 class which is going to teach evolution briefly in 1-2 lectures.
I just stumbled upon this course. Which is a evolution course at Yale Open Courses that you might want to check out:
http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/
Friend, it's time to get into philosophy, because let me tell you, it is FAR from an open and shut case when it comes to whether or not it is logical to believe in God.
It's not an easy or a simple topic, and if you want to defend your faith you're going to need to argue about things like metaphysics.
I'll give you some links to get you started:
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Logic_and_the_Absolute_Platonic_and_Christian_Views-by_Philip_Sherrard.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
http://pitt.edu/~jearman/Earman2000HumeAbjectFailure.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_Other_Minds
On science and evolution:
Genetics is where it's at. There is a ton of good fossil evidence, but genetics actually proves it on paper. Most books you can get through your local library (even by interlibrary loan) so you don't have to shell out for them just to read them.
Books:
The Making of the Fittest outlines many new forensic proofs of evolution. Fossil genes are an important aspect... they prove common ancestry. Did you know that humans have the gene for Vitamin C synthesis? (which would allow us to synthesize Vitamin C from our food instead of having to ingest it directly from fruit?) Many mammals have the same gene, but through a mutation, we lost the functionality, but it still hangs around.
Deep Ancestry proves the "out of Africa" hypothesis of human origins. It's no longer even a debate. MtDNA and Y-Chromosome DNA can be traced back directly to where our species began.
To give more rounded arguments, Hitchens can't be beat: God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist (which is an overview of the best atheist writings in history, and one which I cannot recommend highly enough). Also, Dawkin's book The Greatest Show on Earth is a good overview of evolution.
General science: Stephen Hawking's books The Grand Design and A Briefer History of Time are excellent for laying the groundwork from Newtonian physics to Einstein's relativity through to the modern discovery of Quantum Mechanics.
Bertrand Russell and Thomas Paine are also excellent sources for philosophical, humanist, atheist thought; but they are included in the aforementioned Portable Atheist... but I have read much of their writings otherwise, and they are very good.
Also a subscription to a good peer-reviewed journal such as Nature is awesome, but can be expensive and very in depth.
Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is also an excellent look at the human mind and genetics. To understand how the mind works, is almost your most important tool. If you know why people say the horrible things they do, you can see their words for what they are... you can see past what they say and see the mechanisms behind the words.
I've also been studying Zen for about a year. It's non-theistic and classed as "eastern philosophy". The Way of Zen kept me from losing my mind after deconverting and then struggling with the thought of a purposeless life and no future. I found it absolutely necessary to root out the remainder of the harmful indoctrination that still existed in my mind; and finally allowed me to see reality as it is instead of overlaying an ideology or worldview on everything.
Also, learn about the universe. Astronomy has been a useful tool for me. I can point my telescope at a galaxy that is more than 20 million light years away and say to someone, "See that galaxy? It took over 20 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach your eye." Creationists scoff at millions of years and say that it's a fantasy; but the universe provides real proof of "deep time" you can see with your own eyes.
Videos:
I recommend books first, because they are the best way to learn, but there are also very good video series out there.
BestofScience has an amazing series on evolution.
AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism is awesome.
Thunderfoot's Why do people laugh at creationists is good.
Atheistcoffee's Why I am no longer a creationist is also good.
Also check out TheraminTrees for more on the psychology of religion; Potholer54 on The Big Bang to Us Made Easy; and Evid3nc3's series on deconversion.
Also check out the Evolution Documentary Youtube Channel for some of the world's best documentary series on evolution and science.
I'm sure I've overlooked something here... but that's some stuff off the top of my head. If you have any questions about anything, or just need to talk, send me a message!
>methodically state the case for why creation is most likely and/or why evolution is unlikely.
You will find lots and lots of the latter. Very little of the former.
>I'd also be happy to read GOOD anti-creation books as well, provided they meet the above criterion of not being mocking.
Those would just be science books based on the academic literature, wouldn't they?
Here is my reading list form the past few months. These would be pro-evolution (a.k.a science). Creationism is mentioned in a few of them, but almost in passing because Creationism is simply not a factor in legitimate scientific research, so it gets pretty much no consideration.
Knock yourself out. ;)
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453
If you're looking for a "smaller" book, I can recommend Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. The main portion of the text is only a little over 200 pages so it's easy to do a quick first read. It also has a glossary so there are clear definitions of terms that may be unfamiliar. Coyne has a much gentler presentation than many, so for a first book on evolution it has much to recommend it.
> we don't see science as the enemy, we may deny things that are not proven definitively (i.e. evolution,darwinism)
Are you sure that you are not denying things that you do not WANT to be proven definitively (ie. evolution, darwinism)? If evolution was proven as "definitively" as germs causing disease or the earth being round, would you then stop denying it?
All of modern biology (aka. science) is based on evolution, how is that not seeing science as an enemy, if you deny basic modern science?
These resources may help you understand what has been "definitively" proven:
Ken Miller on Human Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Why Evolution is True: Jerry Coyne
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/
You've heard everything that the religious have to say. And, like most Christians, you've heard the critics being grossly misrepresented through apologetics.
I suggest that you start to study what the critics of Christianity have to say in their own words.
Here's a few to get you started:
As they say, knowledge is power. Understanding why Christianity is wrong will help greatly with purging it from your mind.
Finding Darwin's God is a book by a Brown University cell biologist who's unapologetically Christian.
I suggest you do what you're telling others: follow the evidence and educate yourself. In particular, I would recommend Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller. He's a scientist as well as a Christian and does an excellent job of explaining the details which seem to trouble you.
'------------
TL;DR Sorry about the book review. Check out the linked book if you're interested in a rational and well-thought out exploration of the absurd implications of new earth/creationist theories on the nature of God.
'------------
For anyone interested in further reading on this topic, check out the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. (www.amazon.com/dp/0061233501/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_9o7szbXJJD182).
The author -- a practicing Catholic -- goes through several popular new earth/creationist theories and summarily dismantles them as being inconsistent with any notions of the Christian God's character. A chapter titled "God the Charlatan" addresses the theory that God created the earth 6,000 years ago and intentionally left behind false evidence (I.e., fossils, carbon dating, light particles from galaxies not yet created but still placed midway between their apparent point of origin and the earth, etc.) solely for the purpose of hiding his role in the creation.
This book became an early shelf item for me when it was assigned as required reading in my Biology 110 class at BYU. Like most TBMs, I "knew" that evolution was nothing more than a theory created by mankind to explain away God, but I had never stopped to think through the ramifications of worshiping such a deceitful God.
The author ultimately comes to a "faithful" conclusion that leaves the door open to the existence of a divine being by applying a "God of the gaps" approach to the apparent unpredictability of sub-atomic particles. Although I can't say I'm ready to endorse his theory, my agnostic-but-not-quite-atheist self can at least acknowledge that it is a lot less crazy of a theory than anything else I've ever heard.
Edit: fixed formatting
Absolutely. Actually, the correct way to say this is “Is it possible to be a Christian and accept evolution?” We don’t “believe” scientific theories; we accept as (provisionally) true based on the evidence.
Most Christians do accept evolution. (and it is “most” in that the number of Christians who accept evolution is > 50%) Here is a list of statements by various Christian denominations accepting evolution: Statements from Religious Organizations, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vie...
The way that this is done is very simple and was summarized back in 1890:
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Christians have always held that God has two books: scripture and Creation.
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning
So what happens when there is an apparent conflict between the two books? Christians decided that in 1832:
British evangelicals wrote in the 1830s that "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
What we have today are some people insisting that their interpretation of the Bible must be paramount. IOW, unless you accept their interpretation and reject evolution, then you can’t be Christian. That’s not the core belief of Christianity. Those core beliefs can be found in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds. Nicene Creed - Wikipedia .
They state “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker heaven and earth” or (Apostle’s) “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth;” Apostles’ Creed: Traditional and Ecumenical Versions - The United Methodist Church
Those statements of belief do not specify how heaven and earth was made. Thus, as Rev McCosh has pointed out, evolution is simply how God made the diversity of life on the planet.
So the issue becomes: do Christians want some current people to require an additional belief —a belief in their interpretation of scripture contrary to God’s Creation — in order to be “Christian”?
​
Several of the most famous evolutionary biologists, who made significant contributions and additions to the theory of evolution were religious.
For example Theodosius Dobzhansky (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), who actually is one of the fathers of the modern synthesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) and who coined the phrase "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Dobzhansky believed in a personal God who had created though the means of evolution.
Another famous evolutionary biologist was paleontologist Pierre Theilard de Chardin (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). He participated in the discovery of Homo erectus in Asia. He was not only religious, he was a Jesuit priest.
Francis Collins, who lead the Human Genome Project at the NIH, and is fervent evangelical Christian, thinks God chose evolution as the mechanism to generate life's diversity, and speaks against Young Earth creationism.
These are just some examples. The erroneous view that religion and the theory of evolution are incompatible views largely stem from a particular flavor of Christianity present in some communities in the USA
But in principle, nothing prevents biologists from believing in God, and there is nothing special about the theory of evolution that denies the existence of God.
I also suggest the following books: Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller. A Christian (Catholic) and a biologist. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.): Kenneth R. Miller: 9780061233500: Amazon.com: Books
and Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion - Kindle edition by Michael Ruse. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. Michael Ruse is an agnostic, therefore his analysis is more objective and more critical. But his result is the same: absolutely a Christian can accept evolution.
Why evolution is true by Jerry Coyne is concise, and keeps the bashing of creationists to a minimum, if I recall correctly.
I'm late to see your comment, but you may find this interesting:
Coral produces annual rings and daily rings. If you add up the number of daily rings between annual rings, then you can figure out how many days were in that year.
Radioisotope dating showed that some fossilized coral that had been found was about 380 million years old.
Now, 380 million years ago, days were shorter, about 22 hours long. So there were more of them in a year.
To find out whether the day really was 22 hours long when the coral lived, they just counted the rings (or made a grad student do it).
Turns out that there were 400 daily rings between each annual ring, which correlates to 21.9 hours a day.
21.9 is close enough to 22 to feel pretty good about it. A great example of different parts of science coming together to verify each other.
Source: Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne
Definitely check out these books. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne
It’s may not go as deep as some others but it’s an easy read book that keeps you engaged and is totally worth your time. I love this book so much because it’s very approachable for anyone. It’s filled with easy to understand examples, and I find that it’s a great refresher for myself every now and then. It’s also a great book to give or recommend to others who may not know much about the subject.
As others have mentioned, Darwin’s book is more of a piece of history than anything else. It was absolutely groundbreaking at the time but we know so much more now. Plus, the way it was written definitely shows it’s age and makes it a kind of a hard read.
Natural selection is not defined as "survival of the fittest," that's just a colloquialism to help people understand the basic idea. The basic idea is that there is some process by which organisms who are more fit than others will reproduce more often, outcompeting those who are less fit. Natural selection is simply the mechanism that takes genetic mutation and environmental conditions and outputs organisms that succeed. It also outputs organisms that don't, hence the idea of 'out competing.'
I'm on mobile, so here's an ugly link to a good definition and high level overview:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
The phrase "survival of the fittest" reduces the idea down by trimming away the details to make a nice, intuitive catch phrase. However, that loss of information does lead people to misunderstand what natural selection really is.
As for your link, I'll respond with one of my own, if you're interested. I'm not an expert and don't keep the details of evolution handy. The book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne goes into great detail about why the Theory of Evolution does make predictions and that those predictions are testable and verifiable. That will suffice as my rebuttal to Dr. Henry Peters' forced "tautology." After all, wouldn't you rather hear it from an expert than some internet stranger?
There are plenty of other books like Dr. Coyne's that would do just as well, however. I was able to check out his book for free at my local library, but here is the Amazon link ($14), so you have the details:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Check out the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.
Check out a copy of the books The Greatest Show on Earth or Why Evolution is True from a library. You can also get one of them for free on Audible, but you will miss out on the citations and diagrams.
See if you can watch or read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. I watched the miniseries, it's pretty good. It used to be on Netflix but no longer is.
Cosmos is great, and is on Netflix. If you want to watch videos about Cosmology just type in one of the popular physicist's names, Brian Greene, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss (his Universe from Nothing book is really great, so are his lectures about it), Sean Carroll etc.
Let me know if you want to talk, I'm always up for it.
No problem. Keep in mind this was a process over 4-5 years.
> What was your initial reaction when you discovered that your beliefs didn't hold up to scrutiny?
Denial, basically.
My story in (very) short: I started learning about skeptical ideas and concepts around other ideas (ufos, bigfoot, esp, dowsing), then made the sudden connection: how do I know I'm not making the same mistakes (confirmation bias, hindsight bias, counting the hits and ignoring the misses, motivated reasoning, etc.) about my own belief about intercessory prayer? So my initial plan was to research and examine individual beliefs within Christianity one at a time; after all I could still be a Christian (of some variety) even if some of the Evangelical/Pentecostal-specific beliefs didn't prove out.
I even went as far as designing some very detailed statistical dice-rolling tests as a way to evaluate prayer (like a "fleece test", see Judges chapter 6).
But then I found atheist authors like Greta Christina who had writing so clear and to the point that, in a way, it cut the Gordian Knot of my big list of beliefs to investigate: if God didn't actually exist, then none of the rest of these details matter.
Even after that, I still clung to one thin thread of hope: Biblical Creationism. If the only reason we are here at all is because of God, then he can't just not exist, right? Well, about 3 chapters into Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, I was an atheist.
> How should one go about trying to show evangelicals that their beliefs aren't worth keeping?
I think that would be a counter-productive approach. You can't convince someone their belief isn't worth keeping if they still believe it is true.
I was an Evangelical for 40 years because I believed it was true. I believe that the stories in the Old and New Testament were literally factual. I believed that I was a sinner that was in need of redemption, and had been saved by grace by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. I believe that I had a real, personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I believed that I felt the real presence of a spiritual being in the church sanctuary during worship services.
In fact, my (stated) commitment to truth is a big part of why I felt that my investigation into my beliefs would surely confirm everything I already knew. But it also fortunately meant I was open to learning the truth, if I was wrong.
My only strategy is to ask a question shamelessly stolen from some of the witnessing material we studied in church: if what you believe were not true, would you want to know?
To many believers, the answer will be a clear and unashamed no. They're not interested in hearing anything that could even hypothetically change their mind. For them, even considering questions of doubt is "opening themselves up to the devil". For them, there is nothing you can say.
For those that are willing, I encourage them to research these kinds topics using materials from outside their Evangelical circle (even mainstream Christian scholars who are not Evangelicals). I have a Bible degree from an Evangelical university, and (you probably wouldn't be surprised to hear), we were only allowed to use materials from "Bible-believing" authors (ie, other Evangelicals). So even in college I never really studied these things from all sides, just from what Evangelicals set up as the straw man of what the other side said.
> What views of yours changed (e.g. on gay marriage, sex ed, abortion, etc., anything like that) when you discovered your beliefs didn't hold up to scrutiny?
Once I discovered I was wrong about the most important thing I believed about the universe, yes, the obvious follow-up was: well, what else might I be wrong about?
In short: everything.
I was a Rush Limbaugh listening, straight-ticket Republican voting, abortion and gay rights-opposing stereotypical member of the "religious right". As a teenager I was an enthusiastic volunteer on Pat Robertson's 1988 Presidential campaign.
I'm now a no-apology liberal, and am addicted to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. I consider myself a (still learning) feminist, and am supportive of LGBT rights, BLM and other social justice causes. I have changed my mind about abortion, although I've found having conversations about that with my (still believing) wife or other family/friends simply is never productive.
I thought this book did a great job of listing big, high-level evidence for evolution.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
I would echo the other commenters' advice about keeping your sanity and surviving the next few years.
My addition to this discussion is book recommendations. If you want to learn more about evolution, check out the books Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne, The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins, and Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin.
Reading these books will pretty much inoculate you against creationist bullshit (pardon the vaccination pun), and give you a great foundation in understanding one of the most basic facts of science --- evolution.
We all wish you the best as you navigate these difficult years. Please use this sub as much as you need! :)
Right here is a good place to start.
>I guess it might be more appropriate to ask why you believe Christianity is the right one.
Many books have been written on the subject. Might I recommend Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
But if you'd rather have my personal point of view, I believe Christianity is true because of the authentic testimony of the bible and Christians everywhere, combined with my own 'personal experiences'. The holy spirit imbues me with a sense of rightness that cant be adequately explained. All these things and more are why I believe Jesus to be the way the truth and the life. Why do you believe that he is not?
There's this one of course: http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Near-Maybe-Not/dp/1470001772
I'm not in 100% agreement, but he does a good job.
The End Is Near...Or Maybe Not!
In case he's busy, he has a book on the subject that's short and easy to read.
Some other books on the topic of eschatology (the "end times") worth reading (or listening to):
NT Wright's Surprised by Hope
Kenneth Meyer's The End Is Near...Or Maybe Not!
Yes, the quotes are out of context. For example, look at the Shephard of Hermas quote:
>2[6]:6 Thou shalt therefore say unto the elders of the Church, that they direct their paths in righteousness, that they may receive in full the promises with abundant glory.
Basically, this verse says that we should stay on the path of righteousness in order to receive a reward.
>2[6]:7 Ye therefore that work righteousness be steadfast, and be not double-minded, that ye may have admission with the holy angels.
The word "therefore" indicates a conclusion. Therefore, our works should be steadfast, not double minded in order to have admission with the holy angelsl
Now here is the critical section quoted by this site:
>Blessed are ye, as many as endure patiently the great tribulation that cometh, and as many as shall not deny their life.
Here, we see a old english word "cometh" which is in the 3rd person singular present indicative. There is no future tribulation hinted by the text itself. If someone wants to look at the Greek, I am sure it is also the same case for the Greek, or else this word would not be used in the translation. Thus, the future tense is read into the Shephard of Hermas by these rapture proponents, and the true meaning of the great tribulation is something that is being endured in the present. This careless reading of scripture and other texts is really a hallmark of the rapture movement.
Additionally, The scriptures themselves do not teach the rapture. I recommend reading the Anglican Bishop Kenneth Myers book "The end is near... or maybe not."
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Near-Or-Maybe-Not/dp/1470001772/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345680055&sr=8-1&keywords=the+end+is+near+or+maybe+not
He was a firm believer in the Rapture theology, but when the rapture never happened when it was supposed to after the formation of Israel, he began to read the Scriptures more carefully, and now holds a more orthodox position.
Anyhow, So what should we do with these people? Love them, respect that they believe these things. I would not let their quotes bother you though.
There is a section after that prophecy where He does mention the end of the world, but the main takeaway from that is that no one knows when that is.
You wanna read a book about the subject? Our very own /u/im_just_saying tackled the issue in tremendous fashion in this book.
Dr. Robert M. Price is arguably the greatest New Testament scholar of our time.
What I admire most about Dr. Price is that he encourages everyone to read and study and think for themselves and come up with their own conclusions. When there is very little evidence for a solid conclusion, he often says something like, "It seems to me that this is the case, but I could be wrong."
He is ignored by Christian New Testament scholars because he finds no evidence for miracles and no evidence to believe in the "Super Man" Jesus.
He is mostly ignored by secular New Testament scholars because he finds very little evidence for the historical man Jesus, and therefore doubts that the "Clark Kent" Jesus ever existed. Paraphrase: "There could have been an historical Jesus and I could be wrong, but I just don't think the evidence is there to support a definite conclusion."
Not too long ago the movie 'The Case for Christ' was released. This was based loosely on Lee Stroble's book "The Case for Christ". In 2010 in a response to Lee Strobles' book, Dr. Price published his book "The Case Against the Case for Christ."
This is an excellent read for anyone interested in the subject.
The Case Against the Case for Christ
>Leading New Testament scholar Robert M. Price has taken umbrage at the cavalier manner in which Rev. Lee Strobel has misrepresented the field of Bible scholarship in his book The Case for Christ. Price exposes and refutes Strobel's arguments chapter-by-chapter. In doing so he has occasion to wipe out the entire field of Christian apologetics as summarized by Strobel. This book is a must-read for anyone bewildered by the various books published by Rev. Strobel.
edit: spelling, got the link correct
Out of interest, have you read The Case Against The Case For Christ?
Quite a scathing comment in the Amazon comments (not that I pay much attention to that without reading the book myself):
>You see when Lee Strobel wrote his book, "The Case for Christ" it was a feel good book that was short on facts and long on fluff. It was easy to digest because there wasn't much there for your brain to do. It was rather a lot like watching a Saturday morning cartoon.
My interest is piqued enough to have quick look at both books though.
I've always felt as though the evidence for the biblical Jesus isn't sufficient for me, but I've always been on the look out for new information that makes me change my mind.
=-==========-=
Edit - I've been reading the book. Had to get to page 28 before any testable claim was made:
>Acts ends apparently unfinished-Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book
was written before Paul was put to death." Blomberg was getting more wound up as he went. "That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62. Having established that, we can then move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know the first part-the gospel of Luke-must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier. "If you allow maybe a year for each of those, you end up with Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, maybe even the late 50s. If Jesus was put to death in A.D. 30 or 33, we're talking about a maximum gap of thirty years or so." He sat back in his chair with an air of triumph. "Historically speaking, especially compared with Alexander the Great," he said, "that's like a news flash!" Indeed, that was impressive, closing the gap between the events of Jesus' life and the writing of the gospels to the point where it was negligible by historical standards.
The author is declaring "case closed" on the timeline of the early bible based on the fact that the book of Acts remains unfinished? An assumption about why the book remained unfinished is followed by assumption after assumption. Scrolling through the rest of the book, the logic is just as weak throughout.
He is not looking at this from an evidence-based perspective, he is writing a story about a journey from unbelief to belief while skipping over the many leaps of faith it required for him to get there.
I wanted this to be a good book, but I partly agree with the quote in the Amazon review, this is a feel-good book written for Christians who are already convinced and are merely wanting some apologetics to go with it.
Just putting my thoughts out there.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html
https://celsus.blog/2013/08/24/another-case-of-apologetic-dishonesty-in-lee-strobels-the-case-for-christ/
https://valerietarico.com/2019/03/20/how-case-for-christ-author-lee-strobel-fabricated-his-best-selling-story-an-interview-with-religion-critic-david-fitzgerald/
Or this one: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452531252&sr=8-1&keywords=the+case+against+the+case+for+christ
Ever read Meditations on the Tarot?
http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Mysticism/dp/1590308352/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324588598&sr=8-1
Kinda reflects both of her interests. It's a classic and this is the 35th anniversary edition.
Not sure how you can try atheism seeing how beliefs are involuntary — you're either convinced of something or you're not.
But if it's just reading atheist literature, then tell him to take a glance at this:
https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672
or
http://www.kyroot.com/?p=8#jesusseminar
A physics-guru friend of mine recommends this three-pronged punch: In Search of Schrödinger's Cat, The Tao of Physics, and Autobiography of a Yogi. Haven't gotten to the third one yet myself, but the first two were quite excellent.
If you're scoring 25's everywhere, you have a lot of content you need to learn.
Most of the 3rd party books are crap. Sorry. They are. I've read almost all of them, and it's filler.
I like Webster's grammar: https://amzn.com/0375719679
+understanding the rhetorical questions by using practice tests and making your own steps
Cheap math book: https://amzn.com/1592441300
Reading: Man, I've covered this on other posts
Science: a basic understanding of scientific concepts + practice
A 7-point increase is not easy on your own, but you can do it if you make a study plan and stick to it. You're going to have to search out why you don't get questions right if you don't understand the explanations. You're going to have to hold yourself accountable to your own knowledge level. Doing something that hard on your own is extremely difficult, but, if you can do it, you will be supremely prepared for college and will be a very successful person.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way trying to discourage you from doing this on your own. The fact that you're on this subreddit and asking for help already shows that you are a lot more mature than your peers. Make a plan; stick to it; and re-evaluate it periodically.
If you go content-driven (which is the evidence-based way to increase your score the most), you're not going to get linear score increases. You might study for a month and get 1 point. Some weird click moment happens when things get easier and recall of topics starts to happen more. But isn't it like that for almost everything?
Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell: Geometry, Algebra, Trigonometry by George F. Simmons
I haven't read it personally, but I heard that 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God is good because it's specifically written to be non-offensive and in your face.
I strongly recommend the book "the tao of physics". Written almost 40 years ago, it remains extremely current and poignant in its comparison of modern physics and eastern mysticism
http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Mysticism/dp/1590308352
My two cents: it is all conected, but you have to find your own path
I know a lot of people will send you to read Dawkins and Harris..ect. But I found The 50 reasons people give for believing in god to a really good starter book. It's very simply laid out. Each chapter is one reason someone gives to believing in God, and why that reason doesn't hold up to logic/facts/reasoning ect. That way if you parents ask you a specific question about why you don't believe you can give them an answer!
There is an extremely good book by Simmons. It's very well-written, short, and has Simmons special touch to it:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1592441300/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_XPG9AbMK7R8KC
Simmons is an extremely good writer. I'd also recommend to check Lang's Basic Mathematics.
I just started reading Bill Nye's book - Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation.
It's quite good so far and Bill Nye's quirky personality comes through in his writing so it's not a dry read.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1250007135?pc_redir=1413087316&robot_redir=1
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.
Thanks for the advice. I understand what you are saying, but we are both coming from a position where we have a need for mutual understanding. It is her desire to better understand what I think and vice versa.
She actually opened the topic by suggesting I read
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
she also said she would be willing to read anything I suggest.
EDIT: I think I am Dyslexic I always put the "(" on the text and the "[" on the link!
> Dinosaurs contradict creation theory.
Possibly. But many branches of Christianity do not endorse YEC.
> Evolution contradicts 'god made humans to be above all others', since our ascendance is based on (essentially) chance.
For some this is true. But again, many Christians are theistic evolutionists.
> Other planets and the nigh-certainty of extraterrestrial life contradicts 'god made earth/the entire universe. The (measurable!) Big Bang theory already does that though, of course.
I don't see the contradiction unless you mean that it contradicts that God made the universe specifically for human beings. In that case, this is a point of contention that was shared by many early natural philosophers, even non-Christians. The Ptolemaic geocentric system of the universe was valued because it put human beings at the center (among other reasons). But, this seems to be a problem less about Christianity and more about human importance in general.
