(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best philosophy of religion books

[Continued from above.]

• An appeal to testimonial evidence. The Bible is claimed to be evidence of the God Yahweh (and a bunch of other stuff) based upon the claimed testimony of the narratives.
  
  But what can be said of the source of this testimony? The level of significance (level of reliability and confidence) of personal testimony, of which all of the narratives of the Bible are based upon, is very low; and arguably no better than an appeal to emotion. Witness testimony is highly-subjective, mind-dependent, qualia-experience; is highly influenced by conformation and other cognitive biases; and is questionable (low credibility) towards support a mind-independent truth value that has a reasonable level of significance.
  
  A recent demonstration of the reliability of personal gnosis/testimony to support a truth can be seen in the testimonial statements related to the Police Officer shooting of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, USA. [one] [two] [three] [four] Spoiler - witness testimony is unreliable, is subject to all kinds of confirmation and cognitive biases, and generally non-credible to establish even a medium level of significance of a claimed truth value.
  
  Even without knowing any of the history of the redaction and editing or the Bible, or cherry picking of specific books and verses to include within the Bible, or challenging who actual wrote (and when) the various Bible books/verses, the credibility of the Bible as evidence, in and of itself, is so low that those that do not have the conformation bias based belief of Yahweh do not even consider the Bible as evidence, but consider the Bible only as a set of claims.
  
  
• Evidence from the Argument from Popularity (of the Bible, or of Christianity)
  
  Now some may claim that because XXX Religion has more than a billion followers, where almost all adherents base their belief on Theistic Religious Faith/appeal to emotion, that this accumulation of evidence supports a level of significance higher than presented in the list above. And while this argument from popularity is considered strong argument from those that have a vested confirmation bias, each data point, each persons highly subjective appeal to emotion based evidence, does not support an additive or cumulative process to provide an overall increased level of significance. Rather, the entire data set has a very low level of significance against credible support to the claimed truth value or to provide credible support Theistic Religious Faith.
  
  With Theistic Religious Faith, as discussed above, accepted as actual evidence, the question becomes: What level of significance, or level of reliability and confidence, is required for the evidence presented to be accepted as credible against the issue under discussion? Personally, I use a threshold that all claims of evidence related to Gods/supernatural deities have a level of significance that is better than an appeal to emotion for me to begin to consider the evidence to be credible - even though the consequences of the actualization of God(s), or proof that God does exist, is extraordinary.
  
  So OP, against your Theistic Religious Faith considering the existence of the God Yahweh, or of any God, and the Theistic Religions associate with these God(s), ask yourself the following: Can you, or any claimants/adherents, to some God, 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 an appeal to emotion as a threshold for consideration - even though the consequences of actual proof of the actualization of God(s), and associated claims, is extraordinary], of the positive claim that YHWH, or any God, actually exists? and that the associated Theistic Religion has a credible and supportable truth value against which to justify Theistic Religious Faith?
  
  ----
  
  > If there is to be honest debate between our respective views, I think the important concepts of each side deserve to be understood in the context in which they are offered.
  
  I concur. With this goal in mind - your opening statement:
  
  > The atheists on this sub are very particular on the meanings which are put into the word "atheist." The historical meaning of the word atheist, as I understand it, is known here as a "strong atheist." And the historical meaning of the word "agnostic" is synonymous with the term "soft atheist." Notwithstanding the problems I see with this terminology, ....
  
  Is even more pejorative.
  
  For a discussion of the "historical meaning" of atheist/atheism, I refer you to [THIS POST] which highlights the source and context of so very many of these "historical meanings" to which you refer.
  
  > And the historical meaning of the word "agnostic" ...
  
  If you are referring to:
  
  Agnosticism: the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.
  
  represents a non-answer to, or an attempt to side-step, giving a straight answer to the central question of interest:
  
  
• Is there any credible reason or justification to hold a belief/acceptance position concerning the existence (or non-existence) of God(s)?
  
  And is not atheism.
  
  However, given the range of definitions that have been used with "atheism" I will concede to the point that it behooves one to ask (if not provided) what an atheist means by their atheism. Indeed:
  
  "The precise definition of atheism is both a vexed and vexatious issue." "Even from it's earliest beginnings in Greek and English, however, atheism/atheotés admitted of a variety of competing, and confusing, definitions - often bearing no strict relationship to it's strict etymology." "Even today, [], there is is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term [atheist/atheism] should be used." Source: Bullivant, Stephen, and Michael Ruse, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford University Press, 2013.
  
  If you are interested in the long history of the term atheist/atheism, see:
  
  
• Discourse Analysis and the Definition of Atheism
  
  Which provides the conclusion statements of:
  
  "For our own intentions herein, ‘Atheism’ might be equally seen as an empty signifier, so that rather than busying ourselves with definitions, and thus contributing to a discourse mired in ambiguity, our attentions can be turned toward how individuals who identify as ‘Atheists’ go about filling that signifier with what they perceive the word to mean for their own usage."
  
  "In this way, when we study Atheists and their Atheism we are no longer required to define what we mean when we talk about what they mean, removing ourselves as theoretical intermediaries and allowing them to speak for themselves."
  
  > I guess I mean, whatever minority of Christians have done their homework. Too many in my camp have corrupted the term [Faith] and it is time to reclaim the meaning.
  
  Indeed, your criticism of the "very particular" definition of atheism as used in this, and other, forums, is evidence that others have corrupted the therm 'atheist' - and it is time to claim and define the term in a manner that most accurately represents how the term is used by actual atheists.
  
