Best theology books according to redditors

We found 174 Reddit comments discussing the best theology books. We ranked the 63 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Subcategories:

Jewish theology books
Islamic theology books
Hindu theology books

Top Reddit comments about Theology:

u/best_of_badgers · 206 pointsr/esist

It actually goes deeper than that. When you challenge someone's world view, it triggers mortality thoughts. We identify with things larger than ourselves partially because it means that part of us will survive on past death. That can be a religious group, a political movement, a nation, a company, a cult, etc. Someone challenging the legitimacy, or, worse, the future existence, of our larger-than-self structures results in dire existential doubt. This is experienced as a very deep anxiety.

There's a whole psychological framework that studies how we manage those existential anxieties both in the moment and then later on. Doubling down on (affirming) one's worldview is one of those ways. People in this state also get more xenophobic, more prejudiced, and less merciful to criminals, but, interestingly, not immediately. There's a delay of 2-5 minutes before that effect kicks in.

And, fun fact: The type of anxiety this produces is similar enough to other types of pain processed by the brain that Tylenol actually suppresses it (pdf).

Edit: Link to paper, details

Edit2: The Worm at the Core is the best book I've read on TMT. My favorite amateur theologian, psychologist Richard Beck, also wrote The Slavery of Death in which he attempts to incorporate TMT into Christian theology on sin, I think very successfully.

u/crayonleague · 40 pointsr/atheism

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted (2010)

In this deliciously satisfying book, the author, a New Testament scholar, carefully reviews and assesses the New Testament with a detailed and extremely thorough analysis of the figure we call Jesus. This is not a rant, not an attack on Christianity, this is an objective and critical analysis of the New Testament, showing how the entire Jesus myth and indeed, all of Christianity is a purposely-designed fabrication rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, and sometimes outright falsehoods.

John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist (2008)

If you want a one-stop total critique of Christianity, this is the book you're looking for. The author is a former Christian apologist turned extremely angry and prolific atheist. In this book Loftus attacks the full span of Christianity, addressing the philosophical arguments against theism, the historical incompatibilities and inaccuracies of the Bible, and the contradictions between creationism and modern science, and throughout it all is an undercurrent of personal experience as Loftus explains his own deconversion from devout evangelicalism to enraged atheist.

Concerning atheism.

These are for the people going "Well, I'm an atheist. Now what?" There's more to atheism than eating babies and posting fake facebook conversations on r/atheism. There's much more truth, beauty, and value in a universe without a celestial supervisor, where humans are free to make our own purposes and dictate our own paths. Thinking for yourself and recognizing the natural wonder of the universe is far greater than the false consolation any religion can provide you. These books show how.

Michael Martin - Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1989)

In this book, Martin attempts a two-pronged defense of atheism: first by attacking theistic arguments regarding the implausibility of morality and purpose without God, second by defending against attacks specifically on atheism. In such a manner he makes a strong case for both negative and positive atheism. Though extremely dated, this book is a classic and a must-read for any atheist.

Erik J. Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (2005)

In this book, Wielenberg advances a naturalist philosophy and addresses the problem of nontheistic morality as weakly espoused by the likes of Dostoevsky and C.S. Lewis. First he challenges the claims of theistic morality, next he advances naturalistic ethics and displays how theological justification is unnecessary for a good and moral life. Concepts such as intrinsic morality, inherent human tendencies such as charity and altruism, and the idea of moral obligations are all addressed.

Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God (2005)

In this book, Richard Carrier, perhaps most well-known as one of the major modern debunkers of the Jesus myth, continues the trend of expanding metaphysical naturalism, but this is a more complex and thorough work covering the full spectrum of a developed worldview, addressing nearly every topic beyond just morality, and presents a complete philosophical outlook on life that is easy to comprehend and evaluate. A solid starting point for the newly atheist.

My personal picks.

Now, since this is my list after all, and after typing up all of that, I think I've earned the right to make my own recommendations. These are books that I think people should read that don't necessarily have anything to do with atheism.

Markos Moulitsas - American Taliban (2010)

This book reads like a collection of loosely-related blog entries, some of them written by angry teenagers, and Moulitsas himself is no philosopher or professor, but is still an important read for those of you who haven't been paying attention. In this book, the founder of Daily Kos draws the extremely obvious and transparent similarities between the religious right of America, and the Islamofascists across the pond, and displays how modern conservatism has largely been hijacked and/or replaced by a complex political machine intent on maintaining the power of a small group of white, male, Christian elite.

Chris Hedges - American Fascists (2007)

Okay, time for a more sophisticated take on the issue than Daily Kos stuff. Those of you who plan on staying and fighting in the US rather than simply getting the fuck out while you still can need this book. With a critical and objective eye, Hedges displays the dark and tumultuous underbelly of America and shows how an extremely powerful and well-organized coalition of dominionists is slowly taking over the country and seeking to transform it into a theocratic state. Those of you who are moderate Christians and similarly despise the lunatic fringe of Christians should also read this book. Hedges analyzes this Christian Right movement, allied with totalitarianism and a denial of reality, that has declared a jihad (or a "teahad", if you're a Tea Partier) on secularism and even on Christianity itself, utilizing religion for its darkest and most sinister purpose - committing cruelty and intolerance upon others in the name of divine supervision.

