Reddit mentions: The best history of religion books

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”

> Fides et Ratio, John Paul II, 1998

A reoccurring motif that runs through JP II's narrative is a position of presuppositionalism that Theistic Religious Faith, including the belief that the God Yahweh exists, is true; and this presupposition is the foundation upon which reason is built - even when reason leads one to consider/accept conclusions that are discrepant with Theistic Religious Faith.

This intrinsic and foundational presuppositionalism is the antithesis of reason; as well as representing a catastrophic failure of reason and reasoning.

As much as it pains me to agree with William Lane Craig, I will have to go with what this Great Christian Apologeticist god (lower case 'G'), who has said regarding Christianity (but is applicable to other Theist belief systems):

"...presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism....It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, 'God exists. Therefore, God exists.' Nor is this said from the standpoint of unbelief. A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything..."

Source: Five Views on Apologetics by Steven B. Cowan, page 232-233

Or we can go with Drs. John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley, and R.C. Sproul ....

“Presuppositionalism burns its evidential bridges behind it and cannot, while remaining Presuppositional, rebuild them. It burns its bridges by refusing evidences on the ground that evidences must be presupposed. “Presupposed evidences” is a contradiction in terms because evidences are supposed to prove the conclusion rather than be proven by it. But if the evidences were vindicated by the presupposition then the presupposition would be the evidence. But that cannot be, because if there is evidence for or in the presupposition, then we have reasons for presupposing, and we are, therefore, no longer presupposing.” (source: Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics)

> I do encourage you all, however, to read this and see how a prominent and intelligent man of very public faith is able to seamlessly link the two [Thestic Religion - specifically Christianity and Catholicism, and yet, always bow to the authority of reason.

A quick search through my bookmarks provides some reading material for you, OP, that undermines the validity of the claim that Theistic Religious Faith and reason can, and has been, seamlessly linked.

• A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 volumes, By Andrew Dickson White
  
• The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension, by Frank M. Turner, Isis, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 356-376
  
• Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, By John Hedley Brooke
  
• History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, by John William Draper
  
• An interesting look at revisionist apologistics: Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction, by Gary B. Ferngren
  
• Persecution of Noted Physicians and Medical Scientists, by Steven I. Hajdu, Ann Clin Lab Sci Summer 2007 vol. 37 no. 3 295-297
  
• An Illusion of Harmony: Science And Religion in Islam, by Taner Edis
  
  Even a cursory examination of the Holy See (and other Christian and other Theistic Religious organizations) and secular reasoning and advancement shows a past and continuing discord between Theistic Religious Faith and reason: which raises the question - if one is to accept the transparent argument from appeal to authority (i.e., "prominent and intelligent man of very public faith"), then if there is actual and on-going conflict between Theistic Religious Faith and reason, why would such a claimed intelligent and otherwise super virtuous man accept Theistic Religious Faith as a foundational and core belief when actual reason shows such Theistic Religious Faith to be, at best, extremely questionable and non-credible?
  
  People, in general and including atheists and theists, have the capability of believing things (not just religion) initially based upon non-smart, non-intelligent, non-reasoned, emotional, false positive attribution, reasons; and then based upon this initial belief, develop smart arguments to defend or protect these beliefs, and to keep believing and defending even when reasonable refutation or contradictions have been demonstrated (cognitive dissonance).
  
  
• Why Do Intelligent, Well-Educated People Still Believe Nonsense?, by Neil Carter, October 9, 2015
  
  While the title is a bit pejorative, the short essay does address some thoughts on why otherwise smart/intelligent people have beliefs that are not always considered smart nor intelligent.
  
  Also, most scientists are not theologians, and yet....
  
  
• The Halo Effect
  
  And then there is the ever-popular argument from ignorance/God of the Gods...
  
  
• How Scientists Can Believe in God
  
  ----
  
  > Atheist counterparts will often say that faith is silly and simply used as a delusion
  
  > https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e4/12/25/e41225b83c807c503797cf89a31704aa.jpg
  
  The image you selected OP does not support the test quoted above. The image does not explicitly, nor implicitly, state that "[Theistic Religious] Faith is silly" and than Theistic Religous Faith is a delusion.
  
  As such, your statement is an example of the logical fallacy of a strawman.
  
  The image text - "It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fails" Sam Harris - refers to the un-supportability and lack of credibility (e.g., very low to low levels of significance/levels of reliability and confidence) that can, in even a best case scenario, be assigned to Theistic Religious Faith through reason and reasoning. That Theistic Religious Faith, though claimed to be a virtue by many Theistics, represents reasoning that does not have credibility better than an appeal to emotion/argument from ignorance/failed and faulty logic arguments/wishful thinking - and yet many Theistic elevate and claim that this lack of credible reasoning represents an objective (or near) fact value (and then go on to hide their own self-serving bigotry and prejudice behind the facade of their Theistic Religious narratives and tenets).
  
  OP, AdGloriamDei, if you are a Theist of some favor, and you disagree that Theistic Religious Faith, belief in some God(s), only has credibility and supportability at the low value of appeal to emotion/argument from ignorance/failed and faulty logic arguments/wishful thinking, I would be most happy to discuss with you - using REASON - your arguments/evidence/knowledge that would elevate the credibility of Theistic Religious Faith above the threshold I presented:
  
  
• Identify the central God(s) (or Deities, Higher Power, Divine thingies, whatever) and present a coherent definition of this God(s)
  
• Make a presentation/listing/description of the attributes of this God(s)
  
• Make a presentation of claimed essential cognitive actualizations/interventions of this God(s)
  
• Make a presentation of the burden of proof, via credible evidence, and/or supportable argument that is free from logical fallacies and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this reality (i.e., both logically and factually true), to a level of significance (or level of reliability and confidence) above some acceptable threshold [Let's use a level of significance above that of a conceptual possibility or an appeal to emotion as a threshold for consideration - even though the consequences of the actualization of God(s), or proof that God(s) does exist, and associated claims, is extraordinary], of the above attributes and claims of this God(s)
  
• Defend your the burden of proof against refutation
  
  Note: For this discussion, the qualitative levels of significance (levels of reliability and confidence), for lowest to highest, are:
  
  
• None
  
• Asymptotically approaches none/zero; conceptual possibility
  
• Appeal to emotion/wishful thinking/Theistic Religious Faith
  
• Low
  
• Medium
  
• High
  
• Extraordinary
  
• Asymptotically approaches certainty
  
• Certainty/Unity

I've been reading a really great book on God and humanity, and how it is that we come to know ourselves, others, our environment, and God through interpersonal relationships. It's called The Face of God, written by the English philosopher Roger Scruton. He's an Anglican Christian, though he doesn't believe in the traditional dogmas of the Church (like the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Trinity), and he re-interprets traditional doctrines like the real presence of the Eucharist to fit a more philosophical perspective (which I completely endorse, but the average orthodox Christian may not).

Anyway, I think he offers some very valuable insights into the nature of God and the human response to God, hinting at ways in which we come to know God through the knowledge of ourselves, others, and the sacredness of life around us. It's not necessarily "personal" in the way the typical Evangelical might define that word, but it certainly is personal in that it supports a view that we must ask God to forgive our transgressions against him and against others, and to realize that we encounter God in the experience of love and beauty.

If you enjoy philosophical reading, I would also encourage you to read David Bentley Hart's book The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, which demonstrates the existence of God who gives the necessary ontological grounds for existence, consciousness, and the transcendental virtues. One reviewer of this book said that it made him realize that God is "the most obvious thing of all."

It was suggested I post here. I have to say it's pretty outside of my location and timeframe. Most of my reading is centered around Buddhism and what I know about India that's not political in nature is mostly centered around Buddhism. Even the concepts I know of Hinduism are usually through a Buddhist lens.

What I do know about the development I also can't provide a source. I studied at the Royal Thimphu College and once sat down with a Bengali professor who explained her own dissertation to me about the development of the Varna system in India, which ended up being a primer on "Brahmanism." (Which then led to a long discussion on the inaccuracy of the term "Hinduism" which was developed post-independence as a response to the development of Pakistan for Muslims, India for Hindus. When I presented the irony that "India" and "Hindu" both stem from the "Indus River" which is currently in Pakistan, Runa, aforementioned professor, winked at me and said "Exactly. Hindus are political, Brahmanists are religious." The logic being that Brahmanists derive religious authority from the Brahmin Varna, just as Christians derive religious authority from Christ, and Muslims from submission to God.)

Anyway, I'll just point out some of the books that have helped me in understanding this complex religion and maybe you can go on with your search from there.

Originally I was interested in Wendy Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History but found out it was full of selective information and skewed perspectives. I was more interested in a general history of India and fell upon John Keay's India: A History which he describes as "A historiography of India as well as a history." And he does go over developments of Brahmanism threaded with the rise and fall of conquerors through the region.

My introduction to Brahmanism (though he DOES refer to it as Hinduism) was Huston Smith's The World's Religions which doesn't go over the history as much of any of the religions, but is a nice starting point, especially when comparing say Buddhism with Brahmanism, which most people regularly do. It's also a good outliner for the different Brahmanist traditions (or at least the major trends in Brahmanism).

Finally, probably the most accurate to your original question though it has a broader focus and a point to make, Karen Armstrong's *The Great Transformation remains one of my favorite books on the Axial Age in which she covers the religious shifts that occurred more or less simultaneously in Greece, the Levant, India, and China. Of interest to you would be the Vedic response to the growth of Buddhism and Jainism, the development of the Mahabharata, and the changing understandings of the Vedas and Upanishads. It's a pretty great book, and Karen Armstrong can of course lead you further down the path of Indian religious history.

Hope that helps at all.

Personal research, mostly. I'm a big history nerd with a slant toward religion and other macabre subject matter. I'm actually not as well read as I'd like to be on these subjects, and I basically blend different sources into a knowledge smoothie and pour it out onto a page and see what works for me and what doesn't.

I'll list a few books I've read that I enjoyed. There are certainly more here and there, but these are the "big ones" I was citing when writing all the comments in this thread. I typically know more about Christianity than the other major faiths because of the culture around me.

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years - Diarmaid MacCulloch

A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Karen Armstrong

The next two balance each other out quite well. Hardline anti-theism contrasted with "You know, maybe we can make this work".

The Case for God - Karen Armstrong

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins



Lately, I have been reading the Stoics, which like Buddhism, I find to be one of the more personally palatable philosophies of mind I have come across, although I find rational contemplation a bit more accessible to my Westernized nature.