> If Christianity is not the first religion, it suggests that people will make up origin stories to comfort themselves, and Christianity is just one of them. This is of course a different branch of science (anthropology I think?), but a valid one afaik.
Good point. There is a reason why anthropology has one of the lowest proportions of religious people of the scientific disciplines. But, a religious person could argue that people generate origin stories so as to fill a God-instilled void in themselves (I am not making this argument, I'm just saying that it is a possible one).
> Furthermore, if God made the world and everything in it, why would he a) make other religions; and b) let people carry on for thousands of years without knowing about God, and in fact believing in the wrong gods. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Good point, but this is venturing beyond science into theology.
> Now I agree every single one of those points can be refuted if you try hard enough. The point is though, you have to try.
In order to refute the points above, you have to decide that the first christians were flat-out wrong in taking the bible factually and that it was always meant to be allegorical.
Good points, and this is why some Christians have such difficulty with certain scientific discoveries. If one holds a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is much harder to reconcile modern science with Christianity. But, is this a flaw in Christianity itself or a flaw in certain human doctrines about Christianity? Personally, I do not see logical inconsistency with people who adjust their doctrine according to new scientific discoveries. In the book I linked, several of the authors discuss how Christianity helped shape modern science, but the inverse can also be true; science can help shape Christian theology. Isaac Newton, who is "Mr. Science" for many and often used as the posterboy for atheism, invoked the concept and several attributes of the Christian God to explain several of his scientific findings in his Letters and General Scholium. But, he also made theological arguments about the nature of Christ and the timeline of Christ's return based on his scientific beliefs. Adapting one's beliefs according to new evidence is never a bad thing in science or theology.
> I could also bring up the fact there are other religions in the world today, and THEY all claim to be the only one. Or the fact that kids who are taught things at an early age internalise them. Or the fact that there is no such thing as a miracle with evidence and that they haven't happened since the advent of portable cameras.
These are interesting arguments, but again, they are theological (or at least philosophical) ones, not scientific ones.
> There are other arguments of course. But I think it comes down to this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of an omnipotent being in the sky watching us, leaving us entirely alone, and judging us when we die is an incredibly extraordinary claim with an equally extraordinary amount of evidence and logic stacked against it - and frankly, not much for it.
If you, claiming to believe in science, can see all the evidence and still believe in God...there's a problem. They are mutually exclusive.
Here, you hit on the primary conflict that people perceive between science and Christianity. How do we find truth? In post-Baconian natural philosophy/science, evidence is seen as the gold standard for establishing truth. But, what is evidence? For a data scientist, evidence might be a statistically significant difference between two populations. For an evolutionary biologist, evidence might be certain aspects of the fossil record. In general terms, one may consider evidence to be the end result of an inductive line of reasoning or a correctly predicted outcome from a hypothetico-deductive reasoning. But, as it turns out, even these last two are not "proof" in the traditional sense (see The Problem of Induction and Hypothetic-deductive model Discussion. Many Christians also see evidence of God in nature. Francis Collins, for example, is a brilliant scientist who played a pivotal role in the Human Genome Project and is the director of the National Institutes of Health, and he sees evidence for God in evolution The Language of God. Does Collins offer evidence? You may not think so, but it is worth thinking about how his account is fundamentally different from "scientific evidence." Evidence is not a bad criterion to use for establishing truth, but there are many kinds of evidence, and very few forms of evidence provide logical proof. Now, I am not trying to discredit the value of a scientific approach for understanding truth; of course, such a method has proven to be incredibly useful for understanding and manipulating our world. However, I am suggesting that science, at least in the eyes of many people, does not hold sole authority over truth.
>I don't deny the profound effects christianity has had on the human race, including the development of science, literature, art and contribution to law and government. I just don't think it's real, nor do I think it's possible to logically reconcile belief in god with science
The great part about this debate is that you alone have sole jurisdiction over your own beliefs, and I certainly am not trying to convince you to think in another way. But, it is sometimes worth thinking about why so many people see science and Christianity in a different light.
I certainly understand the insistence that science and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible, but I hope that I have given you a few points to consider. If you are interested in this topic, it may be worth reading more about the relationship between science and Christianity. It's a great opportunity to be exposed to new ideas and to avoid falling into the historical fallacies that both Christians and non-Christians are prone to.
As I see it, here's the core problem: The Bible isn't a scientific document that can be easily parsed into data, despite creationists and atheists wanting to treat it as such to raise it up and tear it down, respectively. In reality, there's little reason to think that humankind is capable of a full understanding of the spiritual dimension. It's even less reasonable to hold the Bible accountable for being scientifically accurate when such talk would have gone WAY over the heads of the people the books and letters were written directly to, who knew nothing of astronomy, electricity, etc, etc, etc.
It's fine to focus on the the absurdity of the creationist approach by pointing out scientific issues, but the Skeptic's Annotated Bible goes overwhelmingly too far and lists tons of "contradictions" that are actually paradoxes, antimonies, misinterpretations, or mistranslations (even more prevalent since the SAB's source is a an 18th-century King James Bible).
If you want some interesting reading on the subject, check out The Language of God, written by one of the heads of the Human Genome Project, who sees the Bible and nature as two books through which we see reflections of God's truth. At the heart of things, he states that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible."
You might be interested in this book https://smile.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744?sa-no-redirect=1
Its written by a scientist on their story of coming to Christianity. And by "a scientist", I mean none other than Francis Collins himself.
I'm sorry to say it, but your arguments are based on ignorance. Please take physics/biology/chemistry classes. Anyway (I'm going to quote you, because there are multiple questions per point):
> the big bang theory. as it states, it is a theory, yet people take it as truth.
Yes, and with reason. There is scientific evidence for the big-bang theory. Please note that 'theory' and 'theory' are two completely different words.
> In no way has it explained how, from "nothingness" became everything.
No it hasn't. Does your god explain it? I don't think so. And although science can't explain what exactly causes nothing to be something, we do observe it. Remember: the total energy of the universe is zero.
> if a big bang really did occurr, why is the matter in the universe clumpy, not evenly distributed?
Matter pulls matter together. Please take a physics class or read this.
>why haven't the laws kept on evolving?
Why should it?
> no-one has ever been able to produce heavier elements,
Of course we have. Please see the periodic table.
> to make the heavier elements you need incredible heat and pressure(stars) but to make the stars you need heavier elements.
No, stars are made up of Hydrogen which fuses into Helium. You don't need heavy elements to form stars. As a matter of fact, stars only form when light elements gather. When stars die, heavier elements form. These explosions are called supernovas.
> nobody has any idea how you would create a star, not even the slightest.
Again, ignorance. See this page.
> if it were any older, it would have been so close to almost touch the earth.
Sunday school fairy tales. The moon moves away from us with a speed of 3.8 cm a year and is positioned 363,345 km (minimum) from us. Thus, it could be 10 billion years old. And no, we're not sure how the moon formed, current theories seem very unlikely. Anyway, this isn't a reason to believe in a genocidal deity.
> jupiter has moons that rotate both ways, right-hand and left-hand. nobody has any idea why is it like that.
Evidence, please.
> life started from nonorganic materials and somehow became living. no-one has ever observed this happen, neither have they ever been able to reproduce the aminoacids(building blocks of life) needed to build life in a laboratory.
That has nothing to do with evolution. Next.
> species start having offspring that are not like the parents. have you ever seen a dog produce a non-dog? sure there are different dogs, but in the end they are dogs. it has never been observed that birds start suddenly hatching lizards.
You're trolling, right? Please, read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
Oh, and btw; I'm sorry for my fellow-atheists are calling you names. Please, not all of us are like that.
> Here dy'd their Parents' hopes and feares
> Once all their joy, now all their teares.
Wow. See, if the epitaph had been trite or overly-euphemistic in order to preserve the reader's comfort, a link would be broken here. I'm glad the author didn't do it. History like this connects us to our basic humanity and thus back to each other, I think.
Or even beyond humanity. Richard Dawkins pauses to eulogize an Australopithecus child and its mother (they were early homonids) in one of his books. The child was eaten by an eagle:
> “Poor little Taung Child, shrieking on the wind as you were borne aloft by the aquiline fury, you would have found no comfort in your destined fame, two and a half million years on, as the type specimen of Australopithecus africanus. Poor Taung mother, weeping in the Pliocene.”
OK, folks may call me a nut, but you might want to try Evolution by Loxton. It's for younger readers, but you could literally jumpstart yourself in an hour.
Then, read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne as well as The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins.
Honorable mention goes to Dawkins' An Ancestor's Tale.
That's right, yeah. There are tons of transitional fossils. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, technically :) But the big ones they always want to see are the ones between what we would now consider major species groups, like "land mammals" vs "whales". And yes, there are plenty of those.
It turns out that fossilization only happens in incredibly rare conditions. The critter generally has to have the right level of hard tissues, fall in one of the right kind of sediment, not get scavenged, etc. It's pretty amazing that we have as many as we do, if you think about it. So yes, we would expect a 'gappy' picture to connect the dots through, but there are MORE than enough dots to have a pretty good picture of what the whole tree looks like. (Even more data is now available with the advent of DNA sequencing, and it turns out to map generally pretty well to how the picture looked from only having fossils.) If you want more on this Why Evolution Is True is a good, not too intimidating read.
For all things science and religion I recommend: Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga and Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart (please forgive the title, it was the editor's choice not his).
For the "problem" of Evil I suggest God, Freedom, and Evil again by Plantinga and Evil and the Justice of God by NT Wright.
As a general primer on theology and philosophy go look at Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by JP
MorganMoreland (not the banking institution) and William Lane Craig.From what I remember, this book is pretty good. I disagree with the conclusions, but they are very well laid out and addressed. After that I would search for responses to Plantinga.
This is an interesting one, but I can't find the full thing for free. I will keep looking.
Another book that might be interesting is The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens. It's a collection of writings and essays from a lot of different people.
The selected work by Ibn Warraq in The Portable Atheist is a pretty good start. I've not done much research about the subject myself, but there are bound to be a few leads either by this particular author or in his footnotes. :)
Edit:
Wow, down-voted for sharing a link? Classy.Congratulations! I know what a big step that is, as I've been in the same boat. Books are the best way to become informed. Check out books by:
Also check out the video series Why I am no longer a creationist.
The more you know, the more confident you will be.
Others have great answers, but I think I can add a bit more.
The adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies more often than you might expect for evolutionary traits. The reason why most species have a similar body plan is because we all share a single common ancestor that lived in the ocean over 350 million years ago. This is the tetrapod body plan. Their body plan, for whatever reason, is the body plan that won out over all the other options of that time period. From the fossil record we know that there were a bunch of different kinds of fish living, some with really strange body plans (like 10 digits on each limb). For whatever reason, the body plan that one out was very successful can gave rise to all the tetrapod animals you see today. Why that body plan was special we may never know. We can't know exactly for sure what pressures were placed upon that animal that it developed that body plan in the first place and then subsequently why that body plan made it so successful.
We have two front limbs, two hind limbs, two kidneys, one liver, one heart, two lungs, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, one brain, five digits in each hand because thats the way the tetrapods looked like all those millions of years ago. We are what we are because thats how they were. Ichthyostegais an example of a fossil species that had this body plan, the body plan that would rule above all others, and would dominate the landscape until this very day. Of course various modifications have been made over the millennia - snakes have lost their limbs, some have developed unique traits like antlers, feathers, or scales and still others have developed pouches for carrying around babies or uteruses to grow them...no matter, underlying it all, deep at all their cores, including ours, is this singular body plan. If you look closely enough you can begin to see the shared characteristics that have been conserved through the hundreds of thousands of generations of all vertebrate (and then tetrapod) animal species on the planet today.
You may enjoy the book Your Inner Fish which explores why the way we are the way we are based on shared and conserved traits from our distant fish ancestors. It was also made into a PBS documentary.
This fun song about Tiktaalik, an early ancestor to tetrapods is relevant as well.
Neil Shubin - Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body
If you like science, this one specifically talks about the authors discovery of Tiktaalik and it's association with our human bodies of today
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453
Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
Closing the glottis to prevent water from entering the lungs while breathing with gills in amphibious development. Gill breathing can be blocked by carbon dioxide, just like holding your breath to convert air to CO2 usually dissipates the hiccup gill response.
In Your Inner Fish -- one of the best general audience science books I've read in a year or more --author Neil Shubin describes how he and his team predicted where a particular "transitional" fossil might be found, travelled there, and indeed found the fossils they were looking for. It's an interesting story, and the book as a whole is excellent at not only explaining evolution from various perspectives but fostering a sense of connection with all life (well, that's how it struck me, anyway).
I did not see him try to shut you up. He tried to clarify your question and then suggested where an answer had already been given.
If you are genuinely interested in the thinking behind the theory, rather than just being rude to those you disagree with, I suggest reading "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin, the discoverer of the Tiktaalik fossil. It is a well written accessible account of how the fossil record and our physiology show a clear evolutionary route from earlier body plans such as fish to the body plan of mammals (including humans). He is especially good on this point of how we have inherited this strange wiring plan for our nerves.
Read it if you like. Then try and take apart the actual detailed argument rather than attacking a snapshot from a TV show.
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
This has a great later chapter that explains why intelligent people are susceptible to superstition and religious dogma.
Humans are imperfect animals and our senses often fail us. Even the smartest among us can have beliefs that are completely irrational. Everyone is susceptible of cognitive dissonance, regardless of political affiliation. Michael Shermer's book digs into this subject, if you're interested.
You should read the chapter in Why People Believe Weird Things where Michael Shermer described how he was abducted by aliens. Then read the rest of the chapter and you will get your answer.
There is a book about this
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan for general science.
Stuff by James Randi, Michael Shermer for general stuff about new age crap.
The Panic Virus by Seth Mnookin and Deadly Choices by Paul Offit on the Anti-Vaccination movement.
Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best and How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff (Also see How to Lie with Maps by Mark Monomonier for a similar subject) for questioning stats and graphics used in the news.
Is there anything specifically you're interested in?
If you're looking for a good book on skepticism and critical thinking I suggest "Why People Believe Weird Things," by Michael Shermer.
Frightening. I have book suggestion for you:
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893
>(in this case uncovering the truths behind pizzagate)
The likelihood that there are any "truths" behind pizzagate is really, really, really low. Your evidence is waaaaay more easily explained as a classic case of a well-known psychological phenomena called apophenia.
If you're interested in learning about what's happening surrounding pizzagate (or any conspiracy theory), I'd suggest Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". It's not a rigidly academic book by any means, but it's a good one for us regular folk, and it's a fairly quick, entertaining read.
If you don't have time for that, you could just watch the Ted Talk, too.
This really cool dude also gave some good tips to avoid this kind of stuff in the future.
There are numerous psychological reasons for her acting the way she did. Blaming herself for not being able to improve her boyfriend, seeking control by being able to push you away, clinging to the illusion of stability of having a boyfriend...
I don't know if any of those reasons are the same for why people defend God, but if some are I also think there are many other reasons that have to do with some of the things Michael Shermer brings up in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things".
>Not familiar as I probably ought to be. I know that there were other homo species -possibly at the same time as humans. I think I heard something about interbreeding at some point, but maybe that was just speculation?
To be honest, I'm not exactly an expert on the specifics. However, Wikipedia provides as always - If the article and the numerous citations are to be believed, they're considered separate species as mitochondria genetic data (that I could explain further if you like) shows little significant breeding. However, there is indeed some evidence of limited interbreeding.
>This is fascinating stuff!
I'm glad you like it!
>To clarify: do all the primates share the same mutation which is different from the mutation in other creatures, ex. guinea pigs?'
Precisely! Mind you, I believe there are a few changes which have accumulated since divergence (since if they don't need the gene once it's "off", further mutations won't be selected against), but the crucial changes are indeed the same within primates - and those within guinea pigs are the same within guinea pigs and their nearby relatives (I believe), but different from those from simians. Amusingly, because mutations occur at a generally steady rate, the number of further divergences between the pseudogenes (no-longer-functional genes which resemble working copies in other organisms) in different species will give hints at how long ago those species had a common ancestor (this, and related calculations, are termed the "genetic clock").
Nifty, isn't it?
>I guess I don't see why it would be demeaning to be patterned after other homo species which were adapted to the environment we would inhabit. Maybe I'm way off here, but it seems like the case for common ancestry could also point to a common creator. (obviously it is outside the bounds of science to consider that possibility, but philosophically, it might have merit?)
I have indeed heard that before; the suggestion of a common creator as opposed to common descent is a fairly common suggestion, pardon the pun. The typical arguments against fall first to traits which can be considered "poor design" in pure engineering terms, even if they're traits that are now needed. I can point to the genetic baggage of the human eye compared to that of the cephelopod (nerve fibers over vs. under the retina), or the human back (not great for walking upright), or further traits along those lines which suggest that we're still closer to our origins. Indeed, we can also look at things like the pseudogene involved with vitamin C above as unnecessary addons; genetic artifacts which hint at our descent.
While this additional argument, I will grant, is better at addressing general creation then special human creation, we can also look at repeated motifs. For example, the same bones that form our hand also form a bird's wing, a whale's flipper, a dog's paw, a horse's hoof, and all the other mammalian, reptile, and avian forelimbs - though sometimes you need to go to the embryo before you see the similarity. When taken alone, that may suggest either evolution or design; it would make sense for a creator to reuse traits. It becomes more stark when you consider examples that should be similar - for example, the wings of the bat, bird, and pterodactyl, despite using the same bones, have vastly different structures, despite all being used for the same purpose (that is, flight).
The way that my evolutionary biology professor phrased this is that "design can explain this, but cannot predict it; evolution both explains and predicts." This idea - that natural observations may be explained or excused (begging your pardon) in a creation model, but are what are expected from an evolutionary model - is the major point I wish to make in this regard. And, I shall admit, perhaps as close as I can get to "disproving" special creation; it tends to approach unfalsifiability, if I understand it correctly.
>If I recall correctly, this is the position of Francis Collins / BioLogos. It's possible, but I have a few concerns. The first being that I think animals do have souls. If that's correct, ensoulment doesn't help make sense of the theology.
Yup; ensoulment as special is less compatible in that case.
>It would also mean that (at least at some point) there were other creatures who were genetically equal to human beings, but didn't have souls. Cue slave trade and nazi propaganda -they're human, but they aren't people. It would have been possible (probable?) that ensouled humans would breed with the soulless humans -and that just seems . . . squicky.
Point taken; even if you were to claim ensoulment for all humans existing at a specific point and thereafter, there can be...negative connotations.
>So, for now, it's a possibility, but it seems to be more problematic than special creation.
To be perfectly frank, I'm not really equipped to argue otherwise. As an atheist, my tendency is to end up arguing against ensoulment, as it's not something we can really draw a line at either. Still, I figured I'd put it out there; I'm a little delighted at your dissection of it honestly, as you brought up things I'd not yet considered.
>Like I said, the genetics is fascinating, and I am naive to much of it. Short of becoming a geneticist, could you recommend a good book on the subject of human genetics and common descent? I took basic genetics in college, so I was able to follow the discussion about chromosomes, telomeres, etc. But I would like to know more about the discoveries that have been made.
Oooh, that's a rough question. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful question, but I rarely read books aimed at laymen dealing with my specialty; most of my information comes from text books, papers, and profs, if you take my meaning. Which in the end is a way for me to provide my disclaimer: I can provide recommendations, but I've generally not read them myself; sorry.
Having said that, I'm not about to discourage your curiosity - indeed, I cannot laud it highly enough! - and so I shall do what I can:
I think I'll hold off there for the moment. The latter two are focused more on humans, while the former is about evolution in general. I'm sure there are more books I could recommend - Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth has been lauded, for example. I tried to stick with texts which were at a slightly higher level, not merely addressing the basics but delving a little deeper, as you noted you have a measure of familiarity already, and those which were related to humans. I hope they help!
It's not an alternative to books, but Wikipedia does have a fair article on the topic (which I linked near the very top as well). And believe it or not, I do enjoy this sort of thing; you are more then welcome to ask more questions if and when they occur to you.
Oh boy, great questions but the answers can be really long and (again) belong under science moreso than philosophy. I think I'll link some resources and you can read at your leisure.
TL;DR - Biologists document lots of awkward features that develop in a tedious or haphazard manner that no sane designer would ever bother, plus we're missing tons of obvious features that any competent designer would probably include (hello, drowning sucks, gills would be nice). And their work is strongly supported by genetics and its underlying chemistry.
I just start reading Written In Stone by Brian Switek, so far I'm really enjoying it. It's about paleontology, evolution, and how that relates to humans. Another amazing book in a similar vain is Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, inspired a tattoo for me.
You should pick up a copy of Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, the guy who found Tiktaalik.
It's a fantastic read.
EDIT: What the fuck, no Velociraptor or Archaeopteryx? Tiktaalik is new, and super-transitional and all, but unless your a paleoichthyologist or something, I fail to see how it garners "Best Extinct Vertebrate".
Follow that up with Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.
Go read Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish. It's a great story how he helped discover Tiktaalik exactly where they predicted it would be. He also does a tremendous job at explaining transitional fossils and vestigial organs.
OP, please suggest this book to them, it is an excellent introduction to skepticism.
In light of their creationist tract, you could also consider Your Inner Fish.
A brief search on Amazon brought up these:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=pd_cp_b_2
What do you think?
And I must say, I like your approach: First teach him critical thinking, and then, if necessary, point out to him that religion is one of the fields where he should apply the rules of scepticism. If he's not too deluded (which I'd expect since he wasn't indoctrinated as a child), he will probably come to the only reasonable conclusion.
Maybe this one …?
The last chapter of Michael Shermer's book has an illuminating chapter on this topic:
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299190518&sr=8-1
His book (Link to Amazon) by the same name is really good.
A descent selection so far from the other comments. I'll throw in a few, as well:
​
​
Some of the above is specifically related to atheism, while others I've used to help shape and inform my understanding and my worldview. Out of the entire list, the Carl Sagan book and the Sean Carroll book rank highest, for me, in level of importance. Those books didn't just change what I think, they changed how I think, and I am forever indebted to them.
The book list just keeps growing in so many different directions that it's hard to identify which I want to tackle next (I also have a tendency to take meticulous notes while I read and that slows the process down even further!). Some of the topics I intend to read about once I'm done with the books mentioned:
Plus a bunch of books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and others. There are way too many. And all the fiction books I want to read too! It's not that I didn't read books before, but my faith transition has sparked an intense desire to study and learn far greater than I ever experienced before.
Did you know that the sidebar contains a link to recommended reading? https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/recommended/reading There are a couple of good Bertrand Russell books listed there, though the titles are a bit obvious. Nevertheless, they're easy to read (Russell was the recipient of the 1950 Nobel Prize for Literature).
​
You didn't state anything about creationism vs. evolution; Nathan Lents' Human Errors pretty much demolishes any idea about so-called "intelligent design". Adam Rutherford's A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived is another one. Both are available via Amazon Prime Reading.
​
As far as MAGA, etc., there are the classic "George Orwell" (pseudonym for Eric Arthur Blair) books 1984 and Animal Farm. A combined volume is also available on Amazon Prime Reading.
​
A. C. Grayling has a number of books: some with obvious titles, some not so obvious.
​
You can also find a plethora of books on critical thinking, which isn't directly related to religion or politics, but which can lead people away from blind allegiance to religious dogma and political rhetoric. A good easy-to-read classic is Schick and Vaughn's How to Think About Weird Things, but it can be pricey unless you can find a used edition or older edition in good condition. [And you could underline passages and annotate them with the word THINK :-)] A similar sounding, less expensive but lighter-on-principles book is Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things.
​
Addendum:
>Google is of no help, it mostly suggests pro-Christian books (and the big names like Harris/Dawkins/Nietzsche).
You need to train Google: start with https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=critical+thinking and https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=debunking+christianity (Andrew Seidel's The Founding Myth should show up there) and https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=humanism. Follow lots of relevant links, and after a while Goggle will start showing more relevant suggestions.
Why People Believe Weird Things is up next on my reading list.
"Why People Believe Weird Things" debunks these nonsensical claims and explores the very human reasons people find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-People-Believe-Weird-Things/dp/0805070893
Humans have a talent for self deception. Yeah, there are a lot of phonies out there who want to make money. But the only reason they get any attention are the regular joes who believe or are open to the idea (almost believe) in the subject.
I know way too many people that honestly believe in ghosts, astrology, and UFOs, that are hilariously deluded. They think they are keeping an open mind. I think their mind is so open it fell on the ground.
Edit: There's a great book ["Why People Believe Weird Things"](http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342445382&sr=8-
1&keywords=why+people+believe+weird+things)
You should check it out.
One can start with Reinventing Jesus and the The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
Part 3: Book recommendations:
If you want to dig deep into this topic, here are some book recommendations. Perhaps you would want to read N.T. Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series (this is very heavy, scholarly reading). N.T. Wright is the foremost scholar on the New Testament and this is possibly the most thorough literature on the historical Jesus, early Christianity and the Apostle Paul:
https://www.logos.com/product/37361/christian-origins-and-the-question-of-god-series
Anything by N.T. Wright is well worth reading (Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope would be good introductions). Likewise, anything by Ravi Zacharias.
