Best products from r/PhilosophyofReligion

Interesting thoughts. Surprisingly personal, which we could use a little more of around here. To offer some thoughts and criticisms (which are intended to be helpful and constructive, not rude).

You indicate belief in God, and then say that we are here because of luck. While these ideas aren't necessarily in contradiction with each other, I'm skeptical of how well these two lines of thought might go together. I'll direct you towards the idea of a fine-tuned universe and throw in a link to the book I first heard of it in.

Next you go on and say that we shouldn't put God in any sort of intellectual box. While I understand where you might be coming from on this, this simply won't fly with many people. To say that God is simply beyond our knowledge will lead to protest from atheists and theists alike; atheists will see that as a cop-out argument, and many theists likely believe in God because they see His existence as comprehensible and sensible. If you wanna go down the route of saying God is capable of breaking the laws of logic and reason that's fine, but insofar as you go down such a route, you'll be unable to discuss God and your reasons for believing in Him with others.

And to that you have a response in your post where you say "As long as you genuinely believe it is true, than it is true to you." While I get where you're coming from, and to some degree agree with the idea of people thinking for themselves, you're pushing a relativism that's trapping you into a cul-de-sac of subjectivity from which you cannot try and argue for the truth of your beliefs; only that you believe in their being true. While I agree that personal experience is important in developing beliefs, one shouldn't ignore reason and others thoughts when trying to form yours. You're not the first person to try addressing these questions, and you won't be the last. Logic is a language that helps us break out of our subjectivity and into more objective understandings of things. Saying that your beliefs are yours is one thing, but to say that if something's true for you then that should be enough could in the end be used as a justification for some beliefs that I think we can agree are wrong. The Nazis, to use an extreme example, had some beliefs, but I think everyone here can agree that such beliefs were wrong. Beliefs on God are going to be the same way; God exists for us all, or He exists for none of us. The difference is this question is a bit more abstract and difficult to pin down.

But you've got some interesting thoughts, and to assist you in your journey, I'll recommend one of my favorite thinkers, Soren Kierkegaard, who wrote a lot about subjectivity, faith and the religious experience. I think you'd find his work will both fit nicely into your views, while pushing you further still. Good luck in everything.

PS: also, God is a she? Interesting.

>There is/was a sect of Christianity which focused on cultivating wisdom -- the Gnostics. There is also a sect of Islam called Sufis which do the same. Mainstream Christianity/Islam does not encourage contemplation and analysis.

I want to push back on this a little bit, if you don't mind. The Gnostics, as I understand them, are actually quite guilty of institutionalizing their faith (considering their secret rituals and what have you), despite their pursuit of wisdom, so surely you can't be against institutions or rituals in and of themselves. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "mainstream" Christianity or Islam, but it seems to me that those traditions are actually rich in contemplative resources. I can't speak too much of the Islamic community, as I am more interested in the Christian one, but this is especially true of the "high church" traditions in Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican). Furthermore, I think there are ways to be orthodox (little "o") in Christian theology while remaining and promoting contemplation. Augustine's Confessions is among the most contemplative works in ancient theology, and surely the rich tradition of Christian mysticism can't be ignored here (John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, etc.--indeed, there are far too many to list). There is also a huge return to contemplative prayer in Protestant circles as of late (see especially the New Monastic movement).

Perhaps I've misunderstood your terms, and if so please feel free to clarify.

>Buddhism of all the religions I know is the least tainted and actively promotes analysis and seeking wisdom within. The Buddha himself said not to believe anything he said out of blind faith, and the goal of Buddhism is to achieve enlightenment through direct experience. It is do it yourself and wholly unlike the major Western religions which rely on faith and salvation.

I would push back here, too, particularly considering Karl Jaspers' book Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus. He actually wants to recover the contemplative Buddha which has been covered over by popular Asian practices which institutionalize his thought. Also, I wonder if perhaps you've misread the major Western religions--only hardline evangelicals would hold to your understanding of faith and salvation. Those in high church communions actually stress quite a lot on works, both internal and external.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The reason why I dissected Sufism and Gnosticism was that their goal is gnosis. The goal of Christianity and Islam is not gnosis. Even if there are contemplative practices, the goal is not union with the divine. Not that it doesn't happen to some people. I'm sure it does. There is an excellent book called Putting on the Mind of Christ written by a former Christian monastic who directly realized God. But i'm speaking for the traditions as wholes. I've read and greatly respect the Christian mystics, but how many people seek to become like them? Prophets and mystics are venerated, not emulated (though usually way after their deaths).

> Karl Jaspers' book Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus. He actually wants to recover the contemplative Buddha which has been covered over by popular Asian practices which institutionalize his thought.

