(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best religious studies

5.) I've heard it said that religion is a product of evolution, but this seems counterintuitive to me. How and for what purpose would religion be implemented into the framework of evolution?

Religiosity is a product of evolution.

Large brains are expensive. The brain is responsible for 20% of the energy human bodies use (compared to 13% for chimps, and 2-8% for other vertebrates - source). Visually-oriented animals in a competitive hunter-prey environment conducive to hiding and stalking (such as a forest or savannah) who can recognise patterns in incomplete data thus generating hypotheses to explain what they are seeing, gain an advantage from this ability to predict., and so tend to have larger (or more active) brains for their body size.

The evolutionary pressure is not towards making perfectly accurate hypotheses. Rather, the advantage goes to the animal who generates an hypothesis quickly enough to escape a tiger before the tiger pounces, and there is a bias towards seeing a pattern where none exists, over missing a pattern where one does exist, because it is better to run away from shadows unnecessarily nine times if, on the tenth time, you escape being pounced upon. (Or, from the tiger's point of view, the reward of catching a meal outweighs the cost of investigating a few rustling bushes that turn out to be just the wind.)

Compared to plants, the bodies of other animals provide a rich bounty of calories and nutrients. Animals, such as wolves, dolphins and apes, that hunt as a group using tactics (and who communicate to coordinate) can afford larger brains if using group tactics provides a sufficient advantage in calories gained that it compensates for the additional calories expended in the thinking needed to do the prediction, coordination and awareness of social roles/status required to carry the tactics out.

Bipedalism offers apes a number of advantages (reach higher, wade deeper, run faster, see further) however the resulting hips compared to the adult brain size means that the children are born at a comparatively earlier developmental point compared to non-bipedal animals or ones with smaller brains. Baby chimps or humans are helpless and dependant upon their mother for much longer than baby lions or horses, despite lions and horses being large animals with a long life expectancy. This vulnerable stage (and the necessity for group defence against external threats) leads to a species with complex social dynamics, interactions and emotions. This extended childhood also provides an adaptive advantage to those family units where the children have a prolonged 'tame' phase in which the children remain in the safety of the authority of the adult parental figures, accepting what they say as true, learning from them, trying to 'fit in'. In dogs and cats that are domestic (as opposed to feral) you also see this personality phase prolonged into adulthood.

There is much more to the tale of why it was humans who have developed the intelligence they have, and where factors like tool use, fire, specialisation, trade, sexually-selected for ornamentation and Machiavellian social politics come into it. Too much to do justice to here - if you're interested I recommend the books "Up from Dragons" and "The Ancestor's Tale". However we have enough of the tale to now start talking about magic and religiosity.

Magical thinking is a by-product of pattern recognition. When a creature sees that two things are correlated and decides that one of them is causing the other, they are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. When it works, that can be very important. The principle of sympathy (like produces like) gives a prediction that's better than a random guess in many situations, and the principle of contagion (what happens to one bit, happens to the rest of the thing) has predictive power in situations relating to disease, contamination, complex social situations, or anywhere there may be a hidden third factor at work.

When magic thinking is combined with the ability to hypothesise the intentions of a sentient being behind otherwise unrelated events (an important ability in Machiavellian social politics), we get Animism (and Totemism) - the hypothesis that there are sentient spirits associated particular locations or things, that can influence physical reality, that have emotions and personalities, and that can be influenced by actions in physical reality.

Combined with some features of how consciousness is implemented in our brains that leads to the illusion that consciousness never ceases, and it is a short step from spirits to ancestor worship and the idea that humans have a spirit that lives on after death. These basics are a cultural universal, which indicates they have a biological basis rather than a culture-specific one. Not only are these polytheistic beliefs present in the earliest hunter-gatherer cultures we know of (the San Bushmen in Africa, and Aboriginal Indigenous in Australia), there are strong indications (eg burial, and flowers left on graves) that Neanderthals had them too.


In terms of the neurology of the brain, modern religions are not much different. Religiosity is how religious a person is - how much they think, feel and behave in a religious manner. Many studies have investigated the question of whether religiosity is due to genetics, shared parental environment, personality or other factors. What they've discovered is that multi dimensional scaling can be used to factor religiosity into three dimensions:

Involvement (Are supernatural agents, eg the Christian God, involved with life on a daily and personal basis?)
Emotion (Are these supernatural agents more loving and forgiving, than wrathful and punishing?)
Knowledge (Does religion tell us more about the big picture, eg "How the world was created?", than about the small picture, eg "How should I vote in the next election?")

and that these dimensions each directly correspond to activity in three specific parts of the brain involved with Theory of Mind. This directly explains why people on the autistic end of the spectrum tend to have a lower religiosity than people on the schizophrenic end of the spectrum (link). It also explains why there is a strong correlation between religiosity and scores on two of the four Myers-Briggs scales ("Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N)" and "Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F)" ) with people on the NT end being less religious, on average.

Here's an article with more in-depth information about the neuroanatomy of religiosity, but before I leave the brain, I want to touch on the debate over whether it is the brain causing the religiosity or whether it is how a person has thought and used their brain while growing up that is the cause of the changes in the brain. The latter may have seemed plausible 20 years ago, but they have since done twin studies and even tracked down specific genes. There is definitely a significant genetic component to religiosity, and a majority of the causality between brain and practice is in the direction of the brain affecting the practice not vice versa.

In other words, if there's a supernatural creator who designed humankind, then He deliberately created some individuals to be, right from birth, less likely to believe in Him.

So, if religiosity is significantly genetically based, why wasn't it selected against in the tribal environment? In evolutionary terms, religiosity started as a spandrel - a by-product of something else that is selected for. However, once it had started, it turned out that religions can have positive effects upon the survival of the genes of a tribe of believers. By appealing to the human instinct for a protective authority to shelter them, it improves cohesion and discipline in a tribe. In times of war, the idea of luck and a protective spirit you can pray to (a concept straight out of totems and magical thinking, and something you often see when people roll dice) improves morale. In times of peace, the idea of reward or punishment being handed out in an afterlife makes people more content with the status quo, reducing anxiety (which improves health). For these group selection effects not to suffer from the 'free rider' problem, it is also necessary for religions to include a doctrine of shunning or otherwise punishing members of the tribe who refuse to act as though they believe. (The logic behind the power of blood and sacrifices, by the way, stems from the contagion part of magical thinking, and is very useful for a religious leader when it comes to demanding tithes, altruism or picking people to go out to fight on the religion's behalf in battle.)

We're now going to move on to look at what happened when this instinctive religiosity moved from a tribal environment to larger, more complex societies, and whether it remained an adaptive advantage. However, before I do, here are some links to the growing body of research that's been done on this topic:

Evolutionary Religious Studies - resources page
EXREL
The Adaptive Logic of Religious Beliefs and Behaviour
In Gods We Trust

I'd recommend against Barth's Church Dogmatics unless you are quite well versed in theology, and like reading long and sometimes confusing sentences.

Interested in Church Fathers?

Oden's Classical Christianity is pretty decent. It tries to break down the typical "systematic theology" headings using the early church (and some later ones). Not perfect, but there isn't one I've read yet that beats it.

Augustine's Confessions is a must if you haven't read it yet. Its autobiographical yet very spiritual and insightful at the same time.

Chrysostom's On the Priesthood is a great writing that can apply to anyone, not just those seeking ordination.

Athanasius' On the Incarnation focuses on the person of Christ, and what it meant for God to become man.

Basil's On the Holy Spirit is a great exposition on not just how the Holy Spirit is argued to be part of the Trinity, but also Christ. Very great reading for people questioning it or curious about it.

Reformation Fathers?

Peter Martyr Vermigli's Predestination and Justification is great. John Calvin in a letter said Vermigli had a better understanding of Predestination than he did, which is funny since Calvin is known for predestination today.

Martin Luther's Theological Works has most of his important works, including Bondage of the Will.

Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol. but try not to pay $325 for it. Its out of print so might be a bit hard to find for a reasonable price. If you are able to find it though, it's a gold mine. Also check out other of his books.

More contemporary?

Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism is a classic on the Reformed faith.

Herman Bavinck's Abridged Reformed Dogmatics is great, and in my opinion one of the best Systematic Theologies available. More of a Dutch Reformed than Presby bent, but essentially the same.

Karl Barth's Dogmatics in Outline is a very abridged version of Church Dogmatics, and would recommend it over the original source unless you have a lot of free time or want to be a Barth scholar.

Thats what I can think of off the top of my head. If you have other specific ones I can find other stuff.

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!

There are different kinds of laws and relationship. There are causal relationships between physical objects which from empirical observation we may come to believe are precise and exceptionless, like the laws of physics. But psychological laws or the relationship between an rational agent and their reasons for acting may not take this form.

Think about your OCD: you may have a strong desire for a certain action, but you also have a higher-order desire that your compulsive desire for this action not be so strong. There's no limit in principle to this hierarchy of desires. For a rational agent like yourself no compulsion to do X, no matter how strong, can guarantee that he does X.

You probably possess certain moral values: things you believe are good and reasons for acting that you believe are good. Yet you often find yourself acting for reasons that you don't believe are good and doing things that you know are bad. Having certain moral values does not entail that you will always act one way or another.

People with MI often find this situation frustrating: you know you some action or thought X doesn't cohere with your moral values of ideals, you desire in some way not to do or think X but somehow X still occurs. But this conflict seems the be the only path we can take to getting better.

From my personal experience and from observing others, people with MI are often the strongest believers in free will, because we have first-hand experience with this anomalous relationship between the physical aspect of our mind and the mental or purely rational aspect. There is a constant battle to assert our will and
to act according to the motivations and desires and values we know are good ,against other motivations and desires that are not what we will. Acting randomly or without motivation and desires and values is not freedom. There are lots of good books and papers on compatibilism that you should check out, like this.

> Is it basically an atheist would say "It just is" and a person with belief in God as "God was behind it?"

Yup. If you study naturalistic theology, you'll see some arguments basically like this (but far more articulately):

Either the universe is (i) a sustaining and never ending series of cause and effect, or (ii) there was some effect for which there is no cause.

Some philosophical theists may call (ii) "God" (or "god" if they don't believe in a personal god - perhaps like Einstein - though he's probably rolling over in his grave as I mention his name).

>I'm a heterosexual male that is all for LGBT rights, as I choose to love everyone one no matter their race, sexuality or (dis)beliefs, I was wondering if that is perfectly okay?

I'm heterosexual, married, with children. All for LGBT rights. Church teaching is that sex before marriage is a sin, and that individuals of the same sex cannot marry.

I really struggle with that teaching. It seems to me to reflect outmoded (and scientifically unfounded) beliefs about the natural world, gender, sex, and marriage. A lot of better-than-me Catholics tell me this means I'm a heretic or a blasphemer or that I refuse to assent to the full teachings of the church. I've talked about it with a number of priests (and a couple bishops) who don't try to change my mind - they just encourage me to continue to pray on it. And I do.

Your third question has several parts.
>God is not a "why" because then you have to ask "why did God do the things he did?" and even after you explain that, you can keep asking "why?" ad infinitum.

See above re (i) and (ii). One starts with the simple premise that (ii) is more believable than (i) (though both are logical fallacies), and then we try to infer what we can about (ii) through (a) observation of the world (b) individual experience (c) communal experience (d) scripture (if your faith gets you that far) (e) Church teaching.