CJ Werleman - God Hates You, Hate Him Back (2009)

This is one of my favorite books and is a great book to unwind with after a critical look at Christianity. The biggest problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, the outright falsehoods, or even the blatantly made-up and ridiculous bullshit about magic and miracles and supernatural nonsense - it's the fact that, taking it all at face value, the God described in the Bible is the single most despicable and terrifying fictional villain ever imagined by humanity. This is a character that seems to actively despise mankind, and in this book, Werleman shows why with a hilarious and thorough analysis of the Bible. This book reads like Monty Python and is just as funny - not meant to be taken seriously of course unless you're a Biblical literalist, but still a great read.


Well, that's all I got. This list took about half a day to compile and is itself also woefully inadequate, there's quite a bit of books I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But, it should be much more sufficient than the current r/atheism reading lists and I've done my best to include the most recent works. If you have any books to add that you feel are noteworthy, please feel free to post them. I hope this list can help many people in their understanding of philosophy and atheism.

u/Ibrey · 35 pointsr/askphilosophy

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

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

  • Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, often published together under the title The Trial and Death of Socrates. Socrates is so important that we lump together all Greek philosophers before him as "the Presocratics," and this cycle of dialogues is a great window on who he was and what he is famous for.
  • The Basic Works of Aristotle. "The philosopher of common sense" is not a particularly easy read. Cicero compared his writing style to "a flowing river of gold," but all the works he prepared for publication are gone, and what we have is an unauthorised collection of lecture notes written in a terse, cramped style that admits of multiple interpretations. Even so, one can find in Aristotle a very attractive system of metaphysics and ethics which played a major role in the history of philosophy, and holds up well even today.
  • René Descartes, Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy, not so much because modern philosophers have widely followed his particular positions (they haven't) but because he set the agenda, in a way, with his introduction of methodological scepticism.
  • David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I think Elizabeth Anscombe had it right in judging Hume a "mere brilliant sophist", in that his arguments are ultimately flawed, but there is great insight to be derived from teasing out why they are wrong.
  • If I can cheat just a little more, I will lump together three short, important treatises on ethics: Immanuel Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, and Anscombe's paper "Modern Moral Philosophy".
u/WastedP0tential · 20 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?

It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:

Colin Howson – Objecting to God

George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God

Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods

Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God

Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science

J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism

J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt

Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism

Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God

Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God

Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism

Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion

Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil



[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0827609086)

Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted

Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus

Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?

Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels

John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary

John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Karen Armstrong – A History of God

Mark Smith – The Early History of God

Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?

Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?

Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age

Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus

u/CapBateman · 15 pointsr/askphilosophy

In general, academic philosophy of religion is dominated by theistic philosophers, so there aren't many works defending atheism and atheistic arguments in the professional literature.

But there are still a few notable books:

  • J.L Mackie's The Miracle of Theism is considered a classic, but it's a bit outdated by now. Although Mackie focuses more on critiquing the arguments for God's existence rather than outright defending atheism, he is no doubt coming from an atheistic point of view.
  • Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification is a lengthy book with the ambitious goal of showing atheism is the justified and rational philosophical position, while theism is not.
  • Nicholas Everitt's The Non-existence of God is maybe one of the most accessible books in the "case for atheism" genre written by a professional philosopher. He even presents a new argument against god's existence.
  • If you're more into debates, God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist is a written debate between atheist philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and famous Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig. It's far better than any debate WLC had with any of the New Atheists in my humble opinion.
  • On the more Continental side of things, there a few works that could be mentioned. There's Michel Onfray's Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (although I must admit I didn't read it myself, so I can't attest to how good it is) and of course any work by the atheist existentialists, a good place to start will by Jean-paul Sartre's Existentialism Is a Humanism.

    I didn't add him because others have already mentioned him, but everything written by Graham Oppy is fantastic IMO. He is maybe the leading atheist philosopher in the field of philosophy of religion. A good place to start with his writings is his 2013 paper on arguments for atheism.
u/GregoireDeNarek · 12 pointsr/Christianity

In no particular order and without thinking they are all of equal importance:

  1. Karl Barth. Whether you love him or hate him, you cannot avoid him and his influence on Protestant thought in the 20th century. I would be remiss if I did not recommend my good friend's book, Kenneth Oakes, Karl Barth on Theology and Philosophy.

  2. G.W.F. Hegel. Again, whether you love him or hate him (and let's be honest, even if you did try to read him, only a fraction of people understand what he's saying), you cannot avoid his influence. To supplement Hegel, I'd recommend Cyril O'Regan's The Heterodox Hegel.

  3. Rowan Williams. Prolific does not even begin to describe Williams' writing career. He is well-regarded by nearly everyone (Catholics and Protestants alike). He writes on such a vast range of topics (from St. Augustine to Arianism to Christian Spirituality to Dostoevsky) and does so well. That's a real gift.

  4. Rudolf Bultmann. He is a crucial figure in 20th century New Testament studies. His commentary on the Gospel of John ought to be read by everyone interested in NT studies.

  5. F.C. Baur. He was instrumental in shaping the field of Patristics and the study of the early Church for Protestants. Heavily reliant upon Hegelianism. He founded what is known as the Tübingen School.

  6. Kevin Vanhoozer. I think he's a big name among Evangelicals and rightly so. Vanhoozer is very bright and his books engage with a wide range of sources and theories. I don't agree with him on much, but he is not someone one can simply disregard. There's real meat in his theology and I think if Evangelicals are looking for someone to help them with their intellectual struggles, Vanhoozer would be a good place to start.

  7. Adolf von Harnack. Another critical figure in my own field. What impresses me most about von Harnack's work is its range. The guy could do it all, from NT studies to Church history. The sort of education he received is that of a bygone era and I'm not sure we'll ever produce people as well-rounded as von Harnack.