  ----
  
  > The Roman Centurion had a life long experience of working daily with with those who had authority, and it was this experience which allowed him to place his trust in Jesus's authority to heal his servant without even coming to his residence. After hearing the Centurion's explanation of how he had come to be able to place such trust in Jesus, Jesus proclaimed this Roman "occupier" to have the greatest faith in all of Israel.
  
  I would argue that the sources of authority you have attempted to equivocate, are based upon two widely different and non-equivalent sources.
  
  The Centurion based his trust/faith in the authority of the Government based upon social construct, training, and direct experience in working with this authority.
  
  However, in regard to his Faith/Trust in Jesus to heal his servant, this Faith/Trust is, from the information presented, based upon the belief that has resulted from the self-affirmation of an appeal to emotion.
  
  This story is a good example of the disingenuous usage of Faith vs. faith as being essentially equal, regardless of contextual usage, and where evidential/argumentative support for Faith vs. faith is much different and not equivalent in the ability to support a credible truth-value.

> This is seriously one of the weakest objection I've ever heard against the PSR. What does this even mean? Of course God is not obligated to create our universe or any anything for that matter. How does this affect the PSR? There is no explanation other than the 'because'.

It shows that the PSR is self refuting because even a god cannot satisfy it. To put it into a more logical form:

r/https://bit.ly/2wJRxaL

Please feel free to refute that.

> Next: the brute fact response. This still leaves our most basic thirst about understanding reality unquenched. The universe is contingent; there is no way around even when involving science, math, etc--whatever. If it is possible for it to not exist, it is contingent.

Our thirst is technically irrelevant, since we can thirst for things like the color of jealousy, which obviously has no answer. What matters is part of logic. Regarding the possibility of the universe not existing, that assumes it is logically possible that the universe not exist. But so too is god. It is not logically necessary that the god theists believe in exist because other conceptions of god are possible. Why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible?


Logical necessity cannot explain this scenario. There is no way to show in principle why god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and not one just slightly different, or even radically different, or no universe at all. The theist would have to show that it was logically necessary for god to desire to create our universe in order to avoid eventually coming to a brute fact. He can try and say "It's because god wanted a relationship with us," but that wouldn't answer the question at all. Why did god want a relationship with us? Is that logically necessary? Could god exist without wanting a relationship with anyone? And still, even if god wanted a relationship, why did he have to desire this particular universe? There are an infinitude of logically possible universes god could have desired that would allow him to have a relationship with someone else that for no reason god didn't timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create. A theist can also try to argue that "our universe is the best of all possible worlds, and therefore god had to desire it." But this claim is absurd on its face. I can think of a world with just one more instance of goodness or happiness, and I've easily just thought of a world that's better.


The theist is going to have to eventually come to a brute fact when seriously entertaining answers to these questions. Once he acknowledges that there is no logically necessary reason god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and that god could have timelessly and eternally existed with a different desire, he's in exactly the same problem he claims the atheist is in when he says the universe is contingent and could have been otherwise, and therefore cannot explain itself. Hence, even positing a god doesn't allow you to avoid brute facts. There is no way to answer these questions, even in principle, with something logically necessary.

> God, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish; if God exists, he must exist necessarily. Merely saying it is a brute fact does not get around this; it's getting at that the universe is not contingent. Some think that there could be an infinite chain of causes to get us here. Maybe so. But how does this help? The chain is still contingent.

Nope. If god with eternal contingent (non-necessary) desire X exists, there cannot in principle be a logically necessary reason why that god exists, since a god with another non-necessary desire is just as possible. Hence god is just as contingent as the universe, lest you want to resort to special pleading.

>This is more of the New Atheism that is pure sophistry. 'Simple Logic'. Yikes. There are good objections to the PSR; this is obviously not one of them.

Not at all. This is serious logic showing how even you cannot answer the basic questions of why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible? The only possible answer must be contingent, since a necessary one is off the table.

>I am not a Catholic but here is a very sophisticated defense of the PSR. Pruss is a Catholic. Pruss is brilliant here as well.
>
>Timothy O'Connor has my favorite book on the topic here

It is impossible to defend the PSR and all attempts to claim otherwise depend on false arguments from consequence.

Welcome! I am a convert myself. Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton is a wonderful amazing book that will be good to read for that and also just good for any Christian to read. It is about $5 on amazon and also probably in your local library or bookstore. Chesterton was CS Lewis's and J R R Tolkien's mentor. The American Chesterton Society is a really really great resource, and if you ever get a chance to hear Dale Alquist speak, so it, he is amazing to hear. He came to my University and about 20 people showed up; by the end there were like 200 from everyone texting their friends to come because the guy slings truth and eloquence like Tupac slung rhymes. Chesterton made Lewis look like a baby writer or something, according to Lewis himself. Chesterton is like a cross between a saint and the wit of Oscar Wilde. He could write something on paper and dictate something else at the same time, and they would both be awesome. His quotes are amazing. That is a short list of them. "Rome sweet home" by Scott Hahn is good. $3 on Amazon. It is well worth reading and is a great crash course in Catholicism for someone in just your situation. He came from a very similar background I think.

Edit: I love this one on that facebook meme page. It pretty much sums up what spirred me to look at Catholicism. When the priest literally called down the Holy Spirit on me when I got confirmed, it was awesome. If you can get to an Easter vigil mass (saturday night before Easter), it is my favorite. I wish they could all be that way. If you can find a church that has a lot of converts that year, it will be even better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Good luck!