The question misframes the argument. An alternative response would simply be, yes, so can a three-year-old, and there is always the oh so compelling epistemological skeptic brain-in-a-vat. Every philosophy starts with a premise.

>-The evidence shows that no god exists, and that no god was involved with either. Reality needs no 'whys'. It certainly has no use for utterly made up 'whys' that explain NOTHING.

I don't know what evidence suggests that no god exists. Conceded, no evidence scientifically proves God does exist, but human kind has, as far back as history allows us to go, experienced something of the divine.

>-Simple logic and reasoning should tell you there isn't a god. Logic/Knowledge > Faith

A good time to quote the Dalai Lama:

>If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

I think the Catholic Church holds the same to be true. An easy example is heliocentricity (though, it did cost a number of good people their lives... hopefully we will learn more quickly from here on out!).

edit: Providing links to my favorite naturalistic theology anthology and its more readable companion. It goes back and forth between really smart atheists and really smart theists, from Aquinas to Descartes to Spinoza to Nietzsche to Plantinga. to Dennett.

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Religion-A-Guide-Anthology/dp/019875194X/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=010VCNYXKDKC4D2E8DVR

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Religion-Brian-Davies/dp/0199263477

> Can you recommend some good material for beginners? I'd imagine it isn't a great idea to jump right into the Summa Theologiae.

The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, which sketches out some basic arguments for classical theism and draws on thinkers from many religious traditions and cultures, is a great starting point for further exploration. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies is an excellent book on the field as well.

> Why is theistic personalism more popular than classical theism? (I could be wrong on this, and it just may be that some of the more popular theistic philosophers happen to be personalists)

Many philosophers find it difficult to reconcile the idea of the God described by classical theism—absolutely simple, changeless, impassible, utterly transcendent, without a succession of different thoughts or emotions—with the idea of a personal God who cares about us in any way or listens to our prayers, and are willing to resolve this tension in favour of religious devotion. I have also heard certain rabbis make the argument that the Holocaust was such an evil event, God certainly would have prevented it if He were all-powerful, but why should it change our relationship with Him if He's only very powerful?

> Is Edward Feser a respected source for learning about classical theism? I enjoy his writing, and the man's insults are on point.

Yes. The Last Superstition received a very kind review from Anthony Kenny, and Stephen Mumford made it known on Twitter that he loved Scholastic Metaphysics. Feser has published on philosophy of religion in quite respectable journals like Midwest Studies in Philosophy and Nova et Vetera.

> Are there any Christians here, and if so, how do you reconcile divine simplicity with the trinity?

God is not made up of parts, and the persons of the Trinity are not parts. I think it is Christians who would reject divine simplicity who are in trouble with the Trinity, because if the three persons compose God, how can you say they are one? Yet there must be only one God.

The mystery of the Trinity cannot be proven by philosophical arguments, nor can it be in any way disproven. Our affirmation of God's simplicity is a fundamentally apophatic proposition; it is a negation of compositions found in creatures. While this is non-trivial knowledge about God, we still cannot presume to say what the simplicity of God is in itself.

If you have any interest in books (sorry--that's my jam), Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings is a fantastic collection of essays, sermons, some blog posts, and other writings by Mormon women about feminism. It has the benefit of being easily digested in small chunks that stand alone pretty well, so you can skip sections that don't interest you as much or jump to some areas that really speak to you.

I actually think the book Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women's Local Impact might be another great option for what you're looking for. It's by a very believing Mormon woman who until a few years before writing the book had worked for the church (I think in PR if I remember right) and it basically has two halves: first, explaining to Mormon men (and many women) who don't see any problems with sexism in the church why faithful members feel that there really is (and they're not crazy); and second, laying out suggestions that could be implemented at the local level that wouldn't be against any church policies but which could alleviate some of the problematic aspects of Mormon culture w/r/t sexism.

A few other book options to consider: Mormon Women Have Their Say Essays from the Claremont Oral History Collection; Mormon Women: Portraits and Conversations (covers everyone from a Utah housewife who started a major charity to a woman who fought the Marcos regime as a communist guerrilla in the Philippines!); Educated: A Memoir (a memoir about growing up in a seriously dysfunctional Mormon family but going on to achieve awesome stuff); literally anything written by Chieko Okazaki (or even listen to some of her talks in General Conference to the worldwide church)--she is beloved by literally every Mormon woman I've ever met, liberal or conservative; and Carol Lynn Pearson has written some great stuff about women and Mormonism, like The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men and (if you're into one-woman plays) Mother Wove the Morning. Many of these have Kindle editions if you don't like hard copies.

Anyway, hope some of that might sound interesting to you. Good luck!

That's really sad. But you honestly don't need to worry. As far as I've seen, there very much is a God - and I say that as someone who has heard every atheist argument there is. The thing about atheist arguments, though, is that they rely on belief. You have to believe that the universe is purely made of atoms and that there is no spiritual dimension to anything. It causes them to reject evidence outright and pretend they are being scientific.

I'm not honestly sure what you found in other religions, but you should know that the spread of Christianity has had a profound effect on them. Before we turned up in India they would burn you alive on the funeral pyre if your spouse died. You should also know that in other religions, their Gods aren't even really spiritual beings. They're more like our concept of a super hero or super villein - and that is in the places where they don't just worship objects. It's like humans are wired with the concept that there is something more, but they go looking in all the wrong places.

If you would like to really delve into religion and find out more about it I suggest delving into Christianity too. You are not really going to learn about Christianity from atheists or agnostics. They have a very ideological view of it and they tend to twist things to fit their view. The best method of debunking their ideas about the Bible I've ever found is to read the quotes they give in context. Usually you find out they didn't read the line literally just before that one they are quoting! This holds true even for those atheist books - you should always check their quotes because they are hyper selective. They'll tell you the Jews practiced slavery, for example, but they won't tell you that it was a method of paying debts and that you are set free once the debt is paid. (Also, slave-taking the way we understand it was a crime)

If you want to take a closer look at Christianity, the theologian William Lane Craig has a really good free podcast series where he goes through the proofs for God: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts. But if you prefer books, here are a few. I have more as well:

​

Mere Christianity- and CS Lewis in general. He used to be an atheist, and he talks about it in depth. The Problem of Pain is a great one.

Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianityis a classic that is formed as a long question and answer between an atheist and his Christian son.

Let There Be Science: Why God loves science, and science needs God Is really good if anyone tells you that Christianity is unscientific. The actual truth is that science flourished under Christianity and there is at least one scientific experiment in the Bible itself.

​

And a couple on myths about Christianity:

Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread about Christianity

Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion this one was actually written by a bunch of different experts - some of them atheists.

Thanks for reading, and sorry for the late response. I don't use this account much!

​

Religions are successful because the line up exceedingly well with the facts of reality. They line up better than atheistic views. The problem is that you have to be a consequentialist to see it.

My argument assumes a few basic things:

1. religions are nations (like nation-states and tribes), and as such act to harmonize many competing interests towards a single end.
   
   
2. the worth of any belief lies not in truth but in the way that it effects real-world behavior.
   
   
3. Demonstrably false beliefs and religions have persisted because they enhance the individual's evolutionary fitness
   
   >And what's most interesting is that when you ask people what it is they do with this false information or false predictions, they claim that it helps them learn. The wrong information is useful.
   
   Wrong information can often be useful. Is right information always useful? If you are an automaton... if free will doesn't exist... is it helpful for you to know this??? No. It's an un-necessary psychological burden.
   
   The key is understanding that there is explicit and implicit truth. Atheists often have more explicit truths (and value them more highly) while believers hold more implicit truths (and value them more highly).
   
   The greatest implicit truth that religions offer is that life is a struggle, and that alignment with a tribe or nation is valuable to an individual. Atheists see religions as hypocritical because religions often assert that we are all one, or all children of god, or whatever, but then act as vehicles of war and dominance. From an evolutionary perspective this is not hypocritical. It's exactly what you would expect. This "hypocritical" reality is just an intrinsic condition of life itself.
   
   Many sociobiologists are now making headway studying religion through this lens. E.O. Wilson, Jonathan Haidt, and David Sloan Wilson are the figureheads.
   
   http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/dp/0226901351/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453669510&sr=8-1&keywords=darwins+cathedral

It's an excellent choice. Like others have said, reading more than one book with different viewpoints on Christian fundamentals is a good idea, which is why I love threads like this, so thanks for posting.

Here are some suggestions from my own explorations in the last few years.

---

Mere Christianity

What Christians Believe by the venerable Bishop Ken Myers (im_just_throwing_this_out_there)

Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul, for more of a basic Reformed theology perspective

Dogmatics in Outline by Karl Barth, for a Reformed-ish (emphasis on the "ish") perspective sometimes called "neo orthodoxy". It's a summary of a much (much) larger work, and it's probably the toughest read out of the other books I'm recommending, because it encapsulates quite a bit of his very complex thought in a pretty short space.

The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware for an eye-opening perspective and well-written about a tradition I knew nothing about from my American, Baptist/evangelical upbringing.

The Catholic Religion by Vernon Staley, which is actually about the Anglican church. This was recommended to me by an Anglican redditor.

Someone already recommended Simply Christian by N.T. Wright. I'm about halfway through this right now. Being a regular on this sub, where his theology is pretty popular, I wouldn't say it's mind-blowing to me, but your mileage may vary. It's certainly a good read so far; his writing style is clear and easy to read (I think even easier than Lewis), and it seems like a good jumping off point for further exploration (he has other books I want to read, and I figured I'd start with his introductory book first).

I would skip Lewis, honestly. He's popular among certain Potestant trends of thought, but the Anglicans consider him something of an embarrassment, and he himself readily admits that he's no theologian. If you really want a pop-theology argument, I'd go to Chesterson's Orthodoxy instead, but even that's pretty low tier apologetic.

If you want serious theology and apologetic, Lewis has plenty of contemporaries that are worth reading. I'd suggest the following:

• Rudolph Otto, [The Idea of the Holy][1], which deals specifically with the numinous argument for theism -- that is, the argument that religious belief should be couched in the experience of the ineffable;
  
  
• Tielhard de Chardin, [The Divine Milieu][2], which addresses theism from the other side of a secular worldview, integrating a scientific and philosophical world view into a holistic religious sense;
  
  
• Paul Tillich, [The Dynamics of Faith][3], which begins with an examination of the phenomenon of faith and explores the notion of God as the logical terminus of faith;
  
  Even the longest of those three is still less than 300 pages, so they shouldn't be too daunting in terms of bulk, but they're all three packed with some very serious and challenging thought, so they should give you plenty to chew on. My only caution is that all three of them veer in their latter thirds towards a bias for specifically Christian theism, and particularly Protestant varieties. It's a bit of a disappointing given how they all three start out admirably ecumenical.
  
  All of those are specifically books written by theologians with the intent of making the 20th century comfortable with religion again, but while I'm at it I thought I'd throw out a few books that don't quite fall into the group:
  
  
• Mircea Eliade, [The Sacred and the Profane][4], which is not an argument for theism so much as an anthropological and sociological exploration into the nature of religion;
  
  
• Terry Eagleton, [Reason, Faith, and Revolution][5], which is novel precisely because it features a Marxist atheist arguing against the "New Atheists" to the effect that religion is valuable;
  
  
• Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, which I haven't actually read yet, but intend to, because the reviews that I've read of it mark it as one of the thorniest and most grandiose defenses of religion written in recent history.
  
