Reddit mentions: The best psychology & religion books

Define God. What is God to a Christian? What is it that they truly believe in? Love? Kindness? Slow to anger? Show your wife a list of things that you believe in and that she believes in. Show her that you still share belief in many things.

I have not read these books but they are from former Christians. Their logic and perspective maybe helpful.
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists
Christian No More: On Leaving Christianity, Debunking Christianity, And Embracing Atheism And Freethinking

Give her time to adjust. And, if you truly love and want to be with your wife, PROVE IT. Be romantic. Tell her you love her. Tell her you want her to be your wife. Tell her you want to grow old with her. Tell her what a great friend she is. Love notes. Flowers. Phone messages. Text messages. Facebook messages. Do whatever it takes. Even give her control of the TV remote.

I don't know of the consequences but if you have to, you can bring up the Bible verses which say that it is good not to leave a non-believing spouse, not bring up the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against God.

Good luck to you. Be patient with her.

This book is a critique from what is popularly known as "New Atheism" but with a Nietzschean philosophical slant permeating throughout the entirety of the text. Also, I've upgraded my views based on the best evidence that I've read from social and cognitive psychology books in my attempt at a blistering critique of religion in defense of human rights. While I'm sure that's not what most people would expect given Nietzsche's views and proclivities, I admire the fact that he was a philosopher who - like the Buddha - flat out stated that you shouldn't follow his philosophy to obey his every word, but rather use what you find useful and improve upon it to the best of your efforts. This is my attempt at just that.

Also, if people would prefer a physical copy, the physical edition is finally out: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1733901701/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i3



Update: Due to popular feedback, I decided to make split versions of the ebook edition for anyone who found 2554 pages too daunting but are still interested in reading my book. In case any of you are still interested.

Part I Only.

Part II Only.

Explanation on pricing can be read here.

> does Sims include religions that do not recognize a God?

I couldn't tell you. I'll have to dig further into the book to find out.

> IIRC you formerly identified as an atheist. In your experience, did "galvanized atheism" (dunno what else to call it without offending our friends on this forum) give you the same feelings of well-being and optimism?

I lived like an atheist, although my belief system was more apatheistic than galvanized. My psychological state then is interesting to ponder, although obviously self-recollection is biased. Frankly, I don't recall being happy. I didn't walk around miserable 24/7, and I loved being entertained: TV, video games, hanging out with people, etc.

But what I have now is deeper. It's sort of analogous to the difference between 2D and 3D. You can't describe the difference, but you know it when you see it.

> (FWIW I know many assemblies that are fervently Christian and not optimistic in the least.)

That's a very important point. You can be incredibly devoted in practice, but lack the expression of the fruit of the Spirit. In that sense your devotion underemphasizes Christian affections, to use a theological term.

You're asking some really interesting questions on some nuanced issues. Reading the reviews of the book on amazon, it seems the book is written more for upper-level students of psychology/psychiatry. If you're interested, you should give it a look.

I have a lay interest in this stuff, but I'm far from well-read enough to go into the methodology and data filtering, although I'm really interested in answers to the questions you're asking. If this is something you're into, check the book out!

http://www.amazon.com/Is-Faith-Delusion-religion-health/dp/1847063403

>The only true good is God, so allowing bad things to happen so that we can run to that only true good that exists is good. Its not psychotic, its amazing. Hes allowed to look like a hero because he is the hero.

Do you know what negligent homicide is? Do you know it is a crime to let people die or suffer when you could have stopped it? Think about that for a second. Someone who allows bad things to happen, even though he/she could have stopped it, is not good in any sane definition. In fact, it is considered to be criminal. Someone who actually inflicts bad things on other people, for any reason at all, is even worse. The ends do not justify the means, least of all for supposedly omnipotent entities!

Imagine trying that on your own children. Imagine beating them up and allowing them to suffer, just so they could see how good and loving you are. Imagine how much of a "hero" you'd be. Sorry, but those are some messed up morals you have there. I guess you're really bending your own reason backwards to make this concept fit.

>On the second point, that is definitely an argument for God because there will never be a perfect world where peace was everywhere and war was no where. Every time we make advancements in technology, there are unforeseen side effects that take us backwards in some way. Humanity will never be perfect, so we will always need a God.