>he has used his reasoning to say that “we can’t reasonably say god does not exist, and a god seems to be the best explanation, therefore we are reasonable in believing a god is the best explanation.”

This reasoning is much better than the previous invalid reasoning I mentioned in my previous comment. It raises a lot of questions, though, as you seem to suspect. Questions like: What are some alternate explanations? How do they fair against the God explanation? What standards are we using to determine whether an explanation is good or better than another explanation? In my experience, the discussion rarely ever gets to the last question; instead, apologists tend to admit that there are alternate explanations (like Big Bang + laws of nature -> the order we find in the universe now) but think that they're just terrible explanations.

The specific reasons for thinking the alternative (non-theistic) explanations are terrible explanations are various and sundry; while one apologist (like my friend Amanda) may say that the Big Bang theory would still require a God because without God we'd have no explanation for how the laws of nature "govern" the universe, another apologist (like Amanda's dad) will say that without God we cannot explain how there are moral facts (like that murdering innocents is wrong). I think how you go about objecting to them, and how successful you are, will depend on their specific reasons for thinking theistic explanations are wanting. But that said, a lot of these reasons seem to boil down to "wow, look at that amazing thing in the universe, idk how to fathom that such a thing could exist unless a great intelligent being created it". The problem is that this is so broad and vague that it would probably take a whole fucking treatise to show -- carefully -- that this is insufficient grounds for inferring anything about the cause of the universe. I take it that Hume actually did this in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, as well as taking care of slightly different arguments for God's existence elsewhere (like the argument based on miracles, which he discusses and rejects in his Enquiry).

If you're interested, I would take a look at the Dialogues, which is sometimes published aside the companion piece entitled The Natural History of Religion. In the latter, Hume examines the historical (non-theistic) reasons that would explain our psychological reactions concerning God; in the former, he analyzes and critiques our grounds for believing in God (before going through serious objections to them). My favorite bit of the Dialogues is Part 8 and Part 9. Part 8 is the most rewarding and thought-provoking, and I think the most challenging for the apologist. In it, the character Philo, who is standardly thought to be the closest thing to a spokesman for Hume, puts forth a non-theistic hypothesis of the universe's order and defends the claim that it is at least as explanatory as the theistic hypothesis is; and at the very end of Part 8, Philo suggests that there's good reason to think that the theistic hypothesis is a less grounded explanation. And the way the whole dialogue goes leads up to this explanation in a way that seems to really undermine that kind of broad and vague rationale that I think is behind much of theistic apologists' arguments. Best work evaluating arguments for God's existence, imho, and just a wonderful work of philosophical acumen. It's my favorite book ever. LET ME CONVERT YOU. Jk.

Edit: forgot a word and made the last couple sentences clearer

No worries. Glad I can be of assistance. A couple quick comments to make, however.

>I wasn't even sure that god was real. I mean, the logical part says that he's probably not. But the instinct part feels uncomfortable with the idea. To outright state that God does not exist bothers me for some unknown reason.

First of all, I think that this is a common misconception among many people today for a couple of reasons. First of all, logic as far as I understand it has gone both ways. Yes, a number of philosophers and scientists today are convinced of a lack of God, but there are also a number of thinkers who are using logic to demonstrate his existence. A really good one to check out if you're interested is Alvin Plantinga, a very well respected analytic philosopher who's also a Christian. I'm not trying to convert you, but rather would like to give you some options if you're interested in being rational and religious. And he's got a couple books you may find interesting. 1 and 2. I've only read parts of the first one, and found it very interesting. I'd recommend reading his essays on reformed epistemology, and his work on naturalism being irrational. Very good reading, and not terribly technical, so you should be able to get into it just fine.

And on the note of instinctual belief in God, I'd say don't be afraid to trust in your instincts. As one of my profs told me, gut-feeling's don't make for great philosophical arguments in themselves, but they do often indicate that there's the possibility of an argument being made. You often know a lot more than you realize; all the reading, studying and analysis is simply finding ways to express it to others. So yeah, don't be so hesitant to trust yourself. Good luck.

I never thought a Catholic would defend predestination more than any Protestant I know! This is great. Thanks for the response.

I am actually very well versed on the divine foreknowledge debate; I am at a pass between molinism and the open view. God as timeless is simply not a view that I am attracted to; so, naturally, the Catholic solution doesn't work for me. But Leftow--who is one of my personal favorite philosophers--has an interesting solution that is sort of an open view, but allows God to remain timeless. Check out his book here

And it seems we aren't getting anywhere with the idea that if God saves some, and has the power to save all, then there is a serious moral issue at hand if he does not save all. But this is only a problem if one views predestination as a soteriological issue; this problem isn't an issue if you read predestination as an issue of service--as it ought to be read. I wish I could find Nicholas Wolterstorff's paper on Romans 9 but I can only find it in his book that I mentioned above. But here is a great video by N.T. Wright on it.

> But He's not predestining some for eternal punishment. Certainly, because of His choice, some will end up in Hell.

Here is where we fundamentally disagree. You even admit it: because of his choice, some will end up in hell. I find this position to be simply untenable if we want to maintain that God is wholly good and morally perfect.

> The same holds for the tension between God's justice and mercy, perhaps with a more direct connection. How does God decide upon whom to have mercy and upon whom to exercise His justice?