  Good luck.
  
  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Holy-R-Otto/dp/0195002105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253024930&sr=8-1
  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Milieu-Pierre-Teilhard-Chardin/dp/1903900581/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025127&sr=1-3
  [3]: http://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Faith-Perennial-Classic-Tillich/dp/0060937130/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025305&sr=1-3
  [4]: http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Profane-Nature-Religion/dp/015679201X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025876&sr=1-1
  [5]: http://www.amazon.com/Reason-Faith-Revolution-Reflections-Lectures/dp/0300151799/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025995&sr=1-1
  

Hey there!

Personally, I'm as non-believing as they get, but I'm comfortable with religious people if they respect that I don't dig it. If they chose to drop their God-talk, I drop my graduate school level information on physics and math, and that usually ends in them feeling pretty damn dumb for not respecting my boundaries.

As far as science goes, unless you want to talk about Ontology or the Big Bang, then there is no room whatsoever for God in this universe as far as I'm concerned. The LHC has not found him yet nor has the Hubble... But, I don't say my scientific facts and opinions on religion unless someone asks me directly - which, you sorta did. :-)

Normally, when religious people spout their thoughts, I just nod, and while I use to be a hot headed debater with them, I now just say "okay" and walk away. I do indulge my family sometimes (not often), but they don't get to walk away without hearing the math and physics views. Do you know who Zinnia Jones is? Ze does a fair bit here and there concerning LGBT issues and religion (and also founded /r/lgbt as far as I know). Here is the youtube channel Zinnia Jones Check out some of the videos regarding being gay and religious.

If you want to read a book on atheism - more like an essay in a book - then I strongly suggest, above all other writings, Why I'm not a Christian by Bertrand Russell. He nails it so well I can't even approach trying to write it better.

Sorry to hear about your fight. A common tactic of any group that wants to persuade via agenda and not a factual base, is to hit you when you're weakest with their propaganda. When you're down, keep your guard up when people try to change the topic into something that isn't about the issue - i.e. religion here.

But at the end of the day, only you can decide if you want to believe in God. Personally, I just follow science and have an accepting attitude towards people. So far it works really damn well for me. That is a common tactic I've heard from religious people. They often tell me something like "I know you're a closet Christian, you're just too damn good of a person." Really, I catch things like this sometimes. I look at them, I tell them usually, yes I went to Sunday school and I was a good student, so good I left and went to something that made more sense like logic, science and philosophy regarding human interactions.

Okay, I'll stop rambling for you. I don't want to preach myself, I just want to put out there that you don't have to subscribe to religion and there are a lot of really wonderful and successful people who go to their graves happy they were never believers.

edit: grammar, etc, it is late and my writing is horrific at the moment

My personal favourite is Pannenberg, but I'm not going to lie to you: It's a dense read, and demands of its reader a fair bit of familiarity with other theologians. That being said, if you can make your way through it, it is very rewarding.


Millard Erickson does a pretty good job of a rigorous theological overview of Reformed evangelicalism.

Grudem is absolute garbage, avoid like the plague.

Stanley Grenz is a pretty good candidate. Like Erickson, he writes from a sort of Reformed evangelical perspective, but he's got much more of an eye for ecumenicism, and tends to have more emphasis on interacting with other traditions. He's actually a big advocate for Pannenberg, and in my reckoning one of the main reasons why Pannenberg has been gaining steam in the Anglo world recently.



I suspect the people who suggest Barth's Church Dogmatics are joking, as reading and understanding the Dogmatics is quite literally a lifelong project. If you feel up to the challenge, then by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, Dogmatics in Outline might be a better option.


So, in summary, I might recommend either Erickson or Grenz, and then once those have whet your appetite, maybe moving on to Barth or Pannenberg

Hello, and welcome to the club!

The four people considered the "founding fathers" of "New Atheism" are also known as "The 4 Horsemen," and they are:

• Richard Dawkins is a biologist specializing in evolution and public awareness of science, especially atheism. Books: The God Delusion and many other good books on biology, evolution, science, atheism and so on.
  
• Daniel Dennett is a philosopher. His best known book is Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
  
• Christopher Hitchens is a journalist, author and amazingly competent debater. His best-known atheist work is God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
  
• Sam Harris is a neuroscientist with philosophical leanings. His best-known book is The End of Faith. Another interesting one is The Moral Landscape, where he tries to show how morality can be studied by science.
  
  ----
  
  Here are more people who have gotten respect in the world of atheism, in no particular order:
  
  
• Carl Sagan, meanwhile deceased popular science educator to the masses. Though he never took up the banner of atheism, he tried to make people aware of the benefits of science and the folly of superstition, including religions. Look for his videos on YouTube!
  
• Victor Stenger, physicist. God: The Failed Hypothesis. He's a competent philosopher and I enjoyed watching him tear William Lane Craig to pieces in a debate once.
  
• Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist. A bit of a modern-day Sagan, he's more of a scientist in his message than an atheist.
  
• Dan Barker, former evangelical preacher. Goes around telling people how he lost his faith. He's also written a book, Godless.
  
• Matt Dillahunty, host of the radio show The Atheist Experience where he does live telephone debates with callers. Quick on his feet and very knowledgeable on his former faith.
  
• Richard Carrier, historical scholar active on The Secular Web and author of Sense and Goodness Without God, a defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. He's working hard to raise awareness for the historical theory that Jesus never actually existed.
  
• ZOMGItsCriss, hot looking atheist activist on YouTube. Don't let her good looks fool you: She's a very smart cookie. And she's funny, too. Well worth a look even if not only for the obvious reasons.
  
  ----
  
  You'll find a few more atheist authors on my book page and even more in the book and video recommendations in the /r/atheism FAQ.
  
  

I took a class on African Religions, so I can help on the Yoruba side!

For a quick primer, pick up Stephen Prothero's God is Not One. It's an introduction to World Religions type book, but it's a great read and he includes an entire chapter specifically on Yoruba.

For more mythology, pick up Osun across the Waters by Muphy and Sanford It's a great history of the Yoruba pantheon and how they crossed to the Americas. Osun has some fantastic myths attached to her.

For a really fun read that's a little off topic, pick up Karen McCarthy-Brown's Mama Lola: A Vodou Priestess in Brooklyn. It's an anthropologist's conversations with a Vodou priestess, with descriptions of the ritual (Vodou is a daughter religion to Yoruba - they share a lot of the same ideas and gods), and every other chapter is a short story written by the author that explores some of the history and themes of the tradition. Her descriptions of the various orishas/lwas are really fun reading.

You should not take this advice if you have a genuine interest in the subject and wish to extend your knowledge beyond rhetorical polemics, which is all you'll get from Harris.

The Oxford Readings on Free Will would be a better choice. This book is an anthology of important and recent essays that cover pretty much every major positions on the issue of free will. The introductory essays in this series are especially helpful in giving a detailed overview of the respective issues.

Schopenhauer's prize essay on the question of whether free will can be proven from self-consciousness is also helpful and relevant. His answer to the problem will probably seem odd since it is derived from his own metaphysical system and formulated to be deliberately provocative. But he gives a clear explication of the issue in a lively and readable style, and he is sensitive to the problem of moral responsibility, which he attempts to save from his negative conclusion.

Thanks for sharing your story. I was indoctrinated from birth, like you, to be a catholic. Sometime around when I was 10 (in catholic school) I became skeptical of religion largely because of the many discrepensies within the bible but especially because of the genesis story. I had always been interested in space and science and the more I learned about astronomy the less credibility religion had in my mind.

Many years later I came across this book by Carl Sagan and it changed everything. Please give it a try, I hope it will open your eyes not to what I am proclaiming to be the truth, but what I know to be reality.

And as always if you need help or support please PM me.

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

First and foremost, I strongly recommend you cross-post this to /r/askphilosophy (and probably also /r/philosophyofreligion) since they'll be much more qualified than here to suggest topics and lesson-plans.

Second, you should probably include the Leibnizian cosmological argument alongside the Kalam, since they are sufficiently different. There's plenty of good material out there on this: Pruss' article for the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (this book is a very good resource, see here for more chapters) is pretty definitive, but both he and Richard Gale have written stuff on this.

Third, I think you should use different atheistic arguments. Drop Russell's teapot: especially given your expected audience you should stick to positive arguments against the existence of God. Russell's teapot you can work in as a side comment that argues that if the negative case (i.e. refuting theistic arguments) succeeds then we should be atheists, but other wise leave it be. Better topics I think would be the Argument from Non-Belief (see also here) and Hume's argument against belief in miracles (I have a bunch of resources on this I can send you, but the original argument in Of Miracles is pretty short and is free online). You might want to read one of Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification or Oppy's Arguing About Gods for a good source of atheistic critiques and arguments.

This is Stroud's book on dealing with metaphysical subjects. It doesn't directly deal with the problem of free will, but I HIGHLY recommend you read this book because it allows you to gain insight into what a lot of books and papers are missing, namely, what I was talking about 'coherence' or an 'unmasking explanation' (his terminology, actually):
http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Reality-Subjectivism-Metaphysics-Colour/dp/0195151887

Searle's book on Rationality. What I had paraphrased is actually in this book (... I think, it's been a little while since I read it), but I know he addresses the problem of free will since it's important to him in tackling rationality:
http://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Action-Jean-Nicod-Lectures/dp/0262692821

Here's a book that has a ton of papers from prominent philosophers in the field. This actually gives a good overview of the whole debate. I recommend P.F. Strawson's Essay, Wallace's Essay, and ... I forget the other one. IIRC, there are essays by Lewis and van Inwagen if you're really into logic approaches:
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

It's only a few but I hope that helps~

"Mormon Feminism" compiled by Joanna Brooks, Rachel Hunt Steenblik, and Hannah Wheelwright. It has all of the essential feminist essays that show the history of an empowered relief society, women's blessings, and the political influences that diminished women's roles in the church. (see here: https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Feminism-Essential-Joanna-Brooks/dp/0190248033)

For instance, it has these essays that were very important in my faith transition:

1. "A gift given, a gift taken" - women's blessings and how they ended in 1946 when men coming home form WWII https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/029-16-25.pdf
   
   
2. "Mormonism's Odd Couple: the Priesthood-Motherhood connection" - how misogyny has been used by the patriarchy throughout time to subjugate women, e.g. Nazis used a lot of the same arguments Mormons use http://signaturebookslibrary.org/woman-and-authority-13/
   
   
3. "Toward a Mormon Theology of God the Mother" - how Heavenly Mother could be the Holy Spirit based on BoM and D&C scripture, got Janice Allred excommunicated - https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N02_27.pdf
   
   Also, I'd consider "The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy" by Carol Lyn Pearson https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Eternal-Polygamy-Haunting-Hearts/dp/0997458208

Hang on. There is something wrong here.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-atheist-scientists-children-embrace-religious.html

>Some atheist scientists with children embrace religious traditions for social and personal reasons

Is "Christmas" a religious tradition? Yes. So does celebrating "Christmas" count?

The physorg version of the story makes this sound very different. The OP seems to suggest atheists are taking their kids to church, the physorg article suggests atheists are educating their kids about religion.

That's not the same thing.

>The researchers found that 17 percent of atheists with children attended a religious service more than once in the past year.