This is just mindblowing. You can't acknowledge that a perfect society is godless, and then argue that we need a God, even though he's the one making us imperfect through the evils he created himself! Hooray for God, the hero, the one who keeps us from being perfect. Let's worship him.

> Everyone has a God in their lives, whether it be money, sex, approval from others, happiness, success, etc. While it itself is not a God like being, it is the reason you wake up in the morning.

A total departure from logic. You can't understand why some people don't believe in God, so you make God mean something else which is common to everyone (or so you assume). That way you can say everyone believes in God. God is not something else. We are talking about the supposed creator of all existence who governs the life of mankind. No one is arguing that money and sex are omnipotent and will save us from evil. You're just setting up a strawman to defend.

>Humans have an innate desire to worship something.

Read this book and you'll understand why. Spoiler alert: it's your fear of dying.

>If someone had nothing to strive for and no reason to get up, i.e. nothing to worship, they wouldn't be human.

"Having a purpose" is to "worshipping something" as a rocket ship is to a banana. People define their own purpose, and they can defend it through reason. The only argument to worship something (which is typically a deity defined for you by people who want to make you believe) is faith.

What if your reason to wake up in the morning is fighting the concept of God? You just called Christopher Hitchens, and a lot of prominent anti-theists, inhuman. Without backing it up, really, just as an appeal to emotion. Way to go. Your benevolent baby killer of a God would be proud. Now go read a book. Other than Twilight and the Bible.

I second The Hero With a Thousand Faces as a semi-philosophical but very interesting and indirectly spiritual book. Very accessible, and a great gift (I've gifted Campbell numerous times by now).

Pascal's Pensees would be great, being very spiritually oriented and all. Kierkegaard's a bit more dense, but also has a lot of interesting things to say on sprituality. Try Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing.

1. 
   
   Information is inert. It has no inherent velocity. It can't do anything on its own, which means that information has no inherent moral value or quality. It's just information.
   
   However,
   
   
2. 
   
   information can be weaponized.
   
   Critics of the LDS Church's culture and institutions invented a concept of truth and have used it to empower and enrich themselves at the expense of the institution they criticize (the irony of this is that, by creating the authority to distinguish truth from error and endowing themselves with that authority, these critics have simply reinstantiated the worst elements of that culture and those institutions in digital spaces under their own control).
   
   3)
   
   Anne Taves wrote a book called 'Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things'. In the text, Taves rejects the duality of sacred/profane which had dominated religious studies in favor of examining how people ascribe values and/or quality to ideas, practices, and materials. She draws on earlier work by people like Clifford Geertz and Talal Assad and asserts that nothing is sacred or profane. Instead, ideas, practices, and materials are just ideas, practices, and materials until people ascribe value to them.
   
   For example - the Sacred Grove is a strand of trees outside Palmyra, New York. It's pretty, but in material terms, it is literally just strand of trees. Some people ascribe positive value to the Sacred Grove (while others ascribe negative value to it) - but the grove is just a strand of trees. The act of ascription is what gives it value.
   
   Taves' ideas matter because
   
   
3. 
   
   humans are social animals. Our sociality is enveloping bloom of networks that enable us to ascribe meaning to the otherwise impassable mass of information we encounter every day. You learn to ascribe based on your family, friends, loved ones, etc. Taves' work suggests that the work of a church (digital or physical) is to teach people a common set of ascriptions about a common set of ideas, beliefs, practices, or materials.
   
   So,
   
   5)
   
   an answer to your question (at last): my closest and dearest relationships are with Heavenly Father and my mortal family - who are all (more or less) active members of the church.
   
   So when I encounter new information about the church's history or culture, I consider how I found it and how it was presented to me - but I always weigh it against those relationships. Sometimes what comes out is hilarious, sometimes it is sad - but the "truth" quality of my ascriptions have always weighed out.

Depending on the age of the kid, these could be some good ones:

What Do You Believe?

See Inside World Religions

The Belief Book and others in that series

What is God? (this one does presuppose some kind of a higher power, but compares its depiction across many religions and suggests that god is in us/everywhere around us/basically the concept of good)

I Wonder (not specifically about religion, but more about the idea that science can answer some questions but not yet all - some things are a mystery that we can only wonder about)

Also definitely recommend including some books on the scientific version of the creation story (i.e. the big bang, evolution, etc) so kids have that perspective to draw on as well. Again depending on the age, some good ones are:

Older Than the Stars

Big Bang: The Tongue-Tickling Tale of a Speck That Became Spectacular

One Day a Dot: The Story of You, The Universe, and Everything

Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story

Grandmother Fish

Sapiens: Our Human Evolution

Hope some of those are helpful! :)

I'm absolutely calicokat. I've written loads of porn. Enjoy.