  8. N.T. Wright. Wright is sometimes disregarded by New Testament scholars, but I think it's because he is so philosophically adept. He knows what's at stake, what's underpinning certain methodologies, etc. I know his NPP stuff is not always so well-received (he is basically just saying what Catholics have known since St. Paul), but it is not easy to dismiss him. I think the fact that he's trained in Thomism (although of the Lonerganian sort) makes him very interesting as an NT scholar. As a modification of his theories on exile in the New Testament, I highly recommend Brant Pitre's Jesus, The Tribulation, and the End of Exile.
u/Mauss22 · 8 pointsr/askphilosophy

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

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

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

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

    And more suggestions in this thread. Also, the IEP is sometimes more accessible than SEP.
u/dadtaxi · 7 pointsr/DebateReligion

Ok then. Its very simple. if you look here Rowe thinks it is probably false.

So . . . . . argue amongst yourself now. I'm done here

u/Parivill501 · 7 pointsr/askphilosophy

I recommend you read Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosphical Justification. It's one of the best works of rigorous philosophical atheism. Personally I believe his argument for weak/negative atheism is much stronger than his argument for strong/positive atheism, the former of which you seem to fit into.

u/Fuzzy_Thoughts · 6 pointsr/mormon

> I would like to see an atheist debate someone like Plantingna

It's not a debate, but if you're interested in a more philosophically-focused response to Plantinga's reformed epistemology, I'd recommend checking out Prof. Tyler Wunder's content. If you just want a brief overview, here's an interview with him covering the content of his dissertation critiquing Plantinga. The link on that site to his dissertation is dead, but I reached out to him via e-mail a while back and he sent it to me. I can forward you a download link if you find yourself interested.

Also, Michael Martin treats much of Plantinga's ideas in some depth in his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. There are plenty of atheist philosophers that are much more careful than Hitchens and co. if you look for them. I'm not interested in an extended dialogue on their arguments, but since you seemed intrigued by Rowe, I thought I'd point out some similar resources. Graham Oppy's Arguing About Gods was recommended to me along with the Michael Martin book, but I haven't checked it out yet. I've only read certain parts of Martin's book too (it's a long read if you were to go straight through).

u/hammiesink · 5 pointsr/DebateReligion

Yes, I try to remain pretty neutral. If you get into religious philosophy, you'll be amazed at how the philosophers seem to be really interested in the truth, and not just supporting presupposed dogma. Atheists write books defending cosmological arguments, Christians write papers attacking Christianity, there are atheists that are dualists of the mind, and Christians that are materialists of the mind.

The dispassionate and rational evaluation that is supposed to be happening on sites like richarddawkins.net is to be found instead in academic philosophy. Honestly, when I look at Dawkins' site now, I can't tell the difference between it and these wackaloons.

u/[deleted] · 5 pointsr/philosophy

It's not a long book, but you could do far worse than look at the relevant Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy pages:

Start with:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Then maybe:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/

and definitely

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

redditors seem to have a bit of a blind-spot for compatibilism.

then from there you'll know the kind of direction you'll want to take your reading in.

The Oxford Readings In ... series is usually pretty good for collecting influential and interesting papers. I don't know how good this one is, but you could try:

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

u/davidreiss666 · 5 pointsr/SubredditDrama

Books I like The God Delusion myself. That said, I think the best work on Atheism from a philosophical justification is probably Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin. I also like his book The Case Against Christianity.

I could get into this topic down and dirty the best of anyone from /r/Atheism if I really wanted too. But I normally just stick to Isaac Asimov and Stephen Fry.

u/oneguy2008 · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

Try LA Paul's Transformative Experience, and maybe Ruth Chang's TED Talk on hard choices.

Also Williamson's Tetralogue is great, and Frankfurt's On Bullshit is a lot of fun, and politically relevant.

u/Meadow_Foxx64 · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

I'd suggest beginning with Brian Davies' "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion or Keith Yandell's Philosophy of Religion: A Contemporary Introduction.

I'd also suggest looking into a philosophy of religion anthology. Louis P. Pojman and Michael Rea edited a very nice anthology. It includes selective writings on the ontological argument, the cosmological proof, the teleological argument, the problem of evil, divine attributes, and much more. Pieces of both historic and contemporary importance are included, ranging from St. Aquinas and St. Anselm to Samuel Clarke and David Hume — all the way up to Richard Swinburne and J.L Mackie. It's a very good anthology.

u/HagbardCelineHere · 4 pointsr/atheism

Lot of people in this thread giving some very bad or lazy responses. My undergraduate philosophy thesis was on Plantinga's freewill theodicy but my courses covered the breadth of religious philosophy and so I've actually had to read and discuss this book before.

I don't know how to do the symbols on my keyboard so apologies in advance but if you are looking for a book that provides an insanely comprehensive refutation of "modern-logic" formalized versions of the ontological argument, you want Jordan Howard Sobel's "Logic and Theism", which goes into great detail with the formal logic notation.

Sobel's explanation of why modal axiom S5 is superficially correct but entirely redundant and not applicable to this problem is as good as Mackie's but stated with needless complexity so for that you should read J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism for the goodies there. Mackie and Sobel both think that Plantinga crudely overextrapolates <>[]X-->[]X from <>X->[]<>X. Mackie does it better than I do.