Such as? What constitutes a religious service?

>The research was conducted through interviews with a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U.S. research universities.

So 47 scientists took their kids to some form of religious service and that is some sort of meaningful finding?

>Ecklund said the study's findings will help the public better understand the role that religious institutions play in society.

Oh I see, she was trying to prove a point.

>"I think that understanding how nonreligious scientists utilize religion in family life demonstrates the important function they have in the U.S.," she said.

So, even if you don't believe in it, because 47 scientists exposed their children to it at one point in the last year, then religion must play an important role in society.

By the way, she published a book about it over a year ago:

http://www.amazon.com/Science-vs-Religion-Scientists-Really/dp/0195392981

The only explanation is not a cosmic designer, please read Victor Stengers refutation of the fine tuning argument. http://amzn.com/1616144432

Long and short of the argument, we don't have another universe with different laws to compare this one too, so we don't know if the laws were different we may have a better universe, it may be worse, but if there are infinite universes then it makes it rather trivial that there would be ones were life evolved. If there aren't infinite, this universe still could have had laws that allowed for life to evolve more easily.

There is another good counter to this, fine tuning implies finite power and ability, you tune a car as you don't have infinite time and space to buy and build the perfect engine, the only way you could define God in this instance is non-omnipotent, non-omniscient.

Yes I would assume the car engine was created in this room, this just shows you failed to read my last point. NON-LIVING material cannot becoming living material instantly. If the engine however showed it was made of self-replicatable cell-like material then it may have actually created itself, just as you were in your mothers womb, and you are far more complex than a simple engine.

There's the reading list in the side-bar, but that doesn't really have secondary books on Hinduism.

There's Gavin Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism. I haven't read it yet, but it's the only thing I got off the top of my head. If you want, I can look through the copy I found on the sidewalk and tell you about it.

But Flood seems to have a pretty good pedigree. But I don't know if he's a Hindu. I would also recommend Eknath Easwaran's translation of the Bhagavad Gita. I have it, and his intro goes into Hindu concepts. This book also seem well-received, though I don't have it.

There's a public domain book called The Religion of the Veda: The Ancient Religion of India. There's also The Wonder that was India, which is good. And apparently the same guy wrote The Origins and Development of Classical Hinduism.

Most Indian history books talk about Hinduism, so maybe the Cambridge History of India?

Hey Prinkster,

There's a lot of interesting books you can pick up. You should pick this one up, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God. Prime eligible!

I'm still reading it myself, but it's been pretty awesome.

Anyway, my thoughts on "meaning in the world." This is a concept I heard or read from Richard Dawkins.

Somebody asked him, "Well, with out god, what is the meaning of it all?"

"That's an irrelevant question," he says.

"Do you wonder the same thing about the mountains?"

And of course, the question "Why do mountains exists?" is a pointless question. That is to say, not how, but why. How, plate tectonics.. blah blah.. Why, though?

It doesn't have an answer.

Sort of like our existence. There is no answer, no general meaning that we all need to try to get to. And in that, there's beauty and also sadness. And, of course, confusion.

Coming to terms with that is just another part of your journey. Good luck, Prinkster.

OK, I'm going to split this into two posts; this one will address the generally hostile tone of your posts biases you might have, and my thought processes as I see them. Feel free to ignore this one if you think it's not worth your time.

First of all, lets calm down. Here's a picture of my dog, Ted the poodle. Look at him. Ted wants everyone to be happy. Take a moment to relax.

OK, you need to remember that I am not just merely some "atheist", just like you are not just merely some "Christian". We are both people, with complicated beliefs and perspectives that extend far beyond our preconceived notions of what "atheists" and "Christians" are. Lets take some steps to re-humanize me.

>I work at a research institute in Seattle studying yeast genetics, and am currently applying to grad school. I would like to get my PhD, and then start doing research to cure Alzheimer's disease, mainly because I watched it slowly destroy my grandmother's mind, and, ultimately, kill her. It was horrible, and no one should ever have to go through that, either from the victim's side, or the family member's.

>I am also married to a beautiful, intelligent (and Christian, I might add) woman, and we are expecting our first child in January. He's going to be a boy, and currently we're discussing names. I'm pushing for "Gilbert", but my wife prefers "Curtis".

>Years ago, I struggled with mild depression, loneliness, and a healthy amount of social anxiety, but the past year or so has been going quite well, and I am genuinely happy. Recently, while talking to a friend that I go drinking with a lot, we got on the subject of how I used to get very moody when drunk, but she pointed out that I hadn't done that for quite a while. I realized that it was because I really don't have anything to be moody about anymore.

I realize I don't know anything about your current situation. Perhaps you have a very good reason to assume that all atheists are sad and disillusioned. That's fine, but I'm not. I've thought quite a bit about my atheism, and read many arguments on both sides of this (very complex) debate. The reason I initially pointed you towards the r/atheism FAQ is that it does a very good job of answering your question, and any answer I gave would likely be a poorly paraphrased version of it.

I got into the discussion with the OP because I thought she might have interesting insights into her religion from a scientist's perspective, which might help me adjust my perceptions of it. Any of my questions have not been meant to be traps, I'm just genuinely curious what the answer will be. That's why I come to r/Christianity: to better understand Christian thought. If you're interested in understanding the atheist perspective, I really can't recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell enough. Dennett is like the Mr. Rogers of atheism - so aggressively pleasant that, whether or not you agree with the guy, you can't help but like him. If you're not interested in buying the book, your local library will probably have it, but it really is a good read.

I don't have a good way to end this. Yes I do.

Now let's both calm down and start over. Remember we're both on the same team, and all I want is to understand how other people think. I'm assuming that is also your goal, but I may be wrong.

I know this isn't quite what you're asking for, but written debates are better for getting ideas across accurately and they are easier to study in detail.

1. William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
   
   https://www.amazon.com/God-between-Christian-Atheist-Counterpoint/dp/0195166000
   
   
2. Alvin Plantinga and Michael Tooley
   
   https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-God-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0631193642/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467461061&sr=1-3&keywords=plantinga+debate
   
   The former is easier to read, and the latter is more detailed, sophisticated, and thorough.

I started here about 2 months ago: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1884852041/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497565431&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=essentials+of+hinduism&dpPl=1&dpID=51MpBCIuOJL&ref=plSrch

A really good read and covers a lot of the basics. From there I did a bunch of research online.. a lot of Wikipedia and YouTube. I also wrote down what I believe in spiritually, how I wanted or think I should live the rest of my life and also philosophical/spiritual questions I was searching for answers to. I kept meditating on it and researching and found Vaishnavism was my fit. Specifically, the beliefs concerning Krishna. So I recently finished the Gita and discovered the Hare Krishna mantra and I am loving every step of this journey so far.

Here is a quick example of how powerful the mantra can be. My job is rather laborious and I am constantly moving. With that said, I recite the Hare Krishna mantra in my head while working and I am trying to get to a point to where I can recite the mantra while doing something at the same time without stopping either one. Any who, while reciting and working today, I experienced a brief vision of Krishna along with pure bliss. I had to stop for a second in amazement. I didn't know something like this could happen but the experience confirmed for me that I am progressing. I am overjoyed.

I am still rather new to it all but I am constantly learning and committed.

Namaste. ✌️

In general, academic philosophy of religion is dominated by theistic philosophers, so there aren't many works defending atheism and atheistic arguments in the professional literature.

But there are still a few notable books:

• J.L Mackie's The Miracle of Theism is considered a classic, but it's a bit outdated by now. Although Mackie focuses more on critiquing the arguments for God's existence rather than outright defending atheism, he is no doubt coming from an atheistic point of view.
  
• Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification is a lengthy book with the ambitious goal of showing atheism is the justified and rational philosophical position, while theism is not.
  
• Nicholas Everitt's The Non-existence of God is maybe one of the most accessible books in the "case for atheism" genre written by a professional philosopher. He even presents a new argument against god's existence.
  
• If you're more into debates, God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist is a written debate between atheist philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and famous Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig. It's far better than any debate WLC had with any of the New Atheists in my humble opinion.
  
• On the more Continental side of things, there a few works that could be mentioned. There's Michel Onfray's Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (although I must admit I didn't read it myself, so I can't attest to how good it is) and of course any work by the atheist existentialists, a good place to start will by Jean-paul Sartre's Existentialism Is a Humanism.
  
  I didn't add him because others have already mentioned him, but everything written by Graham Oppy is fantastic IMO. He is maybe the leading atheist philosopher in the field of philosophy of religion. A good place to start with his writings is his 2013 paper on arguments for atheism.

This is a pretty big question, Charles Taylor recently wrote a 900 page book about it in fact. Wiki has a fairly decent summary of Taylor's thesis, which I think is fairly strong. There's also an excellent 30+ page review, with a reply by Taylor, in the July 2010 issue of the Journal of Religion. There are assuredly a ton of reviews of Taylor, it was an extremely important book. That would be a good place to get started (with the reviews, I mean, it may be a bit much to digest 900 pages).

I wouldn't. I'd just go to my bookshelf, and pull off something like this, where a philosophy of religion professor has done the work already. I'd also like to point out that all such philosophical proofs eventually hit an unbridgeable chasm. To get from something to the theist god who cares what you do with your reproductive organs requires personal revelation.

Some people have done a great job of attacking the arguments in this thread, but I don't really see the point of asking psbp123. None of the arguments, in the original form, are treated with much respect by current philosophers. My linked book thoroughly destroys the original versions, then tackles the best moderns versions put forth.

Why is this guy getting upvotes? Almost every point he makes is wrong.

>Do you not understand practically every university is a Christian institution.

None of the major American universities (the Ivy leagues, Johns Hopkins, the public ivies, Stanford, etc) are Christian. The vast majority of our universities are secular. Some of them were founded on religious principles, like Harvard (unitarian), but became secular over the years. Others, like Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia, were specifically founded as secular.

>Do you not understand the whole western (which is now basically the world) intellectual tradition is Christian?

It used to be, but now secular philosophies like humanism influence our society and beliefs far more than Christianity once did. Read up on 20th century philosophy and the culture wars.

>The guy who posted that 75% of America is Christian and 70% of scientist are not is mixing up stats. If you use the same definition of 'Christian' that the 75% population stat uses, I guarantee that the scientist stat would be alot closer to that number.

A very comprehensive study of the religious beliefs of scientists is in this book. Only 47% of American scientists claim a religion, and roughly 36% of them believe in God. Compare this to the 76% of Americans that identify as Christian and the 92% that believe in God.

I am as ardent an anti-theist as you'll find, however, few points

>I am not trying to offend anyone who is religious

Not up to you, they're going to get offended anyway.

>I know religion is responsible for many of our moral values

Is it though? Morality is still an incredibly rich area of study and thought (along with consciousness.) There are many competing theories such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

In any case- religion certainly teaches that some things are bad and other things are good. I reject the claim that it is responsible for "many of our moral values." (Reference the Old Testament- morality isn't the word I would use to describe stoning people to death for transgressions.)

>Religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history.

I would say that close-minded adherence to bad ideas are the root of the worst atrocities in human history. Religions are among the worst ideas and the most deeply held convictions people have and have contributed mightily (and have been the primary factor for a lot of the atrocities) however, people are responsible for the worst atrocities in human history.

>I don't understand how people are willing to die for something that they have been told and never actually seen.