I've never read the book actually. Maybe I'll check it out. Thanks. If that's his intention, all he needs to do is go to a Tibetan, Zen, Thai, Burmese (etc) monastery. Or the many Insight centers springing up here in the West. The real contemplative Buddha is not lost at all. But certainly I can agree that it may be tough to find among the masses, especially the uneducated, which is unfortunately the norm in Asia. Buddhism has historically been for scholars and the upper classes. The poor and uneducated tended to rely on folklore and superstition.

Hey, for sure! "Without God: Science, Belief, Morality, and The Meaning of Life."

https://www.amazon.com/Without-God-Science-Morality-Meaning-ebook/dp/B07WK8CQX5/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=


I do have some audibook promo codes I can give out for free. Anyone interested can pm me and let me know if they are US or UK.

Thank you! I'd love to hear your feedback on it!

Holy thread necromancy Batman. ;-)

I did not say that all Christians were wrong, but I wrote specifically that fundamentalist Christian doctrine is untenable, and linked to the 5 fundamentals:

• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
  
• The virgin birth of Christ.
  
• The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
  
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
  
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
  
  The most clearly problematic ones are these:
  
  
• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
  
  The Bible is not anything like this. For why, I highly recommend The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark. This critique also speaks strongly against those who see the bible as "infallible" instead of strongly "inerrant".
  
  This problem is highly related to the problem of inconsistent revelations. It seems that if there is a God, it is quite clear that whatever his goal is, it is not for us to have certainty.
  
  
• The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
  
  This in Paul's writings is linked to the Fall of Adam, especially in Romans 5 and First Corinthians 15.
  
  The problem is we're now quite sure there was no Adam and Eve and no Fall from sinless, deathless perfection, (see some of the science here) and that creates very real problems for Fundamentalist Christianity. Enns also has this excellent talk where he goes over the shape and the historical context of the problem.
  
  I was raised fundamentalist and spent over 25 years as one. I tried to maintain that worldview as strongly as I could, but it just doesn't work.
  
  I see the world quite differently now, in a way that could be called "Christian atheism" or more precisely "Christian ignosticism", highly influenced by the findings of psychology and cognitive neuroscience and the teachings of Eastern Christianity which fit together surprisingly well. (warning: 30 part series, but might just change your life. ;-) I came to this general understanding from an overlap of Terror Management theory and the writings of Paul Tillich.
  
  I'd be happy to answer any questions you have or point you towards any resources if you're interested. My understanding is shaped by many more things than I can put in one post, no matter how many references I put in. ;-)

I've been meaning to check that out one out but I haven't had a chance yet. I really like this one though, it has some great essays.

I am fascinated with both topics as well.

Recommendations on anthropology of religion:

• Recommendations by r/anthropology (includes primers)
  
• The Golden Bough
  
• Hero With A Thousand Faces
  
• Who Wrote The Bible?
  
  Recommendations on philosophy of religion:
  
  
• Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology
  
• Logic And Theism
  
• Theism And Explanation
  

Obligatory wikipedia link to Process and Reality

This book should be read before digging into P&R

Here's the mammoth tome in its entirety on amazon

PDF of the final section of P&R. All the quotes I used come from the section God and the World that starts on page 5 of this document.

Be forewarned, this is really heavy stuff. I've been grappling with it for over 6 years and it's slowly becoming understandable to me even though I have a scholastic background in metaphysics and philosophy.
That said, I encourage you and anyone interested in both science and philosophy of religion to jump right in; it's the most complete metaphysical system I have ever encountered and I consider it to be the pinnacle of speculative philosophy.

You're certainly not alone in this.


My teacher wrote his dissertation on William Desmond, which became a book shortly after. A year later he published a book on Kierkegaard. In the latter he explicitly makes connections between the two.


Here they are:


http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Metaphysics-Postmodern-William-Philosophy/dp/0253221242/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1314763269&sr=8-2


http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Way-Kierkegaards-Theologia-Viatorum/dp/1610971493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314763269&sr=8-1


If I may ask, who was it that recommended reading them together?

I recommend a good phil religion introduction (like this one here).


My suggestion is to to look at the classical arguments for and against the existence of God, and the current debate had about those arguments, and just assess the evidence yourself.


For example, you will need to consider the problem of evil, which is the most serious objection to God's existence (at least the God of classical theism) and look at the current responses (like skeptical theism) to see what you think.


Some names of people worth reading are William Rowe, Alvin Platinga, Richard Swinburne, Brian Leftowe, Peter van Inwagen, Robert Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, and Eleonore Stump. I would use Phil Papers to find some of the titles and potentially get a free download.


Also there is a great series called Closer to Truth that interviews some of the biggest names in the Philosophy of Religion right now. (here's a link).

​

Cambridge companions are always a nice place to start, and there is one on Buddhist Philosophy:

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Buddhist-Philosophy-Cambridge-Introductions/dp/052167008X