The long and short of it is that Plantinga's argument, while more sophisticated than Anselm's in its formalization, is really not that much more sophisticated in its premises. Sobel hammers on the point that there is a crucial amphiboly on "maximally excellent in possible world X" between "maximally excellent [given the conditions of] possible world X" and "maximally excellent [and also existing in] possible world X" more than he needs to in an otherwise very efficient textbook. His more interesting counterclaim attacks another amphiboly in the inference from "<>[]X(^01&02) in W" to "[]X(^01&02) where X^01 & 02 can stand for whatever property he's looking to establish. He shows through the formulation that there is a "floating," unresolved <> in the argument that actually reduces the entire ontological argument to "<>x" where x is the entire ontological argument.

I won't be in front of the book for a few hours but if you like you can message me and I can try to scan or take pictures of the pages from his book, it's a little expensive to buy just to beat your friend in an argument, but I've never seen it refuted in print.

u/bag_mome · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

Rome and the Eastern Churches by Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P.

Older and a bit more polemical is The Orthodox Eastern Church by Fr. Adrian Fortescue.

Edward Feser has good books and talks that deal with the existence of God. The Thomistic Institute has a number of them as well as others by different professors and dominicans here

u/fduniho · 4 pointsr/askphilosophy

On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt.

u/serfusa · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A good time to quote the Dalai Lama:

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

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

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

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

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

u/prurient · 3 pointsr/philosophy

This is Stroud's book on dealing with metaphysical subjects. It doesn't directly deal with the problem of free will, but I HIGHLY recommend you read this book because it allows you to gain insight into what a lot of books and papers are missing, namely, what I was talking about 'coherence' or an 'unmasking explanation' (his terminology, actually):
http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Reality-Subjectivism-Metaphysics-Colour/dp/0195151887

Searle's book on Rationality. What I had paraphrased is actually in this book (... I think, it's been a little while since I read it), but I know he addresses the problem of free will since it's important to him in tackling rationality:
http://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Action-Jean-Nicod-Lectures/dp/0262692821

Here's a book that has a ton of papers from prominent philosophers in the field. This actually gives a good overview of the whole debate. I recommend P.F. Strawson's Essay, Wallace's Essay, and ... I forget the other one. IIRC, there are essays by Lewis and van Inwagen if you're really into logic approaches:
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

It's only a few but I hope that helps~

u/warren_piece · 3 pointsr/running

something that may be of interest to you - running the spiritual path. i will note that it is written by a christian guy, but he is not your average christian and talks a lot about the buddhist traditions of meditation...so i wouldnt let that put you off completely.

its not a fast read. im not even sure id say its a good read. but he does bring some interesting ideas and has many helpful hints on how to combine meditation and running.

u/Afro_Kraken · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

I don't see Mark Johnston's work talked about much round these parts, but I think his work is great.

He looks at religion and immortality from fresh angles, using rigorous philosophy, and produces wild conclusions:

Saving God (arguing that all religions are idolatrous)


Surviving Death (arguing that you can live on after death without divine intervention - really brilliant personal identity stuff in there)

These books are recent, erudite, and keep away from some of the more over-wrought debates. They're also some of the most fun I've had reading philosophy, which I think is really important.

u/tbown · 3 pointsr/Reformed

I'd recommend against Barth's Church Dogmatics unless you are quite well versed in theology, and like reading long and sometimes confusing sentences.

Interested in Church Fathers?

Oden's Classical Christianity is pretty decent. It tries to break down the typical "systematic theology" headings using the early church (and some later ones). Not perfect, but there isn't one I've read yet that beats it.

Augustine's Confessions is a must if you haven't read it yet. Its autobiographical yet very spiritual and insightful at the same time.

Chrysostom's On the Priesthood is a great writing that can apply to anyone, not just those seeking ordination.

Athanasius' On the Incarnation focuses on the person of Christ, and what it meant for God to become man.

Basil's On the Holy Spirit is a great exposition on not just how the Holy Spirit is argued to be part of the Trinity, but also Christ. Very great reading for people questioning it or curious about it.

Reformation Fathers?

Peter Martyr Vermigli's Predestination and Justification is great. John Calvin in a letter said Vermigli had a better understanding of Predestination than he did, which is funny since Calvin is known for predestination today.

Martin Luther's Theological Works has most of his important works, including Bondage of the Will.

Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol. but try not to pay $325 for it. Its out of print so might be a bit hard to find for a reasonable price. If you are able to find it though, it's a gold mine. Also check out other of his books.

More contemporary?

Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism is a classic on the Reformed faith.

Herman Bavinck's Abridged Reformed Dogmatics is great, and in my opinion one of the best Systematic Theologies available. More of a Dutch Reformed than Presby bent, but essentially the same.

Karl Barth's Dogmatics in Outline is a very abridged version of Church Dogmatics, and would recommend it over the original source unless you have a lot of free time or want to be a Barth scholar.

Thats what I can think of off the top of my head. If you have other specific ones I can find other stuff.

u/LeonceDeByzance · 3 pointsr/Christianity

If you're going to read Barth scholarship alongside actually reading Barth, make sure you check out Ken Oakes' book, Karl Barth on Theology and Philosophy.

u/EcstadelicNET · 3 pointsr/holofractal

This book by Kastrup could be a great prequel to an even deeper philosophical discourse on objective idealism, digital physics, transcendental metaphysics and the physics of time in The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind's Evolution and the latest Theology of Digital Physics. I'm sure you can find most unanswered questions in these books.
Here's a link to TDP on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Digital-Physics-Consciousness-Interpretation-ebook/dp/B081DN7W1K/

u/MetaphoricallyHitler · 3 pointsr/Christianity

It's an excellent choice. Like others have said, reading more than one book with different viewpoints on Christian fundamentals is a good idea, which is why I love threads like this, so thanks for posting.