Justice and mercy are not incompatible; it's a false dichotomy that you've set up. I would recommend reading a serious book on the matter, it's Wolterstorff's first book here. It seems you are thinking of justice primarily as retributive. I find God's mode of justice--especially seen in the early books of the O.T. and all throughout the New Testament--to be restorative in its basic nature.

And we fundamentally disagree about the nature of judgement, heaven and hell. Lol. If you know Eleonore Stump, check out here stuff here and watch this particular video here.

Since you asked for book recommendations in the other thread, I'll point to three books:

This book has to do with Christianity and Science. It's Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantiga. Plantiga is a very well respected analytic philosopher and is also a Christian. This is his most recent book and it's gotten great reviews. It deals with topics like evolution and also responds to questions such as Could God be a mental projection? and such (granted that topic is an entire book in itself but he talk about that possibility.).

The Problem of Evil by Peter Van Inwaged. I have heard this is a great book, check out the reviews on amazon if you want more.

Lastly, I would like to point to is Greg Boyd's book The benefit of doubt. I suspect this could be an especially informative book for you, since it discusses faith and reason.

Greg Boyd also wrote a book on the question of evil in the bible.

I also highly recommend the Unbelievable Podcast. This podcast features Atheist philosophers and Christian theologians sitting down and talking to others about their disagreements and agreements and other issues involving their faith. You will probably find some answers to your questions from that podcast.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable?

Lastly, you already have a lot of reading on your plate but Richard Swinburne, a well respected philosopher of religion wrote a trilology called The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason. You would do well to check that series out.

In general, I have found that every objection to the Christian faith has been responded to. Responded to does not necessarily mean answered and "solved". For many of the big problems, there are no easy, clear cut answers. But someone has looked at them and attempted an answer and ultimately, it's up to you to decide within yourself, if those answers are good enough to continue to have faith.

Please be patient and most importantly take your time as you sift through your considerations. Thinking about the philosophy of religion can be quite consuming.

Happy journying!

christian here: no, the base of my faith is not absurd.
i did (and still do) spent time searching and thinking, and reading etc. until i decide to put my faith on Jesus.

its not blind faith. think of it like this; its like putting faith that your chair you're sitting on wont break, after you did some shaking/testing. or you put your faith to your friend who always kept his promises in the past. like that; but in a higher level...

anyway, my decision in accepting christian God is after several logical process: similar process was experienced by CS Lewis (who was a brilliant professor and an atheist until his 30-40s)

lets talk about the main atheists statement: "there is no God"

to me,that is absurd:
how can time+chance produce the universe with its fine-tune constants, all matter and energy follows the same logical mathematical formula. what about DNA? which is information?

which one do you think more logical: you see a long coherent sentence on a paper, then assume an intelligence being wrote it; or assume it was a big random spray of ink on billion pieces of paper and somehow one of it produce a proper sentence?

or you think DNA was a product of alien civilization? (as mentioned once by richard dawkins). which one is more absurd?

read Anthony Flew last book:there is a God

fyi:Flew was one of (if not) the most prominent atheis thinker in modern era. he was believed to have beaten cs lewis in a debate.
he was a great thinker and very skeptic in his way of thinking, and I admire him for that.

On their early days, dawkins and hitchkens regularly sent their draft to Flew before they publish their books (thats why their latest books are not as good as their early ones.. and often badly criticized by the skeptic community itself)
in Flew's last book "there is a God", he said "i need to go where the evidence leads me" and that to keep believing that there is no God when all the scientific evidence convince you otherwise IS Absurd.
(no, he never -at least not in record- assume that this God is a Christian God. but he did ended in a conclusion that the creator must be an intelligence, a person. not just some universal force, and the judeo-christian-islam version of God is the closest)

My personal journey lead me to Jesus God incarnate. everything become coherent after that.

but this is another topic for another time

for you, start your should do your own logical journey to find out: is there a God?

PS: most probably Flew, CS Lewis, Francis Collins, Isaac Newton, Euler, Faraday, Pascal had a more advanced logical thinking than you. and they all believe in God.

Logic admittedly isn't my area of expertise, but the logic class I took several years ago used this, which does a pretty good job of breaking down basic types of logical arguments, so that would probably be helpful. The Little Logic Book would also be a great and accessible guide for learning how arguments work, and how to both construct good arguments while recognizing bad ones. Beyond that, I'd say read good philosophers, especially analytic philosophers, since they have a tendency to be a bit more clear and organized with their thoughts. I learned a lot from reading Plantinga when I was first finding my footing, and I'm sure a thread made requesting good examples of clear and accessible instances of analytic philosophy would yield many more results. I might also check out Thomas Aquinas or Descartes, since they both write in a fairly clear style that uses fairly basic and clear instances of argument to build their ideas and express them clearly, and there will be shelves upon shelves of secondary material on them to help you see all the little subtleties going on in their work. Hope this helps.

These are four books and a lecture series that would certainly be good at getting you started, all of them are academic rigor level, so not something that you'll be able to flip through at the bus stop. They take a bit of time to digest.