When I was last doing research there were about six people specialized in the area and publishing. There's not a journal for it. It's not a formal subfield. You can read theories and extrapolations based on cortical activation in modern humans performing Oldowan knapping techniques for hours if you want to get into that sort of thing.

I've already read, and read, and read. There's really not much more reading is going to do for me at this point.

I'd recommend:

Why Would Anyone Believe in God? but I'd read Religion Explained first to get the basis on how actual experiences with a god or gods would be identical to hallucinated experiences of a god or gods if recorded on an fMRI machine and so on.

If you want to get into the evolution of religion you can start on wikipedia and go anywhere you like.

Unfortunately, you have a lot of reading to do. It'd take a long time for me to present an explicit rejection of, say, over half of E.O.Wilson's The Social Conquest of Earth and I'd have to get it out and find it and document why the particular but not unpopular explanation of cognitive evolution at the beginning is totally unfeasible at key points and find out if there's any easily accessible authors that best represent the position I personally take from my own several years of dedicated research.

The key argument I'd make is that the development of the spiritual technologies that facilitate interaction and negotiation with the spirits/gods took a huge investment of time and resources and the fact is that human kin groups who invested this time and these resources out-competed and survived all competition.

Everyone who didn't use them in fact died out.

What are spiritual technologies? Better make some lists and do some reading on that.

Insert somewhere a long digression on difference between kin selection and group selection, if the second even exists, and the effects of either.

We're going to need to come to an understanding on our informed understandings of the origins of social behavior, too. We probably won't agree entirely. I'm not even sure I want to take a fixed position. Let's read about game theory together, I'm rusty.

Now that we know about spiritual technologies and why people might develop them other than that they work, we're down to arguing "Is this because spiritual technologies work?" Well, first I'd like you to read a boatload of anthropological accounts of "shamanic" practices you can find because we're not talking about organized religion at all. It's brand new, it's the same as any state level political construct, and it has nothing to do with original animism and polytheism. Now, I need you to integrate with some practitioners and get some first hand experience.

Somewhere in here we also need to argue the validity of the concept of memes or at least what we mean by memes because cultural transmission and its mechanisms and the degree to which people compulsively transmit and adopt social behaviors is a big part of this discussion.

I mean, I'd need to be here a long time.

Meanwhile, I have no interest whatsoever in convincing you of anything or converting you to anything.

Meh. Sure, it's fine, if you don't understand that religion is a human behaviour rooted in the cognitive capacities that the hominid mind has developed through millions of years of evolution as a social animal.

I read through Keller's book, and it fails in this key place: it doesn't successfully model "religion" or "God" in order to make a case for the rationality of that model.

Religion is universal among human societies and cultures for a reason: biology. Specifically, evolutionary psychology. The same thing that makes the Classical logical fallacies universal. This is how we think because this is how our brains evolved. Full stop. We put on our lucky socks, we try not to step on the sidewalk cracks or walk under ladders ("just in case..."), and we tell ourselves that we are a part of something greater than ourselves, and that the universe is not as cold and dangerous as we fear it is.

Well, it's not, but only because our pre-human ancestors banded together and helped each other out, cared about one another, and protected each other when the going got rough.

Our brains evolved with this capacity to look for assistance from others, and also provide for others this kind of help and comfort. We have a built-in capacity for community, charity, and compassion, courtesy of evolutionary heritage.

In reality, religion is just what happens when humans get together and feel like humans, but don't know enough cognitive science to know WHY we feel this way. So we make up a likely story. We ALL feel this way, but all of our cultures are different, so we all have different Likely Stories. Mine's Thor, yours is Christ, someone else's is Shiva.

If you're REALLY looking for "God," look no farther than your friends and family.

Religion is really no more rational than the story of how the Tiger Got His Stripes. We know something's up, but science couldn't explain it. Where the traditional "religion as myth" explanation gets it wrong, though, is that religion isn't necessarily used to explain lightening or the moon or rivers. It's used to explain OURSELVES and our big, crazy social and emotional capacity.