Here are some suggestions from my own explorations in the last few years.

---

Mere Christianity

What Christians Believe by the venerable Bishop Ken Myers (im_just_throwing_this_out_there)

Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul, for more of a basic Reformed theology perspective

Dogmatics in Outline by Karl Barth, for a Reformed-ish (emphasis on the "ish") perspective sometimes called "neo orthodoxy". It's a summary of a much (much) larger work, and it's probably the toughest read out of the other books I'm recommending, because it encapsulates quite a bit of his very complex thought in a pretty short space.

The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware for an eye-opening perspective and well-written about a tradition I knew nothing about from my American, Baptist/evangelical upbringing.

The Catholic Religion by Vernon Staley, which is actually about the Anglican church. This was recommended to me by an Anglican redditor.

Someone already recommended Simply Christian by N.T. Wright. I'm about halfway through this right now. Being a regular on this sub, where his theology is pretty popular, I wouldn't say it's mind-blowing to me, but your mileage may vary. It's certainly a good read so far; his writing style is clear and easy to read (I think even easier than Lewis), and it seems like a good jumping off point for further exploration (he has other books I want to read, and I figured I'd start with his introductory book first).

u/LearningPythons · 2 pointsr/running

I personally use running as almost a moving meditation.

You might find this book interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Running-Spiritual-Path-Breathing-Meditating/dp/0312308868/

u/Simplicious_LETTius · 2 pointsr/exjw

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

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

u/moreLytes · 2 pointsr/PhilosophyofReligion

I am fascinated with both topics as well.

Recommendations on anthropology of religion:

u/Holyshinobi · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

In case you want to dig deeper, here's what I studied as a Philosophy major with a focus on Free Will:

The Non-Reality of Free Will - Richard Double

Free Will and Illusion - Saul Smilansky

Living Without Free Will - Derk Pereboom

I'd start with the first one. It lays out all the major arguments about Free Will, then argues that none of them are coherent. It's a good overview on the subject. Not really ELI5 material, but what the hell.

u/nmathew · 2 pointsr/atheism

I wouldn't. I'd just go to my bookshelf, and pull off something like this, where a philosophy of religion professor has done the work already. I'd also like to point out that all such philosophical proofs eventually hit an unbridgeable chasm. To get from something to the theist god who cares what you do with your reproductive organs requires personal revelation.

Some people have done a great job of attacking the arguments in this thread, but I don't really see the point of asking psbp123. None of the arguments, in the original form, are treated with much respect by current philosophers. My linked book thoroughly destroys the original versions, then tackles the best moderns versions put forth.

u/jez2718 · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

First and foremost, I strongly recommend you cross-post this to /r/askphilosophy (and probably also /r/philosophyofreligion) since they'll be much more qualified than here to suggest topics and lesson-plans.

Second, you should probably include the Leibnizian cosmological argument alongside the Kalam, since they are sufficiently different. There's plenty of good material out there on this: Pruss' article for the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (this book is a very good resource, see here for more chapters) is pretty definitive, but both he and Richard Gale have written stuff on this.

Third, I think you should use different atheistic arguments. Drop Russell's teapot: especially given your expected audience you should stick to positive arguments against the existence of God. Russell's teapot you can work in as a side comment that argues that if the negative case (i.e. refuting theistic arguments) succeeds then we should be atheists, but other wise leave it be. Better topics I think would be the Argument from Non-Belief (see also here) and Hume's argument against belief in miracles (I have a bunch of resources on this I can send you, but the original argument in Of Miracles is pretty short and is free online). You might want to read one of Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification or Oppy's Arguing About Gods for a good source of atheistic critiques and arguments.

u/lordzork · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

You should not take this advice if you have a genuine interest in the subject and wish to extend your knowledge beyond rhetorical polemics, which is all you'll get from Harris.

The Oxford Readings on Free Will would be a better choice. This book is an anthology of important and recent essays that cover pretty much every major positions on the issue of free will. The introductory essays in this series are especially helpful in giving a detailed overview of the respective issues.

Schopenhauer's prize essay on the question of whether free will can be proven from self-consciousness is also helpful and relevant. His answer to the problem will probably seem odd since it is derived from his own metaphysical system and formulated to be deliberately provocative. But he gives a clear explication of the issue in a lively and readable style, and he is sensitive to the problem of moral responsibility, which he attempts to save from his negative conclusion.

u/Emufasa · 2 pointsr/Reformed

Based off of your response to /u/2Cor517, it sounds like you're struggling with trusting the Bible. Here's some books about Biblical Inerrancy/trusting the Bible.

​

Taking God at His Word by Kevin DeYoung - This book is short and sweet.

​

Fundamentalism and the Word of God by J.I. Packer - Written back in the 50s, but still incredibly relevant. Also not very long.

​

Inspiration and the Authority of the Bible by B.B. Warfield - Also an older book, and quite a bit longer than the last two. I haven't read this one, but I'd like to.

​

What else are you struggling with? Do you have any questions I can try to answer?

​

​

u/allisterb · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

There are different kinds of laws and relationship. There are causal relationships between physical objects which from empirical observation we may come to believe are precise and exceptionless, like the laws of physics. But psychological laws or the relationship between an rational agent and their reasons for acting may not take this form.