Philosophy Psychology of` religion is pretty useful here. You may find the following concepts interesting:

• The Backfire Effect
  
• Cognitive Dissonance
  
• Confirmation Bias
  
  It is important to note that religious adherents often grow up being taught these dogmatic systems as truth. To them it is common sense and they attribute their good feelings and positive experiences to the religion.
  
  >We are not born believing in religion it is taught to us.
  
  Someone along the way came up with the idea. Generally these days we cannot tell because not many people can get to age 18 without being subject to religious ideas. Although, I tend to agree with this hypothesis in a modern sense.
  
  >I believe that any religion, whethever it's monotheistic (one god) or polytheistic (many gods) that believes in a divine creator is a plague and gives evil people justification for committing awful crimes againist others (molesting children, terroist attacks, etc).
  
  Well, polytheistic religions have a history of being tolerant and intolerant of other gods/faiths. Monotheism has a horrific track record here.
  
  Jainism is non-violent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
  
  >I think social philosophies like confucianism which are built on more ethical and natural principles should replace religion.
  
  Secular Humanism sounds like it would float your boat: https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260
  
  What people find irreplaceable about religion is its answers to big questions, comfort, and "spiritual fulfillment."
  
  Whether you believe in spirituality or not, there have been many hypotheses about what spiritual experience is, or where exactly it comes from. Personally, I think religions are middle men between you and whatever those experiences are. Meditation and other methods have been suggested.
  
  >Religion is an evil plague apon society CMV.
  
  Ultimately, I agree with you. Although, I do think that some people get things from religion that are good or benign (things that could be gotten from other sources IMO.) Your view just needs a bit more nuance, respectfully. The following sources would be interesting to you:
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231
  
  https://www.amazon.ca/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393327655
  
  https://www.amazon.ca/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0771041438

There are good explanations for why thousands of people would testify to miracles in group settings..dealing with basic human psychology, group dynamics, memory contamination, etc. People can whip themselves up into a euphoric frenzy, interpreting mundane events as supernatural ones, especially when "primed" to do so by those surrounding them or a charismatic leader..and the simple act of sharing memories with others can literally alter the memory of your audience. People literally borrow memories from one another without realizing it. For more on this and other strange phenomena about human psychology, check out The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us

As for the question of believing in miracles on the basis of stories, I highly recommend this book which I think makes a very powerful case against believing in things like the resurrection on the basis of testimony. And if Christians do want to believe it after reading this book, they will be forced to accept that they have an inconsistent standard of evidence, since they dismiss claims from competing/incompatible religions that are much better attested and have a much more reliable chain of evidence.

Let me put it this way - I was born a Hindu, raised one, and have become more serious about my practice in the last twenty years. Even I haven't done much with the Vedas - it requires a lot more study and commitment, and, as folks have said, it really should be studied in Sanskrit.

I know a few hymns that are relevant to my spiritual path from the Vedas, and have studied just those verses in some detail.

Smriti texts are definitely the way to go. Honestly, there are a lot of good "introduction" books that go into better detail.

My favorite is:

Essentials of Hinduism, by Swami Bhaskarananda.

Removed comment posted by /u/bdw9000 at 07/14/14 04:55:11:

> For a more substantive challenge, I'd recommend these:
>
> A specific case against believing in the resurrection (and miracles in general): http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-And-Case-Against-Christ/dp/1616145811/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405313666&sr=8-1&keywords=atheism+mccormick
>
> A general case against theism/religion: http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405313634&sr=8-1&keywords=atheism+smith

... in response to submission What's a good book promoting atheism? I've tried a few common suggestions, and they haven't impressed me. posted by /u/UnlikelySoccerStar at 06/29/14 05:47:55:

> So, I realized that all my experience with atheist apologetics so far has been in the context of Christian apologetic works. Author brings up argument A, refutes it. I'm looking to give the other sides arguments a chance on it's own terms.
>
>
> The thing is, I've tried a few already. I read a good chunk of 'God is not Great' by Christopher Hitchens and a decent chunk of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. In both instances I gave up, because I found the arguments being presented to be easily defeated, and after a hundred pages I hadn't encountered anything new or interesting.
>
>
> So I'm asking for something a little different. I'm pretty burnt out on the whole 'New Atheism' movement, so I'd prefer a book that approaches the problem from a historical or philosophical angle.
>
>
> Thanks and hope you are all doing well.

Well, it depends on what you want to study. If you want to go for religious experience, phenomenology, and epistemology, Yandell's "The Epistemology of Religious Experience", Otto's "The Idea of the Holy", James' "Varieties ...", and Alston's "Perceiving God" would be good.

For Medieval philosophy you really can't beat Aquinas. Since the SCG and ST are pretty hefty, it'd be good to start with Aristotle's metaphysica and physica (late late late edit: not just that, but read his works on souls as well as his other works). McKeon's "The Basic works of Aristotle" is an okay translation. There's a better one, but the name eludes me. After that, Aquinas' "On Being and Essence" is a must-read for metaphysics. Then either flip through the SCG or ST, or even better, find a companion for the two works (Peter Kreeft, Feser, and Sir A. Kenny are all decent). Beyond Aquinas, and a bit earlier than him, are Augustine and the Church fathers. I can't really say much on them because I'm not too familiar-- I fell in love with the Medieval philosopher-theologians before I converted, I didn't really pay much mind to those earlier than them in the Christian tradition. However, Augustine is usually the man I've heard recommended.

Beyond the books, philosophy papers between, say, Bergmann, Pruss, Almeida, et al. are wonderful. Almeida's "On Vague Eschatology", "A New Cosmological Argument Undone" (in response to Pruss), Almeida's refutation of Rowe's new evidentialist argument from evil, and his reply to Alston's skeptical theist response to Rowe's new evidentialist argument. Usually these will be followed by a response, and counter-response, etc.

For Oderberg, and in general for the Neo-Aristotelians, Tahko's collection of essays by varying neo-Aristotelians in "Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics", Oderberg's "Whatever is Changing...", and Oderberg's "Real Essentialism" are not explicitly Christian or related to the philosophy of religion (except the second, that is explicitly about the First Way of St. Thomas Aquinas) but implicitly related via the essentialists (particularly the Aristotelians) in the Christian tradition.

edit: Question for you: Which works of Plantinga? Also, by Zacharias, you mean Ravi Zacharias? I've never read much on him but I've heard he's okay. What is your take on him?

From the submission:

> Several astrophysicists have done independent simulations and found that changing these variables, in some cases drastically, would not actually change a universe’s capacity to develop long-lived stars and eventually life as well. In the words of physicist Victor Stenger, author of The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, “…a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve…”.

If the cosmological constants were different, humanity would almost certainly not have evolved, sure. But other life still could, even if it were non-DNA-based organic life, or silicon-based life, or nanoscopic life on the surface of a neutron star, or gaseous life in the atmosphere of a star...

It's not that the universe happens to fit life perfectly, it's that life has adapted to fit its niche in the universe very well. And that could happen even in a universe with different rules. Self-replicating patterns will always thrive wherever they can form.

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.

A quote from the prophet Lorenzo Snow:

>“As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”

Well Mr. alleged exmormon, you're either someone who never seriously studied Mormon doctrine or are purposely obfuscating the truth. The fact is that the LDS Church DID teach it when I was growing up and does not deny nor repudiate what Mormon prophet Lorenzo Snow said.

As far as polygamy goes, the LDS church DOES believe that Mormon men will take more than one wife throughout the eternities and to try to deny or downplay its significance is dishonest. People seeking the truth can verify everything I've said through Mormonthink.org and can even double check it on the church apoologetic and gaslighting site Fairmormon.org to come to their own conclusions.

The mental gymnastics you're capable of are gold medal worthy.

"Intense specialization"?

Free will, dude? Come on. Preach from your made up ivory towers harder.

>If you're genuinely interested in the topic and want to understand it, here's a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

I have read essays from this book. I am familiar with the topic.

Do you have a rebuttal or just more hand waving and holier-than-thou ramblings?

My favorite youtube comment of all time:

>It's worth pausing and reflecting on how a spiritual-like feeling can arise from something generated by math alone, like this visual sequence. Spirituality is the meanings we see in things that have none.

>Habitual thinking would make alot of people disagree with it, but if you think about it without prejudice, it's actually a beautiful idea. We have the power to create meaning where there is none. In a sense, we're the true gods of the universe.

Sagan would approve.

> Ah yes, I can understand that. But I am slightly hesitant because 90% of scientists are unbelievers (and many of those actually despise religion and the idea of Creation; even Creation through TE).

While it is true that there are proportionally less Christians in scientific circles, I don't think it's 90% that is nonreligious; in the USA at least, 25% of scientists identify as Christian, and only 50-55% or so as non-religious (according to one recent survey). Moreover, the majority of those who are not religious are indifferent toward religion. Some even develop their own spirituality (Check out the book "Science vs. religion: what scientists really think" by Elaine Ecklund for more info), so the hostility of scientists toward religion should not be exaggerated.

> Connect this with what C. S. Lewis said (in "Miracles") about how our personal world views will strongly affect how we view scientific evidence; and maybe you'll better understand my hesitancy?

It's true that our worldview affects how we view the world, but the assumptions of science don't amount to much - I wouldn't call it a worldview. Science makes assumptions that amount to the idea that we can reliably study the natural world, there isn't much more to it than that.

> I saw your name up for the Universalism AMA. Is that a scheduled thing? Or do we just PM you to discuss it?

It'll be scheduled like all the other AMAs. The way this usually works is that the guy doing the AMA makes a post on the subreddit, then everyone can reply with their questions and responses etc.

I recommend Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary. It documents the process of someone who was way more Christian than I ever was coming to grips with his increasing doubts. I like it because it is very sympathetic to the believer's position, I felt like he 'got me'. While I like Dawkins and the other suggestions, they are writing from another planet.

My other under-suggested favorite is Atheism And The Case Against Christ.

Some stuff that's important in contemporary analytic phil religion:

The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie

God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga

God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga

The Coherence of Theism by Richard Swinburne

The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne

Can God Be Free? by William Rowe

Perceiving God by William Alston

Haitian Vodou ("voodoo" is the term used primarily to distinguish Louisiana voodoo, which is different) did originate in west Africa (the primary source of slaves for the Atlantic slave trade). Vodou is conceptualized as a syncretic mix of traditional African religious practices mixed with distinctly New World elements.

Vodou is descended from several different west African religious traditions. A French man named Mederic Louis Elie Moreau de Saint-Mery traced the origin of Vodou to Dahomey (roughly modern Benin) and Kingdom of Arada Arada. Vodou has its origins among the Fon people (Dahomey people) in Benin, Nigeria, and Togo. These areas are thought to be ancestral to modern day vodou.

However, modern day Vodou as its practiced in Haiti and elsewhere in the African diaspora, is quite distinct from African traditional religions. It is certainly has African roots, but it has also been profoundly influenced by Catholicism and the experiences of slaves.

Sources:

• Murrell 2010 is a good review of several Afro-Atlantic religions, including vodou
  
• Tann 2012
  
• Also, if you are interested in the topic, I can't recommend Mama Lola enough. It's an easy read about vodou practitioners in New York.

Books I like The God Delusion myself. That said, I think the best work on Atheism from a philosophical justification is probably Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin. I also like his book The Case Against Christianity.