• Evidence that Demands a Verdict- good summary of the reasons we have to think that Christianity is historically true.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198
  
  
• Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology- Natural theology, the arguments from reason for why we have good reason to think that there is a God. Written by academic philosophers.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854
  
  
• Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Worldview- Another excellent book providing a systematic narrative from the ground up.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Christian-Worldview-Moreland/dp/0830851879/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6HXK5P412QMRNR2XB37B
  
  
• New Essays on Divine Hiddeness- If God is real, then why doesn't he just appear to me? This collection of essays from both atheists and Christians explores that argument and offers (what I think) are some pretty good responses.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Hiddenness-Essays-Daniel-Howard-Snyder/dp/0521006104
  
  
• Faith and Reason Lectures by Peter Kreeft- Excellent lecture series by a philosopher who approaches the topic of religion from an introductory level and takes the time to examine the arguments for and against. A great place to start since it covers everything from a general perspective.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Reason-Philosophy-Religion/dp/B001JHT8DI

At a certain point, I just ran out of objective problems that I could fix to reasonably improve my quality of life, which was not good.

I realized my problems were not objective, but subjective, so I made it a goal to focus on the subjective, experiment, and try to understand my subjective interior world and it's relation to my objective and subjective condition.

What I learned over about 2 years, is hard to explain to a materialist. But I was once a skeptic, and I'm now convinced by direct experiment that my actions in subjective states do lead to objective results, although I cannot explain the mechanism by which that should be so.

And my quality of life has improved a lot!

And having opened up this world of possibilities, the occult seems like the best way for me to personally explore, since it's basically the best repository of subjective technology from previous generations.

I recently was recommended the book "The Flip: Epiphanies of Mind and the Future of Knowledge" by Dr Jeffrey Kripal which goes into the phenomena of eminent materialists who decide to adopt mystical viewpoints. It seems like that might offer a better and def better presented explanation of some of the angles that changed my mind.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Flip-Epiphanies-Mind-Future-Knowledge/dp/1942658524

There are two books I started out with when learning Philosophy:

• Christian Philosophy: A Systematic and Narrative Introduction
  
  This book has a nice historical introduction to Philosophy, and is also very Reformed. It has a couple of chapters dedicated to Reformed Epistemology. It's definitely worth a read.
  
  
• The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy
  
  This is a great introduction to Philosophy focused around worldviews. There is a very good chapter on Epistemology there.

A more accurate way to state the theists' point: Atheism is idolatry. Worship of, devotion to, something that ain't God.

It's not a new idea. I think it runs through Nietzsche. Like, dig deep enough into anyone's ideas and you'll find hopes, loves, commitments, devotions, passions, etc, that are very faith-like, very much like "religion."

For a pretty clear recent statement of the idea: Religion Without God by Ronald Dworkin.

Be a good friend and neighbor. Be open about your faith, but not pushy or evangelical. Use your own life as an example of Christian living and compassion. Use rational explanations, and acknowledge when something needs to be taken on faith (ex: because Catholics define love in the way they do [the faith bit, although there is certainly plenty of reasoning still involved], their views on abortion, contraception, etc. follow naturally.) Readily admit there are things you don't know (but could look up), or that you can't hope to speak for every Christian. Introduce him to other reasonable religious people.

I'll bet you're doing all this already though, in which case the most important instruction is: persevere. People's beliefs about religion are set very deep, and it will is likely to take years or decades to change -- imagine how long it might take you to convert your faith!

If you're interested in some arguments which might appeal to an atheist on why religion is not actually bad, check out An Atheist Defends Religion. There's a whole chapter refuting the notion that religion is the main source of evil in the world, and it's written in straightforward language, without a lot of the theological jargon that tends to exclude non-believers.

The FAQ post mentions these two: Davies's An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion and Yandell's Philosophy of Religion: A Contemporary Introduction.

Mackie's book a little older but still good: https://philpapers.org/rec/MACTMO-8

PhilPapers recommends Rowe's: https://philpapers.org/rec/ROWPOR

The FAQ also mentions these, from the history of philosophy:

Plato's Euthyphro: A good translation: here, with commentary; Leibniz's Making the Case for God, Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Immortality of the Soul, and Kant's Religion Within the Boundaries of Bare Reason.

If you want a more systematic compilation of sources, this anthology is pretty good (and unlike others doesn't completely ignore non-Abrahamic religion): Pojman, Philosophy of Religion - Anthology 7th ed

Oh, two text-booky things you may find useful:

1. Maritain's Introduction to Philosophy is difficult and dense (for me at least) but very good: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Sheed-Ward-Classic/dp/0742550532
   
   
2. A recent AWESOME book that covers the entirety of the Catholic intellectual tradition in the 20th century (including philosophy) is A Deeper Vision by Robert Royal: https://www.amazon.com/Deeper-Vision-Intellectual-Tradition-Twentieth/dp/158617990X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473179488&sr=1-1&keywords=a+deeper+vision
   
   Both are especially useful if you don't just want to stop with Aquinas, you want to keep going up to the present.

Preface

Unfortunately I don't think there's a "one stop shop" book on the atonement. The atonement has a biblical/exegetical basis as well as philosophical and theological ramifications. Hence, to do justice to the atonement as a full-orbed topic in a single book, you'd have to find a scholar who is well versed and up-to-date in the relevant biblical scholarship as well as philosophical theology. That's exceedingly rare, and in fact I'm not sure if there is such a scholar today.

What's more, the atonement can be framed in terms of additional categories or sub-categories like biblical theology, Pauline theology, Johannine theology, and so on. (By the way, Tom Schreiner, Simon Gathercole, and Jarvis Williams are good in discussing the atonement in Pauline theology.)

In short, the atonement is a massive topic.