Think about your OCD: you may have a strong desire for a certain action, but you also have a higher-order desire that your compulsive desire for this action not be so strong. There's no limit in principle to this hierarchy of desires. For a rational agent like yourself no compulsion to do X, no matter how strong, can guarantee that he does X.

You probably possess certain moral values: things you believe are good and reasons for acting that you believe are good. Yet you often find yourself acting for reasons that you don't believe are good and doing things that you know are bad. Having certain moral values does not entail that you will always act one way or another.

People with MI often find this situation frustrating: you know you some action or thought X doesn't cohere with your moral values of ideals, you desire in some way not to do or think X but somehow X still occurs. But this conflict seems the be the only path we can take to getting better.

From my personal experience and from observing others, people with MI are often the strongest believers in free will, because we have first-hand experience with this anomalous relationship between the physical aspect of our mind and the mental or purely rational aspect. There is a constant battle to assert our will and
to act according to the motivations and desires and values we know are good ,against other motivations and desires that are not what we will. Acting randomly or without motivation and desires and values is not freedom. There are lots of good books and papers on compatibilism that you should check out, like this.

u/lanemik · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Dan Dennett disagrees.

A more thorough argument in his books Freedom Evolves and Elbow Room.

u/bobwhiz · 2 pointsr/Reformed

Gaffin's Perspectives on Pentecost really helped to seal the deal. It's short, and with a diligent use of ordinary means, any one of us could get through it. He offers a helpful, not jaundiced view on a few camps.

Full disclaimer: this was the book to convince me, but /u/terevos2 says, essentially, 'meh.'

u/_000 · 2 pointsr/DebateAChristian

This is a well-worded question.

The first thing to say is that positivist/scientific/empiricist methods could be rejected as exclusive epistemological methods, independently from other methods, religious or not. This for a variety of reasons including the problem of induction, critiques of positivism including Quine's, the fact that empiricism is theory laden, the social embeddedness of scientific practices as explained by Michael Polanyi in books such as Science, Faith, and Society, basic problems of the most common form of Naturalism I see on reddit, and any number of other critiques.

And there is the notion of Truth itself. What do you mean by this word? It's a problematic concept, so there are different theories of truth that a person might accept or reject for one's self.

When the skeptic throws epistemic challenges to the theist, ought that skeptic have rigorous solutions to offer that can't reasonably be rejected for reasons above? I'd say most skeptics do not believe they have any need to account for their views (should they have ever taken inventory of their views at all). The hand-waiving usually takes the form of "Where's your evidence, Christian?" or "You're the one making the positive claim, so you prove your position!" You can see why I find these attacks to be empty in the context of debate, and wholly dismissible, whether or not I have any legitimate reason to believe what I do. It's not about dismissing the question as much as expecting more from the skeptic than firing blanks.

So before I sketch out what I hold to, I'd like a response or two from skeptics about my question. Ought that skeptic have solid answers to deep-level epistemic questions and theories of truth before attacking theistic views? I think so. That seems fair to me. It's not so much an issue of "burden of proof" or winning debate points; I see it as a matter of intellectual integrity and honest self-reflection. To be honest, I see very little of this on reddit.

Thoughts?











u/0ooo · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

What about something like this?

u/KonradX · 1 pointr/Anglicanism

and darling Bryan, this would be the text that shaped my thinking:

https://www.amazon.com/Saving-God-Religion-after-Idolatry/dp/0691152616

u/FliedenRailway · 1 pointr/philosophy
u/ViresEtVirtus · 1 pointr/Catholicism

You are welcome, I am glad you liked the article. As for more information here is the best I can do.

As for your first couple of questions, these articles and visuals that I wrote may be able:

  • Know Your Mother Church
  • Map of the Catholic Church

    As for whether or not the East acknowledge the authority of the Pope and the Magesterium... the short answer is yes they do... but begrudgingly. They do this because they believe Unity of Christ's people is more important than disputing over something that will never happen. And that something is the threat of the Pope walking into the Eparchy(diocese) of some Eastern Catholic Bishop and changing something just because he is the Pope. All Easterners (Orthodox and Catholic), except for the Moscow Orthodox Church, recognize the Pope as the first among equals and that he has a universal jurisdiction (to some extent... See Council of Revana) . For example, at the First Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef refused to sign the decree of Pastor Aeternus concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. When questioned by Rome on the matter, the Patriarch determined that he would only sign the decree with this caveat added: “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs,” as he knew he must protect the prerogatives of the Eastern hierarchy. However, the Latin Church claims that that Papal jurisdiction is immediate and without fallibility in some instances still. But if this were the case, and the Pope did have such jurisdiction, in 1054 the Pope would have abolished some of the most dear traditions of the East and thus that was the last straw breaking the Camels back..the camel being East/West relations.. Also the sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade did not help mend relations several years later. So in the end, no one seems to know if the doctrines behind Vatican I/II claiming the Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction of Immediate action are actually doctrine, but no one will out right say that. We put together a great series (that we will start promoting) on the Catholic/Orthodox relationship trying to get at the heart of this problem.. but alas we got very political answers.

    TL;DR When talking about Papal Infallibility it depends who you ask and what his point of reference is. Most in this thread would say yes as it is a proclaimed dogma from an ecumenical (define ecumenical) council of the universal Church. Some here and many elsewhere will say no because it was not an enunciated belief of the Catholic Church when union was established and the council was not ecumenical and it is therefore a local teaching that only applies within the Latin Church.