I could get into this topic down and dirty the best of anyone from /r/Atheism if I really wanted too. But I normally just stick to Isaac Asimov and Stephen Fry.

The straw man fallacy is where you set up a premise that is easy to defeat and then say therefore this other thing that may or may not be related is also false. The false choice (false dichotomy really, my bad) fallacy is where you present a set of outcomes as an either or choice. In this case the OP presents wear a seatbelt == stay on earth and not wear a seatbelt == go to heaven. That leaves out the very real and common 'option' of no seatbelt == horrible handicap.
My source for fallacy info:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx


Your second question is the best one though so I want to address that too. Yes. Many christians (even pastors and priests) who say publicly that they are saved are not sure. Some are even closet atheists. As reference I recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. It's quite good and addresses this very well.

Religions absolutely do evolve, as part of a larger concept called cultural evolution. In fact, both Christianity and Islam evolved from earlier religions, Judaism in particular, and those religions evolved from even earlier ones like Zoroastrianism.

Furthermore, there have been many forms to evolve from the original Christian and Islamic religions (Methodist, Calvinism, Sufism, etc). Fundamentalism is usually just one of these evolved forms (e.g., Wahhabism). There is actually a great book on this topic by David Sloan Wilson, called Darwin's Cathedral.

Anyways, your argument about the Quran and Western values being at odds is true, but it is just as true about the Bible. Whether it makes sense or not for people to reconcile religion and secular/humanist values, your argument basically implies that there are pretty much no actual Christians in the Western world.

For Atheism:

1. Superstition in All Ages by Jean Meslier - a comprehensive treatise against religion, written between 2 and 3 centuries ago.
   
   
2. The Religion Virus: Why we believe in God by Craig A. James - explains how religion and particularly belief in God is due to memetic evolution.
   
   
3. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin - a comprehesive overview of arguments for and against the existence of God.
   
   
4. Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett - explains why the idea of evolution is so powerful an explanation of things, it acts as a universal acid against supernatural beliefs.
   
   
5. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - specifically addresses the idea of God as a supernatural creator
   
   For Christianity:
   
   
6. The Five Great Philosophies of Life by William De Witt Hyde - covers Epicureanism, Stoicism, Plato, Aristotle, and Christianity, explaining the value in each.
   
   
7. Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas - a comprehensive and detailed examination and defense of Christian beliefs
   
   
8. The End of Religion: Encountering the Subversive Spirituality of Jesus by Bruxy Cavey
   
   
9. Unspoken Sermons by George MacDonald
   
   
10. Descent Into Hell by Charles Williams - a novel

Well, I haven't found any arguments that are fully convincing such that I would leave Catholicism, however here's a quick list of robust, intellectual atheism:

• Atheism: A Philopshical Justification by Michael Martin
  
  
• An Ethics for Today by Richard Rorty
  
  
• Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht
  
  
• The Essence of Christianity by Ludwig Feuerbach
  
  
• Arguing About Gods by Graham Oppy
  
  

>If you know as much about science as I hope, then explain how everything came out so perfect out of (insert atheist way of creation)!

I will refer you to 3 books for that one, but then I will explain why that is not a valid argument and then explain why god does not answer that question either.

First the books: the first two will explain the big bang and inflationary cosmology (this is actually what took over or heavily modified the big bang theory from its original form) they are both by Briane Greene and I highly recommend them if you are interested in physics at all (they are not about god) the fabric of the cosmos and The hidden reality. There are also NOVA specials you can watch from the Fabric of the cosmos and his earlier book the elegant universe though I do not remember if they cover the big bang or inflation. The third book is specifically about the argument you just put forward. It is The fallacy of fine tuning:why the universe is not designed for us by Victor Stenger.

The reason that the argument you made is fallacious involves logical fallacies. Now, I don't want to seem like I'm talking down to you at all (I'm not) but I'm not sure how familiar you are with the intricacies of logic. Basically every argument has a premise, logical steps, and a conclusion. The argument you made (that the universe is perfect) has three flaws.

1: False premise - The universe is not actually perfect, far from it in fact. The reason why we are accustomed to the universe as it is is due to evolution. We evolved to fit the universe, not the other way around. If you mean something specific like how could the constants have got to the exact values we have please read the hidden reality, it answers that question by explaining multiple instances of how the universe can be fractured into slightly variable universes. The god delusion also answers this question but from my experience most theists are not willing to read it.

2: False premise - The burden of proof is not on me to prove or explain anything. I don't know is a completely acceptable answer if I had no evidence to put forward (We do actually have evidence, see the three books). Saying that I don't know how the universe came about does not immediately cede the argument to god. God has to answer to the same standards of logic and evidence that I would require of my own pet hypothesis. Burden of proof was explain in analogy by [Russell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot "This is why our logo is riding in a teapot")

3: Logical fallacy - Argument from ignorance. I already explained this one a little but basically this is the part that says you cannot use what we both do not know as evidence. If we come to a cave, and you ask what is in the cave and I say that I don't know but I bet it's a dragon then I would be using our shared ignorance to try and put forward the idea of a dragon as the inhabitant of the cave (sorry this analogy is bad, I have a flu right now so I'm kind of worn down)

Now, the reason that god fails the logic test (before he fails the evidence test, which he also does) is that if you say that god created the universe then you have put a terminator on the infinite regression that is causality (there are some hypothetical reasons that causality could be violated before the universe but I am skeptical of many of them and it would take me too far off track to get into them). The problem here is why do you give god a break from needing a cause? If we both agreed that there must be a first cause, why the hell should we give it sentience, and intelligence, and supernatural powers? If we also put forward a first cause that did not have those things then we would have an explanation that used fewer assumptions (many fewer assumptions). One of the best logical tools is occam's razor, which says that when we have multiple competing hypothesis we remove the ones with the most assumptions. Now it is only a logical tool and does not guarantee we will be correct but it is still a good probability chooser (remember how I said science is about probabilities).

So anyways, if you read this far I really hope that your takeaway is at least to read the three books i recommended (they are complicated but very interesting). I would also ask that you read the FAQ and probably The God Delusion (as it covers more of the faux science arguments for god than God is Not Great).

Permit me to comment on/question the following quote:

> I would like to invite a conversation of how the "radical" perspective might be able to "go postformal" so to speak in the face of this traditional awareness of forms, i.e. by revealing them to somehow be ultimately empty, not truly life-affirming, or else maybe even harmful when dealing with particular and unique individuals, etc.

First, it seems to me that the doctrine of original sin addresses these concerns quite well, although I'm not sure it would concede that form is "ultimately empty" (I'll return to this in my second point). That the church, Catholic or otherwise, should never become too comfortable in its ways, formal or otherwise, is implied by the belief that the time within which the church finds itself is fallen. We can see this sort of thing in Charles Taylor's discussion of the relationship of sin to the church as

> a skein of relations which link particular, unique, enfleshed people to each other, rather than a grouping of people together on the grounds of their sharing some important property... The corruption of this network comes when it falls back into something more "normal" in worldly terms. Sometimes a church community becomes a tribe (or takes over an existing tribal society), and treats outsiders as Jews treated Samaritans (Belfast). But the really terrible corruption is a kind of falling forward, in which the church develops into something unprecedented. The network of agape involves a kind of fidelity to the new relations; and because we can all too easily fall away from this (which falling away we call "sin"), we are led to shore up these relations; we institutionalize them, introduce rules, divide responsibilities; but we are now living caricatures of the network life. We have lost some of the communion, the "conspiratio", which is at the heart of the Eucharist. The spirit is strangled (A Secular Age, p. 739).

If the church becomes too comfortable with formal distinctions, if it is not willing to continually go back and critically appropriate in order to avoid reverting back to a form of community that is based on possessing identifiable properties, then it has reconciled itself to sin. This is, literally, not good.

Second, the idea that all forms or orderings are ultimately empty vis-a-vis the particular and unique individual presupposes what I take to be a rather truncated (dare I say liberal or atomistic?) view of the self and its relation to its past. I'd like to hermeneutically wager that good ways of being lie hidden beneath the forms and orderings. That is, forms and orderings reflect real and distinct ways of being that arise out of the free interaction of enfleshed individuals in skeins of agape. What these forms and orderings, if uncritically affirmed or fetishized, become is what Ivan Illich calls

> the perversio optimis quae est pessima (the perversion of the best which is the worst) (The Rivers North of the Future, p. 56).

This, it seems to me, is precisely the idea which Alison is articulating, except he's pointing to a new way of being that is for the most part unprecedented when it comes to the historical development of Christian forms and orderings.

Third, and finally, I would like to note that this hermeneutic approach need not preclude the possibility of exploring other ways of being that arise out of the free interaction of enfleshed individuals in skeins of agape.

I'm sorry I have no items for a list.

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

Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction

Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology

Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion

When Science and Christianity Meet

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

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

The Savior of Science

For the Glory of God

The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science

The History of Science from Augustine to Galileo

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

I highly recommend Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Dan Dennet. He discusses this question in great detail. Of course, being a philosopher he defines the question more so than deciding on an exact answer... :-)

> I would like to see an atheist debate someone like Plantingna

It's not a debate, but if you're interested in a more philosophically-focused response to Plantinga's reformed epistemology, I'd recommend checking out Prof. Tyler Wunder's content. If you just want a brief overview, here's an interview with him covering the content of his dissertation critiquing Plantinga. The link on that site to his dissertation is dead, but I reached out to him via e-mail a while back and he sent it to me. I can forward you a download link if you find yourself interested.

Also, Michael Martin treats much of Plantinga's ideas in some depth in his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. There are plenty of atheist philosophers that are much more careful than Hitchens and co. if you look for them. I'm not interested in an extended dialogue on their arguments, but since you seemed intrigued by Rowe, I thought I'd point out some similar resources. Graham Oppy's Arguing About Gods was recommended to me along with the Michael Martin book, but I haven't checked it out yet. I've only read certain parts of Martin's book too (it's a long read if you were to go straight through).

If I were doing a Vodou priest (and really, all I know is from reading Mama Lola, which is an amazing book), I'd probably go with either a Shaman or Oracle with either the Ancestors spirit/mystery, or another spirit/mystery appropriate to the particular Lwa that the character has the closest relationship to.

Of the two, I'd probably pick shaman because they have a really interesting, diverse spell list, and because, as prepared casters, they can pick different spells each day. Different spells plus, at higher levels, Wandering Spirit and Wandering Hex, bring across some of the flavor of working with different energies at different times.

Yeah, I was thinking of making some updates to the recommended reading section when I saw that Vic Stenger's newest book The Falacy of Fine Tuning wasn't listed. The question is, just how encompassing should the list be? My own "atheist" reading list contains physics and biology and evolutionary psychology and a number of other (ostensibly) different topics, but all relate to why beliefs in deities isn't rational. How much should be included? Maybe a "best of" and then an "additional reading"?

Call me what you want, but I really don't know if theism is true or not. I'm truly balanced almost evenly. You should read one of the best debates on this topic there is. The two sides are very closely matched.

I'd highly recommend The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan. It's a transcription of his Gifford Lecture from 1985, but it's a very concise summation of his reasoning and it has some amazing quotes.

Also, obviously The God Delusion.

For others, look at the /r/atheism FAQ.

