The best
Religious Philosophy books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Religious Philosophy books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Religious Philosophy books:
The Amazon Canada page for this book has the most snark-tastic review from someone who read all 648 pages of this holy Christian doorstopper and apparently the RANDOM ALL CAPS AND QUESTIONABLE WORD CHOICES are all through the text.
OP could add God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything for a little light reading as well.
She might get the message that a 5th Bible next year is a wasted effort.
- The God Delusion
- God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens
- Why I Am Not a Christian, by Bertrand Russell
Don’t be a moron. There is plenty of proof and rigorous philosophy underlying classical theism and plenty of weak arguments in defense of materialism and naturalism. Catholics aren’t “bible only” Christians either and have no issue with extraterrestrial life, so you only reveal your ignorance here. Like a moron.
Adults also read books that challenge their view. So maybe give that a try instead of being of being a...you know.
The thesis of this book is : Don’t attack specific truth claims. Undermine faith and epistemology to create critical thinkers.
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=nodl_
This is huge even outside of Mormonism and I whole-heartedly agree. As an Atheist myself, I've found that the best argument against any sort of religion is to deconstruct the foundation the whole thing is built on - Faith.
Giving credit where credit is due for this approach - Manual for Creating Atheists
Here is a great book discussing 5 unique proofs for the existence of God. Feel free to read and review it and come back with questions.
If you expect the existence of the Creator of everything to be proved "without a shadow of a doubt, that would convince the entire world population" in a reddit comment, then you either don't understand how proofs work or you severely underestimate the stubbornness of man.
But this is, again, all besides the point of your original question "Do you believe religion is still important in today's world".
I recommend Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide by Edward Feser. I found it very informative while at the same time being easy to understand.
I didn't read the whole thing. But I've glanced through the most insane book Amazon sells. It is largely written in all caps and is called Birth Control is Sinful in the Christian Marriages and also Robbing God of Priesthood Children!!
​
It's sad because the woman clearly needs help. It's funny because look at the reviews. Plus when I just looked at it, it recommended "The big book of lesbian horse stories." for some reason.
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg
I suggest you give this book a read if you want to learn just how wrong you are on all of this religious denialism you're presenting here:
Look up Peter Boghossian ~ A Manual for Creating Atheists Amazon link here. Gives a wonderful insight into how to sow seeds of doubt without causing conflict.
I hear you.
You may find the book Where the Conflict Really Lies by Plantinga pretty interesting. It's written at more of a college level (rather than the popular level) and it's an incredible book by one of the top Philosophers out there. It's a fantastic book.
>Also atheism is a lack of belief. Like I am not a believer in his non-existence, I just generally don't believe
I think a better term, then, is agnostic. Atheism tends to imply the belief that there is no God, whereas agnostic is more of a "not sure" position.
A couple more comments...
>If he will judge me, then he'll judge me for my actions, not whether or not I found the reasons for his existence convincing to me, therefore I try my best to do good regardless.
Sure, but recognize you're operating under the assumption of a works-based salvation. If God uses different metrics to judge you (i.e. doesn't really care about people doing good), then he won't judge you on your actions. Most people tend to think the Christian God doesn't necessarily care about good deeds. So, you're using a somewhat different definition / idea of what God does than me.
>because if I was sinning, I'd stay a sinner anyways
Just like literally everyone else on the planet ;P. Being a Christian doesn't mean you'd stop sinning.
>I am not immoral, because I am atheist, that is simply non-sense
I never suggested atheists are immoral. In fact, I know many atheists that display more compassion, empathy, and respect (moral virtues) than many Christians.
Just another example of how the study of physics was to many scientists a pathway into the Divine. I think you would really enjoy the book I mentioned above by Antony Flew, There is a God
He does address some of the issues related to physics and the mathematics of the universe. I think he also touches on the classical debate about the nature of math that Galileo explored.
No. Just think logically for a moment. According to a strict empricialism, what are the possible reasons that an event may defy the laws of nature?
- We do not understand the laws of nature. In which case, by study and experimentation, we can show that there is a flaw in our understanding of the laws of nature that clarifies the behaviour.
- Artifice. The event is a fake but in which case a reasonable explanation can be found. Further, there should be physical evidence that agrees with this explanation.
For the sake of argument, what if neither of these explains the event? Then the next logical step is to question the premises of the approach. Which ones? Well, the universe might not be intelligible. If it is not, then science does not work because an unintelligible universe implies we cannot understand nature. This is counter to our experience, so it is likely false. That leaves the assumption there is nothing beyond what is natural and testable. What if that assumption is faulty? This would add a third option, the supernatural.
As far as why not Vishnu and why not more than one god, there are good logical reasons for that. But if you do not accept there is a possibility of a god, then it won't do any good to go into them. Fesser has a book that explains it quite logically why there is One God and its the Christian god. https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/
Personally, at the end of the day it comes down to who you say Jesus is. Look into Lewis's trilemma. he was either a liar, insane, or exactly who he said he was. If he was who he said was, the rest follows logically. The problem is the other two options appear highly irrational.
i forgot the link. i am a giddy goose!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/CONTROL-CHRISTIAN-MARRIAGES-PRIESTHOOD-CHILDREN/dp/1425992609
> How is the universe evidence of god?