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886
Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Nabeel-Qureshi/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ANabeel%20Qureshi
No God But One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/God-but-One-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310522552/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517050609&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3ANabeel+Qureshi
On Guard by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.ca/Guard-William-Lane-Craig/dp/1434764885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526542104&sr=8-1&keywords=on+guard+william+lane+craig
The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308
Bonus reading: Heaven by Randy Alcorn: https://www.amazon.ca/Heaven-Randy-Alcorn/dp/0842379428/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526542237&sr=1-1&keywords=randy+alcorn+heaven
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis: https://www.amazon.ca/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926
Read anything by G.K. Chesterton, especially, The Everlasting Man
Answers to Common Objections and Questions:
Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins: http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-resurrection-and-christian-origins/
The Evidence for Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/
The Resurrection of Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Christianity's Centerpiece: http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ_as_Christianitys_Centerpiece_FullArticle?fbclid=IwAR0oE22vtBvR2u--R78tSyW-51OpIbWBfWDNH2Ep8miBc9W6uUJMwMsz0yk
Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny: http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions/
Accompanying video to the link above: Why is Christianity True?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5qJPZySo7A
How Do You Know Christianity Is the One True Way of Living? | Abdu Murray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ze_SVg-0E&app=desktop
What makes Christianity unique among the world’s religions? Verifiability is a Christian Distinctive: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/verifiability-is-a-christian-distinctive/
Is Jesus God? (Feat. Craig, Strobel, Habermas, Licona, Qureshi...): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dLoKCyDDAg&app=desktop
How Can Understanding Eyewitness Testimony Help Us Evaluate the Gospels?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tCDDsPXQSQ&app=desktop
Historical Evidence for the Resurrection - Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? - Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hD7w1Uja2o
Questioning Jesus: Critically Considering Christian Claims with Dr. Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UpuEDp4ObA
Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? | Yale 2014 | William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NAOc6ctw1s&app=desktop
Historical Resurrection of Christ?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Dc01HVlaM
Are The New Testament Documents Historically Credible?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgdsIaqFAp4
Are the Gospels Accurate?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxrDy_G8h88
(Answer to the common objection: ‘the gospels are anonymous’)
Gospel Authorship—Who Cares?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P40/gospel-authorshipwho-cares
What is the Evidence That Jesus Appeared Alive After His Death?: https://youtu.be/96WIa3pZISE
On Extra-Biblical Sources for Jesus' Post-Mortem Appearances: https://youtu.be/-Dbx7PPIIsQ
Did Jesus Rise From The Dead Or Was It A Hoax By His Followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aELRKdxV7Wk
Follow up to the previous video: Did Jesus rise from the dead, or was it hallucinations by his followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29224I3x_M0&feature=youtu.be
Did the Disciples Invent the Resurrection?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOHUWsNDPZc
Facts to show the Resurrection is not fiction, by William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AduPVkqbis
Did Paul actually see the risen Jesus, or did he simply have some sort of vision?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yNdynwqtWI&t
What Do You Mean By ‘Literal?’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk
Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection: https://youtu.be/4iyxR8uE9GQ?t=1s
Death, Resurrection and Afterlife: https://youtu.be/HXAc_x_egk4?t=1s
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?: https://youtu.be/KnkNKIJ_dnw?t=1s
4 Historical Facts That Prove Jesus Really Did Rise From The Dead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmKg62GDqF4
What About Pre-Christ Resurrection Myths?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrCYVk6xrXg
Jesus and Pagan Mythology: Is Jesus A Copied Myth or Real Person?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jesus-and-pagan-mythology/
Zeitgeist - Is Jesus A Myth: https://alwaysbeready.com/zeitgeist-the-movie
Did Greco-Roman myths influence the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pt9rlG7ABo&app=desktop
Does the Resurrection Require Extraordinary Evidence?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLN30A0vmlo
Moral Argument For God’s Existence: How Can A Good God Allow Evil? Does Life Have Meaning?: https://youtu.be/it7mhQ8fEq0
Are there Inconsistencies Between the Four Gospels?: https://youtu.be/sgdsIaqFAp4
Why Are There Differences in the Resurrection Accounts?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtz2lVGmXFI
Don't the Gospels Contradict One Another?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gt9kCwttVY
Why Differences Between the Gospels Demonstrate Their Reliability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zimP8m3_hCk
Why the Gospels Can Differ, Yet Still Be Reliable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An5wU2hxIfM
Four Reasons the New Testament Gospels Are Reliable: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/four-reasons-the-new-testament-gospels-are-reliable/
Find Contradictions in the Bible All You Want: https://www.thepoachedegg.net/2019/05/apologetics-find-contradictions-in-the-bible-all-you-want.html
The Case for the Historicity and Deity of Jesus: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-case-for-the-historicity-and-deity-of-jesus/
Bart Ehrman is one of the world's most renowned ancient historians/New Testament scholars, and he is an atheist. Listen to what he has to say on the matter of Jesus' existence: The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww
Bart D Ehrman About the Historical Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6U6TJ4cwSo
Extra-Biblical evidence: In addition to the gospel accounts and the letters from the Apostle Paul, we have sources outside the New Testament with references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, the Jewish Talmud, etc:
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/
Is There Extrabiblical Evidence About Jesus' Life?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzP0Kz9eT_U&app=desktop
How do we know Jesus was really who he said he was?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ksvhHEoMLM&app=desktop
YouTube Channels to browse:
William Lane Craig - ReasonableFaithOrg: https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg?app=desktop
drcraigvideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos?app=desktop
Ravi Zacharias - Ravi Zacharias International Ministries: https://www.youtube.com/user/rzimmedia?app=desktop
J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity with J. Warner Wallace: https://www.youtube.com/user/pleaseconvinceme/featured?disable_polymer=1
The Bible Project: https://www.youtube.com/user/jointhebibleproject
Unbelievable?: https://www.youtube.com/user/PremierUnbelievable
David Wood - Acts17Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics
Nabeel Qureshi - NQMinistries: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCepxnLs6GWAxAyI8m2U9s7A/featured?disable_polymer=1
Randy Alcorn - Eternal Perspective Ministries with Randy Alcorn: https://www.youtube.com/user/eternalperspectives?app=desktop
Frank Turek - Cross Examined: https://www.youtube.com/user/TurekVideo
Brian Holdsworth: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdsworthdesign
>our religion, ie: for Judaism
I was under the impression that you didn't believe the Torah. Do you?
>Put up or shut up.
I'm not sure how you would like me to, but I'll list some resources below. If you would rather delve into it by having a strict dialogue between the two of us, that's cool too. I may not be able to respond quickly every time, depending on how this carries forth, but I'll do what I can. As you mentioned, your soul is "at stake and all that."
Gary Habermas and N.T. Wright are the top two resurrection scholars. Michael Licona is also a leading scholar on the resurrection debate. Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Antony Flew have even shown their faces on the scene as well.
Books
Presentations
Debates
Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona are the most frequent debaters on the Christian side, and Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are the most frequent debaters on the non-Christian side. Habermas, Craig, and/or Licona have debated the following (possibly) recognizable names on this issue: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Antony Flew, John Shelby Spong, Gerd Ludemann, Shabir Ally, Arif Ahmed, John Dominic Crossan, Robert M. Price, and Dan Barker.
YouTube is great for finding those debates. There are also, of course, dialogues in book form.
>if you don't like my tone
I'm actually enjoying your tone, haha
That's a very tortured reading of just one of the stories of a post-resurrection appearance.
I was thinking about what you said about us deserving more proof. Frankly, I think we've got far more than we have any right to when compared to previous generations.
In Jesus' day, only a few thousand people saw him work a miracle. Only a thousand at most saw him after the resurrection. In all of human history, seeing the supernatural has been confined to a relative handful of people.
Today, though, every single person in the developed world has access to
No, we don't get to see Jesus in the flesh -- walking on water or otherwise -- but we've got more than any generation since his has had. Far more. And we're going to be held responsible for what we did with that privilege.
Nein das habe ich nicht geschrieben. Mir gefällt die Idee aber gut und ich kann nur jedem empfehlen dem historischen Gehalt der entsprechenden Quellen mal gründlich auf den Zahn zu fühlen und sich nicht allein von populären, auf den ersten Blick überzeugenden Meinungen leiten zu lassen (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
>To me the Jews not eating pork or meat or touching money on the sabbath did not really translate to simple hand washing after touching a sick person or before eating but maybe they did so it's a good argument.
This was hardly the extent of it! They went much farther than we do today, with efforts that would seem extreme, in order to avoid even beaing near uncleanliness. They made women who were on their periods live outside the city for the duration of their menses + a few days, lepers couldn't be touched or gotten close to, they used separate hands for toilet dealings and eating, washed their hands fastidiously before and after eating, and took full baths at least weekly! Additionally, if you so much went near a building that had a dead body in it, you were unclean for a week! Even today traditional Judaism has some pretty strict handwashing laws.
>I'll have to revisit GENESYS as it's been a while but clearly woman was not made from a man's rib and man was not made from dirt like pottery. The person who was divinely inspired to write that in my view was not inspired enough to convey truth as to how we came about. But I'll let it slide.
There are types of truth, and scientific truth is certainly one of these. However, it's not the only kind of truth. Philosophy, for example, contains truths that cannot be discovered through the scientific method. Theological truth is another kind of truth. So most Catholics would hold that the story of Eve from Adam's rib holds theological truth, if not scientific truth. The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook. Just as you wouldn't use the rules of grammar to learn about biology, it's silly to use the laws of biology to learn about theology.
>When I was in the military we had one hour of sleep per day in basic training. After four days many people including myself started having hallucinations. One friend from church saw all the leaves glowing at night and felt it was a spiritual experience. But we had many dumb hallucinations like seeing a dog in the tent that wasn't there and seeing midget soldiers marching. That combined with learning about how the eye and visual software in our brain works helped me realize a few things. We can't always trust what we see or even what we hear or even what we feel (like the sensation of movement in a car wash). What's more likely? My friend had a spiritual experience or just another hallucination like several of us had? So what's more likely? That Paul heard the voice of god or had a hallucination in the desert?
Indeed. Hallucinations are very different from genuine spiritual experience. I can't say I've ever had the latter. Having also undergone some serious sleep deprivation, I have had hallucinations, though, and I can see how it would be easy for undiscerning folks to conflate the two. However, we also don't discount the possibility of something being both at once. Like with scientific and theological truth, a given pattern of neurology can be either/or, or both/and. I want to make it clear, though, that I'm not advocating for "praying your depression away" or anything like that! I have a degree in psychology, and before I decided to become a housewife to my awesome kiddos, I really wanted to continue my study into neuropathology and psychological disorders and their mechanisms.
>I've come to learn of many charlatans that pretend to heal people (e.g. Benny Hinn filled up a stadium where I lived). So what's more likely? That a man two thousand years ago healed the blind or that people were deceived and stories were told and miscommunication and exaggerations were propagated as people passed these stories down. The first account of Jesus in writing is from 70 years after they happened!!
I've read an excellent book on this topic called The Case for the Resurrection. My question back to you, then, is this: Given that this lie was likely to get people captured, tortured, and literally devoured by lions for profit, why would the original Gospel authors persist in it after watching so many people get martyred? I mean, if I saw someone claim to be God and heal the blind, and I knew I was likely to get shot for mentioning it, I'd have to have a damned good reason to continue telling people that He's right. Either the authors were collectively uniquely masochistic, were all incredibly stupid, or there was a good reason for them to, with one exception, march to their death proclaiming a unified truth for hundreds of years.
>And if ou see Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, Jonah in the big fish, a talking snake and all these stories as not literally something that happened (because it's impossible) then why stop there? A man dying for three days and resurrecting is even more impossible.
So to me I had to at some point stop and say to myself what do I REALLY believe? I want to know the TRUTH no matter what it is. Are muslims right? Budhists? Hindus? Or maybe there is no God at all.
The evidence for the Shroud of Turin is remarkable. Italy's ENEA ( National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, not in any way a Catholic institution) has just a couple of months ago calculated the amount of energy it would take to reproduce the image on the Shroud: 34 trillion watts, triple the entire world's current energy output. {link](http://www.lastampa.it/2011/12/12/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/the-shroud-is-not-a-fake-jdiKKEyJ0uDsE4XpV13TcK/pagina.html) Note that while Vatican Insider is obviously a Catholic source, the ENEA, who conducted the study, are a scientific organization devoted to studying developments in energy efficiency and high-tech production processes.
However, the Shroud isn't the point. (However, a piece of linen that corresponds with all known data about the Resurrection and would take 34 trillion watts of energy over an incredibly short span of time certainly corroborates the Resurrection.) The point is the atheist's baseline assumption of all things can be explained with naturalistic, scientific processes.
And to this, I ask, why? What makes you think that everything in this universe can be explained with the scientific method? I, along with innumerable Christian scientists (As opposed to Christian Scientists) have no doubt that scientific rigour has brought great things to the world. But is it the only means of knowledge, and if so, on what do you base that assumption? Scientific reliance upon natural processes to explain everything does not answer the question of whether all things that happen are controlled by natural processes.
Thank you so much for engaging in an intelligent, cordial, and respectful manner. You're a much kinder atheist than I ever was! I respectfully invite you to look again. As I mentioned earlier The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus is a excellent little book that goes through all possible explanations (apostles hallucinating, apostles are liars, etc) and looks at the evidence. It's not a preachy book, but tries to use the same means we look at for evidence of other historical events and applies it to all the available sources regarding the historical Jesus (many of which were written by people who were not Christian, and had good reason to disprove Jesus' divinity).
Again, thanks for the discussion. I'll flag you as a friend just in case we ever come across one another again on this little Reddit web. It's been a pleasure.
My apologies, I assumed you may have been familiar with Rene Decartes.
I'll explain it this way: How do you know something? How do you know something as simple as your keyboard is in front of you?
You can see it and you can feel it, right?
But that doesn't actually prove the keyboard really exists. That just proves your eyes see a keyboard and your hands feel a keyboard.
And really, you can't even 100% sure of that. You know from experience that your senses aren't 100% trustworthy. They can be confused by psychological tricks or medical conditions can cause senses to report things that aren't really there. As mentioned before, optical illusions, phantom pain, schizophrenia, magic tricks, desert mirages, LSD, mushrooms, etc are all known cases where your eye sight, hearing, or sense of touch report things that aren't there.
So really, all you can say for 100% certainity is that you think your senses are reporting there's a keyboard in front of you.
While four hundred years too early, Decartes would have used The Matrix as a great example. Relying solely on your senses, there is no difference between your reality now and if you were hooked up to The Matrix. Everything you saw, heard, or touched would prove that the Matrix was reality- yet it wasn't.
Likewise, while it is incredibly unlikely and not at all practical, there is still a tiny tiny chance that you just may be inside a giant virtual reality world.
> When asked for evidence,
When asked for evidence I listed several resources for you. I'll explicitly bullet them for you this time :-)
> That's because there is no actual evidence for God, which brings me back to it not being a knowable thing.
In the sense you're using "knowing" and "evidence", I would say there is plenty.
The surprising thing is that the bible is read so much during mass, but still so little of it is covered (it's been estimated at 26% of the mass is spent reading from the bible, as compared to 6% in 'evangelical' services).
Some of these have been mentioned in this thread, but I wanted to make a thorough list, so here goes:
If you would like books on various topics (The Eucharist, Mary, the Sacraments, etc.), let me know and I'd be happy to provide. Also, feel free to PM at any time. :) I'll say an extra prayer for your journey right now!
DK
Related repost;
50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God - by Guy P. Harrison
There are, contained within, so many paradigm shattering, reality-shifting ideas ... well, let's just say you made a great choice! And wait till you read the intro page. Talbot wasn't playing around. It reads like a who's who of bigwig uni/independent PhDs, MsCs, scientists, MDs and researchers. Not that that means shit [see recent study on peer-review FAIL] but in these ... "fringe" areas of study, sometimes the validation is satisfying. Ya gotta admit, its good to have some heavyweights in your corner sometimes! Either way, pull the pieces from all corners; the final puzzle is yours to assemble.
It was this book that introduced to me the concepts of quantum physics, bilocation, quantum entanglement, holography as a reality-model, collective consciousness, etc. etc. Wait till you get to the stuff about Fourier transforms and ballet dancers, the optic nerve and the eyeball and its connection to perception and the brain, multiple personality disorder and its shocking proof of 'mind over matter' ... + myriad other interesting tidbits!
I was familiar with some of those concepts, as you well may be, perhaps likely more advanced in these area of study then I was a few years ago, but still, I can hardly see you not enjoying it. Especially the way you found it! It's as if that thought bubbled to the surface [and was instated in action!] for a reason.
Another interesting one ya might like: http://www.amazon.com/The-Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels/dp/1590308352/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383029661&sr=8-1&keywords=tao+physics
This book seems to have pretty good reviews
and this may also prove useful as well.
Try perhaps 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God.
Or just link to the Evid3nce youtube series.
People use the word "religion" without knowing its definition.
religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Buddhism does not fulfill that requirement. There is no 'belief' in Buddhism. There is no personal supernatural being or spirit god. Buddhism actually recognizes belief and calls it Maya, illusion. Buddhism has Karma but Buddha said it was merely 'cause and effect', not to be dwelled upon for it was also illusion. The other factor of Karma that seems to elude many western people is all Buddha was saying about karma was that good thoughts lead to good action, bad thoughts lead to bad action. Buddha said 'cause leads to effect". 2,000 years later, Isaac Newton said 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction', the 1st Law of Motion. Buddha referred to reincarnation not as being reborn, but as another cycle. The eastern mind sees cycles, the western mind sees beginning and end. As Buddha said, the perfect circle has no beginning or end. It was also illusion to dwell on reincarnation.
All Buddha said was that he was a man. He asked for nothing to be written down and that no images be made of him. His followers went against his request and wrote down thousands of sutras and made images of the different stages of Buddha's life. They also split themselves into thousands of sects, which westerners are unable to distinguish between. Zen is considered the least distorted sect of Buddhism. The Zen temples in Japan were originally totally built and maintained by monks, and there are multiple focusing activities, like meditation, growing gardens, sumi-e, archery, go, martial arts. In pure Zen, the martial arts are strictly for self defense. In Zen, martial arts are another form of meditation and focus. It did get adopted by the samurai for warfare but that was for worldly purposes, which Buddha would call only more illusion.
http://www.zen-buddhism.net/martial-arts/zen-and-martial-arts.html
http://www.insidekyoto.com/kyotos-best-zen-gardens
Science is coming full circle describing the universe and needing to describe it as Buddha described it. Buddha said "All things are transitory". Now, physicists are smashing protons and ending up with particles that exist less than femtoseconds, 10^-15 seconds. How short of a time is it before a particle is not existing? The proton keeps getting smashed, first quarks, then bosons, then leptons, now temporary quarks. In Zen, the koan is "Infinity lies in a flower petal". There is a book that brings science and zen buddhism together along the tao, the path. It is called "The Tao of Physics", over 30 years but only more enhanced with the advances in physics since then. It demonstrates how mathematics is a form of focusing meditation.
https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Mysticism/dp/1590308352/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483469130&sr=8-1&keywords=the+tao+of+physics
This is the gentlest book I've read on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672
This is backwards thinking. Lack of evidence against something in no way is evidence for it, and in some cases can even be the opposite (lack of bigfoot skeletons is evidence towards them not existing, for example). Prove there is no X, and suppose that it's reasonable to accept X if it remains unproven but not disproven, is a way to think that leads to accepting false beliefs.
Let's apply the methodology to other ideas. Prove that fairies don't exist. Prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Prove that socialism is bad. Prove that capitalism is bad.
The burden of proof is on the person with the positive claim... that these things exist, or that we should switch to X system, or whatever.
God does not exist is a positive claim, as is that claim that a god exists. The default position should be, if you want to believe as many true things and also not believe as many false things as you can, to not accept either claim until given sufficient evidence.
To the OP, have you read 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God? It's an excellent list of reasons people have to believe in a god.
Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell is one of the best math books I've read, and I've given copies to several people who found it very helpful.
In addition to Khanacademy, this book is pretty good:
http://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300/
You might want to look at the books by I. M. Gelfand as well (The Method of Coordinates, Algebra, and Trigonometry). If you do well with the Simmons, go through those books, which are more difficult but focus more on rigor.
If you give yourself a year to get up to speed on all that, nothing should stop you from going on to calculus.
This book gives a quick review of the important precalculus topics. Reading that carefully, and supplementing it with Khan Academy is what I'd do in your situation.
An invaluable book when I took calculus the second time: Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell
I took calc a second time, because I had taken it previously over ten years before. My instructor at the time was quite the hardass and didn't allow calculators on his tests or homework. I remember doing integration by parts where problems would take two whole sheets of handwritten work.
Consequently, I have a bit of a "been there, done that" attitude towards calculus...
EDIT - My instructor was a big fan of Kline
If I may make a suggestion? Ask her to read 50 Reason People Give for Believing in a God. I'm currently reading it to see how well it's arguments are presented compared to The God Delusion. I wanted to find a book to give to my "devout" Catholic wife to read, but I found God Delusion to be too confrontational and condescending (at least to a faithhead's point of view). 50 Reasons is written in a much more understanding and placating tone, and so has a much better chance of sparking doubt than any other piece of atheist literature that I've read so far.
I used sarcasm quotes for "devout" because even though my wife considers herself Catholic, she holds many social values that go completely against the church's official doctrine. She supports gay marriage, safe sex before marriage, and the use of condoms. She knows that she is married to an Atheist, and she's ok with that- even though if the church found out about that she would be excommunicated.
All she needs is a spark of doubt, and I can open her eyes to reason and she'll see that holding on to her faith is a vice, not a virtue- 50 Reasons, I hope, will be an eye-opening read for her.
Apart from highschool (No one should count highschool lol) I've had two years of science studies, both from classes from biology to chemistry so I know a bit about both. I also regularly talk to science teachers I've had as well as frequent science forums when I can. For fun I read things such as
“Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution”
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God.../dp/0061233501
This was written by a scientist who is a Christian.
To:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B001QEQRJW/ref=redir_mdp_mobile
Why Evolution is True By Jerry A. Coyne
& then I also peruse news networks because every so often people make claims about evolution which leads me down the path of looking at their sources and how they reached that conclusion :)
So I'm stupid but not THAT stupid lol I just have honest questions that confuse me :)
Why Evolution is True
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (free online!)
Guns, Germs, Steel
The God Delusion
Misquoting Jesus (Conceptional this is very compatible with Mormonism--the Bible not being translated correctly so we need the BoM!--but the specifics about what got mistranslated are devastating as Mormonism doubled down on the mistranslated parts. oops.)
Don't even both learning anything more about Mormonism. Just be widely read and you'll soon see that the Mormon version of history is in incongruent with reality. This will cause cognitive dissonance and when you're ready to resolve it, go back and read independent sources about Mormonism and it will be very obvious that the narrative they indoctrinated into you as a child doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Jerry Coyne has an entire wonderful book rebutting Creationism and at the same time laying out all the evidence for, well, Why Evolution is True. While I don't remember anything specifically about biodiversity, if you want to address the most common creationist arguments, it is the best go-to book.
https://smile.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne-dp-0143116649/dp/0143116649/
Go read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It's an excellent book that answers every single one of your objections, with plenty of citations that you can actually go look up for yourself.
edit: See also, the Nova special on the Dover Intelligent Design trial in which, more or less, proponents of creationism put up their best defense and are crushed.
A good popular science type book laying out the evidence for evolution is Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True
Many things can be explained better with evolution. Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense, and that means it's veracity is tested by current and emerging evidence. If it didn't have the explanatory power for most of the evidence then it wouldn't be so popular. So it certainly doesn't explain everything, it just explains the data we have so far. There are countless things we simply don't know yet.
If you're open to understanding the core aspects of Evolution, please read:
Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
Why Evolution Is True
As for freewill, it depends on the atheist. Some believe in free will, while others don't think we actually posses it.
How about "Why evolution is true" by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne? It's meant to be accessible to pretty much everyone.
In what sense do you consider Dawkins "biased" such that any other writer on the topic of evolution wouldn't be? The Selfish Gene is quite probably the best introduction there is to evolutionary concepts for someone at your stated level of education, and any beliefs or positions that Dawkins might hold that you may consider "bias" will be held by just about any other author on this topic. It's just that he's the loudest, so that's why you've heard of him.
That said, I have heard very good things about Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, although I have not read it myself.
This is also a good option
If you feel you don’t know enough about biology, you might be interested in reading:
Your inner fish
Why Evolutions is True
Personally, I find the subject of Evolution fascinating. Almost no subject causes more disagreement in our society today, yet at it's core it extremely simple and almost trivial to understand the basics. People go out of their way to misunderstand it, which is amazing considering just how simple it really is.
There are lots of great books on the subject, but I personally recommend the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It is easy and clear, and presents all the overwhelming evidence in a straightforward manner.
This is a great resource: Why Evolution is True, Jerry A. Coyne
The easiest way to do this is to present the data with some really great examples in this book, and to argue that it at least looks like life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor.
If you can get them there, then most of the work is done.
LeAgente answered things better than I could. Also I was thinking of checking out these books that relate to your first question:
Why Darwin matters: the case against intelligent design
why evolution is true
I haven't read them, but took note to maybe read them (probably through this subreddit I heard of one). It seems like they're geared towards people who were raised without much education on evolution or from YEC backgrounds. Reviews said they laid things out well. You may be interested.
Also...if anyone has read these...what'd you think? Any other recommendations?
Lots of comments here trying to argue that you're "doing Judiasm wrong" or "not hard enough" ("Of course mitzvos aren't fun... that's the point!") so I'll offer the kofer perspective.
Write:
Do:
Here's a bunch of stuff I've found informative in my personal journey:
Skeptic reading:
Skeptic viewing:
Skeptic Listening:
Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne is an excellent explanation of evolution in contrast with creationism by an expert in the field. I just finished reading it a couple of weeks ago.
Don't assume that when creationists claim to have done their own research that they have done anything more than to consider sources that confirm their biases. You'll know this is the case if you suggest credible scientific sources and they dismiss them without reading, watching, or listening to them as being somehow biased.
You might ask him to explain how after the flood the fossils that have been found all sorted themselves into the layers we find them in. You might also ask him to explain how there are human archaeological artifacts that date to before creationism's estimate of when Adam and Eve lived. While he's at it, ask him to explain why a single human pair fails to explain the diversity in human DNA that we find today. And why is it that we find species of plants and animals that are now extinct and present species of plants and animals that previously did not exist if God's creation was so perfect.
I think you'll have a harder time arguing that accepting evolution will not necessarily have an impact on his beliefs of a higher power. Think about it. If evolution is true, then the story of the garden of Eden cannot be true. It means that there was no Adam and Eve, no garden, no tree of the knowledge of good and evil, no serpent, and no transgression that is referred to as original sin. Without original sin there is no need for salvation, which makes Christ's sacrifice on the cross pointless. It undermines the entire foundation of Christianity.
But be careful. He is likely to conflate evolution with abiogenesis, which is a theory of the origin of life. Evolution is the theory of the origin of the diversity of species, not of how life itself began.