Buy this and read it cover-to-cover

It's a good, comprehensive book of the history of thought on religion and the God question. Another good recommendation from the atheistic perspective is Why I'm Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell.

I recommend:

Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by Pascal Boyer on the origins of superstitious and supernatural thinking

-

In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion by Scott Atran on why the tendency towards religiosity was preserved for its social utility instead of being eliminated.

-

More than Nature Needs: Language, Mind, and Evolution by Derek Bickerton on the origins of language.

-

A Natural History of Human Morality by Michael Tomasello on the origins of morals.

A great book and an active (well known) member who will defend you: The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy by Carol Lynn Pearson author of the beloved children's hymn "I'll walk with you".

READ THIS BOOK: I HAVE IT, ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR UNDERSTANDING RELIGION

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Trust-Evolutionary-Landscape-Evolution/dp/0195178033/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246574393&sr=8-1

"This ambitious, interdisciplinary book seeks to explain the origins of religion using our knowledge of the evolution of cognition. A cognitive anthropologist and psychologist, Scott Atran argues that religion is a by-product of human evolution just as the cognitive intervention, cultural selection, and historical survival of religion is an accommodation of certain existential and moral elements that have evolved in the human condition."

"Atran's work is a brilliant exposition of the evolutionary by-product interpretation [of religion] as well as a mine of references for empirical research into the psychology of religion." -- Pascal Boyer, Current Anthropology

Here are a few books which explore the science-religion relationship through history. The first two are more academic books, while the last one is a more popular level book.

God and Nature is a great book on the history of the science-Christianity relationship. It's fairly even-handed - it gives a lot of credit to the Catholic Church for their promotion of education in the Middle Ages, but also criticizes it for its anti-heliocentric stance in the 17th century.

The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages by Edward Grant: talks about medieval (proto-)scientists, and shows that both Christians and Muslims were heavily involved in the origins of science.

Galileo Goes to Jail - each chapter in the book debunks a myth. These include both common Enlightenment myths (e.g. Christianity caused the Dark Ages, the medieval Church thought the earth was flat) and Christian apologist myths (e.g. Intelligent Design is taking seriously by scientists today, Einstein believed in a personal God).

If you're really interested in this topic, I highly recommend Dan Denntt's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon...a whole book on why humans are predisposed to be religious (spoiler...it had evolutionary advantages)

Dude this doc is like...impossible to find online! I'm kind of impressed~

Reading this right now. Excellent read, I would highly recommend.

I ordered this. If anyone knows of any other good books. Please let me know.

The Essentials of Hinduism: A Comprehensive Overview of the World's Oldest Religion

Is atheism caused by high mutational load? The Industrial Revolution removed all Darwinian selection in the West. (Infant mortality used to be 40%.)

Religiosity was actively selected for over a period of hundreds of thousands of years. See Darwin's Cathedral and The Faith Instinct.

Nobody is saying that beliefs of type X being selected for entails their metaphysical truth. Dutton wants to explain the maladaptive contagion of r/atheism in terms of evo-bio, rather than a sudden enlightenment courtesy of Hitchens & Dawkins (LOL!)

A Response to Dutton

By their descriptions, these 2 seems pretty good:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origins-Religious/dp/0465006965/ref=cm_wl_huc_item

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0195178033/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1HZOGMRHHFYH5&coliid=I3K9Q1SNLXH4Z2

Do I? Because I see Christians come around saying things like that all the time. It wasn't that long ago that Intelligent Design was challenged in court for being taught as science. It was even more recently that Victor Stenger had to write a book disputing fine-tuning.

Maybe you personally don't subscribe to these things. In that case I congratulate you. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong about a lot of other Christians.

Like I said, it's a waste of time to have a debate on an area of intense specialization with someone who doesn't know the foundations or even basic terminology of the field.

If you're genuinely interested in the topic and want to understand it, here's a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

This is what you're looking for. Well worth the effort and Taylor has a nice dry wit.

My feelings are similar to yours. Harris' book really crystallized the thoughts I always had on the subject, and made it easier to practice acceptance and non-judgement.

If you want to know why I think Sagan was really awesome, check out "The Varieties of Scientific Experience".

Sagan's Gifford Lectures from 1985 contained in the book are still remarkably relevant.

Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist by Dan Barker

edit: or Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin

You should check out Sam Harris' short, but insightful, book on Free Will. It might change the way you define and think about it.

Give them a copy of a new book, "The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy" for Christmas.

https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Eternal-Polygamy-Haunting-Hearts/dp/0997458208

It is a call to remove polygamy entirely from the church, made by a respectible-within-the-church author. Until Mormons do this, they are going to be hurting women's minds by making them all worry that their husband will pick up a few extra wives in super VIP heaven.

About the universe and what happened between t=0 and now? Well, I'd have to say start with Cosmos and you can also go with the documentary Sagan did of the same name. He touches on this subject in both of those.

Lawrence Krauss wrote A Universe from Nothing which goes into how there are explanations on how our universe could come to be without the need of the supernatural.

Victor Stenger has a bunch of books on this topic but I guess I might recommend The Falacy of Fine-Tuning.

We are all dealing with some level of religious PTSD. It's no surprise that we are so triggered by aspects of LDS practice and culture. We spent a minimum of three hours per Sunday at church and likely so much more time on mandatory tasks in a high demand religion. We read through Joseph Smith's bible fan-fiction multiple times. We defended policies that stemmed from his inability to keep his pants on. Many of us spent 18 months or two years working full time, as an unpaid volunteer trying to convince other people to abandon their faith and join this American Restorationist, insular, frontier religion with all too many "cult" aspects.

It's ironic that all of us apostates have to be the Christlike people in our relationships when dealing with believers. We have to forgive their actions when they lash out in anger at our interest in scandalous activites like "drinking coffee" or "sleeping late on Sunday" or "funding our 401k instead of tithing". Believers have a doctrinal base for being suspicious of apostates. It's not fair and does not hold up under objective scrutiny. But it will be used as an emotional weapon against us. Forgive them; for they know not what they do.

We have to be better than that. If you are being hurt by the LDS church then simply leaving is your best strategy. If you are on the LGBT spectrum then simple leaving is likely your best strategy. If you can still deal with believers in an emotionally healthy way, then being patient with their socially pressured fears is incumbent on you if you want to have a relationship with them. Do your complaining while in /r/exmormon and be kind when faced with believers.

I would also recommend Michael Martin as well.

Impossibility of God

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

The End of Faith by Sam Harris

The Spiral Staircase: My Climb Out of Darkness by Karen Armstrong

Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell

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

Please, oh please, let me get this new job

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-ebook/dp/B006IDG2T6/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=3CCTG6CY40C3E&coliid=I1M4XP94S178S4

Sam Harris comes to mind, as well as plenty of other prominent writers on the topic of Determinism. https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris-ebook/dp/B006IDG2T6/

Well, ok. Read a biography of Galileo some time. Or a book like "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths" available off Amazon. Or read about why the Conflict Thesis is wrong.

Or, as I started with, just read Dinesh's summary. It's accurate.

From the OP:

>>> if the physical constants could be other values, what predictions we can make using current scientific models seem to imply that other universes couldn't or are unlikely to be life-permitting, to the extent that it's absurdly unlikely for the universe to be life-permitting.

> We can physically model other universes, just like we do our own. This seems to be enough to draw conclusions.

This of course depends on whom you ask. If you ask theologians then you would undoubtedly get the opinion which you posted in the original post.

If, however, you were to ask an actual physicist, a person who can in fact model other universes, then the conclusion reached is just the opposite. A reasonable percentage of universes that would result if the physical constants of the universe were different could be life-permitting. Not humans, sure, but some kind of life.

See The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us.

Synopsis: A number of authors have noted that if some physical parameters were slightly changed, the universe could no longer support life, as we know it. This implies that life depends sensitively on the physics of our universe. Does this "fine-tuning" of the universe suggest that a creator god intentionally calibrated the initial conditions of the universe such that life on earth and the evolution of humanity would eventually emerge? In his in-depth and highly accessible discussion of this fascinating and controversial topic, the author looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. He finds that the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God, they provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.

See also: The Problem with the Fine-Tuning Argument: An Excerpt from Victor Stenger’s Last Book God and the Multiverse

There is a whole book about this and quite good too.

https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483087646&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=vinge+fine+tuning

If you're a Christian or want to be able to argue against Christianity:

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1616145811

Atheism and the Case Against Christ by Matthew McCormick. By far the best book I've ever read concerning Christianity.

>This is a good explanation of in what contexts people are inclined to make snap judgments/stereotype: when the costs of getting it wrong are high and there isn't better information available, we'll be more willing to use a criteria that has a lot of false positives.

I recently read a book that suggested this is the origin of religion.

Daniel Dennett - Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

Sam Harris wrote a book to say fuck you to free will. Pretty interesting read actually.

As an anthropologist, you really, really need to read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/067003472X

It's a human-centered explanation of where religion come from in our culture, and why some religions persist while others disappear. The author is a philosopher by trade, but this is very much an anthropological theory book. Please find yourself a copy.

Your fears are understandable. This will help you get over them.

Why I Am Not a Christian - Bertrand Russell

Breaking The Spell - Daniel Dennett

All In The Mind: A farewell To God - Ludovic Kennedy

The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God

Collection of the transcripts of Sagan's 1985 Gifford Lectures published posthumously.

http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Scientific-Experience-Personal-Search/dp/1594201072

You should check out his book "Varieties of the Scientific Experience." It is one of the most objective books I've ever read about a scientific search for God.

Funny enough, a "voodoo doll" is a European poppet. Even if we're talking about African-derived magical practices, that remains a totally European thing! 😋

(There's nothing that says you can't practice magical traditions and be a vodouisant but that's not related to serving "the dead and the mysteries.")

Also, I should say I'd recommend Mama Lola if anyone is interested in expanding their knowledge. It situates everything in a social context and doesn't grasp around at theological abstractions.

Here is a shortened version.

Was born into a very religious Hindu family. Brainwashed from childhood that Vedas/Upanishads and Gita held universal truths. Prayed/meditated/pondered/read Hindu religious texts because I believed in things that I have been told, purely on faith. Read Betrand Russell when I was in my teens which made me a little bit of a skeptic but still continued to be a believer for almost 2 decades . Then a few years ago, read dawkins, watched his speeches on youtube and slowly started questioning. Read some more Hitchens, harris, and watched some James randi videos. Started applying scientific methods to question things that I have been taught from childhood and that opened my eyes.

Ghost of Eternal Polygamy, by Carol Lynn Pearson

https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Eternal-Polygamy-Haunting-Hearts/dp/0997458208

She deconstructs any reason for keeping polygamy "sanctioned" in heaven.

Next on my reading list Fallacy of Fine Tuning

From The Fallacy of Fine Tuning I presume

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.

Here

This above image is a representation of the pew studies

It's changed in the past 6 years, it used to be 55%, now it's closer to 49% with Atheists/Agnostics holding 28% combined, and 20% just not caring.

Also, here is a book of a study conducted published by Oxford University Press: http://www.amazon.com/Science-vs-Religion-Scientists-Really/dp/0195392981

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24 (this ones a bit old, 5 years ago)

Also, a quick Google search would yield the information you seek.

It is true that compared to the general population, more scientists are atheistic, but many scientists are still religious in some way or another.

One of the better books to start with (barring finding actual living, breathing practitioners in your area) is Mama Lola by Karen Brown.