Stoic Philosophy of Seneca: Essays and Letters - Translated by Moses Hadas

Discourses and Selected Writings (of Epictetus) - Translated by Robert Dobbin

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius - Translated by George Long

I'm still waiting on Fed Ex to deliver this one:

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy - William B. Irvine

Also, if you're into history in general, a nice primer for what sorts of things to dive into when poking around history is this fun series on YouTube. I usually watch a video then spend a while reading more in depth about whatever subject is covered that week in order to fill the gaps. Plus, John and Hank are super awesome. The writing is superb and I think, most importantly, he presents an overall argument for why studying history is so important because of its relevance to current events.

Crash Course: World History - John Green

>Would you mind if you suggested a list of books I may read to get a different perceptive on Islam?

I can certainly try. I was a voracious reader as a teenager, but much of what I read went over my head. For example, Huck Finn is an entirely different read at 25 than at 14. Still, you are most certainly smarter than I was as a teenager :). Here's a few things that ought to help. Of course, take it all with a grain of salt and, as always, you are not obligated to agree with everything. Nuance is a subtle, lost art these days.

I'd first start with Huston Smith's Islam: A Concise Introduction. It's basically the chapter on Islam from his seminal classic, The World's Religion. Also, he felt compelled to publish it separately after 9/11. Smith is easily one of the foremost scholars of religion for the last 100 or so years. While deceptively small, this book provides a generous overview of Islam devoid of partisanship and doctrinal quibbles. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the book. I certainly was.

Another small book that allowed me to begin exploring the vital role women played and continue to play in Islam is Amina Wadud's Quran and Woman. Do I agree with all that Wadud says? No, but that is not the point when we explore. The aim is discover, not to find corroboration to previously held ideas - that is the vital imperative to learning and to growth.

Another quite controversial and sometimes acerbic site that has many important things to say about Islam and what so many of us have sometimes falsely construed to be Islam is the following site: https://asharisassemble.com/ Certainly posting it here all but insures downvotes followed by some flaming. I think you will find reasonable answers to many of your questions that will also reaffirm your faith in Islam. Again though, none of us have to agree with all that is being said, it's about pursuing knowledge and exploring.

>“Go in quest of knowledge even unto China.” - Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

>“One learned man is harder on the devil than a thousand ignorant worshippers.” - Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Again, start small. You have your whole life ahead of you to explore and grow. There are headier books available and in time you may find those more palatable and to your liking as you grow. Salaams :).

>humans just made this up and chose what to include and what not to include.

Humans made what up?

1. the bible? The bible is literally a library with different forms of writing. You can't read a myth as if it's history or a poem as if it's an account of scientific explanation - you especially can't read Genesis 1 like that because the scientific method didn't exist yet. I will (and did in my previous post) agree that they "chose what to include and what not to include". But, it's not as if they just randomly chose certain texts. They chose what they believed resembled their situation accurately and truthfully. It wasn't one person's history, rather it's the history of a people - first the Jews then the (orthodox) Christians.
   
   
2. religion? Experiences of "the Divine" exist, as such. Whether or not you believe in the Divine doesn't neglect the fact that religious experiences exist. Religions, broadly and generally speaking, are that which house a "lens" to interpret those experiences: the "why" and "meaning" of such things. Why did this happen? (Not how! science can and should attempt to answer that) Is there a meaning to this? The experiences of the given followers also influence the given religion. It's a mutual circle.
   
   >why would a being so powerful choose such a misunderstood way to communicate if his goal was to save us?
   
   This question is making some assumptions:
   
   
3. God is a being.
   
4. God has a goal for humanity.
   
5. This goal is "saving us".
   
   Number 1 is false to any classical monotheist. Here's a blogpost I wrote about the "nature" of God and evil. Here's a reddit comment I wrote which also touches this. I only link these because I don't have the time to figure out how to write it out again in my currently allotted time (work soon). However, I will suggest two books for you that are better written and that heavily influence(d) my thoughts: God Without Being: Hors-Texte, Second Edition (Religion and Postmodernism) 2nd Edition by Jean-Luc Marion. He is a French Philosopher. The second book is The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart. He is an American Eastern Orthodox Theologian. The second of the two books will be a little bit easier to understand as it's written for a wide audience.
   
   Number 2 could be false, but I personally think it's true. So, I'm going to assume this with you.
   
   Number 3 is wrong in the sense of the goal being to save us from eternal damnation. Read my comment (or blogpost) to get a better understanding. Long story short, to quote St. Athanasius: "God became man so that man might become God".
   
   But, to answer your question: Humans live and participate in different contexts. Whether it be historical, societal or even religious contexts. That is burden of our "imperfect" nature. Based on that alone, we will of course misunderstand things. I can say more, but I'm running out of time.
   
   >my point was that if we open up the floor to interpretation...just everyone making up their idea of what is right.
   
   Interpretations aren't just made up. To interpret properly is to situate and figure the given materials in their proper contexts and stories. This happens from science to art. I suggest reading up on Hermeneutics. I could suggest a couples books (sorry, I'm just bad at explaining things in a quick easy-to-digest way. Especially when it comes to topics our minds literally can't comprehend). New Testament People God V1: Christian Origins And The Question Of God by NT Wright which sets up what he calls a "critical realism" approach to scripture. Phenomenologies of Scripture, which is a collection of articles detailing how to approach the bible and related topics as they "give themselves". I'm currently reading both. The first is a more historical-critical and literary approach to the bible and the second is more a philosophical approach. Both really good so far.
   
   >but I suppose in that case I reject both your idea of God and the existence of God.
   
   You cannot deny "the existence" of God because that's an absurd statement. God is not a thing or even "highest power" that exists in some "realm" called "the supernatural". If that were the case, "Existence", as such, would be ontologically prior to "God" which doesn't make sense. The Divine/God/Brahman/whatever is that which provides "Existence" to "exist". God does not exist. Once again, I highly suggest reading my blogpost (I don't have ads or anything so I won't get paid) because it's better articulated. Better yet, read the book I mentioned by David Bentley Hart. I can send you (I think) a PDF if you want. I've provided a short reading and long reading. If you want a video instead, I can probably find one!
   
   Sorry about all the books I recommend. Reddit is not a place I can expound on philosophical ideas, especially when we both have different working assumptions that we need to clear. That's why I'm focusing on challenging your viewpoints on certain things because we just fundamentally disagree. We can't discuss/debate things without first agreeing on something.
   
   Also, I've enjoyed engaging with you. You seem open-minded enough and that's a good thing. So, thanks.

The difficulty here is that it isn't always clear whether or not the religious explanation ever stood in the place of more pragmatic explanations. To understand what I mean, it's best to look to some competent history of religion and compare it to competent history of science for the same periods. In [The Forge and the Crucible][1], for example, Mircea Eliade looks at the roots of alchemical belief in the origins of metallurgy. He argues -- and I don't see anyway around the logic of his argument -- that a practical understanding of the processes of metallurgy had to have pre-dated their religious interpretation. That is to say, we had to have a practical understanding of the way in which metallurgy worked before it could be significant enough to society to make it an attractive motif for religious interpretation.

The same goes for something like agriculture, and with it astronomy and weather. If you compare what the know of hunter-gatherer cultures with agricultural societies, the religion of the former has markedly fewer references to weather and practically no use for astronomy. The reason is that meteorology and astronomy aren't particularly useful disciplines when you're living mostly off of game. They become much more important once you're practically invested in agriculture, which is why we see the development of astronomy (and later on, astrology) in agricultural societies like those of the Babylonians and Egyptians. The thing about both societies is that they leaned to treat the heavens as regular and consistent processes before they overlaid that knowledge with a layer of religious symbolism. As [Jane Sellers][2] has shown, the Egyptians had long known how to chart the future course of the stars, predict eclipses of the sun, and so forth.

It's unlikely that these cultures developed the religious associations first, stumbling into correct practical knowledge of material phenomenon by sheer luck. Which leads to the general principle that at least some etiological myth develops, literally, after the fact.

That notion is anathema to the argument that a lot of critics of religion would like to bring to bear. They see religion as an attempt to explain the material world, but the historical view deflates that a bit. If nothing else, it's hard to see what etiological myth would add to an already sophisticated understanding of the phenomenon it apparently seeks to explain, particularly if the explanation is raises more questions than it answers. And that's problematic for the science-v.-etiology line of argument, since the underlying premise of that line of attack is that, if religion is an attempt to explain the natural world, providing a better means of explanation will make religion obsolete. But if, as the work of historians like Sellers and Eliade suggests, religion isn't an attempt to explain the natural world, then the the difference between science and religion isn't just one of improved methodology. And, in fact, etiological myths give us much more information about the gods they purport to describe than they do about the phenomenon that presumably explain.

With regard to your request, what I'm getting at is that science may not ultimately have broken down the attribution of certain phenomenon to religion. Ancient farmers likely viewed the heavens in roughly mechanistic terms before they built that knowledge into astrological practice. Ancient metallurgists were using sophisticated techniques to make charcoal and smelt iron before they developed the symbols by which alchemists hoped to turn lead into gold. The advance of scientific knowledge is a stunning and wonderful thing, but if history is any indication, modern day advances are as likely to furnish the symbols of tomorrow's religions as they are to discredit the myths of yesterday.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Forge-Crucible-Origins-Structure-Alchemy/dp/0226203905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253042808&sr=8-1
[2]: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Gods-Ancient-Egypt/dp/1430317906/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253043496&sr=1-1-spell

To be honest, if you're interested in learning about the Baha'i Faith in broad terms, the best way to begin would be with an introductory book. The classic of this genre is Esslemont's Baha'u'llah and the New Era; other good books include those by Smith, Momen, and Bowers (this last one is targeted specifically to a Christian audience).

Of the books you mentioned, The Hidden Words is probably the most accessible (and shortest!), and it's usually what I recommend to people who are interested in the Baha'i Faith. However, it's not always useful to look at the Baha'i Faith through the same lens as we may look at, say, Christianity or Islam, as having one or two "Holy books" that are central to all understanding. The Baha'i Faith is blessed with having many pieces of writing from the central figures of the Faith, and it's not possible to gain a full picture of the religion just by reading the four texts you mentioned.

Edit to add: The other excellent way to learn about the Baha'i Faith, which I heartily recommend, is to meet with some Baha'is from your area and talk with them. There are (relatively) a lot of Baha'is in Ontario (although I don't know where you are specifically), and there are usually ways to go about contacting them via the web.

>He is not just some guy who write crazy books, or makes a name for himself for talking off cuff on television.

