#10 in Philosophy of religion books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Cornell Paperbacks)
Sentiment score: 6
Reddit mentions: 7
We found 7 Reddit mentions of God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Cornell Paperbacks). Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
Specs:
Height | 8.5 Inches |
Length | 5.5 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.76 Pounds |
Width | 0.67 Inches |
I'd recommend checking these out:
Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds. Cornell University Press, 1990.
Feser, Edward. The Last Superstition: a Refutation of the New Atheism. St. Augustine's Press, 2011.
Plantinga, Alvin. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Eerdmans, 2015.
Pitre, Brant. The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ. Image, 2016.
Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Ignatius Press, 2017.
Some stuff that's important in contemporary analytic phil religion:
The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie
God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga
God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga
The Coherence of Theism by Richard Swinburne
The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne
Can God Be Free? by William Rowe
Perceiving God by William Alston
From a post I made awhile back:
If you want to go for a scholastic/western positive apologetics approach check out: The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
If you want to go for a scholastic/western negative apologetics approach check out Alvin Plantinga's God and Other Minds. This is the work that actually re-kindled serious philosophical debate on the existence of God in Anglophone philosophical circles according to Quinten Smith (a notable atheist philosopher btw). From there you could also check out Alvin Plantinga's warrant trilogy in order: Warrant: The Current Debate, Warrant and Proper Function, and Warranted Christian Belief.
Personally I'm skeptical of the scholastic/western approach in general and I favor the Eastern/Mystical approach. I think the scholastic/western approach cannot escape radical skepticism, and I mean this in terms of secular and religious. If one takes seriously the scholastic/western approach in general, whether one is atheist or theist, radical skepticism follows. This video from a radical skeptic that goes by the user name Carneades.org does a good job of demonstrating this: Arguments of the Indirect Skeptic
The Orthodox approach has always been mystical rather than scholastic all the way from the beginnings of Christianity. From Jesus, to the apostles, to the church fathers, to right now we still have the original apostolic faith in the Orthodox Church. Check out this short documentary to learn more: Holy Orthodoxy: The Ancient Church of Acts in the 21st Century.
Fr. Vladimir Berzonsky explains the Eastern/Mystical approach: "To properly understand the Orthodox approach to the Fathers, one must first of all understand the mystical characteristic of Orthodox theology and the tradition of the apophatic approach to an understanding-if "understanding" is indeed the proper word-of what the hidden God in Trinity reveals to us. This needs to be combined with the insight that what is incomprehensible to our reason inspires us to rise above every attempt at philosophical limitation and to reach for an experience beyond the limits of the intellect. The experience of God is a transcendence born from union with the divine-henosis (oneness with God) being the ultimate goal of existence. This makes the requirement of true knowledge (gnosis) the abandoning of all hope of the conventional subject-object approach to discovery. It requires setting aside the dead ends of Scholasticism, nominalism, and the limits set by such Kantian paradigms as noumena/phenomena. One must return to, or better yet, find in one's heart (or nous, the soul's eye) union with the Holy Trinity, which has never been lost in the Orthodox Church."
Source: Fr. Vladimir Berzonsky, (2004). Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. p. 178. Zondervan, Grand Rapids
I've been thinking about this. The works which first pop to mind are probably too technical for general interest as they are written to be read by other professional philosophers. I'm trying to think of what might be interest to the educated person who isn't a Philosophy major.
*****
Peter Kreeft
Peter Kreeft writes a lot of things for a general audience. He is a Catholic philosopher at Boston College. He often speaks at other universities, and has even been part of a debate with a former professor of mine, so he is at least pretty well-known in philosophical circles. He has a bunch of free readings on the "featured readings" and "more featured readings" pages of his site, which also has lectures and such. Here is his author page on Amazon. His books are also mostly intended for a general audience. I've read a handful of them, so if you're thinking of ordering one, or finding it at a library, let me know and I'll give you my two cents. The Sea Within: Waves and the Meaning of All Things is interesting. He is fairly old, and a lifelong surfer. In that book he draws analogies between the natural pull the ocean has on us and the pull God has on us. He also has many Socrates Meets... books which don't have so much to do with religion, but provide accessible introductions to various philosophers (e.g. Socrates Meets Sartre).
*****
Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga is a very prominent philosopher, and a Christian. Much of his writing is intended for the professional philosophical audience, but some if it might be accessible to a general audience. Here is his Amazon author page. Let me know if you're thinking about checking out any of his stuff. Like I said, a lot of it is more technical than Kreeft's. Also, he is in the analytic tradition, whereas Kreeft is more in the continental tradition. I think that further distances him from the casual reader.
Some of Plantinga's works which might be good:
>This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, on one of our biggest debates -- the compatibility of science and religion. The last twenty years has seen a cottage industry of books on this divide, but with little consensus emerging. Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. His theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord.
*****
Søren Kierkegaard
If you're thinking more historically, I think Kierkegaard can be very interesting. He is considered by many to be a proto-existentialist (a sort of existentialist before existentialism existed as a movement). Fear and Trembling is relatively easy to read, short, and probably his most read work. I recommend it. Also, here is his Amazon author page.
*****
Others
Those three were just a few of the many Christian philosophers I find interesting. There are a whole lot more, some more accessible than others to a general audience. This is still just a fraction of the historical Christian philosophical scene, but I think it will give you a good start. These are all of them off of the top of my head whom I have studied to some extent.
Contemporary:
Historical
****
Author's Note: I've been working on this entry for about 45 minutes now. I hope someone reads some of it. Time for a break. If you have any questions, or wanna talk philosophy, let me know, it's in my blood.*
You're either a troll or a disrespectful. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801497353/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Why would you care about my belief system?
I don't think you picked the best books to have each other read. If you wanted to think seriously about whether God exists or not, I'd suggest Alvin Plantinga's God and Other Minds for the pro-theism side. I don't know what the best thing to read on the atheist side would be. Maybe Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian although it is considerably older and is more of a collection of essays than a monograph.
Lee Stroebel is a journalist who happens to be a Christian. Alvin Plantinga is an eminent philosopher who has spent his career working on epistemology. Likewise, Richard Dawkins is a really good biologist, but he simply doesn't understand most of the philosophical issues that he attempts to deal with. I'm not saying he's a dumb guy, but he's just out of his depth talking about religion and philosophy. Russell was literally one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century.
Hey, I'm glad to hear that! It's a topic of some interest for me.
I think too much of discussion about God today gets wrapped up in politics, especially in the United States. That's certainly something new, and can be found back even to the start of Christianity, or even human civilization. It tends to be rightly shunned and mocked.
However, the idea of God is something more central and serious than that. Sure, most people are idiots, so when they talk about something they don't study up on or look at different viewpoints, which is really really common for religion, they end up saying stupid stuff.
That's why it's worth distinguishing from theologians and philosophers who actually do that stuff, and many of them walk away from it with a clear and respectable, and even persuasive, ideas.
If you want to read up more, I can recommend a few works.
You should especially look at the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Plotinus, Origen, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine, Anselm, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Maimonides, Averroes, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, Immanuel Kant, and Soren Kierkegaard.
If you want to look more at the stuff I was arguing, you can also consider looking specifically at Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, posted for free here, although Aquinas is fairly jargon heavy, and expects familiarity with Aristotle, Averroes, and other points in Christian theological history.
Edit: As a small aside, on the point of how atheism is defined, a moderator of /r/askphilosophy wrote a pretty good summary for what the term means in academic disciplines a while back. Worth checking out.