So I'll see your pseudo-rationality and raise you some cognitive science:

www.amazon.com/Anyone-Believe-Cognitive-Science-Religion/dp/0759106673/

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion

Tillich's The Courage to Be. It won't turn them into the good evangelical you probably have in mind, but it is one of the best argued cases for faith.

William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience is also a classic for good reason. It wasn't until recently that we had fairly comprehensive answers for James, though some people still read it differently.

You know, I started reading Joseph Campbell's stuff years ago. I really quite enjoyed it and I'm sure that some of what I read seeped into my subconscious and likely informed my work indirectly. For reasons that are lost in the dim recesses of my memory, though, I don't think finished reading any of his work and I haven't drawn on any of it directly.

I don't know of any books currently out there that tackle sacred stories head on from an evolutionary perspective. The final chapter of my dissertation looks at sacred texts as being like the chromosomes and genes of genetic evolution, which is related to your question about cultural borrowing but isn't directly on point. Plus, you know, it's a dissertation so--boring!

That said, if you're interested in books that look at religion from an evolutionary perspective there are some good ones out there. The first one that I'm aware of, and that in many ways started me on this journey is Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson. More recent books include a new one by Dominic Johnson, God is Watching You and a closely related book by Ara Norenzayan, Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict. There are others as well, but those are the three that first popped into my mind.

Yes that's fine. I'll be going to dinner in an hour or so and probably won't see replies until tomorrow, so take some time to do proper research.

If you'd like to see some youtube videos that mirror my questions about faith - check out this channel. https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210/videos

Here's a man who benefitted from this line of questioning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p055fcQ9Pgc



The book I mentioned. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004HW6ADS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#customerReviews

If you're serious about an answer to your question read this pdf. You can skip to page 15 to the sub-heading Epistemic Rationality and Religious Experience. The rest of the paper is a critique of the Rational Choice Theory of Religion and psychological egoism in general but doesn't directly address your question. This paper wasn't written by a Mormon by the way but it is extremely relevant nonetheless. If you want something more in-depth to read on the topic of the epistemological warrant of religious experience This book by the author of the above paper is really good. If you have more questions I can try to field them.

Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!

Here are your smile-ified links:

https://smile.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origins-Religious-ebook/dp/B009TCW076/

https://smile.amazon.com/Belief-Instinct-Psychology-Destiny-Meaning-ebook/dp/B004HW6ADS/

---

^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot

We don't know. There are theories. Like here and here.

Summary: To explain stuff we don't understand. To create community. To provide comfort. To distinguish my group from your group.

Good book I have recommended on this topic: http://www.amazon.com/Belief-Instinct-Psychology-Destiny-Meaning/dp/0393341267

I've been an atheist for most of my life. Just because this is how I think doesn't mean I should expect others to adopt my thinking.

Suggested reading: http://www.amazon.com/The-Belief-Instinct-Psychology-Destiny/dp/0393341267

There are billions of religious people in the world. Do you think we are so good at teaching? I wish we were!

Here is an interesting book on the subject by the article's author (Going by the other comments at least): http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004HW6ADS/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

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.

Found this information in this book: God's Brain by Lionel Tiger and Michael McGuire.

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Brain-Lionel-Tiger/dp/1616141646
written by a neuropsychiater and a antropologist. Don't know if they released a paper about it. But thats basicly the gist of their arguement.

Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer

The belief book by David mcafee.

Edit: link

https://www.amazon.com/Belief-Book-David-G-McAfee/dp/1790576180/ref=asc_df_1790576180_nodl/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=317097901561&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3390816253439317702&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1027784&hvtargid=pla-627283726939&psc=1

Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds https://www.amazon.com/dp/0520284925/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_jcgzzb9MF45V6

This might be an interesting read just to help understand both where she's coming from, what beliefs might be causing her fear of the game, and how to argue against that using logic and a proper understanding of the context. Keep your head up! I play even though I'm religious, but I have a lot of friends who are in similar struggles because of their parents.

You might be interested in reading Religion Explained. They define "religion" to be superstition with a book describing the content, and "witchcraft" to be superstition spread verbally without any books. We have religion instead of witchcraft because it takes written material to capture governments. The problem you are observing will not get better except by decreasing the fraction of religious people.

Nothing wrong, only it does not teach pro social behaviour. When someone believes the more enemies you slay and plunder the better the afterlife will be, it does not really foster peaceful coexistence and cooperation, don't you think?