Actually that is exactly how he made the name for himself, mocking believers on television and in his books - which were specifically directed as a punch to believers, I mean the title itself "The God Delusion" speaks volumes about that man's real motives.

I never claimed to be a scientist (my husband does have a BA in physics though and he is a Christian same as myself, he used to be a staunch atheist like you). However what I learned from my research (before I even became a Chrisrtian) is that science is not as clear cut as you try to make it out to be and I have read books by PhD's in various fields of science who actually got saved during their studies because of that realization.

If you aren't scared to read one of those books please do read this one - Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. It's written by this man Alister McGrath who has a PHd in molecular biophysics from Oxford University. His book is a brilliant critique of Dawkin's ideas as well as the statement you just wrote here. And I think by your own standards he is definitely qualified to speak on this matter, he does have a PhD in biology, not just an MA in engineering like Chuck Missler.

As for the last few sentances in your post - you know before I got saved I also thought I had it all figured out, and thought I was so clever and superior to those stupid Christians, now I look back at some of the things I used to say and really do wonder how such a person could have been me.

Like I said before I am not a scientist and I do not pretend to be one, however I have learned enough about science to realize that absolutely nothing in it can definitively exclude the possibility of God, only militant atheistic scientists such as Dawkings come to that conclusion. And the only reason for that conclusion are narcissism and pride, because if there is a God you are accountable to Him for your actions in this life and that makes a lot of people who love themselves above everything else very uncomfortable.

I do some street evangelism, and one of the main reasons people who do not believe in God close themselves to it is because they just want to be their own god in life (their words not mine). Many people we talk to "sorta believe in God" aren't interested to go any further for the same reasons.

I have seen how God works in my own life and in the lives of my brothers and sisters in Christ plenty of times. When I look at the prophetic verses in the Bible which talk about our times and I see it all line up like a puzzle that is being put together I tremble. So even if I decided to become a biologist and put all of my efforts into study, it still would in no way cause me to lose my faith.

Before I became a Christian so many things in the world did not make sense to me I was very lost and confused, I feared many things. God opened my eyes, He made me His child, Jesus says in the Bible:

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

At the end of the day you can either open yourself up to the possiblity that there is a God, and He is a personal God who seeks a relationship with you, or you can choose to turn away from Him, the choice is always yours there is nothing I, or anyone else, can say to change that. But I know that God is working even on your heart.

Thank you for not swearing, and I'll pray for you (and no I do not mean this in any deragatory sense).

Thanks for sharing your perspective. It seems to me—and I may be way off the mark—that you still believe in God and the Christian values of the the Mormon faith, but not in the institution of the Mormon church.

Question: have you investigated other Christian churches outside of the Mormon tradition? I know that for many on this sub, losing their belief in Mormonism has been accompanied by a loss of belief in Christianity or religion in general, but many others find a home in a new faith community. I am currently one of those people.

One thing that I learned as a product of my questioning my faith was that I didn't really understand non-Mormon Christianity very well at all. That is, what I thought I understood about Christianity was really more of a caricature of Christianity I had been given through my Mormon upbringing, and not really an accurate representation. As I started to research religion more broadly, I discovered that Christianity is actually far more diverse than I had supposed. Through my upbringing and bias-colored experiences, I had come to think of all of Christianity as a sort of Bible-belt, evangelical, born-again, fundamentalism, that in many ways is actually not that dissimilar to Mormonism in practice, despite significant differences in theology. However, I discovered that—primarily in the "mainline" Christian denominations—there is also a rich tradition of Christianity that remarkably different from what I had experienced or presupposed.

Anyway, the short version: it seems like you might still identify as non-evangelical Christian, but just not Mormon. That might be me projecting, but if not, you might consider looking into some of the mainline Christian faiths and seeing if you like it. And maybe you wont, but at least you'll know. If you are interested, I highly recommend reading Marcus Borg's The Heart of Christianity, which is a light and conversational read on 'progressive Christianity', or Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, which is a much more detailed treatise on religion throughout history but ultimately covers some of the same ideas.

Well, what questions do you have? Are you looking for holy books, general information, etc? I would be happy to help with anything you may need. I personally started with the book Baha'u'llah and the new era. It is not a holy book/text, but it covers the basics of every aspect of the faith in plain language.

Here is the book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Bahaullah-New-Era-Introduction-Bahai/dp/1931847274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417447332&sr=8-1&keywords=baha%27u%27llah+and+the+new+era


And here is a link to a website that contains a free ebook version, as well as many other free ebooks:
http://www.bahaiebooks.org/ebooks-by-title

Good luck in your search, and let me know if you have any questions! I was a Christian once myself, and was aided in my search on this subreddit, and by meeting with Baha'is in my area. There are plenty of knowledgeable people here who I'm sure will be as willing to assist you as they were to assist me! :)

The Kitab-I-Aqdas means The Most Holy Book, but I don't think it's fair to equate it with being the Baha'i Bible or Qur'an. It is one of literally hundreds of books and tablets which comprise the Writings of Baha'u'llah, the Prophet-Founder of the Baha'i Faith, all of which are sacred, all of which are equivalent in importance to the Bible for Christians/Qur'an for Muslims. It's also not the best reading for someone completely new to the Faith, as it is speaking to a Baha'i audience who is asking for laws, some of which might not be understood out of context.

On top of that, the Baha'i Faith has the Writings of the Bab (the Prophet-Founder of the Bab'i Faith, Predecessor to the Baha'i Faith) and 'Abdu'l-Baha (son of Baha'u'llah, authorized interpreter of the Writings of Baha'u'llah) which are given nearly equivalent weight. That brings the total volume of sacred Writings of the Baha'is to several orders of magnitude greater than that of most any other world religion. It can be difficult to know where to start, and overwhelming when someone heaps book after book after book upon you. We're not even getting into Shoghi Effendi or the Universal House of Justice yet.

God Speaks Again by Kenneth Bowers is a great starting point for someone who knows nothing.

Baha'u'llah and the New Era by J.E.Esslemont was the starting point for decades before this.

The Hidden Words by Baha'u'llah is my choice for a first read of the Holy Writings.

The Kitab-I-Iqan/Book of Certitude by Baha'u'llah is much heavier reading, but is the core of Baha'i Theology, if you want to dive into the deep end.

Thief in the Night by William Sears is my starting point for people who are intimately familiar with Christianity and the Bible.

My advice is to start with only one book, then move to others. Have fun!

Edited for grammar

A good place to start I think is reading Shamanic Voices by anthropoligist Joan Halifax. It isn't a how-to guide or anything, but gives intimate accounts of Shamanic practices throughout the world. It includes records of rituals performed by Maria Sabina that you may find especially interesting.

After that, I'd recommend Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy by reliigious history professor Mircea Eliade. Its a bit thick but is very thorough in its treatment of Shamanic practices through the millennia and around the world, including descriptions of numerous techniques used for entering trance states, cosmologies, symbolism, initiations, and powers claimed by Shamans. This is an academic work, however and won't give you step by step instructions (if that is what you are looking for).

If you are looking for something a bit lighter, Supernatural by Graham Hancock is an interesting read. In it he looks at parallels between drug-induced experiences, Shamanism, fairies, and reports of extraterrestrials. If I had known that last part before I read it I probably would have skipped this book but he actually made some very interesting points that I think makes the book worth reading. Also, he relies heavily on Joan Halifax's book as a source and spends a decent amount of time discussing Maria Sabina and psilocybin usage.

The beginner how-to department is an area I'm less versed in but I've heard good things about this book and its companion. Personally I'd generally recommend getting oneself intimately familiar with current and past Shamanic practices through the academic works on the subject and then creating a personalized system - though commercial how-to guides can certainly provide some practical hints and inspiration.

[The Case for God] (http://www.amazon.com/Case-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0307389804) by Karen Armstrong. It never mentions Mormonism, so it is unlikely your wife will feel like you are trying to persuade her away from it. In addition the author's goal is to promote faith in God. She goes through the development of religion from an anthropological method and covers a lot of different religions and theological view points. She does a very good job of explaining the different belief systems and why they are valuable. And this is the important part. She makes different views and ways of thinking important and valuable. One example is that her explanation of the Trinity doctrine made me actually feel okay with someone believing that version of deity. The book helped me understand how it is we ended up with extremist views like fundamentalist Christians and how my own views and atheism fit into that puzzle. I think it could be a great way to help her become comfortable with thinking outside the Mormon box and about looking at religion critically in general.

Before I get to my main point, I would just like to briefly comment upon this short phrase,

>another case of philosophy failing to keep up with modern science

which demonstrates a patent lack of understanding of what philosophy and science are, and what distinguishes them, as disciplines. Science's domain is the empirical -- it is concerned with physical stuff, with things that can be physically (and usually quantitatively) observed, measured, and examined. Philosophy is concerned with metaphysics, that is, with non-empirical reflection, and for that reason can never really 'keep up' with science. You cannot derive from empirical foundations the principles of moral behaviour, nor what constitutes a 'just' political system, nor whether there is an immaterial God. There is no 'keeping up' between philosophy and science. They deal with fundamentally different subject matter.

To the main point: Arguments to the effect of modern science (in any field, not just cosmology) definitively disproving the existence of God are short-sighted. Even recent developments in the field of cosmology are insufficient to demonstrate the non-necessity of a God, for the reason that they do not broach the fundamental question of why anything at all exists. The classical theist, drawing upon Aristotle, would consider the notion of a godless universe as patently bizarre. Any universe is necessarily 'contingent' in philosophical terms, which means that there is a distinction between what it could be (its potentiality) and what it is at any given moment (its actuality). Since any universe (or any set of pre-universe laws or constants) is necessarily contingent, subject to either change or the mere theoretical possibility of existing in some other way, its existence is not necessary as such.

The theist would then say that, to explain all contingent realities, we must posit some ultimate non-contingent reality in which no distinction exists between potentiality and actuality. In other words, all contingent, non-necessary reality must derive from some necessary reality, which cannot be any particular universe nor any pre-universe state of contingent laws. In theological language, this necessary entity which is fully actual (the 'I AM who am' of the Jewish tradition) is termed 'God.'