One book

However, if I had to pick a single book on the atonement that gets as close as possible to this ideal (but ultimately falling short of it), I think I'd recommend Pierced for Our Transgressions. The book has decent biblical/exegetical and theological (including historical theology) foundations. Not stellar in these categories, but not bad, solid. However, it significantly lacks in philosophical theology. In any case, I think you'd have to supplement this book with other books. I'd recommend:

Biblical/Exegetical

• Beilby, James and Eddy, Paul (eds.). The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. This book is a debate between four scholars arguing for four different views on the atonement: Gregory Boyd argues for the Christus Victor view; Tom Schreiner argues for the penal substitutionary view; Bruce Reichenbach argues for the healing view; and Joel Green argues for a kaleidescopic view. In my view, Schreiner makes the best case, but read it for yourself to decide.
  
  
• Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Either this book or its less technical and more popular but still strong treatment The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. This is an older text, but it was and remains a landmark text. D.A. Carson still tells seminarians and ministers to "sell your shirt and buy" Morris' book if they have to. Likewise see Morris' brief essay "Theories of the Atonement".
  
  Theological
  
  
• Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. A classic Reformed text from a stalwart Reformed theologian.
  
  
• Nicole, Roger. Our Sovereign Savior. A good chapter on the atonement by a world class theologian. Nicole was a Swiss Reformed theologian.
  
  
• Nicole, Roger. Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole. Includes essays on the atonement and related matters.
  
  
• Packer, J.I., Dever, Mark, and Duncan, Ligon. In My Place Condemned He Stood: Celebrating the Glory of the Atonement. This book contains several essays on the atonement from J.I. Packer including Packer's classic introduction to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
  
  
• Warfield, B.B. "Atonement". A brief article that gives an overview of five possible theories about the atonement. Warfield has other good material on the atonement, but I thought this would be a decent representative.
  
  Philosophical
  
  
• Craig, William Lane. The Atonement (in the University of Cambridge's Elements in the Philosophy of Religion series). A short book. An overview of the philosophical issues. Cambridge Press did offer it for free as a downloadable pdf, which is how I obtained it, but I don't know if that's still the case now.
  
  
• Helm, Paul. "John Calvin's Position on the Atonement". Free article from an astute Reformed philosopher. Helm has discussed the atonement in published books too.
  
  
• Helm, Paul. "The Logic of Limited Atonement". Another free article.

There's obvious multiple ways to go about the problem of evil. I did a graduate course in philosophy of religion with an emphasis in problem of evil, so this will be influenced as a philosophical approach, but I'd recommend looking at three resources.

1. Peter Van Inwagen's Book
   
2. Elanor Stump's Wandering in Darkness and she is great. She is also mentioned in this article.
   
3. Plantinga's Felix Culpa Approach, which I found a marvelous read. I'd also recommend his other works on the problem, in particular his free will defense found in the Nature of Necessity and also this book.
   
   
   I know that NT Wright has a book on the subject which is probably worth looking into. And Carson and Hauerwas also address it from the theological perspective.
   
   I hope this is helpful.

Atheism is spreading and seems to be getting more socially acceptable in many parts of the US. That is a social phenomenon worth studying.

Atheism itself (non-belief in any gods) isn't much of a belief system, but it is often associated with other beliefs. In that sense, there are "atheistic mindsets" worthy of study. Some atheists focus on the reliability of the scientific method and skeptical thinking more generally. Others focus more on the discovery that their childhood religion seems not to make sense. There are probably other clusters of "atheistic thought".

I don't agree with everything they say, but "prominent atheists" like Dennett (link and link) and Dawkins (link) have certainly influenced my thinking.

There are interesting polls (link and link) that give a broad-based sense of what people think about religion and atheism.

How to keep up with atheism? My three main sources are amazon, google, and reddit.

> I simply don't see the value of religion. If you could explain what merits it has that would be helpful.

You have come into a place called /r/religion when you plainly say you don't see value in religion. I think you have started your journey in the wrong place. I am going to suggest you try this, a book written by an atheist that defends religion. I think an author like that will be better suited to your particular worldview. If that appeals to you then I would suggest you move onto books like Intellectuals Don't Need God.

The format of comments on the internet like this simply won't give you what you are looking for, this topic is much deeper than a Reddit conversation will allow.

Good luck.

Scientists often say that science is beautiful, that their discoveries are beautiful, or that beauty is one criterion when evaluating theories or outcomes. The problem with such statements is that it's entirely unclear to the uninitiated what this beauty consists of (if even). Additionally, it appears to me that one needs to be fairly knowledgeable to see that beauty. See also this blog post for both ideas: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/truth-and-beauty-in-science/

So in that respect, it appears to be an unreasonable demand to think that poets will write about the beauty of string theory, or new pharmacological molecules or whatever.

But anyway, it isn't strictly true. Philosophers have talked about science, perhaps not in the language of beauty, but otherwise words of admiration for a long time. Ronald Dworkin's Religion without God is a recent example, there's also a lecture podcast available: http://www.einsteinlectures.unibe.ch/fruehere_vortraege/2011_ronald_dworkin/index_ger.html

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

Even from an Atheist stand point religion is very fascinating. Remember that it helps a lot of people find meaning in their lives and as trivial as it may seem from a point of view such as ours it doesn't preclude any merits.

There's a nice book you may want to look into called "An Atheist Defends Religion." I think you might find it interesting. It's an earnest defense of religion from a sociological standpoint.

Here's a link.