I talked of non of the things you mentioned so I am not sure where you getting this from.
I am interested in looking at religion from a different perspective, not a dogmatic one which does not interest me. I recommend this book

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199895635/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499280968&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=God+is+watching+you

"the faith instinct" by nicholas wade is all about this subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Instinct-Religion-Evolved-Endures/dp/B005FOGCNK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330968608&sr=1-1

the general thesis is that in old times when tribes were competing against each other, religion served as a means unify the tribe in warfare against another tribe. those who evolved the mechanism to be more religious tended to dominate less religious tribes in warfare and subsequently reproducition

I'm no Freud, but If you're asking for a psychological perspective, my understanding is that magical thinking (or causal illusions)--which your case exemplifies--stems from a subconscious human need for ontological order (as opposed to randomness) and expositional significance. In other words, an 'uncaring' reality of random and meaningless coincidences--where things 'just happen'-- is at once existentially unsoothing and humbling (which has evolutionary implications). Then, amplifying these congenital intuitions (which all humans have to varying degrees of salience), is your own religious conditioning. I can elaborate further but I'm tired :(. I recommend reading the book 'The Belief Instinct' by cognitive psychologist Jesse Berring, which is more or less a primer on this topic.

Book 1: https://www.amazon.ca/Shittgenstein-Bullshit-Machine-Philosophy-Capitalism-ebook/dp/B01J4AGBEU/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=cathal+putrid&qid=1566933893&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Book 2: https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/151203388X/ref=ppx_od_dt_b_asin_title_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Book 3: https://www.amazon.ca/Reset-Philosophy-Cathal-Putrid-Haughian/dp/1546805605/ref=pd_sim_14_1/147-3879950-3650531?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1546805605&pd_rd_r=f34a0a83-d2b1-45ab-858e-fe445ff3efdc&pd_rd_w=fgnTV&pd_rd_wg=tFSec&pf_rd_p=bcf387b8-a13f-4873-9cf6-d11098fead4e&pf_rd_r=QH1ZTYPPVZBJTJKXRFQ5&psc=1&refRID=QH1ZTYPPVZBJTJKXRFQ5

​

Be forewarned, the topics covered are not going to help you sleep at night. For me, Book 1 and 3 were mind-blowing. I was very fluent on Book 2 material already when I read these. And for Book 1, don't get hung up on the writing style, or words used. You have to read the entire book and then make your assessment, but damn, I will tell you it answered questions I've had my whole life about why the world is the way it is.

I was never an atheist, but I was agnostic for a while. What finally brought me round to theism completely was the argument presented in 'The Trace of God' by Joseph Hinman (it's written in quite a dull and poorly structured way, but the content is 10/10, so I highly recommend it). The book gives evidence for God more as something impersonal, so if you never much fancied the traditional, anthropomorphic picture of God, then this might be right up your street.

> Would you change your opinion if God told that whatever was given to mankind is sufficient and that anyone saying otherwise is giving excuses to follow their own desires?

No.

Because this isn't proof. your argument is indistinguishable from a sham, or a delusion. your argument speaks to a common manipulation of religion - that a person's will is corrupt and thus should be submitted to another person's will (someone who, naturally, is pretending to be driven by a higher and therefore unquestionable power and thus authority).

Basically, the entirety of the observable universe can be described without need of invoking anything self aware - let alone a god. Until this is challenged by direct evidence, it is only reasonable to refute existence of allah or any of the equivalent thousands of gods that mankind has so far conjured in its image.

Furthermore, like all religious texts, the koran is full of contradictions, factual inaccuracies and misidrection. therefore, whatever the truth is, it isn't to be found in that or any other religious book. also, we should mention how fundamentally immoral the koran is (pro slavery, pro subjugation of women, pro mutilation and murder of kaffir, pro extinction of all other civilisation etc etc etc). in light of this observation, one could also argue that - faced with irrefutable proof of allah - the moral thing to do would be to choose hell as opposed to supporting such a monster.

But there is a reason why humans are predisposed to creating gods in their image. it is prosocial on an evolutionary time scale. those of our ancestors that believed in gods were more likely to survive, thus 'god' genes accumulated, and still express themselves in those denied access to reasonable education.

if you want to understand more, get this. it's a very concise read.