Edit: To quote from the great David Bentley Hart,

>Hawking’s dismissal of God as an otiose explanatory hypothesis, for instance, is a splendid example of a false conclusion drawn from a confused question. He clearly thinks that talk of God’s creation of the universe concerns some event that occurred at some particular point in the past, prosecuted by some being who appears to occupy the shadowy juncture between a larger quantum landscape and the specific conditions of our current cosmic order; by “God,” that is to say, he means only a demiurge, coming after the law of gravity but before the present universe, whose job was to nail together all the boards and firmly mortar all the bricks of our current cosmic edifice. So Hawking naturally concludes that such a being would be unnecessary if there were some prior set of laws — just out there, so to speak, happily floating along on the wave-functions of the quantum vacuum — that would permit the spontaneous generation of any and all universes. It never crosses his mind that the question of creation might concern the very possibility of existence as such, not only of this universe but of all the laws and physical conditions that produced it, or that the concept of God might concern a reality not temporally prior to this or that world, but logically and necessarily prior to all worlds, all physical laws, all quantum events, and even all possibilities of laws and events. From the perspective of classical metaphysics, Hawking misses the whole point of talk of creation: God would be just as necessary even if all that existed were a collection of physical laws and quantum states, from which no ordered universe had ever arisen; for neither those laws nor those states could exist of themselves. But — and here is the crucial issue — those who argue for the existence of God principally from some feature or other of apparent cosmic design are guilty of the same conceptual confusion; they make a claim like Hawking’s seem solvent, or at least relevant, because they themselves have not advanced beyond the demiurgic picture of God. By giving the name “God” to whatever as yet unknown agent or property or quality might account for this or that particular appearance of design, they have produced a picture of God that it is conceivable the sciences could some day genuinely make obsolete, because it really is a kind of rival explanation to the explanations the sciences seek. This has never been true of the God described in the great traditional metaphysical systems. The true philosophical question of God has always been posed at a far simpler but far more primordial and comprehensive level; it concerns existence as such: the logical possibility of the universe, not its mere physical probability. God, properly conceived, is not a force or cause within nature, and certainly not a kind of supreme natural explanation.

from The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss (https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300166842)

I'd like to put out a counterpoint to a lot of the comments about "finding holes in the books" etc. You don't need to convince her that there is no God, Bible is mythology, etc. You don't want to come off as attacking her beliefs or from a side of negativity. You need to convince her that you're an adult, a good person, and that you've found another "belief system" that fits better for you and deserves her respect. You want to approach her as Carl Sagan, not Richard Dawkins.

I would highly encourage you to read Karen Armstrong (A History of God, or The Case for God). They're both not only fascinating books on the evolution of religion in general, but they show a non-theistic side of religion/spirituality within Christianity. She'll likely feel more comfortable with your lack of belief in a literal personal God if you approach from an angle of something WITHIN Christian theology. Another good view of this is When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy, which describes the positive side of atheism and science. Maybe give her one of these books rather than The God Delusion--it's something she's more likely to read.

Ultimately, most religious people having their own different religious beliefs than they are with people rejecting their beliefs. Present atheism as something positive, inspiring, and fulfilling for you.

I was a Catholic. I had issues with certain parts of the faith that I didn't think too much about since I didn't really have a way to answer them, such as reconciling the idea of the trinity with monotheism.

I've studied the church's stance on it but it doesn't FEEL like the two beliefs are compatible and it never has. The explanations I was given and that I thought of myself always seemed a bit unsatisfactory like technicalities. That and the idea that I had to accept the teaching of a church whose members consist of fallible people. How do I accept creeds and beliefs laid down by other people throughout history hundreds and thousands of years after Jesus lived? It was, in fact, the vow of obedience to the church that dissuaded me early on from contemplating joining the clergy.

The last reticent doubt I had was about the authenticity of the bible, having studied a bit about the Documentary Hypothesis and the different authors of the bible. It became a bit hard for me to believe it could be very factually accurate or (more importantly) have spiritual authority for me to base my beliefs on. Different people throughout hundreds of years wrote different documents and I'm supposed to follow this specially compiled group of them as an authoritative fact? It would require me to accept the authority of the people who wrote them, and the people who edited them, and the people who compiled them, the authors and the church. So I ended up not reading too much of the bible after a point.

When I learned about Islam (completely by happy accident, I enjoy studying world religions anyways and realized reading through the Islam wiki I had no idea what this huge religion was about or how it originated, etc) I found that I agreed with Islam's teachings about Jesus as prophet. And then the Qur'an (in Islam) does not present the same difficulties as the bible does in Christianity IF you believe in the prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ. That came to me upon reading the Qur'an and reading a short biography about the prophet's life and the origin of Islam source

If you'd like to talk more about this please feel free to PM me :)

Maybe he is (like many) afraid of the consequences of choosing to challenge and/or walk away from the cult. JW's are really good at shunning friends and family members and most people can't deal with losing everyone and everything they have ever known.

Using the internet is not against the rules and he might think that he can convert Atheists by talking to them and debating them. He also probably thinks that doing this makes "Jehovah" happy.

Try to sneak this or better yet, valid points from it, into conversation. I wouldn't be very blatant about it, but if you're digging in, then that book is a GREAT place to dig. Be careful though, because he is trained to adamantly reject "apostate" (aka any former member who says JW's are NOT the one true religion) material. The author of that book was shunned as an apostate and is/was loathed by any JW who knows of him. THAT is how you know it's such a good book! ;-)

All in all, the JW cult is full of A++ mind control...you're friend is probably a victim.

It's a basic reversal of classical theism. The ironic thing is that modernity gave birth to a fundamentalist literal reading of the bible that hardly existed before (enter the demiurge, or what new atheists like to call the sky daddy or whatever). Modern fundamentalist literalists read Genesis as literal. Literal six day creation. Literal Adam and Eve, literal worldwide flood with a literal ark with literally two of all the animals. Early Christians almost exclusively read these stories as allegory intended to communicate spiritual truths.

 

Classical theism (crudely explained by me, not a philosopher but a reader of such) believes not that God is part of nature, but that nature is part of god. That all being, everything that is or will be proceeds from one infinite god. God encompasses everything and is the uncaused cause of everything. This is also a picture of God in Hinduism, and in Zoroastrianism, and much of Judaism, and there are writings to this effect in classical Islamic philosophy as well. As I said, I explain it crudely but if you want arguments made by an actual living classical theist and philosopher (who covers the question of how to define God from the different angles of all those religions) I can make some book recommendations. Warning though, he has some pretty harsh things to say about naturalism and materialism. But all of his attacks are rooted in actual logic (though he does get a bit personal at times with some of the new atheists because hey, they're not exactly nice to those they criticize). I always hesitate to recommend his books though because the arguments are difficult to follow if you're unfamiliar with certain sophisticated metaphysical disciplines it can be difficult to follow his work as some familiarity with such is assumed. But I mean if you're reading Spinoza those probably won't be a problem. The guy I am talking about definitely doesn't believe in an anthropomorphic god and pretty harshly ridicules the concept. Check him out.

 

His name is David Bentley Hart. He's an eastern orthodox Christian so I know many will be biased against him from the start. But he's at least an entertaining read and he is one of the top scholars of religion (not just Christianity) out there right now. Yale recently commissioned a translation of the New Testament from him. But yeah, he also deeply studies many eastern religions in addition to Christianity and has a deep respect for them. He's not just looking confirm his beliefs. He's not looking to convince people. He has openly said he doubts and questions his beliefs constantly. He's also a Christian universalist. He's an interesting guy to read if this stuff piques your interest.

https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-David-Bentley-Hart-ebook/dp/B00E64EH0K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494054794&sr=8-1&keywords=the+experience+of+god+david+bentley+hart

And if you continue to believe that moderate Christians somehow magically transmogrify into fundies you'll still be missing the point.

I'm going to try to be as clear as I can. It seems as though you imagine religious belief as a sort of spectrum with "atheist" on one end and "fundamentalist" on the other. This is inaccurate and does not hold up to scrutiny. You could do worse than an intro Sociology text that deals with patterns of religious behavior. Even something older, like Mauss' General Theory of Magic.

Fundamentalism is not the opposite of atheism. You can want it to be that way, but wanting something to be true does not make it so. The opposite of atheism is probably something like negative theology. Interestingly, this topic is also taken up in Armstrong's book.

Fundamentalism and atheism actually live right next to each other on our imaginary "spectrum of belief." Fundamentalists believe in a silly sort of God - a sort of imminent being summoned forth to help self-sooth a frightened child. Anyone could invent this kind of thing. It's a totem, and idol. And it is as easily debunked and dismissed when exposed to even the most basic, sophomoric scrutiny. (i.e. Why doesn't God heal amputees? If God is male, what do his sexual organs look like? Why does God hate figs? and on and on.)
Incidentally, this is why I personally believe so many of these new sorts of courageous anti-theist crusaders come from lunatic fundamentalist families. They were weened on sugary pabulum and silly, idolatrous presentations of the Holy and it is easily dismissed and subject to ridicule. Those who don't make it out spend a lot of calories defending some really indefensible stuff.

For what its worth - I am not a religious "moderate." My heart is saturated with religious awe, speculation, a healthy measure of terror and trembling, and a constant gasping awareness of the cosmic, Holy Other. I rather suspect that I am several orders of magnitude more religious than even the most devout fundamentalist. So be careful who you are calling a "moderate." I think the fundamentalists are actually, in reality, mostly atheists in their hearts. Idolators at least - but more likely atheists.

Additions:

Lives of other Prophets Series

• [Video] Lives of the Prophets - Series of 31 lectures by Sheikh Shady on the lives of the Prophets from Adam (AS) to Isa (AS).
  
  
• [Video] Stories Of The Prophets - Series of 30 lectures by Mufti Menk on the lives and stories of the Prophets from Adam (AS) to Isa (AS).
  
  End times, Death, Hereafter
  
  
• [Video] Death and the Hereafter - Series of 10 or so lectures by Sheikh Shady on what happens during and after death. Also, the minor and major signs that would occur until the end of times.
  
  
• [Video] Signs of Day of Judgement - Series of multiple lectures on the signs of the day of judgement by Sh. Yaser Birjas.
  
  Seerah (Life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)
  
  
• [Video] Seerah - Series of 47 lectures on the signs of the life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by Sheikh Shady.
  
  Understand the Quran
  
  
• [Video] Story Night - How Allah(swt) wrote/directed the Quran with analogies to popular works of flim and stories. Another way of looking at it is that why does it seem the Quran is out of order sometimes? Noman Ali Kahn mainly talks about the story of Musa (AS) and how ayats pertaining to his story are written.
  
  
• [Book] The Qur'an by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem - Translation of the Quran with modern English vernacular.
  
  
• [Book] Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells - There's a chapter that goes in depth about how the pre-Islamic Arabs previved the concept of love and the female beloved character layla and what Islam changed about this concept.
  