    That project can be found here at SisterChurches.tv
    To get an idea of the level of seriousness this project is, we interviewed:

  • Metropolitan Kallistos (Orthodox)
  • Cardinal Wuerl (Catholic)
  • Cardinal Francis George (Catholic)
  • Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk (Head of Ukrainian Catholic Church)
  • Archimandrite Robert Taft (Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome Eastern Catholic)
  • And many more

    Other Articles Include:

  • Council of Revana
  • From East2West
  • The 'Healing Memories' and the Problem of 'Uniatism'
  • Catholic Understanding of Ecumenism Page 27.
  • Relations Between the Catholic Church and Ancient Churches of the East
  • An Orthodox Source and Opinion
  • A Book

    I hope that helps. God Love you. - Dominic Cassella, The Catholic Dormitory
u/Bofus_QuestionMark · 1 pointr/bayarea

> I wasn't criticizing your comment.

Oh, no worries, there. I didn't think you were (not that there would be anything wrong with that).

> I can understand that there is a decent amount of frustration around "why can't you just fix it" its just not that simple.

My response to you was more or less to say you're preaching to the choir. I'm an industry professional, too and I agree with what you're saying. I can be blunt so I don't mean to be insulting in my tone, either. I just want to reel this in and focus on the bullshit I am calling out.

It's just not on-point. If anything, I'm more concerned with stupid people reporting inflammatory accusations which are only going to serve as obstacles to people like you and myself. This can throw a wrench in the works, this half-ass reporting.

For anyone, especially in this political era, who hasn't read The Truth Matters, I highly recommend it. All this lying, spin, hearsay, propaganda, calling real journalism fake news, etc. can be dealt with if we call people on their bullshit. It plots simple and effective ways of analyzing such. Which reminds me, I have a copy of On Bullshit I keep meaning to get to.

u/rabidmonkey1 · 1 pointr/Christianity

Alright, let me try to simplify this all. You ready?

The point of everything I've been trying to say is to demonstrate to you that the Epicurean argument is illogical, and completely disregarded in modern times by philosophers. The reason I'm struggling here is because I'm having trouble cutting through your presuppositions, bias, (and the occasional barb). I'm wondering at this point if you have had any formal training in logic or philosophy? If you don't, I encourage you to take a cursory course on the subject. That's not to insult you; that really is to encourage you in this direction.

Please open your mind to what I'm about to say, if for no other reason than we've had 2000+ years to debunk Epicurus, and not just from a theistic standpoint. Keep in mind that the modern philosophical consensus is to completely disregard the Epicurean argument.

I'll try very hard to be succinct.

Epicurus has 3 main assumptions in his argument.

1 - God is all powerful and all knowing.

2 - God is all good.

3 - Evil exists.

It should be noted here that only the popularizers of Atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens... and random internet forums with their Epicurus demotivator) are the ones willing to use the Epicurean argument; not the atheistic philosophers however.

Michael Martin, atheistic philosopher, says that the [Epicurean argument] has "generally been regarded as unsuccessful."

Michael Tooley says, "It seems very doubtful the argument is sound."

Nicholas Everitt says, "It does not form an explicitly contradictory set."

Paul Draper says, "Although logical arguments from evil seemed promising to a number of philosophers in the 1950' and 1960's, they are rejected by the vast majority of contemporary philosophers of religion."

Draper goes on to say elsewhere, "In order for a logical argument from evil to succeed, it is necessary to show that, for some known fact about evil, it is logically impossible for God to have a good moral reason to permit that fact to obtain. This, however, is precisely what most philosophers nowadays believe cannot be shown."

Martin adds,

"A. God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

A. God could prevent evil unless evil was logically necessary.

B. God is all-good.

B
. God would prevent evil unless God had a morally significant reason to allow it.

C. Evil exists.

C. Evil exists only if either God has a morally sufficient reason to allow it or it is logically necessary."

Martin then concludes that, "3
does not conflict with 1 and 2."

Furthermore, "Because of the failure of deductive arguments from evil, atheologians have developed inductive or probabilistic arguments from evil for the nonexistence of God."

Everitt divides Epicurus into 4 propositions.

  1. The world contains evil because the presence of evil is so obvious.
  2. God is omnipotent.
  3. God is omniscient.
  4. God is morally perfect.

    He then says, "Premises 1-4 do not form an explicitly contradictory set; and it would be difficult to find any atheist who thought that they did."

    [I will add here that this is precisely where we're getting stuck. In 2000+ years of this set not working, you are one of the rare ones that insists the set is fine (remember, I haven't cited a single theist yet here). Are you trained in philosophy and logic so that you can back up such a dispute against minds like those I've cited here today? That's not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to expertise. Would you still hold to your contentions after seeing the illogic of the Epicurean statement so plainly on display here today?]

    As such, the philosophical consensus is to disregard Epicurus (which is why I was surprised you brought him up in the first place). It is not unfair to say that the majority of philosophers in the world consider the Epicurean argument a joke.

    Now... I know you (severely) underestimated my intelligence this entire time (even going so far as to insult me once or twice), but I hope you now realize, I was holding back as I tried bring down these topics to a personal level so as to not overwhelm you with pure information and scholarly research. These are leading atheistic philosophers here; I haven't used a single theistic source in my argument today, and they're all saying the Epicurean argument from evil is bunk. You don't have to believe me; but you should at least believe them, if atheism truly is the worldview you choose to accept, and not just another Pharisaical exercise in superiority.