Read A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism by Gregory E. Ganssle. It's only 175 pages, easy reading, and Ganssle is very evenhanded and respectful in his careful evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments offered by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet. I am reading it now and am enjoying it. His other book, Thinking about God is also very good.

Apologetics: The Reason for God Tim Keller

Spiritual Life: Desiring God John Piper

Theology: Systematic Theology Wayne Grudem

Discipleship: Christ's Call to Discipleship James Montgomery Boice

Politics: Walking in the Way Joe Tull-Not on politics, but it is an ethics book that I think will give you a grasp on the ethical dimensions that affect some political decisions.

Philosophy: The Love of Wisdom Steven Cowan. A CHristian intro to philosophy, but it includes chapters on aesthetics and political philosophy.

The sacrifice permits sinful beings to exist with God. Justness is an essential property of God (inseparable for him as mass is for matter). As the being of perfect morality, it is metaphysically impossible for God to exist concurrently with a sinner. The sacrifice satisfies the demands of justice for anyone who would accept it. As an aside, this acceptance isn't trivial; in biblical times, the Israelites would place their hand on the animal to be sacrificed, and the ceremony could be quite gruesome, demonstrating the gravity of the situation resulting from sin. The act very clearly connected the sin with the punishment that reconciled it.

Now, you say "no real loss was involved", but you should really look up a description of the agony of death by crucifixion! It certainly wasn't nothing; immense suffering was experienced by God to reconcile the sins of all humans, not to mention his experiencing death itself. Actually, in some Christian interpretations, the sacrifice had the additional effect of separating the Son from the Godhead, which is what the concept of hell essentially is, fundamentally. If that is the case, it becomes even more clear how efficacious the sacrifice is, though that interpretation isn't a necessary component of the overall concept.

The fact that Jesus resurrected can seem at first to negate the efficacy of the sacrifice, but is there really any reason that would be so? Jesus experienced the full measure of the punishment necessary to fulfill the justice of God. In the act of dying, Jesus took upon himself the culpability of all humankind, and it is in this respect that he died. That is, he took the sins of humanity with him when he died. And upon resurrecting, those sins were no longer upon him; they had been "paid back". in other words, Jesus no longer was responsible for those sins (and therefore no other human held such culpability). The guilt-free state of the resurrected Jesus is essentially what we will experience if we accept the sacrifice: we will die, but resurrect in a state which does not include the guilt of sin. This idea is kind of similar to American law systems in which a party can accept or refuse another party's receipt of the punishment which the actual guilty party deserves. Another example would be the acceptance or refusal of a presidential pardon, which would be accepting the literal guilt of having done the deed, but also accepting that the punishment was negated or satisfied. It is worth noting that God cannot simply pardon humans at will and allow them to exist with him. God's justice must be satisfied because it is an essential property of his. It would be just as impossible to escape a black hole in space: the laws of reality simply preclude that possibility. In God's case, that which defines him prevents coexistence with an entity who bears the guilt of evil.

​

​

This is an explanation in my own words, and it can be difficult to understand how this talk of 'justice' and 'culpability' can really apply in a world we're so accustomed to describing with precise terms and little abstraction. The Atonement is the subject of much discussion, and the book linked below provides an excellent summary of the various points of view and explanations for the metaphysical and philosophical workings of the sacrifice.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Atonement-Elements-Philosophy-Religion/dp/1108457401

​

I hope my post expresses everything well, but I admit it's hard to pack such a rich topic into a small space! Above all, the scholarly works provide the best sources of discussion for concepts like this. Despite its goal, even this subreddit is not going to yield much meaningful discourse, so I highly recommend reading academic sources like the one I linked above, or its related website: reasonablefaith.org

Thanks for reading! :)

After reading your whole post, you seem to be doing the right thing by continuing to participate in a church community. We were created to live, share, love, and serve together and having that socially integrated approach to faith is a very good place to start.

That being said, and to answer your question as posted: to the library or bookstore. That is where you should go from here. Some recommendations if I may:

• Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton.
  
• The Brothers Karmazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
  
• Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard.
  
• The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis.

http://www.amazon.com/Loving-Know-Esther-Lightcap-Meek/dp/1608999289

The best I got. This woman was a professor of mine. Her argument is pretty interesting. Also this book is useful for life in general.

Short answer, it takes 3 parts for them to know each other and not be contingent.

I recently finished reading:

• The Law of Christ: A Theological Proposal by A. Blake White
  
• Utopia by Thomas More
  
• Christian Philosophy: A Systematic and Narrative Introduction by Craig Bartholomew
  
  
  I'm currently reading:
  
  
• Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses by Laurence BonJour
  
  
  I've got lined up to read next:
  
  
• Philosophy of Logics by Susan Haack
  
• Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Michael Loux
  
• Philosophy of Mind: A Comprehensive Introduction by William Jaworski
  
  
  If you're interested in Natural Law, you might check out Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense by David Haines. I've got this one lined up to read when I get into studying Political Philosophy. It seems like a good book on the subject.

I believe the place to begin a general study of philosophy is Copleston's A History of Philosophy, at the very least volume I, volume II, and volume IV. Not that philosophy is the study of what famous philosophers have thought, but I think the major ideas and schools of philosophy are easier to absorb when presented in their historical sequence.

A good introductory book on the philosophical issues most relevant to Christianity is An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies. The author is a priest, but he lays out competing arguments in a balanced and open-ended way that makes the book suitable for classroom use. Like any textbook, you'll get the most out of this by doing the homework. At the end of each chapter there are some "questions for discussion"; take some time to reflect on them, maybe writing out your answers in a journal.