  
• [Book] No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam by Reza Aslan -- Covers lots of topics, excellent writing overall.
  
  
• [Audio] Fahm al-Qur'an - Tafseer of the entire Quran in very simple English. The commentary is by a female scholar, Amina Elahi so it's a good tafseer for gatherings with a lot sisters but obviously anyone can listen. Best way to make the most of this tafseer and others like it is to have a translated copy of the Quran in front of you and some highlighters, sticky notes and a dedicated notebook and just scribble away as you listen. BTW, if you have a Muslim friend(s) who is/are interested in Islam and you don't have access to a teacher or w/e, have a listening party/gathering with these lectures once a week. Since each lecture is 2 hrs long, in 30 weeks, you will have finished the tafseer of the entire Quran and you have a notebook filled with notes and a translated Quran that is now colorful and filled with notes.

Here are some videos and books that you might find beneficial:

• [Video] The DeenShow - a talk show that introduces many of the basic teachings of Islam and addresses common misconceptions. Their website here.
  
  
• [Video] The Purpose of Life - Khalid Yasin, gives a comprehensive lecture on the fundamental question that every human being must ask: "What is the purpose of life?"
  
  
  
• [Video] Foundations of Islam -Hamza Yusuf, discusses Quran compilation & preservation, articles of faith, ihsan, and the signs of the Last Day.
  
  
• [Video] Understanding Islam Video Series - Abdal Hakim Murad, discusses the Qur'anic view of Christianity & Jesus, historical Muslim tolerance of Jews, free will vs. determinism, the problem of evil, etc.
  
  
• [Web] Quran - The Noble Quran in various translations.
  
  
• [Book] Quran - Abdel Haleem, if you're looking for the Quran in book form, this one is written in clear and extremely simple English that makes it easy and pleasurable to read.
  
  
  
• [Book] Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources - Martin Lings, very detailed and thorough biography based on the earliest sources. Recommended by many, (but relies on a few unauthentic sources).
  
  
  
• [Book] The Quran: With or Against the Bible - Ejaz Naqvi, systematically analyzes and compares the similarities in the paths of guidance the two scriptures have bestowed upon mankind.
  
  
• [Book] Understanding Islam: A Guide for the Judaeo-Christian Reader - Jerald Dirks, holds Master's degree in Divinity from Harvard University, offers a timely correct alternative to understanding Islam.
  
  
• [Book] The Road to Mecca - Muhammad Asad tells of his initial rejection of all institutional religions, his entree into Taoism, his fascinating travels as a diplomat, and finally his embrace of Islam.
  

You're right to ask how we know God exists and that Christianity is true. Contrary to what many believe, "having faith" does not mean believing in something for which there is no evidence, and Christianity hasn't survived for nearly two thousand years just because nobody ever thought to question it. You shouldn't envy anyone for their ability to shove these questions aside; their faith is founded on sand.

I think the best way to start forming an answer to questions like these is to find out how others have answered them in the past. So I suggest that you read a textbook like An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.

A recent book with a heavy focus on the kind of wonder you describe at the existence of the world is The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss by David Bentley Hart. It has a great bibliography for further reading.

Ok, first off I'm not trolling nor am I a theist dumb dumb but here me out.

I'd argue that Atheism IS a form of religion and is in fact the next logical progression after Christianity.

I recently read an interesting book that got me thinking about this, The Evolution of God (http://www.amazon.ca/Evolution-God-Robert-Wright/dp/0316734918). The author talks about the progress from caveman religions all the way up to the modern day Christianity. In each religious iteration there is a reordering of the deities, a streamlining of the gods if you will. First we started out with many many gods that each control there respected domains and each time the major religions simplify these down. From multiple pagan gods to the set of gods worshiped in the roman/greek times to the set of god/angles/saints of the catholic religion to modern religions that just believe in a single divine god down to atheism that have cut out a single god all together.

However reason I would say the atheism is still a religion is that many of the beliefs from Christianity are still present but there is a lack of a single point of worship (unless you count Dawkins for some). Atheists still have the need to congregate together and to share there belief system and even try to convert others to their belief (for example putting atheist signs on buses, sticks in bibles at book stores, even arguing with your teacher when they bring up atheism is a religion, etc).

This is just something I've been pondering for the last while and its not intended to piss anyone off, what do you guys think?

Whoa. There is a lot here.

1. I was experiencing panic attacks. I tried various ways of dealing with it, but as it turned out, I think I just needed something constant in mylife reminding me that its not all about me... if that makes sense.
   
   
2. I don't really understand what you mean by not believing in souls, you have no spiritual needs. Spirituality to me is just human, from superstitions (e.g. fortune cookies, beards for the playoffs) to full on shamanism. For me, its not about magic or souls or anything like that. Its about having a structure and mechanism, for tapping into that spiritual side.
   
   
3. Yes. I read this book. I also have some exposure to Buddhism, albeit 15 years ago.
   
   
4. Well nothing in particular. Laziness I suppose. I am convinced that most "spiritual" people who don't attend church don't because they like having Sunday mornings to themselves.
   
   There is a lot of chest-beating on the part of the religious right; nobody misses an opportunity to feel superior (kind of like r/atheism here). I'm sure that would turn a lot of people off. For the most part, however, I think that real thoughtfulness is just not incentivized in modern American society. So people just don't consider church important, even if they call themselves religious. And I fell into that category. I just fell into an egocentric mode.

This seems like a word salad of assertions without any actual derivation from first principles. A first principles faith would be Thomism and it's already extensively mapped out with all sorts of variations. Maybe look into analytic Thomism? Physics, the multiverse, etc. would have to be first derived from metaphysical principles which aren't established here. I don't know what the first principles of the article are. It seems more like an aesthetic than a coherent set of beliefs.

You're trying to untangle what can and cant be coherently said about God. Sophisticated theology mapped out all these linguistic issues thousands of years ago, and in the analytic tradition continues to get more and more precise statements. It engages with the multiverse, the probabilistic logic of good/evil, what does and doesn't fit in a word game, all of that. You're unnecessarily reinventing the wheel here. I personally think analytic thomism is misguided and you're better served by a classical picture. But it is a whole field that seems to share your interests and made lots of rigorous logical progress.

I think it's because people run from their old faith, they don't want to understand it. When I look back I'm sure I wasn't really a believer at no point, I simply did what my parents wanted me to (going to church etc) and made the best of it, I had a lot of fun being a ministrant, found a lot of friends blahblah. But I never really believed those things. So I never even had to start asking my faith. Then we had religious courses at high school, and the teachers taught us mostly christianity, the other religions were only shortly mentioned and treated like potentionally dangerous cults. That was a rebelious time in my life, so I started to look into different religions and ask the teachers questions. Needless to say, I wasn't very popular with our religious teachers. But it was growth, as you put it.

The most objective sources I would recommend you are not Hitchens or Dawkins, those are biased. Try to look up books on comparative religion. I'd highly recommend the four volume History of Religious Ideas by Mircea Eliade, or Masks of God by Joseph Campbell. And you might want to read a history of the Catholic Church, it's always good to know one's history.

If you are honestly interested in this, I highly recommend reading The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. This book reviews much of what historians know about how the modern idea of the christian god came to be. It regularly compares what the bible says to what historians think really happened in history. It is a great read and is written in a way that probably wont offend a christian who appreciates good scholarly work.

Well, I was a Jehovah's Witness until I was 24.

If you're serious about trying to get to them, the book that finally woke me up was Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. It's about evolution but since he's a nominal Catholic (and also head of Biology at Brown University) it isn't at all antagonistic toward religion (though it is insanely badass in shooting down all of the intelligent design arguments).

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

That's only going to work if the person's faith is evidence-driven. As the old adage goes, you can't reason someone out of an idea that they didn't come to through reason.

This one's good for witnesses, too: http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

First of all, can I just say how much I love giving and receiving book recommendations? I was a religious studies major in college (and was even a T.A. in the World Religions class) so, this is right up my alley. So, I'm just going to take a seat in front of my book cases...

General:

1. A History of God by Karen Armstrong
   
   
2. The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong
   
   
3. Myths: gods, heroes, and saviors by Leonard Biallas (highly recommended)
   
   
4. Natural History of Religion by David Hume
   
   
5. Beyond Tolerance by Gustav Niebuhr
   
   
6. Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel (very highly recommended, completely shaped my view on pluralism and interfaith dialogue)
   
   
7. The Evolution of God by Robert Wright
   
   Christianity:
   
   
8. Tales of the End by David L. Barr
   
   
9. The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan
   
   
10. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan
    
    
11. The Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan
    
    
12. Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton Mack
    
    
13. Jesus in America by Richard Wightman Fox
    
    
14. The Five Gospels by Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (highly recommended)
    
    
15. Remedial Christianity by Paul Alan Laughlin
    
    Judaism:
    
    
16. The Jewish Mystical Tradition by Ben Zion Bokser
    
    
17. Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman
    
    Islam:
    
    
18. Muhammad by Karen Armstrong
    
    
19. No God but God by Reza Aslan
    
    
20. Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells
    
    Buddhism:
    
    
21. Buddha by Karen Armstrong
    
    
22. Entering the Stream ed. Samuel Bercholz & Sherab Chodzin Kohn
    
    
23. The Life of Milarepa translated by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa
    
    
24. Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism by John Powers
    
    
25. Zen Flesh, Zen Bones compiled by Paul Reps (a classic in Western approached to Buddhism)
    
    
26. Buddhist Thought by Paul Williams (if you're at all interested in Buddhist doctrine and philosophy, you would be doing yourself a disservice by not reading this book)
    
    Taoism:
    
    
27. The Essential Chuang Tzu trans. by Sam Hamill & J.P. Seaton
    
    Atheism:
    
    
28. Atheism by Julian Baggini
    
    
29. The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud
    
    
30. Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht
    
    
31. When Atheism Becomes Religion by Chris Hedges
    
    
32. Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

Yes, Muslims don't worship Christ, but they do recognize him as a prophet- though not as great as the prophet Mohammed. Similarly, Christians recognize Abraham, Isaac, Moses (and many others) as prophets even though they were Jews and are also considered prophets by Jews.

If you want to go by the almighty Wikipedia, check out this handy chart.

Also, some more reputable sources: here, here, here

While I don't believe in any religion, I do think it's interesting to learn about their origins and tenets. If you're interested in reading a very well-written book on the subject, I quite enjoyed Reza Aslan's No god but God

> Evolution is not a fact

WRONG.

> it's a highly supported theory

Yes. It is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

From the article;

> A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

As for this...