He is also likely to say that evolution is "just a theory," revealing his ignorance of basic scientific process and terminology. In the end, he may simply refuse to accept it no matter how convincing the evidence may be. It may be completely pointless to even talk to him.
I'm not sure how safe you are to assume that all missionaries will need an education about evolution, but I'm sure you could spare two or three copies of Why Evolution Is True or Only a Theory.
> That whole 'evolution' thing is ridiculous!
>
>
>
> How anyone can believe that is beyond me. They let science make it up as they go along from the flimsiest and unsupported evidence.
That just tells me you do not understand the science. There are heaps and heaps of evidence for evolution. You should read up on it, so you at least understand what you are criticizing.
Some recommendations:
If you're going to hand these books over to others, you might want to go with something a little less technical as a first introduction. I highly recommend these books:
By Neil Shubin: Neil is a paleo-ichthyologist (he studies ancient fish) who discovered Tiktaalik. The link between modern humans and ancient fish are very well-known.
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
And for the link between organic and inorganic materials:
The Universe Within: The Deep History of the Human Body: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets and People
And by Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution is True
And for a more detailed technical book, on a level for graduate school, this one by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr:
Speciation
I hope these serve you well.
I actually preferred Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Both this and Greatest Show on Earth lay out the evidence for evolutionary theory for general audiences. I just happen to think Coyne's is a bit more compelling. This is a bit surprising as I generally find Dawkins' writing excellent and compelling. You might want to check out the Coyne for yourself sometime, though, as it is excellent indeed!
> We have eye witness testimonies.
We supposedly have eye witness testimonies, because almost none of the witnesses (besides the apostles) are named, nor are they alive, and their "testimonies" were recorded many decades after Christ's supposed ascension. Besides that, witness testimonies are not enough to prove that supernatural events are even possible.
> There was a detective who works cold cases, and would convict people of crimes based on people's testimonies. He was an Atheist investigating the case for Christ. He found that the people's testimonies lined up, and he would consider them as viable evidence in court, and he came to the conclusion that it was all real.
There are many authors like this one, who think they have the silver bullet that will prove their religion, be it Christianity or Islam, who eventually engage in all sorts of fallacies and provide nothing of substance. I haven't read this guy's book to be honest (Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels), but I have read other books by Christians who claim that they can prove the "truth" of Christianity. Short summary: they haven't.
The fact of the matter is that these books do not stand to scrutiny. Have you ever read anything written by Bart Ehrman, or other real scholars? They would vehemently disagree with that guy's conclusions.
Bart Denton Ehrman is an American professor and scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is one of North America's leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.
-- from WikiPedia
You should also read stuff by:
and other scientists if you want to see what science actually has to say about reality and about how grossly wrong the Bible is when it tries to make pronouncements on our physical reality.
> Why do you not believe in the gospel accounts? They were hand written accounts by people who witnessed an event, or people who spoke to those people.
That's the claim, not the evidence. It's people claiming to have witnessed supernatural events for which they have no evidence, and even more than that, all these witnesses are long dead. We have nothing but third hand accounts of people from 2000 years ago claiming to have seen or heard wildly fantastical things for which we don't have any evidence that they are even possible.
Heck, we literally have millions of people still alive who swear that they have encountered aliens or have been abducted by aliens - this is a much better evidence than your supposed witnesses who are long dead by now - and it's still not nearly enough to prove that these aliens actually exist and that they have indeed been abducting people.
> Some of the things Jesus spoke about is verifiable today. As I have pointed out about the Holy Spirit guiding people, and people being able to heal and cast out demons in Jesus' name.
Many of Buddha's teachings are verifiable and valid today, yet that does nothing to prove Buddha's claims of the supernatural. Besides, you first have to demonstrate that there are such things as demons before even making a claim of being able to cast them out. Bring one of these "demons" into a research facility and then we'll talk. Otherwise, you're no different than the alien abduction people or the Bigfoot hunters.
The Lenski experiment is my favorite example. For more, read The Greatest Show on Earth.
Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416594795
I tend to agree with your assessment. In Richard Dawkins book Greatest Show on Earth He talked about a Fox breeding experiment that was attempted. Foxes that show the most affection and acceptance to humans where graded on a scaled of 1-4 or something like that. Foxes that where the most accepting of humans, where subsequently breeded with other foxes of the same trait. What was shown that the offspring carried more of this trait, till eventually several generations in, almost all the offspring where completely accepting of humans, and show no defensive or natural fear of humans.
Another interesting outcome of this experiment, was that the more docile the fox offspring where, the more floppy their ears got. It seems that docileness gene is directly related a gene that determines the rigidity of the ear, in foxes.
There are definatly genes in domesticated dogs that make them more accepting of humans, that's not to say Wolfs cannot be trained to be domesticated, but the acceptance from birth, was the purpouse of this experiment.
Evolutionary Biology is fucking awesome.
If you find you like reading Dawkins ... and you're curious to read some awesome layman biology I would also recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" - Richard Dawkins.
It is mind blowing. I had no idea how really developed and nuanced the evidences for biological evolution are. And how misunderstood it is by the general public. Great book!
> What book should I download and listen to that will convince me (a strong atheist) there is a god?
"The Call of Cthulhu" - a short story by American writer H. P. Lovecraft
Praise HIM so that upon waking HE may find you worthy and consume you first.
Just Kidding. We already know (gnostic theist) that Cthulhu exists as documented in the Lovecraft historical documentary story (disguised as fiction to hide the ONE TRUE GOD from heathens)!
As an agnostic atheist towards all supernatural Deities, and a gnostic atheist towards monotheistic Yahwehism, I don't know of any books that would convince you. However, if you would like to read/listen to one of the better known Christian Apologists - consider:
by William Lane Craig
Or perhaps something of a more emotional appeal ...
Both books have garnered many positive reviews by Christians.
Neither is likely to convince a strong atheist (e.g., one that holds a knowledge position that no Gods, or specific God(s), do not exist), but I know of no book/set of books/narratives/evidence/arguments that presents credible evidence or argument to support belief or acceptance in any God - with the belief in Yahweh even more unsupportable.
Yeah there is certainly no good defense for what they believe.
What you need are good, solid arguments for God's existence and Jesus' resurrection. For those you should read Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
Not sure if its the best but Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig is a good resource.
Personally, I really like the book Reasonable Faith which discusses this topic and others, but for more information specifically about the Euthyphro dilemma, see the author's discussion here.
Edit: Craig's book God Over All deals specifically in great depth with divine aseity and basis for the grounding of objective moral values and duties in God, rather than platonic abstracts.
You are so smart to do so my friend! You're probably a philosopher at heart, too inquisitive to "just believe." That's great, I wish more Christians were like that.
The fact is there's plenty plenty of evidence for the truth (both historical and philosophical) of Christianity though it just takes time to read through it all. It's something you kind of have to get a bug up your butt about, or in my case you get strong-armed into it mentally, in which case you become obsessed with it which is what happened to me.
For some lay-level reading I'd check out (in no particular order)
Cold Case Christianity
Reasonable Faith or really anything by William Lane Craig
Evidence for Christianity
There are a TON more...
Also, read the old Church fathers, really fun stuff.
Please feel free to PM me anytime, I will gladly talk to you about whatever you want.
Why the downvotes? Would you credit a neurosurgeon's near-death experience? "Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife" http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195
> This makes Colton Burpo the only little adorable liar to still claim he died, saw God, and then came back and cashed in.
Hah! What?
Richard Sigmund
Trudy Harris (on behalf of others)
Mary Neal
Eben Alexander
Marvin Besteman
Crystal McVea
Dale Black
James Garlow (on behalf of others)
Seneca Sodi
Sid Roth (on behalf of others)
Reggie Anderson
and on and on and Ariston...
I believe, that, following the logic of quantum mechanics, the electrons firing in our brain exist somewhere else in the infinite multiverse, and that when we die, our consciousness transfers from here to there.
Read this book.
Here is a good book on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Near-Maybe-Not/dp/1470001772
Our own /u/im_just_saying wrote this book on the topic, which I think fits your criteria nicely. Also check out Victorious Eschatology if you're looking for a couple options. Neither are overly-complicated/scholarly.
> She's asked me to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I told her I would.
Be sure to follow it up with "The Case Against the Case for Christ".
I can suggest two books that might be what you are looking for.
Lee Strobel's Case for Christ investigates the Jesus claims from an "impartial" viewpoint (ie he only interviews apologetic sources). He uses as proof, for example, that the gospel writers are eye-witnesses which, if you are reading Ehrman, you know to be bunk. (Amazon actually has quite a long 'look inside' preview for this book)
Robert Price refutes Strobel's claims in "The Case Against the Case for Christ". I haven't read the book myself, but considering Price is one who denies much of the historicity of Jesus, I'm guessing he didn't pull any punches.
Honestly, that's a truly awful book. Even by apologetics standards. Here is a good book that takes Strobel's points chapter by chapter. Strobel, like most apologists, is speaking to an audience of believers, attempting to give them some reason to think their faith is rational.
BTW, have an upvote to cancel out the person who downvoted. I might not agree with you, but it seems you posted that in good faith.
You could try this book that is refuting this book. Although I haven't read either.
https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot-Journey-Christian-Hermeticism/dp/1585421618
For an interesting fusion of Catholicism and occult, check out Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism.
You may be interested in [Meditations on the Tarot] (https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot-Journey-Christian-Hermeticism/dp/1585421618/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3O35TMR80N5FZ&keywords=meditations+on+the+tarot&qid=1573677811&sprefix=Meditations+on+the+T%2Caps%2C225&sr=8-3) . It is one authors understanding of how the Tarot teaches a Christian spiritual path. It is pretty heavy reading, but very deep and insightful. It is also, of course, just one person's perspective, on both the Tarot and Christianity.
I suggest picking up a Marseille deck. It has a much older history than any other deck. The Arcana are a lot more subtle than a deck like the Rider-Waite. Any other deck seems like a bastard deck to me. The Camion Marseille deck restored by Alejandro Jodorowsky is incredibly beautiful.
http://en.camoin.com/tarot/Tarot-Marseille-Camoin-Jodorowsky-en.html
You can find a lot of great books written about the Marseille deck.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Tarot-Spiritual-Teacher/dp/1594772630
http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot/dp/1585421618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373642673&sr=1-1&keywords=meditations+on+the+tarot
A lot of people have suggesting The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. I personally find him really annoying, but Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne is a great book on the subject
Should we force Christians to read this?
I've read most of Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. I'm no expert but I thought it was good.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420359680&sr=8-1&keywords=why+evolution+is+true
That's not how evolution works, and you can't make it our job to "prove it" to you.
If you're honestly interested, there is an entire scientific consensus out there if you're really as educated as you claim to be.
Here's a good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1424195684&sr=1-1
Either that, or I'm starting to think you are one of the best trolls ever.
Hello there,
As an evolutionary biologist, I'd like to extend to you a list of beginner-friendly books regarding evolutionary biology. The first I'd recommend is The Blind Watchmaker . I bring this one up first because the complexity of life astonishes you. Although life is truly complex, this can be explained by diversity-generating processes (e.g. mutation) coupled with non-random replicative success (natural selection). I also understand Dawkins is an acquired taste, personality/TV wise. His science writing is more palatable.
The second book I'd recommend is Why Evolution is True . This book succinctly covers the basics of evolution and gives notable examples.
The last book I'd recommend is a bit nerdy and mathy, but it is a good intro into evolution and genetics. That book is A Primer of Population Genetics (if you do buy it, but it used).
If you really want to nerd out, there are open source (free to read) journals online. One is Ecology and Evolution . This journal is more niche; the other is PLoS ONE which is more general. The provided link will direct you to papers binned under 'evolution'.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Please educate yourself about the theory of evolution.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
Kent Hovind received his "masters" and "doctorate" in "Christian Education" by correspondence by a non-accredited school. Hovind has no formal scientific training, no research credentials, no worthwhile understanding of the basics of biology and certainly not even the most rudimentary understanding of developmental biology. This article ranges from complete nonsense to outright lying. Bringing this article in here and suggesting that it points out holes in evolution ought to be embarrassing for you. If it isn't, then you are too uneducated on the subject to even bother taking seriously and a sufficient answer is we are as certain about evolution as we are that the earth goes around the sun despite what "Dr. Dino" says.
John Lennox is a great resource on the Christian vs. Science debate. Here is one of my favorite speeches by him. He explains why and how popularizers of atheism today enjoy forcing people to choose between science and God. In his book Where the Conflict Really Lies, Alvin Plantinga argues that the real debate of religion vs. science is Naturalism vs. Science. He defends the idea that Naturalism has become a religion, rather than a state of temporal ignorance--it is meant to be an assumption until indications of the supernatural arise, though now people will accept both premises and the conclusion of arguments such as the Kalam (for example, Richard Dawkins and Danniel Dennet)--but then deny it once they learn it has theological implications. So he attempts to move the debate to the view most scientists today hold, and then presents his own defeater for naturalism to add to the list that almost expelled it from academia until it was preserved in a sort of pretension by modern scientists. Why? Because academia has secularized on the basis of a misrepresentation of Christianity--that God is something to be found within His creation, instead of "outside of it" (immaterial, spaceless, timeless, uncaused...).
Alvin Plantinga also wrote Knowledge and Christian Belief (a more approachable version of his Warranted Christian Belief), which is part of how he restored intellectual credibility to the Christian worldview within academia. He has since caused a resurgence in Christian theism in the anglo American collegiate realm. Here he explains that argues that belief in Jesus is a properly basic belief, meaning that it is one that we arrive at without reference to anything else within reality. For example, you believe that you are not a brain in a vat being controlled by a mad scientist to think you are here---but you can't prove it! It is a metaphysical (the philosophy of existence) assumption that is epistemologically (the philosophy of what is justified/warranted as knowledge) justified. Thus, wholly apart from evidence besides the revelation of the Holy Spirit (perhaps noncommunicable), and in the absence of a defeater for Christian theism, belief in Jesus is an epistemologically warranted metaphysical initiative.
> They're having me read it because I'm asking them to read The God Delusion. I feel like it's a fair trade off.
I don't think the book they're giving you is a fair trade. Science and the existence of God are not even in the same categories. What you need is PHILOSOPHY and METAPHYSICS. I suggest you read: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga is one of the greatest Christian philosophers alive and in short his theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord.
I've been thinking about this. The works which first pop to mind are probably too technical for general interest as they are written to be read by other professional philosophers. I'm trying to think of what might be interest to the educated person who isn't a Philosophy major.
*****
Peter Kreeft
Peter Kreeft writes a lot of things for a general audience. He is a Catholic philosopher at Boston College. He often speaks at other universities, and has even been part of a debate with a former professor of mine, so he is at least pretty well-known in philosophical circles. He has a bunch of free readings on the "featured readings" and "more featured readings" pages of his site, which also has lectures and such. Here is his author page on Amazon. His books are also mostly intended for a general audience. I've read a handful of them, so if you're thinking of ordering one, or finding it at a library, let me know and I'll give you my two cents. The Sea Within: Waves and the Meaning of All Things is interesting. He is fairly old, and a lifelong surfer. In that book he draws analogies between the natural pull the ocean has on us and the pull God has on us. He also has many Socrates Meets... books which don't have so much to do with religion, but provide accessible introductions to various philosophers (e.g. Socrates Meets Sartre).
*****
Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga is a very prominent philosopher, and a Christian. Much of his writing is intended for the professional philosophical audience, but some if it might be accessible to a general audience. Here is his Amazon author page. Let me know if you're thinking about checking out any of his stuff. Like I said, a lot of it is more technical than Kreeft's. Also, he is in the analytic tradition, whereas Kreeft is more in the continental tradition. I think that further distances him from the casual reader.
Some of Plantinga's works which might be good:
>This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, on one of our biggest debates -- the compatibility of science and religion. The last twenty years has seen a cottage industry of books on this divide, but with little consensus emerging. Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. His theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord.
*****
Søren Kierkegaard
If you're thinking more historically, I think Kierkegaard can be very interesting. He is considered by many to be a proto-existentialist (a sort of existentialist before existentialism existed as a movement). Fear and Trembling is relatively easy to read, short, and probably his most read work. I recommend it. Also, here is his Amazon author page.
*****
Others
Those three were just a few of the many Christian philosophers I find interesting. There are a whole lot more, some more accessible than others to a general audience. This is still just a fraction of the historical Christian philosophical scene, but I think it will give you a good start. These are all of them off of the top of my head whom I have studied to some extent.
Contemporary:
Historical
****
Author's Note: I've been working on this entry for about 45 minutes now. I hope someone reads some of it. Time for a break. If you have any questions, or wanna talk philosophy, let me know, it's in my blood.*
I would read this if you get a chance
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
I don't have the exact quote now but, christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga said something like "our interpretation of scripture and science are different ways to approach the objetive truth, thus, when they disagree about something, there may be a misunderstanding/error in one or both that we need to work out"
He wrote a book on the subject for those interested in a philosophical, more deep take on the issue.
For those more into YT, I strongly reccomend the movie [Evolution vs God](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
).
The supposed conflict of science vs religion is false. The conflict is scientism vs religion. True Science deals with observation, theorizing and experimentation.
But it would be naive to think that what is sold today as science is free from bias and ideology.
My personal views on the subject are:
There is no macro evolution, and all species were created as they are, but are somehow making little adjustments tru dna combinations within the same kind.
Only life can create life, non organic chemicals cannot create the information imbued in the DNA of the living beings.
I got not strong stance on the age of the earth. It could be 6~7000 years or 4.5 Billions (radiometric dating has some issues..). Whatever the age doesn't change the fact that God did it.
Finally, I keep in mind that the ultimate truth will never be fully acknowledged by humans The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever Dt 29:29.
My humble opinion/understanding
Old dead classical dudes are always good. I ransack Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius for good ideas and advice fairly regularly. There are some excellent secular philosophers and thinkers out there. I enjoy Sam Harris' work the most. One of my favorite reference books is The Portable Atheist, which is a collection of secular philosophers, edited by Hitchens.
To get a sense of your place in the universe, try to find an old full-color hardback copy of Cosmos.^1 For your place in the Human story, Guns, Germs, and Steel, and your place in the American story with A People's History.
[1] As a minor biographical note, I credit this version of Cosmos for getting me through horrible angsty teenager time.
Edit: Also, good question.
It took me a couple minutes to figure this out.
I see this quote attributed to
The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.
Christopher Hitchens was the editor, but it's a collection of essays from many people, apparently including Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
- http://www.amazon.com/The-Portable-Atheist-Essential-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083 -
- http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/rh2j7/the_only_position_that_leaves_me_with_no/c45r38s -
>Atheism is not a religion.
Really?
>We have no doctrine.
I'm almost positive that that's not the case.
>No creed.
From PZ Myers himself.
>No hymns.
Really? Are you so very certain?
So...are you positive that atheism has not taken on all the trappings of a religion? I would say you even have apostles - Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris.
Finally - I would urge you to look up state atheism and then tell me that certain people didn't kill in the name of atheism.
The Portable Atheist, edited by Christopher Hitchens, is an invaluable resource and a full-on greatest hits of nonbeliever writing, tracing the chronology of freethinkers all the way from to Lucretius to H.P. Lovecraft to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'm constantly going back to it, especially because there are essays for all sorts of atheism-related subjects, like the refutation of miracles or the source of morality.
Also, I know you said you're not looking for anti-Christian media, but Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian is a classic for a reason - it's comprehensive and expertly-crafted without being vitriolic. As influential as Dawkins has been for me, he can't hold a candle to Russell.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "light", as one man's leisurely reading could be another man's first excursion into an epic magnum-opus.
I will give you what I believe is a good "entry point" into atheist/secular literature. It is artfully written and prepared by none other than my personal inspiration and role model: Christopher Hitchens.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Portable-Atheist-Essential-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083
"The Portable Atheist" is collection of poignant and brilliant selections and snippets from many different authors, philosophers and some of the foremost contemporary writers of our time. The Amazon description of the book provides an apt and thorough description of the book's contents.
The book does include some quotations from Rushdie, though. I would personally advise against shying away from reading someone's work based on their facial features alone.
If one argued that the works of Galileo, Newton, Hawking, Shakespeare, Twain, Hemingway and Sagan were not worth reading because they weren't exactly the prettiest lilies in the pond, then modern society wouldn't be that much better off now, would it :) ?
Yes, we're fish! Classifications are nested, and they reflect evolutionary relationships. This puts organisms in a context that shows how things are related to each other by descent from a common ancestor. Think of it as an Euler diagram rather than one taxonomic classification precluding another.
We are nested within the clade Osteichthyes (bony fish) -> Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish) -> Tetrapoda (four-legged animals) -> Amniota (laying hard-shelled eggs) -> Synapsida (mammals and "mammal-like reptiles" defined by skull characteristics) -> Mammalia (hair, milk, etc.) -> Primates (nails instead of claws, and other stuff) -> Hominidae (great apes) -> Homo (humans and other closely related taxa) -> H. sapiens (us!)
There's a whole book about it.
You may find this book called your inner fish: a journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body very interesting. It is a really fascinating and, quick read.
Tetrapods include amphibians, reptiles, birds, turtles and mammals. All tetrapods have a single common ancestor, that was as you describe "the first fish dude who jumped out of the water". Really, that is the best way I have heard it described and youre not wrong! We don't know which species is the first, but we do have several transitional fossils from water to land. These species are collectively known as tetrapodomorphs which basically means "kind of like a tetrapod - kind of like fish". This picture gives you a good idea of some of the different species alive around that time. Tiktaalik is one of my favourites, mostly because the name is fun to say. This species lived about ~375 million years ago, during the Denovian. Here is another example of the limbs of those transitional species from fin to limb!
Acanthostega (~365 million years ago) and Itchthyostega (~360 million years ago) are two species of tetrapods that lived after Tiktaalik, and they are better suited for life on land. They likely lived in swampy areas but were still tied to the water.
After the first tetrapods established themselves on land they evolved or radiated into many different groups. This is a good and simplified family tree of tetrapods. There are the amphibians, the turtles, the mammals and the reptiles. This is another family tree which depicts some extinct groups. Notice that the birds are placed firmly with the other dinosaurs and are now the only living representatives of that lineage. And that early mammal ancestors (therapsids) stem from a distant synapsid ancestor which evolved quite early on.
The reptiles are a bit of a funny group because they contain a lot of extinct species and this confuses people as to what actually is a reptile. Simply put reptiles include the living turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, and tuatara and many other extinct species including the dinosaurs, the extinct flying reptiles like the pterosuars and the extinct aquatic reptiles like ichthyosaurs. Another cool fact is that crocodiles and birds are more closely related to each other than they are to the other reptiles (turtles, snakes, lizards and tuatara).
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
Protip: Keep a copy or two of Your Inner Fish or Greatest Show on Earth (or your preferred book on evolution) to lend to any creationist you are trying to convince.
A bit more on evolution. Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. To quote a review on Amazon:
>He explains what evolutionary science, i.e. paleontology, comparative anatomy, genetics, embryology and developmental biology have to tell us about the human body, and how it came to be the way it is. Examples include the evolutionary history of limb bones in fossil tetrapods, developmental control genes found in almost all animals today, the evolutionary history of mammalian teeth, the origin of basic "body-plans," genetic comparisons of genes important for our senses of smell and vision, and the history of the mammalian inner ear.
Here's 3:
"Your Inner Fish" - Neil Shubin
"Why Geology Matters" - Doug MacDougall
"A Short History of Nearly Everything" - Bill Bryson
I was raised Evangelical... converted to Catholic in adulthood. There are a number of books that I could recommend. Here are some of my favorites - in order of importance/preference.
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (only the NT though, they are currently working on OT)
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catholicism and Fundamentalism (written in the 80's, but still very relevant and the best Catholic apologetics book to defend the faith that I've ever read)
Works of G.K. Chesterton Vol 3 (This volume explains why he converted from Anglican to Catholic)
Rome Sweet Home
The Fathers Know Best
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic
Surprised By Truth
> You know there's this book?
This book?
Oh the new Bill Nye book that just came out would be absolutely perfect on that case. (the audio book is even better, it's narrated by Bill Nye humself)
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
I would highly recommend Bill Nye's new book, "Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation." I don't know if you watched Bill Nye growing up but he is extremely smart and relatable.. just an all around great guy.
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420471445&sr=8-1&keywords=bill+nye
In this book he explains why what science has to say about our understanding of where we came from is so critically important to our place in the world, and also just why hostile attitudes against these facts are very dangerous. Welcome to our subreddit! Come by often, you are always welcome :)
I'm a scientist, and I'm also religious, and there's a lot of interesting work on how religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and how scientific data can support the story of creation.
I believe that religion has no place in science, but for people who are scientists, who also happen to be religious, these ideas can be really helpful in balancing two worlds that on the surface may appear incompatible.
I recommend this book for anyone who is interested.
And I just want to clarify: These ideas are really just for people who might be interested in religion as well as science and don't want to dismiss either one. If that's not you, that's fine.
The former head of the Human Genome Project and current head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins speaks of this in his book, "The Language of God"
Alright here are some of the best resources I know as a Catholic. Hope they help!
Edward Feser's blog as well as his The Last Superstition and 5 Proofs of the Existence of God
Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
Francis Collin's The Language of God
Anthony Flew's There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
Thomas Wood's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
Brant Pitre's The Case For Jesus
Tim O Neill on the Church and science, the Inquisition and the Galileo affair
Jenny Hawkins on Jesus and God, early Christianity and form criticism
Al Moritz on the Fine Tuning Argument
>There is a reason someone should believe in the supernatural and mystical aspects of Christianity. This is a large issue for me. Solely based on supernatural and mystical ideas, from an outsider perspective, Christianity is no different than animism or Buddhism. I can't have faith alone.
Well when you look at the world's religions, Christianity has a clear and impressive advantage in the miracles/mystical department. Historically, in Christianity, there have been numerous cases of Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, miraculous healings and the spiritual gifts and religious experiences of countless Christian saints -- men and women of great virtue whose admirable character only add to the credibility of their testimony. Examples of these include Paul, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Hildegard of Bingen, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Vincent Ferrer, Joan of Arc, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine Emmerich, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi, Genma Galangi, Faustina Kowalska and Padre Pio. We also have a pair of impressive relics, the shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Orvieto. I'll also throw in Catholic exorcisms.