You might also get something from reading the introductory material to Kenaz Filan's The Haitian Voudou Handbook. (Note: Kenaz isn't Haitian.)

And there's always Stephen Grasso's Clean Living in Difficult Circumstances, and moreso his Smoke and Mirrors series, which is a British-American Voodoo perspective on urban life and music, and a history of the city of London.

Just read the editorial review on amazon... I need to read this myself. Looks damn good.

Also check out DS Wilsom's "Darwin's Cathedral"

https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/dp/0226901351

Read Mama Lola in an Anthro undergrad class - intersperses the ethnographic account with details on the gods.

Former pastor Mike Aus has said it was this book that did it for him.

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell

Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects by Bertrand Russell

>If you have any recommendations let me know


https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231

The Master and His Emissary, Iain McGilchrist

A Secular Age, Charles Taylor

Reasons and Persons, Derik Parfit

https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Eternal-Polygamy-Haunting-Hearts/dp/0997458208/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468994106&sr=1-1&keywords=carol+lynn+pearson

The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God

The article is about one of the Gilford lectures Sagan gave. They are all catalogued in The Varieties of Scientific Experience.

Physicist Victor Stenger wrote a whole book about this topic:

https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432

The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy by Carol Lynn Pearson

Just came out in July, and she's a well-known Mormon author, so not too weird to give him a book by her.

https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Eternal-Polygamy-Haunting-Hearts/dp/0997458208/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474751363&sr=1-1&keywords=ghosts+of+polygamy

I know all four of the names. Russell from about 13 years ago when I read http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1393642671&sr=8-5&keywords=bertrand+russell. Turing from CS courses. Leibniz from Calculus. Pascal from CS exposure. However no in depth understanding of any one.

Yes, nearly everyone knew the world was round. Eratosthenes measured the earth's circumference with reasonable accuracy in the third century BC.

Medievals knew this. You can even find medieval clerics (like Nicole d'Oresme) hypothesizing about the earth going around the sun centuries before Copernicus. They couldn't prove it yet, but they had suspicions.

A good book on all these subjects is Galileo Goes To Jail, edited by Ronald Numbers. It features dozens of the world's most eminent historians of science discussing myths about science and religion.

Concerning the Inquisition, you can reference Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition for an important 20th century interpretation of what the Inquisition was.

If atheists such as Nietzsche, Jürgen Habermas, Jacques Derrida, and Slavoj Žižek have it right, it's the atheist who has trouble escaping the Christian world view, both in ontology and ethics. Of course, the masterwork on this is Charles Taylors' The Secular Age.

As to more practical questions, modern human rights is based in theism (see Declaration of Independence) and many contemporary philosophers deny the existence of human rights (now that theism has been removed). If anyone is unfamilar with this, I recommend listening to an overview lecture "Human Rights vs Religion?" from the Euhiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University.

This doesn't answer your question about my decisions, but it answers the question of why atheists have similar worldviews to Christians. It's because they've inhereted it. Of course this will get downvoted bit this would be your answer if asked to many atheist academics (and theists, too).

>The "professional philosophers" who use incorrect definitions, on the other hand, I couldn't care less about.

First off, let me be clear again, you're the one using the incorrect definition. We can know that because we have rational minds that can understand rational arguments. And luckily, we have redditors that are very proficient at providing just the rational arguments we need to show that weak atheism is not intellectually viable.

>. If you could be so kind as to point out some of these "professional philosophers" - with sources - so I could dismiss anything they have to say on the matter, it would save me a lot of time.

First, I do so love the overconfidence. You've clearly proven my point there. You're completely unaware of even who these philosophers let alone what they argue, yet you're absolutely convinced of your ability to dismantle whatever it is they have to say.

The question is why would you want to? Clearly you're attached to the label atheist, and you're here so you at least like the impression of being intellectual, so why would you be interested in dismissing the arguments of professional atheists philosophers out of hand? Surely you'd want to at least see what they had to say. In fact, I'd say that you'd want to study and really understand their arguments. But maybe that's just me projecting what I want onto you.

Just in case, here are a few atheist philosophers of religion you ought to be reading up on.

• Julian Baggini
  
• Raymond Bradley
  
• Theodore Drange
  
• Nicholas Everitt (also here)
  
• J.L. Mackie
  
• Stephen Maitzen
  
• Michael Martin
  
• Matt McCormick
  
• Kai Nielsen
  
• Graham Oppy
  
• Robin Le Poidevin
  
• William Rowe
  
• J.L. Schellenberg
  
• Quentin Smith
  
• Victor Stenger
  
• Michael Tooley
  
• Andrea Weisberger
  
• Erik Wielenberg
  
  >And just because "professional atheist philosophers" make arguments that gods don't exist, that doesn't change the definitions.
  
  Read all of those links (remember to check your local library or your local university's library!) and you'll see that atheists who aren't a part of the cacophony of the unsophisticated group think do not argue for weak atheism. They do not simply argue against the theist's argument and, convinced they have sufficiently undermined that argument, declared themselves free of any belief. They believe there is probably no God and they argue there is probably no God.
  
  You take pride in your belligerence, but it's a shame that belligerence comes from a position of ignorance. I worry about the status of atheism not because I think the theist arguments have won but because people like you are so completely ignorant of the topic that they can't even get straight what atheism even is, what arguments actually support it, and what obstacles there are for atheists to overcome. And yet you feel justified in spewing your nonsense in the most jackass way you can muster.

This book touches on the many ways that theologians and philosophers have tried to make sense of the suffering that this loving creator has allowed:

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Religion-Brian-Davies/dp/0199263477

You aren't agnostic about fairies. It's a question of realism.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#Scientific_realism

It's very difficult to hold a position of anti realism. This is a good book:

http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430

You're probably aware of Russell's teapot and Hitchen's razor. However, you probably haven't read The God Delusion, in which case I direct you to chapter 2, the Poverty of Agnosticism.

Scott Atran attempts to answer this question in his book, In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.

It's not light reading, but shit is ridiculous, yo.

Demon Haunted World and The Varieties of Scientific Experience both by Carl Sagan. You're going to need something softly softly that at the same time packs a punch. Anything by the 'new atheists' will be deemed offensive to their sensibilities not to mention the mere name of Dawkins or Hitch may turn them off before you've even gotten a chance in. Sagan is a fucking poet. You'll do more damage with him than anyone else.

Personally I am absolutely sick to death of Dawkins' entire approach; I am sick of his belittling, condescending attitude towards religion, and ultimately he has missed the entire point of religion.

Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not A Christian (book here) deals with the issues in a far more elegant manner.

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted (2010)

In this deliciously satisfying book, the author, a New Testament scholar, carefully reviews and assesses the New Testament with a detailed and extremely thorough analysis of the figure we call Jesus. This is not a rant, not an attack on Christianity, this is an objective and critical analysis of the New Testament, showing how the entire Jesus myth and indeed, all of Christianity is a purposely-designed fabrication rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, and sometimes outright falsehoods.

John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist (2008)

If you want a one-stop total critique of Christianity, this is the book you're looking for. The author is a former Christian apologist turned extremely angry and prolific atheist. In this book Loftus attacks the full span of Christianity, addressing the philosophical arguments against theism, the historical incompatibilities and inaccuracies of the Bible, and the contradictions between creationism and modern science, and throughout it all is an undercurrent of personal experience as Loftus explains his own deconversion from devout evangelicalism to enraged atheist.

Concerning atheism.

These are for the people going "Well, I'm an atheist. Now what?" There's more to atheism than eating babies and posting fake facebook conversations on r/atheism. There's much more truth, beauty, and value in a universe without a celestial supervisor, where humans are free to make our own purposes and dictate our own paths. Thinking for yourself and recognizing the natural wonder of the universe is far greater than the false consolation any religion can provide you. These books show how.

Michael Martin - Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1989)

In this book, Martin attempts a two-pronged defense of atheism: first by attacking theistic arguments regarding the implausibility of morality and purpose without God, second by defending against attacks specifically on atheism. In such a manner he makes a strong case for both negative and positive atheism. Though extremely dated, this book is a classic and a must-read for any atheist.

Erik J. Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (2005)

In this book, Wielenberg advances a naturalist philosophy and addresses the problem of nontheistic morality as weakly espoused by the likes of Dostoevsky and C.S. Lewis. First he challenges the claims of theistic morality, next he advances naturalistic ethics and displays how theological justification is unnecessary for a good and moral life. Concepts such as intrinsic morality, inherent human tendencies such as charity and altruism, and the idea of moral obligations are all addressed.

Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God (2005)

In this book, Richard Carrier, perhaps most well-known as one of the major modern debunkers of the Jesus myth, continues the trend of expanding metaphysical naturalism, but this is a more complex and thorough work covering the full spectrum of a developed worldview, addressing nearly every topic beyond just morality, and presents a complete philosophical outlook on life that is easy to comprehend and evaluate. A solid starting point for the newly atheist.

My personal picks.

Now, since this is my list after all, and after typing up all of that, I think I've earned the right to make my own recommendations. These are books that I think people should read that don't necessarily have anything to do with atheism.

Markos Moulitsas - American Taliban (2010)

This book reads like a collection of loosely-related blog entries, some of them written by angry teenagers, and Moulitsas himself is no philosopher or professor, but is still an important read for those of you who haven't been paying attention. In this book, the founder of Daily Kos draws the extremely obvious and transparent similarities between the religious right of America, and the Islamofascists across the pond, and displays how modern conservatism has largely been hijacked and/or replaced by a complex political machine intent on maintaining the power of a small group of white, male, Christian elite.

Chris Hedges - American Fascists (2007)

Okay, time for a more sophisticated take on the issue than Daily Kos stuff. Those of you who plan on staying and fighting in the US rather than simply getting the fuck out while you still can need this book. With a critical and objective eye, Hedges displays the dark and tumultuous underbelly of America and shows how an extremely powerful and well-organized coalition of dominionists is slowly taking over the country and seeking to transform it into a theocratic state. Those of you who are moderate Christians and similarly despise the lunatic fringe of Christians should also read this book. Hedges analyzes this Christian Right movement, allied with totalitarianism and a denial of reality, that has declared a jihad (or a "teahad", if you're a Tea Partier) on secularism and even on Christianity itself, utilizing religion for its darkest and most sinister purpose - committing cruelty and intolerance upon others in the name of divine supervision.

CJ Werleman - God Hates You, Hate Him Back (2009)

This is one of my favorite books and is a great book to unwind with after a critical look at Christianity. The biggest problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, the outright falsehoods, or even the blatantly made-up and ridiculous bullshit about magic and miracles and supernatural nonsense - it's the fact that, taking it all at face value, the God described in the Bible is the single most despicable and terrifying fictional villain ever imagined by humanity. This is a character that seems to actively despise mankind, and in this book, Werleman shows why with a hilarious and thorough analysis of the Bible. This book reads like Monty Python and is just as funny - not meant to be taken seriously of course unless you're a Biblical literalist, but still a great read.


Well, that's all I got. This list took about half a day to compile and is itself also woefully inadequate, there's quite a bit of books I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But, it should be much more sufficient than the current r/atheism reading lists and I've done my best to include the most recent works. If you have any books to add that you feel are noteworthy, please feel free to post them. I hope this list can help many people in their understanding of philosophy and atheism.