A book written from a more explicitly Christian perspective is An Introduction to Philosophy by Jacques Maritain. For Maritain, like Feser, the Aristotelian-Thomistic school is the Christian philosophy, and he does not back away from the arguments and say to draw your own conclusions.

I think I can add some pointers here.

If you want to believe in God, look around you. Although the argument for the intelligent design is old and beaten, it stills strike me a true. There is simply far too much complexity in nature to be all pure luck. You may want to read the most recent book by Anthony Flew. Although he is not a Christian (rather, he calls himself a deist), he argues a good point.

There's an excellent book from an academic perspective dealing with the harmful bias in science against (the overwhelming number of) stories that don't fit the established narrative. I'm partway into it and highly recommend, it's called "The Flip" and features a ton of stories of scientists who have their entirely world views rattled (and are afraid of going public) after their own paranormal encounters.


https://www.amazon.com/Flip-Epiphanies-Mind-Future-Knowledge/dp/1942658524

I haven't read it yet, but I've heard decent things about Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen Barr. He's a catholic physicist, and tries to bring science and faith together. Apparently he at least gets the science right, regardless of the quality of his theistic arguments.

Also A Reasonable God by Greg Ganssle is a good read that accepts some points from the Dawkins camp while rejecting others. The argument still fails, for me, but it's an enjoyable read and better than most of the other tripe out there.

Here are some books that you might find interesting.

Time and Eternity by Brian Leftow

Time and Eternity by William Lane Craig

God in an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism edited by Thomas Jay Oord, William Hasker, and Dean Zimmerman

An interesting argument

Rasmussen is the co-author of Necessary Existence.

There is not an academic consensus on the definition of atheism. People here who promote a particular definition from a particular academic source are cherry picking and dishonestly misrepresenting it as agreed upon.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199644659/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8

>Even today, however, there is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published in the last ten years:

>1. ‘Atheism […] is the belief that there is no God or gods’(Baggini 2003:3)

>2. ‘At its core, atheism […] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’ (Eller 2010: 1)

>3. ‘[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’ (Martin 2007: 1)

>4. ‘[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’ (Cliteur 2009: 1)

>5. ‘By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean — a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’ (McGrath 2004: 175)

Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John Frame

Loving to Know:Covenant Epistemology by Esther Meek

Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga

What's a more likely explanation, that the Book of Mormon is translated from an ancient record of a massive Hebrew civilisation in the Americas which somehow vanished without a trace given what we know about the evidence left behind by older and smaller civilisations, or that it is the product of a nineteenth century frontier American man's fastastical imagination?

What's more likely, that there is some spooky non-material "spirit" stuff that sounds like the fantastical stuff primtive people cook up to explain things that they didn't understand or couldn't cope with (oblivion), or that the human brain is capable of generating the experience of flashes of images or sequences sounds within itself, especially under extreme stress, and given that you already have experience with this property of the brain when you have dreams and nightmares, and you've probably in your line of work had to deal with all sorts of people with malfunctioning brains who have seen, and continue to see, all sorts of crazy shit they "cannot deny" because their inner mentally generated phenomena seems more real to them than whatever accurate information about the real world their senses are conveying to them.

Even so, it's can't possibly be "all for nothing". I suggest Ronald Dworkin's Religion Without God and Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death.

Another way to come at this, instead of abstract reasoning, is to learn the history of religions--how they evolve, what functions they serve in society and so forth. Then you see that the religion you were raised in is one in the history of these belief systems at a specific point in time, with no more validity than any of the others, some of which we think of as silly. The evolution of religion, Why Would Anyone Believe in God Breaking the Spell.

In other words, religion can be explained as a natural phenomenon, rather than because it is correct.

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

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

There Is a God

First of all, that's not agnosticism.

Secondly, Huxley and Spencer's agnosticism made a fair bit of sense in the 19th century, but they've not aged well with discoveries on the limits of knowledge in the 20th. That is, you don't get the formally agnostic Will to Believe from James (inexpertly presented recently as Life of Pi) and get to banish Russel's discussion of the matter.

Note that the overlap between atheism and agnosticism isn't new, radical, or limited to reddit. It's reasonably well documented by both the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the recently published Oxford Handbook. The former should be required reading on the topic, you can view how the latter discusses this debate using Amazon preview.

Plantinga is an old-school academic philosopher, so the best way to get familiar with his ideas is his published works (Amazon links below):

• The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader - a well-edited anthology that presents a broad survey of Plantinga's ideas (leans heavily toward his epistemology, though IIRC).
  
• Warrant: The Current Debate
  
• Warrant and Proper Function
  
• Warranted Christian Belief This is the only one of the "warrant" books I've read. The three books aren't considered a "trilogy" as such, rather WCD and WPF are companion pieces and WCB then builds a different argument based on the earlier works. Namely, Plantinga responds to what he calls the de jure argument that Christianity is irrational, unjustified, and/or unwarranted (in contrast to the de facto argument that Christianity is false). Some googling will reveal reviews of the book from every conceivable angle, some with responses from Plantinga himself. When Plantinga refers to the earlier books, he gives some context, so it's possible to read this book without having read the other two.
  
  Plantinga is also on the editorial board of Faith and Philosophy, the journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers, and he's contributed several articles over the years. There are even more published articles written by his students and colleagues about his ideas.