In many ways. Former Atheist and professor Dr. Feser explains 5 ways here in his book :
https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333
Religion enables otherwise good people to feel good about doing bad things.
Highly recommend
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
as a way to talk with religious people.
A really fantastic advanced book on philosophical arguments for theism is The Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology. Each chapter is written by leading philosophers of religion and it is one of the best overviews around.
I suggest this book, Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian, if you have not already read it. You can listen to a sample on Amazon.
Before you reject it, it is an excellent book about critical thinking (in this case about religion). There is a section about an interaction he has with a Mormon about to go on a mission. It also is about how faith is not a reliable answer for the why or how you claim to know something.
Other resources:
Have you read "A Manual for Creating Atheists"? It's really good and shows a method that is completely different from debate. The author, Peter Boghossian, illustrates why debates don't work with religious people (they don't believe based on evidence, but on faith) and shows how you can instead target the foundation of their belief and assist them in realizing that it is a flawed system for forming beliefs. The method doesn't actually require you to know anything about arguments in order to demonstrate the flaws.
Here is the link to the book on amazon.
And here is a link to a channel of a guy on youtube who puts it into practice. Have a watch of some of them and see if either party comes away frustrated or worked-up.
God can be proven to exist by reason or experience.
There are many reasons. But some of the best articulated and defended can be found here:
https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333
If you buy it, please take your time. These arguments will need to be digested to be understood. Challenge it throughout but think through it honestly. I believe you will find the reality of God inescapable.
As for an experience of God, you will have to enter prayer. In entering prayer you open yourself to God. If you pursue that channel honestly God will call you in the way that will be best for you.
Good luck to you.
> There are multiple core ideas in eastern philosophy that have uncanny similarities of recent findings in various other sciences. The Tao Te Ching for example describes everything we perceive as an "emergent phenomenon" of a higher reality. It starts by making clear that it will use a new, unloaded word for that higher reality (the Tao) and explicitly denies any knowledge about the nature of this higher reality.
As do all of the Gnostics, and most of the Neoplatonists. Ismaili Islam believes this, as do certain forms of Protestantism. I mean hell I can just start listing western religions that believe this, or even just mention Kant, Schopenhauer, Schelling etc etc.
What you are describing is not particular to Eastern Philosophy, and is a kind of naive intro level obsession with the cool strange Eastern Philosophers. This is not to attack your interest but the stuff you are mentioning is not "Eastern" in any coherent sense. We see it even in Aztec Philosophy were all of reality is an expression of the eternal and ever changing Teotl.
> Is there anybody from the philosophical department who is working on this, since Alan Watts?
David Bentley Hart's https://www.amazon.co.uk/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300166842 is probably a good place to look as he is quite informed on the things you are interested in, i.e. Eastern Philosophy, Neuroscience and Philosophy of Mind.
Forgot about this convo until I saw this tab open. Here's a book you might like. I've had decent success with its methods.
I hope that link works, I deleted a lot of what looked like extra crap. The book is called A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian. If you really want to help people find their way out of religion, that's a good place to start.
If you just want to continue being right and feeling smug, by all means carry on. But please understand that you're actively pushing people deeper into their beliefs by treating them poorly.
>There are literally 2000 years of theology about god being an actual being
you literally don't know Christian theology.
https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300166842
David Bentley Hart is kind of a big deal in Christian, he would say you don't know anything about Christian theology.
>From Augustine to the contemporary theologians at the Vatican
Augustine definitely doesn't believe in the super being. And Bishop Barron, of the RCC, recently dismissed that idea of God as modern confusion and heresy.
Beyond yourself, do you have any philosophers or theologians who also believe in the super-being?
I don't think Anthony Flew would agree.
I thought the same thing for a while man but I now genuinely believe differently and this book helped change that: There is a God by Anthony Flew (atheist)
Yep, just as I suspected. The speaker completely failed to explain abiogenesis. For the record, I never argued against evolution. You took my argument about abiogenesis vs intelligent design, and made a completely irrelevant point about evolution.
If there are only two choices (A or B), and we can prove (not A), which choice is left?
Science has proven 'not abiogenesis'.
Read a book.
If you think logical reasoning for God's existence would help, I recommend Edward Feser's Five Proofs for the Existence of God https://smile.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=31M1TCDQA6L9Q&keywords=five+proofs+of+the+existence+of+god&qid=1667952558&sprefix=five+proofs%2Caps%2C224&sr=8-1
God made us to seek him, so this is natural. It may even be a sign God is calling you.
Maybe it's time to spend some time examining the evidence. Why would an intelligent person believe in a God?
I recommend There is ~~No~~ A God by Anthony Flew, a famously atheist philosopher who changed his mind. The book then has a wonderful appendix by NT Wright explaining Christianity.
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and the Blackwell Companion to Atheism and Philosophy are the best reasons for and against religion. Neither airtight, but good to have them collected in 2 books.