> It hasn't been tested, it can't be.

Yes it has. Many times. You'll find explanations of several tests in The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins or Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A Coyne.

> Besides, Genesis was written by Moses

No it wasn't.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344627342&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0099273675/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344627361&sr=1-1

Both of these books go into various depth on the authors of Genesis (which was actually written by two different people then mashed together later, hence the two different creation accounts in the text). Moses didn't write anything because he never actually existed. The Exodus never happened - there were never any Jewish slaves in Egypt.

For a brief overview of who wrote Genesis see the Wiki article here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Composition

>A claim whose veracity can never be tested or verified. Got it.

Do you only believe in what is scientifically verifiable?

>if it occurs, can be measured,

What? how would you measure it? is there some god-o-meter i don't know about?? I mean most theist will say that god instigated the universe which makes the laws of physics essentially the action of god if done with intention. But say, look at a miracle, how can you test it using science which is methodologically naturalist when supernatural miracles are by their nature non-repeatable phenomena. The second science can test or replicate a miracle it is no longer a miracle the question is malformed.

>Which of the thousands, millions or billions of definitions of god are we talking about?

The core claim of all monotheistic traditions today which also lies at the heart of many other traditions: this is of a necessary premise, common to all classical theistic philosophies. That is god as the source and ground and end of all reality. The immaterial transcendent reality of which all things are contingent upon. This can describe Brhama,the Sihk god the Abrahamic gods, it applies to various Mahayana formulations of the Buddha consciousness or nature or even earlier the conception of the unconditioned, or to certain aspects of the tao.

For a more thorough explanation go to David Bentley Hart's work The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss
https://www.amazon.com/The-Experience-God-Being-Consciousness/dp/0300166842

This, essential belief that all major religious traditions have some premonition of is what I'm concerning.

>What if it was actually an alien? You'd just be fooling yourself into believing something that you wanted to believe, not believing what actually is.

Thats kinda my point... science cannot prove or disprove god, there will never be a way to be certain even if he walked up to you and said hello

The existence of god is and always will be an a priori claim, now you can dispute all a priori knowledge but that is a different question for another time. The fact of the matter is that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, it is a category error (at least regarding the vast majority of major world religions)

for an overview of what it presents, go here. Video version. Basically the concept of Yaheweh evolved over about 6 centuries out of the old caananite pantheon, which included el, ashera (el's lover) and baal. Due to a combination of xeonphobia (thanks to being invaded over and over) and political unrest, certain prophets were given sounding boxes more than others, while other prophets were silenced.

Editors and redactors then went in and changed certain historical details or laws present in the torah and history books (see my previous post on Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2), king Josiah 'discovered' the book of deuteronomy (read: wrote a new set of more-totalitarian laws to unite the kingdom), and created stories and myths that made it seem like Israel's biggest problem was always turning to false gods, away from Yahweh (who merged personalities with El), the war god.

another good read that is the archaeological parallel to the karen armstrong book is "The Bible Unearthed" by Finklestein. It points out the archaeological findings of the transformation from polytheism, to monolateralism (belief in multiple gods but showing preference to one), to monotheism. It also points out the fact that there is no credible evidence for a large portion of the 'history' in the bible, such as the exodus, the wandering in the desert, the mass genocides; "Israel" was a people group that was already there, and just gained a new national identify thanks to very creative myth-weavers.

Finally, I'm currently reading "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright (a journalist) who pulls together and condenses a lot of this information into one. He's an expert at literature surveying and information condensing.

Well, you're trying to believe in the god of your times. Go back, way back, to even primitive hunter-gatherer societies, and start tracing the evolution of god from that point.

You'll have a better appreciation for what god has been to different people over the years, and you won't be so bound to the particular flavor of god you were indoctrinated with. You may end up deriving a different belief in god, or no belief at all.

I recommend these books:

• Jeffery Lang (3) books: Struggling to Surrender, Even Angels Ask and Losing My Religion.
  
  
• Jonathan Brown Hadith- Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World
  
  
• Muhammad Asad The Road to Mecca
  
  
• Tariq Ramadan In the Footsteps of the Prophet
  
  
• Karen Armstrong (2) books: Islam: A Short History
  and Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time
  
  
• Martin Lings Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources
  
  
• John L. Esposito Who Speaks For Islam?
  
  
• Nathan Lean The Islamophobia Industry
  
  
• Malcolm X The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm X, Ossie Davis (Afterword), Alex Haley (As Told to)
  
  
• Sherman Jackson Islam and the Blackamerican: Looking Toward the Third Resurrection
  
  
• Dr. Ejaz Naqvi The Quran: with or Against the Bible?
  
  
• Hamza Yusuf Purification of the Heart
  
  
• Imam Zaid Shakir's translation, commentary and notes on Imam al-Harith al-Muhasibi's Risala al-Mustarshidin Treatise For The Seekers Of Guidance
  
  
• Al-Nawawi Nawawi Forty Hadiths
  
  Side note on Quran translation:
  
  Stay away from
  
  
• The Penguin Koran (The Koran -Penguin Classics- by Anonymous and N. J. Dawood). Its been written by non-Muslim who also changed the order of the Suras. In fact, Dawood's translation might as well been written by Robert Spencer!
  
  Try:
  
  
• The Gracious Quran: A Modern-Phrased Interpretation in English
  
  
• Mona Siddiqui How to Read The Qur'an
  
  
• Bayyinah Podcast for a comprehensive tafseer with Nouman Ali Khan (The iTunes Podcast URL)
  
  
• Muhammad Asad The Message of The Quran
  
  
• Muhammad Abdel Haleem Understanding the Qur'an: Themes and Style
  
  Misc:
  
  
• Terry Alford Prince among Slaves: The True Story of an African Prince Sold Into Slavery in the American South
  
  
• Omar Ibn Said A Muslim American Slave
  
  
• João José Reis Slave Rebellion in Brazil: The Muslim Uprising of 1835 in Bahia
  
  
• Ahmad Dallal Islam, Science, and the Challenge of History
  
  
• Use this link to download Misc resources.
  
  
• Use this link to download copy of Quran translation by Muhammad Asad on on scribd.
  
  
• Use this link to download copy of Quran translation by MAS Abdul Haleem OXFORD WORLD’S CLASSICS
  
  
• Use this link to download copy of Quran translation by Saheeh International (PDF)
  
  
• The Purpose of Life - Jeffrey Lang
  
  Movie:
  
  
• Journey to Mecca

The unfortunately-titled book, Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart, is a pretty direct refutation of some of the New Atheist tropes.

For a somewhat more difficult read, his latest book, The Experience of God, takes on some of the more metaphysical misunderstandings that New Atheists (and many theists) make about what God actually is.

For a much easier and shorter summary, in a sense, of The Experience of God, take a look at DBH's article in First Things, God, Gods, and Fairies which covers similar ground in a much more introductory way (and has the benefit of being freely available).

Those guys are horrible at history. I would recommend going to /r/badhistory for rebuttals, in the meantime I found some books that I think can really help out debunking this myth.

Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction

Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology

Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion

When Science and Christianity Meet

The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450

The Savior of Science

For the Glory of God

The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science

The History of Science from Augustine to Galileo

Yes this is a long list but that's because it's studied so often ;). I hope this helps.

Bahá’u’lláh And the New Era by J. E. Esslemont is the standard introduction to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States. It has been updated several times since it’s first publication in the 1920s.

The Bahá’í Faith: A Guide for the Perplexed by Robert H. Stockman is a 21st century introduction to the Faith that is slightly scholarly.

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh by Bahá'u'lláh, it isn't available right now on Amazon, but here is a link to a PDF you can download for free.

Tim Keller has some good advice about approaching new atheists in general.

You might try some things by Alister McGrath, on Dawkins views in general or specifically on the Dawkins Delusion. There's several links here, and the correspondence with Mike Poole takes on some of the more aggressive claims down the bottom of the page. William Lane Craig makes points on who designed the designer. In fact he has quite a few videos like that which can at least be a starting point.

But really the best defence against Dawkins is simply to get to know the facts. Get a book or two on the historic relationship between science and Christianity. Get to know about Christianity and what historic Christians have actually said, and it will be harder for people to present you with strawmen. Get to know what you think first, and then you know what to defend.

I just read Graham Schweig translation and I thought it was amazing. He kept it as literal as possible (especially in terms of word order) but still managed to make it clear and poetic.

Bhagavad Gita

He's coming from the Vaisnava tradition, a disciple of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami and with a Harvard degree in Sanskrit and Indian Studies.

For me, the essential verse, summing it all up as it were is 18.65. Check it out for yourself :)

A History of God by Karen Armstrong would be a great start. It is pretty comprehensive/thorough and not hugely biased.

I can't stress to you enough. However you can get Raymond Franz's book Crisis of Conscience you can find it here http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

heck I'll but it for you if you can't purchase online. It is a must read for anyone like you who need help seeing things more clearly.

Buy this book and read it fast, it's on the JW history of ridiculousness. None of them probably know their own church's history.

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

> Franz does not detail doctrinal problems with the Watchtower. Franz most likely holds to many of his old Watchtower doctrines. The Watchtower does have doctrinal problems when compared with the beliefs commonly held by the Church throughout Christian history. In fact the Watchtower is in my opinion just another apocalyptic group founded in the mid-late 1800s. However, Franz is not concerned with issues like the Trinity or Christ's divinity. He is more concerned with what makes a group truly a cult, which is control by the leaders over its members. Franz details this marvelously, and explains how the Watchtower even monitored its members bedroom activities. He speaks of disfellowshippings where families were encouraged to "shun" other members who had been kicked out of the Watchtower, effectively ruining the lives of thousands people. Franz also documents and explains failed prophecy, which caused many trusting members of the "truth" to sell homes, postpone college, and other goals in order to be ready for the end. The entire book is a calm and sober, yet highly personal, account of Franz's life deep within the Watchtower and his eventual exit.

John Espositio has written several books about Islam. He is a staunch Catholic. Islam: The Straight Path is really good.

I Karen Armstrong has written some books as well that I've heard are good, but I haven't read them myself.

No God but God by Reza Aslan is good too, but it has some controversial things regarding the beginnings of Islam.

> I suppose what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is: How to best address what I feel is the completely baseless claim that Islam is inherently violent (I often point to a wider context of colonialism and oppression as an explanation), and also how Islam and Buddhism can benefit each other.