And these Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions and religious/mystical experiences continue to happen today.
What do Buddhism and animism have in comparison?
>Anything that discusses and argues against some common tropes from atheists such as Mother Teresa being a vile, sadistic person.
Honestly, I'm quite stunned at the portrait atheists have painted of her. At worst, she wasn't perfect and made mistakes. She cannot be a vile monster like Hitchens claims she was, that's ridiculous. Here are some articles that defend Mother Teresa -- here, here, here and here.
Check out any of Mother Teresa's personal writings (e.g. No Greater Love, A Simple Path, Come Be Thy Light) to see what she believed in, what she valued and how she saw the world. Check out books written by people who actually knew her such as that of Malcolm Muggeridge, an agnostic BBC reporter who ended up converting to Catholicism because of Teresa and ended up becoming a lifelong friend of hers. Or that of her priest, friend and confessor, Leo Maasburg, who was able to recall 50 inspiring stories of Mother Teresa. Or that of Conroy, a person who actually worked with her. Or any biography of hers. Find out what she was like according to the people around her. Then afterwards, determine for yourself if she resembles Hitchen's "monster" or the Catholic Church's "saint".
I can recommend some very good books that show scientific proof and some with historical proof.
The Language of God is written by Dr Francis Collins. Dr Collins is the head of the human genome project aka the project that mapped the whole human genome. His book reconciles faith and science and shows why the do not have to be exclusive. He is a world renowned and recognized scientist. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
The Case for Christ is written by Lee Strobel. Strobel is an award winning journalist. He was an atheist and set out to prove that Christ was not the son of God nor did he really exist. The book shows all the historic evidence that he found. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307
If you are searching for proof than I recommend reading both of these books.
I also challenge you to critically read the Bible and think of what it is saying and meaning. When the gospel was being spread and Christianity was taking root many people were still alive who witnessed the things recorded.l, but seriously don't take my word for it investigate it yourself.
Yep. You may enjoy checking out the books The Geneisis Enigma and The Language of God to help your personal journey.
/u/Wil-Himbi suggested Biologos. The founder of Biologos is Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project (and now director of the NIH). Before Biologos, Collins wrote a book that I found immensely helpful in my own struggle with this question: The Language of God. I really do understand your struggle. As we discover more and more about creation, Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magesteria paradigm becomes less useful. Simplistically, Gould's idea is like the separation of church and state: science and faith should be kept separate because they ask and answer different questions. I believe that this is true for many things, but as we learn more about how brains work, or about the long history of the universe, science and religion become inextricable. Check out the work of Biologos and Collins' book. They show how it is possible to be a devout Christian and a serious scientist at the same time.
Had the same problem (although, I went to Christian boarding school, not home schooled).
Learning about evolution and why we know it is true taught me a lot about the scientific method and epistemology - that there are things we can /really/ know and not just believe them because of our "gut" or because someone told us.
A couple videos that helped on my journey:
Our Origins Made Easy : The scientific method and the need for evidence is especially well presented.
Foundational Falsehoods of Creation
There are many good books on the subject also ("The greatest show on earth" by Richard Dawkins).
You will be amazed.
​
Edit: Start with the videos. As you get the basics, move on to talkorigins, books, and other things - your interest will fuel the search. The biggest thing you will gain is that 'how to think' is more important than 'what to think'. It's one thing to take someone's word for it that evolution is true. It is completely different to learn why it is true. This will change the way you think about many things.
Richard Dawkins's latest book covers this in detail: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.
I went through the same sort of thing as you. All I can really say is to keep pursuing the facts and the evidence. People will try to discourage you for one reason or another, but don't let them. If the Christian god exists, you've done nothing wrong by asking questions because he values the truth.
Since you mentioned your friends and family being YECs, I strongly recommend reading the Talk Origins archive if you haven't seen it yet. It has a great list of Creationist claims and the evidence against them. If you're interested in learning more about Evolution, I'd also recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. It's the book that made me start questioning Christianity and to this day it remains one of my favourites.
For my part, I'd believe that Santa Claus was real if I could objectively, scientifically, and reliably demonstrate such a claim. I'd believe that Vishnu, Horus, Odin, or Zeus were real for the same reasons. In fact, I can conjure up any number of fanciful scenarios in which strange, supernatural claims could be verified and "believed" by atheists, because that's how we operate: we believe in reality, however strange it may be. Just because such a fanciful scenario can be imagined, however, doesn't give that scenario any sort of validity. Your claims are as baseless as someone that wants me to believe they have an invisible and undetectable dragon in their garage that will burn my invisible and undetectable spirit FOR ETERNITY if I don't fork over 10% of my income and obey their every incomprehensible and often immoral edict. So put yourself in the position that you so "cleverly" thought you'd put us in: what would change your mind?
Oh, wait ... you don't even want to question your "faith"? That's what I thought.
edit: Watch this, pause, and reflect on your beliefs.
Aye. There are a lot of Reformed who see it the same way, actually. At least in my church back home, a larger PCA church, many of the older generations were pretty entrenched in a view of the Catholic church that was implied completely unity in doctrine across the board so as to say that every Catholic was not a Christian for various reasons.
Have you ever heard of the book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic? You might recommend it to some friends. It describes the journey of someone who grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical tradition and through an honest exploration of the Catholic church and his own beliefs becomes Catholic. He wasn't Reformed, so in reading it there were many parts where he and I parted ways in our understanding of basics of the faith, however he comes from the generic non-Reformed evangelical tradition which is certainly larger than the Reformed tradition.
Have you read David Currie's book?
"Hey, I got you a great book that's all about Creationism!"
Dr. Jay L. Wile: Review of Bill Nye's Undeniable (a detailed list of the errors he found while reading Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation)
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Science-Creation-Nye/dp/1250007135
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
>She could easily "dumb down" everything that she says. She never does though
I'm a heavily muscled man. An NSFW pic is in my profile.
​
>"I'm a scientist." Yeah, okay Bill. Okay...
Since you were so kind as to bring up Bill Nye and we are indeed talking about the origins of life, I am going to recommend that everyone read this book which is a debate between Bill Nye and a creationist. I'll just leave this here:
​
Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation
https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
​
Great read.
​
I also recommend his show.
Bill Nye Saves the World
https://www.netflix.com/title/80117748
my advice is to buy your mother-in-law one or all of these books:
• jason rosenhouse's among the creationists
• richard dawkin's the greatest show on earth
• jerry a. coyne's why evolution is true
• bill nye's undeniable: evolution and the science of creation
edit: a word.
And I think you might like this one
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830837043/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_UEQwDbCWQBBYH
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief https://www.amazon.com/dp/1416542744/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_LFQwDbB8ZK68E
Oh, sure, I totally agree with that. I'm just saying I get a lot of bleating about fossils.
And in agreement with your point, I often recommend this Francis Collins book to religious people, just on the off chance that they might understand his points about DNA.
https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
I don't agree much with the religious parts of the book, but that's not really the point, IMO.
You might be interested in the writings of Francis Collins and his colleagues. His book The Language of God is very very good and explains this very well. Francis led the Human Genome Project and is extraordinarily smart.
In addition, he has a website where a lot of your questions can be answered: http://www.biologos.org/
Sorry I've been out of state the past week and didn't get a chance to see this.
> Morals are formed by the need for us to function as a society, how is that evidence of a god? Just because a religion has a moral code is not evidence that a god is required to have them. It's pretty simple, if there were just one living thing, would anything it did be moral or immoral?
You're stating one of the two most widely understood theories on the origin of morality - I'm sure everyone on this sub is familiar with that idea. Obviously what I was saying is that what I observe about morality makes me believe in the other widely spread theories about moral origin - absolute morality.
> What research papers say DNA has an intelligent language behind it?
It's a pretty significant debate right now. Here is an article discussing a book from Harvard about DNA evidence for intelligent design, [Here] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744) is a book by Francis Collins. These are just the first two things a google search turned up.
>Order in the universe, the ability for life to create life and ways to survive, does not automatically mean there is an intelligence behind it. It can mean that things are subject to the same constants.
I agree. I don't think I was saying otherwise before, I was just saying that it's more difficult to understand how design could come out of no design than from design. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> It's still a story, just like every other religion. John took the most creative liberties of them all.
That doesn't change the fact that having more sources gives something more credibility than something with less sources - which was my point.
Francis Collins (human genome project, current director of NIH) is also an evangelical Christian. He wrote this book about science and faith: https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
BioLogos - emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with what science has discovered about the origins of the universe and life
Check out the BioLogos Foundation's website, which has many great works by world renowned scientists. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and current director of the NIH, founded it following the publication of his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Here is a book recommendation.
I'm sort of trying to get a homework assignment done so I can't really give a detailed answer. But really, some of your questions are better answered by books as opposed to reddit answers. I'll recommend a few that argue for the Catholic or conservative perspective. I'm not name dropping these books so you can read all of them, but if you want in depth answers to your questions this is what you should read.
Gay marriage: https://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313854&sr=1-3&keywords=what+is+marriage
Abortion: https://www.amazon.com/Persuasive-Pro-Life-Cultures-Toughest/dp/1941663044/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313881&sr=1-1&keywords=Persuasive+pro+life
General Theism: https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Atheism-Make-Logic-Charity/dp/1938983432/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313922&sr=1-6&keywords=Trent+horn
There's also Edward Feser's 5 proof for the existence of God which I haven't read but I'm sure is good. Feser's a former atheist and currently a philosophy professor so he's pretty solid.
General History of Catholicism (and arguably, deals with faith vs science issues): https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313995&sr=1-1&keywords=How+the+Catholic+Church+built+western+civilization
A book you would really get a kick out of as a biochemistry student: https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549314047&sr=1-1&keywords=the+language+of+God
Francis Collins is the former head of the NIH and is the scientist who lead the project to decode the human genome. He's also a convert to Christianity from atheism.
Just adding that there are still Christian scientists that believe this today. Not every Christian scientist is a creationist. Francis Collins the head of the NIH and former head of the Human Genome Project and has written extensively on faith and science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#Opinions
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744
Actually I am the one who feels sorry for you. In actuality - cognitive dissonance is required by atheism. God does not "strike you lame" because there is no need to. And you would never believe if any of those things happen. You would eventually strike it up to coincidence. That is a fact. You know that internally is correct. God gave you a mind. He does not need to be your magician. You would never believe that. He would rather you seek Him with your mind/understanding. There is enough evidence in creation to show that there is a Creator. Again - cognitive dissonance is on your part, not mine.
I did not grow up believing in Jesus, but was raised Jewish. However the evidence was so overwhelming that I would need cognitive dissonance to turn away from it. Again - I will say it again because you have never refuted it once. That complex things in life require thought. They require design. Male/female reproduction could never have arisen except by design.
It is a cop out and a running from these facts that you now turn to Ad hominem statements. Par for the course from most atheists I have met. They are not critical thinkers in this specific area.
There is not a shred of doubt that you will know there is a God one day. He waits very patiently (He is in no rush.) He lives forever. You (and I) have a limited number of heartbeats left.
Next time you go to a restaurant - remember - there was no chef/cook behind those doors. You are deceiving yourself to believe there was a cook/chef.
Be well my friend. No need to keep going on this. There are plenty of authors who address this subject so eloquently. Dr. Frances Collins (Head of the Human Genome Project) wrote eloquently on this subject. Amazon carries it as they do dozens of other books by scientists who have refused to resort to ad hominem, but rather use their minds to come to a logical conclusion. There is a Creator. Here is the Amazon title - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
Be well my friend. Avoid death. You dont want to die in this state. Zero doubt.
In addition to Mere Christianity here are a few more worth checking out. Despite the need for faith there is far more evidence for Christianity then I ever knew until recently. These are just a few of the resource that have helped me.
GodQuest
I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
Stealing from God
The Language of God
The Fingerprint of God
I have put them in the order I would recommend reading but they are all great resources.
Another good resource for spiritual journeys are church small groups. A number of larger churches often have weekly groups or 6-8 week meetings geared for new believers and seekers. All the resources in the world are great by my journey was more shaped by talking through these things then anything else.
Glad to hear where your journey has brought you. I will be praying that God helps you find the resource and people you need to fill in the gaps.
Here are 4 suggestions.
Currently on my night stand:
1- Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World http://www.amazon.com/Things-Hidden-Since-Foundation-World/dp/0804722153
2-Science and Religion. 5 Questions http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8792130518
Other recommendations that I think fit the criteria:
1- Marketing of Evil: http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1942475217
2- Language of God: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
If you're interested, I would recommend reading The Language of God by Francis Collins.
Dr. Collins is the current director of the National Institutes of Health; his instrumental work on the Human Genome Project was arguably one of the most important biomedical advances in the last few decades. He is also a devout Catholic, and his book helped me realize that what we know about God and what we know about science are perfectly compatible with each other.
I'm both a Christian and a PhD-carrying scientist. There are answers to the supposed discrepancies between the Bible and science with each individual "discrepancy" requiring its own response (i.e. there's not a blanket answer (such as "it's all figurative") for all them them). Reasonably good answers to many of the more common "the Bible and science are at odds" types of questions can be found here. This website doesn't have definitive answers by any means, but it is a nice place to start.
Also, if you're looking for a more "qualified" source than some internet website, the book The Language of God by Francis Collins (current director of the NIH - National Institute of Health) is a nice perspective from a top-level scientist who is also a Christian.
A balanced view only can be developed by hearing both sides.
Timothy Keller - The Reason for God - Believing in an Age of Skepticism (chapter summaries)
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
Alvin Plantinga - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Francis S. Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Craig A. Evans - Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
You can find longer list over at christianapologetics or at Kindle Deals in Christianity, Christian Worldview, and Apologetics
bethinking.org exists to help you make sense of the big questions about life.
The Biologos Foundation Ressource Finder
The Veritas Forum Talks
I've always believed science proves God. People talk about nature like it's so chaotic and all by chance, when really it's too magnificent to have been an accident. The patterns in nature, the way everything has a purpose to keep the world turning, each animal and insect has its own place in the ecosystem. Circle of Life sort of thing, if that makes sense. Check out "The Language of God" by Francis Collins http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348164791&sr=1-1&keywords=the+language+of+god that pretty much shows what I mean. I've heard some people say "well why doesn't the Bible explain science then?" (I've heard this from both people who believe in science and not God and vice versa) And the answer is: try explaining Quantum Physics to early people. Damn near impossible. Anyways, someone else has recommended this book I just linked you as well, so you know it's a good one if multiple people suggest you read it. :)
I'm a Christian and a scientist. I struggle with questions like yours often and find myself returning to belief after each
'wrestling match'. As /u/sunnyEl-ahrairah said, this kind of wrestling is a good thing. If God exists, he wants us to use our minds.
Food for thought, as I certainly don't have all the answers:
>How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus... While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are....
It comes down to the person of Jesus. Who was he? The actual son of God, a malicious liar, or a crazy person? This is CS Lewis' famous 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' argument, you may have heard it. The answer is a matter of belief and faith -- is the Bible reliable testimony? Does it quote him accurately? The things he claimed couldn't have been made by a mere 'good man'. So who was he? Figuring that out has to be part of your search for God.
>How does the physical world reconcile with scripture (genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution)?
A literal interpretation? It can't. Reading the Bible out of context, translated into English, and without considering the culture just does not square with the discoveries of science. But modern cosmology and evolution can both be squared nicely with the Bible, especially when recognizing that those chapters in Genesis match well with someone's vision of we see today. Check out Francis Collins' (former head of Human Genome Project) book The Language of God for one perspective. You might also be interested in Hugh Ross, a pastor and astrophysicist, and his website Reasons to Believe.
>If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction?
Aliens would be within the Universe, God outside of it. Aliens would be in the same boat that we are, part of creation. We define God as the Creator, separate from the rest of Universe (somehow!).
>How can someone who created the universe care about me individually? I've started to feel like that is just brought in to encourage the peasants to listen to the church.
It's a mindblowing idea, especially in light of the size of the Universe, and it takes faith.
Some things that I see that convince me that there is design to the Universe and a Creator (apart from the Bible):
All of these highly ordered things exist in a Universe that tends toward disorder, entropy. With those in mind, it's actually easier for me to believe that God exists than doesn't. How he might interact with humans is a whole big other question, and that's where I consider the case of Jesus and my own observations of love, inherent right and wrong, and the arc of human history.
There aren't superior races of humanity because evolution isn't teleological, it doesn't have an end goal or intrinsic purpose.
Once you're aware of the evidence, the conclusion that all life is related is self-evident. For example, all other ape species have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23. It was discovered that human chromosome 2 has telomeres (basically protective end caps for chromosomes) in the middle of the chromosome. This suggests that two chromosomes became fused at some point in the past and that this trait was passed on to all subsequent descendants.
As further confirmation, it was found that the genetic code from each end of this apparently hybrid chromosome was a near-perfect match to the code from chromosomes 2 and 3 in chimpanzees and gorillas.
I used to be where you are - accepted that evolution had to have at least some truth to it, but was still not sure as to the extent that it occurred between wildly different groups of animals. The Language of God by Francis Collins more or less single-handedly changed my mind. The author is a born-again Christian but also one of the leading geneticists of our time. He was the head researcher on the Human Genome Project.
I hope you decide to look into the subject further, but regardless of if you do or not, be sure not to lose that skeptical attitude.
Thanks again for poitning me to Biologos! Very awesome site. I just ordered Collin's book it has good reviews. Ill let you know when im done reading it.
Theistic evolution.
Frances Collins who headed the Human Genome Project, described his beliefs this way in an interview when asked the question "In your book, you say religion and science can coexist in one person's mind. This has been a struggle for some people, especially in terms of evolution. How do you reconcile evolution and the Bible?" Note: he wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
>As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
>
>It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
>
>I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
>
>But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.
>
>
I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God.
Reference: 'God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures'
Love is the single most important Universal Truth that is common to all of humanity. Everybody is born innocent and pure, with the capacity to Love. We are NOT born as sinners. We only become sinners once we develop an ego. Children are NOT sinners. The whole purpose in life is to learn to suppress the Ego and become like an innocent child again. This is the whole point of the example that Jesus gave us. The new testament presents God as Love.
The most important thing in the Bible, the main message of the Bible is this:
Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The very fact that I'm writing this message to you and you are reading this message of Love, is all the proof you need that God exists and is real. "God" wants you to know, that all that matters is Love. Keep Love in your heart, make every decision in your life based on Love. Agnosticism is based upon fear, the polar opposite of Love. Choose Love, man, just choose Love!!! This message of Love, has been brought to you directly for you, from God. This is not a joke. In this very moment, as you are reading this, God has touched you and wants you to know that God is within your heart at this very moment, with you, right now and always is there, no matter what, all you have to do is remember that God is Love. So any time you feel Love for another person, be it your parents, relatives, friends or anybody, that is God shining through YOU. Any time you receive Love from another person, that is God. That is all that God is, it's very simple and pure. This is the basis of Christianity, if you have Love in your heart, then you are being like Jesus Christ. Don't let other people over-complicate it for you with religious dogma, traditions and other fundamentalist nonsense.
Just as you have no doubt that Love is Truth, believe that God is Truth, because they are One and the same exact thing. If you have Love in your heart, then you have God in your heart. "God" is just another word for "Love". Don't get stuck on the semantics.
What is the absolute proof of Love? Can science detect Love? If so, then it can detect God.
Alcohol is only "evil" if used to an excess. Lots of things can be evil. Ethanol has lots of valuable and useful purposes. You can use it to disinfect a wound (painful, but effective), mouthwash, gargle, soothes a sore throat, in small, infrequent quantities there are health benefits. "Evil" is merely an intention to do harm. Anything can be used for "evil". A screwdriver is just a tool, you can use it for good or you can stab someone in the neck with it, if the intention is to be evil, then it's evil, if you are defending your life, then even killing another person isn't evil. So you need to be aware of the context, and the intention behind things and actions.
Why Christianity? Because Jesus gave us a perfect example of how we should live our lives, full of Love and compassion towards others. That is not to say that all other religions are wrong. In fact, there is much spiritual Truth, knowledge, and wisdom to be learned from other religions. For an intelligent person such as yourself, you can find a lot of valuable answers from the teachings of Buddhism, for example, which is NOT in any way in conflict with being a Christian. Buddha was a very enlightened master and you will find great peace in reading about him.
The Old Testament is loaded with crap, throw most of it out if you want. That's not at all representative of what God is according to Jesus Christ.
As a Biomedical Engineering major it is CRUCIAL that you read this book:
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins
If you don't know who the author is, check this out:
Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950), is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Prior to being appointed Director, he founded and was president of the BioLogos Foundation.
Here is another book:
The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, And What's Behind It All
[Video] The God Theory
Now do you believe that if you ask God for answers, they will be given to you? Is this not the proof you wanted? How can you deny that you've asked and now you've received? You can't deny it. You asked God to prove that he is real to you and this is it, right here, right NOW.
I was raised as a YEC but enjoyed debating with others. I ultimately realized that my requirement for evidence of evolution was set far too high. These requirements weren't mine, someone else indoctrinated me. Their reasons for indoctrinating me were false as well: that is they told me that I had to reject the Bible if the earth was old and evolution was true.
I found this book helpful though not perfect: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1416542744
A really good book to read is The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins
On the Origin of Species is an awe-inspiring book that was so far ahead of its time it immediately caused furore among the scientific and especially religious establishment at the time.
There are more current reads if you want, for example The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Richard Dawkins).
Sir, you clearly do not understand the science of evolution. I am no expert, therefore do not deem myself a qualified teacher. Perhaps this will help.
I'm not sure what we need to do about the "stupid people" and that serving as proof of deities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
https://youtu.be/Uga0QaKsdCk?t=9m22s
https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary----Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1474150851&sr=8-4&keywords=richard+dawkins
https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1474150851&sr=8-5&keywords=richard+dawkins
The Greatest show on earth by richard dawkins is all about evolution...
any how this post is odd.
As for reproduction. The first cell wasnt in any kind of competition it had so much abundance of resources that a reproduction was innevitable. They werent eating eachother and to a single cell organism the food source was limit less.
Some interesting things on EVO's side are "Ring Species"
I like them both and have strong points that compliment each other. I would suggest reading both and then moving on to The Greatest Show on Earth, The End Of Faith and Unweaving the Rainbow in no particular order, but all great books in their own right.
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is a really good book on why we think evolution is true, and says virtually nothing about theistic beliefs. It's entirely focused on the science and evidence of the topic.
Please provide links to relevant peer reviewed studies, that back up your claim.
Evolution is a core element of modern biology. It has been supported by an overwelming amout of data from the fossil record, to dna sequencing. Further the underlying process of random mutation and non-random selection has been succesfully applied to solve all sorts of computaional and engineering problems.
Here is an entire book written by a biologist which presents some of the evidence for evolution. It has a comprehensive bibliography: https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795
Awesome, it's great you're so proud of her!
Haha knowledge that leads to everlasting boredom! Book studies were the worst, I always felt super obligated to study extra hard because there were so few people that often nobody would answer!
Don't be so sure that your family will keep abandoning you, it's possible sure, but there's always hope! Often they're surprised that you can leave the witnesses and live a normal, or even better than normal life (of course there's always the "blessed by satan" get out clause) but they do expect people who leave to get aids and die from a heroin overdose.
It's easy to prove them wrong! Either way though, you have your own family to look out for and you can learn what not to do!
On to the suggested reading. I've mentioned many on here before but I don't expect everyone to be aware of it all so here goes:
Reading (I have a kindle and love reading, but they're all available for ebook and in paperback)
Web
Pocasts
(all on iTunes etc, i like them because I can listen at work or download to my phone)
That's about it for now, if you soak all that in / want more / have suggestions let me know, and I'd love to hear what you think! :)
I suggest The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
Hey, well I would expect them to biased towards the Bible, as people who believe the Bible want to support it :) Just as atheists want to tear it down. Do you think an atheist would want to explain the contradictions in the Bible? Of course not, they want to find theories that will discredit it. (confirmation bias, we all have it, I know atheists say they don't but I can see how mad often they are at God, that is a bias in itself.) Perhaps the Bible is just mankind's way of trying to understand God, by assigning him human qualities.
I think this is a pretty comprehensive summary of the contradictions:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/bible.htm
http://www.comereason.org/bible-contradictions-explained.asp
Ok, I wish I could address all of this but I am pretty new to the subject myself! I just try to keep an open mind and I am always reading and researching. I don't 100% believe the Bible is true, I think I will always have questions, but right now God makes a lot more sense to me than that the universe came into being out of nowhere. I too have trouble comprehending the evil and suffering in the world, but the fact that there IS evil doesn't mean that there isn't a God. A God who can create all this knows a lot more than we do, and maybe he has a much better plan than we can comprehend. I recommend The Privileged Planet (book and DVD) which describes the extreme fine tuning of our planet and our universe.
Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller is on my (ever growing) to read list.
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8MWM3P3QW7V54VQ94S6F
https://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669
Here is a good interview, make sure you read page 4 where he talks about the Bible.
http://www.godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-1/
I really do recommend John Lennox also
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john+lennox
Have you attended any churches? I've found them to be so very different from the Kingdom hall. It gives you an entirely different idea of what it is to be a Christian and worship God (I find church enjoyable, uplifting and encouraging).
If you are interested in a religion friendly review of evolution that is 100% on board with the scientific consensus on evolution, I highly recommend Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution"
He is a devout catholic, molecular biologist, and textbook author. He spends the first half of the book explaining why scientific consensus views evolution as a fact, and why they are right about that. He spends the second half of the book explaining why that shouldn't threaten anyone's belief in God.
I read Dawkins' book on evolution, "The Greatest Show on Earth" and liked it, but I think Miller is actually more convincing and intelligible on the truth of evolution in probably a third of the space. He also has the added benefit of not being an evangelical atheist or a retarded young earth creationist.
I can't add much to what has been said by others in this thread, but I had similar experiences and feelings to you for a long time from a young age and did eventually get over them. I feel like you need to develop a more sophisticated understanding of both Catholic doctrine and the arguments for it and praxis - let me tell you, Christian praxis goes well beyond "being a decent person" to a wholesome life-view that strengthens you as an individual, as a member of your community, and in relation to God, and is inexorably linked with sound, devout doctrine. I would advise reading some Catholic apologetics or theology to start. Since you're trained in Biology you may find Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God a good starting point. Also, if you're not already, make a sincere effort to attend Mass at least weekly, go to Confession regularly, and following the Church's moral and spiritual guidelines even if they don't seem to be directly related to "being a decent person". It may feel like you're only "going through the motions," but you never know what benefit you might find! The final author I'd recommend is Søren Kierkegaard - let me be clear, his books aren't easy reads and I take issue with a lot he says, but I found his presentation of Christian praxis and ethics (particularly Either/Or) one of the most beautiful I've ever read and I credit him with giving the death knell to my doubts. I don't have the link handy, but Julia Watkin's book on him in the Outstanding Christian Thinkers Series is an excellent place to start if you find him interesting.
> Creating technology is a biological thing.
>My beard example is by definition an adaptation. You adapt to a cold environment by growing your beard.
"Adaptation, in biology, process by which an animal or plant species becomes fitted to its environment; it is the result of natural selection’s acting upon heritable variation."
It is not the relevant definition of adaption though. You are equivocating. Using 1 word but different definitions of it to muddy the waters. Adapting with technology or growing beards is NOT the evolutionary examples you read in here that you dismissed as mere adaption and you damn well know that.
>The entire reason evolution was latched onto was because people wanted a way to explain life without the need for a super natural Creator.
Another lie, the vast majority of Christians accept evolution.
Even within the religion creationism is a minority position. The evidence led to evolution.
>People want to feel like they don’t have to answer to a higher power like God.
Accepting reality has absolutely nothing to do with this.
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
A Christian Biologist wrote that. The entire point is that the ToE is compatible with gods and I assume specifically the Christian god.(note: I've never actually read it. [Edit: but I have seen it recommended to people who couldn't reconcile the two]. It wasn't until after I left Christianity and theism altogether that I first discovered people actually rejected the ToE for a literal reading of two contradicting stories in Genesis, so I never had a reason to) On his wikipedia page it lists "Criticism of creationism" as what he's known for.
>You said that there are tons of examples of “missing links.” What are they? As far as I’m aware there are like 2 somewhat viable organisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
It's been a long while since I've read this book, but I remember this subject being at least a major part of it:
http://smile.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
As a science-loving Christian, this is the book I had always wanted to write before realizing someone already had. There's a lot of speculation, of course, but I remember it provoking a lot of thought, at the very least.
Finding Darwin's God is an introduction to evolution by a Christian scientist. It's a great option.
Richard Dawkins is also very good. He's a militant atheist, but his writings on evolution are wonderful, clear, and beautiful. The Selfish Gene or The Greatest Show on Earth are both very good options.
Also this:
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
Was it this one?
Logged comment posted by /u/ThisIsMyRedditLogin at 08/22/13 13:11:51:
> > or how even now basic science education is decried as sinful by many sects.
>
> All this does is cause kids to leave Christianity once they start reading about science on the internet. The evolution deniers are losing their most precious resource - it's young people - by continuing to argue that evolution is wrong. The exodus of young Evangelicals is already starting to leave many Churches looking like old folks homes.
... in response to comment posted by /u/GreyWulfen at 08/22/13 03:52:57:
> Its a nice read and is factual, regarding the beginnings of science. However, as science has pulled back the curtain, and explained more and more of what was supernatural, religion has had to ceed more and more ground.
>
> Lightning rods were against God's power, not they are normal. Earthquakes and plagues were God's punishment. Now they are moving plates and bacteria/viruses.
>
> Look how the claim that AIDS was a plague from God, or how even now basic science education is decried as sinful by many sects.
____
Logged comment posted by /u/ThisIsMyRedditLogin at 08/22/13 13:16:12:
> Was it this one?
... in response to comment posted by /u/namer98 at 08/22/13 13:06:11:
> I don't remember. :(
>
> Not a textbook. It was for a "science and religion" class.
I think you should watch this lecture by Ken Miller, who also wrote the book Finding Darwins God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
Neat, it is on sale
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
How about this one
This isn't heavily science-y and a bit journalized, but I really enjoyed Stiff: The Curious Life of Human Cadaver's by Mary Roach. I also like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. There's a lot of overlap with what he teaches at his UChicago Eco & Evo course. Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is also wonderful, but will likely make you angry. Yet another interesting read is The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.
> Science does not "work differently in different countries". Science is the scientific method.
I LOLed at the ignorance, I really did! Oh dear, what a sheltered little life you must lead. Don't get me wrong, I wish research funding fell out of the sky with no political agenda or strings attached, but sadly that is not the reality. Of course if you knew anything about scientific research, I wouldn't have to explain this to you like you were a child.
> I'm agnostic.
If you're agnostic and you're accusing scientists like myself - people who have reviewed the mountain of evidence in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection that converges from dozens of different disciplines and concluded that it is a fact - of being a cult member, then you are either fantastically ignorant or fantastically stupid. Or both.
As it happens, there are several superb books that explain all of the evidence for evolution in ways that are reasonable accessible to educationally deprived individuals such as yourself. Perhaps a little less Fox News for you, and a little more reading, hmm?
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-7
I think you may just be overlooking the data. For example, how can you say that, "All I see there is talking about a species adapting. Not inter-species evolution." with clear examples such as cetacean evolution?
It is also important to note that even if we had no fossils evidence (which we have plenty of) genetic sequencing has more than confirmed common descent.
One thing I will say is the thread that started this is idiotic. The fact that Dinosaur bones exist is not a refutation of creationism. There are plenty of good reasons to believe that a creator is not necessary to explain anything and then without sufficient evidence should be rejected.
Finally, never forget that even if the theory evolution were refuted today that would not make intelligent design, young earth creationism or any other theory correct. It is not an either or situation. None of these theories have any credible evidence. On the other hand there are mountains of evidence for evolution.
Here are some options for further reading.
Why Evolution is True
This is a really good book for people new to the theory.
Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma
This text book gets into the meat and potatoes of the issue. A very fun read.
This site has responses to everything in the movie. Also, the NOVA special Judgement Day: intelligent design on trial is another great resource for why ID is not a scientific proposition. There are also some books out (Why evolution is true and The greatest show on earth) but it is very likely that he would not read them.
>He refused to listen to any facts from me and actually hung up on me.
There is the problem, there is no amount of discussion or evidence that will get through to him until he starts acting like an adult.
Most of my in-depth knowledge came from university courses, but there are lots of good books out there. I've read this one and would definitely recommend it, it doesn't require any prior knowledge of the topic.
I'm 38 now, but I woke up when I was almost 30. I felt the same way; that I had to start over again on a worldview. When I went back to college, I took every single class I could think of that the Watchtower Society would frown upon. For science, I took anthropology (emphasis on human biological evolution), astronomy, biology, geology, and earth history; lecture and lab for all classes. I also took anthropology of religion, magic, and witchcraft. I took an advanced upper level English course with an emphasis of ancient mythology. I took four philosophy classes, intro to philosophy, logic in practice, critical thinking and composition, and philosophy of religion. All of this served as a foundation for a secular worldview.
First and foremost, you need to learn how to think and not what to think. This is where philosophy comes in. An Introductory Philosophy class at a local community college is a great start. Logic, particularly informal logic and logical fallacies should be learned first. Identifying logical fallacies is what will help you differentiate between good information and bad information. The reason the Watchtower Society admonishes against higher education, is because a critical thinking component is generally a standard part of a General Education guideline. A first year college freshman will learn the intellectual tools necessary to recognize the logical fallacies, rhetoric, and deceptive tactics used by politicians, advertisers, and religious authorities, such as Watchtower. If you can't take a philosophy class, search YouTube for "Philosophy for beginners" and then search "informal logic for beginners". Once you have a full understanding of logical fallacies (which is part of informal logic), you will become dismayed of how much Watchtower uses them, and how JWs are oblivious to this. You'll see it in politics and union propaganda as well, so there are other benefits too. On a side note, this video was shown in my Introductory Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion classes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM There are striking parallels to waking up from the JW religion and Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Going back into the cave is not an option.
With the background of learning how to think, topics in science, and everything else comes a lot easier. Although courses in anthropology, biology, and earth history (which includes history of life on earth) do teach evolution, the basics of biological evolution can be found on YouTube by searching "evolution for dummies". Once you understand what it is, then look at the evidence for evolution. This is an important second step, because unlike Creationism, there are tons of evidence for evolution. This is where the "aha" moments comes from. I recommend this article by the Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution I also recommend the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. He goes into detail the five pillars of evidence for evolution; comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, and embryology. This book is found in most public libraries, so you can check it out for free get it on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649 Also, check out the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC
Understand that learning all of this is not easy. It takes time and patience. But the payoff in the end is well worth it. It's not like going to a meeting and hearing the same recycled drivel over and over again. I'm still not refined on a political position. All I can say is that I do not identify with any party because doing so obligates me to defend that platform. I like certain things from each party, and I vote accordingly. However, you can take an online "what political party am I quiz" to get a sense of where you are.
Why Evolution is True. Originally started as a book I had to read for class, but it turned out to be pretty interesting. The only downside is there's a kind of subtle militant atheism to it. I'm an atheist myself, but in the book, there's kind of a "This is right and Special Creation is stupid." Granted, it could be the author holding special creationism to the same standard evolution endures. He never blatantly attacks any particular religion. Pretty cheap on Amazon if anyone is interested. It's kind of a light read.
Next, I'll be reading Your Inner Fish. Looking forward to that one.
Generally speaking, when portions of a species live apart long enough, through genetic drift alone, they become different. Leave them apart long enough and they become incompatible, which then creates a new species. There are absolutely some exceptions to this, but that's largely where the line is drawn.
Look at humans. We came out of Africa dark-skinned, but through subtle changes became Caucasoid and Mongoloid as well. Given hundreds of thousands or millions of years of isolation, these very well could've produced three distinct species of human, but because none of these populations were isolated - and we can now go around the world quickly - humans can never really become a new species despite how diverse we've become.
Think of language. Settlers came to what is now the British Isles with French and German and the result is modern British English. Twist it a bit further, isolate it, and you get American English and subsets like Ebonics. French and German are derived from their own sources as well.
If you'd love to know more, check out Jerry Coyne's excellent book "Why Evolution Is True". http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Dr. Coyne is amazing. Highly recommend.
Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!
Here are your smile-ified links:
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Why Evolution Is True
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
Why There Is No God
Jesus, Interrupted
The God Argument
Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason
---
^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot
Take the acceptance she gives you and appreciate it. Don't seek to change her. If she has questions, she'll come to you.
On evolution, if she ever did want to challenge her position, I found that "Why Evolution is True" to be a good read.
This week we're talking about the science of pets.
Show notes:
This is awesome and goes into it at some length:
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293751873&sr=8-1
I gave my wife Women without Superstition, Your Inner Fish, Agora, and Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life.
Here's a good start.
There's also a great book called Your Inner Fish that covers this topic well. Here's an excerpt that covers the origins of some human traits like hernias, hiccups, and snoring.
You can trace the history of any human trait through comparative anatomy. In this phylogeny, you can see that the evolutionary order of appearance of mammal traits was vertebrae>jaws>lungs>4 legs>Amniotic egg>milk.
I read a book this summer called "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. He discovered fossils of a fish with legs that would be very close to the first time that fish left the water and started walking on land. One of the coolest parts of the book was about how they decided where to look:
They knew from known fossils that animals first walked on land somewhere between 360 and 390 million years ago. They had already found a small bone near a highway cut in Pennsylvania which looked promising, and wanted to find a complete fossil. They knew that ~375 million years ago that part of Pennsylvania had been a shallow river delta which buried fossils in layers of sediment that became rock, so they went to a geology textbook to find locations with exposed sedimentary rock that was ~375 million years old that had been part of the same historic coastline. That textbook had a chart showing that Greenland and Ellesmere Island (in the Canadian Arctic) were geologically similar to the part of Catskills where they had found the first fossil.
There had already been several expeditions to Greenland that hadn't found anything, whereas Ellesmere Island was inaccessible most of the year and untouched by paleontologists. Their first expedition found similar bones, and ten expeditions later they found a complete fossil.
> Science has always been a way to understand God better for Christians.
has it? Or have Christians been forcing their 'worldview' on others for 2,000 years claiming to have special knowledge about the mysteries of existence and life after death with no other evidence than a book and their own personal 'revelations'. For most of that time, their claim to absolute truth was absolute and unchallengeable. The advancement of sciences in the areas of physics, biology, astronomy and chemistry, especially in the last 200 years, have been able to explain many of the mysteries that confounded our ancestors, and have transformed our lives in tangibly positive ways. Take leprosy: People in Biblical times thought leprosy was a sign of sin against God, and so you were 'unclean'. Of course nobody believes that anymore (to his credit, it seems Jesus didn't buy into it either). According to wikipedia: In the past 20 years, 15 million people worldwide have been cured of leprosy, which is caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium leprae. It's one example but I'm sure you can think of many more. The church has lost so much ground to science that there are only a few little islands of mystery from which to they try to claim authority and justification for their philosophies, such as:
> the Bible is kind of like an ethical cheat sheet, from an omniscient God who actually knows the answers
> even those who didn't hear about God know what's right & wrong
and you have your own theory:
> God started things off, realized natural selection was a great way to set up a diverse planet, and probably intervened a bit in the ape -> human transition.
Now, you are basically saying that the differences we perceive between a human and a chimpanzee are actually the direct result of a deliberate intervention, at a specific time in the past, by a creator god (from outer space), who engineered the development of our culture, giving us laws, clothing, marriage, and possibly music and mathematics. It's an interesting theory, but whats the motivation?
> man is different from the animals
This is the central issue. Logically, if we are animals than either animals have souls (and we should all be vegetarians, or burn as murderers), or humans do not have souls (and there is no eternal life for believers). This is a catch-22 for a bible believing christians and meat-eaters. Maybe you can say animals do have souls, but God said we can eat them so its OK. This is kind of like saying God is an asshole who arbitrarily makes up the rules as he goes along (which is a solid theological position - just ask Job: the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away).
I think to separate ourselves from the animals is to deny the truth of what science has shown us about ourselves. For Christians, science may be just a way to understand God better, but for the rest of us it is a way to understand reality better. Of course Christians want there to be no conflict between faith in the Bible and reality because no philosophy can exist without being rooted to some degree in reality; otherwise it is just a fantasy.
Let me back up a second. You said you believe the Bible is true and historically accurate, and I won't ask you what evidence you have for believing that. I used to believe as you did, that the Bible is true, and so is evolution but that somehow there is no conflict and the two work together - that somehow there in the whole mix of life evolving naturally, God intervened and sent Jesus to fulfill his mysterious plan so that we can all live forever in heaven. I just didn't want to accept that all those people (including my family) could be wrong; they are obviously sincere in their beliefs. For several years I found various ways to explain it all without accepting a 'naturalistic worldview', and all that implies including a very high probability of there being no life after death. I might still believe in the Bible if I hadn't started reading science books and watching BBC documentaries... yep Attenborough offered me the red pill and i took it.
If you can pretend for a moment you were born in Africa or Asia, in some remote tribe with no written language. You wouldn't have any reason to trust in a book you could not read; everything you know about the universe has been explained to you by those around you, those who came before, those who were close in the beginning. This is the same experience as any animal that learns how to hunt or fly or build nests from their parents.
The book I mentioned, Our Inner Ape documents the social behavior and societies of bonobos and chimpanzees, written by noted primatologist Frans de Waal who has studied these unique primates for decades. It's a fascinating read and may surprise you to see how many behaviors people tend to think of as uniquely 'human' are, in fact, shared by our closely-related ape cousins. In fact, de Waal shows, all major traits are shared, including language, toolmaking, and the full range of emotional states. Within the ape societies, the apes have their own standards of 'right' and 'wrong' behavior that they enforce in the same ways we do: shunning some, rewarding others, punishing the worst offenders. They learn from each other, and pass on skills to their offspring.
Evolution, as I understand it, is the theory that explains how more efficient/adapted forms emerge from the natural processes of entropy and diffusion. The theory explains how natural processes have driven our biological development, and also why men have nipples. Biological evolution is a special case; Evolution itself is a law of Nature, at a more elementary level, in the realm of Physics or Math.
All of our languages, customs, art, music, and every other thinking pattern has evolved through these same natural processes. Basically, I'm describing Memes. Have you ever thought about Christianity as a Meme? Of the Catholic Church as an organism whose main goal is to ensure its own survival? We have been and continue to evolve, quite rapidly, both biologically and culturally. Every individual and every idea wants to survive, but not everything gets successfully passed to the next generation. Every meme and species is only one generation away from becoming extinct. Adapt or die. This is why the mainstream church is becoming warmer to the idea of evolution, why the Vatican apologized for Galileo - survival of the religion is more important than orthodoxy.
The line between science and philosophy and religion get blurred with evolution because it answers, quite elegantly, the 'big' question: where did we come from? For this reason, it is a threat to all memes based on the idea of a 'creator god' because it nullifies this concept directly. Indirectly, it has the potential to erode the foundations underneath many religions. But I don't think the ideas of evolution are really a threat to you, me, our standards of morality, our way of life or anything else. The victims are a literal interpretation of the Bible and belief in a 'creator god'. Why not let it go? If you had never read the Bible, would you really be a less moral person? really? If not for that one book all people would know nothing but evil and be totally selfish to each other? Is this one book worth deliberately lobotomizing yourself? You'll go crazy trying to reconcile it; do you want to end up like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham?
A couple other interesting books you might enjoy if you feel like taking the red pill:
Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind
Your Inner Fish
Sorry for the novel, kind got caught up in it :)
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman"
"Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body"
"Bones, Rocks and Stars: The Science of When Things Happened"
My personal favourite is 'Your Inner Fish' by Neil Shubin. I found it entertaining and very informative. It deals with the transition of life underwater to life on land, and what we still share with our fishy ancestors. Here is the amazon link to read some reviews and here is an already given presentation by the author if you do pick it to help you with ideas.
Your Inner Fish is a very enjoyable read.
This is referring back to:
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
I do not believe I was created; therefore, I find the evolutionary progress of all life astounding. Instead of thinking that god put animals here for my amusement or consumption, I take the time to appreciate life’s ability to survive the ages.
You should read this book: Your Inner Fish!
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474
If you've never read this book, you definitely should.
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474
This will make up for that day.
If you can't tell her yourself, let Neil Shubin do it in one of my favorite books, Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. This book talks about said "missing links" and about Tiktaalik, the missing link between fish and amphibians. He talks about the genetic similarities between every living vertebrate, but explained very well for scientists, but also put very simply for people who don't fully understand all the terminology. He talks about fossils, and he talks about his own personal experience and makes it a very fun read. He also talks about experiments that have been done to stop genes from expressing or forcing them to express to see what will happen as a result, and have even gone as far as to take genes from chickens and replace them with shark counterparts to see the results. Very surprising, very interesting, and most certainly an extremely worth-while read, especially for a creationist.
Also, I simply don't understand how she could be studying micro and/or medicine and deny evolution when evolution is the basis of micro. Ask her what she thinks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) which is essentially staphylococci which have adapted as a response to antibiotics to become resistant to antibiotic treatments. Ask her what she thinks of the AIDS virus (or any retro-virus at that) and why we can't cure it. Or ask her why there is no cure for the flu, and why vaccines for the flu only work for the strain that effects us that year. Ask her what a strain is, if it's not an evolved or adapted form of a different strain. Ask her where H1N1 (swine flu) came from and what is the difference between H1N5 (bird flu).
You can literally observe mutation and evolution over only a few generations in micro. Viruses in particular, and since they replicate so fast and so frequently and in such great numbers, the chances of mutation increases, and a bunch of mutations increase the chance of one of them being viable and successful. AIDS mutates so quickly that it changes entirely throughout your body before anything can be created to cure it.
I saw another commenter linked to talkorigins.org. Check that it, it is an invaluable resource.
Probably not what you meant but this is a good read. The 20 logical fallacies should be taught to all students.
https://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=why+people+believe+weird+things&qid=1564878644&s=gateway&sr=8-1
I know you did not say it. It was the link you posted that said it.
What you did say was that if you did not have someone singing then were simply doing it wrong. Which sounds very much like a fact, but is in fact a statement which is very objective. But you forgot to mention that it was your personal opinion.
But I am certain a lot of people has had a very profound and pleasant experience drinking ayahuasca without any shaman songs or songs of any kind around.
What triggers me is this elitist bullshit "well you know.. that's not how the shamans do it..."
The proper way of doing it? What does that even mean? Proper according to who? If someone did it first, then they have the copyright on how do ingest something? That's a great way to never find a better way of doing something.
And they know exactly what they are doing? So in their mind all they do is set the mood with some songs? They don't call out the good spirits and keep the bad ones at bay? In my mind there might be some contradictions going on there, but what do I know? I am uneducated on the subject.
While we are on the topic of books, here are some great ones.
"Science Fiction" is a pretty big umbrella -- The Giver is actually sci-fi, if it's the first one in the search results! Doesn't have to be all spaceships and technology to qualify. You might find The Electric Church interesting; the blurb doesn't really do it justice.
Easy reads, hmm. Dragonsong is very readable as straight fantasy, and if you like it there're a lot of books in the series. You might like Pollotta's Bureau 13 series; light, fast-paced action adventure with supernatural and magic elements. Or Elrod's Vampire Files -- the adventures of an undead detective in the thirties.
For straight action-mysteries, I'm going to suggest Travis McGee because one, I love it, and two, it gets progressively more difficult as you go through the series. You could also try Rex Stout.
For non-fiction, Why People Believe Weird Things.
As far as developing reading as a hobby, well, I think the key is to be as eclectic as possible. Read a book. Read a book by an author who has a blurb on the cover of the first book. Read a book you see linked to at the bottom of the page on the second author's book's Amazon page. Hit used bookstores and spend $10 on a bunch of books out of the quarter pile. The only rule is "you don't have to finish it, but at least try it".
At least that's how I grew my collection into what it is today.
(Edit to fix a link and add one)
Why People Believe Weird Things is a book that might interest you. One of the main points of the book is how otherwise smart and rational people become creationists, holocaust deniers, etc.
okay, sorry, let's take a step back:
> I believe, Hope is the purpose. Anyone at that level (speaking of Q) certainly doesn't need any research we give them, they already have it all.
So, by this you mean a hypothetical 'Q entity' that has some high level military intelligence possition wouldn't need info from the citezenry? But asking them for it, is a service to them to provide them hope?
But maybe there is really no Q, just the internet ghost that's been constructed on the various chans and here and taken on some life of its own or propigated by folks that maybe believe in the Hope mission or for other nefarious reasons?
Feel free to cut this off anytime, I'm really fascinated by this stuff though. But more in a Why do people believe weird things kind of way. Which I know may be insulting to you.
Here are two excellent books in this very subject:
The Believing Brain and Why People Believe Weird Things both by Michael Shermer, the head of the skeptic's society.
There is one passage which describes what you are talking about to a "T"
>In 1620 English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon offered his own Easy Answer to the Hard Question:
>The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate … And such is the way of all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, although this happened much oftener, neglect and pass them by.52
>Why do smart people believe weird things? Because, to restate my thesis in light of Bacon’s insight, smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.
From: http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/excerpt/
and
From: http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-weird-things/
Alanzo
Why People Believe Weird Things by Shermer.
It's not a book about atheism but it's a book that teaches you how to be skeptical and think rationally. When you do that atheism just makes sense.
Have you read Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things." He discusses this topic and others like it at great length. Such as 9/11, Bigfoot, Alien abduction and many more. He cites sources, explains exactly why these conspiracies exist, and even gives their arguments some extra validity (steel-manning rather than straw manning) before explaining the reality of the situation.
https://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893
Not necessarily. Being educated doesn't mean you're not indoctrinated by nonsense, or possess critical thinking skills. Educated people are quite capable of believing in nonsense. I think it's more complicated than just education - it's when and how you educate the person, who they are surrounded by, what culture they grew up in, etc.
There's a great book called "Why People Believe Weird Things" that addresses the issue. My favorite book on the subject of belief is probably "How We Know What Isn't So". If you're interested in epistemology, or how beliefs are shaped, these two books give interesting insight.
This is a good book on the topic: https://www.amazon.ca/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893
A very, very small minority of people are vegetarian for legitimate health reasons (lysinuric protein intolerance, etc.)
The rest either believe it is better for their health, which is not true, or that animals are intrinsically the intellectual or spiritual equivalent of humans, which is also not true
Some believe that being vegetarian will save the world, and while there's an argument to be made there, it's a pretty poor one and it seems more likely that their diet has more to do with narcissism than altruism
Vegetarians tend to also believe in other related new age naturalism, vitalism, pseudoscience type beliefs (acupuncture, spiritual energy, healing crystals, reincarnation, homeopathy, etc.)
>Heck, what are your methods?
Science! :) The Scientific Method approach and the peer review process has proven, time and again, that it is extremely effective at preventing us from fooling ourselves based on intuition or wishful thinking. It also has built-in error checking, in that every scientist, by the very nature of science, is interested in disproving claims made by other scientists. If they can't, then it's (temporarily) true. Additionally, no scientist is going to submit information for peer review that they haven't checked and re-checked and re-re-checked, because the peer review process can be brutal and humiliating. The process is also extremely effective at discovering things about our universe that we are unable to detect with our five senses (example: the electromagnetic spectrum, which has changed our lives completely). Speculation and hypothesis are how ideas get started. I am very appreciative that we have these methods to test these speculations and hypotheses in order to sort the gold from the pyrite.
>Show me conflicting evidence against those cases - the ones that even the government acknowledges they had to put in their "This is a UFO" pile - and then one's skepticism might be grounded. [...] Some cases absolutely defy any attempt to classify the phenomenon as anything other than extraterrestrial.
Which ones?
>the practical entirety of the field [...] of science in general [...] is bridled by special interests (often very powerful financial interests) with agendas that prevent the challenging of long-held, long-standing, and established beliefs
This is why you've chosen the opinion of authors over the evidence presented by ancient historians and archaeologists? What do you mean by "field of science"? Science isn't housed in Science Headquarters in the Science Skyscraper in Scienceopolis. Science is just a word that describes a methodology for learning more about the world, and anyone can do it.
>even if those long-held beliefs are actually WRONG and debilitating - you're going to find that even valid research that has not been debunked or proven wrong will absolutely get put aside and shut down if it challenges the established system as it stands. [...] With this in mind, many of these ancient historians and archaeologists are more interested in making sure and simply "towing the party line" and perpetuating the established system
Are you speculating? Or are you claiming that this is true? If the latter, does that mean that you believe there's a conspiracy/cover-up scenario going on within the world of science, because they aren't allowed to finally say that there has been extraterrestrial visitation or advanced technologies? If that's the case, then why are they being censored? Why do you believe that your statement is true?
>lacking as that system may be
What is it that science hasn't discovered so far, or has discovered so far, that makes you find the system "lacking"? Is it lacking because science disagrees with some of your speculations? Our life expectancy is through the roof, comparatively. We've landed on other celestial bodies. We have a cures for terrible afflictions like polio and tuberculosis. We can use x-ray machines to see through our bodies. We have night-vision goggles, and telephones, and the internet, and wireless communication, and hearing aids, and prosthetic limbs, and mechanical hearts, and medicine that actually works, and on and on and on. I don't understand?
>the reason why the collective expertise of those in an established academic community is challenged (and far from "carelessly dismissed") is because the evidence simply points to that "expertise" being lacking and considerably limited.
What is the evidence that points to a lacking expertise in the established academic community? What is it that you're referring to? What is it that science has or hasn't done that has caused you to lose (or never have) confidence in the process?
>What - do you think that the knowledge that humans have garnered up to this point is, somehow, infallible and incapable of being wrong?
I never said that or implied it. I've stated that just because there are known gaps in our knowledge of how the world works doesn't mean we get to fill in those gaps of knowledge with speculation, and then claim that speculation to be true.
>the staunch effort that has often been made by the scientific and archaeological community to squelch certain areas of inquiry
Can you list a few examples?
>Much of the establishment, as a definite point of fact, has certainly shown itself to NOT allow many to be inspired by it. They actually kill the type of inspiration that can lead to real discoveries if that inspiration strays too far away from the set and established line of traditional inquiry.
Because this is a definite point of fact, can you list a few examples?
>There are many things we are very, very ignorant of on this planet.
Agreed! But that doesn't mean that Edgar Cayce had psychic powers (source #1, #2). There is an excellent book by Michael Shermer titled Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, and he dedicates an entire chapter to Edgar Cayce. It's extremely informative, interesting, and (most importantly!) sourced. This list of 25 Reasons People Believe Weird Things is sort of a quick blueprint of Shermer's book, but with far less information, of course.
Smart people can believe weird things.
https://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893
Smart people are vulnerable to certain biases and mental traps. And because they are smart they are really good at defending their thinking.
Thank you for asking a question. I have to give you credit, most people don't care enough to search.
Emotions are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. They absolutely can be tested. "Feelings" is just the word we give to certain brain states. Each brain state is simply a mix of hormones in the brain.
Both Sam Harris and Michael Shermer reference these studies in their most recent books. To answer you question directly, oxytocin is the chemical responsible for love.
By the way, you're back to shifting the burden of proof again. I'm not saying your beliefs are either true or not. I'm simply saying you have no evidence for them so there's no good reason to believe them. As I simply said before, you can believe any thing you want, but until you have evidence, you could be as crazy as the people who think they are Napoleon Bonaparte.
Think about it for a moment. I know people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and sexually probed while on the ship. Are they telling the truth? For them, yes. They believe it, and it's as real as anything else in their life. But is it true? Probably not.
It seems you have an opportunity here. I get the feeling you're pretty smart and might be looking for answers. That's a powerful combination. The problem, however, is that the places you've been looking for answers up until now have been pretty bad. You can go deeper down the rabbit hole into things for which there is no evidence, or you can discover reality as it is.
If you're interested in living an evidence based life there are books that will help. Can I recommend one or two to get you started?
Michael Shermer has written two books that will get you started. Either would be excellent for you and your position at the moment.
The Believing Brain and Why People Believe Weird Things.
Once you get a foundation of how things work, then we can move on the fun stuff like physics, biology, philosophy, astronomy...and so on.
Do you listen to podcasts? There are a few of these you might try out as well.
Rationally Speaking
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
Point of Inquiry
Reasonable Doubts
In the end, as I said before, you're going to have to make a choice. Either the supernatural realm exists or it doesn't. And since there isn't any evidence now, nor has any evidence ever been shown that anything supernatural ever existed, it should be an easy choice.
It's pretty simple really. When someone says weird, crazy things they believe, I would believe them too, IF THEY HAVE EVIDENCE. If they don't, I'm sorry I'm going to withhold saying you're right or wrong until I have more information.
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Putting Creation to the Test. Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fuz Rana at Purdue University
Description | Follow RTB_Official for updates! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RTBofficial Twitter: https://twitter.com/RTB_official Instagram: http://instagram.com/rtb_official Website: http://www.reasons.org
Length | 2:33:38
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Has God Spoken? EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLE pt1
Description | How could you prove that God has communicated to us? What would be a reasonable way to show that God has spoken? This video answers that question and deals with false prophecies in preparation for the next video in this series where we will begin to look at fulfilled prophecy in the Bible as proof that God has spoken. Full "Evidence for the Bible" playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjnwldgqN8c&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuhA0RPKZFHVcjIMN_-F596 LINK to video about EVIDENCE for the Resurrection...
Length | 0:49:30
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | The Resurrection Meets Skepticism - Gary Habermas, PhD
Description | Pomona First Baptist Church (February 22, 2015) - Lecture by Christian scholar and thinker Gary Habermas. Buy his books dealing with the evidence and arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886 Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew: http://www.amazon.com/Did-Resurrection-Happen-Conversation-Habermas/dp/0830837183 The Historical Je...
Length | 0:48:10
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Evidence for the Resurrection | Mike Licona, PhD
Description | Faith Bible Church (October 2012) - Lecture by Mike Licona. This video is part of the 'Reasons Conference' playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-0zpu2toenZdKk7tuw3LUklHA1cvtNIA Author Bio: Michael R. Licona, Ph.D. in New Testament Studies (University of Pretoria), which he completed with distinction. He serves as external research collaborator at North-West University (Potchefstroom). Mike was interviewed by Lee Strobel in his book The Case for the Real Jesus and appeared in Strobe...
Length | 0:50:46
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Dr. Gary Habermas - Near Death Experiences
Description | Dr. Gary Habermas gives a Tactical Faith Lecture on the validity of near death experiences as possible proof against naturalism. Lecture was given at Southeastern Bible College.
Length | 0:57:54
****
^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)
Really recommend "The case for the resurrection"
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886
Sure. If you want scholarly resources on the resurrection, then I would suggest The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Licona. You can get it on Amazon for about $35 and it's a long read at 700+ pages.
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UCOAX5QZYQUY&keywords=the+resurrection+of+jesus+mike+licona&qid=1570211397&sprefix=the+resurrection+of+Jesus%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1
Another good scholarly resource is The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona. You can get it for about $13 dollars on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=pd_sbs_14_1/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0825427886&pd_rd_r=decfba9d-109a-4324-99c9-ba4523d42796&pd_rd_w=TIA6v&pd_rd_wg=EeKYx&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P&psc=1&refRID=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P
I would also suggest getting a general overview of the New Testament. Bart Ehrman is probably the world's leading skeptical scholar of the New Testament. His book on the New Testament, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament Writings, is a great resource and can be bought on Amazon for around $6.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195126394/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=introduction+to+new+testament+ehrman&qid=1570211027&sr=8-6
Other books that I would strongly recommend would be:
Early Christian Writings. A short read at 200 pages. A catalog of some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. You can get it for $3 on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Writings-Apostolic-Fathers/dp/0140444750/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=early+christian+writings&qid=1570212985&s=books&sr=1-1
The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content Bruce Metzger was one of the leading New Testament scholars of the 20th century. You can get it for $20.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7
The Fate of the Apostles, by McDowell. An in-depth study of how reliable the martyrdom accounts of the apostles are. A little bit pricey at $35-40.
https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Apostles-Sean-McDowell/dp/1138549134/ref=sr_1_1?crid=JBDB9MJMOVL8&keywords=the+fate+of+the+apostles&qid=1570212064&s=books&sprefix=the+fate+of+the+ap%2Cstripbooks%2C167&sr=1-1
Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, a 3rd century historian. Eusebius documents the history of Christianity from Jesus to about the 3rd century. You can get it for $10.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7
I too have been asking these questions. You will find most if not all of them answered at Catholic Answers. For example, here is one of the answers regarding infant baptism. There is also an article regarding infant baptism in the early church.
Here is an article on why Catholics ask for intercession from the Saints.
They also have a great You Tube channel that will answer just about any question you have.
You may be interested in the Ignatius Study Bible New Testament. It contains an Index of Doctrines in the appendix. For any given doctrine, they provide Biblical references and commentary regarding that doctrine. That alone should make this a must read for Protestants. It uses the Revised Standard Version.
There are many great resources that can answer your questions. I started with a video series called What Catholics Really Believe. There's an unrelated book by the same name as well.
Any book by Scott Hahn may be of interest. He was an ordained Presbyterian minister before he became Catholic.
Send me a message if you want any more info.
Another good book is Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. It explains Catholic theology from the perspective of a fundamentalist Protestant convert.
Any book by Peter Kreeft would be good, but you may especially like his Handbook of Catholic Apologetics since it specifically answers the questions you are asking. Kreeft is a Catholic convert from Calvinism.
Bp. Barron provides a load of resources on his site Word on Fire. He has a You Tube channel as well.
There are many, many more resources, but this should get you started. I have been a Protestant all my life, but I've been studying Catholicism heavily for a few years. So far, all of my questions have been answered from resources available online.
If you, like me, come from the American Evangelical or Fundamentalist tradition, I recommend the book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie. He is very fair in his descriptions of Evangelical and Catholic teaching and is a great description of his journey which you may find yours mirroring.
I personally own this by David Currie. It's written in a more narrative style as it's a memoir as well, but contains the specific teachings as well.
I'm being a bit self centered here but I've always liked the idea of:
http://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300
which nominally covers high school mathematics up to calculus in 120 pages. From an aesthetic point of view I love this idea but I have no reason to believe that it works for a person who doesn't know the material.
If you end up getting it and hacking through two pages a day for two months could you tell me how you find it?
Oh, also there's a very interesting book called 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in God.
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1591025672/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_1NzYBbN5B4KY4
It puts many issues into a clear cut form.
Your library might have this book. It looks legit. A workbook like this might be a good idea, too.
Also, for geometry: https://www.ets.org/s/praxis/pdf/khan_academy.pdf
Good luck! You're awesome in my eyes for teaching math when it isn't your strong suit.
I recommend this one as well. It's not extremely in depth but it points out almost everything briefly "50 reasons people give for believing in a God"
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/0495392766/ref=mw_dp_olp?ie=UTF8&condition=all
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1592441300/
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus
But, I assure you, you'll almost certainly have better luck in a structured class.
https://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539990788&sr=1-1
http://www2.clarku.edu/~djoyce/trig/
wildberryskittles recommended the classics but teaching methods have improved since then in my opinion.
You should revisit algebra, geometry, and trigonometry before tackling a book like Calculus Made Easy. For algebra, Practical Algebra: A Self-Teaching Guide seems like a great place to start. After that, head on to geometry with something like Geometry and Trigonometry for Calculus. The book Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell might also be helpful.
I had a nice book called Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell but it is not geared to starting from scratch. It's a good book if you remember some of your algebra, geometry, and trigonometry.
I've known some people who had good experiences with Practical Algebra
That's sounds like a horrible way to try to learn. If you think this problem is not representative of the school itself, complain (politely) to the department or dean.
I normally do not recommend Khan Academy because his methods are inefficient and boring at best, but that might actually be a step up for you.
Meanwhile, try to find a book to read out of. Unfortunately, textbook writing is a tough thing to be good at, and then a lot of publishers will get in the way of half of those.
Here are some to try though: http://www.amazon.com/Trigonometry-I-M-Gelfand/dp/0817639144
http://www.amazon.com/Precalculus-Mathematics-Nutshell-Geometry-Trigonometry/dp/1592441300
And they're on the cheaper side
Mine is more of an awareness the spiritual side of existence than a religion. It is an appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things and an essential oneness of existence. It is Indra's Web and all science wrapped into one.
If you'd like to learn more, I can recommend this book
My respect for Rajnath Singh went up since it looks like he has read Fritzof Capra's book - Tao of Physics.
http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Mysticism/dp/1590308352/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1416200472&sr=8-6&keywords=fritjof+capra
Feynman's Six Easy Pieces is a great introduction to quantum mechanics. Gary Zukov's book The Dancing Wu Li Masters doesn't have a great reputation among physicists because it strays a bit into mysticism, but I think it's a pretty good read. Capra's Tao of Physics is in the same category. For an easy-to-understand discussion of the weirdness of quantum mechanics, Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenblum's Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness is excellent.
This is an Amazon list of books on the subject that I found helpful:
Robert Kroese, author of Schrödinger's Gat
The Tao of Physics is great book written a theoretical physicist. In the first part of the book he does an amazing job explaining particle physics. Then, he explains some of the higher ideas behind Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Next, he proceeds to point out in mind-blowing ways how they're the same.
The parallels between Eastern Thought and modern physics is intriguing. You'll learn a huge amount about both subjects, and if this book doesn't set you to thinking, you're probably dead. ;-)
No offense taken. :) Sure, It's not something I'd rely on for a doctoral dissertation, and the heady conclusions of a new paradigm caused my cynical alarm to go off, but took it as entertaining. I would not consider any parallels he draws as neat or clean by any stretch.
I'm also aware of books like the Tao of Physics and The Quantum and The Lotus...
I am a father to boys, also. And ex-Christian, due in part to the atheism of my sons. And I still have trouble talking to them even though we're supposedly on the same wavelength now. And it kills me.
Keep it at. Keep asking. Keep listening. Don't know if I can be of any further help but PM me if you want.
I haven't read it myself, but from what I've heard, 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God is informative and has the sort of gentle tone that would keep religious people from getting angry and rejecting its points out of hand.
Questions like...
e.g.
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com
http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1405435669&sr=8-5&keywords=Guy+P.+Harrison
http://www.amazon.com/50-Simple-Questions-Every-Christian/dp/161614727X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1405435669&sr=8-3&keywords=Guy+P.+Harrison
I'm sorry for the lack of formatting, I am on my mobile device
If you do have him read a book of your choosing, I recommend Guy P Harrison's 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God. It's not as combative as Hitchens and Dawkins, but it addresses a lot of points...50, actually. ;) If you haven't read it, I recommend it whether or not you ask your dad to read it, but I think if you do ask him to read a book of your choosing, make sure it's one you've read, so you know what you're giving him!
Although I doubt either one of you will change the other's mind, I hope that your dad's vitriol calms down and you can find a way to at least just drop the subject until you are able to move out.
Not by a Horseman, but during my deconversion I found 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy P. Harrison to be helpful. Since you've already read The God Delusion and God is Not Great you may not find anything new in it, but for someone wanting a gateway book toward more militant literature, it's a good one. In it the author gently refutes common theistic reasoning. It might be a good one to recommend to budding atheist friends.
As to your question about whether God Delusion is thoroughly critical of religion, I feel that yes, it is--I think Dawkins spends a good deal of time explaining why we should be intolerant of religious thinking.
By her the book 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in God
You may be able to get a pirated pdf online if you don't want to spend the money.
I would go with this one http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Try this or a Dawkins book. Darwin's works are of historical interest only at this point.
Or better yet, put "For rectal use only" stickers on the merchandise.
Hey, I just want you to know that if it's just a hobby you are looking at a ton of information to process. What you are refering to is called taxonomy, You can check out Zoology books that are meant for the university, I think it's quite friendly to people who haven't had that much biology before, but some knowledge is adviced. Check out "integrated principles of zoology" by McGraw Hill.
http://www.amazon.com/Integrated-Principles-Zoology-Cleveland-Hickman/dp/0073524212
If you want popular science I can recommend:
1- A very easy and straightforward approach to evolution is "Why Evolution is true" by Jerry A Coyne. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
2- Richard Dawkins has a book that is dedicated to the evolution of humans, it's called "The ancestors tale" http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17977.The_Ancestor_s_Tale (I haven't read it, but I'm told it's very good). A lot of people don't like him, I think he can be a bit obnoxious and unapologetic in religious debates, but if you are interested in evolution you should be able to filter past that.
Happy reading!
I went to Alpha when I was still a Christian, but when doubts were starting to form. They invite you in by sharing a meal together, watching Gumbel's presentation, and having discussion. The video segments are made up of the same old arguments stating that people are basically bad and need to be made right by the blood of Jesus. It's an effective tool on those who aren't able to or aren't trained in logical/cognitive fallacies.
> I've tried to respectfully challenge her on a couple of things, but she feels that I'm attacking her new found faith.
IMO this is a red flag. Being defensive usually doesn't allow for an open mind. Be wary.
> Are there any good books which help explain non-literalist Christian beliefs to someone who came from a literalist background?
I wouldn't keep pointing in the direction of belief, but rather point in the direction of truth (Plus, we were taught to hate Rob Bell in church):
Pointing in the direction of religion, yields more bad philosophy.
Get this book and learn why.
Don't be offended, but for the sake of a congruent discussion I'm going to reply to your response in sections. Some people find it annoying or pompous, but I assure you that is not the case.
>Well I've probably read the same texts you have in school, it's not like I was home-schooled in Alabama or anything,
I didn't actually have my "intellectual awakening" until I was out of High School. And not in the "took Philosophy 101 and now I think I understand the world" kind of way. I just didn't really look deeper into the world around me until I was 19 or 20. I was a very shallow person for a long time.
> I've found the atheist model of looking at reality intellectually wanting.
I question what exactly the "atheist model" you mention is. Atheism isn't a religion and has no dogma or tenants to follow. It simply means that I do not believe that there is a god or gods. More specifically, I am agnostic atheist, meaning that though I do not believe in any gods, I do not claim it to be definitive. Merely that there isn't evidence to support the claim of any god(s). You're theist, I'm atheist. If we drill down into each other's beliefs, there would be more specific terms like Christianity or Darwinism, for instance, but those are not synonyms for (a)theism.
>I was considered bright and well-read in college if that helps distance you from some prejudice you may have in your mind.
I push myself to not judge someone from a couple internet comments. I don't think you're dumb, or anything like that. Perhaps misinformed, but certainly not unintelligent.
>When you say "proud not to know" it makes me question if that's your true attitude towards any theist or just the radical U.S. "GOP", evangelical version of it.
Certainly not. I associate with a very diverse set of people. There are some very angry, ignorant atheists, just like there are very smart, kind theists. And it has nothing to do with a political party in my eyes. Individuals need to be treated as such. Everyone knows and thinks differently.
>There are arguments out there that strongly challenge the hypothesis of macro-evolution (for example) that I HIGHLY doubt many in this generation are familiar with
Before I get into the meat of this part, I'll say that while there are many ignorant people of all beliefs, it's not beneficial to discussion to narrow it down to any generation, young or old. It insults many without cause.
This here, however, is a definite sticking point with me. No other theory "strongly" challenges the mountain of evidence for evolution. There is truly no reason to divide this into macro/micro. It's the exact same mechanism under both terms, and those who wish to argue against evolution were the ones to introduce this separation of concept. The only real difference between them is the length of time evolution acts across, and I will admit that trying to wrap one's head around the hundreds of millions of years that this process has been acting is daunting. Here is where I would make my first book recommendation, "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne. I know the tile is a little on the nose, but the reason I choose this is because the author presents the overwhelming evidence for evolution in a digestible, logic driven manner. It responds to nearly every common objection raised by those who doubt the scientific theory, and uses clear, concise wording to accomplish it.
>so sometimes I just get a little annoyed when I see another "all believers are idiots" types of posts when their own personal understanding of the science(s) involved is often threadbare at best.
I am in absolute agreement with you here. All believers are assuredly NOT idiots, and Religion and the idea of higher powers persists for many reasons, but among the most prevalent is that of comfort. It is a tough world out there and answers can be hard to come by. Things happen(good and bad), often without a clear explanation. Believing in a god means shifting these uncertainties off one's own thoughts so that he/she can keep moving forward with life. (Obviously there's more to it than that, just an example).
>Especially because you can spout that all day but let someone fire a salvo back and watch the censors get busy. Such a double-standard but that's not your fault.
I assure you I am willing to hear all ideas on belief without censor, but one of my personal favorite quotes applies, and that is "That can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Burden of proof is a key concept to understand.
>You're basically putting yourself in a position where everyone who believes they've had a genuine spiritual experience is either stupid or a liar. If that's not ignorance or pride I don't know what is.
What qualifies as a spiritual experience in your eyes?
>You're right that most religion tends towards a lot of negativity, but that's as much a sign that spiritual warfare exists as it is for arguing it doesn't.
I realize I'm guilty of it as well in this meandering reply, but if you wish to have a healthy discourse, try to keep your topics more narrow. Religion in general is a much larger can of worms than evolution or theism/atheism, and requires a much broader set of ideas to be exchanged.
---
Okay, sorry that took so long, and about the length of the text. I spent a lot of my day thinking on your words.
I have heard great things about KhanAcademy. As far as books go, for Humans, the course I co-teach uses Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease (ISBN 0-8153-4183), but I would definitely brush up on basics before reading that one -its definitely a text book, but a great reference. A more general book might be Why Evolution is True , and I like 'Survival of The Sickest' for some general knowledge on why some diseases tend to stick around (which you would think would go away...). I hope that helps, that's about all I can think of off the top of my head right now. PM me if you have any questions too, I love talking about genetics. :)
sigh
I'll just leave this here. Enjoy.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348352250&sr=8-1&keywords=jerry+coyne+why+evolution+is+true
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348352282&sr=1-1&keywords=the+greatest+show+on+earth
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne (a professor in biology), and The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins (an evolutionary biologist too) outline the evidence for evolution in a clear and easy to understand way, and explain the basics of evolution as well.
You need to learn the theory of evolution as well and not just the evidence for it. The University of Berkley has a great online Evolution 101 short course that you can view here.
Once you understand evolution and see the evidence we have for it, you'll be able to educate your dad on it in an enthusiastic way, and not in a confrontational one.
If you really become interested in this subject, a really good, easy to read book I enjoyed is Why Evolution is True by Jerry Koyne.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143116649/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1453066607&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70&keywords=why+evolution+is+true+by+jerry+coyne
Why Evolution is True
That book talks about all the things Kiwi mentions, and has a list of sources.
It's a good read too.
Edit: if you don't want to waste time and money reading a whole book, here's an article by the author summarizing his book
Forbes -Why Evolution is True
I'd recommend Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism. It's a very dense and complex book, but you're asking some of the deeper questions of life, so don't be too surprised. CS Lewis also has a good book on miracles that's a shorter and more accessible read, if you like the time to chew through Plantinga's arcane tome.
Specifically related to your question about miracles, he advocates that a Christian cosmology views the universe as an open system, in contrast to the closed system cosmology of pure naturalism.
What do we owe them? Perhaps a recommendation to check out Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism from a local library. It is a devastating and witty dismembering of arguments contained in the works of Dennet, Dawkins, et al.
(Plantinga writes from a Reformed, rather than Catholic, background, but he's a top-notch philosopher and this book is a gem.)
Nice! On my list now. https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
No worries. Glad I can be of assistance. A couple quick comments to make, however.
>I wasn't even sure that god was real. I mean, the logical part says that he's probably not. But the instinct part feels uncomfortable with the idea. To outright state that God does not exist bothers me for some unknown reason.
First of all, I think that this is a common misconception among many people today for a couple of reasons. First of all, logic as far as I understand it has gone both ways. Yes, a number of philosophers and scientists today are convinced of a lack of God, but there are also a number of thinkers who are using logic to demonstrate his existence. A really good one to check out if you're interested is Alvin Plantinga, a very well respected analytic philosopher who's also a Christian. I'm not trying to convert you, but rather would like to give you some options if you're interested in being rational and religious. And he's got a couple books you may find interesting. 1 and 2. I've only read parts of the first one, and found it very interesting. I'd recommend reading his essays on reformed epistemology, and his work on naturalism being irrational. Very good reading, and not terribly technical, so you should be able to get into it just fine.
And on the note of instinctual belief in God, I'd say don't be afraid to trust in your instincts. As one of my profs told me, gut-feeling's don't make for great philosophical arguments in themselves, but they do often indicate that there's the possibility of an argument being made. You often know a lot more than you realize; all the reading, studying and analysis is simply finding ways to express it to others. So yeah, don't be so hesitant to trust yourself. Good luck.
The space-time thing is honestly absurd, I don't see how it could not make sense for a necessary being (insofar as He exists) to not exist. There being no space-time wouldn't matter seeing as how He is a fundamentally immutable and incorporeal being?
As for the supposed witness of other faiths, at that point you have to get into the trenches and quibble logically and philosophically. And I feel that Christianity most definitely wins those battles.
The "problem" of evil isn't really a problem at all. If you read any Plantinga you will become familiar with the free will defense and the moral responsibility (in many forms) defense to that claim. What are the contradictory omni-claims? If you are speaking of how God can be omni-just and omni-forgiving, in Christian theology these adjectives are used to describe qualitative intrinsic maximums, not quantitative infinites, thus there is no conflict.
What is the problem with Atonement, the Trinity, and God's special revelation in the OT+NT? The Gospel is God speaking to everyone who reads it, right now. His Revelation culminated with Jesus Christ, and that was infinitely sufficient. Why would He need to continue talking directly to people, in light of this grand special revelation and His general revelation, not to mention His manifestation through the Holy Spirit throughout our lives? (You'll have to be more specific about the "problems" with atonement and the trinity in order for me to respond to them.)
And I most certainly do see a huge amount of change in my life and the lives of those around me through Christ; I feel that I have gained a true Christian witness in the past year, and since that point my life has become infinitely better and more fulfilling (not to mention religious experiences I and others have had). What are some of the things that Christ told His disciples they could do that believers cannot do? Link specifically to scripture if you want to sustain this objection.
Also, you should read Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga. It is another fantastic book.
God bless.
If you want some books to read on how science and faith can be reconciled, I recommend The Language of God and Where the conflict really lies.
This video on God and evolution is really cool
Also, William Lane Craig did a podcast on the topic of Creationism and Evolution
Also, see this answer from WLC: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/evolutionary-theory-and-theism
Hi, as somebody who has no clue what to think on this issue, and is going to hopefully be working in some apologetic capacity in the near future, I feel for you.
What comforts me is that even if evolution is true, it makes the most sense to be a Christian theist, as opposed to a naturalist. It's sort of a complicated argument, but it could give you some peace of mind, as it has for me (:
There is a philosopher named, Alvin Plantinga. He is renowned for having made the argument above, and I think it's profoundly comforting. The whole thing is laid out in a book, entitled, Where the Conflict Really Lies.
Plantinga summarizes the thesis in this video. However, if you aren't used to reading philosophy, I would caution you before you bought the book or anything. It's the real deal; a high level work. It's not like reading Kant or Locke in a modern sense, but it isn't exactly a cakewalk either.
Hope this is helpful!
Check out “Where the Conflict Really Lies” by Alvin Plantinga. I found it interesting and helpful.
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
Lewis is a Christian apologist and fiction author beloved by many Christians, but many posts here on /r/atheism are (deservedly) making a mockery of his many fallacies. He's a popular hack, basically.
I'm more upset at people like Alvin Plantinga. A well-regarded professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, this guy makes similar arguments to Lewis but he manages to wrap them into a lot of philosophical smoke and mirrors reminiscent of Thomas Aquinas.
Plantinga's latest big work (that I know of) is a book wherein he purports to refute Naturalism by saying that if our senses and reason are naturally evolved and not divinely created, then they are unrealiable and so is every conclusion we draw with them, and therefore Naturalism proves itself unsupportable.
Agreed. Alvin Plantina's book on the subject strongly affected my thoughts on the matter.
Just by posting this, you've already surpassed my parents in open-mindedness and understanding. Your kids are lucky to have you as a parent.
For me, the best thing my parents could have done is just said something to the effect of "This is one belief among many. Some people believe in x, others believe in y, and others don't believe in religion at all, and those are all alright." Just the acknowledgement that different beliefs are right for different people could have prevented years of bitterness and confusion. Whatever their decision, they'll come to it on their own no matter what you actively expose them to. In my opinion, there's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing them up in your faith and encouraging to participate in something that has brought you joy as long as you inform them that other faiths are an option at all. I wouldn't worry about their disinterest in the services. Most kids would rather play their gameboys than sit through a religious service.
As for a good book I can suggest, I really like The Portable Atheist because it has a good variety of texts and perspectives. It's a good starting point, and it was compiled by Christopher Hitchens, who is awesome. Dawkins is amazing, but he can come off a bit strong sometimes, which can turn non-atheist readers off sometimes and give the easily offended the wrong impression. Even though I'm an assertive atheist, I find myself avoiding books that serve as a sort of atheist pulpit. Just as I don't like theists telling me how to be religious, I don't like atheists telling me how to be nonreligious.
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.
I just found about him this year, but reading him (specially his essays on "arguably" or stuff edited by him, like "the portable atheist") has inspired me not only to be more foursquare and vocal in my stance against the religion I apostatized from, but to rekindle my lukewarm, dormant and forlorn love for poetry and literature, he was an eloquent man, and he has inspired me to be eloquent (and proud of being circumloquent) again, despite my engineering degree and technical day-job.
Adieu, Hitch.
Great idea, but check out Christopher Hitchens' The Portable Atheist
I don't actively look for metal lyrics. When I look for intelligent anti theistic writing, I read what philosophers and other great writers have said. If you are interested, I cannot recommend this compilation enough: http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083
Don't get me wrong, I love me some Burn the church, kill everyone, your god is dead satanic black metal lyrics. But to say they are intelligently written? I have not come across anything like that. I'm not trying to put down metal here, if anyone can show me some honestly poetically written, intelligent, mature metal lyrics, I would love to see them.
I actually think South of Heaven by Slayer has some pretty decent lyrics come to think of it.
1 book: The Portable Atheist.
For further reading: God Is Not Great and The God Delusion.
Here is an excellent anthology of atheist writings through the ages: The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.
https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083
I really like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1289022608&sr=8-2-fkmr1
I recommend Christopher Hitchens' The Portable Atheist
Confirm...Neil Shubin is awesome, the book is good too.
Your Inner Fish
How to Teach Physics to Your Dog
The Universe and Dr. Einstein
The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography
Books are better than videos for this. I liked Shubin's Your Inner Fish a lot (better than the TV series, which leaves out too much detail).
The book, Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin, also a very good PBS documentary based on the book.
I have Your Inner Fish . It was a very good read. Any random chance you have Ender's Game ?
Depends on what you liked about it I guess. It's a bit unique in the way it covers so many topics.
If you liked the stuff about evolution, check out https://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/
If you liked the history:
https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393354326
If you like true crime:
https://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Beside-Me-Ann-Rule/
Or if you just liked how it went from topic to topic and you could never really predict what would be next, try this podcast:
https://stownpodcast.org/
One reason centipedes can't evolve into dogs is because dogs already exist. Over enough time, centipedes might evolve into dog-like creatures, but they'd be unrelated to dogs as we know them today, no matter how similar they looked. The same applies to all the other examples provided.
For a good book on how evolution works, check out The Greatest Show on Earth.
You should pick up a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, by Richard Dawkins. The chapter where Dawkins talks about dogs should help you understand better so that you can easily explain to your friend in terms he can understand.
"My teacher said something about even though evolution is widely accepted it has not been fully proven yet."
Your teacher is moron. Evolution is not "widely accepted," it's a scientific theory that is supported by overwhelming evidence and data. He might as well say gravity is "widely accepted."
Do not respect someone who is knowingly trying to deceive you. You are an adult, and you have a right to question and judge whatever anyone says to you. There are libraries filled with book on evolution, however, there is always this book
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1425511291&sr=8-10&keywords=Evolutionary+Theory
I honestly get frustrated with this. People don't seem to grasp that without evolutionary theory, simple things we take for granted would not exist. We would all be dead much, much earlier without modern medicine, which only exists because of our understanding and application of evolutionary theory.
For evolution I recommend The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Awesome book imo!
Here are some cool videos for you(not really informative about the makeup of cells but nonetheless might interest you enough to read the amazing books that I've listed below! The microcosmos really is a whole 'nother world!):
Kinesin Walking Narrated Version:
http://youtu.be/YAva4g3Pk6k
This is a better model. Notice how the 'legs' shake around violently until it snaps into place. Sometimes the random motion of the jiggling atoms(these aren't shown. Imagine the Kinesin molecules shown in a sea of water molecules, all jiggling about ferociously. The 'invisible' water molecules are bumping up against the Kinesin, and it's evolved to work with the random motions) makes it step backwards! But the ATP/ADP process makes it more likely to step forward than backwards(an evolved process). This is explained well in the book Life's Ratchet below.
Molecular Motor Kinesin Walks Like a Drunk Man:
http://youtu.be/JckOUrl3aes
Here are some amazing book to read. Seriously read all of these, preferably in the order listed to get the best understanding. They will blow your mind many times over. Many, if not all, may be at your local library.
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691125759
Quarks: The Stuff of Matter
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465067816
Thermodynamics:A Very Short Introduction
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199572194
Life's Ratchet:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465022537/
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1416594795
The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307275175p
I would also recommend taking a biology and maybe a chemistry class at your local community college, if possible. My biology class started with the smallest stuff, atoms(technically not the smallest, but whatever), and worked its way up through the chain of sizes up to the biosphere. It was very informative and there were a few people in their 40s(a guess) that really enjoyed the class. So you can do it, too!
Have you read much of William Lane Craig? He pretty much revived the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, and he is very knowledgeable on this subject of Theology and Cosmology. His book, Reasonable Faith has something along the lines of 1/5 of the book dedicated to examining different models of the universe, including the Big Bang Model, but also including the Multiverse, Cyclical Models, and some more I'm probably forgetting. There are enough articles and videos on his website and on youtube that you could look up so you wouldn't have to go out and buy a book, but the book is more exhaustive.
If your looking for good philosophical and logical arguments for the existence of God that might get him thinking, then you might want to pick up Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
I think someone up higher was correct when they said that only God changes hearts, but I found this book very thought provoking. Even if it doesn't convince him it might produce some very good and thoughtful discussions.
And cheers to you for wanting to share the joy! It's the best basis for a relationship that I can imagine.
By far, the only book I've ever read that makes a good case for theism without doing any of the stupid things evangelicals do (references to evolution, the Bible, etc) is The Last Superstition. It serves as an introduction to the thought of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and really shows how badly Dawkins' screwed up the arguments for the existence of God. From very reasonable starting principles, it argues up to God and immortal human soul with absolutely no reference to divine revelation, any specific religion (except two short pages where he explains how the resurrection could be defended). While it didn't turn me into a theist, it did give me some good food for thought and, quite frankly, I can no longer call theism irrational.
After that, try out Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig; it's considerably weaker than Feser's book, but I appreciate that Craig steers clear of any form of ID (in fact, his fine tuning argument may directly contradict it), and all five of his arguments for the existence of God are logically valid, which leaves you free to ponder over whether the premises are true or not.
Secondly, I would recommend checking out some of the individual arguments for theism, apart from any specific book. CS Lewis is weak IMO as an apologist for theism, but his argument from reason is interesting and worth thinking about. It is expanded in book form here by Vic Reppert. I also made a quickie infographic on it. I also recommend checking out the First Way of Aquinas (see my infographic), partially because it is a lot stronger than atheists seem to think, but MOSTLY to compare to Dawkins' treatment of it in The God Delusion, where you can hopefully clearly see that he hasn't bothered to actually look into it and his confirmation bias is now crystal clear to me.
Using the word apologist can be like using the word "liberal" or "conservative" depending upon who you are talking to. Calling someone a liberal doesn't really tell me about them or their politics; it just shows me that someone is vehemently anti-liberal.
Edit: To address your first question - he addresses so much and has had a long, voluminous career; so I'd suggest starting with his book Reasonable Faith if you're really interested in hearing some of what he has to say. Or listen to some of his debates instead. Or, heck, write him at his website/search there for individual responses which you may be curious about.
Hey man as a Medical Student your username checks out lol. In addition to the book you read I would recommend the book Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
https://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Faith-Christian-Truth-Apologetics/dp/1433501155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473563265&sr=8-1&keywords=reasonable+faith
Hello!
Yes I really do believe there is evidence! There is good evidence and plenty of it, it isn't hard to find.
I've got four things that you can do right now:
But Is It True? - Michael Ots
The Reason for God - Tim Keller
Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig
Please do message me if you have any questions or want any other help/ideas. I'd love to chat to you more. I'm convinced there is evidence, please do tell me why you do agree/disagree and what you're thinking :)
I would also recommend starting with Mark, I definitely found it the easiest to read when I was younger.
In terms of philosophy and theology, it really depends on how well read OP is and how long they've been interested in both subjects. I found McGrath's Christian Theology: An Introduction (there are cheaper editions) and Guthrie's Christian Doctrine to be good high school level theology intros.
For intermediate, maybe William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith?
If OP has a longstanding interest in and has studied philosophy—note "theology lately, and philosophy"—there's no reason not to start with advanced stuff like The City of God or parts of the Summa.
You mentioned in this thread that you were interested in WLC. There are several works that might be helpful to you:
Reasonable Faith
and if you have a lot of time
Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Craig and Moreland, but includes a large collection of topics from many modern philosophers)
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Craig and Moreland)
Again, these last two are rather extensive, but you may find them to be useful if you're interested in the philosophical/scientific aspects of Christianity. Hope this helps!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evidence-Afterlife-Science-Near-death-Experiences/dp/0061452572
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-24509/Near-death-patients-afterlife.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-89926/Scientists-discover-near-death-evidence.html
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
A quick google search brings up more results.
Depends on how open-minded you are
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195
"Sadly too much evidence against it."
hmmm that's interesting. As a computer scientist and mathematician who has a fascination with quantum computing and it's implications with regard to the loosely defined phenomenon we call consciousness, it seems there are many recent theories that point a metaphysical connection to what we describe as being self aware. To name few: Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, quantum consciousness studies by Dr. Stuart Haneroff, and of course the many anecdotal studies like Dr. Eben Alexander.
I'm interested to hear your specifics of "too much evidence against it."
God Bless
My family has been passing this book around lately, and my mom keeps hinting I should read it because "it's by a neurosurgeon so he knows what he's talking about." I imagine it would at least have some more credibility than The Case for Christ.
I would have recommended that OP gives her a book like The Magic of Reality if he wanted to go with Dawkins. It's at least a more indirect criticism of a lot of the beliefs of different religions, and does a good job of explaining some of the key concepts. Bonus points for the iPad version, because it's got some neat interactive stuff as well.
Proof of Heaven: Neurosurgeon gets bacterial meningitis, is stuck in a coma for months, then comes out of it. No one thinks he was going to live due to the condition of his spinal fluid (He claims it was a yellow pus color) Great book.
I don't know if you would be interested but there is a book written by a brain surgeon who believes that visited the after life. Basically this brain surgeon who knows the inner workings of the human brain has to have a surgery done on himself in which he does die for a few moments. In these few moments he experienced a world in which he could only describe as heaven.
Anyways during all of this they had machines doing extensive monitoring of his brain patterns in which he concluded that this couldn't have been a dream of hallucination because the brain patterns didn't line up to create them. I haven't read the book but my mother has and she said it is definitely worth the read.
Edit: you people will down vote anything with the word 'Heaven' in it won't you?
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195 < theres the book for those interested (if any)
> "Proof of God."
“Proof of Heaven”?
Reviews
You might enjoy the new book by redditor I'm_just_saying, titled The End Is Near - Or Maybe Not!. It's a very quick read, but it's very good.
He's an Anglican and I'm Orthodox, but both of us (and the Catholics, and most other Protestants) agree with his teaching. In fact the only folks who have a different view on the end times are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Adventists, and Dispensationalists - none of whom existed more than 150 years ago.
____
(edit - I just noticed he's already linked to it in these comments. Ah well. Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses...)
I recommend a book by /u/im_just_saying called "The End is Near...Or Maybe Not!", which is about this question. Basically, all of these end times/rapture/Left Behind beliefs are a very new, and amillenialism is much more accurate to what the church has believed historically.
Just finished: Father Arseny, 1893-1973: Priest, Prisoner, Spiritual Father : Being the Narratives Compiled by the Servant of God Alexander Concerning His Spiritual Father
Next up: The End Is Near...Or Maybe Not!
This is actually an argument against a specific book's claims... but it'll cover most everything you're likely to see... and it's a lot more readable than similar books.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
while we are at it
I think The Case Against the Case for Christ might be a good one :)
My thoughts are read it or watch the DVD, but do so as a joint project with family.
Next up: http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-For-Christ/dp/1578840058 and be sure to make both family projects.
Instead of finding that video why not read The Case Against the Case for Christ?
especially since another person already did that: http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-For-Christ/dp/1578840058
And the person who did that was another Christian, no less.
The Case for Christ? Book of apologetics written by Lee Strobel? Yeah, no. That tome has been refuted six ways from Sunday.
Just so you know, there's this book: The Case Against the Case For Christ.
If you don't want to read it alone, try listening to Steve Shrives' take on it as you go.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70
Send him a copy of the "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by Robert Price. http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-For-Christ/dp/1578840058
I think this is a more fair comparison: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
Your post was painful to read.
Painful because I used to be an arrogant, know-it-all Bible apologist like your friend, and it's embarrassing to remember; and painful because I've since had debates with people like me/your friend after learning the truth, and these debates always go in circles and are so unbelievably fruitless and frustrating.
Listen--you cannot change your friend's mind with facts or logic. You can't change anyone's mind with debate; people have to want to learn and be willing to challenge their own assumptions. If this guy is truly your friend, and you want to be able to hang out with him, it would be far better to just say "I don't want to argue about it" whenever he wants to debate, and just go back to doing friend-stuff.
That said, if you are genuinely curious about his claims, there are plenty of resources out there. It's kinda funny, but biblical literalists don't have "facts", they have talking points, and they all use the exact same ones, over and over. Talk origins is the greatest single repository of every fundamentalist claim I've ever seen, and it includes sources for each claim and rebuttal. It's quite impressive.
I've read The Case for Christ, and it's not that good. It's an exercise in logical fallacies. But if you do read it and find yourself scratching your head at some of the claims, Robert M Price wrote A Case Against the Case for Christ and picks it apart with ease. (Price's other books are pretty informative, too, if you're curious about biblical history without the apologist bias.)
I hope this helps; just remember, these links and facts are only going to make your friend dig his heels in deeper. If you want to maintain any kind of friendship with him, I highly recommend changing the subject and agreeing to disagree.
Strobel's a joke. I read The Case For Christ when I was in a phase of desperately trying to keep my faith. Every point he brought up was terribly disappointing and when the people he interviewed brought some reason for believing, his challenges (if challenged them at all) were mediocre. He was never a staunch atheist as he claims. At most, he was probably someone indifferent to Christianity looking for a reason to believe.
I recently read Price's The Case Against The Case For Christ and it was hilarious and fun to read. I recommend it.
There is also a book that refutes a case for Christ.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1578840058/ref=redir_mdp_mobile
"Contemporary sources" meaning people of the time period.
A modern-day theologian who bases his work off of other peoples testimony is not as valuable in the historical sense as a historian of the time period recording as close to first-hand testimony as we've gotten.
To me at least.
It was nice chatting with you. Have a nice day.
PS: [The Case Against The Case For Christ.] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1578840058/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/175-9664009-9240945)
I'm hunting up a torrent of both books right now…
https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot-Journey-Christian-Hermeticism/dp/1585421618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1466237064&amp;sr=1-1
I have a friend who became a christian, and was looking between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. He was about to be baptized Tridentine Mass Catholic, but then he started going East. But then he did some mediation thing with the hierophant Tarot card (he was into this previously) and he wound up Roman. Moral of the story: don't mess with the Tarot or you'll end up a Papist.
Seriously though, while the modern use of Tarot is some new age nonsense at best and spiritually dangerous at worse, the card set actually originates from a Roman Catholic tradition. The cards have meanings related quite closely to Christianity. Check out this video for more details. There's also a deck from Russia that uses more Byzantine images, so there's even an Orthodox version (I'm curious what the hierophant card is on this deck!).
But yeah, the more you know. There's also this book that expands on the link between Christianity and the Tarot.
Anyway, practical advice, for your uncertain times; Christ is unchanging. Do not find rest in circumstances, but in Christ, and then the uncertainty will have no meaning. And the Tarot probably won't help with your future anyway. So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot-Journey-Christian-Hermeticism/dp/1585421618
Among the most relevant references that we have about tarots there is a book titled Meditations on the Tarot written by a clever Christian mystic, that comes with a preface by a Cardinal, Hans Urs von Balthasar. I strongly recommend to read this book even if you are not Catholic Christian (I am not) because it's a real in-depth ermetic analysis about the tarots. If your parents will ever ask you something on this subject, talk them about this amazing literary work. You can buy it on Amazon .
The Tao of Pooh
The Tao of Physics
The Book
For me it comes down to the cumulative case for Christianity. I can imagine you must feel very hapy, joyful and open-minded. I would recommend a couple books to you:
2)http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1381803860&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=mere+christianity
I think when you are done, that you will see that even with all of the legitimate questions and curiosities that Christianity has, it still is the most logical worldview out there. Also, I would encourage you to find churches outside of the Catholic church as the Catholic church keeps people in bondage. Try and find a solid baptist church. There is no perfect church, but we can find the perfection of love and holiness in Christ.
Also, check out: http://answersforatheists.com/. This addresses many of the common questions and objections to Christianity from a very logical point of view.
There's lots, on all different levels. So it depends what you're looking for and what questions are important to you. You might consider:
If you want to understand the philosophical arguments for God you could try:
Specifically on Jesus, you might try,
And one last one which I haven't read, but I hear is good
But honestly, simply reading the Bible, praying and earnestly seeking is the best start.
> There is evidence for a designer...
Give me one piece of actual evidence, then go collect your Nobel Prize.
> There is not millions of data that supports evolution. You're pulling statitics out of your ass now.
Angry creationists are hilarious. I said "mountains," not millions. Reading is a skill. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming -- I suggest you give The Greatest Show on Earth a quick read, and then you can tell me about my blinders.
If you'd like to understand evolution better, I'd suggest Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. He gives a very good explanation of it that even a layman can understand. For that reason, it's the best book ever written on evolution in my opinion. I know Dawkins can be a little technical.
Edit: Screwed the title up.
The Bible and The Language of God.
> For starters, its entirely irrelevant to a discussion on human behavior. the last traces of our planet will have been destroyed billions of years prior to heat death which will still happen billions of years after we are all dead and buried and everyone who ever knew our name is dead and buried as well.
I agree 100% with your second sentence, however your first is dead fucking wrong.
Physics is everything.
It is, after all, THE science.
If sociology and psychology are indeed sciences, they will be touched in some way, some how, by physics.
Nevertheless, what you've stumbled on is a point within a point that I sought to make.
What do most people believe? All kinds of crazy shit. Everything from astrology to alternative medicine to Bronze Age myths and superstitions to My Little Pony to ... dare I say it ... hope.
Not many people have even heard of Thermodynamics, much less understand it.
And you're telling me that their beliefs, or more to the point the lack of comprehension and flat-out disinterest of modern physics, does not influence their behavior?
No, friend, what I've said is quite relevant.
What you're doing is attempting to turn it into a red herring and drawing unneeded attention to minutiae. It's neither. Follow the flow of my writing top-to-bottom. It fits.
All I'm doing is trying to make a point. Don't sweat the small stuff.
I really do stand behind what I've said. You are free to disagree. And that's fine. You're not alone.
> Also, our star is around 1% of the mass required to form a black hole, if that.
I stand corrected. It will collapse to form a white dwarf after it burns away what's left of a dead planet previously known as Earth.
Details.
> By all means, keep science in the discussion, we need it, but lets stick to facts that are relevant. I'd do some actual studying and work with thermodynamics before you try to talk about, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics of course you may need a few years of elementary calculus and physics before it makes any sense. have fun, i've done it.
Hmmmm, I think I may have studied elementary calculus and physics before I studied:
... aaaaaaand
Do I need to re-take them so that I can be more smug like you?
> A better argument would have been to say that we are utterly insignificant in the grandest scheme of things.
I do agree with that statement. And that would be quite satisfying if I wanted to toy with memes. Yes, the universe doesn't exist for us. It's > 99% dark matter / dark energy, and less than 1% us. Big deal.
Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick to practical science.
I'd rather strive for understanding than latch on to soundbites and convenient explanations.
In closing, before you make authoritative statements like these:
> Please leave the 2nd law of thermo out of any and all discussions about TRP and our planet.
Try to remember this:
> Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. - Carl Sagan
Now, hopefully, we can get back to my point.
>As much as someone might want to believe in heaven, it's not a belief that the evidence around us supports well.
Ehm...
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
And that's just a start. We are literally drowning in evidence of an afterlife, it's just that, as the last link I provided argues for at length, it gets ignored because it goes against the dearest tenets of both the materialists/atheists and the religious people. To quote one of his passages,
"One conclusion I have come to over the years is that both the atheist and the believer, from the fundamaterialist to the fundamentalist, share something in common. In fact, from an epistemological perspective, what they have in common is much more significant than what they disagree about. What they agree about is this: beliefs pertaining to the possible existence of a transcendent reality — God, soul, afterlife, and so on — are based on faith, not fact. If this is true, then there can be no factual evidence that pertains
to such beliefs. This metabelief — that beliefs about a transcendent reality cannot be empirically based — is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it has the status of a taboo. The taboo is very democratic in that it allows everyone to believe whatever he or she wants to believe about such matters. This allows fundamaterialists to feel comfortable in their conviction that reason is on their side, that there is no afterlife, and that those who believe otherwise have fallen prey to the forces of irrationality and wishful thinking. But it also allows fundamentalists to feel comfortable in their conviction that they have God on their side, and that those who believe otherwise have fallen prey to the forces of evil. Thus, although the fundamentalist and the fundamaterialist are on opposite extremes of the spectrum of possible attitudes towards an afterlife, their extreme positions unite them as strange bedfellows in their battles against the possibility that there are matters of fact about the afterlife that empirical research might discover. The very suggestion that empirical research might be relevant to beliefs pertaining to a transcendent reality—that such beliefs are subject to empirical constraint — runs strongly against this taboo, and is hence very threatening to most elements of our culture."
It has zero to do with it if the IQ viewing the comment is as low as yours, but for those of us above room temperature you will need to recognize the irony of the atheism movement. Putting the answer to unanswerable questions (portable atheist) in non-fiction is just as much of a douchebag move as putting left behind there was. You are one stupid bastard not to have caught all of that on the very first fucking comment.
Atheism, it's what the lemming kids do while they posture as being clever, meanwhile it's blatantly obvious to everyone else in the room how ridiculous their cult/religion of atheism is. The one thing you stupid shit bastards can never get through your cement heads is you don't know the answer to the question either. You can't. To not be able to admit that is to be an egotistical poseur douchebag. The man that knows for sure there is no god or gods is a fictional man, living a fiction.
http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083
From what I understand, these "coding" genes are what makes us look drastically different than organisms that share "97% of our DNA" such as the chimpanzee. A good bit of reading in regards to this topic would be Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin.
IIRC a mutation in how much muscle to form for our Temporalis (one of the chewing muscles) when we were apes caused a significant change in brain mass because the lack of chewing power/muscle allowed our skull plates to set later in life and therefore a larger, more developed brain. We have essentially the "same" DNA that chimps do in respect to our Temporalis muscle, the biggest difference is how much muscle the coder DNA calls for.
The Tarot does not have to be used for divination. Indeed, that is a later "use" of them, a later creation, which is a poor one at that. But there are other ways to use them which can be good. This is the book to look into: https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot-Journey-Christian-Hermeticism/dp/1585421618