    I'll close with a quote from C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, who gets to the heart of what I've been trying to show you with my past posts (C.S. Lewis was an atheist for years after he fought in the first world war, you'll remember):

    >"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies."

    I'm interested to see how you'll respond to all this.

    EDIT: Fixed typos, numbering.
u/BSMason · 1 pointr/Reformed

My faves:

The Structure of Biblical Authority

Inspiration and Authority of the Bible

And what /u/middleman2308 said.

Edit: Fixed links.

u/2ysCoBra · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

You might be familiar with some of this already, but I'm going to explain it as though you have no familiarity with this subject.

Philosophy of religion explores topics such as the existence of God, concepts of God, religious language, religious belief, miracles, and so on. Philosophyofreligion.info presents a good primer for the subject.

It seems like your primary interest is in the existence of God. Natural theology, although the approach of doing theology without the assistance of special, divine revelation, in philosophical circles is basically synonymous with arguments for the existence of God. Natural atheological arguments, as some have put it (i.e. Plantinga), are arguments for atheism.

Popular arguments for the existence of God would be the various cosmological, teleological, ontological, and axiological arguments. There's almost too many of them to keep track. Popular arguments against the existence of God would be the various kinds of the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, and attacks on the coherence of theism.

"The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" is perhaps the best single resource on arguments for and against the existence of God, although it is highly advanced. "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" is also a very solid resource. "The Existence of God" by Swinburne is classic, as is his "Coherence of Theism." Again, all of those are fairly advanced. Swinburne has a shorter, more popular level version of "The Existence of God" titled "Is There a God?" Stephen Davis also has a similar book titled "God, Reason and Theistic Proofs." If you're going to be reading Oppy and Sobel, I recommend reading their counterparts in any of these books above (barring the "Cambridge Companion to Atheism," of course), that way you have a good balance of perspectives.

With regards to the philosophy of religion a bit more broadly, William Rowe, C. Stephen Evans, and Brian Davies each have solid, brief introduction books. Michael Murray and Eleonore Stump have a more thorough introduction; Louis Pojman and Michael Rea have a great anthology; and William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, and Michael Rea have perhaps the greatest single resource on this subject.

Moreover, William Lane Craig has dozens of debates on topics concerning the existence of God (and other topics) available on YouTube. Here is a fantastic list of his debates with links available in the table. You'll see some popular figures in the list that aren't good philosophers (i.e. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, etc.), but there are quite a few very high caliber philosophers on that list too (i.e. Michael Tooley, Quentin Smith, Peter Millican, Stephen Law, etc.).

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Good luck!

u/nickelro · 1 pointr/DebateAnAtheist

I would also recommend Michael Martin as well.

Impossibility of God

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

u/_robodog_ · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

While I am sure lots of such claims you've been given are rather vulgar, the premise is actually quite familiar and well argued in Michael Polanyi's Science, Faith, and Soceity(1946). He was a physical chemist and philosopher of science at Oxford. I would also recommend his book Personal Knowledge. After reading, you might come to believe that the "New Atheist" view of science is hopelessly naive.

u/borb · 1 pointr/philosophy

Read Freedom Evolves and see whether it has any effect on your view.

u/gypsytoy · 1 pointr/samharris

"Intense specialization"?

Free will, dude? Come on. Preach from your made up ivory towers harder.

>If you're genuinely interested in the topic and want to understand it, here's a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

I have read essays from this book. I am familiar with the topic.

Do you have a rebuttal or just more hand waving and holier-than-thou ramblings?

u/worshipthis · 1 pointr/atheism

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0670031860

pretty sharp minds have thought about this for some time. Dennett is for my money the best shot at squaring the circle so far

u/MilesBeyond250 · 0 pointsr/Christianity

My personal favourite is Pannenberg, but I'm not going to lie to you: It's a dense read, and demands of its reader a fair bit of familiarity with other theologians. That being said, if you can make your way through it, it is very rewarding.


Millard Erickson does a pretty good job of a rigorous theological overview of Reformed evangelicalism.

Grudem is absolute garbage, avoid like the plague.

Stanley Grenz is a pretty good candidate. Like Erickson, he writes from a sort of Reformed evangelical perspective, but he's got much more of an eye for ecumenicism, and tends to have more emphasis on interacting with other traditions. He's actually a big advocate for Pannenberg, and in my reckoning one of the main reasons why Pannenberg has been gaining steam in the Anglo world recently.



I suspect the people who suggest Barth's Church Dogmatics are joking, as reading and understanding the Dogmatics is quite literally a lifelong project. If you feel up to the challenge, then by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, Dogmatics in Outline might be a better option.


So, in summary, I might recommend either Erickson or Grenz, and then once those have whet your appetite, maybe moving on to Barth or Pannenberg

u/classicalecon · 0 pointsr/DebateReligion

See here. In that argument, if PSR is accepted, it's extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion.

As I said, the atheist philosopher of religion Williame Rowe made a similar claim in his book on the cosmological argument.

u/curvasul · 0 pointsr/news

You aren't agnostic about fairies. It's a question of realism.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#Scientific_realism

It's very difficult to hold a position of anti realism. This is a good book:

http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430

You're probably aware of Russell's teapot and Hitchen's razor. However, you probably haven't read The God Delusion, in which case I direct you to chapter 2, the Poverty of Agnosticism.

u/voyaging · 0 pointsr/samharris

Like I said, it's a waste of time to have a debate on an area of intense specialization with someone who doesn't know the foundations or even basic terminology of the field.

If you're genuinely interested in the topic and want to understand it, here's a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X