A great place to start is Huston Smith's seemingly innocuous little book entitled Islam: A Concise Introduction. It quickly dispels the notions of Islam as 'inherently violent' without being mired in some doctrinal labyrinth. It's taken from his chapter on Islam in his monumental work 'The World's Religions.' He published it as a separate book following 9/11. His credentials speak for themselves. As a side, I had the honor of meeting him not long ago at LMU when he received the university's Bridge Builder award.

Misinformation and ignorance fan the flames of Islamophobia more than anything else. Put another way, imagine what the world's perspective of Buddhism would be during WWII if there was as much access to (mis)information as there is today. Similar rhetoric used by the likes of ISIS was present in Japan. Take this quote from a Zen monk exhorting the virtues of Japanese imperialism during WWII:

"If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]." - From Zen At War

I hope that helps a little :).

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-God-Robert-Wright/dp/0316734918

From the Stone Age to the Information Age, Robert Wright unveils an astonishing discovery: there is a hidden pattern that the great monotheistic faiths have followed as they have evolved. Through the prisms of archaeology, theology, and evolutionary psychology, Wright's findings overturn basic assumptions about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and are sure to cause controversy.

Yeah there's four books all together.

I also highly recommend this and also this which is more encyclopedic and hence terse, but still a very excellent read.

What is your background and what are you trying to learn?

The most essential spiritual teachings are enshrined in the beautiful little book called The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah.

If you want an introduction to the history, teachings, and community, Baha'u'llah and the New Era is a wonderful book:

https://www.amazon.com/Bahaullah-New-Era-Introduction-Bahai/dp/1931847274

Literally 30 seconds on Amazon (Subject: History, Keywords: Religion) gives a ton of good-looking books:

Of course! Comparitive Religions for Dummies

Huston Smith is a fairly famous writer in this area: The Illustrated World's Religions

Nat Geo should be neutral: National Geographic Concise History of World Religions

By the author of the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, World Religions: The Great Faiths Explored & Explained

I highly recommend this book for you:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Experience-God-Being-Consciousness/dp/0300166842

In it's way it's a philosophical defense of the idea of God or the Divine in response to Dawkins et al. The author is Orthodox, but the argument in defense of God is undertaken philosophically, without being tied to any one faith or denomination.

Subsistent being: God is the experience of being itself. Rather than being an object within reality God is reality itself. See: https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300166842

2+2=4 is also necessarily true. It cannot be any other way than the way in which it is. Is the fact that that is axiomatically true an example of "circular logic"?

I encourage you to read Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz. Franz is the nephew of Frederick Franz, and was a member of the Governing Body from 1971 - 1980. He was disfellowshipped and declared an apostate when, while leading chronology research for the Aid to Bible Understanding encyclopedia, his findings led him to question key teachings of church.

Again, this was Ray Franz, from a family of JWs, who rose about as high as you could possibly rise in the church, and who'd devoted over forty years in the service of the church. The GB ran Franz out on a rail for asking simple and logical questions that, per them, should have been ludicrously easy for them to answer.

I can get you a copy of the book. I'll send you a PM.

I enjoyed Muhammad: The messenger of God by Betty Kelen as an introduction and preview for what is to come, and then No God But God by Reza Aslan.

These books are entertaining and touch on several issues without too much study.

If you become serious and want to learn more, go ahead and read Tafheem Ul-Qur'an by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi.

GBH said all that stuff about why we don't use the cross. This is a much better answer from lds.org guide to the scriptures:

"The wooden structure upon which Jesus Christ was crucified (Mark 15:20–26). Many in the world now think of it as a symbol of Christ’s crucifixion and atoning sacrifice; however, the Lord has established his own symbols for his crucifixion and sacrifice—the bread and the water of the sacrament (Matt. 26:26–28; D&C 20:40, 75–79)."
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/cross?lang=eng&letter=c

Also, to add to your comment about Catholics, Banishing the Cross by Michael G. Reed discusses the episode in Utah history where the Catholic church and the LDS church were butting heads. According to him, that is why we don't use the cross. Interesting book, though.

http://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

EDIT: /u/jdovew mentioned the same book. Should have read the thread... haha

Amazon is a good start. This book is Mircea Eliade could be a title and if you like visuals, buy Alchemy & Mysticism, 576 pages with color images and some explanation. From there on, try to see what it is that interests you.

For those interested:

• The Little Prince
  
• Eating Animals
  
• The Hero With A Thousand Faces
  
• The Illustrated World's Religions
  
• Jihad vs. McWorld
  
• Collapse
  
• Just And Unjust Wars
  
• Descent Into Chaos
  
• The Landmark Thucydides
  
• A People's History of the United States

> Subsistent being: God is the experience of being itself. Rather than being an object within reality God is reality itself. See: https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300166842

Violates the law of non contradiction. If god is reality then why do we have two separate labels for those concepts? I’ll tell you why, because they are different concepts. If god is nature then you’re basically a pantheist.

> 2+2=4 is also necessarily true. It cannot be any other way than the way in which it is. Is the fact that that is axiomatically true an example of "circular logic"?

No because mathematical proofs don’t assume the conclusion in the proof. Whereas unproven claims about a god being do.

Read "The Case for God", by Karen Armstrong. She talks about this sort of thing from quite a different point of view. I think the book forms a good foundation that might help you see things from Peterson's point of view. Interestingly enough, she also has quite a lot to say about Newton and Darwin and how they relate to religion.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0307389804

I should warn you, it's densely packed and will require your full attention throughout.

History of Religious Ideas (3 Vols)- Mircea Elidae Link

Treasures of Darkness - Thorkild Jacobsen Link

Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia - Jean Bottero Link (damn I got this for $20 a few months back, great book though)

Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study - Ian Hodder & VA Link

Egypt Before the Pharaohs - Michael Hoffman Link

History of religious ideas by Mirca Eliade. The book is structured around several ideas by the author that are both catchy and outdated, but still skimming through all three volumes is the best way to put things into perspective.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-God-Robert-Wright/dp/0316734918

The book I linked explores that possibility. Some of the things the author goes into is how Yahweh started as simply one god in a large pantheon, and then the Jews started to worship him more than the other gods (the other gods still being recognized and significant) until the Jews turned to monotheism. Fascinating book.

Faith and reason are not opposed to one another. For a Catholic perspective, read John Paul II's Fides et Ratio. One of the ways that rationality helped me move from being a Nietzschean atheist to being a Catholic is the philosophical incoherence of materialism. I would recommend a recently-published book by the Orthodox Philosopher/Theologian David Bentley Hart titled, The Experience of God, which has one of the best arguments against materialism as a philosophy I've ever seen.

I'm reading a book called The Case for God that claims religion was largely understood in mythical terms when stories like that were written. That is to say, nobody thought they were supposed to be taken literally. Instead, they would understand religious stories to carry a higher truth in the form of imagery and symbolism that could be understood on a deeper level, like a piece of art.

Just a thought.

David Bentley Hart is unparalleled in terms of knowledge, wit, imagination, eloquence, and is perhaps the greatest living Christian thinker today.

He just put out a translation of the New Testament through Yale University Press which is incredible.

His newest book is called The Experience of God and it is mind-boggling.

Atheist Delusions absolutely eviscerates pop atheism.

His theological magum opus, The Beauty of the Infinite has been called the greatest work of theology so far this century.

The Doors of the Sea is required reading for anyone who struggles with the issue of evil.

His work is sublime.

Yahweh was once one of many gods within the Hebrew pantheon, which included gods like Asherah and Ba'al. At some point, the relevant books of Old Testament went through a period of editing by Yahwists who were intent on cementing their particular god's supremacy. Yahweh absorbed some of the other gods in the bible, which explains why he seems to have multiple conflicting personalities at times, and explains why he was jealous. The first commandment is a good example of this jealousy.

Karen Armstrong's book A history of God is a really interesting read, for those interested. You can find a decent video/animation summary of parts of the book here.

http://www.amazon.com/god-but-God-Updated-Edition/dp/0812982444

I thought this book was quite good at explaining the different schisms in Islam in the different countries throughout the middle east. Wahhabism, radical islam, etc. Not really the why, so much as the what, but it makes it a little more clear about how ISIS came about.

For JWs:

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

For other Christians:

http://www.kwdaniels.com/wib/WhyIBelieved.htm

Just awesome books:

http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0307265773

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469

Because no one has said it yet, The Evolution of God by Robert Wright (http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-God-Robert-Wright/dp/0316734918) is a great book that covers this topic thoroughly.

I am an active latter-day saint, and I wear a cross. I have a cross that I made on the wall of my home, as well. I started when I received one on my mission in Russia, and I have continued to wear one because of what it means to me. If you want to read some of the history of crosses and the church, check out this book by an LDS grad student. I've read it and discussed the central theory with a BYU professor; the research seems sound, too, and fits with the other things I've read in the historical periods discussed.

Moreover, the cross is a symbol. Read some scriptures about what it means. Think about what it might mean to you. If you don't want to wear it don't. But there is nothing taught in Mormonism that says you should not wear one, just the remains of some anti-Catholicism and some garbled thinking. It is not the symbol of the Mormon faith, but it is a symbol of Christ.

I'll try to give an unbiased view:

1. Yes, before and after, as you can see here. The most famous of which is Simon bar Kochba, though he was slightly after Jesus. It is also the mainstream historical view that Jesus did not claim to be Messiah (though there are some that disagree).
   The main thing about Jesus is that, even though he was executed, his followers (mostly Peter and Mary, and Paul later) had visions of him. This allowed it to be continued after his death.
   Another major thing is that Christians (especially through Paul) reached out to Gentiles. Paul said that Gentiles did not need to conform to any Jewish law to be Christian. This made it much easier for others to convert, and in just a few hundred years, we see tons and tons of Gentile Christian writers.
   
   
2. Christianity was known in the time, though it was a type different that what was in the west (though both types are equally old). The makeup of Arabia varied. There were Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Arabs. Arabs worshiped lesser divinities (that is, not the supreme God), or they were monotheistic hanifs. There were also non-Arab polytheists.
   As far as I know, Muhammad's early community was made up of mostly Arabs, and no Jews. Though he did view Jews as People of the Book (Jews were given 3 of the 4 major books in Islam: Moses, David, and Jesus). It's hard to explain why an individual Jew would convert to Islam, as religion is tied up with politics and culture. But Muhammad's early community didn't have any Jews in it (I think).
   
   
3. As far as I know, Muhammad didn't claim to be the Messiah. In Islam, Jesus is still the Messiah. The difference is that he is not God. As for Jews and Jesus, you can read some reasons here. The Gospel writers had their own view of the prophecies. They seemed to make the story of Jesus fit into the prophecies, even if those prophecies are based on a bad translation, or even if those prophecies aren't even talking about the Messiah. There are unfulfilled prophecies. Modern Christians say they will be fulfilled when Jesus returns. This is not in the Tanakh, and Jews don't seem to believe in the Second Coming.
   The reason Jews generally don't think the Messiah went unknown is because the prophecies have some extravagant claims (as you can see in the link). The whole world will have knowledge of Yahweh and worship him.
   
   For question 1, you can read more in the book How Jesus Became God. For question 2, you can read more in the book No god but God.

Lately, when people are aiming at a definition of God, I ask them if they've read David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

Eliade e omul care a adus shamanismul si ezoterismul estic in cercul filozofilor occidentali. Este puternic subestimat omul asta, ce-a facut, ce-a scris si chiar profunzimea micilor povestiri.

Asta am auzit ca-i deosebit de interesanta: http://www.amazon.com/Shamanism-Archaic-Techniques-Ecstasy-Bollingen/dp/0691119422

Any standard work on the subject, whether literary or archeological, would point away from the basic framework of your interpretation. (The best evidence, of course, is always the Bible, properly interpreted in its context, itself).

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195167686/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_TbmWBbGQ5HYF1


The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (The Biblical Resource Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/080283972X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_9dmWBbD268FCN

Stories from Ancient Canaan, Second Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0664232426/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_BemWBb5ADVYJF

The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures https://www.amazon.com/dp/019060865X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_5fmWBb77Z4SP3

The Oxford Handbook of the Abrahamic Religions (Oxford Handbooks) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198783019/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_KgmWBb7AE7EC5

History of Religious Ideas, Volume 1: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226204014/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ahmWBb97P6K64

Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide (Harvard University Press Reference Library) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674015177/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_.hmWBbFMA52Z7

None of these propose an exact duplicate of this simplistic model, but they triangulate to something very similar.

I've seen variants of the story with the "man" replaced by "angel", for some reason. To be exact, it was here.

Same book (which is otherwise wonderfully written, refreshingly non-judgmental and such) also says Buddha's teaching was devoid of the supernatural and traditions, even though reading other parts of the book carefully already contradict this.

Egypt was a powerful neighbor of the Israelites, so loan words would be expected. I don't know the scholarship of the historicity of Moses, only that the scholarship of the Israelites indicates they evolved in place, just as their religion evolved from polytheism through monolatry to monotheism. The Evolution of God by [Robert Wright](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wright_(journalist).

You can try Mircea Eliade - History Of Religions.

If you want to read about Judaism and Kabbalah I recommend you to check the resources from /r/kabbalah.

I highly recommend reading Banishing the Cross, a book about changing attitudes toward the cross in the LDS Church.

He already did in his best selling book, 'No god but God'.

http://www.amazon.com/god-but-God-Updated-Edition/dp/0812982444/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1375146697&sr=8-3&keywords=Reza+Aslan

History of Religious Ideas, Vol 1, Vol 2 and Vol 3. by Mircea Eliade A comprehensive comparison and history of different religions, religious ideas and ways in which myths work. Was a real eye-opener

_

LE - Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by Michel Onfray

The cross/crucifix was only officially repudiated by the church in the 1950s under David O. McKay, though there was grassroots opposition to it starting around the turn of the 20th century.

It was seen as a primarily Catholic symbol, apparently. There's a book about it that I haven't read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1934901350/

Bruce R. McConkie went perhaps the furthest and called it a mark of the beast, or something like that.

I recommend you get the used paperback of this - you can get it for $6 shipped. Or you can get ones w/o illustrations for $4 shipped. Or you can probably find it at your library.

https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Worlds-Religions-Wisdom-Traditions/dp/0060674407

How about "The Experience of God" by David Bentley Hart?

Most shamanic cultures believe that the shaman has the power to fly into the upper world and converse with spirits there. Siberian shamanism has been dated back as early as 30,000 years, certainly much longer than the Icarus myth.

Source

I'm a big fan of Reza Aslan's book.

Oh Morb - I was trying to give you something interesting to think about and debate, not ideas that are already fully formed. It was ideas from my head, not an article that I had read, but I didn't want to say it all myself and leave nothing for anyone else to say...

Anyway - seeing as you asked so nicely:

Here is a history of religion:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Of-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0099273675

and here is an article for you to read:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/is-religion-man-made/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

There is plenty more out there if you want it?

What's up dude.

www.amazon.com/dp/1934901350/

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww yeah.

Im just now starting to read Mercia Eliade, Idk if this book covers types of shamanism. (I’m highly certain it will) I just bought this book yesterday.

Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691119422?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share

There is a book on this very topic. OldManEyeBrow posted the link but gave no additional information so I have no shame in reposting it with a little more elaboration on how it is relevant.

Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo.

Also, [BYU religion professor Alonzo Gaskill wrote a book review about it](
https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=9274&linkURL=52.4GaskillBanishing-18d7a555-db97-4acf-90ac-10c1e3e79c5d.pdf
) tl;dr: "Well reasoned," "well supported," "light read," "interesting and engaging."

Work you way through this series: https://www.amazon.com/History-Religious-Ideas-Eleusinian-Mysteries/dp/0226204014

Give Michael Harner a try, followed by Mircea Eliade.

Watch a William Lane Craig debate and read "The Experience of God" by David Bentley Hart.

The cross only became taboo in Mormonism under David O. McKay. It was an anti-Catholic gesture in response to Catholic's efforts to proselytize in SLC and other anti-Catholic sentiments.

Read Banishing the Cross: Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo https://www.amazon.com/dp/1934901350/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_JSKzzbH8KQ8TC

And then there's a book on the same subject:

Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo.
https://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

David Bentley Hart's, The Experience of God.

Here is the mobile version of your link

• 1. Modern Man in Search of A Soul – Carl Jung
     
• 2. Maps Of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief – Jordan B. Peterson
     
• 3. A History of Religious Ideas (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 3) – Mircea Eliade

The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart.

Probably. The Mormon aversion to the cross did not stem from the founders but started in the early 20th century. It became institutionalized in the 1950's under David McKay. Here is a book that explores this. I have not read the book so I do not know how good it is

And Amazon of course for a dead tree version:

https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675230/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

I know they made him take it out in Mormon Doctrine.

Banishing the Cross talks about how the early Mormons had crosses but because they were connected to the Catholic church they eventually were banished. As an example, some early church buildings in SLC have crosses in them and the this is the place monument almost was a cross. The hate used to run deep.

https://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

1. Brave New World – Aldous Huxley
   
   

• 2. 1984 – George Orwell
     
• 3. Road To Wigan Pier – George Orwell
     
• 4. Crime And Punishment – Fyodor Dostoevsky
     
• 5. Demons – Fyodor Dostoevsky
     
• 6. Beyond Good And Evil – Friedrich Nietzsche
     
• 7. Ordinary Men – Christopher Browning
     
• 8. The Painted Bird – Jerzy Kosinski
     
• 9. The Rape of Nanking – Iris Chang
     
• 10. Gulag Archipelago (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, & Vol. 3) – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
      
• 11. Man’s Search for Meaning – Viktor Frankl
      
• 12. Modern Man in Search of A Soul – Carl Jung
      
• 13. Maps Of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief – Jordan B. Peterson
      
• 14. A History of Religious Ideas (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 3) – Mircea Eliade
      
• 15. Affective Neuroscience – Jaak Panksepp
  
  Nää kun lukee niin tulee vähän paska housuun. Ei välttämättä näitä ennen edes osaa paskoo housuunsa. Silmä ei nää asioita, joita aivo ei ymmärrä.

Hah! Just mention Ray Franz and his first book, "Crisis of Conscience", in which he strips the mask off of the Watchtower Society leaders. Ray Franz was one of the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses until he was driven out in a real witch hunt, whereupon he wrote a tell-all book that exposes most of their dirty secrets.

https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

I'm very sorry for your situation but the unvarnished truth of the matter is that your relationship with your father as you knew him is probably over, at least for a while. This is a high-control religion that values membership in itself as the highest of priorities. Your father will likely be unable to stop himself and in the short-term it will adversely affect your relationship with him.

My father has been a Witness all his life and we have a great relationship, so the good news is that it is possible. But my father has been jaded by many years of listening to unfulfilled promises of imminent paradise, so the religion is not clouding his thinking as deeply as it is clouded in a new convert like your father. With time, he will - as all humans do - get subconsciously bored with it all and while he won't likely be shaken from his beliefs he won't be as forward about them.

In the meantime, I suggest that you reconsider your supportive attitude and especially as regards your children, make it very clear that any attempts at indoctrinating your children will NOT be tolerated. With regard to families, this is perhaps the most dangerous of religions, as it perversely destroys them in the most unnatural of ways. It may behoove you to understand the religion a bit so I recommend that you obtain and read a copy of the book Crisis of Conscience so that you can understand why your father's decision to be a part of it does not deserve your support.

I'm sorry you have to be put through this, but do become educated and do be vigilant. This religion is a dangerous mind virus.

Edit: holy smokes, Crisis of Conscience is out of print it seems and those prices are crazy. Here is a pdf of it.

Many people understand jihad as a religious justification for violence in Islam. Jihad actually translates into English as "struggle". The greater jihad that all Muslims are supposed to undertake everyday in their lives is to be a better Muslim, to live amoral life, and to follow the teaching of the Prophet. This is similar to Christians trying to follow the word of Jesus in their every day lives. The lesser jihad is the struggle with the outside world. The struggle is with those who do not live in your faith and your struggle to convert them. This is usually done by encouraging others to understand the religion and its teaching but radicals and extremists take this to mean one must kill people who do not believe or live in their insane world. Terrorist acts are undertaken by radicals and extremists, who do not operate by the same moral code that the average person understands.

As for religious justification for violence, yes, there ARE passage in the Quarn that seem to encourage violence, but just like many people who don't live in the 7th c. AD, most modern Muslims do not take this as a call for murder.

And the Christian Bible also contains violent passage, like God's call to King Saul in Samuel 1, "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" This is the translation in the New International Version, but many other translations read similarly. you can see them here- http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-3.htm

I highly recommend reading and or listening to this- Is the Bible more Violent than the Quran? to understand the textual support for the argument.

Also the book No god but God by Reza Aslan gives a really full and well researched look into the history and the development of Islam, as well as the Islamic world's interaction with the Western world and helps to understand the political climate.

Also Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism is a little dated (written in 2002) but it is an interesting look into the western understand of Islam and its relation to terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda